Grazing

Recreation – Sheepdog Safety

by
Akbash, a livestock protection dog used in the San Juan National Forest, has caused a stir among some trail users near Molas Pass. Here, Akbash belonging to Shane Nicolas herd sheep in the summer of 2010 in the Uncompahgre National Forest near Lake City.

In the interests of safety, I am posting this. I don’t know if this is the only part of the country where this is an issue. From the Durango Herald.

A simple solution to sheepdog encounters?
Education campaign planned to reduce high-country conflicts

Officials are betting that unnerving encounters with dogs guarding sheep in the high country could be reduced or eliminated through a public-education program to occur before flocks head for the hills in July.

Problem dogs in backcountry?

The plan emerged from a meeting this week involving the La Plata County Living With Wildlife Advisory Board and representatives of the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management, the agencies that oversee livestock grazing on public land.

“I was impressed with the presentation of the agencies as well as the heartfelt and knowledgeable response of our board members,” Maureen Keilty, chairwoman of the wildlife board, said Wednesday. “I think we have a good focus and that our plan can be a model for public education.”

Among the elements of the informational plan:

A booth at the Durango Farmers Market where volunteers would explain the history of livestock grazing, the inherent nature and training of sheepdogs, and suggested trail etiquette on the part of hikers and mountain bikers.

A public forum at which stakeholders would give their point of view. The composition of the panel isn’t set but could include a rancher, a Forest Service or BLM representative, an advocate for wildlife and someone to speak for the trail-using public.

Informational signs at trailheads alerting visitors that dog-guarded sheep are grazing in the area. The signs were posted for the first time in 2011.

Maps at visitor centers, chambers of commerce and on BLM and Forest Service websites showing current locations of sheep, which are moved from one location to another.

Matt Janowiak, the Columbine District ranger for the Forest Service; Tom Rice, field manager at the BLM Tres Rios office in Dolores; and Ann Bond, Forest Service public information specialist in Durango, were at the meeting Tuesday.

Several run-ins with sheepdogs along the Colorado Trail around Silverton last summer prompted letters to newspapers recounting scary experiences, personal or retold, with guard dogs.

Several breeds of Turkish dogs, bred for centuries to protect sheep, are used by the six holders of sheep-grazing permits in the San Juan National Forest. The Akbash was the breed involved in the incidents.

Sheepdogs, including the Akbash, bond with their band by nature and don’t turn tail in the face of a threat. No one was bitten last summer.

Janowiak and Elena Cuevas, a member of the wildlife advisory board, who are familiar with the Akbash, said the breed isn’t vicious by nature. But sheepdogs have to be socialized as pups. Familiarity with people, other breeds of canines, farm animals and ranch equipment train them to distinguish a friend from a foe when guarding their flock.

Janowiak related how a rancher from Montrose who grazes sheep around Silverton removed and eventually put down an aggressive sheepdog. Since then, he’s used socialized dogs, and there’s been no problems, Janowiak said.

The BLM and Forest Service provide grazing allotments at several locations near Silverton, including Highland Mary Lakes, Whitehead Gulch, Velocity Basin and Grouse Gulch.

It was brought out at the Tuesday meeting that people who take dogs on federal land must have the pet under voice control or on a leash although there is no leash law.

The expanses where sheep graze in the national forest have no trails for motorized vehicles. But there are Forest Service or county roads that sheep cross from time to time.

Controlling predators with sheepdogs will resolve at least two issues of contention, Keilty said.

Dogs provide a nonlethal method to protect livestock in contrast to the U.S. Department of Agriculture APHIS Wildlife Service, which uses hunters to kill predators, Keilty said. Relying on dogs puts responsibility on ranchers, involves no taxpayer money and should find favor with animal lovers, she said.

APHIS stands for Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.

The USDA service is expensive, costing county, state and federal funds, Keilty said. Ranchers also may be reimbursed for their losses.

The sheepdog solution also beats trapping and relocating predators, which rarely works, Keilty said.

Sunday Op-ed and Editorial Roundup from the Interior West

by

In today’s Sunday papers, The Denver Post and the Missoulian had three op-eds and an editorial of relevance to our usual topics. Ski Area Water Rights, 21st century conservation, private lands conservation and Tester’s bill. I lumped them together below and one separate in a separate post (restoration op-ed in the Missoulian), just to reduce my work here. Please feel free to comment on any or all of them.

One thing I thought was interesting was that in the Jon Christenson piece (third below), conservation easements protect the land from development by allowing the lands to be working for grazing, agriculture or timber. On federal lands, though, we were discussing if roadless is not adequately “protected” and only wilderness is really “protected” (albeit not from air pollution or climate change).

The recession presented land trusts with some great opportunities in recent years, as development stalled, and prime lands were available at distress-sale prices. But most of the growth has come through conservation easements, which are becoming ever more popular because they allow land trusts to protect land at an even lower price. “You pay 40 to 50 percent of the fee value of the land without any management costs,” explains Nita Vail, executive director of the rancher-led California Rangeland Trust. That’s because the landowners continue to own and manage their lands for grazing, agriculture, or timber.

These “working landscapes” — ranches, farms and timberlands — are now a priority for the majority of land trusts nationwide, according to the Land Trust Alliance survey.

Editorial- Denver Post #1

Editorial: The right to enjoy the land vs. ski resorts’ water rights
As water becomes increasingly scarce, it is important to bring clarity to the issue of who controls this resource at ski areas.
Posted: 01/15/2012 01:00:00 AM MST

By The Denver Post

The intensifying battle between the ski industry and the U.S. Forest Service over water rights is far more complicated and nuanced than it might seem at first glance.

It’s not necessarily a bad thing that the matter has landed in federal court so a judge can parse through the issues and apply the law fairly.

At the end of the day, we hope the rights of citizens to enjoy recreational opportunities on federal land are appropriately balanced against the financial interests of ski resorts.

We’ve heard a lot about ski industry contentions that new rules by the government amount to a “taking” of water rights they spent millions to acquire. The industry makes a compelling case.

Yet it’s important to keep in mind the government’s argument. The Forest Service says it is proposing regulations that clarify a 2004 change to ski permit conditions made during the Bush administration.

The government’s position is that water rights associated with ski areas should remain with the government even if the ownership of a resort or its business plans change.

An important point of disagreement between the ski areas and the government is this: Federal authorities contend the water rights at issue involve water that originates on federal land and didn’t have to be bought by the resorts. This rule doesn’t, they say, have anything to do with private rights bought by resorts.

That is to say, water from federal land that is permitted for use in snowmaking ought to remain with the property even if a ski resort were to be sold.

The National Ski Areas Association sees the water rights issue in a different light — one they construe as an effort to confiscate private property.

In a lawsuit filed last week in federal court, the industry group says the government is seeking control over water rights that ski areas obtain “from private lands or lands miles away from the ski area.”

These are vastly different interpretations of the proposed permit language that need to be resolved.

The federal courts are well-equipped to pull apart the complexities of water law and rule-making procedure. However, a better outcome would be a settlement.

We hope the parties can agree on a resolution of their differences over ski permit language without a protracted and costly legal battle.

Homes and businesses have sprouted up around ski runs built on federal land and people have come to expect access to these areas for alpine recreation. Those towns could be decimated by a decision that could allow water to be siphoned off for other uses.

As water becomes increasingly scarce, it is important to bring clarity to the issue of who controls this valuable resource at ski areas.

It would be a travesty if the future of the recreation that has so come to define Colorado were undercut by an unjust policy.

In my opinion, this lays out some of the basic principles and echoes my frequently stated “is litigation the best path?” question.

These two are about 21st century conservation (creativity needed!) on public and private lands:
Op-ed Denver Post #2

Guest Commentary: Conservation for today, and tomorrow
Posted: 01/15/2012 01:00:00 AM MST

By Tim Sullivan

The start of a new year is a natural time to turn our thoughts to the future. However, for the conservation organizations, local governments and state agencies protecting Colorado’s most special natural resources, thinking about tomorrow is already ingrained in everything we do. Every project we undertake must not only have a tangible result today, but provide benefits to Coloradans far into the future.

This past year, we continued to find a balance between meeting people’s immediate needs and ensuring nature continues to benefit us all in the long run. The state of the economy, increasing population, demands for water and energy, and a changing climate will be among the many complicated factors we need to consider as we look ahead. To solve these issues, innovation will be crucial.

One example of conservation work paying benefits long into the future is the restoration of unhealthy forests. There is no short-term fix, but it’s a problem we must address or future generations will face more severe fires, insect and disease outbreaks, and threats to our homes and water supplies that we simply cannot afford. This summer will mark a decade since the massive Hayman Fire. When it comes to preventing the next mega-fire, an ounce of prevention is truly worth a pound of cure. Colorado hosts a number of promising collaborative efforts between citizens, conservation groups, local governments and the U.S. Forest Service. These efforts help set priorities and resolve potential conflicts, allowing critical forest restoration work to proceed today, with benefits to be realized for years to come.

While Colorado is best known for our forests and mountains, the grasslands covering the eastern part of the state are a remarkable piece of our heritage. This rolling prairie landscape is home to many longtime ranching families, provides food for our urban populations, and sustains globally significant wildlife.

A mix of economic realities can make it difficult for land to be shared or handed down to sons and daughters who want to carry on the tradition. This year, a remarkable partnership helped address this issue while permanently protecting vital grassland habitat.

When a large ranch east of Colorado Springs went on the market, several families holding adjacent property expressed interest. However, the cost made it impossible for just one family to purchase. Using conservation easements and monies from the lottery-funded Great Outdoors Colorado, an innovative financial model was born where the land was purchased and split between four families. The result was a win-win for wildlife and the local ranching community.

While it may seem natural for ranchers to pass on their conservation ethic to the next generation, children living in urban areas often have limited opportunities to connect to the natural world. Creating connections between youth, wherever they live, and the natural world is essential to the future of our state.

Environmental education, volunteer opportunities and youth internships with conservation organizations will serve as the catalyst to engage a future cadre of environmental leaders.

We still face many challenges to ensure our children, and theirs after them, will experience the same wonders we enjoy — the iconic places, amazing wildlife and abundant resources of Colorado. I believe we are up to the challenge and together can create a future where the lands and waters on which all life depends are protected.

Tim Sullivan is state director of The Nature Conservancy in Colorado.

This one’s also from High Country News
Op-ed Denver Post #3

opinion
Recession is aiding the conservation of Western lands
Posted: 01/15/2012 01:00:00 AM MST

By Jon Christensen
High Country News

The Great Recession, it turns out, may have been good for one thing in the West: private land conservation. From the tiny Orient Land Trust in Colorado’s San Luis Valley, which has nearly doubled its holdings to 2,260 acres, to the 138,041 acres of ranchland protected by the California Rangeland Trust over the last five years, statewide and local land trusts in the West have done better than ever recently, even as many environmental advocacy groups continue to trim budgets and federal funding for conservation falters.

The federal Land and Water Conservation Fund, which agencies rely on to acquire valuable private lands, suffered a 38 percent cut and protected just over 500,000 acres over the last five years. During the same period, private nonprofit land trusts protected 20 times as much undeveloped land — 10 million acres nationwide, according to data in a new census of 1,700 land trusts in the national Land Trust Alliance.

Land trusts also grew in other ways, including a 19 percent increase in paid employees and contractors, a 36 percent increase in operating budgets, a 70 percent increase in volunteer numbers, and a near tripling of long-term endowments.

Land trusts protect land by either buying it outright or paying for a conservation easement, which restricts or removes the landowner’s right to develop open land. Landowners can also donate property and easements and then receive a break on their income taxes from the federal government and some state governments. The latest gains bring the total area protected by the nation’s land trusts to 47 million acres — more than twice the area covered by all of the national parks in the lower 48 states.

In fact, private land conservation is now shaping the future of much of the West as decisively as development. Land that is protected by conservation easements or bought by land trusts is legally required to be protected in perpetuity. And in recent years, local land trusts have been “saving more land than is lost to development,” says Rand Wentworth, president of the Washington, D.C.- based Land Trust Alliance. That pattern was apparent in the alliance’s last census five years ago, when new conservation barely edged out new development nationwide and in the West. It became much more dramatic during the recession, as new housing construction crashed and conservation efforts in most states continued to grow.

This trend is particularly strong in the Western states, where statewide and local land trusts conserved 2.6 million acres between 2005 and 2010, 30 percent more than they did from 2000 to 2005. These trends put California, Colorado and Montana among the top five states nationwide in total private land conserved. Arizona, Nevada and Wyoming made large gains compared to the previous period. And in Colorado, Montana and Wyoming, so much more rural land is now being conserved than is being developed that it seems that much of their open land will likely remain undeveloped.

The recession presented land trusts with some great opportunities in recent years, as development stalled, and prime lands were available at distress-sale prices. But most of the growth has come through conservation easements, which are becoming ever more popular because they allow land trusts to protect land at an even lower price. “You pay 40 to 50 percent of the fee value of the land without any management costs,” explains Nita Vail, executive director of the rancher-led California Rangeland Trust. That’s because the landowners continue to own and manage their lands for grazing, agriculture, or timber.

These “working landscapes” — ranches, farms and timberlands — are now a priority for the majority of land trusts nationwide, according to the Land Trust Alliance survey.

Whether the blazing growth of private conservation in the West will continue unabated is unclear, though. The recession may yet have lagging effects. Like her colleagues around the country, Vail worries about the loss of generous tax incentives for conservation easement donations, which are set to expire at the end of the year unless Congress acts to renew them.

Jon Christensen is executive director of the Bill Lane Center for the American West at Stanford University and wrote this for High Country News (hcn.org, where a longer version can be found). Also contributing were Jenny Rempel and Judee Burr, researchers at the center.

Finally this editorial from the Missoulian on the Tester bill.

Editorial Missoulian #4

Middle ground on forest bill

Posted: Sunday, January 15, 2012 8:00 am

It’s the beginning of a big election year, and the national spotlight is already shining on one of Montana’s U.S. Senate seats. Will Democratic incumbent Sen. Jon Tester be ousted by Republican Rep. Denny Rehberg? We’ll find out in November.

In the meantime, many Montanans are justifiably concerned that the next 10 months will be hopelessly politicized, with two of the state’s three congressional delegates tied up in campaign-caused gridlock.

In meetings with the Missoulian editorial board earlier this month, both Rehberg and Tester provided assurances that they will not allow that to happen. Both candidates pledged to remain focused on their jobs in Congress. And both declared that no amount of campaign politics would prevent them from working together to do what’s right for Montana.

In fact, during his meeting with the Missoulian, Rehberg mapped out a road to compromise with Tester on one of their biggest sticking points: the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act.

Tester first introduced the act in July 2009 at the urging of a diverse coalition of timber interests and environmental groups, and has made several running attempts to push the bill forward in Congress. The bill, which links aspects of the Beaverhead-Deerlodge Partnership, the Blackfoot-Clearwater Stewardship Project and the Three Rivers Challenge, is aimed at both designating new wilderness in Montana and setting logging mandates for the U.S. Forest Service.

Both Tester, a first-term senator, and Rehberg, a four-term congressman, have held multiple public meetings in communities across Montana to gather opinions on the proposal.

Those meetings resulted in several ideas that could be – and should be – used to improve the bill, Rehberg explained. One of them, he said, is the phase-in proposal he first began advocating for nearly a year ago. That measure would require that a treatment threshold for a set number of forest acres – say, 10 percent of the total outlined in the bill – be achieved before new wilderness and recreation areas could be designated.

Requiring logging or thinning triggers to be met before releasing new wilderness would help ensure that the bill actually does what it is aimed at doing – creating jobs, Rehberg said. As it stands, “there’s no such thing as a mandate for jobs in that bill,” he told the Missoulian.

While Tester has not been receptive to the phase-in suggestion – his spokesman has said previously that it would have no chance of gaining congressional approval – Rehberg invited Tester to take a second look at including the phase-in, and offered that he could “work with (Tester’s) bill if he can get something through the Senate and I can have this phase-in.”

Jobs are certainly a top priority in the nation and in Montana right now. Western Montana’s economy could use the boost this act would provide. While eastern Montana has been buoyed by the ongoing oil boom, western Montana has watched one mill after another shutter – including two in Missoula that once employed hundreds of workers.

We hold no illusions that incorporating a phase-in plan will resolve every one of Rehberg’s concerns with the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act. But it’s a place to start – a hand reached across the aisle at a time when Montanans desperately need our elected officials to pass legislation that provides real economic progress.

From the beginning, the proposals that ultimately became the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act were marked by compromise. They brought people with very different and often opposing interests to the same table to reach an agreement on what’s best for all.

It would be wonderful, and a wonderful reflection on Montana, if our junior senator and sole congressman were able to bring this same spirit of cooperation to Congress.

EDITORIAL BOARD: Publisher Jim McGowan, Editor Sherry Devlin, Opinion Editor Tyler Christensen

Not So Home on the Range

by


From the Aspen Times here.

Cattle grazing has plummeted locally with the rise of industrial tourism
December, 19 2011
Scott Condon
The Aspen Times
Aspen, CO Colorado
Editor’s note: Today’s fourth installment of the five-part Aspen Times series, “Land of Opportunity,” focuses on the state of ranching in the Roaring Fork Valley. The final part, scheduled to run Dec. 26, will examine gas companies’ interest in drilling prospects in the valley.

The Old West tradition of using national forest lands for grazing isn’t completely dead in the Roaring Fork Valley, but it could be on its last gasp.

For the first half of the 20th century, the Forest Service’s primary duty in the Roaring Fork River basin was to manage the range for livestock grazing and, to a lesser extent, oversee timber sales.

Now, instead of supervising the grazing of large flocks of sheep on Independence Pass and huge herds of cattle in nearly all the lower-elevation drainages, the Forest Service is focused on protecting natural resources in the wake of an expanding number of recreationalists. (Oil and gas development has emerged in the past decade as a leading issue on the west side of the White River National Forest.)

The decline in the use of forest lands for grazing mirrors the slow decline in the overall health of ranching in the Roaring Fork Valley. As Aspen built its reputation as a world-class resort and land prices soared, many ranchers discovered they could get richer selling their land for real estate development than by spending years wrangling cattle.

Declining number of grazing permits
As a result, the demand for grazing allotments has plummeted in the Aspen and Sopris ranger districts, which combine to total about 720,000 acres.

“At the present time, there are approximately 202,000 acres of the Aspen and Sopris ranger districts open to domestic livestock grazing. In 1985, there were nearly 100,000 more acres open to grazing than there are now,” said Wayne Ives, the range technician on the two districts since the early 1980s.

“The number of permittees has definitely declined,” he added.

Sheep grazing used to be prevalent in the upper Roaring Fork Valley. Aspen native Stirling “Buzz” Cooper, 80, recalls Bleeker Street being used as a route to take sheep from west of town to the railroad depot, which was located near what is now Rio Grande Park.

Cooper also recalled cattle being grazed as far up as the Weller Cut on Independence Pass when he was a kid. His family lived in a cabin east of Aspen. His mother got upset when the cattle were driven down in the fall one year and trampled the family garden and yard.

Even into the mid-1980s, there were two herds of sheep grazing in the Aspen area, one in Grizzly Creek and another in East Snowmass Creek. There were four herds using the Marble area for summer pasture, Ives said.

The number of sheep grazing permits issued by the Forest Service for the Aspen and Sopris districts fell from five in 1987 to one in 2011. The last remaining herd grazes on public lands in the Marble area. A typical herd had about 1,000 head of sheep, Ives said.

The number of cattle grazing permits in the Aspen and Sopris districts fell from 28 in to 16 in 2011.

Conflicts contribute to decline
The grazing allotments range in size from 2,000 acres for 46 cow-calf units permitted to 32,000 acres with nearly 1,000 cows with calves. The fee, set by Congress, varies with beef prices. It cannot be lower than $1.35 per cow and calf per month.

Ives said grazing allotments have historically been held by the same families for generations or have carried over with different owners of a piece of property. When a ranch surrenders an allotment, it often expires these days because there are so few ranches remaining in the valley.

Ranchers face additional challenges. Some national environmental groups oppose grazing on federal lands because of the degradation to streambeds, water quality and natural pastures. Other groups complain that the fee that is charged is too low and amounts to a subsidy for ranchers. In the Roaring Fork Valley, there are conflicts between cows, climbers, cyclists and hikers.

Ives noted that cows and backpackers both are attracted to Capitol Lake, which is a popular base for climbers going up Capitol Peak, one of Colorado’s mountains above 14,0000 feet. Camping spots are highly coveted around the breath-takingly beautiful lake.

“People don’t expect to see cattle there,” Ives said.

Grazing patterns get messed up
Carbondale rancher Tom Turnbull has held grazing permit on federal lands for more than 50 years. Lands administered by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management aren’t really the land of many users any longer, as once billed, he said. Mountain biking has become a dominate use outside of designated Wilderness, where motorized and mechanized uses are prohibited.

“Look at the impact that it’s had in areas like the Crown,” Turnbull said, referring to BLM land between the Roaring Fork River and Mount Sopris in the midvalley. The Crown has become a hot spot for mountain biking in the last decade.

“All the good main cattle trails have turned into bike trails,” Turnbull said.

His beef with biking is the effect it has on grazing patterns. The key to effective grazing is to spread the herd over the entire allotment. When cyclists regularly ride through lands used by cattle, it tends to encourage the animals to congregate.

Rory Cerise has helped move his cattle up from his family’s ranch in Emma to the Crown for more than four decades. His family has held a grazing right up there since 1944. He has witnessed the effects of the recreation boom on his family’s operation. Hikers and bikers on the Crown often leave gates open, forcing Cerise to track straying cows. He’s also witnessed equestrians chasing cattle, considering it harmless sport.

Conflicts became so bad on Basalt Mountain, another popular mountain biking site, that the permit holder asked the Forest Service to allow greater utilization of nearby lands in Cattle Creek. The allotment on Basalt Mountain hasn’t been used for a few years.

“The permittee just didn’t want to fight the battles anymore,” Ives said.

Grazing still big in Rifle, Meeker
White River National Forest Supervisor Scott Fitzwilliams said the forest used to be “one giant pasture.” While livestock grazing has declined in the Aspen, Vail and Summit county areas, it still thrives in the Rifle Ranger District and Meeker’s Rio Blanco Ranger Districts.

In 2010, Fitzwilliams’ office issued permits for 16,270 cattle and 43,290 sheep on 92 grazing allotments throughout the forest. The White River collected $103,917 for grazing permits.

Fitzwilliams said he believes it is important for the forest to continue to provide summer grazing lands to help keep the ranching industry economically viable. The private lands of the ranches provide the public benefits of open space, wildlife habitat and checks on urban sprawl.

“I see it well into the future. Public land grazing is going to be part of the West,” Fitzwilliams said.

How much it remains a part of the Aspen and Sopris districts after the current generation of ranchers retire remains to be seen.

Note from Sharon:
I don’t know about the use of the term “industrial recreation” in the title; sounds like it’s mountain bikers and others. I wonder what makes recreation “industrial”, just large numbers? /em>

Legal Decision on Monitoring SW Species

by

Thanks to Matt Koehler for this submission..

For Immediate Release, October 12, 2011
Contact: Taylor McKinnon, Center for Biological Diversity, (928) 310-6713
Erik Ryberg, Western Watersheds Project, (520) 622-3333

Court Slams Forest Service’s Refusal to Monitor Southwestern Endangered Species

TUCSON, Ariz.— A federal judge on Tuesday sided with the Center for Biological Diversity and Western Watersheds Project in a lawsuit challenging the U.S. Forest Service’s chronic refusal to monitor the health of threatened and endangered species in national forests throughout Arizona and New Mexico.

The 2010 suit alleged that the Forest Service failed to monitor populations of species, including the Mexican spotted owl and ridge-nosed rattlesnake, as required by a 2005 “biological opinion” authorizing implementation of forest plans for national forests in Arizona and New Mexico.

“The U.S. Forest Service has been shirking its legal obligation to monitor the Southwest’s most imperiled species and make sure its actions aren’t pushing them into extinction. Instead the agency’s been spending its money elsewhere and leaving these vulnerable species in the lurch,” said Taylor McKinnon of the Center. “This court ruling finally holds the Forest Service accountable for neglecting these species and putting them at the very bottom of its list. We hope the Mexican spotted owl and other imperiled species will now get the protection they need and deserve.”

The ruling provides endangered species with interim protection while the Forest Service and Fish and Wildlife Service reinitiate consultation on the regional forest plans. The ruling suspends livestock grazing on four grazing allotments that were determined likely to harm endangered rattlesnakes, imposes restrictions recommended by Fish and Wildlife on logging near Mexican spotted owl nests at the Upper Beaver Creek timber sale in northern Arizona, and may provide a basis for suspending other actions harming endangered species prior to completion of a new biological opinion.

“Arizona’s public lands are deceptively rich in animal life, and it is unfortunate that the Forest Service treats those animals with such disdain,” said Erik Ryberg with the Western Watersheds Project. “Western Watersheds Project is hopeful that this legal victory will cause the Forest Service to acknowledge the damage that their widespread livestock grazing programs inflict on animals that make these public lands their home.”

In June 2005, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued a biological opinion that gave the Forest Service, in accordance with the Endangered Species Act, permission to implement forest-management plans in all 11 national forests in Arizona and New Mexico. As a condition of that permission, the Forest Service agreed to monitor threatened and endangered species’ populations and their habitats.

But in October 2008 the Service issued a report admitting it had not done the monitoring. It also admitted that it might have exceeded its allowable quota of harm to some species, including the Mexican spotted owl. The Center warned the Forest Service of an impending lawsuit if it did not begin the required monitoring, which the agency has continued to refuse to do. After the Center filed suit, the Forest Service and Fish and Wildlife Service reinitiated consultation; today’s decision provides interim protections for endangered species until the reinitiated consultation is completed.

The lawsuit was argued by attorneys Marc Fink with the Center for Biological Diversity and Matt Kenna from Durango, Colorado.

To view Tuesday’s ruling, click here.

FS Win on Grazing: Pike San Isabel

by

Photo is from Cimarron National Grassland, couldn't find photo of grazing on PSI
From Agjournal.com here:

The Colorado Cattlemen’s Association (CCA) announced June 17 that the U.S. Forest Service, the Chaffee County Board of Commissioners, CCA, and most importantly – 13 livestock producing families – prevailed against a lawsuit filed by Western Watershed’s Project (WWP). In 2009, CCA and Chaffee County joined ranchers in protecting their right to multiple-use grazing of public lands by intervening in a lawsuit filed by the anti-livestock grazing WWP, which sought to deny renewal of grazing in the Pike and San Isabel National Forests.

“This is a huge win for our family and cattlemen in this part of the state,” stated Ken McMurry, grazing permittee. “Through the support of ChaffeeCounty, other local cattlemen’s associations and the Colorado Cattlemen’s Association, we’ve come to realize how significant this ruling is statewide to all cattlemen, whether grazing on private or public lands.”

The appeal by WWP objected to the renewal of the grazing permits, which had been approved after a thorough environmental review. The Forest Service grazing decision also incorporated adaptive management principles to improve environmental conditions in the forests. The ranchers and the Forest Service worked together to develop management steps that would address resource issues and still be cost-effective. Upon reviewing the briefs and the administrative record, the court affirmed the decision of the Forest Service and allows continued livestock grazing under the adaptive management that everyone committed to do.

As CCA counsel Connie Brooks explained, “This decision is especially significant because Western Watersheds had objected to the fact that the Forest Service had worked closely with the grazing permittees to develop management plans that made sense and would achieve the Forest Service’s objectives. While federal law calls for these grazing plans to be written in coordination with ranchers, this litigation would have undone the cooperation and consultation that has characterized the grazing program on the Salida Leadville Ranger District of the Pike San Isabel National Forest.”

Tim Canterbury and his family are also thrilled with the courts decision. “We are happy to see that the court ruled this way. It shows that the courts recognize all of the hard work the permittees and agencies put into the Environmental Assessment.”

The WWP argued that the decision made by the Forest Service was inconsistent with the Forest Plan; more specifically, it violated the Forest Plan in various ways including wildlife protection, protecting soil productivity, protecting water quality, and protecting archaeological resources. The court found that the Forest Service properly addressed each of these issues. Some of the measures included in the Proposed Plan were changing the stocking rate, limiting grazing to certain seasons, rest rotation, and active herding – all of which permittees will conduct to protect the public’s natural resources. After further review, the court strongly disagreed with WWP, stating the court may not assume that the Forest Service will fail to implement these actions in their Proposed Plan.

“The good guys won!,” exclaimed Chaffee County Commissioner Frank Holman. “The Western Watersheds Project is ignorant of the positive impact ranchers have on the land, and that these same ranchers leave the forest in an improved state. This verdict by the government keeps WWP from running over the little guy. This finally proves that cattlemen do not have to put up with invasions to our Western way of life.”

It’s also interesting that this story from the local newspaper, the Pueblo Chieftain mentions that WWP is from Idaho in the headline..

Grazing can continue in forests
Federal judge ruled against Idaho environmental group.

Grazing Fees

by

Here’s a New York Times story on the BLM and FS response to a 2005 petition from some environmental groups on raising grazing fees.

This is from the FS letter:

Joel Holtrop, deputy chief of the National Forest System, said the agency is pursuing separate rulemakings to revise its forest planning rule and respond to Colorado’s roadless proposal, each of which have drained agency resources.

Moreover, roughly 4,000 grazing allotments on Forest Service property are in need of environmental analyses that will help determine the best management of rangeland resources, Holtrop said in the FS letter . The original petition and the BLM letter can be found on links through the NY Times article.

“This major effort will require focused agency range management technical expertise and funding and is not expected to be completed for several years,” he said.

A recent order from a U.S. District Court in Montana also requires the Forest Service to prepare an environmental impact statement in order to continue applying aerial chemical fire retardants to fight wildfires, Holtrop said.

“Given these and other significant agency priorities, I am reluctant to burden the agency’s limited resources by initiating an additional major rulemaking endeavor at the present time,” he said.