Remember a few days ago when Philip Cooney, the White House's chief of staff for its Council on Environmental Quality, was quietly pushed out the backdoor after it was reported that he had completely altered a report on global warming to suggest that it was all a big liberal myth? He went on to join up with Exxon Mobil a day later, confirming long-time suspicions that the Bush administration's environmental policy experts are nothing more than energy lobbyists.
Well perhaps it is happening again. This time the subject is the environmental impact of cattle grazing on public lands.
The Bush administration altered critical portions of a scientific
analysis of the environmental impact of cattle grazing on public lands
before announcing Thursday that it would relax regulations limiting
grazing on those lands, according to scientists involved in the study.
A government biologist and a hydrologist, who both retired this
year from the Bureau of Land Management, said their conclusions that
the proposed new rules might adversely affect water quality and
wildlife, including endangered species, were excised and replaced with
language justifying less stringent regulations favored by cattle
ranchers.
Grazing regulations, which affect 160 million acres of public land
in the Western U.S., set the conditions under which ranchers may use
that land, and guide government managers in determining how many cattle
may graze, where and for how long without harming natural resources.
The original draft of the environmental analysis warned that the
new rules would have a "significant adverse impact" on wildlife, but
that phrase was removed. The bureau now concludes that the grazing
regulations are "beneficial to animals."
They aren't even trying anymore. There is no way that such a change is merely a slight alteration made for clarity. This is a complete turn around on what scientific results have shown. And for what? To benefit ranchers who favor Republican candidates. When fact and fiction collide in this White House, it seems that fiction always prevails.
A bureau official acknowledged that changes were made in the analysis
and said they were part of a standard editing and review process.
Ranchers hailed the regulations as a signal of new openness from the
administration.
"We're hopeful that some of the provisions will strengthen the
public lands grazing industry and give our members certainty in their
business," said Jenni Beck of the National Cattlemen's Beef Assn. "We
are encouraged that this [environmental impact statement] demonstrates
the benefits of grazing on public lands."
Yes, this statement does support such a conclusion - if it were true and not completely altered 180 degrees from the truth.
Bud Cribley, the agency's manager for rangeland resources, said the
report was written by a number of specialists from different offices
within the BLM. When it was finished, in November 2003, the agency
believed it "needed a lot of work," Cribley said.
"We disagreed with the impact analysis that was originally put
forward. There were definitely changes made in the area of impact
analysis. We adjusted it.
"The draft that we published we felt adequately addressed the
impacts. We felt the changes we did make were based on good science."
Huh? Good science? It's actually the opposite of good science since when the data came in, and it disagreed with administration beliefs, the good science was summarily rejected. Of course the agency believed the report "needed a lot of work." Moving 180 degrees from the truth would require a lot of effort. No doubt it takes a lot of blind confidence as well to stand up and declare that the "adjustments" made were made "based on good science." The audacity is incredible.
Recent Comments