Ecos, Feds Cut Grazing Deal
Without Input From Ranchers

ALBUQUERQUE — Without bothering to consult the stockmen it will impact, the U.S. Forest Service has cut another deal with an Arizona environmental activist group to move more cattle away from streams in six national forests in Arizona and New Mexico.

The Forest Service says the agreement applies to 29 allotments. The agency claims the scheme does not require the removal of any cattle from the range, but only the transfer of cattle to other areas of the allotments.

"Nothing in this stipulation will eliminate availability of water needed by livestock," said John Kirkpatrick, deputy regional forester. "Livestock on these allotments will still have water available to them through a variety of sources."

The agreement was reached last week with the Southwest Center for Biological Diversity in Tucson, Ariz., said Dave Stewart, the Forest Service's acting regional director for rangeland management.

"In and of itself, it does not remove one cow," Stewart said in a phone interview Thursday.

"This is a win-win situation," Kirkpatrick insisted. "We have avoided a shutdown of livestock grazing on these allotments and, at the same time, we are benefiting threatened and endangered species."

But Rep. Joe Skeen, R-N.M., had prompt criticism of the agreement.

"In Joe's mind, this is just another example of the Forest Service and the environmental community ... of cutting these backroom deals with no input or participation by the parties that are directly impacted by this agreement," said Jim Hughes, Skeen's legislative assistant.

Skeen plans to start contacting key committee chairmen and the Western Congressional Caucus to make sure future negotiations on grazing no longer exclude ranchers and their viewpoints, Hughes said in Washington, D.C.

"Joe has tried to sit back and let this issue be dealt with in the courts and with Fish and Wildlife Service and Forest Service management to see if they could get a handle on this. This is another example that obviously they can't," Hughes said, "because they're hanging the people who are directly impacted out to dry. Congress is going to have to get involved."

Stewart said the latest environmental agreement and those which preceded it have been made for "myriad reasons."

"Collectively, across the Southwest Region, we have asked for lesser grazing over the last three, four years for reasons principally driven by drouth," he said. "We are way below our normal livestock numbers as written on grazing permits."

Shane Jimerfield, assistant director of the activist group, said an initial agreement with the Forest Service in April involved more than 230 miles of streams and rivers. Jimerfield said the latest agreement covers about 100 additional miles of streams and a dozen species of wildlife.