BLM’s Nevada grazing leases at center of new lawsuit citing agency’s failure

  A lawsuit accuses the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) of failing to perform required grazing permit reviews across the West, with the worst lapses occurring in Nevada.

About 15 million acres in Nevada that did undergo a review failed to meet federal standards due to damage caused by livestock, the lawsuit says. That’s about 63% of lands that underwent a review.

The lawsuit filed Thursday by the Western Watersheds Project (WWP) and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) claims that only 9% of the permits issued in Nevada have been reviewed. PEER looked at 25 years of data (1997-2022). A map shows the severity of the problem:

The groups allege that the BLM “sidestepped” federal rules under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), allowing grazing to continue without review “sometimes for more than a decade.”...more

*****************************************************************************

Yes. Get those suits filed and those out-of-court settlements while the Biden folks are still here.

Greens come after grazing in AZ national forest

1. Environmentalists are challenging the authorization of livestock grazing in Arizona’s National Coronado Forest, claiming grazing is affecting the habitat and recovery of threatened species. 

In a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, the Center for Biological Diversity and Maricopa Audubon Society allege the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) are protecting cattle grazing “at the expense of endangered species and native wildlife dependent on fragile streams.” 

The groups claim extensive damage has been documented from cattle grazing in the national forest’s streamside habitats, damaging habitat for the yellow-billed cuckoo and the Sonora chub...more

The article in the Western Livestock Journal gives more details:

In its biological opinion, USFWS found that livestock grazing would not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat for either species. 

However, the lawsuit alleges, “The agencies relied heavily on the permittees’ compliance with forage utilization rates set by the agencies, which lack a causal connection to the authorized level of take, are unconnected from the needs of the cuckoo and chub, and defy the best available scientific evidence on what is necessary to protect these species and their habitat (including designated critical habitat).” 

The lawsuit contends that USFS and USFWS are in violation of the ESA and have acted in a manner that is arbitrary and capricious, and an abuse of discretion. The groups ask in the suit for livestock grazing to be immediately enjoined, grazing authorizations to be vacated and remanded, and for the agencies to reengage in consultation under the ESA. 

You can read the complaint here. 

New Mexico Rancher Loses Grazing Permits Over Slain Wolf

.New Mexico rancher Craig Thiessen will not be allowed to graze his cattle on public lands. The Catron County cattleman killed an endangered Mexican wolf in Gila National Forest six years ago where his cattle were grazing. He pleaded guilty in 2018 to killing the wolf and was sentenced to a year of probation and a $2,300 fine.

Later that year the U.S. Forest Service revoked his permit to graze cattle on the public land. Thiessen challenged that ruling in court, but a federal judge on Friday upheld the USFS decision to bar him from public grazing.

Thiessen has been grazing 286 cows and 143 calves on the 48,000 acres, according to court documents. The USFS has sued Thiessen to remove his cattle...MORE

The Myth of Regenerative Ranching

 The purveyors of “grass-fed” beef want you to believe that it solves meat’s environmental problem. But this is merely a branding exercise, not a climate solution.

Note: Are you in the mood for a 3,000 word essay on how livestock grazing, of any type, is not "ecologically benign"? If yes, then this is the ticket for you. If not, please realize this is a piece written by professors from Harvard and Duke, appearing in a major publication of the left, and most assuredly being read by policy makers on the Hill and in the White House. ~~~ THE WESTERNER

When foodies sink their teeth into a slab of cheese from one of the historic dairy farms in Point Reyes, California, their minds probably run to grass-fed cows ranging free on the lush green oceanside hills of Marin County. Over 5,000 dairy cows and beef cattle roam the Point Reyes National Seashore National Park in full view of visiting tourists. Unlike the many dairy and meat companies that slap happy animals on their labels while sourcing their product from hellish factory farms, the dairy and beef farms at Point Reyes represent an agrarian ideal of ecologically and ethically sustainable animal agriculture.

“Pasture-raised” and “extensive” or “regenerative” grazing have been watchwords in the American foodie community since at least the 2000s, when celebrated food writer Michael Pollan presented sustainable, nonindustrial practices as a way out of the ethical morass of the American food system in his award-winning bestseller The Omnivore’s Dilemma. Everyone from progressive agrarians to libertarian ranchers to multinational food companies, and even conservation NGOs such as the Audubon Society, has thrown their weight behind the idea of replacing mass-produced meat, from chickens to ungulates, with a holistically raised alternative. While some environmentalists reject beef altogether for its contribution to climate change, pollution, and deforestation, proponents of free-ranging beef have rallied under the motto, “It’s not the cow; it’s the how.” They argue that, done properly, pasture-raised cattle can replace the ecological functions of wild ruminants like elk and bison, produce food on “marginal” land that would otherwise be wasted, and eliminate beef’s carbon hoofprint (since well-grazed land can sequester atmospheric carbon dioxide). This would mean consumers could stick it to Big Ag, fight climate change, and help imperiled animals and ecosystems without actually changing their diets too much; they’d just need to eat a bit less meat and pay a bit more for the grass-fed option. 

Whether these promises hold up under scrutiny is a subject of fierce debate. And in recent years, a series of lawsuits have argued the opposite thesis: that even “regenerative” cattle imperil the very ecosystems proponents claim they will “regenerate.”

READ ENTIRE POST

Montana AG asks BLM to scrap APR’s permit change

Montana’s Attorney General, Austin Knudsen, is asking the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) not to modify the grazing change of use permit proposal for the American Prairie Reserve (APR).

Commenting on the BLM’s draft finding of no significant impact (FONSI) and draft environmental assessment (EA), Knudsen spelled out multiple legal issues with BLM’s inadequate review process and APR’s proposal itself.

“Whatever motives APR may harbor, and whatever donors APR may serve, its interests in this change of use permit request run afoul of clear statutory and regulatory guidelines,” Knudsen wrote in his comments. “BLM should scrap the draft FONSI and EA and conduct a more thorough review for the benefit of Montanans and the affected communities.”

Knudsen stated the permit is contrary to the Taylor Grazing Act. APR seeks to change bison to wildlife, not livestock, and “Putting them in a made-up and legally meaningless ‘indigenous livestock’ category undermines the law, hurts the local agricultural economy, and defies logic,” the statement said...MORE

U.S. Forest Service Accused of Failing to Protect Meadow Mouse

 

Environmentalists have sued again over an endangered mouse found only in parts of New Mexico and Arizona.

In the latest legal filing, the Center for Biological Diversity and the Maricopa Audubon Society alleges that the U.S. Forest Service has failed to protect the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse and its habitat in the Sacramento Mountains from cattle grazing.

The tiny rodent was listed as endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 2014. The agency then designated nearly 22 square miles (57 square kilometers) along about 170 miles (274 kilometers) of streams, ditches and canals as critical habitat in parts of New Mexico, Colorado and Arizona.

Robin Silver with the Center for Biological Diversity told the Carlsbad Current-Argus that grazing is to blame for stream-side meadows being trampled and the mouse disappearing.

“It’s absurd that the Forest Service spends millions in taxpayer money failing to protect the area and stop this slow-motion extinction instead of just removing the cows,” he said...MORE

Did the Forest Service have sufficient budget to address this issue? It would certainly seem so:

Between 2016 and 2019, the Forest Service spent more than $8.4 million on fencing and other projects in the Sacramento Mountains, including along the Agua Chiquita creek, to protect mouse habitat.

The Lincoln National Forest said in a statement that the agency worked to ensure the mouse’s safety by installing permanent pipe and cable fencing near its habitat.

Each mile of fence costs between $137,000 and $227,000, records show.

I simply cannot imagine a fence that cost $227,000 per mile! Sure would eat your budget up quick. 

CBD's agenda is blatantly clear:

Environmentalists are calling on the agency to suspend grazing permits where the violations occur and for the federal government to study the impacts of the activities for future decision making.

Third lawsuit's a charm? New action to protect Sonoran Desert National Monument

 

June 30, 2021

Yesterday, Western Watersheds Project, the Sierra Club, and Advocates for the West filed another lawsuit against the Arizona Bureau of Land Management (Bureau) for failing to protect the unusual native plants, lush cactus forests, diverse wildlife, and cultural resources found within the Sonoran Desert National Monument from the devastating impacts of livestock grazing.

If this sounds familiar, it is. This is the third time we’ve had to sue to get the Bureau to take monument protection seriously. First, we filed in 2008 to force the agency to even consider the effects of livestock grazing. We settled that lawsuit for a date certain for a grazing analysis.

Then we filed suit against the 2012 decision that allowed grazing to continue on some parts of the monument based on a ‘compatibility determination’ that was riddled with problems. We won that lawsuit with the federal court finding that the agency used unsupported methods and failed to explain many of the conclusions in their assessment. The Bureau was ordered back to the drawing board, which resulted in the bad 2020 plan to expand grazing use in the monument.

The Bureau’s 2020 decision was rushed through under the Trump Administration and opens up the entire monument north of Interstate 8 to livestock grazing, despite extensive scientific evidence that livestock damage the resources the monument status is intended to protect.

As Laurie Rule, attorney with Advocates for the West, representing the plaintiff groups in this case, says, “The agency’s ‘science’ went from bad to worse under the 2020 decision, including by relying on improved conditions in areas that had not been grazed for years to justify expanding grazing use.”

It’s unconscionable that the Bureau is so set on grazing some of the most fragile, arid and spectacular lands in the country, despite the risks to the Sonoran desert tortoise, wild bighorn, and unique vegetation. The Bureau also failed to consider damage to cultural and archeological sites caused by livestock grazing the Monument. The monument is the traditional homeland of the O’odham, Yavapai Apache, Cocopah, and Hohokam peoples.

LINK

Note: if you graze livestock in the desert Southwest, especially in a monument or other special designation, you might want to check out those links.

Bundy to Biden: Stay away from my cattle

Jennifer Yachnin

Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy is vowing to once again "walk towards guns" should the incoming Biden administration attempt to collect on more than two decades of debt from trespass fines and unpaid grazing fees.

Bundy, who came to national attention in 2014 when he rallied armed supporters to his Bunkerville ranch to block the government's attempted roundup of his cattle, made the remarks Saturday in an interview with radio host Pete Santilli.

"The Bundy ranch saga will continue, won't it? Do you believe so? Do you believe that they'll come after you?" asked Santilli, who stuck a plea deal over his own role in the Nevada standoff (Greenwire, Oct. 9, 2017).

"Yes, I do," Bundy replied. "They've been waiting for this ... but it's not only for Bundy ranch; it's for all Americans. We're in trouble if it changes."

He later added: "We're going to have to go forward. If we have to walk forward towards guns, which we did at the Bundy ranch, we have to do that. And we have to have faith."

...Whether the Biden administration, which has named New Mexico Rep. Deb Haaland (D) as its nominee to lead the Interior Department, will opt to address the 74-year-old rancher and scofflaw remains an open question.

Some public lands advocates suggested privately to E&E News that the newest White House occupant and his team will have more pressing issues to attend to following next week's inauguration — like rolling back the impacts of President Trump's "energy dominance" agenda and efforts to weaken the National Environmental Policy Act.

But Western Watersheds Project Executive Director Erik Molvar asserted that last week's riot at the U.S. Capitol, which resulted in the deaths of five individuals including a Capitol Police officer, could reinvigorate the government's interest in tamping down on Bundy's continued defiance.

"The lax law enforcement on public lands can be seen as a direct line to the lawlessness we saw in the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, Recapture Canyon in Utah and now in Washington, D.C.," Molvar said, referring to the 2016 wildlife refuge occupation that involved two of Bundy's sons and to an illegal all-terrain vehicle protest ride in the canyon in 2015.

...Public Lands Council Executive Director Kaitlynn Glover told E&E News that Bundy should not be conflated with the "taxpaying, law-abiding" ranchers her organization represents.

"We do not support unlawful activities or calls for violence," Glover said. "The ranchers we represent who graze livestock on public lands pay their grazing fees, follow the rules, and cherish the responsibilities of stewarding America's public lands. They expect other ranchers to do the same."

She added: "Do not mistake those who have anti-American sentiments as representatives of our community just because they wear a cowboy hat "

READ ENTIRE ARTICLE

Note: article is from Jan., but I just came across it and thought it worthy of posting. You should read all of it.

Hammond family loses grazing permit for third time

Mateusz Perkowski

Roughly a month after their grazing permit was restored, Oregon’s Hammond family has again lost access to four federal allotments totaling 26,400 acres. The U.S. Interior Department has reversed its decision to re-issue the Hammonds’ grazing permit after several environmental groups filed a lawsuit challenging the decision, claiming it violated administrative, environmental and land management laws. The federal government re-authorized the 10-year grazing permit on Jan. 19, the Trump administration’s final day in office, after initially announcing the proposal on Dec. 31. However, the Interior Department now says that interested parties weren’t notified of the proposed re-authorization for several days, which means they didn’t get the required 15 days to file a protest. The agency said the rescission isn’t a “final determination” in the case and has ordered the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, which regulates the allotments, to reconsider the decision. “On remand, the BLM is encouraged to initiate any additional processes and opportunities for public involvement that it may determine appropriate under applicable law following a careful and considered review of protests,” the rescission notice said.In previously re-issuing the grazing permit, the Interior Department cited the Hammond family’s historic use and proximity to the federal property... The Western Watersheds Project, Oregon Natural Desert Association, Wildearth Guardians and Center for Biological Diversity filed another lawsuit seeking to rescind the grazing permit’s most recent approval. The environmental plaintiffs argued the federal government’s decision involved “rushed, opaque, and highly unusual public processes” that were “tainted by political influence and are not the product of reasoned, lawful decision-making,” the complaint said. According to the complaint, the federal government approved the grazing permit “without opportunities for public participation required by law” and wrongly determined the Hammonds were more qualified than other applicants...MORE

From the January 29, 2019 edition of  THE WESTERNER is the info you need to understand this case

Some background on the Hammond case

Some may have forgotten. Others may not be aware of the facts and significance of what happened to the Hammonds.

Here is an excerpt from a May, 2018 column by William Perry Pendley that lays out the facts of this case.

...The Hammonds’ crime? They set a legally permissible fire on their own property, which accidentally burned out of control onto neighboring federal land. Normally, that is an infraction covered by laws governing trespassing, and the guilty party is subject to paying for damages caused by the fire – if the neighboring land belongs to an ordinary citizen. But not when a vindictive federal government is involved. In the “high desert” environment of Harney County – and throughout the West – federal, state and private landowners use controlled or prescribed burns for prairie restoration, forest management and to reduce the buildup of underbrush that could fuel much bigger fires. But sometimes the controlled fires get out of control and sweep onto neighbors’ land. That is legally deemed a trespass, and the landowner who set the fire is liable for any damages. Only the federal government has the power to cite the trespasser criminally for his or her actions. That is what happened to the Hammonds. It did not happen in a vacuum. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has long coveted the Hammond Ranch for inclusion in its surrounding Malheur Wildlife Refuge. The federal agency pressured members of the Hammond family for decades to follow all of their neighbors in selling their property to the federal government. ...In 2001, after alerting the Bureau of Land Management, the Hammonds set a legal fire to eradicate noxious weeds. It spread onto 139 acres of vacant federal land. According to a government witness, the fire actually improved the federal land, as natural fires often do. In 2006, Steven Hammond started another prescribed fire in response to several blazes ignited by a lightning storm near his family’s field of winter feed. The counter-blaze burned a single acre of federal land. According to Steven Hammond’s mother, “the backfire worked perfectly, it put out the fire, saved the range and possibly our home.” The Bureau of Land Management took a different view. It filed a report with Harney County officials alleging several violations of Oregon law. However, after a review of the evidence, the Harney County district attorney dropped all charges in 2006. The Bureau of Land Management did not give up. In 2011, federal prosecutors – referencing both the 2001 and 2006 fires – charged the Hammonds with violating the ‘‘Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996,” which carries a mandatory minimum prison sentence of five years... 

And here is an excerpt from a January 2018 article by Carrie Stadheim that gives more of the background of what had been happening to the ranchers in this area:

Dwight Hammond and Steve Hammond are in the midst of their five year prison sentences under the "Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996," for burning – and subsequently putting out – about 140 acres of Bureau of Land Management-administered land in their area. But there is so much more to the story. The family has been denied the ability to use their grazing allotment for nearly four years. Many in the community including Erin Maupin and Travis Williams wonder "why?" No fences or other property were damaged in the fires and a range conservationist testified under oath that the larger fire improved the condition of the rangeland... Hammond Ranch, Incorporated (HRI)- incidentally the only ranching family that continues to maintain a large tract of private land and graze BLM-administered land on the top of the Steens Mountain – was denied a renewal of their grazing permit in 2014, prior to a judge imposing the full five year prison sentence on Dwight and Steven. According to Erin Maupin, former BLM watershed specialist and neighboring rancher, the other ranchers who had previously grazed BLM land in that area, traded allotments and large private inholdings to the government through the creation of the Steens Mountain Act. Much of the grazing allotments that were handed over were then declared a Wilderness Area of around 180,000 acres. Almost 100,000 acres were named "cow-free" wilderness due to pressure from environmental groups and from the Clinton administration, she recalls...The BLM denied them the renewal of their grazing permit in 2014, before the second sentencing, saying they have an "unacceptable record of performance."

Stadheim goes on to write of the significance of this case:

Because the Hammonds can't use their grazing allotment, they are also unable to use their private land which is not fenced, and nearly impossible to fence due to the rough terrain. "They own a significant amount (around 10,000 acres) of private land intermingled with their BLM allotment (around 60,000 acres total) that they are unable to use because there are no fences to separate the two," said Maupin. "Another thing people maybe don't understand – they've paid for their BLM allotment with the purchase of the land and grazing rights. It has real value," said Maupin. "This is why this case is so important. The government is taking real property without due process. If this stands and they can do this to the Hammonds, they can take any of our property whether it is a BLM administered allotment or a house or anything. That's the problem – there was no due process. They just said 'you're done. We're not renewing your permit. We're taking what amounts to hundreds of thousands of dollars without just compensation." 

And here is an excerpt from a column I wrote in November of 2015 that shows the BLM was so vindictive they went so far as to use false names to attack the Hammonds in social media:

Ranchers as Terrorists
After a two-week trial in July of 2012, Oregon rancher Dwight Hammond, 73, and his son Steven Hammond, 46, were found guilty of setting fires that caused damage to federal property. One fire burned 139 acres of federal land, the other only 1 acre. The Hammonds claimed the fires were for range management purposes, the federal prosecutors said they were set for more nefarious reasons. Now-retired U.S. District Judge Michael Hogan sentenced Steven Hammond to one year and a day in prison for setting intentional fires in 2001 and 2006, and ordered Dwight Hammond to spend three months behind bars for his involvement in the 2001 blaze. That should have been the end of the story. But it wasn’t. The feds appealed claiming the ranchers should have received mandatory sentences of five years. They had charged the ranchers with violation of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. That’s right, the feds were using a law aimed at terrorists to prosecute the ranchers and that law required the mandatory sentences. Judge Hogan had ruled that 5-year sentences would “shock the conscience”, would be grossly disproportionate to the offenses committed and violate the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment. A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the feds, however, and returned the case for sentencing. On October 7 of this year, both Hammonds received the mandatory minimum sentence of five years for deliberately setting fires that spread from their property onto federal land. For comparison, other federal laws that carry five-year minimum sentences are for treason, child pornography, using a gun while committing a violent crime or importing drugs. That should have been the end of this sad story. But it wasn’t. Capital Press posted an online article about the five year sentences and a person who identified himself as Greg Allum posted three comments on the article, calling the ranchers “clowns” who endangered firefighters and other people in the area while burning valuable rangeland. The real Greg Allum, a retired BLM heavy equipment operator, called Capital Press and complained he hadn’t posted those comments. “They’re not terrorists. There’s this hatred in the BLM for them, and I don’t get it,” Allum said. The publication undertook a search of the Internet Protocol address associated with the comments and discovered the computer was owned by one of BLM’s offices in Denver, Colo. Treat ranchers as terrorists and then use a government computer to publicly disparage them. One is an injustice and the other is an abuse of federal equipment to ridicule private citizens. 

What a sordid performance by the feds. Is there any wonder that Trump gave each a FULL pardon? And yet, it took BLM 7 months after the pardon to reissue their grazing permits.

A Different Kind of Land Management: Let the Cows Stomp

CANADIAN, Texas — Adam Isaacs stood surrounded by cattle in an old pasture that had been overgrazed for years. Now it was a jumble of weeds. “Most people would want to get out here and start spraying it” with herbicides, he said. “My family used to do that. It doesn’t work.” Instead, Mr. Isaacs, a fourth-generation rancher on this rolling land in the northeast corner of the Texas Panhandle, will put his animals to work on the pasture, using portable electrified fencing to confine them to a small area so that they can’t help but trample some of the weeds as they graze. “We let cattle stomp a lot of the stuff down,” he said. That adds organic matter to the soil and exposes it to oxygen, which will help grasses and other more desirable plants take over. Eventually, through continued careful management of grazing, the pasture will be healthy again. “These cows are my land management tool,” Mr. Isaacs said. “It’s a lot easier to work with nature than against it.”His goal is to turn these 5,000 acres into something closer to the lush mixed-grass prairie that thrived throughout this part of the Southern Great Plains for millenniums and served as grazing lands for millions of bison. Mr. Isaacs, 27, runs a cow-calf operation, with several hundred cows and a dozen or so bulls that produce calves that he sells to the beef industry after they are weaned. Improving his land will benefit his business, through better grazing for his animals, less soil and nutrient loss through erosion, and improved retention of water in a region where rainfall averages only about 18 inches a year. But the healthier ranchland can also aid the planet by sequestering more carbon, in the form of roots and other plant tissues that used carbon dioxide from the air in their growth. Storing this organic matter in the soil will keep the carbon from re-entering the atmosphere as carbon dioxide or methane, two major contributors to global warming. With the Biden administration proposing to pay farmers to store carbon, soil sequestration has gained favor as a tool to fight climate change. Done on a large enough scale, proponents say, it can play a significant role in limiting global warming...New York Times

Must be a noisy place to live with all those cows "stomping" around.

where rainfall averages only about 18 inches a year

"Only" 18 inches? Hell, he must live in a jungle.

A moo-ving target: fenceless grazing widens possibilities for cows and wildlife

There is something missing from the bucolic upland scene of shaggy, bracken-coloured cattle grazing between young trees on the Cumbrian hillside: fencing.

When the Highland-cross cows reach a certain point, the blue plastic medallion dangling from their necks plays a melody like a mobile phone ringtone. The cow turns around, and the invisible GPS fence has done its job.

Fenceless grazing is being hailed as revolutionary by conservationists and farmers, particularly in beautiful, sensitive or rough upland landscapes that are impractical, expensive or undesirable to fence.

The technology is being embraced by rewilders who want cows to mimic the grazing of extinct wild herbivores such as aurochs and move through wider landscapes in a natural way, ensuring their grazing creates mosaics of habitat and boosts rare flora.

“This is a gamechanger for us,” said Charlie Burrell, of the rewilded Knepp estate, which is keen to embrace the technology. “If we can restrict or move grazing animals through the landscape without fences or wolves, it’s just bloody brilliant. We can use animals as tools to encourage biodiversity and we simply use an app to draw a line around sensitive areas where we don’t want the animals to spend any time.”

...The cows have been fenced away from springs so they won’t pollute the watercourse, and they can even be fenced away from individual wild flowers such as orchids or ground-nesting birds if required.

...The fenceless grazing system was devised by a Norwegian company, Nofence. Landowners simply draw a map on their phone app of the area they want fenced. The solar-powered GPS collars play a melody to alert the animals when they approach the invisible fenceline. If they cross it, the collar administers a small electric pulse, like an electric fence. After a short training session with the collars, the cows swiftly learn to turn away when the melody plays on.

Nofence has delivered collars to landowners grazing cows, sheep and goats in Norway, Spain, France, Germany, Belgium and Italy, as well as 25 customers in Britain.

READ ENTIRE POST

BLM’s Great Basin fuels reduction plan encourages grazing

Ranchers’ groups are sidling up to a U.S. Bureau of Land Management plan that seeks to conserve and restore sagebrush communities within a 223 million-acre area in parts of six Western states that are imperiled by wildfire. The agency on Nov. 27 unveiled its final environmental statement for fuels reduction and rangeland restoration in the Great Basin, which includes portions of California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Nevada and Utah. The move initiated a 30-day public review before a final record of decision is issued. Groups including the Public Lands Council and California Cattlemen’s Association say they’re pleased that the agency’s preferred alternative explicitly acknowledges the role that targeted grazing plays in combating hazardous fuels accumulation and invasive species. The plan “does not authorize specific projects … but is the NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) document that will be the basis for environmental analysis for projects in the coming years,” the PLC stated in a legislative bulletin. “This document is likely to face legal challenges, but none yet have been publicly announced.”The effort comes as the West suffered one of the worst wildfire seasons in history in 2020, as more than 100 blazes in August and September burned more than 8 million acres, destroyed 13,887 buildings and killed 46 people, including 32 in California, according to state and federal authorities. The fires charred hundreds of square miles of rangeland and timber, destroyed livestock and shrouded much of the West in thick smoke and ash for weeks. Cattle grazing plays a key role in reducing fire fuels on rangelands in the West, a team of University of California and other scientists concluded in a preliminary report in September. Without it, California alone would have hundreds to thousands more pounds per acre of fire fuels on the landscape, potentially leading to larger and more severe fires, the scientists wrote. As cattle generally don’t consume forage uniformly in a field, grazed rangelands will have patches of ground that are grazed low enough to slow fire extent and rate of speed, observed UC Cooperative Extension advisers Devii Rao, Sheila Barry, Matthew Shapero and Larry Forero; UC Berkeley extension specialist Luke Macaulay; and three other authors. The research was funded by the California Cattle Council...MORE

Ranchers Push Back On American Prairie Reserve In Montana

Tensions are high over the fate of more than 3 million acres of public and private land in northeast Montana. Two groups have very different views on the future of this vast area. Alison Fox is head of an effort to turn it into the largest nature reserve in the nation. She’s the CEO of American Prairie Reserve, known as APR, a project backed by Silicon Valley funders who have spent millions of dollars buying up private land with the intent of creating an American Serengeti. This requires removing the livestock that have grazed the area for more than a century and replacing it with species like elk, antelope, prairie dogs, pronghorn and bison — animals that once roamed the land. Montana’s temperate grasslands are just the place for a reserve because of its biodiversity, Fox says. Grasslands are also impeccable carbon sinks, she says, because of their ability to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Her goal for the APR is to restore and preserve the land’s ecosystem for years to come. “We will ensure that the species that were once home there can make their homes again,” she says. “We have a conservation herd of bison, and that's been one of the important species restoration efforts that we've led.” But for longtime rancher and landowner Deanna Robbins, a third generation Montanan and a member of the United Property Owners of Montana, the reserve is non-negotiable. “We don't just occupy this land, and I think that's what a lot of people don't understand,” she says. “Our life's work is growing food, and this is a hungry world.” Robbins feels the APR's vision of an American Serengeti is an assault on her business, culture and those living and working within the bounds of the planned reserve. She’s now leading an effort called “Save the Cowboy” to halt the project. Through water developments in the region, the area’s grasslands are perfect for cattle ranching and hunting because the grass is high in protein and minerals, she says. “It's good for growing production livestock,” she says, “and it's been considered the highest purpose of the land for over 100 years.”...MORE

Ranchers seek more clarity on Canyonlands bill

A bill supported by Malheur County ranchers and others to protect the Owyhee Canyonlands, as well as keep the area open for cattle grazing, is scheduled for hearing in the U.S. Senate on Sept. 16, according to a story filed by Oregon New Service. However that date was not confirmed by Senate staff. The Malheur Community Empowerment of the Owyhee Act is the result of an initiative by the Owyhee Basin Stewardship Coalition, Malheur County ranchers and supporters, to prevent the designation of more than 2 million aces in the county as a monument in the waning days of the Obama administration. If passed, the bill will designate about 1 million acres as wilderness, free from human development, according to a summary of the proposed bill, and about 1 million would be designated for multiple use. All land covered by the act would be managed to improve health.Members of the coalition organized to develop a plan for management of the region in central and southern Malheur County to protect the natural resources, environment and the local cattle industry to prevent an another attempt for a monument in the future. Sponsor of the bill is U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, who has been working on the bill at the request of the ranchers, and has been mediating the negotiations between the ranchers and proponents of the monument designation. Andy Bentz, secretary of the Stewardship Coalition, said he was unaware of the hearing date, as more work was needed to done in the bill to clarify some the wording. “Ranchers are not comfortable with vagueness,” he said.  LINK

New study: Cattle grazing significantly reduces wildfire spread

University of California Cooperative Extension researchers just completed a timely study showing cattle grazing is an essential tool in reducing wildfire — a tool they say should be expanded and refined. Recent record-shattering wildfires across California, Oregon and Washington have demonstrated the need for better fire control. Researchers say their study shows that without the 1.8 million beef cattle that graze California's rangelands annually, the state would have hundreds to thousands of additional pounds per acre of fine fuels on the landscape, and this year's wildfires would be even more devastating. Researchers say cattle grazing is underutilized on public and private lands and targeted grazing should be expanded. "Cattle grazing directly impacts fuel load and fire behavior," said Felix Ratcliff, a rangeland consultant who contributed to the research. Researchers say more private landowners and public land agencies should contract for grazing. About 40% of California is grazed, according to Sheila Barry, University of California natural resource and livestock adviser and researcher in the study. But many grazable acres aren't grazed, she said. The public, said Barry, often don't see benefits of grazing; they see short grass and cow patties. Cattle's role in preventing wildfires, she said, is often overlooked. Justin Oldfield, executive director of the California Cattle Council, which funded the research, told the Capital Press he hopes the study demonstrates grazing benefits. Some public land agencies already use cattle. Allison Rofe, rangeland specialist for East Bay Parks in California, said she considers cattle grazing of annual grasslands the "single most effective passive management tool" in fire control...MORE

Saving the Last Cattle Drive

Sean Paige

...I was there in June with MSLF colleagues to see the famed Upper Green River Drift, believed to be America’s oldest and longest-running cattle drive. It didn’t disappoint. There it was, like something out of the movies—a mooing mass of cattle plodding along, with whistling cowboys and tireless cattle dogs in pursuit. But it’s not a movie set. It’s not a historic reenactment. It’s the real deal, an honest-to-goodness, good old-fashioned cattle drive, still alive and kicking up dust in the 21st century American West.

...It also takes a master logistician to pull off a cattle drive of this scale. Involved are roughly 6,000 cattle, belonging to a dozen different families or “outfits,” some of whom have been doing this annually since the 1890s. Cattle must be nudged, prodded, and cajoled up to 80 miles. It’s a long but gradual march, done in phases, usually in the cool of the morning. Driving the animals too far in the heat of the day would harm them. The herds and their mounted handlers cross a patchwork of public and private lands, using a network of overpasses, bridges, trails, and roads, paved and primitive. Some outfits are moving cattle for 12 to 14 days, depending on conditions. Those traveling the farthest can spend nearly a month on The Drift, before the livestock reach the summer allotments.

There the animals will be watched through the summer months by range riders, who keep predators at bay, as best they can, and move them from pasture to pasture to avoid overgrazing. When summer turns to fall, the process is reversed, as cattle “drift” back to lower elevations, instinctively prodded by the oncoming winter. There they are gathered, counted, sorted, and in some cases shipped to market.

Sadly, today’s ranchers also need to have familiarity with laws and courts, given how frequently public lands disputes and other matters of life or death to a cattle outfit can end in litigation. That’s what brought MSLF lawyers and our rancher-clients together on this June weekend—a court case, which could impact the fate not just of these ranchers, but of all ranchers who rely on public lands grazing.

The case, Center for Biological Diversity v. Bernhadt, could determine whether ranchers and federally protected grizzly bears can continue to coexist on the federal grazing allotments where these herds are headed. At issue is whether documented problem bears can be removed by the state of Wyoming, when repeated cases of predation occur, as has been the accepted practice since the 1970s. Otherwise these lands will essentially become a grizzly bear buffet, where open season is declared on domestic livestock and ranchers can figuratively and literally be eaten out of house and homestead.

The balance between profit and loss, survival or financial ruin, has always been precarious for ranchers. But the growing toll grizzlies and wolves are taking on these ranchers, and the determined efforts of organized antigrazing groups to use grizzly protection as a pretext for running them off their federal allotments, is pushing some families to the brink. This at a time when they confront a host of COVID-19-related supply chain challenges.

READ ENTIRE ARTICLE

Ranchers say they can graze away wildfires. Environmentalists beg to differ.

Eight years ago, lightning struck a remote corner of northwest Nevada, and started a fire that tore through canyons and ridges at a brisk clip. Rancher Carolyn Dufurrena watched in horror as it devoured dry brush and bunchgrass. Three weeks later, after the Holloway Fire scorched over 462,000 acres, her family, which had been ranching in that area for four generations, had lost about 95 percent of the grass they needed to feed their cattle and sheep. “When you have a few dry years, that grass becomes tinder,” said Dufurrena, who previously wrote about the fire for Range magazine. She suspects that if her livestock had been allowed to eat more of it, the fire would have slowed down. “If the cattle could get to it at the right time of year, and really hit it, they would make it much less of an issue.” Dufurrena is one of roughly 16,000 ranchers that raise livestock on public lands. Even though, during the Obama administration, the amount of grass they’re allowed to forage actually went up, it’s been decreasing overall since the 1950s. And that, ranchers say, has caused a huge problem. For years, they’ve asked the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the federal agency that regulates those lands, for longer grazing seasons. This would open these lands up beyond the traditional spring and summer months, for livestock to eat the leftover grass that can be fuel for ever-nastier wildfires.  Under the Trump administration, the ranchers’ pleas have been heard. Last month, BLM unveiled a proposal for “targeted grazing” permits to chew some of that forage into fuel breaks—strips of barren land that slow down a rampaging wildfire. The main offender, the agency says, is an invasive species called cheatgrass—a highly flammable annual grass that grows between native shrubs and takes over native sagebrush ecosystems. Ranchers say it’s a long time coming, and they need more latitude to take care of the land they use. But some ecologists say a plan to let animals loose on 24 million acres of fragile sagebrush in Nevada’s Great Basin will actually make things worse. In the short term, cattle may chew away that tinder. Over time, all that added trampling will degrade the soils, and in turn, encourage the growth of those flammable weeds—in short, making the problem of the fires even worse...MORE

Idaho sheep ranchers retire grazing allotments

By CAROL RYAN DUMAS Capital Press

 Lava Lake Land & Livestock of Hailey, Idaho, has permanently retired four of its sheep grazing allotments on more than 88,000 acres of U.S. Forest Service land north and northeast of Ketchum. Those allotments include the North Fork Boulder and Trail Creek allotments in the Big Wood River watershed in the Sawtooth National Forest and the Park Creek and Northfork allotments in the Big Lost River watershed in the Salmon-Challis National Forest. The permanent retirements were facilitated by the Sagegrouse Habitat Conservation Fund, a nonprofit organization founded by Western Watersheds Project and the El Paso Corp. in 2010 to encourage and accomplish voluntary retirement of public lands grazing permits. Lava Lake Land & Livestock currently runs two bands of sheep — roughly 1,800 ewes and their lambs — on 24,000 acres of private land and 787,000 acres of public land in Idaho — not including the retired allotments...In 2010, the Payette National Forest issued a final decision reducing domestic sheep and goat grazing by nearly 69,000 acres to mitigate the risk of disease transmission to Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep. Idaho Wool Growers Association said the ruling would shut down 70% of sheep grazing in the Payette. The association, other industry groups and individual ranchers sued the Forest Service, but the decision was upheld in court...MORE

Technically, I guess this was voluntary. However, Forest Service decisions and court rulings put the future of these allotments in jeopardy. That's a great way to create a "willing seller". The rancher involved referred to this as "risk mitigation." The federal statute encouraged allotment donations, “We had an opportunity to do that, and we did,” the rancher said.

Now if federal lands and resources benefited from this action, why didn't the feds pay for it? Because they will do nothing that would set the precedent that these permits have value. As far as the feds are concerned the allotments were donated. Look what this does for the enviros: they accomplish their goal of removing livestock from federal lands, they get a corporate shill to pay for it, and set no precedent that grazing permits have value. A pretty sweet deal set up by our friends in the U.S. Congress.

The Sawtooth National Recreation Area and Jerry Peak Wilderness Additions Act of 2015 requires the Forest Service and BLM to accept permit donations of allotments that are at least partially within an area established by the act, which includes the allotments waived by Lava Lake.

In 2015, the Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate. Here is the language in the act, as written and passed by the Republicans:

(2)

Donation of grazing permits and leases

(A)

Acceptance by secretary

(i)

In general

The Secretary shall accept the donation of any valid existing leases or permits authorizing grazing on public land or National Forest System land, all or a portion of which are within the area depicted as the Boulder White Clouds Grazing Area on the map entitled Boulder White Clouds Grazing Area Map and dated January 27, 2010.

(ii)

Partial donation

A person holding a valid grazing permit or lease for a grazing allotment partially within the area described in clause (i) may elect to donate only the portion of the grazing permit or lease that is within the area.

(B)

Termination

With respect to each permit or lease donated under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall—

(i)

terminate the grazing permit or lease or portion of the permit or lease; and

(ii)

except as provided in subparagraph (C), ensure a permanent end to grazing on the land covered by the permit or lease or portion of the permit or lease.

(C)

Common allotments

(i)

In general

If the land covered by a permit or lease donated under subparagraph (A) is also covered by another valid grazing permit or lease that is not donated, the Secretary shall reduce the authorized level on the land covered by the permit or lease to reflect the donation of the permit or lease under subparagraph (A).

(ii)

Authorized level

To ensure that there is a permanent reduction in the level of grazing on the land covered by the permit or lease donated under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall not allow grazing use to exceed the authorized level established under clause (i).

(D)

Partial donation

If a person holding a valid grazing permit or lease donates less than the full amount of grazing use authorized under the permit or lease, the Secretary shall—

(i)

reduce the authorized grazing level to reflect the donation; and

(ii)

modify the permit or lease to reflect the revised level or area of use.

Donation then termination must have been their mantra.