Judge blocks Grazing on "Endangered Owl" Lands

Associated Press | Nov. 25, 2002 | Arther Rotstein

[Bodacious]

Text | User Agreement | Privacy

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Health & Science: Grazing temporarily blocked on endangered owl lands

Copyright © 2002 AP Online

Search the archive for: environment

By ARTHUR H. ROTSTEIN, Associated Press

TUCSON, Ariz. (November 25, 2002 10:42 p.m. EST) - A federal judge has issued an injunction that could temporarily ban cattle grazing on huge swaths of national forest land identified as nesting and foraging sites for the endangered Mexican spotted owl.

U.S. District Judge Raner Collins' order blocking grazing in areas of Arizona and New Mexico was signed Thursday in response to a lawsuit by environmental groups who want to remove cattle from spotted owl habitat.

The injunction is set to kick in Jan. 22. But it won't go into effect if the Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service complete a new biological review before then, Collins said.

The last such review, which resulted in amended grazing standards set by the Forest Service in 1996, took a couple of years to complete, said Jim Angell, an attorney for Earthjustice, a nonprofit public interest law firm and a plaintiff in the lawsuit.

Those standards were designed to protect owl habitat and ensure its survival. Grazing threatens the owl by reducing its favorite prey, degrading streamside vegetation and slowing the growth of habitat favorable to the bird, environmentalists contend.

"Frankly, they may try to hurry this through so the time grazing is enjoined is shortened," Angell said Monday of the biological review. "My fear is they will try to rush this thing out as quickly as possible and, as a result, their analysis will be shoddy."

Collins didn't specify how many acres were included in the injunction, but Angell put the number at at least 200,000. Attorneys representing the Justice Department and the Arizona Cattle Growers Association didn't return calls seeking comment Monday.

Collins' injunction is the latest step in a long-running lawsuit over the owl habitat. Last month, he found that the Forest Service violated the Endangered Species Act by failing to prevent overgrazing on millions of acres of national forest in the two states.

The government or the Arizona Cattle Growers Association could appeal Collins' order. Art Morrison, a spokesman for the Forest Service's regional headquarters in Albuquerque, N.M., said officials haven't consulted with the Justice Department on the ruling yet.

[Bodacious]

Many apologies....This is only my second posting, done on my "scheduled COFFEE break"...I'll attempt to improve my postings in the future. AND provide a link to the article.

[.38sw]

Thanks. Do you know how to post a link? Copy and paste? Not hard, and thanks for the article. it has generated a lot of good discussion.

[sasquatch]

Congress, like any landlord, makes the rules

Exactly. Seems like you don't like them.
Or are you suggesting that the ranchers are criminals?
Or that they cannot own grazing rights?
BTW, how much money have Alaskans made from the pipe?
OH, here it is:

JUNEAU, Alaska (AP) -- Alaska will pay established residents $1,540.76 each this fall,
down nearly 17 percent or $310 from last year because of the falling stock market

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Then the BLM can sell the grazing rights at market rates - not sweetheart rates to whichever big rancher has been sucking up to the right Congresscritter or Senator.

In Alaska's case,the natural resource base locked in as government land produces far in excess of what is necessary to operate - so it comes back to the citizenry.

[sasquatch]

...and this is after they've paid state income tax, right?
If you lived in Alaska, you'd do the right thing and refuse this obvious subsidy, right?

[sasquatch]

the natural resource base locked in as government land produces far in excess of what is necessary to operate
- so it comes back to the citizenry.

[sasquatch]

OOPS, the ranchers PAY the gov't....

[Chancellor Palpatine]

ALL the citizenry - not just a favored few.

Put it this way - eastern cattle farmers don't get that same benefit.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

The ranchers pay the government a fraction of the local market rate.

[VMI70]

If the range is privatized, then ranchers would own worthless land for grazing.

"Am I missing something here?"

Yes and no. You need to keep the sentence cited in context. but I'll reword it to try to better explain the idea that I was attempting to convey.

"If private land was worthless for grazing, then why pay for grazing rights on government land?"

If you pay for grazing rights, then you don't have to worry about the value of the land as an asset. You can walk away without effect. You are, in effect, renting land, and the cost is a simple, predictable (very important) expense of doing business. You can price your product accordingly which keeps market stable.

Hoever, if you buy the land, it becomes an asset, but it's value is unpredictable as a result of the uncertainty caused not by market forces but by decisions that are forced upon you by the government.
If the value of the foundational asset, land in this case, is unpredictable, think of all the problems that arise. First and foremost, it would be extremely difficult to find a banker willing to lend money to you, for either the asset, the value of which could easily go to zero, or the future value of your product, which would be affected not by market forces, but by governmental decisions as aforementioned.


Governmental decisions that bear no relationship to market forces make the market risk of private ownership simply too high

Therefore, private land in this case is, for all intents and purposes, worthless, because of the unpredictability of it's value.

[sasquatch]

Put it this way - eastern cattle farmers don't get that same benefit.

nor do I get any of Alaska's oil revenue.

[sasquatch]

I should have posted it in full:

ALL the citizenry - not just a favored few.
Put it this way - eastern cattle farmers don't get that same benefit.

nor do I get any of Alaska's oil revenue.

[daylate-dollarshort]

From saminfl's post:

The market really has determined what the price will be. There is probably no other use for that land other than grazing. If the ranchers can't use it, no one else will pay the government for use of the land and the government loses out on that money. It isn't subsidizing the ranchers, it is the fact that the government is getting something for which there would be no other use. The public benefits from lower beef prices.

I would appear that, at least to me, that the land being referred to is the government rangeland, not private land. However, I believe that you will still find that the ability to graze private land would be the same as the prevailing AU rate charged by BLM. The market for cattle is fixed by demand for the product and not the cost to raise it. Paying higher prices for grazing would negate the profitability to the rancher.

[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

I haven't been around here too long, but I must admit I am impressed at the intelligent, measured manner in which environmental issues are being discussed here.

The liberal media always portrays the right as being slash and burn rapers of mother nature. I am starting to think that it is more just the corporations and that most of us really are more like Teddy Roosevelt and understand how conservative and conservation match up.

Is there something the GOP is not listening to among its grass routes supporters? (i.e. big oil, timber, mining, and ranchers have all the money and influence) or is it just a matter of bad(liberal) press?

[John O]

Shoot and Shovel

You forgot the third "S": SHUT UP

God Save America (Please)

[Chancellor Palpatine]

I've always felt like there was a combination effect. There are always going to be pirates among us who would dump anything - and we have to root them out when they appear. The big companies will generally have some managers around willing to skirt every rule, and those have to be rooted out, too.

Sometimes we have overreacted and misunderstood the attempts to flush the bad, and gave them more hope than they deserve.

On the balance though, I've found that most people of the views that hang around this place tend to want to conserve the resources we have, to use them, and to not unnecessarily foul the water and air.

It is a balancing act.

[daylate-dollarshort]

"The ranchers pay the government a fraction of the local market rate."

Oh?? What, pray tell, is the local market rate??? Or per-chance are you making ASSumptions??? You also seem to be of the false belief that grazing rights are somehow just arbitrarily given out. Grazing rights are granted by an open competitive bidding process.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

I recall an article from some time ago (and I'm talking about 10 years ago) that the market rate is 3 to 5 times what these guys pay. That may have changed, but I tend to doubt it.

[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

Great reply!

In my job I occassionaly deal with the subject of "sustainable development". Since I work in a bank, we often talk about living off the interest the earth provides and not its capital.

What radical environmentalists don't seem to understand is that human beings are so creative that sometimes we can make tha capital pay greater dividends each year.

The pillagers, on the other hand, don't seem to care at all if they blow the whole thing because "They live somewhere else". Or, they rely a bit too much on crativity, or they just plain don't care.

As you rightfully pointed out, the key is balance. In order to grow economically, we need more of everything from water, to iron to energy. However, there are limitations on how quickly the earth can replenish what we take(see Mid-Western auifers). Sometimes we need to be more efficient. It seems quite simple arithmetic that if it takes 100 gallons of water to build 100 cars and I can reduce that process to use only 50 gallons, I have 50 more gallons to make either 100 more cars or something else. Conservation makes me wealthier, not poorer.

Dick Cheney was wrong when he said that conservation was just a personal virtue. On the planet on which I live it is becoming more and more a necessity.

[E.G.C.]

Here are some additional thoughts on this subject.

Apparently, there are some people who seem to think that's it's O.K. for goverment to tell people what they can or can't do with the land that they purchased.

Well, whether anyone wants to believe it or not the vast majority of Americans DO NOT think so and anyone says otherwise is a bald faced pathlogical liar.

The enviro-wacko agenda that so many people seem to condone and sanction was rejected outright with the November 5th election. The public has spoken and they have stated emphactically they do not want these enviro-wackos setting policy for this country.

And I will tell you that enviro-wacko federal judge (I'll bet he's one of those X42 apppointees) needs to get his butt thrown off the bench.

We need judges who will interpet the Constitution, not judges who legislate from bench. This judge is not one of us.
Regards