Marvel and Wolves

[JoseCuervo]

This is a good article, reminds me that I need to get our permit party applications with all my Environmentalists together to apply for River Permits. I like boating with the WWP guys....

Group values wolves over livestock ... Western Watersheds buys up grazing 'privileges' to keep ranchers at bay

HAILEY -- Snowy mountaintops with fading emerald slopes seem perfectly framed in the windowsill of the Western Watersheds office in downtown Hailey on a sunny November morning.

Two books resting on the coffee table call out for attention. A drawing of an American Indian and a wolf covers the first book. The second captures the major premise behind Western Watersheds in its title, "Welfare Ranching: The Subsidized Destruction of the American West."

Possibly one of the more infamous characters in Western ranching history sits across the way -- Jon Marvel. Marvel isn't the Jessie James bad boy-type infamous. No, instead he's more of the Henry David Thoreau with an attitude and a lawsuit-in-hand infamous. And, Marvel has proven himself to be a true enemy of many a livestock producer.

Of ranchers, Marvel says, "Their day is over. Let's face it, it really is."

Then, taken at first glance, Marvel's next statement seems curiously out of place.

"I personally opposed the reintroduction of wolves in '95 and '96," he says.

Why would an avid opponent of ranching appear to essentially side with the enemy when it comes to wolves? With Marvel, little is as simple as it seems.

"We know we had wolves in central Idaho before 1995," he said. "We knew wolves were here before reintroduction. In my judgment, we would have had less contention if we would have just let wolves come back on their own. It would have been slower, which would have been good."

The crux of Marvel's statement comes in what he does not say. Had wolves been allowed to wander back into Idaho on their own, they would have received the full protection of the Endangered Species Act. Instead, reintroduction reclassified the species as a nonessential, experimental population, making it legal for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to authorize the elimination of problem wolves.

While livestock producers can count their lucky stars that wolves did not receive the full protection of the act, Marvel and his organization oppose the killing of problem wolves.

Snuggled on the edge of the Sawtooth National Recreation Area and in what is likely the most liberal spot in Idaho, Western Watersheds draws many members from the surrounding community. That community took particular offense to the elimination of three wolf packs in the SNRA: the White Cloud, the Sawtooth and the White Hawk packs. Federal agents killed most members of the packs after the animals continued to prey on livestock grazing in the SNRA.

"Ranchers feel they have a right to be there," Marvel said. "Our society has condoned the killing of these packs for the benefit of livestock."

Marvel and supporters felt that the Fish and Wildlife Service's reaction was disproportionate to the wolves' actions. Two packs now reside in the Sawtooth National Recreation Area: the Castle Peak pack that resides near Big Lake Creek and the Galena Pack that lives on the west side of the White Clouds. Western Watersheds condemns and has litigated against killing wolves in the SNRA the last two years.

"Those packs remain at risk because of their proximity to livestock," Marvel said.

Unlike other wolf advocacy groups, Marvel's Western Watersheds isn't looking to work with livestock producers to reduce conflicts, and the organization certainly isn't trying to make friends with ranchers. The group doesn't feel it's productive for environmental groups to help ranchers.

If you listen to Marvel, conflicts in the SNRA aren't caused by problem wolves. Rather, conflict exists because of the problem livestock grazing poses to wolves and wilderness.

The economics of ranching have changed over time to a point that most in the ranching community can't make money unless they own their ranch outright or inherit it, Marvel said. The industry as a whole relies on government subsidies to survive. Instead, Marvel says, the federal government and the state support a lifestyle rather than a viable economic source.

"If we're going to save lifestyles, then let's have a general discussion about it instead of saying ranching is so special," Marvel said. "Nothing is going to keep these guys in business forever."

And, Marvel seems determined to make sure ranchers aren't in business forever. Western Watersheds has begun buying up grazing "privileges" -- as Marvel calls them -- in an effort to keep ranchers off of public lands.

Wolves and other wildlife are only seen as a detriment because of livestock, Marvel said. By getting rid of predators such as wolves and grizzly bears, we are taming the wilderness, making it less wild, Marvel said, harkening Thoreau. Marvel said he hopes that the people of Idaho will see wildlife -- including wolves -- as a benefit instead of a detriment.

"It's an unfortunate culture we've created in the West," Marvel said. "Everybody in America actually places more emphasis on wildlife than on livestock."

 

[Ithaca 37]

Good for Jon. Here's where he hits the nail on the head: "The industry as a whole relies on government subsidies to survive. Instead, Marvel says, the federal government and the state support a lifestyle rather than a viable economic source."

Nobody is concerned about subsidizing my life style! Actually, I wouldn't be so upset about subsidizing welfare ranchers if they weren't so destructive to public land and wildlife. As it is, many of them are the worst enemies of public land hunters and fishermen. No other group has done anywhere near as much to reduce my hunting and fishing opportunities---- not the anti-hunting organizations, not the environmentalists, not the tree huggers, not the anti-gun nuts, not the animal rights groups. In fact, all of them put together haven't had any noticeable negative effect on my hunting. But the welfare ranchers have had a huge negative effect on our hunting and fishing. I see the destruction they've caused every time I hunt on BLM.

 

[ELKCHSR]

I'm thinking Idaho needs to follow what ever plan Montana seems to be following.
I see cows in FS grounds, but there isn't the amount I was seeing 7 years ago.
I am seeing long grasses in many open parks in the high mountains.
Next year I will start to document some of this stuff.
I see some signs of cattle in some of these parks, but you can tell the old poop piles are getting aged to about 2-3 years.
I saw in one of the areas that I frequent, that it looks like they have been letting cattle into some of these areas about every 2-3 years and then take them out.
I may be mistaken in how the policies seem to be going because I haven't stopped in any where and asked. I am only going on what I have been seeing as what appears to be trends on how these grounds are managed.
I am also going on what little I have seen of Montana. This is a big state, and even with the probable several, several hundred or so miles I put in this year, and the thousands I have put in over the last 8 years. This is just what I have been seeing almost every where. Now there is a few places I see in the Big Hole that they let to many cows for to long stay, but these places seem to be getting smaller and less as time goes by.
The first year I was here, there was only a couple places I actually went that didn't have cows. Now I am finding lots of areas that don't have them at all or only a few are let into the areas.

 

[Nemont]

Nobody is concerned about subsidizing my life style!

Ithaca, I am willing to bet you get subsidized in forms you don't even count. I think it is pretty telling that Jon Marvel is quoted saying: "It's an unfortunate culture we've created in the West," Marvel said.

I guess it would take a true elitist eastern transplant to come here to live, Make his living developing wintering grounds for wildlife into condos and then lament that the "culture" we in the west have developed is "unfortunate".

Nemont

 

[BigHornRam]

Well said Nemont. Marvel is no less of a kook then the wolf haters IT likes to quote. IT's buddy George Wuerthner is of similar stock.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Hey ElkCheese,

Are you so stupid that you don't have a clue as to why you are seeing changes in MT with cattle??? You can thank Marvel for the improvements.

Hey Nemont,
How long does Jon have to live in the West before he is no longer an Easterner? I was born in Idaho, and I think Jon has lived in Idaho longer than I have.

And you are right, as residents of Idaho and Montana, our lifestyles are very subsidized. The Feds pay us far more than they tax us.

 

[Nemont]

EG,
I have no real issue with Jon Marvel living in Idaho. My problem with him is he wants to kill the people who helped build the culture he moved west to become part of. How has he helped the the culture of the west? He hates all ranchers, don't tell me he only hates public lands rancher because his rhetoric does not seperate it into those grazing public lands or private lands. I find it interesting that he has no guilt or ill feelings over the 15,000 square foot mansions he designs and builds, usually on former winter range for wildlife, for the eastern elite. Oh but that is how he makes his living so nobody should mess with that, right. Yet he wants to kill off all ranchers who dare to have their cattle consume a blade of grass. WWP wants to end all ranching, I have read their info and their mission statement. Anyone who wants a one size fits all solution to all grazing on public land will never, ever have my support or get any of my money. What happens with public lands grazing in Idaho is different then the plains of eastern Montana, is different then southern Nevada etc, etc.

I find it interesting that all the anti grazing people who will say they want science to decide the best use of public lands would ever support a total ban on grazing; which is what Marvel wants. You can view him as the salvation of public lands but I never will. I want the land in good condition and I want hunting opportunities to increase but I don't want to run every cow off the land to do it. I wish they would let the market set the price of the AUM's on public land that way ranches that are well run would prosper and the less efficient would go away. Leaving less competition for my family thus making our operation more profitable. But Jon Marvel model of the west is not one I ever want to be a part of. Where it is just a playground for the rich and famous and the local peons can serve them in the restruant.

N

 

[JoseCuervo]

I don't think I believe WWP wants to end ranching on private land. Just on public land. And since we run our cattle on private land, that seems like a good idea. I know that I have a "niche" market for beef on our river trips, as I can personally vouch for it being "non-Owyhee County". And not once has anybody ever turned up their nose at any of my Dutch Oven meals, or even the Venison that I sneak in on the trips.... :evilgrin:

Here is an article out of Range Magazine. The lady does a good job when she learns how "social change" happens. She is absolutely correct on what is happening.

I came to the Owyhees in Oregon to interview Michael Hanley, IV, a target of environmental activists. A neighbor of Hanley's had referred me to him as a resource for an article I wanted to write about the area's unique way of life. Ranch family culture still revolved around pioneer values of hard work and responsibility. Ranchers used 19th century practices, equipment and gear introduced by vaqueros from Northern California.

I drove southwest to the town of Jordan Valley, just over the southern Idaho-Oregon border. The remains of the town nestled around the backward "L" formed by Interstate 95 where it turned west. The only grocery store stood empty, a "For Lease" sign propped in a window. The Basque restaurant's marquee read "Out of Business." High desert terrain surrounded the small, depressed town and stretched toward distant, snow-topped Steens Mountain.

About a mile past the end of town I pulled up in front of a small stone house with a hand-lettered sign that read "Hanley Ranch." A white, two-story home with a steep green roof stood down the road. Two corrals, a barnyard and a rusty, yellow house trailer connected the old stone house with the newer one.
After a moist hand-nosing by a friendly border collie, I spotted Hanley in the carriage barn, gathering parts and tools. Hanley leaned against a red and yellow stagecoach and hooked his thumbs into the front pockets of mud-encrusted jeans. I asked about activists' threats to close down the ranch that had been in his family for four generations.

"It doesn't have to be confrontational, you know," he said. "Most of us are interested in conservation. We'd rather work with environmental groups to restore the land. But they don't want it to look like they capitulated.

"People don't understand why ranchers are so committed," he said, kneeling to bend a metal band around a wooden wheel. "We're part of this land. We depend on it for our survival."

When we finished talking, he offered to drive me to the grazing area. We walked outside and watched his son, Mike Rose, lead horses up a ramp into a long silver trailer attached to Hanley's 4x4.

Two eager border collies paced in the truck bed. One of the four ranch hands grabbed my elbow and helped me into the cab. As we bounced along on unpaved roads, Hanley shouted over the engine and gravel noise explaining how his and neighboring ranches grazed their herds together. He said that ranch owners inherited a commitment from their forebears to care for the land, whether they owned it or leased it from the government.

I asked about the environmentalist Jonathan Marvel, his outspoken adversary.

"The first time I met him, he came up and said, 'I'm going to do whatever it takes to get rid of you and your cows.' He got close to my face and poked his finger into my shoulder. He wasn't laughing. Now how do you talk to someone like that?"

After an hour's drive, Hanley stopped. Grabbing his used-to-be-white felt hat from the seat, he saddled Douglas, his black horse, then appeared at my window.

"I'll be about an hour," he said. "Might be a good time for a siesta."

How had he known? Worn out from traveling, I leaned over, put my feet up on the seat and fell into a deep sleep.

* * *

A few days later, I walked into an office in Boise where Jonathan Marvel had offered to meet, saving me the three-hour drive to his headquarters in Hailey, Idaho. An architect in this scenic area near Sun Valley for 20 years, he designed over 160 houses. Marvel founded the Western Watersheds Project (WWP), a nonprofit, tax-exempt organization working to protect and restore western watersheds. The WWP and similar organizations filed lawsuits against government agencies and individuals for enforcement of environmental protection laws.

Marvel had just returned from an all-day meeting. Dressed in a short-sleeved plaid shirt, khaki pants and brown suede Nikes, he was polite and attentive, not what I had expected from several unflattering newspaper articles. He invited me to sit on the porch.

While he finished a fruit drink, I glanced at the WWP's Spring, 2002, newsletter, Watersheds Messenger. The cover featured a drawing of a snouty, bloated cow labeled "Public Lands Ranching." The sorry beast stared ahead with dull, drooping eyes, munching dollar bills in its rhinoceros-like mouth. Numerous cow pies dotted the surrounding dry creek bed. The caption read "The Real Welfare Queens."

Marvel leaned back in a white plastic chair, fingertips together, and gazed at the cloudless sky. Assuming this was my cue, I asked about plans to restore a ranch the WWP had purchased. He turned toward me, eyebrows furrowed in concentration.

"Ranching is an atavistic lifestyle," he said, "an unusual relic of the past that has nothing to do with reality. It's not financially viable, so how can it be a business? They need to sell their land and get jobs like everybody else."

To make sure I understood him, I asked, if inevitable, why not let the family ranch die a natural death? He smiled and said, "We're here to accelerate the process."

According to Marvel, ranchers saw themselves as superior to others who settled western territory because they thought that their image best represented the West. "The cultural value of self-importance," he called it. Ranching wasn't a business, it was a "lifestyle choice" subsidized by the federal government's low-cost grazing leases.

"Ranching doesn't represent the development of the West anyway," he said. "Cities do. Mining, logging and railroads created commerce. Livestock were brought in to feed miners; ranches were a by-product."

Marvel added that, although he respected Hanley, they came from two different "belief systems."

"Go down and meet him if you can," he suggested. "You'll like him. Everyone likes him."

Studying my notes that evening, I saw why Marvel and Hanley might hold different views. Marvel grew up in Wilmington, Delaware, where his father, a lawyer, owned a small farm. "I've pitched hay just like they have," he had said, referring to the ranchers. In contrast, Hanley relied on ranching to support his family. He didn't have a back-up job.

I drove back to Jordan Valley where, to my surprise, I felt more comfortable.

"Whad'ya think of Jon Marvel?" Hanley called out as I approached his barnyard. A ruddy-faced man in a turquoise plaid shirt, new jeans and a shiny silver belt buckle pointed to a red pick-up. "Help yourself to a beer."

I told Hanley that I was confused, grabbed a Coors Light from the cooler and sat on the steps leading to Jordan Valley's old general store. Hanley had moved it to his property just before its scheduled demolition.

I flew home with more questions than I'd brought. The activist view, as described by Marvel, didn't make sense to me. Why wouldn't they work with the ranchers? What was the point of disparagement and ridicule? A friend expressed disappointment that I'd "bought" everything Hanley had said.

After arriving home, I looked up articles and books, seeking explanations for the inconsistencies I had observed. The following quote, and others like it, pointed me in a new direction.

"On the surface, social change movements appear to be spontaneous bursts of energy, a sweep of people, outraged, rising to demand a change. But in truth they flow from careful organizing, massive public education, sustained agitation, and at time[s,] inspired collaboration across the divides of race, gender, and class. These movements are driven by human energy, intelligence, courage-and money."

I began to place confusing events in a different context. For instance, the term "sustained agitation" applied to a mental note I'd made. Several Jordan Valley residents had expressed concern about certain "pro-environment" activities that seemed pointless, malicious and/or destructive. Someone said that a cow had been shot several weeks earlier.

The WWP and similar organizations' members were not affected financially by their decisions. Donated funds paid for litigation. Ranchers, most of whom lived at subsistence level, took big financial hits for legal defense. Some went bankrupt, freeing up their grazing leases. Environmental organizations expressed interest in acquiring them.

The tactics used by extreme activists made me wonder if environmental restoration was just a façade, a means to another goal. Although Marvel had said that he objected only to ranching on federal land, his general disdain for livestock raising suggested other motives.

Wasn't this just the same old story-power and money buying control in the guise of hiking boots and backpacks?

The next time Forests Forever calls, I won't be available. I need to start adjusting my attitudes and preconceptions. *

Catherine Shepard started writing after a 20-year career at the University of California in Berkeley. Her work has appeared on Salon.com, and in the Denver Post, the Pittsburg Post-Gazette, the San Francisco Chronicle, the San Jose Mercury News and Skirt! hump magazine, among others. She lives in Berkeley.

 

[Nemont]

"It doesn't have to be confrontational, you know," he said. "Most of us are interested in conservation. We'd rather work with environmental groups to restore the land. But they don't want it to look like they capitulated

I asked about the environmentalist Jonathan Marvel, his outspoken adversary. "The first time I met him, he came up and said, 'I'm going to do whatever it takes to get rid of you and your cows.' He got close to my face and poked his finger into my shoulder. He wasn't laughing. Now how do you talk to someone like that?"

Ranching is an atavistic lifestyle," he said, "an unusual relic of the past that has nothing to do with reality. It's not financially viable, so how can it be a business? They need to sell their land and get jobs like everybody else."

According to Marvel, ranchers saw themselves as superior to others who settled western territory because they thought that their image best represented the West. "The cultural value of self-importance," he called it. Ranching wasn't a business, it was a "lifestyle choice" subsidized by the federal government's low-cost grazing leases.

Studying my notes that evening, I saw why Marvel and Hanley might hold different views. Marvel grew up in Wilmington, Delaware, where his father, a lawyer, owned a small farm. "I've pitched hay just like they have," he had said, referring to the ranchers. In contrast, Hanley relied on ranching to support his family. He didn't have a back-up job.

A few days later, I walked into an office in Boise where Jonathan Marvel had offered to meet, saving me the three-hour drive to his headquarters in Hailey, Idaho. An architect in this scenic area near Sun Valley for 20 years, he designed over 160 houses.

Show me where Mr. Marvel states anywhere that he only wants to end Public Lands Ranching? I find it interesting that he can speak for all cattle producers, many who are brilliant businessmen, that it isn't a business. Or that ranchers need to get jobs like everyone else. I don't see anything in his "views" that seperate ranching into two different distinct entities. Have you read his view of watersheds that are on Private deeded land? That those deeded lands are a "public" resource and that the landowner shouldn't have any rights to them. That is basically what he says.

I guess the answer to your question regarding when is Mr. Marvel going to viewed as a westerner instead of an elitist, eastern transplant: When he starts acting like a westerner. You may enjoy his company and he may be a decent person, you have met him I haven't, but as long as he thinks that he, alone, knows what is good for Sun Valley, Idaho is good also for Whitewater, MT as well, I have no respect for him or WWP. I don't know maybe you think it is funny and a good thing when ranchers are forced out of business by lawsuits funded by deep pockets from back east, I don't.

Grazing on public should not be allowed to destroy the land but guys like Jon Marvel shouldn't be allowed to think only they know what is good for MY PUBLIC LANDS either.

I flew home with more questions than I'd brought. The activist view, as described by Marvel, didn't make sense to me. Why wouldn't they work with the ranchers? What was the point of disparagement and ridicule? A friend expressed disappointment that I'd "bought" everything Hanley had said

And the gem of the whole article

The WWP and similar organizations' members were not affected financially by their decisions . Donated funds paid for litigation. Ranchers, most of whom lived at subsistence level, took big financial hits for legal defense. Some went bankrupt, freeing up their grazing leases. Environmental organizations expressed interest in acquiring them.

Nemont

 

[JoseCuervo]

Hey Nemont,

It is ME that is posting the articles out of Range Magazine.

Your quote:

Show me where Mr. Marvel states anywhere that he only wants to end Public Lands Ranching? I find it interesting that he can speak for all cattle producers, many who are brilliant businessmen, that it isn't a business. Or that ranchers need to get jobs like everyone else.

Do you differentiate between "cattle producers" and "ranchers"? I agree that many "cattle producers" are brilliant businessmen. My grandfather was one of them, somebody who came out of the Great Depression with paid for deeded land, a herd of cows, and cash in his pocket.

I am not sure if he was a "rancher", in that he didn't graze cattle on public lands. Everything was fed on deeded land. We still own cows descended out of his herd, and they have never stepped on public land ('cept for when they breakdown a fence and get on the roadway :eek
My guess is that Marvel will be just as offended by "factory farms" if they affect watersheds or quality of life. So, from that point, I am not sure what he finds acceptable in a method of raising cattle. I have always thought that running "environmentally safe" cow/calf operations on deeded land was not on his radar. I will ask around and see what the consensus is.

The way I kind of look at the issue is to see what constituencies support grazing on public lands and which ones would be against the same:

• Hog Producers
• Feedlot Operators
• Poultry Producers
• Hunters
• Fishermen
• Deeded land "cattle producers"
• Public Land Ranchers
• US Taxpayers
• US Consumers
• Free Trade Advocates

 

[Nemont]

EG,
I know it is you. I am just bored and felt like venting a little on this thread. Anyway I still don't like Jon Marvel, I don't like the way he acts nor is "mission" in life and most likely never will. So I will quit arguing with you and just drop it.

Nemont

 

[JoseCuervo]

Hey Nemont,
You can keep arguing.... You at least have an opinion AND a brain. That puts you way ahead of ElkCheese and Paul......

And no fair editing after I respond. Now I don't know if my response makes sense???

Marvel is kind of a unique person, and his approach is somewhat novel. I don't know if he planned to take this direction, or if somebody slammed a door on him once too many times. I am not sure if we will ever know "who started it".

The first leases he went for were State Leases in Idaho, and at that time, I don't think he had any further plans. When he was the high bidder for the leases, he was told by the Governor, the Atty General, and the Sec of State that his money wasn't good enough, and that the Governor (and company) preferred that Idaho's school children continue to go to school in unsafe buildings, using outdated teaching materials, and be satisfied with inferior educations. My guess is that since they were all Republicans, they were just looking to make sure future generations of Idaho children would be Republicans by witholding a quality education.

And then the Legislature passed the "Anti-Marvel Law", which he had to take to the Supreme Court to get it thrown out. At this point, he was still just an Idaho guy fighting the State Land board, and the organization was Idahow Watersheds....

I know that his ranch at Greenfire on the East Fork of the Salmon has had its employees threatened, tires ruined, and other damage. So if the lady from Berkely that wrote the article paints one picture of Mavel vs. Ranchers, there could also be another side of Ranchers vs. Marvel. Behaviour on both sides has been less than exemplary at times. I do know that people within the local Environmental community question Marvel's tactics. Lots of discussions over "good vs. harm" that comes from his approach.

 

[Nemont]

EG,

While I certainly do not condone threats of violence, vandalism and intimidation of his employees I could see how a couple of people would decide to do just that. Look at how he treats people. I would find it difficult to believe that he didn't expect some kind of payback for the way he treats all who disagree with him with such contempt and hatred. Agreed it goes both ways the ranchers aren't in the right either but I haven't seen anyone attempt to put him out of business and tell him how stupid he is for designing homes for wealthy people who want to turn the west into their very own private playland.

I disagree with his style, his contempt for people, his one size fits all solution and the way he threatens people livelyhoods. I most likely couldn't sit down and talk to him because he probably wouldn't listen to me anyway. All he is doing is making the public land ranchers fight harder to stay on the land. I bet there would be more progress made to reduce AUM's if he wasn't involved.

Nemont

p.s. I didn't edit anything that would change you responses just cleaned up some grammar issues.

 

[Ithaca 37]

"All he is doing is making the public land ranchers fight harder to stay on the land. I bet there would me more progress made to reduce AUM's if he wasn't involved."

Marvel has won every battle (that I know of) he's been in with welfare ranchers, BLM and the state of Idaho. If there's been any improvement in the way the welfare ranchers treat their leases it's because they know Marvel is watching. The only reason they even come to the negotiating table now is because they're so afraid of Marvel. Marvel has so many egregious cases of land abuse to chose from all he has to do is pick the sure winners. He has the law on his side whenever he sues the BLM or welfare ranchers.

The amazing thing to me is that he's painted as some kind of nut when all he's doing is forcing the government to obey the law. Any agency or rancher who doesn't want to be sued by Marvel just has to obey the law. It's that simple. I wish we had 500 more Marvels policing the gummint.

 

[Nemont]

IT,
He may win every battle and because of his actions lose the war. Do you think it would be difficult getting a pro grazing law passed through the current congress and signed by the president? The cowboys all have a poster child for why they should be protected. All the have to show is the way Mr. Marvel is attempting to destroy their lives.
If you want 500 more of him so do I because politically, in the current environment, public lands grazers could get their positions codified in law and then what will the rancher hater like yourself do? Why not transition these people into a different way of life rather then destroy them not only financially but humiliate them in public as well. I bet there are a lot of sympathetic Senators and Congressmen that the public lands ranchers can turn to "save" them. But I guess nobody on the anti-grazing side is smart enough to understand that.

Mr. Marvel is a fanatic and he wants to do more then just uphold the law. He wants to end ranching and grazing period. I just don't know how you can defend a guy whose whole life is dedicated to ruining people and building houses upon the winter range of wildlife. But to each his own. I choose a to dislike his message, his ways, his mission and if I met him I most likely would dislike him.

Nemont

 

[Ithaca 37]

I don't think Marvel or anyone would think it was realistic to try to end all ranching and grazing; just the welfare ranching. And what effect would that actually have? Less than 5% of the annual beef consumption in the US comes from public land cattle. Total number of jobs provided by public land grazing in the US? Last time I checked it was less than 20,000.

"Why not transition these people into a different way of life rather then destroy them not only financially but humiliate them in public as well."

Why don't they just transition themselves? Are they helpless? Nobody ever worried about transitioning me!

Also, just in case you've forgotten, I never stated I want public land grazing stopped completely. I think we need all the tools we can get in our management plans. All I want is for all public land to be in excellent condition. If that can be done while still grazing it that's fine with me.

Any problems the welfare ranchers are having have been caused by themselves. Remember how much BLM is in poor condition? Remember how much wildlife habitat has been destroyed? Who's to blame for that, Marvel?

 

[Nemont]

IT,
Well that is your opinion. When you succeed in your mission with ranchers you will find other's whose mission will be to end hunting on public land and by then there won't be anyone to give two shits about you and all the public land will be in excellent condition.

In addition you may want to walk the ground in places other then Idaho and find out that there is more to the issue then you think. But I could really careless what you think because your opinion does not matter to me. You hate ranchers so be it. I don't because I have seen what can be done with public and private land. Again your opinion is that ranchers destroy land but that is just your opinion. It is like another piece of your anotomy and everyone has one.


Nemont

 

[JoseCuervo]

IT,
He may win every battle and because of his actions lose the war. Do you think it would be difficult getting a pro grazing law passed through the current congress and signed by the president? The cowboys all have a poster child for why they should be protected. All the have to show is the way Mr. Marvel is attempting to destroy their lives.
If you want 500 more of him so do I because politically, in the current environment, public lands grazers could get their positions codified in law and then what will the rancher hater like yourself do...I bet there are a lot of sympathetic Senators and Congressmen that the public lands ranchers can turn to "save" them. But I guess nobody on the anti-grazing side is smart enough to understand that.

Nemont

That is the crux of the discussions within the local Environmental community. Does his "scorched Earth" policy help or harm, in the long run.

The opposite approach is being done on Salmon, where we have commisions, committees, summits, conferences, studies, etc.... and not much progress is being made, and then what little progress is made can be wiped out by some stupid idea of Dubya's to say that Dams are a "natural part of the environment." Salmon Issues are a study in compromise, but not a study in accomplishments.

 

[Ithaca 37]

Nemont, "Again your opinion is that ranchers destroy land but that is just your opinion."

Sorry, but you're wrong about that. It's not just my opinion-----it's a proven fact. I'm pretty sure you'd remember the statistics on how much BLM is in poor condition due to overgrazing.

Here's a little reading material to help you understand the issue:

MYTH

Ranchers Are Good Stewards of the Land

TRUTH

More than 410 million acres of U.S. rangelands-public and private-are in unsatisfactory ecological condition, according to an estimate by the Natural Resources Conservation Service. This is an area four times the size of California, or 21 percent of the continental United States, and nearly all of it is in the West. These lands are severely damaged, with at least 50 percent of the desirable plant species eliminated, high erosion and weed invasion rates, and riparian areas unable to function normally.

Although public lands usually get more attention from the media, statistics compiled by the Natural Resources Conservation Service indicate that more total acres and a higher percentage of private lands in the West are in unsatisfactory condition as compared with public rangelands. This is particularly egregious in that private lands tend to be more productive and better watered than public lands-hence more resilient to livestock abuses.

In truth, ranchers are fighting an impossible battle against the natural limitations of the landscape. The West is not only an arid region but one in which annual precipitation varies widely. The amount of precipitation that falls in a year is directly reflected in the amount of grass production, meaning that forage quantity varies widely from year to year as well. This makes it very difficult for ranchers to maintain a stable business operation while also managing herds so as not to damage the land.

To be a good steward, ideally one not only must have a sense of responsibility and concern for the land-as many ranchers do-but also must treat the land in a way that conserves its fertility, productivity, diversity, and beauty for the future. Yet by raising domestic animals that demand large quantities of water and forage in a place that is dry, and by favoring slow-moving, heavy, and relatively defenseless livestock in terrain that is rugged, vast, and inhabited by native predators, ranchers have put themselves in a position of constant warfare with the land. They funnel most of the grass into their own animals, at the expense of the wild herbivores. They divert water from rivers to grow hay and other crops to feed cows, leaving fish and other aquatic life with hot, shallow trickles. They allow their cattle to graze and trample riparian areas-habitat on which 75 to 80 percent of all wild animal species in the West depend-polluting waterways with manure and adding excessive sediments to the water as they denude the land. And although "beauty is in the eye of the beholder," it's arguable whether most people would prefer a place where the grass is chewed down to stubs and the ground is littered with cow pies, over a grassland of tall and waving stems, dotted with wildflowers.



http://www.publiclandsranching.org/book.htm

BTW, "You hate ranchers so be it." Wrong again. I actually like most of the ones I know. I hate what most of the welfare ranchers have done to public land wildlife habitat.

 

[Nemont]

IT,
Anything on the Publiclandranching.org website is so biased and onesided that it is useless to anyone who wants to have a discussion on public lands ranching. If you want to just have a bitch session regarding it you can start there. In the mind of Mr. Marvel and his coolaid drinkers there are no good ranchers and no rancher cares about the environment.

The collapse of compromise

By TOM CLIFFORD - IR Your Turn - 12/30/04

I would like to express my deep gratitude to the communities that surround the Helena National Forest for the opportunity to serve as your Forest Supervisor for the past 11 years. I've enjoyed a tremendous amount of support from you folks and value more than I can say the friendships I've made during my tenure here. My wife Gail and I intend to remain in Helena following our retirement in January.

I think one aspect that makes the USFS special is most of us didn't hire on just for a job, but more for the passion of making a difference for the natural resources we are entrusted to manage. We can all count ourselves fortunate to live in a part of the world that has public lands available for our enjoyment. Yet in the course of my career, I've seen management of those lands become more and more contentious. I've had to remind myself on a number of occasions that in many respects that contentiousness is largely a reflection of the valuable resources that are present and the deep feelings that people develop for the land.

Even if you only consider Montana — the National Forest System is extensive — we don't have to operate in the tired old manner of no one getting what they want. Additional wild lands can be designated wilderness while a sufficient landbase of sustainable timberlands can keep mills in operation and provide jobs for our neighbors. All it takes is working together and a willingness to make some compromises.


Having said that, it does sadden me to reflect upon the degree to which there has been a distinct erosion over the last thirty years in the ability of local citizens to fashion compromise solutions to natural resource issues. Citizen involvement in management of public lands is without question an absolutely positive thing and I've been impressed with the commitment of energy that stakeholders from all perspectives have displayed. But all too often the will of a small minority has hampered implementation of well-crafted collaborative projects that have broad-scale support. Under the sheer weight of current laws, regulations, and policies, those who favor gridlock are at a distinct advantage and have been allowed to thumb their noses at a majority of citizens.

I'm proud of the volume of work that has been completed on the Helena over the last decade, but I know we could have accomplished considerably more if we were able to operate in a truly collaborative environment. While we have a pretty enviable track record on those projects where we have been hit with lawsuits, fighting this litigation costs taxpayers dearly and drains an incredible amount of energy and time from other projects. The last two cases which were found in our favor in District Court — Jimtown and North Elkhorns — are now under appeal to the Ninth Circuit.

I promised myself that I would retire while I'm still enjoying my career. I've got fish to catch, flies to tie, cabinets to build, and grandsons that need fishing and hunting memories to tell. And I need more time to enjoy the resources I've spent the last 30-plus years protecting.

I trust that you'll show my successor the same support and willingness to work toward the greater good that I was so fortunate to receive. Thanks again to each of you; come January, 2005, we'll see you in the woods or on the trail!

Tom Clifford is the supervisor of the Helena National Forest

In both the above mentioned cases there were extensive studies of reducing fuels to prevent wildfire destruction. Private land owners, biologists, the USFS, USFWS and the State of Montana did extensive work to colloborate on these projects which ended up in a lawsuit filed by the Native Ecosystems Council to stop the fuel reduction. Just like the WWP they prefer to impose their will upon others even if there is a better way to accomplish the same thing. You guys enjoy Mr. Marvel's way of dealing with issues that is your perogative. I think he will continue to "win" the cases he chooses to go to court with and ultimate lose support of alot of the public who is in the middle on these issues. I find him to be arrogant and condescending. I even find it funny that you think all improvement in range quality can be pointed back to Mr. Marvel.

Management by lawsuits is a very expensive way to manage lands. In addition it drains money, time, personel and other resources away from land management.

Nemont