Stewards of the Range and the Owyhee Cattlemen's Association join Owyhee County in opposing designation of Owyhee Canyonlands National Monument

Once again, a western county and its citizens are threatened with Presidential designation of a national monument which will lock-up 2.7 million acres. The designation will initiate the elimination of multiple uses of the federal lands, devalue private land within the monument site, and adversely impact the economy of the county and a large surrounding area. The threatened county is Owyhee County, Idaho, which has been a leader in the struggle to protect private property rights. It is one of the first counties to adopt a land use plan for the federal lands which requires coordination by federal management agencies.

What A National Monument Means...

The proposed monument site covering 2.7 million acres would lock-up OVER HALF OF THE LAND WITHIN OWYHEE COUNTY. The proposal includes:

- in-holdings of private property, including ranches and livestock facilities, the DeLamar Mine, mining claims, historic homes, local businesses and recreation cabins and property;

- hundreds of miles of county roads, as well as RS 2477 Right of Way roads protected as private property under an 1866 Act of Congress, and private roads which serve the in-holdings;

- land on which thousands of private water rights have been established under state law and recognized by Congress from at least 1866 to the present;

- massive areas popular to snowmobilers such as the Silver City, Reynolds Creek, Jordan Creek, Cow Creek, Twin Peaks, Triangle, Mud Flat, and North Fork areas.

- areas from which families can gather firewood for their homes and to sell;

- private property and state property from which timber is harvested;

- areas on which national off-road vehicle races are held on private property as well as on federal lands under permit from the BLM;

- hundreds of popular trout fishing spots, as well as popular hunting areas, and wildlife photography areas, with an abundance of upland birds, deer, elk, antelope, big horn sheep and mountain lion;

- favorite areas for photographers of wildflowers, landscapes and historic sites;

- favorite areas for horseback riding by individuals and equestrian groups;

- favorite areas for recreational uses of all types including day sightseeing drives, rock collecting and picnicking.

All these uses are endangered under monument status. That has been proven in the Grand Staircase-Escalante Monument in southern Utah where access has been shut down. Designation of the Owyhee Canyonlands National Monument will devastate the traditional uses of over half of Owyhee County---even though the uniqueness of the Canyonlands area has been preserved through a century of traditional use.

Stewards of the Range and the Owyhee Cattlemen's Association have joined with the County Commissioners of Owyhee County in opposing designation of the Owyhee Canyonlands National Monument.

Lock-Up Pushed By Extremists Who Oppose Private Property Rights And All Multiple Uses Of The Federal Lands.

A coalition of anti-grazing, anti-logging, anti-mining, anti-recreation organizations have initiated a well-funded campaign to pressure the President into designating the Owyhee Canyonlands National Monument. Their proposal calls for locking up the entire southwest corner of Idaho, and directly impacting Nevada and Oregon.

Monument designation is sought under the Antiquities Act by: The National Wildlife Federation, the Sierra Club, the Idaho Conservation League, Idaho Rivers United, The Wilderness Society, American Wildlands, American Lands Alliance, Conservation Geography, and the Committee for Idaho's High Desert.

By their own admission, the Antiquities Act allows the President, upon recommendation of the Secretary of Interior, to designate historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures and other objects of historic or scientific interest as National Monuments. As unique as are the Canyonlands, they do not qualify as a National Monument under these standards. The 2.7 million acres are not an historical landmark, not an historic or prehistoric structure, and not an object of historic or scientific interest. The proponents of monument status say that they seek solitude, silence and remoteness. Under monument status, such solitude qualities could be enjoyed only by the elitist few who have the financial resources and physical health to obtain access by foot. But, such solitude qualities do not meet the standards set by Congress in the Antiquities Act. The proponents know this, and, as a result, they do not explain how the Canyonlands fit within a qualifying category set by Congress.

Their campaign has included a website, a toll-free telephone line to D.C., a door to door campaign in urban Boise, and thousands of dollars spent for full page ads in urban newspapers.

In order to gain public support, they claim that monument status will cause no adverse impact to the multiple uses. Similar claims were made upon designation of the Grand Staircase-Escalante monument in southern Utah just prior to the last general elections. But, the attack on each use in that area began as soon as the designation was signed.

Their campaign contains indictments of all multiple uses:

- They allege livestock overgrazing; even though federal evaluations of the ecological integrity of the area prove that current livestock grazing practices are fully compatible with maintaining high ecological integrity;

-They allege that stronger Clean Water Act protection is needed as a result of overgrazing. Yet, the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, after an extensive study and survey, has determined that all beneficial uses of water are being achieved;

-They allege that "cross-country off-road vehicle use" has devastated the area. Yet, the BLM has documented no such problem. The major organizations involved in such recreation use have continually demonstrated their responsibility in caring for the land;

-They allege that invasion of exotic species endangers the site. Yet, Owyhee County has an aggressive program to combat weed invasion--a program fully supported by and coordinated with the BLM. Existing weed problems could not be addressed if access is restricted by monument designation.

Such indictments lead to only one conclusion: monument status will lock down the land and restrict the uses to the point of elimination.

The very uses which the extremist groups condemn have been in existence for over a century. Responsible users of the lands have protected the very unique qualities of the Canyonlands which extremists now allege need protection through monument lock-down.

The National Wildlife Federation has referred to the unique features of the Owyhee Canyonlands which include "teeming" numbers of wildlife, "exquisite springtime displays of wildflowers," and the "rich complement of rare plants and animals, some found nowhere else."

On the Proponents website, they refer to the area in the following terms: (1) "the largest unspoiled stretch of land in the lower 48 states," (2) "one of the most biologically rich high desert areas in the country," (3) "outstanding diversity in plant life and plant communities in the region…" They also state: "The largest scientific assessment of forestland and rangeland ecological health ever conducted ranked the area as one of the highest areas for overall ecological integrity in the entire Columbia River Basin."

All these praises describe a unique, ecologically sound, area not endangered by the long history of grazing, mining and woodcutting, or the long-standing recreational uses.

The uniqueness of the area is evidence of the manner in which responsible users of the private, state and federal lands have protected them. Livestock grazing has constituted a traditional use of this "unspoiled stretch of land" for more than 100 years. Overgrazing which occurred over 60 years ago has been abandoned in favor of modern, science-based, range management systems which have resulted in dramatic improvement of the range condition.

The same modern, science-based, range management systems which have improved the range condition, have also contributed to a bettering of conditions for wildlife in the area. Repeatedly, it is proven that wildlife thrives under private ranch management. Private water rights which serve the ranchers also provide water for wildlife---and all water improvements made by ranchers serve an appurtenant wildlife use. Forage which results from ranchers' constant management attention also provides feed for wildlife. It is also obvious that mining, woodcutting and recreation uses have not harmed the wildlife population, since the population is referred to in terms of "teeming" numbers.

If access is locked-down, and the multiple uses restricted, primary protection of the land will come from management activities of federal bureaucrats. The west has experienced the results of such management and lack of management during the widespread, devastating fires during the summer of 2000.

A promotion for good stewardship which has been in existence for several decades, is the "Keep Idaho Green" slogan. We can best Keep Idaho Green with private management and use within the Canyonlands---the same private management and use which has protected the land in such a unique nature that the extremists now want to claim it for their personal elitist use, to the exclusion of the public.

Monument Status Will Economically And Socially Harm Owyhee County And Its Citizens.

Monument designation, as proposed, will, in the words of Owyhee County Assessor Ernie Bahem, "harm every ranch in Owyhee County", either "directly by impacting private ranch property" or "indirectly by impacting water rights and other property rights related to grazing."

Owyhee County is a large, rural county which is economically dependent upon livestock grazing. The value of private ranch property is critical to the soundness of the tax base of the County. That value, and the viability of grazing, is harmed when federal lands are closed to grazing, and when water rights existing on those lands are restricted. Designation of the Owyhee Canyonlands National Monument will be the first step in terminating livestock grazing within the boundaries of the Monument, and in destroying private water rights which have existed within those boundaries for over a century.

Under the current process for bureaucratically managing national monuments, the Administration has named a monument manager who replaces every management plan applicable to the monument site with a special monument plan. By establishing unworkable grazing management plans, the manager can eliminate grazing. When grazing ends, when private water rights are rendered useless, ranchers will go out of business. When that happens, local communities will lose school board members, elected officials, volunteer law enforcement officers, coaches, teaching aides, fire fighters, and emergency medical service technicians. Ranchers, and their families, serve all these community functions. A recent study by the University of Idaho demonstrated the strong social cohesiveness between ranchers and other members of the community. Ranchers serve as critical components of the community----from the standpoint of local business as well as government service. Loss of grazing will harm Owyhee County and its citizens economically and socially.

Designation of the monument will also initiate pressure to end all mining, logging (even for firewood), and recreation uses. Once the monument is designated, hunting, fishing and all other uses dependent upon open access into the area will be restricted and finally terminated. Off road vehicle use is one of the prime targets of the groups proposing the monument designation---so all motorized recreation, including snowmobiling, will be restricted to the point of termination.

Within a monument site, county roads can be maintained only at the discretion of, and with the permission of, a federal bureaucrat. Some counties have been told that they cannot lawfully maintain the portion of their road system within the monument site without federal permission. Bureaucratic restriction of access will make it difficult, if not impossible to manage grazing within the site, and thus will create situations in which the bureaucrat can eliminate grazing. Access restrictions can be used to prevent recreational use in many areas within the site, thus forcing concentrated uses in some other areas. The resulting impact of concentrated use will provide the bureaucrat with the excuse to restrict or eliminate recreation use even in those areas to which there is access. The bureaucrat can place restrictions on the use of private in-holdings which result in devaluation of the property.

Residents of southern Utah, in the area affected by the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, have witnessed a lock-down of access. Now, they are witnessing impoundment of livestock within the monument area by federal agents and the beginning of an attempt by the BLM to terminate private water rights within the monument area. San Juan and Garfield counties have been charged with trespass by the BLM for attempting to perform maintenance work on county roads within the monument site. The BLM has challenged continued use of Rights of Way (RS 2477 Rights) which have been in existence and used for over a century. Recreation uses of all types are dependent upon open access.

The 2.7 million acres of Owyhee County which are proposed for monument status contain roads and rights of way (RS 2477) which are critical to travel in the County. Many of those roads and rights of way are part of the County road system, and with monument status, the County may be prevented from maintaining them. Those who hunt and fish in the area are dependent upon open access of those roads and rights of way. Ranchers are dependent upon the same access in order to manage their property interests. Law enforcement is dependent upon the access for search and rescue efforts and other public protection services. Owners of private property located within the proposed site are dependent upon those roads and rights of way for access to their property. Such private property in-holders will be shut off from their property altogether if access is closed within the monument. All those who depend upon open access should be aware of the access lock-down in the Grand Staircase-Escalante monument site.

Designation of the monument will adversely impact all private and state lands which adjoin the monument site. Courts have made it clear that the federal government can control land use of private and state lands which adjoin federal property when bureaucrats believe it is necessary to protect the federal lands. Designation of the site as a national monument would place it in a status which would allow very broad protective controls. In Camfield v. United States, 167 U.S. 518, the United States Supreme Court confirmed the power of the federal government to abate fences on adjoining land. In United States v. Lindsey, 595 F.2d 862 (9th Cir 1979), the Court recognized the power of the federal government to punish persons who built a campfire on non-federal land adjacent to a national recreation area. In United States v. Arbo, 691 F.2d 862 (9th Cir 1982) the same Court ruled that a person could be charged with interference with a federal Forest Service officer even when the interference took place on non-federal property which was adjacent to federal property. In Free Enterprise Canoe Renter Association v. Watt, 549 F. Supp. 252 (E.D. Mo. 1982) the federal court held that the National Park Service could prohibit the use of state roads for canoe pickups within a federal Scenic Riverway. Under these precedents, designation of the Owyhee Canyonlands National Monument will extend protective control over all lands which adjoin the Monument site.

The Extremist Website Relies On Phantom Threats To The Area.
Here Are The Facts.

This Monument campaign is based on claims that the unique landscape must be "protected." The promotional website has identified four purported threats and more recently has added three new threats and deleted two of the previously claimed threats. A review of the alleged threats reveals that they are spurious or non-existent.

1) A previously listed threat that is no longer on the web page (Military Expansion into the Canyonlands) The fact is, the Air Force already has a military presence in the Canyonlands. All Air Force activities and presence in the area has been endorsed by some members of the Desert Group through the court ordered settlement of their law suite against the Air Force. Highlights of the settlement are available on the Desert Group web site. They state "Clearly the current use of the Owyhee Canyonlands by the military is not compatible with saving the values that we hold dear in this special place." Clearly, they are not being totally honest. They signed a settlement agreement approving current military use of the area and then claim that the approved use is not compatible with their goals for the area. If current use by the military is not compatible with the values they "hold dear," why is the area still held is such high regard? How would Monument status have any affect on current military use of the air space? The Desert Group assertion that use of the area would not change as a result of Monument status, does not square with their claimed threat from military use.

2) Over Grazing. It is inconceivable that over grazing would be considered a threat. This area has been grazed by domestic livestock for some 140 years and is still, to quote the Desert Group, 1) "the largest unspoiled stretch of land in the lower 48 states." 2) "one of the most biologically rich high desert areas in the country" 3) "There is also outstanding diversity in plant life and plant communities in the region…" The Desert Group also reports "The largest scientific assessment of forestland and rangeland ecological health ever conducted ranked the area as one of the highest areas for overall ecological integrity in the entire Columbia River Basin." While mistakes in grazing use were made historically, those practices have been abandoned for nearly 100 years. Modern science-base grazing management has resulted in dramatic improvement of range condition and is continuing to do so. Over grazing results in deterioration of the range and yet the ranges have been improving and have the highest level of ecological integrity in the northwest. The historic and continuing improvement of rangelands in the area prove that over grazing does not exist and poses no threat what ever. Evaluations of the ecological integrity of the area, provides proof that current grazing practices are fully compatible with maintaining a high level of ecological integrity. The Desert Group web site reports the devastation of water quality due to livestock use and describes various negative impacts to water sources from livestock grazing. However, the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality just completed an extensive and thorough review of water quality in the North Fork, Middle Fork and Main Owyhee River basins and found no such devastation or negative impact from livestock grazing. All of the streams in this entire drainage area met all State of Idaho water quality standards except water temperatures. The DEQ admitted that the State of Idaho standard is not accurate because the beneficial uses related to water temperature were being achieved although the standard was not met. Some spring fed stream systems even had higher water temperatures at their source than state standards.

3) Off Road Vehicle Abuse. While the Desert Group identifies ORV abuse as a threat, they go on to condemn any ORV use whatever "We suggest the general area should remain closed to ORV use..." The web site claims that ORV use results in noise pollution, disruption of wildlife and recreation, and causes severe soil erosion. Clearly, the Desert Group does not believe that recreational use of an ORV qualifies as a recreation at all. The noise from responsible ORV users pales in comparison to the ongoing military use of air space over the area. Furthermore, the nature of the rugged area in and around the canyons prohibits ORV use. While the area is popular for racing and competition, actual races and competition are far removed from the canyons as are special areas designated for ORV use. While some soil disturbance does occur in the special designated areas they are fully rehabilitated, and are so tiny as to be insignificant by any standard. The Desert Group reports that the Owyhee Resource Management Plan (1999 RMP) "slightly limits use of ORV's." Again this is less than honest, because the RMP in fact designated only 95 acres out of the 1.8 million in the planning area as open to ORV recreational vehicle use. All other recreational ORV use is restricted. Furthermore, the BLM is completing an area-wide management plan to deal with recreational ORV use of the entire area. The Desert Group opinion that "the general area should remain closed to ORV use" does not square with their claim that use of the area would not change if Monument designation is achieved.

4) Previously listed threat that is no longer on the web page (Corporate Hog Farms). The Desert Group admits there are no pending proposals for such farms. The perceived threat is that "Idaho has no current laws or regulations governing corporate hog operations…" However, this is not fact. Idaho does have laws relating to the development of these kinds of agricultural operations. The web site lists a variety of potential environmental consequences of corporate hog farms. However, these impacts are not a threat because of required mitigation. Furthermore, they are no threat to the Canyonlands because those lands are far removed from the services necessary to support such a development. Additionally, Monument designation would have no control of land use outside of the designated boundary. The web site even admits that this is merely a potential threat and not a real threat.

5) Fragmented Management. This claimed threat is another untrue statement. The Owyhee and Bruneau Resource areas of the BLM have recently been combined into a single unit and a new management plan is scheduled for the Bruneau resource area that will result in consistent management guidance for the entire area. The claim that different management plans in the two resource areas leads to degradation of the natural environment and wilderness characteristics is clearly disputed by the admission that naturalness and ecological integrity are extremely high. If current use of the area would not change as claimed, what value would be gained by National Monument designation?

6) Noxious Weeds, Here again a hidden agenda is revealed. They claim that noxious weeds are transported in the tires and undercarriage of vehicles. The obvious intent of Monument protection would be the closure of all vehicle access within the area. Denial of access by vehicle is equivalent to denial of access for all current uses. The claimed threat from noxious weeds implies that nothing is being done to prevent such weed invasion. The fact is that Owyhee County has an aggressive program to combat weed invasion and this program is fully supported by coordinated actions with the BLM. Existing weed problems cannot be addressed without continued access. Therefore, restriction of access would increase not decrease threats from noxious weeds. Here again the claim that current use of the area would not change due to Monument designation is clearly in conflict with the professed threat from noxious weeds.

7) Looting of Cultural Resources. Here again the Desert Group is most concerned with access. They also give the false impression that nothing is being done to protect these specific sites. The fact is, that the Bureau of Land Management has addressed this issue in both the Owyhee and Bruneau land management plans and have both preventive and mitigating plans for these sites. Clearly, cultural resources are only an excuse for access restriction and not a valid reason for such restriction.

Official Opposition To Monument Designation And Support Of That Opposition.

The Owyhee County Board of Commissioners has officially objected to designation of the monument, in a resolution signed June 26, 2000. Since that time, Elmore County's Commissioners have signed a resolution in support of Owyhee County, objecting to designation of the monument. Twin Falls County Commissioners in Idaho, and Malheur County Court in Oregon have voted their support of Owyhee County.

The County is also supported by Stewards of the Range, the Owyhee Cattlemen's Association, the Blue Ribbon Coalition, the Southern Idaho Desert Racing Association, the High Desert Coalition, Inc., and the Elmore and Owyhee County Farm Bureaus. The Idaho Farm Bureau and Ada County Farm Bureau are asking their members to voice their opposition to the designation of the monument.

Owyhee County Commissioners have asked that any individuals or organizations who wish to support the County position please contact
Stewards of the Range
so that their names can be added to a second formal resolution of opposition which will be sent to the White House, to Idaho's Governor and Idaho's Controller who is a member of the State Land Board.

- Fred Grant is Policy Coordinator for Stewards of the Range (www.stewardsoftherange.org), a member of Owyhee County Natural Resources Committee, and consultant to the Owyhee County Commissioners.

- Dr. Chad Gibson is a noted expert on range conditions and management, retired long-time University of Idaho County Extension agent in Owyhee County, and a member of Owyhee County Natural Resources Committee.

- Jerry Hoagland is an Owyhee County rancher who does not graze livestock on Federal lands, and is the Vice Chairman of Owyhee County Natural Resource Committee.

Sierra Times reprint statement:
Reprint permission granted, as long as you include the name of our site,
the author, and our URL:
http://www.SierraTimes.com