Honesty is the first chapter in the book of wisdom. — Thomas Jefferson
There is a consensus among both Animal and Environmental Advocates and natural resource scholars that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is flawed. Many complaints about the agency existed during the Carter administration – an investigation, arrest warrants made, the night before issuing all 2,867 – the warrants and investigation was canceled. The problems existed also under the Reagan presidency – just as today.
Much of the literature on the Bureau of Land Management shows the agency’s weaknesses, as well as the need to either discontinue the agency, or make it much smaller. Perhaps separating into smaller agencies that specialize in certain land management – LEGAL – paradigms; This to hopefully discontinue the current criminality, money laundering, fraudulent disbursal of information, irresponsible handling of taxpayer money, and other odd excuses (i.e. lies) that exists today while they manage America’s Public Lands . . .
These reasons include (continued practice for decades and very unacceptable today, as America can no longer support such extravagant and irresponsible behavior from a government agency) concern about special interests’ involving corporations, while ignoring the American taxpaying public and their wants and needs. For example, the livestock and mining industries have for so long been given favored treatment by BLM that it sometimes has been derisively referred to as the Bureau of Livestock and Mining.
Many of us also cite BLM’s weak legal (or ignoring U.S. Law all together) structure as a source of problems; as well as ignoring good science in favor of bad-science to favor corporations, hunters, and even obscure and small conservationist groups supported by questionable corporations. . .
We also see the BLM as weak professionally, whereas, their science, range science and management, is not precise or well developed. Many of us, as well, see decisions based on either no science or fraudulent science. Their ESA, EA’s are a good example of this, and when combined with commonplace rhetoric rather than scientific facts simply becomes irresponsible, and quite costly to taxpayers. Good decisions based on the previous remains impossible and has been so.
The fact is improvement can only be accomplished by the Breaking-Up of the Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Land Management, and shown to be the only acceptable remedy. . . As these government agencies have simply become too large to control and do not remain within the Laws of the United States currently . . .
1. J.N. CLARKE & D. MCCOOL, STAKING OUT THE TERRAIN: Power DIFFERENTIALS AMONG NATURAL RESOURCE AGENCIES (1985); George Coggins, The Law of Public Rangeland Management (1981) (draft paper prepared for Workshop on Political and Legal Aspects of Range Management, Teton Village WY, Sept. 14-15, 1981); P. CULHANE, PUBLIC LANDS POLITICS (1981); S.T. DANA & S.K. FAIRFAX, FOREST AND RANGE POLICY (2d ed. 1980); S.K. Fairfax, Coming of Age in the Bureau of Land Management (1981) (paper prepared for Workshop on Political and Legal Aspects of Range Management, Teton Village WY, Sept. 14-15, 1981); P. Foss, POLICS AND GRASS (1960); and R.H. NELSON, Tim NEW RANGE WARS: ENVIRONMENTALISTS VERSUS CATTLEMEN FOR THE PUBLIC
2. There’s More Rhetoric Than Reality in the West’s ‘Sagebrush Rebellion,’ NAT’L J. 1928-31 (Nov. 17, 1979); S. DANA & S.K. FAIRFAX, supra note 1, at 344.
3. Robert McG. Cawley, The Sagebrush Rebellion 170 (Fall, 1981) (Ph.D. dissertation, Colorado State University, Ft. Collins CO). NATURAL RESOURCES JOURNAL Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA).’ In addition, Professors Clarke and McCool have convincingly demonstrated BLM’s weaknesses measured in manpower levels and funding dollars compared to other natural resources agencies.’