Andrew Cohen - continued...

Andrew Cohen - Andrew Cohen has served as chief legal analyst and legal editor for CBS News and won a Murrow Award as one of the nation's leading legal analysts and commentators. More Andrew Cohen is a Murrow Award-winning legal analyst and commentator. He covers legal events and issues for CBS Radio News and its hundreds of affiliates around the country and is a frequent contributor to the op-ed pages of the nation's leading newspapers and online sites. From 2000-2009, Andrew served as chief legal analyst and legal editor for CBS News and contributed to the network's coverage of the Supreme Court, the war on terrorism, and every high-profile civil or criminal trial of the decade. He is also a single dad of a great kid, a racehorse owner and breeder, and the winner of several awards for writing about horse racing, including the 2010 John Hervey Award for distinguished commentary and the 2010 O'Brien Award for Media Excellence. Follow Andrew on Twitter at @CBSAndrew.

Amplify’d from www.theatlantic.com

The Quiet War Against Wyoming's Wild Horses By Andrew Cohen Aug 11 2011, 12:00 PM ET How can a state promote its wild horses as a tourist attraction while it seeks to decimate herds? Reuters Listen for the sound of hooves pounding. Look for manes flying in the wind. Feel the rush of awe at the sight of these creatures. The Pilot Butte Wild Horse Scenic Loop Tour is something you and your family will never forget because Sweetwater County's cherished wild horses are living examples of a wide-open landscape and untamed frontier spirit. --Wyoming Tourism Board

The Wyoming Tourism Board wants you and your family to come see the wild horses in Sweetwater County, but you better go quick. Beginning next month, federal officials and local contractors will roundup and remove approximately 700 of those horses (about 70 percent of the herd) to satisfy the complaints of the cattle and sheep ranchers in the area who don't want to share land with federally-protected horses. The "cherished," "living examples" of Wyoming's western heritage will be penned in and then given up for adoption or sold at auction. Many will soon die. Some may even be slaughtered for meat. All will likely be gone from view in Sweetwater County. You and your family, having traveled to southwestern Wyoming, may be plum out of luck. This is my third take on these Wyoming horses in just the past few weeks, and I again beg your indulgence. First, I wrote about a failed federal plan to round up the horses, geld the stallions, and return some back to the herds to decrease natural procreation cycles. When the government was sued in federal court in Washington to stop the removal and castration, the feds backed off and came forward with a new pitch. The horses would leave, but none of the stallions would be castrated. This plan appears to be going forward. I wrote about that, too. The number of horses in two vast "herd management areas," located in a desolate part of the state, would again dip below 300, making it much less likely that a tourist family would see a wild horse in Sweetwater County. The reason for my persistence isn't difficult to explain. Each time I write something about these horses, I learn something more about the politics of their plight that is worth sharing to a broader audience. This time, the story is not just about the hypocrisy evident in Wyoming's attitude toward these horses -- the state is both marketing them as tourist attractions and actively conspiring to get rid of them. It's also about the curious conduct of the U.S. Department of the Interior, which, again, has done the bidding of an industry that it is supposed to regulate. With friends like the BLM and Wyoming state officials, the horses and their human supporters don't need any enemies. The cattle and sheep industries want the horses gone from the rangeland -- even though the ranchers reap the benefits of having their herds graze upon public land at low cost. To support their position, the ranchers cite a 1981 consent decree, overseen by a local federal judge, which limits the number of wild horses that are to be left in the Little Colorado and White Mountain herd areas to approximately 300. To the ranchers, the horses are a nuisance, not an asset, a point Wyoming doesn't happen to mention in its breathless tourism campaigns, which feature television ads of thundering herds. "That our government is unwilling to find these horses room -- or even consider doing so -- contradicts the spirit, if not the letter, of federal law" Meanwhile, the BLM and Wyoming seem more intent on justifying ways to get rid of the horses rather than upon figuring out how to preserve and protect them. Wyoming cites a 2003 agreement between state officials and the Bush-era Department of the Interior, which places legal pressure on the BLM to rid Wyoming of excess wild horses -- and the BLM itself gets to determine what constitutes "excess." These officials say they have history and the law on their side. But the facts seem to support those who support the horses. When you have the law going one way and the facts going another, it's typically time to go to court. And that's not the worst thing that could happen here. Wyoming Earlier this week, I asked Chuck Coon, Media Relations Manager at the Wyoming Office of Tourism, how he squared the evident contradiction of Wyoming's policies. How can you be advertising to tourists to come see the wild horses of Sweetwater Country while Wyoming's lawyers are in federal court endorsing the BLM policy to rid the area of most of its horses? Here is Coon's response: As you know, management of wild horse herd sizes in Wyoming is under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management. No matter what decision is rendered in terms of herd reductions there will remain ample opportunities for visitors to see wild horses in several parts of this state. And we'll continue to help local tourism entities in the open landscapes where those horses still roam in Sweetwater County, Park County, Carbon County and Big Horn County as part of our overall marketing of the state as a tourism destination. Coon understandably wants to reassure Wyoming's tourists that they still have "ample opportunities" to see the horses of Sweetwater County. We'll see. But the state didn't merely defer the question to the BLM, as Coon suggests. Instead, Wyoming weighed in heavily via litigation on behalf of its ranchers, one of whom, Matt Mead, happens to be the state's governor. No small wonder. The ranching lobby in Wyoming (and Washington) is powerful. The wild horse lobby is not. When it comes to these horses, might makes right under cover of law. Through a spokesman, and via email, Gov. Mead dodged the question of how Wyoming could market its wild horses with one hand and decimate its wild horse herds with the other. "The Governor's approach, which follows the approach of past governors, is to ensure there is balance on the range and right now with the number of wild horses in this herd there is an imbalance." When pushed, the spokesman wrote: "The State of Wyoming has an interest in defending its consent decree. That agreement allows for horses on the range, but also prevents overpopulation that damages the public lands for other uses, which are equally important for tourism and other industries, like ranching and hunting." When the governor's office uses the word "balance" to describe how Wyoming's vast range lands ought to be used, what it really means is "imbalance." Cattle and sheep dominate the Wyoming range when compared to wild horses. And when the governor's office uses the word "imbalance" to describe the current situation, what it really means is the growing "balance" between and among species when wild animals are left to their own devices. Meanwhile, as you will see below, reasonable people disagree about what constitutes an "overpopulation" of wild horses in or near Sweetwater County. According to statistics compiled by Jonathan Ratner, of the Western Watersheds Project, one of the plaintiffs who initially filed suit to block the Wyoming removal/castration plan, Wyoming and the BLM currently allocate nine times more forage for livestock than for wild horses in the two herd management areas from which the horses soon will be taken. There are approximately 850,000 acres of public land in those two areas -- and the ranchers won't tolerate more than approximately 300 wild horses there. You do the math. There is plenty of room for all of Wyoming's four-legged creatures. The BLM If Wyoming is not a neutral player here, state actors like Gov. Mead have plenty of company. The BLM, the statutorily-mandated stewards of the horses, also have made clear on which side of the saddle they sit. Even the new plan to remove Wyoming's wild horses is full of circular logic and unanswered questions. What justifies such a low limit for wild horses on the wide expanses of the two herd management areas? Don't wild horses affect grazing lands far less than livestock do? Has the federal government asked the ranchers, benefits of so much public land use, to ease off their pursuit of the wild horses? More than that, now there are now allegations -- made by the ranchers themselves -- that the Bureau of Land Management actually advised them on how best to maximize their position vis-a-vis the horse groups. The solution? The BLM told the ranchers to sue the federal government (advice, I am sure, that is simply appalling to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, whose Justice Department has to defend those lawsuits). Here are the specific allegations contained in a complaint filed on July 27th by the Rock Springs Grazing Association (the RSGA) which acts on behalf of ranching interests in the area: 69. RSGA also met with Deputy Assistant Secretary Sylvia Baca to deliver its demand that BLM remove all of the wild horses on RSGA lands, to explain its rights under the 1981 order, and to formally request removal of all of the stray wild horses. RSGA also presented a copy of its letter to the U.S. Marshal officially asking for removal of all wild horses that have strayed onto the RSGA lands in light of repeated failure on the part of BLM to manage and control the wild horse numbers. 70. The Assistant Secretary attributed the failure to comply with external influences on the Department and Congress, and the lack of funding due to the need to contract for sanctuaries. The Assistant Secretary stated that litigation would be necessary to secure additional funding for wild horse gathers (my emphasis). I have asked the BLM to comment upon these allegations, but I don't expect the Bureau's lawyers to allow anyone to say anything insightful about the topic. Assuming these allegations are true, they are another black mark upon the Interior Department. Here is a federal official, sworn under at least two federal statutes to guard the welfare of the wild horses, telling ranchers to sue the federal government to prompt quicker political action against the horses. And even if the BLM now backs away from Baca -- "she wasn't authorized to make those representations" -- the allegation itself is compelling insight into the atmosphere that surrounds the BLM's attitude toward these horses. Like the ranchers, the BLM seems to consider them pests and certainly not "cherished" symbols protected by law. The BLM is part of the Interior Department. The Secretary of the Interior is a man named Ken Salazar and, although his Wikipedia entry strangely is silent on the matter, he is part of a long-time ranching family from Colorado. Salazar's brother, John, who recently represented Colorado's 3rd Congressional District (it's Western Slope), also is a rancher. Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R), who alone represents Wyoming in the House of Representatives, evidently raised Heifers when she was younger. These are some of the people who are judging the competing interests that clash over the fate of the herds. What chances do you reckon those horses have? The Facts On The Ground If Wyoming were the size of Delaware, a battle over what to do with federal land might make more sense. But Wyoming contains vast tracts of land owned by the federal government and, to a lesser extent, by the state. If we were talking about a huge number of wild horses and a relatively small number of sheep and cattle then the dynamic of the argument might differ as well. But the number of sheep and livestock in Wyoming now grazing on public land is far greater, orders of magnitude greater, than the number of wild horses who cross over between public and private land. And if the horses were, indeed, as destructive to the rangelands as the ranchers assert, perhaps the mass expulsions might be justified. But the horses aren't nearly as destructive as the cattle and sheep who roam the range. If you don't believe me, just ask the BLM. The Bureau's own statistics tell the story of the "imbalance" the government and the ranchers want to maintain. Livestock grazing in the United States is authorized on 157 million acres of BLM land. For wild horses, it is restricted to 26.9 million acres of that land (and, as we have seen, there are limits within the limits). There may be over one million cattle and sheep now grazing public land in many western states. At the same time, there are approximately 38,000 wild horses and burros stuffed into only 11 percent of all BLM land. And even this relatively small figure is too high for the BLM; the feds say only about 26,000 wild horses should remain on public land. Focusing upon Wyoming alone, the "imbalance" between land uses is pronounced. A 2007 article in the Wyoming Business Report indicated that the Rock Springs Grazing Association alone had between 50,000-70,000 sheep and 5,000 head of cattle on its grazing lands (that figure may be more or less four years later). By contrast, the BLM allows only 2,100 wild horses total in the five herd management areas of interest to the RSGA, a swath of land that encompasses thousands of square miles. But, again, even that relatively small number of horses is too great for the ranchers. While the horse advocates were suing the BLM for being too quick to get rid of the herd, the RSGA was suing the BLM for being too slow to remove the horses. There are costs incurred by the federal government in allowing ranchers to use public lands (at low costs). From a 2008 Congressional Report on grazing fees: BLM and the FS typically spend far more managing their grazing programs than they collect in grazing fees. For example, the GAO determined that in FY2004, the agencies spent about $132.5 million on grazing management, comprised of $58.3 million for the BLM and $74.2 million for the FS. These figures include expenditures for direct costs, such as managing permits, as well as indirect costs, such as personnel. The agencies collected $17.5 million, comprised of $11.8 million in BLM receipts and $5.7 million in FS receipts. Receipts for both agencies have been relatively low in recent years, apparently because western drought has contributed to reduced livestock grazing. Other estimates of the cost of livestock grazing on federal lands are much higher. For instance, a 2002 study by the Center for Biological Diversity estimated the federal cost of an array of BLM, FS, and other agency programs that benefit grazing or compensate for impacts of grazing at roughly $500 million annually. Together with the nonfederal cost, the total cost of livestock grazing could be as high as $1 billion annually, according to the study. Finally, in just the past few days, questions have arisen about the factual bases for the most commonly-stated reason given for removing the horses -- that they mess up the range lands for other users and uses. The American Wild Horse Preservation Campaign, another one of the plaintiffs fighting wild horse removals all over the West, recently commissioned a study from Robert Edwards, a range scientist who worked for 30 years for the BLM before becoming an independent consultant. With the legal battle joined in Washington over the fate of the herds, the horse advocacy group asked Edwards to go to the two Wyoming range lands in question, check out the horses, and evaluate the impact they have upon the land (and the impact the land has upon them. Here is a link to the Edwards's August 4th Report. It's main findings: All areas observed and/or documented were found to be in only fair grazing range condition, which is typical of what is found on BLM range lands throughout the west. Removing a large percentage of the wild horses is not likely to result in an improvement of range condition since the percentage of forage allocated to wild horses is very small compared to the amount of forage allocated to livestock (the forage allocation for wild horse use is only 2% to 3% of the total forage allocation for the [two herd management areas]. Information from the BLM indicates that there are well water sources in these HMAs which are turned on and off to accommodate livestock use. If true, this would reduce the number of water sources available for wild horse use in the summer months. Limiting the number of water sources forces the wild horses to congregate in areas where water is available, and consequently increases the negative impact they are having on the range areas they are using. There is no emergency situation in the area that would cause significant damage to the range or harm to the wild horses if they are not removed. The forage resources needed to support the wild horse population are more than adequate and the horses observed are in good condition. In other words, the land can sustain a much larger number of wild horses than the BLM, Wyoming, or the ranchers have been willing to admit. Not only that, but the land (the water, actually) is evidently being manipulated by ranchers and/or the BLM in a way that is detrimental to the horses (by denying them water and by pushing the herds toward livestock areas, which which gets them in more trouble with the ranchers). Soon, the BLM, Wyoming, and the RSGA will unleash their own experts to discount Edwards' conclusions. They will likely say that the BLM's calculations are reasonable, supported by evidence, and that the law is settled by consent decree. This war is eternal and the horses almost always lose. Even if Edwards' conclusions don't hold up in court -- federal judges are required by law to give deferences to the findings of administrative agencies like the BLM -- they have common sense on their side. Blaming the relatively tiny number of wild horses in Wyoming for tearing up the trail, when there are tens of thousands of sheep and cattle roaming around, is like blaming the lifeboats for the sinking of the Titanic. It was a weak argument even before Edwards' findings cast doubt upon it. As I wrote in my first piece on this topic, I recognize that this is a complicated issue; that the ranchers and government officials don't always wear the black hats in our western tale. There should be reasonable limits on the number of wild horses on public land. What strikes me about this story, however, is how little protection the wild horses of Wyoming really have, despite federal laws and regulations designed to protect them. What jolts me, too, is the strength and ferocity of the political forces arrayed against the horses. There are millions of acres upon which these horses can roam without materially interfering with livestock. There are hundreds of thousands of acres of such room in Sweetwater County alone. That our government is unwilling to find these horses room -- or even consider doing so -- contradicts the spirit, if not the letter, of federal law. The governor of Wyoming is a rancher. The Secretary of the Interior is a rancher. The lone member of the House of Representatives grew up around cattle. And today ranching interests are routing the wild horses of Sweetwater County. That's an angle you won't see pitched anytime soon by Wyoming's tourism board. It wants you to come to Wyoming to see all the pretty horses, for sure, but it wants you to remain oblivious to what is being done to those horses, and why, in your name.

Read more at www.theatlantic.com

See this Amp at http://bit.ly/qv8KvY

 Related articles

• Wild Horses Are (Again) Losing Their Home on the Range By Andrew Cohen - The Atlantic (goldendays-suzanne.blogspot.com)
• Protests Planned Against Obama Administration Sterilizing Free Roaming Wild Horses (rtfitch.wordpress.com)

Int'l Fund For Horses - Impeach Salazar!

The Int'l Fund for Horses has a form that you can use to have your name added in support of the impeachment of US Secretary Ken Salazar and BLM Director Bob Abbey relating to alleged criminal conduct in the management of America's wild horses and burros. You must be a US resident.

Please visit their page and help get these horse killers impeached!

Amplify’d from www.horsefund.org

WILD HORSES AND BURROS

Support Our Campaign to Impeach US Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and BLM Director Bob Abbey

Complete the form below to have your name added in support of the impeachment of US Secretary Ken Salazar and BLM Director Bob Abbey relating to alleged criminal conduct in the management of America's wild horses and burros.  You must be a US resident. Please read carefully before submitting your information. Thank you for your support. Read more at www.horsefund.org

See this Amp at http://bit.ly/fRHZoP

Related articles

• Manifest Destiny and Ken Salazar (howlingforjustice.wordpress.com)
• Interior Department Criticized for Biased, Whitewash Report on Treatment of Wild Horses During Government Roundups (yubanet.com)

BLM Memo From Bob Abbery To Wyoming State Director Don Simpson 9/4/2010

BLM Memo

This memo, below, from BLM Director Bob Abbey to state director Don Simpson on “Cooperator Meetings when formulating Resource Management Plans” was provided by BLM under the Freedom of Information Act. Every line in the three-page memo was blacked out.

Posted in Wyoming on Saturday, September 4, 2010 8:36 pm Updated: 8:53 pm.  

Gotta love it, right?

After seeing this video, with Dave Cattoor talking about killing and hiding any horses that are injured during the “gather,” this article is somewhat anticlimactic.

Still, I wanted to include it to demonstrate how, even though the author surely knew what Cattoor had said, it’s not included here, as the article - as with most articles in our “major” news sources these days - goes for “balance” instead of the ugly truth.

If our major news papers/networks were privy to an argument between God and Satin I’m quite sure they would do their best to make it balanced, so as not to show any favoritism to good over evil. Taking a stand these is SO un-PC after all. Plus, the unvarnished Truth is rather out of favor these days, with fence-straddling being the most sought after goal.

Nevertheless, there are a few good quotes from people like Simone Netherlands and Deniz Bolbol here, as well as that oft quoted, ridiculous misstatement from Bob Abbey about our wanting to do away with ANY management of the horses. There are quotes from the ever gabby Dave Cattoor as well.

In my humble opinion, after what Cattoor said in the video, he might want to keep his mouth shut.

Amplify’d from www.nytimes.com

Horse Advocates Pull for Underdog in Roundups

Jim Wilson/The New York Times

More than 1,200 wild horses have been captured during the current roundup.

By JESSE McKINLEY

Published: September 5, 2010

OUTSIDE RAVENDALE, Calif. — It is horse versus helicopter here in the high desert.

The New York Times

The current roundup in northeastern California and neighboring Nevada has been going on for a month.

On one side are nearly 40,000 horses spread over 10 states, whose presence on the range is a last vestige of the Old West. On the other is a group of crusty cowboys whose chosen method of roundup involves rotors more than wrangling, using high-tech helicopters to drive galloping mustangs into low-tech traps.

“When they get in here, they know something’s going on,” said Dave Cattoor, 68, a straight-talking roundup expert who has been herding horses since he was 12. “The chips are down.”

Over the last month, Mr. Cattoor and his feral quarry have been doing battle under the dry, horizon-to-horizon skies of northeastern California and a neighboring Nevada county, with humans the inevitable victor.

Jim Wilson/The New York Times

Dave Cattoor says the current method of rounding up wild horses is “the best we can do.”

More than 1,200 horses have been captured during the current roundup, much to the chagrin of people like Simone Netherlands, an animal rights advocate who says that the roundups — part of a nationwide push to take some 12,000 horses off public lands — are cruel, expensive and unnecessary.

“They’re running at full speed for miles and miles for hours, with babies, little babies, and they don’t let up on them,” Ms. Netherlands said. “They’re stressing them out to the max.”

The Bureau of Land Management, which is overseeing the roundup, disputes that, saying that the roundups are humane and that it must reduce the wild horse population to more sustainable levels, both for their health and for that of the other animals that live in this harsh terrain.

“Some advocate groups would like us to leave the horses out there and let nature take its course,” said Bob Abbey, director of the bureau. “We don’t believe that’s a sound option.”

The debate over roundups dates back decades, to the passage of the 1971 Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act, a federal law that protected what was then a faltering wild horse population and made it illegal for cowboys like Mr. Cattoor to round up horses on their own for sport or profit.

“A cowboy really wasn’t a cowboy if you didn’t rope a wild horse,” Mr. Cattoor said. “But they stopped that. They stopped the maintenance, which costs nothing, and turned it into a multimillion-dollar deal. It’s crazy.”

Questions about the roundups have intensified in recent years as costs have mounted, both in dollars and in dead horses. Seven horses have died in the current operation, and last winter, a roundup in Nevada resulted in over 100 horse deaths, prompting more than 50 members of Congress to ask Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to look for independent analysis of the bureau’s Wild Horse and Burro Program. Late last month, the bureau did just that, asking the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a technical review of the program.

Jim Wilson/The New York Times

Animal advocates like Denise Constantinide think the roundups are cruel, expensive and unnecessary.

Horses that are captured are offered for adoption, but with demand for horses low and the cost of feed high, the government often ends up quartering them on large private ranches, primarily in Kansas and Oklahoma. In 2009, about 70 percent of the entire program’s $40.6 million budget was spent holding 34,500 horses and burros, a system that the Government Accountability Office has concluded will “overwhelm the program” if not controlled.

“They are a symbol of the American West,” said Nathaniel Messer, a professor of veterinary medicine at the University of Missouri and a former member of the federal Wild Horse and Burro Advisory Committee. “But do we need 35,000 symbols of the American West?”

For critics like Deniz Bolbol, the pattern of roundup, removal and stockpiling is an example of the bureau’s catering to private interests on public lands, namely by favoring livestock ranchers — who pay the government for the right to graze and who can sell their animals — over wild horses, which cannot be sold for slaughter.

“We remove wild horses from the public lands so private livestock can graze, and then we ship the wild horses to private ranchers in the Midwest where we stockpile them and pay private ranchers,” said Ms. Bolbol, a spokeswoman for the group In Defense of Animals, which has sued to stop the roundups. “This is what you call a racket.”

Jim Wilson/The New York Times

The aim of the roundups is to reduce the horse population to more sustainable levels.

And while Mr. Cattoor calls Ms. Bolbol and other protesters “fanatics,” he does not think the government’s reliance on big, periodic roundups makes much sense either, saying the bureau needs more steady maintenance of the wild herds, which can double in size every four years.

Perhaps the only other thing the two sides can agree on is that the horses — whose estimated populations range from about 120 in New Mexico to more than 17,000 in Nevada — are magnificent. Art DiGrazia, the operations chief for one of the bureau’s wild horse and burro offices in California, said that some of the mustangs on the range were descended from Army cavalry horses, which were bred for size, speed and strength and left here or given to ranchers.

“They have the intelligence and endurance to work out in this country,” said Mr. DiGrazia, a bearded New Jersey native who speaks in a hoarse whisper. “They’ll know before you know that there’s something out there going on.”

The method of capture is simple: horses are located from helicopters, which have been used in roundups since the mid-1970s, and pushed toward the trap site, essentially a funnel shaped by two netted walls that lead into a temporary corral. Once the herd runs into the funnel, Mr. Cattoor lets loose a so-called Judas horse, which is trained to lead the rest into the trap, where — uncombed, unshod and often stomping and biting — they slowly settle into their new lives as kept animals.

All of which is more humane than the old days, said Mr. Cattoor, who recalls cowboys using rope and brawn to bring in a herd, often injuring horses and horsemen alike.

“You have to really put the pound on them,” he said. “You’d have to get them sore footed and tired, and there’s a lot of problems with getting them really tired. Today, at this point, this is the best we can do.”

One recent morning, Mr. Cattoor and his team conducted several successful runs — 10 horses in one, a handful in another — before a small herd of four horses, their black manes and wild tails flying, came running full-tilt across the desert. The helicopter was close on their heels, whipping up curlicues of dust in the horses’ wake.

They were headed straight for the trap, when suddenly the herd broke, with three horses escaping across a field, while a single stallion — the leader — galloped in another direction. The pilot, perhaps 50 feet up, chose to follow the larger group, but horse sense had its way; the three headed into a patch of trees, where helicopters cannot pursue. The stallion, meanwhile, disappeared up a ridge and back into the wild.

Mr. Cattoor watched it all, standing near his Judas horse with a resigned smile, as roundup opponents watched happily from a public viewing station several hundred feet away.

“These wild horse advocates love it when the horse beats the helicopter,” Mr. Cattoor said. “And they do sometimes win.”

A version of this article appeared in print on September 6, 2010, on page A9 of the New York edition. Read more at www.nytimes.com

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/9tyn 

Related articles by Zemanta

• The National Academy of Science Field Studies-Environmental Effects of Wild Horses (goldendays-suzanne.blogspot.com)
• Twin Peaks - BLM Drops All Pretense (goldendays-suzanne.blogspot.com)
• Grass Roots Activism Takes a Stand! (goldendays-suzanne.blogspot.com)
• BLM Reports of Wild Horse Deaths During Tuscarora Roundup Are Laced With Contradictions (goldendays-suzanne.blogspot.com)

HORSEBACK Magazine-Vote In the Poll, Read The Story!

Please vote in the poll-Should President Obama halt further BLM roundups pending further study? Then read the story about what happened at the Owyhee "gather."

Amplify’d from horsebackmagazine.com

Poll Should President Obama order a halt to all further BLM wild horse helicopter roundups pending further study in light of a demand to do so from 54 members of Congress? Yes (97%, 145 Votes) No (3%, 4 Votes) Total Voters: 149  Loading ...

More Litigation Filed to Stop BLM Stampedes – Photos Damning

SAN FRANCISCO, (Grass Roots) - On August 10, 2010, Laura Leigh, filed a Motion For Reconsideration of Denial of Plaintiff‟s Order to Show Cause Re: Contempt brought against Ken Salazar, Secretary of the Department of the Interior, Bob Abbey, Director of the BLM and Ron Wenker, Nevada State Director of the BLM in Nevada District court. The legal actions are supported by Grass Roots Horse, http://grassrootshorse.com/legalactions.htm

The original Motion on Contempt of Court charges levied against the BLM was denied, but a recent law change made it possible for it to be re-filed under the new standard of law. The Motion filed yesterday cites newly discovered evidence of the Defendant‟s violation of the court‟s previous order to uphold the plaintiff‟s First Amendment Rights to observe and report on the Bureau of Land Management in regard to the “gather” (“gather” is the BLM euphemism for roundups) and removal of wild horses in Owyhee Herd Management Area. The latest filing also addresses the Defendant‟s sworn testimony in open court that a „water emergency‟ existed and that an „emergency‟ roundup had to take place, or horses would die. This testimony resulted in Judge Larry Hicks lifting the Temporary Restraining Order he had put in place to halt the Owyhee gather until he could hear legal arguments in the case.

Read more at horsebackmagazine.com

See this Amp at http://bit.ly/cVjkjc

Related articles by Zemanta

• Government Lawyers Mislead Federal Judge on Wild Horse Water (goldendays-suzanne.blogspot.com)

Contempt of Court Re-filed Against Ken Salazar and BLM

Here we go again, folks. The BLM is clearly in contempt of court and we have another chance to prove it. Please help support Laura! The only place you can donate to Laura Leigh's legal fund is at www.grassrootshorse.com.

Amplify’d from thedesertinde.com

Contempt of Court Re-filed Against Ken Salazar and BLM

By ROBERT WINKLER

The Desert Independent

July 31, 2010

RENO, Nevada – On July 30th   Laura Leigh re-filed Contempt of Court charges against Ken Salazar, Secretary ofthe Department of the Interior, Bob Abbey, Director of the BLM and Ron Wenker, Nevada State Director of the BLM in regard to what BLM calls the “Tuscarora wild horse gather.” The BLM continually refers to the three herd management areas of Owyhee, Rock Creek and Little Humboldt under one umbrella name of Tuscarora. Thejudge, at the time of hearing earlier motions, recognized that Tuscarora was three herds and not one as BLM would like people to believe.

Adding to what seems like a deliberate move to create confusion, every day the gather schedules change. At present the BLM website, touted in BLM press releases as the only place for correct information, has two completely different gather schedules posted. If a person really wants to know the true schedule they have to contact the appropriatefield offices. It would seem to even the casual observer to be a shell game of now you see it, now you don’t.

The judge denied the original motion to hear the case based on the parameters set forth in a statute known as the Winters standard. This is the standard by which actions seeking injunctive relief are judged on their merit. On July 28, 2010, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals modified its position on the test used to determine the element, “likelihood of success on the merits” when granting or denying injunctive relief under the Winters decision. The circuit court reaffirmed the use of its sliding scale method, finding it consistent with Winters.

The law change opened the door for the re-filing under the new guidelines. “We are not going away,” said Laura Leigh, plaintiff in the lawsuit brought about through the support of Grass Roots Horse, a citizen action group. Support for Laura Leigh’s court action is coming in from people all over the country. “Some people are donating to further the cause with $3.00 donations,” said Maureen VanDerStad, member of Grass Roots Horse. “That tells it all right there. People are so fed up with the mismanagement of the wild horses and burros that they want to be a part of doing something to stop it. The blatant disregard for our First Amendment rights by BLM and the cruel and inhumane treatment of the wild horses, which belong to the American people, has spurred the movement on with a vengeance,” she further states.

Laura Leigh is an artist, author and journalist who is best known for her work in documenting wild horses. She is the founder and director of Herd Watch, a citizen group that monitors the actions of the BLM and the Wild Horse and Burro Program. Full reports documenting range conditions in herd management areas and the condition of the horses themselves are conducted by Herd Watch with a meticulous eye for detail.

Yesterday at the Nevada State Legislative meeting, the main focus was on the implications of the Western Watershed Organization’s multi-million dollar settlement with Ruby Corporaton, representing Ruby Pipeline. The Wild Horse and Burro Program came into the discussion and Laura Leigh was there to set the record straight. “Sitting in the audience it was really interesting to see the cattlemen bringing up the very same issues of the difficulties of dealing with the BLM that the wild horse advocates have been dealing with for years. If people do not support accountability in government, it is easy to see how that failure to demand accountability and transparency can turn against them,” Laura Leigh said.

To read the legal filings, donate to the legal fund, or volunteer please visit www.grassrootshorse.com where there are links to the best sites with more information on the issue.

Read more at thedesertinde.com

See this Amp at http://bit.ly/brWTu2

Related articles by Zemanta

• Calico: Past, Present & Future V - from American Herds (goldendays-suzanne.blogspot.com)
• NV Woman Files Suit to Stop Mustang Roundup 7/9/10 (goldendays-suzanne.blogspot.com)

Ask Congress To Force BLM To Allow Public Observation Of Wild Horse Program

In Defense of Animals:

Ask Congress To Force BLM To Allow Public Observation Of Wild Horse Program

In the face of public and Congressional outrage over the roundup of nearly 2,000 wild horses from Nevada’s Calico Mountains region, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) announced plans to control and minimize criticism by further restricting public viewing of its operations to a small group of cherry-picked organizations and individuals for limited viewing. The agency is ramping up its capture plans, with over 5,000 more wild horses targeted for roundup and removal over the next four months.

By its own admission, BLM’s crackdown on public observation of its roundup activities and wild horse holding facilities is designed to control images released on blogs, YouTube and other social media, thereby quashing escalating public opposition to the agency’s handling of America’s treasured mustangs.

We can’t let the BLM get away with this. The agency ignores the wishes of the American public by clearing wild horses off the land to make room for cattle ranchers and gas and mining companies who want to exploit public lands. Most of these formerly free mustangs are stockpiled in BLM holding facilities in the Midwest, costing taxpayers tens of millions of dollars annually. Now this public agency is attempting to prevent all but a handpicked few from observing and documenting its treatment of the wild horses who are beloved by so many Americans.

Please follow this link to In Defense of Animals and submit the form today. Ask your representatives in Congress to force the BLM to allow the public to see and document how the agency is spending tax dollars to roundup and hold wild horses and burros. After you submit this form, please call your senators and representatives to follow up and ask them what action they have taken on this issue.

Related articles by Zemanta

• BLM=Land Management (socialactions.net)

BLM's Final Solution for the Wild Horses and Burros

BLM's Final Solution for the Wild Horses and Burros

Originally Posted Dec 21, 2009 by Laura Allen

 

© Copyright Elyse Gardner

Horse Slaughter Information provided courtesy of Valerie James-Patton and Equine Welfare Alliance, http://www.equinewelfarealliance.org/

Internal documents from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) shed light on the agency's motives and plans for the wild horses and burros.

Two reports issued by the BLM for internal use only, The Herd Management Option Plans from October 2008, and the Team Conference Calls Report from July-September 2008 contain astonishing proposals to manipulate the WFRHBA and NEPA, eliminate the wild horses and burros altogether from the wild, and until they can be euthanized or sold most likely for slaughter, sterilize them and place them in feedlots paid for by rescue organizations duped into thinking the animals are in private "preserves".

BLM is the agency within the U.S. Department of Interior that is tasked with protecting the wild horses and burros pursuant to the Wild Free Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971, 16 U.S.C. §1331 et seq. (WFRHBA) as free roaming animals in their historic herd areas and designated ranges. "All management activities are to be at the minimal feasible level." 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1333. Wild horses are not to be subject to "capture, "harassment" or "death". 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1331

BLM team members involved in these discussions included Jim Stratton, Rob Jeffers, Al Kane, DVM; Jim Johnson, John Neil, Lili Thomas, Gus Ward, Alan Shepherd, Bud Cribley, and Don Glenn.

These reports are almost certainly the precursor to BLM's current proposal issued by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar in October, 2009. The plan as announced is essentially to:

(1) work with non-profits and  wild horse enthusiasts to create "preserves" in the Midwest or east, an idea that runs counter to the  WFRHBA mandate to maintain free-roaming behavior and avoid zoolike settings for these wild animals,

(2) designate additional ranges that under WFRHBA are to be "devoted principally" to the wild horses and burros, but under BLM they have been afforded the same or even less preference than grazing cattle and sheep and other uses of the land, and

(3) work to restore the "sustainability" of herds and public lands which, translated  from BLM-speak, means more slaughter and euthanasia of wild horses and burros and extinction of the herds through continued removal of  wild horses from their herd areas and ranges, aggressive "fertility control", monitoring of sex ratios, and introduction of non-reproducing herds.

This proposal is floating around Congress and the Obama Administration. There has been no indication there will be a hearing or any changes made to the laws or authorization of appropriations that may be necessary to implement the plan. The full plan has never even been made generally available to the public.

Indeed, BLM has already begun to implement this plan.  The removal or gather schedules for 2009-2010 are aggressive, and BLM has shown no signs of reconsidering these plans despite increasing calls for a moratorium on gathers and a pending request for a preliminary injunction on a large gather of 2,432-2,736 wild horses in Nevada set to begin December 28.  Indeed, just a couple of days ago, BLM announced plans to roundup 1,977 wild horses and remove 1,506 from the Antelope Complex in Nevada. The BLM has yet to issue the Environmental Assessment for this action.

And, earlier during the first week in December, without any public announcement, BLM rounded up 217 wild horses on the Nevada-California border. This gather of what are known as the Buckhorn wild horses had been scheduled for the summer, 2010. The roundup was conducted in secret, and it is not known how many horses were injured or killed or what happened to them.

Currently, allegedly "excess" horses, those deemed necessary to remove from designated herd areas or ranges basically because of overpopulation or to "maintain a thriving natural ecological balance", are generally held in short-term (STH) or long-term holding facilities (LTH) on private lands. 16 U.S.C. §§1332, 1333 As of May 31, 2009 there were 8,532 horses and 57 burros in short-term holding facilities that have a total capacity of 15,645 animals. As of that date there were 22,126 horses in long-term holding facilities that have a total capacity of 22,100. The long-term holding facilities are full. BLM claims there are 10,350 excess wild horses and burros that must be removed from herd areas and ranges. Since 2000, BLM has removed more than 74,000 wild horses and burros from the wild, 40% of the population.

Manipulating the WFRHBA

In these 2008 reports BLM employees and consultants discussed placing the wild horses and burros in LTH facilities on public lands by converting grazing rights for cattle. To do this legally, requires changing the status of the horses and burros from wild to titled or owned livestock. The WFRHBA protects wild horses on public lands, meaning they can't be corralled in LTH there.  BLM team members discussed that to keep the animals in LTH on public lands, they would create non-reproducing herds:  "One could argue that a non-reproductive herd is not self-sustaining. Also refer to [43 CFR 4700.0-6  (c]) which states: "Management activities affecting wild horses and burros shall be undertaken with the goal of maintaining free-roaming behavior." By managing for sterile animals we may be taking away their "free-roaming" behavior by altering the social interactions."  If the animals are no longer ‘free-roaming", they are not wild and arguably could be considered livestock and kept in LTH on public lands.

In effect, BLM proposed to manipulate the WFRHBA by actually intentionally destroying herd behavior, free-roaming behavior, which as an agency they are supposed to protect, so that they could get around another provision of WFRHBA to allow the horses to be kept in LTH on public lands.

BLM team members also considered ignoring the WFRHBA prohibition on"relocat[ing] wild free-roaming horses and burros to areas of the public lands where they do not exist" but noted,  "However, a solicitor's interpretation concludes BLM is not prohibited from moving excess wild horses to LTH areas on public lands because no case law implies such a prohibition. Should BLM elect to move excess horses to LTH areas on public lands, appeals or litigation would be likely and could take years to resolve."

BLM team members discussed that the LTH facilities could be nothing more than feedlots. "BLM (or others? ie horse advocacy groups? would buy livestock permits with the objective of managing the allotments for a non-reproducing herd. Due to trouble finding additional pastures for excess horses, we may need to have feed lots. If the humane organization did take over payment of feeding excess horses they would need to pay for whatever type of facility is available."

Note that BLM's current plan as described by Interior Secy. Salazar, calls, in part, for humane groups to take over the cost and care of wild horses and burros placed in "preserves" in the midwest and eastern states. "Preserves" is presumably a euphemism for "feed lot".

In this way, BLM would also manage the animals to extinction. The BLM team member discussed, though, "This alternative may require a change in regulations based on 43 CFR 4700.0-6 (a), which states: "Wild horses and burros shall be managed as self-sustaining populations of healthy animals in balance with other uses and the productive capacity of their habitat."

Actually, for this plan to be legal, Congress would be required to repeal the WFRHBA requirements that BLM manage wild horses and burros as free-roaming "components" of the public lands at the "minimal feasible level" and avoid "capture", "harassment" and "death". 16 U.S.C. § §1331, 1332, 1333.

 

© Copyright Elyse Gardner

Aggressive sterilization and manipulation of herd ratios

Other plans discussed by the BLM team to reduce the wild horse and burro populations included adjusting herd ratios from 50/50 to 70/30 male/female ratios with some of the horses returned to the wild after being gelded and an increased use of PZP, as well as using other unauthorized fertility drugs called Gonacon and SpayVac.

Team members acknowledged Spayvac was "barely available" for research, let alone approved for use as a contraceptive.

With PZP the BLM Instruction Memorandum requires field officials to consider using fertility control and justify when it is not used. During a June 15, 2009 meeting the Wild Horse and Burro Advisory Board noted the liquid the longer term effectiveness of the pelleted form of PZP is unproven. It is also well known that PZP may cause out of season foals.

In the 2008 team reports, BLM team members noted, "This alternative may require a change in regulations based on 43 CFR 4700.0-6 (a), which states: "Wild horses and burros shall be managed as self-sustaining populations of healthy animals in balance with other uses and the productive capacity of their habitat.  ...One could argue that a non-reproductive herd is not self-sustaining.  Also refer to (c) which states: "Management activities affecting wild horses and burros shall be undertaken with the goal of maintaining free-roaming behavior." By managing for sterile animals we may be taking away their "free-roaming" behavior by altering the social interactions."

Despite the clear language of WFRHBA and some of its own regulations, the BLM team asked,  "Do we have an obligation not to affect horse herd behavior?...Does it affect behavior and do we care? Burger stated in the late 80's that you should aim at a ratio favoring females, but BLM thinks a 50/50 ratio is natural. Would having more stallions change the band structure, will mares and colts be beaten down at water bottlenecks? Since we do not have any evidence [changing the sex ratio] is bad, the BLM should be allowed to do this on a large scale. We do not know if it is bad so should we wait until we know?"

BLM team members discussed options such as filling herd areas with only geldings or sterilizing all mares. BLM also discussed placing wild horses in non-reproducing herds and wanted to look in each state for possible places for these herds.

In one discussion team members proposed it would be easier to "justify" a non-reproducing herd rather than zeroing out herd areas.

The idea was to eliminate a herd management area for every non-reproducing herd area that was created.
The team noted, "When making changes on HMAs (sex ratio, gelding, etc) the implementation would be a trial and error".

BLM knew the aggressive sterilization of mares would mean an increased death rate of at least 10% and admitted that "herd behavior would be out the window". BLM admitted, in effect, these aggressive sterilization plans would not only be potentially dangerous to the wild horses and burros, destructive of their herds and families, but also illegal and ultimately cause their extinction.

Euthanasia and Slaughter

The BLM team's favorite ideas for eliminating wild horses and burros appear to be euthanasia preferably in the field and also by reducing restrictions on sales.
  
The team considered, "How many could be euthanized at a gather without having a NEPA?" The BLM is required by National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321, et seq., to prepare Environmental Assessments or EAs or, if indicated, Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) or Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), for any proposed changes to public lands that may have a significant environmental impact.  The law directs the agency to identify environmental concerns, consider alternatives including no action at all and take a "hard look" at the problem and minimize significant environmental impact. A significant environmental impact includes actions that are likely to be highly controversial or have uncertain effects on the quality of our lives and that affect cultural and historical resources. 40 C.F.R. §1508.27(b).)

In other words, BLM hoped to be able to kill as many wild horses and burros in the field as possible without implicating NEPA.

BLM also discussed drastically reducing the time wild horses and burros are available for adoption or sale before they would then be euthanized.

The team observed, "People willing to put down healthy horses at gather sites could be a problem....Having vets put down healthy horses at preparation facilities could be a problem...Provide counseling due to stress for employees and contractors that have to euthanize healthy horses".

Team members also asked how many more horses could be euthanized without affecting disposal practices. It was noted that Reno Rendering, for example, "will take as many as could be sent". They checked on the capacity of other rendering plants to take more wild horses.

One team member questioned, "Are we euthanizing horses to save money to complete gathers?"

Under the WFRHBA,  "[a]ny excess animal or the remains of an excess animal shall be sold if--
      (A) the excess animal is more than 10 years of age; or
      (B) the excess animal has been offered unsuccessfully for adoption at least 3 times." Currently, a wild horse or burro must be offered for adoption at 3 specific satellite or adoption events before qualifying for sale under subsection (B). Wild horses and burros sold in this way are called 3 strikes horses. Animals sold under this provision lose the protections of the WFRHBA. 16 U.S.C. §1333(e).

Adopters can take possession of 4 wild horses or burros at a time and title is not transferred for at least one year. 16 U.S.C. §1333(c) Only then do the wild horses or burros lose the protections of WFRHBA.

The team notes indicate, "The team needs to address selling horses without limitation....We need to make horses easier to [sell] by changing our policy on the criteria for what constitutes a three strikes horse."

The team discussed selling eligible horses at the gather site.

The team discussed that a horse would get a "strike" after each adoption event and also each 30 day period where a facility is open to the public by walk up or by appointment. In that way, BLM could say the horse had been offered unsuccessfully for adoption at least 3 times for a period of 30 days, even if no one ever even looked at the horse let alone considered the animal for adoption. After the third 30 day period of unsuccessful adoption offers, the horse would be euthanized on day 31.

A note from a team member states, "Sally had an e-mail from a person in Canada who wants 10,000 horses that he would slaughter the horses and send them to a third world country.  Don is going to send the email....Making horses easier to sale by changing policy on the criteria for what constitutes a 3 strike horse, which could be horses that have been in facility for 90 days or 3 weeks. Jim said he has a demand for horses going to Denmark, but they are having a problem getting titled horses."

Another note advises, "Address the need for congress to change the adoption law and allow instant title."

Notes from a June 15, 2009 Wild Horse and Burros Advisory Board meeting indicate "that BLM [should]advertise and market sale eligible animals (with the intent clause) in foreign countries with known good homes by offering "select sales" for sale eligible animals 11 years of age and over, and for younger animals that have been offered for adoption three times during a 90 day period and that BLM continue to explore opportunities to foster foreign aid by providing sale eligible animals (with the intent clause) to foreign countries for agricultural (nonfood) use."

Only BLM would call a slaughter house a "known good home". The BLM is obviously in contact with kill buyers, those that buy horses and transport and sell them to slaughter houses. Despite the mandate of the WFRHBA, BLM, the agency charged with protecting wild horses and burros as free roaming components of the public lands at the "minimal feasible level" is clearly attempting to smooth the way for their slaughter.

During its discussions in the past year BLM considered ways to keep the public away from round ups and the killing and sales of healthy horses and burros and planned to brand protests as "eco-terrorism".  This was all to be done in secret. Unless Congress or the courts step up and stop this rogue agency, it looks like BLM's plan may succeed.

 

© Copyright Elyse Gardner

  

© Copyright Craig Downer

Go here for information about the WFRHBA and how BLM has eroded the protections for the wild horses and burros. 
Go here to find out how you can join the call for a moratorium on BLM roundups of wild horses and burros.

Related articles by Zemanta

• An Open Letter To President Obama (goldendays-suzanne.blogspot.com)
• Congressional Committee Will Call for Moratorium on Gathers (goldendays-suzanne.blogspot.com)