The Bridger-Teton National Forest recently released an environmental assessment for a proposal to restock four vacant grazing allotments in the Upper Green River drainage north of Pinedale, reversing a conservation victory.

Opinion

If allowed to go forward, the Elk Ridge Complex Rangeland Supplementation proposal will harm wilderness, wildlife, the public enjoyment of these lands and the future of grazing permit buyouts.

The Elk Ridge Complex is adjacent to the Upper Green River Grazing Allotment Complex and contains some of the best wildlife habitat in Wyoming.

Even the BTNF recognizes this fact and has designated the entire Upper Green in its forest plan as “Desired Future Condition 10 (DFC),” which requires the Forest Service to manage the area primarily to protect wildlife values.

Some 44% of the Elk Ridge allotments are in the Gros Ventre Wilderness.

In 2015 private individuals paid the Elk Ridge permittee to voluntarily retire a sheep grazing permit. Part of the justification for buying out and closing the allotments to sheep was grizzly bear conflicts. Bears would kill livestock and, in turn, be killed themselves for those depredations. The Forest Service agreed to this permanent sheep exclusion.

But here’s the catch: The Forest Service only agreed to close these allotments to sheep grazing and is now planning to restock them with cattle.

The BTNF proposal also demonstrates a failure to follow its forest plan recommendation to manage the area primarily for wildlife values.

One must wonder why the BTNF continues to put the economic interests of the livestock industry ahead of its mandate to manage these lands for the national public interest.

George Wuerthner

Among the impacts that even the environment assessment admits will occur are conflicts with grizzly bears. In the past 10 years, dozens of grizzly bears have been killed or removed from the Upper Green River allotments (which the Elk Ridge Complex is part of). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in an opinion about continued livestock grazing of the Upper Green grazing allotments, predicted dozens of more bears would be killed in future years.

The mere presence of livestock displaces elk. Elk are more likely to leave suitable habitat if there is active livestock use there.

The dominant grass in the area is Idaho fescue, which generally is shorter than 6 inches. The Forest Service plan would allow cattle to consume 50% of the plant, meaning that much less is available for bighorn sheep, elk, pronghorn and other wildlife. Plus, such consumption removes hiding cover for ground-nesting birds and small rodents.

The other problem with these standards and the requirement to leave 4-6 inches of stubble in riparian areas is that even these requirements are seldom met. I have repeatedly seen grasslands and riparian areas grazed to a “golf ball putting green” height of less than an inch.

Cattle spend an excessive amount of time in riparian areas harming the vegetation and soils and polluting the waters. Almost every stream with active grazing by livestock does not meet state clean water regulations, particularly for E. coli.

Grazing in riparian areas harms cutthroat trout, amphibians like Columbia spotted frog and sage grouse chicks which are dependent on riparian areas for foraging and cover.

One must wonder why the BTNF continues to put the economic interests of the livestock industry ahead of its mandate to manage these lands for the national public interest. Given the high likelihood of ecological damage and harm to wildlife, soils, water, plant communities, climate change and even taxpayers’ financial interests, it behooves the BTNF to permanently close these vacant allotments rather than try to restock them with any livestock.

You can comment on the proposal through Dec. 27 here.   

George Wuerthner

George Wuerthner is an ecologist who has published 38 books including "Wildfire: A Century of Failed Forest Policy," "Protecting the Wild: Parks and Wilderness the Foundation for Conservation" and three...

Join the Conversation

8 Comments

Want to join the discussion? Fantastic, here are the ground rules: * Provide your full name — no pseudonyms. WyoFile stands behind everything we publish and expects commenters to do the same. * No personal attacks, profanity, discriminatory language or threats. Keep it clean, civil and on topic. *WyoFile does not fact check every comment but, when noticed, submissions containing clear misinformation, demonstrably false statements of fact or links to sites trafficking in such will not be posted. *Individual commenters are limited to three comments per story, including replies.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  1. No cattle grazing in bridge Teton national forest! It is time to stop allowing invasive species as cattle to roam free for the benefit of the cattle owners. The cattle destroy habitat, reduce food for native species and destroy our headwater creeks snd banks by trampling them. Many wild predators as lynx, Mt Lion, wolves and Bears are kill by ranchers on government allowed grazing lands to protect not public good and native species but their own interests and invasive species, cattle. Stop the cattle industry once and for all! I more cattle grazing on public lands

  2. I commend the local forest service for working with those directly impacted, within their guidelines, to allow domestic livestock and wild life coexist. The BTNF is 3 million acres, no animal is getting pushed out of their home. The elk, moose & deer depredation by grizzlies is far more impactful than the grazing of livestock. Wyoming is and always has been a destination where folks say “I love it, it is amazing” because of the way it has been managed for the last 140 years. George, have you ever even been on Elk Ridge? In the spring when the grizzlies are devouring the elk, deer & moose newborns? In the summer when the animals are peacefully cohabitating and the ranchers are being stewards of wildlife populations and the riparian areas? In the fall when the grizzlies are dominating the area with their presence and relentless appetites?

    1. Ranchers are terrible stewards of the land-especially public land. Have you ever observed a stream bank on public land that has cattle on it? The whole grazing scheme is a grift.

    2. 3 million acres of public land, very few of which is not impacted by grazing.
      The main point, that you missed, is when grizzlies kill deer, elk and moose the state doesnt have to pay a rancher 3.5x the animals value, and then kill the bear who is just doing his job.

  3. Very informative if depressing article. So good step to remove sheep cancelled by allowing cattle! Unfortunately, this adds to impression that as far as ranchers are concerned, nothing has really changed since Biden’s FS and FWS have taken over–they still rule the roost–FS & FWS employees continue to defer to them. Why? Do Biden Admin. bigwigs think that ranchers will vote for Dems in next election?! No way they will do that.

  4. More corruption evident to the public in government agencies yet it seems the powers that be aren’t interested.

  5. Sickening. The point of nepa analysis is to analyze all alternatives and let the public have input before choosing one that has “no significant impact”. Permitting thousands of cows for months in a high wildlife conflict area is so far from it. They also received THOUSANDS of comments opposing it, and never even waivered.

  6. They put the livestock industry first because there are all these so called Cattle Barons lining the state’s higher-ups pockets with probably millions of dollars. I say keep them cattle out of here and tell them cattle barons to keep their money and cattle on the ranch property.