The new regulations for cattle grazing on public lands have triggered opinions spanning the whole spectrum. The process that led to the new rules also is proving to be controversial. Two inside sources have announced that the science behind the changes was deliberately skewed.

A biologist and hydrologist, both retired this year from the Bureau of Land of Management, accuse the Bush administration of altering the scientific analysis of the recent environmental impact study on grazing. Both scientists participated in the study, and said their findings were deliberately eliminated from the final study. In contrast to the BLM’s discovery that grazing can be beneficial to wildlife, the scientists found that the new rules might negatively impact water quality and wildlife.

Erick Campbell, a former BLM state biologist, told the LA Times, “This is a whitewash. They took all of our science and reversed it 180 degrees … They rewrote everything. It’s a crime.”

The BLM concurred that the scientists’ work was stricken from the final study. However, BLM spokesman Tom Gorey said the findings were eliminated because they were not objective.

“The study team viewed their findings as flawed,” he said. “They appeared to be representing more of their personal opinions than scientific views based in fact. The text they submitted was rewritten because it was faulty.”

Ronni Egan, executive director of the Durango-based Great Old Broads for Wilderness, takes a different view of the study team and the last-minute changes.

“A draft environmental impact study was written by the BLM professionals about the new regulations,” she said. “They almost uniformly opposed the new rules. In response, the Department of Interior assembled a new team. That new team came to the conclusion the department wanted to hear in the first place.”

The first draft of the study stated that the new rules would have a “significant adverse impact” on wildlife and endangered species. That phrase, and many like it, did not make the final cut, which concluded that the new regulations would be “beneficial” to wildlife. Another sentiment struck from the final draft was “The Proposed Action will have a slow, long-term adverse impact on wildlife and biological diversity in general.”

– Will Sands