Let’s correct a misconception right now! The Bureau of Land Management (i.e. BLM) and the Department of the Interior (i.e. DOI) leads the American taxpaying public to believe, quite costly to taxpayers in the billions of dollars yearly, that Wild Horse Herd Roundups and getting them off of Public Lands is a necessity. This is not true!
The Truth: After a thorough and comprehensive study of the vegetation research, range management criteria, the perusal of false Environmental Impact Statements’ (i.e. EIS, and plenty to review to show this as fact even on the Internet, with many blatantly copied from previous and bogus EIS) and “Laws” complete with thorough Federal Court precedence, this author can say beyond a doubt — Roundups Are Not Required – Technically, Scientifically, or Legally.
As a matter of fact when we peruse the legalities, as America is based upon an honest Legal System for government agencies to abide, we find discrepancy and criminal behavior abundant. This is referenced quite well, factually. . .
These Laws are put into place in order to give administrative and management paradigms for government agencies to follow, as an appropriate process, for the safety of America’s wildlife and Public Lands — as well as to protect the tax paying public from taxpayer money abuse by these same government agencies.
These Laws, both procedural and administrative, remain ignored by our present politician’s and government agencies, such as the Bureau of Land Management and the Department of the Interior. Essentially, this neglect and ignoring Law allows corporations free-reign on Our (Americans’) Public Lands, to include foreign corporations as well.
The BLM and DOI consistently and constantly ignore the information given below. This criminal behavior quite costly, with a cost to the American Taxpayer (GAO-05-869) in excess of $450 million dollars per year in administrative costs alone . . . in managing our Public Lands and completing wild horse herd roundups irresponsibly and unnecessary . . . There remains, over the years, No Support for the necessity to do so, other than rhetoric, or what many call “bullshit” —
Violation of DOI Policy – Integrity of Scientific and Scholarly Activities
DOI Integrity of Scientific and Scholarly Activities Policy § 3.4 Policy “The Department… will not tolerate loss of integrity in the performance of scientific and scholarly activities or in the application of science and scholarship in decision making…”
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) staff and Department of the Interior (DOI) staff has set aside recovery criteria and designation of suitable habitat based upon the best available science in favor of what is termed – Welfare Ranchers who acquired preferential grazing permits on Public Lands, among other situations . . .
DOI Integrity of Scientific and Scholarly Activities Policy § 3.4.C “ Document the scientific and scholarly findings considered in decision making and ensure public access to that information and supporting data through established Departmental and Bureau procedures…”
In this instance, Environmental Assessment documents were leaked to politicians and selected lobby groups and other friends of BLM and DOI staff and other groups. By contrast, the deliberations between BLM, DOI, WH&B Consultants, Welfare Ranchers, other groups and state agencies in the SDM process were kept behind closed door, with no public access to the scientific data, conclusions or the standard by which decisions were being made.
And the Violations of DOI Policy List Goes On and On —
Legal Aspects of the EIS and Mandatory Procedure
We also use here, as reference, definable aspects of legal procedure to show BLM and DOI in violation of Procedure Law and Administrative Laws in total, in the matter of the Wild Horse Herd Roundups. It’s easily stated that both these government agencies outright LIE on their Environmental Impact Statements, or the necessity of such, in order to conduct the Wild Horse Herd Roundups on America’s Public Lands.
The Endangered Species Act is a comprehensive scheme with the “broad purpose” of protecting endangered and threatened species. Babbit v. Sweet Home Chapter of Comtys. For a Great Or., 515 U.S. 687, 698 (1995); see Tenn. Valley Auth. v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153, 180 (1978). Two interlocking provisions of the Act are of particular significance here: section 9, which prohibits the “take”3 of any member of an endangered or threatened species, 16 U.S.C. § 1538(a)(1)(B), and section 7, which imposes upon federal agencies an “affirmative duty to prevent violations of section 9,” Ariz. Cattle Growers’
Ass’n v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife, 273 F.3d 1229, 1238 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2)).
Under Section 7, a federal agency must “insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency . . . is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any
endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of [critical] habitat of such species.” 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2).4 To facilitate compliance with this substantive requirement, section 7 and its implementing regulations also impose specific procedural duties upon federal agencies: Before beginning any “major construction activities,” agencies must prepare a “biological assessment” to determine whether listed species or critical habitat “are likely to be adversely affected” by the proposed action. 50 C.F.R. § 402.12 (2012). If so, the action agency must formally consult with the appropriate wildlife agency, in this case the FWS,5 before undertaking the action. 50 C.F.R. § 402.14; see Karuk Tribe of Cal. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 681
F.3d 1006, 1020 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc); Sierra Club v. Babbitt, 65 F.3d 1502, 1505 (9th Cir. 1995). During the formal consultation process, the “[f]ormulate its biological opinion as to whether the action, taken together with cumulative effects, is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.” 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(g)(4).
If the FWS concludes that jeopardy or adverse modification is likely, then any take resulting from the proposed action is subject to section 9 liability (unless that take is authorized by other provisions of the Act not relevant here). See Sierra Club v. Babbitt, 65 F.3d at 1505; Defenders of Wildlife v. EPA, 420 F.3d 946, 966 (9th Cir. 2005), rev’d on other grounds by Nat’l Ass’n of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife, 551 U.S. 644 (2007).
Although a federal agency or project applicant is “technically free to disregard the Biological Opinion and proceed with its proposed action,. . . it does so at its own peril (and that of its employees), for ‘any person’ who knowingly ‘takes’ [a member of] an endangered or threatened species is subject to substantial civil and criminal penalties, including imprisonment.” Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 170 (1997); see also San Luis & Delta- Mendota Water Auth. v. Salazar, 638 F.3d 1163, 1170 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[T]he determinative or coercive effect of a Biological Opinion stems directly from the Service’s power to enforce the no-take provision in ESA § 9 . . . .”).
(1) specify the impact [i.e., the amount or extent] of the incidental taking on the species;
(2) specify the “reasonable and prudent measures” that the FWS considers necessary or appropriate to minimize such impact; [and];
(3) set forth “terms and conditions” with which the action agency must comply to implement the reasonable and prudent measures . . . . Or. Natural Res. Council v. Allen, 476 F.3d 1031, 1034 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting 16 U.S.C. § 1536(b)(4); 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(i)).
“Significantly, the Incidental Take Statement functions as a safe harbor provision immunizing persons from Section 9 liability and penalties for takings committed during activities that are otherwise lawful and in compliance with its terms and conditions.” Ariz. Cattle Growers’ Ass’n, 273 F.3d at 1239 (citing 16 U.S.C. § 1536(o)).
ESA regulations further require federal agencies and project applicants to “monitor the impacts of incidental take” by “report[ing] the progress of the action and its impact on the species” to the FWS. 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(i)(3). If the amount or extent of incidental taking is exceeded, the action agency “must immediately reinitiate consultation with the FWS.” Allen, 476 F.3d at 1034-35 (citing 50 C.F.R. §§ 402.14(i)(4), 402.16(a)). The action agency must also reinitiate consultation if the proposed action “is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to the listed species or critical habitat that was not considered in the biological opinion.” 50 C.F.R. § 402.16(c); see also Defenders of Wildlife v. Flowers, 414 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2005). When reinitiating of consultation is required, the original biological opinion loses its validity, as does its accompanying incidental take statement, which then no longer shields the action agency from penalties for takings. See Allen, 476 F.3d at 1037; U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv. & Nat. Marine Fisheries Serv., Endangered Species Consultation Handbook: Procedures for Conducting Consultation and Conference Activities under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act 4-23 (1998) [hereinafter ESA Handbook].
Once again, as always when dealing with the BLM or DOI in regard to matters concerning our natural Environment and America’s wildlife on Public Lands, we find these government agencies in contempt, both ethically and legally. This is a nation government by Law, and these agencies ignore this law in total!
Public Lands in America
America’s taxpayers’ Want Wild Horses on Our Public Lands. . . American taxpayer’s DO NOT WANT our Public Lands destroyed for short-term profits!
There are no endorsed or legitimate technical reports, authentic range management reports of what is referred to as good-science, or legal aspects that support the roundup of wild horse herds taken off of Public Lands. It is simply a convoluted estimating and contrived situation (i.e. which gives consent to something wrong based on falsehoods and misinformation) by BLM management, driven by the Cattleman’s Lobby and the Sportsman Lobby, among other lobby groups; Unfortunately, this leads to the obvious – our Public Lands environments’, wildlife, and biosphere’s are being ruined daily by decision’s made by falsehoods and lies by the BLM and DOI.
There exist several reasons to stop the rounding up of wild horses off Public Lands! But first and foremost, and throughout “all” the information in accord with the certification of wild horse herds (or HMA), one must acknowledge the very primary reason for the HMA’s to exist — American taxpayers support this distinct and overall priority to keep the Wild Horse Herds as they are, and government should leave them alone in total!
BTW The origination of the HMA’s, to protect the Wild Horse Herds on Public Lands, was passed unanimously in the Senate and Congress, and with approval of the overall American taxpaying public. Nothing has changed; well, nothing except politician’s who currently support corporations on our Public Lands and unethical government agencies who manage our Public Lands via criminality and special favors conducted.
There exists no priority what so ever for our Public Lands to be taken over by corporations, welfare ranchers, or foreign corporations, ongoing currently and ALL SUBSIDIUZED by America’s taxpayer money! (i.e. Did any of you vote for this – this author certainly did not and would not!)
There exists a large gap between truthfulness and crime in these government agencies, mostly filled with criminal behavior. They outright lie to the taxpaying public (against policy and law), they misinform and disburse false information to the taxpaying public (against policy and law), they violate Federal Law and Federal Court rulings directly involving their administration and management criteria, they continue daily having numerous violations of Law, they ignore their own Policy criteria, and worse yet — they remain unchecked by the legal community designed to protect taxpayers against such narrow-in-scope, illegal, and frivolous behavior.
Taxpayers receive nothing from these particular government agencies, other than costly roundups that the American Public does not want! This indicates not only severe problems within these particular agencies, but problems within a non-functioning legal system that continues to allow such behavior.
American’s are fed-up with this type of behavior from America’s government agencies and their irresponsible conduct. The push for new legislators has started, and the next election will show a heavy turnover in politicians . . . Voters will elect those that will rid our government agencies of illegal and dishonest behavior from the employees staffs and administrators alike.
Term-Limits for politicians’ is starting to pick-up momentum, within a Grass-Roots level. It has begun, make no doubt. There is a gathering of people at this grass roots level that are working toward positive change within our government – honesty rather than criminality. The truth is out there, and Politician’s and government agencies better take heed, as American’s are now speaking in vast numbers, demanding a change, and will continue to do so.
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 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.