The second way the video was edited was just to take out short breaks that the SMAC took during the meeting, these were times when Tara Thissell, the BLM employee who facilitates SMAC meetings muted the microphone on their end. The meeting is still about 4 hours long, so these edits were made to attempt to make the video as short as possible without eliminating any of the actual meeting. And because their mic was off during the breaks, there was no chance of a hot-mic moment.

The Steens Mountain Advisory Council was established in the Steens Mountain Act of 2000. The Steens Mountain Act established the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area. The Act states that the purpose of the Area is to conserve, protect, and manage the long-term ecological integrity of Steens Mountain.

Requires the Secretary to establish the Steens Mountain Advisory Council to advise the Secretary in managing the Area and in promoting cooperative management.

(Sec. 133) Directs the Secretary to appoint, as needed or at the advisory council's request, a team of scientists to provide advice on questions relating to Area management.

The Steens Mountain Charter can be read online. They fall under the same federal regulations that all other Advisory Councils do and act in the same capacity as a RAC or Resource Advisory Council does.

Out of 12 Council members there were 8 members in attendance. They need 9 for quorum. Members discussed the issue with getting vacancies filled stating that applications are sitting in DC. Members and vacancies are listed on the SMAC webpage on BLM’s website. This video and others and others done by OWHO can be found at: OWHO on YouTube

The wild horse representative on the board, Leon Pielstick had his term expire in May of 2023 and he did not reapply so that position is vacant. BLM’s Tara Thissell said there are 2 applications that have been sitting in DC for this position since November. More positions will open in October and the council will be down to 6 members. There will be one position to fill that is held by a grazing permittee. The other open positions are:

● Dispersed Recreation Representative which expires in November 2023 ● State Liaison (non-voting) vacant since September of 2021

● Grazing permittee on federal lands in CMPA (Cooperative Management & Protection Area) vacant since September of 2021

● Grazing permittee on federal lands in CMPA expired in MAy of 2023

● Burns Paiute Tribe vacant since September of 2021

● Statewide Interest Representative with No Financial Interest in CMPA expires in November of 2023

5:48:20 - 6:10:19 discussion about environmentalists

11:01:19 - 12:10:18 discussion on horses

18:00:00 - 19:23:29 Someone suggested that it might be necessary to amend the WFRHBA and that maybe an option which he stated might not be palatable to many people might be necessary because shipping them to long term holding in WY isn’t the solution. This seemed to be a statement alluding to slaughtering the wild horses that have been rounded up and removed. He did make a statement in support of wild horses acknowledging their niche in wildfire mitigation by the horse's ability to “manage the fine fuel issue.” He went on to say that when managing the horses they “have to also make sure that the AUM’s that they’re eating up don’t infringe on the AUM’s that belong, rightfully belong to ranchers to have their cattle on the same areas.”

25:06:07 - 25:07:28 Another male stated: “What do we do with the damn horses?”

Jeff Rose stated during the meeting that the BLM is doing weed treatments, this would be for noxious (invasive or nonnative) plants. Currently they are using Imazapic. He stated that they received $5 million dollars to be shared with Vale and Lakeview BLM offices, but indicated they were steering the use of the funds that are being issued as part of the Biden administration’s Inflation Reduction Act. He stated that he asked if it could be used for a wild horse gather and was told no. He did state that the funds would also be used for cutting juniper stands, road improvements and work on campgrounds, existing and new. The new campground they discussed is the Penland Campground that is in the planning phase.

Mr. Rose also acknowledged the proposed new rule for the DOI. He stated that he could answer some basic questions but that honestly he would only be reading from talking points. He said there were tens of thousands of public comments submitted already on this plan. It is a national level plan, not specific to Oregon or the Burns district area of BLM. He said he knew a lot of commenters were asking how conservation leases would be issued and managed. The other change he noted that the new rule would make is the number of range health standard assessments the BLM would have to do. They have always done them, according to Mr. Rose, on livestock allotments, and now would have to do them for other uses of the land. And finally on that subject he stated that he wanted more clarity on the development of Areas of Critical Concern or ACEC’s. SMAC member Patty…..stated there was a 15 day comment period extension, which we verified and the new deadline for public comment was on July 5th, 2023.

They spoke about the precipitation this year and how the snow pac melting has caused flooding in a couple of places like the Riddle Ranch. There are also a couple of reservoirs that are full, one of those being the Chickahominy and that the vegetation there is overgrown. This is a place where there is a campground so they feel this needs remedied for campers. The other precipitation related topic was the erosion caused to the Steens Mountain Loop road.

1:14:14 Next in this meeting someone made a motion to put forth their support of the development of Penland Campground. This is to be a family, equestrian campground according to the discussion. The motion was seconded despite there being no quorum.

1:20:00 (approx.)Don Rotell spoke next about the Bridge Creek Grazing Allotment. There has been no grazing on this allotment since 2014. It includes the Mud Creek, Party Summer, and 2 other pastures, Hammond and Hammond (ffa?). The previous EIS was approved during the Trump administration but overturned by the Biden administration immediately after. The Secretary ordered the BLM to take a hard look at public involvement during the process. They acknowledged the seriousness of choosing the permittee because it is deciding the livelihood of those applicants who are vying for the permit. They stated they had 4 qualified applicants. When the second phase began, which required each applicant to submit a management plan for the allotment, one of the 4 applicants had dropped out. So as they move on with 3 applicants the plan is moving forward. The speaker stated that he feels no matter what decision is made it will be litigated. The first time in 2021 they had 160 protests according to the speaker.

In deciding who will get the permit there is a process of screening where they check each applicant’s history of performance and history of abuses for previous permits. Then they select a panel of 9 range specialists at state, district and local levels and let them do a review of the records and management plans. The records are redacted to try and keep the review process unbiased.

1:28:51 Mr. Rotell stated; “Just because people comment or protest doesn’t mean it’s going to stop us from making a decision. We just have to show that we’ve given people time and consideration.”

A member of the public at the meeting, a male’s voice, asked about what the protests were about. What issues were brought up in those protests. We should note here that there were members of the Hammond family in the audience. Considering they lost their grazing permits when they were charged with arson, and convicted for it, it is possible that they have reapplied for the permit, and that they wanted to know what the issues were that were brought forth in the protests. The speaker asked if they seemed to be protests by someone who just had “an ax to grind.”

Jeff Rose didn’t directly answer that but did state that people can litigate on 2 things. He said those 2 things are process and theory. He described theory as a difference in opinion. He said if BLM violates process they are done. Meaning that they would lose a case brought for process issues, which would include not following a specific regulation or policy. And he stated that litigation based on theory, or opinion is not as clear anymore, stating that there has been a recent trend of courts ruling against the government more than they used to.

Someone (male voice) asked if there is or could be a step in the process (speaking again of the Bridge Creek Allotment) for an applicant to rebut something that gives them a negative mark in the decision making. Giving the example of a numbering system to score applicants. And wanting to know if, before a final decision is made by the agency the applicant could have access to those things that might give them a negative mark affecting their final score so that they might explain or address it to change that mark. He stated that otherwise the final decision could be made with a faulty record. Mr. Rose explained that they must follow the process that they currently have and that there is no step that allows for that type of communication process.

Mr. Rose went on to state that it is unclear to him who will have legal standing to appeal the final decision made on the Bridge Creek Allotment. That’s something that is clear when you read the current regulations. Mr. Rose should expand on that statement because we are not sure what part of the current regulations on standing he doesn’t understand. When we file and appeal we have to have been there, use that area of land for our own enjoyment, study, etc. And have concrete plans to do so again in the future. That applies across the board to any area of public lands as we understand the rules. We believe the greatest issue in this area is going to be that of sage grouse and habitat for the birds from environmental groups, and wild horse groups of course because there are horses there now. Giving AUM’s back to livestock will undoubtedly cause more round up and gather operations there.

A member of the public (unidentified male voice) stated that the wild horses are not native and he asked if the BLM knew if all the medusahead (Taeniatherum caput-medusae, an invasive plant introduced by livestock growers in seed and straw in the 1880’s) was contained within wild horse management areas. They insist that it is all the wild horses that spread this noxious weed, not the millions of cattle and sheep that they have on the same lands.

This unidentified member of the public went on to talk about how his father lived with the Steen’s Indians and that they took care of the land by doing specific area burns as they moved from place to place. He believes that all these outside people and organizations having a say on the land management issues is a problem akin to having “too many chiefs”.

The last issue this member of the public discussed was what he called “flickering things” on the fences. We are unclear if these are flags, or reflectors or something different. But his claim is that these things put on the fences, not the fences themselves are changing the normal migration patterns of deer and antelope. He stated that a whole herd of antelope starved to death because they would not go beyond a fence with those flickering things. He also made brief mention of all these people weighing in on land decisions changing ranches. He did not elaborate on that point.

The next public commenter was Steve Hammond. He made a comment about the creation of SMAC, and what the vision was. He was apparently involved with the sponsors and cosponsors of the bill, mentioning working with Greg Walden, Ron Wyden and Jeff MErkley on it. He said SMAC was created with one goal and that was to preserve the area. He said: “We didn’t want all the federal policy that applies to BLM (unintelligible words) …trying to create a unique process to preserve what we had here and if we’re just going to sit back and tell BLM to follow those policies that uniqueness will be lost.”

Mr. Hammond went on to speak about sage grouse stating that BLM isn’t “dealing with the most contributing factor to their decline in population.” He did not elaborate on what he feels this is; however, he did go on to state that there are too many wild horses.

Finally Mr. Hammond stated that Jeff Rose sent him a letter alluding to “a trade” which he felt might be in response to his management plan. We weren’t told what management plan, but assume it is for the Bridgecreek Allotment.

2:22:30 SMAC member John Helmer spoke next about how he feels the group needs a little science to guide them. He said they don’t see members of the environmental community there and asked why that is. He specifically asked, "Why isn’t a representative of ONDA sitting in the audience here and giving us some feedback?” He talked about how the landowners, ranchers and a few recreationists are there and give their time to observe and provide input but other communities do not. He said; “I continue to feel disrespected as SMAC that that community (environmentalists) won’t engage.” He said that he hopes with 2 new members on SMAC to fill the environmental positions they would bring ONDA back to the table. Those new members are Karen Withrow and Teresa Wicks. He feels communities who do not show up at the SMAC meetings show a lack of commitment. We wonder if that might be because people who have tried are not welcomed, and not heard.

During my first SMAC meeting nearly 10 years ago, I went as a wild horse advocate when BLM Oregon was planning to do experimental surgical procedures to sterilize wild horse mares. Leon Pielstick, whose term on SMAC ended May 2023, and has not been filled, stated that his constituents don’t talk so he had nothing to report. Apparently he did not understand that I was his constituent, and my concern with decisions made for wild horses were what he was there to both report and discuss. This might be why other communities don’t bother driving all the way to Frenchglen, Oregon for a couple overnight stays to go to a meeting they hold. Why would we? This isn’t collaboration, this isn’t even a legal quorum, and later on reader, you will see that BLM uses them illegally to claim such collaboration with stakeholders of other communities.

Mr. Helmer went on to state that “we (members of SMAC) can work on things around the edges of the meetings.” This peaked my interest briefly because discussing SMAC business outside of a public meeting would be illegal. This became clearer later in the meeting as well.

There was more discussion about the difficulty of filling positions on the SMAC. Bill Marlett, who was a public person attending via Zoom, stated that he had been asked by Judge Dale White to apply to the SMAC, and that his application was denied.

Another member of the public spoke against the wild horses making claims that they died out, and as a result those that are out there are “feral” and that this indicates a lack of education. Another person commented and said they have the same problem in the Ochocos (referring to the Big Summit herd that is managed by Forest Service). We agree there is a lack of education. Wild horses are legally designated as wildlife per Congress who recognized them right in the title of the law “Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act” and in court cases, the most popular one of which is Mountain States V Hodel - 799 F.2d 1423 (10th Cir. 1986) in which the judge stated:

“At the outset, it is important to note that wild horses and burros are no less “wild” animals than are the grizzly bears that roam our national parks and forests.”

We believe if BLM is doing their job to work within the laws and regulations they should be able to inform people of the legal status of horses as wildlife and not feral animals. We attempt to address this in public comments where BLM consistently uses studies that are clearly biased. The bias is evident right in the title of many of these papers that use “Feral” to label the horses. BLM claims it is just semantics. Additionally there is much discussion about whether or not horses ever went extinct here after evolving here and only here on this continent for over 55 million years. We do know that the last horse the government claims was here before extinction is the same horse that is here now. And particularly in Oregon, the places where many extinct species of Equus fossils were found are the very same places the horses are today. And being the same horse at a minimum they should be recognized as a reintroduced species if one truly believes that they went extinct and were “brought back” by Spanish Conquistadors. So, yes there is definitely a lack of education. However, this group of people advising the BLM management decisions has NEVER had a person on their council that support wild horses.

The conversation then turned back to membership problems with SMAC. A male voice asked if it was possible to change the quorum requirement of 9 members to a lesser number. He said that DC is sitting on applications and the problem is because of the “bloated bureaucracy in DC that’s been going on for 100 years.”

2:34 ish - David Billyeu said that he tried to work with ONDA in the past and he feels it is important and hopes they will come in early in the process to give input. It wasn’t clear what process he meant but I believe it was for the Bridgecreek Allotment plans.

The SMAC then discussed the Steens Act Review

I believe John Helmer (a member of SMAC) was speaking here. But the male voice believed to be Mr. Helmer asked that discussions of reviewing the Steens Act be pushed to the next SMAC meeting. All agreed to that recommendation. He went on to talk about the ‘Strategic Plan” for SMAC. He discussed how in the past this strategic plan, which I believe is a document that was available at the meeting, was used originally for SMAC members and should be used now to provide a sketch of the last time they addressed the questions:

Why are we here

What should we be working on

What do we want to accomplish and

Where should our energies be spent

He went on to ask “Are we setting our own course or reacting to what BLM is doing and bringing us? He compared the current Council to 2015/16 when there were also a lot of new members on SMAC that were deciding these same goals. He then mentioned notes from former SMAC member and Roaring Springs Ranch Manager, Stacey Davies. Apparently there is a document penned by Mr. Davies called Steens Mountain Legislative Suggestions, dated March 30, 2017. He felt people should review that document.

He thought that one issue that the current SMAC should delve into is one that they had expended time on before. That issue is one of problems surrounding inholders & edgeholders. These are issues that private landowners who have private property surrounding or on the edge of public lands have. Things like access and boundary lines were some of those issues. He stated that the Steens Mountain Act and trades made within it addressed some of those but he feels more needs to be done. In previous years SMAC worked with landowners and even developed task forces that worked on it. All that work stopped when the SMAC no longer had enough members for a quorum. He stated this is a major undergoing and suggested the SMAC start with just one area.. He also thought they should wait for development of the new Strategic Plan and needed to get to know each other first.

Jeff Rose spoke and told SMAC members that there are acute and chronic issues. He explained that acute issues are usually easier to solve, and get done much quicker. Whereas, chronic issues are more complex and take a longer time. He used land ownership and status as examples of chronic issues. He said the process for those issues and the final decisions have to be durable.

The male speaker we believe to have been John went on to state that BLM cannot “do legislation” but SMAC can. He said this might mean writing a Steens Act II because SMAC needs fixed. Then he gave the people listening his reason for that by saying: “Why, because we want to pay more than fair market value for land which the Steens Act did. We want to do things outside of that box.”

Mike then stated that they should wait until they have a quorum so “we have some teeth”. He also said he wants to dig into the inholder issues but said they should wait to expend that energy.

3:01:25;25 - 3:02:07;30 - Jeff Rose stated “Whether you have a quorum or not, what you say is extremely important to us. And sitting here and listening is important that you do that, or that we do that to you guys when you talk. So just because you don’t have a resolution, uhm, doesn’t really affect that. And, there’s certain things I’ll admit to at certain times and one of them is, the SMAC has requested that we do this. And, I never say ‘the SMAC, with a quorum, has requested that we do this.’ I just say the SMAC has requested that we do this.”

Considering that at the beginning of this meeting it was stated that February (2023) was the first time since 2017 that SMAC had a quorum. We wonder what recommendations were put forward to BLM with no quorum to legally make such recommendations?

Another odd statement made by a female member of SMAC was that LIDAR could flip everything on its head. No further comments or discussion were made here.

Another male voice from SMAC (we believe this was John again) said that “part of the success” of SMAC is forming relationships. He said this is done by getting together socially before and after these meetings. This might not be as big a concern to us if we knew that they do not discuss SMAC business at their social get-togethers.

Tara Thissell then spoke up and asked that everyone look at the Strategic Plan before the next meeting and make suggestions so they can update it.

Mike said he was happy that the Hammond’s showed up. He expressed that he was disappointed that more people from the RFPA didn’t show up.

Pete Runnels then updated people about the success of the Running Camp. This is a program for youth. He said both sessions were full by January and that kids come from all over. He stated that more than just running it’s a good way for kids to learn more about themselves. There was a lot of talk and interest in the running camp and good support for it.

A female SMAC member said she felt that when they set priorities and deal with things they should “remember to try to do what’s best for the land with this unique and special ecosystem that we’re stewards of.”

SMAC member Terry Turner, who is also a member of the Board of Trustees for Trout Unlimited announced that they have divided into 2 sections for Oregon, west and east. He said that the representative for Eastern Oregon was Rick Roy. The people in the room could be heard groaning. He said of Mr. Roy: “He can be kind of a polarizing person who has interesting ideas for fish habitat projects that might occur in the area.”

3:26:45 Jeff Rose then stated: “He’s socially challenged because of where he grew up…Which is obvious from his accent.” I was absolutely stunned to hear a top federal employee at BLM say this about someone. I wondered if this was racist, or insulting someone who might have mental health challenges. It was an abhorrent comment that we believe MR. Rose should lose his job for making. I had to look and find out who Mr. Roy is. It turns out he is from the East Coast, Maine and other places, so I believe that is the accent Mr. Rose was referring to…I am from the East Coast, does that somehow make us socially challenged? Is this how I am seen when I try and communicate my thoughts or concerns to BLM? Does growing up on the East Coast make you “socially challenged”? This is part of the endemic problem with western public lands management, people who don’t live there, or didn’t grow up in these remote areas are NOT welcome to have an opinion that is given serious consideration.

A female member of SMAC asked about the new sage grouse maps. Jeff Rose (3:28:10) stated that the ODFW is redrawing the sage grouse habitat maps. He said he has seen them and that once they have their final draft ready he would bring them to SMAC. He stated that ODFW is trying to have a final draft completed by their (ODFW’s) fall meeting.

The same woman then said that she believes landowners and water rights is going to be a big issue, however she didn’t elaborate on that.

A different female member of SMAC brought up the Dark Sky Initiative. Everyone agreed that the BLM and SMAC support the initiative. There was no vote or indication if this was a formal vote held previously.

I typed into the Zoom chat during this conversation about the Dark Sky Initiative asking about the SMAC voting to approve the February Meeting Minutes because I was told in email that the BLM would not make those minutes public until after the SMAC voted on them at the next meeting. I told her I thought waiting until after the next meeting to even publish a draft was a very long time for the public who could not attend to know what is being discussed and decided by SMAC. So, during the meeting Tara Thissell said that in the future the minutes don’t have to be brought up to the group, they can be approved administratively either online or can just be done through the chairperson. She said; “So, we might do these ahead of time, between meetings.” This would mean the chairperson would handle the meeting minutes with other members of the SMAC to get approval. Apparently Ms. Thissell doesn’t realiza the public who attended the meeting also has the right to look at and offer corrections of those minutes. But, for me, I wanted to see the previous meeting minutes before this meeting just to know what they had been working on that might be, or might not be carried forward. It helps meeting attendees know more about what is being discussed as well.

The SMAC then went on to nominate, and second that nomination for Mike to be their Chairperson. They then nominated Jake to be Vice Chair. He said he would accept even though it is only for one meeting before his term expires later this year. There was a female member of SMAC that said she might consider that position later on.

Tara Thissell then worked with members to schedule the next meeting of the Council. It is set for October 19 and 20, 2023 and will be held in Burns, Oregon. They alternate between Frenchgen and burns. Tara then listed the agenda items for next meeting as follows:

Page Springs

Recreation including Penland Campground

The Public Lands Rule (the Land Conservation or new rule)

Bridgecreek EIS

Steens Act Review

The Strategic Plan

Nature’s Advocate (allotment)

A male voice then suggested that they could discuss the issue of dispersed camping either “off-cycle” or at the next meeting. He said that the BLM website for dispersed camping is too general and uninformative. He believes they need to list areas that are suggested for dispersed camping and rules for what is expected of campers. Another man discussed people that are car camping and how they leave their garbage and fire rigs behind. Every meeting of SMAC I have attended had members who wanted to know where the public were at on the public lands, and were concerned with what roads they drive on where they may need to turn around and not have room to do so without driving partly on the land on either side of the road. And discussion over where people are defecating is always an issue as well. It seems that after all these years of having that concern there still has been no change made to what seems a pretty simple issue.

The meeting ended and I was left with the feeling I had had in the past after watching this Council meet…They do not like outsiders, want to discourage them from coming, and if they do control where they go, and what they do, and find a way to monitor them. And of course, they all hate the horses. The same lie of we have to get them down to 27,000 horses nationwide because that’s what was here in 1971 gets repeated every time. As we have proven in our other publications this is a lie. BLM has testified in court, and to Congress, and even made statements in the Federal Registry that they know this number was much higher, and that there was no census done in the 70’s that was accurate or reliable. This constant lying to Congress, and it happens every year when they have to justify their budget request, that they need more money to gather and warehouse more wild horses and burros is a Title 18 violation. Yet, despite our efforts in courts and to our legislators to address this issue, nobody is held accountable from the DOI or BLM for lying to Congress.

In doing research about dispersed camping and wondering if BLM is actively monitoring campers I found a few odd tidbits.

This quote from the Colorado Sun, I found it pretty ironic: “Ranchers are reporting growing problems with campers damaging fences, leaving gates open and trampling grassy meadows bare.”

In the SMAC meeting there was a lot of talk about dispersed camping, which they obviously see as a concern. I felt the idea of development of these campgrounds was in part to discourage dispersed camping. Let's make sure we keep the public in corrals, and where we know what they are seeing, doing etc. To me this feels as if everything on public lands is corralled into spots that are acceptable by one special interest group…except that special interest group’s privately owned, non-native, profit-making livestock.

They also talked about traffic monitors, which I am opposed to because I feel protecting my privacy is important and I don't want them tracking me if I am out on public lands. However, I believe the traffic monitors being used are only for recreational sites in Oregon.

While researching the issue of monitoring I also saw this from another RAC meeting:

“Kalem Lenard discussed the camping in more detail. He said changes were made

based on public comments. The changes were well-received by critics of the original

plan. He added details about new application of travel management plan principles to

areas previously not affected. He explained the move to designated sites and

designated trails and the addition of monitoring and adaptive management with a heavy

education component.”

“• (Q) Wood: Is staffing sufficient to monitor and enforce these new directives?

• (A) Lenard: It will be a challenge. But, the changes are simple and new

monitoring technology will make it easier to enforce.”

I thought when reading this, it is possible they are talking about traffic monitors again in the above. But, they went on to discuss monitoring of trespass livestock. Again, how do they do that monitoring? Is it being done when it comes to dispersed camping? Are we talking about drones, some type of motion activated camera at entrances to and from campgrounds, and how would that be used for dispersed camping? This is worth a FOIA I believe.

We believe that it is obvious that meetings of these advisory councils are not used to having members of the public attend. We also feel that the comments made by Jeff Rose, Burns District Manager for BLM should lose his job for things said during this meeting. For illegally using recommendations of persons in this council that hav not been voted on by a quorum of members, and most of all for calling a member of an organization he claims to collaborate with, who was not even at the meeting "socially challenged".

Overall, this meeting was the first of several we attended this past month, and we saw a lot of similar talking points at these advisory council meetings. They often do not have enough members to have a quorum, the memberships are those who have a financial interest in the particular area, and federal land management agencies like BLM and USFS are present and contributing to the recommendations being made. The minutes are not updated and available to the public. And it seems a lot of the business of these councils is being done outside the public meetings under the guise of sub-committees.

We’ll be doing a follow-up to this article with our report of the other meetings we attended including the John Day-Snake Resource Advisory Council (RAC), the Southeastern Oregon RAC, Colorado Rocky Mountain RAC and the National Wild Horse and Burro Advisory Board meeting recently held in Reno, NV.

If you learn something from our work and want to help keep our team going and attending things like this to bring you the news please consider making a donation to OWHO today. You can donate by click ing on the donate button on any of our webpages, or by becoming a member (memberships can be paid in monthly installments or a once a year fee and will allow you access to our "Member's Only page as long as you are in good standing.) We can't do the work we do without your help.