SHARE THIS SHOW:
RELATED CONVERSATIONS:
RECENTLY ON TOL:
TOL Our Town
- A tumblr site dedicated to the people and places that make up Oregon and Southwest Washington.
TAGS:
This is a story of cows, elk, and wild horses. And it's a bigger story about the right to graze on vast tracts of public land.
Its immediate epicenter is Murderers Creek, a stream that slices through the northern end of the Malheur National Forest before it feeds into the south fork of the John Day. Since 1996, Loren and Piper Stout have sent their cattle to graze the spring grass on an allotment along Murderers Creek and nearby Deer Creek. But last spring, they kept their cows off the range; their grazing permit had been temporarily halted by a federal judge.
That injunction came in a suit the Oregon Natural Desert Association brought against the U.S. Forest Service. ONDA claimed the Stout's cows were trampling the stream bank, muddying the waters for native steelhead. The conservation group said the Forest Service wasn't doing its job to protect endangered fish.
It's is a familiar arguement around the West. But Loren Stout's next step was unconventional. He set out to document the damage wild elk and wild horses do to the rangeland. No cows were on it last year, so it was a perfect opportunity.
After months of measuring grass and taking photographs, the Stouts sued the Forest Service for letting wild horses run free on the rangeland — far more horses than Forest Service policy allows. The Stouts contend that elk and horses do more damage to streams and streambanks than cows do.
At the heart of this case is the question of who should be allowed to graze on public rangeland. Some organizations want to end public grazing, and hope they may gain traction with the new administration and Congress. Some ranchers — including almost a dozen near the proposed Soda Mountain Wilderness in Southern Oregon — have agreed to give up their permits under certain conditions. But few, if any, support shifting grazing entirely to private land.
Do you ranch, hunt, fish, hike, bike or use ATVs on public land? What have you seen that damages the landscape, particularly streambanks?
Do you graze cattle? Do you run them on public allotments? Can you imagine circumstances when you would voluntarily give up your permit?
If you would like to keep cattle off public lands, what would that be worth to you?
Tagged as: agriculture · conservation · grazing · ranching · rural-urban divide
Photo credit: Cranky Media Guy / Flickr / Creative Commons
-
Well 1st of all the cattle should not be on public lands AT ALL! They are PROPERTY of someone so they should be kept on the owners own land not roaming FREE on public land! Our Wild Mustangs, The SPIRITS OF AMERICA, are property of AMERICA and it's citizens therefor deserve to be on public lands!
2nd - LMAO The horse and elk cause more damage to the land then a cow! FUNNIEST DAM THING I HAVE HEARD ALL DAY! EVERY report that has been done says the horse causes LESS damage to the land and waterways then any other animal, wild life or livestock included. Equines are the ONLY animal that CUTS the grass leaving the roots to grow back when it eats, cattle and wildlife on the other hand pull up the roots eating the entire planet! This is one of the lies the BLM and other horses haters have tried to use for YEARS.
They are maiming, allowing the round up helicopters to RAM the horses with the skids and killing/slaughtering our wild horses at alarming rates! In 1900 there were approx 2 MILLION wild horses running free in the west. Today there are less than approx 30,000 (These are the BLM numbers not mine). Another false claim and flat out lie the BLM and other horses haters have been trying to push is the over population problem, again all I can do is LMAO
Someone check my math here! According to the BLM there are 30,000 horses roaming free (my research says there are 38,000 in the wild today so I will use my numbers not the BLM's) so it's 38,000 horses running free on 32 MILLION ACRES (BLM's land numbers not mine)! ok 32,000,000 divided by 38,000 equals = 842 + ACRES PER HORSE!! OVER POPULATION PROBLEM - ANOTHER LIE!
The BLM has requested $76 MILLION dollars for their 2011 fiscal budget to round up WILD horses who are SUPPOSE TO BE PROTECTED BY LAW! The 1971 Free-Wild Roaming Horse and Burro Act REQUIRES THE HORSE TO ROAM FREE WITHOUT INTERVENTION!. The BLM this year has started to STERILIZE the mares now, again VIOLATING the LAW! For fiscal 2012 they will be requesting 87 MILLION dollars! -
This topic has brought some interesting and emotional responses regarding the allowance of grazing on public lands but I feel that this discussion has strayed from foundation of it's original source. It is not an argument advocating for vegetarianism or entertainment-only public land usage. The issue here is the degradation of riparian areas and specifically it's effect on depreciating steelhead trout populations...yet this subject was not even discussed. Is the steelhead fish population still decreasing in size without the presence of cattle? Were cattle the direct cause of the harming these fish?
Concerning the two involved parties, the common element that they share is the love of the land and concern of it's well-being. The Stout's reported that without the presence of cattle on the federal land, much of the riparian areas were extremely distressed. As assessed throughout the entire discussion, the theme of "mismanagement" presents itself consistently and without pointing fingers to either party, it can be agreed that the land should be in better condition per government standards.
Aspiring towards a resolution to this conflict, we must focus on the common interest of the land and put aside obvious differences in opinion. Understand that the ranchers who utilize the public lands also do a lot of work in the maintenance and improvement of the terrain. They fix worn fences and regularly manage the location of the cattle to help ensure that they are not demolishing riparian areas. On the flip side, an abundance number of cattle have shown to have negative effects on the ecosystem of overused riparian areas.
Realizing that these ranchers desperately need to utilize the public lands for grazing to support their production that the society and economy rely on, is there an agreement than can be reached? Condensing the number of cattle that are allowed or staggering the years in which the public lands are able to be grazed could be an alternative conclusions.
People, please put your emotions and harsh comments aside and focus on a solution...not fueling the fire. -
Well, there is one thing Loren has right -- feral horses are having a huge negative impact on the public lands of SE oregon. The ban on horse slaughter in the US has indirectly made it very difficult for BLM to control the numbers of horses, and they are eating the range to dust. Spring areas south of the Malheur on BLM will have not a sprig of vegetation within 300 feet of the spring. It ain't cattle -- it's horses. I think it is time that ODFW established a seaon on feral horses in the state. What a concept! Increased revenue for tags, good meat for "sportsmen", and cheap horse control for BLM and the USFS. It's a no-brainer, everyone wins, except those club-headed feral beasts.
-
Grazing and the other uses of our public lands are a vital part of the local economies and the state. Time has proven that when we dont manage the land and the resourses we set our selves up for catastrphic events such as wild fires, weed invasions and unhealthy landscapes. Private property and public lands are intertwined to provide a working envronment for not only ranchers but for wildlife as well.
A bigger threat is if ranchers are denied access to the public lands and would be forced to subdivide thier private property. This would jeopardize wildlife and the movements of their historic patterns.
-
I fully support that cattlemen and women should work closely with the people managing the public lands so our natural resources are sustainable. A lot of damage has already been done from the past ignorance; the introduction of medusa head, cheat grass, and other noxious weeds not only effects the health of the plant community but affects the available forage for wildlife and livestock. So, it is in the best interest of the rancher to work with the land managers to keep the grazing land healthy. I believe that we can work together towards the common good.
But - it gets really old to hear about how damaging cows are to the environment. Let's take a look at the impact a city has. You have people fertilizing their yards, watering their yards, washing their cars, putting household cleaners down the toilet - all using water and putting chemicals into our water supply. Now let's add in the restaurants, office buildings, retail stores, etc, etc. And what about urban sprawl. Every city I've seen seems to think it's ok to take good farm land and put 100's of houses on it. The farmer seemed to have had a huge negative impact on the environment, spraying, fertizling and irrigating, but the 100's of houses have none.
Have we looked at the impact of Wal-Mart, Home Depot, McDonald's, - the list is too long? They are on every street corner. You the bleeding hearts want to impact our environment - maybe you should look closer to home. When I drive down the road I see bald eagles, antelope, deer, rabbits, badgers - and cows.
-
Commonman said:
"This sounds like religous furvor at play here, rather than an intelligent discussion of public policy issues. My religion happens to believe that we are intelligent enough to find ways to graze cattle, have healthy wildlife populations, cut timber, provide a wide spectrum of recreational opportunities, etc., etc. Unfortunately, yours appears to exclude everyone else that doesn't happen to agree with your exclusionary beliefs. That sounds kinda narrow to me."
Response:
"Commonman", if you are going to attack my argument on grounds that it sounds more religious than intelligent, then I would think that you would be smart enough not to base your side of the argument on what your religion "believes". Your actions can only be described as hypocritical!
What it comes down to is this: you advocate inaction, or compromise (which amounts to almost the same thing when one considers how much time is wasted coming to 'equitable agreements'), I advocate the opposite. Simple as that.
Leave the "intellectual debate" to the scholars in their ivory towers. This is merely a question of who profits and who pays, and the answers are fairly obvious. Just look around. See the children who weigh more than adults did 40 years ago because the fast food industry targets them? See the desertification that is happening because of cattle eating the grass to the earth and stomping what little is left beneath their titanic girth? See the American Cattle Ranchers Association making more and more money and native wildlife (such as wolves) becoming rarer and rarer in their natural habitats?
Religious? I guess I am, if you mean that I worship the ground that our children walks on. Sure, I'm religious, if you consider having faith in people and their ability to see through the lies and make a difference (with or without God or gods) "religious".
Listen, Commonman, if you want to muddy up the situation and see a religious war where there is none, I don't care. It's not my problem. You're the religious fanatic here, not me, in that case. I just want a good future for the world's children (who have done nothing to deserve this mess we are leaving them with).
-
Dearest pippenstein: I neither want to start a "religious war" as you surmise, nor want to start a " intellectual debate", nor advocate inaction". My cause is action, rather than hopelessness. And just as you appear to want a good future for the world's kid, I couldn't agree more. I was just stating what's becoming overwhelmingly obvious; your religion is one of oppression - it's either your way or no way. And that's very narrow in my book. Please consider counselling.
-
Thanks Emily
I invite people to become more educated on the topic of the wild mustangs being hunted by the BLM and The Forest Service and invite them to review the facts. Please visit www.wildhorsepreservation.com
To make statements like "manage the wildlife" and use other euphenisms to describe something can lead to the creation of a mythology. This can be danagerous when the lives of innocent animals or a group are at stake. The steelhead, the elk and the horses are at stake here in this debate. (not to mention the microbriols) There are plenty of alternative places to raise cattle whereas the wild animals only have what we humans deem to preserve for them.
Please get educated everyone. This debate has been illuminating. I'm greatful to all of you who have participated on both sides of this discussion.
-
Thank you for the info. You seem to be very well informed as do alot of the passionate people on this site. I have gone to the website you mentioned and I can't believe how cruelly the mustangs are being treated. The public should be up in arms over the amount of taxes that are being used to "Manage" these beautiful, healthy (when left to their own devices) horses. It seems to be that their treatment, by the BLM and the Forest Service, is leading to less healthy herds in confined enclosures.
Our tax dollars are being abused here.
-
So very true! And a very important point to bring up, mythbuster!
By the way, shoot me an e-mail: socially_challenged@hotmail.com
I live in the Beaverton/Hillsboro area, but wherever you are we can conspire! ;)
(The offer is open to anyone, also. Just email me and let me know what city you live in and we'll try to get a middle ground to meet in!)
-
By the way, I see a lot of people that care here. People that care for the future of the world. People that care about the environment. They are smart. They are passionate.
Now just imagine if everyone that were posting here in defense of Mother Earth were to come to gether and conspire. To conspire against corporate and big business welfare. To conspire against those that care more about profit than people. To come together and make a plan - a plan to truly make a difference in the world - a difference that merely posting grief on a website could never achieve.
And then - imagine they actually stopped conspiring, and did something, as a unit, as a group, as a force...
There are a lot of people out there with righteous indignation, wanting to connect but not knowing how and when and where. Too afraid to say, "let's meet up at Pioneer Courthouse Square on Sunday" (for example). Possibly too afraid of dissappointment.
But imagine if all of the people that cared about the issue of protecting our public lands from grazing cast aside their doubts and met there on that day, wore as much green(?) as they could as a signal, and started something. Wouldn't that be wonderful?
"A person may cause evil to others not only by his actions but by his inaction, and in either case he is justly accountable to them for the injury." - John Stuart Mill
-
I'm there pippenstein, I've got some very fashionable GREEN clothes to wear for the event/eventsssss. Let's do it!!! I'd sincerely be interested in joining, or starting such a movement. How do we get together, since this is obviously an anonymous forum?
-
As I wrote to R. Cockle of the Oregonian, this is a very compelling story... I hope next time he starts a debate that he gets his facts straight... thank you Emily for taking this story one step closer to the truth. Perhaps you could take on the wild mustang and burros story directly. They are being demonized as were/are wolves.
-
What a heated topic! So maybe some reality check questions should be put on the ballot for a vote. Like the removal of invasive species, management of native species. Why not the introduction of Wolves?
And BTW... An annual "Forest Service Pass is" $36. that's for one car, so maybe the question should be: who should bear the cost for public land use:
-the cattle rancher who animals are there a large number of days?
-the hiker or backpacker who is there for a few days, and may leave less of an impact?
Perhaps the biggest "logical disconnect" that I heard was that the Rancher said that grazing cattle on public land wasn't profitible but it's "what we do". I'm wondering if it doesn't turn a prophet, is it then a hobby? The men in my family were traditionally blacksmiths, so does that mean that I should expect some kind of stipend to smith?
Mostly what I want to know as someone who hikes, mountain bikes and eats beef what do I get out of beef grazed on public land? If it "doesn't turn a prophet" or if it "cheaper to graze on private land" for the rancher, then I'm supporting an un-sustainable buisness model. Is the beef sold in Oregon? Or am I supporting some kind of "High-end" gentlman rancher selling his beef on the internet?
-
I suggest that everyone visit this website if they want to get just a taste of what devistation is being caused by Public Lands Ranching: http://www.wasteofthewest.com/
I was in a radical environmental group that actually spoke directly with the fish and game department in Arizona and the government admits, nay, cannot deny, the damage done by cattle on public lands. It's atrocious.
The question comes to this: what are privileging - cattle or the environment? Steaks or our children's future? The fact is, most meat that comes from public lands is not even feeding the majority of meat-eating people.
Compromise is what the cattle ranchers want, of course, if they can't ultimately win. But this isn't a matter of making deals - this is our future. If we make a deal with the ranchers, we're saying that a minority interest group (ranchers) is just as important as the majority of the population that depends on a clean and safe environment. And, let's face the facts, by making a deal with these people we're simply slowing down environmental destruction, not stopping it.
No deals. We've got to save OUR lands for OUR children's future! I for one refuse to hand over to my child a future where rivers are clogged up with cattle "runoff" and dead fish, where animals are poisoned from drinking the water from these rivers, where cattle have turned wild lands into wastelands, where there are no large predators left because they prey on cattle (so they're "better off dead" - at least for ranchers), etc. Living in such a future would be impossible.
Thus, if we make deals with the ranchers about grazing on our lands, we are, by extension, poisoning (killing!) our children. Not on my watch...
-
thank you, very well articulated
-
This sounds like religous furvor at play here, rather than an intelligent discussion of public policy issues. My religion happens to believe that we are intelligent enough to find ways to graze cattle, have healthy wildlife populations, cut timber, provide a wide spectrum of recreational opportunities, etc., etc. Unfortunately, yours appears to exclude everyone else that doesn't happen to agree with your exclusionary beliefs. That sounds kinda narrow to me.
-
As more and more people demand that the animals they consume are grass-fed....because it is healthier and less destructive to the environment, these situations will only become more intense.
-
Micmaem - I agree. The thing people don't realize is that meat consumption is unecessary for human survival. Hell, if people want to continue to eat meat, then eat meat selectively if they care about the environment: eat less, and don't eat cattle (or sheep, as they are a huge contributor to environmental issues, too).
People WANT meat, they don't need it. That is an undisputable fact. I am a vegan and a mixed-martial arts instructor, and anyone that argues that animal-based protein is the only way they can be fit/healthy is simply ignorant of the reality. So, every time someone eats meat, they contribute to environmental devistation not out of necessity, but out of desire. They WANT to contribute to the destruction of the environment, because the environment is less important than their taste buds.
That's the reality of it. However, it is hard to prove because (and I get this a lot) it is impossible to prove that I don't eat anything animal based. Die-hard carnivores have such a hard time taking responsibility for their actions that they will accuse vegans and vegetarians for backsliding when no one is looking. They are so weak willed that they can not bring themselves to believe that veganism is not only possible, but easy. (Well, I for one wouldn't say it was an easy start, but now it is easy!)
But all I can say is that I don't eat meat or dairy or eggs and I am fine. Certainly I salivate when I smell meat being cooked, but there is such a thing as self-control. A junky can go clean, and never relapse into abuse, even if the thought crosses her mind every now and then. Self-discipline.
Americans want everything. They want a healthy environment and a healthy body and they still want to be able to eat whatever the hell they want. Life's not like that. Maturity is about making meaningful sacrifices. One can not have their cake and eat it, too. One can not have a healthy environment and pay for that which is destroying it (beef). Time to grow up.
-
Hello,
I am not an environmentalist or a rancher. I think that federal lands are set aside for wildlife, not cattle. I use public lands for recreation and do not like seeing or stepping in cow excrement when I am enjoying the land. If it isn’t profitable to use these lands then the problem seems solved for me, stop grazing.
I have to keep my dog on a leach when I use these lands, why are the cows not restricted to certain areas?
Thank you,
Chuck
-
"I have to keep my dog on a leach when I use these lands, why are the cows not restricted to certain areas?"
For some reason your comment brought up an image of cows on leashes! What a funny thought!
-
Ask your guest what the government studies showed regarding the impact of cows on the national monument. Answer: they showed grazing had a negative impact on the environment, plain and simple.
-
I have been an Elk hunter in the John day area for 30 + years. what i have seen is when cow come into an area they significantly impact the seeps and springs in the area, causing the Elk to move out to find new undisturbed areas, also the cows eat the grasses down to a level so late in the year that there is not enough growing time for the grasses prior to the grasses going dormate for the season leaving very little grasses for Elk and Horses and other animals. the cows need to be removed sooner in the year and let the ground recover proir to coming back in to the area.
-
Please address the very large elk ranching concerns in the John Day basin. These animals are fed year round, people pay to hunt them, and the meat is sold commercially I understand.
This must be changing the impact that elk have, since the populations are not naturally controlled.
-
You are not allowed by state law to allow any hunting of elk within confined elk game farms. In fact the state is driving elk farms out of business. You are talking about unfenced huge ranches or someone who has purchased hunting rights on these lands and use LOP tags to hunt. This program is being abused by these huge landowners and there is a bill in the hopper in Salem to try and stop that practice. Because of the huge amounts of money paid to hunt trophy elk I do not believe that the F&W will be able to control it.
brokenhorn67
-
While unable to attach a graph, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife's records show, unequivocally, that the elk density in the Murederer's Creek unit has roughly QUADRUPLED since the mind 1970s. Such dramatic increases in big game densities are not atypical across the west, and it should be borne in mind that range condition and trends perceived by protagonists are influenced by all the grazing species, not just one or the other. It should not be surprising under such circumstances that removal of livestock does not produce the results one might expect given lower densities of wild grazers. The popular expectation seems to be that these ecosystems will return to some sort of "no disturbance" regime if only the cattle are removed, but given increasing and/or persistently high densities of wild grazers can this expectation really be considered realistic?
-
I'd like to see that data. I'm in touch with alot of hunters and people who spend time in that area and none of them report seeing anything but a decline in elk numbers over recent years.
-
Glenn: Tell them to get out of their rigs and start hunting on foot. Over 60 years I have hunted all over eastern oregon and there definitely are many more game animals now than 40 years ago. I live in the Blues of EO and have elk, deer, bear and cougar plus those dambed turkeys on my land. I allow hunting but get very few people stopping to hunt, they think you have to be on federal land way up on top the mtn to find game. I have seen herds of bulls right down in the foothills, last year just before hunting season I saw 2 different herds of elk between Weston and MiltonFreewater and there was 60 to 80 elk in each herd and more than 10 branch antlered bulls in each herd plus 15 to 20 raghorns and spikes in each herd. Where I live there are at least 30 branch antlered bulls within a mile of my house. Yet your game department does not even list any elk in that area. In the canyon east of my house there was 5 cougars last year (not that many now) and every canyon has 2 to 5 of them and the game department did not think there were enough to remove some of them. Talk about a bunch of dingbats, F&W has hired most of them in the state.
brokenhorn67
-
I think the real problem is the fact that americans in general eat too much beef. A more sustainable solution would be to raise elk and other mammals native to oregon for meat. While there would probably still be negative effects with the large amounts of elk raised it probably wouldn't be nearly as bad as the effects of the cattle and wild horses.
I wouldn't mind eating elk instead of beef, but i'm sure most couldn't give up their beloved cow meat.
-
I respect the hard work and history of the family cattle rancher but anyone, including this gentleman, who seriously contends that cattle cause no more damage than elk simply can't be taken seriously.
This last year I have spent at least 30 days a year in the SE desert hunting elk and game birds, most of that in the Malheur. I can't think of a single instance where the condition of cattle grazed land was anywhere near as good as land that wasn't grazed, particularly in riparian areas.
Along Hwy 78 between Burns and Rome you can see instances of grazed land and ungrazed land next to each other and separated only by a fence. In every instance the grazed land is a waste land compared to the ungrazed land.
If you spend time in those areas you will also quickly see that cattle spend hours at a time in the riparian area. To suggest that normal movements of elk through these areas cause as much damage as fenced-in "resident" grazing cattle is just not credible.
-
There have been successful projects in Oregon that enable ranchers to continue to graze livestock and protect our rivers and fish habitat at the same time. Watershed councils, soil and water conservation districts, and ranchers have worked together to fence-off stream and riverbanks, and create off-stream watering for livestock on public lands. The ranchers have stayed in business and in the community, and the vegetation in the riparian area has recovered. The Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board, a state agency, funds important projects like this across the state.
AllisonHensey
-
Please ask Stout how much he pays to us taxpayers for his 300 cows; my guess is around $6000 annually, about the cost to remove exactly 2 wild horses. I don't like the economics
-
I was part of a study in SE Oregon (near Lakeview) when ranging cattle entered private property through a broken BLM fence. The magnitude of damage done to strembeds, ponds and other sensitive areas was astounding. We took photos and measurements at the sensitive areas before the cattle reached the area, and documented the same information after the herds of cattle had come through. This parcel of private land has both wild horses and elk/deer. But the damage was obviously a result of the cattle, and was devastating. Saplings were trampled, streambeds were obliterated, and vegetation was consumed down to nothing. We need better grazing management in Oregon!
-
<!-- @page { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } -->
I have never understood this notion that a few individuals should be able to profit off of the public lands. Especially when their use is destroying the lands in questions.
the idea that there are too many elk therefore you should allow even more cattle makes no sense. If there are too many elk you should reintroduce predators into the environment. I know several individuals who live in remote areas and all but one cant drink their well water due to cattle.
-
Grazing is not all good or all bad. It depends on the number of animals, the time of the year they are on the land and how long they are on the land. There are good grazing managers and not so good managers. Historically, there were too many animals for too long a time. This has generally changed. It isn't a case of graze or not graze as some conservation organizations and some livestock associations would have you believe. Good management takes diligence and federal land managers and livestock managers know their jobs and their livelihoods depend this. Everyone involved cares about the land, don't paint this issue as graze or not graze. Agreement needs to be reached on management objectives and how to monitor to ensure those objectives are being reached. Thank you.
-
To go along with the above Nature Conservator is using cattle on several of their land tracks for weed control and fire control. Good land managers know how to use cattle on their lands to fertilize, graze off fire danger and earn income from the cattle. Nature Conserator is one of the biggest eco's in the business.
brokenhorn67
-
Since wild horses are an invasive species, why not set up a hunting program to get rid of them? They don't belong in the wild and they are destructive. I'd bet that meat hunters could learn to eat horsemeat and help us get rid of the wild horse problem.
Wild horses are not native to the United States. They were imported and some got loose and became invasive. Horses belong in private hands, not roaming wild on public lands.
-
Tom.
You crack me up! Thanks!-)
D
-
Our government has banned the killing of horses for their meat even in dog food. They also banned selling them to foreign countries if they are to be used for human or animal consumption. These laws were instigated by the PETA type groups. Today because of the economy there are thousands of privately owned horses being taken out in the country or into the mtns and turned loose. Many of them will starve or become the victims of cold weather in the mtns or predator animals or packs of dogs in the low lands. Wild horses have been a problem for years and so far the government has done a very poor job of rectifying it and it will be a whole lot worse in the next few years. Maybe they should deliver a horse to every animal lover in this country and they can buy that expensive hay and feed them in their back yards.
brokenhorn67
-
Grazing on public lands is the epitome of the tragedy of the commons.
That the Stouts are getting the time of day on this is more a testament to the ridiculousness of their claim than its credibility. It's a man bites dog story -- an attention grabber for sure, but not very credible.
A pair of ranchers comes to the conclusion that native wildlife and feral horses are destroying our public lands and that it's not their couple hundred head of cattle -- not shocking!
Our public lands are owned by all of us -- hunters, hikers, city folks, ranchers, fishermen, doctors, and janitors. Not just a small number of cattlemen who profit off our public land.
If it comes down to them, their cows, and a welfare-supported industry vs. the vast majority of landowners (the public), native wildlife , and an outdoor rec. and tourism industry that brings in hundreds of billions of dollars nationally, I vote for the latter.
The Sprouts may have been here since 1860, but the elk, wolves, trout, (and Native Americans for that matter) have been here a lot longer.
Thank you ONDA and other organizations that, backed by sound science, stand up for the public interest.
-
It sounds to me that the rancher was getting blamed for the damage by the elk and horses. That's the interesting part of the story.
-
There are numerous historical accounts of the wild horses in the Murderers Creek area (as well as many other areas of Eastern Oregon) that arrived by way of the tribal horseback migration routes from Mexico to Canada, and from the intense Indian and Cavalry wars of the mid-1800's. These wars, in particular, left many horses, freed from their riders, to fend for themselves - which they did very nicely. They didn't trample all the stream banks, or eat all the forage, or they wouldn't still be here today.
So, if we can assume that the Malheur Forest conditions were healthy enough to support both wildlife and wild horse populations, and fish in the streams throughout that time period - can anyone spot the newcomer to the scene??
-
I wish to disagree with what you said about horses and their early impact on streambanks and on grass, brush and trees around streams. In 1855 when the treaties were signed with the Indians the Confederated Tribes of the Umatillas (3 tribes) they owned several thousand horses, cattle and sheep. If you wish to see the damage these animals did to streambeds go to Tamusalik on the Umatilla Reservation and look at the huge picture on the wall of a Indian encampment along one of the rivers/streams in Umatilla Cty, Oregon. There is steep bank sides, with no grass or brush and the trees are being girthed by the animals. There is no new comer to this sinerio. Please get your facts before you print your drivel in these discussions.
brokenhorn67
-
I grew up in Pt. Reyes Station in California in the 60's and have home movies of our family climbing to the top of Mt. Wittenberg and enjoying a spectacular view of the ocean and open meadows full of wildflowers. There were also cows. The last time I visited the cattle had been gone for years and the meadows were for the most part clogged with thousands of Doug Fir saplings and brush, a few years from another huge fire event like the area went through a few years ago.
I support the responsible use of public lands for hunting and grazing. I realize there have and will be abuses of these privliges but these can be minimized with better oversight and regulations that are created and enforced with the input and help from the communities involved. In the 1990's you were only able to obtain a grazing permit if you showed you had the resources, land, to support your herd during the rest of the year. This was changed to the simple requirement of 10 acres and a portable corral which allowed outsiders to to come in with a large herd, minimal fencing and no concern as to the condition the land would be left. Family operations have an economic interest to be good stewards of the land if they want to continue.
I am an omnivore and want grass fed beef from eastern Oregon, I wouldn't mind some grass fed horse but that's a topic for another time. Ivan
-
Murderers Creek area is a beautiful place with wild flowers, open pine forests, meadows, willows and grassy banks of creeks.
There is a restoration project (OWEB?) along Deer Creek to correct cattle damage on old ranch land adjacent to the Murderers Creek region. I've seen the stark difference between the vegetation in fenced areas and bare muddy unfenced areas along the creek.
Considering that elk and deer are wild and in their natural habitat – (my assumption) – human integrity and respect for natural habitats could not state that the elk and deer are causing too much damage and must leave the area. So the equation for cattle carrying capacity in Murderers Creek region must include the presence of elk and deer, i.e. the elk and deer get first dibs.
What about the wild horses? Or are they ‘feral’? Are they now an integral part of the natural habitat? Feral pigs, not ‘wild', cause greater damage. They have been seen in north east/central Oregon. If they move south, they trump the cow vs. horse debate. (By chance, topic of tonight’s Oregon Field Guide.)
What are the natural population controls for horse, elk, deer: disease, food, wolves, other?
The human legacy of the region is complex: horses, cows, sheep, Nez Pierce, European settlers. The Oregonian told the story behind ‘Murderers Creek’, there is another story in the creek name that runs past Deer Creek Guard Station. -
The Bureau of Land Management and the Forestry Service have scheduled a "round up" at Murderers Creek for 125 wild mustangs between 08/1/09 and 08/20/09. The BLM and the Forest Service will use the usual techniques of chasing the mustangs with a helicopter and people on horseback with guns. The horse has a very good memory and the trauma that they experience from such events is often permanent. The horses are often injured in this process. Fouls are often trampled and left to die before reaching the compounds. Is this what the public wants to spend their tax dollars on in order to save a few cattle and the livelihood of a few cattleranchers?
-
I have just visited Grant county in eastern Oregon through 4-H and met some of the families that use the grazing lands. I know that the wild horses and elk do a lot of damage not only to the streams but also to the fences they have to maintain. I believe that the cows should be able to graze but they should be required to build fences around streambanks. I know that these people have been environmental even before it was the hip thing to do. They love the land and deserve to be able to use it and not be restricted as much as they are when wild horses destroy the landscape much more.
Thanks-
Anna
-
Yes feral horses are a significant problem in the Murderers Creek area, but the Stouts' attitude - that if others can get away with damaging the watershed, then they too should be allowed to continue damaging it – is both greedy and misguided. The public share a responsibility to preserve and restore the ecological services provided by the public reaches of this watershed.
I visit the Murderers Creek area annually for quiet solitude.
John Hartog, Portland Oregon
-
left to run wild or chased into holding pens by helicopters, then left to die from lack of water or salmonella poisoning, are we destroying them or are they destroying our streams? I hope you all get your facts straight for the sake of these innocent animals.
-
Here are some more facts about the BLM Mustang management program...
BLM’s wild horse and burro budget was increased by 50% in 2001, then by another third in 2005, to fund a massive removal campaign. It costs as much as 3,000 of our tax-dollars to remove and process a single wild horse for adoption.
More than 200,000 wild horses and burros have been removed from public lands since 1971. The BLM plans to remove another 4,000 by fall 2008.
-
"It costs as much as 3,000 of our tax-dollars to remove and process a single wild horse for adoption."
Turn hunters loose on them. Hunters will pay to hunt them, so everybody wins.
-
Here are some facts about the BLM Mustang management program...
On August 12, 2007, hikers came upon hundreds of thin, dead and dying horses in the Jackson Mountain Herd Management Area (HMA):The basin was full of horses hundreds of them the trough was empty and there were horses standing in it! And all around it. (source: Quarter Horse News, Jan. 08, 185 Dead Wild Horses" by L. Hussa). A local BLM Manager admits to driving out to the HMA twice that June to monitor the water and seeing horses standing in the troughs on both occasions. Yet, a BLM report dated August 8 stated that the situation in the HMA was not an emergency.
While BLM stated that there was no emergency and no need to consider water trapping, 185 wild horses eventually died at BLM s Palomino Valley holding facility. An outbreak of salmonella was the result of the extreme stress placed on the horses systems by months of drought conditions and being chased by helicopters in their already weakened condition. Eyewitnesses stated that wild horses were already dying or dead out on the range on August 12. Yet removals didn t begin until August 28, over two weeks later.
-
Myth: horses damage creeks and steelhead habitat
When cattle are near a creek they trample the creek banks and go into the water causing massive disturbances to the riparian vegetation as well as the creek beds.
A team of Russian scientists, part of a cooperative venture with the United States, came in 2001 to study the effects of grazing animals on riparian areas in Nevada. They tested streams for nutrients and examined the desert and Sierra to learn techniques to improve the environment of their homeland. The scientists found that cows, which tend to camp around water sources, cause more damage to the stream banks than wild horses, which tend to drink and move on: "When we saw horses drinking from creeks, we didn't see much impact except for hoof prints. The water looked clean, had good overhanging branches and there was no sign of erosion on the banks. There was an abundance of insects and animals, including frogs and dragonflies and water-striders." Areas extensively used by cattle had fewer nutrients in the water and showed signs of bank erosion and other damage, concluded the study.
In addition to this…
The Western Watersheds Project acknowledges that "the main cause of degradation of public lands in the arid west is livestock use and not wild horses."
-
"Letting wild horses run free..." said as if it were somehow an instrinsically bad thing. That seems strange...and backwards.
Society has long known of the devastating impacts that public lands cattle grazing has (as zbeckerd2 described from his 35 year experience working on the land) and yet when someone does a study for a few months and then sues it becomes big news.
ONDA went to court to defend the public's interest in have clean streams and landscapes not denuded by cows. They went to court with decades of science backing their claim. Why should we legitimize the Stouts for one summer's worth of study?
They certainly have a right to seek redress in court, but we shouldn't be treating the Stout's case as if it is somehow on par with ONDA's successful case from before. I sure hope that ONDA gets more time on the show tomorrow than the Stouts...they've earned the right to speak on this matter.
-
The irony here is priceless!
-
Grazing - the third rail of Forest Service Politics. Grazing is perhaps the most destructive practice of land management. As a 35 year veteran of federal land management in grant county I can think of no other activity that has a greater impact on fire, soils and water.
I have worked all over the Western US and the conditions on the Malheur are as bad as any I have seen. Other Forests have gotten the message and conditions are improving, but not on the Malheur.
Grant County is definetly cattle country yet less than 20% of all ranchers use public allotments.
In fact I maintained the fences for the horse trap above murderers creek 35 years ago while a employee of BLM. You can go just north of this area to the John Day Fossil Beds and see what 30 years of not grazing cattle looks like (elk of course use it for winter forage).
Grazing of domestic livestock disrupted the pre historic fire regime. From records collected from tree rings we can see that starting in 1868 fires started getting smaller in the pine regions. These areas burned completely (low intensity grass) on average every 8 years. This was altered by the removal of fine grass fuel due to grazing. Grazing also allowed shade tolerant tree species to get a foothold as native grasses burned and killed these species. I have much more to say and more research to share. But will finish by saying... How did such a small group get so much power that Forest Supervisors and Oregon's congressional delegation fear them so much?
-
This looks like the place to add my experience to the discussion. I too spent 35 years working for the Forest Service, mostly on the Wallowa-Whitman, responsible at the end for managment of several range allotments. I have to agree that grazing has the most impact (I purposely don't use the word destruction) of any land managment activity. More than road building, timber harvest and fire. This is because cattle are on the ground every day of the grazing season and go everywhere.
So do elk. The Forest Service has documented negative impacts from elk on Resource Natural Areas. I have little experience with horses on open range but past historical records of year-around horse grazing at the turn of the century are very similar to impacts by cattle.
The question is can we mange cattle(and horses/elk) to keep the impacts from grazing within acceptable limits. I believe elk and horses are going can be managed, either by predators or hunting/removal. Cattle can also be managed but the current system of drift fences and pasture rotation is not working. New technology (collars, GPS tracking) and old technology (pushback riders, salting) could work but the return on the investment and the habits of the land managers and the ranchers don't allow for innovation.
-
Jmyoung has some good points about how grazing could continue. However so much damage has been done that grazing impacts other multiple use objectives.
an example would be that due to sediment and fish you can graze or you can harvest timber, but not both.
Buying out allotments is the cheapest and best solution for the next decade or longer
-
This comment has been removed by the TOL staff.
-
There are many facts and opinions relevant to this discussion. One that comes up too infrequently is that public lands provide just a tiny portion of the forage available for livestock grazing in the U.S. - a bit less than 3%. This is not a matter of beef availability or price. If that 3% shifted to private lands or even went away, the impact would be miniscule. The argument is exclusively about maintaining publicly financed welfare that subsidizes a small minority of ranchers. And it is about the disproportionate influence they have on elected officials and policy.
Carl Axelsen, Portland, OR
-
40 % of the cattle in the west spend some time on a federal land grazing permit, if this forage supply was disrupted it would have significant effects on beef availability and price nationally.
Also, just because ONDA says grazing is not sustainable that does not make it so. A 1990 BLM study showed 87% of the rangeland to be in stable or improving condition, I am sure a newer study would show a higher number, as ranchers we are working hard to improve all the range.
John O'Keeffe
Adel Rancher
-
There are at least two largely unrecognized facts related to this discussion; Public lands pay no taxes and over 50% of Oregon is in public ownership. Ending use or under-utilizing the grazing, timber, geothermal or mineral resources on these lands, under the flag of "sustainability", is double-speak. To imply there is no room for these activities on these lands is self- indulgent special interest greed.
-
Of course public lands don't pay taxes. No one lives on them, there are no schools there, there are no sewers nor anything else, they are simply a benefit to the local economy. It's not like the local community has to shell out any money because they live near by.
Living near a national forest or BLM lands does not mean you have some god given authority to graze the lands into oblivion. These are lands that belong to every american not just those who happen to live near by and want to exploit it for personal gain. It's purely a loss to the average tax payer to allow riverside vegetation to be destroyed by cows, and the ranchers pay about 18 dollars a year per cow to do this. But if you want to go for a hike you need to get a parking pass for one day that costs 5$. If that's not a subsidy that should go away when the budgets get trimmed by the government, I don't know what is.
J
-
This isn’t just about cows, elk and feral horses, its about the unraveling and destruction of an entire ecosystem by poorly managed cattle grazing and uncontrolled feral horses. The benefits go to corporations and a small group of rural aristocrats called ranchers. The costs are paid by threatened native steelhead, birds and other animals who are dependent on streams and forest, by taxpayers who subsidize the grazing, and by future generations who will inherit an impoverished natural world.
Unfortunately Mr. Stout misrepresents the degree of damage done by cattle versus the damage done by feral horses. Many areas on the allotment he manages were in better shape in 2008, the year cows were not allowed to graze.
For a comparison at one of these sites, please go to:
http://www.onda.org/enforcing-conservation-laws/legal-actions/cases-1/onda-v-kimbell-et-al-07-1871-2007-malheur-national-forest-grazing-decisions/
Cattle grazing will be the photo on the left, no grazing photo is on the right.
Thanks for checking it out and discovering the reality.
-
Dear friend,
SUSTAINABILITY is no "flag", it happens to be the paradigm under which your grandchildren will have a healthy world to live in. How can you be so short sited as to view preservation as "under-utilization". We are not living in this environment with an agenda to manipulate it. We are here because we are supported by our environment. Arrogance and aggressive relationships will eventually undermine our long term well being.
And, if you are listening at all, this is not an all or nothing arguement. Have you been to the area they are discussing? It is terribly sensitive wetland area - a complex ecosystm that is supports a huge diversity of species and is easily messed up. Why can't the cows just go somewhere else that is less sensitive? Doesn't seem like such a big deal.
Has anyone yet, considered the larger picture - How to maintain the health of the whole ecosystem which would include predators of elk, deer, and perhaps even the horses - wolves and wild cats. Could we let nature settle the balance and stop killing the animals at the top of the food chain. The predators would do a lot to balance that damage from wild grazing animals.
So, I would say that your narrow minded arguement is NOT with conservationists but actually with the State Fish and Wildlife Department.
Take a bigger look,
Shannon
-
Ranchers make sustainable use of a renewable resource under the supervision of trained agency personnel, those that call this exploitation, and destruction of an entire ecosystem sound like radical enviromentalists trying to sway opinion with emotion rather than facts.
John O'Keeffe Rancher
-
Pertaining to refugee comment and the pictures he showed on a the ONDA website. Those pictures are a fraud. First the no cow picture was taken several years before the other picture. If you had any experience in stream bank restoration you would know that these are fakes. This is always the problem with the enviro kooks that use lies and subrifuge to forward their agenda. There is a need to allow cattle on federal lands. But they need to be treated like a herd of buffalo, the grass never is eaten below 4"(inches), at that point they are moved to another area. Streams need to be fenced and water bars are installed for cattle watering. Wild animals or predatory animals as used by russler need to be controlled in the lower 48. The time of the mtn men are gone forever and we must realize that. I live in the Blue Mtns and I kill excess cougars and will do the same when the wolves show up. What we all need to understand is the water issues in all this. Hay is the highest water user of all crops with the least economical value. Pasture watering is next. When cattle are forced off the federal grounds the cattle rancher is forced to water pasture and hay ground rather than allow nature to water his pasture and removing a grain crop for hay. We use to grow 100% of all our food needs and fed 1/2 of the rest of the world. Today we import 60% of our food and feed very little of the rest of the world. The enviro's had better start looking at the bigger picture because with the economy in a depression and our government spending money we do not even have it is going to be a long time (15 to 20 years) before we come out of this in the US. The rest of the world will go down worse than we do. When that happens I think you will actually like to live next to a rancher or farmer, it may be the only thing that keeps you alive.
brokenhorn67
-
Comments are now closed.
........ The BLM is removing our Wild Mustangs for a few reason but NOT WHAT YOU THINK! They are removing them for big cattle corporations (greed) and for the GREEN ENERGY MOVEMENT (Obama's green energy plan), all this is UN-Necessary. There is a lot of land left in America for additional cattle (just the land is cheaper in the west) and as far as energy companies all they have to do is put up fences but someone in our government wants our Wild Mustangs GONE FOREVER!
NOW YOU KNOW THE TRUTH, ARE YOU MAD! WAKE UP AMERICA, our very own government is lying to you and at the same time VIOLATING THE LAW and WASTING YOUR TAXPAYER DOLLARS!
Call, write or e-mail your Senators and tell them to SUPPORT AND PASS S. 1579 - The Restore our Mustang Act, the House has already passed it's version! STAND UP AND BE HEARD AMERICA, DO NOT LET THE SPIRITS OF AMERICA DISAPPEAR!