Author: Photographer — Journalist

  • BLM DOI Tells taxpayers – Go to Hell

    Let’s discuss The Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Land Management within a Public Debate Platform right here, right now.  This is especially in regard to America’s Wild Horse Herds. The situation serves us well, as it exemplifies many politicians, scientists, researchers, and land management people’s opinion that current management within these aforementioned agencies, all the way to District office levels within the DOI and BLM, be terminated before our Public Lands are totally ruined.

    Not only incompetence and mismanaged Ecosystems top the list of this necessity, proving costly to taxpayers in the long-haul of the life cycle; but outright illegal behavior and irresponsible spending of our taxpayer dollars as well.  Yes, as obvious to many, there are thieves and scoundrels within the BLM and DOI, as well as those who cater to special interest groups, to include Ken Salazar.

    Irresponsible Leadership

    First we go to Leadership and the head of the Department of the Interior, Ken Salazar, a rancher.  The Bureau of Land Management (BLM who oversee our Public Lands for the taxpayers) also remains Ken Salazar’s responsibility, as being under the Management and Administrative arms of the Department of the Interior (DOI).  The lack of leadership within these agencies is obvious, due to their special-interest group priorities and a basic attitude of “the taxpayers can go to hell” mentality.

    One does not have to ponder the situation much to acknowledge Welfare Ranching (in excess of $890 million dollars a year-plus and rising per year) on our Public Lands is not necessary.  They simply put that money in their pockets.  But there is a rancher that heads-up DOI, ranchers as consultants on the Wild Horse and Burro Program, and ranchers with BLM at all significant agency departments, in both DOI and BLM.

    Conflict of Interest – Absolutely!  Make no doubt!  And using our Public Lands as their playground to make more and more money!  Of course, at taxpayer expense!

    Billions of dollars spent needlessly over the past four years (i.e. see government budgets and GAO Reports for Public scrutiny and on the Internet), and one can even say beyond a doubt and with harsh accuracy, since the early 1990’s even, reflects this mismanaged agency and sub-agency. This is not a hollow statement, as an undercover investigation in the early 1990’s provided many felony arrest warrants, in excess of 1,250 just within BLM and their employees at that time.  The situation called off by one or two legislators, as their involvement and illegal activity was to be highlighted next. Reports and a thorough White Paper can be reviewed on the entire 1990’s undercover investigation at http://www.peer.org .

    The people mentioned within these executed felonies in the early 1990’s, via filing for arrest warrants, are now within many management levels of the DOI, BLM, and even USFWS.  Mr. Salazar has had access to this information, with full knowledge of the employees involved (i.e. as the head management person responsible for agency conduct), and has essentially allowed their behavior to continue, after all, he is the head of it all.

    How profound to assume Mr. Salazar knows nothing!  And what of the wild horses being shot in Nevada, with Welfare Ranchers hiring the people to shoot the horses, as nothing more than pests in regard to Public Lands?  Or the stuffed wild horse in one of the shooters’ living room, proudly displaying his capture as a trophy – all the while BLM employees’ awareness of all of these felony situations exists, and even guests at this particular fellows home (as testimony will show in the future).  So Mr. Salazar does not know about this situation either?

    Missing 1,700 Wild Horses from the Roundups

    Illegal and certainly questionable activities have been brought to the public’s attention recently, exemplified by the Tom Davis situation.  It involves the BLM selling Wild Horses to Mr. Davis, which he then takes to slaughter into Mexico or Canada.  Mr. Salazar has an assumed (based on much more information and his conduct) knowledge about this situation; Ironically, not only by obvious approval to BLM staff to sell Tom Davis roundup Horses’ from the Wild Horse Herds (essentially America’s horses and sponsored via taxpayer money) and selling them at a tremendous discount to Mr. Davis, but Mr. Salazar’s brother (undefined statements) lives next door to Mr. Davis.

    Happenstance of circumstance?  Coincidence?  An odd and ironic accident?  Or should it be defined as an Ethics violation, certainly illegal behavior, and perhaps considered to be several events of fraudulent activity?  Who really knows the number of wild horses sold to Mr. Davis, as no one is allowed to do an appropriate headcount of the wild horses supposedly in permanent and well protected corrals throughout the southwest as well as Wyoming, Nevada, and Utah.  These corrals are BLM and BLM contractors’ access only?  This fact alone generates many questions in regard to even more illegal activities.

    The assumed amount (known at this point) to be 1,700 wild horses sold to Tom Davis, and sold to slaughter plants in excess of $700 each, reflects quite a profitable run for the criminal behavior.  And again Mr. Salazar’s attitude, as well as the BLM employees as well, is that the Public Can Go To Hell!  But our tax dollars, sir – what about our tax dollars?  What about America’s wild horse herds, sir, what about them, they belong to all American’s and not something you can do with them as you please!

    Illegal and Unethical behavior and to hell with Taxpayers!

    And of course, the taxpayers are footing the bill for the wild horses, conducive to the BLM estimated numbers of 40,000 wild horses (yes, fraud comes into play again and again with these same DOI and BLM people).  This costs taxpayers $58+ million dollars per year – and on the basis of what BLM employees and independent contractors tell the taxpayers (see GAO Reports).

    But who knows, as BLM outright lies about how much money they make in a year from licensing or permits – and keep in mind BLM is the most litigated and sued agency in United States history – and yes, exemplifies their common employee attitude that the taxpayers can go to hell!

    Lawsuits are quite costly, and the Justice Department (yet another obvious and outright unethical situation, as their mission is to protect the public from such shenanigans by government agencies) is the BLM / DOI Justice Department Attorney’s that defend the DOI and BLM staff – another quite costly situation to the taxpayers of America.

    Leaving wild horse herds on the range costs the taxpayers nothing, and the wild horse herds do NO HARM to the ECOSYSTEM what so ever.  This is validated by sound and legitimate independent research time and again (see peer.org and other terrestrial and range management science sites or — simply Google cattle grazing on Public Lands).

    An overall abundance of technical and terrestrial reports as well as legitimate range management reports attest to the No Harm from Horses paradigm on Public Lands.  Of course, not so ironic, these same reports dispute the narrow and non-legitimate BLM rangeland reports, due to BLM researchers and data gatherers’ leaving out cattle as being a studied group within those same reports.  And, of course the special interest groups (Welfare Ranchers) actually define BLM / DOI researcher’s data, via bias, and what goes into the actual studies.  This is also what reaches the public and taxpayers, essentially false information.

    This only leaves other mammals’ with hooves to take the blame for cattle and ruining of many Ecosystems, which is more erroneous information deduced by bias research; and within the BLM and Mr. Salazars’ attitude and condescension toward the public, of telling the public to go to hell.  Just as ridiculous as it sounds here, the fact is the BLM and their data gatherers expect us to believe their data.

    Recommendation?  Open Debate Platform

    This is the reasoning behind Public Debate, and it being so important.  The facts must come out, as we are being ripped-off within this non-transparent situation.  Simply attempt to obtain information, or ask the BLM Administrators where our publically owned Wild Horse Herd horses are located.

    More than that, how did just a narrow scope of interests become so dominant within a government agency.  Welfare Ranchers are continuing to rip-off taxpayers, and even setup No Trespassing signs on Public Lands, all the while they only have grazing permits to use on that same land.  Is the situation out of hand?  Completely, and at the expense of taxpayers, and at a significantly large amount.

    It is simply time to remove all those with previous ranching backgrounds from BLM and DOI.  They have proven themselves as non-Americans’, scoundrels, only using our tax dollars for themselves – they figured out early on how to rip us off.  It is time to obtain legitimate Environmentalists to manage our Public Lands and become Administrators of our over all environment through the Department of the Interior.  And by the way, I must say this for all taxpayers — Mr. Salazar, you go to hell.

  • BLM Roundups – RESPONSE LETTER FOR EA – Murderers Creek, Oregon

    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.