April 2011 River Ranch Diary

I am and have been a proponent of U.S. Senator Tim Johnson’s “Buffalo Gap National Grasslands Wilderness” proposal. That is not an astute political position to take in this neighborhood and political climate—-but it is the right one. Recently the Rapid City Journal ran a front page story on this issue and published two lists: a) of supporters and b) of opponents to this proposal.

Of the fifteen ranchers that hold grazing permits within the three U.S. Forest Service grazing areas in question, only three can openly be considered as proponents of the proposal. The other twelve are opponents, who have a consensus of ranch related concerns that dictate their positions. First, the largest area of the three in question is already designated as a “travel management” or “road-less” area, which includes a single, designated road off of which it is illegal to drive; and the area is managed as if it were “wilderness;” therefore, say the opponents, “why change the designation?” Second, the opponents ask that if the proposal were to pass and become law, “what is to keep the Forest Service from eliminating grazing altogether and thus inhibiting the permit holders from making a living?” Third, the concern involves a sort of inheritance concept which the opponents believe could or would inhibit or prevent their familial successors from following in the footsteps of their predecessors as proper stewards of the land. Fourth, there seems to me (and I could be mistaken) to be an unspoken fear that were the cattle grazing permits to be rescinded, only the buffalo grazing permit holder(s) would be allowed to continue as permitee grazers. And if that were the case, I, too, would be an opponent to the proposal

It is not only those who have been granted grazing privileges that have a voice in this issue. The land in question, administered by the USFS, is public land and is therefore freely accessed by many individuals and groups: hunters, rock hounds, hikers, off roaders, environmentalists of all sorts, ranchers, sports persons of all sorts, biologists, botanists, ranchers, photographers, and tourists. Public land can be and is regulated; it is not free use for all comers for whatever purpose—-and never has been: where driving is/is not permitted, whether or not fires can be lighted, whether or not fossils can be removed, or mining allowed. The public land in question includes a designated road for motorized vehicles, which means that hiking, horseback riding and bicycles are acceptable off road transportation. There are also some very limited exceptions. Grazing permit holders can use motorized transportation for checking on their livestock and for checking and repairing fences.

Involved in the question of the change of designation from “travel management” to “wilderness,” is a concern that the “wilderness” designation is the next governmental step to eliminate cattle grazing from the unit. An often quoted example at this point in the debate is the administrative action of the Sage Creek Wilderness Area. But the two administrative units in question, the US Park Service and the US Forest Service do not subscribe to or have the same administrative policies regarding grazing. The US Park Service in the Sage Creek Area limits grazing to native species, which excludes cattle. The US Forest Service approves grazing for cattle but retains the right to limit the number of permits based on surveys of the land regarding its ability to sustain grazing. For example drought reduces grazing; so the number of permits can fluctuate from year to year. The opponents to the “wilderness proposal” tend to see the government as the enemy, rather than the USFS as a facilitator to grazing and as a facilitator that has the responsibility to the public and to the land itself, to maintain its capability of being responsibly grazed. I do not share that distrust of the USFS and have no reason to fear a catastrophic alteration of Forest Service administrative policy. I do not envision some sort of conspiracy against the cattle rancher. In fact I see quite the opposite.

For example, when Dan bought this ranch on the Cheyenne River, he was able to acquire the grazing permits that had been allotted to the previous owner. These permits totaled slightly more than 50% of all the permits issued for that grazing unit. These were summer grazing permits for cattle. The Forest Service approved Dan’s proposal to convert those permits into winter grazing for buffalo. The trade off with the Forest Service was to replace the old, cattle fence (mostly three strand barbed wire) with approved buffalo fence (five strand) which requires replacing all the old corners, most of the wires, most of the line posts, etc. for the twenty six miles of fence that encloses the approximately 22,000 acres of the grasslands in that unit. This new fence made the pasture more secure for the other ranchers, which occasions fewer calls from neighbors for the permit holder to come and recover the animals that strayed out of the grasslands pasture. The conversion from summer cattle to winter buffalo grazing provided a 50% more grazing availability to the summer cattle grazers. The buffalo then had the entire area during the winter—-on dormant grasses. I see this as a win/win situation. The potential for summer cattle grazing is about 50% better than it had been before winter grazing for buffalo was established. I see this situation as an enhancement to summer cattle grazing and a potential to an improved working relationship between cattle and buffalo growers, which means that the ability for the permit holder to enhance his/her livelihood, depending upon the animals’ weight gain via less competition for a finite but variable amount of grazing potential. Of course the total number of permits issued is controlled by the USFS, and the percentage of reduction for each holder is the same across the board. A six percent reduction for cattle grazers in the summer is a six percent reduction for buffalo grazers in the winter.

These are some of the issues that the first level stake holders in this debate face. I am not exactly certain what the issues are for the other individuals and organizations in this question. But the public land in question deserves to be respected rather than to be exploited. It deserves to be protected as wilderness to the advantage of all.