Rancher's cattle being removed from forest

Oak

Expert
Joined
Dec 23, 2000
Messages
16,062
Location
Colorado
Feds to Impound Cattle on Federal Land
Associated Press

January 28, 2004
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (AP) - The U.S. government says it will remove a herd of up to 450 cattle illegally grazing on federal land, setting up a showdown with the ranching couple who own the livestock.
In December, Diamond Bar Ranch owners Kit and Sherry Laney were found in contempt for grazing cattle in the Gila National Forest in violation of earlier court orders. Most of the 146,000-acre ranch, which dates to 1883, is on the Gila land.

Steve Libby, U.S. Forest Service range management officer for the Gila National Forest, said Monday that authorities will begin to impound the herd on Feb. 7.

"Their deadline has passed, and they've given us no indication that they intend to remove their cattle," Libby said. "We're very sorry it came to this. This is not what we wanted to do."

While many ranchers in the West lease federal land for grazing and other uses, the Laneys, who bought the ranch in 1985, do not hold a lease for the Gila land.

The Laneys argued that they had grazing rights based on historical use of the land predating the forest's creation in 1964. But a federal appeals court rejected that argument in 1999.

The Laneys could not be reached by telephone Monday.

In a public notice in the Silver City Daily Press last week, Laney asserted: "Anyone who moves, drives or in any other way takes any of the livestock ranging on the Diamond Bar ... will be guilty of stealing ... and will be subject to arrest and prosecution by the county sheriff and-or brand inspector."

Environmentalists have claimed for years that the land is overgrazed, which leads to erosion, and should be protected.

"That's fantastic - finally, finally!" said Robin Silver, a founder of the Arizona-based Southwest Center for Biological Diversity. "Now, finally, we can proceed with the restoration of the Gila."

Caren Cowan, executive director of the New Mexico Cattle Growers' Association, said the case is another assault on ranchers' way of life.

"It's a sad situation and the implications could be tough for people," she said. "This is symptomatic of the environmental war that has gone on for the past decade over public land use."

Erik Ness, spokesman for the state Farm and Livestock Bureau, said the Laney case, if it reaches the U.S. Court of Claims as Laney plans, is "probably going to be a precedent-setting case" and "a real bellwether of private property rights versus federal land issues in the West.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Here's some more background on the case.

Diamond Bar allotment

Oak
 
I read the background article. What a disaster!

Now let's hear about how welfare ranchers love the land and would never do anything to reduce it's productivity because that's their livelihood!
biggrin.gif
biggrin.gif
 
Ithaca,
Do you believe all grazing allotments look like that? Are there abusive ranchers grazing public lands? Yes. Are their slob hunter, campers, mountain bikers, bird watchers etc who impact the lands? Yes. There are some in every crowd.

What the anti grazing forces do is pick out the most extreme cases and paint everyone with a broad brush. I can show millions of public lands acres which don't look like that. In fact you can't tell where the public lands ends and private land begins.

This is a case of one rancher abusing the system and attempting to circumvent the laws of the land. I know most ranchers don't buy into those actions either.

I know I will never change your mind but hope some day you may once listen and look at the entire picture.
Nemont

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 01-29-2004 09:05: Message edited by: Nemont ]</font>
 
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This is a case of one rancher abusing the system and attempting to circumvent the laws of the land. I know most ranchers don't buy into those actions either.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Nemont, I tend to agree with you that many (most?) ranchers don't buy into those actions, but... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Caren Cowan, executive director of the New Mexico Cattle Growers' Association, said the case is another assault on ranchers' way of life. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>When a spokesman for the industry makes a statement like that, you've got to wonder?
confused.gif
Sounds to me like he's defending this fellow. Can you explain it for me if I'm missing something?

Oak
 
I would think that buying a ranch in 1985 does not provide for a grandfather clause for grazing on a forest created in 1964. I don't care when the ranch was started. Also to graze on public land without a permit or lease isn't welfare ranching, it's kinda like range poaching (taking public property without permit or fee).

EDITED ADDITION:
I would say that cattle turned out on public land without a lease or permit would constitute abandoned property, kinda like littering. Let's see the guys in orange suit clean that mess up.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 01-29-2004 16:20: Message edited by: Ten Bears ]</font>
 
I didn't look any further than the first page on the list of sites you've listed IT. But I did notice that none were BLM sites. Tresspassing is obviously not a good thing. But if your worried about poor water quality due to cattle, it's pretty small compared to runoff of towns, cities and the impact from human waste.
 
Troy, If you do any search of your own on the condition of riparian zones you'll find plenty of info. Water quality is only one of the main concerns with riparian zone degradation. How about wildlife habitat?
 
The 60% figure is from the BLM, but it doesn't say "due to grazing". Not all BLM land is grazed, but the BLM did end up with all the land that nobody else wanted after the west was settled.
 
Ithaca,
Man it is cold here.

I did not ask you about riparian areas. I asked if you thought all allotments look like this. I go to the public lands ranching website and they post pics of only the most grazed areas with out any context to the picture. Is it around a water tank? Has there been avg or normal rainfall? Has there been fire in the area? etc, etc. Anyway I will begin to collect pics of public lands which have been grazed and you would not know it. They are indistinguishable from the adjoining private lands.
My point is that with any political issue each side will HYPE their own particular view of an issue.
Delve deep into the website posted and find out what many of the people, who want to end grazing, support.Ithaca, I know you have stated some grazing is okay so I am not lumping you together with them . I am saying the people and groups who support and influence the NPLGC.
for instantance repopulate the plains with people from the cities, due to overcrowding. The west then can have "green"industries and be "ecologically" way better off with more people running around.
Will be interesting to see the impacts on the public lands if more people are recreating on it. Wonder how many of them would be advocates of no hunting on public land?
Just trying to stay warm.
Nemont
 
IT, I'm still waiting for you to prove that all the damage came from grazing, and that without grazing the land would be rated pristine.

This oughta be good.
biggrin.gif
biggrin.gif
biggrin.gif
 
Ten, Troy. This is one issue I have done an about face and changed my views on.
All the targee national forest around spencer idaho is a great case in point.
It looked like shit last fall due to over grazing.
my family has owned property in that area for close to 100 yrs, I know every road, trail, bush, draw, creek, seep, large tree, knob, gate, hidie hole ect. ect.
I have always been very successful hunting, for deer, elk, speed sheep.
last year totally sucked. and it was because there wasn't a blade of grass left in the whole forest. We could have had a grand time having cow chip chucking contests though, There was plenty of that.
It's time for Ranchers to start giving a shit about the land they get to use for little of nothing, or time to give them the boot.
 
I am truly enjoying the twist that has been put on this topic. If you go back to the beginning, and read slowly this was all started because somebody is grazing cows on public land without permit. It has little or nothing to do with permitted public grazing.
eek.gif
 
Michaelr,
I agree 100% and coversely those ranchers who "give a shit" should be allowed to stay. If they wish to continue to graze the land and are taking care of it then fine.
Nemont

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 01-30-2004 15:56: Message edited by: Nemont ]</font>
 
mike, That's pretty interesting. Makes you wonder how those ranchers can claim they love the land and would never do anything that would harm their livelihood, doesn't it! Imagine what happens when those elk and deer go down to private land looking for something to eat. We'll be hearing about depredation claims from those guys who overgrazed the FS.
 
Ten, How many times do you have to see something like this???
rolleyes.gif

"As a result of a lawsuit brought by the Natural Resources Defense Council in 1974, the BLM had to consider the environmental impacts of livestock grazing when administering their grazing program. This launched a decade long review of public lands under grazing permits. It was found that most areas were in poor condition and not supporting native vegetation and wildlife. About 68% of public ranges are in unsatisfactory condition due to unsustainable grazing practices. Streams, springs, and wetlands are trampled, polluted, and stripped bare by overgrazing.........."

http://www.sierraclub.org/wildlands/monuments/threats.asp

"The Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment DEIS just documented that over 50 percent of the meadows located in grazing allotments in the Sierra Nevada national forests were in "fair" or "poor" condition. In some of these national forests, such as the Humbolt-Toiyabe, Inyo, and Stanislaus, the values ranged from 70 to 90 percent in these two categories (Chpt 3-520). As for BLM lands, the San Jose Mercury News discovered in late 1999 that 46 percent of the BLM parcels rented by the 20 largest BLM permit holders were classified as unsatisfactory ("'improve' -- unsatisfactory conditions in sensitive areas." (Nov 7, 1999, p. 1S, 3S of "Cash Cows reprint). The Mercury article also noted that only 36 percent of BLM streams were classified as in "proper functioning condition" in 1998. (Nov 7, 1999, p. 3S of "Cash Cows reprint). Should the no grazing resolution become Sierra Club policy, it would speak firmly and unambiguously concerning this key point: land damaged by cattle or sheep should no longer be subjected to the adverse impacts generated by domestic livestock, regardless of how much precipitation the area receives......"

http://www.rangenet.org/directory/shumant/endgrazing.html
 

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
113,587
Messages
2,026,079
Members
36,239
Latest member
cprsailor
Back
Top