Graze ban ignores science, suit says

COLVILLE — Stevens County cattle owners and the county government say in a lawsuit that a decision to eliminate most cattle grazing on the Little Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge was both improper and imprudent.

Grass grazing by cattle reduces fire danger and promotes the growth of the brushy plants preferred by deer, county officials contend in the lawsuit they filed earlier this summer in U.S. District Court in Spokane.

Refuge officials agree that a little bit of cattle grazing is beneficial, but aren’t convinced that a lot is better.

“We use our laws that tell us how to manage refuges, and they don’t say, ‘Manage for cows,’ ” said Lisa Langelier, manager of the 40,198-acre U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service refuge east of Colville.

The refuge provides “critical habitat” for whitetail deer, Langelier said.

On the other hand, the National Environmental Policy Act requires federal officials to consider local plans, but that didn’t happen in this case, according to the lawsuit.

“They didn’t follow the process, and that is why the lawsuit was filed,” Stevens County Commissioner Tony Delgado said.

County commissioners, the Stevens County Conservation District, the Stevens County Cattlemen’s Association, the Stevens County Farm Bureau and three ranching families claim in their lawsuit that federal wildlife officials ignored scientific evidence that shows cattle grazing is good for wildlife.

That evidence was summarized in the Little Pend Oreille Wildlife Refuge Grazing Alternative Plan, adopted by the conservation district in 1997.

Ask a hunter, Delgado suggested: “Stevens County, north of Colville, is the best hunting area in the state, and it’s also one of the most heavily grazed.”

The lawsuit also argues that 56 years of leased cattle grazing on the Little Pend Oreille refuge near Colville established a “property interest” that was taken without due process.

Ranchers who had come to rely on wildlife refuge grazing privileges were entitled to “detailed notice and a fair opportunity to prepare for and present testimony at a public hearing, on the record, before an impartial tribunal,” the lawsuit contends.

The president of Friends of the Little Pend Oreille, Colville-area resident Rick Moore, said the 85-member refuge support group considers the lawsuit “a waste of taxpayers money.”

Stevens County commissioners authorized up to $50,000 for their share of the work being done by Connell, Wash., attorney Toni Pierson, who was licensed in June 2004. Federal officials estimate that cattle grazing has contributed $47,000 a year to the county’s economy in recent years.

Conservation District Administrator Mark Curtis said each of the plaintiffs is helping pay the cost, but declined to reveal the district’s share. The issue is principle, not money, he said.

“It’s a matter of standing up for rights,” Curtis said, contending local officials have a duty to defend their constituents.

Similarly, Moore insisted that the issue doesn’t boil down to environmentalists versus cattle ranchers.

“It’s merely, ‘Do we want to raise cattle on a wildlife refuge?’ ” Moore said.

Efforts to reach the three ranching families who also are challenging the Fish and Wildlife Service’s management of the Little Pend Oreille refuge were unsuccessful.

Curtis said the grazing permits being eliminated represent the majority of the families’ pasture land. Langelier said the number of cattle allowed on the refuge had shrunk from a high of about 300 to fewer than 90 when officials decided to eliminate the permits.

The affected ranchers are having difficulty finding other grazing because, without irrigation, a large amount of land is needed, Curtis said.

The lawsuit says the ranchers may be forced out of business.

The ranchers include Andy and Bobbi Kroiss, who operate the ranch Andrew Hughson established on a homestead south of Colville in 1855. The ranch, which is still owned by the Hughson family, ran cattle on Little Pend Oreille land for 80 years – even before the refuge was established in 1939.

The Kroisses’ grazing permit and that of Kettle Falls-area ranchers Eugene and Connie Cada weren’t renewed this year.

Langelier renewed a permit for Philip Dubois and his son, Jean Dubois, because they graze cattle on more than 10,000 acres of adjacent state land and can’t keep their livestock off the wildlife refuge. However, a fence will be built later this year and the permit won’t be renewed next year, Langelier said.

Critics view the virtual elimination of cattle grazing as the latest in a string of grievances that began in 1994 when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service appointed Langelier and resumed direct management of the refuge. Management had been delegated to the state Department of Fish and Wildlife since 1967.

Under federal management, recreational uses such as camping and horseback riding have been restricted, lifelong county resident Carolyn Henry complained at a May 15 public hearing at which county commissioners took testimony before deciding to sue the wildlife refuge.

Unlike national forests and range lands managed by the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management, federal wildlife refuges aren’t intended for multiple uses, Langelier said.

Federal law encourages hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography and environmental education on wildlife refuges, but only to the extent they are compatible with the refuges’ mission to conserve wildlife.

“That’s a founding principle of refuges,” Langelier said. “If you can’t prove a use is compatible, then you can’t have that use, and the burden of proof isn’t on the refuge.”

She said cattle grazing helps in some cases, but cattle switch to the brushy “browse” preferred by deer when grasses are depleted. Also, Langelier said, cows trample stream banks and damage riparian areas important to birds and other wildlife.

Curtis countered that cattle can be kept away from streams by providing water elsewhere.

Dan Bell, one of numerous “inholders” who own land inside the refuge boundary, fears refuge officials’ plan to substitute controlled fires for cattle grazing. Cattle grazing reduced his fire danger; controlled burning increases it, Bell said.

Most of the Little Pend Oreille refuge is mountainous timberland. Only about 20 percent is used for grazing, and fewer than 600 of those acres are grassland, according to Langelier.

A 1983 study estimated the refuge could support 3,208 “animal units per month,” or AUMs, of grazing by cattle or other wildlife. Refuge documents say up to 1,200 of the AUMs – enough for 300 cows and calves – were leased to cattlemen before 1994, but the average dropped to 750 AUMs from 1994 through 1997 and was down to 346 from 2001 to 2004.

An AUM – currently priced at $7.20 – is the amount of forage needed for a bull or a cow with a calf for one month. Considering that the typical grazing season is four months, June through September, 346 AUMs works out to a fewer than 90 cows with calves.

Only a handful of cattle will still be allowed to graze on the refuge, and Curtis said the proposed 22 to 32 AUMs will come with too many strings, such as fence construction to be cost-effective.

No trial date has been set.