LANDER -- Not far southeast of here is a vestige of the old American West -- one of the largest unfenced ranges in the United States.
It's a place where 16 stockgrowers, mostly cattle ranchers, graze their animals -- and where thousands of local and nonlocal hunters, fishermen, hikers, backcountry horse riders and wildlife enthusiasts explore annually, but rarely run into one another, except by design.
It's also a place where tens of thousands of people visit every year, from all over the world, to experience a few of the last remaining unspoiled sections of the Oregon, Mormon and California trails.
But the health of the Green Mountain Common Allotment's rangeland is failing, and has been for years, officials say. The federal Bureau of Land Management is proposing to carve the allotment up into six smaller ones, and install nearly 100 miles, and about $1 million worth, of barbed-wire and electrical fences.
A 400-plus page draft of the proposed action, called an environmental assessment, was published last month by the BLM's Lander office, and the public has until June 27 to comment on the proposal and its alternatives.
Following the comment period, the BLM's Lander field manager, Bob Ross, will decide on a final management plan. Or perhaps he'll kick off a more involved environmental impact statement, which, under federal rules, requires a broader and more painstaking analysis of all of the potential impacts of an action.
At least one conservation organization, the Western Watersheds Project, plans to sue the BLM if the agency fails to do this more involved kind of study.
The Green Mountain Common Allotment is over 522,000 acres of open range, 60 miles by 20 miles. If every man, woman and child in Wyoming gathered there, each would have more than an acre of his own to stand upon.
Sections of the allotment have taken a beating from seven-plus years of drought, and more than a century of often harmful livestock grazing. Even though the BLM developed and finalized a management plan less than a decade ago, it has been forced to scrap it, and start over.
Long a source of controversy, this famously unfenced section of federally managed land might, out of necessity, be fenced into smaller sections very soon, in order to help restore critical wildlife habitat and riparian areas, officials with the Lander BLM said recently.
But Jon Marvel, a representative of the Western Watersheds Project, said to break the allotment up into six sections would be a huge blow to Western and American heritage, as well as an enormous cost to taxpayers -- and it all would be done for the sole benefit of a few cattle ranchers.
Fremont County Commissioner Doug Thompson, however, said the proposed action could actually restrict cattle ranchers on the allotment too much, and make it difficult for them to make a living there.
Reader Comments
Comments to this story.
Knowledgeable Observer wrote on May 19, 2008 7:34 AM:
Fact is, the document currently in print is an environmental impact statement in nearly every way except the title. Jon Marvel (western watersheds) has one goal, that is to end public lands grazing. The public should be aware that if public land grazing ends, most of the river/stream corridors that are privately owned by ranchers will be sold and subdivided. Ranchers maintain continuity on Wyoming's rangelands. This should not be forgotten. Let's support these ranchers who've made a real effort to protect our rangelands. "
heritage wrote on May 19, 2008 7:35 AM:
Heck why leave anything to the people who make their livings with the land and the country? Let the experts run it all and be sure the tree uggers know there ain't no trees to ugg so it ain't their fight this time. "
Informed Observer wrote on May 19, 2008 8:12 AM:
range manager wrote on May 19, 2008 8:38 AM:
Inky wrote on May 19, 2008 1:09 PM:
Grazing is not a problem, per se, but decades of overgrazing is exactly what has been going on, and the riparian areas are hammered.
Many ranchers have grown up looking at overgrazed lands, to the extent that they have no experience with ranges that are NOT overgrazed by any objective measure. As a result, overgrazed ranges become the norm.
It is absurd to believe that housing or commercial development will pave over Green Mountain, but it is not absurd to fear that O&G, CBM and uranium will carve it up.
The dozen ranchers that run cattle out there are not biggies and their economic downsizing or demise wouldn't cause a blip of economic dislocation in Fremont County.
Here's a novel idea -- how about we try "multiple use" that doesn't automatically make resource extraction (grazing, timber, minerals) the absolute, primary use? "
Knowledgeable Observer wrote on May 19, 2008 3:25 PM:
Let's turn this around. I don't know what you do, but the dozen or so of you guys who do what you do are not biggies. You're economic downsizing or demise wouldn't cause a blip of economic dislocation. Maybe we should sell your house out from under you. Take away your livelihood. Sound Fair? I didn't think so.
with respect to riparian corridors, Let's look at overgrazing. It is generally not the amount of grazing, but the timing of grazing that is important. Grasses need time to grow & feed their roots. If you graze it after they've had that opportunity, the plant isn't harmed. Be that as it may, we need to leave grass in these areas for other uses (wildlife/wild horses, etc). This is the reason for the fencing. This allows ranchers to use the grass and then leave it before it is, in your terms, overgrazed. Basic Range Management my friend. "
Get a Grip of reality wrote on Jun 22, 2008 8:38 PM:
Then the Rancher crys about the Wildlife showing up on the ranch after he grazes the winter range!? "
Submit a Comment