Posted on 03/24/2004 5:22:47 PM PST by CedarDave
Catron County Rips Environmentalists Over Laney Cattle
By Rene Romo
Journal Southern Bureau
LAS CRUCES— The Catron County Commission has weighed in on the controversy over the Forest Service's impoundment of cattle belonging to rancher Kit Laney with a verbal blast at environmentalists.
In a statement released Monday, Catron County's three commissioners blamed environmentalists for applying the pressure that led the Forest Service in the mid-'90s to reduce the number of cattle that ranchers Kit Laney and his ex-wife Sherry Farr were allowed to graze on the Diamond Bar allotment in the Gila National Forest.
The reduction in the number of cattle allowed on the Diamond Bar allotment, from a high of 1,188 down to 300 head, brought the Laneys to the point of financial ruin, the Catron County commissioners said. "For the past 20 years the U.S. Forest Service has been held hostage by extreme environmental groups in the name of protection of the environment, whereas ranchers are the actual stewards of the land and have been for generations," said County Commissioner Rufus Choate. "These groups who claim to be champions of the environment are slowly destroying our public lands."
The Forest Service early this month began rounding up the Laney cattle, which have been grazing on the Diamond Bar without a permit since last spring in violation of a 1997 federal court order. The ranching couple were found in contempt of court in December for grazing their cattle in the Diamond Bar allotment, and Kit Laney was arrested in the March 14 assault of Forest Service officers guarding the impounded cattle. Laney is scheduled to have a second detention hearing today in federal court in Las Cruces.
Mike Sauber, director of the Silver City-based environmental group Gila Watch, said the commissioners were putting an "incredible spin" on the Laney case and the description of ranchers as stewards of the land. "The public lands ranching industry has had dominant control of our public lands throughout history, to the detriment of all other valid multiple uses, including hunting, fishing, backpacking, wildlife and watershed protection," Sauber said. "And it's unfortunate that the public ... has to sue the Forest Service in order to get honest management on behalf of the taxpayers who support and own this land."
Steve Libby, range staff officer for the Gila National Forest, said that while environmentalists have paid keen attention to management of the Diamond Bar, the Forest Service's own more detailed analysis of available forage led the agency to curtail the Laney grazing.
Catron County officials asserted that in the past 10 years, local ranchers lost grazing rights for more than 25,000 head of cattle, costing the financially strapped county millions in revenue.
But Forest Service officials disputed those figures. The Forest Service said that over the entire Gila National Forest, the number of cattle authorized to graze on federal allotments fell 8,602 over the past 10 years— from 25,737 in 1994 to 17,135 in 2003.
Copyright 2004 Albuquerque Journal
(Not for commercial use; for educational and discussion purposes only)
No rancher who has been in business more than a few years is going to turn out more cattle than the land will support. That can be done by turning out 5000 head for two weeks twice a year or 500 for 10 months. Rounding up thin cattle to sell isn't the business ranchers are in. Maintaining the pastures to support a continued or growing AUM's is something every rancher knows or else is bankrupt very fast.
My thoughts too, they were the leaders in the county land rights movement.
People should also realize it doesn't take much to influence the US Forest service to side with environmentalists...their ranks are filled with them and the USFS philosophy is closely aligned with the environmental movement.
One of the big myths that the enviros have successfully promoted is that grazing permitees overgraze the land. The cattle industry in its ineptitude has done little to counter this lie. Calves have to come off the range in the fall with some pretty good gains to justify the grazing fees and all the indirect expenses associated with grazing permits.
As you said, hammering the land with more numbers than it can carry is the road to ruin for grazing permitees.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.