[Editor's Note: This is part 2 of a series of articles on the Grant County Commission work session on Dec 6, 2022 and the regular meeting on Dec. 8, 2022. This one completes the presentations at the work session.]

By Mary Alice Murphy

Gila National Forest personnel, Julie Landreth, coordinator of the Centennial Celebration of the 100th anniversary of the creation of the Gila Wilderness, along with the 60th anniversary of the Wilderness Act to take place in 2024, and Henry Provencio, Gila Wilderness District Ranger, gave the final presentation of the Grant County Commission work session on Dec. 6, 2022.

Landreth said the Gila Wilderness was the first area designated as wilderness in the world. "We want to celebrate with numerous events. Our ideas are fluid at this time, but we are looking at February 2024 through October 2024 for events, with the main event planning for the first weekend of June. We are hoping to invite government officials, local, state, the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture and the Department of the Interior, and potentially the president and vice president."

District 5 Commissioner Harry Browne said he had one quick thought. "I wonder if the Blues Festival is that weekend. And when I think June, I think fires. Maybe the Forest Service will be addressing fires."

Landreth said fires are on the radar and "there is much more to come."

Provencio, in his report, said he had been asked to talk about the unauthorized cattle on the forest. "We sent out a scoping letter for entities to remove or euthanize unauthorized cattle on the wilderness. We want to make a dent in the population. We currently have an estimate of 50-150, with about 130 that were removed by a contractor and APHIS (Animal, Plant and Health Inspection Service). We plan to continue the effort. The deadline for comment is Jan. 9, 2023."

District 1 Commissioner and Chair Chris Ponce asked what was being done, so as not to get into the same situation and "I don't understand why no one was held accountable. And what about livestock in the Pinos Altos area that are causing damage to residents? How to address that? I understand the Livestock Bureau has their hands tied."

Provencio said: "We have two situations, one with livestock that are owned. There are requirements for grazing permitees to keep their cattle in the area they are supposed to be. We can take action on the branded that have escaped tomorrow. That is part of the permit to assist us in taking care of their cattle. It's in their best interest. In the wilderness, the cattle propagate and that's the unbranded, unauthorized cattle we want to take care of. One thing we're doing is bringing in technology from NMSU (New Mexico State University) and collaring cows, so we can see how it will work in the middle of nowhere on up to 100 cows in the Taylor Creek allotment. We continue to work with permitees. We supply the fencing; they provide the labor to install the fencing. A lot of allotments are vacant and people in agriculture are asking us to stock them. That's an option. Two of the vacant allotments are in my district, the fences are down, and it's going to cost about $4 million to get them built again by the permitee. That's not an easy problem to fix. You also have to think about why they are vacant. They are not easy to manage. The other question before us is different from the vacant allotments."

District 4 Commissioner Billy Billings asked about the 130 cattle that have been removed and over what period of time

"I think it's over 12 months. We have a contractor, and she is actively still bringing out cattle," Provencio said. "And in February, we did an aerial shooting and shot about 65 animals."

Billings said he thought the contractor was having some success other than shooting.

"From the reporting, they had euthanized around 41 cattle. Please don't quote me on those number. They are ballpark," Provencio said. "She has taken out about 34 live animals. Not sure about the exact numbers. It's close to 50-50. Euthanasia is much cheaper."

GNF Public Affairs specialist Maribeth Pecotte said the most recent contract covers the Gila Wilderness and the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest with their feral horse issue. It was just under $400,000 for the one contract. We don't have records on how much the previous 8 contracts have cost the Forest Service. The contract with APHIS in February cost about $38,000 for 65 animals, a bit less than $500 per animal for euthanasia."

Provencio said the previous contracts were about $1,000 per animal to bring it out live and about $500 for euthanasia.

Billings said it was his understanding that the New Mexico Livestock Board has a waiver to allow confiscation of the animals, and whoever gathers them could get compensated for them. "However, in February the Livestock Board said no they couldn't do that. So, whoever confiscated the animal, whether a permittee, a neighbor or you guys could not get compensated, so the incentive was gone, and the beef can't be used, so it lays there and wastes away. That's one of the concerns."

Provencio said he would prefer that the Livestock Board speak for themselves. "However, the process right now is if we remove the animals live, they go to the Grant County Fairgrounds, and the Livestock Board inspector inspects the animals to make sure they are do not have a brand or any other markings. At that point, we've been paying the contractor for live animals removed, and the cattle go to auction, where the proceeds of the sale go to the state Livestock Board. No matter who takes out the cattle and they go to auction the proceeds go to the state."

Billings said that removes any incentive for someone to remove the animals. If cowboys could go in and remove the animals and get compensated, would that be a legislative issue.

Provencio said he understood there was some legislative changes were moving around, but it's up to the state and the feds.

Billings said he felt that legislative change could be a solution to incentivize people to get the cattle out live. "Do you believe that?"

Provencio said: "We have to continue to manage the resources that we are responsible for. I believe we can get a large number of them out, but for a real solution we have to look at another way to get the last of the animals out. I do believe the state and the feds will have to come together on a coherent plan."

Billings said he believes it can be done and that the problem would disappear. "I know of people who have removed cattle."

"If you're a cow, there is no good outcome," Provencio said. "Even if you get out alive, you're going straight to the butcher shop. We let the problem languish and we see the resource damage. It has gone on too long. I know the current forest leadership is committed to resolving the issue. We can't continue to ignore it."

"I believe there is a solution," Billings said, "and I hope the Forest Service continues to find a way to resolve it, so it doesn't reoccur."

Browne said he is not as optimistic as Billings. "My pessimism is the contractor who was bringing out live cattle, but more than 50 percent died on the way out. I think it is a worse outcome for the cattle to die of stress. You mentioned eight previous contracts. It seems some were beneficial to bring out the cattle live and use the beef."

Provencio said the contracts have been since the 1990s. "I don't think 'some cowboys' have the capacity to do it. I'm bound by government bureaucracies. We can't pay cask when the cows come out. We have to be judicious on how we spend our money. Euthanizing them is the most expedient method."

Browne asked why the Forest Service pays more for bringing out the cattle live if the money doesn't go to the Forest Service.

"We ask the contractor to give us a price in a bidding process," Provencio said. "We don't have to ask for two different prices. We don't have to take the lowest price. Because we look at professionalism and capability."

Browne asked who decides whether the cow has a higher value if brought out alive.

"We have a process," Provencio said. "There is a panel with a contracting officer. We can't have non-Forest Service personnel on the panel."

Ponce asked what happens to the carcass when the lethal method is used.

"It is left to rot on site, unless it is in water, and then we have to pull it out," Provencio said.

Ponce said he has heard that some cattle had been aggressive toward people. "Aren't the carcasses more of a danger to hikers because of predators eating the carcasses?"

Provencio said hikers are at extremely low risk. "We don't leave carcasses near trails. We've gotten plenty of reports of the cows being aggressive toward hikers."

Ponce noted the commissioners had asked the APHIS Wildlife Services county contract not to use lethal methos. "Now we hear you are using lethal weapons. I get asked these questions."

Provencio said the Forest Service has four reasons for using lethal methods. "1) unauthorized use of the forest; 2) resource damage to threatened species; 3) water quality. We don't allow grazing in riparian areas; and 4) the Wilderness Act. It is law to manage for the five characters of landscape management."

Provencio said the public comment time would allow anyone to comment, and "we will take all comments into consideration."

Billings said that is why he would prefer that the commissioners comment as individuals and not as the Commission. "I think Browne plans to propose a resolution for the Commission to support."

Provencio said there is no difference in the weight of comments.

District 3 Commissioner Alicia Edwards said she had learned a lot more about the situation this morning. "I appreciate your ability to manage the forest. The Forest Service is paying a contractor to remove cattle live, so some come out live and others are shot in place. The Livestock Board 'owns' the cows and benefits from them. So what I think I heard you say is the contract could be for lethal means only. Does the contract bind the contractor in such a way that if they shoot an animal in a waterway or by a trail where a predator could endanger a hiker or other user, there a penalty still enough to be a deterrent?"

"We can put it in the contract," Provencio said. "APHIS did shoot some along the waterway. We are two partners working together, so the Forest Service removed those that were near water. We can put anything in a contract. APHIS is using lethal methods. We have continued both live and lethal means of removal. The live removal contract is expiring. I'm not sure what we will do. We are halting that while we go through the NEPA process."

Edwards said she thinks hearing the chair talk about the Wildlife Services contract and the fact that APHIS is using lethal methods in the forest is different. "I think it is important for the public to understand that what we talk about with our Wildlife Services contract and what we are talking about here are different, as this is removing the feral cattle from the forest. If they think it's the same, I would encourage them to listen to your comments in this meeting about what's happening on the forest. It's two different things in my opinion." [Editor's Note: this discussion took place on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dy5q8h8J_Lo from about 26 minutes to about 58 minutes.]

The next article will begin with a discussion on dates for the 2023 Commission meetings and then go into county reports.

For the previous article, please visit: https://www.grantcountybeat.com/news/news-articles/75687-grant-county-commission-holds-work-session-120622-part-1