Can you even imagine that these things are kept secret?

Western Watersheds Project and Wild Earth Guardians are suing to make public that which should open and free to all.

Story on Fox12Idaho News. Environmental groups sue BLM for grazing info. Associated Press

Tagged with:
 
avatar
About The Author

Ralph Maughan

Dr. Ralph Maughan is professor emeritus of political science at Idaho State University with specialties in natural resource politics, public opinion, interest groups, political parties, voting and elections. Aside from academic publications, he is author or co-author of three hiking/backpacking guides, and he is President of the Western Watersheds Project.

7 Responses to Environmental groups sue BLM to get names of the holders of public grazing leases

  1. avatar jerryB says:

    Ralph……does the FS release this information?

  2. avatar todd says:

    The FS information is much easier to get. For the Gila it is all available online, for example here are the Annual Operating Instructions for the Cross V allotment (2007 to 2008) …. have not tried to get the latest AOI. Cheers, Todd

    Annual Operating Instructions (AOI)
    Allotment: Cross V
    Permittee: Mark J. Svir
    Permit Number: 61298
    Authorization: Authorized to graze the following in 2007:
    Authorized From To Allotment
    15 cow/calf 3/1/2007 2/28/08 Cross V
    Remainder (35 head) nonuse for Resource protection
    Nonuse for resource protection is granted in order to allow for recovery of the Wilson fire area in the Devils Canyon and South pastures. The tentative stocking plan is to stock 15 head in Cottonwood and Outlaw pastures until next fall (2007). At that time the burn area in the South pasture (low-moderate intensity) will have had 2 growing seasons of deferment. If determined by the district that the burn area has recovered sufficiently to support grazing, the authorized livestock numbers would be increased accordingly (up to approximately 30 head). Approximately 30 head would be grazed until the following fall (2008) at which time the burn area in the Devils Canyon pasture (low-moderate-high intensity) will have had 3 growing seasons of deferment. If determined by the district that the burn area has recovered sufficiently to support grazing, the authorized livestock numbers would be increased accordingly (up to approximately 50 head).

  3. avatar kt says:

    Part of what they really don’t want you to know is how few ranchers there are – and the huge swath of devastation each causes …

    You know: Info like if you got rid of 30 sheep ranchers in ID and NV – you would free up around 40 million acres for bighorn sheep.

    AND ranchers view themselves as a class apart. BLM is their minion in supporting the livestock industry’s bullying elitism.

  4. I think kt is right. Look at the info todd just posted of an AOI in Wyoming, “AOI” means annual operation instructions.

    Is there anything there that would fall into the BLMs objections to releasing the names, etc. as they claimed in the AP article — “[the requested] information fell under the same exemption that allows agencies to keep from releasing medical records, personnel records and other information that, if disclosed, would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”

  5. avatar Wilderness Muse says:

    The allegations would appear to come from the plaintiff’s complaint, and plaintiffs can allege anything, which unless it is contained in a BLM writing may or may not be a true statement.

    However, it seems to me, without having researched the law including differences between BLM and FS regulatory and management practices, that a lessee is a party to a federal contract. Absent some overarching privacy issue (which does not seem to be the case) the identity and terms of the contract should be publicly available, even without a FOI request.

    Best of luck to plaintiffs. I hope the judge takes BLM to the woodshed, if there is not a clear legal reason for denying the request.

  6. avatar Paul Bego says:

    Odd that it’s just coming up now after all these years and arrogant too that BLM claims that “if disclosed, would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” They are called PUBLIC Grazing Leases after all!

  7. avatar Nathan Hobbs says:

    The BLM is very public about Oil and mineral leases why the secrecy about ranching? not all leases for minerals are held by big corporations lots of small claims out there, and the information is out there, in fact take a look at this set of really awesome google earth layers i found for BLM leases.

    http://www.rockiesog.com/

Calendar

September 2009
S M T W T F S
« Aug   Oct »
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930  

Quote

‎"At some point we must draw a line across the ground of our home and our being, drive a spear into the land and say to the bulldozers, earthmovers, government and corporations, “thus far and no further.” If we do not, we shall later feel, instead of pride, the regret of Thoreau, that good but overly-bookish man, who wrote, near the end of his life, “If I repent of anything it is likely to be my good behaviour."

~ Edward Abbey

%d bloggers like this: