washingtonpost.com  > Nation > Search the States > Oregon

In Grazing Debate, Some Ranchers Are Switching Sides

By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, September 13, 2004; Page A02

Bob Miller, a fourth-generation farmer in Oregon's Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument, is ready to call it quits.

He grazes 150 head of cattle on mountainous federal land that provides crucial forage for his herd, but he is well aware that in a matter of years, the government may push him off after completing a multimillion-dollar study on how ranching is affecting the local ecology.

Bob Miller, a fourth-generation farmer, is ready to quit grazing cattle in Oregon's Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument. (Jim Craven -- Mail Tribune Via AP)

"This study has become a big albatross," Miller said. "They're going to have to buy us out one way or another. We think they better do it now."

Miller and about a dozen other ranchers in Cascade-Siskiyou own federal grazing permits, lifetime permits that allow them to graze cattle for less than $1.50 a month apiece on the public land. But with concern intensifying about what grazing is doing to the land and the rare species that depend on it, he and others are making common cause with environmentalists who want to end the practice.

These overtures have encouraged environmentalists such as Rod Mondt, Southwest representative for the National Public Lands Grazing Campaign, a coalition to stop livestock grazing on public lands.

"All of a sudden we're starting to sit down with the ranching community," Mondt said. "The collaboration is starting to build."

But the nascent push to end federal grazing in Oregon, Arizona and elsewhere has sparked a backlash from several cattlemen's associations, as well as some Republicans in Congress. The debate over how to treat the ranchers underscores the growing political and economic tension over the federal government's decades-old policy of promoting grazing on federal land with low-cost permits.

No one argues that the policy is a moneymaker. Last year the Bureau of Land Management took in nearly $12 million in grazing receipts, officials said, but it spent $50 million administering the program. Critics say the true cost is at least twice as high, noting that the figures do not include expenses such as range development and predator control.

"All of our programs are money-losing," said Jim Hughes, deputy director for policy and programs at the Bureau of Land Management. "Congress said it was in the public interest to maintain a viable public grazing industry in the West."

But activists on both sides of the debate differ on whether ranching is a boon or a threat to sensitive federal lands. Mike Byrne, a rancher in Tulelake, Calif., near the Oregon border, said he and other ranchers help preserve range land by keeping vegetation in check.

"The environment as a whole is in better shape when we're there than when we're not," said Byrne, who compared ungrazed land to a haunted house. "It's a lot better to have somebody take care of the land than to allow it to go decadent."

George Wuerthner, ecological projects director for the California-based Foundation for Deep Ecology, disagrees. He said grazing and other livestock activities compact the soil, which can lead to flooding, spread invasive species and drain moist woodlands that other plants and animals depend on for sustenance. According to Agriculture Department statistics, he noted, grazing has been linked to the perilous state of 22 percent of threatened and endangered species.

"Livestock production is the single biggest negative economic impact across the western United States," Wuerthner said.

Environmentalists have been pushing to end federal grazing for years. They question why the federal government would permit grazing for minimal fees, when they could leave the land ungrazed.

CONTINUED    1 2    Next >

© 2004 The Washington Post Company