WILDLANDS CONSERVANCY: It brokered a BLM deal to protect the desert acres that are now being opened to development.
Group sees ‘violation of trust’ By JANET ZIMMERMAN The Press-Enterprise
Group sees 'violation of trust'
by
Tags:
Group sees ‘violation of trust’ By JANET ZIMMERMAN The Press-Enterprise
by
Tags:
Ken Cole is a 5th generation Idahoan, an avid fly fisherman, wildlife enthusiast, and photographer. He is the interim Idaho Director for Western Watersheds Project.
We do not accept unsolicited “guest” authors or advertising.
Comments
Bighorn sheep are a big problem for the BLM because it means they can’t, or are not supposed to allow, domestic sheep anywhere near them. It sounds to me like in this instance they don’t want the bighorn sheep to move to any new places where they would interfere with domestic sheep grazing.
I can’t believe that a responsible non-profit would transfer lands, or facilitate a transfer of lands to the feds (particularly the BLM) without some sort of legal document in place that would clearly spell out acceptable practices. Absolutely inexcusable if that’s the case here.
It’s not only that you can’t trust the BLM, it’s that you shouldn’t. Same should be said about any government entity.
And also you can not trust the greedy wind and solar energy corporations. These guys are hellbent on destroying public lands – and creating the same kind of devastation that has been wrought in Wyoming and Utah pursuing fossil fuel.
In the past, I had a lot of dealings with the BLM’s Desert District. They could not be trusted to honor their commitment then, and I would assume nothing has changed. They also spend a lot of time in court, wasting taxpayers money.
I have worked with other BLM offices since. I have not run into the arrogance displayed by Borchard. When a new BLM director is appointed, he should take a close look at the California Desert District and make some wholesale changes in attitudes.
I do not believe BLM is allowed to acept land with restrictions or easements so these things always depend upon a hand shake and/or threat of litigation.
If the BLM won’t accept lands with restrictions, don’t transfer it to the BLM. They certainly don’t like to accept lands with restrictions, in my experience, but I don’t believe there is a legal mandate to do so. As I’ve written on this blog before, federal agencies are the LAST resort for any sort of conservation program exchange (possibly excepting USFWS), thanks to the lowest-common-denominator management directives that exist at USFS, BLM and NPS.
There are other public options…State Parks, land trusts and County governments are three examples of entities that I know accept restricted lands, at least in Colorado.