BLM looses in court in South Dakota

[tmsander]

My understanding of the details of this thing is sketchy, but apparently a group of organizations (including conservation organizations like Pheasants Forever) has successfully sued the BLM for allowing overgrazing by livestock. The range in areas out there has been found to no longer have enough feed for the wildlife.

The result.... NO livestock will be permitted back on the affected lands until the range recovers, and wildlife will be given first priority in management from now on.

I also hear that we can look foreward to similar actions against the BLM and FS in Colorado in the near future.

Score one for the good guys!

 

[Ithaca 37]

What great news! The Marvel approach is catching on!

 

[Michaelr]

sounds like a good deal for wild life

 

[Ten Bears]

Going from too much grazing to no grazing isn't the best answer either.

 

[sdgunslinger]

Be interesting to see some more details on this . I suspect it has something to do with the severe drought west river with no end in sight .

If this is going to be business-as -usual for P. F. though , I have lost alot of my respect for that organization and will not be donating any more of my time or money to them in the future .

Since the bulk of good pheasant hunting and good pheasant habitat occurs on private agricultural lands , it seems to me P. F. should be working with ag producers , not trying to fug them out of some grazing .

 

[tmsander]

sdgunslinger... please understand that I'm not positive PF was involved in this. Their name was dropped in connection somehow, but its hard to say what their involvement was or was not without knowing first-hand, which I don't.

But on the other hand, nobody is bilking anybody out of anything, other than the public land management agencies and private ranchers bilking us out of our wildlife resource. The elk there are evidently starving now.

Ten - the way I understand it, the NO Grazing is not permanent, but will last only until the range recovers. I don't know how you say that no grazing in this case is bad. Would you continue to graze, even at a reduced level, land that can no longer support any wildlife as a result of that grazing?

 

[Ithaca 37]

Yeah, I hope they give the land some time to recover and keep the options open.

 

[BuzzH]

SD, do you wonder why the best habitat is always on private? Havent you figured it out yet?

Its because public lands are trashed, why would wildlife want to live with 1-inch tall grass and cowpies? When right across the fence, where the land is private and thusly better maintained, is the shangra-la?

I know that there is potential to have better hunting and more wildlife on properly managed public lands, if the grazing is severely reduced. Most people are slowly starting to realize that. I'd rather have more wildlife and less livestock on MY PUBLIC LANDS.

I think the only time grazing should be allowed (on public lands) is to enhance wildlife habitat or when all wildlife needs are being met. Until that time, NO LIVESTOCK.

 

[Muledeer4me]

"Ten - the way I understand it, the NO Grazing is not permanent, but will last only until the range recovers. "

If that statment is true Then the approch is in no way related to what Jon Marvel wants.
Most people dont have a problem with letting the land heal or cutting back on grazing,where its been shown to really need it.
Its when you have those that are only out to oust the rancher (Marvel approch/anti-hunting)groups where the problem comes into play.
Good sound managment isnt the problem,its getting the right mix of people that are willing to work together towards whats best.

 

[sdgunslinger]

Buzz , any BLM lands in SD would be piss pore pheasant habitat if you rested it for a hundred years .

I suggest you make a trip to central or south central SD sometime . The pheasants jump out of fields like flocks of blackbirds . Late in the season , it is common to jump 200 or 300 out of one slough or ranch shelterbelt . Yet the area is greasy with cattle . How can this be ? To hear some of you people rant , a bird could not possibly live within 50 miles of a steer .

I'll grant you that ranchers are a minority . So are hunters . It just so happens that I would like to see ranching continue on MY public lands , along with the other multiple uses like hunting .

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 02-20-2003 14:23: Message edited by: sdgunslinger ]</font>

 

[Ithaca 37]

Where did Buzz say it should be rested for a hundred years?

 

[BuzzH]

And, if I was to believe your average public lands grazing leasee, I'd believe that pheasants thrive in fields with 1 inch stubble!

Did you read what I said SD?

Only graze if it would ENHANCE wildlife habitat.

Are you telling me its impossible to establish shelter belts on BLM land? Are you telling me its impossible to farm small strips of BLM land for wheat, corn, oats, (for the wildlife)?

If BLM lands were managed correctly, there would undoubtedly be just as many if not more pheasants on public lands, I have ZERO doubt about that.

The same could be said for all wildlife, if managed correctly, even allowing a certain amount of grazing, there could be way more and better available habitat.

Then, I wouldnt have to knock on your door for a decent place to hunt pheasants.

 

[sdgunslinger]

I think you get the point , Ithaca .

 

[Ithaca 37]

sd, Your statement about a hundred years just obfuscated the issue.

 

[sdgunslinger]

So now you are going to farm sagebrush badlands and plant shelterbelts in areas where few or no trees will naturally grow ?

When you get started on Wyoming , you got a big job ahead of ya ........

 

[BuzzH]

SD, are you saying all BLM lands are non-productive for pheasant habitat?

Thats not true, even in SD.

I did plenty of work on BLM lands in SD that were right in very fertile river bottoms, right next to ag crops, alfalfa fields, etc. etc. etc. I wonder why a piece of BLM land inches away couldnt support the same type of thing?

You have any answers for that?

Also, where did I say all BLM lands should be managed in one particular way?

 

[Ithaca 37]

From what I've seen of BLM in Idaho and a few other states, there's a very high percentage of it that could be excellent wildlife habitat. I'd say at least 90% of it in Idaho. If just the riparian zones were in excellent condition that would be a tremendous start. 90% of all BLM riparian zones are in "Poor" condition, according to the BLM.

 

[sdgunslinger]

"SD, are you saying all BLM lands are non-productive for pheasant habitat?"

No , but I do say that in general , BLM lands are not good pheasant habitat . Chukar , sage grouse , antelope , etc , yeah .

In particular , I'm willing to bet such fertile spots as you mention are pretty limited . Most of the good land was homesteaded years ago . In fact , I think you will have to agree all BLM land is pretty limited in SD as compared to the total acres of private land .

If you took private land in SD out of the equation , it would be pretty bleak for wildlife no matter what you do with the BLM acres . It gonna be pretty bleak for all life in the drought areas if they don't start getting some moisture .

However , I think you got a good idea , about putting in food plots in spots that might support them . In fact , I think you would find some of the grazing permittees would co-operate with putting in some food plots in suitable spots . Maybe I can hire out my farming expertise to the BLM at 30 bucks an hr.......

 

[Troy Jones]

It amazes me how people can talk trash about ranchers with a mouth full of steak! I am a gov. worker and have a degree in natural resource management and have lived in SD all my life. Don't glorify the BLM lands here. They are generally less than "fine habitat" and cows or ranching have absolutely nothing to do with it. Pheasants are fun to shoot, but we need to realize they are an introduced species and secondary at best on my list to protect and promote. Everyone has a right to make a living and recreation is just that. If ranching is putting a damper on some people's fun, tough shit. Ag producers are not only trying to feed thier families they are feeding your's too! Meat just doesn't magically appear in a package at a grocery store, it has to be raised and it takes land to do it.

 

[tmsander]

So, Troy... it all boils down to recreation vs. feeding the people, eh? It sure is comforting to hear that our government workers are so enlightened!

All - Again, my understanding of this topic is sketchy, and I certainly didn't mean for it to center around pheasants. I believe the lawsuite was targeting ungulates more than birds. I'm not sure how Pheasants Forever was involved.