BLM Grazing Overhaul

[Pajarito]

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 sno

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 agree that rotational grazing would improve conditions for grasses. However, what I was specifically referring to was Forest ecosystem. The comment I initially responded to claimed that cows increase forest health. I do not agree with that statement, a forest does not need cows in order to be healthy. The other point I'd like to make is that using deer and/or elk populations as a measure for a healthy forest is strange. I would instead look at the overall health and numbers of the native plant and animal species within a given area. So just because cows were removed and elk numbers didn't go up, in no way proves a healthy ecosystem. It just proves that deer, elk and cows like fresh grass. Cows are not native and should be considered an invasive or introduced species.

So what I have a problem with, specifically, is grazing within Wilderness boundaries. I had an elk hunt this year in NM 16B which is a Wilderness area that was completely grazed out (increases erosion), cow crap everywhere (altering natural soil chemistry), cows everywhere (increasing erosion), spreading invasive plant species etc. Normally I'd be pretty upset seeing this in a National Forest, but to see it in a Wilderness Area within the National Forest greatly upsets me.

Side note: I may be new to the forum, but I am in no way new to the conversation. I have been working on water rights, land classification my entire life and currently am a geologist for an engineering company that deals with soil and groundwater contamination. Some of the violators we monitor, dairies.

 

[Deleted member 16014]

I’m not going to agree or disagree with any of that. Some of us are professionals in natural resources with degrees too btw. Public land grazing policy has a long and complicated history, and is tied more closely to congressional level action than most people realize. I’m sure we agree that ecosystem health, an intact plant and animal community, and functioning riparian areas are appropriate and excellent goals. As rough and abused as it sounds like the country was that you describe, the full scope of rangeland conditions across the west is not so easily characterized.

 

[BigHornRam]

Here's a small example of benefit cows have had on the forest Carnage is referring to. Forest soils are nutrient poor. Cow poop is nutrient rich with high levels of nitrogen, ect. It was obvious when I pitched my tent that cattle have bedded under this tree many times over the years effectively bring nutrients to this big spruce tree.

I am an advocate for cattle grazing on public land done properly.

 

[Walkalot]

Iam anti grazing on public lands. We should manage the public lands for public land hunter and let the rancher deal with his elk or deer problem that he has created by not allowing hunting.

 

[BigHornRam]

Iam anti grazing on public lands. We should manage the public lands for public land hunter and let the rancher deal with his elk or deer problem that he has created by not allowing hunting.

Seems like a popular attitude by some hunters these days. What happens if the public decides to choose public land grazing over public land hunting? Think about it.

 

[CoffeeGoat]

Seems like a popular attitude by some hunters these days. What happens if the public decides to choose public land grazing over public land hunting? Think about it.

Unfortunately I think if you do this by the numbers the city folks who are neither ranchers or hunters will vote for mountain biking, hiking, and nothing else.

 

[406dn]

Seems like a popular attitude by some hunters these days. What happens if the public decides to choose public land grazing over public land hunting? Think about it.

In practice, we largely already have. We have essentially given away the forage on public lands from the get go.

 

[BigHornRam]

Unfortunately I think if you do this by the numbers the city folks who are neither ranchers or hunters will vote for mountain biking, hiking, and nothing else.

Very possible outcome if you abandon multiple use and adopt a popular use policy.

 

[kwyeewyk]

We all have our visions of what a perfect world is, and every vision is different. I'd prefer if cows were never brought here and we still had bison on the landscape, but we can't change the past and can only move forward from where we are. Public land grazing is a compromise, most of the public lands were severely overgrazed, and over hunted, until we started regulating. Yes there are many problems with public land grazing to this day, but compared to 150 years ago the difference is night and day. Multiple use is also a compromise, nobody is going to have it exactly as they want it, but if we accept that others hold different values and respect those values, we'll have a lot better chance of retaining our hunting rights and privileges and having some influence over the other uses so there's compatibility as much as possible.

If you have a problem with a particular grazing unit, such as overgrazing in the wilderness, you should contact the agency administering the lease/allotment and find out what the grazing standards are, and bring your issue to the table. Yes it can be an uphill battle, and you might ultimately lose, but just as often they might appreciate your help because they are understaffed and can't monitor every acre of every allotment, and can work with the operator to improve conditions or address issues. Frankly it's a lot of work, but if life were easy we'd all just be a bunch of lumps of dough, right? If you open your argument with "cows are invasives and should be eradicated" you'll get nowhere fast.

 

[BigHornRam]

In practice, we largely already have. We have essentially given away the forage on public lands from the get go.

How many acres of the Bob Marshall are leased to grazing? How many acres of the Beartooth Absaroka are leased to grazing? How many acres of the Selway Bitterroot are leased to grazing? How about Glacier Park?

So other than Glacier Park, how many acres of these public land areas I have listed, are you not allowed to hunt on?

Thank you multiple use!

 

[406dn]

How many acres of the Bob Marshall are leased to grazing? How many acres of the Beartooth Absaroka are leased to grazing? How many acres of the Selway Bitterroot are leased to grazing? How about Glacier Park?

So other than Glacier Park, how many acres of these public land areas I have listed, are you not allowed to hunt on?

Thank you multiple use!

That does not change the fact we give away the forage on national forest and blm land. Also, sheep were grazed in the Beartooths for decades. It is only in the last fifteen years or so since sheep were allowed to graze in the area south of Big Timber.

Also grazing is still allowed in some wilderness areas. See pages 82 and 83.

https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fseprd526164.pdf

I'm not opposed to livestock grazing per se, I am opposed selling the forage for far less than it's worth.

 

[BigHornRam]

I am a life member of one of the organizations that bought out the sheep grazing allotment south of Big Timber. Great example of how active participation in these issues can make a difference.

 

[antlerradar]

I'm not opposed to livestock grazing per se, I am opposed selling the forage for far less than it's worth.

Are you opposed to selling the game for far less than it is worth?

 

[Walkalot]

I agree. I should of put public land users instead of public land hunters. For far too long private land owners have taken advantage of everything they possible can. Instead of working with the public land user. I understand it will effect a small percentage of livelihoods but I do not think the mass of people care. We will give them a wooden spoon to replace the golden one.

 

[Walkalot]

Also I would venture a guess that the small amounts of people on hear that are pro grazing that are not ranchers have access to private lands. Everybody has there own agendas and opinions. Mine is clearly make public lands great again.

 

[JLS]

You can make public lands great with grazing involved.

 

[406dn]

Are you opposed to selling the game for far less than it is worth?

An excellent example of a non sequitur.

 

[Walkalot]

I would be open to grazing on public lands. Willing to hear it. The problem is much deeper than that. Ranchers grazing on public pay far less than they would on private. But how many millions of tax payer dollars are also spent for ranchers on public lands. Fence. Water developments, land cattle study ect. BLM is basically goverment employees working for ranchers. Granted they put up some out houses and pavilions but come on. Having not have worked for the forest service I cannot say. But would assume similar. With the overhunting on public lands it's time to change things up. But it is also a management issue. Montana public lands are so mis managed it's a crime. But that also relates to must manage the deer and elk so they can have grass to graze. There was a statement earlier in post about elk moving off wall creek to private. I would guess pressure has something to do with it. Land owners create there own problems by not allowing hunting.

 

[Walkalot]

Deer and elk numbers in a unit are def managed to share the range with cattle. No doubt

 

[BigHornRam]

I agree. I should of put public land users instead of public land hunters. For far too long private land owners have taken advantage of everything they possible can. Instead of working with the public land user. I understand it will effect a small percentage of livelihoods but I do not think the mass of people care. We will give them a wooden spoon to replace the golden one.

I own private land, don't graze it, and allow walk in access to the public to hunt, hike, mountain bike, horse back ride, ect. I also allow snowmobiling between December and March. Posts like this one make me wonder why I am so generous to entitled people that think like this.