|
Grazing Reform >
Congress &
Agency Headaches > BLM Grazing
BLM Grazing
Many Americans believe that our National Forests and
other publicly owned lands are preserved as pristine wild places
for the greater well-being of all. They believe the government
agencies are devoted stewards of public lands. Americans have
made a mistaken assumption.
New BLM Grazing Regulations Suppress Scientific Conclusions
On June 17, 2005, the Bush administration released their version
of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for new
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) regulations. There are some
amazing omissions. In the initial version of the FEIS, BLM
scientists concluded, "The proposed action will have a slow,
long-term adverse impact on wildlife and biological diversity in
general." An LA Times editorial reports:
"a government biologist and hydrologist complained that their
findings on how cattle grazing damages wildlands were rewritten
to produce contrary conclusions. A "significant adverse impact"
on wildlife, for instance, somehow became "beneficial to
animals." Then the Bush administration announced that based on
these rosy findings, it would relax rules that limit grazing on
public lands." - LA Times
BLM’s New Grazing Regulations Undercut Public Participation and
Threaten Wildlife and Water with Hand-Outs to Livestock Industry
6/16/2005 - Forest Guardians Press Release
The BLM Draft Regulations
BLM Draft EIS (PDF)(comments begin on pg.4)
BLM Draft EIS excerpted comments (PDF)
US Fish
& Wildlife comments on the BLM Draft (DOC)
US Fish & Wildlife excerpted comments (PDF)
The News Media Responds
LA Times Editorial: Science Fiction: The altering of reports to
fit policies is dismaying -
"Once again a scientific report has been recast for the sake of
political expediency and used as the basis for a federal rule
that puts industry profit over the health of people and the
environment. If that sounds familiar, it's because it has been
happening regularly throughout President Bush's tenure.
7/5/05
LA Times: The Bush administration altered critical portions of a
scientific analysis of the environmental impact of cattle
grazing on public lands
The original draft of the environmental analysis warned that the
new rules would have a "significant adverse impact" on wildlife,
but that phrase was removed. The bureau now concludes that the
grazing regulations are "beneficial to animals."
6/18/05
New BLM Grazing Rules Released
They've basically stacked the deck in favor of
ranchers - new rules limit public comment on grazing permit
decisions and delay action for up to eight years when range managers
suspect grazing is harming the land
6/17/05
ENS: New Grazing Rules for Public Lands Cut Non-Ranchers Out
"BLM is trying to reverse years of progress on rangeland
restoration to serve a handful of cowmen at great cost to the
public-interest,” said Patterson. “Wildlife, water quality,
hunting, and fishing on public lands will suffer great harm if
the Bush BLM has its way.”
7/21/05
The New Mexican Editorial: Faked grazing report should outrage
Republicans
No one should be surprised at this administration’s mendacious
tactics for erasing rules against the overgrazing of the
American West
6/26/05
Sacramento Bee Editorial: Doctored science, Part II: Report on
grazing gets the Bush treatment
7/21/05
Minneapolis Star Tribune Editorial: Skewing science/Who knew
grazing is green?
7/1/05
For specific questions about our efforts to reduce grazing on public
lands,
contact Melissa Hailey,
Grazing Reform program director.
|
