Grazing dispute stirs on W. Slope
By Theo Stein
Denver Post Staff Writer
A cow drinks from the Green River in Browns Park National Wildlife Refuge in Moffat County last week. The refuge officially banned grazing in 1994, but refuge managers continued to allow T. Wright Dickinson’s cattle access to the river from his surrounding grazing leases.
A clash of philosophies between a powerful rancher and a national wildlife refuge is headed for a showdown in dusty northwestern Colorado.
At the center of the dispute is T. Wright Dickinson, former Moffat County commissioner and vocal proponent of county efforts to gain control of federal lands.
Each spring for 10 years, federal officials say, cattle owned by the Dickinson family have grazed on Browns Park National Wildlife Refuge.
The 12,150-acre refuge was established in 1963 along the Green River's muddy meanders to provide nesting areas for ducks and songbirds.
The refuge officially banned grazing in 1994 - but Browns Park managers continued to allow Dickinson's cattle access to the river from his family's surrounding grazing leases despite complaints from environmentalists.
In October, refuge manager Jerry Rodriguez built a 13-mile fence to limit cattle to designated watering areas and keep them out of the important river meadows.
Enter the Colorado State Land Board, which gave the Dickinsons a temporary grazing permit for an unfenced state parcel inside Browns Park that the refuge had leased as wildlife habitat for 30 years.
Almost as soon as the cows were released, they were again down in the refuge's river bottoms, officials said.
It was like a free pass to forbidden grass, federal officials say.
Now the board has commissioned a study to see whether renewed grazing is appropriate inside the refuge. State officials appointed Dickinson to the panel that will provide recommendations to the board.
"The Land Board is like the ultimate enabler in this situation," said Don Barry, a former assistant secretary at the Department of the Interior who now works for the Wilderness Society.
For his part, Dickinson says refuge officials have brought the problem on themselves. Maintaining access to water is absolutely vital to ranch operations, he says. And the family has offered to pay for any grass the cattle eat when they go to water.
But one of the watering points designated by the refuge was dangerous to pregnant cows and calves, in the rancher's estimation. And refuge officials refused to compromise, he said.
"We've done everything we could over the years to work with those folks," he said. "We've explained the problem they've created for themselves by not maintaining their fences. They have the right and authority to fence their property - we agree and understand that.
"But to not honor agreements that past managers have made - when other folks have looked at the refuge, looked at the situation and informed refuge management what they were doing wasn't in the best interest of everybody - that isn't right."
The dispute over grazing has made the refuge a flash point of local discontent in a part of Colorado where strains of the Sagebrush Rebellion still echo.
Recently, environmental groups have begun pushing the refuge to take a stand.
"They aren't doing their job under the law if they are letting cattle destroy duck nests and other habitat," said Ted Zukoski, an attorney with the Denver office of the law firm Earthjustice.
Refuge managers thought they had solved the illegal grazing problem in the late 1990s when they signed a contract to buy the state's 2-square-mile sections for $255,000. The refuge had leased the land for the previous 30 years.
But last year the Land Board killed the sale, in part because of county anger over a failed Clinton administration plan to give the refuge 6,000 acres of grazing land leased by the Dickinsons' Vermillion Ranch.
Dickinson, then the chairman of the Moffat County Commission, denounced the move as "a land grab of the highest order."
State Land Board Director Britt Weygant sees no conflict in Dickinson's participation on the grazing study panel.
"The family has ranched there a long time," Weygant said. "They could have some useful information."
Like many Moffat County officials, Dickinson believes cattle grazing can help control noxious weeds and improve wildlife habitat. He wants the refuge to let him prove it.
Refuge officials use herbicides to control weed infestations, which they say were caused by a century of grazing.
"Where we can be of service to the refuge, we are willing to entertain their proposals," Dickinson said. "If that means grazing on the refuge for the benefit of wildlife, so be it."
Weygant said that if the state study finds cattle damage wildlife habitat on the refuge, she would not feel comfortable allowing future grazing on the state lands.
But if the study finds grazing doesn't harm wildlife, Weygant said, she might grant the Dickinsons a grazing permit as early as next year.
Critics say the board is sacrificing important wildlife habitat - and ignoring its responsibility to produce income for the school system.
The two state parcels generate $3,000 in income per year.
The Land Board's regional manager, Beverly Rave, who has recommended that the Land Board grant the Dickinsons permanent access to the Green River, denies that the family gets special treatment.
"Absolutely not," she said. "I don't cater to anybody. I treat everybody the same."
The Dickinsons are one of western Colorado's most powerful clans. Vermillion Ranch leases 160,254 acres from the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and in Colorado and Utah - and more in Wyoming. The family also owns private land inside the refuge's eastern end.
They also lease an additional 13,778 acres of State Land Board land from Rave.
In 1999, Gov. Bill Owens named the rancher to the board of Great Outdoors Colorado, the state agency that distributes lottery proceeds for conservation and parks projects statewide. Dickinson is now chairman of the GOCO board.
Weygant said that in hindsight, the State Land Board was right to turn down the $255,000 buyout because the value of the land has increased since it was last appraised.
But she acknowledged that the Land Board killed the sale to mollify Moffat County officials who were angry about the refuge's expansion plan. "There was a lot of tension," she said. "The board was caught in the middle."
Dickinson acknowledges the refuge's right to fence their boundary.
"But folks other than ourselves have looked at the refuge, looked at the situation and informed refuge management what they were doing wasn't in best interest of everybody," he said.
Ron Shupe, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's assistant regional director for refuges, defended refuge manager Rodriguez.
"This is a national wildlife refuge, and wildlife has to come first," he said. "That disturbs local folks."
In fact, a strict reading of the law would force refuge managers to fence off the 500 acres of water access Rodriguez has allowed.
"We have no obligation to provide water for a Bureau of Land Management grazing permittee," he said.
The Browns Park dispute is a classic example of why federal agencies should purchase all private or state land within their boundaries, said Barry, a former refuge system official. "It eliminates the opportunity for these kinds of conflicts to occur."
But a showdown looks inevitable.
Moffat County's vision for the refuge goes well beyond grazing. County officials want state land inside Browns Park open for energy development. And officials say 50 miles of abandoned roads, old trails and paths within the refuge are really "constructed highways" the public should be allowed to drive on.
"They have made it very clear that they should have the final say," Shupe said. "Unfortunately, the law won't let that happen."
Fish and Wildlife Service officials still hope they can eventually buy the state land, or at least lease it in perpetuity.
But the Land Board has no intention of renewing the refuge's lease anytime soon.
"Our board is expecting a level of commitment to work together that we're currently not seeing," Weygant said.
Rodriguez said he may have to fence the two State Land Board properties in case state officials grant Vermillion Ranch grazing permits next year.
And attorneys for the refuge system are examining other ways to permanently end the annual trespass.
"It is still our intent to have no cows on the refuge next year," Rodriguez said.
By Theo Stein
Denver Post Staff Writer
A cow drinks from the Green River in Browns Park National Wildlife Refuge in Moffat County last week. The refuge officially banned grazing in 1994, but refuge managers continued to allow T. Wright Dickinson’s cattle access to the river from his surrounding grazing leases.
A clash of philosophies between a powerful rancher and a national wildlife refuge is headed for a showdown in dusty northwestern Colorado.
At the center of the dispute is T. Wright Dickinson, former Moffat County commissioner and vocal proponent of county efforts to gain control of federal lands.
Each spring for 10 years, federal officials say, cattle owned by the Dickinson family have grazed on Browns Park National Wildlife Refuge.
The 12,150-acre refuge was established in 1963 along the Green River's muddy meanders to provide nesting areas for ducks and songbirds.
The refuge officially banned grazing in 1994 - but Browns Park managers continued to allow Dickinson's cattle access to the river from his family's surrounding grazing leases despite complaints from environmentalists.
In October, refuge manager Jerry Rodriguez built a 13-mile fence to limit cattle to designated watering areas and keep them out of the important river meadows.
Enter the Colorado State Land Board, which gave the Dickinsons a temporary grazing permit for an unfenced state parcel inside Browns Park that the refuge had leased as wildlife habitat for 30 years.
Almost as soon as the cows were released, they were again down in the refuge's river bottoms, officials said.
It was like a free pass to forbidden grass, federal officials say.
Now the board has commissioned a study to see whether renewed grazing is appropriate inside the refuge. State officials appointed Dickinson to the panel that will provide recommendations to the board.
"The Land Board is like the ultimate enabler in this situation," said Don Barry, a former assistant secretary at the Department of the Interior who now works for the Wilderness Society.
For his part, Dickinson says refuge officials have brought the problem on themselves. Maintaining access to water is absolutely vital to ranch operations, he says. And the family has offered to pay for any grass the cattle eat when they go to water.
But one of the watering points designated by the refuge was dangerous to pregnant cows and calves, in the rancher's estimation. And refuge officials refused to compromise, he said.
"We've done everything we could over the years to work with those folks," he said. "We've explained the problem they've created for themselves by not maintaining their fences. They have the right and authority to fence their property - we agree and understand that.
"But to not honor agreements that past managers have made - when other folks have looked at the refuge, looked at the situation and informed refuge management what they were doing wasn't in the best interest of everybody - that isn't right."
The dispute over grazing has made the refuge a flash point of local discontent in a part of Colorado where strains of the Sagebrush Rebellion still echo.
Recently, environmental groups have begun pushing the refuge to take a stand.
"They aren't doing their job under the law if they are letting cattle destroy duck nests and other habitat," said Ted Zukoski, an attorney with the Denver office of the law firm Earthjustice.
Refuge managers thought they had solved the illegal grazing problem in the late 1990s when they signed a contract to buy the state's 2-square-mile sections for $255,000. The refuge had leased the land for the previous 30 years.
But last year the Land Board killed the sale, in part because of county anger over a failed Clinton administration plan to give the refuge 6,000 acres of grazing land leased by the Dickinsons' Vermillion Ranch.
Dickinson, then the chairman of the Moffat County Commission, denounced the move as "a land grab of the highest order."
State Land Board Director Britt Weygant sees no conflict in Dickinson's participation on the grazing study panel.
"The family has ranched there a long time," Weygant said. "They could have some useful information."
Like many Moffat County officials, Dickinson believes cattle grazing can help control noxious weeds and improve wildlife habitat. He wants the refuge to let him prove it.
Refuge officials use herbicides to control weed infestations, which they say were caused by a century of grazing.
"Where we can be of service to the refuge, we are willing to entertain their proposals," Dickinson said. "If that means grazing on the refuge for the benefit of wildlife, so be it."
Weygant said that if the state study finds cattle damage wildlife habitat on the refuge, she would not feel comfortable allowing future grazing on the state lands.
But if the study finds grazing doesn't harm wildlife, Weygant said, she might grant the Dickinsons a grazing permit as early as next year.
Critics say the board is sacrificing important wildlife habitat - and ignoring its responsibility to produce income for the school system.
The two state parcels generate $3,000 in income per year.
The Land Board's regional manager, Beverly Rave, who has recommended that the Land Board grant the Dickinsons permanent access to the Green River, denies that the family gets special treatment.
"Absolutely not," she said. "I don't cater to anybody. I treat everybody the same."
The Dickinsons are one of western Colorado's most powerful clans. Vermillion Ranch leases 160,254 acres from the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and in Colorado and Utah - and more in Wyoming. The family also owns private land inside the refuge's eastern end.
They also lease an additional 13,778 acres of State Land Board land from Rave.
In 1999, Gov. Bill Owens named the rancher to the board of Great Outdoors Colorado, the state agency that distributes lottery proceeds for conservation and parks projects statewide. Dickinson is now chairman of the GOCO board.
Weygant said that in hindsight, the State Land Board was right to turn down the $255,000 buyout because the value of the land has increased since it was last appraised.
But she acknowledged that the Land Board killed the sale to mollify Moffat County officials who were angry about the refuge's expansion plan. "There was a lot of tension," she said. "The board was caught in the middle."
Dickinson acknowledges the refuge's right to fence their boundary.
"But folks other than ourselves have looked at the refuge, looked at the situation and informed refuge management what they were doing wasn't in best interest of everybody," he said.
Ron Shupe, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's assistant regional director for refuges, defended refuge manager Rodriguez.
"This is a national wildlife refuge, and wildlife has to come first," he said. "That disturbs local folks."
In fact, a strict reading of the law would force refuge managers to fence off the 500 acres of water access Rodriguez has allowed.
"We have no obligation to provide water for a Bureau of Land Management grazing permittee," he said.
The Browns Park dispute is a classic example of why federal agencies should purchase all private or state land within their boundaries, said Barry, a former refuge system official. "It eliminates the opportunity for these kinds of conflicts to occur."
But a showdown looks inevitable.
Moffat County's vision for the refuge goes well beyond grazing. County officials want state land inside Browns Park open for energy development. And officials say 50 miles of abandoned roads, old trails and paths within the refuge are really "constructed highways" the public should be allowed to drive on.
"They have made it very clear that they should have the final say," Shupe said. "Unfortunately, the law won't let that happen."
Fish and Wildlife Service officials still hope they can eventually buy the state land, or at least lease it in perpetuity.
But the Land Board has no intention of renewing the refuge's lease anytime soon.
"Our board is expecting a level of commitment to work together that we're currently not seeing," Weygant said.
Rodriguez said he may have to fence the two State Land Board properties in case state officials grant Vermillion Ranch grazing permits next year.
And attorneys for the refuge system are examining other ways to permanently end the annual trespass.
"It is still our intent to have no cows on the refuge next year," Rodriguez said.
