Health of BLM lands

[BrentD]

This article passed by me today. I found it discouraging and unsurprising.

Federal grazing lands fail their checkup - High Country News

Fifty-seven million acres of BLM land fall short of health standards.

www.hcn.org

 

[TX Trophy Hunter]

I can relate. I have a Forestry Degree and almost 2 decades with the BLM and USFS and I finally resigned a couple years ago and let my wife go all in on her career. The agencies are more concerned with diversity quotas than hiring people that know what they’re doing. The high ups are constantly moving around to bounce up the ladder, and not sticking around to solve problems. And our hands were tied by organizations that use NEPA and the endangered species act as a weapon rather than for their intended purposes. If I don’t get a chance to make a positive impact then why stay around? So I left. And I’m not the only one.

 

[BrentD]

I can relate. I have a Forestry Degree and almost 2 decades with the BLM and USFS and I finally resigned a couple years ago and let my wife go all in on her career. The agencies are more concerned with diversity quotas than hiring people that know what they’re doing. The high ups are constantly moving around to bounce up the ladder, and not sticking around to solve problems. And our hands were tied by organizations that use NEPA and the endangered species act as a weapon rather than for their intended purposes. If I don’t get a chance to make a positive impact then why stay around? So I left. And I’m not the only one.

Ah, okay. Maybe. There are a few other players you are skipping past, of course.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Yup...

 

[Live2huntelk]

I can relate to this article as well. I hunt BLM land in Colorado that was purchased by RMEF and handed over to BLM. The BLM issued grazing permits to ranchers without doing routine grazing assessments. It got really bad in the last 3 years to point I was not seeing any elk or elk sign on the mountain. I took pictures of the meadows grazed down to the dirt and the water reservoir that the cattle where drinking from (was fenced in) but the ranchers left the gates open for the cattle to have free access. I sent an email to the BLM manager and RMEF region manager about my concerns. The rancher run his cattle on the BLM all summer till September and then moved them onto his place while he bailed hay on his ranch all summer. The elk and mule deer was left no food/habitat because he had way more cattle than was allowed and no one checked him from year to year. In my email, I told them I was a RMEF member and reminded them that RMEF purchased the land to protect the elk habitat, not for the rancher to run his cattle on all summer and eat the elk's forage. The ranchers then get land owner permits and complain about the elk eating their hay in the winter months. They replied to my email and tried to down play the evidence, saying it was an unusually dry year. I replied and let them know I was going to keep track of the grazing situation each year, which I did. They did make the rancher cut back on how many cattle he was allowed to graze the BLM land. That along with a strong storm that blew over alot of lodgepole pines making the rancher concerned about not being able to get all his cattle out in September has helped start restoring grasses and forage to what it should be.

On another location, Flattops in Colorado, they allow the sheep to graze the grass down to the roots as well. The elk move out of the area once the sheep come through.

I agree that the BLM don't want to upset the ranchers that have leases on BLM, when they are supposed to be stewarts of the land factoring in mule deer, elk and other wildlife impacts that cattle and sheep have eating the food in their habitat. It seems like they don't factor in over time the ground gets depleted of minerals to sustain the same amount of wildlife and rancher grazing.

 

[Flynarrow]

The "assessment" indicates only 56 million of 245 million BLM acres don't meet range health standards. Having traveled a lot of BLM ground, only 20% of BLM ground not healthy sounds like the "healthy standards" are very low or are biased by internal employees doing the evaluation. Observations by myself and others familiar with land management show that on MOST BLM lands 1) native plant composition is yielding to increasing invasive plant species, 2) hydrology and fisheries showing severely damaged channels, reduced woody riparian vegetation and channel instability, and 3) reduction of woody draw shrub density and species composition. If a INDEPENDENT team of scientists composed of native plant ecologists, hydrologists and fisheries biologists, and wildlife biologists did an evaluation of all BLM grazed lands, the findings would have much better credibility.

 

[Bullshot]

As an out of towner, I am no expert, but still feel from my experiences that its pretty much the norm when seeing a beautifully managed parcel of land to guess correctly that its private ranch, vs seeing a patch of overgrazed wasteland and guessing correctly it is BLM.

 

[RoughCountry]

I can relate to this article as well. I hunt BLM land in Colorado that was purchased by RMEF and handed over to BLM. The BLM issued grazing permits to ranchers without doing routine grazing assessments. It got really bad in the last 3 years to point I was not seeing any elk or elk sign on the mountain. I took pictures of the meadows grazed down to the dirt and the water reservoir that the cattle where drinking from (was fenced in) but the ranchers left the gates open for the cattle to have free access. I sent an email to the BLM manager and RMEF region manager about my concerns. The rancher run his cattle on the BLM all summer till September and then moved them onto his place while he bailed hay on his ranch all summer. The elk and mule deer was left no food/habitat because he had way more cattle than was allowed and no one checked him from year to year. In my email, I told them I was a RMEF member and reminded them that RMEF purchased the land to protect the elk habitat, not for the rancher to run his cattle on all summer and eat the elk's forage. The ranchers then get land owner permits and complain about the elk eating their hay in the winter months. They replied to my email and tried to down play the evidence, saying it was an unusually dry year. I replied and let them know I was going to keep track of the grazing situation each year, which I did. They did make the rancher cut back on how many cattle he was allowed to graze the BLM land. That along with a strong storm that blew over alot of lodgepole pines making the rancher concerned about not being able to get all his cattle out in September has helped start restoring grasses and forage to what it should be.

On another location, Flattops in Colorado, they allow the sheep to graze the grass down to the roots as well. The elk move out of the area once the sheep come through.

I agree that the BLM don't want to upset the ranchers that have leases on BLM, when they are supposed to be stewarts of the land factoring in mule deer, elk and other wildlife impacts that cattle and sheep have eating the food in their habitat. It seems like they don't factor in over time the ground gets depleted of minerals to sustain the same amount of wildlife and rancher grazing.

You don’t want the ranchers on blm where they are raising cattle that are feeding you and the whole country but you are ok with hunting for a bull elk for a few days for free or a $10 dollar stamp per year. How about just be glad you have so much blm and usfs land to be able to hunt on. No one ever said hunting on govt. land should be easy hunting. Oughta just be happy, you could be trying to hunt in NJ or Connecticut or some other little state back East.

 

[TX Trophy Hunter]

As an out of towner, I am no expert, but still feel from my experiences that its pretty much the norm when seeing a beautifully managed parcel of land to guess correctly that its private ranch, vs seeing a patch of overgrazed wasteland and guessing correctly it is BLM.

It’s location dependent. If you drive down a valley in MT it appears that way, but it’s more related to the fact that the private property is down by the rivers and creeks where everything is more lush. If you go just east of CO Springs you’ll find private land that is grazed down to dirt. In southern NM you can see a pretty good crop of grass on national forest and as soon as you hit private property it is grazed to nothing. It’s not black and white. Some ranchers are good land stewards and others just care about short term finances.

 

[TX Trophy Hunter]

You don’t want the ranchers on blm where they are raising cattle that are feeding you and the whole country but you are ok with hunting for a bull elk for a few days for free or a $10 dollar stamp per year. How about just be glad you have so much blm and usfs land to be able to hunt on. No one ever said hunting on govt. land should be easy hunting. Oughta just be happy, you could be trying to hunt in NJ or Connecticut or some other little state back East.

Where can I pick up one of those $10 elk stamps?