Pickens Plans to Overstock Horse Ranch

Pickens named Horsewoman of the Year


Herald-Leader Staff Report

Anti-horse slaughter activist Madeleine Pickens was named "Horsewoman of the Year" by the Humane Society of the United States at the annual Sound Horse Conference in Louisville on Friday.

Pickens, who also raced Thoroughbreds with her late husband, Allen Paulson, was given the honor for her efforts to establish a sanctuary for wild horses.

Pickens, who is married to oil billionaire T. Boone Pickens, last month bought a 14,000-acre ranch in Nevada to take in thousands of wild horses that have been removed from public lands by the Bureau of Land Management. The BLM is reviewing the proposal for the Mustang Monument preserve.

Madeleine Pickens "is one of those rare individuals who puts her passion, time and money where her heart is," Wayne Pacelle, Humane Society president and CEO, said in announcing the honor   Link

If Pickens is truly planning on putting thousands of horses on her newly acquired ranch then she and Wayne Pacelle both have a few things to learn about range management.  Doing that would put a quick end to her ranch and it’s ability to be grazed.  This ranch could probably support a few hundred horses but certainly not “thousands”.  These are generally the types of things that people who are unfamiliar with livestock overlook.  It will be interesting to see how many she does put out there and if she’s really willing to buy never-ending supplies of hay to feed that many.  Hopefully the ignorance of Pickens and the HSUS won't result in the destruction of this rangeland. 

El Paso Creates Endowment Supporting Grazing

New endowment aims to protect public-lands grazing


By Drovers news source
Wednesday, August 11, 2010



After many long conversations between representatives of the Public Lands Council (PLC), the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) and Ruby Pipeline, an agreement has been reached, in principle, which seeks to ensure that the nearly 100-year relationship between the livestock industry and El Paso Corp. continues far into the future. While details of the agreement are still being finalized, it establishes a significant endowment with the mission to “protect, enhance and preserve the public lands grazing industry.” The concept was formally adopted earlier today after a unanimous vote by the board of directors of the Public Lands Council, whose board members represent 13 western states, NCBA, the American Sheep Industry Association, and the Association of National Grasslands.

“While we are concerned about the potential impacts of Ruby’s recent settlement agreement with the Western Watersheds Project and the Oregon Natural Desert Association, we are satisfied that this endowment provides us a tool with which to mitigate many of our concerns,” said Skye Krebs, president of the Public Lands Council. “As the organization which has represented public lands ranchers in the West for over four decades, we are confident that our industry will benefit from this endowment for many years to come.”

The $15 million endowment, $7.5 million to be contributed later this year and $750,000 to be added into the endowment annually for the following 10 years, will be governed by one representative from the PLC and one representative from El Paso Corp. While the principal amount will not be used, the endowment’s earnings will go toward meeting PLC’s mission to serve the public lands livestock industry. Specific projects may include scientific research, education, range monitoring, fire restoration, media, and community outreach for the benefit of the public lands grazing industry. It is important to note that funds from the endowment will not be used for litigation.    Read More


It’s fantastic to see El Paso Corporation realize the importance of agriculture and public lands grazing. You will remember that they donated over $20 million to a couple of radical environmental groups that were going to use the money to force ranchers off their land. When the news broke about this, many of us in ag contacted El Paso to voice our disappointment in their decision. Like many other corporations that we’ve seen mistakenly give money to radical anti-ag groups, they’ve seemingly realized their error. So I say thank you to El Paso for taking the time to study this issue more closely and supporting hard working ranching families who rely on public lands to help feed this nation.

Another Radical Lines Up At The El Paso Trough

El Paso's 678-Mile Pipeline Would Create `Path of Destruction,' Suit Says

By Joel Rosenblatt - Jul 30, 2010 5:30 PM MDT Fri Jul 30 23:30:36 UTC 2010

Federal approval of El Paso Corp.’s biggest expansion project, a 678 mile-long natural-gas pipeline spanning four western U.S. states, should be reviewed by an appeals court, the Center for Biological Diversity said today.

A lawsuit filed today in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco seeks a review of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s approval of the Ruby Pipeline, which will cut across Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, Oregon and California, the center said in a statement today.

“The Ruby Pipeline will cause severe damage to rivers and streams, sensitive habitats for a host of fish and wildlife species and some of the most pristine lands in western North America,” Noah Greenwald, program director at the center, said in the statement. “Instead of creating an entirely new path of destruction, an existing pipeline route should have been utilized.”     Read More

Imagine that, other radical environmental groups find out that El Paso has paid off the opposition and they line up to get their share. This is a great example of what happens when legitimate science is abandoned and replaced with something like the “El Paso Payoff”. There are too many money-hungry anti-everything groups that will line up to take your money if your strategy is paying them to go away. El Paso’s pockets won’t be deep enough to satisfy them all. In the end, they will end up in litigation anyhow, but this time they will have $20 million less in the bank.

Western Ranchers Need Your Help

Let's call it the El Paso Payoff.  Last week I found out the El Paso Corporation paid $20 million to the Western Wateshed Project and the Oregon Natural Desert Association.  In return, both of these environmental groups agreed to drop all opposition to El Paso's plan for running a natural gas pipeline from Wyoming to Oregon.  I immediately called the company to get their side of the story.  They called me back later that day and I sincerely appreciate the opportunity to visit with a Mr. Robert Wheatley, El Paso's media relations guy. 

I had characterized this whole situation as nothing more than a bribe given to the last big opponents of their pipeline.  After all, $20 million made a problem go away.  While Mr. Wheatley certainly disagreed with my evaluation, his explanation of what happened did little to change my mind. 

It's admirable that El Paso wanted to do what they could to lessen the impact to the environment that their pipeline will create, however, dealing with a radical environmental group that has the stated goal of getting ranchers off federal land was about the worst way to go about it.  I asked Mr Wheatley why they didn't give it to a group that wasn't anti-ranching or give some money to a ag group as well as the WWP.  He didn't have an answer but if he was honest the real answer is that the squeaky wheel got the grease. 

So ranching families are now facing an already wealthy environmental group, with a stated goal of getting ranchers off the land, that's just recieved a large cash infusion. 

This part of the ag community will now need your help and support even more.  After my visit with El Paso I was apparent that they were feeling some heat from this deal.  It's important that the entire ag community stand together on this issue and let El Paso know that this isn't acceptable.  Please leave a comment on the El Paso Facebook page or phone them with your thoughts.  It's a quick and simple thing you can do to be an advocate for agriculture.

Grazing Cattle Reduce GHG Emissions From Land

Cows Found To Actually Reduce Nitrous Oxide
Posted on: Thursday, 8 April 2010, 15:20 CDT
RedOrbit.com

A new study found that cattle grazed on the grasslands of China actually helps reduce the greenhouse gas nitrous oxide.

Environmentalists have been urging people for years to stop eating meat because of the methane produced by cattle.

According to the Telegrpah, the researchers said this does not mean that producing livestock to eat is good for the environment in all countries. However, it can be better for global warming to let animals graze on grassland in certain circumstances.

Klaus Butterbach-Bahl of the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology in Germany carried out the study in Inner Mongolia in China.

Butterbach-Bahl discovered that grassland produced more nitrous oxide during the spring when sheep or cattle have not been grazing. This is because microbes in the soil release nitrous oxide, also known as laughing gas. Once the grass is long, snow settles keeping the microbes warm and providing water. However, when the grass is cut short by animals the ground freezes and the microbes die.

He said the study turns assumptions about grazing goats and cattle around. Read More

Grass and the environment where it grows have a symbiotic relationship with the animals that consume it. That’s why the healthiest grasslands are those that are being grazed properly. Common sense, which is in short supply, would dictate that grazing has to be beneficial to everything involved or else it wouldn’t have survived this long. We continue to hear calls for grazing on public lands to be stopped. But people forget that the grass doesn’t care if a deer or a cow eats it, it just needs to be eaten for the everything to be healthy.

Feral Horses Damaging Rangelands

December 26, 2009
Ranchers, activists at odds over mustang roundup
By Frank X. Mullen Jr.
fmullen@rgj.com
RGJ.com


Bob Depauli, whose family has been ranching in Nevada for four generations, remembers a wild horse he saw in the Nevada desert one drought-parched year in the late 1970s.

“The herds were really poor that year, starved,” he said. “I saw (a mustang carcass) whose two hind legs had quit working and it had use of only its forelegs. It had walked in circles and dug a hole in the ground with its hindquarters.”

It dug its own grave.

Depauli runs cattle on federal allotments, including one about 30 miles north of Gerlach in the area where the federal government plans to start Monday rounding up 2,500 wild horses of the more than 3,000 in the area.

The government says the roundup is necessary to check overpopulation. Opponents say the land mangers exaggerate the number of mustangs and the damage they do to the range and that gathering horses using helicopters traumatizes, injures or kills the animals.

About 32,000 wild horses are in government holding pens waiting for adoptions that, for most, will never come. Range managers plan to remove another 10,000 from ranges in Nevada and elsewhere in the West next year.

The government, Depauli and others see the wild horse gathers as necessary to ensure the health of the rangeland, water supplies and native species. Opponents say the horses are a symbol of America and are being swept aside for the benefit of cattlemen like Depauli.

“I’m basing my position on years of experience,” said Depauli, who runs about 300 head a year.

“I’m in business to stay in business, not to overgraze. I move my cattle around. Horses stay in the same areas 24, seven, 365 days a year. Right now, we’ve got four to five times the number of wild horses that the land can support. Cattle are manageable. We need to manage the horses, too.

“Overpopulation of horses impacts everything: cows, wildlife, the horses themselves, everything. If this continues, we’ll all be in a mess.” Read More

The destruction being caused by the overpopulation of feral horses is significant to say the least. It’s interesting that they debate turns basically turns into those who are stewards of the rangeland versus those who want an unchecked population of horses. When activists do simple comparisons of the numbers of cattle versus horses and use that as their reasoning to stop the roundups, they show their ignorance of the issue. There is so much more to the issue. Ranchers spend a lifetime caring for the land, it’s unfortunate that more people don’t care as much.

Livestock Keep Grasslands Healthy

Livestock Can Help Rangelands Recover from Fires
By Ann Perry
September 30, 2009

A 14-year study by Agricultural Research Service (ARS) scientists in Oregon found that rangelands that have been grazed by cattle recover from fires more effectively than rangelands that have been protected from livestock. These surprising findings could impact management strategies for native plant communities where ecological dynamics are shifting because of climate change, invasive weeds and other challenges.

Much of the rangeland in the western United States is threatened by the spread of cheatgrass and medusahead, invasive non-native annual grasses that fuel wildfires and readily infest landscapes, especially after fires. These rangelands historically were burned by wildfires every 50 to 100 years, but over the past century these fires have been suppressed by humans. This suppression allowed some dead plant litter to accumulate, but when cattle were introduced to the region, their grazing helped keep litter accumulation in check.

The scientists conducted a controlled burn on all the sites in 1993, and then measured vegetation cover, vegetation density and biomass production in 2005, 2006 and 2007. They found cheatgrass had infested a large portion of the ungrazed sites, leaving these areas even more vulnerable to future fires.

However, cheatgrass did not become problematic on the sites that had been grazed. On these sites, native bunchgrass cover was almost twice as dense as bunchgrass cover on the ungrazed sites. The team concluded that the litter in the ungrazed sites fueled hotter fires that killed off much of the perennial vegetation, which allowed quick-growing invasive annuals to become established. Read More

A healthy grassland is a properly grazed grassland. Not only do livestock reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires, but this study shows that it helps them recover when fire does occur. Not only does grazing keep our grasslands healthy, but it allows us to utilize this great natural resource by having livestock convert these grasses into a usable protein source for humans.

Large Bison Range Proposed

September 16, 2009

Ranchers criticize plans for bison herds at BLM meeting

By KARL PUCKETT

Tribune Staff Writer



HAVRE — Ranching interests sharply criticized a private grassland preserve in northeastern Montana as well as a new federal initiative in which new free-roaming bison herds could be established in the West.



The criticism came Tuesday at a meeting of the Bureau of Land Management's Central Montana Resource Advisory Committee.



The 60,000-acre American Prairie Reserve in Phillips County, launched by the not-for-profit American Prairie Foundation in 2006, includes about 100 bison. The reserve consists of private land and property leased from the BLM for grazing.



In a separate bison project, last year the U.S. Department of the Interior, under the Bush administration, called for federal agencies to coordinate management of existing bison herds on federal land, research bison genetics and disease, and study partnerships to increase existing herds or establish new ones.



Both bison efforts were discussed for 90 minutes Tuesday in Havre, with ranchers and some RAC members raising concerns over the spread of disease, loss of public lands for cattle grazing and lack of local input.



"People shouldn't have to drive five hours to testify for three minutes," Malta rancher Dale Veseth said, adding he believed the meeting should have been conducted in Malta, where most of the people affected by bison live.



Ron Poertner, a RAC member from Winifred, said he did not see any difference between the fenced bison in the private reserve and free-roaming animals that can be introduced under the public conservation initiative.



"We are not anti-cattle," Scott Laird, APF's director of field operations, told the crowd.



The reserve is a grassland conservation project, not a bison project, Laird added. He said APF has worked hard to be a good neighbor and has done a good job managing the bison. Read More



There have been plans even bigger than this that have been tossed around in the past. Years ago, the Buffalo Commons project proposed turning entire states into large bison pastures. The purpose of these projects is never very clear and there are some real concerns. It’s not a matter of population because the bison are no longer threatened with extinction by any means. These projects take land out of food production as well. Ranchers can manage grasslands quite well with cattle and it’s quite insulting and uninformed to suggest that just turning bison out into a pasture is better for the grass than the intensive management ranchers utilize.

Coalition For Conservation Through Ranching

Unique partnership promotes conservation
By Drovers news source Monday, September 14, 2009

A group of respected ranching and conservation organizations have come together to form a unique broad based coalition to enhance ranching practices that consider important conservation issues throughout the West. The Coalition for Conservation through Ranching is a new multi-stakeholder partnership between national conservation-minded groups that share an interest in promoting open space for ranching and healthy landscapes. The recently signed agreement marks the beginning of the unique relationship. Steering committee members of the coalition include the Public Lands Council (PLC), the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA), National Association of Conservation Districts (NACD), Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), Family Farm Alliance (FFA) and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF). Other organizations that have joined the coalition at this time are the American Farmland Trust, the American Forage and Grassland Council, the California Farm Bureau Federation, the Society for Rangeland Management, the Wild Sheep Foundation, and the Wilderness Society. The Bureau of Land Management serves as an advisor to the group.

“Cherished iconic western landscapes depend upon productive partnerships between ranchers and conservationists. The Coalition for Conservation through Ranching will promote solutions that will keep western landscapes healthy and in the process benefit working ranches, wildlife and other natural resources,” says Dan Grossman, Rocky Mountain Regional Director, EDF.

Read More

No matter what the anti-agriculture people say, farmers and ranchers make taking care of their land a top priority. No matter if they are growing crops or livestock they depend on their land as the foundation of everything they do. This new partnership is bringing together many different groups that all realize the importance of healthy land and I look forward to seeing the great work that they can no doubt accomplish.

Ranchers Win Court Battle Against Environmentalists

Wyoming environmental group loses challenge to livestock grazing in national forest
by The Associated Press
Thursday September 03, 2009, 8:30 AM

CHEYENNE, Wyo. -- A federal judge has sided with managers of northern Wyoming's Bighorn National Forest and ruled against an environmental group that challenged livestock grazing in the forest.

Hailey, Idaho-based Western Watersheds Project filed suit in 2007 over a 2005 revision to the forest management plan. The group said the revision process should have considered various alternatives for grazing in the forest, including reduced amounts of grazing.

U.S. District Judge Clarence Brimmer in Cheyenne ruled Monday that forest managers did as the law required -- took a "hard look" at the environmental consequences of the forest plan.

"Simply because the WWP may not like the ultimate outcome does not mean that the Forest Service was in violation of the law," Brimmer wrote.

Three Wyoming counties straddled by the forest -- Big Horn, Sheridan and Johnson -- intervened on the side of the U.S. Forest Service. The Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation, Wyoming Stock Growers Association and the Muddy Creek Grazing Association also intervened on the agency's side.

"The interveners were not confident that the Forest Service would protect their interests, so they intervened to protect themselves," an attorney for the interveners, Dan Frank, explained in a release. Read More

Proper grazing is one of the most beneficial things you can do for grasslands. These grasslands have adapted over thousand’s of years to use grazing to it’s advantage. Western Watershed’s plan to kick ranchers off these public lands is not a management plan, it’s an agenda. Luckily, the ranchers have won this fight for now and the American public will continue to benefit from an affordable food supply.