Domestic Livestock in the Bighorn National Forest

[shb]

3.4K reactions · 91 shares | Boe Lopez is a rancher on a mission, looking to make things better for fellow ranchers and the state of New Mexico. A fourth-generation rancher with deep roots in New Mexico’s cattle community, he felt called to this l

Boe Lopez is a rancher on a mission, looking to make things better for fellow ranchers and the state of New Mexico. A fourth-generation rancher with deep roots in New Mexico’s cattle community, he...

www.facebook.com

 

[Flynarrow]

Livestock grazing is the single most damaging force on public land streams, particularly those of lower gradient. Riparian shrubs, where present, hold streams in place and resist damage, and over time these shrubs are commonly reduced by grazing , leaving grasses to hold streambanks. Then streams are widened by bank sloughing and can often be downcut. Cattle concentrate in riparian areas because they are generally flat and vegetation stays moist. It is not uncommon to see dry upslope vegetation lightly or untouched while riparian areas resemble a golf course, or worse. Heavy grazing over time reduces productivity and root mass, and compacts soils.

Unfortunately, public land range staffs are short handed and will likely be even more scarce in this Administration that is seriously reducing field-oriented personnel. To make a strong overgrazing case, solid vegetative data must be gathered and documented which is unlikely given the present staffing. Plus many range cons would rather face an occasional hate letter re overgrazing than upset a local rancher. Local politics can be nasty. Frankly, after my experiences doing in depth analysis of the current grazing systems on other Forests, including lack of solid updated vegetative analysis, monitoring design, and actual monitoring, there is little hope for change, short of successful legal litigation. While we can whine about those "environmentalists", the agencies only seem to respond if legally forced to change.

 

[birdseye]

Livestock grazing is the single most damaging force on public land streams, particularly those of lower gradient. Riparian shrubs, where present, hold streams in place and resist damage, and over time these shrubs are commonly reduced by grazing , leaving grasses to hold streambanks. Then streams are widened by bank sloughing and can often be downcut. Cattle concentrate in riparian areas because they are generally flat and vegetation stays moist. It is not uncommon to see dry upslope vegetation lightly or untouched while riparian areas resemble a golf course, or worse. Heavy grazing over time reduces productivity and root mass, and compacts soils.

Unfortunately, public land range staffs are short handed and will likely be even more scarce in this Administration that is seriously reducing field-oriented personnel. To make a strong overgrazing case, solid vegetative data must be gathered and documented which is unlikely given the present staffing. Plus many range cons would rather face an occasional hate letter re overgrazing than upset a local rancher. Local politics can be nasty. Frankly, after my experiences doing in depth analysis of the current grazing systems on other Forests, including lack of solid updated vegetative analysis, monitoring design, and actual monitoring, there is little hope for change, short of successful legal litigation. While we can whine about those "environmentalists", the agencies only seem to respond if legally forced to change.

excellent post! I remember one time the local Trout Unlimited was holding a re-vegetation project on the North Tongue, planting a bunch of willows and other shrubs on the stream banks to repair grazing damage. While they were doing this project, the entire herd of cows (used to be Charolais') was RIGHT THERE alongside the volunteers, pretty much eating everything that they planted AS THEY planted.

TU lost a lot of members over that one as this Org should of been protesting the over grazing...NOT participating in a useless replanting project. It was the Cody chapter and I've heard their down to about 3 active members

 

[Wind Gypsy]

I'll take the cattle over the sheep every day.

Does anyone have intel on what gets done with most of the sheep that graze public lands? Is it primarily a wool thing and not a meat thing?

 

[mtlilguy]

While we can whine about those "environmentalists", the agencies only seem to respond if legally forced to change.

And while preparing for/responding to the legal arguments brought on by "environmentalists" even less vegetative analysis is being done. What if those "environmentalists" assisted in the vegetative data gathering portion? That might support their own argument stating changes need to be made as well as provide the understaffed Feds with veg data.

 

[BuzzH]

And while preparing for/responding to the legal arguments brought on by "environmentalists" even less vegetative analysis is being done. What if those "environmentalists" assisted in the vegetative data gathering portion? That might support their own argument stating changes need to be made as well as provide the understaffed Feds with veg data.

How do you think data gathered by an environmental group for an agency would hold up in court?

The correct answer is to hire federal employees and have adequate staffing to collect data, administer the leases and so on.

Hold Congress accountable for starving the agencies, firing qualified people for no reason, etc.

 

[Duck-Slayer]

Some like to label ranchers/grazers as uncooperative individuals who don’t care for the range land. This is far from the truth for 99% of all ranchers. They are not short sighted enough to graze parcels down to nothing because of the ramifications that has on the future condition of the range. If the range is to stay healthy and be used again and again in the future they have a responsibility to use good range management practices. They need a healthy range every year. They aren’t in it to damage the range because one year of mistreatment takes several years to recover. It’s just not what they do.

This is only true in the low lands fyi, mountain free range ranchers simply dgaf.
Matt

 

[mtlilguy]

How do you think data gathered by an environmental group for an agency would hold up in court?

It would hold up the same as any federal employee doing the study. Seasonals are hired each year, taught the protocol in 2 weeks, and asked to go and do good things. Having an environmental group's name on the form instead of the 19 year old college kid that just learned to ID plants would make no difference. It is up to the resource specialists to analyze the data collected. Use the data or not use the data. It would also be up to them to show why the environmental group's data (or seasonal's data) was flawed and not used.

 

[BuzzH]

It would hold up the same as any federal employee doing the study. Seasonals are hired each year, taught the protocol in 2 weeks, and asked to go and do good things. Having an environmental group's name on the form instead of the 19 year old college kid that just learned to ID plants would make no difference. It is up to the resource specialists to analyze the data collected. Use the data or not use the data. It would also be up to them to show why the environmental group's data (or seasonal's data) was flawed and not used.

Right, in fantasyland.

Its not the job of environmental groups to collect data free of charge for the agencies, if only obviously.

Let me guess you hire plumbers to fix your car.

 

[mtlilguy]

The environmental groups don't even collect their own data before challenging decisions in court so this is all fantasyland. But it doesn't have to be.

Federal agencies contract upland vegetation and riparian consulting firms to collect and/or establish monitoring every year. What if, in fantasyland, instead of environmental groups spending their donations in court battles and making it harder for federal agencies to get something accomplished, they instead are the ones that hire those consulting firms to gather vegetation data?

Just offering other options and ideas that up until now, are not being utilized to bridge the gap between the two sides.

 

[BuzzH]

The environmental groups don't even collect their own data before challenging decisions in court so this is all fantasyland. But it doesn't have to be.

Federal agencies contract upland vegetation and riparian consulting firms to collect and/or establish monitoring every year. What if, in fantasyland, instead of environmental groups spending their donations in court battles and making it harder for federal agencies to get something accomplished, they instead are the ones that hire those consulting firms to gather vegetation data?

Just offering other options and ideas that up until now, are not being utilized to bridge the gap between the two sides.

Of course they dont collect their own data. Its not their job or responsibility to.

Most of the time that's what the court cases involve, the agencies data or lack thereof.

Right, having an impartial contractor being paid to collect data with quality control via the agency is common. I do that very thing.

But, last I checked, its not a real bright idea to have an "environmental" group collect data that has the potential to be litigated down the road.

Ever heard of conflict of interest? If not, what you're proposing is about as classic of an example as there is.

 

[BearLakeHunter]

This is only true in the low lands fyi, mountain free range ranchers simply dgaf.
Matt

No it’s not.

 

[mtlilguy]

But, last I checked, its not a real bright idea to have an "environmental" group collect data that has the potential to be litigated down the road.

Fair point. My overall viewpoint is that there are ways for certain environmental groups to be involved and part of the solution rather than waiting in the wings to sue. At this point, it seems that is not the path they would like to take. Hopefully that changes in the future.

Most of the time that's what the court cases involve, the agencies data or lack thereof.

I guess this was the part I was trying to offer an idea to address. Lifting the hiring freeze and hiring more specialists is a way. Providing funding to hire contractors is another. There are many other ideas. Hiring more specialists is without a doubt what should be the priority solution; it just ain't happening right now. Hopefully that changes in the future to.

Thanks for the dialogue.

 

[Duck-Slayer]

No it’s not.

You smoking good, go to any high desert mountains in Idaho, Nevada, Arizona, Utah, parts of Montana, been to all, raised cattle the first 17 years of my life…. Until the dirty 30’s come back ranchers dgaf
Matt

 

[manitou1]

without quoting anybody, it appears that a few here have no problem with livestock pummeling the already drought stricken public land. Let'em shit in the streams, too, while we're at it. This isn't the first go-about in the Bighorn Nat'l Forest, every year it gets the bejesus pounded out of it. What is the grazing lease? I think it's 4.5 cents per Day for each cow/calf pair.

They graze the crap out of it, taking down to nothing.
The cattle erode the stream banks, poop and urinate in the streams and overtake your camp sites.

There are only lomited mountain ranges and clear streams in this world, yet the gov allows ranchers to destroy them.

Imagine if we went up and started crapping in the river, digging out the stream banks, and killing all the vegetation. We would be in court… and jail for years.

 

[birdseye]

I was in the Bighorns last weekend. North Tongue river valley still full of cattle, streamside severely denuded and cowpies everywhere.Water is running a sh!t colored stain. Dayton Gulch rd, grazed down to nubs. Cattle all over Bald Mountain, even though due to drought hardly any grass to start with. Upper Shell Canyon/Ranger Creek station, hundreds of black cows everywhere you look. Talked to some fisherman, not much luck and thoroughly disgusted with the condition of the streams and lack of fishing success. Elk hunters were tired of cows roaming in their camps crapping all over everything and being everywhere with very few elk seen.

But, naw, no issues with public lands grazing up in the Bighorns

 

[Forkyfinder]

I was in the Bighorns last weekend. North Tongue river valley still full of cattle, streamside severely denuded and cowpies everywhere.Water is running a sh!t colored stain. Dayton Gulch rd, grazed down to nubs. Cattle all over Bald Mountain, even though due to drought hardly any grass to start with. Upper Shell Canyon/Ranger Creek station, hundreds of black cows everywhere you look. Talked to some fisherman, not much luck and thoroughly disgusted with the condition of the streams and lack of fishing success. Elk hunters were tired of cows roaming in their camps crapping all over everything and being everywhere with very few elk seen.

But, naw, no issues with public lands grazing up in the Bighorns

Pics would make the thread better

 

[antlerradar]

Pics would make the thread better

Google earth shot of the North Fork of the Tongue. Maybe I am looking at the wrong spot, but this part of the Tongue looks great. Winding stream with tons of willows on the banks.

 

[BearLakeHunter]

I was in the Bighorns last weekend. North Tongue river valley still full of cattle, streamside severely denuded and cowpies everywhere.Water is running a sh!t colored stain. Dayton Gulch rd, grazed down to nubs. Cattle all over Bald Mountain, even though due to drought hardly any grass to start with. Upper Shell Canyon/Ranger Creek station, hundreds of black cows everywhere you look. Talked to some fisherman, not much luck and thoroughly disgusted with the condition of the streams and lack of fishing success. Elk hunters were tired of cows roaming in their camps crapping all over everything and being everywhere with very few elk seen.

But, naw, no issues with public lands grazing up in the Bighorns

If that’s really the situation up there then there are issues that should be taken care of. I can tell you with confidence that is NOT how the range we use is treated. Nor is it how the range is treated on most places we frequent for hunts.

 

[Flynarrow]

Even if grazing use is monitored, the weak link are the riparian areas and streams. No cow can resist flat ground, abundant water, and perpetually green tender grass. The eat the hell out of everything, and graze the shrubs while they are standing around. They stay there with tight lips as long as possible before having to go upslope for a full belly.

One solution is riparian exclusion fencing with occasional water gaps if necessary for drinking water. Would only be necessary on streams with gradients of 3% or less as they are vegetatively controlled banks while steeper gradients are boulder or rock controlled. However, as a taxpayer, fencing and maintenance are expensive.....at $1.35 per AUM (compared to $20+ on private), the public is already being taken for a ride. Less than 4% of cattle grazing takes place on public lands. Figuring all the administration, fencing, water developments, cattle guards the public is basically financing virtually all the grazing expenses to benefit a relatively few ranchers, some of who are billionaires (while some are certainly not). Not to discount the damage these critters are doing to our streams and riparian areas and creating conditions for invasive plant species.