The government, which was designed for the people, has got into the hands of the bosses and their employers, the special interests. An invisible empire has been set up above the forms of democracy. ~Woodrow Wilson

The Facts: 199 Wild Horses Die at the Burns Corral between 2010 and 2013 – 29 More Wild Horses Mysteriously Disappear in 2013 – BLM and Welfare Ranchers Criminal Activity Requires Scrutiny, no doubt.

And on it goes, where it ends no one knows. But the reality is the BLM (Bureau of Land Management) continues to, well, simply outright lie. Especially when it comes to the necessity for Wild Horse Herd Roundups, appropriate counts of Wild Horses on America’s Public Lands, Wild Horses going to slaughter, the issuing of Grazing Permits for cattle, appropriate cattle counts on Public Lands, Enforcement of Environmental Assessments, and much more. . .

One of the more disgusting elements of this situation is the fact that legislators, both Senators and Congressmen, directly relies on BLM information, especially in regard to proper management, and as well the Wild Horses on America’s Public Lands. But is it correct – information from BLM employees? We say no and for many documented and well referenced reasons (see References section)!

After all, many financial and costly budget decisions are based on receiving and ultimately deciding a proper management paradigm, or problem resolution from truthful and accurate information. The problem here is the BLM misinforms and lies continuously, thereby creating more and more problems that require resolution. The only truth connected to the BLM is this government agency is out of control, in total. . .

Cover-up and more cover-up

Outrageous that the Oregon-BLM would cover-up 199 Wild Horses killed between 2010 and 2013, and associated with the Bait and Trap methodology of rounding up Wild Horses! And make the statement in a short video, produced by Oregon Public Broadcasting, that essentially “accidents always happen around horses” – as if this resolves the problem for 199 horse’s killed in their corrals — especially when it is something that there is no need for, and handled obviously by inexperienced contract wranglers, or incompetent BLM employees and wranglers!

See the Video and Interview here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqA2x0D5OXM

But the most outrageous is when Rob Sharp was asked, by me approximately one month ago, “. . . exactly how many Wild Horses have died in your corrals over there?”

He answered quit assuredly, quite confidently, “There have only been three that have died within the past 3 years.”

Myself: “So the FOIA. material and information on it is wrong?”

Sharp: “I don’t know. I have not seen the spreadsheet you’re talking about.”

The OPB Video, above, was discussed and placed into public review and on television 4 months “before” I spoke with Mr. Smart about the Dead Horses. . . Mr. Sharp attempted to excuse the 199 Wild Horses killed (in the OPB Video) by random accidents . . . Oh, well he told me only three died within the past three years in the Burns corrals, and that he had no idea about any other Wild Horses dead . . . BLM Credibility?

Taylor Grazing Act Legislation and the BLM

Yet another problem with BLM is Welfare Ranching, and the need for it illusive if not totally false – We come across the lack of BLM credibility once again.

The Taylor Grazing Act, among the many other legislative actions way back when (the 1920’s and earlier), were developed as conservation measures. True enough also designed to enhance food product, but “not” while destroying our Public Lands. The legislation back then was meant to preserve our Public Lands, specifically to protect America’s Public Lands from over-grazing of cattle and sheep. It was acknowledged at that time that cattle and sheep can and will destroy ranch land.

Because of subsidies given to Welfare Rancher’s today, due to the legislative actions of decades ago, no longer useful in today’s markets for beef or sheep, Public Lands are being destroyed! The fact is America’s Public Lands are currently being OVERLY GRAZED BY CATTLE!

I say “because of subsidies. . .” as that is the significant item Welfare Ranchers concerned about today, as well as the BLM, and to hell with using taxpayer dollars appropriately and the taxpayers in general. In reality, the BLM manages our Public Lands down a path of destruction. Environmental Assessments mean nothing to them – just as hard-earned taxpayer dollars mean nothing to them. There exist no benefits to taxpayers or toward our Public Lands (i.e. see explanation example below).

Least we not forget — a Welfare Rancher who obtains a government Grazing Permit, also qualifies for loans in the millions of dollars – As absurd as that sounds, it is a very real problem of a different sort, explored within the context of a different article.

Land Conservation and Community

In truth, lost is the ideology of Land Conservation, which is the essential portion of the Taylor Grazing Act, among other legislative conservation measures protecting our Public Lands. Living with and conserving our Public Lands has a reality-based potential to enhance them and produce ten times the Food Product we require to feed this population, but we waste it on Welfare Rancher’s and their cattle – which literally destroys our Public Lands (i.e. well referenced and documented by good science).

Now the opposite is true, where legislators simply create Amendments to previous protective legislation, that enhance the pocket books of Special Interest Lobby Groups only i.e. Welfare Ranchers (AG Lobby, Mining, lumber, et al), and directly violates the entire ideology of why the Legislative Actions were created, and currently do nothing more than enhance a Welfare Rancher’s bank account!
____________________________

Here is a good example of Average Taxpayer vs Welfare Rancher (just examples on average):

Average Taxpayer Income: $125,000+
Average Ranch Profit: (if average Business People): $425,000+

Average Taxpayer Taxes: app. Paid $6,000
Average Ranch Taxes: Actual Paid Out $0 (due to AG benefits / Programs)

Average Taxpayer Benefits and Government Subsidies Non-Taxed: $0.00
Average Ranch Benefits / Subsidies Non-Taxed: Average $325,000

Benefits to Taxpayers from Subsidized Ranching: $0.00
Benefits in cost reduction of meat products: $0.00
Benefits to Ranchers from Subsidized Ranching: New Homes, New Trucks, New Boats, New Trailers, MORE CATTLE, College for the Kids, More tax breaks, etc. . .
______________________________

Of note also is the fact of Welfare Ranching and its necessity to America? Once again we have Bureau of Land Management as well as the Department of the Interior lying to American taxpayers, and continuous. There does not exist a need for subsidies going to ranchers who graze their cattle or sheep on Public Lands! This program is outdated and of no use in the markets of today — it simply takes the Competitive situation out of the actual ranching business, or those who acquires Grazing Permits on Public Lands, is all. 2012 / 2013 Sales Receipts, from Welfare Ranchers — or those who hold Grazing Permits on Public Lands, were only $.41% of 1% sales on America’s domestic commercial markets, or less than 1% in total sales. . . (simply worded and for the bankers out there who give loans to Welfare Ranchers because they hold a Grazing Permit — as if a guarantee that Taxpayers will pay if they default! the $.41% – a monetary amount – is .41% of the only 1% – a whole number – of Sales per Receipts assimilated for the years 2012 and 2013 and entire sales domestically of Beef and Sheep from Welfare Rancher’s . . .)

Ironically, Water Rights are given to Welfare Ranchers as well, and as ownership! Consider, if you will, the likelihood or common-sense of ownership of water rights by a private individual on government/Public Lands! Why? Because they are “leasing” Public Land is the only reason – an interesting concept of a Lease-Only arrangement, yet becoming the owner of the water rights and selling the water back to the government!

This situation alone remains extremely questionable, to say the least! But the BLM does not know how to stop this and many other expensive situations the taxpayers pay for, with no returns or benefit to taxpayers what so ever.

“A common citizen in the United States would be thrown in jail if they attempted to commit the type of monetary-fraud this group of Welfare Ranchers and the BLM employees commit daily. Why they are not in jail, who knows? But their accounting, at least the information released to the Public, certainly points out criminal activity, to say the least. But no government agency seems to investigate the obviousness of this activity. I am astounded and yet disgusted at the same time, as it is my taxpayer money they apparently are using for their criminality.” Steven Corr, C.P.A.

In Oregon — Constituents of Legislators: less than 1% is Welfare Ranchers! Yet these Welfare Rancher’s receive more representation than you and I as the general taxpayers in this country! We pay them, as taxpayers, to ranch and graze on Public Lands – the Welfare Rancher’s do not pay the government much at all, only $.0003% of their yearly Subsidy, if that, to actually graze their cattle on Public Lands.
________________________
Here we should keep in mind that Commercial ranchers who do not use Public Lands, and they pay anywhere from $12.00 to $75+ per AUM Unit (i.e. 1 cow and 1 calf), actual Lease of Private Land and/or below the line costs to graze their cattle.

Welfare Ranchers, on the other hand, who use Public Lands and are subsidized by taxpayers as well, pay $1.42 per AUM Unit – which is 1 cow and 1 calf. And ironically still require subsidy from the Public Lands Grazing Program in amounts often exceeding $350,000 per year to $1 million dollars per year – and yes, corporate ranching in Oregon is involved as well.
________________________
Is BLM or Welfare Ranching Good for America? Many, who acknowledge the reality of it all, say no!
________________________

References:

Armour, C., D. Duff, and W. Elmore. 1994. The effects of livestock grazing on western riparian and stream ecosystem. Fisheries 19(9):9-12.
Atwill, E.R. 1996. Assessing the link between rangeland cattle and water-borne Cryptosporidium parvum infection in humans. Rangelands 18:48-51.
Belsky, A.J., and D.M. Blumenthal. 1997. Effects of livestock grazing on stand dynamics and soils in upland forests of the interior West. Cons. Biol. 11:315-327.
Blackburn, W.H. 1984. Impact of grazing intensity and specialized grazing systems on watershed characteristics and responses. p. 927-983. In: Developing strategies for range management.Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
Bock, C.E., V.A. Saab, T.D. Rich, and D.S. Dobkin. 1993. Effects of livestock grazing on neotropical migratory landbirds in western North America. p. 296-309. In: D.M.
Finch,P.W. Stangel (eds.), Status and management of neotropical migratory birds. USDA Forest Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-229.
Boggs, K., and T. Weaver. 1992. Response of riparian shrubs to declining water availability. p. 48-51. In: W.P. Clary, E.D. McArthur, D. Bedunah, and C.L. Wambolt (compilers), Proceedings-Symposium on ecology and management of riparian shrub communities. USDA Forest Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-289.
Bohn, C.C., and J.C. Buckhouse. 1985a. Some responses of riparian soils to grazing management in northeastern Oregon. J. Range Manage. 38:378-381.
Bohn, C.C., and J.C. Buckhouse. 1985b. Coliforms as an indicator of water quality in wildland streams. J. Soil and Water Cons. 40:95-97.
Bryan, K. 1925. Date of channel trenching in the arid Southwest. Science 62:338-344.
Buckhouse, J.C., and G.F. Gifford. 1976. Water quality implications of cattle grazing on a semiarid watershed in southeastern Utah. J. Range Manage. 29:109-113.
Burton, T.A., and S.J. Kozel. 1996. Livestock grazing relationships with fisheries. p. 140-145. In: W.D. Edge, S.L. Olson-Edge (eds.), Sustaining rangeland ecosystems. Oregon State Univ. Extension Service, Special Rep. 953, Corvallis, OR.
Case, R.L. and J.B. Kauffman. 1997. Wild ungulate influences on the recovery of willows, black cottonwood and thin-leaf alder following cessation of cattle grazing in northeaster Oregon. Northwest Sci. 71:115-126.
Chaney, E., W. Elmore, and W.S. Platts. 1990. Livestock grazing on western riparian areas. Northwest Resource Information Center, Inc. Eagle, Idaho.
Chaney, E., W. Elmore, and W.S. Platts. 1993. Managing Change: livestock grazing on western riparian areas. Northwest Resource Information Center, Inc. Eagle, Idaho.
Chapman, D.W., and E. Knudsen. 1980. Channelization and livestock impacts in salmonid habitat and biomass in western Washington. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 109.
Claire, E.W., and R.L. Storch. 1977. Streamside management and livestock grazing in the Blue Mountains of Oregon: a case study. p. 111-128, In: Proc.of the workshop on Page 14, Belsky,
Matzke, Uselman livestock and wildlife-fisheries relationships in the Great Basin. Univ. California, Agric. Station, Sci. Spec. Publ. 3301, Berkeley, CA.
Clary, W.P. 1995. Vegetation and soil responses to grazing simulation on riparian meadows. J. Range Manage. 48:18-25.
Clary, W.P., E.D. McArthur, D. Bedunah, and C.L. Wambolt (compilers). 1992. Proceedings-Symposium on ecology and management of riparian shrub communities. USDA Forest Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-289.
Clary, W.P., and D.E. Medin. 1990. Differences in vegetation biomass and structure due to cattle grazing in a northern Nevada riparian ecosystem. USDA Forest Serv. Re. Pap. INT-427.
Clary, W.P., and D.E. Medin. 1992. Vegetation, breeding bird, and small mammal biomass in two high-elevation sagebrush riparian habitats. p. 100-110. In: W.P. Clary, E.D.
McArthur, D. Bedunah, and C.L. Wambolt (compilers), Proceedings-Symposium on ecology and management of riparian shrub communities. USDA Forest Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-289.
Clary, W.P., N.L. Shaw, J.G. Dudley, V.A. Saab, J.W. Kinney, and L.C. Smithman. 1996.Response of a depleted sagebrush steppe riparian system to grazing control and woody plantings. USDA Forest Serv. Res.Pap. INT-RP-492.
Clary, W.P., and B.F. Webster. 1989. Managing grazing of riparian areas in the intermountain region. USDA Forest Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-263.
Davis, L., M. Brittingham, L. Garber, and D. Rourke. 1991. Stream bank fencing. Penn State College of Ag. Sci., Extension Circular 397. University Park, PA.
Duce, J.T. 1918. The effect of cattle on the erosion of canyon bottoms. Science 47:450-452.
Dudley, T., and M. Embury. 1995. Non-indigenous species in wilderness areas: the status and impacts of livestock and game species in designated wilderness in California Pacific Institute for SIDES, Oakland, CA.
Duff, D.A. 1977. Livestock grazing impacts on aquatic habitat in Big Creek, Utah. p. 129-142. In: Proc. of the workshop on wildlife-fisheries relationships in the Great Basin. Univ. California, Agric. Station, Sci. Spec. Publ. 3301, Berkeley, CA.
Elmore, W. 1996. Riparian areas: perceptions in management. USDA Forest Serv., Pacific Northwest Research Station, Natural Resource News 6(3):9.
Elmore, W., and R.L. Beschta. 1987. Riparian areas: perceptions in management. Rangelands 9:260-265.
Stephenson, G.R., and R.C. Rychert. 1982. Bottom sediment: a reservoir of Escherichia coli in rangeland streams. J. Range Manage. 35:119-123.
Stephenson, G.R., and L.V. Street. 1978. Bacterial variations in streams from a southwest Idaho rangeland watershed. J. Environ. Qual. 7:150-157.
Stevens, R., E.D. McArthur, and J.N. Davis. 1992. Reevaluation of vegetative cover changes, erosion, and sedimentation on two watersheds–1912-1983. p. 123-128. In: W.P. Clary, E.D. McArthur, D. Bedunah, and C.L. Wambolt (compilers), Proceedings-Symposium on ecology and management of riparian shrub communities. USDA Forest Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-289.
Stoddart, L.A., and A. Smith. 1955. Range management, 2nd edition. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Stuber, R.J. 1985. Trout habitat, abundance, and fishing opportunities in fenced vs. unfenced riparian habitat along sheep creek, Colorado. p. 310-314. In: R.R.
Johnson, C.D. Ziebell, D.R. Patton, and others (tech. coords.), Riparian ecosystems and their management: reconciling conflicting uses. USDA Forest Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-120.
Szaro, R.C. 1989. Riparian forest and scrubland community types of Arizona and New Mexico. Desert Plants 9(3-4):72-138.
Szaro, R.C., S.C. Belfit, J.K. Aitkin, and J.N. Rinne. 1985. Impacts of grazing on a riparian garter snake. p. 359-363. In: R.R. Johnson, C.D. Ziebell, D.R. Patton, and others (tech. coords.), Riparian ecosystems and their management: reconciling conflicting uses. USDA Forest Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-120.
Tait, C.K., J.L. Li, G.A. Lamberti, T.N. Pearsons, and H.W. Li. 1994. Relationships between riparian cover and community structure of high desert streams. J. N. A. Benthol. Soc. 13:45-56.
Taylor, D.M. 1986. Effects of cattle grazing on passerine birds nesting in riparian habitat. J. Range Manage. 39:254-258.
Taylor, F.R., L.A. Gillman, and J.W. Pedretti. 1989. Impact of cattle on two isolated fish populations in Pahranagat Valley, Nevada. Great Basin Nat. 49:491-495.
Thurow, T.L. 1991. Hydrology and erosion. p.141-159. In: R.K. Heitschmidt, and J.W. Stuth (eds.), Grazing management: an ecological perspective. Timber Press, Portland, OR.
Thomas, J.W., C. Maser, and J.E. Rodiek. 1979. Wildlife habitats in managed rangelands– The Great Basin of southeastern Oregon: riparian zones. USDA Forest Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-80.
Tiedemann, A.R., and D.A. Higgins. 1989. Effects of management strategies on water resources. p.56-91. In.: T.M. Quigley, H.R. Sanderson, and A.R. Tiedemann, Managing interior Northwest rangelands: The Oregon Range Evaluation Project. USDA Forest Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-238.
Tiedemann, A.R., D.A. Higgins, T.M. Quigley, H.R. Sanderson, and D.B. Marx. 1987.
Responses of fecal coliform in streamwater to four grazing strategies. J. Range Manage. 40:322-329.
Trimble, S.W. 1994. Erosional effects of cattle on streambanks in Tennessee, U.S.A. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 19:451-464.
Trimble, S.W., and A.C. Mendel. 1995. The cow as a geomorphic agent — a critical review. Geomorphology 13:233-253.
U.S. Department of Interior. 1993. Riparian area management, process for assessing proper functioning condition. TR 1737-9 1993, Bureau of Land Management, Box 25047, Denver, CO.
U.S. Department of Interior. 1994a. Rangeland reform ’94, Draft environmental impact statement. Bureau of Land Management, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Department of Interior. 1994b. Western riparian wetlands (Chapter 12). p. 213-238. In: The impact of federal programs on wetlands, Vol. II, A report to Congress by the Secretary of the Interior, Washington D.C., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arlington,VA.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1995. National Water Quality Inventory, 1994 Report to Congress Executive Summary. Office of Water, Washington DC 20460.
U.S. General Accounting Office. 1988. Public rangelands: some riparian areas restored by widespread improvement will be slow. GAO/RCED-88-105.
Warner, R.E., and K.M. Hendrix (eds). 1984. California riparian systems, ecology, conservation, and productive management. Univ. of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
Weller, M.W. 1996. Birds of rangeland wetlands. p. 71-82. In: P.R. Krausman (ed.), Rangeland wildlife. The Society of Range Management, Denver CO.
White, R.J., and O.M. Brynildson. 1967. Guidelines for management of trout stream habitat in Wisconsin. Dep. Nat. Resour. Tech. Bull. 39:, Madison, WI.
Winegar, H.H. 1977. Camp Creek channel fencing — plant, wildlife, soil, and water response. Rangeman’s J. 4:10-12.