NACHES, Wash. -- On the slopes overlooking the Nile Valley from the north side of Highway 410, seeing wildlife is no big deal. But when someone happened to see three bighorns in July up Rock Creek, it was a very big deal indeed.
The bighorns weren't far from where the Martinez sheep-ranching operation would soon be herding out roughly 1,000 ewes and their lambs on a section of the Wenatchee National Forest.
And bighorns and domestic sheep simply cannot mingle.
The latter are often carriers of bacterial parasites, such as pasteurella, that have minimal effect on domestic sheep but in bighorns can cause pneumonia virulent enough to decimate a herd.
So state wildlife biologists were called. They phoned officials at the Naches Ranger District, who contacted the Martinez family, which in turn delayed and then redirected its sheep, skipping some slopes they might have grazed simply to prevent even the faintest possibility of crossing paths with the bighorns.
It was a typically proactive response by Nick and Mark Martinez, brothers who run a third-generation family business in Moxee that was begun by their grandfather nearly nine decades ago.
Forest Service and state wildlife officials are highly complimentary of the Martinez family's can-do adaptability when bighorn issues arise.
"In fact," said Jodi Leingang, the Naches district's range coordinator, "sometimes they're ahead of us on these matters."
Soon, though, the game will be played with different rules.
The people who manage Washington's wildlife and public lands are awaiting an Idaho plan that may lead to sweeping changes in how best to maintain a safe distance between bighorns and domestic sheep -- and just how big that buffer zone will have to be.
"It depends on how big they draw that circle," Nick Martinez said. "If they're drawing that circle 10 miles around the one (bighorn) sheep, well. ..."
The Payette precedent
How big that circle will be may be determined in Idaho, where Payette National Forest officials are within a few weeks of unveiling a long-awaited draft environmental impact statement on how to protect bighorn sheep.
The Payette -- a 2.3 million-acre stretch of land that abuts the Snake River and Hells Canyon, site of a pasteurella-related bighorn die-off in the 1990s -- has been a simmering legal battlefield between sheep ranchers and environmentalists for six years.
Sheep ranchers, like their counterparts in the cattle industry, rarely have sufficient privately owned land to provide year-round grazing and have relied on leasing grazing land from state and federal land managers. The Payette, like the Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forest in Washington, has been grazed by domestic sheep for decades. But it's also home to bighorn sheep.
When Payette Forest officials released a 20-year forest plan in 2003, tribal and environmental groups appealed, saying the plan failed to address the bighorn-sheep proximity issue. Two years later, the Forest Service called for the plan to be rewritten, and in 2007 three conservation groups sued to prevent sheep grazing until the plan is finished. A federal district judge ordered ranchers to remove their sheep from several grazing allotments within the Payette forest to protect bighorns.
Last summer, the Idaho Legislature enacted a law to keep the sheep and bighorns apart, but its execution relied on cooperative efforts -- pacts between the ranchers and state officials -- to ensure that separation. But just this month, the same federal judge ruled that one such pact wasn't doing the job; he ordered a western Idaho rancher to vacate an allotment in the Payette that his family's sheep had grazed for 70 years.
Washington land managers are waiting as the Idaho drama plays itself out. If the Forest Service plan in Payette strikes a fair balance between bighorns' safety concerns and the ability of sheep ranchers to make a living -- and survives the inevitable salvo of lawsuits -- it could offer a blueprint when officials in the Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forest revise the bighorn portion of their forest plan.
"The information they're developing, and the direction they're going, will set the direction nationally" for management of bighorns and domestic sheep, said Donnie Martorello, who oversees Washington's bighorns for the state Department of Fish and Wildlife.
"It's the precedent."
Adapt or lose
Bighorns disappeared from Washington in the 1930s, victims of pasteurella, excessive hunting and people moving onto their land. Reintroduction efforts by state biologists, sportsmen associations and Native Americans have helped build the population back up to about 1,300.
But because of the risk of bacterial infection, their survival remains tenuous. The Yakama Nation long ago banned domestic sheep grazing in the closed area of the reservation, decades before the tribe began a highly successful bighorn reintroduction program five years ago. (The tribe's bighorns, numbering 13 in 2004, were up to 89 at the last aerial survey.) When one of their bighorns wanders into an area where there might be grazing sheep, tribal biologists relocate it or, on rare occasions, put it down to prevent it from possibly infecting other bighorns with bacterial pneumonia.
"All it takes is just one (sheep-bighorn interaction)," said Arlen Washines, head of the Yakamas' wildlife program, noting that the tribe had made the decision to "be consciously competent" about its bighorn policy. "It's not hard science to see what happened once could happen again."
Nearly all of the federal national forest and Department of Natural Resources areas grazed by the Martinez sheep between western Yakima County and northern Kittitas County include either bighorns or habitat suitable to bighorns. So it didn't surprise Leingang, the Naches district's range coordinator, when the Martinezes reacted quickly last July to avert a possible bighorn encounter.
The family has had a lot of practice adjusting. When livestock grazing leases were eliminated on the Yakima Training Center in 1995, the Martinez operation lost a significant portion of its business; its roughly 6,000 sheep now is a little more than half what the family had two decades ago.
"We've been around long enough to know you've got to adapt," Nick Martinez said. "If you don't, you're gonna lose."
Writing on the wall
In July, when the bighorns were spotted up at Rock Creek, all that was lost was some good grazing days by the Martinez sheep.
"Which sounds like no big deal, but it is," Leingang insisted. "Maybe they don't lose a season of use with something like this, but (the sheep) lose days of grazing -- which, because they're eating less and we're moving them quicker and moving them around, there's the potential for them to lose weight, and what they're out there for is to gain weight to take them to market.
"And we didn't even hear any whining (from the Martinez family)."
Grazing will remain an adaptive process for sheep ranchers either way, but the ramifications from the Payette process will be profound.
"It has the potential to be huge," said Nick Martinez, who has put any plans for possible business expansion on hold. "The writing is on the wall. You don't want to expand and all of a sudden have to pull three allotments, and you've got hungry sheep wanting to be fed.
"If you start losing half your allotments, where do you go? What happens when (a couple of bighorns) show up in the middle of an allotment? It's the not knowing what's going to happen that makes it hard. We can work with Bernie (state wildlife biologist Jeff Bernatowicz) and Jodi (Leingang), but what if it's some third party who's making decisions by looking at numbers on a piece of paper?"
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Monday, October 19, 2009
Wild horse plan rekindles cattle grazing debate
A new federal proposal to manage wild horses is rekindling debate over another fixture of the Western range: cattle.
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar last week proposed moving thousands of mustangs to preserves in the Midwest and East to protect horse herds and the rangelands that support them.
Interior Department officials had warned that slaughtering some of the 69,000 wild horses and burros under federal control might be necessary to halt the rising costs of maintaining them, but Salazar said his plan avoids that.
Many horse defenders and others who had been working to save the romantic symbols of the American West and might have been expected to welcome Salazar's solution instead stampeded the other way. They want Salazar to remove livestock to make room for the mustangs and argue that cows are the real threat to the range and native wildlife.
"Any proposal to improve horse and burro management in the West should include removal of domestic livestock from public lands to make way for horses and burros and wildlife," said Mark Salvo of WildEarth Guardians based in Santa Fe, N.M. He said too much forage is allocated to livestock in the arid West.
Wildlife ecologist Craig Downer of Nevada accused Salazar, a former rancher, of acting on behalf of those who view mustangs as taking scarce forage away from their cattle herds. Downer contends cattle are more destructive to the range because they concentrate in high numbers around water sources instead of grazing over a wider area as wild horses do.
"Both the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management have the right to remove livestock to ensure viable, healthy populations of wild horses. But they refuse to exercise that," Downer said. "Their master is primarily these traditional ranching interests."
BLM spokesman Tom Gorey said livestock grazing on the agency's lands has declined by about 50 percent since 1941, but the agency has no plans to reduce grazing levels further.
"Livestock grazing is an authorized use of the lands we manage," Gorey said. "We think we administer the rangeland laws appropriately within our multiple use mission."
Dan Gralian, president of the Nevada Cattlemen's Association, said livestock overgrazing no longer is the problem it once was and cattle don't cause more damage to the range than horses. He said 2.5 million to 3 million head of livestock graze on public lands, down from 20 million cows and 25 million sheep in 1900.
"My reaction is they (horse advocates) are totally wrong," Gralian said. "Our public lands today are in better shape than they've been in 100 years or so."
Federal land managers provide no count for the head of livestock grazing on about 250 million acres of public land. Estimates by conservation groups vary widely, ranging from 3 million to 8 million.
Chris Heyde of the Washington, D.C.-based Animal Welfare Institute said he believes little has changed since the release of a 1990 General Accounting Office report that branded livestock as the primary cause of degraded rangelands.
"People blame the horses, but if left on the ranges as they should be they're not destructive at all," he said.
About 37,000 wild horses and burros roam on 34 million acres in 10 Western states, about half in Nevada. An additional 32,000 of them are cared for in government-funded corrals and pastures.
The horses and burros are managed by the BLM and protected under a 1971 law enacted by Congress. But too few of the horses and burros are being adopted as had been envisioned. Soaring numbers of horses and costs to manage them that are expected to jump from $36 million last year to at least $85 million by 2012 have prompted Salazar to propose a new approach.
The BLM has set a target "appropriate management level" of 26,600 horses in the wild, about 10,000 below the current level. In 1971, there were 25,000 of the animals on the range.
Ginger Kathrens, executive director of the horse advocacy group Cloud Foundation based in Colorado Springs, Colo., urged Salazar to return mustangs to 19 million acres of land where they have been removed since 1971. She opposes his plan to open seven preserves, including two owned and operated by the BLM.
The agency would work with private groups on the remaining reserves, which would be located in the Midwest and East because of the West's scarce water and forage.
"It would seem that the best use of taxpayer dollars and the most humane plan for the nearly 32,000 wild horses in government holding would be to return them to their native lands," Kathrens said.
Gorey said mustangs were removed from 19 million acres where they were found in 1971 for various reasons, including a lack of water and forage.
The Public Lands Council, which represents public lands ranchers, supports the preserves as an important step in addressing growing horse populations, said Jeff Eisenberg, its executive director.
The seven preserves would hold about 25,000 horses. Many of the horses remaining on the range would be neutered and reproduction in Western herds would be strictly limited.
"It's important that we find a solution that provides for the welfare of horses without compromising the needs of ranchers who rely on grazing lands to produce food for America," Eisenberg said.
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar last week proposed moving thousands of mustangs to preserves in the Midwest and East to protect horse herds and the rangelands that support them.
Interior Department officials had warned that slaughtering some of the 69,000 wild horses and burros under federal control might be necessary to halt the rising costs of maintaining them, but Salazar said his plan avoids that.
Many horse defenders and others who had been working to save the romantic symbols of the American West and might have been expected to welcome Salazar's solution instead stampeded the other way. They want Salazar to remove livestock to make room for the mustangs and argue that cows are the real threat to the range and native wildlife.
"Any proposal to improve horse and burro management in the West should include removal of domestic livestock from public lands to make way for horses and burros and wildlife," said Mark Salvo of WildEarth Guardians based in Santa Fe, N.M. He said too much forage is allocated to livestock in the arid West.
Wildlife ecologist Craig Downer of Nevada accused Salazar, a former rancher, of acting on behalf of those who view mustangs as taking scarce forage away from their cattle herds. Downer contends cattle are more destructive to the range because they concentrate in high numbers around water sources instead of grazing over a wider area as wild horses do.
"Both the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management have the right to remove livestock to ensure viable, healthy populations of wild horses. But they refuse to exercise that," Downer said. "Their master is primarily these traditional ranching interests."
BLM spokesman Tom Gorey said livestock grazing on the agency's lands has declined by about 50 percent since 1941, but the agency has no plans to reduce grazing levels further.
"Livestock grazing is an authorized use of the lands we manage," Gorey said. "We think we administer the rangeland laws appropriately within our multiple use mission."
Dan Gralian, president of the Nevada Cattlemen's Association, said livestock overgrazing no longer is the problem it once was and cattle don't cause more damage to the range than horses. He said 2.5 million to 3 million head of livestock graze on public lands, down from 20 million cows and 25 million sheep in 1900.
"My reaction is they (horse advocates) are totally wrong," Gralian said. "Our public lands today are in better shape than they've been in 100 years or so."
Federal land managers provide no count for the head of livestock grazing on about 250 million acres of public land. Estimates by conservation groups vary widely, ranging from 3 million to 8 million.
Chris Heyde of the Washington, D.C.-based Animal Welfare Institute said he believes little has changed since the release of a 1990 General Accounting Office report that branded livestock as the primary cause of degraded rangelands.
"People blame the horses, but if left on the ranges as they should be they're not destructive at all," he said.
About 37,000 wild horses and burros roam on 34 million acres in 10 Western states, about half in Nevada. An additional 32,000 of them are cared for in government-funded corrals and pastures.
The horses and burros are managed by the BLM and protected under a 1971 law enacted by Congress. But too few of the horses and burros are being adopted as had been envisioned. Soaring numbers of horses and costs to manage them that are expected to jump from $36 million last year to at least $85 million by 2012 have prompted Salazar to propose a new approach.
The BLM has set a target "appropriate management level" of 26,600 horses in the wild, about 10,000 below the current level. In 1971, there were 25,000 of the animals on the range.
Ginger Kathrens, executive director of the horse advocacy group Cloud Foundation based in Colorado Springs, Colo., urged Salazar to return mustangs to 19 million acres of land where they have been removed since 1971. She opposes his plan to open seven preserves, including two owned and operated by the BLM.
The agency would work with private groups on the remaining reserves, which would be located in the Midwest and East because of the West's scarce water and forage.
"It would seem that the best use of taxpayer dollars and the most humane plan for the nearly 32,000 wild horses in government holding would be to return them to their native lands," Kathrens said.
Gorey said mustangs were removed from 19 million acres where they were found in 1971 for various reasons, including a lack of water and forage.
The Public Lands Council, which represents public lands ranchers, supports the preserves as an important step in addressing growing horse populations, said Jeff Eisenberg, its executive director.
The seven preserves would hold about 25,000 horses. Many of the horses remaining on the range would be neutered and reproduction in Western herds would be strictly limited.
"It's important that we find a solution that provides for the welfare of horses without compromising the needs of ranchers who rely on grazing lands to produce food for America," Eisenberg said.
NM Ranchers Worry About Water Protection Proposal
Thousands of miles of New Mexico rivers and streams would gain special protection under the federal Clean Water Act as part of a proposal being pushed by Gov. Bill Richardson and environmentalists. But ranchers worry the plan is a backdoor effort to stop grazing on public land.
State environment officials have spent more than two years refining a proposal to designate rivers and streams in wilderness areas across the state as so-called "outstanding national resource waters" to protect them from degradation.
Other Western states have used the designation to protect fresh water resources, but this marks the first time New Mexico has embarked on such a broad effort to protect headwaters.
"One of our biggest challenges in New Mexico is figuring out how to protect and maintain our water resources in a way that is sustainable and economically supportable, and these are not easy decisions to make," Marcy Leavitt, head of the New Mexico Environment Department's Water and Wastewater Division, told a group of landowners at a recent public meeting in Abiquiu.
Like other states, Leavitt said New Mexico is dealing with persistent drought, hotter temperatures and a booming population — all drastically impacting fresh water supplies.
New Mexico's largest cities are switching to surface water as ground water resources dwindle. Much of that includes treated wastewater that's pumped into rivers by communities upstream.
The headwaters offer the last remaining infusion of fresh water into the system, meaning their protection is vital to ensure future water quality, Leavitt said.
No one disputes the need to protect New Mexico's water, but ranchers see the plan to designate waterways across such a broad swath of wilderness — far from pollution and cities — as another ploy by environmentalists in a decades-long battle to halt grazing on national forest lands.
"This whole thing with the Clean Water Act, it's just a front. They want our land, they want our water, period," said Carlos Salazar of the Northern New Mexico Stockman's Association.
The designation would allow existing activities, including grazing, to continue in wilderness areas provided landowners follow practices to ensure water quality remains high.
But ranchers say the proposal is ambiguous and would establish new layers of bureaucracy that would harm New Mexico's rural economy.
"People are very worried," said Caren Cowan, executive director of the New Mexico Cattle Growers' Association. "Given that the wilderness areas are already protected from everything but grazing and recreational activities, what are we going to protect it from?"
The designation has been used only twice in New Mexico — for the Rio Santa Barbara and for rivers within the Valle Vidal. Such designations usually come after much analysis of water quality and potential socio-economic impacts.
Critics say little study has been done on the many waterways that would be covered and neither the Environment Department nor the U.S. Forest Service — which oversees wilderness areas — has the staff or funding necessary for adequate enforcement.
The Forest Service's Southwest regional office, livestock groups and officials from some New Mexico counties have said they do not support a blanket designation.
"A forest-by-forest, watershed-by-watershed or, best of all, a segment-by-segment analysis and designation of streams would allow for the most meaningful and fully supported designation of the appropriate waters," the Forest Service said in comments submitted to the state.
Forest Service officials are concerned the designation could affect firefighting efforts, forest restoration projects, mining claims, grazing permits and rural communities.
While the current proposal would apply to headwaters in wilderness areas, ranchers said more allotments could be affected because the Richardson administration and environmentalists have indicted they will pursue an expanded designation to include roadless areas.
Ernie Torres, whose family raises cattle in northern New Mexico, said ranchers already deal with pressure from environmentalists, endangered species concerns, drought, rising costs and range damage from wildlife.
"This is going to be the last nail in the coffin," he said.
The Environment Department is drafting a final version of the proposal for consideration by the state Water Quality Control Commission.
If approved, Abiquiu rancher Virgil Trujillo said cattlemen won't have many options.
"Our history is the history of take and take some more, and what hurts is government is not accountable," he said. "There are a thousand rules of how they're going to nail the rancher, but you try to take the government to court and you'll die of old age or stress."
Cowan said such a broad designation eventually could affect urban areas.
"Can subdivisions exist or grow? And what kind of city expansion can we do if a very small special interest group gains control over water?" she said. "These people have a very specific agenda and we're just a small part of it."
Environmentalists argue they're protecting water quality amid climate change and growing demand.
"A lot of people just don't like having somebody tell them what they can or can't do, but they're using public lands for these activities and I think they ought to accept the fact that the public has a right, as well as they do, to make sure that all of the land, for all purposes, is kept as good as possible," said Michael Jensen of Amigos Bravos.
Despite the cool reception state officials have received at public meetings in rural New Mexico, Leavitt has tried to reassure ranchers and others that the designation won't affect existing activities if water quality is maintained.
She said those who think this is an effort to push them off public land should read the proposal.
"The existing proposal does a good job of balancing water quality protection with also protecting traditional land uses, and I think we will make any clarifications necessary to make sure people really understand that's what we're doing," she said.
State environment officials have spent more than two years refining a proposal to designate rivers and streams in wilderness areas across the state as so-called "outstanding national resource waters" to protect them from degradation.
Other Western states have used the designation to protect fresh water resources, but this marks the first time New Mexico has embarked on such a broad effort to protect headwaters.
"One of our biggest challenges in New Mexico is figuring out how to protect and maintain our water resources in a way that is sustainable and economically supportable, and these are not easy decisions to make," Marcy Leavitt, head of the New Mexico Environment Department's Water and Wastewater Division, told a group of landowners at a recent public meeting in Abiquiu.
Like other states, Leavitt said New Mexico is dealing with persistent drought, hotter temperatures and a booming population — all drastically impacting fresh water supplies.
New Mexico's largest cities are switching to surface water as ground water resources dwindle. Much of that includes treated wastewater that's pumped into rivers by communities upstream.
The headwaters offer the last remaining infusion of fresh water into the system, meaning their protection is vital to ensure future water quality, Leavitt said.
No one disputes the need to protect New Mexico's water, but ranchers see the plan to designate waterways across such a broad swath of wilderness — far from pollution and cities — as another ploy by environmentalists in a decades-long battle to halt grazing on national forest lands.
"This whole thing with the Clean Water Act, it's just a front. They want our land, they want our water, period," said Carlos Salazar of the Northern New Mexico Stockman's Association.
The designation would allow existing activities, including grazing, to continue in wilderness areas provided landowners follow practices to ensure water quality remains high.
But ranchers say the proposal is ambiguous and would establish new layers of bureaucracy that would harm New Mexico's rural economy.
"People are very worried," said Caren Cowan, executive director of the New Mexico Cattle Growers' Association. "Given that the wilderness areas are already protected from everything but grazing and recreational activities, what are we going to protect it from?"
The designation has been used only twice in New Mexico — for the Rio Santa Barbara and for rivers within the Valle Vidal. Such designations usually come after much analysis of water quality and potential socio-economic impacts.
Critics say little study has been done on the many waterways that would be covered and neither the Environment Department nor the U.S. Forest Service — which oversees wilderness areas — has the staff or funding necessary for adequate enforcement.
The Forest Service's Southwest regional office, livestock groups and officials from some New Mexico counties have said they do not support a blanket designation.
"A forest-by-forest, watershed-by-watershed or, best of all, a segment-by-segment analysis and designation of streams would allow for the most meaningful and fully supported designation of the appropriate waters," the Forest Service said in comments submitted to the state.
Forest Service officials are concerned the designation could affect firefighting efforts, forest restoration projects, mining claims, grazing permits and rural communities.
While the current proposal would apply to headwaters in wilderness areas, ranchers said more allotments could be affected because the Richardson administration and environmentalists have indicted they will pursue an expanded designation to include roadless areas.
Ernie Torres, whose family raises cattle in northern New Mexico, said ranchers already deal with pressure from environmentalists, endangered species concerns, drought, rising costs and range damage from wildlife.
"This is going to be the last nail in the coffin," he said.
The Environment Department is drafting a final version of the proposal for consideration by the state Water Quality Control Commission.
If approved, Abiquiu rancher Virgil Trujillo said cattlemen won't have many options.
"Our history is the history of take and take some more, and what hurts is government is not accountable," he said. "There are a thousand rules of how they're going to nail the rancher, but you try to take the government to court and you'll die of old age or stress."
Cowan said such a broad designation eventually could affect urban areas.
"Can subdivisions exist or grow? And what kind of city expansion can we do if a very small special interest group gains control over water?" she said. "These people have a very specific agenda and we're just a small part of it."
Environmentalists argue they're protecting water quality amid climate change and growing demand.
"A lot of people just don't like having somebody tell them what they can or can't do, but they're using public lands for these activities and I think they ought to accept the fact that the public has a right, as well as they do, to make sure that all of the land, for all purposes, is kept as good as possible," said Michael Jensen of Amigos Bravos.
Despite the cool reception state officials have received at public meetings in rural New Mexico, Leavitt has tried to reassure ranchers and others that the designation won't affect existing activities if water quality is maintained.
She said those who think this is an effort to push them off public land should read the proposal.
"The existing proposal does a good job of balancing water quality protection with also protecting traditional land uses, and I think we will make any clarifications necessary to make sure people really understand that's what we're doing," she said.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
US settles grazing lawsuit with Nevada rancher
A Nevada rancher who has fought the federal government for more than a decade over grazing and property rights has settled a civil suit with the Justice Department over livestock trespass, the government said Wednesday.
The stipulation filed in U.S. District Court in Reno ends the government's case against Goldfield rancher Ben Colvin.
John C. Cruden, acting assistant attorney general for the Justice Department's Environment and Natural Resources Division, said the agreement partially resolves "many years of disputes and litigation" over unauthorized grazing on federal lands in Nevada.
Colvin's lawyer, Jonathan Hansen, was out of town and unavailable for comment, his office said.
In 2007, the government sued Colvin, the estate of late Nevada rancher Wayne Hage and Hage's son, claiming they repeatedly defied federal land managers by grazing cattle without permits on land overseen by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service.
Wayne Hage came to epitomize Nevada's Sagebrush Rebellion, a movement that gained momentum in the 1960s and '70s to retake control of federally owned public lands. He died in 2006 at age 69.
The suit further alleged the Hages unlawfully "leased" lands owned by the government to other ranchers for livestock grazing.
Under the agreement announced Wednesday, Colvin paid a $34,000 fine and agreed to comply with federal grazing regulations in the future. It also requires him to remove unauthorized improvements he made on the public lands, such as aboveground water pipelines, water tanks and corrals.
Once those conditions are met, he can reapply for grazing permits, the government said in a written statement.
The settlement pertains to Colvin only, and the government's suit against the Hages is still active.
The BLM canceled Colvin's grazing allotment preferences in the late 1990s. In 2001, the agency seized and auctioned 62 of his cattle, saying he was trespassing on federal land and owed the government $73,000 in back fines and fees.
Colvin filed against the government in the federal claims court two years later, seeking $30 million in compensation. A judge denied his claim, and that ruling was later upheld by an appellate judge, BLM spokeswoman JoLynn Worley said.
The stipulation filed in U.S. District Court in Reno ends the government's case against Goldfield rancher Ben Colvin.
John C. Cruden, acting assistant attorney general for the Justice Department's Environment and Natural Resources Division, said the agreement partially resolves "many years of disputes and litigation" over unauthorized grazing on federal lands in Nevada.
Colvin's lawyer, Jonathan Hansen, was out of town and unavailable for comment, his office said.
In 2007, the government sued Colvin, the estate of late Nevada rancher Wayne Hage and Hage's son, claiming they repeatedly defied federal land managers by grazing cattle without permits on land overseen by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service.
Wayne Hage came to epitomize Nevada's Sagebrush Rebellion, a movement that gained momentum in the 1960s and '70s to retake control of federally owned public lands. He died in 2006 at age 69.
The suit further alleged the Hages unlawfully "leased" lands owned by the government to other ranchers for livestock grazing.
Under the agreement announced Wednesday, Colvin paid a $34,000 fine and agreed to comply with federal grazing regulations in the future. It also requires him to remove unauthorized improvements he made on the public lands, such as aboveground water pipelines, water tanks and corrals.
Once those conditions are met, he can reapply for grazing permits, the government said in a written statement.
The settlement pertains to Colvin only, and the government's suit against the Hages is still active.
The BLM canceled Colvin's grazing allotment preferences in the late 1990s. In 2001, the agency seized and auctioned 62 of his cattle, saying he was trespassing on federal land and owed the government $73,000 in back fines and fees.
Colvin filed against the government in the federal claims court two years later, seeking $30 million in compensation. A judge denied his claim, and that ruling was later upheld by an appellate judge, BLM spokeswoman JoLynn Worley said.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Fund will help ranchers deal with Mexican wolves
Federal wildlife officials and the National Fish and Wildlife Federation have signed an agreement establishing a trust fund to help ranchers deal with the impacts of endangered wolves that have been reintroduced in the Southwest.
The Mexican Wolf Interdiction Trust Fund, announced Tuesday, aims to alleviate some of the bitter feelings that have been brewing among ranchers and environmentalists since the endangered Mexican gray wolf returned to the region more than a decade ago.
Ranchers have long complained about wolves feeding on their cattle and threatening their livelihood, while environmentalists have criticized ranchers' grazing practices and the federal government's management of wolf recovery efforts.
"I am confident the interdiction program will not only advance wolf conservation by addressing the economic impacts of our Mexican wolf reintroduction efforts, it will also improve and conserve Arizona's and New Mexico's unique and important landscape and land use practices," Benjamin Tuggle, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Southwest region director, said in a written statement.
The Mexican wolf, a subspecies of the gray wolf, was exterminated in the wild by the 1930s. In 1998, the government began reintroducing wolves along the Arizona-New Mexico line, in a territory of more than 4 million acres interspersed with forests, private land and towns.
There are now about 50 wolves in the wild in Arizona and New Mexico, but that's half of what biologists had hoped to have by now.
The reintroduction program has been hampered by illegal shootings, rancher complaints and removal of wolves that have violated the program's three-strikes rule. Federal agents can kill, or trap and remove, any wolf that has been involved in three livestock kills within a year.
Under the interdiction program, trust fund money will compensate ranchers for livestock kills and finance grazing techniques that prevent depredation by wolves. The fund also can pay for range riders to keep the wolves from livestock.
Caren Cowan, executive director of the New Mexico Cattle Growers' Association, said ranchers support the program because it offers several options.
"We think that anything like this is definitely worth the effort," she said. "We're willing to try most anything."
Officials haven't settled on a dollar amount for the trust fund, but Fish and Wildlife Service spokesman Tom Buckley said the goal is to have it be self-sustaining.
Cowan estimated the fund would need at least a few million dollars.
"A lot of things all come down to the economic sustainability of the industry, and is the program going to provide that to us? At least there is a hope of that," she said.
Potential funding sources include private donors, livestock and environmental groups and government agencies. Officials said all interdiction activities will be paid for by donations and interest on the fund's principal.
While the program may help over the long term, Cowan said ranchers in southwestern New Mexico are in a desperate situation right now because of recent decisions by the wolf recovery team to leave wolves in the wild despite their having more than three kills.
Michael Robinson of the Center for Biological Diversity said there may be good intentions behind the trust fund, but he's concerned that the stakeholder council governing the fund will be more sympathetic to ranchers than wolf recovery.
Buckley said the agreement establishing the fund is clear that the money will not be used for any projects that would have a negative impact on the wolves. He said the council will be made up of a mix of stakeholders, including ranchers and conservationists.
The trust fund, Buckley said, is an attempt at finding middle ground.
"We are trying not to take sides in either direction," he said. "We want to go down the middle, and we encourage all the parties on either side to get together to accomplish what's in their own best interest. We think this program will go a long way to doing that."
Robinson said officials should think carefully before "throwing money at the problem." He argued that a better way to use the trust fund would be to compensate ranchers willing to forego their grazing privileges on public land, but many ranchers have been critical of such a suggestion.
The Mexican Wolf Interdiction Trust Fund, announced Tuesday, aims to alleviate some of the bitter feelings that have been brewing among ranchers and environmentalists since the endangered Mexican gray wolf returned to the region more than a decade ago.
Ranchers have long complained about wolves feeding on their cattle and threatening their livelihood, while environmentalists have criticized ranchers' grazing practices and the federal government's management of wolf recovery efforts.
"I am confident the interdiction program will not only advance wolf conservation by addressing the economic impacts of our Mexican wolf reintroduction efforts, it will also improve and conserve Arizona's and New Mexico's unique and important landscape and land use practices," Benjamin Tuggle, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Southwest region director, said in a written statement.
The Mexican wolf, a subspecies of the gray wolf, was exterminated in the wild by the 1930s. In 1998, the government began reintroducing wolves along the Arizona-New Mexico line, in a territory of more than 4 million acres interspersed with forests, private land and towns.
There are now about 50 wolves in the wild in Arizona and New Mexico, but that's half of what biologists had hoped to have by now.
The reintroduction program has been hampered by illegal shootings, rancher complaints and removal of wolves that have violated the program's three-strikes rule. Federal agents can kill, or trap and remove, any wolf that has been involved in three livestock kills within a year.
Under the interdiction program, trust fund money will compensate ranchers for livestock kills and finance grazing techniques that prevent depredation by wolves. The fund also can pay for range riders to keep the wolves from livestock.
Caren Cowan, executive director of the New Mexico Cattle Growers' Association, said ranchers support the program because it offers several options.
"We think that anything like this is definitely worth the effort," she said. "We're willing to try most anything."
Officials haven't settled on a dollar amount for the trust fund, but Fish and Wildlife Service spokesman Tom Buckley said the goal is to have it be self-sustaining.
Cowan estimated the fund would need at least a few million dollars.
"A lot of things all come down to the economic sustainability of the industry, and is the program going to provide that to us? At least there is a hope of that," she said.
Potential funding sources include private donors, livestock and environmental groups and government agencies. Officials said all interdiction activities will be paid for by donations and interest on the fund's principal.
While the program may help over the long term, Cowan said ranchers in southwestern New Mexico are in a desperate situation right now because of recent decisions by the wolf recovery team to leave wolves in the wild despite their having more than three kills.
Michael Robinson of the Center for Biological Diversity said there may be good intentions behind the trust fund, but he's concerned that the stakeholder council governing the fund will be more sympathetic to ranchers than wolf recovery.
Buckley said the agreement establishing the fund is clear that the money will not be used for any projects that would have a negative impact on the wolves. He said the council will be made up of a mix of stakeholders, including ranchers and conservationists.
The trust fund, Buckley said, is an attempt at finding middle ground.
"We are trying not to take sides in either direction," he said. "We want to go down the middle, and we encourage all the parties on either side to get together to accomplish what's in their own best interest. We think this program will go a long way to doing that."
Robinson said officials should think carefully before "throwing money at the problem." He argued that a better way to use the trust fund would be to compensate ranchers willing to forego their grazing privileges on public land, but many ranchers have been critical of such a suggestion.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Valles Caldera: failed federal experiment?
Tom Holland was so taken with the beauty of the Valles Caldera on a visit to New Mexico years ago that he photographed it from the roadway and made the stunning landscape his computer screensaver.
When he passed by again on a recent trip and discovered he could drive in, the New Yorker was exultant.
"I'm in heaven," Holland shouted as he walked up to the makeshift visitor center on the 89,000-acre Valles Caldera National Preserve, a series of huge grassy bowls ringed by tree-covered mountains.
"People don't really understand back East what this is like," said Holland, who lives near Albany. "They just have no clue."
This collapsed volcano in the Jemez Mountains, which erupted more than a million years ago, is the site of a federal experiment in public lands management - a failed experiment, according to critics. Even its most ardent supporters acknowledge that it needs a fix.
The preserve isn't run by a federal agency, although the former private cattle ranch was bought with tax dollars.
Instead, it's governed by a nine-member board - with seven, by law, being appointed by the president of the United States. It has a mixed-message mandate: protect the land and cultural resources, provide recreation, run cattle, all while making the preserve financially self-sustaining by 2015.
"It's basically an unworkable system," said Tom Ribe, president of Caldera Action, a watchdog group.
On federal lands, only the Presidio in San Francisco, a historic, decommissioned U.S. Army base near the Golden Gate Bridge, has a similar governance setup and self-sufficiency requirement.
The Presidio, where many buildings are now leased for commercial and residential use, has been covering its operating costs since 2004 and is on track for full financial self-sufficiency by 2013, spokeswoman Dana Polk said.
Critics complain that nine years after the Valles Caldera purchase, public access to the preserve is much too limited. Visitors can drive in a couple of miles to a temporary visitor center and then take a 45-minute, $5 van tour or pay $5 for a hike on a nearby trail.
They can make reservations to fish or hike in the backcountry and sign up for special events such as star gazing or photography workshops.
But they can't just grab their hiking poles or mountain bikes, head out for a day of exploring, then pitch a tent and watch elk herds grazing at dusk.
A $440,000 study on just how the preserve should be used by the public, and what infrastructure would be needed, isn't scheduled for completion until next year.
Meanwhile, some people say the fees for the interim programs are too high: Fishing costs $35 a day.
Yet the preserve, which is closed by snow for much of the winter and logged 15,238 visitors last year, is nowhere near close to self-supporting. In the budget year ending Sept. 30, 2008, it took in about $776,000 from fees and other sources - about 21 percent of what it spent.
The federal government appropriated nearly $3.7 million to the preserve the same year.
Self-sufficiency is "a pretty huge mandate," said the trust's board chairman, Stephen Henry, and not one that can be met by traditional ranchland uses such as logging, hunting and grazing.
A recent study done for the trustees by ENTRIX, Inc., environmental and natural resource management consultants, identified a variety of ways to become self-sufficient. Among them: upscale and mid-level hotels, luxury camping, and campgrounds for RVs and tents.
"People looked at that and said, 'Wait a second, this is what we wanted to avoid by having it public property,'" said Dave Menicucci, a retired research engineer at Sandia National Laboratories and fishing guide.
Henry suggests if the law were altered to remove the self-sufficiency language, the preserve could still charge fees to help pay its way but not have to pursue large development.
"The law is the law, and until they change the law we have to follow it," he said.
The unusual trust arrangement and self-sufficiency requirement was the only way to win the all-important support of former U.S. Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., to buy the Baca Ranch for $101 million in 2000.
"It was either this, or not be purchased," Ribe recalled.
The trust's executive director, Gary Bratcher, acknowledges that it has flaws.
The trust, for example, can't be federally insured and so must buy its own liability insurance. That has been hard to get and expensive - $100,000 a year - and the coverage is minimal: $2 million total annually, with a limit of $1 million per claim, Bratcher said.
"It affects your management decisions," he said, and that includes looking twice at such high-risk activities as horseback riding.
And even if trustees were ready to embark on a business venture such as a lodge, there's a big stumbling block.
The federal law that created the Valles Caldera Trust apparently doesn't authorize the trustees to conduct the sorts of business transactions - borrowing money, or entering into longrm leases with franchisees, for example - that such development would require, he said.
"Something has to change," Bratcher said.
New Mexico's U.S. senators, Democrats Jeff Bingaman and Tom Udall, have asked for an assment of whether the property could be included in the National Park Service system with the designation of national preserve, and that report could be ready by the end of October.
Critics say the preserve needs to be run by land-management officials, not political appointees.
"They're protecting it so much, they're keeping the people out," said Oscar Simpson of the New Mexico Wildlife Federation.
When he passed by again on a recent trip and discovered he could drive in, the New Yorker was exultant.
"I'm in heaven," Holland shouted as he walked up to the makeshift visitor center on the 89,000-acre Valles Caldera National Preserve, a series of huge grassy bowls ringed by tree-covered mountains.
"People don't really understand back East what this is like," said Holland, who lives near Albany. "They just have no clue."
This collapsed volcano in the Jemez Mountains, which erupted more than a million years ago, is the site of a federal experiment in public lands management - a failed experiment, according to critics. Even its most ardent supporters acknowledge that it needs a fix.
The preserve isn't run by a federal agency, although the former private cattle ranch was bought with tax dollars.
Instead, it's governed by a nine-member board - with seven, by law, being appointed by the president of the United States. It has a mixed-message mandate: protect the land and cultural resources, provide recreation, run cattle, all while making the preserve financially self-sustaining by 2015.
"It's basically an unworkable system," said Tom Ribe, president of Caldera Action, a watchdog group.
On federal lands, only the Presidio in San Francisco, a historic, decommissioned U.S. Army base near the Golden Gate Bridge, has a similar governance setup and self-sufficiency requirement.
The Presidio, where many buildings are now leased for commercial and residential use, has been covering its operating costs since 2004 and is on track for full financial self-sufficiency by 2013, spokeswoman Dana Polk said.
Critics complain that nine years after the Valles Caldera purchase, public access to the preserve is much too limited. Visitors can drive in a couple of miles to a temporary visitor center and then take a 45-minute, $5 van tour or pay $5 for a hike on a nearby trail.
They can make reservations to fish or hike in the backcountry and sign up for special events such as star gazing or photography workshops.
But they can't just grab their hiking poles or mountain bikes, head out for a day of exploring, then pitch a tent and watch elk herds grazing at dusk.
A $440,000 study on just how the preserve should be used by the public, and what infrastructure would be needed, isn't scheduled for completion until next year.
Meanwhile, some people say the fees for the interim programs are too high: Fishing costs $35 a day.
Yet the preserve, which is closed by snow for much of the winter and logged 15,238 visitors last year, is nowhere near close to self-supporting. In the budget year ending Sept. 30, 2008, it took in about $776,000 from fees and other sources - about 21 percent of what it spent.
The federal government appropriated nearly $3.7 million to the preserve the same year.
Self-sufficiency is "a pretty huge mandate," said the trust's board chairman, Stephen Henry, and not one that can be met by traditional ranchland uses such as logging, hunting and grazing.
A recent study done for the trustees by ENTRIX, Inc., environmental and natural resource management consultants, identified a variety of ways to become self-sufficient. Among them: upscale and mid-level hotels, luxury camping, and campgrounds for RVs and tents.
"People looked at that and said, 'Wait a second, this is what we wanted to avoid by having it public property,'" said Dave Menicucci, a retired research engineer at Sandia National Laboratories and fishing guide.
Henry suggests if the law were altered to remove the self-sufficiency language, the preserve could still charge fees to help pay its way but not have to pursue large development.
"The law is the law, and until they change the law we have to follow it," he said.
The unusual trust arrangement and self-sufficiency requirement was the only way to win the all-important support of former U.S. Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., to buy the Baca Ranch for $101 million in 2000.
"It was either this, or not be purchased," Ribe recalled.
The trust's executive director, Gary Bratcher, acknowledges that it has flaws.
The trust, for example, can't be federally insured and so must buy its own liability insurance. That has been hard to get and expensive - $100,000 a year - and the coverage is minimal: $2 million total annually, with a limit of $1 million per claim, Bratcher said.
"It affects your management decisions," he said, and that includes looking twice at such high-risk activities as horseback riding.
And even if trustees were ready to embark on a business venture such as a lodge, there's a big stumbling block.
The federal law that created the Valles Caldera Trust apparently doesn't authorize the trustees to conduct the sorts of business transactions - borrowing money, or entering into longrm leases with franchisees, for example - that such development would require, he said.
"Something has to change," Bratcher said.
New Mexico's U.S. senators, Democrats Jeff Bingaman and Tom Udall, have asked for an assment of whether the property could be included in the National Park Service system with the designation of national preserve, and that report could be ready by the end of October.
Critics say the preserve needs to be run by land-management officials, not political appointees.
"They're protecting it so much, they're keeping the people out," said Oscar Simpson of the New Mexico Wildlife Federation.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Environmental groups in Idaho sue BLM for grazing info
Two environmental groups are suing the Bureau of Land Management after the agency refused to release the names and addresses of people with grazing permits on the nation's public land.
In the lawsuit, filed Thursday in Boise's U.S. District Court, the environmental groups contend that the BLM wrongly said the names, addresses and other grazing permit information was protected from release under the Freedom of Information Act.
Specifically, the BLM claimed the information fell under the same exemption that allows agencies not to release medical records, personnel records and other information that, if disclosed, would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Kris Long, public affairs officer with the BLM's Idaho state office, said the agency did not comment on any pending litigation.
Todd C. Tucci, an attorney with Advocates for the West who was representing the environmental groups, said the case stemmed from, "just another attempt by BLM to hide its operations from public view."
"These are business contracts -- companies that entered into a contract with a government to graze private cows on public lands," Tucci said. "In general, my clients are pretty displeased that despite this era of openness, ushered in back in January, that BLM continues to play hide-the-ball with the information the public has a right to. This is the kind of way that government works when you get one bored but creative lawyer that decides to try something."
According to the lawsuit, the environmental groups requested the information under the federal Freedom of Information Act in 2007, and BLM said that it would release the information, but it needed additional time to gather it first. But the following year, the BLM said it had decided to deny the request because it believed the information was exempt from disclosure.
The environmental group are asking a federal judge to declare that the BLM violated the Freedom of Information Act and that the court force the BLM to provide the information immediately, free of charge.
In the lawsuit, filed Thursday in Boise's U.S. District Court, the environmental groups contend that the BLM wrongly said the names, addresses and other grazing permit information was protected from release under the Freedom of Information Act.
Specifically, the BLM claimed the information fell under the same exemption that allows agencies not to release medical records, personnel records and other information that, if disclosed, would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Kris Long, public affairs officer with the BLM's Idaho state office, said the agency did not comment on any pending litigation.
Todd C. Tucci, an attorney with Advocates for the West who was representing the environmental groups, said the case stemmed from, "just another attempt by BLM to hide its operations from public view."
"These are business contracts -- companies that entered into a contract with a government to graze private cows on public lands," Tucci said. "In general, my clients are pretty displeased that despite this era of openness, ushered in back in January, that BLM continues to play hide-the-ball with the information the public has a right to. This is the kind of way that government works when you get one bored but creative lawyer that decides to try something."
According to the lawsuit, the environmental groups requested the information under the federal Freedom of Information Act in 2007, and BLM said that it would release the information, but it needed additional time to gather it first. But the following year, the BLM said it had decided to deny the request because it believed the information was exempt from disclosure.
The environmental group are asking a federal judge to declare that the BLM violated the Freedom of Information Act and that the court force the BLM to provide the information immediately, free of charge.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
State, landowners negotiate in easement suit
Private landowners, the Wyoming attorney general's office and local officials are in talks to settle a lawsuit that has attracted national attention in conservation circles.
The outcome of the state's lawsuit challenging a 2002 Johnson County commission vote to extinguish a conservation easement could offer insight on the difficulty of unraveling increasingly popular conservation easement agreements.
The agreements can give landowners valuable income tax breaks in exchange for their giving up development rights to their property.
The state filed the lawsuit last year charging that the county commission violated its duty to residents when it voted to dissolve a conservation easement on the 1,000-acre Meadowood Ranch east of Buffalo.
According to the state's lawsuit, a limited partnership that owned the Meadowood Ranch transferred one acre of the ranch and a conservation easement on it to Johnson County's Scenic Preserve Trust in 1993.
The state has said the development rights to the ranch were appraised at more than $1.2 million in 1993. The state said the transfer allowed the landowner at the time to get a federal charitable tax deduction.
Fred and Linda Dowd, the current owners, bought the ranch in 1999. The couple asked Johnson County to end the conservation easement after an energy company said it intended to develop gas wells on the ranch. Ultimately, full-scale energy development didn't occur.
In August 2002, the county commission voted to terminate the conservation easement and transfer the one acre of land to the Dowds in exchange for a payment of $10, according to the state's lawsuit.
Both the attorney general's office and the Dowds have filed competing requests with District Judge Wade Waldrip of Rawlins asking him to rule in their favor. The judge last Thursday signed an order agreeing to delay action on the case for 30 days to give the parties time to try to negotiate a settlement.
Waldrip earlier had denied requests from land trust organizations interested in intervening in the lawsuit.
Greg Goddard, lawyer for Johnson County, said some of the settlement discussions so far have included the prospect of putting the development rights to the ranch with another land trust organization. He also said the county would be willing to take the development rights back into the county's scenic preserve trust.
"I think that the county's position has always been that we're willing to go along with whatever the court decides," Goddard said. "So if the other two parties are able to work out an amiable agreement, the county is not going to stand in their way."
Attempts to reach Tom Toner, a Sheridan lawyer representing the Dowds, were not successful on Wednesday.
John Rossetti, lawyer with the attorney general's office, declined comment on the case.
Robert Hicks, owner of the Buffalo Bulletin newspaper, filed a lawsuit against the County Commission and the Dowds in 2003. The Wyoming Supreme Court ultimately ruled that Hicks didn't have standing to sue.
Hicks said Wednesday the case has importance beyond the boundaries of Johnson County.
"It's an important case because the people of Johnson County had an asset in and of this conservation easement," Hicks said. "If it's allowed to stand as is, I think it threatens the future of conservation easements in the state of Wyoming as well as the future of conservation easements nationwide."
Hicks said he expects that the Internal Revenue Service won't continue to grant tax benefits for conservation easements if they can be extinguished as easily as they were in Johnson County.
"And without that incentive, I don't think it's in people's best nature to limit what can be done on their land without any benefit," Hicks said.
The outcome of the state's lawsuit challenging a 2002 Johnson County commission vote to extinguish a conservation easement could offer insight on the difficulty of unraveling increasingly popular conservation easement agreements.
The agreements can give landowners valuable income tax breaks in exchange for their giving up development rights to their property.
The state filed the lawsuit last year charging that the county commission violated its duty to residents when it voted to dissolve a conservation easement on the 1,000-acre Meadowood Ranch east of Buffalo.
According to the state's lawsuit, a limited partnership that owned the Meadowood Ranch transferred one acre of the ranch and a conservation easement on it to Johnson County's Scenic Preserve Trust in 1993.
The state has said the development rights to the ranch were appraised at more than $1.2 million in 1993. The state said the transfer allowed the landowner at the time to get a federal charitable tax deduction.
Fred and Linda Dowd, the current owners, bought the ranch in 1999. The couple asked Johnson County to end the conservation easement after an energy company said it intended to develop gas wells on the ranch. Ultimately, full-scale energy development didn't occur.
In August 2002, the county commission voted to terminate the conservation easement and transfer the one acre of land to the Dowds in exchange for a payment of $10, according to the state's lawsuit.
Both the attorney general's office and the Dowds have filed competing requests with District Judge Wade Waldrip of Rawlins asking him to rule in their favor. The judge last Thursday signed an order agreeing to delay action on the case for 30 days to give the parties time to try to negotiate a settlement.
Waldrip earlier had denied requests from land trust organizations interested in intervening in the lawsuit.
Greg Goddard, lawyer for Johnson County, said some of the settlement discussions so far have included the prospect of putting the development rights to the ranch with another land trust organization. He also said the county would be willing to take the development rights back into the county's scenic preserve trust.
"I think that the county's position has always been that we're willing to go along with whatever the court decides," Goddard said. "So if the other two parties are able to work out an amiable agreement, the county is not going to stand in their way."
Attempts to reach Tom Toner, a Sheridan lawyer representing the Dowds, were not successful on Wednesday.
John Rossetti, lawyer with the attorney general's office, declined comment on the case.
Robert Hicks, owner of the Buffalo Bulletin newspaper, filed a lawsuit against the County Commission and the Dowds in 2003. The Wyoming Supreme Court ultimately ruled that Hicks didn't have standing to sue.
Hicks said Wednesday the case has importance beyond the boundaries of Johnson County.
"It's an important case because the people of Johnson County had an asset in and of this conservation easement," Hicks said. "If it's allowed to stand as is, I think it threatens the future of conservation easements in the state of Wyoming as well as the future of conservation easements nationwide."
Hicks said he expects that the Internal Revenue Service won't continue to grant tax benefits for conservation easements if they can be extinguished as easily as they were in Johnson County.
"And without that incentive, I don't think it's in people's best nature to limit what can be done on their land without any benefit," Hicks said.
Friday, September 18, 2009
Senators Udall and Bingaman outline plan for wilderness, Organ Mountains
LAS CRUCES - New Mexico's U.S. senators on Thursday announced a plan to create thousands of acres of federally designated wilderness in Do a Ana County, including protection for the Organ Mountains.
U.S. Sens. Jeff Bingaman and Tom Udall, both D-N.M., introduced a bill that would designate 259,000 acres of land as wilderness, the highest level of federal protection. Also, the bill would place another 100,000 acres into a national conservation area, a type of protection that varies depending on the specific conditions set by Congress.
The bill was applauded by several groups that have advocated the creation of wilderness in the county since late 2005. However, it was met with skepticism by a pro-ranching organization that has criticized similar proposals in the past.
"The Organ Mountains are the backdrop for one of the most breathtaking scenic views in our state. Do a Ana County residents have been working for years to develop plans that would ensure these views are protected," Bingaman said in a news release. "I'm very glad that we now have a bill that will do just that even while ensuring the public continues to have access to this extraordinary space."
Bingaman chairs a key Senate panel - the Energy and Natural Resources Committee - which reviews land-use legislation.
Jeff Steinborn, local director for the New Mexico Wilderness Alliance and a member of the Do a Ana County Wilderness Coalition, has been an outspoken supporter of the creating the new designations. He said the recent legislation was generated by the senators' offices and doesn't include as much land for protection as an initial plan by wilderness proponents.
"This is a real tribute of what can happen when community groups work together," he said. "There's a really broad range of voices who support this. The Hispano Chamber, for example, is very involved and very supportive. The League of Women Voters has been very involved and very supportive."
Sportsmen's groups and some developers have also backed the wilderness proposal.
But a group of ranchers, called People for Preserving Our Western Heritage, and off-road vehicle enthusiasts have opposed the creation of wilderness. Ranchers have said they fear it would decrease access to their leased pasture land, interfering with their livelihoods.
Frank DuBois, a former New Mexico agriculture secretary and a spokesman for the ranching group, said his organization was "surprised and disappointed (Bingaman) would ignore the concerns of over 800 businesses and individuals that are part of our organization."
DuBois said he's disappointed the senators didn't consider an alternative land-use plan put forward by his group that would have created new designations meant to ensure land was protected from development, while not impeding ranching.
Steinborn said he feels there's a "very good chance" of the bill passing in Congress.
According to a map from Bingaman's office, the bill - called the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks Wilderness Act - would create:
• The Organ Mountains Wilderness and the Organ Mountains National Conservation Area, west of Las Cruces.
• The Potrillo Mountains Wilderness, the Aden Lava Flow Wilderness, the Cinder Cone Wilderness and the Whitehorn Wilderness, all located in southwestern Do a Ana County.
• The Sierra de las Uvas Wilderness, the Broad Canyon Wilderness, the Robledo Mountains Wilderness and the Desert Peaks National Conservation Area, all located south of Hatch and northwest of Las Cruces.
The proposal for federal wilderness in Dona Ana County was initially put forward in late 2005 by former U.S. Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., but he dropped the proposal after conservationists opposed certain components, including a measure that would have released U.S. Bureau of Land Management acreage for development. The proposal later on was opposed by former U.S. Rep. Steve Pearce, R-N.M., who had introduced a bill aligned with the ranchers' plan.
Diana M. Alba can be reached at dalba@lcsun-news.com; (575) 541-5443
U.S. Sens. Jeff Bingaman and Tom Udall, both D-N.M., introduced a bill that would designate 259,000 acres of land as wilderness, the highest level of federal protection. Also, the bill would place another 100,000 acres into a national conservation area, a type of protection that varies depending on the specific conditions set by Congress.
The bill was applauded by several groups that have advocated the creation of wilderness in the county since late 2005. However, it was met with skepticism by a pro-ranching organization that has criticized similar proposals in the past.
"The Organ Mountains are the backdrop for one of the most breathtaking scenic views in our state. Do a Ana County residents have been working for years to develop plans that would ensure these views are protected," Bingaman said in a news release. "I'm very glad that we now have a bill that will do just that even while ensuring the public continues to have access to this extraordinary space."
Bingaman chairs a key Senate panel - the Energy and Natural Resources Committee - which reviews land-use legislation.
Jeff Steinborn, local director for the New Mexico Wilderness Alliance and a member of the Do a Ana County Wilderness Coalition, has been an outspoken supporter of the creating the new designations. He said the recent legislation was generated by the senators' offices and doesn't include as much land for protection as an initial plan by wilderness proponents.
"This is a real tribute of what can happen when community groups work together," he said. "There's a really broad range of voices who support this. The Hispano Chamber, for example, is very involved and very supportive. The League of Women Voters has been very involved and very supportive."
Sportsmen's groups and some developers have also backed the wilderness proposal.
But a group of ranchers, called People for Preserving Our Western Heritage, and off-road vehicle enthusiasts have opposed the creation of wilderness. Ranchers have said they fear it would decrease access to their leased pasture land, interfering with their livelihoods.
Frank DuBois, a former New Mexico agriculture secretary and a spokesman for the ranching group, said his organization was "surprised and disappointed (Bingaman) would ignore the concerns of over 800 businesses and individuals that are part of our organization."
DuBois said he's disappointed the senators didn't consider an alternative land-use plan put forward by his group that would have created new designations meant to ensure land was protected from development, while not impeding ranching.
Steinborn said he feels there's a "very good chance" of the bill passing in Congress.
According to a map from Bingaman's office, the bill - called the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks Wilderness Act - would create:
• The Organ Mountains Wilderness and the Organ Mountains National Conservation Area, west of Las Cruces.
• The Potrillo Mountains Wilderness, the Aden Lava Flow Wilderness, the Cinder Cone Wilderness and the Whitehorn Wilderness, all located in southwestern Do a Ana County.
• The Sierra de las Uvas Wilderness, the Broad Canyon Wilderness, the Robledo Mountains Wilderness and the Desert Peaks National Conservation Area, all located south of Hatch and northwest of Las Cruces.
The proposal for federal wilderness in Dona Ana County was initially put forward in late 2005 by former U.S. Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., but he dropped the proposal after conservationists opposed certain components, including a measure that would have released U.S. Bureau of Land Management acreage for development. The proposal later on was opposed by former U.S. Rep. Steve Pearce, R-N.M., who had introduced a bill aligned with the ranchers' plan.
Diana M. Alba can be reached at dalba@lcsun-news.com; (575) 541-5443
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Unique partnership promotes conservation
A group of respected ranching and conservation organizations have come together to form a unique broad based coalition to enhance ranching practices that consider important conservation issues throughout the West. The Coalition for Conservation through Ranching is a new multi-stakeholder partnership between national conservation-minded groups that share an interest in promoting open space for ranching and healthy landscapes. The recently signed agreement marks the beginning of the unique relationship. Steering committee members of the coalition include the Public Lands Council (PLC), the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA), National Association of Conservation Districts (NACD), Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), Family Farm Alliance (FFA) and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF). Other organizations that have joined the coalition at this time are the American Farmland Trust, the American Forage and Grassland Council, the California Farm Bureau Federation, the Society for Rangeland Management, the Wild Sheep Foundation, and the Wilderness Society. The Bureau of Land Management serves as an advisor to the group.
“Cherished iconic western landscapes depend upon productive partnerships between ranchers and conservationists. The Coalition for Conservation through Ranching will promote solutions that will keep western landscapes healthy and in the process benefit working ranches, wildlife and other natural resources,” says Dan Grossman, Rocky Mountain Regional Director, EDF.
“Intact working ranches that are managed with wildlife in mind can help support habitat for grassland birds, mammals, and fish, all of which face uncertain prospects without the large spaces they need to survive. By working together we can encourage ranching practices that ensure the preservation of wildlife, and develop incentives that help ranchers to do so,” says Martha Kauffman, Managing Director WWF Northern Great Plains Program.
The coalition formed by six leading ranching and conservation organizations will support ranching on public and private lands in the West that is conducted in an ecologically sustainable way. “Maintaining a sustainable business environment and keeping ranchers on public lands allows our Western landscapes to remain open for wildlife habitat and recreational use and also provides for conservation efforts that might not otherwise occur,” says Skye Krebs, President of PLC and rancher from Ione, Oregon. “Together, the members of this coalition share a common interest in supporting working ranches and healthy landscapes.”
“As cattlemen, we rely on healthy land to produce healthy livestock. And one of the biggest gauges we can use to judge the health of our land is the co-existence of wildlife alongside of our livestock,” said Gary Voogt, NCBA president and rancher from Marne, Mich. “America’s farmers and ranchers are always looking for ways to increase efficiencies and build upon existing stewardship practices to keep our land and animals healthy and continue providing safe, high-quality food for America’s families. By bringing together leaders from industry and the environmental community, we can help further these goals in a way that benefits our nation’s land, animals and citizens.”
This collaborative conservation effort will provide for a more efficient use of resources, increased outreach opportunities, and a holistic approach to problem solving. It will also help to increase the understanding of complex issues between ranching and conservation and provide a forum to discuss the interaction between natural resource management and ranching.
“Conservation districts—located in nearly every county across the nation—address natural resource issues on a local level,” says NACD President Steve Robinson. “NACD is eager to collaborate with private landowners, government officials and members of this newly-formed Coalition to ensure that the health of our public and private lands is maintained and improved.”
The coalition will work on common ground issues which may include a pro-grasslands agenda, including grassland research projects, specific species conservation projects, and climate change including raising the awareness of the important role of grasslands on carbon sequestration, as well as other issues of common interest.
“Cherished iconic western landscapes depend upon productive partnerships between ranchers and conservationists. The Coalition for Conservation through Ranching will promote solutions that will keep western landscapes healthy and in the process benefit working ranches, wildlife and other natural resources,” says Dan Grossman, Rocky Mountain Regional Director, EDF.
“Intact working ranches that are managed with wildlife in mind can help support habitat for grassland birds, mammals, and fish, all of which face uncertain prospects without the large spaces they need to survive. By working together we can encourage ranching practices that ensure the preservation of wildlife, and develop incentives that help ranchers to do so,” says Martha Kauffman, Managing Director WWF Northern Great Plains Program.
The coalition formed by six leading ranching and conservation organizations will support ranching on public and private lands in the West that is conducted in an ecologically sustainable way. “Maintaining a sustainable business environment and keeping ranchers on public lands allows our Western landscapes to remain open for wildlife habitat and recreational use and also provides for conservation efforts that might not otherwise occur,” says Skye Krebs, President of PLC and rancher from Ione, Oregon. “Together, the members of this coalition share a common interest in supporting working ranches and healthy landscapes.”
“As cattlemen, we rely on healthy land to produce healthy livestock. And one of the biggest gauges we can use to judge the health of our land is the co-existence of wildlife alongside of our livestock,” said Gary Voogt, NCBA president and rancher from Marne, Mich. “America’s farmers and ranchers are always looking for ways to increase efficiencies and build upon existing stewardship practices to keep our land and animals healthy and continue providing safe, high-quality food for America’s families. By bringing together leaders from industry and the environmental community, we can help further these goals in a way that benefits our nation’s land, animals and citizens.”
This collaborative conservation effort will provide for a more efficient use of resources, increased outreach opportunities, and a holistic approach to problem solving. It will also help to increase the understanding of complex issues between ranching and conservation and provide a forum to discuss the interaction between natural resource management and ranching.
“Conservation districts—located in nearly every county across the nation—address natural resource issues on a local level,” says NACD President Steve Robinson. “NACD is eager to collaborate with private landowners, government officials and members of this newly-formed Coalition to ensure that the health of our public and private lands is maintained and improved.”
The coalition will work on common ground issues which may include a pro-grasslands agenda, including grassland research projects, specific species conservation projects, and climate change including raising the awareness of the important role of grasslands on carbon sequestration, as well as other issues of common interest.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Preservationist: More must be done to save lands
Public lands protected by legal designations such as "national monument" aren't necessarily fully protected, a recognized conservation expert said Thursday in Great Falls.
"Satan never sleeps," said Edward M. Norton, a senior environmental adviser to TPG Capital, L.P., a private equity firm in San Francisco. "Somebody always has a bad idea and wants to do something."
Norton was the keynote speaker Thursday at the 7th Annual Statewide Preservation Workshop sponsored by the Montana Preservation Alliance, the Lewis and Clark Trail Heritage Foundation and the Great Falls-Cascade County Historic Preservation Commission.
Norton, 67, spent three decades working to protect areas from development for groups such as the National Trust for Historic Preservation and The Wilderness Society.
He currently is chairman of the National Conservation System Foundation. The foundation is designed to protect, restore and expand National Landscape Conservation System Lands, a class of 27 million acres managed by the federal Bureau of Land Management.
The system was initiated under the watch of Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt in the late 1990s. Norton called it the "last of the great land conservation systems of the United States" and said it would be up to groups such as the Friends of the Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument in Montana to protect these places.
"They're not protected unless there's somebody there watching out for their protection," Norton said.
It is a misperception that laws lead to protection of land, Norton said. In fact, it is local organizations and residents that "grind it out year after year" pressing for preservation who truly protects land, he said.
Even after laws are enacted, watchdogs need to "ride herd" on land managers who write the plans managing the protected areas, Norton said.
Though threats exist, Norton said he is impressed with land protections in the United States, as well as with how the country explains the historical and cultural context of special places. He pointed to the Lewis and Clark Interpretive Center in Great Falls as an example of the type of education about areas provided in the U.S. that is absent in countries such as China and Indonesia.
The conference drew about 75 people, including public land managers, farmers, ranchers and conservationists, said Chere Jiusto, executive director of the Montana Preservation Alliance.
The theme of this year's conference was "Preserving Montana's Signature Landscapes."
Jiusto said the state of Montana was the only one in the nation to set aside $4 million in federal stimulus funding for preservation grants.
Gloria Flora, the former supervisor of the Lewis and Clark National Forest, who is now the director of Sustainable Obtainable Solutions, shared the keynote address with Norton.
When she was forest supervisor, Flora made the decision to ban natural gas and oil exploration on the Rocky Mountain Front, one of Montana's premier large landscapes.
Places such as the Front have ecological values that exceed what any human can put on the landscape, said Flora, recalling that developers with "glossy brochures" tried to convince the U.S. Forest Service to allow development on the Front.
"Absolutely incredible landscape," she said.
"Satan never sleeps," said Edward M. Norton, a senior environmental adviser to TPG Capital, L.P., a private equity firm in San Francisco. "Somebody always has a bad idea and wants to do something."
Norton was the keynote speaker Thursday at the 7th Annual Statewide Preservation Workshop sponsored by the Montana Preservation Alliance, the Lewis and Clark Trail Heritage Foundation and the Great Falls-Cascade County Historic Preservation Commission.
Norton, 67, spent three decades working to protect areas from development for groups such as the National Trust for Historic Preservation and The Wilderness Society.
He currently is chairman of the National Conservation System Foundation. The foundation is designed to protect, restore and expand National Landscape Conservation System Lands, a class of 27 million acres managed by the federal Bureau of Land Management.
The system was initiated under the watch of Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt in the late 1990s. Norton called it the "last of the great land conservation systems of the United States" and said it would be up to groups such as the Friends of the Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument in Montana to protect these places.
"They're not protected unless there's somebody there watching out for their protection," Norton said.
It is a misperception that laws lead to protection of land, Norton said. In fact, it is local organizations and residents that "grind it out year after year" pressing for preservation who truly protects land, he said.
Even after laws are enacted, watchdogs need to "ride herd" on land managers who write the plans managing the protected areas, Norton said.
Though threats exist, Norton said he is impressed with land protections in the United States, as well as with how the country explains the historical and cultural context of special places. He pointed to the Lewis and Clark Interpretive Center in Great Falls as an example of the type of education about areas provided in the U.S. that is absent in countries such as China and Indonesia.
The conference drew about 75 people, including public land managers, farmers, ranchers and conservationists, said Chere Jiusto, executive director of the Montana Preservation Alliance.
The theme of this year's conference was "Preserving Montana's Signature Landscapes."
Jiusto said the state of Montana was the only one in the nation to set aside $4 million in federal stimulus funding for preservation grants.
Gloria Flora, the former supervisor of the Lewis and Clark National Forest, who is now the director of Sustainable Obtainable Solutions, shared the keynote address with Norton.
When she was forest supervisor, Flora made the decision to ban natural gas and oil exploration on the Rocky Mountain Front, one of Montana's premier large landscapes.
Places such as the Front have ecological values that exceed what any human can put on the landscape, said Flora, recalling that developers with "glossy brochures" tried to convince the U.S. Forest Service to allow development on the Front.
"Absolutely incredible landscape," she said.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
State sued for not providing farmworker worker compensation
The state of New Mexico is being sued by a group of non-profit organizations and one injured agricultural worker for not providing workers compensation to farm and ranch laborers in the state.
The group maintains that the exclusion of these workers from workers compensation coverage violates the equal protection clause of the New Mexico State Constitution.
At a press conference yesterday, the group was joined by Dolores Huerta, co-founder with Cesar Chavez of the United Farmworkers of America.
Huerta said it was time for New Mexico to “get into the 21st century.”
Over thirty other states have extended such benefits to farmworkers, she said, and “it’s time that the people who feed us, who put the food on our plate, get the justice they deserve.”
Huerta also noted that the extension of workers compensation, which is funded by employers, would provide an incentive to farm and ranch owners to make the working environment safer.
One of the plaintiffs in the suit is Joe Griego, a dairy worker who worked as a milker for 15 years. He was recently attacked while working at a dairy in Los Lunas by a bull, which resulted in crushed ribs and injuries to his spinal cord. According to a statement, he’s been in constant pain since then and unable to work. The medical bills and lost wages “have decimated the Griego’s ability to make ends meet,” the statement says. His wife has taken a second job and the family receives public assistance.
During the last legislative session, state Rep. Antonio Lujan, D-Las Cruces, sponsored a bill to extend such benefits to farmworkers. But the proposal died.
According to a handout at the press conference, that bill included a provision to exempt small farms and ranches, so that only the large enterprises would be affected. This would have resulted in 11 percent of the farms and ranches in the state being affected, which employ 89 percent of the workers in the sector.
John Martinez, executive director of one of the plaintiff organizations — HELP, New Mexico, said at the press conference that the current law is “antiquated” because the majority of farmworkers in New Mexico work for large operations, not “mom and pops.”
“Whether you work for Intel, state government, or pick chiles as the sun goes down,” he said, “[you should be covered], the law is antiquated and must be changed.”
Griego is joined in the lawsuit by the organizations HELP-New Mexico, Inc., and Sin Fronteras Organizing Project. The plaintiffs are represented by the New Mexico Center on Law and Poverty, the Sargent Shriver National Poverty Law Center, and National Center for Social and Economic Justice.
The group maintains that the exclusion of these workers from workers compensation coverage violates the equal protection clause of the New Mexico State Constitution.
At a press conference yesterday, the group was joined by Dolores Huerta, co-founder with Cesar Chavez of the United Farmworkers of America.
Huerta said it was time for New Mexico to “get into the 21st century.”
Over thirty other states have extended such benefits to farmworkers, she said, and “it’s time that the people who feed us, who put the food on our plate, get the justice they deserve.”
Huerta also noted that the extension of workers compensation, which is funded by employers, would provide an incentive to farm and ranch owners to make the working environment safer.
One of the plaintiffs in the suit is Joe Griego, a dairy worker who worked as a milker for 15 years. He was recently attacked while working at a dairy in Los Lunas by a bull, which resulted in crushed ribs and injuries to his spinal cord. According to a statement, he’s been in constant pain since then and unable to work. The medical bills and lost wages “have decimated the Griego’s ability to make ends meet,” the statement says. His wife has taken a second job and the family receives public assistance.
During the last legislative session, state Rep. Antonio Lujan, D-Las Cruces, sponsored a bill to extend such benefits to farmworkers. But the proposal died.
According to a handout at the press conference, that bill included a provision to exempt small farms and ranches, so that only the large enterprises would be affected. This would have resulted in 11 percent of the farms and ranches in the state being affected, which employ 89 percent of the workers in the sector.
John Martinez, executive director of one of the plaintiff organizations — HELP, New Mexico, said at the press conference that the current law is “antiquated” because the majority of farmworkers in New Mexico work for large operations, not “mom and pops.”
“Whether you work for Intel, state government, or pick chiles as the sun goes down,” he said, “[you should be covered], the law is antiquated and must be changed.”
Griego is joined in the lawsuit by the organizations HELP-New Mexico, Inc., and Sin Fronteras Organizing Project. The plaintiffs are represented by the New Mexico Center on Law and Poverty, the Sargent Shriver National Poverty Law Center, and National Center for Social and Economic Justice.
Monday, August 17, 2009
Mexican gray wolf advocates celebrate release of data
Conservationists have won a battle with the federal government over information they say will help improve a troubled program aimed at returning North America's rarest gray wolf to the Southwest.
A federal judge last week ordered the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Wildlife Services to release specific information on the locations of conflicts between livestock and the Mexican gray wolves that are roaming New Mexico and Arizona as part of a reintroduction effort.
Conservationists applauded the decision, saying the coordinates will help determine if there are any problem areas and whether steps can be taken to limit wolf contact with livestock in those areas.
The Mexican wolf, a subspecies of the gray wolf, was exterminated in the wild in the Southwest by the 1930s. In 1998, the government began reintroducing wolves along the Arizona-New Mexico line in a 4 million-acre territory.
There are now about 50 wolves in the wild, but that's half of what biologists had hoped to have by now.
The reintroduction effort has been hampered by illegal shootings, complaints from ranchers who have lost cattle to the wolves and removal of wolves that have violated the program's three-strikes rule. Federal agents can kill or trap and remove any wolf that has been involved in three livestock kills within a year.
A federal judge last week ordered the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Wildlife Services to release specific information on the locations of conflicts between livestock and the Mexican gray wolves that are roaming New Mexico and Arizona as part of a reintroduction effort.
Conservationists applauded the decision, saying the coordinates will help determine if there are any problem areas and whether steps can be taken to limit wolf contact with livestock in those areas.
The Mexican wolf, a subspecies of the gray wolf, was exterminated in the wild in the Southwest by the 1930s. In 1998, the government began reintroducing wolves along the Arizona-New Mexico line in a 4 million-acre territory.
There are now about 50 wolves in the wild, but that's half of what biologists had hoped to have by now.
The reintroduction effort has been hampered by illegal shootings, complaints from ranchers who have lost cattle to the wolves and removal of wolves that have violated the program's three-strikes rule. Federal agents can kill or trap and remove any wolf that has been involved in three livestock kills within a year.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Wolf release in Mexico sparks concern in US
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — American wildlife officials and ranchers are raising questions over a plan to release a rare North American gray wolf to its historic range in northern Mexico: Will it stay south of the border and what can be done if it threatens livestock?
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said this week it learned of the plan to release captive-bred Mexican gray wolves during a meeting with Mexican officials.
A male, female and two yearlings could be released in Sonora state, bordering Arizona and New Mexico, as early as October. Another release is planned for December and more could happen next year as part of an effort by both countries to return the wolves to the wild.
"I think we kind of assumed it would happen eventually but we didn't realize it was going to happen this quickly," said Charna Lefton, regional spokeswoman with the Fish and Wildlife Service in Albuquerque.
The Mexican agency that oversees natural resources and the environment, known as SEMARNAT, did not immediately respond to telephone and email requests for comment.
While wildlife officials and conservationists generally support the move, Lefton says "everyone is asking the same questions."
What if the wolves cross into the United States? Will they be protected under the federal Endangered Species Act? Or will they have the same "nonessential, experimental" designation as wolves released as part of a reintroduction effort in New Mexico and Arizona?
The Fish and Wildlife Service has posed those questions to the agency's attorneys and are hoping for answers in coming weeks. The agency also plans another meeting with Mexican officials.
The Mexican wolf, a subspecies of the gray wolf, was exterminated in the wild in the Southwest by the 1930s after a campaign by the federal government to control the predator.
A handful of wolves were captured in Mexico in the late 1970s to save the animal from extinction. In 1998, the U.S. government began reintroducing wolves along the Arizona-New Mexico line in a 4 million-acre territory. Biologists had hoped to have at least 100 wolves by now, but recent surveys show about half that. It's unclear how many wolves are in Mexico's Sonora state.
The wolves in Arizona and New Mexico do not have full protection under the Endangered Species Act because they are designated as "experimental," giving game officials greater flexibility to manage them and even allows permanent removal — by capturing or killing — after three confirmed livestock kills in a year.
Conservationists contend any wolves found outside the reintroduction area in the two states would be protected under the Endangered Species Act unless the Fish and Wildlife seeks a contrary rule.
Wolves returning to the wild in Mexico only complicates a troubled effort in the United States, especially if the animals cross the border, said Caren Cowan, executive director of the New Mexico Cattle Growers' Association.
"You've got the potential of wolves coming down on you from the north that have one endangered status, and you've got wolves coming from the south that may have a different status," she said. "How are you supposed to tell the difference?"
Conservationists are encouraged by Mexico's plans, saying more wolves in the wild will help ensure species survival. If the U.S. and Mexico populations mingle, that would bolster the animal's limited genetic pool.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said this week it learned of the plan to release captive-bred Mexican gray wolves during a meeting with Mexican officials.
A male, female and two yearlings could be released in Sonora state, bordering Arizona and New Mexico, as early as October. Another release is planned for December and more could happen next year as part of an effort by both countries to return the wolves to the wild.
"I think we kind of assumed it would happen eventually but we didn't realize it was going to happen this quickly," said Charna Lefton, regional spokeswoman with the Fish and Wildlife Service in Albuquerque.
The Mexican agency that oversees natural resources and the environment, known as SEMARNAT, did not immediately respond to telephone and email requests for comment.
While wildlife officials and conservationists generally support the move, Lefton says "everyone is asking the same questions."
What if the wolves cross into the United States? Will they be protected under the federal Endangered Species Act? Or will they have the same "nonessential, experimental" designation as wolves released as part of a reintroduction effort in New Mexico and Arizona?
The Fish and Wildlife Service has posed those questions to the agency's attorneys and are hoping for answers in coming weeks. The agency also plans another meeting with Mexican officials.
The Mexican wolf, a subspecies of the gray wolf, was exterminated in the wild in the Southwest by the 1930s after a campaign by the federal government to control the predator.
A handful of wolves were captured in Mexico in the late 1970s to save the animal from extinction. In 1998, the U.S. government began reintroducing wolves along the Arizona-New Mexico line in a 4 million-acre territory. Biologists had hoped to have at least 100 wolves by now, but recent surveys show about half that. It's unclear how many wolves are in Mexico's Sonora state.
The wolves in Arizona and New Mexico do not have full protection under the Endangered Species Act because they are designated as "experimental," giving game officials greater flexibility to manage them and even allows permanent removal — by capturing or killing — after three confirmed livestock kills in a year.
Conservationists contend any wolves found outside the reintroduction area in the two states would be protected under the Endangered Species Act unless the Fish and Wildlife seeks a contrary rule.
Wolves returning to the wild in Mexico only complicates a troubled effort in the United States, especially if the animals cross the border, said Caren Cowan, executive director of the New Mexico Cattle Growers' Association.
"You've got the potential of wolves coming down on you from the north that have one endangered status, and you've got wolves coming from the south that may have a different status," she said. "How are you supposed to tell the difference?"
Conservationists are encouraged by Mexico's plans, saying more wolves in the wild will help ensure species survival. If the U.S. and Mexico populations mingle, that would bolster the animal's limited genetic pool.
Monday, August 10, 2009
Bingaman Bill Helps Restore Public Lands While Employing and Training Young Americans
WASHINGTON - U.S. Senator Jeff Bingaman today introduced legislation that would expand a program that provides young people with job opportunities, while helping repair and restore the country's public lands. The bill also includes a provision authored by U.S. Senator Tom Udall to establish the Indian Youth Service Corps.
Bingaman's Public Lands Service Corps Act of 2009 expands on the existing Public Lands Corps by expanding the scope of corps projects to reflect new challenges such as climate change. Additionally, the bill would add incentives to attract new participants, especially from underrepresented populations, and paving the way for increased funding. Senator Tom Udall is a cosponsor of the bill.
"This bill expands on an already successful program that provides young American with educational and professional development opportunities, while helping restore our country's public lands," Bingaman said.
"This legislation will help ensure that future generations of young people can give back to their communities and gain important job and life skills by protecting our nation's natural heritage," said Udall. "This bill would also help address the needs of Native communities by allowing Tribes to develop their own corps projects."
Specifically the bill would do the following:
* Amends the Public Lands Corps Act of 1993 to expand the authority of the Interior and Agriculture Departments (including such agencies as the National Park Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Forest Service).
* Establishes an Indian Youth Service Corps so that Indian Tribes can start corps programs on Tribal lands to carry out priority projects determined by their communities.
* Authorizes the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to participate in the program, which would allow Corps members to work on restoring coastal and marine ecosystems along our oceans and the Great Lakes.
* Authorizes the establishment of residential conservation centers, and encourages those centers to be built using solar and other green technology with the involvement of Corps participants.
* Expands the scope of eligible projects to include activities such as assisting -- historical and cultural research, scientists in field research, visitor services and interpretation.
* Authorizes the Secretary, in project areas where Corps members can reasonably be expected to live at home, to provide transportation to and from project sites.
* Allows agencies to provide noncompetitive hiring status for Corps participants for two years after completing service. Current law allows such status for only 120 days.
* Eliminates the $12 million authorization ceiling for the program, which would make the program eligible for increased funding.
* Age range for the program is 16-25, and participants may serve either in crews or as individuals.
Bingaman's Public Lands Service Corps Act of 2009 expands on the existing Public Lands Corps by expanding the scope of corps projects to reflect new challenges such as climate change. Additionally, the bill would add incentives to attract new participants, especially from underrepresented populations, and paving the way for increased funding. Senator Tom Udall is a cosponsor of the bill.
"This bill expands on an already successful program that provides young American with educational and professional development opportunities, while helping restore our country's public lands," Bingaman said.
"This legislation will help ensure that future generations of young people can give back to their communities and gain important job and life skills by protecting our nation's natural heritage," said Udall. "This bill would also help address the needs of Native communities by allowing Tribes to develop their own corps projects."
Specifically the bill would do the following:
* Amends the Public Lands Corps Act of 1993 to expand the authority of the Interior and Agriculture Departments (including such agencies as the National Park Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Forest Service).
* Establishes an Indian Youth Service Corps so that Indian Tribes can start corps programs on Tribal lands to carry out priority projects determined by their communities.
* Authorizes the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to participate in the program, which would allow Corps members to work on restoring coastal and marine ecosystems along our oceans and the Great Lakes.
* Authorizes the establishment of residential conservation centers, and encourages those centers to be built using solar and other green technology with the involvement of Corps participants.
* Expands the scope of eligible projects to include activities such as assisting -- historical and cultural research, scientists in field research, visitor services and interpretation.
* Authorizes the Secretary, in project areas where Corps members can reasonably be expected to live at home, to provide transportation to and from project sites.
* Allows agencies to provide noncompetitive hiring status for Corps participants for two years after completing service. Current law allows such status for only 120 days.
* Eliminates the $12 million authorization ceiling for the program, which would make the program eligible for increased funding.
* Age range for the program is 16-25, and participants may serve either in crews or as individuals.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Multiplying like bunnies? Not this jackrabbit
Rabbits are certainly known for their propensity for multiplying, but one species of jackrabbit is having trouble keeping up. There are an estimated 150 white-sided jackrabbits left in the United States, and federal wildlife officials announced Wednesday they will study the elusive rabbit to determine if it needs to be protected under the Endangered Species Act.
It's not lack of libido that's holding back the white-sided jackrabbit.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service says the biggest threat is change to the rabbits' habitat brought on by drought, grazing, the suppression of wildfire and the encroachment of shrubs into the Chihuahuan grasslands of New Mexico's bootheel — the only place in the United States where the jackrabbit has been documented. Wildfire helps keep shrubs in check and revitalizes grasslands, which the rabbits depend on.
The rabbit also lives in Mexico, and those populations have also declined, said Nicole Rosmarino, a biologist with the Western environmental group WildEarth Guardians.
Rosmarino said the existing pressures on the white-sided jackrabbit likely will worsen. Forecasters predict extended and more-frequent periods of drought in the Southwest because of climate change.
The Fish and Wildlife Service says it's uncertain how climate change will affect the jackrabbit and its habitat, but it plans to look more closely at the potential impact during its 12-month review.
After the review, the agency will decide whether the rabbit warrants protection as an endangered or threatened species. In New Mexico, the rabbit has been listed as a state endangered species since 1975.
"The rabbit has cleared the first hurdle toward federal protection, so that's good news," Rosmarino said.
The Fish and Wildlife Service's decision to review the rabbit is the result of a petition and lawsuit filed by environmentalists.
The rabbit's name comes from a conspicuous white area along its body, most noticeable when the rabbit runs. The jackrabbits, usually seen in pairs, mate for life. While they can produce several litters a year, the litters are usually small — between one and three young.
The rabbit's large ears and long limbs are disproportionate to its body, creating more surface area to help the animal dissipate the heat that's part of living in the desert.
Besides the white-sided jackrabbit, WildEarth Guardians is seeking protections for other species, including the Sonoran desert tortoise. The Fish and Wildlife Service has yet to issue a finding on that species, but WildEarth Guardians says the tortoises' numbers have also been cut in half in recent decades.
As Rosmarino points out, Wednesday's decision by the agency puts the rabbit ahead of the tortoise, in both species' race to avoid extinction.
It's not lack of libido that's holding back the white-sided jackrabbit.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service says the biggest threat is change to the rabbits' habitat brought on by drought, grazing, the suppression of wildfire and the encroachment of shrubs into the Chihuahuan grasslands of New Mexico's bootheel — the only place in the United States where the jackrabbit has been documented. Wildfire helps keep shrubs in check and revitalizes grasslands, which the rabbits depend on.
The rabbit also lives in Mexico, and those populations have also declined, said Nicole Rosmarino, a biologist with the Western environmental group WildEarth Guardians.
Rosmarino said the existing pressures on the white-sided jackrabbit likely will worsen. Forecasters predict extended and more-frequent periods of drought in the Southwest because of climate change.
The Fish and Wildlife Service says it's uncertain how climate change will affect the jackrabbit and its habitat, but it plans to look more closely at the potential impact during its 12-month review.
After the review, the agency will decide whether the rabbit warrants protection as an endangered or threatened species. In New Mexico, the rabbit has been listed as a state endangered species since 1975.
"The rabbit has cleared the first hurdle toward federal protection, so that's good news," Rosmarino said.
The Fish and Wildlife Service's decision to review the rabbit is the result of a petition and lawsuit filed by environmentalists.
The rabbit's name comes from a conspicuous white area along its body, most noticeable when the rabbit runs. The jackrabbits, usually seen in pairs, mate for life. While they can produce several litters a year, the litters are usually small — between one and three young.
The rabbit's large ears and long limbs are disproportionate to its body, creating more surface area to help the animal dissipate the heat that's part of living in the desert.
Besides the white-sided jackrabbit, WildEarth Guardians is seeking protections for other species, including the Sonoran desert tortoise. The Fish and Wildlife Service has yet to issue a finding on that species, but WildEarth Guardians says the tortoises' numbers have also been cut in half in recent decades.
As Rosmarino points out, Wednesday's decision by the agency puts the rabbit ahead of the tortoise, in both species' race to avoid extinction.
Monday, August 3, 2009
After the boom became a bust
Four and a half years ago, oil company executives negotiated for drilling rights at our dining room table. We are ranchers with some mineral rights and the drilling clamor was well underway in the West. Talk turned to the future, and they suggested our 19-year-old son postpone college. "Buy him a backhoe!" they urged.
We remembered the last boom, which ended with a bang, not a whimper, on May 2, 1982. We were herding our own sheep, moving toddlers from winter desert to summer high country, while all around us, drilling dominated the local economy.
Today, we have grown children and are fighting the fight to stay on the ranch established six generations ago. Oil and gas has long been a part of our Wyoming community. In recent years, it again swept everything before it.
When we moved a sheep camp or checked our desert cows, semis and tankers swarmed the roads. Backcountry vistas were dotted with drilling rigs. Beer cans lined highways and two-tracks alike, and formed pyramids outside the man camps which sprang up to house new workers.
This boom, we were assured — everyone in the oil patch was assured — would last 50, 70, 100 years. Young people found jobs, found a future at home. They did not have to migrate to faraway places and long for the mountains, for the West's open spaces.
Ranchers who had struggled with up-and-down commodity prices turned their hand to providing services and property to energy companies, bringing in welcome capital. Families with long-dormant mineral rights found land men appearing at their door and checks appearing in the mail. Drilling rigs came in, one semi-truck following another, like ducks, filling the horizons with tall metal structures that looked as permanent as the Eiffel Tower.
Our communities morphed from generally sleepy burgs to boomtowns. Employers couldn't find workers to serve the huge increase in demand. Tiny towns like Wamsutter, Wyo., population formerly 261, suddenly transformed from a gas stop on Interstate 80 to a center for the new oil economy.
Semis exiting at Wamsutter's one exchange backed up onto the interstate, seeking transit to the energy fields to the north and south.
In the meantime, those of us who live and work on this landscape tried to adjust, tried to understand this massive shift. Our ranching operation leads us, and our animals, from the mountainous high country in the summer months to the sagebrush country of the desert in the winter months. This long trail covers some 150 miles, spring and fall, across a broad countryside — the same countryside that boiled with energy development.
We found mudpots erupting in the coalbed methane fields. These mudpots, we were instructed by both the BLM and our state government, had always been there. Institutional memories of ranchers, trappers, recreationists held no weight.
Wildlife such as deer and elk, antelope and sage grouse, found their lives changed as well. Suddenly they found roads, dust, invasive weeds. Big game species met not only people and activity. They found poachers, who, unlike local hunters, shot at them with sudden and inexplicable impunity, sometimes leaving their heads mounted obscenely on rocks and brush.
All this activity, which was indeed providing much-needed energy to the nation, profoundly impacted the landscape. Reclamation is mandated by law, but was not happening. Pipelines, roads, well sites — all showed a moonscape of bare ground, or worse, a garden of invasive weeds, especially halogeton, poisonous to livestock.
The companies were trying, but they were hindered by drought, by inexperience. They found regulators who counted an attempt as success. Successful reclamation is the exception, not the rule.
Into this situation, oil prices dropped precipitously. It turned out that oil prices had been driven artificially high by speculation. When the economy imploded, so did oil prices.
The effect on our communities throughout the oil patch is not positive. Folks who had invested in heavy equipment, in building new housing, who had taken truck-driving jobs, found that the boom had busted. Young men and women with high-paying jobs found themselves unemployed. My cousin, who recently bought the ranch adjoining his, found his water trucks idle.
Those of us who live and work and recreate in the West's open spaces are left with a radically changed economy and culture, and a radically disturbed landscape. Now what? We still need energy and we still need a healthy landscape.
Our son? He is graduating with a degree in environment and natural resources. He plans to work with us in the landscape reclamation business.
Sharon Salisbury O'Toole is a rancher, writer and poet from the Little Snake River Valley, near Savery, Wyo. She and her family raise cattle, sheep, dogs, horses and children on their sixth-generation ranching operation.
We remembered the last boom, which ended with a bang, not a whimper, on May 2, 1982. We were herding our own sheep, moving toddlers from winter desert to summer high country, while all around us, drilling dominated the local economy.
Today, we have grown children and are fighting the fight to stay on the ranch established six generations ago. Oil and gas has long been a part of our Wyoming community. In recent years, it again swept everything before it.
When we moved a sheep camp or checked our desert cows, semis and tankers swarmed the roads. Backcountry vistas were dotted with drilling rigs. Beer cans lined highways and two-tracks alike, and formed pyramids outside the man camps which sprang up to house new workers.
This boom, we were assured — everyone in the oil patch was assured — would last 50, 70, 100 years. Young people found jobs, found a future at home. They did not have to migrate to faraway places and long for the mountains, for the West's open spaces.
Ranchers who had struggled with up-and-down commodity prices turned their hand to providing services and property to energy companies, bringing in welcome capital. Families with long-dormant mineral rights found land men appearing at their door and checks appearing in the mail. Drilling rigs came in, one semi-truck following another, like ducks, filling the horizons with tall metal structures that looked as permanent as the Eiffel Tower.
Our communities morphed from generally sleepy burgs to boomtowns. Employers couldn't find workers to serve the huge increase in demand. Tiny towns like Wamsutter, Wyo., population formerly 261, suddenly transformed from a gas stop on Interstate 80 to a center for the new oil economy.
Semis exiting at Wamsutter's one exchange backed up onto the interstate, seeking transit to the energy fields to the north and south.
In the meantime, those of us who live and work on this landscape tried to adjust, tried to understand this massive shift. Our ranching operation leads us, and our animals, from the mountainous high country in the summer months to the sagebrush country of the desert in the winter months. This long trail covers some 150 miles, spring and fall, across a broad countryside — the same countryside that boiled with energy development.
We found mudpots erupting in the coalbed methane fields. These mudpots, we were instructed by both the BLM and our state government, had always been there. Institutional memories of ranchers, trappers, recreationists held no weight.
Wildlife such as deer and elk, antelope and sage grouse, found their lives changed as well. Suddenly they found roads, dust, invasive weeds. Big game species met not only people and activity. They found poachers, who, unlike local hunters, shot at them with sudden and inexplicable impunity, sometimes leaving their heads mounted obscenely on rocks and brush.
All this activity, which was indeed providing much-needed energy to the nation, profoundly impacted the landscape. Reclamation is mandated by law, but was not happening. Pipelines, roads, well sites — all showed a moonscape of bare ground, or worse, a garden of invasive weeds, especially halogeton, poisonous to livestock.
The companies were trying, but they were hindered by drought, by inexperience. They found regulators who counted an attempt as success. Successful reclamation is the exception, not the rule.
Into this situation, oil prices dropped precipitously. It turned out that oil prices had been driven artificially high by speculation. When the economy imploded, so did oil prices.
The effect on our communities throughout the oil patch is not positive. Folks who had invested in heavy equipment, in building new housing, who had taken truck-driving jobs, found that the boom had busted. Young men and women with high-paying jobs found themselves unemployed. My cousin, who recently bought the ranch adjoining his, found his water trucks idle.
Those of us who live and work and recreate in the West's open spaces are left with a radically changed economy and culture, and a radically disturbed landscape. Now what? We still need energy and we still need a healthy landscape.
Our son? He is graduating with a degree in environment and natural resources. He plans to work with us in the landscape reclamation business.
Sharon Salisbury O'Toole is a rancher, writer and poet from the Little Snake River Valley, near Savery, Wyo. She and her family raise cattle, sheep, dogs, horses and children on their sixth-generation ranching operation.
Sunday, August 2, 2009
NM forest takes unusual route in travel planning
Hundreds of miles of dirt roads and trails cut through northern New Mexico's mountains. The hard part is deciding which ones to keep open and which to close.
It's a scenario that's playing itself out across the country as the U.S. Forest Service tries to designate by 2010 a system of motorized routes that will provide recreational opportunities while still protecting America's natural resources.
In northern New Mexico, off-road enthusiasts and environmentalists - typically arch enemies in the travel management debate - have found something to agree on. But it won't make the process any easier for federal land managers.
Both sides say the Carson National Forest is going about travel management planning in an unusual way, one they fear will leave the public without a chance to comment on potential impacts to soil, water quality, wildlife and recreational access.
"I'm concerned because there's really nothing the public can look at and say 'Oh, the impacts to water quality are going to be this, so yeah I support it,' or 'No, I don't.' No matter what side of the issue you're on, you don't have any information," said Cyndi Tuell, southwestern conservation advocate for the Center for Biological Diversity.
At issue is the proposed action that the Carson forest released in July. It calls for closing nearly 270 miles of existing roads to motor vehicles on three ranger districts, prohibiting cross-country travel and adding corridors for camping. But absent is a comprehensive environmental analysis of the proposal, critics say.
Carson officials said Friday they are working on an environmental assessment. However, the public likely won't have a chance to see the document until after the comment period ends Aug. 15.
While federal law gives forest officials some discretion when deciding whether public comment is needed on an environmental assessment, many forests have analyzed the impacts of their travel plans, prepared reports and have given people time to weigh in.
Critics say they are aware of only one other forest that took a similar path to the one being taken on the Carson. On the Sawtooth National Forest in Idaho, officials spent a couple years gathering public comment so they could develop a plan for designating which roads and trails would be open to motorcycles, four-wheelers and other off-highway vehicles.
However, no official comment period was held on the plan's environmental assessment, said Brad Brooks, a regional conservation associate with The Wilderness Society in Idaho.
"I think it really creates a lot of distrust when they won't even allow a simple comment period on an environmental assessment," he said. "In the mind of the public, if there's nothing to hide, then why not let people at least have a transparent process."
Officials on both the Sawtooth and the Carson say they put "extreme amounts of effort" into getting stakeholders involved early in the process so they could come up with plans they believed addressed the public's needs and concerns.
Jack Carpenter, a member of the Carson's travel management team, said the proposed action released last month includes alternatives that the public can comment on.
"We're trying to cover a lot of things," he said. "We're saying, 'will this project affect a lot of people? And if so, how?' This is what we have come up with so far, and if we're wrong, tell us. That's what we want them to do, tell us if we're wrong."
Like the Center for Biological Diversity, Joanne Spivack, past president of the New Mexico Off Highway Vehicle Alliance, believes the forest isn't providing enough information on the impacts of the proposal for the public to make substantive comments. She equates the situation to a jury deciding a case before hearing the evidence.
Spivack added that filing comments is what gives the public standing to appeal and ultimately sue.
"The Carson appears to be engineering this so citizens are left with no alternative except to file an appeal," she said. "This is a lengthy and intimidating process."
While forest officials contend they have worked hard to be inclusive and listen to the public, travel management planning has proven divisive across the nation.
In California, for example, there have been plenty of public meetings but concern still looms over interpretation of the travel management rule and the impacts to recreation and the environment.
A recent study done by the Institute for Environmental Negotiation at the University of Virginia found that given the high stakes perceived by forest users, related economic interests and cooperating agencies, conflict is natural and inevitable.
However, it's not the job of the Forest Service to make everyone happy, said Frank Dukes, director of the institute.
"The job is to apply the law and to do so in a way that meets both the letter and the spirit of the law, and the spirit does say that the Forest Service is supposed to involve the communities that are affected by their decisions," Dukes said.
"It is a hugely challenging situation for a lot of people," he added.
While people have only two more weeks to comment on the Carson's proposal, Carpenter said that doesn't mean the routes will be set in stone. The Carson, like other forests, plans to review its transportation system every year.
It's a scenario that's playing itself out across the country as the U.S. Forest Service tries to designate by 2010 a system of motorized routes that will provide recreational opportunities while still protecting America's natural resources.
In northern New Mexico, off-road enthusiasts and environmentalists - typically arch enemies in the travel management debate - have found something to agree on. But it won't make the process any easier for federal land managers.
Both sides say the Carson National Forest is going about travel management planning in an unusual way, one they fear will leave the public without a chance to comment on potential impacts to soil, water quality, wildlife and recreational access.
"I'm concerned because there's really nothing the public can look at and say 'Oh, the impacts to water quality are going to be this, so yeah I support it,' or 'No, I don't.' No matter what side of the issue you're on, you don't have any information," said Cyndi Tuell, southwestern conservation advocate for the Center for Biological Diversity.
At issue is the proposed action that the Carson forest released in July. It calls for closing nearly 270 miles of existing roads to motor vehicles on three ranger districts, prohibiting cross-country travel and adding corridors for camping. But absent is a comprehensive environmental analysis of the proposal, critics say.
Carson officials said Friday they are working on an environmental assessment. However, the public likely won't have a chance to see the document until after the comment period ends Aug. 15.
While federal law gives forest officials some discretion when deciding whether public comment is needed on an environmental assessment, many forests have analyzed the impacts of their travel plans, prepared reports and have given people time to weigh in.
Critics say they are aware of only one other forest that took a similar path to the one being taken on the Carson. On the Sawtooth National Forest in Idaho, officials spent a couple years gathering public comment so they could develop a plan for designating which roads and trails would be open to motorcycles, four-wheelers and other off-highway vehicles.
However, no official comment period was held on the plan's environmental assessment, said Brad Brooks, a regional conservation associate with The Wilderness Society in Idaho.
"I think it really creates a lot of distrust when they won't even allow a simple comment period on an environmental assessment," he said. "In the mind of the public, if there's nothing to hide, then why not let people at least have a transparent process."
Officials on both the Sawtooth and the Carson say they put "extreme amounts of effort" into getting stakeholders involved early in the process so they could come up with plans they believed addressed the public's needs and concerns.
Jack Carpenter, a member of the Carson's travel management team, said the proposed action released last month includes alternatives that the public can comment on.
"We're trying to cover a lot of things," he said. "We're saying, 'will this project affect a lot of people? And if so, how?' This is what we have come up with so far, and if we're wrong, tell us. That's what we want them to do, tell us if we're wrong."
Like the Center for Biological Diversity, Joanne Spivack, past president of the New Mexico Off Highway Vehicle Alliance, believes the forest isn't providing enough information on the impacts of the proposal for the public to make substantive comments. She equates the situation to a jury deciding a case before hearing the evidence.
Spivack added that filing comments is what gives the public standing to appeal and ultimately sue.
"The Carson appears to be engineering this so citizens are left with no alternative except to file an appeal," she said. "This is a lengthy and intimidating process."
While forest officials contend they have worked hard to be inclusive and listen to the public, travel management planning has proven divisive across the nation.
In California, for example, there have been plenty of public meetings but concern still looms over interpretation of the travel management rule and the impacts to recreation and the environment.
A recent study done by the Institute for Environmental Negotiation at the University of Virginia found that given the high stakes perceived by forest users, related economic interests and cooperating agencies, conflict is natural and inevitable.
However, it's not the job of the Forest Service to make everyone happy, said Frank Dukes, director of the institute.
"The job is to apply the law and to do so in a way that meets both the letter and the spirit of the law, and the spirit does say that the Forest Service is supposed to involve the communities that are affected by their decisions," Dukes said.
"It is a hugely challenging situation for a lot of people," he added.
While people have only two more weeks to comment on the Carson's proposal, Carpenter said that doesn't mean the routes will be set in stone. The Carson, like other forests, plans to review its transportation system every year.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
NM Legislative Land Grant Committee to Hold Public Meeting in Taos July 30-31
The legislative interim Land Grant Committee will meet in the Rio Grande Hall of the Taos Convention Center on July 30th and then tour the Cristobal de la Serna Land Grant on July 31st, according to a statement released by the NM House. The public is encouraged to attend.
“This is the first of our annual round of taking the Committee to the ‘home ground’ of our land grant communities for our interim meetings. During this meeting we will get a first-hand view of the issues our community land grants are facing in the region surrounding Taos. I am particularly looking forward to our tour of the Cristobal de la Serna Land Grant," said Representative Miguel P. Garcia (D-Bernalillo-14), Chair of the Committee.
"We will also be taking a look at how some of the legislation we passed during the last legislative session is being implemented and how that implementation is filtering down to the local community land grants. Some of that legislation dealt with tort liability coverage for community land grants as governmental entities, and also with tailoring the financial reporting required for governmental entities to smaller entities like community land grants," said Senator Richard C. Martinez (D-Los Alamos, Rio Arriba & Santa Fe-5), Vice-Chair of the Committee.
On Thursday, July 30th, the Committee will convene at 10:00 AM and will first hear from Darren Cordova, Mayor of Taos, Daniel R. Barone, Chair of the Taos County Commission and Representative Roberto "Bobby" J. Gonzales (D-Taos-42) or their representatives. At 10:30 AM, Joe Romero, President of the Cristobal de la Serna Land Grant will them provide the Committee with a history of that land grant and update them on the land grant’s current issues. At 11:15 AM the Committee will be briefed by Joanna Prukop, Secretary of Energy Minerals and Natural Resources on the Senate Bill 32 which provides tax credits for land conservation incentives and how the legislation can be applied to benefit community and grants.
After breaking for lunch, the Committee will reconvene at 1:30 PM when Al Duran, General Counsel of the General Services Department’s Risk Management Division (RMD), and Paula Ganz, RMD Staff Attorney, will address Senate Bill 59, which provides for land grant tort liability coverage under the state’s Tort Claims Act. At 2:30 PM, Evan Blackstone, General Counsel for the Office of the State Auditor, will brief the Committee on how the tiered financial reporting system provided for by Senate Bill 336 will be implemented.
At 3:15 PM, the Committee has invited the Rio Costilla Cooperative Livestock Association to report on its current operations and programs. At 4:00 PM the Committee will be briefed on the Arroyo Hondo Land Grant’s history and the current issues it faces. At 4:45 PM, the Committee will conclude its business for the day with a presentation by Juan Sanchez, President of the Chilili Land Grant on the status of the nominating process for creating a land grant council.
On Friday, July 31st beginning at 9:00 AM, the Committee will be taken on a tour of the Cristobal de la Serna Land Grant and the Arroyo Honda Land Grant and their facilities by officials and representatives of the two community land grants. The gathering place for the tour will be determined during the meeting of the preceding day.
“This is the first of our annual round of taking the Committee to the ‘home ground’ of our land grant communities for our interim meetings. During this meeting we will get a first-hand view of the issues our community land grants are facing in the region surrounding Taos. I am particularly looking forward to our tour of the Cristobal de la Serna Land Grant," said Representative Miguel P. Garcia (D-Bernalillo-14), Chair of the Committee.
"We will also be taking a look at how some of the legislation we passed during the last legislative session is being implemented and how that implementation is filtering down to the local community land grants. Some of that legislation dealt with tort liability coverage for community land grants as governmental entities, and also with tailoring the financial reporting required for governmental entities to smaller entities like community land grants," said Senator Richard C. Martinez (D-Los Alamos, Rio Arriba & Santa Fe-5), Vice-Chair of the Committee.
On Thursday, July 30th, the Committee will convene at 10:00 AM and will first hear from Darren Cordova, Mayor of Taos, Daniel R. Barone, Chair of the Taos County Commission and Representative Roberto "Bobby" J. Gonzales (D-Taos-42) or their representatives. At 10:30 AM, Joe Romero, President of the Cristobal de la Serna Land Grant will them provide the Committee with a history of that land grant and update them on the land grant’s current issues. At 11:15 AM the Committee will be briefed by Joanna Prukop, Secretary of Energy Minerals and Natural Resources on the Senate Bill 32 which provides tax credits for land conservation incentives and how the legislation can be applied to benefit community and grants.
After breaking for lunch, the Committee will reconvene at 1:30 PM when Al Duran, General Counsel of the General Services Department’s Risk Management Division (RMD), and Paula Ganz, RMD Staff Attorney, will address Senate Bill 59, which provides for land grant tort liability coverage under the state’s Tort Claims Act. At 2:30 PM, Evan Blackstone, General Counsel for the Office of the State Auditor, will brief the Committee on how the tiered financial reporting system provided for by Senate Bill 336 will be implemented.
At 3:15 PM, the Committee has invited the Rio Costilla Cooperative Livestock Association to report on its current operations and programs. At 4:00 PM the Committee will be briefed on the Arroyo Hondo Land Grant’s history and the current issues it faces. At 4:45 PM, the Committee will conclude its business for the day with a presentation by Juan Sanchez, President of the Chilili Land Grant on the status of the nominating process for creating a land grant council.
On Friday, July 31st beginning at 9:00 AM, the Committee will be taken on a tour of the Cristobal de la Serna Land Grant and the Arroyo Honda Land Grant and their facilities by officials and representatives of the two community land grants. The gathering place for the tour will be determined during the meeting of the preceding day.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Recovery of Mexican gray wolves remains elusive
Something has gone awry -- some would say everything has -- in the federal government's effort to reestablish the population of Mexican wolves, North America's most endangered mammal.
Beginning with an initial release of 11 wolves in 1998, the Mexican wolf population in the Southwest was projected to reach at least 100 by 2006. Three years beyond, the number of wolves in the wild is half that.
Wildlife managers -- following the program's often punitive rules -- have contributed to the deaths of more than 25 wolves through shooting, trapping, sedating, penning and relocating the notoriously skittish animals.
A wolf slated for capture died of hyperthermia after a helicopter chase. At least eight wolves died of stress in holding pens. Six pups were killed when placed in the care of another captive pack. The program's most-photographed wolf -- Brunhilda, a young female in the first pack -- died after federal biologists captured her to perform a routine check; the animal became stressed and overheated during the examination and died.
On paper, Gila National Forest was the logical place to reintroduce the Mexican gray wolf. The 3.3 million acres of densely treed slopes, spare grasslands and desert scrub in the nation's first designated wilderness area are stocked with plentiful elk and deer that make up the bulk of wolves' diet.
But endangered-species biology plays out on a complicated landscape of emotion, politics and power -- never on paper.
Critics of the program, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife officials who designed it, say the Mexican wolf reintroduction has been a dismal failure, falling short of most of its goals. Pup survival rates are far lower than expected, adult wolf mortality higher than projected, and the recovery program is way behind the timeline that federal biologists established.
"We are witnessing the second extinction of the Mexican wolf in the wild," said Michael Robinson, a conservation advocate for the Center for Biological Diversity, one of several groups suing the federal government for "failing to recover" the wolf.
"It's the worst-case example abrogation of Endangered Species Act responsibility that I've seen, in many regards," said Jamie Clark, the former director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and now executive vice president of the conservation group Defenders of Wildlife.
"Everybody knows what's wrong," she added. "Nobody will lead their way out. No one is taking responsibility."
Benjamin Tuggle, the Southwest regional director for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Albuquerque, said there was much he disliked about the program he inherited.
"We've made some mistakes on our own," he said. "We've cost the lives of wolves. I don't want you to think that I am comfortable with where we are in handling these wolves, because I'm not.
"What I'm looking at, however, is a system that is not functioning at its optimum potential."
Endangered species
Gray wolves once roamed widely throughout the Southwest and Mexico, but decades of government extermination programs to support livestock interests rendered the species functionally extinct. The Mexican gray wolf was placed on the federal endangered species list in 1976.
By the 1990s, when the recovery program was conceived, there were fewer than 200 Mexican wolves remaining in North America, nearly all of them in zoos or research facilities. Trappers managed to capture seven wild wolves in Mexico, and those animals became the genetic forebears of the current population.
The first year of the reintroduction set the tone for a troubled program. The first wolf released was illegally shot and killed. Four more met the same fate. The first Mexican wolf pup born in the wild in more than 70 years was presumed dead after its mother was shot. By the end of the year, the Fish and Wildlife Service recaptured the rest of the released wolves and penned them for their own safety.
For a decade, the gray wolf program has limped along, undone, critics say, by measures that penalize the animals for behaving as wolves do.
For example, wolves that stray out of the designated recovery area along the New Mexico-Arizona border are captured, penned and relocated elsewhere in the recovery zone, where the animals then must relearn the geography and locate food and water sources. Ninety-three wayward wolves were "translocated" through 2008.
Perhaps the most controversial policy is the so-called three-strikes rule that was formalized in 2005, when the Fish and Wildlife Service allowed officials in Arizona and New Mexico to set wolf policies.
Under the rule, any wolf that has killed three cows or calves in one year must be "removed" -- shot or placed in captivity indefinitely. Wolves killed 22 cows and calves in 2007, according to Fish and Wildlife.
Policies such as these have created a revolving door that shuttles wolves from holding pens to the wild and back again, hampering adaptation, breeding and pack dynamics.
Those results run counter to the intentions of a captive-breeding program, which ideally should leave wolves able to fend for themselves in the wild without human assistance.
Periodic independent studies commissioned by Fish and Wildlife have consistently criticized the system.
One reviewer remarked: "Frequent social disruption via mortality, recaptures and re-releases have altered the natural territorial behavior of packs. . . . These manipulations may be interfering with pack formation."
"Heavy-handed management from now to forever is not a goal that we should be seeking in this program," said David Parsons, who led the Fish and Wildlife Service's Mexican wolf recovery program from 1990 to 1999.
"There is a price to pay when you are doing a lot of capturing and handling of animals. The idea is to put an animal back into nature and allow [it] to exist like any other animal in nature."
Changes coming
Tuggle, the Fish and Wildlife regional director, said changes were coming.
"I understand the concept of manipulation," he said. "Where we have done those things, they have been disruptive. They have affected the pack dynamics. I'm not a proponent of managing them at the same level that we have been managing them."
But Tuggle will have to face a powerful interest group -- the region's livestock industry, which vigorously opposed wolf reintroduction.
Caren Cowan, executive director of the New Mexico Cattle Growers' Assn., said her organization estimated that 1,500 cattle had been killed by wolves in the 11 years since reintroduction.
"Some people say in 11 years that's not a lot of cows, but multiply that by $1,000 per animal, and that's a lot," she said.
Defenders of Wildlife compensates ranchers as much as $3,000 for each animal killed by wolves, and biologists say cattle make up only about 4% of wolves' diet.
The wolf-livestock conflicts persist because, as designed, the gray wolf recovery program placed the animals in harm's way -- smack into an area where federal land is leased for year-round cattle grazing.
In contrast, Canadian wolves released into the Yellowstone ecosystem are thriving, roaming an area that includes national parks and extensive wilderness free of humans and cattle.
Further, the northern Rockies wolf program requires ranchers to dispose of livestock carcasses to discourage wolf scavenging. The Mexican wolf program does not. The presence of cattle carcasses in Gila National Forest attracts wolves to livestock areas, tantalizing the packs with the option of killing slow-footed cattle, rather than having to chase fleet elk through rough country.
Ranchers insist that collecting dead cows on their federal grazing allotments is not possible, Cowan said.
Tuggle agreed that the socioeconomic landscape for the wolves is less than ideal.
"You've got these diametrically opposed forces: This predator that has a right to be in this space, and the other is this prey base, cattle, that has a right to be in this space," he said. "It doesn't take you long to cook that formula and come up with a pretty explosive situation."
As special interests and bureaucrats hash out their differences, Maggie Dwire, assistant wolf recovery coordinator for the Fish and Wildlife Service, hauls a wheelbarrow carrying a road-kill elk into pens at Sevilleta National Wildlife Refuge, a spare slice of the Chihuahuan Desert south of Albuquerque. The wolves in the half- to 1-acre enclosures were bred in captivity and are being prepared for release into the wild.
Dwire and veterinarian Susan Dicks say they limit their interactions with the wolves so they retain their natural fear of humans.
"That's good. We like to see that," Dicks said, watching three slender gray wolves run in circles and pant nervously as she and Dwire entered a pen with the elk carcass.
Their reaction to humans will protect them, Dwire said.
She shrugged when asked about the morass that lies ahead for wolves.
"What has been a success in this program is that captive-bred wolves have shown they can be released into the wild and know what to do," Dwire said. "They know how to be wolves. It would be good if we could ever let them do that."
julie.cart@latimes.com
Beginning with an initial release of 11 wolves in 1998, the Mexican wolf population in the Southwest was projected to reach at least 100 by 2006. Three years beyond, the number of wolves in the wild is half that.
Wildlife managers -- following the program's often punitive rules -- have contributed to the deaths of more than 25 wolves through shooting, trapping, sedating, penning and relocating the notoriously skittish animals.
A wolf slated for capture died of hyperthermia after a helicopter chase. At least eight wolves died of stress in holding pens. Six pups were killed when placed in the care of another captive pack. The program's most-photographed wolf -- Brunhilda, a young female in the first pack -- died after federal biologists captured her to perform a routine check; the animal became stressed and overheated during the examination and died.
On paper, Gila National Forest was the logical place to reintroduce the Mexican gray wolf. The 3.3 million acres of densely treed slopes, spare grasslands and desert scrub in the nation's first designated wilderness area are stocked with plentiful elk and deer that make up the bulk of wolves' diet.
But endangered-species biology plays out on a complicated landscape of emotion, politics and power -- never on paper.
Critics of the program, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife officials who designed it, say the Mexican wolf reintroduction has been a dismal failure, falling short of most of its goals. Pup survival rates are far lower than expected, adult wolf mortality higher than projected, and the recovery program is way behind the timeline that federal biologists established.
"We are witnessing the second extinction of the Mexican wolf in the wild," said Michael Robinson, a conservation advocate for the Center for Biological Diversity, one of several groups suing the federal government for "failing to recover" the wolf.
"It's the worst-case example abrogation of Endangered Species Act responsibility that I've seen, in many regards," said Jamie Clark, the former director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and now executive vice president of the conservation group Defenders of Wildlife.
"Everybody knows what's wrong," she added. "Nobody will lead their way out. No one is taking responsibility."
Benjamin Tuggle, the Southwest regional director for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Albuquerque, said there was much he disliked about the program he inherited.
"We've made some mistakes on our own," he said. "We've cost the lives of wolves. I don't want you to think that I am comfortable with where we are in handling these wolves, because I'm not.
"What I'm looking at, however, is a system that is not functioning at its optimum potential."
Endangered species
Gray wolves once roamed widely throughout the Southwest and Mexico, but decades of government extermination programs to support livestock interests rendered the species functionally extinct. The Mexican gray wolf was placed on the federal endangered species list in 1976.
By the 1990s, when the recovery program was conceived, there were fewer than 200 Mexican wolves remaining in North America, nearly all of them in zoos or research facilities. Trappers managed to capture seven wild wolves in Mexico, and those animals became the genetic forebears of the current population.
The first year of the reintroduction set the tone for a troubled program. The first wolf released was illegally shot and killed. Four more met the same fate. The first Mexican wolf pup born in the wild in more than 70 years was presumed dead after its mother was shot. By the end of the year, the Fish and Wildlife Service recaptured the rest of the released wolves and penned them for their own safety.
For a decade, the gray wolf program has limped along, undone, critics say, by measures that penalize the animals for behaving as wolves do.
For example, wolves that stray out of the designated recovery area along the New Mexico-Arizona border are captured, penned and relocated elsewhere in the recovery zone, where the animals then must relearn the geography and locate food and water sources. Ninety-three wayward wolves were "translocated" through 2008.
Perhaps the most controversial policy is the so-called three-strikes rule that was formalized in 2005, when the Fish and Wildlife Service allowed officials in Arizona and New Mexico to set wolf policies.
Under the rule, any wolf that has killed three cows or calves in one year must be "removed" -- shot or placed in captivity indefinitely. Wolves killed 22 cows and calves in 2007, according to Fish and Wildlife.
Policies such as these have created a revolving door that shuttles wolves from holding pens to the wild and back again, hampering adaptation, breeding and pack dynamics.
Those results run counter to the intentions of a captive-breeding program, which ideally should leave wolves able to fend for themselves in the wild without human assistance.
Periodic independent studies commissioned by Fish and Wildlife have consistently criticized the system.
One reviewer remarked: "Frequent social disruption via mortality, recaptures and re-releases have altered the natural territorial behavior of packs. . . . These manipulations may be interfering with pack formation."
"Heavy-handed management from now to forever is not a goal that we should be seeking in this program," said David Parsons, who led the Fish and Wildlife Service's Mexican wolf recovery program from 1990 to 1999.
"There is a price to pay when you are doing a lot of capturing and handling of animals. The idea is to put an animal back into nature and allow [it] to exist like any other animal in nature."
Changes coming
Tuggle, the Fish and Wildlife regional director, said changes were coming.
"I understand the concept of manipulation," he said. "Where we have done those things, they have been disruptive. They have affected the pack dynamics. I'm not a proponent of managing them at the same level that we have been managing them."
But Tuggle will have to face a powerful interest group -- the region's livestock industry, which vigorously opposed wolf reintroduction.
Caren Cowan, executive director of the New Mexico Cattle Growers' Assn., said her organization estimated that 1,500 cattle had been killed by wolves in the 11 years since reintroduction.
"Some people say in 11 years that's not a lot of cows, but multiply that by $1,000 per animal, and that's a lot," she said.
Defenders of Wildlife compensates ranchers as much as $3,000 for each animal killed by wolves, and biologists say cattle make up only about 4% of wolves' diet.
The wolf-livestock conflicts persist because, as designed, the gray wolf recovery program placed the animals in harm's way -- smack into an area where federal land is leased for year-round cattle grazing.
In contrast, Canadian wolves released into the Yellowstone ecosystem are thriving, roaming an area that includes national parks and extensive wilderness free of humans and cattle.
Further, the northern Rockies wolf program requires ranchers to dispose of livestock carcasses to discourage wolf scavenging. The Mexican wolf program does not. The presence of cattle carcasses in Gila National Forest attracts wolves to livestock areas, tantalizing the packs with the option of killing slow-footed cattle, rather than having to chase fleet elk through rough country.
Ranchers insist that collecting dead cows on their federal grazing allotments is not possible, Cowan said.
Tuggle agreed that the socioeconomic landscape for the wolves is less than ideal.
"You've got these diametrically opposed forces: This predator that has a right to be in this space, and the other is this prey base, cattle, that has a right to be in this space," he said. "It doesn't take you long to cook that formula and come up with a pretty explosive situation."
As special interests and bureaucrats hash out their differences, Maggie Dwire, assistant wolf recovery coordinator for the Fish and Wildlife Service, hauls a wheelbarrow carrying a road-kill elk into pens at Sevilleta National Wildlife Refuge, a spare slice of the Chihuahuan Desert south of Albuquerque. The wolves in the half- to 1-acre enclosures were bred in captivity and are being prepared for release into the wild.
Dwire and veterinarian Susan Dicks say they limit their interactions with the wolves so they retain their natural fear of humans.
"That's good. We like to see that," Dicks said, watching three slender gray wolves run in circles and pant nervously as she and Dwire entered a pen with the elk carcass.
Their reaction to humans will protect them, Dwire said.
She shrugged when asked about the morass that lies ahead for wolves.
"What has been a success in this program is that captive-bred wolves have shown they can be released into the wild and know what to do," Dwire said. "They know how to be wolves. It would be good if we could ever let them do that."
julie.cart@latimes.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)