Replies

Somewhere in the myriad of threads here, someone posted that Bundy refused to sign the contract with the BLM when they tried to "renegotiate" (i.e., "arm twist") his lease back in '93. They told him he had to limit his herd to 150 cows and only graze them in summer, fall and winter. (But no access during the all-important spring time grazing.) Bundy said no, realizing that such a deal would have left him bankrupt, refused to sign, and, in his words, "fired the BLM" for mismanagement and stopped paying the fee. He attempted to pay Clark County, but they would not accept the fees.

So this is the way the BLM works. They "renegotiate," supposedly in good faith or to protect the dung beetle, or whatever other excuse they come up with, the ranchers sign on. Once the ranchers sign a new contract, the old contract is null and void. In this case, if Bundy had signed, his preemptive rights would have been null and void. Others are saying it didn't matter if he signed, that the Feds changed the game and stripped his rights anyway. That is my understanding of all of this, but I'm no lawyer. I can imagine the feds have Clark county judicial system in their back pocket, however.

Oh Really? Groups endorse plan to end public lands grazing By JEFFRY MULLINS Associate Editor Elko Daily Free Press March 01, 2002
ELKO - More than 75 organizations, including some that receive federal funding, have endorsed a plan to end livestock grazing on federal lands in the West.

The plan was unveiled last fall by National Public Lands Grazing Campaign and would involve purchasing grazing permits from ranchers, then permanently retiring the permits.

Special legislation would be needed in order for the group to accomplish its goal. Meanwhile, letters have been mailed to the approximately 25,000 grazing permittees to introduce them to the buyout proposal and ask for their support.

“Some ranchers have already voluntarily relinquished their grazing permits to the government in exchange for compensation from third parties, and we believe many more would sell their permit interest to the government and retire the associated allotments from grazing,” NPLGC reports on its Web site, www.publiclandsranching.org.

Mark Salvo, attorney for the group, also works for American Lands Alliance, a Washington, D.C.-based group that has threatened to petition for listing of the sage grouse as a federally protected species.

At a RangeNet conference last fall, Salvo told the audience grazing takes place on 270 million acres of federal land, which is “a significant land area.” But he said the number of ranchers using the land is “insignificant” and contributes less than a tenth of one percent to employment in the West.

American Lands is one of the endorsers, along with Western Watersheds Project (Idaho), Alliance for the Wild Rockies (Montana), Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics (Oregon), Humane Society of the United States (Washington, D.C.), Wild Utah Project (Utah), The Wildlands Project (Vermont) and 70 other groups.

An article by Salvo and Andy Kerr of The Larch Company says, “Domestic livestock grazing (mostly beef cattle) have done more damage to North America than the bulldozer and chainsaw combined. Not only have livestock been degrading the landscape longer than developers, miners, and loggers, they have grazed nearly everywhere. Yet, the conservation movement has paid scant attention to this issue, even on federal public lands where livestock mow through 257 million acres annually.”

Buying out the grazing permits would be cheaper for taxpayers than allowing grazing to continue, they say.

Others on the group’s steering committee are Katie Fite of the Committee for Idaho’s High Desert, John Horning of Forest Guardians, Bill Marlett of Oregon Natural Desert Association, Jon Marvel of Western Watersheds Project, Randi Spivak of American Lands Alliance and Martin Taylor of the Center for Biological Diversity.

Some of the groups endorsing the plan have received federal funding. These include California Trout, based in San Francisco; Land and Water Fund of the Rockies; and World Wildlife Fund.

NPLGC is preparing to publish a book titled “Welfare Ranching: The Subsidized Destruction of the American West,” due out this summer.

Desert Tortoise vs. Grazing Cattle
Ranchers angry at federal order to temporarily move cattle from public lands

By Daniel B. Wood, Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor / February 12, 1992

Share on facebookShare on twitterShare on stumbleuponShare on email
LAS VEGAS, NEV.
ON behalf of the common desert tortoise, which has survived 2 million years on Earth only to face possible extinction before the year 2000, the United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has drawn a line in the desert sand.

Related stories
In Colombia, cows, crops and timber coexist
Tortoises divorce after 115 years of marriage (+video)
Galapagos Tortoise ‘Lonesome George’ may have had relatives after all
Ads by Google
FL Homeowners Insurance
Call Now to Get a Quote.
Serious Coverage. Serious Savings.
peoplestrustinsurance.com
Subscribe Today to the Monitor

Click Here for your FREE 30 DAYS of
The Christian Science Monitor
Weekly Digital Edition
In letters last week to ranchers across Nevada, the federal agency has mandated removal of cattle from 1.7 million acres of public lands from March 1 to June 14. “We are concerned that cattle are in direct competition for forage and grasses that the tortoise depends on for food,” says Sid Slone, chief biologist for the BLM’s Las Vegas district.

Under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, the agency is required to inform the US Fish and Wildlife Service of possible threats to listed species, and take protective measures. Ranchers to protest

But several ranchers, warned of the notices for several months, say they have plans to ignore the requests. “This will put the ranching business clear out of southern Nevada,” says Cliven Bundy, a rancher using 150,000 acres of public land near Mesquite.

“Southern California, northern Arizona, and Utah will be next,” he says, adding that this week’s announcement, if complied with, will force 95 percent of his herd - thousands of head of cattle - into expensive feed lots for the three-month period. Costs to consumers would triple.

“These are the lushest three months of the year,” says Jim Connelley, president of the Nevada Cattleman’s Association. “This will make it uneconomical for ranchers to operate anymore.”

According to the association, 12 percent of the nation’s cows exist in Nevada, but fully one-fifth come from Nevada livestock as offspring. If the cows were unable to stay on the cheaper federal land, the resulting market glut would force beef prices down temporarily but cause a long-term rise with the forfeiture of future offspring.

The BLM says only 4 percent of the country’s beef is produced on Western lands. But they acknowledge there is no proof that cattle grazing has direct impacts on the health or well-being of desert tortoises, according to Mr. Slone. To help find out, a new 220-acre research center has been established outside town here to study the basic biological requirements of desert tortoises.

The center was established in a negotiated settlement with developers in 1990. The developers had sued the BLM in 1990 after the tortoise’s listing halted construction in several major expansion projects.

A 400,000-acre tortoise preserve was also established on BLM lands that year through a short-term habitat-conservation plan with Clark County, Las Vegas, and the city of Henderson. The purpose is to set aside public lands for tortoises in exchange for the continued development of the Las Vegas valley. Cattle affect habitat

“In five years, we will better be able to demonstrate the effects [on tortoises] of grazing,” says Slone. Besides eating plants that tortoises need, cattle trample the soil, affecting its ability to hold moisture for vegetation. They also impact the burrowing habits of tortoises, who sleep underground eight months of the year.