Owyhee Initiative for Dummies

[Moosie]

WOW.. I miss a few Days and the Topic takes a turn again

I DO NOT own cattle so I'm not one to Fear the $1.35 they pay to house their cattle. I also know that the Reason they had a boom in Deer population is partially because of the Cattle ranching. Cattle ranching brings Compaction of grass's that help the habitat of the Mule deer. The brush that Deer need have a hard time combatting the Weather elements let alone weeds.

That being said, I don't like OVER GRAZING. I talked to BLM officers and people doing studies in the Owyhees and the conclusion that came up (Numbers might be off but are close) that 35 plots (Ranging from several hundred to many thousand acre plots) were studied last/this year. Of the 35, 9 were not allowed to be grazed,of the 26 left, 21 were signifigantly overgrazed.

This study is what bothers me. If the O.I. goes through, it secures land for the hunters for sure. I looked at the MAps and it looks like land that is already inaccessable to the hunter and canyon based areas ....

Once that gets set, more Cattle grazing will be alowed and they also want to run the Water rights to the whole county... Cattle men running water rights means more pipes, less open waters and Less watering holes, Etc.

Although Gunner and MD4me are both Friends (To me that is, they could cut each others eyes our ), I could care less of their thoughts if I thought they were wrong.

What I'm doing is learning more about each procces and figureing out for myself how I and D.H.I. stands as a club onthis issue. We're nothing magic and won't be the Swing vote either way but we are surely jumping on the side that makes sense.

The way I'm looking at it now I sure think that the O.I. is a Partially good Idea. I think the Results won't work. The solution I see is Let BLM do their job and why Double up on the tast force. BLM should manage the lands to sustain Habitat on it for Deer. The States deer, my fellow hunters deer and MY deer.

Unless I hear somethnig productive out of the tuesday open house meeting on the MAtter D.H.I. will be jumping on board of thinking this deal isn't the best thing that we see for us. D.H.I.'s motto is : it's a Non Profit Membership organization that commited to maximizing the deer population within the tate of Idaho through Direct financial support for habitat improvement and hunter edducation.

"Commited to maximizing deer population"..... We, as a HAbitat related organization lok out for the well being of the deer herds... not the Cattle. I'm not against the Good ol' boy Catleman by any means and Have stated above that Ranching actually helps deer populations in small quantities but Over grazing isn't .

 

[BuzzH]

I'm pretty much in line with Gunner on the Marvel issue.

He may burn bridges, but anyone will if they want to make drastic changes happen. You play nice, you finish last, and thats the way it is.

I'm sick of all the "compromise" thats going on with wilderness areas, hunting, dealing with welfare ranchers etc. etc. etc. Compromise has gotten hunters nothing, and I mean NOTHING. We lose habitat, we lose seasons, we lose tags, we lose wildlife, all from compromising.

Its time for hunters to wake up and quit compromising. I also remember what a friend of mine told me one time about the art of "compromising"..."You compromise and meet someone half way, and do that 4 times, you're left with 6 1/4 % of what you were after."

 

[Nemont]

Buzz, that is fine you line up with EG. I can deal with people that stick to their gun's. What I am saying is that it appears to be politically stupid. Again I hunt and believe in public land being open. What you guys have forgotten is that not everyone believes exactly like Jon Marvel. Apparently many of the largest and best financed conservation groups in the country disagree with him on this one as well.

Look I never said the OI process gained hunters anything. Go back and look at what I said: the hunters need more representation!!!
However, if you are viewed as wild eyed radicals, even by people who agree with you will not be able to support you politically, because they want to remain involved in the process. Also, the same people who you like to bash so much as, lazy fat assed ATV riding welfare ranchers, will be at the table.
The Jon Marvel's of the world don't want a process they want their way only. Only their vision is valid. Regardless of the costs, regardless of impacts to anything or anyone. As long as it is their way they support it if not their way then the process is bad.


EG, I find it interesting the you were not involved in the discussions but you say you know what took place.

Look what happened on the Owyhee Initiative, with the ICL, Sierrra, and WS trying to be nice and polite, sharing cookies with each other. We ended up with Wilderness being re-defined to allow motorized access, unlimited development for "ranching" in the wilderness, proposing to set a precedent where the Feds pay ranchers for leases , and releasing 200k acres from studying.

1. There is already a federal law which allows the government to purchase these allotments on a voluntary basis. The precedent has already been set so that is a red herring on the anti grazing side. Review the NPLGC website and supplemental act of congress.

2. If the area encompasses 2.1 million acres, I thought I read that somewhere, then 200K acres released from the WSA designation is equal to a little less that 10% of the total acres. How long has the area been in a WSA. Your side is doing exactly what you accuse ranchers of doing: obstructing things.

Again, EG with the limited amount of representation in D.C. that MT., ID, and WY. have and many people in the U.S. who support decreasing or ending grazing why does the gov't continue to allow grazing of public land? Those three states only equal 6% of the Senate and less that .01% of the house (4 reps out of 435) yet the government has deemed it a worthwhile pursuit. I am just curious.

Nemont

[ 04-17-2004, 16:56: Message edited by: Nemont ]

 

[Ithaca 37]

I just stopped at the ICL booth today at the Earth Day gathering in Boise's park. Lots of groups there. No welfare ranchers, even though they claim they love the land. Anyway, that bunch of yuppie wimps in the Idaho Conversation League tried to tell me they'd negotiated a great deal and when I asked them about the ranchers being able to graze and drive around in the wilderness areas they told me there was a federal law against any motorized vehicles in wilderness areas and I didn't know what I was talking about! So we got out their copy of the Initiative and I read it to them! Now they're all in a tizzy! What a bunch of wilted yuppie wimps! I told them they sold out and shouldn't ever get involved in any hard core negotiations with ranchers. The ICL might be OK on the light duty stuff, like negotiating where the outhouses should be placed around campgrounds, but they should keep outta the grazing and wilderness issues!

 

[BuzzH]

Nemont,

I agree with you to an extent, that you have to keep your head attached to your shoulders on these issues.

But, the funny thing about Marvel is, he wins, and he wins big. The reason he wins is because he has the LAW on his side. I dont see how anyone can view Marvel as a radical, when all he has done is sued to make the BLM, State, and FS comply with existing laws. Thats radical???? I dont believe thats radical at all. Dont forget, Marvel is not the one passing the grazing regulations and laws. Even if he was trying to pass legislation or introduce legislation that effects grazing on public lands, he's completely within his rights as a United States Citizen to do so.

I think the biggest thing that the ranchers hate about Marvel is his ability to handle the ranchers, the courts, and the laws in exactly the same fashion the Welfare Ranchers have handled the courts, the laws, and the land managers...for the last 100+ years. They are getting a damn fine, and big slice, of the same shit pie they've been serving everyone.

The welfare ranchers, along with the land managers had this coming. If they would have practiced correct grazing and not been so greedy from the start, there wouldnt be a need for the Jon Marvels of the world. You reap what you sow...

 

[Nemont]

Buzz,
I have no problem with the law being enforced. Here is my issue: I sit here listening to the lazy fat assed welfare rancher debate and how they are the ruination of all things having to do with hunting and EG personal checking account. EG paints all with the same broad brush.
I go to my family's ranch and my in- laws ranch, both of which have BLM grazing allotments. I challenge you to come out here walk the ground and tell me the difference between the BLM land and the deeded private land. The only way to tell the difference is that the BLM land and the State School trust lands have more natural gas well drilled on them. We have kept our grazing and riparian areas in good shape. We have allowed public access to hunters forever, both resident and nonresidents.

Then day after day I listen to you guys bash hard working people who toughed it out and built a working ranch long before Jon Marvel moved west. Made it through the dirty 30's, survived and thrived through all challenges of keeping a cattle ranch going. I really don't like the OI from a hunters standpoint but I just feel that someone has to stick for ranchers because of the B.S. that is posted on here. Most of the guys who parrot Marvel's rhetoric have never been around a beef cow except at Applebee's. It is hugely frustrating to listen to the positions most believe as gospel. It, frankly, makes me want tell my dad and mother in-law to block access to all public land that is land locked by our deeded land because the hunting public at large, apparently, doesn't give a shit whether they make it or not; but I try to keep a level head and see both side when possible.

Nemont

 

[BuzzH]

Nemont,

Back the train up a ways, I too have seen some excellent management, both on public and deeded lands.

I used to work for the riparian wetland research program at the U. of Montana. We worked closely with lots of ranchers, in particular ranchers that had good management plans. We used their (ranchers) ideas to write several publications on proper range and riparian management. I fully appreciate and give credit to the various ranches that helped us.

I'm not naive enough to believe that every rancher is destructive, I'll just say that the numbers dont lie. The BLM, by its own admission, claim 60% of their leases are in poor condition. I put equal amounts of blame on all groups...the ranchers who over-graze, the land managers for allowing it to happen, and the public for not demanding accountability for the management of their lands.

I'm equally tired of hearing about how the independent marlboro man is getting the shaft. How can you be getting the shaft on a federal lease at a buck thirty five an AUM? I'm still trying to figure that one out.

The other thing, through my work, hunting, sitting in on many public meetings, and through following the issues...I'm really getting sick and tired of wildlife never getting any consideration on public lands. I believe that elk, deer, antelope, sage grouse, non-game species, etc. etc. etc. should be given equal consideration when management is implemented and/or being developed. It rarely happens, and I mean rarely. The agencies are too hung up on exploiting the public lands ahead of any other considerations. Its been going on for as long as the FS, BLM, and the States have had control of lands.

Now, even with slight considerations for other values on public lands, and the hint of a demand for accountability, the ranchers, the atvers, the miners, the land managers etc. are throwing a fit. I dont feel sorry for them, they've all done it to themselves.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Nemont,

Marvel is a lot of things, but ineffective is not one of them. There are ZERO options available to someone in Idaho to affect Federal Policy if you can't get Sen. Craig and Crapo on board. If you don't have your homestate Senator helping, you aren't going to get anywhere in DC.

Marvel has turned the West upside down, in many respects. He has shown that you don't need to chain yourself to a Cat, or climb up a tree. You just need to know the law, and demand that it be enforced. Is he a cause of the increase in lawsuits on every public land issue? I sure hope so...

I have a buddy that works in Timber at the Forest Service. And he was going on about the amount of detail he has to do now just to put together a timber sale. "Not like the good old days....". That seems like a good thing, that the Professional Land Managers are now making sure they are on the land, checking the condition, BEFORE the make decisions.

Many of the suits Marvel & Co. win are due to the fact the BLM doesn't have a current managment plan for the area. Those don't even take much effort to win. Guess what, the BLM is now trying to update their plans, and by doing so, they are actually seeing their land. Seems like a good thing.

Nemont, as for my knowledge on the OI, I did try and get involved. I talked to the Owyhee County commissoners. I talked to Fred Grant. The process they set up for Day One was to help the ranchers. Look at the quote I posted of Fred Grant's where he said his ONLY interest was Ranchers.

As for the precedent, I am not aware that the NPLGC has been passed. Therefore, the Feds buying these leases IS setting precedent. Not a red herring.

I think it is Owyhee county that is 2.1 million acres, of which, we had 600k in WSA. 400k will be designated "wilderness, Owyhee style" and the remaining 200k will be hard released back our of WSA status. That was a no compromise issue by the Ranchers.

As for the politics of grazing, and why it is not ended, I think we both know the answer. Look at Moosie's post. He doesn't raise cattle, so he isn't worried about the $1.35. Let's be honest, even in the little Hunttalk community, we have only a single person calling for ending grazing (ME!). We have only two people who have a stake in grazing (You and Quiensabe). We have a couple of people who think grazing can be done correctly (Buzz, Ithica, and 1-Ptr). And then you have some people who support it, but have no reason to support it (Ten Beers, MD4,) and then you have the other 90% who's eyes glaze over, and don't even want to read about it.

I would argue the "other 90%" does not support grazing, nor do they oppose grazing. They are completely indifferent, as they don't bump into the issue. Until that 90% gets involved, there will be no major legislation. But, even a single person can affect it thru the courts.

And Nemont,
Why shouldn't I stick up for ranchers who have made it on private lands, and "Made it through the dirty 30's, survived and thrived through all challenges of keeping a cattle ranch going."?

And I am sure your family takes care of their leases. You have always been straight forward, so I'll take you at your word. However, I have roamed the Owyhees for years. I have killed deer down there for years. I have killed Antelope down there. And I can tell you, some of that land is overgrazed and in terrible condition. And the attitude down there (now using a big broad brush) is that the Fed's can "go to hell". Keep in mind, this is where some of the "Sagebrush Rebellion" came from. These are the guys that still think Claude Dallas got a bad deal when he killed the two game wardens. For whatever reason, maybe just the ranchers I know down there, but the anti-Gov't sentiment is VERY strong.

Listening to the "college educated" 1-Pointers of the world is not something they do easily.

And please, don't mix my adjectives..... Welfare Ranchers are not Fat-Assed. Those are the ATV riders that are Fat-Assed. In the Owyhees, there is still a lot of cowboying done on horse back.

And I don't think this OI should breakdown to a grazing issue, as it is much bigger than that. But as a hunter, who should I support? The ranchers who got everything, the Fat-Assed ATV rider lady, or the Environmental groups who seem to have negotiated a bad deal????

I am feeling like the only option is one of the groups that was not at the table. Therefore, I have the choice between Moosie and his DHI or Marvel and Katie with the WWP and CIHD groups. Who do you think will be most effective???

 

[Nemont]

Buzz wrote

The agencies are too hung up on exploiting the public lands ahead of any other considerations. Its been going on for as long as the FS, BLM, and the States have had control of lands.

Nemont Wrote

with the limited amount of representation in D.C. that MT., ID, and WY. have and many people in the U.S. who support decreasing or ending grazing why does the gov't continue to allow grazing of public land? Those three states only equal 6% of the Senate and less that .01% of the house (4 reps out of 435) yet the government has deemed it a worthwhile pursuit.

I think you hit the nail on the head. The reason is the federal government policies. Are ranchers without blame, of course not, but they are not 100% to blame either.

I too have seen some excellent management, both on public and deeded lands.

I agree with 95% of what you have said. It have never heard any of the anti grazing crew here every say they have seen anything good on public land.

I was venting on the prior post about what I see as the attack on family ranches. I wish Jon Marvel would have kept his organizations first name: Idaho Watershed Project and stayed out of Montana.

I am tired of people thinking he is a hero for all that he does. Breaking eggs apparently is his specialty. Let me ask you this do you believe he has hunters best interest in mind?

It boils down to this. If a ranchers allotment is in poor shape due to overgrazing then by all means kick him or her off or fine them or do something to fix that situation but leave the rest of us alone.


Nemont

 

[JoseCuervo]

Originally posted by Nemont:
Nemont Wrote

I was venting on the prior post about what I see as the attack on family ranches. I wish Jon Marvel would have kept his organizations first name: Idaho Watershed Project and stayed out of Montana.

I am tired of people thinking he is a hero for all that he does. Breaking eggs apparently is his specialty. Let me ask you this do you believe he has hunters best interest in mind?

It boils down to this. If a ranchers allotment is in poor shape due to overgrazing then by all means kick him or her off or fine them or do something to fix that situation but leave the rest of us alone.


Nemont

Nemont, Dubya and the BLM just extended the "review" period if a rancher is found damaging the land. They don't want to make any drastic changes... Talk about who is now slowing down the process.

I know a guy in Nevada that was forced to pull his cattle on Aug 1 last year, and he was furious with the BLM as he was going to have to buy private feed for 7 months.

And as for Marvel expanding from Idaho, the only logical reason is that he was being effective, and his supporters asked him to bring his cause to their states.

Our legislature has passed laws trying to stop Marvel, and our Supreme Court has ruled against the law.

Acres of state trust land: 2.5 million surface, about 3 million subsurface


Though timber earns the most money for Idaho’s school trust - grossing about $71 million last year - grazing uses far more land and attracts far more controversy. Hailey architect Jon Marvel (HCN, 8/2/99: Jon Marvel vs. the Marlboro Man), a confrontational critic of state land grazing, heads the Western Watersheds Project (formerly the Idaho Watersheds Project). Marvel contends that the state Department of Lands, whose grazing fees are sometimes less than 50 cents per acre per year, is selling the school trust short.


The group’s bids on state grazing leases have been consistently rejected by the five-member board of land commissioners, which even devised the so-called "anti-Marvel law" to keep Marvel and other environmentalists from bidding on the leases. In 1999, the tide turned: The state Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Marvel couldn’t be excluded from the lease auctions, and his group now holds a handful of leases on state trust land.

And you don't think Marvel and the Idaho Fish and Game have similar goals???

Not that they were alone. The legislature tried by statute to dispense political favors by passing the Anti-Marvel bill (Idaho Code 58-310B) which attempted to distort market forces by prohibiting anyone but ranchers from bidding on grazing leases. That bill would even preclude Idaho Fish and Game from bidding on such grazing lands for wildlife habitat uses. That bill was signed into law in the spring of 1995 by the newly inaugurated Governor Batt (Republican) after veto the prior year by Governor Andrus. (Democrat) On April 8, 1997 an unprecedented delegation of a half-dozen frustrated legislators appeared before the Land Board to clarify the raw intent of HB 793, which had become 58-310B. As Bruce Newcomb, House Majority Leader, put it, them "lege" was directing the Executive Branch to intentionally favor ranching as an industry and exclude others, and specifically Idaho Watersheds Project from consideration. This intent was echoed with great fervor, almost rabidly, by the rest of the delegation.

 

[Nemont]

EG,
So what you are saying is that it doesn't matter whether a rancher is in compliance or not just.

I know a guy in Nevada that was forced to pull his cattle on Aug 1 last year, and he was furious with the BLM as he was going to have to buy private feed for 7 months.

That is one guy. Have you heard me gripe about this sort of thing? Why do you want to say all ranchers with grazing allotments are the same?

Also by making the whole quote from me in bold you miss what I wrote. Which is:

I am tired of people thinking he is a hero for all that he does. Breaking eggs apparently is his specialty.

I have never seen where Jon Marvel or the WWP states that his goal is to help the hunters of any state. Correct me if I am wrong, I have looked I couldn't find anything. Do I think he is effective, yes. Doesn't make him right on every land management issue.

I can wish all I want about IWP staying there and out of MT. I could even tolerate most of what they say and do but the guys they send out must have went to Jon Marvel charm school. I wasn't raised to go to public meetings and shout obscenities at people just because you disagree with them. You may enjoy that aspect of the WWP and their tactics. Most people don't like that aspect of their tactics nor do I.

Anyway, back to the OI. I disagree with them letting ranchers ride ATV's in wilderness areas and believe that it would not stand up to a court challenge, which is the WWP preferred management technique anyway. Can't they fix that since this isn't a done deal? Of course they can. Do you really believe this will go through in it's present form? I say no way it will not be amended under pressure from the public.

Nemont

 

[Ithaca 37]

Nemont, "I disagree with them letting ranchers ride ATV's in wilderness areas..."

It's not just ATVs. The OI specifically states they can use pickup trucks, backhoes and any other machinery needed to maintain their "improvements" in the wilderness areas. I take that to mean bulldozers, too, since they're talking about maintaining resevoirs.

" The maintenance of supporting facilities, existing in an area prior to its classification as wilderness (including fences, line cabins, water wells and lines, stock tanks, etc.) is permissible in wilderness. Where practical alternatives do not exist, maintenance of other activities may be accomplished through the occasional use of motorized equipment. This may include, for example, the use of backhoes to maintain stock ponds, pickup trucks for major fence repairs, or specialized equipment to repair stock watering facilities. Such occasional use of ............."

Ya gotta read appendix A to the proposal to start figuring out what's going on. Notice that if any member of the board drops out the Owthee County Commissioners choose the replacement!

http://www.owyheeinitiative.org/FAQs/appendices.htm

Here's where to start:

http://www.owyheeinitiative.org/FAQs/agreement.htm

 

[Ithaca 37]

Nemont, One other thing. You said, "Then day after day I listen to you guys bash hard working people who toughed it out and built a working ranch long before Jon Marvel moved west. Made it through the dirty 30's, survived and thrived through all challenges of keeping a cattle ranch going......"

One of the things I find most laughable is that ranchers seem to think they're guarenteed the same lifestyle their past generations had. Try telling that to anyone who's ever changed careers a few times, been laid off by General Motors or US Steel, lost the family business because the gummint quit funding whatever project they worked on, or anyone else who's ever been forced to change jobs!

I can't believe anyone actually thinks there are some kinda guarenteed lifestyles and the gummint should subsidize them while they destroy public land!

 

[JoseCuervo]

Nemont,
I bring the rancher from Nevada into the discussion just to add context. There is a funny little corner of the world, SW Idaho, Northern Nevada, and SE Oregon where people may not always have respect for the government. If the guy from Nevada was such a good steward of the range, he would have pulled his cattle off BEFORE it got so bad the BLM forced him.

And I agree, Marvel has never came out in support of hunters, but he commonly is in support of Game animals. Which is good enough for me. I have had discussions with some of his Directors over long nights around a campfire and at various social functions. I make it quite clear that I am a hunter, and in fact, I have even asked for permission to hunt on the Greenfire ranch.

Hunters owe themselves the responsiblity to join with these organizations and influence them from inside. The goals are not mutually exclusive.

A few years back, the US Air Force wanted to turn the entire Owyhees into a bombing range, blasting every rock and tree down there. It was an effective partnership of FNAWS, Idaho Rivers United, Indians, and other conservation groups that stopped it.

he Air Force’s decision Oct. 6 to back off on building a new bombing range in the Owyhee canyonlands is a victory - and therefore shocking.


Who would have thought that a coalition of local and national environmentalists, hunting groups and a few members of Congress could stop the military and Idaho’s forceful Gov. Cecil Andrus?


Members of this informal coalition enjoyed clinking glasses to their momentary success. "We toasted in hopes that we had driven the pointy end of the spear through this proposal," said Bob Stevens, a Ketchum bighorn sheep hunter and former military pilot, who flew many opinion-makers over the remote canyon. "The problem has always been location, location, location."


A look back at this long-debated project suggests that Andrus may indeed have doomed it by choosing the most environmentally sensitive area in Owyhee County, trying to pull an end-run on Congress and pledging Idaho’s support without asking the people first.


It was in 1991 that Gov. Cecil Andrus proposed the 25,000-acre Idaho Training Range in an attempt to save Mountain Home Air Force Base from falling onto the list of bases facing closure.


Almost immediately critics said he had picked the worst possible location for a split range: one on the north side of the Owyhee River canyon, one on the south. With the existing 100,000-acre Saylor Creek range, Air Force jets would have had more than 3 million acres in which to train.


Shoshone-Paiute Indians protested, saying it would jeopardize sacred sites. Environmentalists opposed noisy flights over steep-walled canyons; they said the nation’s largest herd of California bighorn sheep, antelope fawning areas and sage grouse were threatened by jets flying 100 feet above the ground, dropping flares and bundles of shredded aluminum.


As the Air Force held public hearings on the project, it became clear that a majority of Idahoans polled opposed the range, sometimes by a margin of 10 to 1. Only the residents of Mountain Home, a community whose economy is almost completely dependent on the base, supported the range.


Although Andrus seemed angry and surprised at the Air Force’s decision, the facts show he shouldn’t have been:


* The Air Force and Andrus refused to consider other sites for the range, and federal law requires alternatives to be considered. If the Air Force had not withdrawn its current proposal, opponents might have sued and won;


* It was inevitable that Congress would try to block the Air Force and Andrus from creating a state-owned range. The Engle Act requires congressional approval before more than 5,000 acres of federal lands are withdrawn from the public domain for military use.


Most important of all, say some opponents, the Owyhee Canyonlands Coalition worked overtime to nationalize the issue. Coalition members made multiple trips to Washington, D.C., to show members of Congress a video of the gorgeous canyons and wildlife values at stake. Volunteer pilots such as Stevens flew people over the canyonlands to bring the issue to life.


The Center for Defense Information produced a 30-minute TV program on the range proposal, quoting Air Force officials saying the range was not critical to the future of Mountain Home AFB.


CNN-TV’s "Network Earth" did two reports on the proposal, including a recent program that featured former Bureau of Land Management Director Jim Baca. Baca blamed Andrus for creating pressure to remove him from the Interior Department after Baca visited Idaho and expressed misgivings about the site.


Baca said Andrus was "out of control" in pursuing the project. "He’s wielded his power improperly. He has hurt me personally, he’s hurt a lot of other people in the Interior Department, and he’s done something that’s wrong. He ought to back off. He really ought to."


To which Andrus replied, "The Clinton White House is on the verge of being taken over by the Green Machine." Afterwards, Andrus fired off a letter to Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt and complained of being treated "shabbily" by Baca.


It was Andrus’ involvement in Baca’s ouster that helped nationalize the issue, says Craig Gehrke, regional director of The Wilderness Society. "Once we mentioned Baca, Andrus and the bombing range in the Owyhees, congressional folks knew exactly what we were talking about."


Opponents also spotlighted the issue by paying for national television ads narrated by Sun Valley part-time residents and celebrities Mariel Hemingway and Scott Glenn. They took out a full-page ad in The New York Times headlined: U.S. BOMBERS STRIKE IDAHO. Your Last Chance to Keep "The Quietest Place in America" From Becoming a War Zone.


In September, 30 members of Congress - 28 Democrats and two Republicans - wrote the chairman of the House Defense Appropriations Committee expressing their concerns. Twenty-three members of Congress sent a letter to President Clinton, asking him to put the project on hold.


Finally, Air Force Secretary Sheila Widnall made the difficult decision to start over. A day later, a federal court judge in Boise ruled that an Air Force environmental impact statement completed in 1992 was flawed. The judge ruled that Andrus and the Air Force were trying to separate two actions that were inextricably linked: bringing a composite wing to the base and developing a new range. The judge ordered the Air Force to write a new environmental impact statement. The ruling pushed the Air Force back to square one.


What’s perplexing is why Andrus selected the site in the first place. He has always responded by saying there’s nothing mysterious about it. He wanted to keep Mountain Home Air Force Base alive; a new range was the best way to do that.


All of this seemed an odd way for Andrus to act near the end of his fourth term in office. The senior governor in the United States, he was admired for his feistiness on other environmental issues, yet on this one spouting a line of jobs above all.


For once, it didn’t work. Even so, it becomes part of the Andrus legacy.


For those who fought the bomb-training range since 1988, the hard-earned victory is sweet. As retired pilot Herb Meyr of Mountain Home puts it: "It’s unbelievable what you have to go through to do the right thing. I could see why most people would give up."


The Idaho Conservation League’s Brian Goller said people didn’t give up "because of the magic of the Owyhees." Although the Air Force tried to paint the place as just rocks and sagebrush suitable for bombing practice, Goller said people who saw videos of it or visited were moved: They wanted to save it.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Here is a pretty good background piece on the Owyhees. Anybody who has read all these posts, so far, is probably no longer a "Dummie" on the Owyhees. (Unless, of course, they still don't agree with the ElkGunner...)

Owyhee Canyonlands: A History of Conflict

The Owyhees came into the public spotlight during the 10-year fight that began in 1989, over the Air Force bombing range expansion efforts. Previously, as a remote, unknown spot on the map known only to a few hearty hunters, a few cowboys, and a few determined hikers and boaters, it didn't need a lot of protection. But the idea of dropping live bombs on desert didn't play well with many Idahoans and people looked at the long-term options for keeping the place the same, or relatively whole for plants, animals and people.

A full account of this saga was written by Niels Nokkentvedt, a former Twin Falls Times News reporter, in his detailed book, Desert Wings, covering 1989 to 1999.

Many more people began visiting the Owyhees during this time, and a whole lot more people started hearing about it nationwide.

From the bombing range defensive struggles grew a positive Wilderness idea, with the Owyhee Canyonlands Coalition and the Idaho Desert Group putting together a 1.3 million acre wilderness proposal for the Owyhees in 1999. The Sierra Club, The Wilderness Society, and Committee for Idaho's High Deserts were key contributors to this effort to identify remarkable places warranting protection.

For some perspective, the Bureau of Land Management defined a little more than 700,000 acres to be Wilderness Study Areas in Owyhee County, out of about 5 million acres total, in the 1980s. And in 1992, the BLM recommended a little less than 400,000 acres be designated Wilderness.

The next step was the campaign to declare the Owyhee-Bruneau Canyonlands National Monument, with a drive down to the wire before President Clinton left office. The monument proposal was to protect 2.7 million acres of public land in Owyhee County.

Conflict also arose over the uses and management of Owyhee Canyonlands. Starting back in the 1980s environmentalists challenged BLM administrative rulings and procedures, especially as related to livestock. This also moved toward legal challenges, based on regulations and laws such as the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act.

Idaho Conservation League played a lead role in the clean water litigation, while others such as Western Watersheds Project and Committee for Idaho's High Desert played key roles in other administrative and legal challenges.

Many of these cases found traditional agricultural uses of the public land, including livestock grazing, to be not meeting requirements of regulations or laws.

Business as usual wasn't working out.

The history of events, campaigns, new appreciation and interests swirling in and around the Owyhee Canyonlands raised public awareness and concern, from all directions. It led the Owyhee County Commissioners to request a group of people with varied interests sit down to work toward common goals, and to balance divergent interests.

 

[Nemont]

Ithaca,
Please go back reread the posts I have made. Then tell me where I have said that. Got news for you IT ranchers work hard, know it is hard to believe but it is true. I never said guarantee me or anyone else a living. What I said is that many of you bash hard working people who are not destroying the environment. I don't know why it is so difficult to understand that a one size fits all solution doesn't even come close to being a good idea. Come and look over the operation we have built we use public land grazing as a tool and we treat the land with respect. If we are following the rules and regulations why should we be lumped into the same class. I have never advocated that they should have such cheap grazing.

Both of the places I am talking about have made it through a lot of ups and downs. Yet if they went broke so be it that is the chance you take being in business.

I don't know what you do for a living but if I started a forum calling you lazy welfare (whatever) because some people in your industry abused a public resource. You may have done it right forever but since you are part of the industry you have no right to say anything. How would you feel?

I made several career changes and purchased a small business and have run it successfully. Do I think that I am guaranteed a living, absolutely not. Do I think ranchers entitled to some input and to graze public lands, yes, especially the ones who are doing it right.

What I said is that many of the people you all so gleeful call welfare ranchers are not even close to the way you describe them. You can always pick couple of cases and say everyone is just like that guy. EG has done it in this topic. I get sick of the one size fits all version of what public land grazing ranchers are like.

Nemont

 

[Nemont]

Here is a pretty good background piece on the Owyhees. Anybody who has read all these posts, so far, is probably no longer a "Dummie" on the Owyhees. (Unless, of course, they still don't agree with the ElkGunner

Nemont

 

[JoseCuervo]

Originally posted by Nemont:
[

Nemont [/QB][/QUOTE]

Should I take that to mean you still are in the "learning" mode????

Do the Freemen up by you (are they close?) have Grazing leases? Do they work with the BLM?

Just curious if the attitudes toward the Agencies is unique in Owyhee County.

 

[BuzzH]

Nemont,

Any rancher that has a BLM, State, or FS lease is a welfare rancher, its just a fact.

The government is subsidizing the rancher, no way to deny it.

I'm not against it, unless my land is abused and in poor condition from the subsidized grazing and my public wildlife is negatively impacted. Then I have a problem with my tax dollars subsidizing abuse of my public lands and public wildlife. It doesnt make sense to pay for your land to be abused and degraded.

 

[Nemont]

Should I take that to mean you still are in the "learning" mode????

Do the Freemen up by you (are they close?) have Grazing leases? Do they work with the BLM?

EG,
Go back and read, my friend, no I am not in the learning mode. Have read the entire OI with appedices included. It is a bad deal for wilderness to allow heavy equipment into it to build and maintain cattle watering tanks. In other designated wilderness areas all mechanical machines, including mountain bikes, are banned. Same should apply here. I bet if we sat down and visited we would agree on 95% or more of the issues.

I don't know about the Freemen and their land. Are they close? Yes. Do I buy it their attitude no. What do the Freemen have to do with the OI?

Look I know I won't change any minds among you guys but I am trying to point out to those who don't know that not all ranchers are as you guys describe them.

quote:
Here is a pretty good background piece on the Owyhees. Anybody who has read all these posts, so far, is probably no longer a "Dummie" on the Owyhees. (Unless, of course, they still don't agree with the ElkGunner

I chuckled when I read that post and had to roll my eyes. I can't see how you get through the door with a head that big.

Nemont

[ 04-19-2004, 13:02: Message edited by: Nemont ]