Craters of the Moon Administrative History

Chapter 6:
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

Resource Management At Craters Of The Moon:
NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT: GRAZING

By far the most protracted issue, trespass grazing, mostly by sheep, has plagued monument managers nearly from the area's inception. The place of contention lies in the foothills of the Pioneer Mountains in the north unit; this environment possesses Little Cottonwood Creek drainage (source of the monument's administrative water supply), traditional grazing lands, and lush vegetation: native grasses, Douglas fir, aspen, and other riparian plant life. The monument did not inherit the grazing problem upon its establishment. The original legislation included only what might be termed "worthless" grazing lands south of the foothill country. But with the enlargement of the monument in July 1928, Craters of the Moon acquired more than two thousand acres of hill country for its administrative water supply and with this lands grazed by livestock. And so began a long history of mitigation policies for trespass grazing.

Roots of Controversy

Expansion, among other things, incorporated the Little Cottonwood Creek drainage to secure an administrative water supply. The grazing issue was connected generally with this expansion and specifically with the water system land exchange. The monument's enlargement and the resolution of private holdings incited protests from some livestock interests who questioned the intentions of the Park Service and its encroachment on the "public domain," and more important, its policy regarding grazing in the new area. Throughout the settlement of private claims in the late 1920s and early 1930s, the controversy boiled down to clarifying the Park Service's grazing policy at Craters of the Moon, specifically in the northern unit.

A major source for the controversy has been the boundary. As the management of the mule deer herd and poaching demonstrates, the northern boundary was not drawn to conform to topography but rather the grid pattern of township and range. Instead of following the hydrographic divide--or ridgelines--and therefore being readily apparent, the border runs a seemingly arbitrary course up and down the northern slopes. This poses a particular problem for the prevention of livestock grazing, since sheep and cattle unless restrained by attentive herders or sturdy fences will roam at will in search of greener pastures. Due to the boundary and the fact that federally administered and privately owned grazing lands abut the monument, trespass occurs. The Park Service boundary invited this type of controversy because the lands involved were at one time part of the open range and also part of a seasonal sheep migration route.

The First Grazing Policy: The Stock Drive Path

On October 5, 1929, Custodian Robert Moore notified the Washington office that stockmen had used the grass on Sunset and Grassy Cones prior to the monument's 1928 expansion, and had "trailed through that way" for years driving their sheep from winter to summer range and points of shipment in the Wood and Lost River regions. Because of this precedent, Moore recommended that the Park Service designate a driveway to accommodate this activity, covering virtually the entire northern unit. [80]

Amenable to Moore's suggestion, the Park Service responded on October 24 stating that it was willing to make an exception to its general policy of grazing prohibition in national monuments and parks "in view of the conditions at Craters of the Moon there would appear to be no objection to permitting sheep men to drive their flocks through the monument area, though it would be unwise to permit them to graze on Grassy and Sunset Cones and other areas while en route." [81] The one requirement was that all stockmen receive prior permission and that the stock move through "uninterrupted."

Since Moore's conception of a stock drive path covered most of the northern foothills, he believed that no "officially" designated path was warranted. None had been established during the years of open range. As long as livestock owners directed their flocks along the north half of Sections 25 and 26, the Park Service could in fact allow for seasonal passage and grazing to continue. The northern unit had been acquired more for its water source than its volcanic phenomena, the custodian reasoned, showing a bias for grazing interests and a limited understanding of the importance of the area's vegetation for sustaining wildlife populations. Sheep confined to the northern foothills would not "destroy any of the scenic points of interest." [82] On November 11, 1929, the Washington office agreed to authorize grazing, by permit, on the lands recommended by Moore, including all of Section 27.

Yet this policy was short-lived. The following year, on May 12, the Park Service permitted the first and last stock owners to graze on monument lands during this period, authorizing the Martin Brothers to run three hundred head of sheep on the north half of Sections 25 and 26, and 34, and all of 21, 22, and 27. However, it soon became apparent that this "limited" grazing policy would not be effective because it excluded other livestock owners with interests in the northern unit. One of these parties was the Arthur Brothers who owned an eighty-acre parcel of land. The Arthurs, and any other land owners grazing in the monument, were stranded, their operations precluded by government lands surrounding their holdings in which grazing was prohibited. After Custodian Moore informed the Arthurs of this fact and that they could no longer water their sheep on monument land, they alerted Idaho Representative Addison T. Smith. Smith urged the Park Service to reach some type of settlement--either exchange the lands or grant the Arthurs permission to use the water. The Service notified Smith that "we would be glad to negotiate an exchange of lands and get the necessary authority in law therefor." [83]

As part of the water system's development, the Park Service was trying to acquire private lands in the northern unit, and the grazing issue seemed to give it some leverage in the negotiations. Yet, as the Arthur case showed, there were possible political repercussions involved that might risk successful land acquisitions and by association the water line's construction. The Service, for instance, had renewed the Martin permit on October 12, 1930. Yet less than a week later, Custodian Moore requested that Edward B. Arthur be given the Martin permit instead since the water line needed to run across the Arthur holdings, and a grazing permit might help negotiations. Realizing that this kind of favoritism could only hinder rather than assist the situation, the Washington office decided that the grazing policy was headed in the wrong direction. And at this juncture, it clarified its position, stating to Moore on October 23 that we were "very much opposed to encouraging grazing of sheep in the monuments...." For this reason the agency rescinded all grazing in Craters of the Moon, beginning in 1931. The agency did, however, reach a compromise. Sheep drifting into the northwestern corner of the monument would be tolerated temporarily, "without any recognized rights under permit which might later be pointed to as a precedent." [84]

Not all ranchers accepted the news lightly. Some believed that monuments should allow grazing as a general rule, even though parks did not. In January 1931, Thomas C. Stanford, president of the East Side Blaine County Grazing Association, protested against the Park Service's "exclusionary" policies toward grazing at the monument. First, the 1928 expansion withdrew valuable grazing lands, lands that did not contain any "scenic wonders," and second, the bill to exchange private lands within the monument to complete the water system, H.R. 15877, threatened to remove more lands from the public domain and undermine the livestock industry. Stanford tried to enlist the support of the Idaho congressional delegation, Representative Addison Smith and Senator John Thomas, to defeat or amend the bill to ensure that grazing would continue within the monument. Smith, who sponsored the legislation, ignored Stanford's pleas. But Thomas, trying to help the rancher's cause, ended up supporting the bill, because Director Horace Albright assured him that it would not infringe on grazing interests. [85]

In order to see the exchange bill pass in February 1931, Albright was willing to commit to an agreement on the grazing issue. For this reason, it seems, he was somewhat equivocal about the agency's policy for the monument. He related to the senator that the Service did not reject grazing within the national monuments as long as it did not interfere "with the purposes for which the monument is established." Restrictions, therefore, applied in some instances, but the Park Service, he underlined, has always attempted to cooperate with livestock owners and issue grazing permits when within policy guidelines. [86]

It was clear after the legislation passed that Albright and his agency had no intention of changing the grazing policy set down in 1930. Although Stanford and his fellow association members wanted grasslands in the northern unit designated for grazing or excluded from the monument for this purpose, the Park Service reiterated that no grazing would be permitted. This type of use was simply not compatible with the monument's purpose. Only authorized seasonal sheep crossing and drifting--within reason--would be allowed. The Service justified this position claiming that it had not intentionally acquired prime range lands which did not hold volcanic phenomena and thus not meet the monument's purpose. The watershed was important to the area's administrative purposes; the forage for intensive grazing was minimal (as was water), and the hill country supported wildlife--namely mule deer--with which grazing would interfere. In the 1930 season alone, an estimated fifty thousand "drifted" through the monument, migrating to and from the Wood and Lost River Valleys, as well as from Minidoka, along the lower Snake River region, in the process trampling and overgrazing monument vegetation. [87]

Left to be resolved was the establishment of a stock driveway. Whereas Custodian Moore did not find it necessary to lay out and officially designate one, his successor Burton C. LaCombe did. LaCombe, veteran Yellowstone buffalo keeper, assumed the custodianship in late May 1931 and immediately touched off a controversy with livestock owners when he ordered an unauthorized herd of three thousand sheep off the monument's northern foothills. Up until this point, the grazing policy was somewhat informal; large bands of sheep were driven across the monument to other ranges, and many lingered feeding on monument grass. For example, the owner of the expelled herd, Grover Newman from Jerome, Idaho, confronted LaCombe about his authority to order him off the northern range. Undaunted, the custodian informed Newman that he was enforcing National Park Service regulations that excluded grazing and unauthorized livestock crossing. Newman lodged a complaint with Senator Thomas "to find out what the trouble was." [88]

On May 28, the senator and Thomas Stanford, representing the grazing interests, inspected the northern section with Custodian LaCombe. Stanford told Thomas, who was mediating the event, that he wanted a stock drive two miles wide. LaCombe countered with a quarter-mile path, which Stanford rejected. The custodian, however, stood by his proposal; two miles covered most of the northern unit, which he claimed would only result in grazing of the entire area. As far as he was concerned, the monument was better off without any type of grazing, in transit or otherwise. Neither the range nor water resources of the north unit would support large numbers of sheep, and the monument's purpose was better served by protecting its watershed and promoting wildlife through the habitat protection. LaCombe informed Director Horace Albright that the Park Service could overcome any opposition to his decision because it was largely a regional versus local issue. "The local people that have sheep close by do not want or rather do not trespass on the monument, it is only the migratory sheep from southern Idaho going to their summer range, that did stop and graze at all on the monument." [89]

Although Stanford and Thomas disagreed with LaCombe, Albright supported his custodian's recommendations in a June 12, 1931 letter to the senator. According to the director, the grazing policy was set; seasonal grazing was excluded, but authorized sheep could be taken through the monument "with reasonable dispatch" across a quarter-mile path, three and a half miles long, following "an old wagon road," Goodale's Cutoff. [90]

LaCombe helped solidify the monument's grazing policy by designating the stock drive path and working to limit trespass grazing. But the real measure of the custodian's role and the policy itself came from weathering Senator Thomas' threats of damaging the agency's support in Idaho because of its treatment of grazing interests. [91] As LaCombe had predicted, the Park Service countered any negative publicity by currying public support in the local communities of Arco, Hailey, Blackfoot, and Idaho Falls, excluding Carey where Stanford's grazing association was headquartered. LaCombe's approach, urged by Albright, was to convince civic leaders that grazing would degrade the monument and hinder the development of tourism. The custodian not only met with community leaders, he also joined their ranks in a public relations strategy, becoming a member of various clubs such as the Lions Club, the Arco Commercial Club, and the Idaho State Automobile Association of America. Since those opposing grazing restrictions were a minority and outsiders, and since the local communities valued tourism and the monument as a scenic attraction, they supported protection and development of Craters of the Moon. In late 1931, Albright lauded LaCombe's "very fair and tactful handling of the grazing problem" and his development of "public sentiment" to support the monument's policy. Although Senator Thomas and Stanford pressed their case for several more years, they eventually gave up, the Service riding the crest of positive public opinion for its policy. It was a policy that lasted, for the most part, until the 1970s. [92]

The Policy Evolves

As an issue, trespass grazing remained a manageable problem in the forty years following the establishment of the monument's policy. A paucity of evidence exists to detail how well the drifting and driveway practices operated. It can be assumed that conflicts were present, replaying similar problems encountered early in the monument's administration. For example, in August 1952 Acting Superintendent Robert Zink reported that confrontations with a local sheep herder led to the resurveying and marking of the northwest boundary. [93] Policy, then, involved showing the boundary to herders and threatening legal action if they did not secure permission prior to driving their sheep across the monument. The boundary, however, provided little deterrent to trespass.

But as with any management program, enforcement rests with the superintendent and his interpretation of the situation. In September 1963, Superintendent Daniel E. Davis faced a common grazing and administrative problem.

The urge for bright lights and muscatel apparently overpowered all of the local sheep herders at about the same time. Four flocks of 600-1000 head each were abandoned just outside the Monument and were "on their own" most of the month. The pristine grasslands and permanent streams drew all of them immediately onto the Monument. So much time was spent herding sheep that we had urgent need for either a Basque ranger or a horse. For most of the period it was impossible to unscramble the ownership--once determined--the owners were given an ultimatum to keep their sheep out or go to court. [94]

Davis, in spite of this chaos, believed that no change in policy was warranted. The owners responded quickly and responsibly to his calls. In fact, he had no quandary with livestock on the monument, provided that herders utilized the north unit as a driveway. It represented critical seasonal crossing for pasture change; the crossings took place twice a year and lasted, usually, less than a day. The superintendent believed it was only fair to let sheep owners use the drive path, yet if there had been a realistic solution to keeping sheep out, he would have employed it. [95]