RSS

Bureau of Land Management Refuse to Accept Responsible Budget Restraint or Conduct; Taxpayers Pay for BLM’s Arrogant Attitude – An Editorial

murderer's creek horses

“In the laws of the land, we have no rights; in government we have no voice; and in spite of another principle recognized in this Republic, namely, that taxation without Representation is Tyranny, we are taxed without being represented.” — An American Patriot

“A federal judge ruled Monday that the U.S. Bureau of Land Management once again violated federal laws when it issued grazing permits instead of analyzing how grazing. . . U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill found that the BLM failed to consider stopping grazing in any of the proposed management plans in the agency’s Burley Field Office.” Federal court rules BLM wrong on EA By KIMBERLEE KRUESI, Associated Press Published: Sep 29, 2014

“The BLM failed to analyze existing . . . conditions in the four allotments, Judge Winmill wrote, which he described as “particularly troubling” because the species is a candidate for listing under the Endangered Species Act. . . He also wrote that the four allotments are degraded by livestock grazing. . . Judge Winmill agreed that the BLM is allowed to automatically renew grazing permits without conducting lengthy environmental reviews. However, it must still comply with federal laws requiring the agency to consider ongoing rangeland degradation and observe the Fundamental of Rangeland Health regulations during allotment renewal.” Ibid.

Once again the Bureau of Land Management employees, i.e. Rangeland Managers, decided to ignore Law, ignore appropriate decision making process based on good science, and pretty much went about their own decision making process of placing special interest first, despite the destruction their decision would cause on America’s Public Lands, and at taxpayer expense.

Going to Federal Court costs the American taxpayers anywhere from $1.5 million dollars to upward of $12 to $18 million dollars in the past. . . Multiply this by the approximate 70 to 85 times yearly this government agency is taken to court, just within the parameter simply making bad decisions – and these figures escalate into an extremely large amount of taxpayer money spent questionably.

But this is not unique at all to those of us who watch what the BLM does, and how they go about their irresponsible daily business.

Wild Horse Herd Rounds

As the example above shows us, and many more are indeed available from the last year or two (even though we can reference up to 20 years ago quite readily), the wild horse herd roundups are unnecessary, where decisions made from false, and even politically manipulated information.

When managed properly, through a horse herd’s natural ability to keep their breeding minimal, horse herds only grow 2% to a high of 4% (i.e. study groups as well as experience in observing horse herd interactions quite clear on this particular subject) – with predation decreasing herd size as well. This would cost taxpayers a few thousand yearly, not $billions as it is currently. Yes, this simple.

I mention this, and keep it within just this marginal situation, to quickly describe the BLM and their ambiguities, their incompetence, and their narrow scope of decision making — just within the mess they have created with the supposed wild horse herd numbers on Public Lands. Yes, their horse counts seriously flawed as well

Yes, they created a mess from their very beginning of wild horse herd management. They established a base-data platform that has been shown time and again to be erroneous at best. So they, in reality, created the mess . . . Then to attempt correction further down the decision making process tried to adjust it, which created more of a mess. Then they had to cover up their reasoning for making the adjustment which created an entire new mess; then to cover this mess up they created an entire system of lies – which today we call BLM Speak. But in truth, their mess simply piles-up profoundly over time, and now it is a huge garbage pile of a lot of messes, or corrective actions, and even corrective legislation transpired as well. This all, quite costly to taxpayers, in truth resolved nothing yet.

Yes, taxpayer’s pay for this all – every bit of it, and not so surprisingly, no one knows how to stop the mass situation of lies, innuendo, and false information given to the public by this agency. So they, meaning Senators, Congressmen, along with BLM administers and management people, simply stand back and watch the mess grow in proportion with the destruction of America’s Public Lands and the abuse and killing of America’s Wild Horse Herds. Then they simply throw more and more money at their whim to whomever, and no one really questions what has been ongoing for decades – that is — Until these past few years . . .

Another easily obtainable fact – The Bureau of Land Management, along with its oversight government agency, the Department of the Interior, remain two agencies that are constantly in litigation, or have lost 98% of their litigation over the years due to bad decisions for one reason or another. Your tax money at work!

These two agencies are literally spinning out of control, very obvious to many —

Conclusion

The fact is taxpayer’s are paying for unnecessary Wild Horse Herd Roundups amounting now to $billions of dollars; we are also paying subsidies to Welfare Ranchers, who demand these unnecessary roundups as well, in the $billions of dollars unnecessarily, and in the meantime there is nothing given back to the taxpayer or American’s in general.

As a matter of fact just the opposite occurs, and welfare ranchers feel entitled (i.e. yes, they Demand Taxpayer Money) for more taxpayer support and money — yes outright mooches all of them. This is what pays for their cattle, their cattle ranching efforts (most are non-competitive and operate their ranches at a loss – subsidies are their income – their yearly domestic sales receipts less than 1% overall) airplanes, new trucks, and that extra wing on their mansion out on what used to be a normal ranch house – and at taxpayer expense – and all the while disrespecting the taxpayer while demanding more $$$$.

Right now the American Public and the American taxpayers need Representation. When it comes right down to it, our tax money is being spent for things we do not want it spent for! Taxation without Representation is ongoing before us right now, and on our Public Lands!

We need someone to put their foot down, and make the statement, “WE DEMAND THIS TO BE STOPPED! WE DEMAND IT TO BE STOPPED RIGHT NOW! ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!”

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on October 21, 2014 in Uncategorized

 

Taxpayer’s / American’s versus Bureau of Land Management and Welfare Ranchers

1545031_649920625064634_1390514084_n

“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 previously, 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 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.

The individual putting together the 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 EIS that unequivocally stated different, or obviously the lie.

Taxpayers foot the bill, for the falsified Environmental Impact Statement, often within excessive amounts, to include more often than not — $110,000+, for example. This being done a couple of hundred times, throughout the BLM offices and areas, and soon we see a vast amount of tax payer money spent very questionably just within this misrepresented arena of 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.” No. 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 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

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.

 
7 Comments

Posted by on October 18, 2014 in Uncategorized

 

Wild Horse Herd Roundup: Psychopathic Behavior and Abuse of Horses Out of Control

10475802_10202850844087768_5362347747727275258_n

Wild Horse Heard Advocates watched in horror as Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Contractors, and BLM employees, kill a pregnant Mustang. It was quite obvious she was with foal, and worse, ready to give birth.

“We will not forget Jewel, the wild pregnant mare the BLM killed. She was run down with their helicopters. Then without remorse or even the slightest whim of sanity, or empathy, they shot her. This is where your tax dollars go, killing our wild horses. This so cattle can graze on OUR PUBLIC LAND free or at low cost,” stated a Wild Horse Advocate.

The Facts: these unscrupulous individuals’ with no ethical means of approach to Wild Horse Herd Management, chase down with helicopter an innocent and pregnant Mustang Mare. Yes, they run her down. They threatened her at every step. The slanted blades of their helicopter tipped forward in the chase — nothing more or less than unrelentless psychopathy.

She finally collapsed. She uncontrollably gasped for enough air for both her and her foal. Suddenly, the BLM employees on the ground committed their assault. They approached, insanity at its most profound, then shot the Mustang Mare — They shot her in the head; a foal in her belly. A once would be new born, left to die within its mothers womb. Left in the mud — both left to rot. How sad. The BLM employees laughed while pointing at the dead horse, then turned and left.

This is our American Heritage, the Wild Horses, and the way this government agency treats them. Horses, right along our side in war and work, helped build America. They worked and helped expand and build the wild west. How can this situation, done by this government agency, even take place? How is this even allowed? Humanity at its worst yet. And worse, supported by your tax money.

The Reality — attention toward Wild Horse Herd Dynamics while in the wilds, a far better and less costly management paradigm and methodology, a few thousand yearly compared to the present reality of spending billions — ignored in total by this government agency.

American’s lose — The Wild Horse Herds, and the burden of far more tax money spent on unnecessary and incompetent Public Lands Management. Yes, tax money taken from school lunch programs, from feeding people in America, from Veteran’s who fought our wars and were wounded, and much more — taken and spent on situations like killing Jewel, the mare with foal — yes, killing the innocent for the greedy.

 
40 Comments

Posted by on October 14, 2014 in Uncategorized

 

Wild Horses, BLM, Welfare Ranchers, and America’s Forests

imagesCA6A7YRE

“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.

 
8 Comments

Posted by on September 5, 2014 in Uncategorized

 

America’s Heritage: Wild Horse Herds Mismanaged – A White Paper Discussion

chumash horse pre-dating mexico and spainish horses by 2 centuries

“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)

 
7 Comments

Posted by on August 18, 2014 in Uncategorized

 

Wild Horses and Cattle: There is No Debate When Good Science Used

1904258_764781056873014_1889282251_n

“There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him.” ― Robert A. Heinlein, The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress

Cattle pollute our environment! This is not a wives-tale, told by youngsters to pass on to their friends! It is a Truth. As American taxpayer’s, we have paid quite a bit for cattle to graze our Public Lands, and apparently the rancher’s that do hold Grazing Permits are going to make sure they bilk American taxpayer’s even more.

But to rid our Public Lands of Wild Horses – NO WAY! That is simply more apparent lies brought to you by a few Welfare Ranchers in this country, and corporations that lease Public Lands! Yes, they want America’s Wild Horses out of their way, and will say anything — lie, cheat, and steal to get their way – and have been doing so for quite a while now.

IN REALITY: American’s want Wild Horses on our Public Lands!

So let’s take a look at some good science. This is science that is quantifiable, no hidden agenda, does not exclude cattle from grasslands studies (BLM and DOI have arrogantly done so in the past costing taxpayer’s in the millions of dollars again), good science does not swear up and down, and lie stating horses wreck our environment and not cattle (as fact just the opposite is true) – and yes some lobby groups shout, yell, and kick and stomp up and down, like small spoiled children, all the while insisting that science is wrong and it is all the Wild Horses fault – yet nothing can be further from the truth as good scientific research shows 100%.

So the fact they jump up and down, reckless with their accusations about Wild Horses, only promotes the fact they do acknowledge destruction of our Public Lands quite evident; then peruse their attempt to place the blame on wildlife, who indeed cannot defend themselves from these outlandish attacks – America’s Wild Horses! Yes, on top of everything else, these Welfare Ranchers are simply bullies –

Good science, the truthful alternative to Welfare Ranchers and their cattle, also abides by procedure and optimal data gathering (compared to Welfare Rancher’s rants, raves and hate), plus objective review of this data, and then moves forward to quantifiable results that good environmental and wildlife decisions can be based upon.

Cattle and Research

“Studies show that the production of beef is around 10 times more damaging to the environment than any other form of livestock.”

“Scientists measured the environment inputs required to produce the main US sources of protein. It is a fact that beef cattle need 28 times more land and 11 times more irrigation water than pork, poultry, eggs or dairy.”

Beef Footprint

Researchers have developed a uniform methodology that they were able to apply to all five livestock categories (i.e. mentioned above) and to four measures of environmental performance.

“They had sharp view of the comparative impact that beef, pork, poultry, dairy and eggs have in terms of land and water use, reactive nitrogen discharge, and greenhouse gas emissions.”

The scientists used data from 2000-2010 from the US Department of Agriculture to calculate the amount of resources required for all the feed consumed by edible livestock.

They then worked out the amount of hay, silage and concentrate such as soybeans required by the different species to put on a kilo of weight.

They also include greenhouse gas emissions, not just from the production of feed for animals, but from their digestion and manure.

“As ruminants, cattle can survive on a wide variety of plants, but they have very low energy conversion efficiency from what they eat.”

“As a result, beef comes out clearly as the food animal with the biggest environmental impact. The scientists have developed a methodology to compare the relative impacts of different protein sources.”

“As well as the effects on land and water, cattle release five times more greenhouse gas and consume six times more nitrogen than eggs or poultry.”

“Cutting down on beef can have a big environmental impact,” many research scientists say; but the same is not true for all livestock.

“One can reasonably be an environmentally mindful eater, designing one’s diet with its environmental impact in mind, while not resorting to exclusive reliance on plant food sources,” said several scientists.

“In fact, eliminating beef, and replacing it with relatively efficiency animal-based alternatives such as eggs, can achieve an environmental improvement comparable to switching to plant food resources.”

“The overall environmental footprint of beef is particularly large because it combines low production efficiency with very high volume.”

“The result is that many researchers estimate that over 60% of the environmental burden of livestock in the US results from beef. The overall message here is quite clear, despite what Lobby Groups want American’s and Legislator’s to believe:

“Beyond a Doubt, Cattle dominate the livestock footprint in the U.S.”

EPA and AG Oriented Lobby Groups

The current environmental focus on controlling nonpoint pollution to protect our surface water has led to the discussion of management of riparian areas, as well as our Public Lands and small biospheres. The Environmental Protection Agency states that agriculture has a greater impact on stream and river contamination than any other nonpoint source (Horses are not included within this statement, and for several non-polluting reasons).

Grazing, particularly improper grazing of riparian areas, high desert flats, valleys, and Public Lands can contribute to nonpoint source pollution. Negative impacts downstream include the contamination of drinking water supplies (Brown, 1994)), eutrophication or biospheres (Richards et al., 2002), and hypoxia (Rabalais et al., 2001). All generated by Cattle – No other Source Contributes to any of the above mentioned pollutants.

Conclusion

It is simply time to stop catering to industries that destroy our environment. The cattle industry destroys America’s Public Lands! That simple! The corporate dollar is not worth much if American’s have nowhere to go any longer, nor any wildlife to watch interact within the wild.

In a conversation with an Economist and Sociologist, Dr. Kevin Blake, “In the long run corporations could care less, due to their insistent short-term thinking. In another words they can destroy our environment; in their minds, when the land-environment no longer producible monetarily, they can sell what’s left of the water and its environment. Perhaps why billionaires and their corporations placing so much emphasis on purchasing water-rights right now.”

There exist more paradigms, but in general billionaires and corporations are not America’s friends, rather very destructive enemies, and quite costly to taxpayers.

Ironically, we can compare all of this to Wild Horses, very simply I might add. It is shown through good science that Wild Horses are not only NON-Destructive to our Environment, but help, just as wolves do along with other wildlife, better our environment, creating wholesome and often self-sustaining biosphere’s. These biospheres assimilated into the overall environmental complex, and enhance our living as well.

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.

 
8 Comments

Posted by on July 25, 2014 in Uncategorized

 

199 Dead Wild Horses – 29 Mysteriously Disappear — BLM and Welfare Ranchers Criminal Activity Requires Scrutiny by Government Legal Agencies

murderers creek wild horses injured

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 F.O.I.A. 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. Sharp 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.

 
4 Comments

Posted by on July 18, 2014 in Uncategorized

 
 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 531 other followers