Judge Winmill hears arguments in SNRA grazing case
by Anna Means
If livestock graze on certain allotments in the Sawtooth National
Recreation Area (SNRA) and wolves attack them, will it count?
This was a major point considered by U.S. District Court Judge Lynn
Winmill when he heard arguments for and against removing livestock from
eight SNRA allotments this summer.
The hearing, held July 11 in Boise, had attorneys speaking on behalf of
the SNRA, Western Watersheds Project (WWP) and Idaho Conservation League
(ICL) and permittees Bill Brailsford and John Faulkner.
Plaintiffs
WWP and ICL filed a motion for interim relief on June 25 asking that four
permittees using eight allotments in the SNRA be restrained from grazing
this year. They claimed the specific allotments were known wolf habitat
and turning sheep or cattle out would jeopardize the wolves. They argued
this was warranted in light of Winmill’s earlier decision this summer when
he ruled wolves must be protected within the SNRA despite their status as
experimental and non-essential in other parts of the recovery area. He
further ruled that the SNRA must assess whether grazing “substantially
impaired” wolf populations in addition to updating allotment management
plans.
Last Thursday before hearing arguments, Winmill expressed his reservations
about pulling permittees off the range. He said this “Draconian” step was
inconsistent with his original decision where he said effects of grazing
on wolves must be evaluated. He said he didn’t rule that livestock had a
negative impact on wolves, but only that the matter must be studied.
Laird Lucas, attorney for the plaintiffs, argued that any depredations on
the SNRA counted as strikes against the wolves. He said the final strikes
(resulting in removal) often happen on private land within the SNRA (East
Fork), so protection must be offered on public grazing lands. He asserted
the only way to insure no depredations occurred would be to keep livestock
off those eight important allotments.
Lucas pointed out the plaintiffs weren’t asking for removal of livestock
from all allotments in the SNRA, but only where there had been
livestock/wolf conflicts in the past.
Winmill asked if a “result-oriented remedy” might not accomplish the same
thing as livestock removal, “just so wolves are not destroyed?”
Lucas responded that some of the allotments should be closed for
administrative reasons. He added that plaintiffs identified several
remedial actions permittees could take, but were told by the Forest
Service that they couldn’t impose such rules.
Federal position
Forest Service attorney Barclay Samford told the judge his agency had no
say over wolf control actions, which are made by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service.
Winmill replied, “I can solve that problem in a hurry.”
Samford further stated a large number of wolf attacks and kills on
livestock happen on private lands. Winmill asked if the plaintiffs were
arguing depredations on private land within the SNRA should also be
exempted from control decisions. Lucas said no, but he didn’t want
depredations on public lands counting against the animals.
Samford said that from the Forest Service’s perspective, there was no
problem with Winmill’s idea of having everyone work toward solutions on
livestock/wolf conflicts with the intent to do no harm to wolves.
Public sentiment
Samford said that to remove livestock from allotments this year one had to
consider the harm to plaintiffs, the public and permittees. He asserted 67
percent of depredations happened on private lands and four out of the
eight allotments targeted by plaintiffs had no history of depredations.
Samford said in weighing a decision to remove livestock one must consider
the public interest. He said the original compromise to make the
reintroduction program fly with the general public was to classify
reintroduced wolves as “experimental, non-essential.” Given that, problem
wolves could be removed and wolves in general would be supported.
Winmill interjected that the SNRA was different in that its Organic Act
required protection of wildlife.
Samford said regardless of the size of the area where livestock were
restricted, it would still increase public animosity against the wolves.
Despite the destruction of wolf packs in livestock areas, he said, the
overall wolf reintroduction program was successful and shouldn’t be
jeopardized by creating conditions within the SNRA that could turn public
sentiment against the animals.
Remedial actions
Attorney Alan Schroeder, representing permittee Bill Brailsford and the
Flying Triangle Ranch, next stepped up. He argued that Brailsford had
reduced the number of sheep he’s running on the SNRA allotments and has
agreed to terms and conditions that will reduce chances for wolf
conflicts. Brailsford increased the number of sheepherders this year and
wasn’t opposed to the presence of wolf guardians (volunteers devoted to
keeping sheep and wolves separated). The only thing he didn’t agree to was
using a portable electric fence since it was his belief it didn’t work and
only made things harder for the sheep.
Schroeder also spoke to financial hardship that would be imposed if
Brailsford had to take his sheep off allotments this year. He disputed a
declaration submitted by WWP Director Jon Marvel saying Brailsford
wouldn’t lose as much money as he claimed he would. Also, Schroeder added
that much of the private land available to Brailsford had burned in a
wildfire and hadn’t yet recovered.
Problem territory?
Tom Arkoosh, attorney for Faulkner Land and Livestock, told the judge he
was authorized to accept Winmill’s solution, but he wanted to point out
that some of the allotments in question had no history of depredations.
Lucas responded to all parties’ arguments by saying there was evidence the
old Wildhorse pack had moved into the Smokey Mountain area, thus entering
allotments named in the motion. He said this hadn’t yet been confirmed by
the Fish and Wildlife Service. He said plaintiffs had tried to work out an
agreement with the Forest Service, but had been told the SNRA can’t make
changes until a court ordered them to do so.
Unintended consequences
Lucas said he could see the merit to a “no harm, no foul” rule for the
wolves on the SNRA but worried wolves would learn to eat livestock and
then depredate outside the SNRA or else come back every year where they
were allowed to kill livestock.
Winmill agreed there was a doctrine of unintended consequences, which
could make the SNRA a magnet for wolves. He said he’d be giving that some
thought, but what must be the main issue is preventive measures. He said
he wasn’t willing to micro-manage grazing allotments by identifying those
measures but wanted the SRNA and permittees to come up with effective
ideas.
Decision pending
Arkoosh asked if the court would consider having everyone work together
and agree on preventive measures.
Lucas said the main thrust of the plaintiffs’ motion was to avoid
livestock/wolf conflicts. He said if the court ordered the Forest Service
to make permittees try interventions, it might work, but the only way to
guarantee no conflicts was to forbid cattle on the range. He said
plaintiffs were only asking for this year.
Winmill said he took environmental issues seriously and understood that
his decisions affected everyone–permittees, plaintiffs and the SNRA. He
said he was sympathetic to the Forest Service’s need for a court order to
get some things moving. He told all parties they shouldn’t be discouraged
from getting together and working out an agreement, but he didn’t expect
that to happen. He said he’d take a few days to consider the situation and
issue a decision.
As of press time on Wednesday morning, Winmill hadn’t made a decision.