State of Wyoming Admidts Overgrazing Hurts Deer and Elk

[Ithaca 37]

Ten, You really shouldn't try to debate range health with Buzz. Don't you know when you're way out of your league?

Actually, for the same reason, you shouldn't try to debate anything with anyone who has a brain.

 

[BuzzH]

Ten, you're lost in your own space I'm afraid.

We didnt assign any potential value to the land, simple as that.

Further, there was no reason to, and it would have been wrong and totally unscientific to do so.

What difference does it make if its poor grazing land that has been overgrazed with no potential value? Who cares, its a card house you're attempting to build, and for no good reason.

I'll tell you this, they keep grazing it, and keep it in poor condition because of the grazing, the potential for wildlife is about ZERO.

If I'm reading you correctly, you're saying "since Ten bears thinks there is no potential value to that land", it 1. isnt overgrazed because its poor land anyway. 2. it should continue to be abused because it will always have no "potential value" anyway.

What do you base "potential value" on Ten bears? Who gets to determine whether or not the land has potential value? You? BLM? the Public? Mickey Mouse?

Further, how do you determine the "potential value" when the land in question has been abused for nearly a century, and nobody alive saw it before livestock began grazing it?

What you'd have is a freaking wild-assed guess made by people comparing like areas with their broad interpretation of "potential value"? That doesnt hold water to any sound science...and trust me, you start making assumptions about "potential value" by rubbing the crystal ball, you'll find yourself in the middle of a storm...one you wished you'd never gotten yourself into. Too many watchdogs out there to be making WAG's on "potential" anything.

Sorry, but I'm not following at all where you're going with this...its a dead end street.

Wow, I can just picture you standing up in front of professionals of range health from around the world saying, "that isnt over-grazed because you didnt compare your data to the 'potential value' of the land, its poor grazing land anyway", while you're backdrop is a wasteland of cowpies, one inch stubble, and dirt. Yeah, they'd see the importance of your comparison.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 08-21-2003 21:11: Message edited by: BuzzH ]</font>

 

[1_pointer]

Buzz- Isn't range condition designations based on comparison to potential vegetation that is outlined by the NRCS soil maps? I do know it is based on Clementsian succession which I have a BIG problem with. There are numerous papers outlining the fallacy of using that type of succession for arid/semi-arid and high elevation sites. Clementsian succession was formulated based on data from grasslands, mostly tall-grass prairie. A better and more current model IMO, is the states and transitions model. This works much better than Clement's idea for arid/semi-arid ranges. However, the data may not be comparable to previously collected data, thus it's usefullness is subject. In addition, many aren't on the 'bandwagon' for using this new model, as it disrupts much of what they've done for the last 70yrs.

One problem I have with range health determinations is that it is rated on the potential vegetation for that site (please correct me if I'm wrong). So, TB the comparison is what is there to the potential vegetation. Of note, many of these sites passed a threshold in earlier times (ie before fed agency management) and thus are difficult or impossible to revert to the 'pristine' to which they are compared to. A better comparison may be to compare recently collected data and the health be determined to be improving or not.

FWIW, I agree with TB, grazing doesn't mean cows. Elk are more than capable of overgrazing. If anyone wants to look into this look up the papers by Carl Wambolt from MT. He's worked on the range north of Yellowstone for quite some time and has shown that elk can and do have a negative impact on the land if their numbers get too high.

Just some thoughts...

 

[BuzzH]

1-pointer, you said, " A better comparison may be to compare recently collected data and the health be determined to be improving or not."

I totally agree with that, and thats what we did determine. We classified range/riparian conditions based on more than just how much utilization there was. Plant species composition and TYPE, soil compaction, hummocking and pugging, etc. etc. etc.

These items were given a weighted score to determine precisely if the range was in decline, static, or improving over-all condition. We made no "guesses" as to the potential value or the maximum potential of the individual sites. We did use a vegetation classification for the habitat type and the frequency of certain plant species found in similar types...these "keys" were modified for specific states/regions. But, they werent used for indicators of health.

Also, many of the sites had been inventoried previously, so comparisons between past and present data were available, but again, there was no comparison between present and "pristine" condition.

I also agree that elk and other wildlife can impact the range, but its pretty lame to say that elk are responsible for even 1% of the poor range conditions found on BLM lands. In very isolated cases, like Yellowstone, I'll agree, but across the board, theres no doubt domestic stock is the biggest problem, by far.

 

[1_pointer]

Buzz- Now I get it. It was hard for me to see what you guys were doing without having done it or looking at the methods. Your were determing trend and not stating condition. Right? Our range health assessments used terms like stable, at risk, not stable, which are similar. I agree that, that is a better method. However, the terms 'poor', 'good', and 'excellent' are different than trend. For those there has to be a comparison to something.

I may be lame

especially after a few drinks, but I didn't say it was responsible for any amount of the overgrazing on BLM. Just wanted to mention that wildlife can and will overgraze. Do you consider 'wild' horses wildlife?

If so, the 1% number would have to be greatly increased.

But, I agree that mismanagement of domestic livestock is the biggest problem.

 

[BigHornyRam]

Buzz,

Any comments on the horse issues? Good information from you and Pointer. Here are a few more questions. Of the 60% lands in bad condition, what percent would be nuked, what % would be in bad bad condition, and what % would be real close to being in the 40% catigory? Could things be done to improve there condition, including giving them a rest from grazing? Did some of them get a break from grazing after they were determined to be in poor condition? Did local drought conditions play a factor in the range conditions? How do these lands that you inventoried 3 to 5 years ago look today?

Thanks Paul

 

[Ten Bears]

Data collected by the BLM indicate that in 1992, the area of ranges in good or excellent condition was >2 times as great as in 1936.
http://www.waycross.edu/faculty/gcook/ecology/range.doc

How do you determine range condition without determining what the climax community would be for a site? Or did you just say that all sites would have the same climax community, and if they weren't there they were less then that by a degree?

The problem is BUZZ your not reading what I'm writing. You're on some tangent to prove me wrong, but you don't understand to issue.

IT, put up the answers, or stay on the sidelines.

 

[BuzzH]

Pointer, you are correct, it was more directed at trend and less on condition.

However, we collected enough data for any decent range manager to see what was going on. For example, say we inventoried 5 miles along a stream. We inventoried everything within the 100 year flood plain typically, making breaks in the polygons at fencelines, natural barriers, etc.

You could look at the data and see, for say the first reach, 60 plant species present, stubble height of 6-12 inches, not much compaction. Then the very next reach, you would all of a sudden have 3 noxious weeds present, 2 inch stubble, pugging and hummocking, 20 or less plant species present, compacted soils, etc. etc. etc.

It doesnt take a rocket scientist to know which was in better over-all health or to determine the current trend(s).

Ten bears, yes you did need to compare over-grazed land to something, but like I said, its pretty obvious and you sure dont need to assign potential value to see it.

Paul, of the lands I inventoried, I'd say that of the 60% that were in decline and/or poor condition at least a third if not half, could have been greatly improved very easily. Mostly with timing, intensity and/or duration of grazing. But, like I said, our job was not to make recommendations to the BLM, FS, etc. unless asked to. We were reporting to them on the current condition of their lands. Besides that, our recommendations may or may not have been heeded anyway...local and national politics were much more important for decision making and actions than what the science proved. Thats the most frustrating part of resource management, by far.

As to the horses, I dont mind seeing some, but I hunt a few areas that are over-run with them. No doubt they do extensive damage. Personally, I'd like to see their numbers controlled, but no need to eliminate them completely. I think there is room for them.

 

[BigHornyRam]

Pointer,

You commented that the BLM could use more dollars. Do you believe that the BLM could help themselves financially from within?

Last year an agent from the Helena National Forest solicited the organization I belong to for weed spraying funds. She was asked if the Forest had funds budgeted for weed control and how much was allowed. The answer was yes, but 50% of the $250,000 was imediately taken out for administrative and overhead expenses.

Does the BLM have similar outlandish administrative expenses? I can tell you as a private enterprise, if my overhead were anywhere close to 50%, I would not get one single bid. Maybe this could be an area that the BLM could improve their finnancial situation?

Paul

 

[BuzzH]

Paul, the FS, BLM, etc. are looking into that very thing...competitive sourcing.

I think the answer to that is YES.

 

[1_pointer]

Paul- I have no information regarding the percentage of money going for admin costs. I do know that fuels management as a pretty open checkbook right now! I'm not sure about how the BLM (or any fed agency) could come up with more funds from within as I have little knowledge in regards to funding. I will say that I was amazed at how a lawsuit can lock up a field office from getting much of anything done. A recent lawsuit in UT demanded that the office get together over 65 000 pages of documents. Being that they are now overstaffed, this put a hold on much of the range projects as the specialists were tied to a computer or copy machine to get the document done. I feel that much of the work in the future will be carried out through contracts to third, hopefully objective, parties.

Buzz- Thanks for the clarification, that clears things up for me. In relation to your riparian survey experience, I thought that you may find in interesting that there is quite a bit ongoing research on how to 'train' cows not to park themselves there. Seems to be working on a few places that I know of. By using riders and selecting replacement heifers on behavioral characteristics it is possible to get a herd that spends more time on the uplands than in the riparian areas.

TB- I feel the problem IS comparing to the climax community. There are better models now available for determining health. Thanks for proving my point, that the 60% may seem bad at first glance, but with a historical context may not seem as bad.

 

[Hangar18]

Question for BuzzH - With regard to the data you collected, where did you do this, and has the BLM made the data public? It would be interesting to look at this in the sense of spatial relationship - GIS mapping - from a perspective outside the agency. I'm curious to see if and how they use the data for range management decisions. I'm also curious if this inventory or similar exists elsewhere, and how often it is updated. Thanks in advance.

 

[BuzzH]

Hangar18, I sent you an email to the address in your profile.

If you have any other questions let me know.

 

[1_pointer]

Hangar- IF the BLM has data is available to the public via Freedom of Informantion Act. I know he Salt Lake Field Office has similar data and I collected more this summer. However, it had been quite some time from when I collected the data to the last time it was collected.

What type of GIS application are you thinking of? I have always wondered if there is a connectivity relationship. One thing GIS would allow is for looking at certain variables that are too difficult to do in the field ie soil type, aspect, etc. But if grazing condition is based on species composition, GIS would be greatly limited... interesting thoughts.

 

[BigHornyRam]

Buzz,

Who is pushing for competitive sourcing, and do you agree with this direction?

Paul

 

[Ten Bears]

You're welcome 1-P.

You also have to remember that 100% climax plant community = excellent condition, does not = excellent habitat for all wildlife.

BUZZ, you can't establish a rating for a site wihtout first evaluating the sites vegatative potential, and determining the potential climax community. To just look at a site and judge the condition is not scientific.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Ten,
Looking at a site, and obseving/recording the current condition is completely scientific. The "potential" or climax is theoretical, which would then entail the use of a scientific method to develop the experiments needed to prove/disprove the hypothesis stated.

When you add politics into the mix, everybody will have their own hypothesis, and if we never let the experts run the experiments/models, we will never have the answer.

But it doesn't take too much science to prove to me that Overgrazing by Welfare Ranchers is bad for Wildlife. Please don't tell me that you think there are deer, elk, and Pronghorn that thrive on overgrazed conditions.

 

[Ithaca 37]

Gunner, Don't forget about the smallgame populations! Grouse season starts in 8 more days and in about three weeks Scout and I'll be chasing chukars and huns.

If 85% of all BLM riparian zones weren't in poor condition due to welfare range maggots the gamebird populations would explode!!

 

[JoseCuervo]

Ithica,

The Chukar on the Main Salmon were thick as wasps. 30-50 in bunches. Two weeks ago I found a clutch that the babies were sooooo small, you could have stuck them into a chicken egg. I am not sure they will be able to fly by hunting season.

Hells Canyon in June had quite a few adults, but no hatches yet. Not sure how that direction will be.

 

[BigHornyRam]

Pointer,

Of the folks you have met in the BLM so far, what percent (ballpark) are in favor of and support the dogooder programs that favor the wild horses, such as the hauling water program you mentioned, or giving them more grazing allotments? Explain to me how the law forces the BLM to haul water for wild horses. Are there other laws that force the BLM to haul water for other wildlife or is the BLM caving in to specific public pressure in reguards to the welfare of the wild horses?

Ithaca and gunner,

Care to address the wild horse overgrazing issues and how best to deal with the problem?

Paul