BLM Grazing Overhaul

[Nameless Range]

Additionally, if you expand the layer group and click on the last layer, "Grazing Allotment Polygons", you can bring up the attribute table which has further info about each allotment and can be sorted by attribute.

 

[mtmiller]

This is a really great map, but only depicts USFS allotments. It would be really handy if it also showed BLM as well and had an identify tool.

Landscape Approach Data Portal

landscape.blm.gov

Quite a few layers you can play with.

 

[antlerradar]

I would be very curious of the price you are seeing for those permits.
I typically see a listing that goes like this.

68,115 acres of grazing for sale $9,900,000
900sq ft house 115 deeded acres.

In short guys are selling 500k worth of private and some stupid made up amounts for the attached grazing rights. The funny part is that they are selling it for what the bank loaned them using our land as collateral. No wonder they think they own it.
Oh and we both know it will get snached up like its a deal.

No way you could pay for that with cows. It will not pencil out

 

[Elkmagnet]

No way you could pay for that with cows. It will not pencil out

I made up the numbers but the point is that when guys can't make money grazing cows on public land its usually because they owe crazy money on property that the lease is attached to not because of the grazing fee.

 

[Oak]

Would you mind sharing some details of your experience with this, it's an interesting topic that isn't what most people first think of when the topic of BLM grazing conflicts come up. This has a whole new element of disease transmission that I wonder if the grazing regulations even address?

Here are my experiences in Colorado over the last 8 years. Bear in mind that this is only what I can attest to here, and I try to avoid painting with a broad brush. Part of the frustration in dealing with this issue is that decision-making processes and outcomes vary from BLM field office to field office, national forest to national forest, and even between ranger districts on the same forest. It largely depends on who is in the field manager, forest supervisor, and district ranger positions.

Case #1

• July 2012 - BLM office initiated a scoping period for an EA to renew grazing permits for 7 domestic sheep allotments. I provided comments re: conflicts with bighorn sheep.
• March 2014 - BLM sent a letter to interested parties saying that remainder of 2014 and into 2015, they will be preparing rangeland health determinations and completing environmental analyses for the 37 grazing allotments in the resource area that have not yet been fully processed, including the 7 DS permits above, and to contact the BLM if you wanted to remain on the interested party list. I did not receive that letter, but was told about it by another group.
• Feb 2015 - BLM published a NOI to prepare an EIS and an RMP amendment for 9 active and 7 vacant domestic sheep allotments. Eight of the 16 allotments directly overlap occupied bighorn sheep range of a Tier 1 (CPW highest priority) herd. Five of the remaining 8 would likely model as high risk of contact with bighorn sheep due to their proximity to bighorn sheep overall range in other areas (including overlap). I provided comments re: conflicts with bighorn sheep.
• June 2019 - BLM released a draft EIS for renewal of grazing permits on 9 active domestic sheep allotments, choosing not to complete analysis on vacant allotments, and choosing not to complete an RMP amendment. The BLM identifies 7 of 9 allotments to be high risk for contact with bighorn sheep. I provided comments re: conflicts with bighorn sheep.
• January 2020 - BLM released a final EIS and identified a preferred alternative to renew grazing permits for all nine allotments. We are now 7.5 years into this process and it is not yet complete.

Case #2

• Aug 2014 - The BLM initiated a scoping period for an EA for renewal of grazing permits for 42 allotments, including 12 domestic sheep allotments. All sheep allotments overlap or are in close proximity to a bighorn sheep herd. I provided comments re: conflicts with bighorn sheep.
• 2015 - The BLM split the proposed analysis into two EAs, primarily due to Gunnison Sage-Grouse issues in a portion of the analysis area. Draft NEPA documents have yet to be produced.

Case #3

• Nov 2014 - The BLM initiated a scoping period for a proposed EA to renew grazing permits for 9 allotments, including 6 domestic sheep allotments. The BLM failed to notify me as an interested party of the scoping. I learned about it in February 2015, wrote a letter to the state BLM office, and the BLM immediately announced another formal 30-day comment period. I provided comments re: conflicts with bighorn sheep in March 2015.
• Aug 2015 - The BLM released a draft EA and risk assessment for comment. The risk assessment found 4 sheep allotments to be high risk for contact with bighorn sheep and two allotments to be moderate risk. I provided comments re: conflicts with bighorn sheep, as well as a host of deficiencies in the EA.
• June 2016 - The BLM releases a FONSI and renews permits for all 9 allotments. I protested the decision.
• Oct 2016 - The BLM dismisses my protest.
• Nov 2016 - I appealed the decision to the IBLA.
• Dec 2016 - The DOI attorney filed a motion with the IBLA judge to remand the decision back to the BLM. The judge granted the motion.
• 2017 - The BLM completed an EA for only the 3 cattle allotments, and renewed them. To date they have not initiated a new analysis of the 6 domestic sheep allotments.

Case #4

• Sept 2014 - The BLM initiated a scoping period for environmental analysis of all allotments in the resource area in need of being fully processed. I found only one domestic sheep allotment for which I had bighorn sheep concerns, and submitted comments.
• June 2015 - The EA development process for this single allotment showed up on the BLM NEPA register. I contact the BLM and they indicate that they plan to complete an EA and issue a proposed decision that fall/winter.
• Dec 2015 - I asked the BLM for an update. They replied that they planned to complete the EA in January.
• June 2016 - I inquired again about the EA. I received no reply.
• Feb 2017 - I asked the BLM again for any update. I received, "the EA is scheduled to be completed this fiscal year but is behind other higher priority NEPA documents. We will notify you when the EA is available."
• Jan 2018 - The BLM initiated a scoping period for an EA on this allotment and two other domestic sheep allotments, and failed to notify me. LOL
• Feb 2018 - I learn about the scoping period a day after it closes and contact the BLM. They reply with a letter that says they have decided that they don't have resources necessary to complete the analysis at that time, so have issued a new 3-year permit under their 402 exception. Nothing new since then.

So that's my experience with the BLM process in Colorado specific to domestic sheep/bighorn sheep conflicts. These 4 cases occurred in 4 different resource areas.

 

[BWALKER77]

Mainly grazing because in my mind it’s competition for the wildlife that I like to view and hunt. Cattle always seem to be a negative when hunting to me (eating all the grass, shitting in the camp spots on national forest, running down the trail ahead of me when I’m trying to walk into an area to hunt without the game hearing me, ect.) and it kind of ticks me off when ranchers can use and abuse our public land, yet they’re able to keep us from accessing landlocked public.

That's been my observation in regards to hunting quality as well.
One place I hunt is fairly high in elevation and on the north side of a particular mountain range. Cows only graze it every few years, but when they do you rarely find elk there because the forage is mostly gone.
In addition I have noticed that some BLM grazing leases are well taken care of while others are totaly grazed out. Same story for impacts to riparian areas. Some creek bottoms are absolutely destroyed by cows.

 

[Elkmagnet]

Here are my experiences in Colorado over the last 8 years. Bear in mind that this is only what I can attest to here, and I try to avoid painting with a broad brush. Part of the frustration in dealing with this issue is that decision-making processes and outcomes vary from BLM field office to field office, national forest to national forest, and even between ranger districts on the same forest. It largely depends on who is in the field manager, forest supervisor, and district ranger positions.

Case #1

• July 2012 - BLM office initiated a scoping period for an EA to renew grazing permits for 7 domestic sheep allotments. I provided comments re: conflicts with bighorn sheep.
• March 2014 - BLM sent a letter to interested parties saying that remainder of 2014 and into 2015, they will be preparing rangeland health determinations and completing environmental analyses for the 37 grazing allotments in the resource area that have not yet been fully processed, including the 7 DS permits above, and to contact the BLM if you wanted to remain on the interested party list. I did not receive that letter, but was told about it by another group.
• Feb 2015 - BLM published a NOI to prepare an EIS and an RMP amendment for 9 active and 7 vacant domestic sheep allotments. Eight of the 16 allotments directly overlap occupied bighorn sheep range of a Tier 1 (CPW highest priority) herd. Five of the remaining 8 would likely model as high risk of contact with bighorn sheep due to their proximity to bighorn sheep overall range in other areas (including overlap). I provided comments re: conflicts with bighorn sheep.
• June 2019 - BLM released a draft EIS for renewal of grazing permits on 9 active domestic sheep allotments, choosing not to complete analysis on vacant allotments, and choosing not to complete an RMP amendment. The BLM identifies 7 of 9 allotments to be high risk for contact with bighorn sheep. I provided comments re: conflicts with bighorn sheep.
• January 2020 - BLM released a final EIS and identified a preferred alternative to renew grazing permits for all nine allotments. We are now 7.5 years into this process and it is not yet complete.

Case #2

• Aug 2014 - The BLM initiated a scoping period for an EA for renewal of grazing permits for 42 allotments, including 12 domestic sheep allotments. All sheep allotments overlap or are in close proximity to a bighorn sheep herd. I provided comments re: conflicts with bighorn sheep.
• 2015 - The BLM split the proposed analysis into two EAs, primarily due to Gunnison Sage-Grouse issues in a portion of the analysis area. Draft NEPA documents have yet to be produced.

Case #3

• Nov 2014 - The BLM initiated a scoping period for a proposed EA to renew grazing permits for 9 allotments, including 6 domestic sheep allotments. The BLM failed to notify me as an interested party of the scoping. I learned about it in February 2015, wrote a letter to the state BLM office, and the BLM immediately announced another formal 30-day comment period. I provided comments re: conflicts with bighorn sheep in March 2015.
• Aug 2015 - The BLM released a draft EA and risk assessment for comment. The risk assessment found 4 sheep allotments to be high risk for contact with bighorn sheep and two allotments to be moderate risk. I provided comments re: conflicts with bighorn sheep, as well as a host of deficiencies in the EA.
• June 2016 - The BLM releases a FONSI and renews permits for all 9 allotments. I protested the decision.
• Oct 2016 - The BLM dismisses my protest.
• Nov 2016 - I appealed the decision to the IBLA.
• Dec 2016 - The DOI attorney filed a motion with the IBLA judge to remand the decision back to the BLM. The judge granted the motion.
• 2017 - The BLM completed an EA for only the 3 cattle allotments, and renewed them. To date they have not initiated a new analysis of the 6 domestic sheep allotments.

Case #4

• Sept 2014 - The BLM initiated a scoping period for environmental analysis of all allotments in the resource area in need of being fully processed. I found only one domestic sheep allotment for which I had bighorn sheep concerns, and submitted comments.
• June 2015 - The EA development process for this single allotment showed up on the BLM NEPA register. I contact the BLM and they indicate that they plan to complete an EA and issue a proposed decision that fall/winter.
• Dec 2015 - I asked the BLM for an update. They replied that they planned to complete the EA in January.
• June 2016 - I inquired again about the EA. I received no reply.
• Feb 2017 - I asked the BLM again for any update. I received, "the EA is scheduled to be completed this fiscal year but is behind other higher priority NEPA documents. We will notify you when the EA is available."
• Jan 2018 - The BLM initiated a scoping period for an EA on this allotment and two other domestic sheep allotments, and failed to notify me. LOL
• Feb 2018 - I learn about the scoping period a day after it closes and contact the BLM. They reply with a letter that says they have decided that they don't have resources necessary to complete the analysis at that time, so have issued a new 3-year permit under their 402 exception. Nothing new since then.

So that's my experience with the BLM process in Colorado specific to domestic sheep/bighorn sheep conflicts. These 4 cases occurred in 4 different resource areas.

I think your diligence is the reason why they are gutting the system. How dare you involve yourself in such a manner!
Its down right unamerican.

 

[kwyeewyk]

Here are my experiences in Colorado over the last 8 years. Bear in mind that this is only what I can attest to here, and I try to avoid painting with a broad brush. Part of the frustration in dealing with this issue is that decision-making processes and outcomes vary from BLM field office to field office, national forest to national forest, and even between ranger districts on the same forest. It largely depends on who is in the field manager, forest supervisor, and district ranger positions.

Case #1

• July 2012 - BLM office initiated a scoping period for an EA to renew grazing permits for 7 domestic sheep allotments. I provided comments re: conflicts with bighorn sheep.
• March 2014 - BLM sent a letter to interested parties saying that remainder of 2014 and into 2015, they will be preparing rangeland health determinations and completing environmental analyses for the 37 grazing allotments in the resource area that have not yet been fully processed, including the 7 DS permits above, and to contact the BLM if you wanted to remain on the interested party list. I did not receive that letter, but was told about it by another group.
• Feb 2015 - BLM published a NOI to prepare an EIS and an RMP amendment for 9 active and 7 vacant domestic sheep allotments. Eight of the 16 allotments directly overlap occupied bighorn sheep range of a Tier 1 (CPW highest priority) herd. Five of the remaining 8 would likely model as high risk of contact with bighorn sheep due to their proximity to bighorn sheep overall range in other areas (including overlap). I provided comments re: conflicts with bighorn sheep.
• June 2019 - BLM released a draft EIS for renewal of grazing permits on 9 active domestic sheep allotments, choosing not to complete analysis on vacant allotments, and choosing not to complete an RMP amendment. The BLM identifies 7 of 9 allotments to be high risk for contact with bighorn sheep. I provided comments re: conflicts with bighorn sheep.
• January 2020 - BLM released a final EIS and identified a preferred alternative to renew grazing permits for all nine allotments. We are now 7.5 years into this process and it is not yet complete.

Case #2

• Aug 2014 - The BLM initiated a scoping period for an EA for renewal of grazing permits for 42 allotments, including 12 domestic sheep allotments. All sheep allotments overlap or are in close proximity to a bighorn sheep herd. I provided comments re: conflicts with bighorn sheep.
• 2015 - The BLM split the proposed analysis into two EAs, primarily due to Gunnison Sage-Grouse issues in a portion of the analysis area. Draft NEPA documents have yet to be produced.

Case #3

• Nov 2014 - The BLM initiated a scoping period for a proposed EA to renew grazing permits for 9 allotments, including 6 domestic sheep allotments. The BLM failed to notify me as an interested party of the scoping. I learned about it in February 2015, wrote a letter to the state BLM office, and the BLM immediately announced another formal 30-day comment period. I provided comments re: conflicts with bighorn sheep in March 2015.
• Aug 2015 - The BLM released a draft EA and risk assessment for comment. The risk assessment found 4 sheep allotments to be high risk for contact with bighorn sheep and two allotments to be moderate risk. I provided comments re: conflicts with bighorn sheep, as well as a host of deficiencies in the EA.
• June 2016 - The BLM releases a FONSI and renews permits for all 9 allotments. I protested the decision.
• Oct 2016 - The BLM dismisses my protest.
• Nov 2016 - I appealed the decision to the IBLA.
• Dec 2016 - The DOI attorney filed a motion with the IBLA judge to remand the decision back to the BLM. The judge granted the motion.
• 2017 - The BLM completed an EA for only the 3 cattle allotments, and renewed them. To date they have not initiated a new analysis of the 6 domestic sheep allotments.

Case #4

• Sept 2014 - The BLM initiated a scoping period for environmental analysis of all allotments in the resource area in need of being fully processed. I found only one domestic sheep allotment for which I had bighorn sheep concerns, and submitted comments.
• June 2015 - The EA development process for this single allotment showed up on the BLM NEPA register. I contact the BLM and they indicate that they plan to complete an EA and issue a proposed decision that fall/winter.
• Dec 2015 - I asked the BLM for an update. They replied that they planned to complete the EA in January.
• June 2016 - I inquired again about the EA. I received no reply.
• Feb 2017 - I asked the BLM again for any update. I received, "the EA is scheduled to be completed this fiscal year but is behind other higher priority NEPA documents. We will notify you when the EA is available."
• Jan 2018 - The BLM initiated a scoping period for an EA on this allotment and two other domestic sheep allotments, and failed to notify me. LOL
• Feb 2018 - I learn about the scoping period a day after it closes and contact the BLM. They reply with a letter that says they have decided that they don't have resources necessary to complete the analysis at that time, so have issued a new 3-year permit under their 402 exception. Nothing new since then.

So that's my experience with the BLM process in Colorado specific to domestic sheep/bighorn sheep conflicts. These 4 cases occurred in 4 different resource areas.

Yeah those timelines and level of responsiveness are pretty depressing, but probably pretty similar all across BLM. I took a quick look and there's nothing in the current regulations regarding bighorn. So then it comes down to what's in the RMP(s), which it sounded like they were planning to address in at least one case, but that would have possibly been something the current administration said to not do, the RMP revision for BLM in Washington state was terminated at higher levels as well.

They talk about balancing domestic and wild sheep use to minimize risk in one of the scoping notices, do you feel like that isn't working? Also curious what CPW opinion was and if they comment or participate in the planning efforts? And have you ever been able to talk with the biologists directly? Thanks for responding, you probably get pissed typing that!

 

[Oak]

I took a quick look and there's nothing in the current regulations regarding bighorn.

MS1730 was hot off the press in 2016 and took the BLM over 4 years to develop. It's the direction they are supposed to be following for management of domestic sheep/bighorn sheep conflicts.

1.6 Policy

The BLM’s policy will be to (1) achieve effective separation of BLM authorized domestic sheep or goats from wild sheep on BLM lands, and (2) to minimize the risk of contact between the species. Effective separation is defined as the spatial or temporal separation between wild sheep and domestic sheep or goats, resulting in minimal risk of contact and subsequent transmission of respiratory disease between animal groups (see glossary). Currently, physical separation of domestic sheep or goats from wild sheep is the only effective means to reduce the potential for pneumonia-type disease transmission. Domestic sheep and goat authorizations and other uses will be implemented to ensure that effective separation results in a high degree of confidence that there will be a low to no risk of contact with wild sheep.

They talk about balancing domestic and wild sheep use to minimize risk in one of the scoping notices, do you feel like that isn't working? Also curious what CPW opinion was and if they comment or participate in the planning efforts? And have you ever been able to talk with the biologists directly? Thanks for responding, you probably get pissed typing that!

I could write reams on this. I may add more later.

 

[hossblur]

$270k sprayed on weeds. (Trying to kill larkspur and bluebell). Subsidized most likely for labor and spray.

Facts are pretty stubborn things. Leases don't sit. Some random dude giving/losing one doesn't disprove anything.

In Utah, the sheep come off opener of muzzy deer. I love watching the border collies work. I usually sit on a spotting knob and watch.

Cows, generally wander down the canyon to catch pens. They rotate tgem through zones every few years, but about the only time you see a rancher is if there are multiple dead. They also "push" end of Sept., but it's usually a few family members on horse. Weather pushes far more down.

My hunting area had a "rider" a decade or so ago. 70yr old dude on an atv.

Maybe Montana is different, but land costs a ton here. Growing hay pays more than pasturing cows.

It's a smoking great deal for ranchers. It also helps keep beef prices better for consumers.

But I stand by my OP.

SHUT UP.

"We appreciate the win win that public grazing is for producers and consumers".

And I don't even work in PR

 

[BRaska]

The numbers are low for sure, but they are also mis leading. The ranchers have to hire full time cowboys to manage the cow herds all summer and provide them with all their living expenses/vehicles/equipment/ and any fencing/watertank materials that are necessary when they are running on public lands. If they lease private land they don't need to do that. The private landowner provides all of those things to them. Most ranchers would prefer to run their herds on private all day so they don't have to deal with the headache of employees and some of the whack ass government employees.

When we leased our land we never supply that stuff. you lease you take care of it.

 

[Pajarito]

Thats not how it works. Just because there aren't cows grazing doesn't mean there will be more ungulates. There still has to be more suitable winter range, water, and other factors. It's been proven that good rotational grazing practices enhance the range and forest health.

How do you figure? The land has a carrying capacity that can only sustain so many animals. If cows are taking up a majority of that lands ability how can it sustain the native animal population? I'd really like to see this "proof" that running cows on forest land is "good for the forest". It's simply not true.

 

[Carnage2011]

How do you figure? The land has a carrying capacity that can only sustain so many animals. If cows are taking up a majority of that lands ability how can it sustain the native animal population? I'd really like to see this "proof" that running cows on forest land is "good for the forest". It's simply not true.

Not true because you said so? There’s been a fair amount of research done on the benefits or rotational grazing practices. You can look it up on your own. I don’t need to hold your hand.

 

[Pajarito]

Not true because you said so? There’s been a fair amount of research done on the benefits or rotational grazing practices. You can look it up on your own. I don’t need to hold your hand.

Hahaha Not asking you to "hold my hand". You should be able to site your own references after making claims. I've ready plenty of BS "studies", just asking you to provide one that might actually have some merit. But apparently you are unable to do so. Have a nice day.

 

[Carnage2011]

Hahaha Not asking you to "hold my hand". You should be able to site your own references after making claims. I've ready plenty of BS "studies", just asking you to provide one that might actually have some merit. But apparently you are unable to do so. Have a nice day.

You revived a thread from 9 months ago. I’m in the middle of reloading a bunch of bullets....I’m not going to take the time to find the info for you. Maybe this winter when I’m sitting around watching it snow.

 

[antlerradar]

Hahaha Not asking you to "hold my hand". You should be able to site your own references after making claims. I've ready plenty of BS "studies", just asking you to provide one that might actually have some merit. But apparently you are unable to do so. Have a nice day.

I remember setting in Range Class in Bozeman when Fred King gave a guest lecture on grazing on the Wall Creek game range. (I think it was Wall Creek, After all it was 30 years ago). The cliff notes version of Fred's talk was the FWP at first removed all the cattle grazing to save the range for the elk. Over the years after the number of elk using the game range dramatically went down and most of the wintering elk move to the sounding private land. The reason. The ungrazed grass became old, unpalatable and unproductive. In a nut shell the elk preferred the regrowth after cattle were done grazing. A cattle grazing program was implemented and the wintering elk returned to wall creek.

 

[BigHornRam]

I remember setting in Range Class in Bozeman when Fred King gave a guest lecture on grazing on the Wall Creek game range. (I think it was Wall Creek, After all it was 30 years ago). The cliff notes version of Fred's talk was the FWP at first removed all the cattle grazing to save the range for the elk. Over the years after the number of elk using the game range dramatically went down and most of the wintering elk move to the sounding private land. The reason. The ungrazed grass became old, unpalatable and unproductive. In a nut shell the elk preferred the regrowth after cattle were done grazing. A cattle grazing program was implemented and the wintering elk returned to wall creek.

I've seen Fred's grazing presentation of public land in the Madison. It was very informative.

 

[JLS]

The Wall Creek and Robb Ledford game ranges both benefit very much from rotational grazing. The upper Ruby is a showcase for proper grazing IMO.

As far as whether it limits deer and elk, that depends. Like @Carnage2011 said, you have to look at what is the most limiting factor. Is it winter range? Summer range? Transitional range? Disturbance during calving? It’s not a binary answer.

I believe it was Mike Frisina (sp?) who did much of this initial research.

 

[Deleted member 16014]

The Wall Creek and Robb Ledford game ranges both benefit very much from rotational grazing. The upper Ruby is a showcase for proper grazing IMO.

As far as whether it limits deer and elk, that depends. Like @Carnage2011 said, you have to look at what is the most limiting factor. Is it winter range? Summer range? Transitional range? Disturbance during calving? It’s not a binary answer.

I believe it was Mike Frisina (sp?) who did much of this initial research.

Mike did a lot around the state along those lines; he led a trip to Wall Cr. that I attended as a student probably 15 years ago. He was also on my graduate committee, amazing guy.

 

[CoffeeGoat]

The Wall Creek and Robb Ledford game ranges both benefit very much from rotational grazing. The upper Ruby is a showcase for proper grazing IMO.

As far as whether it limits deer and elk, that depends. Like @Carnage2011 said, you have to look at what is the most limiting factor. Is it winter range? Summer range? Transitional range? Disturbance during calving? It’s not a binary answer.

I believe it was Mike Frisina (sp?) who did much of this initial research.

Whoa there - you're suggesting this is a complex, nuanced issue with details that aren't immediately obvious to a newcomer? Who would have thought...