"Eliminating responsible and regulated hunting would likely
mislead the public by implying hunting is responsible for
the current status of sage-grouse, and thus distracting
attention from the real threats to sage-grouse which are
habitat loss and fragmentation."
Seems like ODFW's worry about curtailing sage grouse hunting causing
distraction from bigger threats could be reversed. Eliminating or at least
reducing hunting temporarily until restorative population goals are met could
possibly promote increased concern from hunters to advocate for and support
mitigations for the worse threats of habitat fragmentation and alteration
(fracking, grazing, powerlines, human effects). At the very least, reducing
grouse harvest seems a reasonable thing to ask. Sounds like states other than
Oregon need lower harvest numbers. But hunters can be stubborn. Also the raven
kill solution is dumb. As Joel wrote in the Wildlife article comments; with the
rationalization of a raven kill for every raven predation, there would need to
be a badger kill, a cow kill, etc. This is the same backwards solution to
saving salmon; kill sea lions, kill cormorants. What if people weren't allowed
to fish? Fishermen can eat donuts. Sea lions and cormorants don't have so many
options for dining.
