Research and Writing by John Cox, Cascades

“I always believe that ultimately, if people are paying attention, then we get good government and good leadership. And when we get lazy, as a democracy and civically start taking shortcuts, then it results in bad government and politics.” — An American Who Cared

Many Americans today view our government agencies with distain, most often rightly so. The laws that govern this land in the United States are being ignored by current government agency employees. And yet, they receive their payroll checks and salaries as if owed to them, in reality, for not obeying or even considering our nations legal requirements and regulatory methods of management. As any horse trainer, or animal trainer will tell you, this is not a good situation to do, as it delivers the wrong message.

Taxpayer’s and the Bureau of Land Management

So we as taxpayer’s in America, repeatedly lied to by this government agency called the Bureau of Land Management – and always have been, remain a little bewildered and untrusting, and for legitimate reasons. For example, they tell us, taxpayers, everything is okay for them to go ahead and complete a Wild Horse Herd Roundup in accord with their Environmental Statements and Impact studies (a legal obligation in accord with legislative laws).

In truth taxpayers pay for the studies, several hundred thousand dollars’ worth, but they are not done in accord with data gathering or good science – more often than not they are simply taken from another EA or EIS from another region, changed to make it appear it was accomplished recently, and signed off as “No Environmental Impact in area will occur due to Roundups” which is a lie, that simple. Yes, this is Fraud at its most obvious, many violations of Federal Law, but then . . .

The individual putting together the EA or EIS never leaves his or her desk most often. We delivered more than a few Freedom of Information Act requests to BLM, in order to document the actual Field Studies of many Environmental Impact Statements they issued to the public – We received a standard response of “. . . no records of Field Study budgets or Expenses available. . .” Yet, there on a desk was an EA and an EIS that unequivocally stated different, or more obvious, the lie.

Taxpayers foot the bill, for these falsified Environmental Impact Statements, often within excessive dollar amounts, to include more often than not — $110,000+ each instance, for example. This being done a couple of hundred times, throughout the BLM offices and areas, and soon we see a vast amount of taxpayer money spent very questionably just within this misrepresented arena; which in truth, a catastrophe for the Wild Horses.

When we point this information out, so costly to all of us in America, we are called “extremists” or “malcontents,” of “Fringe-Elements”! In reality, we are simply pointing out the facts, and oh what facts they are and on a constant basis. These government agencies, and Welfare Ranchers have been doing this for so long, they feel it is a “normal crime to continue to commit”. Yes, it is that easy. But take it from a previous BLM employee and Supervisor below . . . taken from a Federal Court Declaration. . . then multiply what he says by all other areas where Wild Horse Herd Roundups take place, and then we start getting the landscape of the astronomical scheme that is being perpetuated and promoted by this agency, the BLM, and Welfare Ranchers alike. . .

“. . . Another major concern with BLM’s agreement to remove all horses from the private lands of the Wyoming Checkerboard is that BLM is undermining the laws that apply to the Checkerboard, and wild horse management in general, which I implemented during my time as a BLM official. Traditionally, BLM officials (myself included) have understood that, pursuant to the Wild Horse Act, wild horses have a right to use BLM lands, so long as their population numbers do not cause unacceptable damage to vegetation or other resources. In stark contrast, however, livestock (sheep and cattle) have no similar right to use BLM lands; rather, livestock owners may be granted the privilege of using BLM lands for livestock grazing pursuant to a grazing permit that is granted by BLM under the Taylor Grazing Act, but that privilege can be revoked, modified, or amended by BLM for various reasons, including for damage to vegetation or other resources caused by livestock, or due to sparse forage available to sustain livestock after wild horses are accounted for. BLM’s tentative agreement here does the opposite and instead prioritizes livestock over wild horses, by proposing to remove hundreds of wild horses from the Wyoming Checkerboard without reducing livestock numbers – which, in my view, is contrary to the laws governing BLM’s actions as those mandates were explained to me and administered during the decades that I was a BLM official.” — Public File. . . LEGAL DECLARATION (5.) filed by former BLM Rock Springs and Rawlins area manager, Lloyd Eisenhauer: IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF WYOMING Rock Springs Grazing Association, Case No. 2:11-cv-00263-NDF Plaintiff, v. Ken Salazar, et al.,Defendants, DECLARATION OF LLOYD EISENHAUER

We continue further with Lloyd Eisenhaur’s Declaration and within another section of his statement, “. . . Considering that wild horses exhibit different foraging patterns and movement patterns than sheep and cattle, and also than big game such as antelope and elk, no sound biological basis exists for permanently removing wild horses from the Wyoming Checkerboard at this time. In particular, wild horses tend to hang out in the uplands at a greater distance from water sources until they come to briefly drink water every day or two, whereas livestock congregate near water sources and riparian habitat causing concentrated damage to vegetation and soil. For this reason, the impacts of wild horses are far less noticeable on the Checkerboard than impacts from livestock. “ Loyd Eisenhaur Legal Declaration . . . Ibid. . .

BLM, Welfare Ranchers, and Criminal Behavior

The ideology of Welfare Ranchers, at this point in time, is not a complex issue. It is an issue of money, greed, and how to split the money among a small group of ranchers that hold Public Lands Grazing Permits. Their ally in this scheme, or crimes against the tax paying public, the Bureau of Land Management, remains at the disposal of these Welfare Ranchers and vast amounts of tax payer money. Over the years this situation has gone unnoticed by the public, under the radar for many decades now, from Public Scrutiny or thorough investigation.

The Federal investigation (undercover work costing millions in taxpayer money) that took place in the early 1990’s was canceled right before Arrest Warrants issued (i.e. approximately 2,800 felony warrants). Many felony arrest warrants were about to be issued, then called off at the last moment – reasoning: To many employees in one government agency would have been taken to trial and would have overloaded the system, as well as place a burden on the Bureau of Land Management operations. . . No employees were fired, laid-off, or even so much as bothered by the investigation and arrest warrant situation.

Hypocrisy of Welfare Ranchers

Ironic as well, these same Welfare Ranchers will chastise those who receive welfare checks to eat and nourish their children, calling them mooches; and yet, consider their subsidies received for nothing but using public lands to graze upon, as different and more of an “Entitlement” to them, which they demand they receive to this day.

Yes, the tax free subsides are different, in a way and in their mind, but a style of socialism (which ironically the Welfare Ranchers also dislike the term socialism, very odd indeed since they are recipients of such a classification situation or social-mooches as they call it), and receive in the hundreds of thousands of dollars — each Welfare Rancher, and in total cost taxpayers $Billions of dollars yearly. And now the façade of ridding Americas Public Lands of Our true Heritage Icons, the Wild Horses, and under the guise of false information given to the Public and taxpayers of this land — and at a cost not only monetarily, but also with abuse and death of Wild Horses attached as well.

Yes, they feel they are exempt from laws and ethics, and they are exquisitely “Entitled.” But as stated in many other articles, their beef is not so good, and domestic sales remain at less than 1% of actual sales receipts yearly. They ship quite a bit of meat product to Japan and China, so once again taxpayers get ripped-off. So we as taxpayers substantially finance, without approval from us I might add and on the sly, we basically fund these Welfare Rancher’s expenses to produce, feed, and ship the beef and sheep to foreign ports. All this in a very low-key and sneaky methodology, without the taxpayers knowing what is indeed going on.

Wild Horses versus BLM and Welfare Ranchers

The problem that exists is they want to wipe out all Wild Horses on Public Lands, and replace them with cattle – which has already cost the American taxpayer $billions, under the cloak of agriculture as well as under the radar. But as mentioned above, and in oh so many science reports and data gathering events, it is not the Wild Horses doing reoccurring damage to Public Lands, it is the cattle and sheep – beyond a doubt.

Another truism, the Welfare Ranchers cannot get away with this constant chain of taxpayer money used falsely as subsidies, unless the Bureau of Land Management takes part in the overall scheme – and take part they do, just as in the early 1990’s. The excuses of competition for cattle and food source on Public Lands are also laid to rest here, further in his Declaration to the Federal Court:

“. . . In addition, because livestock tend to eat somewhat different forage than wild horses (horses tend to eat coarser vegetation such as Canadian wild rye and other bunch grasses, whereas cattle and sheep mostly eat softer grasses), there is no justification to remove wild horses on the basis that insufficient forage exists to support the current population of wild horses. . . Also, because cattle and sheep have no front teeth on the front part of their upper jaws, they tend to pull and tear grasses or other forage out by the root causing some long-term damage to vegetation, whereas wild horses, which have front teeth on both their front upper and lower jaws, act more like a lawnmower and just clip the grass or forage (leaving the root uninjured), allowing the vegetation to quickly grow back. These differences are extremely significant because if there were a need to reduce the use of these BLM lands by animals to preserve these public lands, it might be cattle and sheep – not wild horses – that should be reduced to gain the most benefit for the lands, and which is why BLM, during my time as an agency official, focused on reducing livestock grazing.” Loyd Eisenhaur Legal Declaration . . . Ibid. . .

The Laws Ignored

We can find even more violation of law within the Declaration of Lloyd Eisenhauer:

“. . . The zeroing out of wild horses in the Salt Wells and Divide Basin HMAs is also concerning because it would mean that, in those two longstanding HMAs, there would no longer be the “multiple use” of these public lands as required by both the Wild Horse Act and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. Currently, while there are other uses of this public land, such as by wildlife, hunters, and recreational users, the two primary uses in those HMAs are by wild horses and livestock. If BLM proceeds with its agreement with RSGA to zero out wild horses in those HMAs, the only major use remaining would be livestock use, meaning that there would be no multiple use of those BLM lands. Not only will that potentially undermine the laws that BLM officials must implement here, but it has practical adverse effects on the resources – multiple use is very beneficial for the environment, and particularly for sensitive vegetation, because different users (e.g., livestock, wild horses) use the lands and vegetation in different ways. When that is eliminated, the resources are subjected to an unnatural use of the lands which can cause severe long-term damage to the vegetation. As a result, zeroing out these herds would likely be devastating for the vegetation in these two HMAs, because livestock would be by far the predominant use in this area.” Loyd Eisenhaur Legal Declaration . . . Ibid. . .

Conclusion

To say there is a problem here is an understatement. To say there is a scheme, a dynamic of illegal process and procedure is a statement well founded in facts, overwhelming facts that exist just not within this particular article, but within much of the BLM’s own paperwork and inventories, and just from reading the laws and management policies, and the contrasts that exists from a quick review of what BLM actually does in the field.

The Welfare Ranching operations are nothing more than a financial nightmare, especially to taxpayers, and a scheme to receive money from the tax paying public – using antiquated and unuseful legislative Acts from the past – It is simply time to void and take them off the books, as no longer necessary or feasible in today’s time and place. Not only do most Welfare Ranchers receive large amounts of subsidies, to purchase more cattle and supplement their expenses, but derive almost a 92% to 99% income, tax free due to being a subsidy, going directly into their pockets.

Do other American’s qualify for this? Nope — And for sure no one will, other than the small groups of those Welfare Rancher’s on Public Lands right now! This is not the American way of doing things, and our American Heritage; America’s Wild Horses are paying the price for this obvious ongoing criminality. Worse yet, nothing are being done to bring the BLM and other agencies, as well as Welfare Ranchers to task for such a corrupt situation that exists on our Public Lands today.

Our American Heritage, the Wild Horse Herds, pay the price of criminal indulgence.
____________________________

The above quotes taken from Court documents, LEGAL DECLARATION filed by former BLM Rock Springs and Rawlins area manager, Lloyd Eisenhauer: IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF WYOMING Rock Springs Grazing Association, Case No. 2:11-cv-00263-NDF Plaintiff, v. Ken Salazar, et al.,Defendants, DECLARATION OF LLOYD EISENHAUER. — Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. — Lloyd Eisenhauer.
_______________________________

References:

Bellows, B. C. March 2003. Protecting riparian areas: Farmland management strategies. Soil Systems Guide, Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas. At http://www.attra.ncat.org.
Belsky, A. J., A. Matzke, and S. Uselman. 1999. Survey of livestock influences on stream and riparian ecosystems in the western United States. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 54(1): 419-431.
Bohn, C. C., and J. C. Buckhouse. 1986. Effects of grazing management on streambanks. Trans. N. Am. Wildl. Natl. Resour. Conf. 51:265-271.
Bryant, H. T., R. E. Blaser, and J. R. Peterson. 1972. Effect of trampling by cattle on bluegrass yield and soil compaction of a meadowville loam. Agron. J. 64:331-334.
Chichester, F. W., R. W. Van Keuran, and J. L. McGuinness. 1979. Hydrology and chemical quality of flow from small pastured watersheds: Chemical quality. J. Envir. Qual. 8(2): 167-171.
Cole, D. W., 1981. Nitrogen uptake and translocation by forest ecosystems. In: F. E. Clark and T. Rosswall (eds.) Terestrial Nitrogen Cycles. Ecological Bulletin. Vol. 33. p. 219-232.
Cooper, A. B., C. M. Smith, and M. J. Smith. 1995. Effects of riparian set-aside on soil characteristics in an agricultural landscape Implications for nutrient transport and retention. Agric. Ecosystems Environ. 55:61-67.
Duff, Donald A. 1979. Riparian habitat recovery on Big Creek, Rich County, Utah. In Proceedings: Grazing and Riparian/Stream Ecosystems. Trout Unlimited, Inc. p. 91
Gardner, J. L. 1950. Effects of thirty years of protection from grazing in desert grassland. Ecology. 31:44-50.
Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Animal Agriculture: A Summary of Literature Related to the Effects of Animal Agriculture on Water Resources (G), 1999. The Environmental Quality Board, College of Agriculture, Food, and Environmental Sciences (COAFES), Univ. of Minnesota.
Green, D. M., and J. B. Kauffman. 1989. Nutrient cycling at the land-water interface: The importance of the riparian zone. In: R. E. Gresswell, B. A. Barton, and J. L. Kershner (eds.) Practical Approaches to Riparian Resource Management : An Education Workshop. U.S. Bureau of Land Management. Billings, MT. p. 61-68.
Gregory, S. V., F. J. Swanson, W. A. McKee, and K. W. Cummins. 1991. An ecosystem perspective of riparian zones. Bioscience 41(8): 540-550.
Hack-ten Broeke, M. J. D., W. J. M. De Groot, and J. P. Dijkstra. 1996. Impact of excreted nitrogen by grazing cattle on nitrate leaching. Soil Use Manage. 12:190-198.
Jawson, M. D., L. F. Elliott, K. E. Saxton, and D. H. Fortier. 1982. The effect of cattle grazing on nutrient losses in a pacific northwest setting, USA. J. Environ. Qual. 11:628-631.
Kaufmann, J. B., and W. C. Kreuger. 1984. Livestock impacts on riparian ecosystems and streamside management implications: A review. J. Range Manage. 37:430-438.
Knapp, R. A., V. T. Vredenburg, and K. R. Matthews. 1998. Effects of stream channel morphology on golden trout spawning habitat and recruitment. Ecol. Appl. 8:1104-1117.
Lemly, D. A. 1982. Modification of benthic insect communities in polluted streams: Combined effects of sedimentation and nutrient enrichment. Hydrobiologia. 87:229-245.
Li, H. W., G. A. Lamberti, T. N. Pearsons, C. K. Tait, J. L. Li, and J. C. Buckhouse. 1994. Cumulative effects of riparian disturbances along high desert trout streams of the John Day Basin, Oregon. Trans. Am. Fisheries Soc. 123:627-640.
Magilligan, F. J., and P. F. McDowell. 1997. Stream channel adjustments following elimination of cattle grazing. J. Am. Water Resour. Assn. 33:867-878.
Marcuson, Patrick E. 1977. Overgrazed streambanks depress fishery production in Rock Creek, Montana. Fish and Game Federation Aid Program. F-20-R-21-11a.
McColl, R. H. S., and A. R. Gibson. 1979. Downslope movement of nutrients in hill pasture,Taita, New Zealand: 2. Effects of season, sheep grazing and fertilizer. New Zealand J. Agric. Res. 22:151-162.
Meyers, T. J., and S. Swanson. 1991. Aquatic habitat condition index, streamtypes and livestock bank damage in northern Nevada. Water Resour. Bull. 27:667-677.
Minshall, G. W. 1984. Aquatic insect substratum relationships. In V. H. Resh and D. M. Rosenberg (ed.) The ecology of aquatic insects. Praeger Publishers, New York. p. 356-400.
Mwendera, E. J., and M. A. M. Saleem. 1997a. Infiltration rates, surface runoff, and soil loss as influenced by grazing pressure in the Ethiopian highlands. Soil Use Manage. 13:29-35.
Mwendera, E. J., M. A. M. Saleem, and A. Dibabe. 1997. The effect of livestock grazing on surface runoff and soil erosion from sloping pasture lands in the Ethiopian highlands. Australian J. Experimental Agric. 37:421-430.
Naeth, M. A., and D. S. Chanasyk. 1996. Runoff and sediment yield under grazing in foothills fescue grasslands of Alberta. Water Res. Bull. 32:89-95.
Naiman, R. J., and H. Decamps. 1997. The ecology of interfaces: Riparian zones. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. V. 28. p. 621-658.
Olness, A., S. J. Smith, E. D. Rhoades, and R. G. Menzel. 1975. Nutrient and sediment discharge from agricultural watersheds in Oklahoma. J. Environ. Qual. 4:331-336.
Ohio’s Hydrologic Cycle. 1994. L. C. Brown. AEX 461. Ohio State University Extension.
Orodho, A. B., M. J. Trlica, and C. D. Bonham. 1990. Long term heavy grazing effects on soil and vegetation in the four corners region. Southwest Naturalist. 35:9-14.
Owens, L. B., W. M. Edwards, and R. W. Van Keuren. 1989. Sediment and nutrient losses from an unimproved all-year grazed watershed. J. Environ. Qual. 18:232-238.
Owens, L. B., W. M. Edwards, and R. W. Van Keuren. 1996. Sediment losses from a pastured watershed before and after stream fencing. J. Soil Water Conserv. 51:90-94.
Owens, L. B., W. M. Edwards, and R. W. Van Keuren. 1997. Runoff and sediment losses resulting from winter feeding on pastures. J. Soil Water Conserv. 52:194-197.
Owens, L. B., W. M. Edwards, and R. W. Van Keuren. 1983. Surface runoff quality comparisons between unimproved pasture and woodlands. J. Environ. Qual. 12:518-522.
Owens, L. B., W. M. Edwards, and R. W. Van Keuren. 1994. Groundwater nitrate levels under fertilized grass and grasslegumes pastures. J. Environ. Qual. 23:752-758.
Richards, R. P., F. G. Calhoun, and G. Matisoff. 2002. Lake Erie agricultural systems for environmental quality project. J. of Envir. Qual. 31:6-16.
Rabalais, N. N., R. E. Turner, and W. J. Wiseman, Jr. 2001. Hypoxia in Gulf of Mexico. J. of Envir. Qual. Mar-Apr 30(2):320-329.
Platts, W. S. 1991. Livestock grazing. In: Influence of forest and rangeland management on Salmonid fishes and their habitats. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 19:389-423.
Platts, W. S., and R. F. Nelson. 1985. Stream habitat and fisheries response to livestock grazing and instream improvement structures, Big Creek, Utah. J. Soil Water Conserv. 40:374-379.
Platts, W. S. and F. J. Wagstaff. 1984. Fencing to control livestock grazing on riparian habitats along streams: Is it a viable alternative. N. Am. J. Fisheries Manage. 4:266-272.
Peterjohn, W. T., and D. L. Correll. 1984. Nutrient dynamics in an agricultural watershed: Observations of a riparian forest. Ecology 65: 1466-1475.
Quinn, J. M., R. B. Williamson, R. K. Smith, and M. L. Vickers. 1992. Effects of riparian grazing and channelization on streams in southland New Zealand 2. Benthic invertebrates. New Zealand J. Marine Freshwater Res. 26:259-273. LS-2-05.
Rauzi, F., and C. L. Hanson. 1966. Water intake and runoff as affected by intensity of grazing. J. Range Manage. 19:351-356.
Schepers, J. S., and D. D. Francis. 1982. Chemical water quality of runoff from grazing land in Nebraska: I. Influence of grazing livestock. J. Environ. Qual. 11:351-354.
Schepers, J. S., B. L. Hackes, and D. D. Francis. 1982. Chemical water quality of runoff from grazing land in Nebraska: II. Contributing factors. J. Environ. Qual. 11:355-359.
Sidle, R. C., and A. Sharma. 1996. Stream channel changes associated with mining and grazing in the Great Basin. J. Environ. Qual. 25:1111-1121.
Smith, C. M. 1989. Riparian pasture retirement effects on sediment phosphorus and nitrogen in channellized surface run-off from pastures. New Zealand J. Mar. Freshwater Res. 23:139-146.
Stout, W. L., S. A. Fales, L. D. Muller, R. R. Schnabel, W. E. Priddy, and G. F. Elwinger. 1997. Nitrate leaching from cattle urine and feces in northeastern U.S. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. 61:1787.
Sweeny, B. W. 1993. Effects of streamside vegetation on macroinvertebrate communities of White Clay Creek in eastern North America. Proc. of the Natural Science Academy of Philadelphia. 144:291-340.
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. Am. Benthological Soc. 13:45-56.
USEPA. 2000. National Water Quality Inventory: 2000 Report to Congress Executive Summary, Office of Water, Washington, DC 20460. [Online] Available at http://www.epa.gov/305b.
Waters, T. F. 1995. Sediment in streams, sources, biological effects and control. American Fisheries Society Monograph 7.
White, R. K., R. W. VanKeuren, L. B. Owens, W. M. Edwards, and R. H. Miller. 1983. Effects of livestock pasturing on non-point surface runoff. Project Summary, Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory, Ada, Oklahoma. EPA- 600/S2-83-011. 6p.
Williamson, R. B., C. M. Smith, and A. B. Cooper. 1996. Watershed riparian management and its benefits to a eutrophic lake. J. Water Res. Planning Manage.-ASCE. 122:24-32.
Williamson, R. B., R. K. Smith, and J. M. Quinn. 1992. Effects of riparian grazing and channelization on streams in Southland New Zealand I. Channel form and stability. New Zealand Journal of Marine & Freshwater Research. 26:241-258.
Wohl, N. E., and R. F. Carline. 1996. Relations among riparian grazing, sediment loads, macroinvertebrates, and fishes in three central Pennsylvania streams. Can. J. Fisheries Aquatic Sci. 53(suppl. 1):260-266.