A Rancher's worst nightmare

Remember the spotted owl? As I recall this bird was going extinct if we didn't shut down the logging industry in the Pacific Northwest. It was shut down causing untold economic, social and, with the recent forest fires, ecologic damage. Did it save the owl? Has anyone heard anything lately? The last I heard its relative, the barred owl, was moving in and replacing the spotted owl. Remember the chant of the bureaucrats and Non Government Organizations (NGOs) that we had to save the spotted owl's habitat. At that time their habitat was defined as 'old growth forest'. Now it seems the primary component of the spotted owl's habitat that is limiting its distribution and survival has nothing to do with vegetation. It's another owl! Keep that in mind when sage grouse habitat is discussed without any mention of predation.

The very high costs and lack of results in the misguided attempt to protect the spotted owl should have resulted in, at least, an intensive review of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the way it was implemented. You would have thought the bureaucrats and NGOs responsible for this debacle would have been diving for cover. Wrong! Instead , flushed with their success with shutting down the timber industry in the Pacific Northwest (they could care less about the owl) the NGOs dusted off their next poster species - the sage grouse. Their stated goal was to use the sage grouse to remove all livestock from the western federal ranges. The scientists and bureaucrats rose to the bait and initiated studies aimed at showing the sage grouse were in trouble. Fortunately , many researchers were honest enough to report that livestock grazing not only was not harmful to sage grouse but in some cases was found to be beneficial.

The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has spent hundreds of million s of dollars through its Sage Grouse Initiative (SGI) in a commend able effort to help ranchers within sage grouse core areas. While I applaud their intentions and realize they are the main bureaucratic ally in our natural resources battles, I have a problem joining the SGI program. When you sign a SGI contract you are admitting your livestock are negatively impacting sage grouse and the SGI program and dollars will fix the problem. I do not believe livestock grazing is a problem and, therefore, will not sign anything claiming the opposite.

The threat of listing under the ESA had everyone worried even though the sage grouse does not meet the definition of an endangered species. In other words, it probably will not go extinct in the foreseeable future. A huge sigh of relief went up when the US Fish and Wildlife Service decided not to list it. Unfortunately, this sense of relief was short lived!

Several years ago the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) initiated a review and rewrite of their Resource Management Plans (RMP). A number of drafts were run-up-the­ flagpole to see if anyone would salute (I have lost count of how many we commented on). The last revision included language to address the latest resource issue de jour – sage grouse conservation. Needless to say, we wasted our time sending in comments!

The RMPs went to Washington D.C. and the Department of the Interior Secretary Sally Jewel rewrote the sage grouse section to meet the NGO 's agenda. Since the science did not support their assumption that livestock grazing was harmful to the sage grouse, they had to take another tack and enlisted the aid of their ally Secretary Jewel. I believe her action violates several federal statutes (NEPA, FLPMA , etc.) since there was no opportunity for the public to comment on this major revision. This is just another example of the Obama administration ignoring the laws and overstepping its authority.

So what did she slip into the RMPs and why is it so bad ? Apparently , some federal legal beagle advised the BLM that if they wanted to win resource issues in the courts they had to devise a program that had definite goals, have a method to measure the parameter s and have a penalty for not attaining the goals. What Secretary Jewel did was to sanction a vegetation matrix supposedly for sage grouse. The matrix has five soil types across the top and various vegetation types down the side. The interior of the matrix is filled in with heights (inches) and percentages for the vegetation types in the various soils. Apparently , the plan is to run three transects in an area (this is vague because the BLM is just now trying to work out the details) and if the vegetation on two of the transects fails to

measure up to the parameters in the matrix the penalty kicks in- you take an Anima l Unit Month (AUM) cut of 10 percent! If there is no improvement within a year, you get hit with another 10 percent cut. The totally insane part of this whole program is that it has nothing to do with sage grouse! Your grouse population may be exploding but if the vegetation on two of the transects fails to measure up - your AUMs are cut. In addition, there is no scientific proof the AUM cuts will provide the desired vegetation parameter. The BLM should be mandated to provide this proof before any cuts are implemented . There are a lot of we11 intentioned , intelligent, people in these bureaucracies so how do we end up with so many stupid regulations?

This latest piece of Washington idiocy could be the rancher's worst nightmare. So what can we do? Well , we can follow the path laid out by that brilliant Nevada rancher, Wayne Hage. Wayne would get very upset if anyone referred to the federal rangeland as 'public land '. So what is the difference? Prior to 1934 anyone could use this public rangeland . Feral horses, itinerant bands of sheep, and resident livestock competed for the forage on the public land. In 1934 Congress passed the Taylor Grazing Act and hired an amazing person , Ferry Carpenter , to administer it. The Act took the land out of the public domain and allocated it to adjacent landowners to make economic ranching units. Now the landowners not only owned the water (prior use) on their adjudicated federal range but also the grass. The grass and water are your property and if you still have doubts just ask the Internal Revenue Service!

You often hear that we are not paying our fair share and that private and state leases are much higher. Remember, we own the grass and are not leasing or renting it. Instead we pay a tax or fee on our property the same as you pay a tax or user fee on the house you own in town.

Wayne established his ownership of the forage and water in the Federal Court of Claims.

He did not dispute that the BLM and Forest Service could cut his AUMs but argued they would have to pay him for the loss of his property. The court agreed with him! In conclusion, Wayne's legacy was to guide us through the process to make the federal agencies pay when they take our property. It will be up to us to see that his example and legacy lives on.

Ron Stoneberg

Hinsdale