Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts

9/10/12

Horse Slaughter ~ Clipboard

Update ~ I just got the bright idea of putting the board on my sidebar so it would always be visible. What do you think?

This is my Horse Slaughter Board from Clipboard. The board is fully interactive. Click on it and a light-box will open and you can interact with the board just as if you were on the Clipboard site.

Be sure to check back because I will be adding to this board frequently.

Hope you enjoy it!



Related articles

Enhanced by Zemanta

10/5/11

Wyoming Politician Challenges Bute Findings by Medical and Veterinary Experts | Horse Back Magazine

I really don't know what else I can add to this. Every day I marvel anew at the depth Sue Wallis and her sock puppets will sink to in order to be able to brutally slaughter our horses for Europeans to eat.
Of course this ridiculous drivel from so-called "experts" who are not medical nor veterinary experts will be laughed off by anyone who knows anything. As it turns out just a little background research on two of the equine “scientists” and their objectivity in regard to the safety of bute in horses slaughtered for human consumption…
Dr. (of Education) Pat Evans is a founding member - along with Ms Wallis -  of United Organizations of the Horse (see http://whohateshorses.wordpress.com/2010/12/17/boycott-the-leaders-of-horse-slaughter-summit-organizers-a-little-history/). While teaching at Utah State, she co-wrote a paper titled “The State of the Horse Industry Since the Closing of the Horse Harvesting (sic) Facilities” (see http://www.animalwelfarecouncil.com/html/pdf/utahstate.pdf).
Dr. (of what subject, I can’t determine) Sheryl King was named head of the Illinois Horse Council in Feb. 2011 (http://www.horsemenscouncil.org/HCI/NewsReleases/11Feb04.php) and defends slaughter as beneficial to horses and the horse industry. For instance, see page 15 of “Equine Monthly”, Apr. 2007 (http://www.equinemonthly.com/web/ha_2arc407.pdf), for King’s statement on Illinois HB 1711 amending the Illinois Horse Meat Act. In “The Lincoln Trail Riders Newsletter”, June 2004, Dr. King was quoted as writing the following:
“Dianne,
“The Senate Executive Committee voted for the anti-slaughter legislation by a wide margin. It immediately went to the floor of the Senate where it was also voted for by a large margin. Next it goes to the House floor for concurrence, and then to the governor for signature. I think both of these will happen.
“Unfortunately, the powerful and wealthy animal rights groups and the pet owners and city dwellers who do not understand the first thing about where their food comes from never mind the reality of animal agriculture or raising horses were very vocal and forceful.
“I fear that it will be the horses and the Illinois horse industry that will suffer. I really hope this is a wakeup call to horsemen to begin learning how to band together to fight against issues that will
be harmful to their interests. Unfortunately, we horsemen tend to be a very independent lot – I have my doubts whether we will ever be able to stick up for ourselves.
“Sheryl S. King, Ph.D.
Professor
Director of Equine Studies
Animal Science Department
Southern Illinois University
Carbondale, IL 62901″
And they had the nerve to claim the anti-slaughter advocates have a political agenda!
Don't go away. Dr, Marini has now made a comment, and it's a doozy. Next post.

Wyoming Politician Challenges Bute Findings by Medical and Veterinary Experts

October 5, 2011

By Steven Long
HOUSTON, (Horseback) – A second term state representative from a rural village who claims to represent the entire horse industry has challenged a peer reviewed article in a distinguished scientific journal citing a letter from three agricultural school equine science professors.
Rep. Sue Wallis (R) of Recluse, WY (pop 13), is the nation’s most outspoken proponent of reopening U.S. horse slaughter plants, shut down after Congress refused to fund federal meat inspectors in such facilities, and the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear challenges to state laws in Texas and Illinois outlawing them.
The paper titled, “Association of phenylbutazone (Bute) usage with horses bought for slaughter”: a public health risk states in its abstract:
“Sixty-seven million pounds of horsemeat derived from American horses were sent abroad for human consumption last year. Horses are not raised as food animals in the United States, and mechanisms to ensure the removal of horses treated with banned substances from the food chain are inadequate at best. Phenylbutazone (PBZ) is the most commonly used non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) in equine practice. Thoroughbred (TB) race horses like other horse breeds are slaughtered for human consumption. Phenylbutazone is banned for use in any animal intended for human consumption because it causes serious and lethal idiosyncratic adverse effects in humans. The number of horses that have received phenylbutazone prior to being sent to slaughter for human consumption is unknown but its presence in some is highly likely. We identified eighteen TB race horses that were given PBZ on race day and sent for intended slaughter by matching their registered name to their race track drug record over a five year period. Sixteen rescued TB race horses were given PBZ on race day. Thus, PBZ residues may be present in some horsemeat derived from American horses. The permissive allowance of such horsemeat used for human consumption poses a serious public health risk.”
Wallis, in a press release cited a letter to the article’s publisher, Food and Chemical Toxicology by four agricultural school professors challenging the findings of its authors, Drs.
Nicolas Dodman, a veterinary anesthesiologist at Tufts University, Nicolas Blondeau, The Institute of Molecular and Cellular Pharmacology (France), and Ann Marini, MD, PhD, of the Department of Neurology, Uniformed University of the Health Sciences.
The three experts changing the findings of Dodman, Blondeau, and Marini, are William Day, PhD of Morristown State College, Sheryl King PhD, PAS, of Southern Illinois State University, Don Henneke, PhD of Tarlton State University, and Pat Evans EdD of Scottsdale Community College. All are equine science instructors with no medical or veterinary training.
Marini was unavailable for comment.
The study’s critic also wrote a lengthy note to Congress blasting the study failed to mention that bute is prohibited by the federal Food and Drug Administration for use in all food animals.
Asked by Horseback Online how the three United Horsemen experts could challenge the paper with no medical training, Wallis replied, “By that reasoning the original article authors weren’t qualified to write it.”
Horseback then asked Wallis, “Why does England and the rest of Europe require horse passports and only horses raised for their meat enter the food chain for human consumption?”
There has been no response.
“They really cherry picked their facts,” said John Holland, president of the Chicago Based Equine Welfare Alliance which completed a three day Washington D.C. conference last week featuring some of the nation’s top equine welfare scientists, academics, and advocates including Dr. Marini.
“For example, they stated that ninety percent of PBZ disappears from the blood in just over a day,” Holland said. “They neglected to mention its metabolite oxyphenylbutazone which is just as dangerous and lasts much longer.”
More recently in an Irish veterinary journal, the metabolite issue is addressed as well.
“Sue’s experts also omitted the fact that PBZ takes up in injured tissue,” Holland said in a written response to Horseback Online. “And then they cited an industry recommendation that was never adopted as if it had some special credibility: The 2004 Proceedings of The United States Pharmacopeial Convention reported that evidence had been compiled by the Canadian FARAD leading to the recommendation of a withdrawal time of 60 days following administration of phenylbutazone paste to beef animals and a withholding time of 10 days in milk would be sufficient to avoid residues.”
Holland countered misrepresentation saying, “they claimed I am ‘associated with HSUS and linked to PETA.’ I have no linkage to PETA what-so-ever, and only a loose association with HSUS (as if that were a crime).”
“They ignored the standing rule that PBZ is banned in all meat animals with no withdrawal period and that it is only allowed in diary animals under six months of age in a few countries. In other words, they are trying to spin things to create doubt where there really isn’t any,” Holland said.
Enhanced by Zemanta

10/23/10

Protest Against Wild Horse Roundups And Horse Slaughter


There is much more on Tuesday's Horse on The Int'l Fund for Horses website. If you want to join in on upcoming protests or get help organizing your own protest, this is the place to go.

Please protest if you can, or help spread the word if you can't actually attend. For the horses.
Protesting Horse
AGAINST WILD HORSE & BURRO ROUNDUPS and HORSE SLAUGHTER
Protesting and calling for a moratorium on all roundups of America’s wild horses and burros.
Protesting horse slaughter and demanding an immediate vote on HR 503 and S 727, The Prevention of Equine Cruelty Act, banning the slaughter of America’s equines.
Scheduled Protests:

  • BOSTON, Massachusetts DONE!

  • When:
    Friday, October 8, 2010 at 10:00 am to 2:00 pm.
    Where:
    Massachusetts State House, Behind the Boston Common in front of the State House
    Follow Up:
    Report and Pictures >>
    STAMFORD, Connecticut DONE!
    When:
    Saturday, October 9, 2010 at 2:00 pm
    Where:
    Downtown Stamford on the Ferguson Library steps
    Follow Up:
    On the way.
    LAS VEGAS, Nevada DONE!
    When:
    Monday, Columbus Day, October 11, 2010, 3:00 pm to 6:00 pm
    Where:
    Horseman’s Park, 5800 E. Flamingo Drive
    Follow Up:
    Report, Pictures, Media Coverage >>
    BRATTLEBORO, Vermont
    When:
    Friday, October 29, 2010 2 PM to 5 PM
    Where:
    At the Co-op, 2 Main St.
    Notes:
    Please bring a sign.
    Contacts:
    Jeanne – hilbiljean@yahoo.com
    NEW YORK CITY, New York
    When:
    Saturday, November 13, 2010, 1 PM to 3 PM
    Where:
    Columbus Circle, 59th Street, Manhattan, at the south end of Central Park and Broadway – near the statues (also referred to as the north side of Central Park South).
    Notes:
    Please bring a sign.
    Contacts:
    Jo De George – jo@degeorgedynamic.com; Linda Berardo – Lin817@aol.com
    There are more rallies and protests being organized for IA, GA, MD, VA, NH, ME, SC, WY, CO, TX, FL and VA. Also New York City in November. We will post details as soon as we have them.
    Read more at tuesdayshorse.wordpress.com
    Enhanced by Zemanta

    9/25/10

    Press Release From Grass Roots Horse - September 24, 2010

    Velma Bronn Johnston "Wild Horse Annie&qu... 
    Velma Johnston 
    September 24, 2010

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    Maureen VanDerStad
    860-598-0095
    Contact: Info@grassrootshorse.com

    A Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order was filed at 5 a.m. PT September 24, 2010 in Nevada. The action was brought by Laura Leigh, photojournalist and videographer who is supported by Grass Roots Horse in this matter.

    The motion asks for an immediate cessation of all helicopter roundups and all related activities regarding any and all aspects of any actions related to wild horse movement, gathering or rounding up as well as any actions involving all horses in short or long term holding.

    This motion is about accountability, access, and transparency. “This is about the horses, each and every horse. Every individual life that leaves the range matters and is important to the American public. This is not about some bulk inventory and it is about time that the government recognizes that fact. We are not going away. The wild horses and burros are living beings mandated to be managed humanely.” said Maureen VanDerStad of Grass Roots Horse, a nonprofit group based in grass roots activism.

    This battle for humane treatment and proper management of the wild horses and burros has been going on for decades and is still going on. It began on a grass roots level when Velma Johnston first sought to stop the killing and abuse of the wild horses and burros six decades ago. That effort resulted in the Free Roaming Wild Horse and Burro Act of 1971, which mandated, among many other things, the humane treatment of these symbols of our American heritage and pioneer spirit. The Bureau of Land Management and the Department of Interior have steadily and secretly chipped away at those mandates and protections over the years resulting in the abominable situation we have now. Anything to do with the wild horse and burro program or the animals themselves, even their location, is shrouded in secrecy and hidden under layers of excessive bureaucracy.

    Copy of the filed motion: Link

    Enhanced by Zemanta

    6/14/10

    Spin Drs Hired to Wipe Out Wild Horses

    Is this the way you want your tax money spent? If not, follow these links and TAKE ACTION! 




    June 2010


    Media Contacts:


    Makendra Silverman

    Anne Novak


    For Immediate Release:
    Spin Doctors Hired for the Destruction of America’s Wild Horse and Burro Herds
    BLM uses MMS’s PR and Public Affairs agency to facilitate Salazar’s agenda at June 14th public workshop in Denver—protest on June 15th
    Denver, CO (June 14, 2010)—The Cloud Foundation has learned that the San Francisco based public relations and public affairs firm, Kearns and West, with ties to big energy and offices across the country, has been hired to push the Salazar Plan for Wild Horses and Burros through Congress in Fall 2010—despite public outrage. Kearns and West has expertise in crisis management as well as accomplishing policy and regulatory goals. Their clients range from Mineral Management Services (MMS) and PG&E to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). The Department of Interior (DOI) has enlisted the firm using the Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution (ECR) as the go between. Senior mediator of Kearns and West, J. Michael Harty will facilitate an unprecedented public workshop in Denver, Colorado at the Magnolia Hotel, 818 17th Street, on June 14th followed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Public Advisory Board Meeting on June 15th. Both days will be live-streamed and viewing available on www.thecloudfoundation.org. The public and members of Congress are encouraged to watch. The public will protest on June 15th from 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. with a press conference at noon.
    BLM’s recently announced and highly polished but unsubstantial, “Strategy Plan” as well as their association with PR firm Kearns and West, appears designed to manipulate the public and marginalize the opposition to the Salazar Plan for wild horses and burros. The plan calls for the purchase of Eastern and Midwestern “preserves” populated by sterilized wild horses, captured from their Western ranges.
    "This is ALL about manipulating public opinion. And ramming ONE thing – Salazar’s Plan – through” states author R.T. Fitch.
    The Kearns and West Salazar Plan Executive Summary states, ‘The U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution (‘Institute’) is assisting BLM in assessing stakeholder interests and developing an effective stakeholder engagement plan for the Strategy.’ Disturbingly, BLM often does not include the public as a stakeholder in their planning documents regarding the management of wild horses and burros.
    “Who is the biggest stakeholder in the discussion of the public’s land and its wild horses if not the public?” asks Terri Farley, author of the Phantom Stallion series, adding “A public agency must represent the public and utilize taxpayer dollars responsibly—not spend excessively on another private contractor.”
    According to their website, Kearns and West offers their clients (in this case the BLM) ‘A compelling credible, resonant case. True, high-impact support for your position.’ Advocates support a new direction that abandons the endless, expensive cycle of roundup, removal, and warehousing. BLM must adopt a far less expensive path that is kinder to the land and the wild horses legally living there, one that contains truly transparent solutions, not a slick, taxpayer-funded PR campaign.
    “By hiring a high powered PR and Public Affairs firm, it seems that BLM is aiming to extinguish the opposition rather than solve the controversy over their management of our wild herds,” explains Ginger Kathrens, Volunteer Executive Director of the Cloud Foundation. “The public by the thousands has shared their opposition to the Salazar Plan. I hope we can sit down at this public forum and seriously talk about a moratorium on roundups while we work to reinstate protections that are consistent with the intent of the 1971 Wild Horse and Burro Act.
    According to The Holmes Report, “Kearns & West recognizes the important value of collaborating both with our clients and their stakeholders. For more than 20 years, the firm has employed its unique brand of stakeholder-centric strategic communications and collaboration processes to design innovative, but pragmatic programs, achieving superior results for clients in the federal, state and local government, private and nonprofit sectors. Kearns & West works with tough issues and big ideas.”
    Besides specializing in ‘accomplishing policy and regulatory goals’ Kearns and West also represents PG&E—a primary customer in the Ruby Pipeline natural gas project threatening public lands and five public herds with environmental devastation from Wyoming to Oregon. Kearns and West also represents Duke Energy, the Association of Western Governors and the US Fish and Wildlife Service, among others.
    While Secretary Salazar vowed to restore the Interior Department's ‘respect for scientific integrity’ he has failed to consider science, reason, or even the law when it comes to managing our wild herds. Kearns and West has been known to gather scientific experts and build a movement of common interest “stakeholders” to crush public outcry and true environmentalism. Wild horse advocates feel the Kearns and West prepared Salazar report for Congress will be biased in favor of big energy ties with DOI at the expense of federally protected wild horses who somehow are in the way of ‘The New Energy Frontier’.
    “We hope Monday’s workshop will be a productive one rather than a demonstration of BLM’s inability to change,” concludes Kathrens.
    # # #
    Lnks of interest:
    Interior Department Wild Horse Public Workshop, Livestream June 14, 8 a.m. -4 p.m. and Advisory Board Meeting June 15, 8 a.m. -5:00 p.m. http://www.thecloudfoundation.org/
    Fact Sheet on Wild Herds & The Salazar Plan http://bit.ly/bfdX1y
    Kearns and West http://bit.ly/deT894
    CNN Report, Issues with Jane Valez-Mitchell, March 25th http://bit.ly/dvl7NE
    Disappointment Valley... A Modern Day Western Trailer- excellent sample of interviews regarding the issues http://bit.ly/awFbwm
    Rolling Stone: The Spill, The Scandal and the President. June 2010 http://bit.ly/d3Bjcm

    Vanity Fair: A Solution to America’s Wild Horse Crisis? June 2010 http://bit.ly/a7Esyd
    Wild Horses: Management or Stampede to Extinction? Reno Gazette Special http://bit.ly/stampede2ext
    Ken Salazar's "candy shop": Denver Post Guest Commentary, June 2010 http://bit.ly/aNbLz9
    ‘Herd-Watch: Public Eyes for Public Horses’ http://bit.ly/9Wvh58
    Roundup Schedule- updated May 2010 http://bit.ly/a0xcq7
    Informative Blog: American Herds http://americanherds.blogspot.com/
    Photos, video and interviews available from:
    The Cloud Foundation  ~ makendra@thecloudfoundation.org
    The Cloud Foundation is a 501(c)3 non-profit dedicated to the preservation and protection of wild horses and burros on our Western public lands with a focus on protecting Cloud's herd in the Pryor Mountains of Montana.
    107 S. 7th St. - Colorado Springs, CO 80905 - 719-633-3842 www.thecloudfoundation.org

    Enhanced by Zemanta

    4/17/10

    In The Spirit of Compromise?

    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

    Updates will be posted as soon as received.

    Date/2010
    Comments - Saturday and Sunday data will not be posted until the following Monday.
    Friday,
    April 16

    Most stallions and weaned colts are doing well and gaining weight.  Mares from Black Rock East, Black Rock West and most Granite horses continue to do well.  Mares from Warm Springs and Calico are improving.  Mares that have been isolated for poor condition are gaining weight.  No miscarriages occurred.  Mares are actively foaling and new foals are born daily.  Work to geld horses four years and younger began today.

    Facility Death: 0 Cumulative Death total: 79

    Well, well. Ain't this fine? Hot off the BLM presses just yesterday - the same day Laura Leigh dropped her lawsuit against the BLM for the Sheldon disaster. The BLM has a "new plan" to create a mega-plex for the horses in the west. So, Laura decided to give them the benefit of the doubt, and as she said, "In the spirit of compromise," she would drop the suit.

    This is the BLM's way of thanking her I guess. Maybe they feel this isn't violating their agreement not to geld any stallions before the IDA lawsuit is settled. Technically, the horses they are gelding are not stallions - because they are four years old or younger, they are colts. Right.

    I was really getting my hopes up here. Maybe the BLM had realized they were between a rock and a hard place and was ready to actually do something. Perhaps, just maybe, the BLM was ready to have constructive dialogs with advocates like Laura.

    What was I thinking? How can anyone have a "dialog" with people like this?

    Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

    3/20/10

    URGENT Alert From American Herds! URGENT!

    American Herds: Two For One
    Friday, March 19, 2010
    Two For One
    While juggling too many things at once, time slipped by and I never even opened the proposals until two days ago. With only just days left, here is what I found….

    The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) simultaneously issued two press releases and two proposals, both related but neither mentions the other.

    The first is a proposal to ram through the establishment of Appropriate Management Levels for 11 Wild Horse and Burro Territories (WHTs) that will be used forever more to round up any wild horses or burros that exceed these levels. The second is a notice that they will be preparing an Environmental Impact Statement to evaluate and re-authorize livestock grazing for much of these same areas.

    Both are presenting skeletal information and ancient data at best and I have worked unsuccessfully for hours trying fill in the mountains of gaps these proposals are omitting from the public.

    Before getting into the few specific details about the area I was able to glean during my research, it is imperative to explain how they are manipulating the public process here.

    We have laws that mandate how the agencies must conduct themselves; laws that mandate quality data, accountability for agency actions, specific guidelines about what and how they must review proposals and how they must involve of the public in order to ensure our Nation doesn’t evolve into a dictatorship of secrecy and tyranny.

    With that said, this is how they are trying to get around these laws….

    First off, when the government proposes to do something, they must make an announcement in the Federal Register. This is the equivalent of the government’s newspaper and serves to conform to the requirements that the government must notify the public of an action. The Federal Register also serves as a legal record of the agency’s actions and establishes the legal parameters for the project.

    Secondly, when a proposal is announced, the agency is suppose to follow set procedures on how they process the proposal, which include adequate opportunities for public involvement, honest evaluations of what they are about to do and must publish as current as information and data as they have available for sincere analysis.

    Lastly, they are NOT suppose to issue proposals to the public that already contain foregone conclusions and completed decisions. In other words, the “evaluation process” is suppose to be just that: an ongoing analysis that includes public input and looks at options, tries to find alternatives that serve the greater good and reach decisions after they have analyzed all the data and input.

    How this process evolves goes something like this…

    First, they issue a notice to the public called a “Scoping Notice”. This is a very loose based overview of what they are going to do and they ask the public to provide comments to determine the scope of what the agency should consider, look at, include and develop alternatives in their preparation of the next phase of the process, which is the environmental assessment (EA).

    From here, the agency collects everything they gathered during the scoping process and now assemble it in a more organized format that includes alternatives, what the issues are and - if there are problems - how to fix or mitigate them, as well as outlining as best they can the foreseeable consequences of what implementing these different alternatives will do.

    Once assembled, the agency releases what is called a “preliminary EA” so the public has a more detailed document to review about what the proposal will really cover and how the different alternatives will achieve different results. The public is suppose to be provided another opportunity to provide input and comments, which generally extends for 30 days.

    After the agency receives more public comments on the preliminary EA, they go back and write a “Final EA”, based on that input, and tweak the proposal further with the goal of refining it and making it the best possible plan they can. Again, the Final EA is released for public review, another round of comments and input is requested and finally, the agency, after having looked at all angles and incorporating as many concerns, finding solutions to problems that may arise, yada, yada, releases the final decision.

    Now from here, there are two things that can happen. The first is, after all this review, the agency determines if the EA adequately addressed the action and concerns. They are required by law to go down a checklist of items of what has been deemed “significant”. If it is determined that the proposal will not significantly affect “the quality of human life”, they stop the analysis process and issue a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), which essentially states the EA covered everything and its time to move on.

    However, if this process revealed that the proposal was going to have a larger, more significant impact than they first suspected, then they are required to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) to examine the proposal more in depth.

    The agencies loath to create EIS’s because they require a lot more data, analysis, take more time to prepare and grant the public even more time to review, ask questions and provide feed back in a mandated time frame of 90 days. Also, once a decision is issued that an EIS must be performed, the whole process starts again with a Scoping Notice, a Preliminary EIS and a Proposed EIS – all with adequate public involvement - and issuing a final decision is only possible after all of the requirements of the law, as described above, have been followed.

    So with that background, here is what USFS is trying to do….

    They issued two proposals, one for the WH&B AMLs and one for the livestock grazing.

    The livestock grazing is being issued under a Scoping Notice to prepare an EIS, the big daddy of the proposals.

    The WH&B proposal is being issued under a Scoping Notice to prepare an EA, the more minor version of analysis.

    From this point on, they deviate from these legally mandated processes, as they blatantly announce in the WH&B AML proposal that:

    “Preliminary analysis, displayed below, indicates that impacts to affected resources would be minor and short-term in nature (Table 4). The final results of the analysis will be displayed in the Environmental Assessment (EA) being prepared. If there is no potential for significant impacts, that finding along with the environmental assessment and a decision notice will be released for public information. If any comments are received on the proposed action then a 45-day appeal period will be provided after release of the environmental assessment and Decision Notice/Finding of No Significant Impact. If the environmental assessment concludes that there is a potential for significant impacts then an environmental impact statement would be prepared. Your comments will help us prepare an environmental impact statement”

    The short version of this bureaucratic language is:

    -Before USFS even released the very first Scoping document to the public, they have already made a decision that a decision will be issued at the same time the first preliminary EA is released.

    -They have already decided that when it comes to establishing the WH&B AMLs, it is not a significant action and they will issue a FONSI – before the public ever even gets to see what they put together for the preliminary EA – the decision will already be issued.

    -They have already decided that if the public has a problem with this, our only recourse is to take them to court during the appeal process. (And then they will cry later about how they are always getting sued by the “environmental fringe”, never mentioning how - if they weren’t riding roughshod over the laws they are suppose to be following - they might be able to cut down on these lawsuits significantly.)

    Meanwhile, while analyzing wild horse and burro management and their impacts to the range is deemed insignificant and only worthy of a pre-decided EA, when it come to livestock grazing management, they are going to prepare a full blown EIS.

    However, they are NOT going to consider both wild horses and burros and livestock in the same proposal. The current plan, as written, will ram the wild horse and burro AMLs through before they even look at the livestock grazing and so, the decisions on "appropriate" use by wild horses and burros will already be a done deal.

    The reason they are doing this is so they won’t have to provide a document that analyzes wild horses, burros, wildlife and livestock grazing side by side - because if they do this, it provides two, very real problems they don’t want to have to address.

    The firstproblem is, they don’t want a comparison document to show that livestock are getting the lions share of the resources while in many cases, wild horses and burros are being given only enough forage to cover “incidental use” (this means they 1-3 animals can be sighted occasionally on the livestock allotment but if any band tries to set up camp, they will be removed).

    The second problem is, if they examine wild horses and burros in the same document as livestock, then they have to examine and develop an alternative that sincerely looks at and considers reducing livestock grazing to support sustainable wild horse and burro populations – and we can’t have that, can we?

    What else are they trying to do to circumvent laws and public involvement?

    Here are some other things I noted during my research of the Wild Horse & Burro AML proposal:

    -They only offer two alternatives; not setting AMLs, which is illegal, and setting the AMLs they have already proposed based on input from BLM.

    -They clearly state that, “Monitoring and management of the wild horse resource is outdated or non-existent”. Setting AMLs without monitoring and resource information is also illegal but that doesn’t seem to concern them here.

    -The AML established in 1983 for the Little Fish Lake Wild Horse Territory and co-joining BLM Little Fish Lake HMA was “mistakenly” interpreted to only include horses" (not burros) and there is NO effort to remedy this mistake in the current proposal!

    For extra added intrigue, USFS states the current AMLs for the Little Fish Lake have already been established in 1983 at: “Minimal AML” 64; simmer and winter occupancy by at least 16-28 wild horses”. However, they are proposing to INCREASE the AMLs to 80-139. Except, they also state that these wild horses interact with BLMs North Monitor and Little Fish Creek HMA and they want to limit wild horse populations from “overstocking” the BLM HMAs in the winter. What makes this kind of funny is, BLM has a maximum AML of 47 wild horses for these two HMAs, so is the numbers USFS proposing now at these much higher levels really correct?

    -In some cases, the AMLs they propose are pathetically low such as 15-30 wild horses on 144,599 acres for the Toquima WHT, 3-8 wild horses on 13,025 acres in Northumberland (yes, 9 horses will be considered an “overpopulation”) or 8-16 wild horses on 20,902 acres in Kelly Creek.

    -The map they provide to the public of the proposal area is so old and outdated, it included a Herd Area once known as Willow Creek that was re-zoned and incorporated into the Stone Cabin HMA years ago - as well as entirely omitting North Monitor and Hickson HMAs.

    -During removal operations, public notices will only be provided in Eureka, Austin and Tonopah as to the dates of the removal operations and where public access will be restricted, which will be limited to roads near corral sites and within areas where horses are actively being gathered (no mention of burros made even though one of the areas they are setting new AMLs on contains only burros).

    There’s a lot more information I would like to tell people about but the bottom line is, they just aren’t including it for public review and truly, this is a travesty of the system and processes established to prevent just this sort of thing from happening!

    With that said, the public has three days to try and change the course of history here and whether they are going to get away with this or not.

    First, public comments need to be submitted to the USFS about their livestock grazing proposal. Quite simply put, we need to demand that they set the wild horse and burro AMLs in the Livestock EIS so that we can compare the forage allocations between livestock, review rangeland health data, see how much water is in the areas and look at alternatives that would manage the wild horses and burros in equal consideration.

    Second, we need to tell USFS the same thing regarding their proposal to set the AMLs for the wild horses and burros; that this needs to be done in conjunction with the livestock grazing EIS, not separately.

    It is also very important to remind USFS that it is not appropriate (or legal) to already have reached a decision about what they are going to do before they even release the first EA to the public. At the very least, they need to provide an additional 30-day comment period after releasing the EA to allow the public to see some relevant information and sincere alternatives before they issue the Final Decision.

    Here is the contact information and deadlines for public comments for each proposal.


    Livestock Grazing EIS
    Hot Creek-Monitor Rangeland Project
    Deadline: Monday, March 22, 2010, 4:30 p.m. pst.

    Submit comments to:
    Austin/Tonopah Ranger District
    District Ranger Steven Wiliams
    Email at:
    comments-intermtn-humboldt-toiyabe-austin-tonopah@fs.fed.us


    Wild Horse & Burro AML Proposal
    Deadline: Friday, March 26, 2010 4:30 p.m. pst

    While an email address was provided for the livestock grazing proposal, USFS didn’t extend this courtesy for the WH&B Proposal (imagine that….) However, Barbara Warner of American Horse Defense Fund tracked down an email address for the responsible officer at:,

    Heather Mobley hmobley@fs.fed.us
    Or Fax: (775) 964-1451


    Links to the relevant USFS Notices/Documents:

    Hot Creek-Monitor Rangeland Project

    Wild Horse and Burro Appropriate Management Levels
    Posted by Preserve The Herds at 5:05 PM


    Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

    3/13/10

    March for Mustangs!


    March for Mustangs

    Rally for wild horses and burros in
    Washington DC ~ March 25th 

    Take Action for Wild Horses and Burros! Over 25 protests have taken place from coast to coast and now the hoofbeats are headed to Washington DC. Please join us on Thursday, March 25th in Washington DC: March for Mustangs. Take action today to save these incredible animals who are currently being managed to extinction on our public lands.
    Cloud's Flag by Vivian Grant
    Time: 1:00-3:00pm, Press conference and speakers at 1:30pm (Hope Ryden, author "America's Last Wild Horses," Filmmaker Ginger Kathrens, Author RT Fitch, Friends of Animals Director Priscilla Feral, In Defense of Animals President Dr. Elliot Katz, Filmmaker James Kleinert, mustang owner Jo De George and many more- including special guests to be announced!)
    Where: Lafayette Park located directly across from White House at 16 Street and H Street, NW. Around 3:00pm protesters will march with homemade signs and large banners to the BLM office at 1849 'C' Street.
    Friday: Mustangs on the Hill II - On Friday morning we’ll brief people on meeting with their Senators and Congressional Representatives to save the mustangs and burros. Please schedule an appointment with your US Senators and Representative for Thursday morning or Friday. More details will be posted on our events calendar soon.

    Driving? Check out the Ride Share to connect with other advocates in your area to get to DC - Click here


    Plus Disappointment Valley... A Modern Day Western  Special DC Screening of the new documentary on our wild horses and burros in the West by James Kleinert on Wednesday evening, March 24th from 6:00-8:00pm at Busboys and Poets. Ginger Kathrens will join James for a Q&A afterwards- please ask media to attend. Details here


    DC Rally co-sponsored by The Cloud Foundation, the Equine Welfare Alliance, Friends of Animals, In Defense of Animals, Int'l Fund for Horses & many more with thanks to co-organizer Jo De George.
    March for Mustangs images: Vivian Grant, Int'l Fund for Horses


    Reblog this post [with Zemanta] 

    3/8/10

    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.

    Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
    "From my earliest memories, I have loved horses with a longing beyond words." ~ Robert Vavra