Wind turbines may threaten whooping cranes

[dbackjon]

Migration corridor is in areas with best wind power potential
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23389384/
STAFFORD, Kan. - Whooping cranes have waged a valiant fight against extinction, but federal officials warn of a new potential threat to the endangered birds: wind farms.

Down to about 15 in 1941, the gargantuan birds that migrate each fall from Canada to Texas now number 266, thanks to conservation efforts.

But because wind energy has gained such traction, whooping cranes could again be at risk — either from crashing into the towering wind turbines and transmission lines or because of habitat lost to the wind farms.

"Basically you can overlay the strongest, best areas for wind turbine development with the whooping crane migration corridor," said Tom Stehn, whooping crane coordinator for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

The service estimates as many as 40,000 turbines will be erected in the U.S. section of the whooping cranes' 200-mile wide migration corridor.

"Even if they avoid killing the cranes, the wind farms would be taking hundreds of square miles of migration stopover habitat away from the cranes," Stehn said.



>>snip<<


The most common cause of death for whooping cranes is crashing into power lines. Stehn said the industry could help by marking its power lines, which run from transmission towers.

"Each crane is precious when you only have 266," he said.

[Radical Activist]

1. So power lines from wind trubines are suddenly a problem

but power lines from coal power plants have never been a cause for concern? hmmm....

[dbackjon]

2. NO - they always have been a cause for concern

And they should be marked better.

Between transmission towers, power lines, and cell phone towers, over a BILLION birds are killed by impact into man-made structures a year, in the United States and Canada alone.

Cats take out another BILLION a year as well.

[Radical Activist]

3. Then why does the article only focus on wind turbines?

Looks like more news with an agenda from GE-NBC.

[dbackjon]

6. BULLSHIT

The main focus of the article was the danger posed by WIND TURBINES to whoopers.

[Radical Activist]

10. Yes, the article is bullshit.

The article brings up the danger of power lines from wind turbines as if this is a new problem. Why aren't power lines from coal power plants a problem and why isn't that acknowledged in the article? It looks to me like GE will promote any excuse they can to discourage alternative energy.

[ben_meyers]

16. Did you even bother to read any of the article before

spouting nonsense? It isn't just the transmission lines!

The service estimates as many as 40,000 turbines will be erected in the U.S. section of the whooping cranes' 200-mile wide migration corridor.

"Even if they avoid killing the cranes, the wind farms would be taking hundreds of square miles of migration stopover habitat away from the cranes," Stehn said.(snip)

Whooping cranes, the tallest birds in North America, fly at altitudes of between 500 and 5,000 feet — enough room to clear the turbines, which range in height from about 200 feet to 295 feet, and their blades, with diameters from 230 feet to 295 feet.(snip)

The problem, Stehn said, is that the cranes stop every night.

"It's actually the landing and taking off that's problematic," he said. "That's when they're most likely to encounter the turbines and transmission towers."

And where do they stop everynight? Their stopover habitat!

[Radical Activist]

36. I wonder how global warming will effect them.

Perspective please.

[tinrobot]

13. Ummm... GE makes wind turbines.

They're one of the leading manufacturers.

[kristopher]

14. It is also their most profitable division for several years running

The people with the strongest economic incentive to fight wind are the owners of coal and coal fired power plants.

[Radical Activist]

35. I'm aware of that.

They also continue to have a vested interest in perpetuating the continue use of coal.

[kristopher]

41. Who doesn't? If someone owns a stock portfolio, they probably have some interest in coal.

Utilities are traditionally attractive. But I thought most of GE's energy business was wrapped up in natural gas and wind. I don't recall them being into coal tech in any meaningful way, but I wasn't really looking for it either.

[Junkdrawer]

4. This environmental message brought to you by the American Coal Industry....

and their surrogates.

"We cry each night for the environment."

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/06/coal_state_rep.php

[dbackjon]

8. Another BULLSHIT

God, you people that think that there are ZERO problems with wind, and that everything is a coal conspiracy are FUCKING NUTS.


Get a grip on reality, folks. There is no such thing as a benign power source.


Of course, you all were probably pimping ethanol as the cure-all a couple years ago, and claiming anyone that dared to be negative to it was on the payroll of Big Oil.

[Junkdrawer]

9. LOL...

:rofl:

[Radical Activist]

11. You are being used.

There are way to minimize the impact wind turbines have on birds. Is that fully explained in the article? Why not?
How many birds are killed by mercury from coal power plants? Which kills more? Why isn't that in the article?

[malakai2]

17. I'll echo the bullshit call

The Fish and Wildlife Service is divided into several basic organizations, each one with a different responsibility. Three that come immediately to mind are Refuges (responsible for managing refuges), Fisheries (responsible for managing national hatcheries and doing fisheries research), and Ecological Services (responsible for administration of the Endangered Species Act). Since this is an ES call, let's take a closer look at what the ES responsibilities entail.

Step one would be to read the Endangered Species Act. Step two would be to read current regulations as promulgated by the agency tasked with administering the Act...which would be primarily the FWS (NOAA fisheries handles oceanic critters). Among other things, those documents require ALL Federal agencies to ensure any actions they authorize, fund, or carry out do not contribute to the decline of, or prevent the recovery of, listed species. Which means, actions authorized, funded, or carried out by Federal agencies CAN harm individuals of listed species, however the harm must be mitigated in such a way so as not to jeopardize (cause to decline or prevent from recovering) the species. To ensure compliance, every action a Federal agency takes or plans to take is first run by an Ecological Services office, biologists there check out the plan in detail, and make a call as to whether or not it would harm listed species. If the plan won't harm any individuals of any listed species, the biologist informs the action agency as such and the action agency goes on its merry way. If the plan would harm individuals but could be adjusted in some way to ensure it doesn't jeopardize the species, the FWS biologist works with the action agency to ensure the adjusted plan is used and puts together an incidental take permit. If the plan ends up taking more of the critter than the permit allows, the project stops for re-evaluation. If the plan originally submitted would jeopardize a species, the biologist informs the action agency and the action agency is expected to drop the plan. If they forge ahead, a court will stop them and people will go to jail.

Among other things, these FWS biologists have to consider cumulative effects, range-wide effects, short-term effects, long-term effects, possible mitigation techniques, and so on. So lets look at cranes here in light of where this is coming from. There are currently three populations of whooping crane: the truly wild relict population that migrates from Aransas National Wildlife Refuge to Wood Buffalo National Park and back every year; the reintroduced eastern migratory population that summers at Necedah National Wildlife Refuge and winters at Chassahowitzka and St. Marks National Wildlife Refuges; and the reintroduced eastern non-migratory population that spends all year on the Kissimmee River plain of central Florida. Because two of those populations are reintroduced from captive sources, they do not carry all the protections afforded the wild population, so we'll ignore those for now. That wild population winters on a tiny little bit of land in south coastal Texas and breeds on a fairly small bit of land in the Northwest Territories. Between those spots, the entire population depends on a few stopovers in the middle of the continent-potholes and the Missouri River in the Dakotas, the Platte River in Nebraska, a few marshes in central Kansas and Oklahoma, and that's about it. The entire migratory corridor is only 200 or so miles wide, is sparsely populated, and offers the wide expanses of shallow surface water the cranes need for feeding and roosting. Similar habitat that existed historically in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and up the east coast in the Chesapeake Bay is largely gone to human settlement, powerlines, and especially draintile.

So now, there is a single relict population that is still afforded full protection under the Act, and we're proposing to build tens of thousands of large obstructions and associated wires within that population's migration corridor. I don't work with cranes and I didn't do any of the office findings related to these projects, but if I had to guess I'd say the biologists involved looked at the known rate of crane deaths given a certain density of windmills and transmission lines in this migration corridor, saw that despite a small risk of crane death per windmill or mile of wire the cumulative effect of tens of thousands of windmills and tens of thousands of miles of wire was enormous, and said "Hold on, let's take a closer look." That is what Congress mandates, that is FWS biologists' job. To the extent that they can justify findings on published science, they do that. When things get more speculative, such as with your mercury example, which would be a fine example of a pretty much non-point issue, they can't stop a new power plant because the utility will sue claiming that we can't prove their emissions are the exact emissions that cause harm, and FWS will lose. When we can go out and point to a large physical structure, point to a dead crane on the ground under it, do a few simple calculations that are backed by similar empirical data from elsewhere, we feel pretty confident in our assessment. Even then, we sometimes lose lawsuits to technical legal issues, and there is constant pressure from one side to eliminate FWS on principle because it's an economic loser and from the other side that wants to micromanage what FWS does without regard to budget realities.

So let's say we go your route and say, "We know some cranes will hit some wires and towers, but how bad can it be?" After construction is done, there will be new construction, and eventually, perhaps quickly (again, I didn't do the analysis), the species' growth rate will fall below one, perhaps dramatically. If those windmills and wires are the cause of the drop, the species will be done shortly thereafter. What then, have we lost? It's not like whooping cranes are ever going to be ecologically viable as long as we're around. Same goes for black-footed ferrets and gray wolves in the lower 48 and grizzlies in the lower 48 and a bunch of other species that have been economically excluded from former habitat. None of these is ever going to perform it's ecological function on a landscape scale while we're here. Yet we spend tens of millions "recovering" them to politically acceptable levels that change as the wind blows, and then we stop the protection, and maybe grudgingly maintain some small population to prevent re-listing. What's the point? Hell, we have zoos, I enjoy my enormous TV and two smaller TVs and Xbox 360 and two computers and ipod and microwave and numerous electric lights and all sorts of toys as much as the next guy, fuck the cranes, and the wolves, and the bears, ferrets, prairie dogs, salmon, and all the other listed critters. I got mine and I want more, and some worthless little bag of chemical reactions I've never met and never care to meet isn't going to stop me from getting it. Is that what you're trying to say? Isn't it interesting to think that in all regards, people are no more than a worthless little bag of chemical reactions too? I mean, I can see why Republicans naturally gravitate toward that mindset, but why someone on this board would do the same is a little confusing.

[dbackjon]

20. Great post!

[kristopher]

32. Great post until the last couple of sentences

I don't want to speak for everyone here, but there is little question that there are people (particularly in the coal mining/doal power plant field) who have a vested interest in stopping the shift to wind as a baseload power source. There is also an ideological component related to the dittoheads and certain Christian fundamentalists (not all) who oppose and actively attempt to torpedo anything that flows from policies that are intended to address climate change. It has become an established tactic, (pioneered as far as I know by the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound) to use wildlife advocacy as a front for their efforts to derail wind projects. Does it mean the wildlife objections they raise are illegitimate. No, it doesn't.
At the same time we can't be blind to this strategy.

So, I think the incredulity has a basis that is grounded in reality.

That said, your description of the review process was refreshingly detailed and informative and it makes perfect sense. What it misses is some type of evidence that there are, in fact, going to be "tens of thousands" of wind turbines in this corridor, and that there is, in fact, danger from the turbines to the cranes.

Has someone proposed a project of that scale?

Is the area in question even economically suitable for wind development?

Topography is extremely important and there doesn't seem to be any attempt to determine if the flight habits of the Cranes (capitalized to emphasize my respect) even put them at risk from turbines. Most avian deaths from wind turbines are caused by the birds colliding with the towers, not the blades. Some species are adept at avoiding the towers entirely. How are the cranes in this regard. Is there a known, predictable migration route that we can create a buffer around where the cranes are protect yet the wind resource can still be tapped into?

What we don't know is a lot more than what we know at this point.

Determining these facts are a normal part of the permitting process. Some areas under Dept of Interior control have a streamlined permitting process because they have been pre-vetted for wildlife issues. Other places require a greater degree of scrutiny. Here is part of the introduction from their policy on wind permitting.

"Introduction
Wind-generated electrical energy is renewable, produces no emissions, and is generally considered to be an
environmentally friendly technology. Development of wind energy is strongly endorsed by the Secretary
of the Interior, as expressed in the Secretary’s Renewable Energy on Public Lands Initiative (May 2002).
However, wind energy facilities can adversely impact wildlife, especially birds (e.g., Orloff and Flannery
1992, Leddy et al. 1999, Woodward et al. 2001, Braun et al. 2002, Hunt 2002) and bats (Keeley et al. 2001,
Johnson et al. 2002, Johnson et al. 2003). As more facilities with larger turbines are built, the cumulative
effects of this rapidly growing industry may initiate or contribute to the decline of some wildlife
populations (Manes et al. 2002, Johnson et al. 2002, Manville 2003). The potential harm to these
populations from an additional source of mortality or adverse habitat impacts makes careful evaluation of
proposed facilities essential. Due to local differences in wildlife concentration and movement patterns,
habitats, area topography, facility design, and weather, each proposed development site is unique and
requires detailed, individual evaluation.
The following guidance was prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service...

So, given there is a set review process, what do you think is the reason this issue with the cranes was in the press?

Probably just the damn librul media....

[malakai2]

33. Okay

I'm sure there are interests like those operating at some level. However, I'm quite certain Tom Stehn isn't part of that group. I've seen how the project review and species recovery processes work, I've taken part in those processes. They are considerably more complicated than I lay out, and to lay them out so that the average person understood how the process works would require a semester or two of college level work, assuming the average person has a firm grasp of English, ecology, and statistics. I know that every time this concept of (cranes)+(windmills and associated equipment)=(dead cranes) forms the basis of a thread here, a few posters jump all over anyone who even suggests a careful look at the impact wind generators might have on cranes. I've also had the misfortune of living in rural western South Dakota for too long, and I've seen what the locals think of prairie dogs, wolves, cougars, ferrets, eagles, the works. It goes along the lines "If I can't make money on it, I don't care about it, and if it prevents me from making money, even if it's only my imagination, I'd rather it be dead," except that the locals have a way of saying it with such remarkably incorrect grammar that it gives me headaches. I read comments from people don't understand how the process works, I see them jump right to the rural northern plains position on wildlife, and off come my gloves. I don't apologize for that, because a little thought between the misunderstanding stage and the wild conclusion stage would solve the problem.

Now, seeing as someone is interested, here's a little more information. Species recovery projects, such as the whooping crane and black-footed ferret projects, are headed by a FWS recovery coordinator who usually (for the flagship species) has a small staff, and are supplemented by staff from other Federal agencies, state agencies, other FWS offices, tribal offices, and various non-government entities. Each species is supposed to have a recovery plan, and the recovery plan is supposed to be updated every five years to assess the status of the species, and re-evaluate the threats it faces. That could be where the windmill analysis originated. I don't work for Tom Stehn, but just off the top of my head I think the primary threats to the crane when it was added to the list (as part of the 1967 Act) were severely restricted habitat availability, an extreme genetic bottleneck, a very slow reproductive rate, and a tiny remaining population. Now that the species is relatively secure in multiple locations, with a larger population and stabilized (to the extent possible) genetic structure, the primary threats would be those that prevent the species from recovering to the point where it will no longer require protection. That would be analyzed, in great detail, in the revised Whooping Crane Recovery Plan, which I believe is available to the public.

Alternatively, it could have come from the industry itself. In years past, utilities have actively sought ways to mitigate bird strikes and electrocutions, wrote best practices handbooks covering everything from site selection to construction to design to maintenance to mitigation techniques, and did all of it in cooperation with FWS offices responsible for administering ESA as well as the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and a few others. Industry knows what direction it wants to go, and it knows that because each structure it wants to assemble will require a Federal permit of one form or another, it could be running a lot of this stuff by migratory bird coordinators in FWS Regions 2 and 6 so they know what they can and cannot do before spending a lot of money. That groundwork also makes individual project reviews easier for FWS staff because, after all, in the plains states the offices are understaffed and also have to deal with prairie dogs, ferrets, Missouri and Platte River issues, pallid sturgeon, Topeka shiners, dispersing wolves, piping plovers, least terns, new listing petitions, mundane information requests, field recovery projects, etc. A quick reference for the powerline and windmill issues is handy for project reviews.

Another possibility is that it comes from an environmental group. There are those who like using ESA and NEPA to stall all development, reflexively. It wouldn't take much creativity to patch together some information readily available on wind power manufacturers' websites, the FWS website, and a few state websites, and find that there's a simple mechanism to stall wind power development for the sake of keeping the plains open. There are others who are opposed to harming any individual animal, even if the loss will not harm the species. That too leads to creative lawsuits. I don't rule any possibilities that way. But I'm pretty confident, bad reporting aside, that the driver here is not the coal industry stomping on FWS field biologists. Field biologists and supervisors will leak that kind of information such that it hits the major media and Congressional Oversight Committees. That's frequently how FWS loses lawsuits when it does something illegal at the direction of political appointees...field staff don't have real whistleblower protection, so they leak documents. In some cases, the political landscape is such that leaked documents showing illegal direction doesn't matter. If Big Coal were driving this, we'd know it by now, and if we knew it and this was still going on, we'd also know that this would be one of those cases where the law doesn't matter. As is, I see this as a strictly prophylactic measure by the industry and crane recovery program.

[kristopher]

40. That's a perfectly satisfactory explanation

The media doesn't need anything more than that to push a story towards sensationalism. Thanks for taking the time to share.

[Radical Activist]

38. So you're saying we stop using electricity?

Good luck with that. We have to get our power from somewhere unless you plan to start making change unabomber style.

Would you rather we poison the birds with mercury and destroy their habitat by continued use of coal? If not, what would your preferable alternative be? Even with good energy efficiency and conservation projects we still need to replace dirty coal as a power source.

[malakai2]

42. Try to understand

I am saying that there is a law in place, has been in place for a while, that demands we give species consideration whenever something we do might cause an extinction.

I am also saying that if you are concerned that this law is being corrupted by coal interests to keep windmills off the plains, then you might do a little more than wildly speculate. Show us all which employees from the crane office and the ND, SD, NE, OK, and TX Ecological Services field offices are in Big Coal's pocket.

Finally, I'm pointing out that these turbines are going in because people think they can't possibly lower their electrical consumption, and in fact always want to increase it. They may not connect the dots that way, but that IS what they are doing when they add one more toy to their collection. Doing that has consequences, the kind of consequences that the ESA sought to avoid by stating in no uncertain terms that certain consequences were unacceptable. This very clearly threatens to fall into that category. Might as well face it right up front, no? It's kinda like cities in northern Georgia knowing for decades exactly what the use restrictions would be on their rivers and reservoirs under ESA, building right up to and past those restrictions without bothering with any mitigation or conservation measures, and then demanding a repeal of the ESA restrictions. Except of course that in this case people are suggesting that we skip even the analysis that goes into determining what the ESA restrictions on development should be.

[dbackjon]

19. That wasn't the point of the ARTICLE

Generally, articles are based on ONE angle. The mercury from coal, and it's affect on avian populations, is a whole nother story.

Again, a very Bushian approach, to couple things that are unrelated.


Terra! Terra!

[Radical Activist]

37. There's nothing Bushian about looking at the big picture

and realizing that we have to evaluate the trade offs between power sources to pick the least damaging.

Yes, the article only looks at things from one angle, and only tells one part of the story. That's my point. I believe there was an agenda behind the article's single minded lack of perspective.

[kristopher]

30. You're right

Wind does have an environmental footprint.

But comparing the relative environmental footprints of wind to fossil fuels and nuclear is like comparing a hangnail to an amputation.

[Journeyman]

5. Tom Robbins, "Even Cowgirls Get the Blues," described why the whooper may eventually disappear. . .

and though I don't have the passage handy, essentially it's due to the whooping cranes resistance to evolution. The magnificent whooper, which once blanketed the skies, reached the pinnacle of existence eons ago, says Robbins, and now claims for itself total freedom. And despite all encroachments and challenges, it refuses to adapt. It still uses the same ancient breeding and feeding grounds it used in ages long past, still uses the same migration corridors without consideration of any obstacles. In Robbin's memorable passage, All praise to the Whooper, a true American marvel, which chose in the dark recesses of history a singular fate: live free or die.

[dbackjon]

7. So we should just kill anything that hasn't adapted?

Very republican of you.

[Journeyman]

12. I'm terribly sorry -- I'm always forgetting not everyone on this board is literate. . .

and that so many have an undeveloped cultural awareness. Had I never read any of his work, I would still never confuse Tom Robbins' sensibilities with those of a plunderer. And more to the immediate moment, I'd never ignorantly slander anyone else on this board without first having clear insight to their purpose. And so I repeat, I'm terribly sorry to have made your acquaintance.

[dbackjon]

21. And I am terribly sorry to have meet an elitist asshole like you

Who give good liberals a bad name - so on the "Ignore List" ya go.

[Journeyman]

25. I thought I was a Republican? . . .

Perhaps you want to take a moment, compose yourself, and get your slanders and assorted insults better organized. Then, you'll be in a better frame to use the proper slurs and profanity to show how I give good people like you a bad name. I am appreciative, however, that you took the time to give further proof to my assessment of your intellect, manners, and couth.

[Radical Activist]

39. heh

:)

[malakai2]

18. Let's not oversimplify

The species needs large shallow wetlands for feeding and roosting, whether on northern breeding grounds, southern wintering grounds, or on migration between the two. Over the past few hundred years, hundreds of millions of acres of those wetlands were lost continent-wide. Indiana lost over a million acres to drainage of the Kankakee marsh, Ohio lost three or so million acres to drainage of the Black Swamp, Illinois lost millions of acres north of the Illinois river, and that just continues as you go west and north. The Dakotas are actively losing much of their remaining wetlands as farmers tear it up to suck the ethanol teat. Much of that used to be nesting habitat. Along the gulf coast, the Texas intracoastal waterway is now a navigation ditch. Marshes in Louisiana and Florida grow sugar or are sinking or were more valuable as fill for development. The same holds for the rest of the coast up to Maryland. All of that was, once upon a time not so long ago, used by cranes for wintering or migration. The same pattern holds for valley wetlands along the eastern Rockies, where sandhills still follow the same migration corridor from Wyoming and Montana to Mexico every year, without whooping cranes

It's also a large bird, not particularly agile in the air given it's size, so just like eagles, large hawks, vultures, sandhill cranes, large geese, storks, swans, and so on, it does poorly when suddenly a very thin and not very visible network of wires is strung through spaces it traverses. You or I may think it's easy to see transmission lines from the ground, when they are silhouetted against the sky, but try seeing them when you're not expecting them while flying 40 mph while looking down at dark ground. Try doing it at night or in fog. Ask a pilot what that's like. Then remember, whoopers learn their migration routes from other cranes in their little corner of the world. Lose a parent, lose your way, and you're toast. Migrate safely, and you'll be taking that route every year until you die.

Yes, they are not as adaptable as sandhill cranes. No other species of crane is. In the case of whoopers, they need large expanses of wetland, a lot of food (Kankakee Marsh and Black Swamp were regarded as some of the most productive places in the midwest before farmers drained them), and open skies in which to fly. You radically alter the habitat of most k-selected species, and they will be gone very quickly.

[kristopher]

15. Dismissing the problem is wrong.

I agree that this type of story is agenda driven. There are three possible incentives to pushing this slant:
Those with large scale economic motives such as the coal lobby.
Those who make the safety of avian wildlife a high priority in their decision making (not a small group).
Those who may be trying to oppose local development because of any variety of reasons such as viewscape concerns, resistance to change, fears of local economic impact such as decreased property values.

Yes the article is slanted.

However the question remains, what is the actual risk to whooping cranes if we develop this corridor?

Sounds like a topic for a dissertation to me.

[dbackjon]

22. Or maybe someone really likes Cranes...

There are not evil motives behind every story...

[ben_meyers]

23. I like cranes

Tastes a little like Bald Eagle!

(It's an old joke)

[dbackjon]

24. I thought they tasted like Manatee

BTW - currently tens of thousands of Sandhill cranes in SE Arizona, although they have begun their migration.

[ben_meyers]

26. Been there done that

Got the t-shirt and hat. I understand that they had a record count this year. It is kind of a shame how that area is getting trashed by the illegals isn't it? 2 years ago it was starting to look like Sonoita.

[dbackjon]

27. They did

Saw thousands Sunday (Cranes, not illegals). Actually, not a single illegal in sight, although I have come across stashes for them along the San Pedro.

[kristopher]

28. Isn't that what I said?

"Those who make the safety of avian wildlife a high priority in their decision making (not a small group)."
I felt this included those who like cranes. And for the record, I don't consider them to have "evil" motives.

[Speck Tater]

29. Electric cars are a threat to possums and raccoons.

So are gas cars and motorcycles. I see dead raccoons and possums (and squirrels and skunks too, for that matter) on the road every day. Once a month or so I even see a road-kill deer by the side of the highway. We better outlaw all powered vehicles! They are clearly a menace to wildlife.

[ben_meyers]

31. The difference might be that there are

only 240 of these Cranes left, and a lot of time, effort and money has gone into protecting them. Some people go nuts at the thought of Polar Bears and Caribou being harmed by oil drilling in Alaska too, but hey its just a few endangered animals. As to raccoons, possums, squirrels and skunks, when they get put on the "watch" list I'll start swerving

[losthills]

34. I'm all for wind power....

but some locations are suitable for wind turbines and some are not. The migration corridor for an endangered species doesn't seem to me to be an appropriate location for a wind farm. It's important for our civilization to find ways to coexist with wildlife and to tread lightly on certain habitats. Common sense would dictate moving the wind farms to another location.

[Junkdrawer]

43. "Migration corridor is in areas with best wind power potential"....

I guess we'll just have to stick to Coal and Nuclear, huh?

[dbackjon]

44. Well reasoned response

Too often, people take opposition to a specific project as condemnation of the idea as a whole.

Wind farms are an essential part of our plans to wean us off coal, oil, etc, but they are not environmentally neutral. We can study and limit their effect. Not every suitable wind site is ACTUALLY suitable for the environment. Others are perfectly fine.