__________________________

Washington, DC — The U.S. Bureau of Land Management is carrying out an ambitious plan to map ecological trends throughout the Western U.S. but has directed scientists to exclude livestock grazing as a possible factor in changing landscapes, according to a scientific integrity complaint filed today . . .

In the face of this reaction, BLM initially deferred a decision but ultimately opted to –

1. Remove livestock grazing from all Eco-regional assessments, citing insufficient data.  As a result, the assessments do not consider massive grazing impacts even though trivial disturbance factors such as rock hounding are included; and
2. Limit consideration of grazing-related information only when combined in an undifferentiated lump with other native and introduced ungulates (such as deer, elk, wild horses and feral donkeys). — Posted on Nov 30, 2011 GRAZING PUNTED FROM FEDERAL STUDY OF LAND CHANGES IN WEST    http://www.peer.org/news/news-releases/grazing-punted-from-federal-study-of-land-changes-in-west.html

So in 2013 they denied further cattle being mentioned (i.e. ongoing at this time as well), or examined within any Rangelands Studies, Research, Science Data Gathering, and all around worthless science – paid for by American Taxpayer dollars!  AS they explain here:

In reaching this conclusion, BLM ignored meeting minutes produced by PEER in which BLM managers are quoted saying that study of grazing impacts would concern “stakeholders” and the Washington Office due to “fear of litigation.” The claim that the real reason was lack of data does not hold water because:

Attempts to exclude grazing began at the earliest stages of the study, before data availability was even examined. Further, BLM assertions of data gaps were never examined, let alone verified;

Other factors being studied, such as invasive species, also have data gaps but these issues did not prevent invasive species from being selected as a study focus; and

BLM managers hid the existence of a major livestock database which was never given to researchers.

“Caught with its pants down, BLM would have us believe it is wearing ankle warmers,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch, noting that the $40 million study was the biggest in BLM history but will end up being largely useless. “As by far the biggest disturbance factor on Western range lands, commercial livestock grazing simply cannot be left out of a scientific landscape assessment.” Posted on Jan 24, 2013 BLM SAYS IT CANNOT TRACK CATTLE ON ITS LANDS http://www.peer.org/news/news-releases/blm-says-it-cannot-track-cattle-on-its-lands.html

___________________________

One of the major problems we have with the Bureau of Land Management, as well as many of the non-profits now associated with them — i.e. BLM supporters Pesticide PZP Advocates – pushing dishonest science information and outright misinformation to the taxpayer public favorable to BLM and Wild Horse Extinction only, but there exists other options, several . . .  and this is unacceptable!

Of note:  these non-profit supporters to include the Humane Society, WHE, Cloud Foundation, AWHPC, Freedom for Horses, lack credibility, as well as no credibility with their pesticide known as PZP and due to nothing more than no present factual information, and truth — factual scientific information is indeed contrary to their misinformation — as shown above — the consistency of so many facts left out, and misinformed over-population of wild horses (they are not what so ever over-populated on Public Lands and BLM and their information, and specifically information left out of their statistics and assumptions, are in truth very crucial toward truth, but left out — with truthful facts showing no over-population of wild horses at all); thereby, BLM and their supporters lack any factual information to support their assumption they give to the public and taxpayers.  They have no credibility what so ever, other than $$$$$.

When all remarks, statements and research data was taken out of the Rangelands Studies and Research, and Scientific Research on Public Lands – demanded in 2011 by Bureau of Land Management to Not Include any information in regard to cattle (only under specific circumstances favorable to cattle only) on Public Lands, nor Grazing Permit issues –

Then yes, absolutely, we as American Taxpayers have problems from them and their exclusion of information damaging to the approval of future budgets, et al.  Then to generate, or develop within any capacity for credible and very costly monitoring programs, any Rangelands Studies, any Science when BLM involved, as well as the aptitude and education of those doing the monitoring program (the BLM supporter base $$$$ and conflicts of interest = special interest monitoring only) and gathering information about Public Lands, is nothing more than a dishonest endeavor.

There is no credibility here with any of those organizations, and Conflict of Interest very much alive and abundant within the BLM and the BLM Supporters $$$$$$$ . . . and within welfare ranching and Grazing Permit Programs. . .

* * *