GW's mismanagement continues

BuzzH

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2001
Messages
17,319
Location
Laramie, WY
Heres good news for sportsmen.

Glad to see Dubya is looking out for those poor Welfare ranchers....

Government issuing more lenient grazing rules
Associated Press

WASHINGTON – The Bush administration, departing from Clinton-era restrictions on managing rangeland, is proposing new rules aimed at helping livestock owners whose cattle range on public lands.


The new rules would give the Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management two years, instead of one, to make grazing decisions needed to maintain healthy ranges, according to agency documents obtained Thursday Associated Press.


“This proposal recognizes that ranching is crucial not only to the economies of Western rural communities, but also to the history, social fabric and cultural identity of these communities,” Interior Secretary Gale Norton said in a prepared statement.


Norton plans to announce the proposal in a speech Friday to a convention of livestock owners in Albuquerque, N.M. She describes the proposal as an attempt to improve grazing management and help continue public lands ranching in the rural West.


“This proposed rule will help public lands ranchers stay on the land,” Norton said in remarks prepared for her speech to the convention. “It will do that by creating a regulatory framework that lets ranchers succeed based on sound business judgment and sustainable ranching practices.”


But the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group, said Thursday that it expects the proposal to mark a return to practices that have allowed decades of overgrazing and other unsustainable grazing practices. The group said “the clear and short deadline of one year for action is the first step to halt grazing damage.”


The new rules also would require more studies and monitoring any time the Bureau of Land Management evaluates whether health standards for rangeland are being met and reward livestock owners by letting them split ownership with the BLM for permanent improvements such as fences, wells and pipelines.


Other changes include:


Removal of the current limit of three consecutive years under which livestock operators can retain grazing permits but not make use of them. Operators would be allowed to apply for nonuse for up to one year at a time, for conservation or business purposes.

Elimination of long-term conservation-use grazing permits that department officials say were invalidated by a federal appeals court.

Clarify how the Bureau of Land Management authorizes grazing when a permit is postponed because of an administrative appeal.

BLM Director Kathleen Clarke, whose agency manages 261 million acres, said in remarks prepared for Friday that the proposed changes are “a major step forward” toward better rangeland management and will “improve the agency’s working relationships” with permit-holders.


About 160 million of those acres are authorized for grazing by some 18,000 permit- and leaseholders, but what is grazed is typically less because of drought, wildfires and business decisions.


“This proposed rule reflects our agency’s commitment to continue livestock grazing as one of the legitimate uses of the public lands,” Clarke said.


The proposal is to be published in the Federal Register on Dec. 8, and the BLM also plans to release a draft study of the proposal’s environmental impact later this month. The public is being given at least 60 days to comment on both.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>“This proposed rule will help public lands ranchers stay on the land,” Norton said in remarks prepared for her speech to the convention. “It will do that by creating a regulatory framework that lets ranchers succeed based on sound business judgment and sustainable ranching practices.”
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Based on sound business judgement? What ever happened to basing grazing regulations on sound scientific judgement?
confused.gif


Oak
 
I see this as good and bad...

Good...Many of the lawsuits in the SLFO have been to do with grazing lease renewals. The extra year will allow them (Range Management Specialists) to get through the renewal while still being able to perform other duties, ie. monitoring, veg. data collection, etc.

Bad...A permittee that should be losing their lease now has one more year to degrade the land.

CO- Science is only part of the equation, without money (for someone) there is little support or percieved value. Though, I do agree that science should have more weight in the equation than it currently does.
 
1-Ptr,
The Welfare Ranchers don't pay their way now, so there is no way a sound decision can be made. The only decision is how much more welfare money we throw at the Marlboro-type man....
rolleyes.gif


<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The new rules also would require more studies and monitoring any time the Bureau of Land Management evaluates whether health standards for rangeland are being met and reward livestock owners by letting them split ownership with the BLM for permanent improvements such as fences, wells and pipelines. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The ranchers wanting more studies???? I thought they hate EIS??? Oh wait.... this is different. These are MORE studies before removing..... Let's not do any studies before grazing..
mad.gif
 
Ok Montanan`s I talked to a guy last week Mark Rothgow[spelling]former governor of Montana, and he says this new "healthy forest inititive" is a good thing, a step in the right direction. Anyone have an opinion of the former governor?
 
I say do away with the BLM's grazing laws and turn control over to the states. In fact, I think we should do away with BLM completely. And the Forest Service. And the EPA. And the FBI. Well, okay maybe not the FBI completely, just keep them in their damned offices examining evidence. The US Marshals are the only federal enforcement agency we need.

Just my opinion though.
 
FT- Why would you like to see management of fed. lands turned over to the states? You think the state of WY could fund what the fed. government funds for all BLM, USFS, and Park Service lands in WY? And you get to keep your 0% state income tax?
rolleyes.gif



'Gunner- Sure they want more studies, everyone does, as it may or may not be good for them. You've said it before, it's the lack of studies where the BLM gets beat up. Then they get sued for it, can't collect new data, get sued for that, etc... IMO, one can't have too much data and they should be a driving force for the decisions.
 
Turn the lands over to the states.... That would work real well. Look how badly the State of Idaho mismanges our School Lands. Could you imagine giving them even more land to ruin???
mad.gif


1-Ptr,
It just looks like the new policy is a one-way plea for studies. If a permit is being re-voked, then there "would require more studies and monitoring any time the Bureau of Land Management evaluates whether health standards for rangeland are being met".

These are the same guys who scream anytime a Timber Sale or a New Grazing permit is delayed, due to the need for studies.
rolleyes.gif
 
I dont have all the details worked outabout how it could work. But since the federal government is what, trillions of dollars in debt, it probably wouldnt be any worse off would it? I am just extremly anti government. I figure that if the feds can screw things up so bad, whay cant each state take over and run what is with in it's borders? And why should each state have to give in to the feds? Such as tougher seat belt laws and dui laws just so the states can get federal money to build and maintain the highways. The states dont normally come up with these tougher regulations, it is the government telling the state that if they dont make tougher laws, etc., they wont qualify for federal money. This is quite aways from the origional post,but I feel better for venting. But I reckon guys like me wont be completly satisified until the west returns to the way it was before big brother. Just my opinion though, thanks for letting me vent.
 
Pointer, I agree with this, "one can't have too much data and they should be a driving force for the decisions."

Unfortunately its becoming more and more rare for decisions to be based on good data.

What more data does the BLM need to start making changes to help over-grazed land (something they have plenty of by their own admission)?

I'm still in your camp that proper management can happen, it just gets harder and harder to believe it the more you see how much politics plays into every decision made. The science is lucky to get even a casual glance before some nitwit (GW) appoints complete duds like Gale Norton, Kathleen Clark, etc. to run the show. For Christ sake, the science doesnt have a chance with people like that...they dont want whats best for the land, they want whats best for the dude that got them their job. The last thing they'll let get in the way of their greed is something like sound science.

There is no easy solution, but what we need is for once, to elect a President that grasps basic Natural Resource issues and thinks of the land before the wallet.

It may happen, I'm still hoping.

As far as the Federal lands going to the state...you think things are bad now, you couldnt imagine how messed up things would be. Within a few years there wouldnt be public lands. The only way the State of Wyoming (or most western states) could even begin to deal with that kind of land mass, is to immediately sell at least half. They dont have the know-how, personell or funding to make even a dent in BEGINNING to deal with that much land. Most states struggle with the little bit they have now. We need to retain public lands and protect that resource, not peddle them to the states.
 
I think Flytier has a great idea! [less/smaller gov`t] tighter control, it works better that way in the private sector, small divisions of a company running as a small entity, reporting to the corporation.[more streamlined] less waste.
 
cjcj, for comparison sake...can you name a private sector firm that owns and manages as much land in the West as the BLM, FS, and NPS?

Also, do you know how much the work force has been reduced in the Fed. land management agencies in the last 10 years?
 
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ElkGunner:
In the West, we are damn lucky on the balance of transfers between the States and the Feds. The last numbers I saw, the Idahos, MT, Wy, Ut, etc... got more than $1 back for every $1 sent to the Feds.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And guess one state where we get less than $1 for every $1?
mad.gif
That is some of my $$ going west and then some want to tell me that I have no say in what happens.

When all the trees are gone,the ranges nothing but mudpiles and a well every 20 yards all you will just look like a big area that can be paved and shopping malls put up.

Then you will get a state income tax and no place to hunt and even if you did there wouldnt be any game to hunt.

I'm sorry but the current administration doesnt give a rat's ass about wildlife IMHO.
 
Flytier,

The Federal gov't only developed this last deficit because Bush wanted to give tax breaks to the richest 5% of the people. It had nothing to do with spending money on managing Federal Lands.

The West has never been controlled by the states, so there is nothing to go back to. The Lousiana Purchase was the Federal gov't buying it from France. The only thing many Western states ever got was what the Federal Gov't gave to them.

In the West, we are damn lucky on the balance of transfers between the States and the Feds. The last numbers I saw, the Idahos, MT, Wy, Ut, etc... got more than $1 back for every $1 sent to the Feds.
 
'Gunner- I understand about the one-way street. But from my position, high in my ivory tower
wink.gif
, I see that as a reason for pushing through studies on the otherside as well. What is good for the Goose is also good for the Gander!

Buzz- I hear ya brother!
biggrin.gif
Sometimes the more I learn about actual NR management, the less I like it. But, I can and will make the world, even if it's just a small part of it, better than what I found it. That is my career goal. So, far I've not accomplished it, but I still have hope. It's just in the last 1.5yrs that even paid attention to the most important part...politics. There is a way to get them to work for better management and that's what I hope to do.
 
Hey Nut,

I know it is a sweet deal, as we dip in the pockets of the people West of the Misssisisisisisppi River (Never could spell that...
wink.gif
).

But, there are few people out West who believe the public lands should be managed for ALL people, and not just for the Oil Companies who donate to Dubya and the Welfare Ranchers who destroy riparian areas and consume Elk/Deer forage.

As you found out with the Idaho Conservation League, you can be a Conservationist AND a hunter.
smile.gif
shhh.gif
 
I think this is a result of a couple of things. First of all many western Senators, Representatives and Govenors are trying to do away with Clinton era things like the national monument in the Upper Missouri Breaks.
It is also a reaction to what some, not all, western leaders viewed as President Clinton favoring enviromentalist without regard to local history or local economics. The same complaining I hear from the enviromental camp now was similar to the complaining I heard from cattlemen and other consumers of the land.

Perhaps if both sides would listen to what is being said by the other we could get somewhere. Should public land have input from the public, regardless where they live, absolutely, Should cattleman attempt to reduce damage down by overgrazing, of course. Should western ranchers be allowed to graze public where appropriate, most definately.
But then everyone would have to give up something so that will never happen. Man I have to take off these rose colored glasses

Nemont

P.S. CJCJ the former MT governor's was Marc Racicot pronounced Roscoe
 
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Perhaps if both sides would listen to what is being said by the other we could get somewhere. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I totally agree with this statement. In some places this is happening with the formation of Cooperative Resource Management groups. Often these are a collection of anyone interested in the resources of a given area and includes fed. agency officials, local farmers/ranchers, birdwatchers, enviro. groups, etc. These things take some time to get up and running, but I feel they are required for good things to happen. Sure, no-one gets what they want, but many times giving up a little creates huge gains for all in the long run. I don't think we'll see the end of public lands grazing anytime soon. However, I do hope that all sides will work together to allow it to continue in a manner that allows for the betterment of the land in addition to the production of food and fiber. It can happen and has been shown in a number of places with THE PROPER MANAGEMENT. Of course I'm just an young idealist out to change the world!
tongue.gif
 

Forum statistics

Threads
111,213
Messages
1,951,306
Members
35,078
Latest member
Fred Powell Sr
Back
Top