Below is the letter we are sending to the Murderers Creek Comment phase of the roundup to take place after November 16, 2012, and following roundups. We want this discontinued due to erroneous information and misinformation, and not in accord with the EA (Environmental Assessment) what so ever! This is well referenced and can be used as a legal document as well.

____________________

This letter is too be considered and included within the “Comments” phase of the EA (i.e. Environmental Assessment) in regard to the Murderers Creek Roundup, Project: DOI-BLM-OR-P040-2011-0048-EA Murderer’s Creek HMA Gather Plan.  We are sending copies to all Senators and Congressmen who have requested a copy, as well as others who would be interested in the reference materials, as well as other legal groups for perusal.

“The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) requires the BLM to consider significant environmental impacts prior to approval of actions on public lands. When an activity or action is proposed within the Uncompahgre Field Office, BLM staff conduct an interdisciplinary review of the potential environmental impacts in order to make more informed decisions and identify measures to protect, restore, and enhance the environment.”  http://www.blm.gov/co/st/en/BLM_Information/nepa/ufo.html

Statement of Facts

Whereas, my staff and myself have perused the aforementioned EA and found many flaws within the project plan and especially the EA; the erroneous information becomes serious due to the outcome of taking horses off of Public Lands for false reasons, inadequately based research and data gathering, and simply bad-management parameters.  Guesses and robust averages seem to play a large roll in the BLM’s decision making process for the removal of wild horses, rather than accurate, reliable, and coherent explanations as to why.

We have also found direct conflicts within the NEPA, as mentioned above, and the current EA (Environmental Assessment) given to the public taxpayers for perusal and comment.

We, as taxpayers, and surely represent a majority of taxpayers when making this statement, demand that the Roundup at Murderers Creek, Oregon be postponed until a more complete, more factual, and truth bearing document be given to the public taxpayers.  The current EA reasoning is unacceptable in total, for a responsible roundup to be conducted what so ever.

The overall motivation to take Wild Horse Herds off of taxpayers’ Public Lands is very simple and obvious – to make more room for cattle and the grazing of cattle.  The outcome is unacceptable to taxpayers and within the parameters of the BLM NEPA combined.

A listing of well researched subject matter is contained at the end of this statement, which substantiates and proves beyond a doubt what so ever that everything stated within this response to the BLM’s EA is true and correct and provable within a court of law if need be.

Bias and Vented Interests for Profit

The overall and biased material within the EA demonstrates beyond a doubt that the BLM, through their bias, represents cattle ranching and nothing else, as a Priority, and not the Wild Horse Herds roaming specifically tendered lands, or HMA (Horse Management Areas) areas, nor does the BLM represent the wildlife.  The values of “Multi-Purpose” are also non-existent, and favor particular 1% to perhaps a high of 3% of the tax paying public, and for profit only.

It is shown time and again that cattle grazing devastate our Public Lands.  Many researchers have requested the BLM change their bad-management parameters, to rid our Public Lands of cattle, rather than making cattle a priority.  Our Public Lands Ecosystems are being ruined by cattle, with little to no positive outcome or benefit to the taxpayer.

Cattle Grazing Ignored

The outcome and Environmental Assessment of cattle grazing, devastation of many Ecosystems, on taxpayers Public Lands is ignored in total.  This is shown and provable by many independent and collegiate terrestrial research reports directly related to cattle grazing within particular Ecosystems.  Many of these reports contend, and dispute “all” of the Rangeland Studies, data, AUM criteria, and other research presented to the public by BLM Staff and their researchers.

This situation becomes, and has a long history, of providing a few ranchers involved in the cattle industry (i.e. less than 2% of overall beef production within the USA) an insurmountable profit base by using taxpayers’ money and Public Lands.  This situation amounts to nothing less than hidden costs of beef, with the taxpayers’ giving millions upon millions of dollars to support unnecessary cattle ranching, as well as pay the premium price for beef at grocery stores.  So taxpayers continue to pay for beef two-fold, through taxes and then at the store!

Special Note: Millions of these tax dollars are well over and above the allotted budget amounts’ given to BLM on a yearly basis, and not approved by Legislators as would be accomplished within a given and appropriate budget.

BLM Budgets take Loss but remain Unrecorded (exception – GAO Documentation)

The price to taxpayers’ who unknowingly support these cattle ranches and is often termed Welfare Ranching, on a yearly basis is shown to increase profoundly.  In 2004 (i.e. according to a GAO report) was in excess of $154+ million dollars, as other attributes and miscellaneous circumstances, costly as well, remain unrecorded.  It is estimated today that taxpayers spend in abundance and far over the price of $758 million dollars on the Wild Horse and Burro Program, over and above the already existing (approved) budget, and note it is at a loss, yet unrecorded by the BLM.

The situation of having an ability to “Draw” money over and above the allotted budgets circumvents the supposed profit the BLM states they derive yearly.  This statement simply becomes a false or misleading circumstance this agency tells the public, which also, ironically, the BLM tells Senators and Congressmen.  This has the effect of allowing BLM to go about business in a supposed adequate and responsible manner.  The problem is, it is untrue and at the expense of taxpayers across America.

This is a time to decrease taxes and frivolous spending by government agencies, not to spend money irresponsibly as the BLM does currently, and having no benefit what so ever toward the tax paying public.

It becomes quite obvious, with these figures over the past few decades, that this situation is an ongoing circumstance of illegal activity, certainly unethical, and considered by many a bias activity.  Not so profound is the fact that those profiting are also friends of upper management within the BLM and the Department of the Interior, or friends of friends, or simply a corporate based ranching operation obtaining favors from the BLM upper management.

____________________________________

The following references are simply a few of many, many more that contradict BLM management situations, and given with “No Bias” toward the cattle industry, but a rational and true process of the data during their research.

Also historical factors are referenced as well, to show this has been ongoing for quite some time now this irresponsible conduct by the BLM, and at taxpayer expense:

BLM NEPA Documents for Oregon / Washington  http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/prineville/plans/index.php

Live Stock Grazing Federal Expenditures and Receipts Vary, Depending on the Agency and the Purpose of the Fee Charged  http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-869

Negative Effects of Livestock Grazing Riparian Areas  http://ohioline.osu.edu/ls-fact/0002.html

Grazing Regulations Include Doctored Environmental Analysis  http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/abuses_of_science/cattle-grazing.html

Grazing on public land: helpful to ranchers, but harmful to habitat?  http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2008076883_grazing28m.html

Is cattle-grazing damaging public lands in the West?  http://summitcountyvoice.com/2012/05/16/is-cattle-grazing-damaging-public-lands-in-the-west/

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 ColdDesert, 1985. UtahUniversity Press, Logan, UT84332-9515, 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.

There are 27,000 cattle ranchers with federal permits versus 386,000 without. In effect, the government is paying an average of over $1500 per year to each cattle rancher who depends upon federal lands for less than a quarter of his total livestock feed.

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

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