JoseCuervo
New member
Another loss to the Hunting community, as Dubya continues his assualt on our Hunting, Fishing, and Outdoor Recreation. So much for being able to enjoy are Public Lands for hunting.... The only hunting we will do is to HUNT for the last remaining piece of forage, so we can kill the last remaining Big Game animal on Public Lands after the Welfare Ranchers have decimated the land.
It is funny how the Bush administration wants to "hurry things up" with the Healthy Forest Initiative, but on Grazing, and restoring Rangelands, they want to sloooooooooooooow things down, so as to not upset a bunch of Welfare Ranchers close to election time....
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Short-term harm seen in grazing rules
Associated Press
WASHINGTON – The Interior Department’s new plan for managing livestock grazing on 160 million acres of public lands could have “some short-term adverse effects” in Western states, according to a draft study of the plan’s impacts released Friday.
The Bureau of Land Management said in its draft environmental impact statement that some rangeland health might suffer initially during the transition to new rules.
This could happen because the agency would have two years instead of one to make decisions and some of the changes would be phased in over five years, the bureau said.
But in the long-term, BLM said, “better and more sustainable grazing decisions would be the outcome ... and result in long-term positive effects on rangeland.”
The Interior Department agency manages 261 million acres of public lands. Though the proposed rule could affect as many as 18,000 permit and leaseholders now using 160 million acres, what is grazed is usually less extensive because of drought, wildfires and business decisions.
To minimize damage immediately after the new rules take effect, BLM said it still “could exercise authority ... to curtail grazing if imminent likelihood of significant resource damage exists.”
The Bush administration, saying it hoped to help livestock owners whose cattle range on public lands, announced in early December it was revising 1995 grazing rules issued during the Clinton administration.
Interior Secretary Gale Norton said then that “ranching is crucial not only to the economies of Western rural communities, but also to the history, social fabric and cultural identity of these communities.”
Critics from several environmental groups say the administration is trying to overturn the 1995 rules to eliminate a variety of public lands protections, including ending the requirement for prompt action to address harmful grazing practices.
They complain the new rules would require years of monitoring before damaging practices could be ended, restrict public input on grazing decisions, give ranchers ownership of range modifications and let livestock owners buy water rights on public lands.
The proposed rules would remove the current limit of three consecutive years under which livestock operators can retain grazing permits but not make use of them. Operators could apply for nonuse for up to one year at a time.
They also would require more studies and monitoring any time BLM evaluates whether health standards for rangeland are being met. Livestock owners would be rewarded for making permanent improvements by sharing ownership of fences and wells with BLM.
Long-term conservation-use grazing permits would be eliminated, and BLM would clarify how it authorizes grazing when a permit is postponed because of an administrative appeal.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It is funny how the Bush administration wants to "hurry things up" with the Healthy Forest Initiative, but on Grazing, and restoring Rangelands, they want to sloooooooooooooow things down, so as to not upset a bunch of Welfare Ranchers close to election time....
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Short-term harm seen in grazing rules
Associated Press
WASHINGTON – The Interior Department’s new plan for managing livestock grazing on 160 million acres of public lands could have “some short-term adverse effects” in Western states, according to a draft study of the plan’s impacts released Friday.
The Bureau of Land Management said in its draft environmental impact statement that some rangeland health might suffer initially during the transition to new rules.
This could happen because the agency would have two years instead of one to make decisions and some of the changes would be phased in over five years, the bureau said.
But in the long-term, BLM said, “better and more sustainable grazing decisions would be the outcome ... and result in long-term positive effects on rangeland.”
The Interior Department agency manages 261 million acres of public lands. Though the proposed rule could affect as many as 18,000 permit and leaseholders now using 160 million acres, what is grazed is usually less extensive because of drought, wildfires and business decisions.
To minimize damage immediately after the new rules take effect, BLM said it still “could exercise authority ... to curtail grazing if imminent likelihood of significant resource damage exists.”
The Bush administration, saying it hoped to help livestock owners whose cattle range on public lands, announced in early December it was revising 1995 grazing rules issued during the Clinton administration.
Interior Secretary Gale Norton said then that “ranching is crucial not only to the economies of Western rural communities, but also to the history, social fabric and cultural identity of these communities.”
Critics from several environmental groups say the administration is trying to overturn the 1995 rules to eliminate a variety of public lands protections, including ending the requirement for prompt action to address harmful grazing practices.
They complain the new rules would require years of monitoring before damaging practices could be ended, restrict public input on grazing decisions, give ranchers ownership of range modifications and let livestock owners buy water rights on public lands.
The proposed rules would remove the current limit of three consecutive years under which livestock operators can retain grazing permits but not make use of them. Operators could apply for nonuse for up to one year at a time.
They also would require more studies and monitoring any time BLM evaluates whether health standards for rangeland are being met. Livestock owners would be rewarded for making permanent improvements by sharing ownership of fences and wells with BLM.
Long-term conservation-use grazing permits would be eliminated, and BLM would clarify how it authorizes grazing when a permit is postponed because of an administrative appeal.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
