Parallel Universe, Part Two: When Two Worlds Collide – Justice and ‘equal access to justice’

Parallel Universe, Part Two: When Two Worlds Collide – Justice and ‘equal access to justice’


By Julie Kay Smithson, property rights researcher, London, Ohio propertyrights@earthlink.net http://www.propertyrightsresearch.org and http://propertyrightsresearch.blogspot.com


Today’s atmosphere of seemingly endless litigation, whose outcomes often shut down resource utilization, requires some study to understand. Are the litigants actually “against” the use of resources on, or access to, federal land, or have they other reasons for filing lawsuits? The answer may surprise some readers. It is important to understand why certain actions are being taken that require property owners and resource users to defend their established, proven practices and methods.

Enabling legislation is defined as legislation that authorizes the State to assess, levy, charge, or otherwise mandate payment from external parties and includes a legally enforceable requirement that those resources be used only for the specific purposes stipulated in the legislation. http://www.oregon.gov/DAS/SCD/SARS/policies/oam/15.85.00.PR.pdf

The methods by which the federal system and other states initially select and then elect or retain judges are varied, yet the explicit or implicit goal of the constitutional provisions and enabling legislation is the same: to create and maintain an independent judiciary as free from political, economic and social pressure as possible so judges can decide cases without those influences. – United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, No. 99-4021 http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/04/994021P.pdf (Page 21 of 89 pages)

Enabling legislation also creates an legal environment in which litigation may be filed in order to correct a wrong or wronged party, clarify a statute that was not easily understood or interpreted, set precedent, etc.

The Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) Summary (5 U.S.C. § 504; 28 U.S.C. § 2412) provides for the award of attorney fees (up to $125 per hour) and other expenses to eligible individuals and small entities that are parties to litigation against the government. An eligible party may receive an award when it prevails over the government, unless the government’s position was "substantially justified" or special circumstances make an award unjust. To recover “fees and other expenses” under the EAJA, a claimant must show that it is a "prevailing party." Parties are considered to be prevailing parties when they have been successful on any significant issue in litigation that achieves some of the benefit the parties sought. A party must also show that the lawsuit was a material factor in bringing about the desired result and the outcome was required by law and was not a gratuitous act by the government. Finally, whether a party is a small entity for purposes of EAJA is determined by a unique size standard included in the act. Compliance with the size standard is a threshold requirement for an award of fees under the act. – Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy http://www.sba.gov/advo/laws/sum_eaja.html

In 1980, Congress enacted the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) in response to the federal government's growing demand for data from small businesses, individuals, and state and local governments, and attempted to institute controls over government requests for data. – 44 U.S.C. § 3501. http://library.findlaw.com/2003/Jan/14/132464.html

The Information Quality Act (IQA), called the Data Quality Act (DQA) by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), is an attempt by Congress to ensure that federal agencies use and disseminate accurate information. The DQA requires federal agencies to issue information quality guidelines ensuring the quality, utility, objectivity and integrity of information that they disseminate and provide mechanisms for affected persons to correct such information. … Questions that remain unanswered about the Data Quality Act are whether agency information quality guidelines apply to rulemaking and whether an agency's denial of a petition to correct information is reviewable by the courts. … Purpose of the Data Quality Act: Congress enacted the DQA primarily in response to increased use of the Internet, which gives agencies the ability to communicate information easily and quickly to a large audience. Under the DQA, federal agencies must ensure that the information it disseminates meets certain quality standards. Congress' intent was to prevent the harm that can occur when government websites, which are easily and often accessed by the public, disseminate inaccurate information. … Quality of Information: First, the agencies were to adopt a basic standard of quality of information as a performance goal, as well as specific standards of quality appropriate for the various categories of information they disseminate. 67 F.R. at 8459. Each agency was required to publish its own guidelines in the Federal Register as well as on the agency's website. Id. In addition, each agency promulgated guidelines that can be found on OMB's website. See http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/agency_info_quality_links.html and http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/omb/inforeg/2007_cb/2007_draft_cb_report.pdf (103 pages; 735.20 KB) http://library.findlaw.com/2003/Jan/14/132464.html

31 U.S.C.§ 1304 – US CODE, Title 31, 1304: Judgments, awards, and compromise settlements. (a) Necessary amounts are appropriated to pay final judgments, awards, compromise settlements, and interest and costs specified in the judgments or otherwise authorized by law when— (1) payment is not otherwise provided for; (2) payment is certified by the Secretary of the Treasury; and (3) the judgment, award, or settlement is payable— (A) under section 2414, 2517, 2672, or 2677 of title 28; (B) under section 3723 of this title; (C) under a decision of a board of contract appeals; or (D) in excess of an amount payable from the appropriations of an agency for a meritorious claim under section 2733 or 2734 of title 10, section 715 of title 32, or section 203 of the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (42 U.S.C. 2473). (b) (1) Interest may be paid from the appropriation made by this section— (A) on a judgment of a district court, only when the judgment becomes final after review on appeal or petition by the United States Government, and then only from the date of filing of the transcript of the judgment with the Secretary of the Treasury through the day before the date of the mandate of affirmance; or (B) on a judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or the United States Court of Federal Claims under section 2516 (b) of title 28, only from the date of filing of the transcript of the judgment with the Secretary of the Treasury through the day before the date of the mandate of affirmance. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/31/usc_sec_31_00001304----000-.html

The Financial Management Service (FMS) is a bureau of the U.S. Department of the Treasury. Treasury’s role is to “oversee” the use of this appropriation. http://www.fms.treas.gov/judgefund/background.html "The Judgment Fund is available for court judgments and Justice Department compromise settlements of actual or imminent lawsuits against the government." – Overview: Judgment Fund: Programs and Systems: Financial Management Service http://www.fms.treas.gov/judgefund/index.html judgment.fund@fms.treas.gov or 866-277-1046

Because Congress has not articulated a specific standard of adequacy to support a fee application, but has noted that reimbursement of fees and expenses is made in lieu of the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), the Financial Management Service (FMS) will use EAJA as a guideline for determining the adequacy of applications for reimbursement under this legislation. Generally, applicants should submit an affidavit establishing (1) the attorney's hourly fee rate and how it was determined; and (2) include an itemized statement containing the amount of time spent working on specific tasks and (3) and itemized list of other expenses or costs.

The basic policy of FOIA is one of disclosure. Accordingly, FMS will assume that any information submitted as part of an application for fees and expenses is subject to disclosure. However, FMS will consider an applicant's request that certain material not be disclosed.
http://fms.treas.gov/judgefund/questions_108-007.html

The Western Watersheds Project, a self-described “non-profit conservation group,” is but one example of those organizations engaged in what, at first blush, appear to be valid “environmental” concerns. The WWP and a bevy of like-mined partners -- “ … the Oregon Natural Desert Association in Oregon, Forest Guardians in New Mexico, the Center for Biological Diversity in Arizona, the American Lands Alliance in Washington, D.C.; and the Larch Company in Ashland, Oregon” -- operates what seems to be a selfless campaign for good. “With these groups WWP co-founded the National Public Lands Grazing Campaign that supports federal legislation for a generous and voluntary federal grazing permit buyout program to compensate ranchers and restore public lands. Congressman Raul Grijalva of Arizona sponsors that legislation. WWP’s long-term partner in our efforts to bring the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service into compliance with national environmental laws is the non-profit environmental law firm Advocates For The West in Boise, Idaho.”

The WWP makes statements like: "Through vigorous litigation under the Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act and Federal Land Policy Management Act, WWP has successfully challenged public-lands grazing practices that threaten watersheds and endangered species such as salmon, steelhead and bull trout." http://www.westernwatersheds.org/about

In the past decade alone, WWP has received, through Equal Access to Justice Act provisions, just short of one million dollars. Source: Budd-Falen Law Offices, LLC, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

The commissioners of Owyhee County, Idaho, bravely stood up and questioned U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 2004. After more than a year, their reply seemed to put to rest any need to list the sage grouse or protect its habitat from grazing:

"Mr. Hal Tolmie, Chairman of the Board, Owyhee County Board of Commissioners, P.O. Box 128, Murphy, Idaho 83650-0128. Dear Chairman Tolmie: On June 21, 2004, the Owyhee County Board of Commissioners filed a request for correction of information (RFC) [emphasis added] under Section 5 15 of Public Law 106-554, commonly referred to as the Information Quality Act (IQA), with our Wyoming Ecological Services Field Office in regards to a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) 90-day Finding for Petitions to list the greater sage grouse as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), published April 21, 2003 (69 FR, No. 77). In that notice, we announced that there was substantial information available to initiate a status review of the species and asked the public to submit any pertinent information concerning the status of or threats to this species. On December 2, 2004, you were notified that the Service needed additional time to respond to your request. Subsequently, the service published a final rule in the Federal Register (70 FR 2279), that the petitioned action to list the greater sage-grouse was not warranted, that the species is not in danger of extinction, nor is it likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future. [Emphasis added] The data quality issues you raised in your IQA resulted in additional review and we believe our response addressed them affirmatively. We believe the issues you raised were addressed in the final rule, and unless you feel that they were not adequately addressed, we will not be providing a separate response.” Sincerely, Thomas O. Melius, Assistant Director, External Affairs" – July 18, 2005, [U.S. Fish & Wildlife] Service response on letterhead with Washington, D.C., address. http://www.fws.gov/informationquality/topics/FY2004/Owyhee%20Sage%20Grouse/Response%2018%20July%202005.pdf (1 page; 86.66 KB)

Oftentimes, litigious parties seem more interested in what amounts to the “litigate free” sections of the Equal Access to Justice Act than the actual stated purpose of the lawsuits. If it were as costly for the plaintiffs as it was for the defendants in these cases, most such arbitrary and capricious litigation would come to an abrupt halt. Change in or repeal of this act would bring much-needed relief to American taxpayers without harm to any species.

After reading Part One of this article series, Ohioan G.L. Kronk observed of ranchers: “They have the common sense to rotate their crop, because cattle are a crop.” This is a powerful comment, coming from someone who neither farms nor ranches. The public, every member of which is a consumer, needs to see itself as the direct and active beneficiary of the responsible utilization of natural resources. An educated consumer does not advocate locking up natural resources, but supports production of resources for the mutual benefit of people, animals that are grown for human consumption and those that benefit from the presence of people. “The environment,” deprived of human touch, stewardship and ingenuity, loses its vibrancy, its ability to benefit others and its “reason for being.”


Part Three unites positive change, public action and ranchers.


~~~~~


Article citation: "First published in the October/November 2009 issue of Progressive Rancher Magazine."

Unpack!

Unpack!


June 13, 2009


By Julie Kay Smithson propertyrights@earthlink.net


If this question were posed to most Americans today: Would you embrace the concept of losing your property rights and entire region's economy? The answer would be a resounding "No!"

Worded differently -- say, in the form of "protecting" and/or "restoring" a posted "endangered" or "threatened" species of flora or fauna (whether or not any actual proof exists that said poster species is in any danger of harm to its numbers) -- twenty-first century Americans seem unable to register any red flags to themselves.

The "Endangered Species Act," touted as being the best thing since sliced bread for "saving," "protecting" and/or "restoring" things, has actually done very little. It has, however, wreaked utter havoc on America's former economic independence. Were people to take a long, hard look at the things over the past thirty years that have reduced this nation to paper tiger "status" and massive dependence on other countries for its food and fiber, its energy sources and now even its "tech support" and call centers -- they might rethink their view of such legislation.

Is canned salmon still available on the shelves of your local grocery store for a reasonable price?

Those in charge of "policy" are only too happy to make a far larger profit on their investment in distant lands where "human resources," like natural resources, are shamelessly exploited without the checks and balances and better working conditions and benefits once enjoyed in America. The thought of a "middle" class of people that actually dare to believe they should own property and know life without abject poverty, is apparently abhorrent to those who are busy collateralizing our every resource in order to skim the power and make our middle, property-owning class go extinct. Since the last quarter of the eighteenth century, America has been the place people could go to become free, own property and be independent. Should our steps forward be negated without a whimper as the Albert Gores of the world seek to make us -- but never themselves -- little more than serfs and peasants in service to their masters?

I ask people to unpack and stop taking those wholesale guilt trips they've been conditioned to take at the drop of a hat. Consider that what's actually happening is the undermining of our economic health and independence, while food and fiber is produced in countries with far less stringent growing conditions and regulations than ours. Would Americans ever knowingly produce pet or human food "salted" with deadly melamine? Why shouldn't we raise our own food, grow our own trees -- to be harvested, because they are, after all, a renewable resource -- and utilize our own manpower once again? We owe it to future generations to unpack!


Julie Kay Smithson is a property rights researcher in rural west-central Ohio. Please visit http://www.propertyrightsresearch.org a place to learn about your property rights and how to protect them.

If Wolves Had Coattails

If Wolves Had Coattails


May 7, 2007



By Julie Kay Smithson propertyrights@earthlink.net


Focus should be redirected from wolves to those behind their 're' introduction and that of other large predators. Such Endangered Species Act (ESA) abuse provides sublime job security. Consider that the real predators may be walking on two legs and "interpreting" the Endangered Species Act for their own benefit and not that of the actual species.

Keeping factions like ranchers, sportsmen and miseducated folk at one another's throats, merely enhances the smokescreen.

Large predators -- and other species of flora and fauna -- have no say in such matters. They are manipulated and volunteered to be de facto real estate agents for The Wildlands Project (TWP). They become "poster species" for the driving forces bent upon gaining control over property.

TWP is not about "rewilding," but rather controlling all resources and wiping out property rights.

If a wolf could tell us, it would not choose to be trapped, moved to a warmer / different climate, bred in captivity, radio-collared, poked, prodded, and turned loose in places where the wolf density is already so high that there's simply not enough food to go around and lots of infighting between the now-crowded large predator population.

Think of an inner city with two gangs. Suddenly, someone drops off ten more gangs in an area where the turf is already claimed. All Hell is SURE to break loose!

If wolves had coattails, the number of two-legged "human" predators riding on them would be amazing. Closer scrutiny will peel the onion's layers.

Parallel Universe, Part One: When Two Worlds Collide – Ranching and Litigation

Parallel Universe, Part One: When Two Worlds Collide – Ranching and Litigation


By Julie Kay Smithson, property rights researcher, London, Ohio propertyrights@earthlink.net http://www.propertyrightsresearch.org


Today’s ranchers raise beef that is leaner, grown with an eye toward both responsible grazing techniques and health-conscious consumers. Unlike America’s east, where private property is in the majority of land ownership, the federal government owns vast areas in the American west. Ranchers own grazing permits on federal lands. Modern ranching has become complex. Ranching practices must be leaner and greener in order to be environmentally responsible and profitable.

The West and its federal, or “public,” lands, is no exception.

Under the Taylor Grazing Act, the first grazing district to be established was Wyoming Grazing District Number 1 on March 23, 1935. Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes created a Division of Grazing within the Department to administer the grazing districts; this division later became the U.S. Grazing Service and was headquartered in Salt Lake City. [1]

The Continental Congress, through the "Land Ordinance of 1785," adopted a “Rectangular Survey System” on May 20, 1785, which defines the public lands by Township, Range and Section, modified by the Act of May 18, 1796, and other subsequent Acts into the recognizable cadastral survey system of today. Originally established by Congress in 1812 under the Treasury Department as the “General Land Office.” The GLO, among other things, was responsible for the surveys of the public lands. Successor to the GLO emerged when the consolidation of the GLO and the Grazing Service occurred on July 16, 1946, creating the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). [2]

In today’s world, being savvy about definitions and laws is vital to running a business. It is also of paramount importance to those whose custom and culture, work and lifestyles, carry the indelible stamp of resource providing: America’s farmers, commercial fishermen, miners, ranchers, and timber growers and harvesters. The saying, “If it can’t be grown, it must be mined,” is true. Food and fiber grown in America is necessary for the health of our nation. Responsible resource utilization encompasses not only the ability to extract or harvest resources, but also the keen, ever-learning manner in which those resources are brought from source to consumer.

Twenty-first century resource providers never leave the classroom – they are constantly in pursuit of new and better ways to both protect the natural environment and provide products that are skillfully grown/raised to be healthful. The old days of just “being” a rancher, farmer, logger, miner, or fisherman, are, as they say, “history.” Today’s history is being written by those dedicated to making a positive contribution to the earth and its people. Such dedication requires a willingness to learn that goes far beyond the confines of learning institutions, one that also respects the science that is ever evolving from those places.

Today’s holders of grazing permits in the West must keep in mind that new ways of grazing mean everything from riparian restoration to making sure livestock don’t tarry too long at any one watering or grazing location.

Grazing allotments carry specific restrictions, including the number of AUMs (Animal Unit Months) that may be on each grazing allotment. One AUM means the amount of forage needed to sustain one cow, five sheep, or five goats for a month. A full AUMs fee is charged for each month of grazing by adult animals if the grazing animal (1) is weaned, (2) is 6 months old or older when entering public land, or (3) will become 12 months old during the period of use. For fee purposes, an AUM is the amount of forage used by five weaned or adult sheep or goats or one cow, bull, steer, heifer, horse, or mule. The term AUM is commonly used in three ways: (1) stocking rate as in X acres per AUM, (b) forage allocation as in X AUMs in allotment A, and (3) utilization as in X AUMs consumed from Unit B. [3]

Livestock grazing requires that land be rested. Rest means the absence of grazing by livestock to benefit plants for regrowth between grazing periods, for critical periods of plant growth and development, or for critical periods of plant establishment. [4]

Today’s ranchers win awards for their stewardship that prove their actions. These men and women also place a high value on wildlife and wildfowl, for protecting habitat means everyone wins. Ranch hands know when to steer clear of areas known to be in use by nesting birds or denning wildlife. They steward these places and keep a close eye on things that they know to report to the ranch boss/headquarters.

"The good thing about it is that good cattle country is also good sage-grouse country,” stated John Dahlke, founder, Wyoming Wildlife Consultants, LLC, Pinedale, Wyoming.

The multiple use of federal land is synonymous with the ability to access that land. The land, and its plant and animal life, is made more delicate by the sparseness of precipitation. Annual rainfall that would fall in just one season, “back East,” is all there is for the entire year. In times of drought, there may be many months in a row when negligible or no rain falls. Maintaining and caring for land, water, livestock, and wildlife, becomes more of a science than a job at those times – but it also requires ranchers to keep an eye on the horizon, never taking one drop of moisture for granted and making sure that their animals don’t overstay their welcome in any one location.

Range management has become a well-attended college course, a science in its own right. Ranches and farms now earn many of the awards once handed only to self-proclaimed environmental organizations. The “great wrinkled ranges” of the West may still look the same from the air, as they have come to be called “flyover country” – but they have come to be tended by far more knowledgeable hands and minds.

The U.S. Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management manages livestock grazing on about 160 million acres, having stewardship responsibilities for nearly two thirds of all public rangelands. [5]

The Bureau of Land Management does not make an annual national “count” of the livestock that graze on BLM-managed lands, because the actual number of livestock grazing on public lands on any single day varies throughout the year and livestock are often moved from one grazing allotment to another. So an aggregate head count would provide very little information on overall livestock use. Instead, the BLM compiles information on the number of AUMs used each year, which takes into account both the number of livestock and the amount of time they spend on public lands. … Over time there has been a gradual decrease in the amount of grazing use authorized by the BLM, and that trend continues today. Authorized (as distinguished from actual) grazing use on public lands has declined from about 22 million AUMs in 1941 to 12.5 million AUMs authorized in 2008. In most years, the actual use of forage is less than the potential amount available for use because forage amounts and demands depend on several factors, such as drought, wildfire, and market conditions, as noted earlier regarding annual public land grazing levels. In 2008, the number of AUMs actually used on BLM-managed land was 8.6 million. [6]

Enter the “Western Watersheds Project.” Against the responsible, award-winning grazing of livestock in harmony with nature on federal lands by ranchers, the WWP boasts: "WWP manages the 432-acre the Greenfire Preserve on the East Fork of the Salmon River in Central Idaho. The Preserve incorporates more than 1.25 miles of the East Fork, which provides critical habitat for Chinook salmon, steelhead and bull trout all listed under the Endangered Species Act. The preserve also provides winter habitat for 150 elk, over 2,000 whitetail and mule deer, wolves and the remnant White Cloud herd of Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep. The Preserve also provides year-round habitat for a wild horse band of sixteen horses. Since WWP began management of the property, more than 50,000 acres of public-lands grazing allotments associated with the Preserve have been closed to livestock grazing. Peregrine falcons, bobcats, spotted bats and wolf packs have replaced cattle. WWP's management program for Greenfire includes an extensive restoration project funded in part by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency." [7]

“Advocates for the West” filed a lawsuit, Case No. 08-cv-435, against the U.S. Department of the Interior and its agency, the Bureau of Land Management, on behalf of the WWP. 08-cv-435 seeks to stop all public lands grazing “…within the habitat of the Great Basin core population of greater sage-grouse in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and its implementing regulations, and the Clean Water Act.” This allegation, in the form of sixty-nine pages and numerous claims “for relief” by the WWP, “…covers a five state region of southern Idaho, northern Nevada, southern Oregon, eastern California, and western Utah.” The lawsuit accuses the DOI and BLM of refusing to acknowledge “ … that their grazing, vegetation treatment, energy development and other management actions are, in fact, contributing to the loss and fragmentation of greater sage-grouse populations and habitat across the Great Basin.”

WWP makes nebulous and non-factual allegations, like: “Livestock grazing is also pervasive across the Great Basin. Domestic livestock are exotic or alien species to this landscape, and have exacted a terrible toll on the ecological health of the Great Basin. Bred for the cooler and moister conditions of northern Europe, domestic livestock are poorly adapted for the hot dry summers and long cold winters of the Great Basin. Livestock thus tend to congregate around water sources and shady areas during hot periods, causing severe damage to streams, springs, seeps, and wet meadows – habitats that are critical for survival and reproduction of many native wildlife species, including sage-grouse.”

The following map shows the scope and intent of current litigation by groups such as the WWP:

http://westernwatersheds.org/species/sage-grouse/images/sg_rmp_scope.jpg

The map [8] suggests that sage-grouse habitat is very limited, with connectivity through narrow bands (green). The map is questionable, since sage-grouse range is actually far more widespread. There is a difference between “habitat” and “range.” Range refers to: 1. The geographic range is the entire area where a species is known to occur or to have occurred (historical range). The range of a species may be continuous, or it may have unoccupied gaps between populations (discontinuous distribution). 2. Some populations, or the entire species, may have different seasonal ranges. These may be overlapping, or they may be widely separated with intervening areas that are, at most, briefly occupied during passage on relatively narrow migration routes. 3. Home range refers to the local area that an individual or group uses for a long period of life. [9] Habitat means the particular type of place where an organism lives within a more extensive area or range. … characterized by its biological components and/or physical features. [10]

Livestock grazing can result in impacts on public land resources, but well-managed grazing provides numerous environmental benefits as well. For example, while livestock grazing can lead to increases in some invasive species, well-managed grazing can be used to manage vegetation. Intensively managed "targeted" grazing can control some invasive plant species or reduce the fuels that contribute to severe wildfires. Besides providing such traditional products as meat and fiber, well-managed rangelands and other private ranch lands support healthy watersheds, carbon sequestration, recreational opportunities, and wildlife habitat. Livestock grazing on public lands helps maintain the private ranches that, in turn, preserve the open spaces that have helped write the West's history and will continue to shape this region's character in the years to come. [11]

[1] http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/grazing.1.html

[2] http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/prog/more_programs/geographic_sciences.print.html

[3] BLM Rangeland Program Glossary http://www.nv.blm.gov/range/Glossary.htm

[4] The National Range and Pasture Handbook Glossary ftp://ftp-fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/GLTI/technical/publications/nrph/nrph-glossery.pdf

[5] Hope on the Range, Final Script, January 16, 2009: http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/Planning_and_Renewable_Resources/grazing.Par.88671.File.dat/Hope_on_the_Range_script.pdf (4 pages; 132.81 KB)

[6] http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/grazing.1.html

[7] http://www.westernwatersheds.org/wwpinfo/aboutwwp.html

[8] http://westernwatersheds.org/species/sage-grouse/images/sg_rmp_scope.jpg

[9] http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/websites/www.nmfs.noaa.gov/habitat/habitatprotection/eis/Full%20Gulf%20EFH%20EIS%20703.PDF December 15, 2004 (page 12 of 654 pages; 5.22 MB)

[10] Ibid. Page 10

[11] http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/grazing.1.html

~~~~~

Part Two will explore the reasons litigation has become pervasive.

~~~~~

Article citation: "First published in the August/September 2009 issue of Progressive Rancher Magazine."



Also posted at these Internet locations:



Western Institute for Study of the Environment:

http://westinstenv.org/wildpeop/2009/08/07/parallel-universe-part-one-when-two-worlds-collide-%E2%80%93-ranching-and-litigation/

Klamath Bucket Brigade:

http://www.klamathbucketbrigade.org/Smithson_ParallelUniverse080709.htm

Klamath Basin Crisis:
http://disc.yourwebapps.com/discussion.cgi?disc=153941;article=40112;title=Our%20Klamath%20Basin%20Water%20Crisis