Hunters to get Benefit from WWP's Lawsuit Against BLM

[JoseCuervo]

Good news for hunters, if this suit by WWP (Marvel and Crew) is able to require Dubya and Crew to do the studies and make sure our Sage Grouse are protected.

[QUOTE] Lawsuit targets grazing

ELKO - U.S. Bureau of Land Management is in the initial stages of a court-ordered study of grazing impacts on sensitive bird species on 11 allotments in Elko County, but Western Watersheds Project now says it's not enough.

Ranchers, on the other hand, are worried about grazing losses because of the Western Watersheds Project lawsuit that led to the study.

The Idaho-based group recently filed a new request in federal court in Reno asking Judge Howard McKibben for an injunction to stop grazing on the 11 allotments.

"We're asking for an injunction against grazing or to put in more stringent standards of use," Katie Fite of Boise, the biodiversity director for Western Watersheds, said at the Elko BLM's open house Thursday on the study.

BLM, meanwhile, is continuing grazing management under the multiple-use plans the agency developed for the 11 allotments, said Ray Lister, project manager for the sensitive species EIS.

"We're implementing the new decisions now," he said in an interview at the open house.

He explained the judge didn't stop BLM from implementing the plans but ordered BLM and Western Watersheds Project to work together on current levels of cattle allowed on the allotments.

BLM is sticking with the original plan, which Fite said led to the new petition in the last week of 2004.

"They aren't satisfied with what we proposed for the level of use," Lister said today.

Fite said Western Watersheds wanted BLM to use the average usage numbers for the past three years, and she accused BLM of inflating the numbers to keep grazing permit values up.

"We tried to work with BLM and got nowhere," she said as she visited the allotment information stations at the BLM open house. The open house was informal, with no public presentations.

Lister said about 20 people attended the open house, which he said was a good turnout.

"We had a lot of good input and good conversations," he said this morning.

Ranchers asked questions during the open house, and provided written and oral comments to BLM.

"I oppose any reduction in grazing," Carlin rancher Rita Stitzel said in a brief interview. "There is real potential for economic hardship on ranchers."

Ranching brothers Jerry and Wallace Petersen, whose Pine Valley Sheep Ranch borders Utah and Nevada, came from Utah to find out more about the sensitive species study.

"We're concerned this suit is a threat to our livelihood. Sheep in particular don't molest birds. We have a big bird refuge in the center of our permit," Wallace Petersen said.

His brother said they have worked for years to keep the ranges in good shape and improve habitat.

"We're going to great lengths to do that," Jerry Petersen said. "It's to our benefit."

The Petersens live in Hyrum, Utah, and have grazing permits within the Sheep Complex south of West Wendover within the Elko BLM district.

The 11 allotments in the BLM study include the Sheep Complex, which has nine grazing allotments totaling 466,524 acres. The environmental impact study also will include the Big Springs Allotment east of Wells in the Pequop area totaling 482,616 acres and the 371,431-acre Owyhee Allotment in the northwestern portion of the county.

BLM has 224 grazing allotments in its Elko district, but the multiple-use plans completed for the 11 allotments in 2000 led to the lawsuit filed by Western Watersheds Project and the Committee for the High Desert.

They contended BLM violated the National Environmental Policy Act and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act with the plans by not looking closer at grazing impacts to sensitive bird species and habitat.

Ken Wilkinson, a wildlife biologist for the BLM with a focus on the Owyhee Allotment, talked with Nevada Cattlemen's Association President Preston Wright at the open house.

Wright said he has found the burrowing owl tends to live in barrow pits and near livestock and the owl is "very rarely in undisturbed brush." He asked Wikinson to take that into account in the EIS.

Wilkinson later said he supported the BLM's plans contested in the lawsuit.

"We think we were going in the right direction to implement the grazing system," Wilkinson said.

The cattlemen's association said last month representatives would be at the open house to voice concerns about any potential loss of grazing as a result of the study.

Wright said at that time the lawsuit was a "further attempt by Western Watershed to disrupt the lives of ranchers and agency representatives."

Lister estimated the court-ordered EIS will cost the BLM roughly $200,000 for in-house work and hiring a contractor.

"It's not really a full-blown EIS. "It's narrowly focused. We hope to get this completed in September or October 2005," he said.

BLM is taking public comment through Jan. 21 to help with the EIS preparation, and Lister said the agency wants to hear about issues and concerns, as well as any information to help with the study.

Along with looking at grazing impact to birds, the EIS will evaluate grazing impacts to springs, seeps, riparian areas and upland habitat used by the sensitive bird species.

Fite said she believes the study would take at least two years, however, because of the nature of studying sensitive bird species.

She said Western Watersheds wants BLM to "take a closer look at things and manage the land for the benefit of wildlife."

Fite cited an example of her group's objections. She said BLM's plans for the 11 allotments call for wells and other range improvements within areas of sage grouse leks, which are nesting sites. She said livestock reduce the number of leks.

Fite also said range development projects to provide water for cattle have killed springs in the Big Springs Allotment, and "we want to see the springs restored."

Offering another example, Fite said livestock collapse the nesting areas of burrowing owls if the livestock are allowed to graze in an area at the same time as the owls are nesting.

According to BLM, the EIS will look at the grazing impacts to sage grouse on the Sheep Complex and Owyhee and Big Springs allotments. The study also will look at the impact on three raptors at Owyhee - the golden eagle, burrowing owl and prairie falcon.

The Sheep Complex study will cover those three raptors plus the northern goshawk, short-eared owl, long-eared owl, ferruginous hawk, Swainson's hawk, peregrine falcon and flammulated owl.

Fite said raptors migrate through the Goshute Mountains in the Sheep Complex.


[/QUOTE]

 

[Ten Bears]

Raptors migrate past Spokane, WA and Coeur d' Alene, ID too, but the eagles still stop at the lake to eat the kokanee spawners (non-native landlocked sockeye). Should we also eliminate the kokanee from the lakes here?

 

[Nemont]

ELKO - U.S. Bureau of Land Management is in the initial stages of a court-ordered study of grazing impacts on sensitive bird species on 11 allotments in Elko County, but Western Watersheds Project now says it's not enough.

EG,
I know you think WWP and Mr. Marvel are the answer to ending grazing in the west but the statement above just shows WWP's M.O. Make a token effort to "work" with a group. Then once the wheels start rolling demand "more" be done. They have no interest in ever "working" with anyone. They will always go to court if they don't get things exactly the way they want.

They have no interest in cooperating with anyone. Their mission is to destroy people period. They don't even care who they destroy. I have read almost all their material and their perferred method of dealing with anything is through the courts.

Nemont

 

[BuzzH]

Nemont,

I agree with most of what you say.

However, if you expect ANY group to comply even with existing LAWS, let alone voluntarialy doing whats right, you're crazy.

The reason for all this litigation is because thats how things are accomplished. I think, (sadly) the days of people working together are over.

Ranching interests file lawsuits all the time, mining interests file lawsuits all the time, environmentalists file lawsuits all the time....cooperation broke down a long, long, long time ago.

 

[Ten Bears]

And unfortunately we have more and more judges dictating from the bench......... |oo |oo |oo

 

[BuzzH]

Ten beers,

Come up with a better solution to judges and the legal system in the United States.

Good luck.

 

[Ten Bears]

A judges job is to "interpret the law" not "dictate it as he/she sees best fits". I have seen a case were the law specifically says one thing, and the judge disagrees with it and orders something different.

 

[MattK]

TB- Please cite the example of where the law stated cleanly one thing and the judge dictated the law against it. Then show me where it has not been appealed.

Thank you in advance....
Mattk

 

[Nemont]

Ranching interests file lawsuits all the time, mining interests file lawsuits all the time, environmentalists file lawsuits all the time....cooperation broke down a long, long, long time ago.

Buzz,
I agree with that. I also am not Crazy, goofy maybe, but not crazy. Anyway I know there is a huge problem with overgrazing and allotments being in poor condition. I think there are ways to solve these problems without always going litigation. WWP prefers the court room because it is place they have success. The courts should be more of a last resort then the first resort. Here is a case where the science appears to support a different conculusion then the way WWP wanted to see the issue go.

They do not care about "working" with the BLM at all. All they want is to appear to have tried to work.

I am not saying the cowboys are any different.

Nemont

 

[MattK]

Nemont- While I agree there should be a meeting of the minds before the court system is tied up with these types of cases, I think this group, like many others, are tired of compromising their positions. They have discovered there is little need to compromise where laws are blatantly being ignored by all the parties concerned.

 

[Nemont]

MattK,
Here is the problem, they don't view any rancher as doing a good job on public lands. Regardless if the range is in good shape, regardless if my family paid estate tax (twice) on 1/2 the value of the grazing allotment, regardless if it is there is good management taking place on the public lands, regardless of the impact on the allotees's who are making improvements to the land and not grazing it down to the nubs every year.

Read what they stand for: end grazing in the west, raising cattle is an "antiquated" way to make a living, period. Well tell that to the cattle producers who continue to make profits in this business. Do you believe we can end all grazing on public lands in the west and there would be no impact to anything on our economy? Have you read anything in their mission statement, what they stand for or what their view of the world is? Why would anyone in the west want what they veiw at Utopia.

To bad there wasn't a way to make Mr. Marvel's business suffer for every acre of winter range for wildlife he had developed over years and to destroy his life just as he takes so much joy in destroying others. I know I will never change anyone minds on their positions, most of the people who are griping and moaning about the land being in poor condition have never set foot on the that land.

I don't disagree that public lands should be kept in good condition or that the law should be followed. My problem comes in when ever there is even a minor disagreement they run to the courts. Again they don't want to work with anyone they want to drive these guys out of business, that is their stated goal to end grazing in the west period. Why do you think wealthy easterners want to drive local ranchers out of business? Just to uphold the law? guess again.

Nemont

 

[BuzzH]

Nemont,

If public lands ranchers were adhering to the laws...would Marvel:

1. Ever make it before a judge?
2. Ever win a case?

Seems to me that if the ranchers were doing as good a job as they claimed to be doing, Marvel would be run out of town...

 

[Ithaca 37]

Marvel has a never ending supply of flagrent lease abuses by welfare ranchers to choose from. He has no problem picking sure winners.

 

[JoseCuervo]

There may be two dynamics at work here.....

First is that WWP picks on the "bad apples" and wins the cases. This hurts the "bad apples" and runs them out of business.

The "good apples" see the threat, and then they make sure they comply with the terms of the lease and cooperate with the BLM, thus insulating themselves from WWP.

My guess is that for every "bad apple" that gets sued, 5 "good apples" get even better, and a few "borderline apples" see the writing on the wall and try and become "good apples".

Nemont, many of these suits are really just to have the BLM update their management plans. It was an environment of the BLM sleeping at the wheel, and the ranchers knowing nobody was watching them. That is why we hear all the stories about ranchers that comply with the BLM, by moving their cattle AFTER being told to move them, not when the conditions warrant the movement.


And finally, how do you explain the value of public land grazing to somebody who feeds cattle on deeded land?

 

[Nemont]

And finally, how do you explain the value of public land grazing to somebody who feeds cattle on deeded land?

I would explain that when my family and my wife's family first came here and started ranching 100 years ago, actually 105 for my in-laws place, there was land that nobody settled and the government retained title to. Our great-grandfathers, grandfathers and fathers all raised livestock. Prior to being allowed to lease the adjacent BLM land for grazing they had to prove that their private deeded land was enough base to support the herd size they had. In the ensuing years, through drought, the dirty thirties, WWII, etc, etc, our ancestors scraped and saved and did without to buy and lease more land when the neighbors went broke. They are currently debt free and are a thriving as well as growing diversified farm & ranch operation. The BLM land leased by the ranch is mainly summer pasture. We have paid estate taxes upon that land even though we don't own it. We don't even own the grazing allotment upon which we were taxed. We treat the land well, it is in good condition and if we can lease it we would be poor business people if we didn't. The neighbors would swoop in and lease it up and then the place would be worth less then when we retained the leases. Are we entitled to this land more than any other citizen, no, but we are allowed to graze upon it.

When you were here could you tell what was deeded and what was BLM simply by the condition of the range? Could Jon Marvel walk this same ground and describe it as "nuclearized"? I am not anti grazing reform nor am I in favor of public lands being in poor condition. Nor am I a fan of the WWP and their view of what the west should be. Mr. Marvel and the WWP hates all ranchers period. They do not make any distintion between private deeded land ranchers and public lands ranchers. I will never support a guy who thinks like that. There is never a one size fits all solution for any problem.

Nemont

 

[Nemont]

Seems to me that if the ranchers were doing as good a job as they claimed to be doing, Marvel would be run out of town...

Buzz,
How could he be run out of town? Look at who he surrounds himself with. You think anyone in his little group ever said anything against his little war. They are all coolaid drinkers for his personal hatred. (except maybe EG). You suppose if he resided in Glasgow or Miles City or Broadus or anywhere near the people he is bent on destroying that he would be "run out of town". From what I have read there is no reasoning with him.

I have never said the public lands ranchers all did it right. They should be required to abide by the rules and regs. I have no problem with that. Just go and read what the WWP's goal is: it is not simply to get ranchers to abide by the law; it is to drive all of them out of business.

Nemont

 

[Ten Bears]

TB- Please cite the example of where the law stated cleanly one thing and the judge dictated the law against it. Then show me where it has not been appealed.

Thank you in advance....
Mattk

MATTK, you really don't have much experience in legal matters do you? Go ahead and answer that,correct me if I'm wrong.

I know of a magistrate that is sitting on the bench in Kootenai County that isn't even elected.

 

[MattK]

TB- I'll answer when you can give me a case study that has not been appealed or can not be appealed that has gone directly against the written law.

I don't have a lot of law experience, but I still don't think you can find a case study that a judge went directly opposite the written law. In most cases they interpret the law for or against the way you would interpret the law. If he goes directly against a law, it can be overturned on appeal.

Thank you in advance for finding that case study.

Mattk

 

[Nemont]

Journal Views







Sage grouse decline requires rational conservation effort

Extremism in environmental management is rearing its ugly head when it comes to a cherished Idaho native - the sage grouse.


On one extreme is the government, which tends to pull useful nuggets from scientific reports that enable it to claim with a straight face the sage grouse decline has leveled off. On the other extreme are the folks who believe the bird is becoming so rare, it must be listed and every radical effort to save it be made and made soon.

Here's what's going to happen:

- Later this month, the feds will decline to list the bird under the Endangered Species Act, despite evidence that cites a dramatic long-term decline in sage grouse numbers and, more importantly, sage grouse habitat.

€ Not long after the feds make their move, the environmental community will take the issue to court. Taxpayers will get the bill for defending the government's denial that listing isn't necessary from the environmental movement that include folks with clear ulterior motives - Jon Marvel's Western Watersheds Project is a clear opponent of the ranching industry, and has gone to great lengths to remove cattle and sheep from public lands. The sage grouse debate gives him a platform in the spotlight.

But, as usual, there is some middle ground in this debate.

Here's what's known:

- Sage grouse populations are nowhere near their historical numbers. They're declining as their habitat disappears at the hands of destructive human influences like mining, off-road recreation, overgrazing, etc.

- The population decline isn't necessarily a crisis - sage grouse are hardy animals that inhabit varied sage habitat so long as habit is protected. If habitat is protected, the birds will persevere.


One former state Fish and Game biologist believes there's another option to the listing, and he understands the possible economic impact on traditional economic enterprises in Idaho if the bird is listed.

Like any reasonable moderate, Ted Chu makes a sensible point. Instead of ignoring the threat to the bird - which the feds are doing whether they'll admit to it or not - public lands management in sage grouse territory should be managed with the grouse as a priority. And that also goes for ranchers, hunters, off-road enthusiasts, hikers and everyone else who has an interest in public lands access.

In other words, ranchers who run cattle in sage grouse habitat (public or private) should do so with some environmental sensitivity. Perhaps hunters should stop shooting before they bag their limit. Maybe off-roaders should stay out of breeding areas in the spring and off of critical habitat altogether. Environmentalists, on the other hand, should devote more time to public education rather than attorneys once the Fish and Wildlife Service refuses to list the bird.
Chu suggests a "warranted but precluded" approach to listing. The grouse's decline over the last 20 years is alarming, but the impact of a listing on traditional uses in the West would be pretty serious from the economic end.


Sage grouse deserve protection in Idaho and all over the West. A listing under the ESA should be the last resort. The threat of a listing should be enough of a motivation for those against such a move to take some of the management concerns to heart.

 

[MattK]

Nemont- In a perfect world, that's exactly what would happen. It is the best alternative I have seen. The problem is trying to get a rancher/farmer to not graze his cattle so much or not till up habitat. The problem is getting a hunter to take less than his limit if he has the opportunity. The problem is getting the government to observe the measures they should for habitat rehabilitation. The problem is getting an atv rider to stay on the road system.

That is the reason environmentalists take such drastic measures. I don't agree with their methods of using the courts but I know the middle ground is not easily achieved. Sometimes, it's the only way to get people to listen.