BLM 101

This post is simply to address the number of emails I am receiving in reference to the scheduled flight over the new “megaplex.”

AML: (reference BLM website)

Q – How does BLM determine the appropriate management level of wild horses and burros (WH&B)?
A – BLM determines the appropriate management level of WH&B based on an ongoing program of monitoring over several years involving studies of grazing utilization, trend in range condition, actual use, precipitation (climate) and other factors. In Nevada, appropriate management levels of WH&B are generally determined through the multiple-use decision process. This process begins with an evaluation of range conditions; the evaluation assesses whether or not management and stocking levels for livestock, wild horses and/or burros, and wildlife are achieving rangeland objectives. If rangeland health objectives are not being met, changes in management or stocking levels are proposed. Proposed changes are analyzed in an environmental assessment and a proposed multiple-use decision (PMUD) is issued. Proposed decisions are subject to review and protect by parties affected by the proposal. BLM considers all protests filed and then issues a final multiple-use decision (FMUD). BLM’s final decisions are subject to administrative review (appeal).

OK.. so Algebra class begins here… sorry.

How many variables are noted above?

They list 4 and then say “others.” Without listing each one lets say 8 total. (for the sake of brevity and illustration).

Illustrative breakdown (not actual equation) looks something like this: a- (b +c+d-e-f-g)  (+ or – ) h = i (AML)

If  “e ” represents number of horses counted, the proposed fly over represents one variable.

In order to find the value “i” we need the rest.

If lease holders are known, that takes the place of another variable…. etc. down the line.

All variables filled in you have a valid equation.

Here’s the problem:

A valid equation does not represent truth.

Any student of mathematics can tell you that math is simply language. Any student that has had courses in basic principles of logic (actually a math class) and statistics can tell you that neither of these disciplines is about “truth.”

If you are interested here is a “Logic 101” website

When BLM tells you they are mandated under “multiple use” it is a “truth.” When they apply it to the above equation they have all kinds of ways to manipulate that “truth.”

Each one of the variables of this equation are open to debate as the numbers used are based on protocol already deemed faulty within BLM’s own documents.

Even if (and I most certainly mean IF) the fly over gives an accurate count of horses… that does NOT establish an AML. The number will be used to support an assumption that it is relevant to something already shown to be inaccurate.

Why would the BLM continue to perpetuate an assumption of AML?

We already know that answer and it lies within the multiple use mandate.

I know Conrad Burns pissed us all off with “sale authority” in 2004. But one of the blows to the “death” of  Intent of the Wild Free Roaming Horse and Burro act came in 1976.

http://www.blm.gov/flpma/FLPMA.pdf

(c) The term “multiple use” means the manage­

ment of the public lands and their various resource

values so that they are utilized in the combination

that will best meet the present and future needs of

the American people; making the most judicious

use of the land for some or all of these resources

or related services over areas large enough to pro-

vide sufficient latitude for periodic adjustments in

use to conform to changing needs and conditions;

the use of some land for less than all of the

resources; a combination of balanced and diverse

resource uses that takes into account the long-term

needs of future generations for renewable and non-

renewable resources, including, but not limited to,

recreation, range, timber, minerals, watershed,

wildlife and fish, and natural scenic, scientific and

historical values; and harmonious and coordinated

management of the various resources without per­

manent impairment of the productivity of the land

and the quality of the environment with considera­

tion being given to the relative values of the

resources and not necessarily to the combination

of uses that will give the greatest economic return

or the greatest unit output.

Sounds good?

Sec. 202. [43 U.S.C. 1712] (a) The Secretary shall, with

public involvement and consistent with the terms

and conditions of this Act, develop, maintain, and,

when appropriate, revise land use plans which pro-

vide by tracts or areas for the use of the public

lands. Land use plans shall be developed for the

public lands regardless of whether such lands pre­

viously have been classified, withdrawn, set aside,

or otherwise designated for one or more uses.

Ahhhh…. the slimy door opens….

This is where special interests justify their exploitation of this intent.

(and the suspicion that legislators and their aides never read passed a first page)

But this second piece does NOT trump the first.

“Multiple use” is by design intended to benefit the interests of the American public.

It is a concept that has been twisted to trump anything that does not represent private profit.

Ecological, historical, etc. fall by the wayside when BLM answers you “we must manage by multiple use.” Even though it again does not represent an entire “truth.”

Read that whole document to understand the complexity.

So that brings us back to AML

AML is said to represent the numbers of animals the land can sustain. But if your land is being parceled off to livestock, energy, whatever, that is run by a private interest that gains private profit…  that someone besides you (like your president) determines is in your best interest…. AML is a number based not on how many horses the land can sustain, but how many leases are held in that area.

So who determines what I as an American feel has value?

In 1971 my Congress passed an act overwhelmingly demonstrating the importance of Wild equine herds… didn’t it?

Shouldn’t the value to the public be determined by responsible stewardship?

If a lease fee is less than the cost to evaluate the impact of the lease, then isn’t that a burden to the public not a benefit?

If the mission statement of a new complex is to manage horses integrated into “wild across the landscape,” than shouldn’t AML be determined to reflect that? And NOT to reflect a natural gas pipeline and increase in livestock permits? And NOT based on data the BLm admits is faulted in their own documents.

Congress needs to hear from us… again.

LOUDLY.

Need to get back in the pick up.

Herd Watch is on the road. We are becoming operational as we are being born. Thank you all for your support and confidence. Many volunteers have stepped up and those of you not currently on Teams will be contacted very soon. Continue to spread the word… we exist solely by the generosity of the public.

Love you all… and yes, I am being very careful.

Advertisements

7 thoughts on “BLM 101

  1. R.T. Fitch says:

    Glad you threw in that that “I am being careful” line cause you KNEW I was going to ask!!

    Be safe.

  2. jan eaker says:

    Yes, PLEASE be careful!!!!!
    thank you for this good information; good ole American governmennt at work; from Day 1 America has been about the rich and powerful and how they can get MORE riches and power. Any changes to that basic concept have only come about when the people who wanted change determinedly and at great personal sacrifice, made such an uproar that the powers that be had to do something.

  3. Linda says:

    Great explaination, Laura. If we could get the BLM to recognize and present unmanipulated truth, we’d really be getting somewhere. Of course, they’d have to stop touting their “philosophy.” That’s such a lame argument from any government agency, on a par with, “We’ve always done it that way.” Also Native = “Been around a long time.”

    Every time I write to anyone about wild horses and burros, I ask that ALL activities (animal, human, whatever) impacting the land be included studies and documents derived from those studies. Without understanding the big picture, science is out the window and conclusions are invalid.

  4. sandra longley says:

    http://vlex.com/vid/american-horse-protection-watt-interior-37002330

    This is the only case i have been able to find that dealt with this issue..it was a fed appeals court..addressing an injuction on the gathering of the Challis herd..the original judge said the problem was with the cattle eating all the winter forage for the wild horses and BLM needed to address that before removing the horses..the judge was adament, and kept the injuntion in place..then the 1976 law passed..and here comes BLM in 1982 appealing to have the injunction lifted cause they wanted again to try to gather this herd..the majority ruled to send it back to the lower court to be reconsidered..BUT..The dissenting judge wrote a very long complete and well thought out opinion..why the injuction was still appropriate and correct in spite of the 1976 law..now i have read a few dissenting opinions..and this was a very good one..It is a place to start

    • sandra longley says:

      Makes you wonder where all the good judges have gone..guess they have been castrated by the BLM…..

  5. Anna says:

    the BLM website states:

    “one mustangs eats 50 acres of grass a month;

    anne writes: this means one mustang must eat approximately

    2 acres of grass and shrubs a day; that is the equivalant of

    two football fields of hay the mustangs eat in ONE DAY?

    “ummm…i don’t think so; this is called “fixing the books…!

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