Grazing Practices in Ochocco,Maury,Grizzly Units

[Amahnee]

I started hunting the Maury Unit in 1990. Elk numbers increased throughout the early 90's, peaking 96-97. Elk were everywhere! Now Cattle are everywhere and the elk are all down on private ground where the ranchers are whining about it. They don't want them, but won't let you hunt them. If this practice remains in place any longer, there will be no elk in the Ochoco, Maury, or Grizzly units. You have to watch where you walk anywhere over there so you don't step in a cow patty. The rancher's believe it's there right to graze it all off. The USDA spends $2 dollars to every $1 they collect from grazing fees.I had better quit now, I'm having chest pains!

[ 02-26-2004, 10:34 PM: Message edited by: Get Bit ]

[BrianMaguire]

If you want to do something about it you should get involved in the planning process for the Forests. Call the USFS district offices and find out when they plan to renew the allotments. The USFS is required to do at least an EA (Environmental Assessment) or if the impacts of grazing are severe or endanger critical habitat they must do an EIS (Environmental impact statement). The way to at least attempt to get grazing reduced or eliminated is to point out issues in the scoping (initial) phase of the allotment renewal. This is why its important to call the USFS districts that you hunt and find out when these take place. They only happen every 15 years so if one is coming get on it. The big thing to look for is what is called irreparable harm. This means that if a certain activity is not stopped a harm that can not be reversed will occur. If you can shot this you have a strong case to end grazing in an area.

The USFS Paulina ranger district is in the scoping phase for 5 allotments right now. The area totals 86,000 acres. I would like to see reduced grazing on these areas and eliminated on the designated elk winter range.

[ 02-27-2004, 05:05 PM: Message edited by: BrianMaguire ]

[skein]

Don't blame the cows! If we shot at them, they, too, would be down behind locked gates. Elk and deer aren't dumb. They go where it's safe. I have pictures of hundreds of deer grazing peacefully during the height of deer season just a couple hundred yards off the road.

Last year we hunters lost access to a 35,000 acre ranch that we have hunted for years. Why? Because the rancher finally said he just can't afford to fix his roads that get torn up every hunting season.

His ranch foreman showed me one of them where a guy had gotten stuck and another rig had pulled him out. Then they drove away (like you and I have probably done at one time or another) leaving ruts, logs, and knee-deep mud where there had been a road. He showed me other places where the ruts were so deep you could no longer get a rig through. When it dries, it dries like concrete. Before it dries, it's impassable. ...but I digress.

There is a small, PETA-type group of people that want ALL grazing stopped on public lands, but don't kid yourself. They don't want YOU out there either. Get the cows off today, get you off tomorrow. If you don't believe me, check out the Snowy Plover madness that may lock us off OUR beaches!

It ain't the cows!

Skein

[Hoosier Daddy]

I've always thought we should have small number of moo-cow tags as part of the cost of open range grazing. A little harassment might wise them up a little.

[BrianMaguire]

Originally posted by skein:
There is a small, PETA-type group of people that want ALL grazing stopped on public lands, but don't kid yourself. They don't want YOU out there either. Get the cows off today, get you off tomorrow.
It ain't the cows!

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">What group is this? Do you have a group name? Is this an oregon based group, or a national group?

I for one would like to see public land grazing reduced in a large way on the land I have experience with. I also want the cows eliminated from wilderness areas completely. Are grazing advocates going to tell me the the Mill Creek wilderness needs grazing? Do we get the same old argument "cows can be good" yet no one can point to a study where (in the west) they were good or a place where the currently are good, oh yea, except on "my ranch".

What is meant by "its not the cows fault", are you arguing its the ranchers fault?

This group that may want the cows off just may be us.

[ 02-27-2004, 11:38 AM: Message edited by: BrianMaguire ]

[nrcamo]

great post, skein. you nailed it. board members of these groups,along with their motives, aren't hard to pick out. it ain't the cows fault.

[Salmo trutta]

I personaly know quite a few hunters who are disgusted with the current management practices related to livestock grazing on public lands. Every year more and more other public lands hunters are joining their ranks. The only PETA that they belong to is "People for Eating of Tasty Animals"

This is a lighning rod subject and an important issue and deserves to be addressed and debated in a reasonable manner.

I don't believe there are any conspiricy theory, secret agendas anywhere on this forum. If there was a "secret agenda" there are other outlets to do a more effective job of promoting it. I have witnessed both good grazing practices and horrific grazing practices on public lands. But it basically comes down to this: I hunt deer and elk on public lands. For every blade of grass that a cow eats an elk does not. There is competition between domestic livestock and elk on those grazing allottments and usually the elk loose. I have seen this in Hells Canyon. If removing the cows promotes more habitat for deer and elk so we can hunt longer seasons, trophy class bulls(read high nutritional value habitat) with less hunter competition then so be it.

[grog3]

I was a Range Tech for the Forest Serevice on the Wallow Whittman Forest in NE Oregon. Their are valid point from both sides however their are variables. Each allotment is different(geograpic / vegetation) and precipitaion changes every year so the amount of grazing should change accordingly. Their can be harmony between both it just take a pro active approach from the FS / BLM and the rancher to make the necessary adjusments. The other issue is the under staffing, I was one person that monitored the entire forest(which at one time was done with 7 people), cant remember the exact acreage but it was huge, forcing much of the responsibility on the rancher. That is tough because he is trying to make a livivng off that ground so he is going to push it to the limit. I also love to hunt and the biggest problem I saw was the loss of winter range (no supprise), I guess my point is with propper management we can have both..... I just dont think we have seen good management by the FS or the BLM we need better monitoring and better rotation. Cows need to be pulled off Forest land sooner in the fall to allow for regrowth and to protect winter range. I could talk about this for hours, I believe its an important issue, however I dont think the answer is to remove cows all togther, they do provide a benifit if managed properly. Sorry for the spelling

[skein]

Grog3, thanks for your post. You are exactly the kind of guy that can help us muddle through some of these problems. In so many situations, the people with the info also have a vested interest in proving their own side of the issue.

It seems that many studies (on many things, not just the environment) take place during the life of a grant or thesis, and when the money runs out or the candidate graduates, the research gets mothballed. That also means that (obviously) studies done in drought or extremely wet years are going to be skewed, yet that may be the only time the research was done.

I could go on, but you get my drift. Things change, and what worked or didn't work three years ago might be a totally different story now.

Skein

[Amahnee]

They do need to rotate. I don't see that happening. I spent two summers on a lookout for BLM fire and the only time I saw the rancher's moving cow's was just before deer rifle season. They would wipe out entire riparian areas. One week the ground would be lush, the next it looked like the green on the 18th hole heading for the club house. The government has no money and will not increase public land usage fees in order to obtain it. Somebody has to pay. I have to pay for boat licensing, then I have to pay $3 bucks to park at McIver park for the day just to launch my boat. We all pay. The rancher's need to make a living I understand, but they should pay just like anybody else. If they can't afford, go do something else. It's not a right, it's a privelidge to use that land for grazing. Just like national healthcare, nobody has a right to it. If you want healthcare,you gotta pay! and pay alot for it. Everybody expects something for nothing in this world. Boy I'm cranky!!

[BrianMaguire]

Grog Thanks for the post. You point out exactly what has reasonable people like myself suggesting very radical change. The reason is that nothing has been, or will be done with public land grazing unless people like myself advocate and fight hard for a stance that the other side (The public land grazing advocates) really don't want.

Their can be harmony between both it just take a pro active approach from the FS / BLM and the rancher

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Here in lies the crux of the problem. Ranchers have been grazing many of these areas going on a century now. The ranching community by in large takes the stance that public land grazing is a right not a privilege that can be revoked. For the most part the ranchers are correct and the privilege in effect can not be revoked and this is a reason why the majority of ranchers don't in a sense care about what impact their cows have on public lands.

they do provide a benefit if managed properly.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">This is patently untrue. Scores of species across the west are at risk of extinction or are in sever decline primarily due to grazing and related activities. No other human activity in the west is as responsible for the decline or loss of species than livestock. The true way of stating this is: "In some instances under certain circumstances grazing may provide a benefit to some wildlife." The grazing community has been stating "do provide" for so long everyone believes it. Look at a big city, simply because roaches, rats and pigeons flourish does not indicate cities are good for wildlife.

The other issue is the under staffing, I was one person that monitored the entire forest(which at one time was done with 7 people), cant remember the exact acreage but it was huge, forcing much of the responsibility on the rancher.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">I personally have been asking the USFS in the Paulina ranger district to do better monitoring and statistically valid sampling all over an allotment. I get the same argument that they (USFS) are under staffed. I seems to me to be foolish if not irresponsible to support and promote an activity (grazing) that the agency can't properly monitor. Is it fair to the other users of the forest to be victims of abuse because of lack of management oversight.

I guess my point is with proper management we can have both..... I just don't think we have seen good management by the FS or the BLM we need better monitoring and better rotation. ...so he is going to push it to the limit.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">I don't disagree but I have heard this literally out of the mouth of the BLM and USFS for 20+ years and quite frankly I don't believe that "proper management" has ever or will ever occur. Maybe if the ranching community is pushed to the brink of loosing it all and becomes an advocate for "proper management" instead of fighting it we may get somewhere.

responsibility on the rancher. That is tough because he is trying to make a living off that ground so he is going to push it to the limit.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">And many if not most do, I will say there are probably some that are decent and don't take full advantage of a public land grazing permit but I have yet to see or meet one in real life. To me they are this sort of myth, like the study that says cows can be good for wildlife. For the most part I don not believe ranchers will be any different than the timber companies that would clear cut right through a stream bed. Neither would do anything until forced by the law or courts.

IMO it is out of the agencies hands, they (BLM and USFS) have neither the will nor the teeth to do the right thing and "properly manage" grazing. More funding would be required on an already red ink laden program and as a fiscal conservative I do not think that further subsidization is appropriate. I maybe would support fair market pricing and stiff monetary penalties for failing to meet management objectives as a possible source of revenue to properly manage grazing.

[ 02-28-2004, 04:13 PM: Message edited by: BrianMaguire ]

[grog3]

Brian, It sounds like your opinion is pretty much made up..... "No cows on public land". This is not an easy debate, and my biggest frustration is when people let their emotions cloud their judgement and dont look at the facts.
You mentioned you want radical changes in management by the FS and BLM. One question, how do you manage umpteen thousand acres for "MULTIPLE USE AND SUSTAIN YEILD" ????? Because its public land and everyone has the right to use it.

Try managing for:
1. hunting
2. fishing
3. wildlife viewing
4. hiking
5. timber
6. ranching
7. endangered flowers / species
8. habitat fish/ wildlife
9. Recreation camping/off roading
10. ETC..........

know you tell me how you can manage public land and keep everyone happy.
Your comment about cows not being a bennefit to public land. I'll make myself more clear, they are a benifit to grasslands...... which make up the majority of public land in the west. the reason I say this is because grasses will not thrive without some sort of disturbance. Meaning fire or grazing. Now if you take cattle out of the picture and let fire burn the dead material you have at the end of each growing season thats fine but we dont let fires burn any more so now you have unhealthy unproductive grasslands.
Cattle are just a management tool.... and as I said if managed properly can be a bennifit.

[ 03-01-2004, 04:30 PM: Message edited by: grog3 ]