From Deseret News archives:

2 counties sue over grazing

Kane, Garfield say BLM didn't follow rules in Grand Staircase

Published: Friday, Jan. 28, 2005 9:12 a.m. MST
 |  E-MAIL | PRINT | FONT + - 
Nine years after its creation, Kane and Garfield counties are still fighting the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument.

On Tuesday, the battle was about grazing rights, as the counties filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court against the federal government, charging the Bureau of Land Management failed to follow rules before eliminating some 240,000 acres of grazing land within the monument area.

Under the Federal Lands Policy and Management Act, Congress must be notified when over 100,000 acres of grazing land are eliminated.

"This is for our economy and our culture," said Kane County Commissioner Mark Habbeshaw. "The livestock grazing industry is significantly important to rural communities throughout the west."

"Our purpose of the lawsuit is to stop the retiring of (grazing) permits, because we feel like that ruins the economy of our people down here," added Garfield County Commissioner Maloy Dodds.

Habbeshaw and Dodds estimate the economic loss from unused grazing lands is into the millions. Individual ranchers, they say, may have lost up to $10,000 per year.

"That can make the difference if they can send their child to school," Habbeshaw said.

Story continues below
But environmentalists and some federal agencies claim otherwise, saying the land was rightfully retired to protect sensitive areas within the monument. Since the 1996 creation of the monument, the Grand Canyon Trust — which helps manages the area — has been buying grazing permits in those sensitive areas.

"It is not my intention, nor the intention of the BLM, to eliminate livestock grazing from the monument," monument manager Dave Hunsaker told the Deseret Morning News in a 2003 article.

County commissioners and representatives from the Canyon Country Ranchers Association are still concerned. By filing suit, they hope to bring Congress into the argument and persuade it to take a second look at the grazing issue.

"We of course would go to our congressional delegation . . . to lobby Congress to deny those grazing eliminations," said Habbeshaw. "If Congress were to say that, then the allotments would be reissued to the most valid ranchers."

"This is important," added Dodds. "Every job down there is important, and (ranching) is historically a way of life for most people. If you're in Garfield County, that's quite a few jobs."


E-mail: nwarburton@desnews.com

Comments

You can be the first to comment on this story.

Image
Deseret Morning News graphic

previousnext

Latest comments

I love loved this movie. I'm not super into barf and poo jokes either. That...

2A: Broncos vs. Wildcats

a lot of the posts by s. summit fans showed no class whatsoever saying how...

No. 22 BYU holds off pesky Lobos

You wish.

No. 22 BYU holds off pesky Lobos

Open your eyes. It goes both ways. Funny how Byu fans can dish it but sure...

OK FOLKS, ENOUGH IS ENOUGH FOR ALL THIS "DRAMA"

5A: Davis runs over Hunter

"It's too bad Davis never gets any credit for anything in High School sports,...

To say that students shouldn't begin to form opinions on matters and learn to...

"this sentence has got to be a deterrent, a message sent to other people." ...

Galaxy headed to MLS Cup

Two more wins, that's all I ask. GO RSL, put out the fire. And yes, I care!

Some countries acutally work to keep their currency low in order to boost...

Advertisements
Advertisement