The public interest scored a clean sweep in two federal courts this week over the Bureau of Land Management and Western ranchers, including one case that removes secrecy from 18,000 grazing permits that cover nearly 160 million acres of Western public land.
The defeat in one case was so resounding, BLM promptly dropped any plans to appeal. In the other, appeal is being studied, but on shaky grounds.
In the first ruling, Idaho U.S. District Court Judge Candy Dale ruled that the BLM must make public the names of 18,000 grazing permittees whose identity had been concealed by the BLM. As indeed any reasonable person would object to hiding the names of businesses using public property, both the Western Watersheds Project and WildEarth Guardians sued to obtain names in behalf of the public.
As Judge Dale wrote in her 28-page ruling, "there is a substantial interest in understanding the scope of the grazing and rangeland program" and its environmental impact and tax dollars involved.
Oddly, the Forest Service does not conceal the names of grazing permittees, including those that also have BLM permits.
In the other case, the 9th District appeals court blocked the BLM from imposing 2006 Bush-era changes in grazing laws that "significantly reduce public oversight of grazing on public land." The three-judge panel also ruled the changes would have "negative environmental consequences."
The court found BLM also ignored the advice of its own scientists and rejected BLM's argument that it was concerned about "better relations with ranchers." Government is not charged with keeping leasees of public lands happy. The public interest is paramount.
"An invasion of privacy," the Idaho Cattleman's Association declared about making permittee names public, arguing the lawsuits were part of an "anti-grazing agenda."
Regardless of the litigants' motive, the public and auditors of government performance are entitled to know who is using public lands, how the land is being treated and whether the public treasury is receiving proper income in behalf of the public.
When government agencies conspire to conceal names of beneficiaries of public property usage, red flags should pop up automatically. For cattlemen to consider secrecy a right, and disclosure of their names an abuse of their privacy, is ludicrous, if not outright arrogant.
In due course, Congress might also ask another compelling question: Who in BLM or Congress created this secrecy pact and for what reasons that justify shutting the public out of government's activities?
