NATURE TRUST: Spring in Gilpin protected after 42 years

A portion of damaged Nature Trust property in the Gilpin Grasslands has been fenced by volunteers to protect a spring and riparian area. This will be the first time since the property was acquired by Nature Trust in 1973, that this piece will be protected from range cows and off-roaders.

See the Gilpin Grasslands Story:   here

The fence was proposed at meetings of the Committee for the Enhancement of the Gilpin. Work began late 2014 and was completed June 2015.

Approximately 6 acres of Nature Trust land is now protected by wildlife friendly fencing.  As per recommendations of Montana State Wildlife Friendly Fencing Brochure. See link to Montana State fencing guidelines  on dryrotjournal blog:  Lost Lake..... Nov 2014.

newly fenced area outlined. lost lake shows nearby to NW
click on pics to enlarge

   

Barry Brandow and Al Grant of www.boundaryalliance.org   initiated, led and financed materials for the project and substantially completed the work with occasional help from other volunteers and some hours contributed by Nature Trust’s Nick Burdock and helpers. The fence represents a contribution by volunteers of $9,300.00 to $10,700 value (based on contactor prices of $14,000 to $ 16,000 per km.)

 

 

The original fence proposed would have expanded the area of a dis-functional fence installed by Range Branch several years ago. At the request of Nature Trust the area was expanded and ground conditions dictated a further expansion, so that the protected area is now 70% larger than originally proposed. It was originally intended that the fence be in place before arrival of range-cows in May. We were unable to complete the enlarged area on that schedule so some cow damage re-occurred in 2015 before completion of the exclosure.

We expect that exclusion of range cows and off-roaders will result in a significant improvement in the natural attributes of the area in future years.
The range-cattle are supposedly in the area from May 7 to June 15^th each year but the reality is that range-cows have often frequented the area from May through Oct/Nov with significant damage to riparian zones and undue pressure on forage. See dryrotjournal blogs: Lost Lake .... Nov 2014 and Mike Pearson....June 2015 for biologist Mike Pearsons' report on this site and others in the Gilpin.

Prior to this initiative various public funds have been expended by Range Branch in the Gilpin grazing tenure, usually poorly planned, poorly constructed, non wildlife friendly and frequently dysfunctional. Examples abound outside the Gilpin area as well.

It is sad irony to this writer that he volunteered time , equipment and expense to this project when the rational solution to degraded grasslands, contaminated streams and absurd public costs, would be removal of the cow from public lands. See dryrotjournal blog articles:  Cattle Impacts Global & Local Nov 2014 and Cattle as an Invasive Species Dec 2014.

To illustrate the economic and ecological absurdity of cattle grazing on public lands using this small local example, this pasture on the Mehmel grazing tenure collects grazing rents of approx. $400 to $500 P.A. The extended version of this article which will be published at www.boundaryalliancer.org will have further comment on the inadequacies and unenforceable conditions in the Mehmel Range Use Plan.

The “cost” to protect a small portion of Nature Trust’s lot, amounted to “value” of $9,300 to $10,700. Various other public and private costs in the same pasture have likely exceeded this amount while the majority of the Nature Trust and public land portions remain mostly unprotected from range-cattle damage and off-roading.

While it is our hope that this initiative will:

·         Allow recovery of the Nature Trust spring and surrounding area

·         Demonstrate improved natural values in the absence of cattle grazing and off-roading.

·         Demonstrate the effectiveness of wildlife friendly fencing in the face of Range Branch’s reluctance to use same.

On the latter point we are less than optimistic. Range Branch has shown no ability or inclination to change their practices for the benefit af anything other than cattle grazing.

More detail, location maps of NT property, expanded comment and more pics to come in the website expanded version) at: www.boundaryalliance.org

 

Mike Pearson, PhD, RPBio reports on Gilpin Problems

Mike Pearson, PhD, RPBio visits the Boundary

April 2015, fisheries and habitat biologist Mike Pearson visited the Grand Forks and Gilpin areas to assess various streams and wetlands.
Mike and his company, Pearson Ecological Inc, work primarily in the Fraser Valley on restoration/conservation work and Mike's concerns over habitat damage and endangered species have received frequent attention in the press and in extended artricles by environment reporter Larry Pynn in the Vancouver Sun.

Thanks to the efforts of Barry and Midge Brandow, Mike visited the various sites and was speaker at a public meeting in Grand Forks April 10 2015. (See April 1 2015 post)
The writer was pleased to sponsor the meeting on behalf of www.boundaryalliance.org and introduce Mike.
Mike's Habitat Assessment Report report is self-explanatory as to causes of problems and potential solutions.

We note that since his report was written, "The Spring on Nature Trust Property, Gilpin"
has been fenced by volunteers who also funded the project.
Barry Brandow and this writer (Al Grant) primarily constructed the new 'wildlife friendly fence' to replace a smaller poorly constructed and non functional fence installed by Range Branch a few years ago. We received some help with the work from Nature Trust and several other volunteers. Our thanks to all.
The Nature Trust property in the Gilpin was the first Nature Trust acquisition in BC in 1973 and for the first time in 42 years a small section will now be protected from range-cows and off-roaders. The remainder of this plot and several others in the Gilpin remain unprotected.
We expect that this new fenced area of about 6 acres will provide a model for wildlife friendly fencing and may prompt Range Branch to utilize similar fencing on future projects, something they have been reluctant to do.

For this writer, the issues covered by Mike are some of many longstanding issues that have not been remedied by Range Branch or other various Ministries over the years and we do not expect that these issues will be addressed in any meaningful way by the Kettle River Watershed Management Planning Process. More to come in future articles about the KRWMP and it's shortcomings and potential threats.

See Mike Pearson's full report; here

PUBLIC MEETING, GRAND FORKS, APR 10 2015

 

EHOLT CREEK: A Damaged Stream

Late summer 2014, I visited a section of Eholt creek with Barry Brandow of Grand Forks. The area of concern is a farm property a few kilometers east of Greenwood where Eholt Creek meanders through the property for more than a kilometer.

Because of a lack of riparian fencing various farm animals access the creek with resultant damage to the stream, stream banks and water quality. A couple of Youtube videos illustrate the problem and the damage.

 

   Barry Brandow at Eholt Creek     talks about Riparian Management.   2.15 min

 

check your youtube settings to get best quality of 720p

    





 Eholt Creek Damage:    Al Grant.    2.30  min

 check your youtube settings to get best quality of 1080p

For this writer, the visit brought on a sense of déjà vu as the location was similar in many ways to properties in the Fraser Valley where the writer was extensively involved in stream protection initiatives and work more than 20 years ago.

Then as now, protection of streams and other public resources is largely dependent on the complaints and noise created by a concerned public. Then as now, various levels of Government have failed to effectively address and prevent damage and through various permit granting functions are frequently continuing to contribute to the damage.

The Kettle River Watershed Management Plan that has been underway for four or more years appears to offer no effective solutions for stopping such damage.

More on the KRWMP in a future posting,

 

A pdf version with more pictures is available at our website:

www.boundaryalliance.org

 

CATTLE as an INVASIVE SPECIES

RANGE CATTLE ?

The following definition is essentially mirrored in worldwide invasive species definitions.

 

"Invasive species refers to any harmful alien or non native species including animals, plants and other organisms whose introduction or spread threatens the environment, the economy or society including human health."   Invasive Species Council of B.C.

Not surprising then that cattle permitted to graze public lands (range cattle) are increasingly recognized as an invasive species. 

 Environmental Effects:   In B.C. Range Use has resulted in degraded grasslands, degraded riparian zones, degraded water quality, degraded forage capacity.

 

Using the kind of logic that might have emerged from Alice in Wonderland's rabbit-hole, Government and organizations set up to "deal with" invasive species, fail to acknowledge the role of cattle in these degradations. In that topsy turvy world,  "invasive weeds and grasses" are an economic cost to ranchers. That these weeds and invasive grasses are primarily a direct result of cattle grazing on public lands, is apparent from comparisons with un-grazed private lands.

The Double D effect:   disturbance and delivery. Cattle disturb protective biological soils (cryptogamic soils) or duff, while delivering invasive seeds, enabling and encouraging invasive plant growth and tree seed growth at grassland, forest land, interfaces.

 

A notice on Range Land indicating that:
Noxious weeds have the potential to devastate wildlife habitat in this area. Please be careful not to introduce them."
Within 50m of the sign, numerous cattle loafing/resting areas infested by knap weed and cheat grass delivered by cattle.

 

Economic Effect:  There has been no economic assessment of Range Use in B.C. and the Ministry overseeing range use claims the Ministry's mandate doesn't require any assessment. A U.S. Economic Study on Range Use estimated public costs of $35 for approx $ 1.30 of range rental paid. We estimate B.C. public costs would greatly exceed U.S estimates due to costs of  infrastructure, fences, cattle-guards etc, on the smaller B.C tenures, as well as the tens of millions in public funds spent (in Boundary-Kootenay alone) to "improve" forage, in mostly ineffective efforts to solve wildlife/range cattle conflicts.

 

Human Health Effects: risks from water contamination have been well documented in Boundary Alliance articles on water quality and cattle related contamination of streams: 

E.Coli Counts in Dryland Streams, including Pathogens & Protection Report 2009,

Patterns of Ecoli Contamination......related to Presence of Range Cattle 2013. 

Some may argue that range cattle do not qualify as invasive species as they are away from rangeland for the winter months. Not much difference though to the dormancy of various invasive grasses and weeds in the same period.

 Do range cattle qualify as invasive species?

"If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck................."

 

Government sign on Range Land:


However,
Primary source of Pollution in many range-land areas, cattle contamination of streams, but concerns raised are diverted to Ministry responsible for range use, the Ministry that fails to protect water quality.








This post can also be seen on the Boundary Alliance website


here



        

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

        

 

 

 

 

 

CATTLE: GLOBAL & LOCAL IMPACTS

Many new studies on global impacts of cattle, and comparisons with other choices:

"Calculations show that environmental cost per calorie of dairy, poultry, pork and eggs are mutually comparable, but strikingly lower than the impacts of beef."

 Report above indicates Beef production requires 28 times the land of the other averaged group, 11 times the irrigation water, and produces 5 times Greenhouse Gases.

Following charts from UBC Virtual Water Report, show water requirements and water use in the Okanagan and the high consumption for beef production. Some recent calculations by the Ministry of Agriculture for the Kettle basin indicate water demand estimates for beef production at more than 83% of total demand.

 

 

 "Beef requires the largest amount of water, has one of the most inefficient energy conversion rates, produces by far the highest nutrients in manure."  UBC Report on Virtual Water. Hans Schreier & Darren Pang   

See also Schreier Report: Better by the Drop

GLOBALY
 •    Livestocks ( primarily cattle's)  contribution to environmental problems is on a massive scale. The impact is so significant that it needs to be addressed with urgency.

•    The environmental impact per unit of livestock production must be cut in half, just to avoid increasing the level of damage beyond its present level. About 73% of rangelands in dry areas, have been degraded to some extent, mostly through overgrazing, compaction and erosion created by livestock action

•    Livestock sector is responsible for 18% of greenhouse gas emissions measured in CO2 equivalent. This is a higher share than transport.

•    Livestock now account for about 20% of the total terrestrial animal biomass, and the 30% of the earth's land surface that they now pre-empt was once habitat for wildlife.

•    While regulating scale, inputs, wastes and so on can help, a crucial element is the correct pricing of natural resources such as land, water and use of waste sinks. Most frequently natural resources are free or underpriced. which leads to overexploitation and pollution.

•    A top priority is to achieve prices and fees that fully reflect the full economic and environmental costs, including all externalities.  This list from: Report by Food & Agriculture Organization of the U.N.   Livestocks Long Shadow.

 

Other resources on local impacts:

 Forest Practices Board Report:                The Effect of Range Practices on Grasslands 

“historical grazing has resulted in significantly altered grassland status today (i.e.  it is far from its natural condition);

 • recovery of grasslands towards a natural condition is slow, and in some cases  may not be possible without further intervention; and,

 • recent grazing practices have further slowed the recovery to natural condition on some sites.”

 Forest Practices Board Report:       

                                                 Effects of Cattle Grazing near Streams, Lakes & Wetlands

"The public would not tolerate this level of damage if it were caused by a logging operation,” said board chair Bill Cafferata. "Clear and measurable standards are needed to protect sensitive riparian areas.”

 
Boundary Alliance Reports on Water Quality:  E.coli Counts in Local Streams 2013

                                                                           E.coli Counts inLocal Streams 2009

 
Boundary Alliance article:                                      The Problem withRange Cattle.

 

 A copy of this article is posted on the Boundary Alliance website:

www.boundaryalliance.org

 

GRASSLANDS CONSERVATION COUNCIL OF B.C. award,

BEYOND BAFFLING

 

In July 2014 the GCC made an award to Doug & Erika Fossen for "demonstrated excellence in grassland stewardship"   http://lifeonabccattleranch.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/grasslands.pdf

 In August 2014 visiting biologists John and Mary Theberge  of Oliver BC who have studied grasslands throughout North America described the degraded weed infested grasslands portion of the Johnstone Creek Range Unit (AKA the Spring Pasture) as amongst the worst they had seen. I recommend their recent book, The  Ptarmigan’s Dilemma, in whole, and Chapter 10 in particular, for the chapter on grasslands.

cheat grass & knapweed dominated pasture

The GCC which is supposedly dedicated to the protection and enhancement of native grasslands has badly damaged its credibility with the above award.

We note that the current chair of the GCC (as has been the case in recent years) is a rancher and also a past president of BC Cattlemen’s Association. Ms Jackson and another former GCC director were quoted last year as follows: "to feed one cow for a month costs $125.00, and the answer is a longer grazing season." 

We presume their proposal is to extend grazing on already damaged grasslands while paying approx.. $2.00 per month for an AUM (animal unit month usually a cow & calf pair) while the other costs are externalized to public cost. To give some comparison, rancher provided figures for grazing on private land are between $15 to $30 per month (AUM). It would cost the rest of us us more than $ 2.00 per month to feed a pet rodent.

 

Compounding the absurdity of the award are complaints by Mr Fossen to the Western Producer of competition from exploding populations of deer and elk and suggestions  that declining forage has forced wildlife to move more into grasslands and riparian areas. Mr Fossen complains that lessees cannot turn cattle out until the grass is ready and that it is difficult for ranchers to assess when the grass is ready when wildlife are grazing it down.

Any non-rancher in this area (except some town dwellers and a few ranchers, but there's another story there that doesn't reflect well on cattle grazing) would know that wildlife populations have declined over the past 20 years and more, and blaming wildlife for delaying grass readiness for cattle, is an absurdity.  Many factors affect grass emergence in spring but the primarily natural ones are the variables of moisture and temperature. It is evident that private ungrazed lands adjacent to the Range Unit show significantly better growth and variety of desirable plant communities, than the range area. These contrasts are evident before  the annual arrival of range cows. Clearly soil compaction, overgrazing, poor grazing timing, poor oversight or some combination of these factors is making the significant difference between range and private land. While Mr Fossen and many other ranchers blame forest ingrowth and wildlife for degraded and poor pastures, they and the responsible ministry need to address the major cause, cattle grazing itself.

A so called Ecosystem Restoration project in the Johnstone Creek pasture began two years ago. The project has spent several hundred thousand dollars sourcing a variety of public funds, to primarily benefit range cattle grazing on public land where the annual rental fee has been around $160.00 or less. While Government claims that this project is primarily to benefit wildlife and obtained the majority of funding from the BC Habitat Conservation Fund, the reality is a project of primary benefit to cattle grazing which doesn't meet the mandate of HCF or the expectations of the hunter/fishers whose fees on licences, form the bulk of HCF funding.

It is more than unfortunate and a great cost to the public, that ranchers complaints about declining forage and wildlife effects, are accepted as guiding principles by MFLNRO while the primary causal effects of cow grazing on the degraded resource are largely ignored. It is more than time for change.

 

More detail and pics available in the extended version on the Boundary Alliance website:       

here