Ithaca 37
New member
Rocky Barker's rather inadequate article on the Western Watersheds-Simplot grazing agreement (The Statesman, Sept. 4) misrepresents the issues surrounding the deal or fails to address them entirely.
First, what needed to be included in Barker's piece was that the judge's decision was based on close evaluation of the Bureau of Land Management's own science. Judge B. Lynn Winmill ruled on the basis of the BLM's own scientific data that the BLM violated federal law in the administration of these lands.
The BLM's own science shows that there is clear evidence of:
• An 80 percent decline in sage grouse numbers over the last 25 years.
• Many unhealthy streams.
• Vast expanses of public lands converted to non-native monocultures of crested wheatgrass, creating a biological desert unable to support native plant and animal life.
• Broad expanses of cheatgrass and weeds that sharply increase the likelihood of further fire devastation.
These are the reasons why the judge's decision should have been upheld in the first place. In the face of these facts, no congressional intervention should have been sought by the ranching community.
Barker quotes John McCarthy of the Idaho Conservation League as saying: "It's very gratifying to see Jon (Marvel, of the Western Watersheds Project) recognize the value of compromise and working directly with people to achieve incremental improvements on the public lands." McCarthy's claims are not only out of place, they are false.
No one should be gratified by this compromise. Rather, we should all be appalled by the fact that Western Watersheds had to pursue such a compromise.
The reasons are as follows. First, the "rider" would have resulted in reinstating grazing at levels that had been ruled to violate federal laws. Sen. Larry Craig has a long history of catering to the interests of the ranching community by issuing legislative riders in the Jarbidge area (thus lining the pockets of his friends). In fact the daughter of one of the ranchers — subject to the court's injunction — worked for Sen. Craig for an extended period of time.
Second, the senator's actions would have resulted in egregious violation of ethics. For it would suggest that Craig does not believe that he must uphold the law. Moreover, it suggests that Craig believes it is ethical to subvert the federal judicial process.
Federal laws are intended to prevent just this kind of favoritism. If a U.S. senator does not consider it his duty to uphold the laws of this land, one wonders if he is qualified to hold this position.
The fact is that favoritism toward public lands ranchers has subverted the judicial process and apparently will continue to do so in the Jarbidge area. In the face of these unfortunate facts, Western Watersheds sought a compromise with Simplot and other ranchers subject to the court injunction.
We should hope that such compromises do not mark a bright new beginning, as others would like to think.
The Simplot-Western Watersheds agreement is not to be lauded at all. The agreement would never have been necessary if federal laws and regulations were upheld in the first place.
Citizens should step forth and contact Sen. Craig. They should let the senator know that they do not want their land managed in a way that favors cronies of the senator. We should not let favoritism govern public land management.
Public land must be managed in accordance with federal law. Minimally, this requires that our public servants not subvert the findings of a federal court judge, but uphold them. Moreover, the BLM must manage land in accordance with federal laws and regulations.
http://www.idahostatesman.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050919/NEWS0503/509190303/1052/NEWS05
First, what needed to be included in Barker's piece was that the judge's decision was based on close evaluation of the Bureau of Land Management's own science. Judge B. Lynn Winmill ruled on the basis of the BLM's own scientific data that the BLM violated federal law in the administration of these lands.
The BLM's own science shows that there is clear evidence of:
• An 80 percent decline in sage grouse numbers over the last 25 years.
• Many unhealthy streams.
• Vast expanses of public lands converted to non-native monocultures of crested wheatgrass, creating a biological desert unable to support native plant and animal life.
• Broad expanses of cheatgrass and weeds that sharply increase the likelihood of further fire devastation.
These are the reasons why the judge's decision should have been upheld in the first place. In the face of these facts, no congressional intervention should have been sought by the ranching community.
Barker quotes John McCarthy of the Idaho Conservation League as saying: "It's very gratifying to see Jon (Marvel, of the Western Watersheds Project) recognize the value of compromise and working directly with people to achieve incremental improvements on the public lands." McCarthy's claims are not only out of place, they are false.
No one should be gratified by this compromise. Rather, we should all be appalled by the fact that Western Watersheds had to pursue such a compromise.
The reasons are as follows. First, the "rider" would have resulted in reinstating grazing at levels that had been ruled to violate federal laws. Sen. Larry Craig has a long history of catering to the interests of the ranching community by issuing legislative riders in the Jarbidge area (thus lining the pockets of his friends). In fact the daughter of one of the ranchers — subject to the court's injunction — worked for Sen. Craig for an extended period of time.
Second, the senator's actions would have resulted in egregious violation of ethics. For it would suggest that Craig does not believe that he must uphold the law. Moreover, it suggests that Craig believes it is ethical to subvert the federal judicial process.
Federal laws are intended to prevent just this kind of favoritism. If a U.S. senator does not consider it his duty to uphold the laws of this land, one wonders if he is qualified to hold this position.
The fact is that favoritism toward public lands ranchers has subverted the judicial process and apparently will continue to do so in the Jarbidge area. In the face of these unfortunate facts, Western Watersheds sought a compromise with Simplot and other ranchers subject to the court injunction.
We should hope that such compromises do not mark a bright new beginning, as others would like to think.
The Simplot-Western Watersheds agreement is not to be lauded at all. The agreement would never have been necessary if federal laws and regulations were upheld in the first place.
Citizens should step forth and contact Sen. Craig. They should let the senator know that they do not want their land managed in a way that favors cronies of the senator. We should not let favoritism govern public land management.
Public land must be managed in accordance with federal law. Minimally, this requires that our public servants not subvert the findings of a federal court judge, but uphold them. Moreover, the BLM must manage land in accordance with federal laws and regulations.
http://www.idahostatesman.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050919/NEWS0503/509190303/1052/NEWS05
