Bakersfield.com

larger view

This is in response to a recent column by Lois Henry, Agency mows over public input.

Wow!  

Lois Henry, you mow over an agency for cattle!

You are very good at slinging cow chips about subjects in which you have no formal training and obviously know very little to next to nothing about!  You got any salsa to go with those chips?

Let us review your bull dung, you wrote, together shall we?  Her work is within quote marks my words are not.

“If you’ve never visited the Bitter Creek National Wildlife Refuge area, you should. It’s incredible country in southwestern Kern County. Its rugged, stark beauty can take your breath away.”

You are probably right on here.  The dung you write also took my breath away.

“Unfortunately, it’s being run by a unit of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that also leaves me breathless (OK, sputtering), for their incredible arrogance.”

Your ignorance of range management, refuge management, and Wildlife Management is astonishing and your arrogance really irritates us folks with degrees in the Natural Resources Profession.  Oh yeah you are a journalist so we are used to your type getting it all wrong.  I have a BS degree in Wildlife Management, which one of us might have a clue as to range management techniques on a refuge.  No I do not work there.  I just find your ignorance/arrogance so irritating and annoying that I had to respond. :-0

And remember, it is not you I dislike; it is the cattle dung you write that really pisses me off.

“I learned about the Bitter Creek controversy last week when the Kern County Board of Supervisors was told by the Planning Department that refuge managers, located in Ventura, proposed to limit grazing as a management tool on the refuge and instead use fire — on more than 9,000 acres. Granted, they wouldn’t burn it all at once, but that’s a lot of grass to torch, even a little at a time.”

Burning is a natural occurrence and a valid management tool.  Try to remember that Good folks managing our National Wildlife Refuges have at least a 4 year degree (not in journalism), some have MS degrees, and many have PhD’s in some specialized biology or other natural resource field.  The bottom line is they know what they are doing and Joe, Jill Public, and Lois Henry likely Do NOT!

“Fish and Wildlife held no public meetings on the proposal and when our Planning Department stumbled over the plan (they weren’t even notified) and requested a public hearing, Fish and Wildlife said no.”

“In its environmental assessment, Fish and Wildlife says a public meeting wasn’t considered because of the limited “intensity of environmental impacts anticipated” and the lack of “anticipated controversy.”

“Uh. Wrong.”

Uh. Correct!  You may be incorrect?

“Funny thing, but we in Kern County might think burning off thousands of acres of grass would have an “Intense environmental impact” on our already fouled air basin. And some of us might like to have a say in the matter before it’s a done deal.”

Yeah, air quality is a concern for all of us.  The stink you write is hard to tolerate too.

“That’s just scratching the surface, though. Dig deeper and things get worse.”

“After reading the environmental assessment, which includes the bone-headed burning proposal, I was shocked by the contradictions contained in the document as well as what it lacked.”

“But here’s the bottom line: They don’t like cows.”

Not true, however, livestock grazing has caused all the problems you mentioned below plus a few more even you are unaware of. 

“Seriously, if Fish and Wildlife could load up a crop duster with “cow-b-gone,” I think they’d coat that refuge an inch thick, no matter how much the Fish and Wildlife spokesman I spoke with might deny an anti-cow bias.”

Yeah, maybe, Journalist-B-gone would be nice too.  Boy I would like to have a patent on that.

“Chris Barr, deputy project leader for the Hopper Mountain National Wildlife Refuge Complex, which includes Bitter Creek, stressed that the proposal prefers seasonal grazing. It’s really a pro-grazing document, he told me.”

I believe that to be true, however, you seam a skeptic?  It is about grazing in season when the forage is at its best for cattle.  I'll bet you that most all of these folks eat beef, thus, it is not an anti-cattle thing.  It is a refuge management concern.

“But seasonal grazing as outlined in the proposal wouldn’t be economical for ranchers, according to Richard Snedden who ranches next to the refuge and Art Steinbeck who had leased the ground for nearly 20 years before he was shut out by Fish and Wildlife in 2005 while they “rested” the land.”

Most grazing allotments operate on a seasonal basis, because the forage is seasonally green and edible.

“The seasonal grazing concept doesn’t allow ranchers any flexibility, they explained. The document even lays out what type of cattle are preferred — steers, not cows. Steers, according to Fish and Wildlife, don’t bunch up like cows and don’t revisit already overgrazed areas.”

I am not a cow expert, although, cows do bunch up, steers may be a better grass management tool on this refuge.

“Actually, according to both ranchers and a U.C. Davis rangeland specialist I talked to, the exact opposite is true. Clearly, a rangeland specialist did not help prepare the environmental assessment.”

You do know that rangeland specialists are usually very biased towards cattle, i.e. pro cattle, pro-rancher, anti-wildlife that get in their way.

“The assessment also states that “stair stepping” — the trails cattle make across hillsides — promotes erosion. The rangeland specialist I spoke to said he’d never heard of a study showing that to be the case.”

Stair stepping, the trails cattle make across hillsides, promotes erosion is a fact.  I can show you areas, around Bakersfield, the Kern River Valley, and Slo County, of livestock induced erosion.

“Responsible grazing is a natural way to reduce fire hazards and increase biodiversity, Snedden said.”

The refuge manager is trying to use seasonal responsible grazing as a management tool.  I can show you many examples of irresponsible over grazing in the Kern River Valley.

“They know they need it, but there’s just a negative bias toward cattle,” he said.”

“For background purposes you should know that Bitter Creek was a working cattle ranch for more than 100 years before the U.S. government bought it in 1986 as a refuge for the California condor, which had been feeding and nesting there, right alongside the cows, for as long as anyone can remember.”

“The environmental assessment, however, is rife with anti-cow angst.”

Someone is rife with anti-agency management of a Federal Refuge for wildlife, not for cattle.  I do not believe we have a cattle refuge, maybe you are thinking of BLM Public land?

“It cites a number of studies (some not specific to the land in question and many from decades past) that say, among other things, that cattle introduce noxious weeds and non-native grasses, cause soil compaction and erosion, push out native deer and other hooved animals, foul the water, step on kit fox burrows and are just flat ugly.”

Cattle and other livestock types do introduce noxious weeds and non-native grasses, cause soil compaction and erosion, push out (compete with) native deer and other hooved animals, foul the water, step on kit fox burrows.  You do know all of this is true and well documented in many scientific journals, although you seam to believe it is not true.  Oh yeah, you are just a journalist whom does not verify fact before going to print.  Oops!  Shame on you Lois Henry for not verifying your false facts in which you put in front of the public.

Cattle may be dumb looking, but in a cute way.  We call them white-faced deer or slow elk, with affection of course.

“I’m not making that up. Of all the alternatives listed in the study, only cattle get an F in “aesthetics.” (Oh, the refuge is closed to the public, by the by, so I’m not sure who’s so offended by the sight of cows.) Cows are also dinged because their manure is visible from the road. Not even burning and its inherent scarring gets a mention for aesthetics.”

“Once you read something like that, it’s hard to take the rest seriously.”

It is difficult to take you seriously.  It is closed to the public to protect wildlife and the California Condor.  Some wildlife does need human protection from stupid humans.  Sad, but true, we have met the enemy and it is us.

“My biggest concern, however, was about what wasn’t in the document — studies that show whether grazing has adversely affected the condors, or any other species for that matter.”

Dead cattle do feed the Condors this is a good thing.  Especially since the cattle, other livestock, and ranching has pushed out the native wildlife in which the California Condors historically fed upon, such as deer, elk, pronghorn antelope, and desert mountain sheep.

“Not in there.”

“Barr told me that surveys had previously been done on the land, such as one in 2002 that assessed the grazing fees and program.”

“That’s not the same as a study that looks at whether responsible grazing harms a species. I asked several times about baseline studies as well as why a rangeland specialist wasn’t consulted and continued to get a polite but evasive, non-responsive response.”

There is lots of data if you know where too look.

“As for the lack of public input, Barr told me the agency has received 53 comment letters and would accept any new ones even though the official public comment window has already closed. But the National Environmental Policy Act doesn’t require public hearings.”

“Supervisors and U.S. Rep. Kevin McCarthy are still going to try.”

“They’ve sent letters to Fish and Wildlife seeking a hearing and, if they decline, McCarthy and the Planning Department will hold their own hearing and Fish and Wildlife will be invited to participate.”

“I hope someone in U.S. Fish and Wildlife figures out that this refuge is a part of Kern County.”

I’ll bet they are better with map and compass than you will ever be.  Remember, this is range and wildlife management not politics.

“But they’re already so far out there, we may be waiting till the cows come home.”

Someone is pretty far out there and I believe it is you, your false facts, untruths, pro-cattle anti-wildlife bias ignorance, and arrogance in which you think you know how to manage a wildlife refuge.

“Opinions expressed in this column are those of Lois Henry, not The Bakersfield Californian. Her  column appears Wednesdays and Sundays. Call her at 395-7373 or e-mail lhenry@bakersfield.com”

False opinions expressed in this column are those of Lois Henry, not those of any intelligent Wildlife or Rangeland Professional.

My ideas are not opinions.  My thoughts are my own, yet based on a solid education and 29 years of biological experience.

Have a nice day!

Sincerely not yours,

Bruce

Desert Mountain Sheep Specialist

A Wildlife Professional not a journalist!