Grazing destroys grass cover for nesting in the sagebrush understory and succulent forbs in the brood rearing areas of meadows, seeps and springs. Scientific concern about sage grouse populations reached a crescendo in the last five years and efforts are well underway to list them as threatened or endangered. In the ongoing political, economic, social and environmental debates on land and water use practices, the groups profiting from current activities are usually politically well connected and financially capable of very effective steps to continue the status quo. When the scientific communities conclude that current practices need to be changed, there is a loud clamor by extractive interests for more data and lengthy studies, reminiscent of the studies in the salmon debate to develop "fish friendly turbines."

Sadly, this is now happening in the sage grouse debate. Even more appalling is the recent involvement of a section of APHIS, the U. S. Agriculture Department's predator control activity. Begun in 1931 as Animal Damage Control, now politely called Wildlife Services, this $30 million annual activity mostly attempts to insulate ranchers from the cost of and responsibility for protecting their own livestock from predator damage. This wanton killing of the public's wildlife includes using snares, leghold traps, cyanide in M-44's, 1080 poison (now used in certain circumstances), and aerial gunning from light planes or helicopters.

Wildlife Services is a shadowy or stealthy agency which under a Memorandum of Understanding with the BLM and USFS handles these killing activities over about 250M acres of western lands, including the required planning, activity reporting, poison use permitting, and NEPA documentation and procedures to comply with statutes. Unfortunately, as this agency attempts to survive under increasingly critical public scrutiny, the avenues to obtain information about such activities have been sharply curtailed. Specifically, maps of predator killing patterns on public lands and the identity of ranchers (cooperators) receiving such services are no longer available in a timely manner via the FOIA process. NEPA documentation covers large areas as opposed to more site specific documentation. This chills discussion of alternatives and cost effectiveness.

In the quest to perpetuate this killing agency's future and the careers of its line managers, there is a focus on the expanding "studies" arena. This includes peddling such killing services to the various western state fish and wildlife agencies. The sage grouse crisis has arrived with impeccable timing and a multi-year study has been concocted with the Idaho Department of Fish and Game Commission. To deflect criticism of a direct contract, in this case the activity may be laundered through a third party employment contractor.

In southern Idaho this WS activity is tiered to a programmatic 31M acre EA and is loosely defined in an IDFG Study Plan. This proposed program involves five to six years and covers about 800,000 acres in six different study areas in Idaho, including the heart of some of the best sage grouse habitat in the state. The photos linked at right depict activities in the Sheep Creek Study Area south of Grasmere near the Nevada border. For the first two years, this will be a control area, where predation rates will be "approximated" by using blatantly obvious fake nests. It is paired with the Cow Creek Study Area, where coyotes, foxes, badgers and ravens will be exterminated for two years. Then after a year of "rest," the areas will be switched, and WS predator extermination will be done for the next two years in Sheep Creek.

ANALYSIS
What effects might these clumsy approaches have on research outcomes? Elevated bait station nests could

• Cause ravens to key in on eating eggs, and to actively seek nests.
   
• Cause ravens to key in on researcher activities subsequent to egg feeding as the study unfolds. Researchers will be monitoring nesting hens, and following transmittered grouse chicks around. In the "Kill" areas, pre-feeding bait station nest eggs will make it easier for Wildlife Services to quickly kill ravens with poison eggs in the next step in this "study".

In the "Control" areas like Sheep Creek in the initial phase, Wildlife Service's placement of poorly concealed ground nests can

• Lure vision-oriented predators like ravens to key in on and seek eggs and neglect other traditional prey.
   
• Assist scent-oriented mammal nest predators which can key in on human scent that they could learn leads to a food reward.

Ravens are smart, trainable, very observant and likely to be highly influenced by the new and readily identifiable activities of baiting and monitoring of grouse and their chicks, which could bias data derived from the study. Data that shows high predation rates is just what Wildlife Services may desire, as it would be used by WS and the ranching industry to trumpet a need for more widespread predator killing and further delay changing land use practices that harm sage grouse habitats. Humans have long known¹the keen eye and opportunistic behavior of ravens - from following wolves long distances to feast on prey remains; to plundering buried caches of climber's food on Mount McKinley.