WildEarth Guardians

Tuesday, June 20, 2006
Cattle Grazing on Public Lands Must Account for Endangered Wildlife

9th Circuit Court of Appeals Sides with Conservationists
Contact: WildEarth Guardians

Tuesday, June 20, 2006 - San Francisco, CA. The 9th Circuit court has ruledthat endangered wildlife must be considered when government land managersfail to fulfill obligations under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). In aruling with wide implications for cattle grazing on public lands, the courtof appeals for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco sided last week with ForestGuardians, a New Mexico-based, conservation organization. In an appeal, anattorney for the group argued the failure of the Apache-Sitgreaves NationalForest in Arizona to monitor the degree of grass consumption by domesticlivestock, as it had promised in a binding agreement with the US Fish andWildlife Service, would result in effects on the Mexican spotted owl and anendangered minnow that were not previously considered.

"The iron grip of livestock producers on public lands in the West has beenloosened," said Bryan Bird, Acting Conservation Director at ForestGuardians. "The fate of endangered wildlife, like the spotted owl, hasalways taken a back seat to subsidized production of beef and otherextractive activities, but this elevates native birds and fish to at least alevel playing field."

Despite the government's argument that the effects were inconsequential tothe spotted owl and the little Colorado spinedace from its failure tofulfill obligations from consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service,the court ruled unanimously in favor of WildEarth Guardians. Under the newruling, the Forest Service can't agree to protective measures and thensimply operate as if they did not exist, the agency will be accountable.Monitoring real life conditions on-the-ground is often resisted by theagencies for the obvious reason that it might provide evidence ofmismanagement or necessary changes to the status quo.

"You might say this is a victory for what our moms taught us when we werekids: If you make a promise, you ought to keep it. The court just saidthat when the Forest Service promises to monitor grazing to protectendangered species, it has to keep that promise."

The 52,000-acre Water Canyon Allotment on the Apache-Sitgreaves had beenauthorized by the Forest Service for grazing by eighty-six cow/calf pairs or172 cows. The cows were permitted to consume 25-35% of the annual forage. Tocomply with the ESA and secure a "not likely to adversely affect" agreementfrom the Fish and Wildlife Service, the agency committed to monitoringconsumption each year by the cattle. The monitoring was considered criticalto the continued existence of the spotted owl and for the reduction oflarge-scale fires.

After several years of the Forest Service failing to meet the requirements,WildEarth Guardians filed suit alleging that the agency was obligated under theESA to re-initiate consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service. In 2004,the conservationists appealed an adverse district court ruling on the issue.However, the circuit court of appeals was clear that its order was necessaryto prohibit the Forest Service from "continuing to violate the law" and to"resolve a dispute with present and future consequences."

Additional contact: Robert Wiygul, Waltzer & Associates, (228) 872-0007