By Ariel Wittenberg, E&E reporter

A majority of Western voters from states with federal conservation plans for the greater sage grouse object to using an annual defense bill to stymie the effort, according to a survey released last week by a nonpartisan veterans group.

Sixty-three percent of voters in Wyoming, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, Nevada, Oregon, Utah and Washington support federal sage grouse conservation plans in their states, and 69 percent say the annual defense authorization bill is an inappropriate means of stopping implementation.

“A strong majority of Westerners — including military men and women, veterans, and their families — have once again made it clear that they do not want to see years of Western stakeholders’ hard work derailed,” said Garett Reppenhagen, Rocky Mountain director of the Vet Voice Foundation, which sponsored the poll. “Congress needs to respect our men and women in uniform and stop insulting the nation’s intelligence by pretending that sage-grouse conservation is a threat to our security.”

RELATED | 5 ways Wyoming helped prevent sage grouse ESA listing

This is the second year House Republicans have sought to use the defense authorization act to weaken sage grouse conservation. Last year, lawmakers attempted to delay an endangered species designation for the bird by 10 years. [Rep. Cynthia Lummis backed that effort as chairman of the Congressional Western Caucus.] That language is in the House version of the bill again, along with another provision allowing states to override federal conservation plans.

The Senate version of the bill being debated on the floor this week does not contain a provision on the sage grouse.

Opposition to grouse provisions crosses party lines and military experience, according to the poll of 500 registered voters with a margin of error of 4.4 points. The poll was conducted by Harper Polling for the Vet Voice Foundation.

Seventy percent of those without a military connection and 66 percent of voters who either served or are related to someone who did oppose the legislative tactic. Sixty-one percent of Republicans, 80 percent of Democrats and 67 percent of independents also object to the maneuver.

Vet Voice has strongly opposed the sage grouse language in the defense bill. Last week, it launched an advertising campaign against the policy rider (Greenwire, May 24).

SUPPORT: If you enjoyed this story produced by Environment & Energy, please consider supporting WyoFile. WyoFile pays a subscription fee to E&E for the right to bring E&E stories to our readers.
— Originally published by Environment & Energy Daily. Contact E&E publishing for permission to republish.

Join the Conversation

1 Comment

WyoFile's goal is to provide readers with information and ideas that foster constructive conversations about the issues and opportunities our communities face. One small piece of how we do that is by offering a space below each story for readers to share perspectives, experiences and insights. For this to work, we need your help.

What we're looking for: 

  • Your real name — first and last. 
  • Direct responses to the article. Tell us how your experience relates to the story.
  • The truth. Share factual information that adds context to the reporting.
  • Thoughtful answers to questions raised by the reporting or other commenters.
  • Tips that could advance our reporting on the topic.
  • No more than three comments per story, including replies. 

What we block from our comments section, when we see it:

  • Pseudonyms. WyoFile stands behind everything we publish, and we expect commenters to do the same by using their real name.
  • Comments that are not directly relevant to the article. 
  • Demonstrably false claims, what-about-isms, references to debunked lines of rhetoric, professional political talking points or links to sites trafficking in misinformation.
  • Personal attacks, profanity, discriminatory language or threats.
  • Arguments with other commenters.

Other important things to know: 

  • Appearing in WyoFile’s comments section is a privilege, not a right or entitlement. 
  • We’re a small team and our first priority is reporting. Depending on what’s going on, comments may be moderated 24 to 48 hours from when they’re submitted — or even later. If you comment in the evening or on the weekend, please be patient. We’ll get to it when we’re back in the office.
  • We’re not interested in managing squeaky wheels, and even if we wanted to, we don't have time to address every single commenter’s grievance. 
  • Try as we might, we will make mistakes. We’ll fail to catch aliases, mistakenly allow folks to exceed the comment limit and occasionally miss false statements. If that’s going to upset you, it’s probably best to just stick with our journalism and avoid the comments section.
  • We don’t mediate disputes between commenters. If you have concerns about another commenter, please don’t bring them to us.

The bottom line:

If you repeatedly push the boundaries, make unreasonable demands, get caught lying or generally cause trouble, we will stop approving your comments — maybe forever. Such moderation decisions are not negotiable or subject to explanation. If civil and constructive conversation is not your goal, then our comments section is not for you. 

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  1. Our so called “leaders”, which we voted in, have turned their backs on us, the people, who want clean air, clean water, and hopefully, this election cycle will get them ALL OUT. I know I am NOT voting for one single incumbent, period.

    Reply