Milt’s Corner – Upton, Maine Hunting Camp ca 1910

1.7 MILLION ACRES OF NATIONAL FOREST. as per the governments own web page. There is more range lands used outside of national forests managed by BLM. And the majority is neighboring private lands. If I said all of Idaho, you’re right I should not have said all of Idaho. Before these lands were established as multiple use and set up for grazing, ranchers established available water sources, and guess what? More water, more habitat, more wild life. Wild life benefited from the improvements. 15 million acres of public lands are not being grazed and you know it, why don’t you post the offsets?

(aka Greg Farber who used to comment about using fake names)

What ever you say, Lee, Woody, AB, Barb Rupers.

I stopped posting outside of this blog and my own blogs using my name because your ilk loves to paste and copy then edit and repost in your attempts to discredit.

We know the game well, you guys invented it.

Here ya go AB, Lee, Barb Rupers, Woody…

Psalm 63

http://youtu.be/ggIAKcnis_I

Give your source.. Prove your case or shut up.

“I have said this before; one reason primarily, is to counter the false statements coming out with no challenges”

In other words to police this blog because it does not represent her dogmatic world view, understandable I suppose, this nation was turned into a police state mentality since Teddy Roosevelt introduced this nation to unconstitutional foreign invasion, and this nation has been taught that states don’t have rights only the federal government has rights and allows rights. Of course the constitution has another definition, one that has been ignored. The Empirical mentality, lies mean nothing to these people as long as they get their way.

A Summary of the 1988 “Barrier Report”

In 1986 a group of fifteen Forest Service GS-9, 11, and 12 personnel convened for the purpose of, as they termed it”to identify”existing barriers to effective range management”. During the meeting there were 28 “barriers” identified and recommended solutions developed.

The resulting document came to be known as the “Barrier Report”, and for myself, it spelled out the future direction and the intent of the leadership within the Forest Service.
Although the language of the “Barrier Report” is somewhat camouflaged, the intent is clear enough. In listing the various “barriers to effective range management”, it is stated on page 4:

BARRIER 5: ADVERSE ACTIONS ON PERMITS ARE PERCEIVED TO BE MORE DIFFICULT THAN NECESSARY DUE TO LOCAL POLITICS INFLUENCING RESOURCE DECISIONS (AT SO AND DISTRICT LEVEL) i MANAGEMENT REQUIRES “OVERKILL” ON DATA TO SUPPORT ACTION (SO & RO) i FEAR OF LACK OF SUPPORT AT HIGHER LEVELS (SO, RO, WO) i AND THE NEGATIVE CONNOTATION OF APPEALS AND LITIGATION AT ALL LEVELS.

Solution: a. Conduct outreach efforts to all interests in a decision (orchestrate decisions) ; during preliminary project planning, identify politically sensitive issues, and plan actions to create or take advantage of politically sensitive issues, and plan actions to create or take advantage of opportunities to constructively resolve the issues. (DISTRICT, SO)

b. Data and documentation (quantity and quality) should be dictated by the level of risk and sensitivity of each action and need to be assessed and agreed upon at the earliest point by all levels involved.
(DISTRICT, SO. RO.)
c. Management needs to more readily accept the professional judgment of the resource managers. (RO)
d. Have more information gathering tours for RO and WO staff, to look atll problems, not “look for” problems.

Here is the Barrier Report; http://www.gardnerfiles.com/Barrier%20Report%2012-b.pdf

e . Management should encourage taking reasonable risks, by adding the requirement as a performance element, and through further delegation of authority. (DISTRICT, SO. RO.)
f. Increase information about the results of appeals and the reasons for the appeal decision made.

(BY LEVEL WHERE DECISION MADE. WO ESTABLISH DIRECTION FOR THE INFORMATION FLOW PROCESS)

g. Recognition at all levels that changes in management emphasis, LMP’s etc., will result in appeals, litigation, and congressionals and that these are a natural, appropriate refinement process for our decisions. (WO should reinforce this)

h. Increase information and education activities to Congress, user groups, and other agencies on the impacts of current laws and emerging issues. (ALL LEVELS)

BARRIER 6: TRADITIONAL ATTITUDE OF CONGRESS, ADVISORY BOARDS, PERMITTEES, AND OURSELVES THAT ADDITIONAL, RANGE IMPROVMENTS WILL AVOID ADVERSE ACTIONS.

BARRIER 6, explains why the Forest Service discontinued putting in range improvements back in the 1980’s. It also explains why the Forest Service people did not follow through with their agreement with the Parsons, Testolins and Youngs to complete range improvements. Obviously their goal was to encourage adverse actions, not to relieve conflict through range improvements. They even go so far as to indicate that the attitude of Congress is wrong in looking to range improvements as a means of relieving conflict.

BARRIER 7: CURRENT GRAZING FEES ARE BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE RANGE MANAGEMENT DUE TO RESTRICTING THE AMOUNT OF RBF AND CP FUNDS; CREATE CONTROVERSY WITH OTHER USER GROUPS AND AGENCIES; PROMOTE MISCONCEPTION BY CONGRESS AND LIVESTOCK ORGANIZATIONS THAT CURRENT (LOW) FEES ARE THE MOST EFFICIENT WAY TO CONTRIBUTE TO IMPROVED RANGE CONDITION, ENCOURAGE PRIVATE INVESTMENT, AND DISCOURAGE OVERGRAZING AND TRESPASSING; APPEAL TO LIVESTOCK USERS, OTHER USERS, AND OURSELVES, THAT ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT IS NOT THE PRIMARY EMPHASIS AND DIRECTION AND, PROMOTE MISCONCEPTION OF CONGRESS AND OURSELVES THAT THEY ARE FUNDING A DEFICIT PROGRAM DECREASING IN PRIORITY RATHER THAN ONE THAT IS ACTUALLY DOING INTEGRATED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT.

Solution: a. Bring the grazing fee in line with the new emphasis and direction by setting it at fair market value. (WO. CONGRESS)

The Thing that is so wrong with this process is that it’s Forest personnel that are developing law, not Congress or the people as is intended under our system of government. Not once in the entire document is there reference made to interpreting the intent of Congressional legislation. And yet they blatantly advocate increased “adverse action” and encourage “orchestrating decisions”; and suggest “encouraging taking risk, by adding it as a performance element, through further delegation of authority”; and state there “be recognition … that changes in management … will result in appeals, litigation, and congressionals and that these are natural, appropriate … ”

I ask, how could agency personnel be more arrogant? They are actually advocating that actions be taken that will lead to increased confrontation and litigation. And the way they mention again and again of the need to “Bring the grazing fee in line … by setting it at fair market value.” They know as well as we permittees do that it is already costing ranchers more to run on the public lands than it costs people to run on private pasture. There can only be one motive for these kinds of actions, and that is to make it so expensive for we permittees to operate on public lands that we can not survive.

(For solid data confirming the fact that it does cost ranchers more to operate on public lands than it would if they were purchasing private pasture see Documents 79, 80, 81, 82 & 83)
Other suggested policy found within the “Barrier Report” that caught my attention is as follows:
On page 8:

“PUTTING AND/OR LEAVING “STAGNANT, INEXPERIENCED, POORLY TRAINED, AND/OR UNQUALIFIED PERSONNEL IN SENSITIVE RANGE POSITIONS.”
They certainly have accomplished this goal -for over the last nine years it seems that every position has been filled by the most aggressive people available within the agencies.
And on page 9:

“providing training in litigation process … ”
And on page 13:

“REQUIREMENTS FOR BASE PROPERTY, ESCROW MORTGAGE WAIVER, LIVESTOCK OWNERSHIP, AND NON-USE FOR PERSONAL PREFERENCE ARE BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT.

Solution: f. Require that grazing permits revert back to the FS when a permittee no longer desires to operate on NFS lands. DO NOT ALLOW TRANSFERS.
“WE LACK THE OPPORTUNITY TO IMPLEMENT ALTERNATIVE GRAZING PROGRAMS WHEN THE PERMITS TRANSFER (I.E., BID SYSTEMS) ”

(See Document 32, a copy of the Barrier Report itself)

Here is the Barrier Report; http://www.gardnerfiles.com/Barrier%20Report%2012-b.pdf

You are consumed in smoke Barbara.

” The Department of Fish and Game has an opening for a wolf biologist for southwest Idaho to work in the Nampa office.

$18.73 and $27.55 per hour. ”

No wonder IDFG has no quality employees. On that payola you could live on tuna fish and crackers, toss in a jar of peanut butter, and live in a dumpy trailer house rental, drive a klunker, and give the rest of your pay to the student loan sharks that financed you your credentials you recieved for your indoctrination period. And you can attain a stupid fan base believing you are infallible, if you lie about predators saving the eco systems by creating mythological balance.

http://voices.idahostatesman.com/2011/05/16/rockybarker/wolf_biologist_wanted_thick_skin_required

Barbara, ever been to Jackass Creek ?

JACKASS CREEK PRONGHORN FAWN PRODUCTION STUDY 1979 -1987
Findings:

In 1979 the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife launched an extensive research project involving Pronghorn fawn predation.

For several years, fall composition counts (the number of fawns produced for every 100 does) had been steadily declining.

Utilizing radiotelemetry equipment (radio collars attached to newly born fawns) and various range analysis techniques, the agency set out to “determine the causes, incidence, and timing of Pronghorn fawn mortality and important habitats utilized … “.

Two study areas of relatively different background were selected.

While Jackass Creek, located approximately 35 miles to the South of Burns was selected to represent typical native range with few fences and no range improvements, Bear Valley, 40 miles to the north of Burns, was selected to represent intensively managed rangeland.

Habitat was substantially different between the two areas. While the majority of land in Bear Valley is privately owned, including seven working ranches, the Jackass Creek study area was totally located on BLM administered land.
In addition, roughly 20% of Bear Valley had been seeded to created wheat and other exotic species of grass, was extensively fenced and had numerous water improvements. (Interestingly, it was found in 1981 that the pronghorn fawns in Bear Valley preferred crested wheat stands over other vegetative cover) .

There were two basic conclusions to be drawn from the first phase of the study. First; it was not poor habitat conditions that was the cause of low pronghorn production, but coyotes and other predators.

It was found that ninety-one instrumented fawns died or were killed during the first 40 days of life. Coyotes accounted for 60% of the losses, golden eagles 9%, bobcats 8%, badgers 2%, unknown predators 12% and unknown causes 9%.
Second;

it was clearly shown that it was on private lands that the best fawn production occurred. Not on the governmentally managed land, like so many would like us to believe. Jackass Creek – 94% loss in 1981 and 100% loss in 1982. Bear Valley – 59% loss in 1981 and 36% loss in 1982.

A second phase of the study was equally as interesting. In order to determine if range condition might be a factor in poor pronghorn production (dietary stress, as a possible factor effecting female fertility rates) 27 mature does were collected (killed), and the fetuses counted.

Of the 27 does killed, only one doe was found to be without fawn(s), or in stockmen’s terms was a 96~ conception rate. Which is exceptionally good, particularly in view of the fact that stockmen, recognizing that no other factor is more important to profitability than is the percent of females bred each year, believe that under normal range conditions, anything over a 95~ conception rate is excellent.

It might be argued that 1981 was an exceptionally good year, or that feed conditions were above average on these two study areas, but reference is made to two other studies done in other states by H. C. Vrind and M. W. Barretts in 1978, where fetal rates were also very good, averaging 1.70 and 1.90 fawns per mature doe. So again, there is no support for the assumption that poor range condition is causing, or has caused poor fawn production.

Being situated next to the Malheur Refuge where Predator control was first eliminated may have been a factor in poor fawn production at Jackass Creek. Fall composition counts in 1981, 1982, and 1983 indicated that only 3, 2, and 3 fawns for every hundred does had been raised in those years, respectivey.
This as compared to three separate studies done in Southern Oregon in the 1950’s during the height of predator control when pronghorn production had averaged 111 fawns for every 100 does. (As a rule of thumb, many wildlife biologist believe that any production below 35 fawns per 100 does means a shrinking herd). Something needed to be done.

In the Spring of 1985 Helicopter gunning of coyotes was conducted in 4 passes over the Jackass Creek study area between April the 18th and May the 10th.
Then again in 1986 and 1987 Helicopter gunning was conducted 3 weeks prior to peak of fawn drop, and again 1 week prior to peak of fawn drop.

In addition to monitoring the effect of coyote control on Pronghorn, sage grouse production was monitored as well. For results see grafts on the following pages.
SOURCE; Fawn Mortality and Habitat use Among Pronghorn During Spring and Summer in Southeastern Oregon, 1981-82, Wildlife Research Report Number 12, Research Division, Oregon State Game Commission.

Late June composition counts conducted ‘at Jackass Creek Study Area in 1982, 83, and 84, indicated only 3, 2, and 3 fawn raised for every 100 does, respectively. When coyote control was implemented in 1985, 86, and 87, production increased to 35 fawns per 100 does in 1985, 72 fawns per 100 does in 1986, and 84 fawns per 100 does in 1987. (Average pronghorn fawn production in southern Oregon in the 1950’s, during the height of predator control, by three separate studies, was 111 fawns for every 100 does ).

How’s Evolution and DNA working out these days ?

If the rancher has to go out and move those cattle around six times, by the time they’re done, they’ve lost their shirt. —Environmentalist strategy, not to improve usage, but to destroy another industry and the people making their living at it.

In other words, if the environmentalists using legalese start making the ranchers pay these supposed true costs, the environmentalists dream up for the work the ranchers are doing, the ranchers are going to fold up. That’s the environmentalist movement’s mentality, to destroy others rather than find solutions and compromise. Their solution is to destroy ranchers, farmers, and hunting. PERIOD !

By inventing hardships and making ranchers pay for what they do out there and by making it so expensive in his operation and making all these changes for him to continue to run the cattle on the public grazing allotments, the ranchers go broke. You see, it is not public lands anymore it is environmentalist groups lands, destroy the rancher, farmer, hunter, logger, then it’s the equestrians and the horse crap in the trail, or that little bit of grass your horse grazed off while you was fishing.

Hell, rural people, living here in the NRMs have been labeled the enemy by environmentalists who are collecting donations from urbanite’s who might come camping here once every five years. These modern age environmentalists are the same stupid progressives that wiped out the Buffalo, and other wild game species, in order to destroy Native Indigenous peoples of the NRMs so they could not fight for these lands, now it’s us they want to remove.

Here is a document, court recorded, that shows the lies and deceptions the government, and the environmentalist groups will use to justify their agenda.

Environmental Strategy Conference

http://www.gardnerfiles.com/Envirnmental%20Strategy%20Conference%2026%20a.pdf