Owyhee Initiative for Dummies

[JoseCuervo]

I was asked about what the Owyhee Initative was, and how hunters should feel about it. The person I was explaining it to is not the brightest bulb on the Christmas Tree, so I figured I would provide some facts, with the unbiased perspective that only the ElkGunner can bring.

What:
The Owyhee Initiative was begun, according to newspaper reports and The Idaho Conservation League, by ranchers and Owyhee County representatives who wished to find a way to get around lawsuits brought by Western Watersheds Project and Committee for Idaho's High Desert, which successfully sought to enforce environmental laws the ranchers have customarily violated or ignored.

The Owyhee Initiative was begun, according to newspaper reports and The Idaho Conservation League, by ranchers and Owyhee County representatives who wished to find a way to get around lawsuits brought by Western Watersheds Project and Committee for Idaho's High Desert, which successfully sought to enforce environmental laws the ranchers have customarily violated or ignored.

From the Idaho Conservation League website, http://www.wildidaho.org/news/initiative.html (Last visited August 9, 2003) (cached version here):

"An Idaho Statesman story in July 2002 summed up the effort pretty well, paraphrasing the group chairman, Fred Grant, saying that the only way ranchers facing reductions in their herds and continued legal assaults can survive is to go to Congress for help. The only way to get that help is to resolve the conflicts over land protection. The county started the conversation with the Nature Conservancy of Idaho and requested assistance from the Idaho congressional delegation. Sen. Mike Crapo responded with a commitment to help a collaborative group move toward resolutions and to carry legislation if it could be a joint agreement of interests. (Emphasis added).

And from the August 1, 2001 edition of The Owyhee Avalanche newspaper:

"Groups including many concerned ranchers, cattlemen and farmers attended the meeting to witness what most hope is a beginning to the end of fighting for agricultural rights. . . . This could put an end to very expensive litigation that has been tying up this county's way of life and the court system.
Owyhee County Cattleman President Martin Jaca said the initiative can only be a step up in the right direction. 'It can't get any worse than it has been,' Jaca said. 'We need to have some way to get it out of the hands of the people with an agenda like [Federal District of Idaho Judge Lynn] Winmill's and [Western Watersheds Project Director Jon] Marvel's. I like the fact they have three issues that are non negotiable [preservation of water rights, protection of livestock grazing as an economic use, and presence of Marvel in negotiations] and that this will not include people like Marvel.'" (Emphasis added)

It seems everyone is in agreement that litigation by Western Watersheds and Committee for Idaho's High Desert (in Judge Lynn Winmill's courtroom) brought the ranchers to the negotiating table. Why were the cooperating environmental groups so quick to agree the ranchers' terms and exclude the very organizations whose hard and expensive efforts had finally brought the ranchers to the point where they were willing to settle? And why were they so willing to agree to terms that will likely destroy the ability of WWP and CIHD to continue using federal law to hold the rancher's feet to the fire?

How:
To achieve this, Owyhee County commissioners and local ranching interests have persuaded several of Idaho's larger environmental groups to join with them to put together a plan for management of the Owyhee canyonlands that would eventually be written into law. The plan would permit grazing developments in remote areas that are currently protected, and could block legal challenges to enforce water and wildlife regulations.

In exchange for the increased grazing, ranchers have agreed to support wilderness designation for up to 480,000 acres of the Owyhee canyonlands. But according to a leaked draft of the bill, all existing grazing rights would be grandfathered in to the new wilderness areas, including motorized use. New livestock "developments" would be permitted in the wilderness. The plan would also permit what proponents call "shavings" to cut into the existing boundaries of Wilderness Study Areas, removing the protections from new grazing projects those areas currently enjoy. Any cow-free areas of wilderness the conservationists are able to gain from this plan would come at the expense of increased grazing in other areas released from protection; there would be no net reduction of herds.

Who Was Left Out:
By working hard in the past decade to enforce water quality and wildlife regulations in the Owyhees, groups like Western Watersheds Project and The Committee for the High Desert have begun to clamp down on grazing problems there. But now environmental groups that had no part in those efforts have teamed up with the ranchers create a plan that helps the ranchers continue grazing as before, in exchange for their support for "wilderness" designation that has all the current grazing management grandfathered in.

Western Watersheds Project and Committee for the High Desert have been explicitly prohibited from participating in the Owyhee Initiative.

A fundamental problem of the Owyhee Initiative, is that while the ranchers were brought to the negotiating table by legal challenges of Western Watersheds Project and The Committee for the High Desert, these two groups have never been permitted to participate in the negotiations -- and the deal that is about to be struck shows it. The legal challenges that have forced the ranchers to comply with federal environmental regulations to protect public lands -- regulations they had been ignoring and violating for decades -- may be much harder to make after the Owyhee Initiative is passed, and the net damage to the landscape from grazing will surely increase when the currently undeveloped wilderness study areas are opened to water developments and more grazing.

The ranchers, forced to confront the realities of grazing in this harsh, remote, dry landscape while still meeting basic environmental standards, saw the Owyhee Initiative as a way out of their predicament. By setting up a group with environmental representation that explicitly excludes WWP and CIHD from participating, they have been able to offer phony wilderness designation that grandfathers in all current uses, removes wilderness water rights by law, and that opens up as much as 250,000 acres of currently off-limits wilderness study areas to grazing. At the same time the ranchers can take significant steps toward shielding themselves from the very lawsuits that brought them to this point in the first place. See the link to the draft bill on the main page of this website for the formal language; see also the page on genesis of the bill for more information on why the Owyhee Initiative was created.

An important part of the ranchers' strategy was to ensure that Western Watersheds Project and Committee for High Desert. would not be permitted to negotiate, because they knew that these groups would never agree to such a lopsided bargain. Owyhee Initiative proponent Fred Grant told the Owyhee Avalanche newspaper that "Jon Marvel will intentionally not be involved because he has made it clear he opposes grazing." (Owyhee Avalanche, Aug. 1, 2001).

The conservation groups permitted to join the Owyhee negotiations have nowhere near the understanding or experience in the Owyhees that WWP and CHD have. It is something of a shock to most members of the public to realize that the "wilderness" these groups are so proud of bargaining for will not look any different from the land as it looks right now, because most current uses, including motorized use by the ranchers, will be grandfathered in, and some non-current uses may also be permitted, like improved water developments. Further, currently ungrazed or lightly-grazed adjoining areas will be opened up to water developments and new motorized use, making them accessible to more cows for a longer season.

A bulldozer lays another water pipeline in the Owyhees, expanding the grazed area ever further. The Owyhee Initiative is favored by livestock interests because it will "release" for development many areas that are currently off-limits to pipelines, roads, and water developments.

The Owyhee Initiative would bring many "developments" like this one to areas where they are currently prohibited, possibly including the newly designated wilderness.

This is a photograph of a bull knee-deep in mud at the bottom of a bulldozed reservoir in the Owyhees. These reservoirs collect water in the wet season and permit the grazing season to be extended into the dry season. New reservoirs are currently prohibited in the WSAs of the Owyhee, but under the Owyhee initiative, they would would be permitted again, at least in the "released" areas but possibly in the wilderness as well.

What is the alternative to the Owyhee Initiative?
The alternative is to call for what we really want and the Owyhees really need:

</font>

• Protection of the Owyhees' biological integrity, not just their most spectacular scenery.</font>
• Real wilderness protection that doesn't make special concessions to wilderness-damaging uses, like livestock developments and motorized vehicle use.</font>
• No "shavings" or releases of Wilderness Study Areas</font>
• A public process that allows everyone to know and participate in what is happening in the Owyhees.</font>
• A wilderness free of meddling by any "advisory panel" or exclusive group.</font>
• No legislated land deals; trades of land or anything else should be proposed through a public process under land exchange and environmental statutes.</font>

Who is Working in Secret to Develop the Initiative
</font>

• Inez Jaca, a Marsing rancher representing Owyhee County Commissioners.</font>
• Ted Hoffman, a rancher.</font>
• Chad Gipson, Owyhee Cattleman's Association.</font>
• Cindy Bachman, a Bruneau rancher.</font>
• Bruce Wong, a Colonel in the Air Force.</font>
• Grant Simonds, Idaho Outfitters and Guides.</font>
• Sandra Mitchell, People for the Owyhees (an off-road fat-assed ATV vehicle group).</font>
• Lou Lunte, The Nature Conservancy.</font>
• Craig Gehrke, The Wilderness Society.</font>
• Roger Singer, Sierra Club.</font>
• John McCarthy, Idaho Conservation League.</font>

Who is not represented?
</font>

• ElkGunner</font>
• Deer Hunters</font>
• Elk Hunters</font>
• Antelope Hunters</font>
• Bird Hunters</font>
• Kayakers</font>
• Rafters</font>

Note, as I started cutting and pasting, to ensure accuracy, I was able to find a pretty comprehensive summary of the initative, so I can't take credit for the above. Owyhee Intitative

 

[Nemont]

EG,
I can't imagine the following groups putting their endorsement on such a program if there was something of equal or greater value to be gained.

Lou Lunte, The Nature Conservancy .
Craig Gehrke, The Wilderness Society .
Roger Singer, Sierra Club .
John McCarthy, Idaho Conservation League .

I don't generally find those groups wishing to help ranchers with grazing leases. Why do yo say they are working in secret? Just seem like a pretty odd mix of bed fellows.

Also the Western Watershed project most likely was not invited to the table due to their past behavior. The people in Montana that work on watershed projects are some of the most arrogant, condesceding people I have ever met.
Sorry, EG but if the Idaho WWP people are anything like the ones we have here, the WWP most likely won't get a seat at the table. Perhaps if they quit looking down their noses at ranchers and understand that ranchers are trying to protect what they feel is their future.

There I go again defending ranching on public lands. Oh well I know you will never see a comprise on the grazing issue but had to waste my puter time trying

Nemont

 

[Washington Hunter]

I would ask the same question, Nemont.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Nemont and WH

Good question....

Why are many environmental organizations opposed to the Owyhee Initiative?
Many organizations inside and outside Idaho oppose the Owyhee Initiative because it would relegate large, currently protected areas of the Owyhee Canyonlands to an unprotected status, while offering the newly designated wilderness no more, and possibly less, protection than those areas have now. In addition, a whole new bureaucratic level of management would be created through an advisory council that would be almost completely controlled by ranching and development interests of the county. We fear that eventually the environmental groups who have been invited to participate will lose interest, funding, or patience, and cease to provide the needed blocking votes to prevent what could be enormously damaging development projects. Environmentalists in other states and regions are concerned because they believe this deal will undercut other efforts to protect public land.

In July, a group of 35 environmental organizations sent a letter to the Idaho Conservation League asking them to withdraw from involvement in the Owyhee Initiative. The 35 organizations included many regional and local environmental organizations, such as Western Watersheds Project, Committee for High Desert, The Idaho Sporting Congress, The Alliance for the Wild Rockies, The Ecology Center, Wilderness Watch, and many others. Also, the Idaho Bird Hunters have published this briefing paper critical of the plan.

This issue is actually creating quite the rift within the environmental community. Many are believing the ICL, Sierra Club, and The Wilderness Society as agreeing to a bad deal.

Here is a letter to the ICL, Sierra Club, and Wilderness Society.

Idaho Conservation League
Executive Director and Board
Boise, Idaho

The Wilderness Society
Idaho Director and
National Governing Council

The Sierra Club
National Board of Directors
San Francisco, California

July 2, 2003


SUBJECT: Serious concerns regarding the Owyhee Initiative

Dear Friends:

Recent news coverage of the Owyhee Initiative (OI), a legislative proposal in
which your organizations are involved, has raised serious concerns about the
process for and substance of this project. We are writing to you as directors
of your organizations to ask that you give thought to the issues discussed in
this letter and consider whether your groups should end their involvement in
the Owyhee Initiative.

With this letter we are including a news article on the OI that ran recently in
the Salt Lake Tribune, two email communiqués by John McCarthy of Idaho
Conservation League concerning the project, and an additional Tribune article
that discusses the Boulder-White Clouds project, also in Idaho. We include the
Boulder-White Clouds as a part of this discussion because it has some
similarities to the OI and raises some of the same issues for our
organizations.

We are extremely concerned about both the short-term and long-term implications
of the OI in terms of public involvement, possible circumvention of the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Wilderness policy, grazing
administration, potential public land disposals/exchanges, and other areas.

The OI has proceeded through a largely secretive process for more than a year
and a half. An email list has been used for occasional, infrequent updates to
interested parties, but the substance of the proposal has remained just out of
reach of those of us who are not part of the negotiations. Some of us provided
early feedback to the OI negotiators regarding the broad concepts for the
project described to us, but have generally been cautioned that weighing in on
this work-in-progress would be a waste of time.

In the last few weeks, the OI has suddenly accelerated, with a legislative draft
apparently imminent. The attached June 17 story in the Salt Lake Tribune
highlighted many of the issues weve been apprehensive about, and brought to
light some elements of the proposal that are truly objectionable. Since then,
the conservation-group proponents of the project made a presentation in Boise
to environmentalists and have also put some information out over email in
response to increasing controversy. Unfortunately, in both cases, we have been
offered contradictory and confusing information.

As one example: The Salt Lake Tribune reported that the OI would include
exchanges of public land for less-than-fee interests such as grazing permits,
access rights of way, or conservation easements. Indeed, some of us have seen
drafts of OI legislative languageone draft from February and one from Aprilthat
contain such provisions. Since publication of the Tribune article, one of the
proponents has vehemently and repeatedly denied that such exchanges were ever
seriously considered, but when asked for a draft that does not contain this
language, has refused to provide one. Similarly, land exchanges were said to be
off the table, but from a recent OI email, appear to be back on.

OI proponents seem to take the position that since this is their deal to
negotiate, others have no business knowing the details. We might agree, if your
organizations were negotiating the administration/disposal/release/use of lands
in which they alone held an interest, but that is not the case. You will note
that the signatories to this letter include organizations from far outside the
Owyhee region who share our interest in public lands and recognize the impact
the OI could have on their work.

Most alarming to us is that by the time this proposal is finalized, we and the
public at large will have no real opportunity to affect it before it is swept
into legislation and through Congress. In addition, there has been no
articulation by your organizations of any bottom line(s), which makes it
difficult for us to trust the process. In response to our questions about the
proposal, we receive ostensible assurances that various alarming provisions
have been taken off the table or were never under consideration. Even if that
is the case, we fear that whatever the conservationist negotiators do manage to
secure in the legislation could change drastically in the last weeks, days, or
minutes before passage of a bill. It has happened before.

Wilderness and WSAs

The last update on the project, which OI email list members received on June 23,
is woefully devoid of specifics. For example, we dont know what language will
be in the bill regarding administration of the Wilderness. Historically,
wilderness bills have usually simply stated that the areas would be
administered in accordance with the Wilderness Act, such as in the recently
passed James Peak Wilderness bill in Colorado.

Adding language and provisions that either deviate from the Wilderness Act or
even simply re-phrase what is already in the Wilderness Act leads only to
continuing conflict and controversy over interpretation. We anticipate that the
OI proposal will further undermine the Wilderness Act and the quality of our
National Wilderness Preservation System.

Any area designated as wilderness becomes part of a national System, and should
reflect the qualities, purpose, and intent for which the National Wilderness
Preservation System was created. Special language and exceptions to the
Wilderness Act not only erode the authority of the Act but diminish the
integrity and meaning of existing and future wilderness.

What exceptions to the Wilderness Act might we see in the OI legislation? In a
February 19 article published in the Capitol Press, a private consultant
participating in the negotiations stated:

"We want to be sure the [wilderness] language in that legislation allows us to
continue appropriate management and properly managed grazingWe also want to
allow motorized vehicle use for managing grazingThe environmentalists are
hesitant about that, but they need to accept that provision or assume they're
not going to get some areas they want us to agree to."

The release of existing WSAs is highly problematic. WSAs have statutory
management requirements in BLMs interim management policy (IMP). In essence,
there can be no new developments and wilderness suitability of these areas
cannot be harmed by other activities, subject to valid existing rights.
Current WSA management appears to provide better protection than the OI
proposal would provide for land both inside and outside the these areas with
regard to grazing.

Cherry-picking wilderness and WSA release

We are alarmed by the omission of large tracts of wilderness-suitable lands from
this proposal. The OI proposal appears to cherrypick the most scenic
deep-canyon lands, and the lands least in need of legislated protection. Lands
contained in the wilderness proposal are those that are already best protected
by rocks, canyons and remoteness.

Protecting only the most visually impressive lands will make it much more
difficult to obtain wilderness protection for other Owyhee lands in the future.
In addition, it is quite likely that this proposal will fund and set in motion
livestock developments, juniper burns, and other activities that will
permanently mar and scar released WSAs and other significant roadless lands.

Large tracts of roadless, non-WSA wilderness quality lands that are critical to
biodiversity and long-term protection of wildness in the Owyhee country are not
included in the OI proposal.

At the Boise meeting, proponents referred to portions of WSAs to be released as
shavings a term meant to minimize the significance of the releases. Inevitably,
more intensive livestock use will emanate from the shaved areas. This will lead
to long-term depletion of native vegetation, habitats and soils in OI
wilderness, and foster livestock-caused weed infestation in OI wilderness.

Grazing in Wilderness

As noted earlier, any special grazing exception language for Wilderness would
likely be no better, and probably worse, than the protections provided by BLMs
current Interim Management Policy. The guarantees that the livestock industry
apparently insists on obtaining inside OI wilderness in fact guarantees
degradation of wilderness quality in the Owyhee and other future Wilderness
Areas.

Permit purchase

The question of permit purchase needs to be forthrightly addressed. Public
lands should not be traded for grazing permits. Permits should not be
purchased with public money, as that would confer the status of rights.
Third-party compensation for permit retirement would better avoid future
problems, and need not be enacted through legislation.

If the goal is to remove grazing from some or all of the area through
legislation, we would suggest a provision that requires BLM to permanently
retire any grazing permit that is waived back to the agency or is vacated by
the rancher. This would also provide an incentive for conservation-minded
interests to buy out these grazing permits.

Structure

The proposed legislation would set up a Board of Directors and Scientific Review
Team. One draft states that three of the seats on the Board would go to
conservation interests, to be filled by ICL, TWS, and Sierra Club. Using
legislation to pre-select specific membership of the Board strikes us as very
presumptive and clearly undemocratic. But aside from makeup of the Board and
Review Team, what this proposal creates is a situation where the committees
gain some de facto management authority but offer no accountability to the
public. While their role ostensibly would only be advisory, the reality is that
such boards have access to information and opportunities for input well before
the public does. Public land management agencies do need major changes, but
the creation of special-interest boards with de facto authority only moves land
management further beyond the reach of the public.

Grazing disputes can currently be challenged through existing administrative and
judicial channels by a variety of parties. In fact, existing administrative
processes for challenging permit changes through ALJ and the IBLA far exceed
other avenues available to the public for challenging agency decisions.

BLM should seek advice from scientists in their management, and is in fact
required by NEPA to use the best scientific information. But a special
committee with the potential to review each decision of this type significantly
weakens decision-making authority from the public entities and invests real
power in private interests.

It is instructive to look at the functioning of the legislated advisory
committee that was created as part of the Steens Mountain bill. Most members
on the committee represent only a handful of constituents; one member
represents only his own business. The conservation representative who
represents the larger public interest is thus easily overruled. Many members on
that advisory committee have actively pushed BLM to make decisions detrimental
to the value and meaning of wilderness. Special access to decisions has been
harmful, such as when one advisory board member actively participated in
writing his own permit.

Land disposals and/or exchanges

OI proponents have apparently now foresworn the exchange of public land for
less-than-fee interests such as grazing permits, access rights, and
conservation easements. They have also assured us that land exchanges with the
State of Idaho described in earlier communiqués will not be part of this
project. However, it appears that small land exchanges for private inholdings
are still being proposed. As some of us have discussed repeatedly with OI
supporters, exchanges should not be authorized or directed in the legislation
but should be proposed, if at all, administratively. If, as proponents state,
there is no intent to circumvent NEPA and/or the federal land appraisal
standards, there is no reason to make the land exchanges part of the
legislative proposal.

On the issue of land exchanges, supporters have discussed the idea of combining
NEPA and legislative authority by having the bill mandate the enactment of a
Record of Decision stemming from a normal NEPA process for the exchanges.
However, this would eliminate two essential rights under NEPAadministrative
appeal and judicial challengeand thus would not embody a normal NEPA process
but would circumvent that statute.

Boulder-White Clouds

Finally, we want to express concern about the emerging Boulder-White Clouds
(B-WC) proposal, described in the second attached Tribune article. This project
appears similar to the OI in several respects, although it is not clear whether
all of your organizations are or will be involved in this proposal. Some of
the B-WC proponents comments in the Tribune article struck us as remarkably
insensitive, including a prediction by Rick Johnson of ICL that in order to
win Senator Larry Craigs support for B-WC protection, he would join [Craig] on
the Clearwater and start dealing. You can imagine how shocked Clearwater
activists were to read that Johnson thought some of [that area] can be open to
good old fashioned multiple use.

Again, we ask that you, as directors of the organizations negotiating the OI,
give serious consideration to the secretive manner in which it has advanced and
its impact on the integrity of the Owyhee and future wilderness. Thank you for
your consideration.

Sincerely,

Gary Macfarlane-Friends of the Clearwater, Moscow, ID
Katie Fite-Committee for the High Desert, Boise, ID
Janine Blaeloch-Western Land Exchange Project, Seattle, WA
Denise Boggs-Utah Environmental Congress, Salt Lake City, UT
TinaMarie Ekker-Wilderness Watch, Missoula, MT
Erik Ryberg-Payette Forest Watch, Moscow, ID
Scott Silver-Wild Wilderness, Bend, OR
Jon Marvel-Western Watersheds, Hailey, ID
Ron Mitchell-Idaho Sporting Congress, Boise, ID
Tom Platt-The Ecology Center, Missoula, MT
Larry Tuttle-Center for Environmental Equity, Portland, OR
Michael Garrity-Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Missoula, MT
Idaho Green Party, Boise, ID
Owen Lammers-Living Rivers, Moab, UT
Ray Fenner-Superior Wilderness Action Network, Sandstone, MN
Michael Donnelly-Friends of the Breitenbush Cascades, Salem, OR
Howie Wolke-Big Wild Advocates, Connor, MT
Tim Hermach-Native Forest Council, Eugene, OR
Marty Bergoffen-Southern Appalachian Biodiversity Project, Asheville, NC
Sam Hitt-Wild Watersheds, Sante Fe, NM
Brooks Fahy-Predator Defense, Eugene, OR
Barry Rosenberg-Kootenai Environmental Alliance, Coeur d'Alene, ID
Lamar Marshall-Wild South, Moulton, AL
Vince Meleski-Wild Alabama, Moulton, AL
Greg Billingsly-Citizens Against Recreation Privatization, Southlake, TX
Tom Martin-River Runners for Wilderness, Moab, UT
Carl Ross- Save Americas Forests, Washington, DC
Donna Charpied-Citizens for the Chuckwalla Valley, Desert Center, CA
Lance Olsen-The Ambience Project, Missoula. MT
Theodore Mertig-Sierra Club member, El Paso, TX
David Orr-Sierra Club member, Knoxville, TN
Jamie Newlin-Sierra Club member, El Paso, TX
Ray Vaughn-WildLaw, Montgomery, AL
Steve Tabor-Desert Survivors, Oakland, CA
Michael Sauber-Gila Watch, Silver City, NM
Peggy Titus-Friends of the Agua Fria Basin/Keep Our Public Lands Public, Mayer,
AZ
Brian Brademeyer-Native Ecosystems Council, Rapid City, SD
David Jenkins-American Canoe Association, Springfield, VA

 

[Moosie]

I was asked about what the Owyhee Initative was, and how hunters should feel about it. The person I was explaining it to is not the brightest bulb on the Christmas Tree, so I figured I would provide some facts, with the unbiased perspective that only the ElkGunner can bring.

First OFF.. FUGG you !!! 2nd Off, thanx for the Explination. I've talked to several others with the Other Side and I'm putting the deal together in my little Humble head. And I( always Apreciate your View no matter how Skewed it is

Several Groups are Against the Initiative. I've talked with (Or was Agressivly Aproached by) The guys from IWF (Idaho Wildlife Federation) the Bird hunters of Idaho (A small group but a Loud group ) and a Few others that are under the Same understanding as Gunner. They have come to DHI (Deer Hunters of Idaho) looking for us to help take a Stance. Tomorrow at a board meeting I will talk to 3 guys comnig and Presenting the Issue on it. Issues I'm taking to heart.

One thing I can say is For that group to say Hunters were represented by having the Outfitters board in there makes me Spit my Fetching POP on the ground. WTF does that mean ? The outfitters don't give a Rats A$$ about the hunters ? Thats a good way to get hunters fired up I guess

Unlike Gunner, I'm not Against the Welfare Rancher (YET ) and am not quick to take a Political Stance. But, Have realized that there is some Need to in some cases.

This (Unlike 99% of the other topics)Is one I'll read every word on it. Keep up the Good Discusion and I'll drop in my .02 when I get more Info

And remember.......

 

[JoseCuervo]

There are actually at least 3 sides to this coin...

First, you have the "status quo" which is that the welfare ranchers want to be able to do what they always have done, and want to be left alone. The same goes for the fat-assed ATV riders who think they have a God given right to ride EVERYWHERE in the Owyhees. As a result, we have lousy mule deer hunting in an area that used to be The Best Mule Deer Area in Idaho. It is so bad, we now only get to hunt Forked Horns there. (You know, the ones Moosie shoots... ). We have limited Antelope tags, and only a handful of Elk tags. There was a famous Elk poaching about 10 years ago, with some outstanding bulls poached down there. And I think the #3 bull in the state came out of there. It has the potential to be awesome for Elk Hunting.

Second, we have the people who are supporting the Owyhee Initative, as it is seen as the best way to maintain the Status Quo. It removes the Wilderness studies, buys some rancher's grazing leases, and keeps all the roads open and protects grazing on MY PUBLIC LANDS. And as part of the deal, it has been promised that Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) will introduce the legislation, legitimzing what ever bad deal is reached.

Part of the concern has been the process, and what has became a bad process can not deliver a good solution. From the make up of the membership forward, the process has been flawed. The Elkgunner was shut out of meetings by Mr. Fred Grant.

Third Option, is for the process to break down, and we go back to the correct way of managing Public Lands, by allowing the Land Managers to do the environmental studies of the Public Lands, and manage accordingly. And if they fail, for we the Public, to sue their asses off.

 

[Ten Bears]

How about reducing the photos so the thing is readable.

 

[Nemont]

I was asked about what the Owyhee Initative was, and how hunters should feel about it. The person I was explaining it to is not the brightest bulb on the Christmas Tree, so I figured I would provide some facts, with the unbiased perspective that only the ElkGunner can bring.

EG, I think you are about as unbiased as Al Franken or Sean Hannity.

Nemont

 

[BuzzH]

Ten beers,

He put the photos in special for you...he knows you struggle with all the big words...

 

[Hangar18]

This was in the Washington Post today.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9308-2004Apr13.html (registration required)

Groups Unite Behind Plan to Protect Idaho Wilderness

By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 14, 2004; Page A02


An unusual coalition of cattlemen, environmentalists and enthusiasts of off-road vehicles, who often clash bitterly over land issues, came together yesterday to announce an agreement that could result in the largest addition in a decade to the nation's wild and scenic river system.

The proposed designation of 511,000 acres of wilderness, including 40,000 acres that would be off-limits to cattle -- marks the first time in nearly a quarter-century that Idaho residents have proposed a new wilderness designation.

The plan follows a controversial proposal considered by the Clinton administration to designate as much as 2.7 million acres of the Canyonlands, an area long treasured by outdoor enthusiasts, as a national monument. That plan, which would have placed tighter restrictions on the land, was strenuously opposed by local ranchers.

The new plan would protect the Owyhee-Bruneau Canyonlands, a much smaller stretch of sagebrush and grassland plateaus as well as sheer-walled river canyons. The designation includes 390 miles of rivers that would be listed in the federal wild and scenic rivers program.

The entire area is owned by the federal Bureau of Land Management, but designating it as a wilderness area would give it additional protections. The proposal would eliminate virtually all development as well as require that off-road vehicles remain on designated routes.

The plan needs to go through Congress, however, and passage is not guaranteed because some lawmakers are skeptical of new designations.

A coalition of environmental groups, including the Idaho Conservation League, the Sierra Club, the Wilderness Society and the Nature Conservancy, spent months wooing ranchers and other locals to create the preserve in southwestern Idaho, participants said.

In the negotiations, ranchers and environmentalists often found themselves at odds on policy issues, such as how much land to allow for grazing, but they managed to reach a consensus on how to carve out protections for unique landscapes and native species while maintaining ample grazing land. Sen. Michael D. Crapo (R-Idaho), who said he will work to shepherd the initiative into law, hailed the compromise in an interview yesterday. "This initiative, if it is ultimately successful, should set a standard for collaborative decision-making that should be a model," Crapo said, adding that he is "very optimistic" that Congress will approve the plan.

The plan resolves decades-old fights between competing groups and protects areas that are home to bighorn sheep as well as sage grouse, a species whose population is dwindling. John McCarthy, conservation director for the Idaho Conservation League, said he was initially wary about approaching cattlemen about the wilderness designation.

"When I started doing this, people said to me: 'You're nuts. . . . They'll shoot us on sight,' " McCarthy recalled. But he persevered and won over many of the skeptical ranchers.

Some locals remain opposed, however. Jon Marvel, executive director of the Western Watersheds Project, called the plan a giveaway to ranchers and the entire negotiating process "a fraud."

"What they're discussing is being decided by a tiny group of people. . . . It's inappropriate to have a self-selected group deciding the fate of millions of acres of public land," Marvel said.

But proponents described it as a model for communities seeking to balance environmental and agricultural interests. Chris Black, a rancher whose family has been in the Bruneau area since the 1870s, said cattlemen dreaded the prospect of the national monument designation, which would have made large swaths of land off-limits to grazing. Under the Owyhee initiative, grazing would be allowed on more than 400,000 acres.

"It was something we as a ranching community needed to get resolved," Black said, saying national monument designation "would be devastating to our industry" because of the elimination of grazing land.

McCarthy courted Black for months -- he said he knew he was making progress when Black's daughter baked him cookies.

Among the last to sign on were the off-road vehicle aficionados, who were wary that the designation would impede their access to the Canyonlands.

Sandra Mitchell of People for the Owyhees, an off-road group, said the proposal "has some good and has some bad. . . . We want to make sure there are roads out there."

Can't wait to hear the welfare-ranching and fat-ass ATVer comments...NOT!

 

[Ithaca 37]

Hanger, I haven't had time to study the proposal yet and discuss it with friends. I'm skeptical about it but, with my usual open minded and reasonable approach, I'm hoping I'll be pleasantly surprised. I'd feel a lot better about it if Jon Marvel had been a negotiator.

 

[Hangar18]

The participants (thx to EG)

</font>

• Inez Jaca, a Marsing rancher representing Owyhee County Commissioners.</font>
• Ted Hoffman, a rancher.</font>
• Chad Gipson, Owyhee Cattleman's Association</font>
• Cindy Bachman, a Bruneau rancher.</font>
• Bruce Wong, a Colonel in the Air Force.</font>
• Grant Simonds, Idaho Outfitters and Guides.</font>
• Sandra Mitchell, People for the Owyhees.</font>
• Lou Lunte, The Nature Conservancy.</font>
• Craig Gehrke, The Wilderness Society.</font>
• Roger Singer, Sierra Club.</font>
• John McCarthy, Idaho Conservation League.</font>

In looking at this group, I think a more appropriate addition would be someone from IRU. If you look at the website that EG brought all those photos from, CHD & WWP were seen as too extreme and intentionally excluded from the process. Maybe that is why IRU was excluded as well. I don't know to be honest. I think no matter what happens, ever, there will always be someone around to criticize it.

Here is the link to that site
http://www.owyheeinitiative.com/

 

[JoseCuervo]

Hangar,

Here is how I look at it....

Hunting in the Owyhees is BAD and not the trophy area it used to be, 20-30 years ago. We have been under the 2-Point rule for what seems like for ever (maybe mid-80's) in one of the best Mule Deer areas in the state.

Therefore, I conclude (rightly or wrongly) that the current situation is to blame. Hence, we need to change something. The two obvious switches we have are Roads and Cows. The Initiative leaves 97% of the roads alone (9500/9800miles) and allows Grazing to continue.

How can that make Hunting better????

Now secondly, I have a problem with the Process, and how this self-selected group is being allowed to make the proposal, without public comment/input. The amount of secrecy makes the process suspect. When I talked to Fred Grant (the leader) he told me Hunters would be reperesented by the Outfitters and that floaters/kayakers would be represented by the ATV'rs. Essentially he said -- No more room at the table, please leave me alone.... No way was that a good process, therefore the result must be suspect, until proven otherwise.

There were many organizations left out, that have a legitimate right to have been at the table. These would include the Hunters (FNAWS, DHI, etc.. etc..), the river groups (IRU), the floaters (Idaho Whitewater Assoc.) and the Committee for High Desert.

One could argue if WWP belongs at the table, but since it was Marvel who was the catalyst for this effort, I think he deserves a seat at the table. And by not inviting him to your table, you will soon get an invitation to a court room...

As you can see by the result, the Ranchers got more than what they had. Hunters got nothing. The ATV'rs got almost everything.

Hangar,
Do you see it differently, from the viewpoint of a Hunter?

[ 04-14-2004, 22:01: Message edited by: ElkGunner ]

 

[Ithaca 37]

These three and their groups are even more radical than Marvel. You ever listened to Ted Hoffman?!

Inez Jaca, a Marsing rancher representing Owyhee County Commissioners.
Ted Hoffman, a rancher.
Chad Gipson, Owyhee Cattleman's Association

 

[Moosie]

Feed the brain

 

[Muledeer4me]

Elkgunners quote,
"Sandra Mitchell, People for the Owyhees (an off-road fat-assed ATV vehicle group)."


(Sandra F. Mitchell
Public Lands Director
Idaho State Snowmobile Association)

Once again we see how Elkgunner can't seem to get it straight.
Sandra Mitchell is with the snowmachine association.
Do you think thats why he wasnt in on the real deal?
Same reason Jon Marvel WWP wasnt allowed in.
NO one wanted the name calling /they were trying hard to come up with something workable.

So far it sounds like a workable plan.


There was a call out to the hunters in this area to voice there concerns.
How many of you showed up?

[ 04-15-2004, 09:35: Message edited by: Muledeer4me ]

 

[Ten Bears]

LMAO

 

[JoseCuervo]

Originally posted by Ten Bears:
LMAO

Ten,
Just what are you laughing at? The fact MD was wrong, and doesn't even know who represents her ATV riding????

Sandra Mitchell : "This land has been used for hundreds of years by grazers, by recreationists and it's unspoiled. And the reason it's unspoiled is because those of us who use the land love the land, and we're intent on making sure it is protected as much as possible. So I think that reasonable, responsible use of the public lands by grazers, by recreationists is certainly appropriate."

Sandra Mitchell, who represented People for the Owyhees, a motorized recreation group, on the panel said it was time to get a proposal out for the public to review.

"You could probably spend another three years fine-tuning and wordsmithing it," she said. "Now it´s time for recreationists to take a look at it and see what they think."

Sandra Mitchell, a long-time combatant in Idaho´s wilderness wars, represents motorized users in the process. She opposes wilderness designation and doesn´t believe the Owyhees will eventually be protected on environmentalists´ terms.

"We´re going through this process because we love the Owyhees and we believe they need to be protected," Mitchell said. "We don´t believe wilderness is an essential part of the package."

Recreation has expanded greatly in Owyhee County over the last decade and it is of critical importance to ensue recreational use is maintained and responsibly managed," said Sandra Mitchell, representative of the People for the Owyhees with many motorized recreation members.

If Congress designated the waterways of the canyonlands “Wild and Scenic” rivers and the most sensitive lands “Wilderness Area,” these problems can be stemmed and the solitude of the region will be preserved, Singer said.

Each designation means that federal agencies manage the lands allowing as little human interference as possible.

Off-road vehicle riders bristle at talk of those federal designations.

“Right away there are no options for motorized or mechanized recreation,” said Sandra Mitchell of People for the Owyhees, a coalition of motorized recreation interests.

So Ten, tell me again what is your laugh??? Once again, you show how the 4th graders on the bus are always able to pull the wool over your eyes....
Did you get signed up for Summer School?

articipating Groups

The Wilderness Society
Idaho Conservation League
Sierra Club
The Nature Conservancy
Owyhee County Commissioners
Outfitters and Guides Association

Owyhee County Soil Conservation Districts: e-mail (no website available)
Owyhee Cattlemens Association: Chad Gibson (no website available)
Owyhee Borderlands Trust (no website available)
People For The Owyhees: Sandra Mitchell (no website available)

 

[Moosie]

MD4Me,

There was a call out to the hunters in this area to voice there concerns.
How many of you showed up?

Was there a call out prior to this ? I've met with the Oposition several times and some people for it. I've never been to a "FORMAL" meeting type setting. Did you go to something ? Lemme know how it turned out and Why I (El Presidente') wasn't invited ?


WHAT: Owyhee Initiative Town Hall Meeting

WHEN: April 20, 7:00 PM

WHERE: Lindsay Hall, 9th & State Streets, Boise

WHY: To help Senator Crapo to Protect The Owyhee Canyonlands

I can Guarentee that I WILL be there and Wylee will be there too. Gunner might and md4me might. We could seperate you two and get feedback from the Left and the Right wing

Anyone interested, SEE YA THERE !!!!

 

[Ten Bears]

EG, I'm LMAO @ how big an @rse you can make of yourself, with so few words.