Cattle Grazing Regulations Include Doctored Environmental Analysis | Union of Concerned Scientists

This happened during the Bush Administration - but, why hasn't anything been done to correct the situation? Please, contact your Senators and Representatives and ask them.

Grazing Regulations Include Doctored Environmental Analysis

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) officials compromised the integrity of a BLM study by removing scientific concerns about the effects newly relaxed grazing regulations would have on public lands. Millions of acres of public land in the western U. S. are protected by BLM grazing rules, which regulate when, where, and for how long cattle may graze there.

Julie Cart of the Los Angeles Times reported that prior to relaxing Clinton-era restrictions on cattle grazing in June 2004, the BLM edited out portions of an environmental analysis calling into question the environmental sustainability of the new regulations.1 Agency scientists had studied the effects of grazing on wildlife and water quality and expressed concerns.

Cart reported that the BLM eliminated the original draft's warning that the "the Proposed Action will have a slow, long-term adverse impact on wildlife and biological diversity in general." Instead, the final version of the environmental analysis endorsed the new regulations, which were supported by the cattle industry, stating that the new rules would prove "beneficial to animals."2

Erick Campbell and Bill Brookes are both recently retired scientists, each with more than 30 years experience at the BLM. Campbell, a biologist, authored the section of the BLM study on the impacts of the rule change on wildlife and endangered species, while Brookes, a hydrologist, evaluated the impact on water resources. Both characterized the edits as an attempt to suppress scientific information. Campbell termed the matter "a whitewash" and "a crime." "They took all of our science and reversed it 180 degrees," he said. Brookes agreed, adding "Everything I wrote was totally rewritten and watered down."3

The BLM argued that the changes resulted from a standard editorial process and issued a statement saying the conclusions reached by Campbell and Brookes were "based on personal opinion and unsubstantiated assertions rather than sound environmental analysis."4 In an interview Campbell refuted those charges, saying "All the science they extracted from my narrative was peer-reviewed science. This was not gray literature...This was peer-reviewed science in major journals."5 The concerns of Campbell and Brookes were echoed by wildlife experts at the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and by officials at the Environmental Protection Agency.6

1. Cart, Julie. "Land Study on Grazing Denounced." Los Angeles Times, June 18, 2005. latimes.com requires subscription, article available from advocacy website, accessed December 5, 2006.
2. Bureau of Land Management, "Grazing Administration--Exclusive of Alaska; Final Rule," Department of the Interior, July 12, 2006, accessed December 5, 2006.
3. Cart.
4. Bearden, Tom. "New Grazing Rules." NewsHour with JimLehrer, August 10, 2005. Transcript online, accessed December 5, 2006.
5. Mitchell, Michele and Breslauer, Brenda. NOW with David Brancaccio, July 22, 2005. Transcript online, accessed December 5, 2006.
6. Cart, Julie. "Federal Officials Echoed Grazing-Rule Warnings." Los Angeles Times, July 17, 2005. latimes.com requires subscription, available online from advocacy site, accessed December 5, 2006.


Scientific Integrity
Home
News Center Policy Center
You Can Help
Urge Federal Agencies to Let Scientists Speak Out

Federal scientists must feel free to speak out about research findings that impact our lives. Please urge federal agency leaders to improve their agencies’ media policies.
Get Involved
Donate
Four Star Charity: Charity Navigator More Ways to Give
Get Email Updates

©2009 Union of Concerned Scientists

Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Site Map | RSS | Jobs
Union of Concerned Scientists
National Headquarters
2 Brattle Square, Cambridge, MA 02238-9105

Related articles by Zemanta

• Ken Salazar's Wild Horse Plan Fuels Accusations That He's In The Pocket Of Ranchers (huffingtonpost.com)

Storm Warning

Image via Wikipedia



Ike has passed on by, and I guess Galveston is still there - part of it anyway. If you've never been to Galveston you can't truly appreciate what's been lost. Galveston is/was a lovely city. I'd love to live there if it weren't for the hurricanes.

I'm sure it will be pouring rain in my home town of Dallas as well. There will be street floodings, but it will still be nothing like Galveston. I was still living in Dallas in the 1960s when Carla hit about the same area. It seemed it would never stop raining in Dallas that time.

We here in Indiana had some heavy rain and gusty wind from the remains of Ike yesterday afternoon. We could have used the rain a couple of weeks ago. Now, it's too late to help the farmers, and the yields of soybeans and corn will likely be hurt from the weeks of no rain we had. Well, as far as us personally, we weren't planning on a third cutting of hay anyway - good thing because there isn't going to be one - and this rain will perk up the grass enough so that Indy and Ami will have something to nibble on over the winter.

Since this post is pretty much off topic anyway, I might as well get into deeper water - no pun intended, believe me. It's just that I have a rule to keep politics off this blog. It's totally off topic here. This blog is about Indy, and he's about the most apolitical being I know.

Actually, I'm apolitical myself. As a somewhat conservative independent, I usually don't want to have to admit I voted for either of the bozos that are on the presidential ticket. Over the years though I've tended toward the Republican party because of my conservative leanings.  But, things have changed.......

In recent years - and especially under George W. Bush - the Republicans have begun pandering to a sliver of a sliver of religious extreemests who want to turn our country into a Theocracy - their Theoracy of course - and then take us back to the Dark Ages by declaring war on the basic tenets of virtually all branches of science in favor of their particular version of the creation story. I find this terrifying.

In spite of these strong misgivings, I was at least considering McCain until he selected Sarah Palin as his running mate and then started well, lying about practically everything.

For McCain to choose Palin after accusing Obama of being inexperienced would be funny if it weren't so serious. It was especially incumbent upon McCain to choose a running mate who would be able to run the country in his absence because, let's face it, McCain is 71 years old plus having had a run in with an extremely virulent form of cancer. Like it or not, he's much more vulnerable than Obama in this regard.

If McCain chose Palin because he honestly thinks she is a good choice, this throws his judgment in  serious doubt. If he chose her because he thought she could grab votes that he otherwise would not have gotten, this throws even more serious doubt on his integrity. I'm really sorry to have to say this, but the truth is the truth. As far as I'm concerned, a McCain/Palin victory is unthinkable.

Even if I agreed with her views - which I do not - I would still realize that she absolutely cannot be ready to take over the most important, most difficult, most complicated job in the world. It's simply not possible.

Besides, as I said earlier, I've lost all faith in John McCain. I had previously thought that probably either one of them could handle the job, come right down to it. Now?

I plan to do everything in my power to see to it that Barack Obama is our next President. 

Related articles by Zemanta

• Greenspan: America Can't Afford McCain Tax Cuts - TIME
• 21st Century GOP