What you need to understand is that the government can pretty much do what it wants, SO LONG AS it complies with all the various rules about the process. If we want to contest the result of a decision, we have to start by getting involved in the process. And yeah, the best way to do that is by being informed, and by challenging the science.
The BLM may be lying, or they may be getting pressure from Washington (or locally) to have more oil/gas development (that's my experience) or local ranchers claiming WH&B are stealing "their" cattle feed, etc. I tend to assume good faith, hampered by interference by commercial/political needs, and the not-inconsiderable local political pressure. BLM staff live locally: they cannot afford to alienate the local community entirely on the say-so of horse-lovers half a state away, not without good reason.
I can speak from experience that the people doing the WH&B analysis in the BLM EISs are NOT likely to be people with any real experience with wild horses. They're general biologists or ecologists, if you're lucky: they might as well be archaeologists or simply planners. They're not operating in bad faith, they just don't know, and if BLM has a reason to want to cut back on WH&B numbers, the analysts will try to justify that for them, within reason. BLM is the client, after all: you do the job to please the client, and you don't push back unless you know they're wrong and you can justify that opinion.
The key is to find out where BLM is in the process, and insert yourselves in: do it early enough, and flood them with information (real science, if you can find it), and they are forced to take you seriously, and respond to those comments.
Also, getting the word out helps. Volume of comments helps--but calling a Senator? Only sort of. The decision-maker isn't the Senator, it's the BLM regional office, and volume of comments doesn't win as well as reasonable comments backed up with science. Volume is just noise: you need content, so they can't ignore the science without making an arbitrary decision that can be challenged in court.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2009-07-09 12:24 am (UTC)The BLM may be lying, or they may be getting pressure from Washington (or locally) to have more oil/gas development (that's my experience) or local ranchers claiming WH&B are stealing "their" cattle feed, etc. I tend to assume good faith, hampered by interference by commercial/political needs, and the not-inconsiderable local political pressure. BLM staff live locally: they cannot afford to alienate the local community entirely on the say-so of horse-lovers half a state away, not without good reason.
I can speak from experience that the people doing the WH&B analysis in the BLM EISs are NOT likely to be people with any real experience with wild horses. They're general biologists or ecologists, if you're lucky: they might as well be archaeologists or simply planners. They're not operating in bad faith, they just don't know, and if BLM has a reason to want to cut back on WH&B numbers, the analysts will try to justify that for them, within reason. BLM is the client, after all: you do the job to please the client, and you don't push back unless you know they're wrong and you can justify that opinion.
The key is to find out where BLM is in the process, and insert yourselves in: do it early enough, and flood them with information (real science, if you can find it), and they are forced to take you seriously, and respond to those comments.
Also, getting the word out helps. Volume of comments helps--but calling a Senator? Only sort of. The decision-maker isn't the Senator, it's the BLM regional office, and volume of comments doesn't win as well as reasonable comments backed up with science. Volume is just noise: you need content, so they can't ignore the science without making an arbitrary decision that can be challenged in court.