Behind the Regulators vs. Ranchers Skirmish of Battle Mountain

Renegade cowboy stories always make for a good read, not least since they cater to stereotypes about ranchers, cowboys and all things “Western.” Facts, however, have a way of frustrating a great yarn—and reporters might find it expedient to dispense with details to spin a rousing tale. Selective reporting of this kind has been standard in recent coverage of the struggle between several Battle Mountain, Nev., ranching families and the federal Bureau of Land Management. In February 2014 the BLM’s Battle Mountain District notified three families—the Filippinis, the Tomeras and the Mariluchs—that under a new drought management plan it would indefinitely close the 331,518-acre Argenta allotment where their cattle grazed. Because they depend on leased federal allotments during spring and summer when private ground is needed for growing hay (the cattle’s winter feed) the sudden loss of their grazing permits threatened all three ranches with economic collapse. Requests that the BLM reverse its decision were initially refused. Then a curtailed grazing period was allowed, but ranchers were warned by the BLM that future grazing would be uncertain at best...After that media frenzy, reporters find it almost irresistible to frame the Filippinis’ defiance in similar terms—another case of freewheeling antigovernment zealotry in the Wild West. But a few illuminating details lend fresh insight. First, the areas of the Argenta allotment that did not meet ecological standards were primarily limited to streamside and wetland zones known as “riparian areas.” Out of the allotment’s 331,518 acres, about 1% qualifies as riparian, meaning that only a minuscule percentage of the overall allotment failed to meet the drought standards. The BLM’s decision to close the entire allotment was therefore an extraordinary measure. Second, the North Buffalo allotment on which the Filippinis “trespassed” is composed of a checkerboard pattern of 640-acre sections in alternating public/private ownership. Out of the 100,768-acre allotment, the Filippinis lease more than 40% of the land from private owners. By closing the entire allotment, the BLM made it impossible for the Filippinis to gain access to private grazing leases that were bought and paid for. The trespass was anything but brazen desperado-ism—it was an act of desperation to use their own grass. Third, although the Filippinis had struck a deal with the BLM allowing them back on the North Buffalo allotment for three years if they paid a $106 trespass fine, the agreement also included rigorous new management standards. Similarly, ranchers and the BLM negotiated an out-of-court settlement to establish practices that protect the Argenta allotment while also allowing grazing. The Battle Mountain ranchers, in fact, didn’t “win” in the sense of Mr. Bundy, who has spent years bullying the BLM while illegally grazing his cattle unchecked. The Filippinis and their neighbors used the established administrative channels to broker an agreement designed to protect both land and cattle. As disappointingly un-“Western” as this may be, it’s to the ranchers’ credit...more

 Unfortunately, the author then goes on to say AMPs would have resolved all this:

 Some BLM districts write “allotment management plans” with grazing permittees for precisely this purpose—to develop sustainable grazing systems and clarify standards so ranchers can be knowledgeable participants in the management of the range. But not at the BLM’s Battle Mountain District. Not only has staff there never bothered to develop an allotment management plan for Argenta and North Buffalo, they have categorically failed to form a working partnership with ranchers. Instead they chose to leave ranchers to muddle along without a sustainable grazing system or necessary range improvements, and then shut them down when (surprise) unmanaged grazing affects delicate stream banks. This BLM district was effectively setting the ranchers up to fail, instead of helping them to succeed.

Can't help but notice the condescending attitude towards ranchers. They can't be "knowledgeable participants" without an AMP and are just left to "muddle along" without a government plan aimed at "helping them to succeed." Ranchers are apparently incapable of designing a "sustainable grazing system" without direction from the government. 

Horse puckey.

Do you think its just a miracle that over 528 million acres of private land are successfully grazed by livestock?  Of course not.  We need less gov't planning, not more.