U.S. Cattlemen's Association on Grouse Plans

[Ben Lamb]

It is great to see livestock producers standing up for common-sense conservation and leading the call for reason and collaboration.


http://www.northernag.net/AGNews/Ag...odge-to-the-Lolo-to-the-Custer-Gallatin….aspx

From the Beaverhead-Deerlodge to the Lolo to the Custer-Gallatin….
1/18/2018 4:03:00 PM/Categories: Popular Posts, General News, Today's Top 5, People in Ag, Livestock, Livestock Markets, Cattle, Sheep, National News, Organizations, Ag Issues, State Government

By Chris Skorupa, Bridger, Montana; Rancher/Owner & Manager, Beartooth Fertilizer, Member of the U.S. Cattlemen’s Association

From the Beaverhead-Deerlodge to the Lolo, the Greater Sage-Grouse makes its home in Montana’s National Forests for its unparalleled habitat conditions. As a species that has faced the label of a “threatened and endangered” species before, the sage grouse has emerged from that conversation as a success story for what can happen when ranchers, landowners, sportsmen, conservationists and federal government officials work together towards a common goal. As a result of these private-public relationships, the sage-grouse avoided being listed as threatened or endangered in 2015.

Now, the Administration is looking at reopening that conversation by reopening the 2015 Greater Sage-Grouse Management Plans for revision.

Despite years of work, countless meetings and millions of taxpayers’ dollars spent on working towards a solution, the Department of the Interior and the U.S. Forest Service are contemplating a complete rework of the plans that successfully avoided a listing in 2015.

Though the original plans are not perfect, they still represent a resounding consensus of various stakeholders. Over the past year, the Rural & Agriculture Council of America has hosted “Sage-Grouse Sidebar” meetings to bring together land and resource managers to discuss what updates can be made to the original plan that would assist with the implementation process. Specifically, we heard that broad-based stubble height requirements are ineffective, Sagebrush Focal Areas need revisions and habitat mapping needs to be based on real-life data.

We also heard that folks do not want to start over from square one. The management plans represent true grassroots action by many different stakeholder groups. The Administration must preserve the framework of the original management plans and only revise where it makes scientific sense when implementation of the plans on the ground shows the plans need updating, and when it is agreed upon by the greater conservation community. We need to respect the process that built the original plans and agree to get to work on applying on-the-ground and science-driven management strategies. The saying remains, “What’s good for the herd is good for the bird”; landowners, users, and managers worked to achieve this goal before, and we must now work to maintain it.

Comments on the Forest Service Sage Grouse plan close tomorrow, Friday, January 19th click on this link to make your comments.

 

[NCSU_Lewis]

Since I work in ag, this thread title made me worry. Glad to see they are on board with continuing conservation plans.

 

[Irrelevant]

How do the various cattleman's assoc differ in this topic, I thought I'd read where the state level cattleman's were for revisions?

 

[Ben Lamb]

How do the various cattleman's assoc differ in this topic, I thought I'd read where the state level cattleman's were for revisions?

They are split. Most had concerns about stuble height requirements for grazing but had been working with the BLM & Forest Service to address those. Some groups are all for the review, others like USCA are urging caution. ID, UT & NV along with the public lands council (ag & energy industry trade group & pro - transfer) are endorsing the process. Mt, Wy, Co groups are urging cation and no big changes.

 

[1_pointer]

I too would have concerns about stubble height as a "requirement". Objective or a trigger much less so. IMO, it's devil's in the details sort of thing as how, when, where it's measured makes a difference.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I too would have concerns about stubble height as a "requirement". Objective or a trigger much less so. IMO, it's devil's in the details sort of thing as how, when, where it's measured makes a difference.

This is an example of one of the easy changes that Interior could have made that would have broad support, but instead, they are doing their best to alienate everyone, including UT & ID who, along with every other western gov, were pissed that the mitigation handbook was eliminated.

The Sage Grouse plans could have been a big win for the administration, but like most things, they are messing it up. Bigly. Their actions will set off enough of a lawsuit storm that congress will look to intervene by over-reaching on ESA reform (which is Bishop's next big lift) once again abandoning bi-partisan efforts to update the law. I'm sure congress will also do a bang up job on helping Interior develop BLM 3.0, where the public is a nuisance that needs to be ignored.

But I'm not bitter.

 

[BWALKER77]

I agree with you, Ben. Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. With that said i think we really need to look at how our public lands are grazed. In the BH-DL in particular there is alot of public land thats grazed way to severly IMO. Not to mention the nasty effects cattle have had on riparian corridors.

 

[----]