GRAZING BUYOUT/WILDERNESS/S.2833

I trust and hope that you will all read this explanation of the Owyhee Public Lands Management Act before ending the story with a labeling of buyouts in Wilderness. Unfortunately, one element of the bill has been selected for discussion, instead of the various elements which will increase private property in the County (quite a contrast to the old “no net loss”, we actually have a “net gain”, which will provide ranchers an opportunity without breaking their wallets to have an objective range expert review of adverse BLM grazing decisions, and which will provide the County ranchers with an opportunity to protect their pipelilnes, their fences, their cows, and their forage from thousands of off road vehicles which flood the county every week-end (to a doubling of the county population) and even week-days. Recently, a motorcycle event occurred as ranchers were trying to move cattle from one pasture ot another, creating real havoc, and bicycle and motorcycle events have actually interfered with separating cows and calves. Without the resources from this bill, there is no answer in a 5 milliion acre county which has 12 deputies.

So, perhaps some will read the whole bill, and not just the buy out section (which by the way ends no grazing operation, but is used as a realignment of allotments to make a more viable operation in view of the tremendous threats from Jon Marvel and the Western Watersheds outfit which will soon be unleashing its enlarged law firm on all 11 western states.

Fred Kelly grant

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

From: Fred Kelly Grant [mailto:fredkellygrant@msn.com]
Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2008 10:44 AM
To: 'badgerall@earthlink.net'
Subject: Owyhee Bill
Importance: High

It really is all right to label the Owyhee bill as buyout in wilderness. But, that is only one piece of a bill that is precedent setting for protecting the ranching industry in an entire county.

Eight years ago, when all our ranchers were threatened with a never ending threat of being put out of business by the dishonorable Judge B. Lynn Winmill, who has never seen an anti-grazing complaint that he won’t grant relief on, we had to come up with a way to try to get outside his unity with Jon Marvel and the Western Waterhshed Council (who he has ruled with on every anti-grazing case filed in the last 10 years; the cases are always against the BLM for failing to do some duty, and the ranchers suffer).

So, with the Owyhee Cattleman’s Association, the County Commissioners set up the idea of an Owyhee Initiative. We had just come within the stroke a Clinton pen of having a national monument declared to cover over 2 million acres, one half literally of our county. The object would have been to preserve canyonlands, but mainly to stop all grazing in the entire area. Full page ads had been taken out in the major east coast newspapers urging people to call the president to sign the proclamation for the Owyhee Canyonlands National Monument. This had been their goal for over a decade. The only reason Clinton didn’t sign was that Babbitt urged him not to. Babbitt had promised Sen. Craig that there would be no more monument or enlargement of monument in Idaho without public hearings. While Babbitt urged against signing, Hilary and the White House environmental Council urged signing.

In the end Clinton on his last day signed the Missouri Breaks but did not sign the Owyhee.

I sat down and tried to work out a plan for getting conservation groups to join with the county, the tribes and the ranchers to avert a monument and to get some protection for ranchers against a BLM that had gone completely south in fear of being sued by Marvel and WWC. I talked first with the Lowrys, a long time ranching family and one I knew would need support of if the plan was to work. The Lowrys are the family that along with Paul lNettleton fought the fight to get instream water rights declared in their name, not the government’s. At tremendous money cost to both of them, the fight was won and the Idaho Supreme Court determined that the federal government has no claim to an instream water right on federal land unless they actually own and water cattle.

I then went to Commissioner Hal Tolmie and he bought off on the idea, so I developed the project: (1) a level of wilderness that would be acceptable to both ranchers, county and conservation groups; (2) a science review of BLM decisions with a panel of range experts picked from a panel set up byl a Board of Directors of the Owyhee Initiative—said review to go into the administrative record with the harmful BLM decision, (3) a science review center to conduct research on species that are listed so as to create danger to continued grazing, so that we could get some “real” as opposed to “guesswork” research to assist our efforts to limit the species concerns to real concerns, (4) a travel management plan to try to bring into control the awful, widespread destruction of forage, fences, pipelines and all other attributes of grazing by off road vehicles flooding into the county from the 500,000 population of the Boise Valley, just 26 miles away from Owyhee County, and money enough to fund deputies under the County sheriff to enforce the travel management, (5) funding for a cultural resource protection plan for the Shoshone Paiute Tribes who are neighbors to the Count and who are great supporters of the ranchers (having joined with the county to support ranchers whose permits are threatened by Marvel’s anti-grazing efforts supported by his cronies who still sit in the BLM at the field level even after 8 years of this Administration), with funding for rangers who will be cross deputized by our sheriff after going to the state certification police school, to increase the number of people to enforce laws through our 5million plus acres., (6) a water rights agreement that sets a wild and scenic river adjudication at minimum rate at the time of passage, so that there can never be a water rights case that challenges ranchers rights, (7) a wild and scenic designation that removes from the designation all stretches of river at which cattle cross or drink in order to avoid the specter of the Oregon wild and river scenic cases, (8) a specific declaration that there is no reserved water right in the Wilderness designated to prevent against any swift or unswift change in the law by the Idaho or US Supreme Court, (9) protection of access which makes this wilderness of 500,000 acres (instead of 2 million) the most accessible wilderness in US, (10) release of nearly 400,000 acres of wilderness study area back into multiple use, with a segment of the law which says that the areas are actually removed from the wilderness study section of the law, so that they can never again be studied, (11) a requirement that the Owyhee Initiative Agreement will be coordinated with the County, (12) those ranchers who wanted to participate in the development of the wilderness put forward proposals for exchanges of land and sale of land and aums so that they could realign their allotments to make them more manageable (this was an opportunity to trade some very troublesome riparian areas of private property for federal grazing land at an equal value exchange rate, and was an opportunity for some to simply sell rights of ways and suspended use aums which they never would get back in this state with Marvel and Winmill manning the anti-grazing attack. AUMS WERE NOT SOLD TO GO OUT OF BUSINESS. NO ONE IS GOING OUT OF BUSINESS. THEY ARE SELLING AND EXCHANGING IN ORDER TO MAKE THEIR ALLOTMENTS MORE VIABLE WITH MARVEL RUNNING THE SHOW THROUGH WINMILL.

The Owyhee Cattleman’s Association at the very beginning agreed to support wilderness at a bare 250,000 acre level which was the Owyhee Canyonlands---an area which is not conducive to grazing because of the deep, steep canyons. They also agreed to support any additional wilderness that ranchers would voluntarily participate in in order to better their allotment and to make their operations viable in light of Marvel’s attacks. 18 ranching operations decided to participate in this program because of specific threats from Marvel and because of monetary constraints and regulatory constraints on their operations. For example, under BLM restrictions, closely guarded by Marvel, the Lowrys have one pasture in which they get to graze for 15 days. It is a pasture that would be impossible to get the cattle out of because of encroaching juniper if they were ismply turned in, so the Lowrys must graze them just inside the pasture boundary---therefore it gets overgrazed year after year. But the BLM will not expand the time allowed. So, they wanted to use the Initaitaive possibilities to get rid of that pasture and acquire more manageable ground.

The Work Group which I was appointed to chair, included representatives of the Owyhee Cattleman’s Association, the Borderlands Trust (a corporation established by ranchers for purposes of seeking grass banks and other means of relief from atrocious BLM restrictions), the Soil Conservation Districts of Owyhee County, The Owyhee Farm Bureau, Owyhee County Commissioners, the Wilderness Society, the Idaho Conservation League, the Sierra Club, the Nature Conservancy, Idaho Rivers United, the Shoshone Paiute Tribes, the Southwestern Idaho Desert Racing Association, the Outfitters and Guides, the Rocky Mountain Sheep Foundation, The Idaho Back Country Horsemen----with the Air Force and Idaho Lands Department serving as liason, non-voting members.

The bill contains many precedent setting elements which will give the Owyhee County ranchers a chance to hold on against the ever increasing pressure from Western Waterhsheds. As a matter of fact, most other states will soon be feeling the attack if they haven’t already. The law firm that represents Watersheds is beefing up its numbers of attorneys with the mission of taking all cows all off federal or public lands throughout the 11 western states. And, they’re being funded by attorneyls fees which Winmill and other federal judges award them in their attacks on the processes of the BLM and Forest Service.

So, when you read about “buy-outs” read the rest of the story as Paul Harvey would say, and you will see the elements of protection that the ranchers are getting in a precedent setting bill----which features in particular one of the largest releases of wilderness study areas (“hard” release because they are removed from wilderness study potential under the act) in comparison with acres of wilderness in the history of public land management.

Fred Kelly grant, chairman of the Owyhee Initiative Work Group

GRAZING BUYOUTS IN WILDERNESS

Below is the pertinent sections of the two bills which were reported out of the Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources.

Note: The Committee may have amended this language. Will check the final language when it becomes available.

S. 2379

The Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument Voluntary and Equitable Grazing Conflict Resolution Act


SEC. 4. VOLUNTARY GRAZING LEASE WAIVER PROGRAM.

(a) Existing Grazing Leases-

(1) WAIVER- The Secretary--

(A) shall, subject to the availability of funds, offer to provide compensation to a lessee in exchange for the waiver by a lessee of a grazing lease; and

(B) if the lessee accepts the offer in accordance with this section, shall, not later than 30 days after the date on which the lessee accepts the offer, simultaneously--

(i) provide to the lessee the compensation specified in paragraph (2);

(ii) terminate the grazing lease waived; and

(iii) permanently retire the associated grazing allotment or portion of the grazing allotment from livestock grazing use.

(2) AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION- Compensation for the waiver of a grazing lease under paragraph (1) shall be equal to $300 per authorized animal unit month.

(3) PARTIAL ALLOTMENT RETIREMENTS- If a lessee offers to waive only the Monument portion of a grazing lease for a grazing allotment that is partially in the Monument, the Secretary shall, at full Federal expense, construct and maintain a fence to exclude livestock from the portion of the grazing allotment that is within the boundaries of the Monument.

(4) JOINT LEASE- If a grazing allotment is jointly leased to more than one lessee--

(A) the Secretary shall not accept waiver of a joint grazing lease unless all lessees subject to the grazing lease exercise the option to waive the grazing lease under paragraph (1); or

(B) if the option is not exercised by all the lessees under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall--

(i) in communication, consultation, and cooperation with any lessees that do not exercise the option under paragraph (1), construct and maintain a fence at Federal expense for the purpose of keeping livestock within a reduced area of the grazing allotment that is commercially and seasonally proportional with the remaining authorized animal unit months in the grazing allotment, including private land used as exchange of use on the date of enactment of this Act; and

(ii) accept the waived portion of the joint lease from any joint lessees that have exercised the option under paragraph (1).

(5) LIMITATIONS- The Secretary--

(A) with respect to the Agate, Emigrant Creek, and Siskiyou allotments in and near the Monument as of the date of enactment of this Act--

(i) shall not issue grazing leases; and

(ii) shall permanently retire the allotments from livestock grazing use; and

(B) shall not establish any new allotments that include--

(i) any Federal land within a grazing allotment or an allotment described in subparagraph (A); or

(ii) any Monument land (whether leased or not leased for grazing on the date of enactment of this Act).

(6) DEADLINE- To waive a grazing lease in accordance with this section, a lessee shall exercise the right to waive the grazing lease by not later than the date that is 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act.

(7) EFFECT OF WAIVER- A lessee who receives compensation for voluntarily waiving a grazing lease under this section shall be considered to have waived any claim to all range developments on the associated grazing allotments.

(8) DONATION OF GRAZING LEASES-

(A) IN GENERAL- Nothing in this section prevents a lessee from donating to the Secretary, at any time, a grazing lease without Federal compensation, in accordance with this section.

(B) ACCEPTANCE BY- If a lessee donates a grazing lease to the Secretary, the Secretary shall accept the donation in accordance with clauses (ii) and (iii) of paragraph (1)(B).

(b) Additional Allocations- Beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall not authorize any allotments for livestock grazing on Monument land that are not in existence on the date of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 6. SODA MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS.

(c) Administration of Wilderness-

(3) LIVESTOCK-

(A) ADMINISTRATION- Except as provided in section 4 and Presidential Proclamation Number 7318, dated June 13, 2000 (65 Fed. Reg. 37247), any grazing of livestock and the maintenance of range development in the Wilderness established before the date of enactment of this Act shall be permitted to continue in accordance with--

(i) section 4(d)(4) of the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1133(d)(4)); and

(ii) the guidelines set forth in Appendix A of the report of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs of the House of Representatives accompanying H.R. 2570 of the 101st Congress (H. Rept. 101-405).

(B) RETIREMENT OF CERTAIN PERMITS- On the retirement of any grazing lease applicable to any portion of the Wilderness, grazing of domestic livestock in the applicable portion of the Wilderness shall be prohibited.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

S. 2833

Owyhee Public Land Management Act of 2008

SEC. 4. WILDERNESS AREAS.

(3) LIVESTOCK-

(A) IN GENERAL- In the wilderness areas designated by this Act, the grazing of livestock in areas in which grazing is established as of the date of enactment of this Act shall be allowed to continue, subject to such reasonable regulations, policies, and practices as the Secretary considers necessary, consistent with section 4(d)(4) of the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1133(d)(4)) and the guidelines described in Appendix A of House Report 101-405.

(B) INVENTORY- Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall conduct an inventory of existing facilities and improvements associated with grazing activities in the wilderness areas and wild and scenic rivers designated by this Act.

(C) FENCING- The Secretary may construct and maintain fencing around wilderness areas designated by this Act as the Secretary determines to be appropriate to protect wilderness values.

(D) DONATION OF GRAZING PERMITS OR LEASES-

(i) ACCEPTANCE BY SECRETARY- The Secretary shall accept the donation of any valid existing permits or leases authorizing grazing on public land within the wilderness areas designated by this Act.

(ii) TERMINATION- The Secretary shall terminate any grazing permit or lease acquired under clause (i) to ensure a permanent end to grazing on the land covered by the permit or lease.

(iii) PARTIAL DONATION-

(I) IN GENERAL- If a person holding a valid grazing permit or lease donates less than the full amount of grazing use authorized under the permit or lease, the Secretary shall--

(aa) reduce the authorized grazing level to reflect the donation; and

(bb) modify the permit or lease to reflect the revised level of use.

(II) AUTHORIZED LEVEL- To ensure that there is a permanent reduction in the level of grazing on the land covered by a permit or lease donated under subclause (I), the Secretary shall not allow grazing use to exceed the authorized level established under that subclause.

Senate committee approves buyout of cattle ranchers
Siskiyou monument - Ranchers would be paid to keep their cattle off 24,000 acres

WASHINGTON -- A Senate committee Wednesday unanimously approved a delicate agreement that would close 24,000 acres in Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument to grazing while paying ranchers to keep their cattle off the land.

The action by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee moves closer to reality a novel proposal that has been years in the making. The bill, which was sponsored by Oregon Sens. Gordon Smith and Ron Wyden, would provide federal protection to the property. In return, ranchers would be paid for releasing their grazing rights by a fund established by environmental and private groups.

"At a crossroad that required balance and long-term vision, ranchers and environmentalists came together and found a way to make this land work for all," Smith said in a statement. "This fair, common-sense solution will keep the issue out of court, keep ranchers in the saddle and protect our precious natural resources."

But not everyone was happy with the plan.

Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ore., said he would introduce legislation in the next week to add federal payments to ranchers who give up their grazing rights. The original agreement called for federal money, but it was removed during Senate consideration.

Walden called it a "bait and switch" that shortchanges ranchers who are walking away from a valuable asset.

"In Washington, D.C., I've learned that you better get it in writing," Walden said in a statement less than an hour after the deal was approved in the Senate. "I've found out the hard way that if you don't have a guarantee in writing, it likely won't happen. By including a guarantee for full compensation, we will ensure that the wilderness and the buyouts reach the finish line at the same time.

"I don't want a pivotal party to this agreement to fall prey to a bait and switch. I want a square deal," Walden said.

Rancher Bob Miller, who helped negotiate the settlement on behalf of himself and four others, said he was pleased with the Smith-Wyden bill even though it offered far less money than ranchers originally sought.

"We feel Smith and Wyden are doing all they can politically to make it happen," Miller said Wednesday.

Miller said the Senate bill cut the payout to ranchers by roughly 60 percent from the amount they originally sought.

The federal payment was deleted at the insistence of committee chairman Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., who worried about setting a precedent if federal money was used.

Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., also objected, arguing that using federal money to buy grazing rights could lead to a wholesale buyback that would seal federal lands from grazing.

The Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument consists of 53,000 acres southeast of Ashland. The monument proclamation made by President Clinton in 2000 created an uncertain future for grazing within its boundaries and the ranchers who depend on the land for their livelihood.

Charles Pope: 202-383-7819, charles.pope@newhouse.com

BLM: Plan will protect prairie chicken, lizard habitat in NM

Two rare species found in southeastern New Mexico's oil and gas country will have added protections under a conservation plan approved by the Bureau of Land Management.

About 465 square miles of habitat for the lesser prairie chicken and the sand dune lizard will be protected, and the agency has expanded restrictions on drilling activity during the prairie chicken's mating season in an effort to boost the bird's numbers.

For Linda Rundell, state director for the BLM in New Mexico, the additional protections for the prairie chicken have been a long time coming. As a biologist more than 25 years ago, she spent time surveying the prairie chickens and their habitat.

"That was a long time ago and it has taken all of this time for the realization that we've got to get serious about doing what we can to improve the habitat of these birds or they're going to be in more jeopardy than they are," she said.

The conservation plan, approved Friday, was developed during two years of discussion and negotiation among the agency, state biologists, conservationists, ranchers and the oil and gas industry.

The goal, Rundell said, is to help both the prairie chicken and the sand dune lizard stabilize their populations—and hopefully increase their numbers—so they won't have to be listed under the Endangered Species Act.

Conservation groups say recent evidence shows the lesser prairie chicken has suffered serious declines in parts of its range in New Mexico, Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas. Scientists have pointed to habitat loss and fragmentation, population isolation, drought and changes in land usage.

Rundell characterized New Mexico's efforts to help the prairie chicken as "an absolute big, big deal" given that much of the habitat in other states is on private land and has been turned into cropland.

The sand dune lizard, found only in New Mexico and a small portion of West Texas, is on the endangered species candidate list. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has been given funding this year for research to determine whether the lizard should be protected under the Endangered Species Act. The process usually takes about a year.

Under the BLM's plan, an area of critical environmental concern has been set aside for the prairie chicken. The agency said no oil and gas leasing will be allowed in this area.

Areas of occupied habitat for the prairie chicken and the lizard also will be off limits to new oil and gas activity, said Tony Herrell, BLM's deputy director for minerals in New Mexico.

In areas of existing operation, Herrell said drilling activity is restricted during the prairie chicken's mating season—March through June—and noise is limited so the birds can hear each other's calls.

Still, environmentalists contend that the two species warrant even greater protection under the Endangered Species Act.

Nicole Rosmarino of WildEarth Guardians said all new oil and gas leasing and drilling as well as grazing and herbicide treatments within the species' habitats would have to be stopped to ensure "effective conservation."

As for the oil and gas industry, producers aren't "doing cartwheels" over the new plan but they believe it's a fair way to keep the species from getting to the point where they would have to be listed as threatened or endangered, said Bob Gallagher, president of the New Mexico Oil and Gas Association.

"I thought that was a balanced approach to address the concerns of environmentalists and also be sure that ongoing very important oil and gas operations can continue under some different set of rules," he said.

Marauding elk more than a nuisance, ranchers say

GRANTS, N. M. (KRQE) Hundreds of elk are being shot and killed in the Zuni Mountains not by hunters but by ranchers.

One of those ranchers is Brad Lethem whose place is northwest of Grants. He's armed with a rifle, the only weapon he said he has left in his fight against the 330 elk invading his land.

The state introduced elk here in the 1970s long after his family bought the land, and the elk have steadily multiplied over the years.

"We got bout 90 head of elk on us this morning," he said. "We are fixing to take care of this problem one more time."

On this day he shoots one elk, but over the past few months he said he's shot dozens upon dozens.

"I don't like doing it," Lethem told KRQE News 13. "I was brought up with way better morals in life."

Lethem isn't alone.

"It breaks my heart to do it; it really does," Larry Smith said.

Smith is in the same situation. The ranchers said this isn't the way they want to solve this problem, but they believe they have no other option.

Ranching is their livelihood, and they are losing too much money.

"We have what those elk want," "We got feed and water, and that is why we've got them."

"I could not grow a crop," Smith said. "It would get up 4 or 5 inches, 6 inches, and the elk would come in and in one night and demolish my whole field."

Smith and Lethem said the food they're raising needs to go to their cattle. If it's gone their cows can't survive, and they can't make money.

This is the other big problem.

"This is what I do every dang day, fix the fence, and it's getting real old," Lethem said.

Lethem said he spends thousands of dollars fixing fence the elk rip down. If he doesn't, his cattle get out, and if he loses them he loses still more money.

"It's tough enough in this ranching business without these elk," he said.

The New Mexico Department of Game and Fish department said it's been trying to work with Lethem for three years.

"At this point he's rejected everything that we've offered him," Ross Morgan of Game and Fish said. "We've offered anywhere from wildlife-friendly fencing, 50-50 cost-share projects to water guzzlers to things like that."

And they've offered to let hunters on the property so the killed animals don't rot and go to waste. However Lethem said that's too much of a liability.

"We make our living off cattle," he said. "We don't make our living off hunting elk."

The ranchers also believe the problem lies with Game and Fish.

"Absolutely," Smith said. "They mismanage their herds."

It appears *his fight will wage on and there are many similar battles across the state. Recently a rancher in Cimarron shot 39 antelope because they were eating his crop."

State law does allow ranchers to kill an animal to protect their property although that's not the way Game and Fish want it handled.

"We do try to work and do everything possible to get those elk off that property," Morgan said.

But ranchers said it's not enough.

"It's just a battle, and we are tired of it," Lethem said. "We're just tired of it."

Ranchers are required to call Game and Fish within 24 hours of killing an animal so officers can try to salvage it for food. But game officers said that is not always possible, and the meat often must left in the forest for scavengers.

Should landowners be allowed to shoot wildlife destroying their property?

Go here, scroll down and vote your opinion.

BLM, partners honored

CARLSBAD — The Bureau of Land Management Carlsbad Field Office and its partners in the Restore New Mexico Partnership has been held up as a model conservation project.

At a ceremony in the nation's capital last week, the BLM and its partners from Eddy County were among 21 recipients nationwide of the U.S. Department of Interior's Cooperative Conservation Award.

Dorothy Morgan, BLM Carlsbad Office assistant field manager for resources, accepted the award in Washington on behalf of the Restore New Mexico Partnership. She was accompanied by Doug Berger, BLM district manager, Debbie Hughes, New Mexico Conservation Districts Association executive director, and Vicky Sanchez, representing Devon Energy.

The 21 awards recognized the work of more than 700 groups and individuals who achieved excellence in conservation through collaboration and partnerships.

Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne, who came to Eddy County last year to tour the work of the Restore New Mexico Partnership, presented the awards.

"These outstanding partnerships and cooperative efforts represent a fundamental way in which our department provides stewardship for America with integrity and excellence," Kempthorne said in a news release announcing the winners. "They embody a broad spectrum of conservation work from restoring wetlands, rangeland and mine lands to protecting wildlife, conserving water and fighting invasive species to teaching conservation values to the next generation,"

Morgan said the partnership was among many federal agencies that submitted projects last year to the Department of Interior. She said the local BLM learned that the partnership was nominated for the award in November.

"I guess what we have done here through our partnerships, and continue doing, was considered worthy to be nominated and to receive the award," she said. "It feels good for us to be acknowledged that our work is appreciated. We hope it leads to even more successes both here in Eddy County and other parts of the state and country where similar projects can benefit the land."

Morgan said the Restore New Mexico Partnership began statewide in 2005. However, the BLM Field Office in Eddy County had a head start over other areas in meeting the program's goal because it already was working with partners from federal, state and local agencies, the ranching industry and the oil and gas industry.

"We had been working together for a number of years on grassland and riparian restoration and oilfield reclamation," she explained. "We have had a lot of success and we have been a model for other areas in showing what can be achieved through partnerships. When Secretary Kempthorne was here last year he saw first-hand what we have accomplished and he highlighted them in his speech during the award ceremony."

Morgan said that following the awards ceremony, there was a two-day workshop where the Carlsbad contingent presented a 15 minute documentary showing the conservation efforts that have been successful in Eddy County.

"The movie documentary was produced in cooperation with the Eddy County Media Group and New Mexico State University at Carlsbad," she said.

The award presented to Restore New Mexico Partnership recognized the group's initiative and leadership in achieving the vision of restored grasslands and riparian ecosystems in southeastern New Mexico including the removal of salt cedar from river corridors that allowed the natural biodiversity to return, and introduction of fire to the landscape.

Since 2005, brush control on 500,000 acres has been completed on public lands and almost 10,000 acres on private and state lands. Native riparian vegetation was re-established on 36 miles of river, replacing salt cedar that had invaded the river banks. About 800 acres of well pads, roads and power lines were reclaimed, reconnecting more than 80,000 acres of wildlife habitat.

Restore New Mexico Partnership (New Mexico) Members:

Ranching Partners: Monty Beckham, Daniel C. Berry III, Lewis Derrick, Robert Jolley, Bill Marley, Robert Mathis, Mathis Land & Cattle Inc., Mark McCloy, Stacy Mills, Kelly Myers, Alisa Ogden, Jimmy Richardson, Joe Stell

Volunteers: Stan Brisco, Howard Gebel, Larry LaPlant, Gerald Orr, Brezel Sanchez, Roy Stovall, Mack Wilemon

Bureau of Land Management: Eddie Bateson, Doug Burger, Cindy Dreps, Ron Dutton, Don Ellsworth, Dave Evans, Russell Fox, Tony Herrell, Jesse Juen, Ray Keller, Dorothy Morgan, Linda Rundell, Jim Stovall, Eddy Williams

Carlsbad Soil and Water Conservation District: Judy Bock, Nathan Jurva, Judith Ortego

Dawson Geophysical Company: Brian Freidenbloom, Steve Jumper, Ray Tobias

Devon Energy Corporation: Wyatt Abbitt, Joe Johnston, Don Mayberry, Victoria Sanchez, Steve Zink

Marathon Oil: Tom Breninger

Marbob Energy Corporation: Rand French, Johnny C. Gray, Ray Miller

Natural Resources Conservation Service: Dennis Alexander, Philip Carter, Ty Carter, Hollis Fuchs, Garth Grizzle, Tim Henry

New Mexico Association of Conservation Districts: Mary Lou Ballard, Troy Hood, Debbie Hughes, Kenneth B. Leiting, Bill See

New Mexico Dept. of Game and Fish: Dale Hall, R.J. Kirkpatrick, Bruce Thompson

New Mexico State Land Office: Jim Carr, Pat Lyons, Myra Myers

Wire thieves leave hazardous waste at Idaho campsites

BOISE, Idaho (AP) - Authorities say that what looks like the ashes of burned rope at campsites in Idaho may be hazardous waste.

A sharp increase has been reported in illegal burning of wire insulation on public lands throughout the West.

The Bureau of Land Management, for example, reports four cases in the last three months in the Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area south of Boise.

The agency's top official in Idaho, Loren Good, says drug addicts steal electrical wire, then burn off the insulation to get a bigger payoff from scrap meal recyclers.

The insulation is dangerous to human health as well as the environment, and removing the ashes properly can cost $500 to thousands of dollars.

Another BLM official, Steve Moore, says anyone who encounters wire insulation ashes should contact authorities.

Mountain is symbolic to many

GRANTS - Tsoodzil, Kaweshtima, Turquoise Mountain and Mount Taylor are names that have been given over the years to the dormant volcano on the horizon. The mountain represents sacred sites and the home of gods to some Native American neighbors and a place for recreation, ranching, Land Grant communities and appreciation of nature for others. Currently there has been a growing interest in resuming uranium mining on Mount Taylor, coinciding with some designations of protection by both the U.S. Forest Service and the New Mexico Cultural Properties Review Committee.

These state and federal designations have produced debate in Grants and led to allegations about how the measures would limit public activity on the mountain.

Some government leaders and the mining interests have reacted with hostility and many uninformed citizens have made dramatic, if incorrect, public statements on the situation.

At a Cibola County Commission meeting, local resident Ronnie Pynes questioned the legality of the meeting of the Cultural Properties Review Committee because it wasn't publicized in Grants, stating, “This isn't China. They want to take away our mountain, our forests, what's next?”

That statement doesn't remotely resemble what the committee has stated in respect to limitations on human activity on the mountain, although the legality of the committee's meeting is currently under investigation by Cibola County Attorney Joe Diaz.

In an editorial in the April 25 Beacon, Estevan Rael-Galvez, chairman of the committee, stated, “On publicly owned properties, any activity allowed by law or regulation continues to be allowed. However, listing in the State Register does provide a process for planning for projects or activities that might impact registered resources…so that state agencies can exercise due caution to avoid damage to cultural properties.”

He also pointed out that the designation does not affect the use of private property by the owner or his ability to sell, transfer or develop the property.

The emergency listing of Mount Taylor will be temporary for one year while the committee investigates the property and makes a determination if it should be permanently placed on the state register. The nominating parties - the Pueblos of Acoma, Zuni, Laguna, the Navajo Nation and the Hopi Tribe must spend that year documenting the importance of Mount Taylor as an archaeological site, the traditional values and the historic and prehistoric uses of the site.

The fact that that the nominating parties are all Native American has raised the question of real and imagined racism in those opposed to the measure.

Considering that the mountain was once part of Acoma aboriginal lands, this is a foreseeable reaction.

Also lost in the emotional debate is the fact that the cultural preservation area would only be located at an elevation of more than 8,000 ft. on mostly state and Bureau of Land Management land, according to Lt. Governor Mark Thompson of Acoma Pueblo.

“The pueblos don't want to shut down Mount Taylor because we hunt and recreate there too. But it is important for people to know that the mountain is sacred to us and mentioned in many of our prayers. Most importantly, we see it as a source of cultural continuity for our children.”

Thompson noted that there was some concern at the pueblo over the possibility of water contamination if uranium mining was resumed.

“I worked in the mines myself and I think we have to resume mining slowly and very carefully. We're not outright opposed to it,” Thompson said.

He pointed out that the beams in San Estevan Church at Sky City were carried by Acoma men from Mount Taylor to the church site when it was built during the Spanish Colonial era. “We take pride in our history and have suffered over the centuries, so it's important to us to keep our culture intact,” he said.

Deloris Becenti of the Navajo Nation explained the significance of the mountain to her people. “It is one of the four sacred mountains in our emergence story…the others are Blanca Peak and Mount Hesperus in Colorado and San Francisco Peaks in Arizona. Mount Taylor is mentioned in our prayers, chants, songs and stories,” she said. “Each peak has an animal totem which protects it from destruction.”

It is also the site where the mythological Monster Slayer twins killed a monster to protect the Navajo people. The monster's blood formed the lava beds, according to Navajo lore.

“Our medicine men go to Mount Taylor for medicinal and ceremonial plants. They must state their purpose and say prayers before they're led to the plants they need,” Becenti said.

She opposes any resumption of uranium mining because of the results she's seen from previous mining in the Crownpoint area where she lives. “The elders in our communities have been sickened by the polluted water and are suffering from kidney problems and cancers,” she reported.

“We really don't care that people can make money from uranium; we care about the integrity of Mount Taylor,” she concluded.

Also causing confusion in the current argument are Forest Service proposed designations regarding traditional cultural properties and travel management. These proposals will be outlined in a future Beacon story.

There will be a special Cibola County Commission meeting tonight at 6 p.m. to discuss the state Historic Preservation Committee's decision.

Protection weighed for bird in West's energy areas

The fate of basic industries across the Intermountain West — grazing, mining, energy — soon could be at least partially tied to that of a bird about the size of a chicken.

The federal government is under a judge's order to reconsider an earlier decision against listing the sage grouse as endangered, and wildlife biologists are scouring the species' customary mating grounds to see how many are left.

The species was seen as recently as 2004 over an area as large as California and Texas combined, but its habitat used to be close to twice that and research has shown that many types of human activity continue to harm it.

States and even some companies have made efforts to protect the sage grouse on their own, hoping to avoid a federal listing that could stretch across 11 states.

The prospect of listing the species has drawn comparisons to the northern spotted owl, whose listing as a threatened species in 1990 drew the ire of logging interests in the Northwest.

But the grouse occupies several times as much land as the owl.

"It will affect everything we do and know (as) a Western state, everything from livestock grazing to mining to development of sage brush habitat, wind energy," said Ken Mayer, director of the Nevada wildlife department.

"I don't think we have ever been in this position before."

Ranchers and the oil and gas industry dodged stiff regulations in January 2005 when the government decided the bird didn't need to be listed as an endangered species.

But in December, U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill in Boise overturned that decision by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, partly because it was tainted by political pressure from Assistant Interior Secretary Julie MacDonald. She resigned last May amid questions about alleged interference in dozens of other endangered species decisions.

"Her tactics included everything from editing scientific conclusions to intimidating staffers," Winmill wrote.

The agency has until December to issue a new decision. It has given wildlife agencies in 11 states until June 24 to update information on local populations, the threat the sage grouse faces and the steps being taken to conserve them.

The grouse — mottled brown, black and white — is found on sagebrush plains and high desert from Colorado to California and north into southern Canada. Their courtship rituals, where males puff up bright yellow air sacks under their neck and fan out the pointy feathers in their tails, are imitated in dances of several American Indian tribes.

The birds return each spring to breeding and nesting locations called leks — generally high desert with sagebrush, grass and wildflowers that provide both food and cover from predators.

Wildfires, development and industry have steadily cut into that habitat.

"The last 17 years, more than 16 million acres have burned in the Great Basin," Assistant Interior Secretary Stephen Allred recently told the National Association of Conservation Districts.

Allred said 75 sage grouse leks were destroyed last summer in Idaho near the Nevada line by just one set of fires.

The sage grouse now occupy about half of their original, year-round habitat. The Fish and Wildlife Service estimated in 2005 there were 100,000 to 500,000 greater sage grouse.

The birds' reproductive and survival rates are also down in states hit hard by drought and invasive plants such as cheat grass, which elbow out sage brush and native grasses after fires. West Nile virus also is taking a toll.

In Nevada, for example, the numbers of chicks per hen hit a historic low of 0.58 last fall compared to a more typical figure of 1.8 to 2.0, said Shawn Espinosa, a wildlife biologist with the Nevada Department of Wildlife.

Biologists are quick to remind that grouse populations operate in cycles, but Espinosa said "the highs and lows are getting lower and lower and the overall trend of sage grouse population is going down."

Environmentalists who have been pushing for federal protection for more than a decade are convinced its population is on a path toward extinction.

An "honest assessment" of the bird's numbers and the threats it faces will show that it must be listed, said Katie Fite, director of biodiversity for the Idaho-based Western Watersheds Project, which sued the Fish and Wildlife Service over its 2005 decision.

"Unfortunately, in several Western states, efforts seem to be under way to be creative with grouse counting and mask how much numbers are down," she said. "Populations do sort of cycle, but part of the last upward trend was a result of agencies taking great pains to find and count grouse."

Pat Deibert, a Fish and Wildlife Service biologist based in Wyoming and the federal coordinator of the new review, said lek counts are up in her state and others report the same in parts of Oregon and Colorado thanks to recent rainy springs and the absence of significant wildfires.

But she said those areas may be the exception.

Since last fall, Wyoming has undertaken nearly two dozen projects to help grouse, including restoring habitat, purchasing easements on ranch lands, improving livestock grazing practices and researching ways to reduce the effects of oil and gas drilling.

"A number of individual companies have done conservation actions as well. Often they move well locations voluntarily to get out of a lek," said Cheryl Sorenson, vice president of the Petroleum Association of Wyoming in Casper.

"We did not want to even consider having this animal listed," she said.

Experts fear nation's waterways need rescuing—from us

ALONG THE SANTA FE RIVER, N.M.—Rosemary Lowe scoops up a shovel of dirt and dumps it into a hole around the base of a slender cottonwood tree.

One down, thousands more to go.

Lowe and dozens of volunteers spent a recent day planting native trees along a half-mile stretch of the Santa Fe River that has been reduced to a dry, sandy wash.

"We've got to do something and this is one little place we can do it," Lowe says, wiping sweat from her brow. "And if we multiply that by thousands of other places around the world, think of what we can do."

Federal agencies, states, tribes and concerned citizens are spending millions of dollars and thousands of hours on waterway restoration projects to reverse decades of poor management and combat the mounting threats of population and climate change.

Nationally, there are more than 37,000 river restoration projects underway, costing more than $1 billion annually, according to a study released this month by Colorado College.

Andrew Fahlund, vice president for conservation for American Rivers, said every region of the country will eventually be affected either by water pollution or overconsumption.

"Look at the southeastern United States right now and you would think you were in the midst of the Colorado River basin," he said. "They're having good old fashion water wars in Georgia and most people associate Georgia with verdant hills and full streams."

The Bureau of Land Management has spent close to $15 million in the last couple of years on its Restore New Mexico program, which includes oilfield restoration as well as work on the rivers and streams that flow through BLM land.

The U.S. Forest Service spent about $500,000 on watershed work in New Mexico and Arizona last year and plans to spend just as much this year, said Penny Luehring, watershed improvement program manager for the agency's southwest region.

Just weeks ago, the agency and its partners finished planting willow trees along the Centerfire Creek in western New Mexico as part of a comprehensive plan that included removing cattle and building culverts for a road that crosses the creek.

Land managers agree that cooperation has been essential in trying to treat entire river systems rather than just a stretch at a time.

"We've been very successful in telling the story to all different kinds of groups—industry groups, conservation groups, other agencies—and they've all been very willing to join with us to try and fix some of these past mistakes," said Linda Rundell, state director for the BLM in New Mexico.

The work has resulted in more wildlife habitat, fewer invasive species, less erosion and the recharging of the aquifer in many areas. And managers say those benefits can't be realized soon enough.

Federal researchers at Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque predict that the fresh water supplies of more than half of the nations in the world will be stressed in less than 20 years, and that by 2050 three quarters of the world could face fresh water scarcity.

The U.S. is no exception, said Michael Hightower of the lab's Energy Systems Analysis Department. Groundwater pumping will likely have to be reduced in the next 5 to 10 years to prevent the depletion of many of the nation's aquifers, he said.

"We've been overpumping those aquifers for the last 50 years and it's beginning to catch up with us," Hightower said.

John Horning, the executive director of WildEarth Guardians, the environmental group sponsoring the recent Santa Fe River planting day, said that rivers throughout the Southwest need to be made resilient so they can withstand reduced flows.

"Most rivers in the Southwest have been damaged in one way or another. This one," he said, standing in the middle of the sandy Santa Fe, "has had a dam on it for over 100 years so we don't have the perennial flows that we used to have. As a result, what was once a pretty lush, rich corridor for wildlife and for humans isn't that anymore."

"It's pretty much an open wound and we're trying to heal it," he said.

For ranchers, SW drought means cuts in herd sizes

From the rolling hills lying along the Sonoita highway, rancher Mac Donaldson says drought and climate change have slashed his cattle herd.

Across Arizona, the drought has touched dozens of public-lands ranchers such as Donaldson in the past decade.

On federal Bureau of Land Management land, the number of cattle has dropped nearly 38 percent statewide since 1998, to about 242,000 animals run monthly.
On Forest Service land, the number of cows for which ranchers paid grazing permit fees dropped nearly 32 percent statewide from 2000 to 2007, to about 287,000 head run monthly.

The drought was a prime factor knocking down cattle numbers, the agencies' officials say. Another is turnover in the ranching business, in which a rancher sells his private land to a developer or speculator, and the rancher's accompanying public land grazing permit stays vacant for a time.

"People are holding these ranches in some cases as investments rather than businesses," says Rick Gerhart, a Coronado National Forest range planner.
For Donaldson, land that used to produce 800 pounds of forage per acre now produces 400 pounds per acre. He now breaks even on his ranching where he used to earn money, he says.

Additional environmental rules have also forced down cattle herds, says Donaldson, who operates the Empire and Cienega allotments. He runs 1,000 head these days on 72,000 acres of federal land. His permit allows 1,500.

"In the old days before there was much scrutiny or regulation, people ran as much as they could," he said.

He personally believes that climate change underlies this drought, but not primarily the human-caused variety.

"I think nature is the 800-pound gorilla in this deal," says Donaldson, whose family has ranched this area 30 years.

"There's obviously a (weather) response to carbon emissions and tearing down the forests in Brazil," he continues. "But if you look at the planet, since we broke off from wherever we broke off from, molten rock, if you look at it from a geological perspective, we're seeing change. But I think it is much larger, bigger in scope, akin to the ice age."

Over in the oak woodlands west of Sonoita, rancher Richard Collins says the drought hasn't affected business yet but he expects it will — and he's preparing. Collins says his allotment got 20 inches of rain the past two summers.

Unlike Donaldson, he has little doubt that greenhouse gases are big factors in the current warm weather.

"The notion that is something new is really not true, although the degree of it might be. I think the people who are waking up to this are people who live in town and have to run their air conditioning more often," Collins says. "The people who run the land, we deal with it all the time — it's not something Al Gore showed us."

Ranchers to help with renewal of endangered species

08:42 PM MST on Monday, April 21, 2008

By Jim Edwards, Fox 11 News

The operators of two Cochise County ranches have agreed on a plan with the Fish and Wildlife Service to assist in the recovery of six endangered species on their land. The threatened species include the Beautiful Shiner, Chiricahua leopard frog, Yaqui catfish, Yaqui chub, Yaqui topminnow and the Huachuca water umbel aquatic plant.

The two ranches, the BarBoot and the 99 Bar Ranch, include over 24-thousand acres in the upper Leslie Canyon watershed downstream from the Coronado National Forest Boundary and upstream from the Leslie Canyon National Wildlife Refuge. The ranchers will work to enhance and maintain the watershed through improvements such as partial fencing, erosion control activities and other riparian and hydrologic improvements.

Comments on the draft agreement are being sought through June 10.

Go here (pdf) to view the Safe Harbor agreement.

It's up to the voters

The Arizona Republic
Apr. 21, 2008

State trust-land reform's wobbly legs have a few more steps to travel.

With hopes of a legislative compromise fading faster than wildflowers in May, the advocates of preserving Arizona's most pristine landscapes have concluded an initiative is the only way to achieve their goal. They're preparing to collect 300,000 signatures to put the issue before voters in November.

They're looking at something less ambitious than Proposition 106, which narrowly failed two years ago, but more generous than the compromise bogged down in the Legislature. Let's hope they learned from past mistakes.

The first look is promising. This initiative is more narrowly tailored than the past attempt.

About 570,000 acres, including 5,000 acres in Scottsdale, would be set aside for immediate conservation. That's 120,000 fewer acres than in the 2006 initiative, but the land is spread into more places, including rapidly developing Pinal County, which should widen the initiative's appeal.

The proposal responds to critics in significant ways. Land set aside for conservation would remain in the state's hands rather than being given to cities or counties. Existing grazing leases would be honored, a provision that acknowledges the role ranchers played in defeating the previous effort.

As in the legislative compromise, communities would be able to buy land beyond the 570,000 acres at appraised value, without having to compete at auction against developers. The State Land Department would be able to keep a portion of auction proceeds to improve its planning and management of land.

It's a solid proposal, one that would end the uncertainty about whether some of the state's most gorgeous scenery will be paved over or saved for future generations. First, though, the proposal must win a majority of the vote.

Advocates two years ago made critical mistakes. The campaign focused on Phoenix and Tucson, ceding the rest of the state to the misinformation of the anti-preservation crowd. That's where they lost.

The wording in this initiative appears to recognize that error. It would set aside land for conservation across the state, near such places as Nogales, Douglas, Sierra Vista, Tombstone, Kingman, Lake Havasu City, Oracle, Winslow, Prescott and Wickenburg, as well as Phoenix, Scottsdale, Tucson and Flagstaff.

In the 2006 campaign, conservation advocates were slow and ineffective in responding to their opponents' charges. Home builders and ranchers more than likely will oppose the initiative again this year. Those who understand the value of trust-land reform need to be ready to respond.

Trust-land reform is vital. Preserving land for future generations is this generation's responsibility.

Just as important is giving the Land Department the tools to better manage the other 8.8 million acres of trust land. Some of the Valley's leapfrog development occurred because the department couldn't get trust land to market quickly enough.

The Legislature should have taken care of this. It failed. Now, it's up to Arizonans. The advocates of trust-land reform need to give them every reason to vote yes.

Manager backs plan to let cattle graze in E. Idaho park

AMERICAN FALLS, Idaho (AP) -- The manager of a popular state park in eastern Idaho has proposed letting cattle graze there again, arguing it will make the park more like it was when it was a stop on the Oregon Trail by eliminating invasive plants and allowing native plants to return.

Kevin Lynott, manager of Massacre Rocks State Park, said cattle would churn up the ground while also fertilizing it, replicating the effect bison had before they were killed off more than a century ago.

"You can't do nothing," he said. "The land can't restore itself to a natural state without intervention. This was a grassland habitat, and a grassland habitat was here because of the natural tendencies that were here."

Ryan Walz, right of way supervisor for the Idaho Department of Transportation, opposes the plan.

"I was raised on a cattle ranch," he told the Idaho State Journal. "I can't imagine anyone wanting to go camping or hiking where there's been cattle."

The park is 10 miles west of American Falls on Interstate 86, and was named after skirmishes in August 1862 that left 10 pioneers and an unknown number of American Indians dead. There is debate over which tribe was involved.

The park was a stop on the Oregon Trail, and pioneers carved their names on some boulders in the park, including Register Rock. The park also contains about half a mile of wagon train ruts.

The boulders themselves were moved to the area by a giant flood about 14,500 years ago.

The park has a campground with electrical hookups, hot showers, and campfire programs during the summer.

Walz said allowing cattle in the park goes against why the park was created.

"The whole intent was to let the ground return to its natural state so travelers can get the idea of what pioneers saw when they first came through," Walz said. "The agreement (with the Idaho Parks Department) required they would manage it according to the intent for which it was purchased."

About 565 acres of the park is owned by the Parks Department, while the remaining 335 acres is owned by the Transportation Department and managed by the Parks Department under a scenic easement agreement.

The two agencies are meeting April 22 to discuss grazing cattle.

Lynott said the cattle grazing is in line with the park's mandate of maintaining the land like it was in pioneer days. He said nonnative species such as cheatgrass and knapweed have taken over much of the park, eliminating native perennials such as bunch grass.

That results in fires about every five years that burn up the accumulated nonnative plants, he said.

Lynott said the cattle would only be in the park during the fall and winter when few of the 70,000 to 100,000 annual visitors are in the park. He also said they would graze a small area intensively for a short time to get the desired result, and grazing wouldn't take place at campgrounds.

Lynott said he hasn't found any documentation that would prohibit grazing in the park. He said under the plan, if it goes forward, local ranchers would enter into contracts with the park to bring in cattle.

Proposed federal compensation for wolf kills

Montana Senator Jon Tester and Wyoming Senator John Barrasso are teaming up to help livestock owners whose animals are killed by wolves.

The Gray Wolf Livestock Loss Mitigation Act would create state trust funds to pay ranchers for those losses.

It would also allow federal grants for states to help lower the risk of wolf kills by improving fencing and grazing practices, using guard dogs, and other means.

The bi-partisan plan is in response to the federal government's decision in March to remove gray wolves from the Endangered Species Act and turn over wolf management to Montana, Wyoming and Idaho.

In 2007 wolves killed 75 head of cattle in Montana, up from 32 in 2006.

Sheep losses rose from 4 in 2006 to 27 in 2007.

In Wyoming it's estimated that wolves killed 100 adult cattle and 600 calves in 2007.

Sheep losses reached 100 ewes and 400 lambs last year.

Oberstar Offer To Narrow Clean Water Bill Fails To Sway Key Critics

Efforts by Rep. James Oberstar (D-MN), the chairman of the House Transportation & Infrastructure (T&I) Committee to narrow his controversial bill defining the scope of the Clean Water Act (CWA) appear to have failed to win over the bill's Republican and conservative Democratic detractors.

At a marathon, 23-witness hearing on H.R. 2421 April 16, Oberstar agreed to narrow and clarify the types of waters and activities covered by the legislation, as recommended by EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. In his opening statement, Oberstar said he is open to making “adaptations” to the bill and invited Republicans and the witnesses to “offer constructive proposals.” The bill is “not an inflexible document but a starting point for discussion,” Oberstar said.

But chances for compromise between Oberstar and the bill's critics, including key committee Democrats, seem slim, and it remains unclear whether the T&I chairman still has enough votes to get the bill out of committee. Rep. Nick Rahall (D-WV), chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee and a senior member of the T&I committee, appeared unmoved in his opposition to the bill. At the hearing, Rahall railed against the unintended consequences of adopting the bill, which would expand the law's scope to cover all waters not just “navigable waters.” Rep Rick Larson (D-WA) said in a written statement April 16 that the “consensus” that emerged from the hearing is that the law should remain focused on “navigable waters.”

The committee's ranking Republican, Rep. John Mica (R-FL), said the bill would be “disastrous” for land rights, agriculture and many facets of the economy.

However, Oberstar's willingness to alter the bill appears to have won over a number of other Democrats who previously opposed the bill. Democratic Reps. Peter DeFazio (OR), John Salazar (CO) and Zach Space (OH), all of whom have previously raised concern over the bill, were amenable in the hearing to passing the bill given some clarification. And with alterations, two Republicans appeared willing to consider support for the bill. Rep. Thomas Petri (R-WI) asked advise for improving the legislation, and Rep. Candice Miller (R-MI), while concerned about expanding the scope of the act, iterated her support for maintaining the integrity of the water act overall.

Oberstar's inability to win over the Democratic critics raises questions about the long-term prospects for the bill. John Pawlow, GOP counsel on the committee, said April 14 at a meeting of the National Water Resources Association that he has “serious doubts” Oberstar has the votes to move it out of committee, but that he may still “blindly plow ahead,” or “do some back room arm twisting.”

At the hearing, EPA water chief Ben Grumbles and Army Assistant Secretary for Civil Works John Paul Woodley Jr. both expressed concern that the bill does not clearly define which activities would be exempt from jurisdiction, which could lead to additional litigation. They recommended clarifying the types of waterbodies covered and detailing the legislation's exemptions to match current regulatory exemptions, as to avoid confusion in congressional intent. Grumbles also made clear that he thinks it is a mistake to remove the term “navigable” from the water act -- a key tenant of the bill that Oberstar appeared unwilling to change.

The bill's backers say the legislation is needed to restore the integrity of the water act following recent Supreme Court decisions that muddied regulatory oversight for some marginal wetlands and other waters. But GOP and other critics are arguing that the bill would grant the federal government broad authority to regulate almost any waterbody and will do little to clarify current legal uncertainty about which waters fall under federal authority.

Grumbles, while resisting insistence that the bill would unravel 30 years of CWA precedence, said he thought it would likely expand the agency's jurisdiction, which could result in a spate of litigation. Oberstar repeatedly insisted that he does not want to expand the reach of the CWA to areas it previously did not cover.

Rep. John Boozman (R-AR), ranking member of T&I's water resources and environment subcommittee, asked Grumbles whether the removal of the word “navigable” from the CWA would result in inclusion of groundwater under CWA jurisdiction. Grumbles said, “I don't have a legal conclusion on that . . . [but] if the answer were yes, that would be a significant change in practice.”

Grumbles in his testimony also provided several other areas where the bill could be altered, including adding additional exclusions to the bill's savings clause, as well as clarifying the definition of the word “activities” to demonstrate types of waterbodies and not actions. Examples of exclusions that should be explicitly listed in the bill are “prior converted croplands” and waste treatment, activities that EPA rules currently exempt from regulation, he said. Oberstar said it was not his intent to leave out any currently practiced exclusions.

Settlement reached in rare butterfly case

By SUSAN MONTOYA BRYAN Associated Press Writer
Article Launched: 04/15/2008

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M.—A settlement reached by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and environmentalists requires the agency to take the first step in determining whether a rare butterfly found only in southern New Mexico deserves protection under the Endangered Species Act.

WildEarth Guardians and the Center for Biological Diversity sued the federal government in January in federal court in Washington, D.C., to force the agency to make a decision on the Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly—which the federal government previously proposed as an endangered species.

The 2-inch butterfly exists only on about 2,000 acres in high-elevation meadows in the mountains near the Sacramento Mountain village of Cloudcroft. The groups contend the butterfly is being threatened by climate change, insecticides, development, off-roading and livestock grazing.

"There's a lot of stress that this butterfly faces despite the fact that it does occupy such a small corner of the earth," Nicole Rosmarino, wildlife program director for WildEarth Guardians, said Tuesday. "This butterfly is perched on the brink of extinction."

Under the settlement, the Fish and Wildlife Service has until late November to review a petition filed by the groups that seeks listing of the subspecies as either endangered or threatened, said Elizabeth Slown, a spokeswoman for the agency's regional office in Albuquerque.

If the agency determines the petition is valid, it will have until August 2009 to study the butterfly and decide whether it should be protected.

Noah Greenwald, a biologist with the Center for Biological Diversity, said the settlement means the butterfly will get another chance at federal protection. The Fish and Wildlife Service in September 2001 had proposed listing the butterfly as endangered, but he said the agency never finalized that decision and withdrew it in December 2004.

The agency said at the time that threats were diminishing and the butterfly didn't need endangered species protection. But the groups renewed their push last summer after the Forest Service and the village of Cloudcroft approved plans to spray a chemical over thousands of acres to combat an infestation of looper caterpillars.

"Even though the Forest Service and the village backed off and agreed to spray later, it just really highlighted to us that this species is clearly imperiled and does need protection," Greenwald said.

Slown said the fact that the butterfly has been through the review process before will help biologists as they consider the groups' most recent petition.

The Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfly is one of many across the nation that are facing threats to their survival, said Scott Hoffman Black, executive director of the Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation in Portland, Ore. In fact, the group has 54 butterflies ranging from Oregon to North Dakota that are on its "red list."

Black admitted that butterflies are small and often overlooked, but he said the role they play in the ecosystem is much bigger than their size.

"Many of them pollinate plants, and without our pollinators—including butterflies and bees—we're not going to have all of the fruits on the plants that feed all of the birds and the mammals. They're really the backbone of these ecosystems," he said.

Black said one key to ensuring the survival of imperiled butterflies is cooperation with land managers, including federal agencies, local governments and private landowners.

Owyhee Canyonlands protections back before Congress
With Democrats in control, Crapo's bill could pass

Sen. Mike Crapo on Thursday introduced a new version of his bill to protect wilderness, wild rivers and ranchers in the Owyhee Canyonlands.

The bill includes new ways to compensate ranchers and removes provisions Senate Democrats had said would prevent them from supporting it. A hearing is scheduled for April 22.

"Without this hearing, we would not be able to move the Owyhee Initiative legislation this year," said Crapo, R-Idaho.

The original bill was first shaped by a panel of environmentalists, ranchers, outfitters, local officials, motorcyclists and snowmobilers brought together by Owyhee County commissioners. Crapo has been working with the county on the bill since 2002.

Republicans, who controlled Congress in 2006 when Crapo introduced the bill, held a hearing on it, but it went nowhere. The new bill was rewritten this year with help from Democrats - now in the majority - on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

"Finally, we have a bill I think that has real possibility of succeeding," said Fred Grant, the Owyhee County adviser who has championed the collaborative talks that led to the bill.

Grant, a longtime champion of ranchers' rights, acknowledged he had to make painful compromises to get Democrats on board. But he still thinks the bill is good for ranchers and Owyhee County. "I'm satisfied (that) the way this bill is now can make the Owyhee Initiative agreement work," he said.

The Owyhee Public Land Management Act of 2008 would still protect 517,000 acres of prime sagebrush habitat as wilderness, where motorized use is not allowed. It also would designate 315 miles of Wild and Scenic Rivers that run through the desolate area's deep, verdant canyons, which are carved into spires, benches and colorful chasms.

The bill would release more than 200,000 acres of wilderness study areas back to multiple-use management.

In addition, several thousand acres of public lands managed by the BLM would be traded for ranch lands adjacent to wilderness areas. The federal government would buy other lands outright.

Concerns about those proposed land transfers and acquisitions were, in part, what derailed the bill in 2006.

Katie Fite of Western Watersheds Project, who considers grazing on public lands destructive, said the land trades and sale were the worst part of a bad bill. "That is a terrible thing for the public and public lands, sage grouse, pygmy rabbits and everything," Fite said.

Like the 2006 version, the latest bill offers compensation for ranchers who would give up their rights to graze on the protected lands.

COMPROMISES HELPSWAY DEMOCRATS

Crapo said a visit to Owyhee County last summer by the staffers for the Senate Energy and Natural Resources committee was critical to finding a way to make the bill work.

To win approval from the committee's Democrats, several provisions were changed to ensure they meet the requirements of the Federal Land Management and Policy Act of 1976. These provisions would:

Set up a science review center to examine grazing decisions. The scientific review will be done as a part of existing coordination with Owyhee County, instead of having a separate policy for evaluating grazing decisions made by the Bureau of Land Management.

Call for a trails and transportation plan for motorized users.

Approve the Shoshone-Paiute Tribe's plan to protect its cultural resources.

Overall the bill would cost taxpayers up to $12 million, mostly for buying ranch lands. Seven million dollars of fences, grazing rights, water rights and other parts of ranch estates would be paid for privately by environmental groups or foundations.

Crapo said he was confident he could get Congress to approve the funding. He said he has received a commitment from Republican Sen. Larry Craig to help get the money and move the bill through the Senate. Craig's support is important because the Senate won't move a wilderness bill forward without the support of both of the state's senators.

Craig has had a policy not to talk to the Idaho Statesman since his arrest in a Minneapolis airport became public in August. Will Hart, his press secretary, said Thursday the policy has not changed.

Craig Gehrke, Idaho representative of the Wilderness Society, a national environmental group that helped write the bill, said it is easier to support now.

"Our hard choices were made some time ago," Gehrke said.

Sandra Mitchell, executive director of the Idaho Snowmobile Association, who represented motorized users in the talks but later opposed the bill, said she had not seen the latest version.

Rocky Barker: 377-6484

Open space district awards grazing lease for San Mateo property

By Lisa M. Krieger
Mercury News

Reversing a no-cow trend, the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District is awarding a five-year grazing lease for its Tunitas Creek property to San Mateo Coastside rancher Doug Edwards.

This is the second grazing lease awarded by the district in the past year. Last December, a five-year grazing lease was awarded to rancher Vince Fontana for the former Big Dipper Ranch at Skyline Ridge Open Space Preserve.

The old paradigm was to kick cattle off property when acquired by conservation groups. Overgrazed, eroded and trampled pastures had alarmed the region's environmentalists. But further research brought a turnaround in thinking. Removing cattle from San Jose's Silver Creek Hills in the 1990s, for instance, led to depletion of wildflowers that are food for the endangered bay checkerspot butterfly.

Inspired by successful grazing on San Jose's Coyote Ridge, district managers seek to reduce wildfire risk in an area that is too big to mow and too dangerous to burn - and fend off the encroachment of forest.

The district's adoption of "conservation grazing" - the use of livestock to boost the diversity of native plants and animals, control the spread of invasive non-native plants and prevent fire - may eventually reintroduce cattle to 5,000 grassy acres in Santa Clara and San Mateo counties. Both Edwards and Fontana are longtime ranchers in the region.

Wilderness proposal brings back bad memories

By Dolly June Moore Young/For the Sun-News

It is time for me to say something about the Doña Ana wilderness proposal. I am a child of the '30s and '40s and I am a child of a family displaced for what was then thought to be the higher and better use of Doña Ana County land. My father, William E. Moore, had a little filling station and mining properties on the east side of the Organs and we were forced from those lands by the Army in 1951.

My family existed on those properties along with a herd of goats and a flock of turkeys. We had not been the original settlers. That had been my grandfather, William S. Moore, who had settled in the area prior to 1900. Our home was the sanctuary that a child could relate to as being "home." Years had made us part of the land. We were part of that community of scattered ranchers and miners. We all were "home."

When we were forced from the land, my memories of reactions are mixed. I think people of my parents' generation were less likely to express emotion. They were too close to earlier times when hardship was not just a memory. It was part of life itself. We left. We were not paid outright for the lands and possessions. As I remember, my father was paid an ongoing payment of $200 per year, and then it stopped. I don't remember when it stopped. I know little about the details because those details were not shared with us. My father, like most fathers of that era, was tight lipped. At the time the final events occurred I had left home to begin my own life. My folks eventually settled just north of Organ. I know it wasn't easy. They struggled. They existed on my mother's Gold Star Mother certificate payment from the loss of my older brother in the war and from odd jobs that my dad was able to get. They had no recourse. The government made the decision for them.

Today, the United States is again contemplating what is best for more Doña Ana lands. There are representatives among us who are doing the work that Congress will eventually decide upon, much like what was done when my family was moved off our land and from our home. The greater good is being contemplated again.

I have empathy for the ranchers who face this. From my own experience, it is a tragic occurrence of events that are not fully manifested for years, and, maybe never. What a tragedy the removal of people off the face of the Tularosa Basin was. Yes, there have been jobs that were created, but there is a loss that can never be quantified or expressed. It is every bit as egregious as anything any body of people has faced in the history of this country. There is a corollary, though. I retired from NMSU some years ago. I worked in the Animal Science Department, and I have thought about what was occurring in the Gila during the years of my professional life. We had kids in our department from that area and we generally were aware of the course of events of the ranchers and the wilderness. In contemplating my history and that of the Gila, I think there are stunning similarities. In both cases, the government unilaterally made lasting decisions that benefited the government and or those who had the authority or influence within or outside of the government to affect those decisions. There was never a single decision that was made that benefited an individual no matter what argument was made. He was minimized or made villainous.

If you rush forward in dealing with this Doña Ana wilderness issue with an agenda that is based on who is contributing to you, you will join a long list of your predecessors who forgot why they were elected. It is easy to join the throng and appear to do something special. It is harder to find the right answer that ". . . prevents misconstruction and abuse of its (your) powers ... (and) insure the beneficent ends of its (the Constitution's) institution; ..." Our families who were forced off those lands could never have prevailed in a popular vote of the decision concerning our demise. The people of the Gila couldn't either ... and the ranchers who face this can't either, but not in a single case was it, nor will it be, right or just. Do history a favor. Look at the draft legislation to make human existence part of the land designation. It would be a momentous occasion to consider ordinary citizens in a government action.

Dolly June Moore Young is a graduate of Las Cruces Union High School who has lived in Doña Ana County for most of her life.

Ranching for sage grouse

By WES SMALLING
Star-Tribune staff writer

A light snow falls, dusting the sage brush with a coat of white. With cattle to feed and several heifers about to have their first calves, it's a typical busy day for Stacey Scott on the Eagle Ridge Ranch outside Casper.

During his lunch break he gazes out the window of his ranch house watching the falling snow swirl in the wind.

"It's a good sign," says the 60-year-old rancher who's hopeful that this winter's good precipitation may bring some relief from years of drought.

The Scott family has been ranching for more than 50 years on the Eagle Ridge Ranch near the North Platte River at Bessemer Bend and since the early 1970s on the Two-Bar Ranch at Bate's Hole.

The Two-Bar is one of the greatest strongholds of the West for the sage grouse, a bird that's in peril throughout much of its historic range. The birds and their strutting areas, called leks, are plentiful on the ranch's open spaces. Year after year they mate, nest and raise their young undisturbed on the Two-Bar.

Scott is an avid birdwatcher. Birding is in his blood. His father, Dr. Oliver Scott, founded the first Wyoming Audubon Society chapter in the 1950s. Like his father and brothers, Stacey Scott is a sage grouse enthusiast.

"They are just fascinating birds. They really should be the state emblem, not the bucking cowboy," he says. "They're so unique. What other bird gains weight during winter just eating sagebrush? They're just fascinating. I like all birds, but the sage grouse is just very special to me. To some extent they're a symbol of the health of the range."

As a rancher and bird expert he knows as well as anyone how the fates of the ranching industry and the sage grouse are linked. The failure of one could spell doom for the other.

"Ranchers can do an awful lot for the sage grouse. Probably the biggest thing they do is just provide the open space," Scott says. "About 75 percent of the sage grouse are on private lands. The best lands were homesteaded. Those are also the best lands for the sage grouse."

Saving sage grouse -- and preventing an Endangered Species Act listing for the bird -- may be up to ranchers like the Scott family who can provide the vast tracts of sagebrush habitat the birds need to survive.

Scott is chairman of the Bate's Hole/Shirley Basin Sage Grouse Working Group, one of several regional task forces in the state comprised of government representatives and private citizens who are trying to find ways to conserve habitat for the troubled species.

While sage grouse remain fairly numerous in Wyoming, the birds are growing dangerously scarce in surrounding states. The federal government is currently reviewing whether the greater sage grouse warrants listing under the Endangered Species Act.

Sage grouse have been called the "spotted owl of the Interior West" for the fearful changes an endangered species listing could bring to energy and agricultural interests. A listing would require designating critical habitat across several states for the plump bird of the prairie that's known for its showy springtime courtship displays during the mating season. A federal listing could severely limit human activities in the birds' habitat, potentially impacting oil and gas drilling, urban development, recreation and ranching.

Sage grouse require several miles of relatively undisturbed habitat of sagebrush, nesting cover, leafy forbs and insects for their chicks to eat during their first few fragile weeks of life. The birds tend to disappear from areas where cities and roads are sprawling out and from lands that are fragmented by oil and gas developments.

A big part of saving the sage grouse rests on the shoulders of landowners who raise livestock on the huge ranches of Wyoming, Scott says. The open spaces they provide may be the last hope for the imperiled bird.

For every ranch that fails and is sold off to build subdivisions and "ranchettes," that's one more nail in the coffin for the sage grouse -- potential habitat that is lost forever.

No silver bullet

When the bald eagle was listed as an endangered species, authorities banned the pesticide DDT and the birds began to recover. There is no single approach like that known to science for recovering sage grouse, Scott says.

They're a complex bird and scientists are still figuring out what the best ways are to recover their habitat. The loss of sagebrush ecosystems is mostly to blame for the birds' demise. How to bring back the birds' habitat is up for debate.

"There are a lot of unknowns about the grouse. There's more to grouse than you might think," Scott says.

An Endangered Species Act listing would not only be disastrous for ranchers, it could also worsen matters for the species itself, he says.

An ESA listing could give the federal government sweeping powers to dictate what land users can and can't do in sage grouse habitat. The problem with that, Scott says, is that there is no real consensus among scientists and land managers on what's best for restoring the bird.

"If everybody did the same thing, what happens if we're wrong?"

For example, he says, a knee-jerk reaction among environmental groups is that livestock grazing is bad for sage grouse.

"Everybody has a theory but they don't have the data to back it up. Some people say grazing is why there's no sage grouse. I'll show you leks that have disappeared because there was no grazing."

On the Two-Bar Ranch, the Scotts have found that intense, short-term grazing actually helps the birds. The number of sage grouse are up on the ranch since they've begun a rotational grazing system, in which their livestock vigorously feed and trample a certain area for a few weeks a year. The activity stimulates the growth of forbs which attract insects that the birds' chicks need to eat for survival, he says.

Scott admits that there is no scientific data yet to prove rotational grazing always works, but as a rancher who's on the land day after day he's seen its success. The birds are flourishing on the Two-Bar.

"Anybody can shoot holes in the data. But the only places in the last 20 years that have had the most sage grouse in the country are on private lands on ranches in Evanston and Bate's Hole. Both have rotational grazing."

More grazing or less grazing, burning or not burning to restore sage brush, more grasses for nesting cover or more forbs for insects -- debates over what's best for sage grouse are seemingly endless. That's why now is not the time for an ESA listing, he says.

"Every ranch and situation may be different. More research is needed on what habitat the birds need and what land users can do. There's no one out there who has the right answer."

Searching for answers

The Shirley Basin/Bate's Hole Sage Grouse Working Group is one of several local groups in the state that provide funding for research and habitat-improvement projects for sage grouse.

"We have more sage grouse in Wyoming than any other state. We have more habitat than any other state. The answer is going to come from here," Scott says.

Instead of one sweeping approach, the kind an ESA listing could bring, "hundreds of little projects" are needed over several years to improve sage grouse habitat in the West and find definitive answers for what's best for the bird, he says.

"There's no silver bullet. Rangeland things take a very long time. It took 30 years to get the grouse down where they are now. It's going to take 30 years to bring them back."

Meanwhile years of drought, lagging beef prices and other pressures threaten the West's ranching industry as it struggles to survive. Ranchers must stay in business, Scott says, if the sage grouse is going to make it.

"The bottom line is keeping open spaces is more important than anything we can do. Putting in houses and roads you remove the sage grouse and that's permanent.

You've got to keep the open spaces."

A Decade After Reintroduction of the Wolf, Environmentalists, Ranchers Continue to Play Tug of War Over Program

By Rene Romo

Copyright © 2008 Albuquerque Journal; Journal Southern Bureau

LAS CRUCES— Ten years into a federal-led effort to reintroduce the endangered Mexican gray wolf into its former territory in the Southwest, the divide between the program's supporters and critics seems as wide as ever.
And the recovery effort has made fitful progress, at best, since March 29, 1998, when biologists opened three holding pens in the mountains of southeast Arizona and released the first 11 wolves into the wild.
Last month, the Albuquerque-based Wilderness Alliance and the Las Cruces-based Southwest Environmental Center, two groups supportive of the Mexican gray wolf recovery effort, sponsored trips to wolf country for groups of middle school and college students. They hoped to hear wolf howls, find paw prints or even catch a glimpse of one of the 23 wolves in New Mexico.
Meanwhile, the Reserve public school district, in response to concerns about the safety of children, has installed one, and plans to install several more, wolf-proof shelters to protect school kids at bus stops in rural Catron County after wolf-stalking scares.
The deep and often bitter divide between supporters and opponents of the wolf project is a big obstacle to its success, observers say.
"The conflict is real, and until we have either better federal leadership or better local leadership, the prospects for wolves are not going to improve greatly," said John Horning of Santa Fe-based WildEarth Guardians, formerly Forest Guardians.
"And right now the prospects for wolf recovery are not great," Horning said.
"It's kind of depressing to read all these comments that things are going to hell in a handbasket," said Laura Schneberger, head of the Gila Livestock Growers Association and a staunch opponent of the wolf reintroduction effort.
"It's just not true," Schneberger said. "There are a lot of uncollared wolves out there."
As the wolf reintroduction program struggles into its second decade in the Southwest, environmentalists are pushing for more aggressive steps to expand the endangered species in the wild. Many residents continue to object to the program's presence in their backyards. And federal and state officials continue to manage a program, underwritten by the federal Endangered Species Act, that is as much hated by some as it is believed in by others.
Differing views
According to a 1996 environmental impact statement preceding the 1998 release of the wolves, the wolf population was expected to grow to 100 wolves by the end of 2006 in the 4.4 million-acre Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area, which encompasses U.S. forests in southeast Arizona and southwest New Mexico.
But the Mexican gray wolf count at the end of 2007 was 52 wolves— a 12-percent decline from the previous year. By January, the total shrank to 50 with the deaths of two pups in Arizona.
In southwest New Mexico, at last count, a total of 23 wolves remained in the Gila National Forest.
"Do we want to have the only lobo left in New Mexico be a bronze statue at UNM?" asked Wilderness Alliance spokesman Nathan Newcomer.
John Morgart, wolf recovery program coordinator for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, said, "Obviously, we're disappointed" that the number of Mexican gray wolves in the wild declined from 2006 to 2007.
But Morgart also said, "By no stretch of the imagination has (the recovery program) failed. Biologically, the program has proven to be a huge success."
Morgart noted that wolves in the wild have mated and produced pups year after year.
John Oakleaf, the Alpine, Az.-based field projects coordinator for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, noted that the entire breeding stock for the Mexican gray wolf was once down to seven wolves in captivity. Today, besides the 50 Mexican gray wolves in the wild in Arizona and New Mexico, there are about 350 in breeding facilities across the U.S.
Schneberger said federal officials have probably undercounted the wolves. But, in any case, the wolf population has reached the limit that can be supported by the recovery area, she said.
"The truth is, the population is pretty stable and is doing pretty good, despite all these removals," Schneberger said, referring to the removal of 22 wolves from the wild in 2007, mostly for preying on livestock.
Environmentalists contend the recovery effort has been hamstrung by overly restrictive protocols.
Among those requirements, they say, is the controversial Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) 13, which calls for the permanent removal from the wild of wolves tied to three cattle depredations in one year.
Since wolves were first reintroduced to Arizona in 1998, about 34 have been permanently removed from the wild, including 11 that were shot to death.
The number of breeding pairs in the wild declined from seven at the end of 2006 to four at the end of 2007.
Michael Robinson of the Center for Biological Diversity said the program's management under the Bush administration will ensure "the second extinction of the Mexican wolf in the wild."
Better in the Rockies
If supporters of the Mexican gray wolf program want to imagine how the wolves' prospects might be under different circumstances, they need only look to the success of the reintroduction of gray wolves in the northern Rockies.
Since 41 wolves were introduced inside Yellowstone National Park over three years starting in 1995, the wolf population has grown to more than 1,500 in Wyoming, Idaho and Montana, according to the Fish and Wildlife Service.
Starting in 1998, 50 Mexican gray wolves were released into Arizona and New Mexico in the first three years of the recovery effort launched under the Endangered Species Act. Ten years after the program's start, the number of wolves in the wild is about the same.
Fish and Wildlife Service officials said there are critical differences between the wolf reintroduction programs in Yellowstone and the one on the Arizona-New Mexico border.
One crucial difference, Oakleaf said, is that wolves introduced in Yellowstone were captured wild in Canada and then relocated to the U.S.— "From wild to wild."
The first Mexican gray wolves released into the wild in the southwestern U.S. were born and raised in captivity, and the rate at which they successfully produce pups in the wild is less than half that of the wild-born wolves relocated to Yellowstone, Oakleaf said.
Wolves introduced in Yellowstone were not confined to the national park and were allowed to disperse. Wolves released in Arizona or New Mexico are captured if they stray outside the recovery area boundaries.
Morgart noted that the 2.2-million-acre Yellowstone National Park is devoid of cattle, like other nearby swaths of land in Idaho and Montana, so conflicts with ranchers are reduced.
In the Gila National Forest— where Mexican gray wolves on the New Mexico end of the recovery project roam— ranchers are authorized to graze roughly 25,000 head of cattle on 126 active grazing allotments.
Horning noted that cattle grazing in national forests of the Southwest goes on year-round, unlike the northern Rockies.
The Fish and Wildlife Service in February announced its plan to delist the northern Rockies gray wolf as an endangered species, leaving management of the population to Wyoming, Idaho and Montana effective as of March 28. But environmental groups, fearing wolf numbers will plummet under state control, are challenging the delisting in federal court.
A rough 2007
In the Arizona-New Mexico recovery area, cattle make up only a small percentage of the wolves' diet, which is primarily elk. In 2007, the 52 wolves were confirmed as the cause of 22 livestock depredations in the area.
Nonetheless, the mix of wolves and cattle has generated enormous political pressure on state and federal officials managing the wolf recovery program in Arizona and New Mexico.
Last year, that pressure increased, particularly in New Mexico's Catron County, where opposition has been fierce all along.
New Mexico ranchers sued unsuccessfully to halt the recovery program when it began. In July 2005, after a governor's task force was set up to try to address concerns of people opposed to the wolf recovery project, the Catron County Commission approved a list of "non-negotiable" items, including a halt to new wolf releases in New Mexico and the construction of fenced "wolf reserves."
In a paper titled "What is needed for acceptance and toleration of wolves as neighbors in New Mexico?" the plan called for relocating wolves into the fenced reserves "after one confirmed livestock or domestic animal attack or kill, or after one human encounter, regardless of where these attacks, kills or encounters occur."
Ranchers and Catron County officials say the wolves are taking a heavy toll on livestock, for which ranchers are not adequately compensated.
They also say wolves have attacked pets and horses and stalked hunters, people on horseback, and rural families, including children.
In February 2007, the Catron County commission passed an ordinance that would allow it to order the removal of wolves deemed habituated to humans— wolves that frequent residential areas and show no fear of humans.
Two environmental groups, including WildEarth Guardians, filed suit in federal court to void the wolf removal ordinance. A March 10 settlement conference with a federal magistrate in Albuquerque failed to yield an agreement between the two sides.
Last June, Rep. Steve Pearce, R-N.M., sponsored an amendment that would have halted the use of federal funds for the continued operation of the Mexican wolf recovery program. The amendment was defeated, while Pearce warned, "... It's a matter of time until a wolf catches one of these children."
Supporters of the recovery program have pushed back against efforts to kill it.
In July, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson called on the program's managers to suspend SOP 13, which had led to the decision to kill an alpha female wolf for preying on livestock weeks after she whelped a litter of pups.
In December, Bruce Thompson, director of the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, wrote the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to urge program rule changes, such as expanding the boundaries of the wolf recovery area and allowing initial releases of Mexican gray wolves into New Mexico, rather than just Arizona.
Rules governing the recovery program, Thompson wrote, contain "substantive shortcomings that impose hardships on the citizens of New Mexico, limit management flexibility, and result in unsustainable losses in the wolf population."
Kevin Bixby, director of the Southwest Environmental Center in Las Cruces, said that finding common ground to help the wolf recovery effort succeed is difficult, but he is hopeful.
"I am absolutely confident that we can find a reasonable solution to wolf-livestock conflicts that is fair to both wolves and ranchers, but it's going to require that everybody is willing to compromise," Bixby said.
But Bixby made it clear that his side in dispute is unyielding on at least one point.
"The bottom line is we cannot allow the wolf to go extinct from the wild a second time," Bixby said. "That is non-negotiable."