Montana wildlife group seeks to stop sheep grazing

JLS said:
If the Helle's weren't interested in a buyout, should they have been forced into one? Forcing a buyout in this case makes me a little squeamish personally. If the sheep operation was compromising an existing population, then I'm all for it.
Click to expand...

That's not the way it works. The federal government does not recognize any value on grazing permits, so there is no way a permit waiver could be forced. The options to remove domestic sheep from those allotments are:

  • Voluntary incentive to waive without preference (buyout) between the permittee and a 3rd party, and a decision from the USFS to not reissue the permits.
  • A USFS NEPA analysis and decision to not reauthorize grazing on those allotments.
  • Conversion by the USFS in the class of livestock on the permits.
  • A court order to remove the sheep for resource protection (successful lawsuit).
Perhaps I am forgetting something, and hopefully the federal employees on here will point it out if I did.
 
Let's not pretend that the Helle's are angel white here, and victims of a lawsuit with no merit.

In 2011, Helle's and the MT Woolgrowers carved out an exception to review of trailing on WMA's because FWP was looking at how the activity compromised wildlife:

http://laws.leg.mt.gov/legprd/LAW0210W$BSIV.ActionQuery?P_BILL_NO1=541&P_BLTP_BILL_TYP_CD=HB&Z_ACTION=Find&P_SESS=20111

Helle is a past president of the Woolgrowers and an active member. That organization tried in 2013 twice to eliminate the ability of FWP to move sheep at all. Furthermore, in their legislative wrap up, they made passive suggestions that Ag producers avoid one legislator's supply business because he voted against eliminating the ability of FWP to manage wild sheep:

http://www.mtsheep.org/June2013.pdf

Both SB 89 & SB 341 were killed in committee, with the help of the Wild Sheep Foundation and a large number of other groups, including GWA (So, I guess that makes BHR a "green decoy" as well for being on the same side as GWA ;) ).


I'm all for a buyout. Put it together BHR and I'll help fund-raise for it. Deal?
 
I've known the GWA guys for 13 years, and they are not some green decoy group. They are all sportsmen. I don't always agree with their approach, but a green decoy label is not accurate.
 
Oak said:
That's not the way it works. The federal government does not recognize any value on grazing permits, so there is no way a permit waiver could be forced. The options to remove domestic sheep from those allotments are:

  • Voluntary incentive to waive without preference (buyout) between the permittee and a 3rd party, and a decision from the USFS to not reissue the permits.
  • A USFS NEPA analysis and decision to not reauthorize grazing on those allotments.
  • Conversion by the USFS in the class of livestock on the permits.
  • A court order to remove the sheep for resource protection (successful lawsuit).
Perhaps I am forgetting something, and hopefully the federal employees on here will point it out if I did.
Click to expand...
Just pointing out that I do think you left out a few things... ;):D
 
I guess my post was lost in Al Gore's internet. I had typed up a post yesterday at home while taking care of a sick kid, but I guess I didn't get the post button pressed...

One alternative is for a group/person who meets the requirement to hold a grazing permit (BLM = base property, USFS = the herd the permit is tied to) to buy/acquire the permit and to just not use it. It's not as permanent as the options you posted, but it has worked in other places (Grand Canyon Trust). There's some language about in the BLM regs about making minimum use of a permit, but that has been weakened somewhat. Not sure about the USFS regs. When I left UT the Grand Canyon Trust had bought a permit and not made any use of it for about a decade. Though not as permanent, the one good thing about this way is that it can be done FAST. A permit transfer is not much more than a paperwork exercise and can be done very quickly. It seems that with some sheep issues, that speed may be as important as permanence.

The other thing I wanted to point out is that at least 3 and IMO all 4 of the options you posted require NEPA analysis and decision. The appeal process can and does work on either side of the issue in this case and we all know how long that can take. Though I'm not positive for the USFS, but at least for BLM, the options you proposed would require a LUP amendment or re-write. The BLM plans I was familiar with listed the type, season, and amount of grazing that can occur on an allotment. Closure and/or change in type of livestock or amount of authorized AUMs would require the LUP to be changed. That is something that can take a LONG time.
 
At the risk of sounding like I'm accusing you of picking nits, I would say you are nitpicking. ;)

I did not consider BLM options or procedures for these allotments, because they are USFS. I'm pretty sure the requirement for a USFS term grazing permit is base property and livestock, so I'm not sure how reasonable non-use by a new permittee really would be. At any rate, it would require a waiver (with preference) from the original permittee.

I did not mean to imply that only one option on my list would require NEPA. IMO, the last three options would require it. The USFS does not need a NEPA analysis and decision to choose to leave an allotment vacant in the event of a buyout and waiver, but it would require a forest plan amendment to permanently close such an allotment. Holding the allotment vacant is obviously not a guarantee that it will not be stocked at a future time, but the majority of USFS permit buyouts in the past have been done essentially on handshake agreements with the USFS staff, not through forest plan amendments. I believe that if they are held vacant past the term of the existing permit, they would require a NEPA analysis to reauthorize grazing?

Obviously the first and third (if voluntary from permittee) options are the best available. I don't believe we should take any of them off the table, however.

Ok, now correct me again. ;)
 
Maybe I was picking nits, but IMO/E what I proposed is an option that has worked in the past to keep an allotment from being grazed.

USFS regs do require base property and an 80% stake in the herd. I checked and was wrong on my understanding. However, if you have property to offer, you can purchase the permitted herd and offer your property as base.

I'm just gonna play with my nits now...
 
Once the tentatives are over you will be able to kill 9 epic turkeys in Montana.
 
Skinner never wants to talk about the issue, just attack people. He & Range are well suited for each other.
 
Dave Skinner is as far from a journalist as it gets, a hack, and that's putting things nicely.

What a tool.

For starters 8,000 sheep do NOT raise $27,000 in revenue through grazing fees. IIRC, they graze 5 sheep per AUM. So, how about the revenue generated for grazing 8,000 sheep is $5,408 for two months. Hey, he was only "off" by $22,000...pretty good journalism and research for that D-bag.

I also see, he happened to leave out anything on the EWG Farm Subsidy, must have been an over-sight on his part...:rolleyes:

Rebish and Kohen Livestock received $286,345 worth of taxpayer money:

http://farm.ewg.org/persondetail.php?custnumber=A09372314

Helle Livestock received $545,180:

http://farm.ewg.org/addrsearch.php?...=Helle+Livestock&stab2=MT&b=Search+Businesses

Rebish and Helle another $1,035,754 in direct subsidies:

http://farm.ewg.org/persondetail.php?custnumber=A09374948

Seems pretty ridiculous for Dave Skinner to whine about NGO's donating money and receiving funding from private sources, when his ranching buddies are being funded by the taxpayer...

Maybe Dave Skinner will present more facts about the subsidy issue in part II of his "fair and balanced" article on this issue....:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
BigHornRam said:
They also were on board with the Greenhorn Range bighorn sheep reintroduction, as long as the wild sheep kept a predetermined distance from his domestic allotments. Now the Gallatin Wildlife group wants to use those reintroduced sheep as a reason to pull 2 of his grazing allotments? That's bullshit.
Click to expand...

It seems to me if one man is unjustly kicking another man when he's down and then voluntarily stops, helping the victim up, he can't call foul when the victim punches him in the face. Especially when it all happened on the victim's land. The baseline is NOT an absence of wild ship and then some magnanimous help in their return. Rather, the baseline in this case is, or should be, wild sheep. Let's start there. Everybody else showed up later and started kicking.

If it makes the ranchers feel any better they can always remember to never expect gratitude from a beggar. That's what wildlife in America has been reduced to. Just my opinion.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Oak
Gunnison BLM Domestic Sheep EIS
2 3
Replies
47
Views
9K
Oak
Oak
K
ID BLM closes 3 sheep grazing areas
Replies
17
Views
3K
duckhunt
duckhunt
K
Judge sides with wildlife group in sheep lawsuit
Replies
1
Views
1K
Southern Elk
Southern Elk
Oak
Domestic sheep....
2
Replies
37
Views
11K
Oak
Oak
K
US Sheep Experiement Station
2
Replies
35
Views
9K
TheTone
TheTone

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
119,598
Messages
2,231,350
Members
38,934
Latest member
ERTH616

Share this page

Back
Top