Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
An Open Letter to BLM Director Neil Kornze
Looks like the BLM has bending over backward for the Hammonds and others with little regard to the damage grazing does in the west.
An Open Letter to BLM Director Neil Kornze
February 2, 2016
Dear Mr. Kornze,
During last month’s armed takeover of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, several articles reported that the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) – the agency you lead– was in negotiations to restore a grazing permit of the convicted criminals whose mandatory minimum sentencing was ostensibly the spark that ignited the January standoff. The Bundy bunch and their allies felt that Dwight and Stephen Hammond were unfairly treated by the court’s enforcement of the required prison sentence for setting fire to public lands to cover up their criminal wildlife poaching.
In February 2014, the BLM declined to renew the Hammonds’ expiring permit to graze on four BLM allotments. BLM’s reason for not renewing their permit was the Hammonds’ substantial non-compliance with the regulations, including the aforementioned arson that followed years of other bad acts by these permittees, including threats and intimidation of federal employees. The BLM rightly defended its decision in the Office of Hearings and Appeals when the Hammonds appealed. After an administrative law judge denied the Hammonds’ request for a stay of the decision, finding BLM’s action was justified, BLM again defended its decision before the Interior Board of Land Appeals, which has not yet ruled.
One might think that, given all the work BLM put into its decision and the subsequent legal defense, there would be no way the agency would back down now. Surely it would make no sense for the agency to negotiate away rational decisions and hard-fought legal wins in favor of placating law-breaking ranchers. Surely, in the interest of protecting competing land uses, the agency would uphold closures meant to protect imperiled wildlife habitat, prevent invasive species infestations, and limit ongoing degradation.
*SNIP*
More at link: http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2016/02/02/an-open-letter-to-blm-director-neil-kornze/
February 2, 2016
Dear Mr. Kornze,
During last month’s armed takeover of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, several articles reported that the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) – the agency you lead– was in negotiations to restore a grazing permit of the convicted criminals whose mandatory minimum sentencing was ostensibly the spark that ignited the January standoff. The Bundy bunch and their allies felt that Dwight and Stephen Hammond were unfairly treated by the court’s enforcement of the required prison sentence for setting fire to public lands to cover up their criminal wildlife poaching.
In February 2014, the BLM declined to renew the Hammonds’ expiring permit to graze on four BLM allotments. BLM’s reason for not renewing their permit was the Hammonds’ substantial non-compliance with the regulations, including the aforementioned arson that followed years of other bad acts by these permittees, including threats and intimidation of federal employees. The BLM rightly defended its decision in the Office of Hearings and Appeals when the Hammonds appealed. After an administrative law judge denied the Hammonds’ request for a stay of the decision, finding BLM’s action was justified, BLM again defended its decision before the Interior Board of Land Appeals, which has not yet ruled.
One might think that, given all the work BLM put into its decision and the subsequent legal defense, there would be no way the agency would back down now. Surely it would make no sense for the agency to negotiate away rational decisions and hard-fought legal wins in favor of placating law-breaking ranchers. Surely, in the interest of protecting competing land uses, the agency would uphold closures meant to protect imperiled wildlife habitat, prevent invasive species infestations, and limit ongoing degradation.
*SNIP*
More at link: http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2016/02/02/an-open-letter-to-blm-director-neil-kornze/
image from article
Lots of links for reference of statements at the link.
