____________________________________________________
\ SOUTHWEST BIODIVERSITY ALERT
#165
/
\
12-17-98
/
\
/
\ SOUTHWEST CENTER FOR
BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY
/
\ http://www.sw-center.org
/
\________________________________________/
1. LIVESTOCK INDUSTRY FILES
MOTION TO STOP PLANNED SPRING
RELEASE OF GRAY WOLVES
2.
FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE HIDES PERMIT TO KILL PYGMY OWL,
EVEN
REP. KOLBE OPPOSES KILLING
3. LIVESTOCK INDUSTRY OVERTURNS GRAZING
BAN
4. EDITORIAL: PLAN TO RETIRE SW GRAZING PERMITS SHOULD BE
SUPPORTED
*****
***** *****
*****
LIVESTOCK INDUSTRY FILES MOTION TO STOP PLANNED SPRING
RELEASE
OF GRAY WOLVES
On 12-16-98, the livestock industry requested a
preliminary
injunction, banning the release of new Mexican gray
wolves,
until a final rule is issued in its lawsuit against the
entire
reintroduction program. If granted, the injunction would squash
the
planned introduction of 11-15 wolves this spring. With no
evidence
whatsoever, the industry argues that the reintroduction
is illegal since wild
wolves already exist in the Gila Headwaters
Ecosystem, and that the wolves
are actually wolf-coyote hybrids.
Defenders of Wildlife, the Southwest
Center and others have been
granted intervener status and thus will be able
to counter the
livestock industry's ludicrous arguments. No briefing schedule
has
been set to hear the preliminary injunction articles. We
are
represented by Grove Burnett of the Western Environmental
Law
Center.
_________________________
FISH
& WILDLIFE SERVICE HIDES PERMIT TO KILL PYGMY OWL-
EVEN REP. KOLBE
OPPOSES KILLING
On 12-7-98, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service sent out a
press
release announcing that the first Habitat Conservation Plan
(HCP)
allowing "take" of Cactus ferruginous pygmy owls had been
issued,
but that the plan would only allow temporary harassment,
not the death of any
endangered owls. The Southwest Center,
however, discovered that the HCP does
authorize the killing of a
pygmy owl. The Service retracted its press release
the following
day, but had no coherent explanation as to why it mislead
the
press, or why the kill authorization was hidden away in the
fine
print, rather that presented up front in the official
"take
statement."
Adding insult to injury, a Service spokeswoman said
the Service
will recommend that the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan
also
include authorization for developers to kill pygmy owls. Modeled
on
the Southwest Center's Sonoran Desert Protection Plan, the
Conservation Plan
is a county effort to protect open space and
endangered species habitats
while establishing strong controls on
urban sprawl in the Tucson metro area.
The Southwest Center and
the Coalition for the Sonoran Desert Conservation
Plan both
pledged to drop support for the plan if it includes a kill
permit.
At a press conference on 12-14-98, a spokesperson for
U.S.
Representative Jim Kolbe called the permit a "poison pill"
contrary
to the spirit of the plan. He accused the Fish & Wildlife
Service of
monkey wrenching" environmental support with such a
"bonehead"
action.
___________________
LIVESTOCK
INDUSTRY OVERTURNS GRAZING BAN
On 12-10-98, a Honolulu Federal Judge, struck
down the
incidental take provisions of a Biological Opinion issued by
the
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service which required limitations on
grazing
to protect the endangered razorback sucker and cactus
ferruginous
pygmy owl. The judge agreed with livestock interests that
since
the Fish & Wildlife Service had not proven that the
species
currently occur on the BLM grazing allotments, it can not
legally
conclude that overgrazing will kill them. Habitat loss by
itself,
does not constitute take- for that, individuals must die, the
court
ruled.
The Southwest Center was granted intervener status in the
case
because it brought the original suit which required the BLM
to
consult with the Fish & Wildlife Service over the impacts
of
overgrazing on endangered species. The government has not
yet
determined whether it will appeal the case. The Southwest Center
is
also considering appeal. It is represented by Geoff Hickcox of
Kenna &
Hickcox.
______________________
EDITORIAL:
PLAN TO RETIRE SW GRAZING PERMITS SHOULD BE SUPPORTED
On 12-13-98, Mark Muro,
editorial staff of the Arizona Daily Star
published the following editorial
in support of a plan by the
Southwest Center, Forest Guardians and the
American Lands
Alliance to permanently retire grazing permits on National
Forests
within the Gila River Basin. The plan would allow ranchers
to
voluntarily "waive" their permits back to the Forest Service
which
would permanently retire them. The ranchers would then qualify for
a
retraining and education fund similar to the logger retraining
program
included in the Northwest Forest Plan. Specific grazing
permits on the Gila,
Apache-Sitgreaves, Coronado, Tonto,
Prescott, and Coconino National Forests
would qualify, primarily
based on impacts to threatened and endangered
species.
The Last Roundup
Preserve the Land
by Paying Ranchers to Quit Ranching
Ed Abbey had a to-the-point solution
for cattle grazing's destructive
impact on the West's grasslands, streams and
wildlife.
He wanted cattle booted from America's public lands.
He
thought every cow should be removed from every last acre of the West
- and
kept out.
However, it was not to be. Abbey's radical program to make the
West
``Cow Free by '93'' went nowhere, and since then, stalemate
has
predominated. For years Congress - the ranchers' best friend -
has
blocked every effort of Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt to reform
the
rules that govern federal lands grazing.
Now, though, a new push
in Abbey's direction is afoot - and the beauty
of it is, the notion makes
plain good sense.
This time around, the unthinkable idea of cow removal
has been sharpened
and mainstreamed by two environmental groups: Tucson's
Southwest Center
for Biological Diversity and its frequent partner, the
Forest Guardians
of New Mexico.
These groups and others propose that
the government should buy up and
retire - on a voluntary basis, for fair
market prices - key grazing
permits around the Southwest. They say,
essentially, that ranchers on
the region's most sensitive allotments should
be paid to go elsewhere.
In this way, they propose a bold end-run on gridlock
that would at once
protect the region's riparian areas, provide options to
beleaguered
ranch families and reduce the controversy of the range
wars.
Which is why lawmakers, land managers, environmentalists and,
yes,
ranchers, should all take a good look at the most creative idea
for
improving the range in years. Here is reform that might actually
work.
The argument for permit retirement begins with the condition of
the
West's ranges - especially the Southwest's.
Right now, public land
grazing supports only 2 percent of the nation's
cattle. However, that meager
economy does more damage to national forest
and Bureau of Land Management
territories than any other pursuit.
Studies show overgrazing has pushed
nearly 10 percent of all lands in
the West toward severe ``desertification.''
So, too, has the practice
sped the invasion of sagebrush and shrubs onto
native grasslands and
pounded soils so hard as to impede natural water
cycles.
Further, the harm has been most severe in the region's most
sensitive
places: near the dry Southwest's rare, life-breeding streams.
There,
dozens of native plant and animal species - from the Southwestern
willow
flycatcher and the Apache trout to the desert bighorn - have been
harmed
or driven to extinction by cattle turned loose along rivers and
streams.
The upshot: Something major needs to be done - soon - to turn
back the
trend of extinction. Or as Kieran Suckling of the Southwest
Center
declares, ``Grazing does pervasive, overwhelming harm to
ecosystems.
That's why we need emergency action.''
The problem,
though, is that change never quite gets done - which is the
second rationale
for the new proposal.
Consider that a tight knot of ranch country
stubbornness, bureaucratic
timidity and western politics appears to rule out
deep-going regulatory
reform for the foreseeable future.
Environmental
lawsuits, to be sure, have compelled grudging improvements
on the range, such
as the U.S. Forest Service's April agreement to
remove cattle from sensitive
streamside habitat in 11 Arizona and New
Mexico national
forests.
Nonetheless, those improvements have been cumbersome, and the
forces
allied against change remain formidable. Cash-poor and prickly
ranchers
ferociously resist even minor rule changes. Local BLM or Forest
Service
range managers shy away from the controversy of protecting
wildlife
habitat. And finally, pro-producer Western senators - abetted by
public
sympathy for cowboys - rush to stymie every attempt to reduce
stocking
levels or impose new rules.
In view of that, more and more
advocates of better range stewardship are
seeing the need for alternative
approaches. ``Regulatory reform has been
a complete failure, and lawsuits
take forever - so we need some new
methods,'' says John Horning of the Forest
Guardians. And the veteran
reform activist Steve Johnson of Tucson agrees:
``We need a dramatic
intention. Reform of the current system won't
work.''
Which suggests the cachet of Suckling and Horning's plan to pay
ranchers
in troublesome areas to go away. Suckling and Horning want to
begin
immediate ecosystem recovery by promoting a total ``destocking'' of
the
most cattle-pounded localities of the Southwest - even if
regulatory
reform is going nowhere elsewhere.
How exactly would the
environmentalists achieve this? Simple: They think
the government's grazing
agencies - the BLM and the Forest Service -
should begin fairly compensating
any rancher who agrees to simply hand
over his grazing permit for good and
quit running cows in sensitive
places.
No, this offer would not exist
everywhere across the West. But in
fragile, degraded places with threatened
biodiversity like the
headwaters streams of the White Mountains and the Gila
River Basin of
southeast Arizona and southwest New Mexico, it would offer a
new tool
for bringing about rapid change. There, any willing permittee
could
choose to sell his grazing permit to the government at its market
value.
Then, that permit and its associated allotments would be retired
from
grazing permanently.
In this fashion, ranching families using
perhaps 200 problematic
allotments covering 2.5 million acres around the
Southwest would receive
a lump-sum payment of maybe hundreds of thousands of
dollars to vacate
those ranges. That payout would not only support their
transition into
other livelihoods but work a wealth of good.
``Even if
we got just 10 guys to quit, that would be hundreds of
thousands of acres
where we wouldn't have to worry anymore and could
just start managing for
water and recreation and biodiversity,''
explains Horning, the Forest
Guardian. Meanwhile, Suckling notes that
much of the relatively low cost of
such a program would be recouped by
savings in the up to $50,000 per
permittee per year costs of
administrating, monitoring and mitigating
ranching.
Otherwise, those benefits almost pale beside the truly
radical
innovation of permit retirement: that ranchers might actually
welcome
it.
Think about it: Here is a form of range reform that treats
the West's
struggling cattlemen with respect - as free agents with
legitimate,
precarious livelihoods whose displacement ought to be voluntary
and
compensated.
Such reform, after all, would be voluntary. Moreover,
it would hand
ranchers not more regulations but another option. Ranchers
could choose
to sell their permit, pull their animals off federal land and
gain some
useful cash while they transition to another lifestyle. Or they
could
stand pat, and continue to take their chances in a dynamic
regulatory
and economic environment. Whatever, the choice would be
theirs.
``This says, `If you're thinking of getting out, here's a way,'
'' says
Horning of The Forest Guardians. And Jerry Holechek, a New Mexico
State
University range expert who has long advocated permit retirement,
adds:
``Willing-seller buyouts make a lot of sense because they offer
the
rancher something instead of endless new regulatory burdens.''
In
this fashion, permit retirement might just tamp down some of the
controversy
of range reform. No longer, if the payouts became available,
would
environmentalists need to sue the government to get cows out of
the
Southwest's streams. And no longer either would ranchers feel
compelled to
resist at every turn. For them, change would now be
voluntary and good paying
where it presently seems coercive and costly.
Now, of course, permit
retirement alone won't solve the public-lands
grazing conflicts, which affect
some 258 million acres of the West - an
area far too vast and diverse to be
addressed by one single panacea.
Moreover, the idea of cash payments to
ranchers, who are already heavily
subsidized, will please neither budget
hawks nor environmentalists angry
about ranchers' past hostility to
reform.
Still, environmental liberals, fiscal conservatives and the
ranching
community, too, should consider embracing what offers an efficient
way
of reducing livestock's toll on fragile watersheds that need a
subtler,
greener management.
Yes, Ed Abbey may have gone too far in
his desire for the last roundup.
But even so he had the outline of a good
idea way back when.
Taken in measure, and made voluntary and
remunerative, retirement of
grazing permits looks like the future for certain
Western lands.
Bring on the last
payout.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Kierán
Suckling
ksuckling@sw-center.org
Executive
Director
520.623.5252 phone
Southwest Center for Biological
Diversity 520.623.9797 fax
http://www.sw-center.org
pob 710, tucson, az 85702-710