Monthly Archives: July 2012

BLM’s Hatred Toward Americans and Taxpayers Remains Costly

The element of a government agency, in this case the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and a sub-agency of the Department of the Interior (DOI), and their employees apparently despise taxpayers, remains a hateful situation in need of a fix.  Why the hate and animosity toward taxpayers has been allowed to go on, unchecked by government authority, is unknown.  It remains quite obvious this situation a bit more than just lack of consideration toward taxpayers, as their response toward taxpayers most often is a flippant and filled with animosity of the nature of a “Taxpayers Can Go to Hell” attitude.

History BLM and Litigation

Proof?  History shows BLM as the “Most” legally active and sued government agency in history.  Billions of dollars a year are paid by taxpayers for BLM employees and their attorney’s to file and adjudicate their irresponsible and incompetent behavior.  Most often, that is 98% of the time, BLM files a loss or settles out of court those same cases.

Indeed cases such as this, “A federal lawsuit filed Tuesday in Las Vegas claims the Bureau of Land Management violated federal environmental and American Indian cultural laws when the agency approved a wind energy project near Great Basin National Park. . .”

This is normal for BLM and within their management decision-making process.  The litigation cost taxpayers in the millions of dollars for this one.  Multiply this by hundreds of other cases (not exaggerating what so ever) over the years and you will simply obtain a small perspective of what these unnecessary lawsuits cost to taxpayers.

Robust legal actions continue as BLM employee behavior being incompetent at best; whereas conclusive, one must consider their qualifications toward managing our Public Lands!  “WWP Files Two New Lawsuits Against The BLM in S.E. Oregon and Central Idaho.”2

“The lawsuit alleges that the BLM failed to consider alternatives to livestock grazing before issuing permits and took action before environmental reviews were completed. The agency also failed to comply with the Challis Resource Management Plan, adopted in 1999, by allowing livestock turnout on Burnt Creek when range improvements were not functional or properly maintained.”2

Again, this type of legal action is not a rare situation, as a matter of fact it is, as already pointed out, a normal circumstance for what one considers “allowable” by BLM employee’s standards (i.e. legally questionable), and certainly with no attention toward common sense or competent land management values or principles.  BLM’s legal knowledge appears to be non-existent, or profoundly incompetent, as history suggests quite adamantly.

Yet, this not only costs taxpayers in the billions of dollars yearly, but remains detrimental to our environment, which is our living biosphere; the taxpayers receive nothing but destruction, public lands are trashed by at best awkward and incompetent decisions, and in some cases have been shown as dangerous to visit.  Special interrests and corporations profit on our loss, constantly.

Wildlife on the Endangered Species List or those close to extinction, have also been eliminated due to bad decision making and bad management decisions based on this same contempt toward taxpayers, and BLM / DOI tendency to favor lobby groups, corporations, or special interests.  This becomes quite costly to both taxpayers, in the billions of dollars yearly, and wildlife, to their death or extinction.

Here is another example, but make no doubt there exist many, many more.  “Today, Judge Winmill ruled, July 12, 2012, in our favor on these two test cases, holding that BLM violated the National Environmental Policy Act and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act in issuing the RMPs for Craters of Moon and Pinedale. Specifically, BLM violated NEPA in refusing to consider reductions in livestock grazing in the RMP for Craters of the Moon and in failing to consider how energy development will impact sage-grouse in combination with livestock grazing in the Pinedale Field Office. BLM also violated FLPMA by disregarding its own National Sage-Grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy and Sensitive Species Policy in issuing the new RMPs.”3

This legal action, as many others, cost the taxpayers of this nation in the millions for BLM to defend against an ill-advised environmental action.  It is fraught with incompetence, narrow in management scope if existing at all, and developed for specific special interest groups, corporations, at taxpayer expense.  This situation, as the many others, simply should not have happened under sound management based on good and truthful research.

BLM and Their Response Simply Flawed

The BLM’s response is not good enough to pass creditability of any type, especially in regard to expenditure of taxpayer’s money.  Although BLM employees attempted an explanation in “The Law Wranglers: How Litigation Impacts Public Land Management.” The explanation fails in not only proper legal attributes, but awkwardly, and unaware by the BLM author, shows exactly the things mentioned in this article, which are incompetence and those that should be paying attention, simply do not do so!

Awkward also is the fact that “if” they want to pay attention to the legal aspects of land management, then why would they not acknowledge the law to avoid litigation, which the BLM simply ignores the law constantly.  Many of the legal actions taken against BLM is due to BLM not abiding by law, or even more often – not abiding by BLM policy!

So even the article “The Law Wranglers:. . .” becomes rhetoric, and to pointedly make it appear BLM abides by those same laws, the history shows that to be ridiculous and a lie.  Then to attempt to say, historically, the legal process was brought about by antiquated laws and to fulfill land use policy changes is simply a grade-school attempt at a lie.

The history of BLM shows overwhelmingly a Bad Management principle that profoundly exists today.  Decision after decision and lawsuit after lawsuit when researched demonstrates no understanding of land management or terrestrial biology basics what so ever, and ignoring present ethics, laws, and policy of their own making.

Good decisions are not made by adapting to political agendas or manipulated research.  It is that simple, and costs very little or nothing at all to recognize the truth.

Not so surprisingly, these situations involve vented political agendas and special interest lobby group efforts, that when ulitmately implemented within our environment fail constantly.  Often cover ups of not only irresponsibility, but illegal actions by BLM employees, have been recorded previously and remain plentiful today.

BLM and Illegal Activities

Not to be overlooked is the fact that many BLM management people of today were subjects of a vast and expensive undercover operation in the late 1990s’.  These BLM employees are in charge today and oversee the operations of national offices, district offices, and general offices.  “The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) within the Department of Interior is the agency mandated by law “to protect and manage wild free-roaming horses…as components of the public lands.” Yet, the BLM facilitates the routine and illegal trafficking of wild horses to slaughter.”5

The undercover operation had found evidence for the issuing of: in excess of 800-plus felony warrants for arrest, 400-plus misdemeanor warrants for arrest, and all going to be placed before a Federal Grand Jury for distribution and arrest.  Instead, the costly to taxpayer’s undercover investigation and reports and warrants going to the Grand Jury stopped by the Justice Department – politician intervention via special interests, ceased the action the night before filing.  As mentioned, these same employees in the BLM, remain as managers and decision makers to this day, who were indeed subjects and even would have been in prison had the documents been filed with the Federal Grand Jury.

Many Expenditures Exist Indirectly to Court Decisions

Taxpayers today cover the cost of corral facilities and storage of horses, the result of unnecessary roundups that also have been taken to court previously and on several occasions.  These facilities cost taxpayers $65-plus million dollars yearly, plus cost of roundups, which are another few millions of dollars, and by the way it has been shown time and time again unnecessary, also agreed upon by the Federal Courts.

All roundups must be taken to Federal Court on an individual basis — prescribed by BLM attorney’s and Federal Court Judge approval, despite the obvious nature of cost-factors of such a decision.  BLM management still decides to complete roundups, and if the public and taxpayers do not like it, in their opinion, then “. . . go to hell, take us to court!”


An interesting aspect of the BLM and even the Department of the Interior is the prominent fact they are more than willing to spend taxpayer money in courts, both Federal and State, within the billions of dollars yearly.  And yet, one must answer the question, “Where are these powerful Beacons of the law, there to protect the taxpayers from such robust and irresponsible and illegal behavior?

Where is the court system, within our nation of laws, when our laws are being violated by government agency management, when taxpayers are left with nothing?  Where are these laws when it is perfectly obvious taxpayer money goes to corrupt government agencies, and what one can only attest to tremendous amounts of taxpayer money used, but with no return to the taxpayer?

And why are taxpayers literally paying for special interest groups and their court costs, via BLM or DOI, which are government agencies?  Because of this situation, what law prescribes these agencies being allowed to represent those groups?  The taxpayers, it becomes obvious, is not represented what so ever within our public land management over all scheme of things, and by the BLM or DOI.

Indeed, the decisions are based to benefit special interest group activities?  Ironically, it is then up to taxpayers to pay the court costs as individuals or non-profit groups to fight the very narrow and bad or incompetent decisions, and which many cannot do, and suddenly taxpayer lands and wildlife are destroyed!

Enough is enough – We need those that are hired and paid to protect the public, to do so.  They must defend the taxpayers from these dishonest government agencies, who remain irresponsible, pointedly making decisions favoring special interest groups or one can say – representing special interest groups and the hell with taxpayers, and making decisions that are politically motivated – and it is ruining America!


You can make a difference by signing and sharing this petition with others, and found at this link: Non-Partisan Federal Investigation into the Bureau of Land Management and the Department of the Interior —


1 Lawsuit claims BLM approval violated laws, Rogers, Keith, Las Vegas Review-Journal,

2 WWP Files Two New Lawsuits Against The BLM in S.E. Oregon and Central Idaho, Western Watersheds Project,

3 Victory in First Round of BLM RMP Litigation, Advocates for the West, Public Interest Environmental Law,

4 The Law Wranglers: How Litigation Impacts Public Land Management,

5 Horses to SlaughterAnatomy of a Coverup within the BLM (April 1997)

1 Comment

Posted by on July 30, 2012 in Uncategorized


Welfare Ranchers: Friends of DOI Director Salazar and Taxpayer Ripoff

A few years ago: A nine-month investigation published by the Mercury News in November found taxpayers lost $108 million last year on federal grazing programs.  Today this has increased to $112 billion dollars and growing.  Another example in 2004 far more costly to taxpayers, due to illegla activity, misinformation, and dishonesty from BLM:

The report found that large corporations and millionaires at that time, such as hotel mogul Barron Hilton, computer heiress Mary Hewlett Jaffee and many others, benefited the most from below-market grazing fees and other rules.  Nothing has changed today.

Now more than a few corporations have found the money quite good, and our legislators seem to do nothing to fix this situation, making it legitimate and stop giving welfare payments (i.e. Corporate welfare) to these new styled hobby ranchers i.e. Corporations, simply managed by the true Lease Holders.


The Agriculture Department’s Inspector General speaking about Welfare Ranchers “. . . the program is very wasteful and is prone to abuse because most of the risk for financial losses is born by taxpayers rather than private companies.  So the corporations involved make profit no matter what they do, and still charge the taxpayers full premium prices for the beef on the market.”

This article will present both sides of the “Welfare Rancher” information to the public, which will allow the American public to decide.

The Positive Attributes of Welfare Ranchers

Let’s start with the positive accounting of Welfare Ranchers, what they as a group have accomplished for the taxpayers and the open market under a democratic situation.

Welfare Ranchers have done nothing for America’s taxpayers;

Welfare Ranchers have done nothing for America’s economy, except make it worse;

Welfare Ranchers have done nothing for the beef markets, as they produce such as small percent of marketable beef;

Welfare Ranchers have done nothing for anybody except themselves, constantly taking from taxpayer money, blaming wild horse herds for ruining our lands, when it is proven time and again it is their cattle ruining our environment.  Then taxpayers also cover the replenishment costs of cattle grazing on public lands — Double-Dipping of taxpayer money constantly!

Grazing Regulations included Doctored analysis:

Grazing on Public Lands good for Welfare Ranchers and at taxpayer expense, bad for the Ecosystem and more costly to the taxpaying Public:

Welfare Ranching and cattle grazing on Public Lands damaging to Public Lands and the Ecosystems:

Other Cattle Ranchers Opinions on Welfare Ranchers

Let’s make it clear from the beginning in this discussion about Welfare Ranchers.  This explanation is taken from what this Journalist has observed, researched, and read, as well as comments made from the honest cattle ranchers, who do not accept charity in their day-to-day business of cattle ranching.  Honest ranchers care about their business, the lands and the ranges, the wildlife, horses, and our environment.  This Journalist discovered, ironically, that many ranchers actually cared about the environment and strived to enhance it instead of deplete and rape the land.

This is from a group of honest cattle ranchers, their comments:

Welfare Ranchers are:

“. . . They are a small group of what we call “Public Lands Ranchers” and quite honestly, they only care about themselves”;

“. . . I’ve found these welfare ranchers, let’s call them what they are, complain about our nations economy, those who receive welfare in the cities, or just plain and simple, complain about anyone that receives money from the government or spent on anyone else, and they are always first in line for their hand-out – that consists of tax supported public lands grazing.  It’s welfare, plain and simple!”;

“. . .I agree.  These welfare ranchers complain about welfare families, and yet spawn a whole lot of generations of, well, welfare recipients under the name of cattle ranching.  It’s embarrassing, is what it is, to the rest of us!”;

“. . . The fact is they are hobbyists, not true cattle ranchers.  My neighbors to each side of my land, I own, use public lands, and are only managers for large corporations.  They had to sell out to corporations, because they were very bad business people!”

“. . . The welfare ranchers preach law and order, so long as it benefits them, yet they assign some glamour to those among them who break the rules and break the laws that govern their relationship with the “evil” BLM.”

Welfare Ranchers

The mentality of a Welfare Rancher is simply convoluted logic, founded on the principle that their ancestor may have grazed the same land; therefore, enjoy that same entitlement by birthright.  It is the old “my government owes me something” mentality and that certain public property is theirs and theirs only – ironically, they become managers when selling their (i.e. lease only) supposed portion of “land owed to them by our government” to corporations.

The irrationality of public property simply given to them remains absurd and nothing will change this situation.  What becomes more absurd is the corporations stepping in, onto this supposed government land (already leased) and taking over the ranching operation.

This is not accomplished in any legal nor ethical fashion what so ever, yet our government has allowed it to become “okay” to do so to shut the Welfare Ranchers up, plus corporate profits play a significant role as well.  And it is quite costly to taxpayers for them to ignore this situation, both in public lands destruction and court costs.  Many people and other government agencies (e.g. the Veterans Administration and healing war veterans) goes without essentials, so corporations and large land owners can reap profit – at the same time wave their American flag chanting how American they are!

Of course, it is not so farfetched to assume quite a bit of money exchanges hands, from corporate officials to government employees, to rationalize a corporation receiving tax based welfare funds – which is also termed corporate welfare, an entirely different subject but similar in many aspects in content – i.e. the strategized ripping off taxpayer dollars.

Not so odd, if you or I attempted a similar situation, we would be bounced off the land, or sent to jail.

Another cattle rancher voicing his opinion about Welfare Ranching was a little more adamant.  “These people don’t want to solve problems unless the solution involves more taxpayer-funded improvements going to them.

They play themselves off as the poor and down trodden, while most of them live off a system that the rest of us taxpayers fund every April 15th.  These ranchers give us 2% of our beef cattle while receiving grazing rights at a fraction of the costs that the other 98% of beef producers have to pay in order to operate in the real market.  This 2%, nicknamed “The Selfish Two” by some rangeland advocates, causes about 98% of the problems associated with public lands grazing – which includes the outright and unnecessary removal of our Wild Horse Herds!

Another problem associated with this extremely vocal and self-absorbed minority of ranchers, is the fact these people often generate distractions that impede the actual development of pragmatic solutions to long-term problems.  The reality, unless a solution directly benefits them, they are opposed to any and all for resolution. In their minds their personal interests should receive greater status than public interests.  Thereby, the Wild Horse Herds depleted, for no legitimate or scientific reasoning, other than these Welfare Ranchers want them off our public lands.

The wholesome fact becomes, and certainly expressed by more than a few cattle ranchers, “Perhaps if the Federally subsidized public lands ranching industry doesn’t appreciate what it has, then it is time to turn those public lands over to some more contemporary uses.”  Especially since the corporations have taken over a majority of the Welfare Ranchers lands, and yet remain obtaining taxpayer money under the guise of subsidies to these same ranchers that are currently managers, not Lessees.

A greater problem involves the public and Congress finally having its fill of obstructionists that cost tax dollars and contribute an insignificant portion of the nation’s food supply. People are starting to question whether welfare ranching has finally outlived its usefulness, including a few private lands ranchers who complain that they pay taxes that are used to subsidize their competitors.

Welfare Ranchers Defined and Redefined

Public lands grazing subsidies, like most agricultural subsidies, disproportionately benefit large landholders.  In a 1992 Government Accounting Office profile of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) permittees, the largest 500 permittees, out of nearly 20,000 total, controlled 36 percent of the public lands forage. Just 16 percent of all permittees controlled 76.2 percent of the AUMs (animal unit months-one AUM being the amount of forage required by a cow-calf pair for a month) available on BLM lands. Most of these permittees were big corporations or very wealthy individuals. The smallest 2,000 permittees controlled less than 0.13 percent of BLM forage.

This inequality is a result of the process for assigning public lands allotments. Access to permits requires ownership of private base operations, of course this was dependant on a narrow, some would say, duplicative toward particular ranches already in mind. Since wealthy ranchers own more land, and thus more base property, they wind up with more federal lands allotments.

This means winding up with far more direct profit from the welfare handouts from taxpayer money, as it does not go to anything else but the Lessees pockets, or to enhance their bank accounts – nothing more.

In addition, few ranchers depend entirely on their public lands allotments to meet all their forage needs, so one can assume the government welfare handout, again, is simply profit, money in their pockets so to speak, unnecessarily, other than for profit.

Although the percentage varies from operation to operation and state to state, most ranchers fulfill the majority of their annual forage needs from private lands.  Only the largest operations actually use public lands for a significant amount of their livestock’s forage.

If the public lands were to become unavailable to these large ranches, most of their operators could reasonably afford alternatives for grazing their stock.  But, their profit base from government handouts would be lost, or would they be lost at all?

Alternatively, smaller ranches today represent status or lifestyle choices for their owners, and the minority of ranchers who use public lands.  Most western ranches do not depend exclusively on livestock for their income, or for even an important fraction of their income.  Growing and selling livestock is usually a break-even enterprise at best.  Hobbyist ranchers are a better term here, and compatible with the IRS terms.

Jobs in town or other business ventures are what allow families to maintain their status and appearance as “ranchers” and not running cattle or sheep on the range.  If these ranchers chose to give up, or were forced to relinquish their public lands allotments, most would adjust through reducing their herd size to match their private holdings, or through leasing the private grazing lands of other landowners.  Family ranchers might also continue to diversify their income, as many are already doing-either with new enterprises on the ranch (for example, guest ranches, and guided fishing and hunting), or with other work off the ranch.


So there is simply no need to replenish or coordinate efforts with Welfare Ranchers.  There entire existence remains dependent on government handouts; welfare is a far simpler and correct term.  They remain a small and insignificant situation in the scheme of things, and mostly Lease-Owned by corporations; whereas, the actual Lease Holder simply manages the ranch, and not so ironic, the corporations pocket the government handouts pretty much under a false-premise, while pretending to actually care about the ranges and the biospheres.  No, they simply want to liquidate the public lands for future use, for a more diversified and not of agricultural situations – and yet keep obtaining the welfare handouts for their already large profit chain.

The fact is this; the Federal courts will, out of necessity, have to step in, to rid the United States of such leaches and those that commit this type of welfare fraud on a daily and yearly basis.  These are not stipends, rather handing out money to friends and corporations, getting it from the taxpayers who honestly believe it may go for something good, but in truth it is not.  Then these same rich ranchers and corporations snub the taxpayers, as being ignorant and misinformed.

The truth of Welfare Ranching has been around for decades — the Bureau of Land Management and the Department of the Interior, managed by previous ranchers, hid this from Public scrutiny and the taxpayers for those same decades.  There is no use for Welfare Ranching any longer, and never has been since the 1800s, as it does not assist the poor farmer or rancher to remain competitive, it is simply a 100% profit stream for the already wealthy ranchers and corporations.

Yet another Special Interest Lobby situation that rips-off taxpayer money — at the sacrifice of War Veterans not receiving proper care from wounds received in Combat, Jobs sacrificed due to taxpayer money placed into the already rich rancer pockets that could establish employement programs and training, and on and on.  Welfare Ranching is a billion dollar Rip-Off to taxpayers and at many levels.


Briefing Report to Congressional Requestors, Rangeland Management: Grazing Lease Arrangements of Bureau of Land Management Permittees, May 1986. (General Accounting Office GAO/RCED-86-168BR).

Dobie, F.J., The Longhorns, (Boston, MA: Little Brown & Co.), 1941, pp. 21.

Freemuth, John, “Federal Land Management in the West:, in Zachary A. Smith, editor, Environmental Politics and Policy in the West, (Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, Debuque, Iowa, 1993), p. 202.

Grazing Fee Review and Evaluation, The Secretary of Agriculture and Secretary of the Interior, 1986, p. 79. A 13.2:G79.

Hanneman, Michael D., Effects of Cattle, Elk and Mule Deer on a Narrowleaf Cottonwood Riparian Community Under a Short Duration Grazing System in Northern Arizona, Masters Thesis, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ 1991.

Norlagg, Neil, Personal Interview, rancher, Mormon Lake, Arizona, 8 March 1995.

Rangeland Reform ’94 Draft Environmental Impact Statement, The Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management in cooperation with the Department of Agriculture Forest Service, I53.19:R16.

Smith, Zachary A., The Environmental Policy Paradox, (Englewood Cliffs, NJ Prentice Hall, 1995), p. 195.

Tersey, Darrell Personal Interview, Rangeland Management Specialist, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix District Office, 19 April 1995.

Young, James A., Sparks, Abbot B, Cattle in the Cold Desert, 1985. Utah University Press, Logan, UT 84332-9515, p. 68.

F.J. Dobie, The Longhorns, (Boston, MA: Little Brown & Co.), 1941, pp. 21.

Briefing Report to Congressional Requestors, Rangeland Management: Grazing Lease Arrangements of Bureau of Land Management Permittees, May 1986. GAO/RCED-86-168BR, pp. 1-14.

Grazing Fee Review and Evaluation, (The Secretary of Agriculture and Secretary of the Interior, 1986, A 13.2:G79), p. 79.

Personal Interview, Darrell Tersey, Rangeland Management Specialist, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix District Office, 19 April 1995.

Zachary A. Smith, The Environmental Policy Paradox, (Englewood Cliffs, NJ Prentice Hall, 1995), p. 179

John Freemuth, “Federal Land Management in the West:, in Zachary A. Smith, editor, Environmental Politics and Policy in the West, (Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, Debuque, Iowa, 1993), p. 202.

Personal Interview, Gary Hase Jr., Natural Resource Manager II, Range Section, Land Department, State Forestry Division, 20 April 1995.

Personal Interview, Neil Norlagg, rancher, Mormon Lake Arizona, 8 March 1995.

Rangeland Reform ’94 Draft Environmental Impact Statement, (The Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management in cooperation with the Department of Agriculture Forest Service, I53.19:R16), p. 1-9

Michael D. Hanneman, Effects of Cattle, Elk and Mule Deer on a Narrowleaf Cottonwood Riparian Community Under a Short Duration Grazing System in Northern Arizona, (Masters Thesis, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ 1991), pp. 11-19.

Rangeland Reform ’94 Draft Environmental Impact Statement, p. 1-8.

Personal Interview, Darrell Tersey, Rangeland Management Specialist, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix District Office, 19 April 1995.

The Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of The Interior, Grazing Fee Review and Evaluation Final Report 1979-1985, (Department of Agriculture Forest Service and the Department of The Interior Bureau of Land Management, A13.2.G79, 1986), p. 7.

Federal lands accounted for 10% of the rangeland forage and 2% of total food consumed in 1982.


Posted by on July 11, 2012 in Uncategorized