Grant County ranchers fear financial hit from court-ordered loss of grazing territory (OR)

The Oregonian ^ | January 30, 2011 | Richard Cockle

[jazusamo]

Richard Cockle/The Oregonian/2008

Ken Brooks, a rancher in Grant County, takes a break from

 feeding his cows to discuss a federal judge's decision on

 steelhead that he says could force him to cut his herd from

 450 cows to 150.

JOHN DAY -- Rancher Ken Brooks is standing in his ranch yard near the ghost town of Fox , his eyes sweeping the timber-covered Malheur National Forest that holds the key to his future and that of 18 other Grant County ranching families.

"They're all pretty angry," he said. "We're all in the same boat. We're unsure what we're going to do. And most of all, we're unsure of the reason we have to do it."

A Dec. 30 ruling by U.S. District Judge Ancer Haggerty prohibits the ranchers from turning their cattle out on seven summertime U.S. Forest Service grazing allotments to protect threatened Middle Columbia River steelhead.

The latest decision in a years-long battle over the effects of grazing on stream habitat bans cows on 16 percent of the 1.7 million-acre forest, which has one the largest grazing programs of any forest in the Pacific Northwest.

The ban starts in June and would affect almost 4,000 mother cows and their annual calf crop valued at $2.8 million, ranchers and forest officials said.  

Environmentalists who filed the steelhead lawsuit said the Forest Service and National Marine Fisheries Service must do a better job enforcing laws to preserve stream banks from roaming cattle.

"The court makes clear that the agencies have to make steelhead protection their highest priority," said Brent Fenty , executive director of the 1,400-member Oregon Natural Desert Association.

But outside the courtroom, Grant County is bracing for the economic repercussions, said county Commissioner Boyd Briton.

"There are families involved, there are employees," Briton said. "All those cows, the feed stores, the Les Schwab tire store downtown, the grocery stores, it affects all of us."

The sprawling, mountainous county has a single stoplight, no rail or interstate highway access, only three fast-food restaurants, one theater in an old Rebekah Lodge and a mere 7,500 residents on land twice the size of Delaware.

The county already is coping with unemployment higher than 14 percent. The 19 ranchers affected by the judge's decision represent about 20 percent of those who hold grazing permits on the Malheur.

The overall hit from the ban, perhaps 60 jobs, is the equivalent of losing roughly 7,000 jobs in Multnomah County, said Mark Webb,  Grant County commission chairman.

Brooks, whose family has ranched between Fox and Mount Vernon for a century, expects some of his neighbors to quit ranching. He would have to reduce his herd from 450 to 150 cows, he said.

A reduction that dramatic would force him to lay off his two cowhands, he said, including one who's worked for the family since 1975.

The judge's ruling surprised John Grubel, a Forest Service district ranger in John Day, and Spencer Hovekamp, a branch chief with the National Marine Fisheries Service  in La Grande.

Both said ranchers have made significant strides in the last two years toward meeting government stream bank standards.

Hovekamp, a fish biologist who keeps track of John Day River system steelhead, said recent adult returns have been high -- mostly due to favorable ocean conditions and not, as some ranchers claim, owing to improved range management. Ranchers also blame habitat problems on wild horses and elk.

Still, they "are putting in a lot of work" riding the allotments on horseback, monitoring cattle, repairing fences and shutting gates left open by other forest users so cows and calves stay out of areas where they aren't supposed to be, said Jeff Shinn, a Forest Service spokesman in John Day.

Hovekamp also noted that some problems are out of ranchers' control, including logging reductions and wildfire suppression that contribute to canopy shade that leaves less grass for grazing.

"Where the grass remains lush and growing is near streams," he said, and that's where grazing has the biggest potential impact on fish.

The grazing ban doesn't leave them many other options, ranchers said.

Private summertime pasture is relatively scarce. More than 60 percent of Grant County is federally managed, and ranches tend to be at low elevations and devoted to summertime hay production to feed cattle in winter.

Brooks, for example, owns 9,000 acres, but he needs to set aside some to produce 800 tons of hay, and much of the rest is in parcels scattered among federal allotments. Grazing those tracts while keeping his cows off enjoined federal lands would mean building 18 miles of fence at a cost of $10,000 per mile, he said. He can't afford that.

The one hope for ranchers is if a new biological opinion can be drafted by the Forest Service and approved by the National Marine Fisheries Service before June, showing that cattle can graze on those allotments without harming fish runs.

But Hovekamp said getting that done in time "doesn't seem likely" with a large and complicated grazing program. A more reasonable deadline would be June 2012, he said.

The quandary for ranchers is what to do now:

Should they hold onto their herds, gambling that they'll find summer pasture or that the judge will relent on the timetable? Or should they sell?

"The price is highest for cow-calf pairs in January and February," Hovekamp said.

[jazusamo]

I'm with you on that, big time!

[VeniVidiVici]

The leasing of summer grazing has been going on for many many years and it’s the only thing that has allowed the ranchers to stay in business

The leasing of public lands has been going on for decades. The problem we see now is that to the environmentalists 'public lands' means nobody can use them.

[jazusamo]

I’m not sure but there’s one whole heckuva lot of USFS and BLM land in OR.

[Duke C.]

“You have a point but the real purpose of this isn’t to help salmon, its to hurt the ranchers.”

Not only hurt the ranchers, but so the attorneys for environmental groups can get fat at the taxpayers expense under the Equal Access To Justice Act.

Here’s a link to the Treasury Dept. guidelines these attorneys use to get compensated- At our expense!!

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=bd0668626682f013aadf8041830be864&rgn=div5&view=text&node=31:1.1.1.1.7&idno=31

[Man from Oz]

SD

You are sadly mistaken regarding the public lands - ranching issue. Cattle producers do pay a rate for grazing albeit less than private lands. However, grazing areas are remote and sorely lacking in improvements. Production costs are subsequently higher.

Additionally, grazing allotments are regulated quite closely to prevent overgrazing. Moreover, they must deal with the exploding feral mustang and burro populations that are our lilly livered politicians refuse to address.

Consider that > 75% of Western US lands are federal “owned”. Many ranchers own small deeded properties adjacent to public lands be it BLM, Forest service, grasslands or what have you. Without cattle grazing, existing lands would be over grown with brush over time.. Post climax plant communities.

The day is coming when we will rely on beef mostly produced in South America.

MFO

[blasater1960]

I used to go out there a lot as a kid. There is nothing out there but sky. The Feds should just leave them the hell alone. More proof that we need to hit a reset button on a lot of issues in the USA once we get our country back.

[OregonRancher]

“I am not anti-rancher or anti-cattlemen. But a person who can’t run their operation profitably without using public lands, well, they had better change what they’re doing.”

Give me a minute to clean up the beer on my keyboard.

You, sir, are a cretin. Most of those ranchers have been
ranching there for a hundred years and during those years, have been practicing conservation principles before the world “environmentalist” was even coined. Doesn’t it seem strange, that all of a sudden, after decades of taking care of their range, that someone stands up and starts screaming about the fish? Did the fish just suddenly decline after
100 years of ranching?

Get a good NF or BLM map and look at the government owned
land vs the privately held land up in the Blue Mountains.

The privately held land is scattered into small islands,
totally surrounded by fed and state land that has been
leased to these ranchers for decades. A lot of these ranches were operating before statehood, and yet, over the
years, the feds have been slowly squeezing the ranchers
with arbitrary and capricious rulings that are the result
of political pressure from city and urban dudes that wouldn’t know what a cow unit was in the field.

Top of my list is the BLM and F&G, with their heavy handed
ruling, based on who knows what, about what the ranchers can or cannot do.

You seem like a good case for SSS.

Just picturing that makes me laugh

FYI: SSS stands for Sears Service Sucks.

[OregonRancher]

“If I’m recalling correctly, Oregon has the most Federally owned land of all States.”

Nevada is king.

[jazusamo]

Amen! It’s beautiful country and suited to ranching, hunting and recreational activities but enviros want it shut down. To he** with them!

[jazusamo]

Great post, you said it better than I ever could. In high desert areas there’ll be a section, or half section that’s private surrounded bu BLM, same in USFS areas and it’s that way for miles in every direction.

[Little Pharma]

“I am not anti-rancher or anti-cattlemen. But a person who can’t run their operation profitably without using public lands, well, they had better change what they’re doing.”
___________

I also doin’t understand why any enterprise counts on public handouts, including use of public lands. I know in the southeast it is common for the feds (largely Forest Service) to do land swaps and sales so private owners can connect fragmented parcels.

[george76]

Well said.

[george76]

Not handouts.

Ranchers and sheep herders pay rent plus other in-kind services as required in the lease-—grazing allotment.

[george76]

Federal Lands in the US

http://bigthink.com/ideas/21343

1.Nevada 84.5%
2.Alaska 69.1%
3.Utah 57.4%
4.Oregon 53.1%
5.Idaho 50.2%
6.Arizona 48.1%
7.California 45.3%

[SatinDoll]

Let me tell you a story.

There is a farm near where I live (southwest Washington State). This farm, about 20 miles west of Toledo, grows high quality alfalfa hay on 389 acres, all highly prized by dairyman. This hay is sold before it is even baled. This farm sold (not to developers - it is zoned agricultural only) this past week for one and half million dollars.

The owner of the 900 acre ranch in the article owns 450 head of cattle. An individual bovine usually requires 7 acres grazing to survive and this rancher has only two acres for each animal. In addition, he is growing hay and must graze his cattle somewhere else so he can make money, and relies on the Federal Government for grazing land.

Anyone could tell this is a business plan in trouble.

I don’t know what the quality of the hay he bales and sells is, but if he improved the quality he could make more money using less acreage. As for his cattle, selling much of his stock and only keeping what he can support on his land will not make him a potful of money, but independent of the Feds.

Things are tight for everyone right now. This rancher must, if he wants to survive, adjust to the times.

And don’t call me names. It can get you thrown off of Free Republic.

[SatinDoll]

I’m not ignorant of the past practices of grazing on Federal lands in the NW.

It used to be almost all the West had open grazing, but that disappeared. So will grazing on Federal lands.

My reason for making the comments I have is that ranchers will have to change.

[SatinDoll]

I think the Congress needs to sell some of that Federal land to reduce the National Debt, don’t you?

[jazusamo]

enterprise counts on public handouts

Wrong. Ranchers lease the land, it's not given to them. They also make improvements like water holes, guzzlers, maintain fencing and truck water to their livestock in dry years which also benefits wildlife. The land we're talking about is not lush green pastures, for the most part it's dry harsh land that only a few types of grass can grow due to harsh winters, dry summers and fertility of that land.

Thanks for the ping, George.

[Osage Orange]

Do you REALLY think they are “handouts”?

[jazusamo]

Well, if they change it means the ranches they now have will no longer be ranches. You can’t compare land here in SW WA to land in Eastern OR, WA, ID, etc. Over there it’s high desert and low mountains. See my post 38.