State has spent more than $200K defending wolf lawsuit

 State wildlife managers spent more than $216,000 on outside attorneys in less than half a year to defend against a claim that they violated the federal Endangered Species Act relating to Mexican gray wolves.

This confrontation began when the New Mexico Game and Fish Department last year lifted a ban on trapping in southwestern New Mexico, where the federal government reintroduced the endangered wolves. It meant state lands again were open to potential adversaries of the rare wolves.

WildEarth Guardians sued the Game and Fish Department, alleging a state agency had created a system that could harm or kill wolves guaranteed protection by federal law.

The suit, filed in February in U.S. District Court in Albuquerque, named state Game and Fish Director James Lane and Game Commission Chairman Jim McClintic as defendants.

"No permit is necessary to trap skunks or coyotes. Wolves that should enjoy protection are in danger of being harmed or killed," said Wendy Keefover of WildEarth Guardians.

Every death of a Mexican gray wolf is statistically significant, she said, because its population in the wilds of New Mexico and Arizona numbers no more than 42.

Lane, through a spokesman, said money the state is using to defend against the lawsuit came from fishing, hunting and trapping licenses. He declined to say anything else.

State records show that most of the money spent so far by the Game and Fish Department has gone to the law firm of Kelley Drye in Washington, D.C. It had received $199,801 through June, the end of the state government's budget year.

Another $16,238 for the wolf case went to the Albuquerque law firm of Keleher & McLeod.

The suit is still being litigated, and seven agencies opposed to wolf reintroduction have intervened as defendants.

They include the New Mexico Council of Outfitters and Guides, the New Mexico Farm & Livestock Bureau and the New Mexico Cattle Growers' Association.

Caren Cowan, executive director of the cattle growers, said her group opposes the wolf as an unwanted and dangerous predator. She said she also resented WildEarth Guardians trying to create policies for the state.

"We need the ability to use our own lands," Cowan said in an interview.

Keefover of WildEarth Guardians said federal protection for the wolf trumps the state trapping program. Her group maintains the wolf's future is being threatened because of political maneuverings in New Mexico.

When Democrat Bill Richardson was governor, he issued an executive order prohibiting leg-hold and body-crushing traps within the Mexican gray wolf's New Mexico recovery area. He said he wanted to protect the wolves as much as possible until their population grew. Richardson's order came in July 2010, six months before he left office.

Republican Susana Martinez succeeded Richardson. The Game and Fish Department, as part of her administration, rescinded Richardson's trapping ban in July 2011.

It meant that trapping could occur year-round on lands where it had been prohibited. They included portions of the Wild Rivers Recreation Area of the Rio Grande, the Valle Vidal, Vermejo Ranch and the Valles Caldera National Preserve.

WildEarth Guardians is no happier with President Obama's administration than it is with Martinez's.

In 2010 the conservation group filed petitions with the U.S. Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in hopes of receiving an emergency exclusion of trapping in the Mexican gray wolf's range.

The Forest Service rejected the request and the Fish and Wildlife Service ignored it, Keefover said.

The wolf's territory also extends into Arizona, where it is safer.

Trapping is outlawed on Arizona's public lands. Voters, not politicians, made that decision in a public vote in 1994.

Cowan of the cattle growers association said the lawsuit amounted to little. Even the U.S. government describes Mexican gray wolves in the wild as a "nonessential experimental population," she said.

Cowan also said the chances of wolves dying or being hurt in traps were small and had occurred infrequently since their reintroduction in New Mexico and Arizona in 1998.

A study by the U.S. Geological Survey and the U.S. Department of the Interior found that 14 Mexican gray wolves were captured in foothold traps set by people other than Fish and Wildlife employees. Thirteen of the trappings occurred in New Mexico.

Two of the wolves died and two others were hurt severely enough that leg amputations were necessary.

The same study found that 37 wolves were illegally shot, 12 were hit by vehicles, 11 were "lethally removed" by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, one was shot legally by a member of the public, and one died from a trap injury that was part of government research operations. Given the Mexican gray wolf's minuscule population outside captivity, Keefover said, the species could vanish, especially with programs such as state trapping that allows for year-round, unlicensed operations.

New Mexico residents pay $20 for a license to trap furbearers. But, as Keefover pointed out, no license for state residents is needed to trap coyotes or skunks.

Nonresident trappers can buy a license for $345. They must be licenses for coyote and skunk trapping.

Milan Simonich can be reached at msimonich@tnmnp.com or 505-820-6898. His blog is at nmcapitolreport.com

link

Rancher, wolf battle escalates

When Laura Schneberger sent out an email over the weekend about her suspicions in regards to a wolf trap being tampered with, her frustration was clear.

Schneberger is president of the Gila Livestock Growers Association and said the association, now at 95 members, once was 150 or so members strong.

She blames this, in part, on wolves.

Or rather on the wolf program as managed by the Fish and Wildlife Service.

“Its like dealing with the dang mafia,” Schneberger said in reference to Fish and Wildlife. She said GLGA does not believe the department is doing enough to protect the ranchers.

Representing Fish and Wildlife, Tom Buckley said his department is doing what it can.

He said there have been four confirmed wolf depredations since March.

A single wolf, the alpha female of the Fox Mountain pack in Western Catron County, had been singled out by the service to be killed earlier this month, but because of public concern, Fish and Wildlife rescinded the kill order two days later, Aug. 10, and agreed to trap her instead.

“Our business is to recover the Mexican wolf,” Buckley said. “We don’t have any answers yet.”

A Mexican Wolf Interdiction Fund has been set up to provide compensation for confirmed wolf kills of cattle, Buckley said. The fund pays for the depredations, range riders and hay for cattle that can’t graze on their normal ranges.

The range riders generally stick around where the cattle are and put themselves between the wolves and the cows, he said.

“That’s usually enough to deter the wolves,” he said. “Most cattle don’t get bothered by the wolves at all.”

The environmental group Defenders of Wildlife generally covers the cost of the range riders, Buckley said.

He said statistics are very low when looking at wolf kills as compared to cattle killed in other predator attacks.

“Many more are killed by wild dogs and coyotes than wolves,” he said. “It’s just such a sensitive subject to some people.”

But to rancher Corwin Hulsey, it’s more than a sensitive subject, it’s his life.

With his cattle endangered after several losses in the last 12 months, Hulsey felt he had to move them off of land he leases at a cost of $1,600 a month.

“I moved all my cows in trailers with two pickups,” Hulsey said.

And because he moved the animals to his own land, quickly overgrazed, he had to buy hay to feed them.

“I fed them $8,500 worth of hay,” he said. “It took $800 in fuel just to move them back and forth.”

“Last year we lost 25 out of 200 calves,” Hulsey said. “You could attribute maybe two or three of those to other predators.”

Three days after Hulsey took his herd back to the leased land earlier this month, the wolves took another cow.

He said there are three range riders up there now, but the wolves attack mostly at night, and the riders can’t be taking their horses across the land at night.

Hulsey himself has been spending nights near the herd, getting up every hour and a half to walk through the area and watch for wolves.

He doesn’t feel the removal of the alpha female will stop the depredation.

“The whole pack is involved,” he said. “It’s discouraging to me.”

After an overall estimated monetary loss of $16,000, of which about $3,500 has been compensated, Hulsey doesn’t know if he can keep the business alive.

“Sooner or later they run everybody (the ranchers) down and they just give up,” Hulsey said. “I don’t think there is any answer. Several have quit because of the wolves.”

Hulsey said he understands Fish and Wildlife are just trying to do their job.

“Their job is to raise wolves and I have a different approach,” he said. “I don’t have a lot of bad feelings toward a lot of the people. It’s just business-wise, it’s running us out of business.”

Hulsey believes things can only be changed in Washington, by legislation.

He suggested the people in the government offices donate $5,000 each out of their paychecks to help him cover the cost of his losses. But, he said, they don’t want to do that.

Jess Carey, wolf interaction investigator for Catron County, said the Hulsey’s livestock is at continuous risk and his monetary loss has not been compensated.

“The stress of the possibility of losing his family ranch, no sleep and constant vigil has taken its toll,” Carey said.

Michael Robinson, with the Center of Biological Diversity, said the removal of the alpha female could be damaging to the wolf recovery efforts.

“Four stock have been lost at a time when mechanisms that have been set up should have prevented it,” he said. “Fish and Wildlife is in charge of this and needs to have a system. The wolves are being made to pay the price.”

Robinson said the magnitude of what is at stake has to be considered.

When the wolf program started it was projected there would be 102 Mexican grey wolves, including 18 breeding pairs by 2006. But today there are only 58 wolves and six breeding pairs on the ground.

Wolf recovery efforts in other locations have proven positive results restoring balances once lost, Robinson said.

In one example, in Yellowstone National Park, he said, wolves were reintroduced in 1995. Up until then, elk had been destroying streamside vegetation and river valley bottoms at the park. Because of the wolf reintroduction, the elk stopped browsing the unsafe areas in river canyons and many of the tall trees and riparian habitats have been restored.

“The question we have to answer as a society is ‘do we want to be responsible for extinction of an intelligent and creative animal?’” Robinson said. “The answer is ‘no.’”

In the meantime, Corwin Hulsy is driving back to his herd this week because something has killed one of his cattle again and he needs to check it out.

link

Scientific American: Jaguars Win Critical Habitat in U.S.

After years of legal wrangling, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has granted jaguars protected territory

By Susan H. Greenberg

Jaguars, the third-largest cats after lions and tigers—and the biggest in the Western Hemisphere—used to live here. During the 18th and 19th centuries they were spotted in Arizona, New Mexico, California and Texas. Sometimes the cats roamed as far east as North Carolina and as far north as Colorado.

As humans encroached on their territory, the endangered cats' range shifted south. Today it stretches from northern Argentina into Mexico's Sonoran Desert. But jaguars cross into the American Southwest frequently enough for some conservationists to argue that they deserve critical habitat protection. Now, after years of legal wrangling, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has agreed. In a  plan (pdf) published yesterday, the agency proposed designating 838,232 acres—an area larger than Rhode Island—as critical jaguar habitat. That means federal agencies cannot fund or authorize any activities that might "adversely modify" the earmarked land, which covers four stretches of mountain in southeastern Arizona, a section of the Peloncillo Mountains on the Arizona–New Mexico border, and a tiny piece of New Mexico's San Luis Mountains. It includes the site of a proposed copper mine in Arizona's Santa Rita Mountains, which will have to be carefully evaluated for its potential impact on jaguar habitat if the proposal is approved later this year, following a period of peer review, public comment (pdf) and economic analysis.

It is a dramatic step for the FWS, which has been dragging its feet on jaguars for years. The conservation group Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) first sued the FWS in 2003 to designate critical habitat and develop a recovery plan for the cats, which have been listed as endangered since 1997. The FWS determined that the species didn't need special protection in the U.S. to survive, compelling the CBD to file another lawsuit in 2007. Then, in 2009, controversy erupted over the death of a jaguar known as Macho B, a male that had been captured in Arizona's Atascosa Mountains, fitted with a radio collar and released, only to be later euthanized after he was found ailing. Macho B's death added urgency to the issue, and a few weeks later a federal district court agreed with the CBD, mandating that the FWS reconsider its previous decision not to grant jaguars critical habitat. Yesterday's proposal was the result of that ruling and includes the canyon in the Atascosa Mountains where Macho B lived.

The FWS reversal should help quell a long-standing debate among conservationists, scientists, government officials, ranchers and local residents about how vital U.S. territory is to the preservation of the species. Although the designated area represents the northernmost part of the jaguar's range, the FWS proposal argues that peripheral populations are essential to the species because their adaptation to different environmental conditions strengthens evolutionary diversity. Michael Robinson of the CBD praised the plan but wishes it went further. "These sky island mountain ranges near the border with Mexico are vital for jaguars to move into the United States," he says. "But we propose adding the Gila and Apache national forests in, respectively, New Mexico and Arizona, where roads are few and prey plentiful, in order to provide habitat for more jaguars, which could genetically bolster the population in northern Mexico."

Stealthy and mystical, jaguars (Panthera onca) lived primarily in North America until the Pleistocene epoch ended around 12,000 years ago, according to the anthropological records of the American Museum of Natural History. Since 1963 only male jaguars have been spotted in the U.S., and then only in south-central Arizona and southwestern New Mexico. "Counting cryptic carnivores is very, very difficult," says Howard Quigley, the executive director of the Jaguar Program of the wild cat conservation group, Panthera, and a co-leader of the Jaguar Recovery Team, a group of scientists and other experts whom the FWS convened to advise the government on its decision.

Some conservationists have long argued that jaguars belong in the American Southwest. Robinson says the cats are part of Arizona's historical flora and fauna and have inherent value to the ecosystem. He also says the government essentially owes them critical habitat, because the animals' demise has come largely at the hands of the government itself. Between 1918 and 1964, records show, a federal predator extermination program killed tens of thousands of wolves and coyotes, along with an unspecified number of jaguars, probably numbering in the dozens. Furthermore, the government initially failed to list jaguars under the 1973 Endangered Species Act—an oversight that took more than 25 years to rectify. The American Society of Mammalogists outlined the same arguments in a 2007 resolution calling for FWS to develop a jaguar recovery plan and delineate critical habitat. With the jaguar's range steadily shrinking, the resolution said, U.S. habitat is "vital to the long-term resilience and survival of the species, especially in response to ongoing climate change." Indeed, fringe populations are crucial to the preservation of a species, says Carlos López González, a Mexican biologist and co-leader of the Jaguar Recovery Team, who has been documenting the cats in northern Mexico since 1997, because they're part of the historical range. "Peripheral animals at the edge of a species are probably the animals that are more adaptable to climate change, global warming, drought and so on," he says.

Other prominent conservationists have argued it is a waste of time and money to focus on jaguar recovery in the U.S. Southwest. Alan Rabinowitz, Panthera's co-founder and president,agrees that fringe populations are critical to a species's preservation—provided they are resident or breeding populations. The closest breeding population to the Arizona border is more than 200 kilometers south in Mexico's state of Sonora. After Macho B's death, when the federal district court ordered FWS to reverse its position on critical habitat designation, Rabinowitz issued a swift rebuke on The New York Times op-ed page, calling the move "a slap in the face to good science." He wrote that the American southwest is "at best, marginal habitat for the animals," arguing that jaguar conservation efforts would be better directed at preserving "corridors" that link breeding populations with one another south of the border. He doesn't dispute that jaguars regularly cross the Mexican border into Arizona and New Mexico, but maintains they don't stay long. "There's something there that they don't like," he says. "If it was habitat they liked and could settle, why go back and forth?"

The best hope for jaguar recovery in the U.S. may lie in diverting resources across the border. "There's great science and money going into jaguar conservation in North America," Quigley says. "I would love to see it head south." Whereas Endangered Species Act funding may technically be used outside the U.S., it is rarely deployed that way. In October 2010 the U.S. Department of Homeland Security earmarked $6.8 million to fund conservation efforts—including just under $3 million "to survey and monitor jaguars and their habitat in Arizona"—in an agreement with U.S. Customs and Border Protection aimed at mitigating the impact of border security projects, such as the fence designed to deter illegal immigration. "The bad news is all the money has to be spent north of the border where there's one jaguar every three years," Quigley says. "We all realize the work needs to be done south of the border. It's horribly ironic and sad." He cites parts of the genetic corridor from Colombia to the central-southern Amazon that are critical to jaguar survival but receive no funding or attention. As the northernmost breeding center, Sonora is also key. "If we want to have jaguars in Arizona, there have to be more resources provided to Mexico," says López González, who has established incentive programs for Mexican ranchers to set photo traps for jaguars rather than kill them. Quigley says other such programs are beginning to win funding south of the border. "Our real purpose is to make sure the two core areas [Jalisco and Sonora] are preserved and there is genetic connectivity between them," he says. "If we do that right, there will be two or three jaguars that come across the border now and then." And someday, maybe more.

Link

 

Lincoln County pushes for interstate forest management

Falling in line with several other counties in the West, Lincoln County commissioners adopted a resolution supporting legislation to enter into an interstate compact agreement with the federal government to cooperatively manage forested lands.

The only hesitation at the commission meeting last month was tied to whether citing "periods of extreme drought" as justification might place limits on the arrangement, and if supporting New Mexico entering into an interstate compact agreement with the federal government might interfere with legislation being considered in Congress.

Commissioner Mark Doth explained that three bills were introduced on the federal level that deal with the issue of placing more power in the hands of states.

"Funding is the question," he said of all three, which were under committee review. "Hopefully, there will be a meshing of the three or one will be stronger than the other."

Colorado House Bill 6089, introduced by U.S. Rep. Scott Tipton, R-Colo., proposes that in reaction to the bark beetle epidemic, drought, deteriorating forest health conditions, and high risk of wildfires on national forests and on Bureau of Land Management property, authorities were established in the Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003 to provide emergency measures for high-risk areas identified by states to allow the USFS and BLM to conduct good-neighbor cooperation with states to reduce wildfire risks, and for other purposes.

The bill, which would increase local control over forest management and wildfire prevention and allow states to designate high-risk areas and develop emergency hazardous fuels reduction projects for those areas, was referred to the Committee on Agriculture and to the Committee on Natural Resources.

In July, the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands discussed the Depleting Risk from Insect Infestation, the Soil Erosion and Catastrophic Fire Act of 2012, H.R. 5960, which proposes expanding the authority of the USFS and BLM to enter agreements with states. The bill, introduced by U.S. Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., also creates guidelines responding to insect infestations and disease on federal land.

Commissioner Kathryn Minter said none of the bills allow wilderness areas to be touched or permit clear cutting. Coming from Washington state, she knows that many species won't reseed without a clear cut. She also would want a provision to hold back some federal tax dollars to pay for firefighting, she said.

"This is a first step," Doth said.

"So the state would manage the forest, but the land still belongs to the federal government?" Commission Chairman Eileen Sedillo asked.

Not according to statehood enabling language, Minter replied.

"I'm 100 percent in favor, but the first paragraph references periods of extreme drought," Commissioner Tom Battin pointed out. "I would want the intent of the resolution to exist in perpetuity so states can take a permanent place in the question of managing forests, not just in drought."

The county attorney said the language could be seen as a limiting factor and could be removed, but commissioners changed their minds after County Clerk Rhonda Burrows said the language was adopted by the New Mexico Association of Counties affiliate and is being adopted intact by other entities to be presented to the association board. Minter also said she preferred that drought be mentioned.

Karyl Williams of Capitan raised the possibility that the resolution could cause problems if legislation subsequently is passed by Congress. She said widespread, bipartisan support is growing for states to assume a larger role in the care of the forests.

The legislation follows a Utah initiative to take back all public lands, more than 20 million acres, and benefits not given in an enabling act when it became a state, she said. In March, Utah Gov. Gary R. Herbert, a Republican, signed into law House Bill 148, which asks the federal government to give back the land. Bills patterned after Utah's are being prepared for filing next year in Colorado, Idaho, Montana and New Mexico, according to wire reports.

"A time limit would be given to the federal government to get out and we (in New Mexico) would have control of over 40 percent of the state (that now is under federal control) minus the military bases." Williams asked commissioners to postpone a vote until the District 51 state representative could be scheduled to explain the initiative.

Burrows said she heard the argument before, but at the association meeting, "It was generally agreed upon this actually would not prohibit any further action for reclaiming of state rights, and entering into the compact with other Western states actually might help."

"It's just a resolution for the Legislature to look at for the greater picture," Sedillo said.

Commissioner Jackie Powell said the Coalition of Counties, like the other entities, is looking for more local input. "They are focused on endangered species," she said. "It's ridiculous to think we can all be covered by one (policy). Our forests are nothing like those in Washington state."

The adopted resolution states that periods of extreme drought continue in the West and the increase in wildfire fuel loads on forest lands have created a risk of catastrophic fire, damage to watersheds and long-term water supplies, as well as other threats to health, public safety and property.

link

Appeals court tosses out Hage judgment

By MATEUSZ PERKOWSKI

Capital Press

A federal appeals court has thrown out a $4.4 million legal judgment that deceased rancher and Sagebrush Rebellion icon Wayne Hage had previously won from the federal government.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has reversed an earlier court decision that ordered the U.S. Forest Service to compensate Hage for infringing on his property rights.

The descendants of Hage won a legal victory in the case in 2008, two years after his death and 17 years after the lawsuit was initially filed.

The judge ruled that the agency deprived Hage of his water rights by building fences that prevented him from accessing streams in the Toiyabe National Forest in Nevada.

Hage owned easements that allowed him to transport the water over federal land through ditches, which he claimed the Forest Service prevented him from maintaining.

The lawsuit also sought compensation for the fences, roads and improvements to water sources that Hage built on federal land before his grazing permit was revoked.

After years of litigation, a federal judge agreed with the complaint's arguments and awarded Hage's estate roughly $2.9 million for his water rights and $1.5 million for the value of improvements.

The government challenged that ruling, which a three-judge appellate panel has now reversed on several grounds.

Hage could have applied for a special permit to maintain the ditches that conveyed his water, so the claim that the government prevented him from doing so isn't "ripe" for federal court, the most recent ruling said.

Building fences around streams also isn't a physical taking of property, because Hage hasn't demonstrated that he could put the stream water to beneficial use, the appeals court said.

Water rights only allow the owner to use water that he can put to beneficial use, but the Hage family hasn't shown "there was insufficient water for their cattle on the allotments or that they could have put more water to use," the ruling said.

The appellate court also overturned the award for rangeland improvements, ruling that Hage could have sought compensation directly from the agency instead of in federal court.

Aside from vacating the financial award to Hage's family, the most recent ruling has caused uncertainty about legal principles in such conflicts, said Brian Hodges, an attorney for the Pacific Legal Foundation property rights group who monitored the case.

"The decision raises more questions than it answers," Hodges said.

For example, the appellate judges did not resolve the key issue of whether the government even had the right to regulate Hage's ditches, he said.

Hage claimed the Forest Service did not because his water rights predated the agency's authority over the land.

"It's unsatisfying the court assumed the federal regulations were valid without first determining whether water rights holders like Hage have a right that is superior to the regulations," Hodges said.

The Hage estate can still ask for reconsideration from a broader "en banc" panel of appellate judges, or request the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case, he said.

Hage's battle with the Forest Service is one of the sparks that started the "Sagebrush Rebellion" of popular resistance to changes in federal land policy, Hodges said.

"This case exemplifies the abuses the Western ranchers and natural resource industries suffered at the hands of the federal government," he said.

link

Editorial: Ranchers smolder over limits

    As wildfires blackened more than 1 million acres of the West last week, the debate over grazing on public land took on greater urgency and meaning.
    It also provided several faces to the debate. Meet Jeanette Yturriondobeitia. She and her husband, Richard, have a ranch in southeastern Oregon, near the town of Basque, population 10.
    They own the 12-Mile Ranch, which has borne much of the brunt of the 512,000-acre Long Draw wildfire -- the largest in recent Oregon history -- that roared across the region last week. They have lost 130 cattle and ranch structures -- and they almost lost their house.
    "We came back from moving cattle in the middle of the night and found seven pumper trucks lined up defending our haystack and house," she told Capital Press reporter Dan Wheat.
    With that much land -- most of it used for grazing -- blackened, she wonders how they'll get through the rest of the year.
    "Every bit of our winter range and what's left of our summer range is burned," she said.
    The couple is a founding member of the Trout Creek Mountain Working Group, which formed in the 1980s and included other ranchers, state and federal agencies and several environmental groups. Together, they agreed to reduce grazing on federal allotments to allow fish and wildlife habitat to return to health.
    The area had been overgrazed, but in the intervening 30 years the wildlife habitat has returned to health and even the population of rare Lahontan cutthroat trout has more than doubled, to 24,000.
    In light of their success they have been talking with the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, which oversees the federal land in the area, about increasing their grazing. More grazing would not only allow the them and their neighbors to run more cattle, it would maintain the habitat and, just as importantly, reduce the amount of grass that fuels wildfires.
    Rangeland experts say properly managed grazing benefits the land and habitat. State and federal land managers agree, but are constantly harassed by some environmental groups, which cling to the notion that any grazing only spreads weeds and hurts wildlife habitat. They say cheatgrass, which can be spread by livestock, displaces native grasses that naturally resist fire.
    For that and other reasons, they oppose virtually any grazing. Their goal is to convince the government to buy out grazing allotments across the West.
   The problem for the environmental groups is that a lack of grazing could be worse for wildlife than properly managed grazing, just as no logging can be worse for forest ecology than properly managed logging.
    As was proved by the Trout Creek group in Oregon and other similar groups across the West, wildlife habitat, streams and fish populations do thrive alongside grazing.
    The sage grouse is of particular concern to all Westerners, particularly those who ranch. The bird, which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service says warrants protection under the Endangered Species Act, lives in 11 Western states and two Canadian provinces. As a "candidate" species for federal protection, it poses a threat to grazing because it lives in sage brush.
    Agencies such as the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Natural Resources Conservation Service and the BLM have formed initiatives and working groups with ranchers to make sure the grouse populations remain healthy.  They know that properly managed grazing will benefit the grouse and its habitat.
    Wildfires also devastate wildlife habitat. Because cattle and sheep eat the grasses that fuel wildfires, more grazing could have reduced the severity of the blazes that scorched vast swaths of prime sage grouse habitat last week in Oregon, southern Idaho and elsewhere.
    Meet Jared Brackett. He is the Idaho Cattle Association's vice president and ranches near Castleford, Idaho, where about 219,000 acres burned in the Kinyon Road fire.
    He told Capital Press reporter Sean Ellis he is "extremely upset, disappointed and frustrated" that extra fuel -- grass that cattle grazing could have reduced -- was allowed to remain in the Jarbidge Resource Management Area, part of which the massive fire blackened.
    "When you're only utilizing 5 to 10 percent of the resource, this is what happens," he said. "We're trying to help this bird out but they keep saying grazing is a threat to it. Well, fire is a greater threat."
    He is correct.
    Resource and rangeland managers know that cattle and wildlife can get along. They also know that ranchers are willing participants in efforts to protect and improve habitat and reduce wildfire dangers.
    But the extreme environmentalists and their lawyers disagree. They want grazing stopped, no matter that it helps the environment and wildlife such as the sage grouse. As long as they can use the deeply flawed Endangered Species Act to stop grazing, they'll do it.
    Maybe those environmental groups should think about filing another lawsuit. Maybe they should sue themselves for damaging the sage grouse's habitat by opposing more grazing.
    Just a thought.

Capital Press

Ben Nelson Goes Cow (Fees) Tipping

When outgoing Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) announced last month that he was pushing to reduce America's national deficit by reducing "welfare ranching" in America's heartland, so quiet was the political response in Washington that you could practically hear the crickets chirping along the Potomac. Undaunted, Sen. Nelson last Wednesday went one step further, announcing that he has introduced an eminently level-headed "Fair Grazing Fee" bill, designed to require the various agencies of the executive branch to charge market-level grazing fees for private ranchers who are running livestock on public land.
More crickets in Washington. But not on the ranches and farms of the nation's vast ranch lands. And certainly not in Nebraska. There, Sen. Nelson's new initiative is a very big deal for many different reasons. After all, it's not every day when an elected official, in the selfless pursuit of a common good, bucks up against the power of entrenched special interests and ... wait, wait, what's that? Sen. Nelson pitched his plan not just out of pure deficit-minded selflessness but because Republican nominee Deb Fischer, running this fall for the seat he is vacating, is herself a current beneficiary of "welfare ranching?"
Here's how the Omaha World-Herald Leader put it last month: "The family of Republican Senate nominee Deb Fischer leases 11,724 acres of federal land in north-central Nebraska for about $4,700 for seven months -- by some estimates about $110,000 less than the market rate for leasing private land in Cherry County." Combine such a sweetheart deal with a GOP candidate whose campaign so far has focused upon deficit reduction and wasteful Washington spending and, presto! The Democrats have themselves a campaign theme with some measure of traction.
Sen. Nelson puts it another way. It's not a story about Washington picking on the ranching industry, you see; it's about inequality within that industry itself. Sen. Nelson says he isn't just sticking up for the hundreds of millions of Americans who would like to see their public land leased at market rates. He says he is also sticking up for the vast majority of ranchers who for one reason or another do not receive the benefit of federally subsidized ranching fees. Last week, the senator explained it this way to local journalists:

I have offered an Amendment to help pay for the Jobs Bill, an Amendment that will bring fairness to America's ranchers and all taxpayers. My Amendment will require the US Forest Service and the Federal Bureau of Land Management to charge market value to those who graze livestock on public lands. As you probably know, an elite group of ranchers, I call them the 'two-percenters,' they currently receive about $140 million a year in federal subsidies to graze livestock on publicly-owned land. In these hard economic times, taxpayers shouldn't be padding the pocketbooks of the elite two-percent who get a special deal that 98% of ranchers don't.

And here's more from his website:

... The State of Nebraska charges over $20 dollars a head of calf to graze on state land. Why should the federal government charge $1.35?... Let's go through some numbers. All the grazing fees on federal lands add up to about $21 million dollars. But it costs the federal government $140-some million dollars to take care of those lands. In other words, there is a shortfall of $120 million dollars coming from two percent of ranchers. If I'm one of the 98 percent, I'm going to say 'that's not fair." That's why this is a matter of tax fairness.

In this day and age, who could be against "tax fairness"? Certainly not Bob Kerrey, the former Nebraska senator and governor who is running (against Fischer) for Nelson's soon-to-be-empty seat. "I believe the free market should set the prices for grazing on federal land," Kerrey said last month in a press release after Nelson first announced his pitch. "Giving generous subsidies to a small number of ranchers isn't fair to the vast majority of ranchers who don't have this grazing privilege. Further, it isn't fair to the taxpayers who are subsidizing this form of welfare.
What do Fischer and her fellow Republicans think of Sen. Nelson's bright idea? I'll let the Lincoln Journal Star pick up the story from here:

The Nebraska Democratic Party launched a new TV ad campaign Monday accusing Republican Senate nominee Deb Fischer of accepting millions of dollars in "taxpayer subsidies";at the same time, she calls for reduced federal spending. "Think you know Deb Fischer?" the attack ad asks. "Well, behind her rhetoric is a lot of bull. Tell welfare rancher Deb Fischer to cut wasteful spending, not profit from it."
Democrats clearly have decided Fischer's participation in a federal livestock grazing rights program that benefits her own family ranch may be a chink in her conservative, cost-cutting armor they might be able to exploit. Sen. Ben Nelson and Bob Kerrey, her Democratic Senate opponent, already have questioned Fischer's acceptance of what they describe as federal subsidies that result from charging below-market fees for cattle grazing rights on U.S. Forest Service land.
"Ranchers are required to pay for additional maintenance costs and abide by strict federal regulations in exchange for leasing the land," Fischer campaign spokesman Daniel Keylin said. Republican Sen. Mike Johanns, a former U.S. secretary of agriculture, already has said it was misleading to describe the program as a subsidy, Keylin pointed out. Johanns said the lease requires substantial activity by a rancher in return for limited use of the land. Republican state Chairman Mark Fahleson branded the ads an act of desperation.

An act of desperation, perhaps. But that doesn't make Sen. Nelson's plan bad national policy. Indeed, regardless of its local-political overtones, and regardless of the senator's motives in promoting it, making federal grazing fees at least match the market rate is sound and equitable policy that deserves serious consideration on Capitol Hill. The fact is, for the past 75 years, "welfare ranching" has eroded public resources for the benefit of an industry that gladly accepts the federal dole at the same time it is blasting Washington for its largesse.
Just ask the folks at the Center for Biological Diversity, a group dedicated (among other things) to the conservation of public lands. The Center's Public Land Campaigns Director, Taylor McKinnon, quickly praised the Nelson plan. "The grazing subsidy is America's upside-down public-lands policy," McKinnon told me last Friday. "Each year it costs the public hundreds of millions of dollars while enabling public-lands grazing that erodes soil and destroys wildlife habitat. Reform makes perfect economic and environmental sense. It's long overdue."
Overdue -- and clearly not a priority so far for the Obama Administration, which has stubbornly refused to expend any political capital on this issue. Here's what McKinnon had to say about the executive branch's contemporary approach to the problem of "welfare ranching" and its insidious subsidization:

We've both petitioned and sued the Obama Administration seeking a significantly fairer fee, but they resist change. So after years of their skulking and cowering, it's refreshing to see someone with guts enough to tell the truth and demand a discussion about real reform.

"Real reform" can come from many different places and for many different reasons. Maybe Sen Nelson is, as McKinnon suggests, just being gutsy for pitching his plan now. Maybe he is, as Nebraska's Republicans contend, just being ballsy on his way out. Either way, and whomever wins or loses the Senate race for his seat in Nebraska, fair grazing fees and the end of "welfare ranching" is a good idea whose time, finally, has come. As the senator himself put it, "$1.35 per cow is too darn low." Darn right it is.

link

Western Watersheds Project Acts: Grand Staircase Escalante National Monumen

Western Watersheds Project Acts:  Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument
~ Jonathan Ratner , Wyoming Director


Last week, Western Watersheds Project filed suit against the Bureau of Land Management for failing to act to protect the precious resources of the Grand Staircase - Escalante National Monument (GSENM) from the damages of livestock grazing.

The monument was established by President Clinton in 1996 on 1.9 million acres of BLM land containing stunning geologic formations and unique ecosystems.  The proclamation required that the new Monument be managed beyond the usual 'multiple use' approach taken by the BLM.
 

Its mandate:

First and foremost, the Monument will remain protected in its primitive, frontier state. The BLM will safeguard the remote and undeveloped character of the Monument, which is essential to the protection of the scientific and historic resources. Second, the Monument will provide opportunities for the study of scientific and historic resources.

However, 16 years after the Monument was established, the BLM has not even gotten around to put in place a management framework to deal with livestock grazing in light of the purposes for which the Monument was established. Instead of managing the GSENM better than the rest of BLM lands, befitting a National Monument, the BLM failed to even comply with its own national grazing regulations.

Case in point: In 2006, the BLM conducted Rangeland Health Assessments across the Monument and found 21 allotments or more than half the Monument failing Rangeland Health Standards due to livestock. Rather than address these failings, BLM buried the assessments. When word leaked out, BLM was forced to provide all 21 determinations to the public. However, the BLM is also required under its own regulations to take actions to correct Rangeland Health failures before the start of the next grazing season, but in this case, 6 years have ticked by and the BLM has not worked to correct the problems and reverse the degradation that is occurring.

On July 6th, with the representation of Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystal, WWP filed litigation in Washington D.C. to force the agency to implement the actions that the BLM itself determined were necessary to stop grazing damage to this national treasure. The land shouldn't have to wait any longer.

Many thanks to Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystal, Dr. John Carter, Dr. Jim Caitlin of Wild Utah Project, and WWP's Laura Welp for helping to bring these problems to light!

Read the Complaint

 

Ranchers who say they helped restore lands now want better access for their cattle herds

by DAN WHEAT
Capital Press

WHITEHORSE RANCH, Ore. -- Arid vistas of sagebrush and grasses. Green fields in valleys.

The high desert country of southeastern Oregon has healed. Where thousands of cattle once worked their way across the landscape, only a fraction of that graze today, allowing the plants, streams and fish to recover.

Willows now flourish along stream banks, water quality and riparian conditions have improved, and rare lahontan cutthroat trout in creeks now number 24,000 compared with 10,000 in 1989, said Garth Ross, a wildlife biologist for the Bureau of Land Management in Malheur County, stationed in Vale, Ore.

A 20-year-old agreement reached by seven ranchers, state and federal agencies and environmental groups has restored fish, wildlife and habitat while preserving grazing rights for cattle.

Ranchers, who say they are grateful they're even still here, add that they've kept up their end of the bargain by drastically reducing grazing to allow the land to recuperate. Now they wonder whether they'll be able to regain at least some rights to more grazing in return.

Richard Yturriondobeitia, owner of 12-Mile Ranch, is an original member of the Trout Creek Mountain Working Group, which negotiated the agreement.

"Our management practices are better and we had our eyes opened to things we were doing wrong, but there is no progress," he said. "The agreement didn't turn out to be exactly what we thought it would be. We didn't make the BLM establish certain goals so we weren't able to get grazing we thought we would."

The region's sprawling ranches, incorporating both private and public land, are shadows of their former selves in numbers of cattle and cowboys. They are not alone.

Other cattle ranchers throughout the West want more grazing but feel outnumbered by environmentalists, who challenge grazing on publicly owned land because it can threaten species that are or may be listed as endangered or threatened under federal law.

How it started

The threat of environmental lawsuits aiming to stop decades of overgrazing and degradation of streams and fish brought Doc and Connie Hatfield, ranchers from Brothers, Ore., to spearhead the working group in the late 1980s. The Hatfields, best known as founders of the Country Natural Beef cooperative, had been involved in an agreement in the Prineville, Ore., BLM district. BLM officials invited them to speak with Trout Creek Mountain ranchers.

Their intent, according to their own booklet on the history of the working group, was to save both the environment and the region's ranches.

Since the 1960s, ranchers had tried fencing and keeping cattle away from creeks in the heat of summer but degradation continued, the Hatfields wrote in their "History of the Trout Creek Mountain Working Group."

The group formed in 1988. The seven ranches and representatives of the Oregon Cattlemen's Association, BLM, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Oregon Environmental Council, Oregon Trout and the Izaak Walton League reached the final accord in 1992.

High-mountain grazing that occurred all summer was reduced to mid-May to mid-July to give grass time to regrow before fall and prevent grazing of willow and vegetation along streams. The shortened high-country grazing is allowed for two years in a given area and followed by two years of no grazing rest.

The ranches voluntarily stopped high-country grazing for three years before the agreement was completed.

Fewer cattle

Prior to the agreement, the area had close to 30,000 AUMs (animal unit months). An AUM is one month's grazing for one cow and one calf. Now grazing is reduced 6,640 AUMs, the BLM's Ross said. The total number of cattle is probably down 75 to 80 percent, he said.

Of the ranches affected by the agreement the Whitehorse Ranch was hit the hardest, ranchers said. It went from 3,000 to 3,500 head of cattle down to 800, said David Herman, who bought the ranch in 2006.

But that doesn't necessarily mean less profitability, he said.

"It's hard to know. Profit isn't always more volume," he said. "It's keeping costs in line."

With high beef prices the ranches are doing relatively well and may for some time since the supply of beef likely will lag behind demand for the foreseeable future, Herman said. On the flip side are rising costs, including fuel.

Comparing profit now to 20 or 30 years ago is hard to do, said Yturriondobeitia, owner of 12-Mile Ranch, the closest ranch east of the Whitehorse. But the ranches have been impacted financially by cattle weighing less and poorer conception and weaning rates because of less summertime high-country grazing, he said.

The mid-May to mid-July high-country grazing is too early and doesn't fit the grass, he said. Grazing an area for two years then having two years of rest isn't needed; proper timing of grazing is, he said.

The ranchers thought they were making progress toward some changes in the last five years but a new BLM manager went "back to doing things by the book," Yturriondobeitia said. The BLM moves employees around so relations seldom get beyond getting to know them, he said.

Yturriondobeitia is of Basque descent and is 67 years old. His wife, Jeanette, is 66. They hope their son, Dan, 43, and daughter, Jaime, 40, will keep the ranch going.

"But if we can't have consistency and goals, why would the next generation even want to do it?" he asked.

What others say

Grazing of willow along streams is now down to 2 percent while 20 percent is allowed by the agreement, Herman said.

Fish, wildlife and habitat are better off but "where's the advocate, where's PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) for the cows?" he asked.

Cattle are stressed because they are moved too early when they are lactating or just calved or on a certain calendar date when it may be too hot, Herman said.

He's trying to do his part, he said, in breeding cattle better suited for the desert that are 30 percent Angus, 20 percent Hereford, 20 percent Braford, 20 percent Beefmaster and 10 percent Chianina.

Gary and Marjorie Defenbaugh and their son, Ross, own the nearest ranch west of the Whitehorse. They also are original working group members but their land is in a different BLM district, where high-country grazing is allowed into mid-September.

The Defenbaughs are concerned about the Oregon Natural Desert Association, an environmental group, pushing to declare their BLM range land wilderness, ending all cattle grazing.

The BLM is scared of environmental groups but could do more seeding and brush control to manage lands for grazing, Marjorie Defenbaugh said.

Land near their house appeared overgrazed. There is overgrazing in spots on their private land because it's a dry year of lighter grass production, Marjorie said.

Steve and Amorita Maher own a ranch south of 12-Mile Ranch and east of Oregon Canyon Mountains. They are also original members of the working group, as were her parents. His father was cow boss of Whitehorse Ranch in the 1950s.

"To my knowledge no one ever signed anything. The BLM just gave us an ultimatum so we had to work things out with the environmentalists. Otherwise, we wouldn't be running cattle," Steve Maher said.

The first few years they didn't reduce their herd enough and overused the lowlands, Maher said.

Mid-May is too early to graze the high country because grass hasn't grown enough, he said. Mid-June to mid-August was allowed for awhile and worked well, he said.

He is working to get a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biological opinion changed to allow mid-June to mid-August high grazing and two years of grazing followed by one year of rest instead of the current two on and two off. Better high-country grazing is needed because most of the ranches don't have the lowland winter range that the Whitehorse has, he said.

Riparian areas are in excellent condition and BLM range conservationists work well with the ranches, Maher said.

"We've never had a lawsuit against us and we feel that's a positive thing," he said.

Part of a larger picture

While cattle ranchers in other parts of the West have ended up embroiled in lawsuits with environmentalists, the Trout Creek Mountain Working Group Agreement has been used by judges to toss out environmental challenges because of the environmental groups that signed on.

That's why the grazing rights of the agreement, Maher said, have been called the most secure grazing rights in the West.

Ken Bentz, a rancher near Crane, is the grandson of Paul Stewart, who owned Whitehorse Ranch from 1945 to 1961.

"Everyone always talks about compromise, but it was a little bit (of grazing rights) or nothing. There was no compromise," Bentz said of the agreement.

Ranchers throughout the West who depend on BLM grazing rights feel outnumbered and jeopardized by environmentalists pushing the BLM, he said.

"People think we have no right to be here even though we do. The person with the cow owns the grass and the government owns the land," Bentz said. "We were here long before the government showed up and said they own the land in the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934."

The act allowed the government to regulate grazing on federal land.

Rep. Greg Walden, who represents Eastern Oregon in the U.S. House of Representatives, co-sponsored a bill, HR4234, authorizing the BLM and U.S. Forest Service to award grazing permits for 20 years instead of 10. The idea is to give ranchers more certainty to invest in their ranches. The bill passed the House June 19 and went to the Senate.

It's really in the public's best interest, Herman said, to maintain cattle grazing.

"The public spends money to fight fires. The public wants beef to eat," Herman said. "People think the rancher is getting a sweet deal on grazing, but we pay for those permits. Everyone agrees grazing renews the grass. Without it, the grass stands dead and is fuel for fires."

Labrador's forest management plan would give Idaho control of some national forests

Labrador’s bill would give states control over large chunks of federal forests to raise money to pay for local roads and schools.

Idaho Republican Rep. Raul Labrador is looking past the November election with a bill that would give states opportunities to show they do a better job managing national forest lands.
Labrador knows his bill, which would establish pilot projects to turn over about 1 percent of Idaho’s 20 million acres of national forests to the state to manage, is not going to fly now. Not with a Democratic Senate — which has blocked similar plans in the past — and with a Democrat in the White House.
But Labrador is laying the groundwork with the Self-Sufficient Community Lands Act for a time when the GOP controls the Senate.
Campaigning in Idaho in February, GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney expressed support for state management of federal lands. Romney’s proposal, which he said came after talking to Idaho Gov. Butch Otter, was offered as an alternative to Rick Santorum’s call to transfer ownership.
“It just gives every state the opportunity to manage their lands with local control, which is what we want,” Labrador said.
The plan has been a nonstarter for environmental groups, even those working in collaboration with Idaho counties and the timber industry. The groups want to keep federal lands managed by federal agencies.
States “would have a different mandate than managing our forests for the benefit of the American people,” said Brad Brooks, Wilderness Society deputy regional director.
IDAHO COUNTIES LOOKING FOR HELP
Labrador’s proposal comes out of a proposal by five rural Idaho counties struggling with some of the highest unemployment in the state. They are desperate because they stand to lose $31 million in federal assistance that has helped keep them afloat following the decline of their timber economies.
That money has come from the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act — better known as Craig-Wyden, after the two Northwest senators who championed it. The act replaces revenues from drastically dwindled timber sale receipts that once buoyed counties and school districts with large tracts of federal timberlands and little private land to generate property taxes.
JOBS, RURAL ECONOMIES
Deep federal budget cuts threaten the future of the Secure Rural Schools funds. The counties believe Labrador’s bill offers them a way to offset at least part of that lost funding. They hope it also would provide jobs and help to rebuild the timber industry and rural economies.
“I am excited to try something besides standing around with our hand out for a federal check,” said Skip Brandt, an Idaho County commissioner who also worked on the proposal.
MAXIMIZING STATE REVENUE
The bill applies not just to Idaho. Any state could set up a forest trust board to manage 200,000 acres or more of national forests. Federal environmental laws would still be in effect, but only as if the lands were state lands.
That would reduce the requirements for states to consult on projects under the Endangered Species Act and to assess them under the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Forest Planning and Management Act. State forestry departments, such as the Idaho Department of Lands, would manage the lands to maximize the long-term return for the counties after covering their costs.
One key savings to states: The Forest Service would still be responsible for fire protection — the biggest expense.
How much the pilot plan would return to the counties is part of the debate. The Idaho counties have predicted about $13 million annually, based on how much net income the state lands produce.
Since the counties came to the Idaho Land Board, the state has analyzed the 1 million acres adjacent to state lands from which the pilot lands might be chosen. Predicting with any precision the net income would be hard until specific forests and conditions are revealed, said David Groeschl, Idaho’s state forester.
He’d also need to know how many people he will have to hire to do the actual management. Timber markets have been soft since 2008, he said. His estimate ranges from $7 million to $12 million, depending on the market.
OTHER BENEFITS
Labrador sees more than just timber receipts benefiting the communities. He predicted jobs in timber mills, logging and other services.
But Chris Mehl of Headwaters Economics in Bozeman, Mont., said productivity gains in modern mills have reduced industry jobs.
Headwaters’ analysis suggests far less would be generated, especially with the current depressed timber markets.
“Even if the bill worked, the scale of created jobs will be small,” Mehl said. “The jobs will pay well because workers will have to be able to operate a variety of highly complicated equipment, but will be few in number compared to 30 years ago.”
He and environmentalists support more logging but seek more balanced development and federal land policy that also promotes fish and wildlife habitat restoration. Labrador’s bill promotes industrial forestry like states do on their land, Mehl said.
“What would be gained, or lost, in favoring the one industry over others and the repeal of the environmental safeguard laws?” Mehl asked.
Forest Service officials have cooperated with Labrador, but privately many in the agency resent the idea that somehow states can do better.
Groeschl said his Forest Service counterparts feel hamstrung by the very laws this bill would shield the states from.
“If you gave them the opportunity to manage those lands professionally, they could do a fine job,” he said.
Environmental groups also don’t like the makeup of the proposed trust board that would control the pilot project lands. It would have four members: a county commissioner, a timber industry representative, a rancher or miner and a recreation representative.
“There would be no incentive to collaborate with any conservation interest,” the Wilderness Society’s Brooks said.
But Gordon Cruickshank, a Valley County commissioner who helped develop the proposal, has been working with conservation groups to improve the health of the forests and the economy of their communities.
Labrador’s bill is designed to begin a national discussion that doesn’t have to focus on timber harvest, he said.
“It’s not about trees,” Cruickshank said. “It’s about opportunity.”
Rocky Barker: 377-6484
Link

Read more here: http://www.idahostatesman.com/2012/06/27/2169860/forest-management-plan-aims-to.html#storylink=cpy

Labrador's Grazing Improvement Act Passes House

Tuesday June 19, 2012
 

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Idaho First District Congressman Raúl Labrador’s Grazing Improvement Act of 2012 passed the House of Representatives today by a vote of 232-188.  The bill was included in a jobs and public lands package, H.R. 2578, the Conservation and Economic Growth Act, designed to create new jobs, grow the economy and protect the environment.

Commenting on the vote, Congressman Labrador said:  “My bill will help ranchers in Idaho and across America who are increasingly burdened with red tape by providing them a streamlined permitting process to help them access public lands.  If enacted, my bill will preserve ranching jobs, give ranchers better economic security and also offer relief to federal land managers who battle a growing backlog of pending permits, largely delayed due to endless litigation often generated by radical environmental groups totally opposed to any grazing at all.  The Bureau of Land Management itself estimates that more than 4,200 grazing permits are backlogged waiting for renewal.  This is an unacceptable number of backlogged permits, all of which negatively affect America’s livestock producers.”

The Grazing Improvement Act of 2012 would:

• Extend Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Forest Service livestock grazing permits from 10 years to 20 years in order to give producers adequate longevity and production stability;
• Codify appropriation rider language to require expired grazing permits to be extended under existing terms and conditions until the renewal process is complete;
• Encourage the respective Secretaries to utilize categorical exclusions under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process to expedite permit processing; and
• Allow trailing permits to be categorically excluded from NEPA.

“I would like to thank my colleagues from both sides of the aisle that have voted for my bill as part of an overall package of bills all designed to help preserve or create jobs by reducing federal regulations which will ultimately improve the economy while acting in an environmentally responsible manner,” concluded Congressman Labrador.

Brenda Richards, Owyhee County, Idaho rancher and member of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association said of the bill:  “I and other public lands ranchers across the West commend Representative Labrador and the bipartisan majority in Congress for standing with ranchers to pass the Grazing Improvement Act. This is a major step forward for an industry reliant upon the efficient and wise management of lands by federal agencies.  This legislation provides the economic security needed for the public lands grazing industry.”

This is Congressman Labrador’s second bill to pass the House this Congress.  His Exploring for Geothermal Energy on Federal Lands Act (H.R. 2171) passed with a bipartisan majority of 244 to 176 in February of this year.

The bill will now be sent to the Senate for its consideration.

Tombstone readies picks and shovels

The City of Tombstone is embroiled in another dynamic showdown.

The “Town too Tough to Die” is now squaring off against the U.S. Forest Service in what could be the fight of its life, a battle over water rights.

On Friday and Saturday, a group called the Shovel Brigade will gather in Tombstone and head to the Huachuca Mountains to make repairs to the city’s waterline, which was damaged by mudslides and boulders after last summer’s Monument Fire flooding. While the 26-mile waterline — fed by springs in the Huachuca Mountains — has been Tombstone’s main water source for 130 years, the U.S. Forest Service is refusing to allow mechanized equipment into areas to make the repairs. Citing the Wilderness Act, the forest service is concerned about environmental damage that heavy equipment could cause to wilderness areas while excavation work and rebuilding are underway.

“Twenty four springs and one reservoir located in the Huachuca Mountains make up our water supply,” said George Barnes, Tombstone’s city clerk. “We’ve been allowed to make repairs to three of the springs, but we have a long way to go before the entire water system is rebuilt. There are sections of the line that mudslides have buried under 12 feet of debris, and the forest service is requiring us to make the repairs by hand, using picks and shovels.”

That’s where the Shovel Brigade comes in. After learning about the city’s dilemma, communities across the country have been sending shovels to Tombstone, some bearing signatures and messages of support. To date, more than 500 shovels have arrived in Tombstone. And on Friday, around 1,000 people are expected to gather at the old high school football field off Fremont Street to raise public awareness about the city’s water issue. In addition, volunteers will be traveling to the Huachuca Mountains to work on the waterline, making repairs by hand, as stipulated by the forest service.

“We’ve received almost no cooperation from the federal government on this issue,” said Tombstone’s former mayor Jack Henderson, who was in the mountains doing excavation work on the line when agents ordered him to leave.

“Our story has been picked up by CNN, Fox, Rush Limbaugh, John Stossel and the Washington Examiner, not to mention towns all over the country. The Goldwater Institute has joined our fight and is representing us in court.”

In August, Gov. Jan Brewer declared a state of emergency and provided funds to help with the aqueduct’s repairs.

While the forest service has allowed Tombstone access to three of its springs, the city has not been allowed to work on the remaining 21.

U.S. Rep. Jeff Flake is currently sponsoring federal legislation that will allow Tombstone to repair the damaged water lines without going though federal permits.

In addition, Tombstone Archivist Nancy Sosa has been requested to testify before the House Natural Resources Committee on Friday regarding Flake’s bill and the challenges Tombstone has been facing.

The town’s 26-mile, gravity-fed system was built in the 1880s as the Huachuca Water Company and has been hailed “an engineering marvel.” An article that appears in an 1882 edition of the Tombstone Epitaph talks about the pipeline and its route from Miller, Marshall and Carr Canyons as it makes its way to Tombstone. In 1908 the Huachuca Water Company was purchased by A.E. Davis who sold the entire water system to the City of Tombstone in 1947. In addition, the city owns original documents showing every appropriation of the water system, with the first appropriation from Miller Canyon in 1881.

“The city’s ownership of this system predates statehood and the forest service,” said Tombstone City Councilman Steve Troncale.

“Each appropriation of water comes with a land description and map indicating the city of Tombstone owns the water rights. All of this is court ordered through sales and a declaration of ownership of property to Tombstone.”

Through the years, the system has provided an ample supply of potable water to the residents of Tombstone, along with the 400,000 tourists that visit the town annually. But now, the town is left with three repaired springs, along with one reliable well for its water. With fire season here, the ability to provide adequate water for fire suppression is a concern.

“In my opinion, the forest service has made several mistakes,” said Kevin Rudd, who was hired by Tombstone as project manager for the system’s repair work. “The first and obvious one is forest mismanagement that put Tombstone in this predicament in the first place.”

Rudd said that once the damage was done, the forest service should have allowed Tombstone into the wilderness area to “repair our system which would facilitate Tombstone’s obligation to protect its residents. Instead, they used the Wilderness Act as a tool to delay our repair process.”

Rudd also noted that the city of Tombstone began contacting the forest service about
accessing damaged areas to start the repairs “long before the situation was declared an emergency” by Brewer.

“When monsoon rains began to pound the canyons in July of 2011, Nancy Sosa began contacting the forest service to let them know about our pending dilemma because she knew from experience what was coming.”

Rudd disagrees with U.S. District Judge Frank Zapata’s recent decision to deny the city’s emergency request to repair the water system. Zapata’s decision is based on the argument that “repairs to the system appear to be substantially complete.”

Those repairs, Rudd argues, are preliminary, with temporary welds holding salvaged pipe in place where the main aqueduct was blown out. Collection structures, once made of concrete and protected by metal cages were destroyed during the mudslides and are now made of temporary sand bags and plastic pipe.

“Our situation right now is precarious,” said Barnes. “If our one well goes down, or we receive minimal flow from the springs, we’re in a very bad situation.”

However, Zapata does not feel that Tombstone faces a crisis. “Claims of a drastic water emergency related to public consumption and fire needs are overstated and speculative,” he has been quoted as stating.

Troncale points to a huge restaurant fire that occurred in Tombstone about 18 months ago where the establishment, Six Gun City, burned to the ground. The fire, he said, could have destroyed the entire town.

“It was our water supply, fire department and the backup that we got from other fire districts that saved this town from complete disaster,” he said.

“The supply of water that we have right now is not adequate to fight a fire of that magnitude. If we have another fire like Six Gun City’s, this entire town could be
destroyed.”

During a special Cochise County Board of Supervisors meeting on Tuesday, the board unanimously supported a resolution that calls for “…the cooperation of the U.S. Forest Service in the repair and maintenance of its (Tombstone’s) municipal water
system.”

The supervisors’ support came as welcome news to Tombstone officials, said Barnes. In part, the resolution states that the forest service has impaired the ability of agents of the city of Tombstone “to make repairs to its water system by restricting access…” to the system. Concerns about the health and safety of the residents of Tombstone, along with its visitors also are noted.

In addition, the resolution supports Tombstone’s right to “immediate and unimpaired access to Coronado National Forest lands located in the Huachuca Mountains, free of federal restraint to make all necessary repairs to its water
system.”

Tombstone city officials are hoping the publicity the town has been receiving, along with legislative support, will generate enough public pressure to allow the work to be completed without further delays.

“Our beef is with the forest service, not the forest,” said Barnes. “We want to re-establish what we already had.”

Henderson agrees. “With the monsoons just around the corner, we’re bracing for more damage,” he said.

“The Tombstone Shovel Brigade is just another layer of support we’ve received in this convoluted process. The good news is, we’ve already won this fight in the court of public opinion, and the state of Arizona recognizes our rights. Now we need to do is convince the federal government.”