Post by GoreSupporterNJ on Feb 19, 2004 21:48:45 GMT -5
What's At Stake:
In 1995, the Clinton administration implemented new management regulations aimed at ending decades of overgrazing and other unsustainable grazing practices. Poor management of public lands grazing by the Interior Department's Bureau of Land Management (BLM) destroyed soils, caused erosion, degraded water quality, crippled riparian areas, reduced wildlife and its habitat, ruined recreation, and even damaged archaeological sites.
The Bush administration's proposed grazing rules attempt to overturn the 1995 rules and eliminate a variety of public lands protections. The proposed rules are especially damaging because they will disenfranchise the public, further entrench destructive livestock grazing, and elevate grazing to the dominant use of many BLM lands. Even the draft Environmental Impact Statement released in January on the proposed rule changes conceded that rangeland health might suffer during the transition to the new rules.
The proposed rule seeks to:
Exclude the public from participating in grazing decisions
The proposed rule attempts to eliminate existing requirements that BLM seek public input before it issues, renews, or modifies a grazing permit. The administration claims that citizens are already consulted when BLM conducts environmental assessments of its grazing decisions. However, these assessments are infamously backlogged due to a lack of effort on behalf of the BLM, who has obtained from Congress a five-year exemption from conducting environmental analysis when renewing grazing permits.
Obstruct BLM's ability to remedy abusive grazing
The proposed rules try to require the BLM to conduct monitoring and data collection before implementing needed changes to damaging grazing practices that fail to meet rangeland health standards. In many cases, the abuse is obvious--yet the BLM will be required to perform years of monitoring and data collection, for which it does not have the staff or the funds. This untenable monitoring requirement proposed by the Bush Administration attempts to guarantee that BLM will be slowed down in trying to determine whether action should be taken to halt or improve unsustainable grazing.
Double the one-year time limit BLM has to begin to remedy damaging grazing
In addition, if a remedy requires a 10 percent or greater reduction in grazing, the proposed rules attempt to require that the reductions be phased in over five years. Abusive grazing will be fixed and any attempt to remedy such damage will be constrained.
Limit the conditions under which a grazing permit may be revoked
While the existing regulations allow BLM to suspend a grazing permit if a rancher violates federal laws, the proposed rules seek to limit BLM's ability to recognize violations of those laws if the violation occurred on the rancher's BLM allotment. For example, if a rancher kills or harms an endangered species, or destroys archaeological resources anywhere else, BLM will be prohibited from taking any action on the rancher's grazing permit.
Give ranchers ownership of so-called "range improvements"
The Bush administration's proposal seeks to give livestock owners clear title to permanent rangeland installations such as wells, fences, and pipelines. This proposal could lead livestock owners to claim that their private property had been impinged on by environmentally protective actions ordered by federal land managers. The result could be that land managers will be increasingly unwilling to take actions that livestock owners could interpret as "takings" of their property.
Send this e-mail: ga0.org/campaign/grazing_blm
to the BLM director today! If you prefer, you can send your own letter, titled Attn: RIN 1004-AD 42, via email to WOComment@Blm.gov, or by mail to:
Director (630)
Bureau of Land Management
Eastern States Office
7450 Boston Blvd.
Springfield, VA 22153
Campaign Expiration Date:
March 2, 2004
Jan
In 1995, the Clinton administration implemented new management regulations aimed at ending decades of overgrazing and other unsustainable grazing practices. Poor management of public lands grazing by the Interior Department's Bureau of Land Management (BLM) destroyed soils, caused erosion, degraded water quality, crippled riparian areas, reduced wildlife and its habitat, ruined recreation, and even damaged archaeological sites.
The Bush administration's proposed grazing rules attempt to overturn the 1995 rules and eliminate a variety of public lands protections. The proposed rules are especially damaging because they will disenfranchise the public, further entrench destructive livestock grazing, and elevate grazing to the dominant use of many BLM lands. Even the draft Environmental Impact Statement released in January on the proposed rule changes conceded that rangeland health might suffer during the transition to the new rules.
The proposed rule seeks to:
Exclude the public from participating in grazing decisions
The proposed rule attempts to eliminate existing requirements that BLM seek public input before it issues, renews, or modifies a grazing permit. The administration claims that citizens are already consulted when BLM conducts environmental assessments of its grazing decisions. However, these assessments are infamously backlogged due to a lack of effort on behalf of the BLM, who has obtained from Congress a five-year exemption from conducting environmental analysis when renewing grazing permits.
Obstruct BLM's ability to remedy abusive grazing
The proposed rules try to require the BLM to conduct monitoring and data collection before implementing needed changes to damaging grazing practices that fail to meet rangeland health standards. In many cases, the abuse is obvious--yet the BLM will be required to perform years of monitoring and data collection, for which it does not have the staff or the funds. This untenable monitoring requirement proposed by the Bush Administration attempts to guarantee that BLM will be slowed down in trying to determine whether action should be taken to halt or improve unsustainable grazing.
Double the one-year time limit BLM has to begin to remedy damaging grazing
In addition, if a remedy requires a 10 percent or greater reduction in grazing, the proposed rules attempt to require that the reductions be phased in over five years. Abusive grazing will be fixed and any attempt to remedy such damage will be constrained.
Limit the conditions under which a grazing permit may be revoked
While the existing regulations allow BLM to suspend a grazing permit if a rancher violates federal laws, the proposed rules seek to limit BLM's ability to recognize violations of those laws if the violation occurred on the rancher's BLM allotment. For example, if a rancher kills or harms an endangered species, or destroys archaeological resources anywhere else, BLM will be prohibited from taking any action on the rancher's grazing permit.
Give ranchers ownership of so-called "range improvements"
The Bush administration's proposal seeks to give livestock owners clear title to permanent rangeland installations such as wells, fences, and pipelines. This proposal could lead livestock owners to claim that their private property had been impinged on by environmentally protective actions ordered by federal land managers. The result could be that land managers will be increasingly unwilling to take actions that livestock owners could interpret as "takings" of their property.
Send this e-mail: ga0.org/campaign/grazing_blm
to the BLM director today! If you prefer, you can send your own letter, titled Attn: RIN 1004-AD 42, via email to WOComment@Blm.gov, or by mail to:
Director (630)
Bureau of Land Management
Eastern States Office
7450 Boston Blvd.
Springfield, VA 22153
Campaign Expiration Date:
March 2, 2004
Jan