Using exploratory factor analysis we reduced motivations into six dimensions: agricultural production, profit-orientation, rural lifestyle, financial investment, mineral extraction, and wildlife enterprise.
Demand for domestic oil and gas resources portends the severity of future losses because extraction impacts wildlife directly by altering habitat use [10] and population dynamics [11], and indirectly by facilitating spread of invasive plants [12] and exotic diseases [13].
Understanding how human activity such as resource extraction interacts with wildlife, and developing tools to guide conservation planning in areas where human activity is widespread or increasing are ongoing challenges in conservation science.
Toxic lakes of water used in the extraction process are harming wildlife, the fish and animals they hunt are unhealthy and moose and caribou populations have been hit as a result of lines clear-cut through the forest for seismic prospecting for oil.
Conservation groups have previously warned that illegal extraction of timber and wildlife could flourish in this milieu, but the EIA/Global Witness is the first investigation to show the scale of the problem.
During these years, Washington also expanded areas designated as wilderness or wildlife preserves, protecting them from resource extraction.
There are also very significant risks of damage to land, water supplies, wildlife and wilderness areas from tar sands extraction and transportation through the pipeline.
Successful conservation of hunted wildlife requires collaboration at all scales, involving local people, resource extraction companies, governments and scientists.
Water contamination from hydraulic fracturing isn't the only threat of natural gas extraction, there are oil spills and damage to wildlife habitat and cultural resources to deal with as well.
