Addressing several of Wyoming’s sage grouse decision makers, Rep. Albert Sommers (R-Pinedale) was blunt. 

The rancher and influential state politician has grown tired of dealing with the “bobbing ball” of the Endangered Species Act, based on his experience with federal government employees who oversee the landmark, yet controversial environmental law in his dealings with grizzly bears

“You’re never going to catch them,” Sommers said, referring to keeping up with changes made by the feds. “I hate to see you go down that same path, whether it’s wolves, grizzly bears or whatever. You just can’t catch them.” 

Sommers was speaking July 21 at the Sublette County Library. He was sharing his skepticism with three state officials who are in the middle of revising Wyoming’s sage grouse protection map in the hopes of keeping the bird off the ESA list, which could boost grouse protections and curtail industry activity within much of the state’s sagebrush country.

Bob Budd, who chairs Wyoming’s Sage Grouse Implementation Team, told Sommers — the Legislature’s Speaker of the House — that he wished he was in Gillette for a meeting the other day to tell attendees about what it’s like dealing with a federally threatened species. 

“What we’re trying to do is do everything we can not to get there,” Budd said, referring to a sage grouse listing. “And I share your pessimism.” 

Bob Budd, who chairs Wyoming’s Sage Grouse Implementation Team, addresses a Sublette County audience during a July 2023 meeting to gather public feedback on sage grouse core area revisions. (Mike Koshmrl/WyoFile)

Budd contended the federal government’s sage grouse maps “black the state out,” meaning more expansive land use regulations to protect the bird. 

“And I don’t want to go there,” he said. 

The team’s overarching goal of its effort to revise its grouse “core areas” — the backbone of the state’s policy — is to convince the federal government that Wyoming is a responsible steward of the sagebrush-obligate species that has collapsed on its watch. To that end, the panel has proposed a series of changes — and they’re mostly expansions — to its sage grouse core area map. The effect, essentially, is that a higher percentage of occupied sage grouse habitat would be protected. Currently, some 84% to 85% of the estimated grouse in the Equality State dwell within the core areas.

The gubernatorial-appointed Sage Grouse Implementation Team is considering adding tens of thousands of acres of protective “core area,” along with some retractions, to the state map. Proposed changes are outlined here. (Sage Grouse Implementation Team)

“That may not be enough,” Budd told attendees in Pinedale. “That’s part of what we’re looking at today.” 

Later, he made an accounting analogy out of sage grouse. 

“If our assets are 90%, our liabilities are minor — they’re 10% and they’re scattered all over the place,” Budd said. “That’s a very strong balance sheet.”


Wyoming last revised its sage grouse core areas in 2015 and 2019. The policy requires state agencies to limit disturbance of grouse habitat while allowing for mineral and oil and gas development, livestock grazing and other human activities. It can also require developers to make up for unavoidable habitat loss.

Comparatively, the ongoing revision process has been truncated. The reason is the Bureau of Land Management, under court order, is revising sage grouse protections in its West-wide resource management plans via an environmental impact statement. Concurrently, the states are scrambling to update their protections so that they can be included in the federal government’s planning process. 

Randall Luthi, chief energy advisor for Gov. Mark Gordon, addresses the audience in July 2023 at the Sublette County Library during a meeting to gather public feedback on sage grouse core area revisions. (Mike Koshmrl/WyoFile)

“It’s not a friendly timeframe,” Randall Luthi, the governor’s chief energy advisor, said in Pinedale. “We’re doing the best we can.” 

Wyoming’s deadline for comment on the map revisions, which was already extended once, lapsed on Friday.

“Previous changes have all been made with a very public process up front,” said Tom Christiansen, a retired sage grouse coordinator for the Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 

Former Wyoming sage grouse coordinator Tom Christiansen checks the time while entering his count of male sage grouse on a lek that held 108 strutting cocks in April 2015. (Angus M. Thuermer Jr./WyoFile)

This time, Christiansen told WyoFile, biologists were asked, “In a perfect world for sage grouse, what would you add?” Their recommendations were then tweaked, rolled out to the public as draft changes — and they caught some landowners off guard, he said. 

“I think that’s very unfortunate, because it created a lot of controversy,” Christiansen said. “Unfortunately, I think this process has pitted some people against sage grouse. I hear some of the landowners in Northeast Wyoming’s concerns, some of which I think are legitimate.” 

Angi Bruce, deputy director of the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, addresses the audience in July 2023 at the Sublette County Library during a meeting to gather public feedback on sage grouse core area revisions. (Mike Koshmrl/WyoFile)

At the Pinedale meeting, Budd and Wyoming Game and Fish Department Deputy Director Angi Bruce walked landowners and other attendees through a series of expansions to core area proposed in the Upper Green River Basin, seven in all. She touted the on-the-ground sage grouse census data underlying the additions there, and beyond. 

“In Wyoming we have a lot of really good science, we probably had the best data available on sage grouse in the world,” Bruce said. “We need to use that — and show we’re using it — in a constructive manner in order to retain control of the bird.” 

Seven additions have been proposed to sage grouse core area in the Upper Green River Basin, outlined here in red. (Wyoming Game and Fish Department)

While the sage grouse team’s fast-tracked revision to the state’s sage grouse map has raised some hackles, other parties stand firmly in support. Daly Edmunds, director of policy and outreach for Audubon Rockies, pointed to the proposed additions in the state’s northeast corner, where there are the lowest densities of grouse and the smallest percentage of birds protected by core areas. 

“I think it’s time for the core areas to be reviewed,” Edmunds said.

A stand of support

Edmunds was around when Wyoming was first starting to craft a plan to protect sage grouse in the early 2000s. At the time on staff at the Wyoming Wildlife Federation, she thought back to former Gov. Dave Freudenthal’s very first public meeting about the state’s grouse policy.

“I remember [Freudenthal] saying in front of everybody, ‘If you thought the spotted owl issue was bad, if you thought the wolf issue was bad, you haven’t seen anything,’” she recalled. “He really energized Wyoming to be very forward thinking and pulled a lot of people together.” 

Wyoming’s sage grouse safeguards have helped keep an Endangered Species Act listing at bay, Edmunds said. The state’s plans were “incredibly influential” when the U.S. Department of the Interior decided not to list the bird in 2015, she said. 

The federal government’s “12-month finding” from that time backs it up. “The conservation efforts by federal, state, and private partners have greatly changed the likely trajectory of the species from our 2010 projections when we determined that the species warranted listing,” the document says. 

Arguably, Wyoming plays an outsized role in the fate of the sage grouse. There are more than 1,700 known breeding areas, or leks, in the state, which houses an estimated 38% of the world’s remaining grouse, according to the Wyoming Game and Fish Department

Potentially, the state’s current map revision could again move the needle. Whatever Wyoming and other western states send forward to the BLM will help shape an “alternative” that will be included in the agency’s draft environmental impact statement, said Brad Purdy, BLM-Wyoming’s deputy state director for communications. 

Purdy described Wyoming as a collaborator to the BLM’s process and he echoed what he sees as a common goal: preventing a sage grouse listing. 

“I think listing would be very, very rough on western economies,” he said, “and we’ve got to get these plans right and implemented.” 

A covey of sage grouse scurry over alpine vegetation at an elevation above 10,000 feet in the Absaroka Range. (Mike Koshmrl/WyoFile)

The BLM’s environmental document will outline changes to 70 resource management plans guiding sage grouse conservation on 67 million acres of 10 western states. Purdy said it’s tough to put a target on when the draft will come out, but guessed this coming spring. 

Meantime, the state of Wyoming will continue to fine tune its sage grouse core areas. 

The current revision is a “really worthy effort,” said Brian Rutledge, a recently retired Audubon employee who was a longtime member of the Sage Grouse Implementation Team. 

“It was the best conservation effort I was ever involved in,” Rutledge said of the team. “The state of Wyoming and all the members of the SGIT have worked so hard toward the largest terrestrial landscape conservation effort in the history of planet Earth. That’s a big deal.”  

Sommers told WyoFile he remains skeptical. 

After hearing from constituents who weren’t pleased with core area expansions that overlapped their private land, he requested the Pinedale meeting. Personally, he was happy with the effectiveness of the state’s sage grouse policy the way it was. 

“By and large, we created a plan that was working,” Sommers said. “What was wrong with the plan that we had? Is the only reason we were making this jump to expand the maps because the feds have a worse map? 

“I don’t know the answer to that,” he said, “but it appears to me that’s the case.”

Mike Koshmrl reports on Wyoming's wildlife and natural resources. Prior to joining WyoFile, he spent nearly a decade covering the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem’s wild places and creatures for the Jackson...

Join the Conversation


Want to join the discussion? Fantastic, here are the ground rules: * Provide your full name — no pseudonyms. WyoFile stands behind everything we publish and expects commenters to do the same. * No personal attacks, profanity, discriminatory language or threats. Keep it clean, civil and on topic. *WyoFile does not fact check every comment but, when noticed, submissions containing clear misinformation, demonstrably false statements of fact or links to sites trafficking in such will not be posted. *Individual commenters are limited to three comments per story, including replies.

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

  1. Protecting areas will never be enough. If we don’t start taking an active management and restoration direction, we might just as well list the bird now. We (Wyoming) claim we know what to do, but where’s the data that illustrates that? We can always do better!

  2. The initial plan was enacted by some of the best political minds in the state. It has been shepherded by Bob Budd the best consensus master around. Amazing on the ground projects have been enacted. But, it has some serious flaws.
    The major flaw I saw is that most thought we could continue to multiple use as usual. Core areas did not include major areas of mineral development. In fact I watched the oil and gas representative in our group draw the core lines.
    At one point the process nearly broke down as consensus was abandoned, as final core areas were first enacted.
    The core area concept is fraught with politics. All of the grouse in the state should be protected as we do our business. Major grouse areas were left out of the core areas so industry did not have to adhere to stringent guidelines.
    Since the process was enacted, we seem to have been in a holding pattern. The progress needed to banish the listed specter hasn’t happened. Enlarging the core areas is a step in the right direction, but we need to protect all our grouse.
    We seem to have an adversion in our state to protecting our resources. We have allowed pollution of our air, land and water in the name of jobs and tax revenue.
    All development should require the best available technology. Whether it is mineral, livestock or recreation, we should be good stewards of this amazing western serengeti. Of course that means all of us will need to pick up the tab, but in the long run doing so will pay amazing dividends.

    1. Well said Barbara – and game and Fish still allows a hunting season – the USFWS and BLM will not consider Wyoming’s efforts adequate as long as hunting is allowed – and sage brush habitat improvement projects have been largely unsuccessful – the consensus approach allowed for manipulative policies including off site mitigation which damaged the best sage grouse habitat in the western US in the Green River Basin – and no control of predators such as ravens and crows was allowed by the consensus approach – lack of meaningful commitment on the part of Wyoming – we all know where this is going if the needed changes aren’t made and that includes a lot more than mere expansion of the core habitat map

  3. I was just out there a week ago and was tripping over them everywhere I went for hundreds of Sq. Miles . I don’t see any shortage, there were a lot more of them than deer and antelope.

    1. This reminds me of what was being said about mule deer and pronghorn utilizing gas pads….so there’s no problem, yet where did those 5000 mule deer go???

  4. Wyoming is expanding its sage grouse protections. Will it work? Short answer, at least around the Cody Wy area is NO. For the past couple of years, two Federal Entities, the BLM and the BOR have allowed the act of severe over-grazing on the Core Sage Grouse Area that runs from the Heart Mountain Irrigation Canal to the base of Heart Mountain North of Cody. Cattle have pummeled this range down to rutted up bare dirt and leaving nothing but ground up twigs of what used to be healthy sagebrush and piles of cow manure scattered everywhere. The result is extremely poor re-growth of vegetation. The current population of Sage Grouse left here is just a remnant of what once was a prosperous number of Grouse and it should also go without saying that other wildlife have greatly suffered, too. Many, many complaints have been brought to the attention of both the BLM and the BOR with practically nothing done about it. Heck, as this is written, the range is once again covered with cattle. Pretty tough to try to right a problem on public land when the administering agencies turn a blind eye.

    1. Definitely a big part of the management strategy, coupled with restoration efforts that need to be implemented. Our federal agencies need to pony up as well rather than just threatening us with a “listing.” Where are they implementing restoration efforts? If they have, how has it affected sage-grouse populations in those areas? We need a broad spectrum management action that illustrates we know what to do, but politics seem to usually get in the way from any implementation.

    2. those grazing districts at the base of Heart Mountain have been used and abused for years. Little known fact, the Heart Mountain Irrigation District itself manages the grazing on some of those parcels. Much akin to letting the ole’ fox guard the hen house. Many sq. miles of sage grouse territory nubbed down to the dirt and rocks with waaaaaay too many cows with the Bur of Rec and B.L.M. ignoring the complaints