BLM Prioritizes Wild Horse Impact Over Cattle in Range Assessments

The U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has been criticized for its skewed method of assessing range conditions, which minimizes the impact of domestic livestock while exaggerating the effects of wild horses and burros. This approach, highlighted by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), targets scattered feral ungulates and overlooks the more numerous cattle.

The BLM's assessment is part of a 2013 report on factors influencing the conservation of the Greater Sage-Grouse, a bird whose population has declined by up to 90% across the West. The report claims that wild horses and burros negatively impact twice the area of sage grouse habitat compared to livestock. However, a PEER analysis found that:

• The BLM calculates the "area of influence" of wild horses and burros based on their presence within Herd Management Areas in sage grouse habitat, whereas livestock impact is only considered when grazing allotments fail the agency's Land Health Status (LHS) standard for wildlife.
• If the same method were applied to livestock, their area of influence would be approximately 14 times greater than reported and more than six times that of wild horses and burros.
• Within the BLM's grazing allotment LHS database, livestock grazing is cited as a cause of failure to achieve a land health standard 30 times more often than wild horses and burros.

"At BLM, apparently not all hooves are created equal," said PEER's Advocacy Director Kirsten Stade. The LHS evaluations cover over 20,000 grazing allotments and assess whether they meet the agency's standards for rangeland health concerning various vegetation and habitat conditions. "This helps explain why wild horses are regularly removed from the range, but livestock numbers are rarely reduced."

The BLM's assessment not only influences its range management decisions but also affects the Fish and Wildlife Service's decision on whether to list the sage grouse under the Endangered Species Act.

Last year, in response to a PEER complaint filed under the agency's Scientific Integrity policy, the BLM claimed it lacks "reliable data" on commercial livestock impacts to include them in current environmental assessments on Western rangelands. Yet, the BLM possesses more data on authorized grazing than almost any other topic.

"When it comes to cattle, BLM plays with a marked deck," Stade added, referring to the PEER appraisal that will be part of PEER's new grazing reform web center launching soon. "We are posting BLM's own data to allow apples-to-apples comparisons while displaying satellite imagery that depicts the true livestock landscape impacts."

Originally Posted By Yuba Net