Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

livingontheland - [Livingontheland] Grazing on public land: helpful to ranchers, but harmful to habitat?

livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Healthy soil and sustainable growing

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Tradingpost" <tradingpost@lobo.net>
  • To: livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: [Livingontheland] Grazing on public land: helpful to ranchers, but harmful to habitat?
  • Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 11:22:04 -0600




Grazing on public land: helpful to ranchers, but harmful to habitat?
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008076883_grazing28m.html

By Lynda V. Mapes
Seattle Times staff reporter

ELLENSBURG — Russ Stingley rides high on a chestnut horse and moves his
bellowing and bawling cattle through this open country that stretches for
miles.

How he got here is a story as old as the West: a mix of political wheeling
and dealing, and deference to the cult of the cowboy — sagebrush and all.

Just as true to the history of the West, much of the land where Stingley runs
his herd isn't his. It's state-owned land: fragile, sagebrush-steppe terrain
that's among the rarest ecosystems in Washington.

Stingley, a second-generation rancher, raises cattle and about 300 acres of
hay near Ellensburg — and without access to public lands for grazing,
Stingley said, he'd probably just forget about the cows and stick with hay.

"It's a lot harder to find pasture ground in the Kittitas Valley than it used
to be," Stingley said. "Now it's mostly houses. If we wasn't out here, we'd
be out of the cattle business."

Ranchers and leaders at the department say putting cattle on state
fish-and-wildlife habitat land has a double benefit: They want to find out if
closely managed cattle grazing can help stimulate the growth of plants that
nourish deer and elk. And giving ranchers access to state land helps them
keep their herds and businesses alive.

But so far, the effort has been a mixed bag for the department: part art,
part science, part misstep, liberally watered with agency staff time — and
plenty of public money. Now an increasingly vocal group of critics —
including some of the state's own biologists and other local ranchers — say
the programs are creating sacrifice areas on the landscape and amount to a
handout to politically connected ranchers.

They point to overgrazing, water befouled by manure and sediment, and
critical fish habitat damaged by wallowing herds on some pastures as evidence
that the state needs to halt the programs immediately.

Pilot-project controversy

Livestock grazing on Department of Fish and Wildlife land dates back to the
1940s. The department manages about 900,000 acres and allows grazing on about
5 percent of it.

Most controversial is the department's Pilot Grazing Program on the Blue
Mountain Area Wildlife Complex in Asotin County, in the state's southeast
corner. The program started in 2005, with the support of Gov. Christine
Gregoire, as a way to help the Washington Cattlemen's Association.

The move followed a meeting in 2005 between Gregoire and the industry group.

According to an e-mail from Elliot Marks, then one of Gregoire's advisers on
natural-resource policy, the meeting resulted in two steps by the state:

The Governor's Office appointed a man recommended by the Cattlemen's
Association to the state Fish and Wildlife Commission. And the officers of
the association met with department staff "on the issue of their having
increased access to state lands, and the purchases of some ranches by the
state," Marks said in an e-mail.

In November 2005, the department signed an agreement with the cattlemen to
launch the experimental Pilot Grazing Program, allowing the cattlemen to run
their cows on public wildlife lands at no charge.

Since 2006, the department spent at least $142,819 on staff time and buying
fencing, pipe, troughs and wire to implement the program. In the current
budget, the department is set to spend at least $300,000 more on fences,
water improvements and monitoring.

Agency staffers have put in nearly 4,000 hours on grazing plans, installing
fencing by the mile, herding cattle, attending meetings and monitoring. It's
time that one expert said is taken from other work.

Benefits to the state

Jeff Tayer, a manager for the Fish and Wildlife Department, said the grazing
on department lands is much less intensive than when the land was privately
held. And he said the grazing program benefits the state because it achieves
support from locals, necessary for political backing from the Legislature to
acquire habitat land.

Tayer said the biggest risk to rare habitat isn't cattle at all. It's
conversion to agriculture or development, which together have already
consumed two-thirds of shrub-steppe habitat in Washington.

To make his point, on a recent visit to the land near Ellensburg he pulled
his state SUV over next to a highway billboard: "Peaceful Views, Quiet,
Beautiful 20 acre home sites, only 12 left starting at just $68,000!" said
the ad for Sage Hills, a development.

"We had the support of the local cattlemen and farm bureau to buy this land,"
said Tayer, looking over a sweep of sagebrush steppe not far from the
development. "It's only broad political support that helped us get there."

To Stingley, the program is also smart politics for the governor. "She didn't
win [the last election] by a whole lot, and she loses too much support on the
east side of the mountains," Stingley said.

"This shows maybe she cares about somebody beyond the big corporates."

Glimpses of good, bad

But managing fish and wildlife habitat for cattle grazing has been difficult.

Last year, cattle were stocked in one pasture at nearly twice the levels the
department's management plans allowed. It took 11 days for anyone to notice,
and an additional two days before the animals were removed, state records
show.

And there have been other problems this year, including severe overgrazing.

Earlier this year, the Western Watersheds Project, an environmental group in
Hailey, Idaho, filed suit in Thurston County Superior Court to kick the cows
off Washington wildlife lands. Hearings on the case begin this month.

A recent tour of wildlife lands by the department, contrasted with a second
tour offered by a grazing opponent later the same day, illustrated what can
go right and wrong.

At the spot where Stingley runs his cattle, the program was picture-perfect.
The rancher moved his animals out smartly as a department biologist looked on
to make sure the animals were off the department's ground on schedule.

The lands Stingley uses include a mix of public and private land, managed
under a plan initiated in 2006 that allows landowners to use it
cooperatively, for purposes such as wind farming and cattle grazing. That
benefits recreational users, private land owners and wildlife, Tayer said.

But later that afternoon, Bob Tuck, of Selah, Yakima County, a former member
of the Fish and Wildlife Commission who now teaches environmental education
in public schools, showed another section of department ground managed under
the same cooperative program.

Here, the ground around watering tanks and a spring was trampled to dust. A
single cottonwood remained in what should have been a green corridor. The
sole survivor offered testimony of what was once here: an oriole's nest swung
from a branch, its architect a flash of yellow in the sky. Grass grew long in
the shade of the tree — and nowhere else.

Then a bellow blasted from the sage. A pair of confused calves looking for
their mother.

They weren't supposed to be here, according to the grazing schedule, nor were
the more than 12 others lumbering through the dust. Trespass cows, from
another farmer's land.

The damage done to this ground was done over decades, before the department
bought it. But Tuck and others say now that this land is publicly owned
wildlife habitat, it should be left alone to recover.

He called the grazing programs "an illegitimate political child."

"Forget the ecological part, which is bad enough," Tuck said. "The department
is chronically short-funded, and to divert staff time and money just to
support this borders on irresponsibility. It amounts to an unfair subsidy."






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page