Monthly Archives: March 2013

American’s Want Our Public Lands Back: Return Our Wild Horses to Public Lands

old_collapsed_strutures_mohave_desert1Time to Give Back Our Public Lands to Americans’

The federal government owns too much land in the West.  An understatement indeed!  The fact is it has created a situation of mismanaged Public Lands that remain costly to taxpayers.  Criminal activity is abundant, and welfare ranchers receive extremely large amounts of taxpayer money unnecessarily.

The federal government owns approximately one third of the land in the continental U.S.1  This amounts to over one half of the land in the western states.  Some percentages of federal land in western states are: Arizona 45%, Idaho 61%, Nevada 79%, Utah 60% New Mexico 33%, and Montana 30%.

The only people profiting from this amount of Public Lands are welfare ranchers and corporations, and make huge profits at taxpayer expense!  At the same time government agencies tell the common folks, who’s land it truthfully belongs to, i.e. the American taxpayers — to go to hell constantly.  These agencies ignore law and policy in regard to our Public Lands — this creates many difficult situations in regard to wildlife and our environment.

Welfare Ranching and the LAW

This situation of welfare ranchers and the law is not as complicated as one would expect, and especially something that welfare ranchers themselves do not want the general public to know as common knowledge.  The fact is this, Grazing on public lands is a privilege, and not a right,4 as well there exist responsibilities to maintain this privilege, and just as often ignored.

The Taylor Grazing Act also makes it quite clear to those who use Public Lands to graze their cattle, stating that grazing preferences” shall not create any right, title, interest, or estate in or to the lands” belonging to the U.S. Government.4  Yet another situation ignored in total due to lobby groups persuasive money-oriented deceptions, lies, and profound intimidation techniques toward anyone not owning cattle or sheep.  Citations from Federal Court, Federal Judge comments, et al., also back the Taylor Grazing Act within many different perspectives, also favorable to the public rather than welfare ranchers, and for reasons this journalist has given further in this article.

So welfare ranchers go about their business, costing taxpayers, last GAO estimate over $450 million dollars in administrative expenses alone and in 2011, increased in 2012.  GAO has also estimated an $82 billion dollar loss over the previous 5 year tax and fee collection period, uncollected fees or generated in stipends and payment to welfare ranchers out of taxpayer money.

We discover further, “Congress has not conferred upon citizens the right to graze stock upon the public lands. The government has merely suffered the lands to be so used.”5

We also discover this, and wonder why our government agencies, who indeed work for us and not welfare ranchers, have not revoked this well cited and documented law by Federal Court, being a privilege, not a right as they say, (“. . . license to graze on public lands has always been a revocable privilege.”  Grazing permits have remained a privilege and for several reason outlined within these cited court cases, but as usual the DOI and BLM and Justice Department attorney’s ignore these situations, allowing welfare ranchers to raise havoc with our wildlife and destroy ecological systems on our Public Lands.  Time for this to cease immediately.

Further case law and citations develop an even more clear and definable situation within welfare rancher’s awkward, but none the less leased grazing lands.  We find their false representation to be disgusting and playing the general public and taxpayers as fools, pretending their false information as truth.  And why not, they speak to one another, as they are getting very rich on the backs of taxpayers, with monetary amounts increasing yearly.

Here is further reference in regard to welfare ranchers and their grazing permits — very different than what they tell the public their rights on Public Lands actually are and that exist today: Osborne v. United States, 145 F.2d 892, 896 (9th Cir. 1944) (“it has always been the intention and policy of the government to regard the use of its public lands for stock grazing. . . as a privilege which is withdrawable at any time for any use by the sovereign without the payment of compensation”); Diamond Bar Cattle Co. v. U.S.A., 168 F.3d 1209, 1217 (10th Cir. 1998) (permittees “do not now hold and have never held a vested private property right to graze cattle on federal public lands”); Alves v. U.S., 133 F.3d 1454 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (holding that neither grazing permit nor preference is a compensable property interest).

Public Lands Grazing Law and Environment

“Cattle are a non-native species to the environments and on Public Lands. Since cattle are non-natives, their impact on the environment is greater than native species like elk and deer.  Cattle have not evolved in the ecosystems in which they have been placed, and therefore they do not co-exist with those ecosystems well. Whereas deer and elk are highly mobile foragers, cattle are stagnant foragers. What this means [a.n. and when predators such as the wolf create healthy ecological systems] is that deer and elk move around so much that they do not overgraze an area or cause soil damage.  Cattle on the other hand, will often remain in the same area until they have eaten all or most of the edible material there.  Only after most of the vegetation has been eaten will they move on.”7  But Cattle also require more forage than elk or deer, and wreck havoc on ecological systems, especially along streams and in native woodlands.

And, not so surprising, we find again the BLM and DOI ignoring not only their own policies in regard to welfare ranchers and sound management of welfare rancher’s cattle on Public Lands, but laws broken directly, and not hiding the situation at all.8

The general public, or taxpayers, who are aware of welfare ranchers and most all believe  the situation being criminal, deceptive, and environmentally unsound, all want to know why these welfare rancher’s have not had their permits revoked.  Their attitudes toward wildlife, wild horses and wolves the most current and controversial of issues, are allowed to portray themselves as owners’ of Public Lands?  This even to the point of threatening State Law enforcement officials, in Washington State for example, that they will start killing wolves on their own (willfully ignoring the Law), who trespass onto (Their) land — which in reality and by Law Public Lands and the wolves rightful home.9  So one has to wonder if the Washington State law enforcement, as in other States as well, will simply ignore their threat and allow them to shoot wolves on sight, and from Public Lands, pretending in pretense the welfare ranchers own Public Lands — or commit to protecting Public Lands from the welfare ranchers and in accord with Federal Laws?

Yes, we have a big problem here with welfare ranchers and their perceptions!  All the while doing this on Our Public Lands, not theirs!  So once again we find welfare ranchers ignoring the laws and policies, that have been placed into law to garner a proper respect for America’s PublicLands, as well as management of our wildlife, environmental systems, and land use, but ignored in total.  When is enough-enough?

Livestock Grazing and the BLM

Where do the wild horse herds go from here?  Well, back onto our Public Lands.  As they were taken off, one can assume, illegally.  And it is that simple when referencing the laws and policies that direct BLM and even the DOI in Public Lands management.  Below reference for public discussion and debate — which this Journalist will not dally with opinion, but reference the laws and Federal Court statements directly below.

“BLM has regulatory authority to protect the land from overgrazing: BLM regulations impose additional requirements, including that “authorized livestock grazing use shall not exceed the livestock carrying capacity of the allotment.” 43 C.F.R. § 4130.3-1(a). The regulations define “livestock carrying capacity” as “the maximum stocking rate possible without inducing damage to vegetation or related resources.” 43 C.F.R. § 4100.0-5. See Idaho Conservation League & WWP v. Steele, Case No. 01-529-E-BLW (D. Idaho).”

“Under the “Fundamentals of Rangeland Health” regulations must not impair watershed function, riparian habitat, water quality, or wildlife habitat. The FRH regulations require that BLM must revise grazing management “as soon as practicable,” and in any event no later than the start of the next grazing season, upon making determinations that the FRH Standards and Guidelines are not being met upon an allotment. 43 C.F.R. §§ 4180.1 & 4180.2(c); see also Idaho Watersheds Project v. Hahn, 187 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 1999) (enforcing this FRH requirement).”

“BLM’s regulations provide that “appropriate actions” to take in response to FRH violations include “implementing actions pursuant to subparts 4110, 4120, 4130, and 4160 of this part that will result in significant progress toward fulfillment of the standards and significant progress toward conformance with the guidelines.” 43 C.F.R. § 4180.2. Of these referenced subparts, 43 C.F.R. § 4110.3-2(b) expressly provides: “When monitoring or field observations show that grazing use or patterns of use are not consistent with the provisions of subpart 4180 [the FRH requirements] . . . the authorized officer shall reduce permitted grazing use or otherwise modify management practices.” See LU Ranching v. Babbitt v. IWP, No. CV-00-285-EJL (D. Idaho), Memorandum Decision and Judgment entered April 12, 2001(rejecting permittee challenges to BLM decision made under FRH regulations).”

“See 43 C.F.R. § 4110.3-2(b) (emphasis added). Moreover, it is “[m]andatory” that BLM incorporate into grazing permits “terms and conditions that ensure conformance with subpart 4180 [the FRH requirements].” 43 C.F.R. 4130.3-1 (c). BLM’s regulations further specify that the agency may revise grazing permits and make cuts in grazing based on “monitoring, field observations, ecological site inventory or other data acceptable to the authorized officer.” 43 C.F.R. § 4110.3.”


There is no doubt welfare ranchers break laws and policies daily.  A simple perusal of this article and legal quotes strongly show their activity to be quite illegal.  There is no doubt the Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Land Management assist the welfare ranchers in their illegal activity, simply by allowing it and saying nothing.  BLM will also pretend to ignore the situation, but not so ironic, the situation very obvious even to those uninvolved.

Conclusively, it is time to take ALL grazing permits away from the welfare ranchers, as they have conducted continuous and illegal operations on Public Lands for too long.  Public Lands belong to Americans’ — not to corporations and welfare ranchers.  American’s want our Public Lands back, enough of this deceptiveness, lies, and bully tactics by lobby groups!_____________________________________

1. Zachary A. Smith, The Environmental Policy Paradox, (Englewood Cliffs, NJ Prentice Hall, 1995), p. 179

2. John Freemuth, “Federal Land Management in the West:, in Zachary A. Smith, editor, Environmental Politics and Policy in the West, (Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, Debuque, Iowa, 1993), p. 202.

3. Personal Interview, Gary Hase Jr., Natural Resource Manager II, Range Section, Land Department, State Forestry Division, 20 April 1995.

4. See 43 U.S.C. § 315b & 16 (1943 Taylor Grazing Act, stating that grazing preferences “shall not create any right, title, interest, or estate in or to the lands” belonging to the U.S. Government) all amendments inclusive.

5. 43 U.S.C. § 580l (FLPMA similar provision); Omaechevarria v. Idaho, 246 U.S. 343, 352 (1918).

6. U.S. v. Fuller, 409 U.S. 488, 494 (1973) (grazing permittee does not acquire a property interest in grazing permit); Swim v. Bergland, 696 F.2d 712, 719 (9th Cir. 1983).

7. Michael D. Hanneman, Effects of Cattle, Elk and Mule Deer on a Narrowleaf Cottonwood Riparian Community Under a Short Duration Grazing System in Northern Arizona, (Masters Thesis, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ 1991), pp. 11-19.

8. Protection of public lands from overgrazing is a key purpose of both FLPMA, 43 U.S.C. § 1701 et seq., and TGA, 43 U.S.C. § 315 et seq. See Public Lands Council v. Babbitt, 120 S.Ct. 1815, 1818-20 (2000) (discussing history and development of public lands law as applying to livestock grazing, BLM’s broad authority to protect public lands from damage due to livestock grazing); 43 U.S.C. § 1701(a)(8) (policy objectives of FLPMA).

When Congress enacted FLPMA in 1976, it mandated that BLM “shall manage the public lands under the principles of multiple use and sustained yield. . . .” 43 U.S.C. § 1732(a). FLPMA defines “sustained yield” as meaning “the achievement and maintenance in perpetuity of a high-level annual or regular periodic output of the various renewable resources of the public lands consistent with multiple use.” 43 U.S.C. § 1702(h).

9. the ESA provides that all federal agencies “shall utilize their authorities. . . by carrying out programs for the conservation of endangered species,” 16 U.S.C. § 1636(a)(1); and “[e]ach Federal agency shall, in consultation with and with the assistance of the Secretary, insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency . . . is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species. . . .” 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2). The consultation requirement applies to grazing. Pacific Rivers Council v. Thomas, 936 F. Supp. 738, 745 (D. Idaho 1996). Watch out for Western Watersheds Project v. Matejko, No. CIV 01-0259-E-BLW (D. Idaho) (challenge to Forest Service and BLM failure to consult over 1000 irrigation and stockwater diversion on Salmon Challis National Forests).

Also, “it is unlawful for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to. . . take any such species. . . .” 16 U.S.C. § 1538(a). See IWP v. Bennetts, Civ. No. 00-729 (D. Idaho) (motion for summary judgment filed June 2002).


Posted by on March 23, 2013 in Uncategorized


Open Letter to Oklahoma State and Horse Slaughter: From the Common Folks – Americans’

trailhead_cascades_5200ft_oct_11Recently you Oklahoma assemblymen and women have decided to make the statement, throughout America, that Horse Slaughter is okay, by your votes.  Well, it is not!  And beyond your most disgusting and wild ignorance, it will not exist here the United States.  You are not representative of the remainder of the United States and the people that live here, as a matter of fact just the opposite exists.

Animal Advocates consists of a diversity of people, and beyond all doubt are Americans, and always will be.  To battle for Animal Rights is something humane, something from the hearts and souls of individuals, in this case Americans’!  Whereby, a societies humane treatment of Animals remain grounded in reality, it is the very essence of the individual’s spirit, the essence of being an American.

Animal Advocates consist of many American’s to include Veterans, of Disabled Veterans, of all classes of men and women, housewives, ranchers, farmers, factory workers, office workers’, company executives, former CEO’s, actors, actresses, previous congressmen and women, Silver Star and Medal of Honor Recipients from wars present and past — and much more, the list is endless.

Apparently, we are all the “Evil Empire” (your legislator’s statement not ours) that you legislator’s assume to be the rest of America, other than apparently you people from Oklahoma, of course; and as if Oklahoma, and you legislator’s are the mere Saints among evil!  How disgusting and irresponsible to regard that as an assumption!

Many of us indeed, who are Animal Advocates, are War Veteran’s, and we have taken your comments as an extreme insult and disrespectful toward us and other War Veterans!  We fought for this nation, and you dribble that irresponsible remark toward everyone other than yourselves as if you people from Oklahoma are the only grace and saving spirit in America that has indeed fought for our nation!

Slaughtering our Wild Horse Herds and horses in general, and all the negativity and irresponsible conduct that comes with it, directed toward our American Icons, is not fighting for anything!  In reality, your situation demonstrates a sickness, not that of American conduct and humane treatment of our nation’s animals!  American’s remain much better than that!

Yes, you have basically insulted the majority of Americans!  You will now pay the price within the following weeks of American’s disgust toward your ethics, your symbols of awkward self-righteousness’ and your attitude of “. . . to hell with the rest of America!”  You will be receiving the wrath in overwhelming disrespect and lack of businesses doing business with you people in Oklahoma!  And justifiably so.

And if there exist any way or means to take-away all the government stipends’ and welfare your State receives, then we will be sure to check how to do that as well.  This is due to your overwhelming attitude and disrespect to so many tax payers throughout America, as if you people are the only people deserving such handouts of tax payer money!

We are not an Evil Empire, and American’s never have been such. It is you people that are evil, in your attempt to start an Evil Empire, except you have been caught!  Your Re-election will probably not happen, as American’s within your State will confront that as well, when the time comes!  If not, then shame on them!


The Common Folks Here in America


Posted by on March 5, 2013 in Uncategorized


Killing Wolves Ruining Nature: by Welfare Ranchers and Sportsmen


“The last word in ignorance is the man who says of an animal or plant, “What good is it?” If the land mechanism as a whole is good, then every part is good, whether we understand it or not. If the biota, in the course of aeons, has built something we like but do not understand, then who but a fool would discard seemingly useless parts? To keep every cog and wheel is the first precaution of intelligent tinkering.”   ― Aldo Leopold, Round River: From the Journals of Aldo Leopold

There is a big problem in America today.  It is the acceptance of “bad-science” as well as the use of “ignorance” to make overwhelming and certainly detrimental decisions in regard to our nations wildlife and natural environment.  This is compounded by irrational decision making by government agencies, and when challenged by the general public, the Justice Department steps in and protects the government agency rather than the Public.  There is a lot obviously wrong with this situation!

But it goes further, into the realm of our legislators catering toward small lobby groups and corporations only, and to hell with the rest of the general public.  Within nature we can actually look at previous decisions in regard to Wolves, and use this example toward just about every bad decision made within the past ten years.

Proof of Bad Decision Making

By the end of 2012 there existed many States in America that used “bad science” and “ignorance” to proclaim the Wolf as, stated simply here, “. . . a predator that had to be removed. . .”  Interesting that this situation directly involved terms such as “. . . to enhance elk and deer herds in Idaho or Montana for example. . .” or “. . . to protect our cattle and elk herds. . .” and on and on.  The fact of the matter is the situation also cost the taxpayers in the millions of dollars within each state, in order to develop these “kill-only” management principles’, and directed entirely toward the Wolves.

One sportsman’s lobby group went on to say Wolves are bad for the environment.  They (i.e. the wolves) often killed out of lust for the kill or the actual enjoyment of killing.  Some went further to state Wolves attacked people and especially kids.  There exist nothing to support anything the sportsmen’s lobby groups have stated as accurate; absolutely nothing.  So this journalist will not waste your time any further on neither what the sportsmen’s groups nor the lobby groups say as factual, since there is simply nothing to substantiate their claims.

On the other hand there does exist an overwhelmingly amount of evidence combined with “good science” based on quality research and quality data gathering and other well noted information resources.  This is all pertinent and well known before the Wolf massacre began, and yet ignored by both State and Federal government agencies and legislators.  Why is that, do you suppose?

Proof of Ignored or Neglected Science Facts and Data

The discussion here centers on the qualities of Wolves within an Ecosystem.  There does exist prevailing benefits.  Currently these benefits being ignored in many government agencies that are paid to know at least the basics of environmental or ecological management — but apparently do not.  One has to ponder their decision making process, and exactly what fact based science their decisions based upon?  Well, none!

So it becomes apparent we have a problem with the US Fish and Wildlife Service.  They supposedly have the know-how to decipher nature’s language, as their in excess of $100,000 a year employee’s salaries says as much, and so our tax money tells us.  But do they, or do they simply ignore the specifics for their political or personal income agendas?  So why would this government agency ignore good science?

Good Science does Exist

“It’s all here,” the Cristina Eisenberg, Research Scientist said. “You just have to know the language.” 1

“Until about 1920, wolves patrolled these meadows, which have long been an important wintering ground for elk. Then humans hunted the predators into extinction here, and for 60 years or more the elk grazed in peace. By the mid-1980s, however, wolves were recolonizing the landscape, straying south from Canada to reclaim this western fringe of GlacierNational Park.” 1

“The 100-year-old aspens grew up with wolves. So did the 20-year-olds. There are no middle-agers, Eisenberg said, because without wolves to run the elk, all the young aspen sprouts were browsed to death.” 1

“It is,” she said, “quite clear and profound. The wolves leave an indelible mark on the entire ecosystem. . . Eisenberg’s work shows that before wolves were killed out, about one in every six aspen trees grew to reach the canopy. When wolves were absent, perhaps one in 300 made it. . . Her findings: Wolves increase biodiversity; wolves affect elk behavior more than elk populations; and aspen growth in elk winter range is directly related to wolves.  It’s pretty rock-solid,” Eisenberg said. “The information coming out is unbelievably clear.” 1

Then we come, again and again and wherever the use of taxpayer money is in controversy, to Welfare Ranching and its dubious entry in the mooching-off our government system, and simply obtaining a lot of taxpayer money under false pretense.

“While Idaho taxpayers are facing budget cuts to public education and health care, ranchers are busy writing self-serving bills to provide money for “studies” that will paper over destructive impacts of livestock grazing. . . Meanwhile, lawmakers also sought to line their own pockets by trying to pass bills that would give themselves and other big landowners special hunting licenses that they could sell for exorbitant prices while giving the Idaho Department of Fish and Game the shaft.” 2

And in the matter of their research, “. . . Will it look at places like Hart Mountain Wildlife Refuge in Oregon where livestock have been absent from the landscape for 20 years and sage grouse populations have dramatically flourished while they have declined throughout the rest of the state? Doubtful. . .” 2

Important to note here, when Welfare Ranchers involved they simply wish to kill anything and everything other than the cattle — and that includes the ecological system as well.  They simply use up a section of our PublicLands and then move on, all the time collecting government stipends for doing so — taxpayer money!

Welfare Ranchers simply do not care about much, other than receiving their government money, which they have relied upon for decades now, and under false pretense.  They are not the mom and pop ranchers of yesteryear!  They will lie out rightly about Wolves killing their cattle, and this has been proven time and again, and a subject for a later article.

Killing the Wolves and Then What

Montana is another State that had out rightly lied about their Wolf problem.  But this happened within all of the States promoting Wolf Hunts, well referenced, but too many for one article.

These same States were told time and again, out rightly, there was no shortage of elk or deer.  This information was referenced from reliable data.  Wolf Advocates stated repeatedly elk and deer herds had increased over the years, due to mismanagement, and certainly had not decreased what so ever.  But as the tale goes on, Montana Fish and Game and in cahoots with the U.S. Fish and Game, opened the season on the only animal that kept elk and deer in check for a better Ecological functioning system.  Now Montana has an over abundance of elk and deer, and totally out of management capacity.

Oh and by the way, they will be asking the federal agencies, yes indeed, yours and my tax payer money, to supplement their monetary situation to rid their state of the overabundance of elk and deer.  Think about the next time you view a photo of a psycho holding up his Wolf Kill and grinning, or bragging about torturing a Wolf before killing it.  Our tax money played a large part of them having the ability to do such activity!  And that, folks, is outright disgusting as well!

But the story gets even better, unscrupulous one might say, and criminal fiction has once again been surpassed by reality, and our government agencies lust and greed for money.

“Rep. Nancy Ballance, R-Hamilton, submitted House Bills 375 and 376 to allow more local control over impacts from deer, elk and antelope that forage on agricultural land. HB375 would make FWP reimburse landowners for crop damage. . . My bills are intended to give farmers and ranchers some relief from the deer damage they’re experiencing,” Ballance said.  . . . I’m here to tell you this is a serious problem. It’s been talked about for 30 years and it’s not gone away. The remedies are not working.” 3

Well!  Wait a minute here!  The entire Wolf-Kill landscape was predicated on Wolves damaging and the extravagant overkill of elk and deer — now we find this not to be the truth what so ever!  And we find yet another damaging situation, “. . . a recent Supreme Court lawsuit stated that when people acquire property in Montana, they do so knowing that wild game will be present. He added that they estimate they would lose about $18 million in federal funding if the money is diverted for crop damage.” 3

And now, quite by accident we discover that the Montana sportsmen and the State Fish and Wildlife pulled another fast one on America and delisting of the Wolves.  That is within the Supreme Court decision and within it’s context, it protects the Wolf and other wildlife.  How far that protection goes we do not know currently, but will certainly look into the situation.  Essentially, it was to have ranchers acknowledge presence of wildlife when purchasing their property, and the State of the Federal government not responsible for consequences of or in regard to any present wildlife in the state.


The facts still remain, overall documented losses of livestock to wolves are less than one percent, considerably less than losses to weather, disease, and other dangers. Wolf kills are difficult to confirm, and indeed Welfare Ranchers have been caught in outright lies about Wolves killing their cattle.

This is largely due to reimbursement of the killed cattle by Wolves program — yes, it has been proven fraud had been committed on at least 96% of those cattle-killed and taxpayer money reimbursed.  Yet, Welfare Ranchers as well as sportsmen want Wolves all wiped off the face of this planet, and because –.  I do not think it odd that many of these people requesting such things are ignorant not just of wolves, but of life in general.

Once again we find a rivalry between outdoor sportsmen, who assume they know everything; Welfare Ranchers, who assume they know everything; corporations, who pay government employees and legislators under the table for their use of Public Lands; and Animal Advocate groups that quote directly from firm scientific facts and data.

Profoundly and within many different situations, our legislators and government agencies, who also think they know everything, leans favorably toward lobby groups and money.  And just as often good and common sense science within managing our natural resources and wildlife remains ignored.  This simply leads to bad decision making.  What a surprise, huh?_____________________________________________

1.  “Tracking science: Biologist’s findings show forest diversity, health influenced by wolves”

2.  “Idaho ranchers want more taxpayer money for grazing “studies” Billings Gazette, 02/28/13

3.  “Bills would give counties more control over wildlife,” Billings Gazette, 02/14/2013,

1 Comment

Posted by on March 3, 2013 in Uncategorized