Showing posts with label Cherry county. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cherry county. Show all posts

07 August 2020

A ‘B’-Word Brief About Beautiful Cherry County

James E. Ducey. June 18, 2020. A ‘B’-word brief about beautiful Cherry County. Grant County News 135(46): 4, 7.

B is a bestest letter to bestow upon Cherry County, a Nebraska space well beyond banal and a beacon that has beckoned many with beguiling features to behold and which cannot be belittled.

This biggest county in Nebraska has more than 3.8 million acres. Its beginnings and subsequent bibliography of prose represented by some of the best and most brilliant writers is beatific.

Back in history, brave warriors bareback on their best buckskins chased bunches of roaming buffalo at one time, using bows and arrows and bone tools to gather natural bounty for winter days when there would be blowing snow blizzards and brutally cold days. There were no buildings.

A land of many grasses beckoned. Brash men from Omaha and North Platte with bravado and a bunch of bucks began brazen efforts that brought Texas beeves to the broad plains of the sand hills, bursting forth a big beef industry. Boys on horses briskly brought big herds to begin a cattle business. Beneath many bluffs, the cowboys with big guns – some loaded with buckshot – rode broncs beside sheltered herds were bugs were boisterous and making every attempt to bite. Meals of bacon and beans came from skillets bright from burning boughs. There was no bunkhouse buffet.

Bullwhackers brought supplies that certainly included bacon and other grub basics for a bland diet.

Burly men with bold brio in local bars and brothels used bullets blasted from barrels of big guns to settle disputes, often after only moments of bickering. They cowboys were boisterous. It was no bother to have a burial beneath a hillside bounded with bunch grass.

Basics of grass and water brought hearty settlers and their belongings for a new beginning, often behind a buckboard or after riding behind the whistle blast of a locomotive driven by essential black nuggets. Often on a bowed and bridled horse burdened with packs of basic supplies, or while breaking a team to pull beyond a bunch of reins as the drover built up the movement to get to the place where they would maybe break some sod. There were families big or small. Perhaps, buried between the canvas and between the board slats what was decided to essential to their bundle of a new life, including some beautiful and notable bibelots.

Women in bonnets walked town boardwalks looking for provisions, perhaps including some warm bread or getting some fine beef from a butcher. Maybe a few shiny pennies were spent to buy a broadcloth to make a dress of special bright colors that could raise the family spirit on a dreary day when there was a basic realization that there would be better times.

Beneath blue sky bunches of country boys gathered at small burgs of board-built havens, wearing ballcaps and carrying bats and gloves. With big swings, bounds with much bravado could make it to each beckoning base.

Amidst the big or little hills and meadows, small boys chased after bugs in the farmyard. Cute little girls wore bonnets as they roamed the ranch yards. There was a whole bunch of land to discover. There was more than once occasion when a bouquet was plucked and taken home to mom in the kitchen.

Basically now in this most beautiful of counties there are many bright basics. Bovines abound and browse the bunches of grasses including the bluestems. Mother cows are within barbed wire spaces. Beefy bulls from the best of the cattle breeds are brought forth and then basically bought with some bucks at some local sale barn. Bouncy and growing are growing baby calves. Then there are the essentials of a branding by a dedicated bunch that includes cowboys and cow girls. Please notice that horses are so essential and their name may start with the letter B.

Bison still roam now even during blinding blizzards or days with blistering heat. Bucks wander and at times avoid a bullet shot. Cottontail bunnies with bravado jump around. Bobcats slink beneath bodacious skies.

During the bountiful season bales of hay get bound with twine by balers. There are bountiful crops of amber waves of grain beneath the basic covers of big rig trailers bouncing along Main street.

There is a bevy of birds including the bluebird and Bobolink, also notable the Brown Thrasher and Brown-headed Cowbird. Grackles can do their best to empty my bank account while eating incessantly at the bird seed buffet. Majestic Bald Eagle soar above and treasure their little ones nestled amidst brought to build their home place using twigs or sticks suited built one at a time atop big tree branches. Binoculars are beneficial to get a bead on a bittern or bland warbler among some bulrushes, as well as many other sorts of biota. When the Great Horned Owl hoots it is a voice of their necessity while the land is dark space where they hunt without being able to see. They listen to bits of sound before swooping down to snag a bit to eat to take back to their babies in a branchy nest nearby.

There are the endangered American Burying Beetle that belay an indication the and Blowout Penstemon are a beatific bit of flora in broad, wind-blown blowouts where particular bugs occur. Or perhaps a bellowing bull frog or Blandings Turtle blending within a wind-blown meadow. Butterflies fly. Even brownish bats echo. A couple of local two local buff bunnies appreciate a basic, local, bird seed buffet without any blandness near the bluebird shack.

It is basically a broad basis for another breeding season, associated with the basics of boundless beginnings well known by nature.

B-places could be the place to be? There is Berry Bridge at the broad Niobrara. Borman Bridge has its own birdly boughs. Ballards Marsh has its own basics of origins. Brownlee has unique chronicles for the black settlement when softballs games were bunches of boys and men running the bases and throwing friendly bards with bawdy back talk. Brush Creek is biologically important because of itty-bitty fish. Anybody can go to Anderson Bridge and see how the beaver have established a hefty mound of mud and branches. Boardman Creek is a reality of times back in time and still now. How about learning via some book or another about the Badger Lake post-office. Big Springs on the North Loup River has its own video broadcast. Bowring Ranch is a special ranch of basic Hereford history and has its own Sunday day when friendly times blossom. Besides there is the Boiling Spring – which also once had a post-office. Buckhorn Spring that bubbles forth beneath hardy pines that have their own bit of sway in the breezes. The buck deer that was the basis for the name is long gone but the reality of the time meant its loss meant its loss was believed and thus the bequeathal of the name. There is Big Creek. Boardman Creek is a basic reality of times and now. What does the name Dipping Vat Meadow belay? Don’t forget Old Baldy Hill where cerulean blue meets sandy brown even when winds are boisterous and seem to be a bit much. The story of Bartlett Richards and the Spade Ranch is a grand story that can be enjoyed by reading a book of many words.

A bailiwick might include bicycling along B Street, shopping a nearby business in the biggest city within the boundaries of the county.

Merritt Reservoir is a beachy blue place for a boat with the basics to build memories for a beautiful day. Besides, there is the basis to bring bait to get a beautiful blue-gill or big-mouth bass near the boat after a delish breakfast or brunch.

Biodiversity is basic in Cherry county. Bioreserves associated with the Niobrara Valley Preserve with its basic herds of big grazers. The broad McKelvie Division of the Nebraska National Forest could be a beginning to beckon a nightly backdrop of beautifully bright stars. Birch boughs along the Niobrara River in the valley bluffs are part of the botany. Breath deep amidst the balmy blowing breezes of many times. There have been billions of billowing clouds bourgeon during a building thunderstorm as they have for centuries.

Don’t forget, there is a bunch of bloviating being done associated with what may not be the best for Cherry County. Brisk is an appropriate word to broach. There are braggarts. Some are brusque, others bumptious, perhaps because of a bureaucracy of bumpkins. Enjoy without bliss and boffo this basic land that does not need to be further bolstered with no bosh. There is no need to burnish because the reality belays some of the bestest of earth!

The history of our beautilicious Cherry county is not blah-blah-blah. It is known and beloved and written about by a bunch of believers that have known brave ancestors and have a belief in sharing essentials of this broad and essentially beautiful place in the world. It is a big land of grass and blowouts and beef and beautiful grasses that nourish.

Phantasmagoric by golly.

06 July 2020

Valentine National Wildlife Refuge - Comments on Proposal to Revise Area Management Regulations

April 14, 2020. Email sent to three staff of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, including Steve Hicks, project leader.

Valentine NWR was established decades ago in the 1930s for the conservation and management of migratory birds and other wildlife. It was not established so taking can occur associated with killing hunts. It is supposed to be a refuge. The proposed change in regulations is a direct attack on the purpose for refuge establishment and continues a trending diminution of the value of these lands for many essential natural resources.

Preferential regulations seem to be more important to the USFWS than the need to make certain that native flora and fauna continue to occur now and into the future for many generations of enthusiasts of the outdoor sandhills.

Conservation of wildlife should be the primary goal so any decision to increase the taking of wildbirds and furbearers needs to be vehemently opposed. This is a decision that should be derived from local conditions, not the spewing of national statistics as indicated in the federal government documents done by federales that do not even reside in Nebraska making forceful decisions. Quit dealing in the need for shootists to wreak death to native wildlife.

Draft Compatibility Determination for Recreational Hunting

Sustainable management and recreational hunting are two sordid twists in language being used by so-called staff responsible for management while promoting a single intent purpose.

“Refuge Purpose(s): The refuge was established by Executive Order No. 7142, August 14, 1935, “... reserved and set apart ... as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife.”

Refuge is not a concept. It is the reality as firmly established when the government pushed to acquire multiple private ranch properties for an indicated purpose. It was not created to provide a place where hunting is a primary promotion.

“This plan proposes to open or expand existing migratory bird hunting from 2,721 acres to 28,918 acres.” [page 1]

How was the proposed increase in acres of area of intent determined? How the need determined? Why was not the entire refuge opened? What were the criteria? No information is given on how this was done with public input. It is very noticeable that most of the areas to be opened are readily accessible highways or improved road, thus making access the easiest of many places. Let them hunt, you will not even have to walk very far. Just stop on the road, hop out and shoot!

“Small Game, Upland Game Bird, and Big Game Hunting Plan” [page 1]

Where is this document, apparently issued in 2019, available? What were the USFWS actions to make certain the public was aware of this plan? How was it implemented? This is public information which should be readily available upon request.

“The NWRSAA mandates” [page 2]

So a national federal bureaucrat decides and local USFWS staff just respond to conform to the demand. Any recent decision is superseded by the original documents that indicate the reason why the refuge was established. The original intent is what is most important and essential to direct management efforts.

“Public Review and Comment:” [page 3]

There have been no public meetings on this matter. The public was given only 22 days to deal with the issued documentation. Also, the USFWS has already issued their pending decision in the Federal Register as of April 8. How sordid that the agency cannot wait until comments were received from the public and suitably considered. This whole effort is a perfect example of federales shoving a decision upon the people of the sandhills and area community that enjoy natural resources without taking by hunting.
“Justification: Based on the anticipated biological impacts above and in the Environmental Assessment, it is determined that hunting of resident game and migratory birds on the refuge will not interfere with the wildlife or habitat goals and objectives or purposes for which the refuge was established.”

How was this determination made based upon facts? Not interference! Interference will occur because of the taking by shootists intent on killing wild life for their so-called sport and all of its associated disturbances. Changes with hugely interfere? Present the facts not opinion. Because one dead snipe interferes with its life. Same for waterfowl and prairie chickens. Let the birds die seems to be a mantra of the USFWS. Protection of the refuge birds should reign supreme on a refuge created for their protection.

This document indicates a preference to allow killing of so many special birds!

Draft Environmental Assessment for Small Game, Upland Game Bird and Big Game Hunting

Please explain how a refuge prepared a document because a refuge does not know how to write? This is the attribution indicated on the title page. Who is responsible for the words? Project leader without any attribution is also not suitably proper! Please explain this obvious lack of a local name!

“1.1 Proposed Action The Service is proposing to expand hunting opportunities across the Valentine National Wildlife Refuge (NWR). The refuge consists of 72,350 acres total (67,828 open for hunting, 2,721 open to waterfowl hunting, 1,801 closed to hunting [see Figure 1]).” [page 3]

Why is the majority of a national refuge proposed to not be not a refuge? Is there not a limitation of place where wildlife can be taken. Refuge indicates safety. To think that this is actually a refuge is erroneous in multiple ways. Some many birds can appreciate a haven but the managing federales agency has decided that shootists will have their way so they can kill and kill anytime during a “season”, but of course they say it is being done in accordance with state regulations.

“Hunting would be expanded for upland game, big game, and migratory birds on the refuge in accordance with the 1999 Valentine NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP).”

These are details from that plan.


“Hunting Objective:
“Provide quality hunting opportunities for waterfowl, deer, prairie grouse, pheasants, dove, and coyote on portions of the Refuge. Limited controlled hunting opportunities for elk will be available if elk are reintroduced to the Refuge.”
“Waterfowl hunting is permitted only in the Watts, Rice, and Duck Lakes areas of the Refuge according to the State's seasons and limits. No counts were made, but it is estimated that about 75 visits were made by duck hunters.
“The Refuge is open to hunting of sharp-tailed grouse and prairie chickens during the State set season that runs from mid-September through December. The Refuge is a popular place for out- of-state, as well as Nebraska, hunters to pursue prairie grouse. Grouse hunters are surveyed via wing collection boxes placed around the Refuge. In 1997, 258 hunter days were recorded through the collection boxes. However, not all hunters participate in the voluntary collection program.
“The Refuge is also open to pheasant hunting during the State set season that runs from the first weekend of November through the end of January. Pheasant hunters made an estimated 100 visits to the Refuge in 1997. This is a large number of hunters considering that bird numbers remain very low.”

There is no indication in the wrongly directed guiding document during historic times that hunting would be permissible for rail, snipe and woodcock. How about partridge? Where are the facts?

Rail occur very rarely in the multitude of bird occurrence report at this publicly owned refuge. Will shootists be allowed to kill King Rail, which are very rare on this land space? Why is that an agency which conveys a mission statement to conserve wildlife resources for citizens of our nation and state is pushing forth a missive of destruction? Virginia Rail, which are regulars on this refuge land, are now facing a visit that can lead to their destruction. How about the ultra rare Black Rail. The same applies to Wilson’s Snipe!

As for the American Woodcock, there is no known record for this species at VNWR. Yet the federal documents issued indicate a season should be opened. Where is the basis of real occurrence for this species’ conservation instead of some decision being made to allow them to be shot? Obviously a decision is being made to kill a rare or phantom species of no known occurrence.

“The primary non-consumptive public use areas of the refuge remain within the Little Hay Wildlife Drive, Fire Tower overlook, and Refuge Kiosks.” [page 7]

How is a kiosk a “non-comsumptive public use” since it is signage. Associated ground is maybe an acre or two.

“We expect the harvest of each of these species to be between 0 to 2 animals per season given the limited suitable habitat or low population numbers within the refuge hunt area. This level of harvest should not have negative effects on the local or the statewide populations of these species.” [table 1]

Rare occurrence is conveyed by findings yet hunters would be allowed to kill any of them during a sanctioned season.

“Given the low number of northern bobwhite quail and gray partridge on the refuge, the number of hunters pursuing these species would be low (less than ten hunters). Incidental take of these birds while hunting other upland game would be estimated at less than one daily bag limit for these species for the year (less than six and less than three, respectively)." [page 13]

What is the population of the so-called "northern bobwhite quail" as derived from facts? Is this some new subspecies that you are indicating as occuring. Having following bird taxonomy for decades, this is a faux indication not based in a reality. There are a very few known occurrences for the area of specificity based upon my bird database for the region. Yet the agency will allow the very few numbers to be killed by shootists.

There is no known record for Gray Partridge in the Valentine Lake District. Yet the regs of some inane fedarales want to open a season. There is absolutely no basis for any decision regarding this species.

“Refuge staff would work in close cooperation with the NGPC in sharing/evaluating/discussing available population and harvest data, making recommendations for regulation changes, and any other actions necessary to ensure that viable populations of resident birds are supported.” [page 13]

How and when and by whom? This is a vague statement with no indication of any reality of agreement or expectation to meet the stated intent.

It needs to be noted that the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission will most likely be supportive of the regulation revisions because they could probably sell more hunting licenses as the state agency can convey there will be a notable increase in hunting opportunities.

“Harvest


The estimated harvest during the 2017/2018 season was lower compared with the five-year average. Mink, raccoon, and opossum showed the greatest decrease (down 64 percent, 36 percent, and 20 percent, respectively). Coyote, muskrat, and bobcat showed an increase compared to the five-year average (up 27 percent, 10 percent, and 7 percent respectively).” [page 14]

What is the basis for these estimated details? Facts are given but there is no attribution. Does it pertain to the world, or maybe just Nebraska, but it is blatantly obvious it does not apply to VNWR since no site specific details are given. Estimates do not suffice.

“Regulated harvest through hunting and trapping seasons is an important management tool needed to control populations and damage that these species can cause.” [page 14]

Has there been any documented damage due to any of these species at VNWR? Indicate the local facts. Estimates convey nothing of any reality.

“Areas of the refuge open to hunting would be increased by about 26,000 acres. Under this alternative, approximately 40 percent of the refuge would be open to hunting with 60 percent of the refuge closed to hunting. The latter would provide 40,000 acres of the refuge where migratory waterfowl would continue to be protected from any hunting pressure and disturbance. This complies with provisions of the refuge’s establishing legislation.” [page 15]

The establishing legislation indicated that the entire refuge be a haven for birds. Now there is an effort to reduce that extent by a rather significant amount. It is absurd how federales twist language. The entire refuge is an inviolate place no matter what some perp in Washington decides. Indicate the language in the original "establishing legislation" that proves it was establishing for any sort of hunting related reason!

“We expect that the harvest of American crows and woodcock would be between zero and two birds due to low interest from hunters (in the case of crows) and low population numbers (in the case of woodcocks). For coots, sora and Virginia rails, common snipe, and American woodcock, we expect that the harvest would be less than the bag limit for each species (15, 10, 8, and 3, respectively).” [page 16]

These are expectations of delusion. The USFWS has no information to provide actual facts whether or not there is even a huntable population. There is no record known that American Woodcock have ever been seen at VNWR.

“Additional hunting opportunities would disperse hunters over a larger portion of the refuge and provide enhanced hunting opportunities. We anticipate that there would be only a small increase in the number of hunters visiting the refuge (two or fewer additional hunters) due to the low population density of north-central Nebraska and abundant public hunting land near the refuge.“ [page 16]

Another statement based upon conjecture not fact. Spread the hunters upon more refuge lands and that means further impacts. Anticipate is an opinion not fact.

“We anticipate minor to moderate beneficial impacts with respect to slight declines in predators of many non-game species; and increased exposure to outdoor experiences that potentially would include observations and educational opportunities related to non-game species.” [page 17]

Anticipation does not convey any sort of reality, but is a vague word being used to promote an agenda. Predators of nongame species? What are they? Perhaps there are predators of non-game species but the given language is tepid at best. The killing of predators will in no way increase the exposure to outdoor experiences. More worthless verbiage. Kill some species and then indicate how that is beneficial to outdoor experiences. Have you heard of the term "balance of nature"?

“Impacts of hunting on listed species, especially using the refuge from September through February, could increase with increased hunting opportunities under the proposed action. However, we would apply mitigation measures mentioned above under this alternative and expect to limit the effects of hunting to acceptable risk levels (minor).” [page 19]

What would be the mitigation measures? When would they be implemented? By whom?

Why wasn’t the very important and iconic Blandings Turtle considered in the EA? More road traffic when the turtles are traveling across the land during autumn movements to find a winter haven might result in greater mortality by these critters getting crushed beneath truck or car wheels. Any lack of consideration for this species is indicative on how this EA is lacking.

“The refuge would continue to engage in habitat management activities during the hunting season to ensure that the refuge meets its other management objective...” [page 25]

What are the management activities that occur during the hunting season? Please indicate the specifics.

“Expanded hunting opportunities could provide improved benefits to the local, regional, and state economy compared to current conditions.” [page 26]

What is the basis for this statement that is given as a fact? This statement needs to be based upon real data not opinion.

“The Service believes that hunting on the refuge would not add significantly to the cumulative impacts of migratory bird management on local, regional, or Central Flyway populations because the percentage likely to be taken on the refuge, though possibly additive to existing hunting takes, would be a very small fraction of the estimated populations.” [page 30]

No decisions should be based upon beliefs. The reality is how the change in regulations will impact local populations which are essential for the overall populations so details need to be specific to VNWR.

Why isn’t the Trumpeter Swan not being considered in the EA? A great expanse of wetland which should be suitable for this species. Few of them are known to occur. This is a species of concern which deserves attention as is has for decades. Will an increase in hunting possibly result in mistaken identity and subsequent deaths? This is an important item which has seemingly been ignored.

Summary

The planned implementation of the indicated regulatory changes is some misdirected missive not based upon any sort of reality and needs to be rejected, now. Make decisions based upon facts not delusional and preferential political actions. The natural resources need to be Number One in importance! There is not even any real indication how management changes might be adapted to nurture populations that will be impacted by further, so supposedly regulated killing. There will be several months during each year when wildlife will be chased so they can be killed for so-called sport.

That a decision has basically already been made with a readily apparent biased view does not respect the input of the public in the process. Any legal maneuver on a federal level should not occur until there is proper consideration given to any public comments. As federales, the USFWS is trampling on the resource and very ready to ignore public comment. There was not even any consideration given to postpone any decisions until a public meeting is properly held at a later time because of this troubling pandemic.

It is very obvious that the measures to be enacted will not be beneficial to the refuge and the reasons for which it was established. For the service to claim it is being done for the sustainability of wildlife populations is a bunch of bureaucratic propaganda. This is simply a ploy to benefit a single group, shootists, some who are like fleas on a hound, pests both not welcomed and not wanted. The preferential attention and consideration being given shows how prejudice is blatantly obvious.

Some associated with a federal whatever service are not focused on sustainable conservation management but will open more lands to the taking of wildlife from refuges that myriads of conservationists consider to be havens for all sorts of flora and fauna. The FWS is absconding the public trust in changing the regulations and simply should not have any role in caring for refuges because of their ignoring the inviolate mandate to ensure an essential resource legacy of all American citizens.

Fort Niobrara National Wildlife Refuge - Comments on Proposal to Revise Area Management Regulations

April 14, 2020. Email sent to three staff of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service including Steve Hicks, project leader.

Number one is the fact that Fort Niobrara as it is now called was established as a bird refuge more than one century ago. This was the single primary mandate. Refuge indicates it was a safe haven for many sorts of wildbirds including prominent game birds. It is very rare in North America to have a refuge place with such a legacy.

To revise management practices to allow the taking of many birds shows an obvious disrespect to the many people that have worked during the past century to protect the site’s natural values. Current mandates for one special use group should not have any priority over the original intent for this game reserve.

Draft Compatibility Determination for Resident Game and Migratory Bird Hunting

“EO 1461 established Fort Niobrara National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) on January 11, 1912, as the “Niobrara Reservation . . . a preserve and breeding ground for native birds.” EO 1642 expanded the refuge on November 12, 1913” ... [page 1]

What part of this executive order does US Fish and Wildlife Service staff not understand? It says preserve and the definition of that word is given in any dictionary. This is the initial indicated mandate and later attempts to revise management to enact preferential uses shows a lack of respect to this legacy. Ongoing revisionary efforts continue to divert from the original reasons the preserve was created and as indicated repeatedly by government documents. Late era documents such as those indicated for 1997 and more recently do not supersede the original order, no matter how bureaucrats make interpretations to suit demands made by special interest groups in more recent years.

“The Service is proposing to expand hunting opportunities for resident game and migratory birds on the refuge in accordance with the Fort Niobrara NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan.” [page 2]

This is a seemingly false statement as the CCP plan of 1997 has this reference to hunting opportunities: “Hunting Objective: Offer a limited, strictly controlled hunting opportunities for elk and bighorn sheep to facilitate removal of herd excess.” Another statement under a Public Use topic option is: The Refuge is closed to hunting” according to one alternative.

There is apparently nothing in the CCP plan that refers to the hunting of migratory birds. Now it seems to be an essential.
A January, 1998 supplementary document for the refuge CCP, further states: “Preserve, restore and enhance the ecological diversity and abundance of migratory and resident wildlife with emphasis on native birds.” The current status for public use hunting was indicated as being closed. One alternative would be to allow guided hunts for elk, deer, bison and bighorn sheep. Once again, no mention made in regards to wild birds hunting or hunting of furbearers.

“Hunting is allowed in the current open hunt area of the refuge; the NGPC established hunting.” [page 3]

How can the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission establish hunting on a federal refuge? Doubtful statement? Besides, the proposed regulation revisions could probably be beneficial to them through the sale of more licenses as they will have an opportunity to convey there are more hunting opportunities.

“As described above, this alternative will expand hunting opportunities in the current open hunt area on the refuge to include hunting of pronghorn, badger, beaver, bobcat, coyote, fox, longtailed weasel, mink, muskrat, opossum, prairie dog, porcupine, rabbit and hare, raccoon, skunk, squirrel, woodchuck, greater prairie chicken, grouse, partridge, pheasant, quail, turkey, waterfowl, dove, crow, rail, snipe, and woodcock. In addition, the refuge hunting program will better align with NGPC hunting regulations. The potential take of most resident and migratory wildlife species open to hunting on the refuge is likely negligible in proportion to regional or state harvest numbers and will not add significantly to the cumulative effects on the various species.” [page 4]

Refuge management should focus on improving conditions for species locally so they can contribute to population status on a regional or national level. The refuge should not be managed to reduce local numbers based upon regional or national numbers. To manage based upon a larger geographic indicates that local populations can be impacted. If everyone managed on a basis of this intent, local populations could be reduced and eventually populations of a large extent would be impacted and likely reduced. Disingenuous rationale prevails here.

Draft Environmental Assessment for Resident Game and Migratory Bird Hunting

“2.1 Alternatives Considered” [page 5]

The reason for the current actions to expand hunting on the refuge is a direct result of a directive by the Secretary of Interior as determined by news reports. It is seemingly not being done at the request of the NGPC, though they may have made requests previously to which the USFW interpreted as to require some compliance.

“State-permitted shotguns shooting non-toxic shot, archery, and muzzleloader weapons are allowed for badger, bobcat, coot, crow, dark geese, dove, duck, fox, furbearer, greater prairie chicken, grouse, long-tailed weasel, light geese, mink, opossum, partridge, pheasant, quail, rabbit and hare, raccoon, rail, skunk, snipe, squirrel, teal, turkey, woodcock, coyote, porcupine, prairie dog, and woodchuck.” [page 6]

It is a federal decision to allow this hunting. New regulations are obviously being modified to comply with state hunting rules season. The EA seems to try to implicate the state agency as being the source of the requested change.

Why does the environmental assessment not indicate the source of given informational details? Any authoritative details need to be attributed to a credible source.

Table 1 indicates a completely problematic potentiality: “Given the near of the refuge’s hunt area to the City of Valentine and limited availability of other public lands in area, we would expect a possible 50 percent reduction in the existing wild turkey population and 50 percent reduction in the northern bobwhite population within the hunt area. Gunfire and associated hunter activity would disrupt bird activity and likely cause dispersal.”

What does “given the near of the refuge’s” statement mean? No decision can be made on these words because they are nonsensical, and which makes the entire statement erroneous.

This is not managed hunting but a decimation. There is no sustainability indicated here. A 50% reduction! Just extirpate local populations. Certainly there are lots of wild turkeys locally, but that does not mean there should be a diminution that could lead to an overall population decline, and which might be detrimental to adjacent landowners.

As for Northern Bobwhite, there is only a limited population in the local area. This is based on particular, documented records of occurrence for Valentine and its immediate vicinity, including just south of FNNWR. To reduce the population to the extent indicated would be a travesty. The proposed alternative has nothing to do with sustainability though the mis-named purpose for sustainability was given in a press release announcing this of a change as issued in public newspapers and online. The expected outcome would be one of the worse instances ever seen locally in regards to acceptable wildlife management practices. Management intents are meant to maintain or increase population of a species … not destroy a local population. Quail deserve protection not destruction.

There are no known records for the Grey Partridge on the refuge. There is only one instance of occurrence in the local region along the Niobrara River of Cherry county and that is from 1982. It is not acceptable for so-called managers of a bird preserve to allow shooting of a particular bird type that is so rare, and actually unexpected. There needs to be a prohibition on hunting this species.

As for the American Woodcock, there is a single known instance on the refuge from 2006 near Buffalo Bridge and in the wilderness area by a bird watcher of intent. Including this species would be another instance where the changes to promote hunting could destroy the very rare occurrence locally. There needs to be a prohibition on hunting for this species.

The environmental assessment is not adequate as it does not even the majestic Trumpeter Swan. It is a species of concern and can occur at the refuge ponds, just to the east at a local pond on private property and also along the Niobrara River. This shows another instance how the EA is not acceptably adequate.

An increase in hunting of game birds can result in accidental killing by hunters. Mistakes are made in the moments when birds flush, resulting in a wrong shot. Hunters will not say anything about this but just ignore it and continue to find a suitable target. This is another reason that there should be no increase in wildbird hunting at Fort Niobrara NWR, a supposed refuge.

What is a “hare” referred to in the proposal. There are no hares in Cherry county nor in Nebraska. This is another false indication given in the indication for a pending regulation change.

There is no indication given for the potential impact of taking by hunting of furbearers. How will the local population be affected? No details given indicate conjecture. This is no acceptable in making any suitable evaluation for the pending regulations.

“While effects to wilderness values and character would be expected to increase because of expanded hunting opportunities and no longer requiring a refuge access permit, refuge visitors would still be required to abide by wilderness area rules, such as the prohibition of motorized vehicles and bicycles.” [page 19]

Effects expected and they would be more than temporary. No passive hiking during hunting season because of the noise and honestly, the threat of being shot. A bird watcher on a hike should not need to wear a hunter orange vest and cap. The expected decision would continue the decline in features of this special area as officially recognized and designated. Once again, refuge management continues the ruination of a place where particular values were known more than a century ago.

A doubling of the number of hunters [page 21]. This would mean reasons for visitors appreciating other recreational activities would be diminished.

“As a result, changes or additions to hunting on the refuge would have minor effects on migratory birds in Nebraska. Although the proposed action alternative would increase hunting opportunities compared to the current action alternative, the slight increase in hunter activity would not rise to a significant level.” [page 30]

This statement is based upon opinion. If there are one or two American Woodcock on the refuge and both are killed by a blast from a shotgun, it would be a long time until a single view of this beautiful bird might be seen again by a bird watcher or someone on a hike. The result does not conform with the requisite bird preserve mandate.

“Expanded hunting opportunities on the refuge could alleviate hunting pressure to wildlife populations on nearby public lands.” [page 31]

Is this a comment based not on fact but rather presumption? What are nearby hunting lands where there are Greater Prairie-Chicken within ten miles? Birds have a home range and upon which they are dependent for their survival. To what other public land species does this apply.

Are these state or federal property? The nearest federal property is miles away so the USFWS seems to want to start making decisions that will influence state or private property where they have no basis for decision making.

“The Service would work with the NGPC to use an adaptive management approach for the hunting program on the refuge.” [page 31]

Hunting has an immediate impact. How shooting sport relate to management is another faux statement. Climate change is related to habitat management, not recreational activities, though of course all facets of concern need to be considered in detail. The EA provides statements which are grasping for pertinence but are included to just convey required regulatory requirements.

“3.4 Mitigation Measures and Conditions Refuge staff would work in close cooperation with the NGPC to share, evaluate, and discuss available population and harvest data, make recommendations for regulation changes, and take any other actions necessary to make sure that viable populations of resident and migratory game species are maintained on the refuge.”

When and how? Statements of this sort need to indicate what is to happen and when. When will the details for this be provided to the public? How has the NGPC said that they agree to this precept.

“3.5 Monitoring inventory and monitoring of wildlife and their habitats would be done on the refuge in conjunction with our state and federal partners.”

Did the refuge staff conduct a migratory bird survey in 2019? When have surveys been done so that information can be indicated that the service is actually doing the survey they claim are being done? Does a survey once every five or ten years suffice?

Please provide further details on the 2018 consultation with NGPC on their request for more hunting opportunities on service lands? Show the facts.

Summary

The proposed regulatory changes should be rejected in their entirety. The proposal as personally considered does not indicate any respect for the legacy of the Niobrara Game Reserve created so long ago by people with vision.

If management trends continue, it seems that the USFWS should bring in center-pivot systems because then maybe could increase populations of preferred species so there can be more taking through hunting. Maybe plant some corn fields to attract pheasants or deer and maybe some elk. Deplorable options.

The proposed change in regulations would open land to taking while other decisions have been made to prevent bird watchers from taking a hike because some refuge spaces are closed to the public. Why? The word that might apply here is paradox.
There has already been enough diminution of the wildbird resources and other natural values through recent years at this first of bird refuges in the U.S.A.

When will the USFWS get back to the basics and take a long-term view that conforms to the original intent of the refuge? It is a necessity that should now be the norm, but alas it is not.

Respect the legacy is impossible since the USFWS has already decided what is going to happen according to information in the Federal Register. The situation is indicative how the agency proclaims a mission statement which does not reflect reality because of false language.
Regulatory action to promote more taking by hunting needs to be delayed until public hearings can be held. It is not acceptable that the proposed changes for the regulations are already issued in the federal register before public comments have been considered.

The USFWS federales are forcing changes based upon false statements and lack of essential consideration.

Birds are a public asset and of great importance. To let some bureaucrats make decisions about our feathered friends is not acceptable because there is too much politics going on. How wrong!

That a decision has basically already been made with a readily apparent biased view does not respect the input of the public in the process. Any legal maneuver on a federal level should not occur until there is proper consideration given to any public comments. As federales, the USFWS is trampling on the resource and very ready to ignore public comment. There was not even any consideration given to postpone any decisions until a public meeting is properly held at a later time because of this troubling pandemic.

It is very obvious that the measures to be enacted will not be beneficial to the refuge and the reasons for which it was established. For the service to claim it is being done for the sustainability of wildlife populations is a bunch of bureaucratic propaganda. This is simply a ploy to benefit a single group, shootists, some who are like fleas on a hound, pests both not welcomed and not wanted. The preferential attention and consideration being given shows how prejudice is blatantly obvious.

Some associated with a federal whatever service are not focused on sustainable conservation management but will open more lands to the taking of wildlife from refuges that myriads of conservationists consider to be havens for all sorts of flora and fauna. The FWS is absconding the public trust in changing the regulations and simply should not have any role in caring for refuges because of their ignoring the inviolate mandate to ensure an essential resource legacy of all American citizens.

28 February 2020

Results of Backyard Bird Count in Cherry County, Nebraska

Four participants contributed to the Great Backyard Bird Count in eastern Cherry county during the long weekend. The primary count sites were the Carolyn and LeRoy Semin ranch just west of Kilgore, the northeast side of Valentine and within Valentine as seen during a ca. three mile bicycle ride, The Quigley bird feeders as an incidental count, and then the Gallino Ranch on the southeast side of Valentine wildlife refuge.

At the Semin place, birds were primarily counted in the morning in association with bird feeders associated with the residence.

On the north side of Valentine, some sighting reports starting on Friday when junco and turkeys were prevalent at a bird seed source. The most prominent observation was five trumpeter swans - three adults and two juveniles which was the largest count for this species at this site in recent years - at the Valentine Mill Pond on Saturday morning. There was also a smaller cackling goose well seen amidst a flock of its larger conjoiners. So many Canada goose were lingering on the ice. Several other birds sorts were prevalent at the North Lake Shore Hills as well as then in Valentine.

House sparrows were busy getting ready for the pending breeding season along Main Street building facades. At least three starlings were also getting involved. A single robin stood on a yard fence post as seen while bicycling about.

More robins had been recently seen at the Semin Ranch in previous days.

From heart city, a red-breasted nuthatch was heard north of the pond on Saturday was an addition to the tally though it was not seen during a count.

Nearby on the north side of town is the well cared-for Quigley bird feeder. Incidental during the count weekend, Anne Quigley had seen chickadees, both the red-breasted and white-breasted nuthatch, downy woodpecker and juncos.

“I really enjoy the birds,” Quigley said. They become notably more prominent once more seed was placed in the feeder during the count weekend, she said.

A summary of the 27 species noted during bird count weekend. Value given is a composite total for the particular site.

Proper Name Semin Ranch, Kilgore North Lake Shore Hills Valentine Mill Pond Valentine City Park Quigley Place, Valentine Valentine Gallino Ranch, Valentine Lake District
American Crow - - 2 1 - - - - - - 15
American Goldfinch 58 - - - - - - - - 8 - -
American Robin - - - - - - - - - - 1 - -
American Tree Sparrow 33 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Black-capped Chickadee 5 - - 4 4 2 1 - -
Blue Jay - - - - - - - - - - 2 - -
Cackling Goose - - - - 4 - - - - - - - -
Canada Goose 106 - - 1425 14 - - - - 50
Common Pheasant - - - - - - - - - - - - 20
Common Starling 3 - - - - - - - - 3 - -
Dark-eyed Junco 29 16 - - 3 3 - - - -
Downy Woodpecker 4 - - 1 - - 1 - - - -
Eurasian Collared Dove - - 3 2 - - - - 6 - -
Great Horned Owl 6 - - - - - - - - - - 2
Greater Prairie-Chicken - - - - - - - - - - - - 20
Hairy Woodpecker - - - - - - 1 - - - - - -
Horned Lark 2 - - - - - - - - - - - -
House Sparrow - - - - 20 - - - - 56 - -
Northern Cardinal - - - - 2 - - 2 - - - -
Northern Flicker 2 - - - - - - - - 1 - -
Red-breasted Nuthatch - - - - 1 - - 1 - - - -
Red-tailed Hawk 1 1 - - - - - - - - - -
Rock Dove - - - - - - - - - - 12 - -
Sharp-tailed Grouse - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Trumpeter Swan - - - - 5 - - - - - - - -
White-breasted Nuthatch - - - - 3 4 1 1 - -
Wild Turkey - - 5 - - - - - - - - - -

Several pictures were taken of the birds that occurred at the Semin place.

Summary of bird counts made each of the four count days at the Semin Ranch.

Proper Name 14 Feb 2020 15 Feb 2020 16 Feb 2020 17 Feb 2020
American Goldfinch 25 16 11 6
American Tree Sparrow 2 10 1 20
Black-capped Chickadee 2 - - 2 1
Canada Goose - - - - 106 - -
Common Starling 2 - - 1 - -
Dark-eyed Junco 10 6 5 8
Downy Woodpecker 1 1 1 1
Great Horned Owl 2 2 1 1
Horned Lark 2 - - - - - -
Northern Flicker 1 - - - - 1
Red-tailed Hawk - - - - 1 - -
Sharp-tailed Grouse - - - - - - - -

Multitudes of other birds were present in the county during the weekend. Nearly all of them were not counted. Warming weather meant ice-free waters at a multitude of lakes where waterfowl congregate.

The bird observations in Cherry county were a small but yet still important part of the worldwide weekend count.
A newspaper article on the results of the count was issued on pages A1 and A2 in the North Platte Telegraph on February 20th, and included two pictures taken by Carolyn Semin. She also posted a few others on her facebook page.

04 February 2020

Palindrome Sunday Outing in Cherry County

A drive through the country on 02/02/2020 followed a route to and from Valentine by traversing Highway 97, the Brownlee Road, through Goose Creek valley and then northward along the South Wood Lake Road to Highway 20 and back to the Heart City.

At Merritt Reservoir, there were a couple of adult Bald Eagles on the southern edge, and they were near to more than 100 Common Mergansers foraging amidst the open water. Just to the south, there was a skitty bunch of Townsend's Solitaire and a few Mountain Bluebird which had been perched but then flew away a distance beyond our view. Further along, along the northern portion of the Brownlee Road, there were a surprising 21 Trumpeter Swan gathered at Packingham Lake, and this was a surprising number.

A next stop was to appreciate the hilltop view of southerly Wamaduze Valley with red angus and a few horses westerly beyond the top of the dunes. There was a view skyscape as well. This spot along the Brownlee Road is always has a nice landscape perspective.

Snowscape of Wamaduze Valley with a view of the horizon on a fine day. It was partly cloudy, the temperature reached 50o and winds were moderate, thus not bothersome!

Snow in a blowout atop a hill on the eastern side of the valley.

The best bird sighting of the day was a Northern Goshawk atop a tree on the Brownlee Flats, near the village of Brownlee. The bird was seen to fly into a cedar planting, so we drove north up another road to see if a better view might occur. The notably large bird then flew and landed on a branch perch. It was given special attention because of its size. Gordon Warrick was able to get a good picture and features of the immature goshawk were especially notable and made it possible to get a positive identification. This species is rare in the area and it has been about two decades since the last record and that was a bird present along the Niobrara River in Cherry county.

Dead Swan in a Meadow

A dead swan was seen in the meadow just north of the South Wood Lake Road, about four miles southeast of the intersection with the Skull Lake Road, and very obvious from the adjacent road. The dead swan was nearly directly beneath the powerlines present. The carcass seemed very fresh with no predation evident and the feathers mostly "normal." The only aberration was the complete removal of all feathers on a portion of one leg. It appears that it was a clean cut, as if it was done using a knife. Perhaps someone had removed a band?

Dealing With Water Along the Brownlee Road

At one spot along this hard-surface county road there was an apparent road repair. There was digging done in the road-side ditch, with the excavated dirt thrown on the adjacent slope leaving a rough surface. No attempt had been made to smooth dirt surface or to ensure suitable growing conditions for native vegetation that could inhibit erosion. A culvert had been placed under the road. These efforts were made to improve drainage of what would be identified as excess surface water.

There had been no effort to smooth the dirt either on the slope of the hillside or along the sides of the ditch. Also the repair of the road surface was very "sloppy." County workers would likely convey the excuse for the condition being the cold weather which would thwart any dirt work due to frozen ground. What ever, further work is needed to ensure the work was done in a more suitable manner.

Along the South Wood Lake Road, there were several places where road conditions were very muddy and the road surface was very rutted with deeper spots having standing water. Where some rock had been spread, the roadtop was still in a deteriorated condition. The situation would certainly make repeated travels along the route a traverse frustrating as it would be wrought with unsafe conditions and causing a great mess on any vehicle, as well as repeated wear on people and equipment. When frozen, it must be a rough ride.

07 October 2019

Afternoon With Heritage Horses of Cherry County

We arrived at the Cherry county ranch after a drive south from Valentine. Myself and Gordon Warrick were on an outing to get pictures of some classic, heritage features horses.

The afternoon started with a real treat. Barb made a wonderful dinner of meat loaf, lettuce salad topped with bits of bacon, a zucchini salad, warm biscuits and mashed potatoes.

Then to top it off, we got homemade apple pie topped with ice cream. What a grand lunchtime meal. Table talk included industrial wind turbine activity, the repulsive powerline and butterflies.

Having been here previously the meal continued to the high standards of cattle country culinary cooking.

A bit before 2 p.m. we went to work. A portion of the Foundation Quarter Horses needed to get their picture taken. They had been gathered earlier and were ready in a pen. These are horses with a bloodline based upon heritage of the early days of quarter horses. This herd has a bloodline that is about more than 97% representative as having been bred to improve the bloodline since the mid 1990s.

It was an unusually fine day. The sky was clear. There was no wind. The temperature was also quite nice.

One horse at a time was separated and then moved around in a separate pen in order to get a suitable picture, with Gordon and Mary moving them around to get a suitable perspective. Dan and Leroy were keeping track of details. Each of the horses have a pedigree and details indicated thereon were used to establish the identity of each horse.

There were a dozen horses considered. Records kept included its type such as gelding, etc., along with color and when born.

Things went well as a team getting the horse in and getting a “pose-like” stance.

Afterwards Gordon and I ventured westward to try to find a herd stallion named Mr. Poco Blakburn. He was wandering amidst the hills and was not seen.

Upon returning to the barn and stock pens, further consideration was being given to the identification details of the horses that got their picture taken. Eventually this task was finished and it was time to move the horses back to the pasture. Three riders including Leroy, Mary and Mark mounted up. The ranch dogs, including Daisy, ended their respite and also came along.

This move was considered as the sun light was right and the horses would be suitably heading southward so they would be moving forward and that would facilitate picture taking.

There were images captured as the stock left the pen, moved through a meadow and then across the North Loup River. Some great pictures were taken as the small herd crossed the river.

Us two photographers then ventured westward again but could still not find the herd stallion in its pasture.

It was a beautiful day with beautiful horses in a beautiful country with great hosts. What a special and unique start for the autumn season.

Mark, Mary, Leroy, Dan and Gordon.

Quarter horses after crossing the North Loup River.

06 September 2019

Emergency Meeting Held to Discuss Closed County Road Conditions Due to Flooding

August 29, 2019. Grant County News 135(5): 1, 3.

An emergency meeting was held by the Cherry County commissioners on August 22 to discuss the condition of county roads damaged by high water conditions.

A first action taken to allow accepting road work proposals without going through a bidding process was unanimously passed by the three commissioners.

Next was a discussion of problem areas and potential sources of funds. The budget for road work is currently depleted county wide.

Information considered included a preliminary list compiled by county staff indicating more than 120 locations where roads had been damaged by the storm. An estimated cost of repair was indicated at more than $1.2 million.

Starting the discussion was Gary Weaver of Emergency Management explaining the outcome of a survey with staff from the Federal Emergency Management Agency. During August 12-16 there were 1600 miles driven to determine particular details of work necessities that may be eligible for federal assistance. Locales were evaluated, distances measured and problems identified. Pictures were also taken.

Results of the FEMA review are expected to be available to county officials very soon for their review.

During this time, Lloyd Smith, roads supervisor checked places with staff from the Nebraska Department of Transportation and others to evaluate other places which might be eligible for federal aid. Examples mentioned were near Valentine NWR, south of Wood Lake and in the Goose Creek country.

Federal aid is provided on a cost-share of 80-20 with the 20 percent the amount the county would have to fund.

The extent of road places with problems has continually changed following the “bomb cyclone” storm in March. Locales were fixes had been made deteriorated again following extensive rains in the southern part of the county in late July. New problems also became evident.

Information considered included a preliminary list compiled by county staff initially indicated 124 locations where roads had been damaged storm events. An approximate cost of repair was about $1.2 million.

The county has 1,405 miles of roads, according to NDOT information.

A majority of these roads have been affected by water conditions, officials said.

Roads within the county are classified three ways by county officials: 1) arterials and secondary 2 and 3 (including minimum maintenance) for all others. Roadways and locales where access is basically not available will receive priority, according to the commissioners.

An initial list of 14 especially notable locales has been reduced to seven road closure locations in mid-August. Numerous other roads may be passable to a lesser extent but will require additional work to allow semi-truck traffic.

A discussion was then held to determine which problem sites need particular, basically immediate attention, and where private contractors may be hired to facilitate completion of the repairs needed.

An initial list of 14 especially notable locales has been reduced to seven road closure locations in mid-August. Numerous other roads may be passable to a lesser extent but will require additional work to allow semi-truck traffic.

In eastern Cherry county some of the priority locales include West Wood Lake road and Plum Creek Road.

Repair of the Kennedy Road west of the refuge was nearing completion by a private contractor during mid-August. Final work would include mulching and seeding where dirt work occurred along the road shoulder. The approximate cost of repair was indicated to be $225,000 on the road problem list.

Work to address conditions through west Dry Valley has progressed well and was indicated to be nearly complete.

A priority locale is along the North Whitman road within the immediate vicinity of the Henderson Road intersection and a mile to the west.

The Survey Valley Road continues to have its surface rocked so it can be traversed.

Two other problematic places include the North Ashby Road from Alkali Lake north for five miles. The biggest apparent problem is deep holes that inhibit transit. One rancher said that if these holes were filled that would be very helpful to improve travel possibilities.

Access is constricted along the Carver Road east of the Huffman Ranch, it was explained at the meeting. There is apparently no large truck access. Cleaning of ditches and culverts were mentioned as options to improve conditions.

West of the Fawn Lake Ranch headquarters was said to also be very problematic. There are ranches in this area where there is no public road access. Discussion ensued that conveyed the possible need to change the alignment of a portion of the roadway.

At Steverson Lake WMA the rise of water has constricted the width of the road. There are also concerns that the current conditions might undermine the remaining right-of-way and create a danger. Perhaps the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission could assist in addressing the situation, one commissioner said.

With the extent of work needed more than one contractor may be required, according to commissioner comments. It is also possible that temporary workers might be hired to help complete tasks in a quicker manner.

Currently, there is no amount available to indicate the extent of costs to restore county roads to a condition prior to the bomb cyclone and subsequent rainfall events. The commissioners agreed that repairs would not be completed before the end of 2019.

There were ten county residents present at the public meeting. Their opportunity to comment was restricted, based upon an edict statement by a commissioner.

Ranch women and men are increasingly concerned about the condition of essential travel routes. Reasons indicated include the essential requirement to transport livestock on large semis, hay and seasonal feed may need to be trucked in, difficulty for students to get to school, access for emergency services and not having mail delivery.

There are problems of land access to even drill a well, a local business man explained during an ancillary phone conversation.

In some situations, where feasible, temporary trails through the upland hills are being used to bypass problematic spots, with some residents needing to drive across the hills just to get anywhere. Also, some ranchers are required to drive many miles around to reach another portion of their ranch. Some ranchers have used short-distance cattle drives across neighboring land to move stock to alternate pasture or to a spot suitable for their shipment.

State Highways

In other roads matter, NDOT staff indicated on the 22nd that the depth of water – about 20 inches - along Highway 97 continues to be problematic. Since the problem area is within a closed basin, it is hoped that natural processes will occur and result in a reduction of water depth. This major highway continues to be closed as it has been for months.

Water over Highway 83 at Toms Lake on the Valentine NWR continues. Vehicle travel is limited to one direction at a time as controlled by traffic lights.

Effort to Make Cherry County Flag

August 28, 2019. Effort to make Cherry county flag. Valentine Midland News 48(14): 10. Letter to the editor.

Having recently realized a big interest in flags of various sorts, an effort was made to determine if Cherry County had its own flag. Apparently there is not one, after searching online details, so a project was started to devise something properly symbolic.

Several design options were considered, with input from some county residents. A final design was eventually selected, manufactured and recently received after working with a local company that provided great service.

The 3x5 foot flag readily but simply conveys several appropriately notable features in a realistic manner:

  • An overall background color to convey the idea of sand, as in sandhills.
  • A red colored frame to indicate the county boundary.
  • Two sets of six stars to represent 66 which is the number shown on county license plates, and also to refer to the dark skies of a vast landscape.
  • An oval bordered with rope in respect to a primary tool used on the range by cattle men and women for so many decades.
  • A cow-calf pair because Cherry County has one of the largest number of them in the U.S.A. No particular breed was depicted because there are a many types of quality cattle present here.
  • A windmill to recognize the availability of ample and high-quality water for stock and wildlife.
  • Two representative birds because county lands are a haven for avifauna.
  • A few little pollinators are shown because they are also an essential aspect of county biodiversity.

The flag was made so the view is the same from either side.

Only five flags were purchased due to the cost, so each is now an immediate collectible. A flag was donated to both the office of the Cherry County assessor and the Valentine Public Library to ensure they could be freely seen by the public.

Examples of “county and municipal flags of Nebraska” can be viewed by searching the internet using the term in quotes. There are several counties adjacent to Cherry County which also do not have an officially designated flag to convey pride for a homeland.

13 August 2019

Dark Sky Reserve Would be a Boon to Cherry County

August 7, 2019. Dark sky reserve would be a boon. Valentine Midland News 48(11): 14. Letter to the editor.
Dear Editor,

The vividly dark skies of the sandhills are dramatically obvious upon looking above and a prime reason why the annual Nebraska Star Party is held at Merritt Reservoir in Cherry County. This is also why there is an effort underway to establish an internationally recognized dark sky park at the reservoir.

This is a wonderfully laudable goal.

Recognition of the dark skies of the region can also be expanded to the adjacent Samuel R. McKelvie National Forest which comprises 116,000 acres of Forest Service property. It is a perfect setting of dark skies above predominant prairie and some groves of planted trees. This place seemingly has only a single light associated with the former ranger station. There are improved roads that provide great access. Camping is available at the Steer Creek campground and there are facilities for horses so it is well suited to outdoor recreation.

Adjacent properties that could contribute to the recognition area include Anderson Bridge WMA (137 acres) and Chat Canyon WMA (418 ac.). At the northeast corner of the forest is a tract of Bureau of Educational Lands and Funds comprising 7600 acres that is leased for cattle grazing.

No lights at any of these spaces.

To the east are parcels associated with the Snake River Preservation Group, the Prairie Club and The Ranch golf courses which might also be considered.

There are also nearby large ranch expanses that could perhaps be included?

Designation of these various locales as a combined dark sky reserve would be a boon to Cherry County and a simply wonderful addition to tourism resources that are an obvious economic benefit. This is a unique opportunity.

Sky watching can be really fun is someone is interested in watching meteor showers while enjoying the night-view of constellations or to get a really fine view of super moons rising above a native prairie or a pine-clad vantage in the Niobrara valley.

18 April 2019

Cedar Tree Removal to Continue in Vicinity of McKelvie Forest

April 11, 2019. Additional funding to help rid of red cedar trees. Grant County News 134(37): 1, 4.

Ongoing efforts to get rid of invasive red cedar trees at the eastern extent of the Samuel R. McKelvie National Forest will continue in earnest with a recent approval of additional funding.

The overall cost of clearing cedars from 2600 acres along Steer Creek is $250,000. Four partners will now be providing funds, including the U.S. Forest Service ($129,000), Nebraska Environmental Trust ($100,000 as approved at their April 4th meeting), Ducks Unlimited ($16,000) and the Rainwater Basin Joint Venture Group ($5000). DU is the project sponsor, having submitted the grant request.

“We are very excited to get the funding and move ahead with this multiple-partner project on Steer Creek,” said Angelina Wright of Valentine, representing Ducks Unlimited, the primary project sponsor.

“Steer Creek’s riparian habitat and surrounding grassland provides quality stopover and nesting habitat for waterfowl,” said Wright. “The area, however, has been degraded due to eastern red cedar encroachment.”

The goal of the project is to ensure its habitat remains intact not only for the benefit of waterfowl, but also for other flora and fauna, as well as the public.

“Residents and non-residents utilize this public land for both recreational and grazing activities and this project will improve the quality of this public use area,” Wright said.

McKelvie Forest is the largest publicly owned tract of land in the Sand Hills.


Land tracts where cedar eradication work has been, or will be completed, in the vicinity of McKelvie Forest. Image from grant application submitted to the Nebraska Environmental Trust.

The pending tree removal will be a continuation of work on forest lands, Nebraska lands, private property and land managed by the Board of Educational Lands and Funds. These projects are associated with the eastern extent of Steer Creek and the Snake River below Merritt reservoir.

Efforts to eradicate unwanted cedar trees began in 2001 on a 7600 acre BELF tract along the Niobrara River and southward along the eastern edge of the forest land. Between then and through 2019 there will have been $352,929.50 dollars spent, with $225,634 in cost share with the Nebraska Forest Service and USDA EQIP program, according to Kelly Sudbeck, BELF spokeswoman in Lincoln. Agency cost has been $127,292.50.

“We view cedar tree removal as required maintenance, so our goal by removing trees is to actually maintain the value of our property,” said Sudbeck.

“Were we to allow a total infestation of cedars, the value of our property would most certainly be negatively affected. We focus on maintenance, therefore our goal is to maintain our rent, which requires that we control cedars, similar to any other invasive species.”

Nearby, the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission partnered with the Wild Turkey Federation to remove many cedars from the Niobrara River floodplain at Anderson Bridge WMA. This opened up the landscape increasing the native vegetation, as well as providing a nice walking route rather than a situation of hampered travel through dense branches of cedars.

Along the Snake River, the agency has had tree removal done on about 1000 acres owned by private landowners with property along the river valley. Removing the cedars has improved water quality since rather than runoff from bare ground, a ground cover of grasses limit the extent of soil erosion, according to details associated with considerations by people and agencies paying the bill.

The Forest Service completed work in 2016 on another tract of 2600 acres in 2016, and located just to the south of the pending project area.

“The Steer Creek corridor is the largest riparian system within the Samuel R. McKelvie National Forest,” said Julie Bain, district ranger for the Forest Service. “Maintaining its ecological integrity is important to the agency, as well as the wildlife that call this system home. Because this project builds on the larger complex of efforts by multiple organizations and private landowners, it serves to protect the project footprint, but also discourages cedar encroachment into adjacent intact pastures and previously completed project areas.

“Grassland birds are in rapid decline range-wide; cattle grazing acres can be reduced by heavy cedar encroachment; public use of these lands is meant to reflect an intact system and the wildlife that system supports. Through these efforts, all of the above have been addressed – wildlife, cattle grazing and public user experiences,” Bain said.

Cedar removal would also be beneficial for the Steer Creek Research Natural Area, established in 2012 and just to the west of the project area. This grassland and riparian area would thus not be threatened by any encroachment of unwanted invasive trees.

With the NET funding now available, a request for bids will soon be issued. Once a contractor is selected, work will commence depending upon their availability.

We want to get the work done on a “timely basis,” and hopefully have it underway by late summer or early autumn, said Greg Wright, of the forest service.