BLM Avoids Addressing Livestock Damage Complaints

Washington, DC —The U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is under scrutiny for its decision to excludelivestockgrazing as a factor in its ecological assessments. This exclusion has led to a scientific integrity complaint by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), highlighting potential political interference in scientific processes.

Background on BLM's Ecological Assessments

Launched in 2010 with over $40 million in stimulus funds, the BLM aimed to analyze ecological conditions across six eco-regions in the Sagebrush West. However, scientists were instructed to exclude commerciallivestockgrazing impacts due to stakeholder opposition and fear of litigation, according to documents related to the PEER complaint.

Stalled Assessments and Investigation

• The "Rapid Ecoregional Assessments" have stalled with no completion timetable, despite being scheduled for completion this year.
• Louis Brueggeman, BLM's Fire Management Liaison, was appointed as the "Scientific Integrity Officer" to investigate the PEER complaint. However, it is unclear if he has interviewed any witnesses suggested by PEER.
• BLM claims its studies focus on four main environmental change agents: climate change, wildfires, invasive species, and development, but notes that additional agents may be considered based on ecoregional needs.

Controversy Over Exclusion of Livestock Data

The BLM's rationale for excludinglivestockdata is questionable, as agency records indicate that nearly 80% of BLM lands fail to meet range health standards primarily due tolivestockdamage. This surpasses other factors like drought, fire, and invasive species.Livestockgrazing affects over 33 million acres, an area larger than Alabama, and is linked to worsening drought conditions and spreading invasive species.

For more information, visit theoriginal article by PEER.org.