A Resolution For Nevada Livestock Producers
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
The purpose of a legislative resolution is to communicate the sense of the Legislature. Based on the wording of Senate Concurrent Resolution 3 (S.C.R. 3) the mindset being communicated is that we’re darn sick and tired of the tactics being employed by anti-livestock grazing interests in using the NEPA process to prevent the rightful multiple-use of livestock grazing, conducted on lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was established to be a tool for providing citizens with the opportunity to be engaged in management decisions made by federal agencies. The process also assists in helping to understand the context of the decision through the range of the options considered and the objectives to be accomplished. It was supposed to be “transparency” before being “transparent” came into vogue.
NEPA has become a useful roadblock for those who champion the cause of getting rid of livestock grazing on federally managed lands. Their approach is not based on providing meaningful, science or facts to back their claims. Instead, they concentrate on the bureaucratic minutia of the process and seek to obstruct the ability to move forward by a full-scale clogging of the system with challenges to whether every “I” has been dotted and every “t” crossed.
S.C.R. 3 communicates the frustration of the Nevada Legislature over the hardships caused to livestock producers who’s ability to make use of federal lands in a responsible, legitimate manner is harassed by these obstructionist strategies.
The resolution appropriately notes that there are a number of ranchers who have gone out of their way to be cooperative in coming up with management plans for their grazing allotments, which enhance the overall condition of the renewable resources associated with these land areas. In return for this cooperation and without actually being involved with any of the give-and-take discussions for how to make the plans better – the anti-livestock grazing entities choose to litigate and use administrative system to delay or prevent approval from going forward.
Although Nevada’s Attorney General’s office is called on to become legally involved to protect the interests of the state and our rural communities, as well as the rights of impacted livestock producers, we’ve not seen any advancement of a game-plan where this might be pursued.
The only real solution lies in major overhaul of the NEPA process. While we believe in the importance for persons to participate in public decisions and for that involvement to have demonstrated meaning in the form of decision-makers considering the input they receive – the end result must be valid resource management decisions and outcomes…not a legal roadblock for implementation of on-the-ground activities.
The purpose of a legislative resolution is to communicate the sense of the Legislature. Based on the wording of Senate Concurrent Resolution 3 (S.C.R. 3) the mindset being communicated is that we’re darn sick and tired of the tactics being employed by anti-livestock grazing interests in using the NEPA process to prevent the rightful multiple-use of livestock grazing, conducted on lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was established to be a tool for providing citizens with the opportunity to be engaged in management decisions made by federal agencies. The process also assists in helping to understand the context of the decision through the range of the options considered and the objectives to be accomplished. It was supposed to be “transparency” before being “transparent” came into vogue.
NEPA has become a useful roadblock for those who champion the cause of getting rid of livestock grazing on federally managed lands. Their approach is not based on providing meaningful, science or facts to back their claims. Instead, they concentrate on the bureaucratic minutia of the process and seek to obstruct the ability to move forward by a full-scale clogging of the system with challenges to whether every “I” has been dotted and every “t” crossed.
S.C.R. 3 communicates the frustration of the Nevada Legislature over the hardships caused to livestock producers who’s ability to make use of federal lands in a responsible, legitimate manner is harassed by these obstructionist strategies.
The resolution appropriately notes that there are a number of ranchers who have gone out of their way to be cooperative in coming up with management plans for their grazing allotments, which enhance the overall condition of the renewable resources associated with these land areas. In return for this cooperation and without actually being involved with any of the give-and-take discussions for how to make the plans better – the anti-livestock grazing entities choose to litigate and use administrative system to delay or prevent approval from going forward.
Although Nevada’s Attorney General’s office is called on to become legally involved to protect the interests of the state and our rural communities, as well as the rights of impacted livestock producers, we’ve not seen any advancement of a game-plan where this might be pursued.
The only real solution lies in major overhaul of the NEPA process. While we believe in the importance for persons to participate in public decisions and for that involvement to have demonstrated meaning in the form of decision-makers considering the input they receive – the end result must be valid resource management decisions and outcomes…not a legal roadblock for implementation of on-the-ground activities.
Comments