|
Hysterics over drought conditions
may end historical uses of land
By Laura Schneberger
gnfpa@gilanet.com
The forced removal of livestock from
the Santa Fe National Forest comes on the heels of a bad drought. There is
no argument about that.
Where the argument lies is in the U.S.
Forest Service's overall application of the order. Livestock organizations
supporting ranchers in the Santa Fe area, most of whom have been on these
lands for 400 years, have requested politely that the scientists from New
Mexico's Range Improvement Task Force be brought in to determine the
extent of the utilization and how best to deal with the situation prior to
the forced removal of livestock.
Is that really asking too much before
economically destroying the families that rely on the grazing allotments
in the forest?
The USFS employees quoted in the papers
have shown no data that confirms that this situation is warranted yet.
The allotment tour of Range Supervisor
Dave Stewart traveling over 10 out of 86 forest allotments is hardly
enough to verify how widespread the problem is, and hardly constitutes an
evaluation of even those allotments, much less the other 76 allotments.
The USFS justifies the removal of the
Santa Fe livestock by stating that other forests have already had
reductions. While this is indeed the case, most of the allotments were
forced into non-use over the last decade when environmental lawsuits and
appeals to halt grazing were dictating USFS behavior - not unlike the
tactics used to halt thinning that resulted in the forest fire situation
we now see.
In the case of the Gila National
Forest, the forest service removed 40 percent of the livestock, but not
due to drought. The seemingly permanent removal was due to overly
stringent application of the Endangered Species Act brought on by lawsuits
and incomplete National Environmental Policy Act analysis.
Nearly all livestock allotments on
wilderness and in the areas of the wolf recovery effort were summarily
disposed of prior to the onset of the drought.
These actions have contributed directly
to the economic hardship faced by the southern New Mexico counties.
There are other factors to consider. In
1980 when the Gila National Forest began drafting livestock numbers for
the forest plan, range efforts were obviously begun and aimed at reducing
livestock in forest plan allocations.
Even though the Forest Plan was not
approved until 1986, the USFS began implementing increasingly harsh
allowable utilization levels standards on the ranches. And they keep
lowering the levels to keep justifying the need to reduce livestock.
Pre-Forest Plan levels were at about 50
percent forage use and in some areas higher. In the new plan, levels were
around 40%. Since then, amendments to the Forest Plan have varied from 0%
allowable utilization to 50%, averaging about 20% allowable use of forage
on most allotments.
Of course if elk get to a pasture
first, the rancher cannot exceed the level set by the agency even if elk
got the 20% allocated to the livestock.
Forest Handbook standards are even
harsher than Forest Plan standards. At the same time the USFS scorecards
for rating range condition became harsher, when they were used at all.
Because allowable use standards are
dependent on range condition ratings it is easy see why the USFS has been
able to justify the severe livestock reductions of recent years. The
question is, has the range actually become healthier with the harsher
standards?
There is data to suggest it hasn't but
with the implementation of the Clinton Administration’s ecosystem
management no one cared as long as the land was managed with only the
ecosystem and environmental movement’s whims in mind.
Last of all, the USFS has a tendency to
not do comprehensive range studies prior to making devastating livestock
reductions - preferring to substitute them for professional judgment calls
sometimes by people who have absolutely no range education and experience.
This has led to massive livestock
reductions across the west and hence the call of the livestock industry to
involve the scientists of the RITF in the issue prior to the economic
devastation of the Santa Fe National Forest Permittees.
If the RITF do come up with some data
warranting some reductions and the dry conditions continue, why wouldn't
it be possible to find some emergency funding to allow partial use of the
ranges to develop waters in the uplands and use supplemental feeding until
the rains recover the pastures?
Rather than continue to allow the
agencies to hope for ranchers to be pitted against wildlife interests and
demonized in the media for their lack of foresight, why not agree that the
wildlife and livestock both need food and water in this time of drought
and both are important enough to the economic stability of this state to
help keep them on the land if it is possible?
It is time to stop the hysterics and
accusations. This land has seen drought many times. Those ranches have
been there for over 400 years, this is not the first time the country has
seen a severe dry period.
It is however, the first time we have
had the means to deal with the situation when it happens. It is easy
enough to use a helicopter to transport water to a fire and feed to
stranded animals in winter. Why not show the same kind of ingenuity and
understanding for the people in this community if the situation is indeed
so bad as to warrant such efforts?
The benefits would far outweigh the
damage. At the least it should be possible to allow the cattle to be moved
to areas that have yet to be grazed. Unused pastures must still exist on
these allotments.
Coupled with the rain, the cattle can
become marketable once more and the market would be given a chance to
recover. Rain and the stable market go hand in hand.
Railroading the rancher has become par
for the course for the agency when they don't have the imagination to
think of anything else to do. Combined with the pressures of the
environmental movement, the consequences are devastating though only for
the small family rancher.
Everyone else in the sick love triangle
created by this situation keep getting their paychecks. Caring for the
land and serving the people do not have to be mutually exclusive.
Four hundred years is a long time to be
caring for the land. It shouldn't end because of some over-organized
federal system, environmental lawsuits, combined with several years of dry
weather.
<<< >>>
|
