RSS

Letter of Complaint to Senator Ron Wyden; BLM states Federal Law is not for them?

14 Jan

babe_winter_2012

Copy and paste letter if you wish to correspond with your legislator about this situation. . .

Senator Ron Wyden
221 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg.
Washington, D.C., 20510
tel (202) 224-5244
fax (202) 228-2717
e-mail: wyden@wyden.net

The Honorable Senator Wyden,

Currently I see things happening that make me wonder why our Representatives and Senators are not sticking up for American’s and our Taxpayer money! It is the Bureau of Land Management, the Department of the Interior (both way too large of a government agency) and their continuous deplorable, and in many perspectives criminal conduct. This is an ongoing situation, over the years, that apparently require your attention and resolution. Many Voters watching, many concerned American’s do care about our Public Lands.

When is enough actually enough? Their misinformation, and twisting of facts into what many American’s refer to as nothing more than BLM Speak has become more than costly to American Taxpayers, it devastates our Public Land Environments’ and decimation of America’s Wildlife!

When we discuss both government agencies, we can discuss the “facts” of frivolous spending of taxpayer money based on falsified information as well as misinformation. . . Federal Court Records, references quite prevalent over the past decade, show my statements to be not only true, but combined with many GAO Reports, show outstanding criminal behavior as well – taxpayer money fraud and waste in the $$$ Billions of Dollars.

Why America’s legislators have not stepped in and at least conducted an Investigation, similar to the early 1990’s investigation showing beyond a doubt the same conduct of these particular agencies (where 1,800 arrest warrants made but canceled the evening before service), have many taxpaying American’s concerned!

One Example of many more: i.e. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM – Department of Interior) says THEY do not have to follow the 1971 Congressional Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burros Act (WFRHBA – Law of the United States of America). It is a frightening and a sad state of affairs when our government says they don’t have to follow the law.

From what BLM stated and published in a recent Environmental Assessment (EA-whereas many of their EIS and EA’s are falsified or copied from others)) comment response, they state, “. . . Congressional LAW does NOT pertain to THEM.” Per BLM’s attitude and actions and now these words, the law is only to protect the Wild Horse and Burro Program (i.e. expenditures and misinformation and criminal behavior abundant) from you and me and has NOTHING to do with them!

Many American’s, including many in the Northwest, would like to see an end, or the breaking up into smaller agencies the Bureau of Land Management and the Department of the Interior. We would also like to see a thorough investigation of their activities as well as the criminals sent to prison from these government agencies – as well as both start giving to the American Public honesty, not lies, thriftiness with our tax money, not profound and arrogant wasteful spending predicated on false science and false information in general!

Thank you for your assistance in this matter,

e-mail: wyden@wyden.net

Office Locations
Washington D.C.
221 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg.
Washington, D.C., 20510
tel (202) 224-5244
fax (202) 228-2717

Portland
911 NE 11th Ave., Suite 630
Portland, OR, 97232
tel (503) 326-7525

Salem
707 13th St., SE Suite 285
Salem, OR, 97301
tel (503) 589-4555

Eugene
405 East 8th Ave., Suite 2020
Eugene, OR, 97401
tel (541) 431-0229

Medford
Federal Courthouse
310 West 6th St.,
Room 118
Medford, OR, 97501
tel (541) 858-5122

Bend
The Jamison Building
131 NW Hawthorne Ave.,
Suite 107
Bend, OR, 97701
tel (541) 330-9142

La Grande
SAC Annex Building
105 Fir St,. Suite 201
La Grande, OR, 97850
tel (541) 962-7691

Advertisements
 
6 Comments

Posted by on January 14, 2014 in Uncategorized

 

6 responses to “Letter of Complaint to Senator Ron Wyden; BLM states Federal Law is not for them?

  1. Louie C

    January 14, 2014 at 6:01 am

    LEGAL DECLARATION filed by former BLM Rock Springs and Rawlins area manager, Lloyd Eidenhauer

    In a declaration filed by former BLM Rock Springs and Rawlins area manager Lloyd Eisenhauer
    Katherine A. Meyer
    Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystal
    1601 Connecticut Ave., N.W.
    Suite 700
    Washington, D.C. 20009

    (202) 588-5206
    Timothy Kingston
    408 West 23rd Street, Suite 1
    Cheyenne, WY 82001-3519
    (WY Bar No. 6-2720)

    (307) 638-8885
    Attorneys for Defendant-Intervenors

    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    FOR 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

    I, Lloyd Eisenhauer, declare as follows:

    1. I live in Cheyenne, Wyoming. I am a former Bureau of Land Management
    (“BLM”) official with extensive experience in the Rawlins and Rock Springs Districts in
    Wyoming and intimate familiarity with the public lands under BLM management in those areas.
    I have reviewed the consent decree proposed by BLM and the Rock Springs Grazing Association
    (“RSGA”) in this case and provide this declaration based on my longstanding knowledge of, and
    management of, wild horses and livestock grazing in the Rock Springs and Rawlins Districts.
    – 1


    2. I grew up in Pine Bluffs, Wyoming with a livestock and farming background,
    served in the Marines for four years, and then owned a livestock business from 1952-1958. I
    enrolled in college in 1958, studying range management. From 1960-1961, BLM hired me to
    assist with collecting field data for vegetation assessments and carrying capacity surveys related
    to livestock and wild horses. These surveys were conducted in the Lander, Kemmerer, and
    Rawlins Districts. When I graduated in 1962, BLM hired me full-time to serve in the Rawlins
    District in Wyoming, where most of my work focused on grazing management involving sheep,
    cattle, and wild horses. From 1968-1972, I was Area Manager of the Baggs-Great Divide
    Resource Area in the Rawlins District. In 1971, the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act
    was enacted, and in the spring of 1972, on behalf of BLM, I conducted the first aerial survey of
    wild horses in Wyoming, recording the number of horses and designating the Herd Management
    Areas (“HMAs”) for the Rawlins District. After a stint as an Area Manager with BLM’s
    Albuquerque, New Mexico office, in 1975 I took over as the Chief of Planning and
    Environmental Analysis in BLM’s Rock Springs District for three years. I was the lead on all
    planning and environmental assessments. During that time, I also served as the Acting Area
    Manager of the Salt Wells Resource Area, which is located in the Rock Springs District. In
    1979, BLM transferred me to its Denver Service Center to serve as the Team Leader in creating
    the agency’s automated process for data collection. I received an excellence of service award
    from the Secretary of the Interior commending me for my work as a Team Leader. In 1982, I
    became the Head of Automation in BLM’s Cheyenne office, where I managed and implemented
    the data collection and processing of various systems related to BLM programs. I retired from
    BLM in 1986, and have stayed very involved in the issue of wild horse and livestock
    management on BLM lands in Wyoming, and have written articles about the issue in local and
    – 2


    other newspaper outlets. I have won various journalistic awards, including a Presidential award,
    for my coverage of conservation districts in Wyoming. Along with a partner, I operated a tour
    business (called Backcountry Tours) for six years, taking various groups into wild places in
    Wyoming – without a doubt wild horses were the most popular thing to see on a tour, in large
    part due to their cultural and historical value. I also served six years on the governor’s non-point
    source water quality task force.

    3. Based on my longstanding knowledge of wild horse and livestock management in
    the Rawlins and Rock Springs Districts, and in the Wyoming Checkerboard in particular, I am
    very concerned about BLM’s agreement with RSGA, embodied in the proposed Consent Decree
    they have filed in this case, under which BLM would remove all wild horses located on RSGA’s
    private lands on the Wyoming Checkerboard.
    4. The Checkerboard is governed by an exchange of use agreement between the
    federal government and private parties such as RSGA. However, due to state laws, property
    lines, and intermingled lands, it is impossible to fence the lands of the Wyoming Checkerboard,
    which means that both the wild horses and the livestock that graze there roam freely between
    public and private lands on the Checkerboard without any physical barriers. For this reason, it is
    illogical for BLM to commit to removing wild horses that are on the “private” lands RSGA owns
    or leases because those same horses are likely to be on public BLM lands (for example, the Salt
    Wells, Adobe Town, Great Divide, and White Mountains HMAs) earlier in that same day or
    later that same evening. Essentially, in contrast to other areas of the country where wild horses
    still exist, on the Wyoming Checkerborad there is no way to distinguish between horses on
    “private” lands and those on public lands, and therefore it would be unprecedented, and indeed
    impossible for BLM to contend that it is removing all horses on RSGA’s “private” lands at any
    – 3


    given time of the year, month, or day, considering that those horses would only be on the strictly
    “private” lands very temporarily and intermittently on any particular day .

    5. 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.
    6. While I do not agree with every management action taken by BLM over the
    years in the Rock Springs District, I can attest – based on my longstanding employment with
    BLM and my active monitoring of the agency’s activities during retirement – that BLM has
    generally proven capable of removing wild horses in the Rock Springs District, including by
    – 4


    responding to emergency situations when needed and removing horses when necessary due to
    resource damage.

    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    – 5


    9. BLM’s agreement with RSGA states that RSGA’s conservation plan limited
    livestock grazing, primarily by sheep, to the winter months to provide sufficient winter forage.
    This is a good example of “multiple use” management, since wild horses and sheep have very
    little competition for the forage they consume and the seasons during which they use parts of the
    Checkerboard. During winter, sheep use the high deserts and horses utilize the uplands and
    breaks (i.e., different locations) for forage and protection. During the summer, when sheep are
    not present, wild horses use various landscapes on the Checkerboard. This multiple use should
    continue for the benefit of the livestock, the wild horses, and the public and private lands
    involved.
    10. I am also very concerned about BLM’s agreement with RSGA to permanently
    zero out the Salt Wells HMA and the Divide Basin HMA, leaving no wild horses in those areas
    that have long contained wild horses. I have been to fifteen of the sixteen HMAs in Wyoming,
    and to my knowledge none has ever been zeroed out by BLM. It is my view, based on
    everything I know about these areas and the way these public lands are used by wild horses and
    livestock, that BLM has no biological or ecological basis for zeroing out a herd of wild horses in
    an HMA that existed at the time the wild horse statute was passed in 1971, as is the case with
    both the Salt Wells and Divide Basin HMAs. And, again, because the wild horses have a
    statutory right to be there, whereas livestock only have a privilege that can be revoked at any
    time by BLM, there also is no authority or precedent, to my knowledge, for the agency to zero
    out these two longstanding wild horse herds simply to appease private livestock grazers.
    11. 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
    – 6


    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.

    12. Turning the White Mountain HMA into a non-reproducing herd, as the agreement
    between BLM and RSGA proposes to do, is also a farce, and violates the meaning of a wild and
    free-roaming animal. This is essentially a slow-motion zeroing out of this HMA, and is
    inconsistent with any wild horse management approach I am familiar with that BLM has
    implemented on public lands.
    – 7


    Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true
    and correct.

    Lloyd Eisenhauer

     
  2. Louie C

    January 14, 2014 at 6:04 am

    How can these roundups possibly be legal or lawful?

    http://wildhorsepreservation.org/media/blm-ignores-tens-thousands-public-comments-gallops-ahead-wyoming-wild-horse-wipeout

    BLM Ignores Tens of Thousands of Public Comments; Gallops Ahead with Wyoming Wild Horse Wipeout
    Posted on January 13, 2014 at 10:13 AM
    Rock Springs, WY (January 13, 2014)…. As of Friday’s deadline, more than 12,000 citizens had submitted comments opposing the Wyoming Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM’s) plan to conduct a wild horse roundup in the Great Divide Basin Herd Management Area (HMA) this summer.

    Over the past 13 months, the BLM”s Rock Springs Field Office has received over 40,000 comments from American citizens opposing the agency’s plan to wipe out wild horses from the Wyoming Checkerboard, a two million-acre swath of public and private land in the southern part of the state.
    The Divide Basin roundup is a part of the massive wipeout plan.
    “The BLM is blatantly ignoring tens of thousands of public comments while galloping ahead with its plan to destroy nearly half of Wyoming’s remaining wild horse populations,” said Suzanne Roy, director of the American Wild Horse Preservation Campaign (AWHPC), a national coalition of more than 60 organizations. “The public overwhelmingly supports wild horse protection. But, the BLM is taking its marching orders from the Rock Springs Grazing Association, a special interest group whose members view mustangs as competition for cheap, tax-subsidized livestock grazing on public lands.”

     
  3. Louie C

    January 18, 2014 at 6:15 am

    ROCK SPRINGS HOLDING FACILITY CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC

    http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/info/news_room/2014/january/07rsfo-facility.html
    Release Date: 01/07/14
    Contacts: Shelley Gregory
    307-315-0612

    Rock Springs Wild Horse Holding Facility Temporarily Closed

    The Bureau of Land Management’s Rock Springs Wild Horse Holding Facility is temporarily closed until sometime in late spring.
    The facility is closed while wild horses from the recent Adobe Town/Salt Wells gather settle into their new environment. The wild horses will be examined by a veterinarian, vaccinated and freeze marked in preparation for adoption. No public tours or adoptions will be conducted during the closure; however, the public viewing kiosk will remain open.
    Approximately 700 wild horses are housed at the facility and available for adoption. Adoption requirements and an application are available at http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/programs/Wild_Horses/adopt.html. An adoption schedule is available at http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/programs/Wild_Horses/schedule.html.

    The BLM manages more than 245 million acres of public land, the most of any Federal agency. This land, known as the National System of Public Lands, is primarily located in 12 Western states, including Alaska. The BLM also administers 700 million acres of sub-surface mineral estate throughout the nation. The BLM’s multiple-use mission is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations. In Fiscal Year 2012, activities on public lands generated $4.6 billion in revenue, much of which was shared with the States where the activities occurred. In addition, public lands contributed more than $112 billion to the U.S. economy and helped support more than 500,000 jobs.
    –BLM–
    High Desert District 280 Highway 191 North Rock Springs WY 82901

     
  4. EponaSpirit

    January 18, 2014 at 1:08 pm

    Reblogged this on Pass the SAFE Act!.

     
  5. Louie C

    January 21, 2014 at 7:39 pm

    NEVADA

    http://protectmustangs.org/?p=6069
    Nevada farm bureau, counties sue over wild horses
    Posted on January 13, 2014 by Protect Mustangs
    Cross-posted from the viral Associated Press article published in the San Francisco Chronicle for educational purposes: http://www.sfgate.com/news/science/article/Nevada-farm-bureau-counties-sue-over-wild-horses-5136697.php

    “They argue the BLM should “destroy” horses that are deemed unadoptable,”

    RENO, Nev. (AP) — Two Nevada organizations have sued the federal government, alleging mismanagement of wild horses led to excessive damage to rangelands and the animals themselves.

    The Nevada Farm Bureau Federation and the

    Nevada Association of Counties

    named Interior Secretary Sally Jewell, the Interior Department and the Bureau of Land Management as defendants in their lawsuit filed Dec. 30 in U.S. District Court in Nevada.
    BLM spokeswoman Celia Boddington declined to comment on Sunday. “It’s under review,” she said.

    The groups accuse the government of failing to comply with the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971, which requires the BLM to protect the “natural ecological balance of all wildlife species” on public lands and to remove “excess” horses and burros from the range.

    They argue the BLM should “destroy” horses that are deemed unadoptable,

    the Elko Daily Free Press reported (http://bit.ly/1eNObmf ). The BLM has opposed the sale of horses for slaughter.
    The agency has removed nearly 100,000 horses from the Western range over the last decade, citing the requirements of the 1971 federal law. Horses passed over for adoption are sent to long-term facilities in the Midwest.

    But the number of horses gathered last year declined as the BLM deals with budget constraints and a lack of capacity at short- and long-term holding facilities.
    In addition to damaging public land and threatening private water rights, the government’s wild horse program is “first and foremost” detrimental to horses, according to the lawsuit.
    “Free-roaming horse and burro herds in Nevada are frequently observed to be in malnourished condition, with the ribs and skeletal features of individual animals woefully on view and other signs of ill-health readily observable,” the complaint states.
    Anne Novak, executive director of the horse advocacy group Protect Mustangs, said most wild herds are “healthy and fit,” and the groups’ claim that they are in poor condition appears to be a “skewed effort” to justify killing them because they don’t want to share water.
    Some 1.75 million head of livestock grazing on public land outnumber wild horses by more than 50-to-1 and cause most of the range damage, she added.

    “The plaintiffs have an arrogant sense of entitlement,” Novak told The Associated Press. “I’m grateful the American public will see how the plaintiffs allegedly intend on denying native wild horses the right to water and are requesting BLM destroy the majority of the roundup survivors. Their lawsuit will rally more voters to fight for wild horses to remain wild and free for future generations.”

    Representatives of the two groups did not immediately respond to phone calls seeking comment Sunday.
    ___
    Information from: Elko Daily Free Press, http://www.elkodaily.com

     
  6. Louie C

    January 24, 2014 at 3:04 am

    http://www.kcet.org/news/redefine/rewild/mammals/modoc-county-coyote-killing-contest-being-kept-under-wraps.html

    Modoc County Coyote-Killing Contest Being Kept Under Wraps

    For the eighth consecutive year, a general store in the far north part of the state is sponsoring a contest that awards prizes for hunters who shoot the most coyotes. This year’s contest is a little different, though: organizers are trying to keep opponents from finding out about it.

    The annual Big Valley Coyote Drive, centered in Adin, CA, is scheduled for February 7-9. To enter, hunters must pay a $50 registration fee that covers a team of two and includes a Saturday dinner and a T-shirt. They then fan out across several Northern California counties — and possibly into Oregon and Nevada — to kill as many coyotes as they can by the morning of the 9th.
    If the rules and regulations for the Drive resemble previous years, prizes will be given to the teams that bring the largest haul of dead coyotes back to Adin, with special prizes awarded to young hunters. But confirming those details about the 2014 Drive is difficult, because its organizers have clamped down hard on publicity.

    Adin Supply Company, an area general store that’s the lead organizer of the Coyote Drive with the Pit River Rod and Gun Club, has apparently gone so far as to let its domain name registration lapse: the website had formerly been the company’s main venue for distributing drive guidelines and registration forms. Instead, the organizers are attempting to spread the word of the hunt among hunters’ communities on Facebook and in other social media.
    Participants in the Drive are bound by state hunting laws regulating how and when animals can be shot, which in the case of coyotes don’t amount to much. Anyone with a valid hunting license can pretty much shoot as many coyotes as they want at any time of year in California, provided they’re in an area where they’re allowed to discharge firearms. Coyotes are one of the least-protected wild animal species in California, and sympathetic write-ups of previous years’ Drives have made references to “eradicating coyotes from Northern California.”

    When I attempted to talk to Adin Supply Wednesday morning to confirm details of the Drive, the woman who answered the store’s phone asked whether I was “pro or anti.” When I identified myself as a reporter and mentioned my relationship with KCET, she said “okay, thank you” and hung up.
    In his story, Stellar quotes the area’s chief CDFW officer on the justification, or lack thereof, for the Drive:

    “In my opinion, coyotes are really not a problem up there,” Banko said, referring to Lassen and Modoc counties. “We get a few complaints about coyotes, but it is a sparsely populated region. Besides, the more coyotes are killed, the more they breed, so this event is not controlling the coyote population.”

     

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: