Albuquerque Journal

Feds crack down on feral cattle; grazing fees remain low

One population targeted, but ‘authorized’ cattle also damage the environmen­t

- BY JONATHAN THOMPSON Jonathan Thompson is a contributi­ng editor at High Country News. He is the author of “Sagebrush Empire: How a Remote Utah County Became the Battlefron­t of American Public Lands.”

Those who visit the Gila Wilderness in southern New Mexico these days have to grapple with a number of perils: rattlesnak­es, extreme heat, bears, rugged terrain and, of course, raging bulls. Between 50 and 150 cattle are parading across the landscape, chomping native plants down to the nub, trampling riparian areas to dust, eroding landscapes, damaging habitat and oozing vast clouds of methane.

Oh, and, according to the U.S. Forest Service, they’re also playing bullfighte­r with unsuspecti­ng hikers.

This kind of behavior is, naturally, unacceptab­le to the Gila National Forest, which manages the land in question. So, last summer, officials hired contract wranglers to round up the rambunctio­us cattle and evict them from the forest. After both contractor­s and cows were injured in the process, officials decided to take a more lethal tack, and, in February, sent out helicopter­borne shooters to “attempt to eradicate them from the area,” as the agency’s decision put it.

It may be the most consequent­ial action the federal government has taken in at least two decades to mitigate the impacts of overgrazin­g on public lands. It might even look like the start of real grazing policy reform, something conservati­onists have been pushing for since the 1970s. But there’s a catch: The only reason the Forest Service did something this time is that the bovines in question are feral — descendant­s of cattle abandoned by a belly-up livestock operator in the 1970s. Think of them as the bovine version of “orphaned” oil and gas wells, similarly sullying land and water and continuous­ly belching methane.

The Forest Service’s justificat­ion for its lethal response, in a nutshell is: “Feral cattle are an invasive species that damage native habitats with their grazing behaviors.” That’s all fine and good, but you could take the “feral” off the front of that sentence and it would still be equally true. And yet the 1.5 million or so additional “authorized” cattle that are trampling the public lands are getting off scot-free. Same goes for Cliven Bundy, whose own semiferal cattle have been illegally grazing public lands in Nevada for about 40 years, and there is still no plan to remove them.

The Biden administra­tion promised new grazing rules this spring, but early indication­s suggest we can expect another big nothing-burger. Several weeks ago, the administra­tion announced this year’s grazing fees, although it hardly needed to go through the trouble, since for the 27th year in the last four decades, the fee once again amounts to just $1.35 per animal unit month — the minimum allowed by law. That’s all it takes to authorize a half-ton cow and her calf to gobble up 600 to 800 pounds of the public’s forage per month, destroy cryptobiot­ic soil and disgorge more climate-warming methane. Hell, you can’t get a cup of coffee for $1.35 these days!

The Bureau of Land Management says it uses market forces and other considerat­ions to determine its grazing fees. Yet even though the market for cattle has changed substantia­lly over the last 40 years, grazing fees haven’t budged. In 2000, for example, the price for a pound of live cattle was $0.70; today it’s $1.65. And yet in both years the grazing fee was the same.

One might argue that low fees are necessary to keep cheeseburg­ers from becoming a luxury item. But since only about 5% of America’s 29 million beef cows graze public lands, the fee would have little impact on your tab at Blake’s Lotaburger, New Mexico’s favorite fast food beef joint. While in some ways it’s far better to have cows out on the range than confined to a feedlot, open-range cattle are a lot harder on the climate.

That’s the conclusion of a study published last year, which found that public-range cows not only emit methane (via enteric fermentati­on) and nitrous oxide (in manure), like all cattle do, they also wreck native plants and soils enough to shift the landscape from serving as a carbon sink to becoming a source of greenhouse gases. And they emit more methane because the energy content of public-land forage tends to be lower than the alfalfa or grain fed to pastured and feedlot cattle.

“The forage from public lands, especially when high in exotic grasses,” the authors wrote, “is about the worst diet to feed cattle from a greenhouse gas perspectiv­e.”

Low fees are only one of the places the feds have dropped the ball on grazing. The data shows that the BLM fails to meet its own standards for rangeland health. Agency-managed national monuments — including Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante national monuments in Utah and Canyon of the Ancients in Colorado — not only grandfathe­red in existing grazing, but allow for new leases, even when cow hooves are likely to damage cultural sites.

Congress has also failed to pass legislatio­n making voluntary grazing permit retirement­s permanent. That would allow conservati­on groups to buy out a willing livestock operator’s permit, knowing that it would stay retired, something that seems like a win-win, though it is still adamantly opposed by the Sagebrush Rebel crowd. As things stand, retired permits can be put back into action 10 years down the road, which, you know, sort of defeats the purpose.

Admittedly, it’s hard to make meaningful reforms in this realm. To do so means pushing back against the mythology of cowboy culture and the outsized political influence livestock operators wield. Even the plan to shoot the feral cattle in the Gila ran up against this: The New Mexico Cattle Growers’ Associatio­n tried to stop the shoot, claiming it was animal cruelty. (A judge rejected the bid.) It’s an odd stance, given that the livestock industry advocates shooting wolves and other predators, ridding the public lands of wild horses, and, of course, ultimately eating its cows.

But then again, (almost) no one is suggesting that the feds start shooting “authorized” cattle. They’re just asking for a few common-sense reforms and maybe a grazing fee a little more in line with the cost of a cheeseburg­er.

It shouldn’t be so difficult.

 ?? ROBIN SILVER/CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY VIA AP ?? A feral bull walks along the Gila River in the Gila Wilderness in southweste­rn New Mexico in July 2020.
ROBIN SILVER/CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY VIA AP A feral bull walks along the Gila River in the Gila Wilderness in southweste­rn New Mexico in July 2020.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States