More Damage: ATV's or Livestock

grizzly

grizzly

Long Time Member
Messages
5,598
Who does more damage to our National Forests?

ATV's or Livestock

I believe 90% of ATV riders stay on roads and do little to no damage to foraged areas; on the other hand, livestock does its damage exclusively to prime feeding/bedding/breeding areas for wildlife.

I support mixed use lands, but there are too many cattle and sheep on our public lands, so I vote...

LIVESTOCK does more damage than ATV's
 
LAST EDITED ON Sep-08-08 AT 04:51PM (MST)[p]Good thread, this will be active.

Although i see your frustration, the other 10% of the bad ATV'ers do WAY more damage than sheep or cows will, by far.

Think about it....
A large group of livestock is spread out and don't damage the actual "landscape", they just eat and tromple vegatation.

The ATV'er going off road spinning the deep treaded tires are causing "ditches" for water to run down and get deeper and deeper and deeper...
The tires totally desacrate the soil and the damage is there for year and years, where livestock damage is only surface.

Just my .02

BTW- I HATE sheep!!!!! Lol





48288e6577d023b6.jpg
 
i agree 100%. cows arent too bad just because they make trails through the thick stuff but i cant stand sheep. they destroy everything they touch. i say keep them fenced in... the only time it bugs me if i see fourwheeler tracks off road is when i hike three miles while shed hunting and i walk across atv tracks. i cant stand it...
 
My vote goes to wild horses.
------------------------------------------------------
By the way,
I live in UT.
There are a lot of UTARDS that live here.
I have also seen quite a few WYOMORONS, NEVADUHNS, COLORADORKS, ID-IOTS and AIRHEADZONANS in my travels.
 
LAST EDITED ON Sep-08-08 AT 05:20PM (MST)[p]"90% of ATV riders stay on roads and do little to no damage to foraged areas;"

It WAS habitat area until the ATV riders made the road, or opened up the "road". Where I hunt, areas that were logged have skid roads that were used when they logged, but were never intended to be used as roads. Most of them have been water barred to prevent erosion and would turn back to forage areas if it wasn't for the constant ATV traffic. ATVs knock down the water bars causing further damage.

ATVs do far more damage, at least where I hunt.

Eel

Edit: I should mention that we have no sheep. Between the lions, coyotes, and bears a flock of sheep wouldn't last 3 days.
 
My vote goes to ATV's for sure. And I would speculate that more than 10% of atv users are misusing public land. I see it every year and they do leave a long lasting mark.
My second vote would go to the damn wild horses. They eat to the ground and tromp down everything. Round em' up and make some glue.
 
I say livestock, just because of what I've seen first hand in Florida. Alot of people fail to realize the effect of livestock on a watershed, not only from crappin in the water, but from bank erosion, which causes major turbidity issues(water clarity) I worked for a company as a Lake Maintenance Tech. and did alot of tests for the state and local government with Livestock mitagation, land use etc, and livestock can straight up destroy that kinda habitat, very quickly and it is almost irreversible!
 
Hunters damage everything they touch! They dig fire pits and completely sterilize the ground where they build campfires. They cut down green and dead wood to fuel their bonfires thus severly impacting all wildlife by destroying habitat and cover. They leave trash through-out their campsites including but not limited to; beercans, cigarette butts, plastic shopping bags, human waste, ect. They like to camp at water sources and scare away wildlife and livestock. They create dust in dry areas by driving atvs and trucks and tear up marshs and creeks with irresponsible riding. They all must be banned! Just like all cattlemen are overgrazers. All hikers are treehugging numbskulls. All mining is horrible and all logging is raping the earth. Give me a break guys! Livestock are vital parts of small towns throughout the west and have been way before some of you were born. They are as much a part of public ground in the west as hunting and all other multiple uses. But just keep whining and crying if it makes ya happy. Just know how happy the anti-s are to see us fighting amongst ourselves instaed of standing shoulder to shoulder against them. When ya'll get rid of livestock on public land, hunters will be next on the list. Grizzly must live in a Disney movie. Maybe you can switch your name to thumper or ariel!
 
>It WAS habitat area until the
>ATV riders made the road,
>or opened up the "road".
>Where I hunt, areas that
>were logged have skid roads
>that were used when they
>logged, but were never intended
>to be used as roads.
>Most of them have been
>water barred to prevent erosion
>and would turn back to
>forage areas if it wasn't
>for the constant ATV traffic.
>ATVs knock down the water
>bars causing further damage.

Oh really? So the logging which basically destroyed the area by cutting down trees, and making areas inaccessable due to deadfall, complete with building roads to remove the lumber was ok, but the ATV that then drove down the road later caused more damage... Uhhhhhhhhhhh huh


-DallanC
 
I believe that both are at fault,
cattle can over graze areas and
ruin water sources, the only problem
I have with atv's is when they leave an
already established trail someone else
sees the tracks and follow them and after
a few it now looks like an established
trail.

Established atv trails, will never recover
In areas that the have established wilderness
study areas, such as on the deep creeks, and
pilot mountain, the trails will never grow back
in, unless they go in and turn up the soil
and replant.

Atv's can affect your hunt by more pressure,
but livestock will affect the entire area.

I believe goats are the best to put on the
mountain, because they will eat about anything,
therefore getting rid of all the noxious weeds
that will over run good feed for big game.

Just my 2 cents!
 
>>It WAS habitat area until the
>>ATV riders made the road,
>>or opened up the "road".
>>Where I hunt, areas that
>>were logged have skid roads
>>that were used when they
>>logged, but were never intended
>>to be used as roads.
>>Most of them have been
>>water barred to prevent erosion
>>and would turn back to
>>forage areas if it wasn't
>>for the constant ATV traffic.
>>ATVs knock down the water
>>bars causing further damage.
>
>Oh really? So the logging which
>basically destroyed the area by
>cutting down trees, and making
>areas inaccessable due to deadfall,
>complete with building roads to
>remove the lumber was ok,
>but the ATV that then
>drove down the road later
>caused more damage... Uhhhhhhhhhhh huh
>
>
>
>-DallanC

If you think logging destroys the area, there's not much I can say without wasting my breath.....

Eel
 
guys on horses and mules do more damage to the environment than most anybody on an atv..
them horses are spreading noxious weeds at an alarming rate..
and once them weeds take hold and start spreading,,there aint much you can do to stop them,, they just take over..
and sheep are just as bad..
around here they bring em up through the desert in the spring right on up into the high country..
i can't imagine how many thistle, knap weed ,foxtail,, etc..
hitch a ride on all that wool..
 
loggers period!
hack down the forest, make roads where none need to be! and then leave it a mess!!
makes me sick sometimes to see before and after them!!
then livestock by far! most of the roads I ride my quad on are 50/60 years old and were cut by live stock or loggers...
rm
 
LAST EDITED ON Sep-08-08 AT 08:20PM (MST)[p]I think sheep are the worst thing to ever hit the mountain. The damage they do isn't just on the surface. They pull the roots up oh healthy plant and spread the seeds of noxious weeds everywhere they go. In the provo canyon area our big horn sheep population went from 80 to 10 all because a few sheep got loose and spread disease into the wild sheep. The cost to replace those 70 sheep alone far outweighs damage done by a few retards abusing atv's

IMO logging is the best thing that has ever happened to some of the thick and overgrown pine forests.
 
I live in Northern Utah, where I have put 200 miles on my ATV this summer without leaving an approved road. I have yet to see an ATV breaking the law this year, though I know it happens and will turn in photographic evidence to the authorities of any lawbreakers I see.

Here is why I feel livestock does more damage...

Example 1: I hiked 2 miles to 8,500 ft. on Saturday to scout some bucks I have been watching all summer in a glacial basin. The sheep have been in there in the last week and the area is trampled to dust without a deer to be seen. I just hope the bucks come back before the season starts.

Example 2: If anybody is familiar with the Spawn Creek restoration project, the damage was caused by livestock, not ATV's. Just two local and recent examples to justify my feelings.

PS. I had no idea wild horses were nearly the problem they are.
 
Another reason I support ATV use by hunters.

It lets lazy people feel like they're hunting without leaving the road. It leaves the roadless area without a person to be seen.
 
Livestock of all kinds...........it's not even close.



Gotta love driving by miles and miles of beutiful game filled country plastered with no tresspassing signs only to reach public lands to see herds of stink ass cattle.............
 
ATV'S, Neither would be a problem if used correctly. Some people just don't use common sense. I agree that most of the problem comes from pure laziness.
 
I'm not a rancher or sheep man, but I can tell you they do more good than harm. Ever think what kind of wild fires we'd have if the land was not grazed down. The improvement in grass, albeit if not overgrazed, by the natural fertilizer left behind. Good grief, anybody ever see what a herd of buffalo do to a stream bed. How in the world did the West survive with the thousands of buffalo damaging the country before the white man showed up.
I vote buffalo did more damage than sheep, cattle, and atv's put together!
 
Good point but cattle are pretty disruptive. I hunted E. Nevada and N. Calif this year and cattle were everywhere. I guess I should have followed my original instinct and hunted the wilderness. The NF has just too many cattle. I think ranchers should be forced to remove the cattle by July 14th. This would allow deer to move back in areas they would otherwise by pushed out of and still keep the grass down. JMO.

JR
 
Over grazing of public lands is not the livestocks fault, it is the fault of the owner/herder. We hunt an area that is frequented by sheep. In dry years the grazed areas can look pretty torn up, but in wetter years you can't even tell the sheep were there a week later. Either way, we seem to find the elk in that same places year after year.
On the other hand, the last few years there has been a new group of hunters in the area. If they put an animal down, they drag it into the bottom and then drive there ATV two miles up the bottom of the canyon to pack it out. Didn't seem to be a big deal at first. Now three years later there is a road up the bottom of the canyon. Hunting pressure has increased exponetially and I personally did not see half the number of elk that I usually do. The sheep have not been in the area yet this year.
People destroy the land. ATV's = more access = More poeple = more habitat destruction. Livestock have been grazing these lands for much longer than most of us have been alive. You can't tell me they do that much damage.

In response to a post above: Sheep will push bucks from a drainage, but they will come back. Drive you ATV in there next time and you will have 50 deer camps in there next year and you will never see deer there again.

I just want to be friends.
 
go visit the state of Nevada, 2/3rds of the land is overrun with non native cheat grass brought to the state by livestock operators many years ago, the land is/was so overgrazed that it took over,and the land is now caught in a fire cheat grass cycle. ATVs can be nasty things when used to carve further into the little bit of refuge wild animals have left, but its no contest historically livestock has done more damage to wildlife habitat
 
Guess it depends on your definition of damage.
Never saw a cow or horse doing donuts in a wetland or burning rubber getting scratch racing accross a wilderness meadow... But I also have never seen a non operating atv crapping in a stream or eating every stick of natural vegetation inside that fenced property.
IMHO,It is personal irresponsiblity by both sides that is fueling this descussion

Stop Global Whining
 
I'm no fan of the internal combustion engine in the forest first and foremost.

But this isn't a us and them problem. This is a disrespectful user problem. Both do a tremendous amount of damage to trails. Livestock leave hoof prints that gather water and contribute to erosion. ATV riders just dig them down and rut them out through aggressive riding.

There are ATV users who shoot holes through useage signs and drive past them. I watched a dad and mom in a UTV with their young son on an ATV completely ignore a limited use sign and drive down a hiking trail. They waited until we loaded our bikes and thought we couldn't see them. Good lesson for the boy! In one weekend they turned a single track into a road!

To say that ATV's stay on trail and roads is to live life with rose colored glasses on. In an area where I frequently walk my dogs and do a lot of plinking there are two tracks all over the place. Trailcrews put down deadfall and the next weekend there is a new two track right around it. Probably a matter of coincidence(I'm sure),but, it seems those same folks leave a ton of garbage at their campsites. I spend a good portion of my time picking it up.

I don't believe free grazing causes all that much damage. There is lots of it where I recreate and it doesn't seem all that disruptive to the environment. It does leave lots of great fertilizer. I use the cow trails for hunting access. I went bird hunting last week in an area that would have been impossible to get through without the stock trails. But, they do consume browse that wildlife need. They do spread disease to wildlife that wildlife is blamed for.

Who's to blame? Everyone/no one!


The more people I meet the more I like my dogs
 
The sheep industry is a dying industry. The sheep numbers are plummeting each year but if managed right I feel the sheep and cattle do little damage to our environment.

Trying to remove them from our BLM, National Forrest and etc simply plays into the hands of the anti hunters and enviro wacko tree huggers.
 
There is nothing worse than sheep. this year is more evident than the past few due to water and growth. the sheep herds leave swaths of utter destruction. Turned good forest and graze into nothing but dust. hit a couple of my fav holes this year with an archer, only to find that the sheep had completely decimated everything, from food to water to cover. It was all gone, the erosion in those areas will be horrendous, probably irreversible damage done.
littlebeaver.jpg


Wildlife population control specialist
 
Cattle. But then most guys running cows are driving ATVs. I've seen these guys back in wilderness areas on ATVs and seen the tracks they create. Nice combination.
 
ELK!!!!!!! Have you ever saw what a big stinky bull elk can do to a innocent little pine tree?? And how 'bout them wallows, a frog would choke to death in the mud after those bulls get through with a nice little water hole.

One corn fed bull shows up on Monroe Mountain and 10,000 heroes are up there in their Dodge Turbos tearing up the entire mountain.

Seriously, sheep and cattle if properly managed do very little damage to the enviroment. Wild horses are another story. But 1st and foremost motorized vehicles i.e. wheelers, 4X4 trucks etc. do more damage than anything else especially if concentrated and over time.

RUS
 
These debates crack me up. In some places of our country, the track from wagon trains heading West can STILL be seen with the naked eye. Wagons arent ATVs, I know this. But, where are all the tracks from the mules and oxen, the cattle drives and the MILLIONS of bison that were there at the same time? Cattle are murder on streambeds, I'll admit, but as far as long lasting damage, wheeled vehicles inflict more. mtmuley
 
I am shocked to see this many people have there heads up there arses! Livestock do get managed on the mountains. If they do over graze places they would be only hurting themselves. The blm and forest service will not put up with over grazing. You people don't even understand how this works. They will either cut your permits or will not let your animals back on at all. I guess the wildlife don't eat grass or shrubs just cattle and sheep. There is way more benefits to having livestock on our public land than not having them there. My vote is for ATV?s!!!!!!!!
 
LAST EDITED ON Sep-10-08 AT 09:46PM (MST)[p]Right........hunted in a nevada WILDERNESS area a few years back that was lousy with cattle.........like every streambed and spring pounded to death and full of cowshit.........obviously illegal....notified the local forest service and they could'nt care less basically......The ranchers land sure was nice though......of course no chance of ever gaining access to that...........Don't try and tell me this is'nt a big problem in many, many areas.
 
I would take exception to anyone who says they found livestock or the ranchers on ATV's in a "designated" wilderness.

There are NO Federal leases in wilderness areas and for a rancher to allow his stock into a wilderness area would be financial suicide.

A blind child with measels, can clearly see that any wheeled vehicle is more environmentally harmful than livestock.

Deeper ruts, more noise, more smog and a gas or oil leak, compared to a cow pie, is just bad math.
 
This one is good!
I had a boss that used to cuss the livestock like crazy for tearing everything up so bad, he would tell me about how nice places were before the cows got to them, I kind of got a kick out of it. The fact of the matter is that both if abused can make a mess. If a rancher is using his salt licks right and is kepping with all the laws on his permit, he wont make to much of a mess. The problem is that it has been a really dry year, so things are looking a little harder hit than normal. We can usually run thirty pair on our small place and it still looks good at the end of the year. Not this year! I wish the blm and forest guys would monitor things a touch better, and alot of these problems would resolve themselves.
Over half of the water I hunt over has been developed by a rancher at some point or another so you have to at least give the cattle credit for that.
 
"I would take exception to anyone who says they found livestock or the ranchers on ATV's in a "designated" wilderness.
There are NO Federal leases in wilderness areas and for a rancher to allow his stock into a wilderness area would be financial suicide"

Well, I can tell you for a fact, that in Eastern Oregon, there are cattle and sheep grazing in the Monument Rock Wilderness Area. There are so many sheep that there is no grass or cover at all in some places, just dirt. I questioned the USFS employees about this severe over grazing and they said it was "historic" and would be continuing despite the damage... I have also seen and reported dohtards riding their atvs in the same wilderness miles past the locked gates and tank barriers, yet never see a ranger or warden stopping this abuse.
Here in CA, in the High Sierra, there are cattle and sheep grazing and damaging meadows and streams well above tree line, also allowed because it was "historic".
Once again I say it is because of bad management that continues to allow over grazing and lack of enforcement that allows idiots to rip and shread off road in designated wilderness areas.
Just my two cents...


Stop Global Whining
 
LAST EDITED ON Sep-11-08 AT 08:44AM (MST)[p]ATV's have my vote although cattle are annoying. I was out at Vernon a couple of weeks ago spotting because I drew a rifle tag and I saw a guy on a wheeler pass me as I was headed out at about dusk and I just knew this guy would take his wheeler as far as he could. There's a sign posted on this road a little ways up from where I was. And low and behold as I was leaving and it was dark I could see his lights on the mountain he was up as high as he could go about a mile past a posted fish and game sign that says NO ATV's. If I see any guys runnin their wheelers off the roads out at Vernon or anywhere where they shouldn't you can can't on it that I'll be taken pics of your wheeler ID and your truck license and sending them to the fish n game. Huntin off a wheeler is not huntin. Get off your wheeler and hike, if you want to hunt from a wheeler go pay 10k and hunt a private ranch. I have wheelers too but I never use them to hunt off of like some guys do.
 
Definitely the livestock... Seems like more and more cattle every year I go out. I don't follow your logic in "supporting mixed feeding" myself, but kudos for recognizing that livestock basically invade the wildlife's habitat, and destroy it.
 
LAST EDITED ON Sep-11-08 AT 09:08AM (MST)[p]nickman said, "There are NO Federal leases in wilderness areas and for a rancher to allow his stock into a wilderness area would be financial suicide."

How much money do you want to lose on a bet with that statement?

There definately are federal grazing leases in wilderness areas.
 
LAST EDITED ON Sep-11-08 AT 11:47AM (MST)[p]PEOPLE do more damage to the environment than any animals! You guys are worried about cattle & ATV's?.....the bigger problem by far is loss of habitat due to development. Although ranchers and sportsmen may not always agree on things, both want to preserve the environment.
 
Take exception all you want, nickman. It's a fact. I and many of my hunting buddies, for several years running, have seen cattle and "ranchers" in designated, well-posted wilderness areas in Nevada area 10. I have seen the "ranchers" on ATVs in those areas and have seen the destruction of the habitat caused by the cattle. Anybody that has walked thorugh a patch of quakies that those filthy bastards have been laying up in all summer knows what kind of damage they cause. Cattle cause more damage.
 
I hiked into one of my favorite water holes last weekend one that deer always watered at and there was cows everywhere,I was sitting there when i saw to bucks coming to the water and the cows actually ran them off, I have never seen that before.
 
In the interest of full disclosure...

Ropinfool, what's your association to the livestock industry?

From your other threads, I know there is one somewhere.
 
Livestock including sheep help the mountains more than you city slickers will ever know! My great grandpa was hearding livestock before there was a single road on our mountain. The vegiation is ten times better in areas that allow grazing than other areas. SFW has bought the grasing rights to many areas and they still allow grazing every so often because they understand how important it is.
They keep the choke cherries from taking over.
They till the ground wich helps water to soak in verses run off. The ground is super hard where there is no grazing.
They help bust up fallen trees and underbrush.
If you were to allow atv's to go where livestock go the mountains would be nothing but a sand dune.
I agree that some areas can be damaged from grazing. But if you were to go up on the mountain any other time than just to hunt you would see thick full vegitaion the next year. It's not half as bad as camp sites with 22000 fourwheelers making as many trails and tracks. ATVs pulverise anything they touch.
 
If you wanna take it to an extreme people are the sole and only problem, we own atv's, trucks, horses, cattle and homes. Fact is all contribute, nothing will ever be as it was before white man settled here. best we can do is control it. proper cattle management is good, enforcing atv laws is imperative and also not listed yet is littering. I hate that more than anything it is a blatant disreguard for habitat and pristine country. Dove "hunters" in arizona seem to be the worse most pathetic example. Shells, boxes and other trash just left with out a second thought. Cattle can screw an area real fast, it also recovers extremely fast when compared to four wheeler/truck damage/littering. its all relative. both cause harm one lasts a hell of alot longer. I do believe wilderness should be a sanctuary for wildlife NOT cattle for any reason whatsoever.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." -- Abraham Lincoln
 
>Livestock including sheep help the mountains
>more than you city slickers
>will ever know! My great
>grandpa was hearding livestock before
>there was a single road
>on our mountain. The vegiation
>is ten times better in
>areas that allow grazing than
>other areas. SFW has bought
>the grasing rights to many
>areas and they still allow
>grazing every so often because
>they understand how important it
>is.
>They keep the choke cherries from
>taking over.
>They till the ground wich helps
>water to soak in verses
>run off. The ground is
>super hard where there is
>no grazing.
>They help bust up fallen trees
>and underbrush.
>If you were to allow atv's
>to go where livestock go
>the mountains would be nothing
>but a sand dune.
>I agree that some areas can
>be damaged from grazing. But
>if you were to go
>up on the mountain any
>other time than just to
>hunt you would see thick
>full vegitaion the next year.
>It's not half as bad
>as camp sites with 22000
>fourwheelers making as many trails
>and tracks. ATVs pulverise anything
>they touch.

Wait wait wait. I believe our forests and habitat was totally pristine and perfectly fine before anyone ran sheep or cattle or logged. It was 100% natural. To say that it would deteriorate without that is a ridiculously ignorant statement. The problem stems from Humans, we have to control it since we are a part of it. But it is/was most healthy when it was controled by itself, the way it was meant to be, in a 100% natural environment.


"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." -- Abraham Lincoln
 
Sorry Buzz, but a little quick research will back up what I said.

There are NO grazing leases authorized on Federally designated "wilderness" areas.

I won't say that you guys haven't seen cattle or ranchers on ATVs in a wilderness area, but if you did, it was not legal.
 
Not claiming to be an expert on grazing but I have seen many cows in designated wilderness areas in California. The following is from http://www.thecre.com/fedlaw/legal26/us16.htm

Wilderness Areas. Wilderness areas are vast roadless areas designated to be preserved in their natural condition, unaffected by human activities. Congress designated some federal wilderness areas in the Wilderness Act of 1964, 16 U.S.C. secs. 1131-1136, the Eastern Wilderness Act of 1975, Pub. L. No. 93-622, and the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, 16 U.S.C. secs. 3101-3133. The Wilderness Act also established a process by which the federal land management agencies, including the USFS, BLM, and NPS, study and recommend roadless areas under their jurisdiction for protection as wilderness. Such wilderness areas are still administered by the designating agency. Wilderness areas are to be preserved in their natural state; only non-motorized recreational uses are allowed. The major exceptions to this rule include pre-1984 mining claims, pre-1964 grazing rights, logging (if specifically allowed in an area), and the federal development of hydropower or water resources.
 
From the BLM

Wilderness
As part of its conservation mandate, FLPMA made the Wilderness Act of1964 applicable to the public lands. FLPMA required the BLM to review roadless areas of more than 5,000 acres for the presence of wilderness characteristics and to make recommendations to the president for areas to be designated as wilderness areas under the Wilderness Act.Wilderness characteristics include having a natural or primeval character without permanent improvements or human habitation, and having outstanding opportunities for solitude or for primitive and unconfined recreation. The president can then make recommendations to Congress for wilderness area designation, but only Congress can formally establish a wilderness area. While an area is under review and until Congress acts, the BLM must manage such areas, termed wilderness study areas (WSAs), so as to protect their wilderness values. Mining, grazing, and mineral leasing is allowed to continue in WSAs to the degree that it existed prior to passage of FLPMA, provided such uses can be carried out without undue or unnecessary degradation of the lands and resources. As of July 2005, BLM manages 610 WSAs encompassing 14.3 million acres and 175 wilderness areas encompassing 7.2 million acres.

For information on wilderness, see the Wilderness Act summary. For recent changes in Department of the Interior policies on WSAs, see the Controversies section.


Maybe there is something I am missing but it sure seems like grazing is allowed in the Wilderness
 
Nickman,

You want to take the bet or not? I believe you need to do some research...I have. Spent a few years studying natural resources and land management. That, along with the last 21 years of work in the same discipline, have led to a fair bit of "research" on the topic at hand.

For your viewing and educational pleasure:

"Does the Wilderness Act prohibit mining and grazing?

Both mining and grazing are explicitly allowed in wilderness areas, so long as their use (or claim to future use) has already been established.

Grazing can continue where it was previously occurring, but no new grazing leases, and no increase in number of livestock are allowed in wilderness areas. All grazing is subject to the terms and conditions established by the land management agency overseeing the area.

Mining may take place if a claim has been staked prior to wilderness designation. (Wilderness areas are closed to new mining claims.) However, the land management agencies may require additional environmental safeguards and restoration to protect the natural integrity of a wilderness area. Federal law guarantees that miners be provided "reasonable access" to mining claims."

You're welcome, and schools out...I spent a total of 4 minutes "researching" to find that.
 
Nickman,

Not sure why I wasted another 4 minutes "researching"...but what the heck:

Still dont believe grazing is currently going on in wilderness areas...or are you ready to concede that you havent a clue and you were wrong?

Please let me know if I need to spend another 4 minutes researching this topic.

Range manager from New Mexico commenting on grazing in wilderness areas:

"The following comments reflect Gene Tatum?s responses to specific concerns that have been raised from the ranching community in Dona Ana County. His remarks are based on his 17+ years of experience actually managing rangeland grazing programs within the two largest BLM Wilderness Areas in New Mexico, the West Malpais and Cebolla.

Introduction:
?First, I would like to note that the opposition and comments against Wilderness stated by some Dona Ana County ranchers have been expressed as if these individuals have great experience and first hand working knowledge of BLM Wilderness in New Mexico or the Western United States. I suspect that most of their concerns are conjecture or second hand misperceptions. And while I can appreciate their concerns, the facts and historical evidence regarding ranching within wilderness tell a completely different story.

I worked as a BLM Rangeland Management Specialist permitting livestock grazing in the El Malpais National Conservation Area which contains the West Malpais and Cebolla Wilderness from the time the areas were designated on December 31, 1987 until my retirement in May 2005. The most important fact I can relay to the folks in Dona Ana County, specifically the ranching and agriculture community, is that there has been no change whatsoever in the number of ranchers in operation or the numbers of cattle on the land in the 20 years since the West Malpais has been designated a Wilderness area.

For the benefit of local citizens, I will enumerate the main concerns, and unfortunately myths, put forth by some local ranchers. I will than outline the corresponding facts and real-world practicalities related to these concerns. Given the potential role these assertions and myths play in any Wilderness debate, including in Dona Ana County, it is critical that all citizens and elected officials understand the law, and facts behind a Wilderness designation.

Ranching has been a part of Wilderness since the passage of the Wilderness Act in 1964 when ranching was included as a traditional activity legally allowed in protected Wilderness areas. Forty years later, ranching still exists in Wilderness, including millions of acres of BLM Wilderness across the Western United States.
 
BigWooly,

I can come across a little harsh sometimes. Sorry if this makes you upset. You sound like one of those Liberal Eco Brats. Do you honestly think the forests were pristine and beutiful before we came and screwed it all up? That is the biggest bunch of crap I've ever heard! There is no such thing as a balanced eco system, and the forests were only beautiful before they were burned to ashes. It was one extreme or the other before we came. Now that we control fires we need to control growth. To sum up God put us here as stewards of the land and we protect it along with the benefits that we receive from it's usefulness. If we screwed it up when we got here then the first thing we should do is burn our homes and vehicles destroy all forms of society and live like the apes we came from. Not only is your comment ignorant but it's completely hypocritical.
 
Aint gonna hurt my feelings so none taken. But i disagree, research history of forest fires. Historically our forests were much more open that they are now due to fire control. We control it so much that they grow much thicker than they ever did. Instead of fires burning through and takin out under growth and younger and older trees they now sit and bake everything. The biggest reason for the traumatic fires we have had in the past. why do you think there are many places....at least in arizona....that are currently thinned or being thinned. the mistake was realized. Im not eco freak, but i through arguements to both sides to get a reaction and some discussion maybe i or someone will learn something that way. also before we settled it it was not always balanced but it balanced itself out in cycles. sometimes traumatic cycles.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." -- Abraham Lincoln
 
And if you honestly think that human control makes it better than it was prior to settlement you obviously have never read any history of hunting research or heard of what it used to be. Can you not see somthing that is less so that it was and continues to do so since settlement? Im pretty sure i cant see thousands of antelope or buffalo on the plains and i know sure as heck that bighorn populations are in the roughest country out there, which researchs shows historically was only used when stressed or in danger. Bighorn historically would be found commonly in flatter country with better feed and water.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." -- Abraham Lincoln
 
Buzz....Ok I was wrong.

My information is/was based on the fact that "grazing leases are no longer issued in wilderness lands and only those grandfathered are in effect"....so sue me.

It's no big deal, I have been wrong several times this week and probably a few times today.
 
Well this is a good one. I do believe it is the bad Stewart's of both ranching and sportsmen that do the harm. BLM does not control grazing like some would like us to think. The people that are to lazy to walk do damage and that goes for both sides. I have seen as many ranchers on atv's going across county as sportsmen. Cattle do destroy springs and creeks. Sheep destroy just about everything. The problem is we all need to be better Stewart's of the land , we can not change what has happened only what we do now.
 
That would piss me off!! Looks like its time for you to bring in your dog and friends dogs to play chase.
 
BEETLES by far!!!! Utah is basically dead thanks to our friends the beetles!!! Then the "forests were pristine" guys!! If the forests were MANAGED livestock wouldn't be a problem. The dead trees should be logged, they are dead and taking them might save a live forest. They may have to burn from time to time. Livestock need to be MANAGED not turned out with a couple of Peruvians or Argentinians making $700 a month who care not at all about our forests and public land. Yeah, my grandpa herded, so did my dad and uncle, but they lived there and CARED, illegals from another country don't!! Bison and elk historically didn't do damaged because they moved. Herds SHOULD be constantly moved, especially sheep. They aren't because ranchers want their animals putting on weight, and because we don't want animals in the "Pretty areas". Keep them moving and they take the easy feed and move on, sheep left in place eat dirt, then will start with rocks. THIS IS THE WEST!! Livestock grazing is what makes us the west and it shouldn't be stopped. Just like with wildlife there should be citizen input. You overgraze you automatically loose your permit, no appeals, no lobby saves, and NO POLITICIAN input!! Let the biologists run it, not the senators and congressmen who are bought and paid for!! Lastly, my dad died of cancer(lung). He got to have 2 hunting seasons after his diagnosis. Without an 4x4 or atv hunting would be out of the question. Are we really wanting to stop guys like this, older guys, disabled guys from enjoying hunting/fishing? They should stay on roads and out of wilderness, but when you rip atv/4x4s remember some day you'll be older, are you gonna want to give it up when age/arthritis/sickness come for you?
 
Hossblur great post. My Grandfather was Basque and came over in his twenty's to work. My father is also unable to walk far. And as I don't own an atv I may some day. Your post was dead on who should run our lands, not politicians.
 
Bigwhooley
Sory I haven't wrote back, I have been on the mountain. The big difference between you and me is you've read about things, and I have lived them. Books only tell you what someones opinion is.
The problem we are discussing here is atv's and livestock. What our ancesters did is to bad, but is was inevitable we cant change it. Also if you think that wild sheep can only survive in nasty rugged areas in todays world you are completly misguided, we see plenty wild sheep in the fields. There were hundreds of thousands more deer 60 years ago and thousands more livestock on the mountain. Of corse you haven't read that. And livestock weren't controled like they are today. We need to deal with the problems we face today.
Fact. Since Atv's became popular we have seen total disrepect and total anialation of vegatation, its hard to say that about livestock considering there aren't any re-seeding programs for livestock damage. At least not in our area. Ask any forrest guy what areas he has to re-seed and he will tell you its places where atv's have wiped it out. I hope you're not getting paid to sit at your computer and come up with all this irrelevent crap. I do agree that people are the problem. The first thing we need to do is blow up all exits heading out of the cities come hunting season. I know that last comment was stupid and not realistic but ask anyone in Wyoming and they would agree.
 
LAST EDITED ON Sep-21-08 AT 04:15AM (MST)[p]we killed two bulls in a valley next to private land and had two more tags to fill. the private land people seen the two dead elk and didnt want anymore dead so the pushed the sheep in to my honey hole trying to stop us from the kill. I think that all the sheep should be off the mountain on the 1st of sept. the sheep slowed us down put didnt stop anything. the private guys charge 10 to 15 grand per elk so I figure I am up 50 on them good luck to all.
 
>Bigwhooley
>Sory I haven't wrote back, I
>have been on the mountain.
>The big difference between you
>and me is you've read
>about things, and I have
>lived them. Books only tell
>you what someones opinion is.
>
>The problem we are discussing here
>is atv's and livestock. What
>our ancesters did is to
>bad, but is was inevitable
>we cant change it. Also
>if you think that wild
>sheep can only survive in
>nasty rugged areas in todays
>world you are completly misguided,
>we see plenty wild sheep
>in the fields. There were
>hundreds of thousands more deer
>60 years ago and thousands
>more livestock on the mountain.
>Of corse you haven't read
>that. And livestock weren't controled
>like they are today. We
>need to deal with the
>problems we face today.
>Fact. Since Atv's became popular we
>have seen total disrepect and
>total anialation of vegatation, its
>hard to say that about
>livestock considering there aren't any
>re-seeding programs for livestock damage.
>At least not in our
>area. Ask any forrest guy
>what areas he has to
>re-seed and he will tell
>you its places where atv's
>have wiped it out. I
>hope you're not getting paid
>to sit at your computer
>and come up with all
>this irrelevent crap. I do
>agree that people are the
>problem. The first thing we
>need to do is blow
>up all exits heading out
>of the cities come hunting
>season. I know that last
>comment was stupid and not
>realistic but ask anyone in
>Wyoming and they would agree.
>

First, I agree, close the exits but keep them closed especially when it comes to college, jobs, or hospitals. I love this attitude! Second, the whole reason behind rotating grazing units is to allow the grazed off unit a year or more to regrow. If you graze the same area over and over it will kill it off. Kinda botany 101 here, thats why you rotate crops, range grass or corn. If you didn't do this you would have to re seed. But what could I possibly know, i live in suburb so obviously I don't have a clue.
 
There was more livestock 60 years ago, and more deer. Of course their weren't private hunting ranches owned by you non city guys that locked up huge chunks of ground that were used for grazing. The weren't ranchettes all over that you non city guys cut into 40 acre parcels and sold to us dumb city guys. Their wasn't the ammounts of freeways, needed to get you non dumb city guys into town, and supplies to you, that cut the migration routes of deer(I-15 through central utah). Their wasn't cronic wasting disease(that came from one of you non dumb city guys hunting preserve) that now infect deer. See I think you stumbled on to something, its obviously the dumb city guys who caused the problem with the deer herds decline! Get real! All of you non dumb city guys had kids, your kids needed jobs, and houses, and their kids needed the same and so on. So the small little towns like the one I grew up in (less than 2000 people) became one of the fastest growing in the state. And no you non dumb city guys didn't preserve the open space, you cashed the developers check, so don't lecture us about all you know and all you do for wildlife. Loss of winter range to development, disease, harsh winters, poachers, and CATS are what is declining the deer herds,(not us city guys existance). Unfortunatley, evolution 101- survival of the fitest- says that this decline will most likely continue, whitetail are more hardy, and better at existing in citys, suburbs, and yes even the pristine(non dumb city guy) rural areas. But until that time lets just fence of the city!!!
 
A little late on this one but here goes......

Slam, I'm with you on that one. I am not a muttin lover myself!!!

It's pretty simple, if abused, both can be pretty damaging. If we graze responsibly (don't overgraze) and ride responsibly (use approved trails) then there shouldn't be any damage at all. It goes back to the "one bad apple" theory.


It's always an adventure!!!
www.awholelottabull.com
 
Mabye this has already been covered, I did not have time to read this huge post completely. If not for livestock in alot of areas there would be no deer, elk,antelope,sheep,chuckars what so ever. The presence of livestock has brought the development of WATER! This is a major reason why we have wildlife in alot of the western desert. The cattlemen developed springs built waterholes drilled stock wells and even haul water for their livestock. This directly gives life to alot of areas which would otherwise have nothing. Now we have alot of areas where cattle permits are revoked or not allowed to graze such as some wilderness areas and some WSA's(wilderness study areas) which covers the high desert where I live. So now the cattlemen do not need to keep the water flowing in alot of areas. And now some really great deer areas have turned into a true desert. So Im all for the presence of cattle in my desert! And yes the misuse of ATV's piss me off too, so to me livestock and ATV's are no comparison.

Koyote
 
Guess someone should tell the dedicated sportsmen and other upland game groups that the guzzlers they built all over the west desert(utah) that they wasted a lot of time cuz the cattlemen already did it? The problem with the hotline to report bad cattle/sheepmen is it goes to the forest service/blm and before the phone is hung up some county commisioner, congressman, senator or whatever has a phone call and a campaign donation so as to insure there is no action. If the biologists and scientists have an issue in the area that should be the final word, not some bought off politician. Wholelottabull, I'm telling you my friend, their is nothing finer than a big dutch oven full of mutton!! Seriously I'm drooling just talking about it!
 
DBLung makes a very good point- one that is at the heart of what's wrong with modern day ecological philosophy. This idea that letting the land return to its native state would produce abundant wildlife and pristine environment is in error. Why was Utah one of the last places in the country to be settled? Because nobody wanted it. It was the most barren, God forsaken place around.
 
hossblur,
The sad reality is that all of the work of sportsmen to create water sources is but a drop in the bucket compared to what has been done for cattle. I don't say this to demean the work that the sportsmen are doing, but the reality is that if wildlife were solely dependent on sportsmen to develop water sources there would be a lot more thirsty wildlife.
 
the water would still be there, just other groups watering


cattle do more damage than anything period. sheep more than cows. but both are bad.

live life one mule deer at a time.
 
It's easy to find different opinions on any subject on this forum and I guess that what makes it so interesting. You really need to live in the desert to understand the water issue not just visit it now and then and think you know all about what impact livestock has on some of these areas. You can't fault the livestock because they were in your favorite camp spot or mabye some cows messed up a stalk. Truth is if not for the livestock there would be no reason to be there hunting as it would be void of big game. I realize their are some instances where livestock permits are misused, but in the desert i speak of it's a nessesary evil.
 
It is ironic that you want to beat up either for "doing damage". The reality is that the amount of ground disturbed by ATV's is so small of percentage that it takes little forage away form wildlife... and it will revegetate over time when use is removed. Same for livestock.

What is really funny is that you are blaming livestock for low deer numbers. Do your history. The "good old days" for deer were from the middle 50's to the middle 70's. The stocking rates for livestock on public lands back then was much higher than it is now. Livestock pressure on range land = less grass and more browse, which means more deer food. The current practice is to reduce livestock, increase grass (which will out compete sage and other browse) which means less of what deer need to eat. You do the math... if you want more deer.
 
thats a very simplistic view,today the forage alloted livestock on public land dwarfs the amount alloted wildlife, to say the land will revegatate over time after use is removed is true, most of the time it will revegatate with undesireable plants, cheat grass in arid regions many times worse things,like skeleton weed or halogeton, the forage that deer used in the 50s and 60s was part of a long term cycle of abused land that began at the turn of the century when large numbers of non native livestock were turned loose in the western US, to think that overall increasing cattle and sheep numbers would increase huntable wildlife is very naive, the numbers of buffalo, mule deer, elk, bighorn sheep, antelope and bears, lions and wolves, were far larger before domestic animals came to the west, there is no going back, even to the good old days of mule deer hunting
 
All i know is the cattle ranch that I hunt just plian sucks. I mean in the last few years we have only killed a few bulls over 400 (4 times that over 350)and just a weak 10 or so deer over 195 with the best having been in the 240's.....Damn cattle, I think we should get rid of them.WTH!?!

I would love to see the amount of money that sportsman put towards the land stacked up against the amount of money that ranchers do, it wouldnt even be close.

Point is, deer and elk do well in these ares because the land IS properly managed. In this country there would be no water if it wasnt for us putting in wind mills and stock tanks, coyotes and mountain lions would go unchecked as well as poachers. Once native grass lands would be overgrown with P/J's etc. Long and short is; to just point the finger at cattle or ATV's is misguided, the problem is mismanagement.



Son
 
You need to look at what money really goes into our public land. Very little is from ranchers, countless amounts from mule deer foundation, elk foundation, sheep organizations and extra. Hunters put tons of money into our land.
 
Both public and private. The groups pay a lot for seeding after fires. That is one of many things.
 
there are more negatives to free range than positives.
it is not 1890 anymore.

JUST SAY NO TO FREE RANGE!
and 4 wheelers, bikes and horses!

walk in access only.......and jeeps!


live life one mule deer at a time.
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

F8BF39D4-DD7D-4A70-A55A-89465A6169C1.jpeg
IMG_3152.JPG
New buck 3.jpg
Screenshot 2022-04-13 20.43.58.png
1658977242333.jpeg
8DBB7459-A5CE-47D2-AE21-FC504D0B896C.jpeg
Screenshot_20211214-164050_Gallery.jpg
Buck 2 (2).JPG
20221101_191915.jpg
IMG_20200918_130454_511.jpg
IMG_4241.JPG
CB9C279F-DBC8-4AAF-B42B-F65B8A9EA82A.jpeg
Back
Top Bottom