While the BLM cites the drought in the West to remove wild horses and burros from public lands PERMANENTLY, the BLM doesn’t enforce drought-related grazing restrictions in northern Nevada when cattle ranchers flagrantly defy the grazing restrictions. – Debbie
SOURCE: Elko Daily Free Press
BLM Allows Grazing on Closed Allotment to Avoid Confrontation
by Dylan Woolf Harris
From left: Elko County Commissioners Demar Dahl and Rex Steninger and Badger Ranch owner Eddyann Filippini turn out the first bunch of cattle this year on the ranch’s unfenced 100,000-acre North Buffalo Allotment.
ELKO – The Bureau of Land Management says it didn’t give ranchers permission to graze on a closed allotment made up of public and private land, but instead indicated that it “would not interfere” with the cattle turnout.
The Battle Mountain Complex, an area near Valmy that comprises both the North Buffalo and Copper Canyon allotments, falls in “checkerboard” land. Grazing was closed there in a 2013 decision, according to Nevada BLM spokesman Rudy Evenson.
With fewer and fewer spots available to graze due to drought, Dan and Eddyann Filippini decided to run cattle Tuesday on North Buffalo while the closure is in appeal.
The vast majority of AUMs on the allotment are privately held.
Acting BLM State Director John Ruhs told Eddyann Filippini that the agency wouldn’t attempt to stop the ranchers, according to Evenson. Instead, Ruhs reminded permittees that the federal land was still off limits.
“We’re not going to come out there and have a big confrontation,” Evenson said.
There aren’t fences, however, separating the land by ownership.
Former assemblyman and longtime rancher John Carpenter, who participated Tuesday to support the Filippinis, said whether the cows wander onto public lands shouldn’t be a problem.
“It’s not a resource issue because there’s plenty of grass,” he said. “There’s all kinds of grass there.”
Read the rest of this article HERE.
Categories: Horse News, Wild Burros, Wild Horses/Mustangs
Straight from the Horse's Heart 
No big confrontation, huh? Certainly sounds like the BLM is a bit scared of pissing off the ranchers, doesn’t it? From what I have been reading the Filippini ranch is a pretty good sized cattle company! Sadly, that seems to be true of most of the allotment users. So, now I guess, this gives the go-ahead to other ranchers – just ignore the BLM & do what you want. Which they have pretty much for a while.
LikeLike
It appears that BLM is cowering to the conspirators that have stated they intend to break the federal law. These ranchers and the County Commission are breaking a federal law and even their threat is a conspiracy against the citizens of the United States of America. Will BLM cower to these people and allow them to bully the American people and the government of the United States? If they do, then all participating members of BLM are equally guilty as accessories to the conspiracy and the illegal action.
A criminal conspiracy exists when two or more people agree to commit an unlawful act, and then take some action toward its completion. The action taken need not itself be a crime, but it must indicate that those involved in the conspiracy knew of the plan and intended to break the law. All collaborators involved and showing intent to break the law can be charged with conspiracy to commit the crime, regardless of whether the crime itself is actually attempted or completed.
An accessory to conspiracy must generally have knowledge that a crime is being, or will be committed. A person with such knowledge may become an accessory by helping or encouraging the criminal in some way, or simply by failing to report the crime to proper authority. If BLM law enforcement can’t stop the ranchers from committing crimes that they have publically announced they will carry out, then it is BLM’s legal duty to report those crimes to the proper authority that IS capable of stopping the crime against the American people – federal Marshals? If they don’t … then they are clearly accessories to the crimes.
LikeLike
Just unreal, they should be afraid of us, we are for the horses, their health and well being.
LikeLike
BLM didn’t give ranchers permission to graze on a closed allotment made up of public and private land, but instead indicated that *it “would not interfere” with the cattle turnout*……“We’re not going to come out there and have a big confrontation,” Evenson said.
There aren’t fences, however, separating the land by ownership.
Former assemblyman …. said whether the cows wander *onto public lands shouldn’t* be a problem…. “It’s *not a resource issue because there’s plenty of grass,” he said. “There’s all kinds of grass there*.”…….
These statements –set a PRECEDENT–! Thereby “unofficially stating” that BLM and local government *similarly would not interfere” with turnout/RE-release* of OUR captured or straying WILD HORSES onto their and Our legally designated Rangeland! We don’t even need a ”variance of use – allotment“; that plenty of grass on the public lands *shouldn’t be a problem*… because it would be USED for its *primary designated purpose *, forage and water for OUR wild horse HERDS!
I firmly believe that this idea should BE attempted right away – and *throw these words back into their faces* — afterall, “There’s all kinds of grass there.”! {what do You think? }
LikeLike
Sadly, I think the BLM would magically find the guts to come after anyone who attempted to give the horses their life back. It sure does make you think, tho!
LikeLike
As to GG’s wise statements concerning “A criminal conspiracy exists when two or more people agree to commit an unlawful act, and then take some action toward its completion. The action taken need not itself be a crime, but__”. In fact, “WE” would not be breaking any laws ; BLM decision was to *close those allotment variances for CATTLE grazing*, by BLM “contract POLICY” – these are not LAWMAKERS. Federal LAW states that if designated range is thriving (ie, plenty of grass forage) – then it’s to be USED *primarily for maintenance of wild horse* herds.
LikeLike
How is this not violating the terms of their grazing lease?
Any why will the BLM not enforce the law?
LikeLike
Considering the ranchers have money, well-payed lobbyists and crazy friends and supporters (see : Clive Bundy debacle) who threaten to shoot BLM officials, yes, they will back down. The BLM hierarchy is a revolving door of cattle and mining interests anyway.
LikeLike