Blog

“I predict future happiness for Americans, if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.” ― Thomas Jefferson

It is just not America’s Wild Horses in jeopardy from the Bureau of Land Management, but everything this government agency does is mismanaged and ruined, from wildlife to entire environmental areas being destroyed. This is a government agency run by, and ordered by a few corporations in the timber industry and Big AG. Whereas, everyone in America suffers from these few, because most American’s simply want to make a living, pay their taxes, and live their life freely. Corporate and government criminals do not allow this.

Once again we ponder the Bureau of Land Management and its methodology, this time in collateral, at best unorthodox and certainly questionable, use of America’s Public Lands. What you will read is not so much surprising as it is shocking; that these situations are allowed to go on and on by our current legislator’s holding office, remains and has been irresponsible at best. The cost? Billions bilked by welfare ranchers, logging companies, legislators, and Big AG, an undeniable fact when researched properly.

From the Horse’s Mouth

James White – Timber Inspector and Purchase Executive: To be honest, I could not believe my eyes and what stood to my front. I went out to an area in southeastern Idaho to obtain pricing estimates in regard to an available timber stand. I stood in the exact spot their map highlighted, and BLM had recently legally recorded such, with current P-line marked survey for log road installation and landings. The Bureau of Land Management not only marked the sale of lumber as available, complete with current Environmental Impact Assessments, but also current reports that the timber on the land healthy and suited for commercial use.

Journalist: So BLM Management provided a comprehensive report, thorough, and what they termed as Standard Practice?

James White: They refer to them as “Sustained Yield Units” which is a misnomer. By law BLM is to practice sustainable forestry. The fact is, I was looking at what was once a BLM forest, turned into a cow pasture. There exist no records of the land being logged what so ever, and yet no trees! Heavy cattle use prevented any future forest regeneration, or much of anything else within that area. The Public Land is of no use to anyone any longer, yet far enough away for the general public and taxpayer’s not to see — and the fact is no one would know or really find out at all what had happened there.

“Based upon review of their timber inventories the Bureau of Land Management is misnamed. The BLM information base about the forests the agency supposedly manages is so bad as to border on pulp fiction.” Boise Cascade Executive, Portland, Oregon

Journalist: Are there any more timber stands, slated for commercial use that apparently welfare ranchers had gotten into the area and grazed their cattle – obviously unknown to many?

James White: Abundant. These are situations that most of us in the private sector use to ignore, as it was so criminal in nature, no officials were doing a thing about it. Our career’s had to come first, as I had a large family and responsible to them. I would be willing to bet no one still does anything about it. But the areas are there to see for themselves.

Journalist: Your saying the timber sales illegal or they simply did not exist?

James White: We can again go to southeastern Idaho. The BLM marked a Tree Stand as “Healthy” and reforested (a ten to 15 year previous clear-cut recorded) and ready for commercial use within their Inventoried Commercial Timber Stands for Sustainable Yield. I looked for further documents and found an EA from the 1970’s, nothing else. It wasn’t until a couple months later I was driving to another Timber Sale, and passed the road to the supposed reforested area. Curious, I stopped and took the road. What I found was terrible. The area was totally devastated by cattle grazing. It was basically turned into sagebrush and small amounts of grassland. I say this as in the late 1970’s the area was documented by a thorough environmental analysis, to be targeted for the re-establishment of a “Healthy” forest stand of timber.

Journalist: This land is still in their Inventory as future sustainable yield?

James White: Absolutely.

BLM and Their Planning Decisions

The fact is and upon more data recovered, we find the BLM does not update their inventory of Public Land what so ever. Time after time testimony is given that their records, by policy should be updated every ten years or less, but is not done – in Reality, the files contain information from the 1960’s and 1970’s, with no updates at all. America is losing the battle for Public Land, yet paying a premium price for supposedly quality Public Lands, but is not quality what so ever, but mostly land destroyed from over-grazing of cattle, or Fracking. Both destructive!

In some cases plans and decisions were developed from aerial photography taken in the 1950’s. It is your taxpayer money at work here, and costing in the millions. And to the taxpayers, more insult to injury – some BLM District Offices lack inventories all together. And yet other District Offices misclassify marginal timber producing areas, as productive. This is the Lie ongoing in Oregon currently, and you’d better believe that your taxes that you pay within an honest perspective are going to be used dishonestly.

Then we go to the necessity for the removal of Wild Horse Herds, ethically questionable and costing taxpayers now in the billions of taxpayer dollars – and BLM does NOT acknowledge the Reality, the Wild Horses destroys nothing on our Public Lands (BLM provides no tenable or quality data for reference, and never have as yet for their Wild Horse Herd removal from Public Lands), and certainly not even close to the destruction that this government agency, the BLM, has already imposed and forced upon America’s Public Lands — Simply out of Incompetence and directed misinformation to the public and taxpayers.

Journalist: Is there more areas we can discuss here?

James White: Oh yes, many more. . . A part of the Garnet Resource Area in Montana that was clear-cut back in the 1970’s, still has regeneration problems, and remains baron. Cattle, placed there after the clear-cut, destroyed much of it. But the BLM allows rancher’s to place cattle in very environmentally sensitive areas – why, I do not know – but many of these areas are away from the public-eye and any type of public scrutiny.

Journalist: Anymore?

James White: Well, we can also go and see in that same area, Public Lands listed as Sustainable Yield by the BLM, and is nothing more than open-grassland for grazing cattle . . . These areas, to include riparian and creek or stream ecosystems have already been destroyed and very neglectfully. The environmental systems in many of those areas throughout that region can be used for nothing else but cattle grazing, and probably for not much longer, as it is also ruined land for rotational purposes as well.

Journalist: I am a little awed by this, to say the least. . .

James White: It gets worse. I had a friend go over to Baker City, Oregon BLM Office. He asked about a particular area in Oregon, and was led to a file cabinet drawer where the entire resource data, dating back to 1964, was filed. . . Wait, it gets worse. He asked a few specific questions about the area of interest, and the BLM employees that knew were either retired, not in the office at the time, or on sick leave. We can discuss as many offices as you wish, but all, even the few I have never been to, still carry the stigma of others in my profession that had haunting experiences similar to mine – and quite often.

Conclusion

This Journalist found James a straight forward and honest individual. He had 44 years in the logging industry, as a Planer and Timber Purchase Executive, with a Master Degree from the University of Washington. I should add as well, that he had an Attorney sitting next to him, who limited what he could say, should say, or expand on what he had already stated. James White is not his real name, as the logging industry remains defensive, to say the least, and quite similar to Big AG and their Lobby Groups.

But never the less it becomes quite obvious the data, the reference material, the records keeping, the decision making process, the faulty and often manipulated science, and the erroneous and destructive end-results become quite obvious, and expensive when the BLM is involved. When one considers that the only purpose for such a government agency should be termed – organized criminality, because nothing else would make sense. Even the term organized makes no sense, as they are not close to having any organization at all. The BLM is one government agency that should be shut-down. America cannot afford such trivial pursuits and dishonest behavior from such an enormous and quite costly agency.

_________________________
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 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.

Elmore, W., and B. Kauffman. 1994. Riparian and watershed systems: degradation and restoration. p. 212-231. In: M. Vavra, W.A. Laycock, and R.D. Pieper (eds.),

Ecological implications of livestock herbivory in the West. Soc. Range Management, Denver, CO. Erman, N.A. 1996. Status of aquatic invertebrates. p. 987-1008. In: Sierra Nevada ecosystem project: final report to Congress, Vol. II. Univ. of California, Davis, Centers for Water and Wildlife Resources, Davis, CA.

Flather, C.H., L.A. Joyce, and C.A. Bloomgarden. 1994. Species endangerment patterns in the United States. USDA Forest Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-241.

Fleischner, T.L. 1994. Ecological costs of livestock grazing in western North America. Cons. Biol. 8:629-644.
Gary, H.L., S.R. Johnson, and S.L. Ponce. 1983. Cattle grazing impact on surface water quality in a Colorado front Range stream. J. Soil Water Cons. 38:124-128.

George, M.R. 1996. Creating awareness of clean water issues among private landowners. p. 96-100. In: W.D. Edge, S.L. Olson-Edge (eds.), Sustaining rangeland ecosystems. Oregon State Univ. Extension Service, Special Rep. 953, Corvallis, OR.

Gifford, G.F., and R.H. Hawkins. 1978. Hydrologic impact of grazing on infiltration: a critical review. Water Resource Res. 14:305-313.

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. Page 23, Belsky, Matzke, Uselman

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.

“It is American’s that must make their government responsible. If not us, then there is nobody else that will.” — John Cox, American Heritage and Horse Advocate

Let’s pause for a moment and truthfully consider the upcoming elections in November 2014. First let’s consider our Wild Horse Herds, criminality, ignorance, incompetence, and just straight out irresponsible behavior by our government agencies – by the way these agencies and everyone who works for them, from the least paid janitor to the most paid Superintendent or Director, receives their pay from our tax paid dollars.

And at the present, apparently the taxpayers of America are the least represented entity in America right now, by those legislator’s that are running for office in November. Yes, even government agency personnel, who we pay, treat taxpayers as an ignorant step-child, and worse our current legislator’s disrespect taxpayer’s and the common-American almost daily. Then act as though what they are doing is so righteous that it saves all American’s from??? – well, we are unsure, as American’s what it is they are saving us from, but many of us acknowledge America is worse off now than ever before in history and with no one representing our behalf.

Government Agencies and America

Many research scientists I have spoken to of late, agree – they all asserted that the necessity for Wild Horse Herd Roundups, the Environmental Assessments that conclude the necessity, and all Administrative Assessments and Plans adopted by the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Forestry as well as the Department of the Interior, lacks any scientific credibility.

98% of the Research Scientists and Terrestrial Biologists (corresponded with 12 Research Scientists and 23 Terrestrial Biologists, 12 of which currently work in government agencies – who perused 85 EA’s, 38 Technical Reports and Range Studies, numerous budgets, pre-plans for Public Land Management and implementation from both administrative and management plans, court documentation, legislative documents, et al) agreed with the statement that the authors of such material must go back to the drawing board and begin again.

Further, they contend that no valid scientific conclusions supporting the beneficial effects of administrative removal of wild horses off of Public Lands can be drawn from any of the studies or information distributed by these agencies mentioned. There was no scientific evidence presented that administrative removals achieved any of the stated goals (reduced complaints, livestock depredations or decreased competition for graze, and decreases shown in Public Land depredation or any biosphere improvements).

As fact just the opposite has occurred with the group, termed “Welfare Ranchers i.e. those who use America’s Public Lands for grazing of their cattle and sheep (mostly to obtain subsidies on the millions of dollars from taxpayer money) now over-reach to wanting Public Lands for themselves, rather than to just graze-by-permit their cattle upon. Science is clear, cattle destroys Public Lands. . .

100% are in complete agreement that taxpayer money has been spent frivolously for such misinformed, politically driven, and incompetent documentation and reference. For example, to literally make more room for cattle, by explaining the necessity to remove wild horses, is corrupt and misinformation, but is simply a political agenda decision. But this is what Legislator’s, both Senators and Congressmen read – more profound as you read this white paper further —

Furthermore, the suggestion by 72% of the above stated, “These agencies should consult with reputable wildlife scientists, terrestrial biologists, range management technicians as well as statisticians and editors to obtain a reliable experimental design, analysis, and develop further reports based on reality, not a narrow scope slanted toward special interest groups.”

The other 28% suggested that those involved in making these misrepresented reports should be replaced by more knowledgeable individuals, professionals rather than amateurs. They also strongly contended that future assessments of Range Management, Environmental Assessments, Scientific Technical Reports, and other information within the decision making process be outsourced, to independent contractors.

“What is needed currently is reliable information that prioritizes good policy, and fact based science that good and frugal decisions can be based upon. Innuendo and special agendas remain awkward at best, and certainly provide no quantitative information for taxpayers to spend millions, if not billions of dollars over time on something so frivolous and at the outset,” Clive Brown – PhD, Research Scientist, retired NSA.

The Bureau of Land Management (and the others mentioned) continues to ignore by choice, scientific concerns and criticisms toward and about all of the aforementioned studies and documents. Their population models, environmental assessments, and methodology often unanimously approved by BLM staff. Sadly, these documents have succeeded in a not so ironic and single focus: to advance the overwhelming destruction of America’s Public Lands on a much faster pace than years past. A simplified equation (one of numerous): More Cattle = Faster Public Lands Destruction.

Design and Analyses

The scientific design of many government agency studies was seriously flawed – there were no replications of treatments and controls and no accounting for competing hypotheses. The questions asked (effects of administrative removals on complaints, livestock depredations, or Public Lands improvements) could not be effectively answered with their prototype styled design, if any –

Note: most EA’s, for example, were copies from other EA’s previously completed, with the area names and distinctive locations changed. To further the example, many EA’s remain not signed, so legitimacy regarding the legality of many wild horse herd roundups remains questionable – but no response from the Department of Justice in this matter what so ever.

The analyses, in all of the subject documents, were entirely descriptive in nature – there was little or no use of statistical hypothesis testing to provide reliable tests and conclusions, especially on wild horse herd population and current herd size in a given area of concern. As a matter of fact, the BLM’s theory/conjecture objectively adverse in total to controlling wild horse herd population, and to those scientists as well as horse-people knowledgeable in breeding and study/observation of wild horse herds while in the wild.

Also quite obvious is the fact that the very fundamental basis for much of the research conducted by the above agencies, the base data erroneous, therefore the assimilation of further data remains erroneous.

Further, and extremely unfortunate – six biologists easily conducted tests on much of the BLM and Forestry data, randomly. Simple statistical tests refuted all of the descriptive conclusions based in all of the BLM and Forestry reports and research.

One Terrestrial Biologist pondered if the BLM and Forestry results were accumulated, then written by a grade school student – she then defined her comment as not being sarcasm, rather conveying the point of how awkwardly childish some of the government agencies work and references had been indeed conveyed and written. Worse yet, costly decisions and policies derived from such “unqualified drivel” (her words) that it was amazing no one noticed throughout the agencies approval process – if indeed a process even exists.

The claims made within much of the reports, whether administrative or management, seem to be based on pre-determined beliefs and philosophical positions – not scientific evidence. When we consider exactly what a report developed with a political agenda (or special interest groups) in mind, it is quite obvious many of these documents, if not all of them, fit the criteria.

Conclusion

The obvious benefit of developing a quality environment on our Public Lands is and remains questionable, at best; especially from those currently responsible for doing such and their ongoing incompetent and irresponsible behavior. As taxpayers we have a voice in this decision making process, despite the fact legislators and special interest groups would prefer the general public to “not” have a say in what these government agencies are doing with our Public Lands and America’s Heritage, the Wild Horse Herds! It is time for a change. . .

___________________

References and Notes:

Keep in mind when reviewing the references below, from 2005, a yearly increase develops at 12.8% yearly; also, benefits to American’s ZERO — YET IT IS TAXPAYER MONEY SPENT TO SUPPORT THESE ENDEAVORS (mostly middle-class taxpayers); also, representation from our legislator’s toward this .0001% Special Interest population, in the continued $$$Billions of dollars from taxpayer money, is tremendous, with no representation whatsoever from the same legislators toward 99% of the American taxpaying Public and general population; also, keep in mind that this group of legislators suspended school-lunch programs in American schools, in order to support these endeavors of welfare ranching and sending their low-quality beef products to Japan and China! This is unacceptable.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has reported the federal government spends at least $294 million each year managing private livestock grazing on federal public lands, but collects only $21 million in grazing fees—for a net loss of at least $123 million per year.1

• The GAO reported that ten federal departments and agencies operate grazing programs on federal public lands: Bureau of Land Management (BLM), USDA-Forest Service, National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of Energy, Bureau of Reclamation, Army Corps of Engineers, the Army, Air Force, and Navy.

• The GAO admits its report is incomplete because several agencies, including the Natural Resources Conservation Service and the Environmental Protection Agency, which spend millions of dollars mitigating for grazing damage such as non-point source water pollution, did not provide estimates of their grazing related costs to the GAO.
Other programs that benefit both private and public lands ranchers, such as the “Livestock Compensation Program,”2 were also not included in the total subsidy to public lands ranchers.

• Considering the additional direct and indirect costs not included in the GAO report, economists have estimated that the federal public lands grazing on only BLM and Forest Service lands may cost as much as $500 million to $1 billion annually.

• The majority of BLM and Forest Service grazing fees are not deposited to the U.S. Treasury, but instead are diverted to the “Range Betterment Fund” to pay for fencing, water developments, and related infrastructure to support continued livestock grazing (see below).

• No legitimate report has ever fully analyzed the incredible environmental costs of livestock grazing on federal public lands (Big AG and Hunting groups stops any of these efforts via coercion, whether political or outright criminal corruption of government agencies).

♦ The BLM has documented more than $1.1 billion in liens on BLM grazing permits/leases in the eleven western states.

♦ Approximately 300 ranch operations have taken more than $450 million in loans on Forest Service grazing permits.

♦ In Supreme Court documents, the State Bank of Southern Utah confirmed that financial institutions hold an estimated $10 billion in loans and related credit transactions to the public land ranching industry, with the grazing privileges alone worth approximately $1 billion.

GAO. 2005. Livestock grazing: federal expenditures and receipts vary, depending on the agency and the purpose of the fee charged. GAO-05-869. Government Accountability Office. Washington, DC.

The Livestock Compensation Program was a huge boondoggle that paid farmers and ranchers $635 in 2002 and 2003. G. M. Gaul, D. Morgan, S. Cohen. No drought required for federal aid: livestock grazing program grew to cover any “disaster.” Washington Post (July 18, 2006).

Moscowitz, K. and C. Romaniello. 2002. Assessing the Full Cost of the Federal Grazing Program. Center for Biological Diversity. Tucson, AZ. The estimated cost of the federal grazing program at $500 million is consistent with estimates developed by other experts. K. Hess (former special advisor on policy to the Assistant Secretary for Program, Policy, and Budget of the Department of the Interior) and J. Wald (senior attorney and Land Program Director, Natural Resources Defense Council) estimated the annual cost of the federal grazing program to be
approximately $500 million.

Hess, K. and J. H. Wald. 1995. Grazing reform: here’s the answer. High Country News 27(18). The Economist magazine has also reported the annual cost of the federal grazing program to be $460 million. Subsidized cow chow. The Economist (Mar. 7, 2002): 39.

The Forest Service “escrow waiver” program is further described in M. Salvo. 2002. “Mortgaging Public Assets: How Ranchers Use Grazing Permits as Collateral.” Pages 271-273 in G. Wuerthner and M. Matteson (eds.). WELFARE RANCHING: THE SUBSIDIZED DESTRUCTION OF THE AMERICAN WEST. Island Press. Covelo, CA.

T. Jones and M. Salvo. 2006. “Mortgaging Our Natural Heritage: An Analysis of the Use of Bureau of Land Management Grazing Permits as Collateral for Private Loans.” Distributed report. Forest Guardians, Santa Fe, NM; Sagebrush Sea Campaign, Chandler, AZ.

Mortgaging Our Natural Heritage: 5.

Brief of Amici Curiae State Bank of Southern Utah in Support of Petitioner, Public Lands Council v. Babbitt, 529 U.S. 728 (2000).

Wildlife Services claimed to spend $5.1 million to protect domestic livestock from predators on federal public lands in FY 2004 ($5 million). GAO. 2005. Livestock grazing: federal expenditures and receipts vary, depending on the agency and the purpose of the fee charged. GAO-05-869. Government Accountability Office. Washington, DC: 6. However, this amount may be higher. The agency annually spends approximately $10.3 million on activities in the eleven western states, and it is estimated that 75 percent of this amount is used to control predators on public land ($8 million).

Data compiled by WildEarth Guardians from Wildlife Services data tables for FY 2007. Total count includes black bears, bobcats, coyotes, mountain lions, northern gray wolves and Mexican gray wolves.

Wildilfe Services. 2008. Wildlife Services’ 2007 Annual Tables: Table A. Wildlife Services Federal and Cooperative Funding by Resource Category – FY 2007. USDA, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Services.

O’Toole, R. 1994. Audit of the USDA Animal Damage Control Program. Cascade Holistic Economic Consultants. Oak Grove, OR: 1.

Rogers, P. 1999. Cash cows. San Jose Mercury News (Nov. 7, 1999): 6S.

USDA-NASS. 2006. Cattle Death Loss. USDA-National Agricultural Statistics Service, Agricultural Statistics Board. (May 2006). Domestic dogs kill as many livestock as mountain lions, bobcats, bears, and wolves, combined.

USDA-NASS. 2006. Cattle Death Loss. USDA-National Agricultural Statistics Service, Agricultural Statistics Board. (May 2006)