"The love for a horse is just as complicated as the love for another human being... If you never love a horse, you will never understand."
~ Author Unknown
WASHINGTON, DC, (Horseback) - California's Sen. Barbara Boxer released a letter
demanding answers from Interior Secretary Ken Salazar regarding the embattled Bureau of Land Management. It's Wild Horse and Burro Program is under fire after the deaths of scores of horses in a mid-winter "gather" in Nevada's Calico Mountains.
The horses were stampeded into holding pens after a grueling chase by a roaring helicopter over rockey ground in freezing weather. Two foals died after losing their hooves in an excruciating lingering death.
Dear Secretary Salazar:
I am writing to thank you for your recent attention to the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM's) Wild Horse and Burro Program and to seek information that would help me evaluate your proposed refoms to this program.
Wild horses and burros are majestic symbols of the American west and are beloved by many people for their remarkable intelligence, grace, beauty, and power. Unfortunately, these charismatic animals have also been at the center of great controversy for many decades.
Commercial harvesting once threatened wild horses and burros until public outrage led to their protection under the 1971 Wild and Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act. After working to recover these species for many years, the BLM has recently begun trying to reduce populations once more due to concerns that the animals are now overpopulated. The BLM contends that unchecked population growth has led to decimation of forage, starvation, competition with native animals, and land use conflicts. However, many animal rights advocates contend that the animals are healthy when left alone in the wild and that the BLM's efforts to control populations are jeopardizing the survival of these iconic species.
To better understand your recent proposal for reforming the BLM's Wild Horse and Burro Program and evaluate these different arguments, I would appreciate it if you could answer the following questions:
What techniques are used to estimate wild horse and burro populations, assess the genetic viability of herds, and determine appropriate management levels? Has there been any independent verification of the BLM's techniques or data to ensure that they are based in sound science?
What are the disadvantages of allowing wild horses and burros to remain unchecked in the wild? Has there been any independent documentation of the BLM's claims about the health of these animals, their impact on environmental conditions, and the need to remove them?
How does BLM ensure the humane treatment of wild horses and burros during roundups and retention in holding facilities? Has there been any independent confirmation of the humaneness of the BLM's treatment of these animals? Are there any alternative methods for rounding up the horses that might be less disruptive to these animals and possibly make them more suitable for adoption?
Do you have any specific sites in mind for the National Wild Horse Preserves that would be established under your new proposal? How many acres would be needed for these preserves? How many preserves would be federal and how many private?
How much would it cost to establish and manage these National Wild Horse Preserves? Can you provide me with a cost-benefit analysis comparing this proposal with the status quo and with leaving the horses where they are currently found?
This is a complex and emotional issue with important long-term ramifications for the future of our wild horse and burros. I appreciate your attention to this matter and your look forward to your timely response.
We can’t slaughter our way to horse welfare by Duane Burright
CHICAGO, (EWA) By now everyone is familiar with the subject of horses being neglected or starved, along with the claims from those in agricultural circles that slaughter is “necessary” to prevent horse neglect and that it is a way to dispose of unwanted horses. I’ve been hearing that litany from all of the agricultural publications and blogs, the American Quarter Horse Association (AQHA), the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA), the National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA), various state Farm Bureaus and from a group of clueless politicians including Illinois Rep. Jim Sacia, Sue Wallis of Wyoming and former Texas congressman and paid slaughter lobbyist, Charles Stenholm.
I find it odd that they see slaughter as being the solution for horse neglect, but when it comes to neglected or starving cattle, they are stumped. In this USA Today article Starving cattle amid high prices for feed in Neb, Steven Stanec, executive director of the Nebraska Brand Committee, a state agency that helps police the cattle industry stated that “Neglect cases are on the rise, and what’s causing it, I’m not sure. We’re having whole herds of hundreds of cattle being neglected.”
In doing a simple Google search I found other related headlines which show that cattle starving to death is a fairly widespread problem. Officials raid farm with 30 dead, 100 plus starving cows, Starving cows rescued near Paisley on road to recovery and Starving cattle seized in Lake County.
According to the National Agricultural Statistics Service, 34.4 million cattle were slaughtered in 2008, that’s an average of 94,247 cows slaughtered per day. According to Cattle Network, beef production is up over last year.
Now with all of those cattle going to slaughter, one would wonder why cattle neglect is happening. Using the logic that the AQHA, AVMA, NCBA, Farm Bureaus and the other proponents of the horse slaughter industry apply to starving or neglected horses that “slaughtering prevents neglect”, one would think that we wouldn’t have problems with starving or neglected cattle. Yet guys like Steven Stanec aren’t sure why cattle neglect cases are on the rise.
What further weakens the argument that "slaughter is needed to prevent horse neglect" is that while all of these articles have been written about neglected and starving horses, the option of horse slaughter has been available in the United States. Horse owners can take the horses they no longer want to keep to the local livestock auction and the neighborhood friendly kill buyers will happily take the horse off their hands.
According to statistics from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) 134,059 American horses have been slaughtered at the European owned plants in Canada and Mexico in 2008. American horses still continue to go to slaughter as you read this, so the slaughter pipeline continues to function despite the claims to the contrary.
The reality is that slaughter has nothing to do with animal welfare. Since slaughter apparently doesn’t magically solve the problem of starving and neglected cattle, it is fallacy to think that slaughter will solve the problem of starving and neglected horses. The problem of cattle being neglected is due to the current economic crisis, that same economic crisis is making it difficult for horse owners.
In fact, a study released in June of 2008 showed there was no correlation between horse slaughter and neglect, but a clear linkage between unemployment and neglect. Prophetically, the study warned in its conclusions that if economic conditions continued to deteriorate an upward trend in neglect could be expected.
The AQHA, AVMA, NCBA, Farm Bureaus and all of their political allies put a lot of time, energy and money into supporting horse slaughter. If these special interest groups were to focus all of those resources on solving the nation’s economic problems rather than supporting a foreign owned industry that doesn't even pay their taxes, we might be able to get something done.
It is a pity they are so narrow minded.
Duane Burright is a software engineer by trade, aside from horses and their welfare he’s also interested in American musclecars, vintage electric fans, computers and software design. He has been involved in the campaign to make the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act (AHSPA) law since 2003 and is a supporter of a nearby wild horse sanctuary.”
I was not surprised that Dr Tom Lenz, past president of the American Association of Equine Practitioners, readily credited the organisation for coining the phrase "Unwanted Horse" in his article "The Unwanted Horse in the United States - International Implications". It is a coup d'etat of language choice for those American equine practitioners lobbying hardest to maintain a US export market for horsemeat.
Dr Lenz manages to equate "unwanted" with "slaughtered for human consumption" and with "should be slaughtered for human consumption, but aren't, because we need additional slaughter plants on American soil".
Slaughter advocates might consider it nothing short of a stroke of genius.
The phrase "unwanted horse" may well play a role in much of the mass confusion in the debate on horse slaughter among the American general public, horse-owners and horse welfare advocates alike.
Horses slaughtered are neither privately nor socially "unwanted", for they command a positive price both at auction and at the slaughter plant gate - and I suspect that if they did not, we would not be having this debate at all.
As any Economics 101 student can tell you, positive prices signal not "unwanted-ness", but scarcity.
There is no question - and what drives fear into the most vehement supporters and even some opponents of horse slaughter - that a universal ban on the slaughter of American horses will eliminate a source of demand for horses in the lower end of the market, as slaughter plant buyers and associated dealers exit.
This shift down in demand - in the efficient second price auction markets that are by far the largest source of horses to slaughter - will unambiguously reduce equilibrium prices, thereby increasing private ownership of auction-intermediated horses, and reducing private supply to those markets.
However, even better news is that this credible, permanent contraction in financial rewards to disposal of low-value horses through auctions will, assuming that breeders are rational decision-makers, reduce the incentive to produce such horses at all.
Over a period of time, such a reduction in supply at all prices will, by increasing scarcity in the American equine industry, raise equilibrium prices and - one would hope - the average quality of horses produced.
Natural results will be a substantial contraction in auction intermediated sales of horses and, ultimately, a higher value and higher quality horse market.
All of which leads me to wonder why the elimination of horse slaughter is so hotly debated at all, for reducing the excessive production of poor quality horses will presumably render the American equine much more "wantable".
In a very important sense, Dr Lenz is correct, however. The issues of his "unwanted horse" and the horse processed for meat cannot be separated.
In announcing its response to new EU restrictions to assure horsemeat safety, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) has acknowledged what has (presumably) long been known. Phenylbutazone - or "bute" - an extremely common equine non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medication, is a banned substance in horsemeat for human consumption.
Specifically, the CFIA classifies bute as a "veterinary drug not permitted for use in equines slaughtered for food", its residue causing permanent toxicity in horse meat, with no period of quarantine being able to eliminate that toxicity.
This public and socially responsible CFIA acknowledgement brings a new clarity to the "unwanted horse" debate.
After all, of Dr Lenz's "unwanted horses" - the old, the injured, the sick, the unmanageable, the incurably lame - how many have not had bute administered at some point in his or her life?
As one public example, a brief glance at the Daily Racing Form is sufficient to confirm that the vast majority of American racehorses, who are known to ship frequently to European Union-licensed plants in Canada and Mexico for slaughter and export to European diners, certainly have had bute administered. So let me suggest that Dr Lenz's "unwanted horse" be renamed "the toxic horse" - unwanted but not slaughtered, unwanted and slaughtered, unwanted and should be slaughtered, it matters not.
The flesh of "unwanted horses" is acknowledged to be toxic when consumed by humans. And who among the politicians, equine practitioners, and veterinarians lobbying to prevent a ban on the slaughter of American horses - in the name of equine welfare - would wish to be responsible for the deleterious impact for human welfare associated with promoting the slaughter of toxic horses?
Caroline Betts holds a PhD in economics. She is an Associate Professor in the Department of Economics at the University of Southern California. The views expressed in this article are her own, given in a personal capacity, and do not represent those of the university.
HORSE SLAUGHTER: Ending the Madness of Equicide: Part 1
By Marion Altieri
Thirty years ago, in the fall of 1978, when racing was more about sport and less about dollars, the great Hall of Fame trainer Charlie Whittingham brought the wonderful racehorse Exceller to New York in search of an Eclipse Award title. To do that he would need to defeat not one but two Triple Crown champions.
Born the year a horse named Secretariat put thoroughbred racing on the front covers of Time and Newsweek, Exceller, a son of Vaguely Noble from Bald Eagle’s mare, the champion Too Bald, shipped into Belmont Park after having won the San Juan Capistrano, Hollywood Invitational, Hollywood Gold Cup and, under a steadying 130 pounds, the Sunset Handicap, Grade 1 races all.
But the time had come to show the Eastern racing establishment what he could do by coming to the right coast for two races in which the five-year-old bay colt would take on Seattle Slew and Affirmed in the storied Woodward and Jockey Club Gold Cup Stakes.
In the five-horse Woodward, the speed of Seattle Slew was simply too dominating. Slew, always taking the lead from the start, set realistic fractions shadowed by Exceller throughout, but 10 furlongs in 2:00-flat was simply too much speed to overcome. Slew won by four lengths comfortably.
However, Whittingham figured that the Jockey Club’s mile and a half would be a great equalizer, and that the addition of the speedy Affirmed to keep Slew honest, would level the playing field.
As expected, Seattle Slew took the lead at the start of the 1978 Gold Cup but was pressed through wild early fractions by Affirmed, a run-off beneath jockey Steve Cauthen whose saddled had slipped. Cauthen was fighting to maintain control, adding a sense of drama and danger to a race that didn’t need either.
Calling fractions of :45 1/5 and 1:09 2/5 going a mile and a half punishing doesn’t begin to tell the tale. While this suicidal pace was on, and having little choice, the great Shoemaker bided his time on Exceller, at one point 22 lengths behind the leader, perhaps even farther back between calls.
Approaching Belmont’s sweeping far turn, Shoemaker made his move and Exceller cut into Seattle Slew’s lead with every stride. In a little over two furlongs, Slew’s advantage had evaporated. Exceller took a half length lead as the duo straightened away into the long Belmont straight.
Tiring from his unexpectedly maniacal duel with Affirmed, Seattle Slew drifted out in the final furlong but, incredibly, began to re-rally, bringing everyone who wasn’t already standing to their feet. Slew was so wide that no one in the building had a clue who had won the race and, after an interminable delay, it was official, Exceller by a nose.
In defeat Triple Crown champion Seattle Slew had run the race of his life, becoming an even bigger star by erasing any lingering doubts as to his true greatness. Exceller, the courageous winner of this celebrated marathon in a worthy 2:27 1/5 at sloppy Belmont Park, had become the back-story, a footnote to Jockey Club Gold Cup history. To view the race in it's entirety, click here.
Considering that Exceller eventually would retire as one of the sport’s first equine millionaires with earnings of almost $1.7 million, winning nearly half his 33 lifetime starts, he wasn’t a very lucky individual.
Indeed, Exceller never would win a major championship and retired after finishing third in his career finale, the G1 Century Handicap, in the April following his Gold Cup triumph. But who could have known that his troubles were only beginning.
* * *
Thirty years later, in May of this year, the air was thick with an uneasy sense coming from the podium. James J. Hickey, Jr., President of the American Horse Council, was addressing the august body of equine lawyers and journalists assembled at the University of Kentucky Equine Law Seminar in Lexington.
The participants, over 250 industry professionals, sat cheek-to-jowl patiently awaiting Hickey’s take on a number of concerns facing the industry and the AHC’s role in it. Reading from a text, he spent about 25 minutes talking about the law, lobbying, and loopholes, until a solitary questioner rose his hand.
“What is the American Horse Council’s stand on horse slaughter?”
After a lengthy pause, Hickey stated flatly that the American Horse Council is neutral on the subject. He explained it had to be that way because the organization’s members came down on both sides of the issue. Then, without hesitation or further explanation, Hickey hastily thanked his audience for their attention and the program was over.
The American Horse Council is one of the more visible organizations representing all groups whose lives are tethered to horses, whether those horses be Standardbreds, Quarter Horses, Paints or the Thoroughbred, the most visible of all breeds. On balance, the AHC does endeavor to be a force for positive change.
Another organization professing to have the welfare of horses to justify their existence is People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Known as PETA, they surface opportunistically and while the whole world is watching, this year outside the gates of Pimlico and Belmont Park following the tragic accident that befell the filly Eight Belles, who broke down while pulling up after finishing second in Big Brown’s Kentucky Derby.
Horse slaughter, too, is a huge problem for racing and the sport is under attack from overenthusiastic groups like PETA. PETA’s modus operandi is to encourage well meaning converts to carry signs and speak out helter skelter against the racing industry while depending on these zealots for their existence. But while purporting to save animals, PETA has a vested economic interest in maintaining the status quo. According to its 2006 tax return, PETA raised nearly $30 million, their officers receiving $5 million in compensation.
Worse is the official PETA policy that contradicts the marketing of its brand image to the public, namely the killing of feral stray dogs and cats. PETA believes and convinces its members that these creatures are better off dead at the hand of a PETA official than in the homes of a new owner that “would abuse the animal” anyway, or worse. It‘s a practice they don‘t openly advertise.
PETA, whose executive director earns $500,000 annually, does important work and makes a positive difference but remains a thorn in the side of the horse racing industry. Their stated mission is to shut down Thoroughbred racing and the industry would do well not to underestimate PETA’s determination and ability to sway the American public.
Equicide, defined here as the slaughter of equines for money, is still practiced in this country on a de facto basis. While the slaughter of horses has been banned since 2007, the practice is enabled by people who sell their unwanted horses to the killers who then van them across the border to Canadian and Mexican slaughterhouses.
Every day, horses, burros and donkeys are crammed into trucks, hauled across the border where they’re shot in the face--stunned a “penetrating captive bolt”-- until their necks are slit while their hearts still beat. They then are strung up by one hoof until they bleed out.
The cruel practice of shipping American equines to foreign countries to be butchered is a problem that 70 percent of Americans believe is wrong and want abolished. “Our 10.5 million members, that’s one out of every 30 Americans, demand this practice be stopped. They want to see the slaughter end,” said Nancy Perry, Vice President of Government Affairs, Humane Society of the United States.
Horses are slaughtered for many reasons all coming down to the same thing: money. First to benefit are middlemen who buy the unwanted horses at auction and arrange for them shipped to foreign countries where they’re butchered for eventual sale. Horse meat sells for $20 a pound in France. A good draft horse can bring a stunning price because there’s a lot more meat on their bones. Horses are being punished for the crime of being alive at the wrong time, in the wrong place.
Last year, 301 Paint horses were sold to killer-buyers in a rigged auction at Stephenville, Texas. “Rigged” auctions allow only killer-buyer bidders into the building. Hearing about the incident and learning that 12 more Paints were to be sold the following day, country music legend Willie Nelson attended the auction and adopted the 12 horses on the spot, retiring them to his Texas farm.
“The killers are buying more horses now than when the plants in the U.S. were open,” Nelson told HRI. “My family and I have been working with the Animal Welfare Institute to outlaw the practice of horse slaughter for the last seven years. But every five minutes we fail to act, an American horse is slaughtered in Mexico or Canada.”
One such place is the city-owned slaughterhouse in Juarez, Mexico, literally a stone’s throw from El Paso, Texas, making the job of killer-buyers easier. “The continued legality of killer-buyers is a predatory, opportunistic and foreign-driven business that we should not allow to operate on our soil,” Perry added.
Written by Marion Altieri
Edited by: John Pricci
Part 2 of HORSE SLAUGHTER: Ending the Madness of Equicide
By Marion Altieri
The mantra “unwanted horses” is the rallying cry for pro-slaughter advocates. This group believes that slaughtering unwanted horses is more humane than if the horses were neglected or abandoned, allowed to die a slow death. It’s a resolution that conveniently ignores the humane component.
John Holland works with the group Americans Against Horse Slaughter and is a staunch defender of horses. In his research paper, “The Relationship Between Horse Slaughter and Reported Cases of Abuse and Neglect” the charts, graphs and text indicate that the reduction of horse slaughter does not significantly increase neglect and abuse of unwanted animals.
Russell Williams, vice president of Hanover Shoe Farms, the largest and most prestigious Standardbred farm in the United States, emphasizes that as long as slaughter is available, alternatives won’t be considered, that it’s nothing more than death made an easy first option for owners and breeders looking to shun their responsibility. “We’ve got to keep in mind that [breeding and racing] brings with it an obligation to properly handle the unwanted horses we end up with. If we don’t eliminate slaughter, we’ll never come to grips with proper ways to solve that problem. It’s expensive, and it’s hard, but it’s got to be done.”
Jackson Knowlton, managing partner of the Sackatoga Stables group that owns 2003 Kentucky Derby champion Funny Cide and a member of the New York State Task Force on Retired Racehorses, places the responsibility of equine welfare squarely in his own lap and those of his peers. “From an owner’s perspective, we all have a responsibility to assure that the horses we race have a happy and healthy retirement. I believe that all owners should share in the financial responsibility to assure that this becomes a reality.”
The most humane solution is not necessarily an easy decision, however, even if it’s the only option available. Hall of Fame trainer Nick Zito and his wife Kim have been active slaughter abolitionists for years. “The main thing is that this problem has been going on for too long; we’ve been aware for a very long time now. ‘What do you do with these horses?’ If you must, and only absolutely must, you euthanize them. Look, we all know the humane thing to do, and we have to do it. You don’t send horses to be slaughtered.”
In addition to making horsemen responsible for the privilege of ownership, there are two other possible ways to address the problem of unwanted horses. The first is staggeringly simple: Don’t make so many of them. Last year alone, 161,313 new foals hit the ground: 9,133 Standardbreds, 34,350 Thoroughbreds, and an astounding 117,830 Quarter Horses.
According to the American Quarter Horse Association web-site, there are over three million Quarter Horses in the U. S. alone. The AQHA is funded via the process of registering American Quarter Horse foals. These staggering numbers are made possible through artificial insemination. One good stallion can be responsible for 5,000 foals a year, a conservative estimate say some.
If a Quarter Horse doesn’t have the talent to earn his way, becomes ill, or just doesn‘t have the physical tools, the slaughter option makes it easy. It’s not difficult to understand why the AQHA is a vocal advocate for horse slaughter. Last year, 76,000 horses were slaughtered according to the Humane Society’s Perry, who added that slaughterhouses are on track to butcher 100,000 horses in 2008.
It’s encouraging that not all Quarter Horse owners feel the same way about slaughter as policy. “How could I not be opposed to this appalling cruelty,” asked Steven Long, an owner of retired Quarter Horses and author/editor of the publication “Texas Horse Talk.” “These are the creatures that built America. The agribusiness industry views them as a commodity. I have many cowboy friends, and I love them, but they’re just wrong. Horse slaughter must end now.”
Until the enabling of slaughter is abolished in this country, there are other options. Horses can have a career that doesn’t involve beating other horses to a finish post. The U.S. Department of Agriculture sent a questionnaire to horse owners seeking to learn how horses can have a second career. “There’s such a big area but it’s expensive,” said Thoroughbred breeder-owner Frank Maner of Quiet Oak Farm in upstate New York. “There’s so many horses being sold who never race. We need a middleman, an organization to find new owners, to broker [an exchange].”
There are many worthy retirement organizations doing important work, such as the Exceller Fund, named for the 1978 Gold Cup hero. Trainer Gary Contessa is the new president of the Exceller Fund, a non-profit organization that transitions former racehorses into new careers. “My whole life has been built around racehorses. I see this as an opportunity to give even more back to these wonderful animals,” said last year’s record-setting trainer on the New York circuit.
“I have numerous retired Thoroughbreds at my farm in upstate New York and have b een a major supporter of the Thoroughbred Retirement Foundation and Equine Advocates. But I want to do more. My primary focus will be in raising awareness and funds for the continuing care of horses,” Contessa said when named the organization’s president last month.
The best hope for insuring that the slaughter of American horses stops is H.R. 6598, the Conyers-Burton Prevention of Equine Cruelty Act of 2008 introduced by Rep. John Conyers (D-Michigan), Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. The bill’s passage, approved by voice vote in committee Tuesday night, would prohibit the sale and transport of horses to foreign countries for slaughter and eventual human consumption. While the bill has heightened awareness in the halls of power, it still needs public support.
“As a Representative of one of the premiere Thoroughbred racetracks in the U.S., Saratoga Race Course, I find it imperative that we pass this commonsense piece of legislation,” said Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-New York). Sandy Treadwell, her Republican counterpart, who’s running for Congress, failed to return repeated phone calls seeking comment.
“H.R. 6598 is the best chance we’ve had in years to pass this legislation,” affirmed Willie Nelson. “Call your representatives today and ask them to co-sponsor H.R. 6598. Tell them their decision should be an easy one.” “Those who are trying to stop this are responsible for horse’s deaths,” added Perry. “The bill’s passage is urgent.”
Like most Thoroughbred horsemen, the august Jockey Club, the sport’s registrar, wants equicide abolished. “The Jockey Club is opposed to the slaughter or processing of Thoroughbreds for consumption by humans or animals. This includes the sale and/or transportation of Thoroughbreds for slaughter or processing for consumption by humans or animals. The Jockey Club maintains its long-standing commitment to the care and welfare of Thoroughbreds and believes that Thoroughbreds should at all times be treated humanely and with dignity,” said Bob Curran, Jockey Club vice president of Corporate Communications.
The great Exceller, winner of the Jockey Club Gold Cup run 30 years ago this weekend, never did win a formal championship. And so, after running the race of his life, defeating two Triple Crown champions in the process, Exceller entered stud service at Gainesway Farm in Kentucky. But not long after that he fell out of favor. Foreign interests had begun their assault on the American stud book. Speed had become the commodity of choice, more important than heart or stoutness or versatility or, as some might argue, ultimately, class.
So off Exceller went to Sweden, sold to a bre eder named Gote Ostlund. According to the Exceller Fund web-site, and contrary to rumor, the horse was not infertile. Indeed, he covered more than 40 mares in his final season at stud in Sweden. But Ostlund had made some bad business decisions, went bankrupt, and demanded that Exceller be slaughtered.
In 1997, Exceller, the same year he was nominated for--and would eventually gain--admission into the Racing Hall of Fame in Saratoga Springs, this extraordinary horse found himself in a Swedish slaughterhouse, thousands of miles from the dirt and grass upon which he raced and grazed and achieved greatness, and from the fans who admired and loved him, Exceller was murdered for no good reason.
Gandhi said that a society is judged by its treatment of its weakest members. The Bible teaches people to “rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering toward slaughter.” And, as Edmund Burke reminds us, all’s that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Going forward, as racing fights for its financial and aesthetic survival, pressured from without and within, the horse industry might do well to recall the cautionary words of Martin Niemoller on the subject of the inactions of the past and what it might portend for the future. To wit:
“When the Nazis came for the communists, I remained silent; I was not a communist. When they locked up the social democrats, I remained silent; I was not a social democrat. When they came for the trade unionists, I did not speak out; I was not a trade unionist. When they came for the Jews, I remained silent; I wasn't a Jew. When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out.”
I did vote for you. I was intrigued by your call for "change". You signaled a dramatic new course, one of openness and inclusion. Certainly I applauded your choice of Joe Biden as vice president, a staunch animal welfare advocate.
The promises
During the 2008 campaign you said, "Federal policy towards animals should respect the dignity of animals and their rightful place as cohabitants of our environment. We should strive to protect animals and their habitats and prevent animal cruelty, exploitation and neglect.... I have consistently been a champion of animal-friendly legislation and policy and would continue to be so once elected." You announced that you had co-sponsored legislation to stop the sale for slaughter of wild free-roaming horses and burros. During the election you signed on as co-sponsor to the bill to ban horse slaughter for human consumption. When asked specifically during the campaign, "Will you support legislation ...to institute a permanent ban on horse slaughter and exports of horses for human consumption", you gave an unqualified "Yes". (HSLF questionnaire)
Today, in January, 2010, you are presiding over one of the deadliest, most cruel and unnecessary government roundups of wild horses ever documented by BLM.
As of this writing, more than 2 dozen horses have been killed by helicopters used by your administration to run them off their legally protected herd areas and corral them in long term holding pens. The hooves of two little foals have literally torn off as they ran for their lives from the BLM. BLM's Richard Sanford DVM reported on one, "Multiple hoof sloughs were noted and the foal was euthanized for humane reasons. The cause of these hoof abscesses/sloughs was most likely hoof trauma from the gather operations."
Several mares have also aborted spontaneously or miscarried. This after being forced to run miles from a helicopter and trapped in a corral, terrified, traumatized and forever separated from their herds, their families. A long time BLM official whom you promoted to the job of Assistant Director for Renewable Resources and Planning in the BLM, Edwin Roberson, claims the spontaneous abortions are "the result of the poor condition of many of the older mares and ... directly related to lack of forage on the range." Except that they weren't miscarrying on the range and didn't do so until after they were forced to run hundreds of miles, extremely afraid, and lost their families and freedom forever. Your administration would have us believe that the mares all miscarried in the past few days because of years of eating the forage on the range and it had nothing to do with the severe trauma of the roundup they had just endured?
Wow, your words about respecting animals as co-inhabitants and protecting them in their habitat really ring hollow, don't they? Not to mention I do not see that your administration has lifted a finger, let alone "championed", for "animal-friendly legislation and policy" as promised.
Thousands of citizens have gathered at dozens of ongoing protests of
BLM's policy of extermination towards our wild horses and burros. Tens and even hundreds of thousands more have written and called your administration and Congress, asking you for a moratorium on wild horses and burro roundups, an evaluation and change in policy, like the one you promised. But you seem to have dug in, your attitude reminiscent of President Richard Nixon, refusing even to acknowledge the outcry, let alone the cruelty.
Taxpayer money - the budgets
Calico is only the latest of the roundups of wild horses that have actually accelerated during your administration. In FY 2008, the cost of rounding up and holding these animals was approximately 81.3% of the $36,201,000 budget for the total wild horse and burro program. The BLM wild horse adoption program consumed another 13% of the total budget, leaving a meager 5.8% for monitoring and managing herd areas, census, and compliance inspections. (BLM report - 2010 Budget Justification)
The 2009 budget was $40,613,000 with the increase used for more roundups and holding costs. (BLM report - 2010 Budget Justification)
Then you proposed for FY 2010 a substantial increase in the budget for the wild horses and burros program for a total of $67,486,000 with the entire additional $26, 873,000 to be used for rounding up 12,000 horses and holding what will be a total of about 40,000 horses in pens. (BLM report - 2010 Budget Justification)
Now for FY 2011 you have requested an additional $12 million apparently to defray the costs of holding wild horses and burros in corrals and long term holding facilities.
How do you explain to laid off workers, unemployed fathers and mothers, struggling businesses, and taxpayers shouldering substantial government debt in this worst of economic times, why you want to continue, even step up, round ups of nearly all of the wild horses and burros and put them in costly holding facilities?
What's next - deer, elk, squirrels, rabbits, raccoons?
You appointed Ken Salazar to be the Dept. of Interior Secretary. Sec'y. Salazar supports horse slaughter; he is an avid supporter of taxpayer subsidies of livestock grazing on public lands which BLM has given priority. It has been said that grazing livestock on public lands is a "$132 million loss to the American taxpayer each year and independent economists have estimated the true cost at between $500 million and $1 billion dollars a year." Another burden for the taxpayers.
Sec'y. Salazar also supports oil and gas development so this appointment probably made Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) happy. He conspired with then Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT) in 2004 to legalize slaughter of wild horses and burros and has through special laws and otherwise, facilitated removals of large numbers of these animals from lands in Nevada his contributors want for development, oil and gas drilling and production, mining, recreation and the like. The cattle and even sheep would be allowed to stay and their numbers increased. Whatever is profitable at the expense of the American people's public lands.
Horse slaughter
Needless to say, since your election, you've not said a word about supporting legislation to ban horse slaughter. I guess if you were planning to keep that promise, you would not have appointed Ken Salazar or Bob Abbey. Your BLM Director, Bob Abbey, is a long time BLM employee who as director of the Nevada BLM office signed off on numerous wild horse and burro roundups and sales for slaughter.
Mr. President, the issue is not one of balancing interests, the wild horses and burros, the ranchers, energy development. The issues are integrity, compliance with our laws, and humane treatment of animals.
Sec'y. Salazar has disseminated the outline of a plan, really a culmination of Bush era BLM meetings, that will basically mean moving wild horses and burros to pastures, even feedlots in the Midwest and East, from herd areas and ranges in the west where they are supposed to be "free roaming", managed at the "minimal feasible level" and protected from "capture", "harassment" and "death".
Not only is such a plan contrary to the promise of the Wild Free Roaming Horses and Burros Act, 16 USC §1331 et seq., Nena Winand, DVM, has advised such a move makes no sense because taking horses from their native habitat to pastures in the Midwest or East with different nutrients is likely to cause them to suffer metabolic syndrome. This is one reason why there is an effort to protect "animals and their habitat", recognize "their rightful place as co-habitants" of the earth. (Do you remember that you said that?)
But this, like the explanations for the miscarrying mares, is typical of the lack of science underlying BLM's management of the wild horses and burros. Secy Salazar has asserted as his premise for this plan that exploding numbers of wild horses are responsible for the degradation of the range and must be removed. He adds that this is for the horses and burros' own good because they are also starving. Secy Salazar has asserted this over and over as if repeating it will make it true.
President Obama, your administration has used newspapers and its own websites to try to convince the American people of this. One blogger would remind that it is illegal to use appropriated funds to hire publicity experts. 5 U.S.C. 3107 "Appropriations law "publicity and propaganda" clauses restrict the use of funds for puffery of an agency, purely partisan communications, and covert propaganda." BLM fails to include "Letters in Opposition" to the agency's action, and also does not in its "News Releases and Editorials" any news reports or editorials critical of the agency's actions.
The truth
In 1990 the GAO found the range was in the best condition it had been in during the past century. The GAO found any degradation was the result of livestock grazing and suggested removal of cattle, not wild horses and burros. The removal of wild horses at that time was something done largely to appease ranchers.
Since 2001, however, over 74,000 wild horses and burros have removed from the range, and now one year after you took office and stepped up the Bush era removals, there are almost more wild horses in holding facilities than roaming free. As of October, 2009, BLM was holding 32,000 animals in holding facilities. More now since the roundup of the Calico horses that began in late December, 2009.
The truth is there are fewer free roaming wild horses now than in 1974. Wild horses make up only .5% of grazing animals on public lands; they are outnumbered by cattle at least 200 to 1. The BLM manages more than 256 million acres of public lands. Cattle grazing is allowed on 160 million acres, while wild horses are restricted to 26.6 million acres of land that is shared with cattle.
Take as an example the BLM's zeroing out or eliminating 12 herds in Lincoln and Nye Counties in Nevada in September, 2009. BLM estimated there were 1,357.43 acres per wild horse in one herd area, about 350 horses; and 3,377.38 acres per horse in another herd area, about 270 horses. The BLM zeroed out all of these herd areas, known as the Seaman including Golden Gate, and White River Herd Areas and the Caliente Herd Area. Not one wild horse will be allowed to live anywhere in these herd areas despite that in 1971 they were designated for the wild horses and burros.
In the Calico Mt. Complex, site of the current roundup of 90% of the estimated 3,100 horses living there, there are approximately 175 acres for each horse.
In 2007 BLM said there were 700 horses there and in 2008, there were said to be so few horses that BLM decided not to monitor them further. BLM then authorized what amounted to a 300% increase in cattle in one allotment of this area. Just a few months later in 2008 BLM decided the numbers of horses in this area had exploded and were degrading the range. In 2009 BLM employees responsible for monitoring the wild horses and burros in this area testified they were "surprised" to hear about an exploding population of wild horses in the Calico herd management areas, that they believed the range could adequately support the number of wild horses. The idea seems to be to exaggerate the number of wild horses to justify removal of more and more of them until there are no more?
BLM would like everyone to believe the agency is just reallybad at counting wild horses. According to Cindy MacDonald at American Herds, BLM is also claiming "hundreds and hundreds of wild horses moved outside the [herd management areas] when the choppers arrived in 2004-2005 - but after the choppers left, the mustangs snuck back inside", thus accounting for the population increases.
It is highly questionable that these horses, however many there are, should have been declared "excess", meaning BLM determines there are too many for the range to support and they must then be removed under the WFRHBA. BLM specialists tasked with monitoring wild horses in this area didn't seem to think as of the spring, 2009, there was any reason to remove wild horses; these specialists actually testified that the range could support the numbers of wild horses.
Also, the environmental assessment for the Calico removal was a sham. Anyone could see very dated studies of the range condition were used. And, your administration would have the public believe that wild horses too few to bother monitoring as of 2008 somehow destroyed the range but thousands of cattle and oil and gas development had nothing to do with it? For more....
Just like for the Pryor Mountain, Caliente and Seamen/White River roundups in 2009 where BLM claimed without any current assessment or real proof that the range was degraded because of the horses and never mentioned the tens or even hundreds of thousands of cattle and even sheep also occupying those areas that trample the land and foul the water.
In all of those cases, wildlife ecologists and other witnesses offered substantial proof there was no real evidence of degradation of the range and a dwindling number of horses, not an overpopulation. Regardless, rounding up wildlife and putting them in holding facilities is hardly an ecologically sound method of conservation or preservation.
What about the law?
And what of the law, the requirement that the BLM "shall maintain a current inventory of wild free-roaming horses and burros... to... make determinations as to whether and where an overpopulation exists and whether action should be taken to remove excess animals; determine appropriate management levels [AMLs] of wild free-roaming horses and burros on these areas of the public lands" §1333(b)?
Does it matter at all that the BLM's wildly fluctuating census, obviously made up, and unsubstantiated or outdated claims of "range degradation" violate the law?
By the way, Mr. President, we have seen no evidence of starving horses. Instead, we have seen horses killed, injured and terrified by helicopters BLM uses to run them down and corral them, their families destroyed, their anguish, suffering and fear.
How do you and your DOI and BLM simply ignore the mandate against inhumane treatment of wild horses under the WFRHBA?
Why have you not stopped your administration's disregard of the law, called for the Justice Dept. to investigate and prosecute criminal violations of WFRHBA?
BLM has also basically thumbed its bureaucratic nose at the National Environmental Policy Act, 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).
These evaluations as well as land use plans are full of words but have little substance when it comes to stating why wild horses must be removed from their homes. They are all cookie cutter, cut and paste, blaming the wild horses and burros for unspecified "range degradation" without mention of thousands of livestock or other wild animals that share these areas.
BLM's plan for non-excess horses and presumably for healthy unadoptable excess horses is what Ginger Kathrens, founder of Cloud Foundation, has decried as "managing the wild horses to extinction". Secy Salazar's plan, again, not the "change" we were promised, calls for aggressive sterilization and creation of herds that are all geldings or all mares or not in sufficient gender ratios or numbers to maintain genetic viability. Those left after these Frankenstein-like machinations will be placed in those Midwest or East Coast pastures. Forget pastures. The BLM team thought feedlots would be sufficient.
How is that maintaining free roaming behavior as required by WFRHBA? Even BLM agrees herd behavior would be "out the window".
It is evident that BLM's preference for the horses it has captured is to kill them or send them to slaughter. Is that really the long term plan for these horses? During the Calico roundup, for example, no one seems to be keeping track of the horses, many have not been freeze branded as required by law. The BLM is strictly controlling access by the public, treating us as if we are terrorists instead of citizens trying to protect our animals and uphold the laws we passed to protect them.
During its Bush era discussions 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 you step up and stop this rogue agency, Mr. President, it looks like BLM's plan may succeed.
BLM, for example, has long ignored the limitations on the "multiple use" concept under the WFRHBA and Federal Lands Policy Management Act. BLM issued a regulation that effectively rewrites WFRHBA to say the "objectives of these regulations are management of wild horses and burros as an integral part of the natural system of the public lands under the principle of multiple use". 43 CFR § 4700.0-2 Yet, the WFRHBA says only that wild horses and burros "are to be considered in the area where presently found, as an integral part of the natural system of the public lands". 16 U.S.C. §1331.
WFRHBA mandates "[a]ll management activities shall be at the minimal feasible level". 16 U.S.C. §1333 BLM's regulation says "[m]anagement shall be at the minimum level necessary to attain the objectives identified in approved land use plans and herd management area plans." 43 CFR 4710.4. Two very different laws.
FLPMA makes clear that the protections under WFRHBA take precedence. FLPMA, 43 U.S.C. § 1732 (a) Yet, despite this, BLM has issued a regulation that provides "[w]ild horses and burros shall be considered comparably with other resource values in the formulation of land use plans." 43 C.F.R. §4700.0-6(b).
Indeed, BLM has not managed herd areas as required by WFRHBA only to "maintain a thriving natural ecological balance on the public lands" and "protect the natural ecological balance of all wildlife species which inhabit such lands, particularly endangered wildlife species", or to "protect the range from the deterioration associated with overpopulation". BLM has also ignored the law requiring ranges to be "devoted principally" to use by wild horses/burros. Instead, BLM has used a "multiple use" approach under which the wild horses are generally treated as nuisances to be removed from their own herd areas and ranges.
The BLM has authorized itself to divide herd areas into "herd management areas", something not authorized by WFRHBA. 43 CFR 4710.3-1. In this way, with no statutory authority at all, BLM has limited wild horses and burros' access to thousands of acres that were historically their herd areas. This is done without thought about the horses' seasonal migration patterns or available resources. The BLM then removes wild horses and burros from the artificially created "herd management areas" on the basis there is insufficient forage, water or habitat! BLM also targets them for removal if they cross the artificial boundaries into their original herd areas. The creation of herd management areas has resulted in the loss of more than 20 million acres of historical herd areas. For more.....
What you can do, Mr. President
Mr. President, you can stop the roundups, the cruelty, and you can do it now. Put a moratorium on the roundups, order the Justice Dept to investigate BLM's wild horse and burro program and work with Congress and the public to determine the best course for conserving these animals in their habitat and at the same time meeting the country's energy needs.
What we can do
1. There have been a number of protests of BLM's actions in rounding up and removing these horses, and more are scheduled to take place. Join one of the protests now scheduled or plan your own!
Follow your email with a phone call to the White House (both numbers) to appeal to the President to halt the BLM's cruel Calico and other wild horse roundups.
Phone: 202-456-1111 or 202-456-9000; Switchboard: 202-456-1414
Forward this message to five friends and family and ask that they take a couple of minutes to help the horses - every public comment and phone call counts. You can help us increase the number of active wild horse advocates.
Please write or call your U.S. representative and senatorsand urge them to join in this effort to put in place a moratorium to stop the gathers, the roundups and removals pending Congressional action on the future management of the wild horses and burros. Also, ask your representative and senators to hold a hearing on the course of the wild horses and burros program.
Urge your representative and senators to vote for de-funding of the roundups for FY 2011.
WASHINGTON - With a focus on renewable energy development, climate change adaptation, and other key priorities, President Obama, this week, requested $1.1 billion in appropriations for the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management in Fiscal Year 2011. This represents an $8.0 million increase from the BLM’s FY 2010 enacted funding level. The President’s request reflects his continuing commitment to be prudent with taxpayer dollars while setting priorities for spending.
“Today’s budget proposal will advance the BLM’s mission of protecting the land’s resources while facilitating environmentally sound use of America’s public lands,” said BLM Director Bob Abbey. “Under this proposal, we can and will meet the challenges facing our agency in today’s fast-growing West.” Under the President’s proposed budget, the BLM will focus on the following priorities:
New Energy Frontier
The New Energy Frontier initiative recognizes the value of environmentally sound, scientifically grounded development of both renewable and conventional energy resources on the Nation’s public lands. To encourage and facilitate renewable energy development, the President’s FY 2011 BLM budget proposes a $3.0 million increase that builds on the $16.1 million increase for renewable energy provided in FY 2010. The funds would be used to complete environmental studies for solar energy projects in Nevada and potential wind energy zones in Oregon and Nevada. In the conventional energy program, the BLM will focus on implementing oil and gas leasing reforms put forward by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar while placing continued emphasis on oil and gas inspections, environmental enforcement, and production monitoring activities. The budget includes a $2.0 million increase in BLM’s Soil, Water, and Air Management program for air quality monitoring that will be targeted to areas with current or anticipated intensive oil and gas development to help BLM ensure that the energy development complies with environmental requirements and minimizes or addresses potential litigation issues.
The Budget maintains BLM’s oil and gas management program capacity at current levels, with a $3.0 million decrease to reflect the completion of specific Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) studies. In addition, the Budget proposes new fees – estimated to generated $10 million annually – to help offset the cost of BLM’s oil and gas inspection and enforcement activities.
Climate Change Adaptation
The Secretary’s Climate Change Adaptation initiative recognizes the need to understand the condition of BLM-managed landscapes at a broad level; identify potential impacts from climate change; and develop and implement strategies to help native plant and animal communities adapt to climate change. These efforts are coordinated with other Interior bureaus and other partners through a network of Landscape Conservation Cooperatives. The President’s proposed FY 2011 BLM budget includes a $2.5 million increase in support of the Climate Change Adaptation initiative, in addition to the $15.0 million increase the Bureau received in 2010.
Treasured Landscapes
The Treasured Landscapes initiative recognizes the need to take a landscape-scale approach to conservation. Through this initiative, the BLM is dedicated to preserving species and habitat; conserving and restoring rivers and riparian areas; and protecting lands of historical and cultural significance.
The FY 2011 BLM budget request makes a major contribution to the Treasured Landscapes initiative with a proposed $13.1 million increase for high-priority land acquisition projects, for a total of $37.8 million for high-priority line-item projects. The total of $37.8 million will add Federal protection to 25,679 acres of lands with key natural and cultural resources.
Youth in Natural Resources
The Youth in Natural Resources initiative recognizes the value of encouraging young people to experience the myriad resources offered by the Nation’s public lands and to engage and connect with the land around them. In FY 2010, the BLM received an increase of $5 million to support programs and partnerships that engage youth in natural resource management; encourage young people and their families to visit, explore, and learn about the public lands; and promote stewardship, conservation, and public service. In FY 2011, the BLM will continue to fund these programs and partnerships, as well as direct $1.0 million in base funding to support a new public-private partnership program with the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.
Other Funding: the National Wild Horse and Burro Program
Putting the BLM’s wild horse and burro program on a sustainable track is one of Secretary Salazar’s top priorities. Today the BLM finds itself in the position of needing to gather thousands of wild horses from overpopulated herds on Western public rangelands at a time when public demand for adoptable horses has declined. This has left more than 34,000 wild horses and burros in holding facilities that cost approximately $35 million to operate out of a FY 2010 wild horse budget of $64 million.
Taking note of the BLM’s holding costs and recognizing the agency’s limited management options concerning unadoptable horses, the Government Accountability Office issued a report in October 2008 that found the Bureau to be at a “critical crossroads.” In response to this situation, Secretary Salazar announced on Oct. 7, 2009, a new plan to put the BLM’s wild horse and burro program on a sustainable track. The strategy emphasizes a combination of aggressive fertility control and the relocation of wild horses to new preserves in the Midwest or Eastern portions of the United States as a means to accelerate the attainment of appropriate management population levels. To advance the Secretary’s efforts toward program sustainability, the President’s FY 2011 BLM budget proposal requests $75.7 million for the wild horse and burro program, a $12 million increase over the FY 2010 level of $64 million. The budget proposal makes a separate, but related land-acquisition funding request of $42.5 million for the purchase of land for one wild horse preserve.
Budget Decreases
The 2011 budget funds Administration priorities and reduces funding for lower-priority programs, projects, and activities. Included is a reduction of $8.2 million for resource management planning; a $5.0 million reduction in the Oregon and California Lands Management program; a $13.0 million reduction in the Alaska land conveyance program; elimination of the $9.5 million Challenge Cost Share program; a reduction of $600,000 by discontinuing two congressional earmarks in the Management of Lands and Resources account; a total of $3.8 million in smaller base funding reductions in several programs; management efficiencies totaling $10.6 million; and a reduction in the construction program of $5.0 million.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_vyuLojAqWs8fGuKgBoTfl5YtIKI2iWbzRKD77UpqkpoKUl8QWNPOr4ZsqoxfeQrmeX4ODX1RV9WWSDcQmqaR0bhf7Rfhs2MijZDx0MFIc7lNWke3vlcqYdrKmt2JvmQd42cjicZbyvqE5GrIRR9NE=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_tTMZeh-k6PmJmmqDhF8c2_A0whaVmC1rMEhC6z2VHAO4a8-zymFeEtaDKvnrjb9CJRECR0P7FOomJRk4pYrstHwEKOYddJXiGV4x-EuN4Sb5xROMHiXjQPWn6vdLLQYApgxA9vWTQI8ce0m0WTI9U=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_uWJm9gQPqL3WPqbC6Ya9n_Ao4bzHyxOspgTgMpJZC3bakIzE5e6bZjcnPg_f2O4wSF6BgKd75m7GuSSpbTlx2FbODhdcXT2G6HYYsjhpNQG9DNQSy8jkl-Ve0ew0Rs_KU1S64TylCSuCcRy6HmVvBC=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_vDutQ5FeLURdTXw6KW7krlIqH6sJ9eCep_EVUfs0N7whfSLYFP7r3wn0zXiwV2tg2UhgTWwmwUc4eR_uxkL0WlxCo6KPbAOtN53lwmD9vwOmgwS1Yw_5VZiVmtY8flYAkIAJ4VbYapwTwEEHdyXwSj=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_tatVBW3yRDyYQVwqakNjlrji9spKtTL_5fnYYBRk4bNn0S0hln08Ld79as0e42IOtvgBXvDfFVyLNbFWGoQbYBA7Va-pALiWftOTmrHJUZO10UUYShQAElK6LyjHwmek9IE2evokIRZxYVu35P2AU=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_sWy3PhZ8O23SMl88L973AiwVKw-JmIHGOW3NHhs_Idfg_4-8F8xzyCsISefpRMAZxPBQr4g-ho5A0PWOg7T2tvlMuLYNgxJkXmBjZz2EY-wuv-ekKI1E7uLaWI3tZg4ChYmmgMmW4saS1BXxFlBm-I=s0-d)
