We Hope So!
By Steven Long
HOUSTON, (Horseback) – Activists have been scratching their heads as the federal Bureau of Land Management sweeps America’s wild horses from the Western landscape. Why? Because the 1971 Wild Horse and Burro Act clearly set aside plenty of room for them almost 40 years ago and the agency appears to be in violation of federal law.
The first paragraph of the law is clear cut.
“It is the policy of Congress that wild free-roaming horses and burros shall be protected from capture, branding, harassment, or death; and to accomplish this they are to be considered in the area where presently found, as an integral part of the natural system of the public lands.”
Helicopter induced stampedes, multiple brands, killing, and capture of the horses are prohibited, yet all happen on BLM gathers - violations that happen now weekly by the thousands.
Yet BLM consistently says there is no room for the animals as it administers almost 260 million acres of largely vacant land and leases whole chunks of wild horse acreage set aside by Congress for wild horses to ranchers for grazing, land that could be returned to Mustang habitat under the (CURRENT)law.
Moreover, the agency consistently has sloppy bookkeeping in its wild horse and burro program that appears to be often blatantly misleading yet ignored by congressional oversight.
What has prompted furious head scratching by wild horse lovers is the vexing question of why a smart lawyer on their side hasn’t marched into federal court with a request for a temporary restraining order tucked in his briefcase to stop the so called BLM “gathers.”
Such an injunction could bring the roundups to a screeching halt.
A case in point is the landmark injunction issued by Texas Judge William Wayne Justice who died recently. By his order, the state’s prison system was changed from the “Boss Hog” era to the state of the art correctional system we see today in the Lone Star State. The injunction held for 30 years.
On the surface, such an action against BLM appears clear cut. The 1971 law is written in plain language and to a layman, the BLM is in blatant violation of it.
National organizations such as the Humane Society of the United States who have the wherewithal to file such a lawsuit have been woefully absent in the fight, animal welfare advocates say.
They point to the recent roundup in Montana’s Pryor Mountains where the iconic stallion Cloud and his herd were captured, some mares sterilized, and broken up. They claim the Pryor Mountain horses are no longer genetically viable as a herd.
HSUS was nowhere to be seen during the Labor Day week controversy.
The Pryor horses are a recognized breed in the official Horse Breeds Standards Guide, If the activist’s claims are correct, a federal agency has wiped out a recognized breed of horse by making its only herd genetically bankrupt.
Activists aren’t the only interested parties with an itch. Even lawyers with a specialty in animal activism are scratching their heads at why nobody has sought an injunction.
“I'm not sure either,” said one attorney who declined to be identified. “It would have seemed the best course a couple of years ago instead of all this piecemeal litigation, but there is a belief among, I guess, most of the lawyers who do this that it is better to challenge each BLM action, keep on top of them that way, because we can't stop the gathers or BLM's role.”
And large scale litigation is expensive and no lawyer willing to work on a huge landmark case for free has come forward.
“I see a basis for a suit,” the lawyer told Horseback Online “If you know of any attorneys who are respected in Washington and licensed to practice in federal court, send them my way.”
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Thursday, October 29, 2009
R.O.A.M. Act a Part & Parcel of Salazoo Plan
Read them together, the Salazoo Plan and the ROAM Act, and See how nicely it all ties in together. I am left wondering which came first, the "chicken" Pickin/Salazoo Plan or the "egg" of the ROAM Act? I am leaning towards believing that, because of the Pickins Plan Offer, that the Salazoo Plan came first and that the ROAM Act was designed to fit around it. How convienent for them that the FIRST thing the ROAM Act calls for is a removal of the statutory protections of the wild ones on their historic rangelands! Isnt that what the BLM has always wanted? The ROAM Act is designed NOT to the benefit of our WFH&B, no, NOT AT ALL, but soley to the benefit of the BLM! They will NOT have to maintain the WFH&B on their historic ranges (the BLM can have its land back!) but can place the wild equines anywhere they want under anybodies care, custody and control and sterilize them all at the same time to boot, and the beauty of it all for the BLM is that it wont cost them a dime of their regular expenditures!! The ROAM Act will create "new monies" for them to disburse for the creation of the Salazoos..What a sweet deal for the BLM, they get rid of the WFH&B off of their historic lands, shove them into "zoo-like" settings, sterilize them all and the taxpayers get to foot the $90M bill!
From American Herds Blogspot;
Salazar Sez's
The Thriving National Ecological Balance:
A Comparative Analysis of Wild Free-Roaming Horses & Burros
In Relation to Habitat, Wildlife and Livestock Populations”
by C.R. MacDonald, October, 2009
Recently, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar Sez’s, “There’s just no room for wild horses and burros out West anymore”.
With the drought taking its toll on Western rangelands, wildlife struggling to survive, and out of control reproduction rates and populations of wild horses and burros constantly threatening fragile arid habitats, Salazar Sez’s, "The time has come to sterilize most of what is left, both on and off the range, and ship America’s Mustangs & Burros to private sanctuaries far removed from their native ranges on public lands".
Salazar Sez’s, “Let us not look behind the scenes at how we got here but only look ahead at this new solution for the Wild Horse & Burro Program”, a solution many are already coining the final one.
Never mind the fact that for two decades, the Government Accountability Office has repeatedly issued reports stating the obvious; BLM cannot provide evidence that removing wild horses and burros improves rangeland health and that the entire concept of excess is based on “informal decisions made by BLM Field Managers” – no data required.
Salazar Sez’s, “Who needs BLM to finally publish their long-awaited acreage report before they hustle more wild horses and burros off the range to multi-million dollar private sanctuaries instead?”
And, “Why bother publishing the new policy manual BLM has been writing (for 40 years now!) to establish guidelines on how BLM should go about determining what is appropriate use for wild horses and burros?” After all, BLM would just ignore it anyway like so much else - so why create a legal precedent before shipping most of them to privately owned sanctuaries?
Salazar Sez’s, “Who needs a Congressional investigation into what the Department of the Interior has done to get us to this point?” Despite the DOI’s abysmal reputation for ethic violations, never mind that now, Salazar’s here and those days are behind us!
Salazar Sez’s, “We don’t need an independent count of what’s in the holding pens” – despite the fact that nobody has ever seen all these “excess” horses causing such financial distress. And Salazar doesn’t seem too interested in looking into an independent census of what’s still remaining on the range because, as Salazar Sez’s, “We are going to create a new home for them now anyway!”
Despite nearly a decade of mass cleansings, which has swept the majority of our herds from their ranges, Salazar Sez’s, “Danger! Danger! Excessive wild horses and burros must go now!” and as a result, BLM has scheduled the removals of over 12,000 more wild horses and burros this year based solely on those ‘informal manager decisions’ – even though Salazar’s own home state of Colorado has reported their 292,000 elk have been “over population objectives for the last 20 years” (1) – what’s a decade or two when it comes to elk.
Before following what Salazar Sez’s – because this is not a game and we are not children anymore - let’s take a serious look at what “excess” wild horses and burros on public lands means to Secretary Salazar and BLM before we blindly follow the newest Judas horse just released before the public.
http://www.americanherds.blogspot.com/
From American Herds Blogspot;
Salazar Sez's
The Thriving National Ecological Balance:
A Comparative Analysis of Wild Free-Roaming Horses & Burros
In Relation to Habitat, Wildlife and Livestock Populations”
by C.R. MacDonald, October, 2009
Recently, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar Sez’s, “There’s just no room for wild horses and burros out West anymore”.
With the drought taking its toll on Western rangelands, wildlife struggling to survive, and out of control reproduction rates and populations of wild horses and burros constantly threatening fragile arid habitats, Salazar Sez’s, "The time has come to sterilize most of what is left, both on and off the range, and ship America’s Mustangs & Burros to private sanctuaries far removed from their native ranges on public lands".
Salazar Sez’s, “Let us not look behind the scenes at how we got here but only look ahead at this new solution for the Wild Horse & Burro Program”, a solution many are already coining the final one.
Never mind the fact that for two decades, the Government Accountability Office has repeatedly issued reports stating the obvious; BLM cannot provide evidence that removing wild horses and burros improves rangeland health and that the entire concept of excess is based on “informal decisions made by BLM Field Managers” – no data required.
Salazar Sez’s, “Who needs BLM to finally publish their long-awaited acreage report before they hustle more wild horses and burros off the range to multi-million dollar private sanctuaries instead?”
And, “Why bother publishing the new policy manual BLM has been writing (for 40 years now!) to establish guidelines on how BLM should go about determining what is appropriate use for wild horses and burros?” After all, BLM would just ignore it anyway like so much else - so why create a legal precedent before shipping most of them to privately owned sanctuaries?
Salazar Sez’s, “Who needs a Congressional investigation into what the Department of the Interior has done to get us to this point?” Despite the DOI’s abysmal reputation for ethic violations, never mind that now, Salazar’s here and those days are behind us!
Salazar Sez’s, “We don’t need an independent count of what’s in the holding pens” – despite the fact that nobody has ever seen all these “excess” horses causing such financial distress. And Salazar doesn’t seem too interested in looking into an independent census of what’s still remaining on the range because, as Salazar Sez’s, “We are going to create a new home for them now anyway!”
Despite nearly a decade of mass cleansings, which has swept the majority of our herds from their ranges, Salazar Sez’s, “Danger! Danger! Excessive wild horses and burros must go now!” and as a result, BLM has scheduled the removals of over 12,000 more wild horses and burros this year based solely on those ‘informal manager decisions’ – even though Salazar’s own home state of Colorado has reported their 292,000 elk have been “over population objectives for the last 20 years” (1) – what’s a decade or two when it comes to elk.
Before following what Salazar Sez’s – because this is not a game and we are not children anymore - let’s take a serious look at what “excess” wild horses and burros on public lands means to Secretary Salazar and BLM before we blindly follow the newest Judas horse just released before the public.
http://www.americanherds.blogspot.com/
Union of Concern Scientists: Grazing Effects Study Doctored
Grazing Regulations Include Doctored Environmental Analysis
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) officials compromised the integrity of a BLM study by removing scientific concerns about the effects newly relaxed grazing regulations would have on public lands. Millions of acres of public land in the western U. S. are protected by BLM grazing rules, which regulate when, where, and for how long cattle may graze there.
Julie Cart of the Los Angeles Times reported that prior to relaxing Clinton-era restrictions on cattle grazing in June 2004, the BLM edited out portions of an environmental analysis calling into question the environmental sustainability of the new regulations.1 Agency scientists had studied the effects of grazing on wildlife and water quality and expressed concerns.
Cart reported that the BLM eliminated the original draft's warning that the "the Proposed Action will have a slow, long-term adverse impact on wildlife and biological diversity in general." Instead, the final version of the environmental analysis endorsed the new regulations, which were supported by the cattle industry, stating that the new rules would prove "beneficial to animals."2
Erick Campbell and Bill Brookes are both recently retired scientists, each with more than 30 years experience at the BLM. Campbell, a biologist, authored the section of the BLM study on the impacts of the rule change on wildlife and endangered species, while Brookes, a hydrologist, evaluated the impact on water resources. Both characterized the edits as an attempt to suppress scientific information. Campbell termed the matter "a whitewash" and "a crime." "They took all of our science and reversed it 180 degrees," he said. Brookes agreed, adding "Everything I wrote was totally rewritten and watered down."3
The BLM argued that the changes resulted from a standard editorial process and issued a statement saying the conclusions reached by Campbell and Brookes were "based on personal opinion and unsubstantiated assertions rather than sound environmental analysis."4 In an interview Campbell refuted those charges, saying "All the science they extracted from my narrative was peer-reviewed science. This was not gray literature...This was peer-reviewed science in major journals."5 The concerns of Campbell and Brookes were echoed by wildlife experts at the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and by officials at the Environmental Protection Agency.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Cart, Julie. "Land Study on Grazing Denounced." Los Angeles Times, June 18, 2005. latimes.com requires subscription, article available from advocacy website, accessed December 5, 2006.
2. Bureau of Land Management, "Grazing Administration--Exclusive of Alaska; Final Rule," Department of the Interior, July 12, 2006, accessed December 5, 2006.
3. Cart.
4. Bearden, Tom. "New Grazing Rules." NewsHour with JimLehrer, August 10, 2005. Transcript online, accessed December 5, 2006.
5. Mitchell, Michele and Breslauer, Brenda. NOW with David Brancaccio, July 22, 2005. Transcript online, accessed December 5, 2006.
6. Cart, Julie. "Federal Officials Echoed Grazing-Rule Warnings." Los Angeles Times, July 17, 2005. latimes.com requires subscription, available online from advocacy site, accessed December 5, 2006.
http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/abuses_of_science/case_studies_and_evidence/cattle-grazing.html
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) officials compromised the integrity of a BLM study by removing scientific concerns about the effects newly relaxed grazing regulations would have on public lands. Millions of acres of public land in the western U. S. are protected by BLM grazing rules, which regulate when, where, and for how long cattle may graze there.
Julie Cart of the Los Angeles Times reported that prior to relaxing Clinton-era restrictions on cattle grazing in June 2004, the BLM edited out portions of an environmental analysis calling into question the environmental sustainability of the new regulations.1 Agency scientists had studied the effects of grazing on wildlife and water quality and expressed concerns.
Cart reported that the BLM eliminated the original draft's warning that the "the Proposed Action will have a slow, long-term adverse impact on wildlife and biological diversity in general." Instead, the final version of the environmental analysis endorsed the new regulations, which were supported by the cattle industry, stating that the new rules would prove "beneficial to animals."2
Erick Campbell and Bill Brookes are both recently retired scientists, each with more than 30 years experience at the BLM. Campbell, a biologist, authored the section of the BLM study on the impacts of the rule change on wildlife and endangered species, while Brookes, a hydrologist, evaluated the impact on water resources. Both characterized the edits as an attempt to suppress scientific information. Campbell termed the matter "a whitewash" and "a crime." "They took all of our science and reversed it 180 degrees," he said. Brookes agreed, adding "Everything I wrote was totally rewritten and watered down."3
The BLM argued that the changes resulted from a standard editorial process and issued a statement saying the conclusions reached by Campbell and Brookes were "based on personal opinion and unsubstantiated assertions rather than sound environmental analysis."4 In an interview Campbell refuted those charges, saying "All the science they extracted from my narrative was peer-reviewed science. This was not gray literature...This was peer-reviewed science in major journals."5 The concerns of Campbell and Brookes were echoed by wildlife experts at the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and by officials at the Environmental Protection Agency.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Cart, Julie. "Land Study on Grazing Denounced." Los Angeles Times, June 18, 2005. latimes.com requires subscription, article available from advocacy website, accessed December 5, 2006.
2. Bureau of Land Management, "Grazing Administration--Exclusive of Alaska; Final Rule," Department of the Interior, July 12, 2006, accessed December 5, 2006.
3. Cart.
4. Bearden, Tom. "New Grazing Rules." NewsHour with JimLehrer, August 10, 2005. Transcript online, accessed December 5, 2006.
5. Mitchell, Michele and Breslauer, Brenda. NOW with David Brancaccio, July 22, 2005. Transcript online, accessed December 5, 2006.
6. Cart, Julie. "Federal Officials Echoed Grazing-Rule Warnings." Los Angeles Times, July 17, 2005. latimes.com requires subscription, available online from advocacy site, accessed December 5, 2006.
http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/abuses_of_science/case_studies_and_evidence/cattle-grazing.html
Energy leases offered next to conservation area
(Next they will be offering leases next to our new wild horse and burro preserves and the preserves will have to go)
The Associated Press
Posted: 10/28/2009 10:57:24 AM MDT
Updated: 10/28/2009 11:01:15 AM MDT
GRAND JUNCTION, Colo.—Federal officials are offering oil and gas leases on hundreds of acres next to a national conservation area in western Colorado. They're also considering leasing thousands more acres in the same area.
The Bureau of Land Management's Nov. 12 auction includes a 480-acre parcel next to McInnis Canyons National Conservation Area and a nearby 320-acre parcel. The BLM has deferred action on another 11,500 acres in the same area.
Luke Schafer of the Colorado Environmental Coalition says he worries about the potential impacts of drilling on the conservation area's air and scenic qualities.
The conservation area west of Grand Junction is named after Scott McInnis, a Republican candidate for governor and former congressman. He says he will leave it to BLM to consider the effects on the area.
———
Information from: The Daily Sentinel, http://www.gjsentinel.com
http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_13
The Associated Press
Posted: 10/28/2009 10:57:24 AM MDT
Updated: 10/28/2009 11:01:15 AM MDT
GRAND JUNCTION, Colo.—Federal officials are offering oil and gas leases on hundreds of acres next to a national conservation area in western Colorado. They're also considering leasing thousands more acres in the same area.
The Bureau of Land Management's Nov. 12 auction includes a 480-acre parcel next to McInnis Canyons National Conservation Area and a nearby 320-acre parcel. The BLM has deferred action on another 11,500 acres in the same area.
Luke Schafer of the Colorado Environmental Coalition says he worries about the potential impacts of drilling on the conservation area's air and scenic qualities.
The conservation area west of Grand Junction is named after Scott McInnis, a Republican candidate for governor and former congressman. He says he will leave it to BLM to consider the effects on the area.
———
Information from: The Daily Sentinel, http://www.gjsentinel.com
http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_13
Wild horse (and burro) population riding off into the sunset
Wild horses may not be dragging anyone away – they are too busy being slaughtered and harassed, advocates say. They are also pretty tangled up in a debate about their fate.
Photo Ryn Gargulinski
While more than a million mustangs used to prance around our plains less than a century ago, the number has dwindled to fewer than 40,000. Some put the estimates at 37,000 or so, while Jody Blaylcock, lifelong horse owner and equine advocate, says it’s even lower.
“There are only 15,000 horses left in the wild in the United States (despite false and misleading numbers being circulated by the Bureau of Land Management),” she wrote in an e-mail.
Two camps are clearly drawn in the wild horse debate.
One side consists of animal advocates, like Blaylock and organizations such as the Cloud Foundation, who say wild horses should continue to roam free in the West.
The other side, which supports a recent proposal put forth by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, wants the horses moved East and Midwest where they say the population can be better cared for and controlled.
What is Salazar’s plan?
The $96 million proposal is to buy two ranches and contract with five other private ranches to house the wild horse population, according to a report in USA Today. No locations were given for any of the ranches.
Salazar supporters say wild horses will do better in this controlled environment where they won’t conflict with cattle and don’t have the threat of starving to death.
This plan, although expensive, is also supposed to save money in the long run, as keeping horses out in the West is costing a pretty penny. Or several million of them.
This year’s horse program’s price tag has been estimated at $50 million, most of which goes for food, care and moving many of the horses from the 29 million acres of federal land to private accommodations in Oklahoma, South Dakota and Kansas, the USA Today report said.
The report also quotes BLM spokesman Tom Gorey saying the wild horses should be neutered so no more than 17,500 are in the breeding population and the overall herd size should be dwindled to down 26,600.
Photo Ryn Gargulinski
Those opposing the plan have already seen the havoc wreaked by BLM, according to a report in the Philadelphia Inquirer.
“Late this summer, using helicopters, (BLM) rounded up most of the herd, 146 horses, but then let 89 go, keeping 57 to auction off,” Jonathan Storm wrote in his piece: What Menaces the Mustangs.
“Strong lobbying from ranchers, who want the federal land for their 3.2 million sheep and cattle, keeps pressure on the puny population of mustangs,” he said. His article was a review of the TV show Challenge of the Stallions, which featured wild mustang Cloud, for whom the Cloud Foundation was formed.
Animal advocates also fear what fate awaits the remaining horses.
“If the BLM gets its way the remainder will soon all be shipped to Mexico (where they are being slaughtered in the most horrific ways imaginable) or broken apart into genetically unviable herds as per Ken Salazar’s recent plan,” Blaylock said. “The ROAM act (S-1579) is before the house right now, and if passed would reinstate the 1971 Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act, offering some protection to those animals who are left.”
What is the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act?
I’ll let the Wild Horse Preservation Campaign, which mentions wild horses on public lands are outnumbered by cattle 200 to 1, answer that one:
In 1971, more letters poured into Congress over the threat to our nation’s wild horses than over any issue in U.S. history, except for the Vietnam War. And so Congress unanimously passed the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act, declaring that “wild horses and burros are living symbols of the historic and pioneer spirit of the West; that they contribute to the diversity of life forms within the Nation and enrich the lives of the American people; and that these horses and burros are fast disappearing from the American scene.” The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) were appointed to implement the Act. Most herd areas are under BLM jurisdiction.
Fast-forward thirty years: in 2001, after decades of failed herd management policies, the BLM obtained a 50% increase in annual budget to $29 million for implementation of an aggressive removal campaign; in 2004, the 1971 Act was surreptitiously amended, without so much as a hearing or opportunity for public review, opening the door to the sale of thousands of wild horses to slaughter for human consumption abroad.
Sigh.
The entire fiasco is yet another example of man versus nature, with nature losing no matter which way you turn.
Photo Ryn Gargulinski
Learn more:
Jody Blaylock, who is speaking out for horses on her own behalf, is also a member of the Pima County Sheriff’s Mounted Posse, which is its search and rescue group; the Tucson Saddle Club; and the American Quarter Horse Association. She grew up in a cattle ranch in western Oklahoma and has owned horses her entire life, including the three she now owns.
Blaylock will be giving a presentation as part of Ignite: Tucson
What: Wild horse presentation as part of Ignite: Tucson
Where: The Screening Room, 127 E. Congress St.
When: Thursday, Oct. 29 – Doors open 6:30 p.m., show starts at 7 p.m.
How much: $5
Click on title above to go to article and comment;
http://tucsoncitizen.com/sawyer/2009/10/28/wild-horse-population-riding-off-into-the-sunset-presentation-thursday-at-ignite-tucson/
Photo Ryn Gargulinski
While more than a million mustangs used to prance around our plains less than a century ago, the number has dwindled to fewer than 40,000. Some put the estimates at 37,000 or so, while Jody Blaylcock, lifelong horse owner and equine advocate, says it’s even lower.
“There are only 15,000 horses left in the wild in the United States (despite false and misleading numbers being circulated by the Bureau of Land Management),” she wrote in an e-mail.
Two camps are clearly drawn in the wild horse debate.
One side consists of animal advocates, like Blaylock and organizations such as the Cloud Foundation, who say wild horses should continue to roam free in the West.
The other side, which supports a recent proposal put forth by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, wants the horses moved East and Midwest where they say the population can be better cared for and controlled.
What is Salazar’s plan?
The $96 million proposal is to buy two ranches and contract with five other private ranches to house the wild horse population, according to a report in USA Today. No locations were given for any of the ranches.
Salazar supporters say wild horses will do better in this controlled environment where they won’t conflict with cattle and don’t have the threat of starving to death.
This plan, although expensive, is also supposed to save money in the long run, as keeping horses out in the West is costing a pretty penny. Or several million of them.
This year’s horse program’s price tag has been estimated at $50 million, most of which goes for food, care and moving many of the horses from the 29 million acres of federal land to private accommodations in Oklahoma, South Dakota and Kansas, the USA Today report said.
The report also quotes BLM spokesman Tom Gorey saying the wild horses should be neutered so no more than 17,500 are in the breeding population and the overall herd size should be dwindled to down 26,600.
Photo Ryn Gargulinski
Those opposing the plan have already seen the havoc wreaked by BLM, according to a report in the Philadelphia Inquirer.
“Late this summer, using helicopters, (BLM) rounded up most of the herd, 146 horses, but then let 89 go, keeping 57 to auction off,” Jonathan Storm wrote in his piece: What Menaces the Mustangs.
“Strong lobbying from ranchers, who want the federal land for their 3.2 million sheep and cattle, keeps pressure on the puny population of mustangs,” he said. His article was a review of the TV show Challenge of the Stallions, which featured wild mustang Cloud, for whom the Cloud Foundation was formed.
Animal advocates also fear what fate awaits the remaining horses.
“If the BLM gets its way the remainder will soon all be shipped to Mexico (where they are being slaughtered in the most horrific ways imaginable) or broken apart into genetically unviable herds as per Ken Salazar’s recent plan,” Blaylock said. “The ROAM act (S-1579) is before the house right now, and if passed would reinstate the 1971 Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act, offering some protection to those animals who are left.”
What is the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act?
I’ll let the Wild Horse Preservation Campaign, which mentions wild horses on public lands are outnumbered by cattle 200 to 1, answer that one:
In 1971, more letters poured into Congress over the threat to our nation’s wild horses than over any issue in U.S. history, except for the Vietnam War. And so Congress unanimously passed the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act, declaring that “wild horses and burros are living symbols of the historic and pioneer spirit of the West; that they contribute to the diversity of life forms within the Nation and enrich the lives of the American people; and that these horses and burros are fast disappearing from the American scene.” The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) were appointed to implement the Act. Most herd areas are under BLM jurisdiction.
Fast-forward thirty years: in 2001, after decades of failed herd management policies, the BLM obtained a 50% increase in annual budget to $29 million for implementation of an aggressive removal campaign; in 2004, the 1971 Act was surreptitiously amended, without so much as a hearing or opportunity for public review, opening the door to the sale of thousands of wild horses to slaughter for human consumption abroad.
Sigh.
The entire fiasco is yet another example of man versus nature, with nature losing no matter which way you turn.
Photo Ryn Gargulinski
Learn more:
Jody Blaylock, who is speaking out for horses on her own behalf, is also a member of the Pima County Sheriff’s Mounted Posse, which is its search and rescue group; the Tucson Saddle Club; and the American Quarter Horse Association. She grew up in a cattle ranch in western Oklahoma and has owned horses her entire life, including the three she now owns.
Blaylock will be giving a presentation as part of Ignite: Tucson
What: Wild horse presentation as part of Ignite: Tucson
Where: The Screening Room, 127 E. Congress St.
When: Thursday, Oct. 29 – Doors open 6:30 p.m., show starts at 7 p.m.
How much: $5
Click on title above to go to article and comment;
http://tucsoncitizen.com/sawyer/2009/10/28/wild-horse-population-riding-off-into-the-sunset-presentation-thursday-at-ignite-tucson/
Az. Rancher Gets USDA Energy Grant
USDA renewable energy grants recipients selected
Published: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 10:57 AM CDT
Acting State Director Ernie Wetherbee announced that Arizona is providing $87,583 in grants for five renewable energy and energy efficiency projects under the Rural Energy for America Program (REAP). One of those grants will be spent in Cochise County; another has already been spent in Cochise County.
"Helping rural businesses become more energy efficient is good for the economy, good for the environment, and good for the workers and customers who depend on the goods and services these businesses provide," Wetherbee said.
REAP loan guarantees and grants can be used for renewable energy systems, energy efficiency improvements, feasibility studies and energy audits. These funds are not part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. For more information on the REAP program, which is authorized under the 2008 Farm Bill, please visit www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/farmbill/index.html.
In McNeal, Az., English Ranch, has been selected by Rural Development for a $16,495 grant to install a 9,950 kwh solar photovoltaic electric generation system to run a cattle operation.
Renewable energy funding from USDA Rural Development has helped many rural businesses. For example, Dan Zamora, in Elfrida Az., used a $13,424 USDA grant to install a 9,670 kwh solar photovoltaic system to run the Valley Lodge in Elfrida.
Funding of each recipient is contingent upon the recipient meeting the conditions of the grant agreement.
USDA Rural Development's mission is to increase economic opportunity and improve the quality of life for rural residents. Rural Development fosters growth in homeownership, finances business development, and supports the creation of critical community and technology infrastructure. Further information on rural programs is available at a local USDA Rural Development office or by visiting USDA Rural Development's web site at http://www.rurdev.usda.gov.
http://www.willcoxrangenews.com/articles/2009/10/28/news/news11.txt
Published: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 10:57 AM CDT
Acting State Director Ernie Wetherbee announced that Arizona is providing $87,583 in grants for five renewable energy and energy efficiency projects under the Rural Energy for America Program (REAP). One of those grants will be spent in Cochise County; another has already been spent in Cochise County.
"Helping rural businesses become more energy efficient is good for the economy, good for the environment, and good for the workers and customers who depend on the goods and services these businesses provide," Wetherbee said.
REAP loan guarantees and grants can be used for renewable energy systems, energy efficiency improvements, feasibility studies and energy audits. These funds are not part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. For more information on the REAP program, which is authorized under the 2008 Farm Bill, please visit www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/farmbill/index.html.
In McNeal, Az., English Ranch, has been selected by Rural Development for a $16,495 grant to install a 9,950 kwh solar photovoltaic electric generation system to run a cattle operation.
Renewable energy funding from USDA Rural Development has helped many rural businesses. For example, Dan Zamora, in Elfrida Az., used a $13,424 USDA grant to install a 9,670 kwh solar photovoltaic system to run the Valley Lodge in Elfrida.
Funding of each recipient is contingent upon the recipient meeting the conditions of the grant agreement.
USDA Rural Development's mission is to increase economic opportunity and improve the quality of life for rural residents. Rural Development fosters growth in homeownership, finances business development, and supports the creation of critical community and technology infrastructure. Further information on rural programs is available at a local USDA Rural Development office or by visiting USDA Rural Development's web site at http://www.rurdev.usda.gov.
http://www.willcoxrangenews.com/articles/2009/10/28/news/news11.txt
The Public Lands Foundation Weighs in on R.O.A.M.
Against R.O.A.M. for both right and wrong reasons;
Letter to Senators Bingaman and Murkowski re: HR. 1018 and S.1579
October 14, 2009
Senator Jeff Bingaman, Chairman
Senate Energy and Natural Resource Committee
304 Dirksen Building
Washington D.C., 20510
Dear Senator Bingaman:
H.R. 1018, the Restore Our American Mustangs Act, was referred to your Committee July 20, 2009 and Senator Robert C. Byrd introduced the Senate’s version, S.1579 on August 5, 2009. The Public Lands Foundation (PLF), as it did with H.R. 1018, respectfully disagrees with the content and provisions found in S.1579.
PLF is a national non-profit, all volunteer membership conservation organization dedicated to the ecological stability of the public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Our mission is to advocate and work for the retention of America’s Public Lands in public hands, professionally and sustainably managed for responsible common use and enjoyment.
PLF does not believe amending the 1971 Wild Free-roaming Horses and Burros Act as proposed is necessary to deal with the problems associated with wild horses and burros. Overall, the Act has had considerable success. According to the GAO-09-77 report titled “Effective Long-Term Options Needed to Manage Unadoptable Wild Horses,” dated October 9, 2008, approximately 235,700 horses have been adopted from passage of the 1971 Act through 2007. However, since 2007, the adoption demand for horses has tapered off and BLM now faces a major crisis for the funding and continued management of the program.
Neither H.R. 1018 nor S.1579 address the resolution of the two major challenges facing BLM spelled out in GAO’s October 9, 2008 report. These challenges were addressed in a PLF letter to Congressman Rahall. They bear repeating.
1. If not controlled, off-the-range holding costs will continue to overwhelm the program. The percentage of the program’s direct costs for holding animals off the range increased from $7 million in 2000 (46%) to $21 million in 2007 (67%). In 2008 these costs could account for 74 percent of the program’s budget.
2. BLM has limited options for dealing with unadoptable animals. The Act provides that unadopted excess animals shall be humanely destroyed or, under certain circumstances, sold without limitation. However, BLM only manages these animals through sales with limitations because of the concern about the public’s reaction to the destruction of healthy animals.
PLF is gravely concerned that the thrust of S.1579 is to eliminate the cornerstone of the 1971 Act by striking out a key sentence in the first paragraph that states, “…in the area where presently found,...” BLM has relied on this phrase to build a system of Herd Management Areas (HMAs) and establish Appropriate Management Levels of wild horses so they can be, as Congress dictated, “an integral part of the natural system of public lands.” Removing this phrase to consider allowing wild horses to expand outside of their HMAs will result in management chaos by guaranteeing an increase in their numbers and direct conflicts with wildlife, recreation, livestock and most other uses of public lands. If S. 1579 is striving for “a thriving ecological balance” as stated in Sec.4, Definitions, (6) (g), this is undeniably not the way to achieve it.
Sec. 5, Inventory and Determinations, of S.1579 proposes to add a paragraph (7) that states, “ensure that, to the extent practicable, the acreage available for wild and free-roaming horses and burros shall never be less than the acreage where wild and free-roaming horses and burros were found in 1971.” The finality of “shall never” creates a potential impediment for future management options, which could include the establishment of a National Wild Horse Range(s), the redesign of the existing 199 HMAs and other options that more appropriately are focused on available forage rather than acreage.
There are a variety of opinions of how many wild horses the government should have. However, there is no legitimate argument that the thousands of horses making up the current Appropriate Management Levels are suggestive of a population either threatened or endangered of being lost. Portions of proposed legislation intended to increase the acreage devoted to wild horses and to increase their numbers is clearly the wrong fix at the wrong time.
PLF believes that amending the 1971 Wild Free-roaming Horses and Burros Act as proposed will drastically alter multiple-use management on public lands and threaten “a thriving natural ecological balance.” Instead of new legislation, PLF strongly recommends, as it did to Congressman Rahall regarding H.R. 1018, focusing on solutions to the immediate problems of 30,000 horses being held in holding facilities and management of another nearly 30,000 out on the range. The cost of maintaining these animals is spiraling out of control and accounts for three-fourths of BLM’s $37 million budget for the program. As the GAO report correctly states, BLM finds itself in a difficult position and has limited options for dealing with unadopted and unsold animals within its finite budget. There is a need to reconcile the difference between the tools given to BLM by Congress to manage excess horse numbers and the apparent reluctance of BLM to use them out of concern that they lack congressional support.
There is no doubt, that instead of amending the 1971 Wild Horse and Burro Act, it is imperative that discussions with Congress be initiated to address BLM’s reluctance to use the tools in the 1971 Act, as amended, and seek solutions to this crisis.
Sincerely,
/s/ George Lea
George Lea, President
Cc: Lisa Murkowski, Ranking Member
Energy and Natural Resources Committee Office
304 Dirksen Senate Building
Washington, DC 20510
Letter to Senators Bingaman and Murkowski re: HR. 1018 and S.1579
October 14, 2009
Senator Jeff Bingaman, Chairman
Senate Energy and Natural Resource Committee
304 Dirksen Building
Washington D.C., 20510
Dear Senator Bingaman:
H.R. 1018, the Restore Our American Mustangs Act, was referred to your Committee July 20, 2009 and Senator Robert C. Byrd introduced the Senate’s version, S.1579 on August 5, 2009. The Public Lands Foundation (PLF), as it did with H.R. 1018, respectfully disagrees with the content and provisions found in S.1579.
PLF is a national non-profit, all volunteer membership conservation organization dedicated to the ecological stability of the public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Our mission is to advocate and work for the retention of America’s Public Lands in public hands, professionally and sustainably managed for responsible common use and enjoyment.
PLF does not believe amending the 1971 Wild Free-roaming Horses and Burros Act as proposed is necessary to deal with the problems associated with wild horses and burros. Overall, the Act has had considerable success. According to the GAO-09-77 report titled “Effective Long-Term Options Needed to Manage Unadoptable Wild Horses,” dated October 9, 2008, approximately 235,700 horses have been adopted from passage of the 1971 Act through 2007. However, since 2007, the adoption demand for horses has tapered off and BLM now faces a major crisis for the funding and continued management of the program.
Neither H.R. 1018 nor S.1579 address the resolution of the two major challenges facing BLM spelled out in GAO’s October 9, 2008 report. These challenges were addressed in a PLF letter to Congressman Rahall. They bear repeating.
1. If not controlled, off-the-range holding costs will continue to overwhelm the program. The percentage of the program’s direct costs for holding animals off the range increased from $7 million in 2000 (46%) to $21 million in 2007 (67%). In 2008 these costs could account for 74 percent of the program’s budget.
2. BLM has limited options for dealing with unadoptable animals. The Act provides that unadopted excess animals shall be humanely destroyed or, under certain circumstances, sold without limitation. However, BLM only manages these animals through sales with limitations because of the concern about the public’s reaction to the destruction of healthy animals.
PLF is gravely concerned that the thrust of S.1579 is to eliminate the cornerstone of the 1971 Act by striking out a key sentence in the first paragraph that states, “…in the area where presently found,...” BLM has relied on this phrase to build a system of Herd Management Areas (HMAs) and establish Appropriate Management Levels of wild horses so they can be, as Congress dictated, “an integral part of the natural system of public lands.” Removing this phrase to consider allowing wild horses to expand outside of their HMAs will result in management chaos by guaranteeing an increase in their numbers and direct conflicts with wildlife, recreation, livestock and most other uses of public lands. If S. 1579 is striving for “a thriving ecological balance” as stated in Sec.4, Definitions, (6) (g), this is undeniably not the way to achieve it.
Sec. 5, Inventory and Determinations, of S.1579 proposes to add a paragraph (7) that states, “ensure that, to the extent practicable, the acreage available for wild and free-roaming horses and burros shall never be less than the acreage where wild and free-roaming horses and burros were found in 1971.” The finality of “shall never” creates a potential impediment for future management options, which could include the establishment of a National Wild Horse Range(s), the redesign of the existing 199 HMAs and other options that more appropriately are focused on available forage rather than acreage.
There are a variety of opinions of how many wild horses the government should have. However, there is no legitimate argument that the thousands of horses making up the current Appropriate Management Levels are suggestive of a population either threatened or endangered of being lost. Portions of proposed legislation intended to increase the acreage devoted to wild horses and to increase their numbers is clearly the wrong fix at the wrong time.
PLF believes that amending the 1971 Wild Free-roaming Horses and Burros Act as proposed will drastically alter multiple-use management on public lands and threaten “a thriving natural ecological balance.” Instead of new legislation, PLF strongly recommends, as it did to Congressman Rahall regarding H.R. 1018, focusing on solutions to the immediate problems of 30,000 horses being held in holding facilities and management of another nearly 30,000 out on the range. The cost of maintaining these animals is spiraling out of control and accounts for three-fourths of BLM’s $37 million budget for the program. As the GAO report correctly states, BLM finds itself in a difficult position and has limited options for dealing with unadopted and unsold animals within its finite budget. There is a need to reconcile the difference between the tools given to BLM by Congress to manage excess horse numbers and the apparent reluctance of BLM to use them out of concern that they lack congressional support.
There is no doubt, that instead of amending the 1971 Wild Horse and Burro Act, it is imperative that discussions with Congress be initiated to address BLM’s reluctance to use the tools in the 1971 Act, as amended, and seek solutions to this crisis.
Sincerely,
/s/ George Lea
George Lea, President
Cc: Lisa Murkowski, Ranking Member
Energy and Natural Resources Committee Office
304 Dirksen Senate Building
Washington, DC 20510
Pro Se Plaintiffs Wanted for the Tobin & Calico, Nv. Gathers
Any "herd-watcher" in the Tobin or Calico ranges (or for any gather, for that matter) who would like to sue the BLM over these gathers can contact me and I will do my best to assist them in a Pro Se Action.
They will have to duly comment and file an administrative appeal and be ready to pay a $350 filing fee or submit a fee-waiver on the grounds of inability to pay. I will help with all of the above if you need me to, and will be GLAD to do it.
*I havent had a chance to review the respective EAs for these gathers yet, but if the plan(s) call for less than zeroing out of these herds, it would be best to get to know as many individual herd members as possible, giving them names even. The BLM likes to say that as long as any equines remain, there is no harm to us "herd watchers." That is why is it is so important to come to know every individual herd member so that real harm can be shown when and if those individual members happen to be caught up in the gathers and removed.
Wild Horses and Burros
Project Title Location Project Lead Status
Final Environmental Assessments
Tobin HMA Gather Tobin and Sonoma Ranges Jerome Fox EA Completed
Preliminary Environmental Assessments
Calico Complex Gather East and West Black Rock Range, Calico Mountains, Granite Range and Warm Springs Canyon
Jerome Fox
Preliminary EA
They will have to duly comment and file an administrative appeal and be ready to pay a $350 filing fee or submit a fee-waiver on the grounds of inability to pay. I will help with all of the above if you need me to, and will be GLAD to do it.
*I havent had a chance to review the respective EAs for these gathers yet, but if the plan(s) call for less than zeroing out of these herds, it would be best to get to know as many individual herd members as possible, giving them names even. The BLM likes to say that as long as any equines remain, there is no harm to us "herd watchers." That is why is it is so important to come to know every individual herd member so that real harm can be shown when and if those individual members happen to be caught up in the gathers and removed.
Wild Horses and Burros
Project Title Location Project Lead Status
Final Environmental Assessments
Tobin HMA Gather Tobin and Sonoma Ranges Jerome Fox EA Completed
Preliminary Environmental Assessments
Calico Complex Gather East and West Black Rock Range, Calico Mountains, Granite Range and Warm Springs Canyon
Jerome Fox
Preliminary EA
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
R.O.A.M Act a Judas Horse : DO NOT be Led into the Trap!!
Besides tearing the heart out of the Wild Free-roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971 by taking away their statutory right to remain on their historic rangelands,....the ROAM Act also dispenses with considering the wild equines as part of any "multiple use" plan of the land use. "If and when" confilcts do arise, according to the ROAM Act, the WH&Bs will be the first to go. No more balance of considerations for them. They will be out of the "Multi-use" picture for good!
Once the ROAM Act is passed, the WFH&B WILL NOT have a legal right to remain on their historic lands, and, in setting up these new sanctuaries, the idea of ROAM is manage the WH&B independantly from any other resource so to "Avoid any potential conficts" w/ rangeland health and/or development and/or wildlife" .....this means in cases of conflits with WH&Bs ANYWHERE, it is the equines that will have to go. Of course, it has always been this way with the BLM although AGAINST the provisions of the WFH&B Act , but with ROAM it will "officially" be "OK" to have the horses come last and NOT be a part of any multi-use plan of the lands......and there goes any grounds we may have for suing the BLM for failure to consider the wild equines in their land-use plans.
Here is some relevant text of the ROAM Act that indicates same;
`(7) Identify new, appropriate rangeland for wild free roaming horses and burros, including use of land acquisitions, exchanges, conservation easements, voluntary grazing buyouts, and agreements with private landowners to allow for the federally supervised protection of wild horses and burros on private lands, except that the Secretary shall assess the effects of new range for wild free-roaming horses and burros on rangeland health, riparian zones, water quality, soil compaction, seed bed disturbance, native wildlife, and endangered or threatened species and transmit the results of the assessment to the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate.
`(8) Establish sanctuaries or exclusive use areas, except that the Secretary shall assess the effects of sanctuaries or exclusive use areas for wild free-roaming horses and burros on rangeland health, riparian zones, water quality, soil compaction, seed bed disturbance, native wildlife and endangered or threatened species and transmit the results of the assessment to the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate.
`(9) In identifying or designating any new rangeland, or establishing any sanctuary or exclusive use area for wild free-roaming horses and burros, the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture shall take into account and avoid any potential conflicts with wind, solar, geothermal, oil, natural gas, energy transmission, and mineral resources potential of the lands affected by the identification, designation, or establishment.
So ROAM requires no conflict with rangeland health or other uses,......so say an area was at first deemed suitable, but what is to stop the BLM (or the ranchers) from complaining "down the road" later on, that the presence of the equines are conflicting with other resources or plans,....(and it most certainly will happen, eventually, sooner or later, as new "reserves" of oil and gas are found, or more "benefical" uses of the land arise,..or when the funding for the program runs out) of course, the WH&B will have to be removed from their "preserves." There will be no multi-use requirement as the ROAM Act is designed to give WH&B EXCLUSIVE use of the new lands >UNLESS a conflict arises. Once a conflict arises, the WH&B will have to go,....and where will they go once removed from one of these "preserves?"......back into long term holding pens, most likely, but never returned to their historic lands, you can bet your farm on that! Seems like the whole idea of ROAM is to divest the wild equines of the right to remain on their historic lands (unmolested) and also to divest them of any consideration as "resources" in any land-use plan.
The ROAM Act will be the death quell for wild and free roaming horses and burros upon their historic lands and/or for their consideration as a part of any multiple use plan on public lands.
And then there is this;
Expirmental Birth Control
`(10) Research, develop, and implement enhanced surgical or immunocontraception sterilization or other safe methods of fertility control.'.
Once the ROAM Act is passed, the WFH&B WILL NOT have a legal right to remain on their historic lands, and, in setting up these new sanctuaries, the idea of ROAM is manage the WH&B independantly from any other resource so to "Avoid any potential conficts" w/ rangeland health and/or development and/or wildlife" .....this means in cases of conflits with WH&Bs ANYWHERE, it is the equines that will have to go. Of course, it has always been this way with the BLM although AGAINST the provisions of the WFH&B Act , but with ROAM it will "officially" be "OK" to have the horses come last and NOT be a part of any multi-use plan of the lands......and there goes any grounds we may have for suing the BLM for failure to consider the wild equines in their land-use plans.
Here is some relevant text of the ROAM Act that indicates same;
`(7) Identify new, appropriate rangeland for wild free roaming horses and burros, including use of land acquisitions, exchanges, conservation easements, voluntary grazing buyouts, and agreements with private landowners to allow for the federally supervised protection of wild horses and burros on private lands, except that the Secretary shall assess the effects of new range for wild free-roaming horses and burros on rangeland health, riparian zones, water quality, soil compaction, seed bed disturbance, native wildlife, and endangered or threatened species and transmit the results of the assessment to the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate.
`(8) Establish sanctuaries or exclusive use areas, except that the Secretary shall assess the effects of sanctuaries or exclusive use areas for wild free-roaming horses and burros on rangeland health, riparian zones, water quality, soil compaction, seed bed disturbance, native wildlife and endangered or threatened species and transmit the results of the assessment to the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate.
`(9) In identifying or designating any new rangeland, or establishing any sanctuary or exclusive use area for wild free-roaming horses and burros, the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture shall take into account and avoid any potential conflicts with wind, solar, geothermal, oil, natural gas, energy transmission, and mineral resources potential of the lands affected by the identification, designation, or establishment.
So ROAM requires no conflict with rangeland health or other uses,......so say an area was at first deemed suitable, but what is to stop the BLM (or the ranchers) from complaining "down the road" later on, that the presence of the equines are conflicting with other resources or plans,....(and it most certainly will happen, eventually, sooner or later, as new "reserves" of oil and gas are found, or more "benefical" uses of the land arise,..or when the funding for the program runs out) of course, the WH&B will have to be removed from their "preserves." There will be no multi-use requirement as the ROAM Act is designed to give WH&B EXCLUSIVE use of the new lands >UNLESS a conflict arises. Once a conflict arises, the WH&B will have to go,....and where will they go once removed from one of these "preserves?"......back into long term holding pens, most likely, but never returned to their historic lands, you can bet your farm on that! Seems like the whole idea of ROAM is to divest the wild equines of the right to remain on their historic lands (unmolested) and also to divest them of any consideration as "resources" in any land-use plan.
The ROAM Act will be the death quell for wild and free roaming horses and burros upon their historic lands and/or for their consideration as a part of any multiple use plan on public lands.
And then there is this;
Expirmental Birth Control
`(10) Research, develop, and implement enhanced surgical or immunocontraception sterilization or other safe methods of fertility control.'.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Pickins' Apart "The Salazoo Plan" & Dissecting the R.O.A.M/ Act Again
From the Congressional Minutes of February 12, 2009...some amendments that were voted into the ROAM Act, having much to do with "The "Pickins/Salazoo" Plan";
Representative Chaffetz then offered an amendment to the Grijalva substitute (Chaffetz #2) that would require the Secretary of the Interior to take into account potential conflicts with oil and gas development, renewable energy resource development, and energy transmission when identifying and designating any new rangeland for wild horses and burros. The amendment was agreed to by voice vote.
(In other words, once placed into these "preserves" or whatever, they can be permanently removed from them if there arises any conflict of resources....so, once removed from their historic rangelands, they have lost all protections and will not be considered a resource for inclusion in "multiple-use" plans or lands.They will be shuffled around like cards in a deck stacked against them)
Representative Lummis then offered an amendment to the Grijalva substitute (Lummis #2) requiring the Secretary to conduct a study of the effects of the designation of new wild horse and burro range, and of the establishment of sanctuaries, on natural resources. The amendment was modified to only require an assessment of new designations and the amendment was then agreed to by voice vote.
(Ditto as italisized above)
Representative Lummis then offered an amendment to the Grijalva substitute (Lummis #4) requiring the Secretary to remove wild and free roaming horses and burros from the range if there is a threat to native plants and wildlife. The amendment was modified to make such removals discretionary and the amendment was agreed to by voice vote. (Discretionary? BLM dont know the meaning of the word....they just go right on ahead and do whatever they want,....anybody elses opinion bedamned.)
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
Section 1. Short title
Section 1 provides that this Act may be cited as the `Restore Our American Mustangs Act.'
Section 2. Reference
Section 2 establishes that all instructions in the bill to repeal or amend existing law shall be considered to be made to a section or other provision of the `Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971' (16 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.; hereafter in this report referred to as the `1971 Act'), except as otherwise expressly provided.
Section 3. Policy
Section 3 makes a minor amendment to the policy statement of the 1971 Act by striking the phrase `in the area where presently found,'. This is one of several amendments which will allow the BLM to find new range for wild horses and burros.
(Tearing out the heart of the WFH&B Act of 1971 is a "minor" amendment? This is the most important part of the Act as it statutorily designates these lands as historic wild horse and burro rangelands that SHALL BE used PRIMARILY for wild horse and burro use THROUGH ETERNITY. The intent of the Act was clearly to keep Our National Herds FOREVER upon their historic lands. This is the HEART of the Act that bestows a vested right and title to our Nations wild horses and burros to STAY and remain forever upon their historic rangelands! Do we really need to take this away from them simply in order to take some of them off the land to put them someplace else? I dont think so. I think there is a much more simple and safer way, in fact, I think there is a BLM or FLMPA law in place that already allows them to do that, though I shall have to go back and check, I am sure I read it somewhere, or at least, something like it. In any event, it would have been more prudent do write an addendum under that section that would allow for removal from or expansion of WFH&B range, as needs be, ...and not a severe amendment that will tear the heart out of the purpose of the Act and strip them of their right to stay upon their historic lands FOREVER. This "minor" amendment to the WFH&B Act just goes "a bit" too far. Talk about "over-kill" BLM to WFH&Bs - "Oh," we have to take away your right to your historic lands in order to give you more land," - Da Equines, "Yeah, right, whad do u tink we are,..stoopit?...You said that to the Indians too and look where they are today....not exactly "thriving" are they, particularly the ones out west, upon the lands YOU manage."
Section 4. Definitions
Section 4 amends Section 2 of the 1971 Act, by updating several existing definitions and then adding and defining two new terms.
Specifically, Section 4 includes the addition and definition of the term `thriving natural ecological balance' and the term `fatally injured or terminally ill'. They are defined as follows:
(g) `thriving natural ecological balance' means a condition that protects ecosystem health, the ecological processes that sustain ecosystem function and a diversity of life forms, including those species listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, and further ensures that wild horses and burros, livestock and wildlife species are given fair consideration in the allocation of resources on those lands where said species are authorized or managed consistent with the requirements of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-579) and other applicable law. The Committee would note that this term already appears in the law but has not been defined previously. In providing a definition, it is the Committee's intent that management of wild horses and burros be more consistent and balanced and that resource management decisions, including the allocation of forage, be more equitable.
(h) `fatally injured or terminally ill' means an animal exhibiting one or more of the following: (1) A hopeless prognosis for life. (2) A chronic or incurable disease, injury, lameness, or serious physical defect (including severe tooth loss or wear, club foot, and other severe congenital abnormalities). (3) A condition requiring continuous treatment for the relief of pain and suffering in a domestic setting. (4) An acute or chronic illness, injury, physical condition or lameness that would preclude an acceptable quality of life for the foreseeable future.
Section 5. Inventory and determinations
Section 5 amends and rewrites significant parts of Section 3 of the 1971 Act. References below are made to section 3 of the 1971 Act as amended by section 5 of H.R. 1018, and are as follows:
Section 3(a) of the 1971 Act is amended to update and clarify the Secretary's jurisdiction and responsibilities with regards to the management and protection of wild horses and burros. Specifically, a new provision is added, subsection (a)(7), which requires the Secretary to ensure that the acreage available for wild horses and burros shall never be less then the acreage available to these animals at the time of the passage of the 1971 Act. (Guess this is the provision that gives them back the 20 million acres the BLM took from them, but who knows where that will be...all broken up in little private and public parcels scattered all over the country. And after they have placed all the ones in the holding facilities, and the BLM can stop worrying about what to do with so many "excess" wild horses and burros,they can start gathering them up again from their historic ranges...dont you know them cayuses breed like rabbits? Once gathered, the ROAM Act allows for them NOT to be returned to freedom but instead, with go to one of them wild-horse theme parks they are planning (at a cost of 90 M). And not too forget, thanks to ROAM, once upon their new lands,....if at anytime the BLM determines that there isnt enough forage for them, or that they get in the way of oil or gas exloration, they can now be permanently removed. (Read the minutes, all of them) The WFH&B Act required that, once gathered, at least some of the equines be returned to their historic ranges at some point in time, either after conditions have improved on the ranges or that the emergency situation is over. The WFH&B Act also INSURED that despite whatever other use of their lands (oil, gas, utilities, wind farms etc.) the equines still have a right to stay, NO MATTER WHAT else goes on around them.)ROAM will take that protection away, and if the BLM does like it always does,...they will say that the wild horses and burros are in the way of exploration or development and will gather them off their lands. If ROAM passes it wont be long before ALL herds are permanently removed from their traditional lands because the BLM will allege (as they always allege) that there is not enough forage to sustain them and/or they are in the way of developments.The ROAM Act is a masterpiece of political ledgerdermain - it gives no protections for the equines upon their historic lands!
Section 3(b) of the 1971 Act is amended to require the Secretary to determine if a thriving natural ecological balance exists with regards to the population of wild horses and burros on public lands. (This is nothing new and these jerks wouldnt know what a thriving eco-anything would be; they have NEVER seen it with all them damn cows who have been pounding our praries to dust for over a hundred years; what would the BLM (formerly known as the U.S. Grazing Service) know about bio-diversity when they always were and always will be only about cows and their ranchers friends?) In order make that determination, the Secretary is first required to maintain an inventory of wild and free-roaming horses and burros on public lands. (This is nothing new either, as was supposed to have been done in 1972 and updated over the years)Two new subsections are included, which also require the Secretary to update the inventory every two years make the inventory available to the public on the Bureau of Land Management's website. (This is a new part and a good provision too, at last,...but still, does not make up for the bad.)
Section 3(c) is a new section which directs the Secretary to take certain actions in order to manage wild horses and burros and to achieve and maintain a thriving natural ecological balance on rangelands where these animals are found. (That is, where ever they decide to put them, and just what are these "certain actions" the Sec can take "to achieve and maintain a thriving ecological balance on rangelands "where these animals are found?" - Move them once again to where-ever the hell they want. Sounds like the same old same old to me)
Section 3(c) provides that fertility control shall be one of the tools that the Secretary shall use to manage wild horses and burros. It is the Committee's intent that the Bureau of Land Management shall research, develop, and implement enhanced fertility control for mares and/or stallions, including but not limited to surgical, chemical or immunocontraception or other safe, humane and effective methods of fertility control. (If herds are managed properly, with regular culling of some of the young adoptables, and the humane euthansia of the motrally wounded, sick or hopelessly suffering, artificial brith control would not be necessary....and YES there are natural predators also,...the same big cats, wolves and packs of coyotes that are killing all the ranchers cows and sheep that the gov't reimburses them for and taxpayers are footin the bill,...IN ADDITION to the $500 MILLION a year the gov't charges the taxpayers for the cost of administering the welfare grazing program.
Section 3(d) is a new section, but in drafting this section, substantial parts of section 3(b) of the 1971 Act were rewritten or deleted to accommodate a shift in policy. Specifically, the bill strikes language in section 3(b)(2)(A) of the 1971 Act allowing the Secretary to order `old, sick, or lame animals' to be destroyed. The bill also strikes section 3(b)(2)(C), which authorizes the Secretary to destroy any wild horse or burro, for which an adoption demand does not exist. (Well here is a revocation of the Burns/Reid Act that allows for the unlimied sale or destruction of the "three strikes" equines and those over 10 yrs old. Of course, this is a very good thing but STILL not enough to outweigh the bad of the ROAM Act. Do we really need the ROAM Act to revoke the Burns/Reid Rider? Of course not! This is the BLMs way of saying, "Listen, we wont kill your horses if you just let us take them off of their traditional rangelands and put them anywhere we want and sterilize them (both on and off the ranges) What kind of a bargain for the equines is that? Or, for us, for that matter, the american public who enjoy seeing them run free and wild upon the very same lands their ancestors roamed: TRADITIONAL lands. What would Wild Horse Annie think of this "ROAM" Act that took their statutory right to those lands away?
---To be continued
Section 3(d) provides that wild horses and burros may only be removed if the Secretary has exhausted all practicable options for maintaining a thriving natural ecological balance on the range, as laid out in section 3(c); and so long as the Secretary has determined that an adoption demand, by a qualified individual, exists; and so long as the Secretary can ensure their humane capture and removal. Once removed for private maintenance and care, the Secretary must ensure the humane treatment and care of these animals.
Section 3(e) updates section 3(c) of the 1971 Act. It authorizes the Secretary to transfer title of a wild horse or burro, to a qualified individual, one year after adoption of that animal. However, it provides that the transfer of title can only occur if the Secretary has determined that the individual has provided humane conditions, treatment and care for these animals.
Section 3(f) rewrites section 3(d) of the 1971 Act. This section provides that (1) wild and free-roaming horses and burros or their remains shall lose their status as wild free-roaming horses or burros, and shall no longer fall within the purview of this Act under certain stipulations listed under this subsection. However, under subsection (2) no animal ever covered under this Act, or its remains, may be sold or transferred for consideration for processing into commercial products.
Section 3(g) is a new section that requires the Secretary to implement a more effective and dynamic adoption program within one year of enactment of this subsection. Specifically, it requires the Secretary to: (1) implement more aggressive marketing strategies for the adoption program, including the use of the internet of other media to showcase adoptable horses; (2) explore public outreach opportunities, including agreements with local and state organizations that are using horses for rehabilitation, therapy or prisoner programs; (3) provide resources to properly screen and train potential adopters; (4) conduct tours of Bureau of Land Management facilities for interested parties; (5) develop a volunteer mentor and compliance check program for assisting the agency in facilitating successful adoptions; (6) develop a program through which potential adopters may be offered an economic incentive for successful completion of the adoption program; and (7) take all other actions that the Secretary determines to be necessary and useful towards expanding the wild horse and burro adoption program.
Section 3(h) is a new section which provides that the Secretary may not destroy or authorize the destruction of wild free-roaming horses or burros unless the Secretary, (1) determines that the wild free-roaming horse or burro is terminally ill or fatally injured (as defined in section 2(h)); and (2) ensures that the terminally ill or fatally injured wild free-roaming horse or burro will be destroyed in the most humane manner.
Section 3(i) is a new section that provides for emergency removal. It provides that if the immediate health or safety of wild free-roaming horses or burros is threatened, such as in severe drought conditions, the Secretary may temporarily remove these animals from the range.
Section 3(j) is a new section that provides that the Secretary may remove from the range wild free-roaming horses and burros determined to be a threat to the health and well being of native plant or wildlife species.
Section 3(k) is a new section. It provides that, except in cases of removal under subsections (d), (i), or (j), if the Secretary removes wild free-roaming horses or burros from an area, the Secretary shall provide a public notice 30 days prior to the planned removal.
Section 3(l) is a new section to address transparency. It provides that the Secretary shall (1) track the number of wild free-roaming horses and burros injured or killed during gathering or holding in a centralized database system; (2) determine what information on the treatment of gathered wild free-roaming horses and burros in holding and adopted wild free-roaming horses and burros could be provided to the public to help inform the public about the treatment of wild free-roaming horses and burros; and (3) ensure that such information is easily accessible on the website of the Bureau of Land Management.
Section 6. Private maintenance
Section 6 amends Section 4 of the 1971 Act. Specifically it directs that wild and free-roaming horses or burros that wander onto privately owned land, shall be returned to the public land.
Section 7. Cooperative agreements
Section 7 amends the 1971 Act to authorize the Secretary to enter into cooperative agreements with other landowners, and with state and local governmental agencies. This section also amends the 1971 Act to authorize the Secretary to enter into cooperative agreements with `other private entities' as well.
Section 8. Joint Advisory Board
Section 8 amends Section 7 of the 1971 Act. It increases the number of members that make up the Joint Advisory Board from 9 to 12 members.
Further, this section reorganizes the make-up of the Joint Advisory Board. It provides that the Advisory Board include at a minimum three representatives of the livestock industry, three representatives of the environmental community, three representatives of the animal protection community; and three scientists with expertise in wildlife management, animal husbandry, or natural resource management. It also provides that the nomination of members shall be conducted by public notice and comment in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. Appendix) and shall be for a term of four years. Finally it directs that no individual shall serve on the Board for more then two consecutive terms.
Section 9. Criminal provisions
Section 9 amends Section 8 of the 1971 Act. Specifically, it amends Section 8(4) and provides that any person who processes, transports for processing, or permits to be processed into commercial products a live or deceased wild free-roaming horse or burro for consideration, will be subject to a fine of not more than $2,000 or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both.
Section 10. Limitation of authority
Section 10 strikes all of section 10 of the 1971 Act. This section in the 1971 Act restricted the authority of the Secretary to relocate wild free-roaming horses or burros to areas of the public lands where they did not exist at the time of passage of the 1971 Act. This bill would lift that restriction.
This section also redesignates section 11 of the 1971 Act as section 10.
Section 11. Reports
Section 11 amends and updates the newly redesignated section 10 of the 1971 Act. Specifically, it updates the reporting requirements to require that not later than one year after the date of enactment of this section and annually thereafter, the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture shall submit to the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate a joint report on the administration of this Act, including a summary of enforcement and/or other actions taken thereunder, costs, and such recommendations for legislative or other actions as the Secretaries may deem appropriate.
H.R.1018
Restore Our American Mustangs Act (Reported in House)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
February 12, 2009
Mr. RAHALL (for himself and Mr. GRIJALVA) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources
June 23, 2009
Additional sponsors: Ms. BORDALLO, Mrs. MALONEY, Mr. WAXMAN, Mr. FARR, Mr. KUCINICH, and Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California
June 23, 2009
Reported with an amendment, committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed
[Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic]
[For text of introduced bill, see copy of bill as introduced on February 12, 2009]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A BILL
To amend the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act to improve the management and long-term health of wild free-roaming horses and burros, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Restore Our American Mustangs Act'.
SEC. 2. REFERENCE.
Except as otherwise expressly provided, whenever in this Act an amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other provision, the reference shall be considered to be made to a section or other provision of the Act of December 15, 1971 (commonly known as the `Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act'; 16 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.).
SEC. 3. POLICY.
The first section is amended by striking `in the area where presently found, as'.
SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.
Section 2 (16 U.S.C. 1332) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (b), by inserting `born or present' after `unclaimed horses and burros';
(2) in paragraph (c), by striking `which does not exceed their known territorial limits,';
(3) in paragraph (d)--
(A) by inserting `and any associated foals' after `his mares'; and
(B) by striking `and' after the semicolon;
(4) in paragraph (e), by striking the period and inserting a semicolon;
(5) in paragraph (f)--
(A) by striking `(1) which' and all that follows through `(2)';
(B) by inserting `, in accordance with section 3(d),' after `from an area'; and
(C) by striking the period at the end and inserting a semicolon; and
(6) by adding at the end the following:
`(g) `thriving natural ecological balance' means a condition that protects ecosystem health, the ecological processes that sustain ecosystem function and a diversity of life forms, including those species listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, and further ensures that wild horses and burros, livestock and wildlife species are given fair consideration in the allocation of resources on those lands where said species are authorized or managed consistent with the requirements of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (Public Law 94-579) and other applicable law; and
`(h) `fatally injured or terminally ill' means an animal exhibiting one or more of the following:
`(1) A hopeless prognosis for life.
`(2) A chronic or incurable disease, injury, lameness, or serious physical defect (including severe tooth loss or wear, club foot, and other severe congenital abnormalities).
`(3) A condition requiring continuous treatment for the relief of pain and suffering in a domestic setting.
`(4) An acute or chronic illness, injury, physical condition or lameness that would preclude an acceptable quality of life for the foreseeable future.'.
SEC. 5. INVENTORY AND DETERMINATIONS.
(a) Section 3(a) (16 U.S.C. 1333(a)) is amended as follows:
(1) By striking `is authorized and directed to' and inserting `shall--
`(1)'.
(2) By striking `, and he may' and inserting a semicolon.
(3) By inserting before `designate' the following:
`(2)'.
(4) In paragraph (2) (as so designated)--
(A) by striking `their' and inserting `the';
(B) by inserting `of wild free-roaming horses and burros' after `preservation';
(C) by striking `wherein' and inserting `where';
(D) by striking `deems' and inserting `, considers'; and
(E) by striking `desirable. The Secretary shall' and inserting `desirable;
`(3)'.
(5) In paragraph (3) (as so designated), by striking the period after `public lands' and inserting a semicolon.
(6) By striking `He shall' and inserting the following:
`(4)'.
(7) In paragraph (4) (as so designated), by striking `of this Act.' and inserting `of this Act;'.
(8) By striking `All' and inserting the following:
`(5) ensure that'.
(9) In paragraph (5) (as so designated)--
(A) by inserting `related to wild free-roaming horses and burros are' after `activities';
(B) by striking `shall be' both places it appears;
(C) by inserting `relevant State' after `in consultation with the';
(D) by striking `of the State wherein such lands are located';
(E) by striking `which inhabit such lands'; and
(F) by striking the period after `endangered wildlife species' and inserting a semicolon.
(10) By striking `Any' and inserting the following:
`(6) ensure that any'.
(11) In paragraph (6) (as so designated)--
(A) by striking `on any such lands shall take' and inserting `are made after taking'; and
(B) by striking `which inhabit such lands.' and inserting `; and'.
(12) At the end of such subsection, add the following:
`(7) ensure that the acreage available for wild and free-roaming horses and burros shall never be less than the acreage where wild and free-roaming horses and burros were found in 1971.'.
(b) Subsection (b)(1) of section 3 is amended as follows:
(1) By striking `(b)(1) The Secretary shall' and inserting the following:
`(b) In order to determine if a thriving natural ecological balance exists with regards to wild free-roaming horses and burros, the Secretary shall--
`(1)'.
(2) In paragraph (1) (as so designated)--
(A) by striking `a current' and inserting `an'; and
(B) by striking the period after `public lands' and inserting a semicolon and the following:
`(2) update the inventory every two years; and
`(3) make the inventory available to the public on the Website of the Bureau of Land Management.'.
(3) By striking `The purpose' and all that follows through `the Secretary' and inserting the following:
`(c) In order to better manage and protect wild free-roaming horses and burros, and to achieve and maintain a thriving natural ecological balance, the Secretary, not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this section, shall take the following actions:
`(1) Adopt and employ the best scientific, peer-reviewed methods to accurately estimate wild free-roaming horse and burro populations on public lands for purposes of the inventory required in subsection (b).
`(2) Develop a policy and standards, with public involvement, for setting consistent, appropriate management levels on public lands, based on scientifically sound methodologies.
`(3) Provide a public process, including a period for notice and comment, for finalizing appropriate management level standards.
`(4) Publish and distribute these standards to each field office so that the methodology for estimating population and determining appropriate management levels is consistent across public lands.
`(5) Train Federal personnel on the use of these standard techniques to estimate population and determine appropriate management levels.'.
(4) By striking `shall consult with' and inserting the following:
`(6) Develop and finalize the standards in consultation with--'.
(5)(A) By inserting `(A)' before `the United States Fish'.
(B) By inserting `(B)' before `wildlife agencies'.
(C) By striking `wherein' and inserting `where'.
(D) By striking `such individuals' and inserting `(C) individuals'.
(E) By striking `such other individuals' and inserting `(D) individuals'.
(F) By striking `he' and inserting `the Secretary'.
(G) By inserting `to' after `determines'.
(6) In subparagraphs (A) through (C) of paragraph (6) (as so designated), by striking each comma and inserting a semicolon.
(7) In subparagraphs (A) through (D) of paragraph (6) (as so designated), by moving the margins of such subparagraphs 4 ems to the right.
(8) After paragraph (6) (as so designated), by inserting the following:
`(7) Identify new, appropriate rangeland for wild free roaming horses and burros, including use of land acquisitions, exchanges, conservation easements, voluntary grazing buyouts, and agreements with private landowners to allow for the federally supervised protection of wild horses and burros on private lands, except that the Secretary shall assess the effects of new range for wild free-roaming horses and burros on rangeland health, riparian zones, water quality, soil compaction, seed bed disturbance, native wildlife, and endangered or threatened species and transmit the results of the assessment to the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate.
`(8) Establish sanctuaries or exclusive use areas, except that the Secretary shall assess the effects of sanctuaries or exclusive use areas for wild free-roaming horses and burros on rangeland health, riparian zones, water quality, soil compaction, seed bed disturbance, native wildlife and endangered or threatened species and transmit the results of the assessment to the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate.
`(9) In identifying or designating any new rangeland, or establishing any sanctuary or exclusive use area for wild free-roaming horses and burros, the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture shall take into account and avoid any potential conflicts with wind, solar, geothermal, oil, natural gas, energy transmission, and mineral resources potential of the lands affected by the identification, designation, or establishment.
`(10) Research, develop, and implement enhanced surgical or immunocontraception sterilization or other safe methods of fertility control.'.
(c) In subsection (b) of section 3, by striking `(2) Where' and inserting `(d) If'.
(d) In subsection (d) (as so designated) of section 3--
(1) by striking `determines' and all that follows through `horses and burros to be' in subparagraph (B) and inserting `has exhausted all practicable options for maintaining a thriving natural ecological balance on the range, the Secretary may provide that wild free-roaming horses and burros are';
(2) by striking `for which he determines' the first place it appears and inserting `so long as the Secretary has determined';
(3) by striking `and for which he determines he can assure' and inserting `and the Secretary can ensure';
(4) by striking `(including' and all that follows through `That, not' and inserting the following: `by requiring that--
`(1) no';
(5) in paragraph (1) (as so designated)--
(A) by striking `animals' the first two places it appears and inserting `wild free-roaming horses and burros';
(B) by striking `such' the first place it appears and inserting `the'; and
(C) by striking `and' after the semicolon and adding the following:
`(2) each individual adopter shall execute an appropriate attestation, pursuant to section 1001 of title 18, United States Code, affirming that adopted animals and their remains shall not be used for commercial purposes; and
`(3) wild free-roaming horses and burros may not be contained in corrals or short-term holding facilities for more than 6 months while awaiting disposition.'; and
(6) by striking subparagraph (C) and paragraph (3).
(e) Redesignate subsection (c) of section 3 as subsection (e) and in such subsection--
(1) by striking `Where excess animals have' and inserting `When a wild free-roaming horse or burro has';
(2) by striking `a period of';
(3) by striking `is authorized' and inserting `shall,';
(4) by inserting a comma after `transferee';
(5) by striking `to' before `grant';
(6) by striking `title to not more than four animals to'; and
(7) by striking `at the end of the one-year period' and inserting `title to that animal'.
(f) Redesignate subsection (d) of section 3 as subsection (f) and in such subsection--
(1) by striking `Wild' and inserting `(1) Except as provided for in paragraph (2), wild';
(2) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (4) as subparagraphs (A) through (D), respectively;
(3) in subparagraph (A) (as so redesignated), by striking `(c) except for the limitation of subsection (c)(1)' and inserting `(e)';
(4) in subparagraph (C) (as so redesignated), by striking `(b)'and inserting `(h)';
(5) in subparagraph (D) (as so redesignated), by striking `; or' and inserting a period; and
(6) in paragraph (5), by striking `(5)' and all that follows through `burro' and inserting the following:
`(2) No animal ever covered under this Act'.
(g) By inserting after section 3(f) (as so redesignated) the following:
`(g) Not later than one year after the date of enactment of this subsection, for the purposes of carrying out a successful wild free-roaming horse and burro adoption program the Secretary shall--
`(1) implement creative and more aggressive marketing strategies for the adoption program, including the use of the internet or other media to showcase horses and the adoption program;
`(2) explore public outreach opportunities, including agreements with local and State organizations that are using horses for rehabilitation, therapy, or prisoner programs;
`(3) provide resources to properly screen and train potential adopters;
`(4) conduct tours of Bureau of Land Management facilities for interested parties;
`(5) develop volunteer mentor and compliance check programs for assisting the agency in facilitating successful adoptions;
`(6) develop a program through which potential adopters may be offered an economic incentive for successful completion of the adoption process; and
`(7) take any and all other actions that the Secretary determines to be necessary and useful towards expanding the wild horse and burro adoption program.
`(h) The Secretary may not destroy or authorize the destruction of wild free-roaming horses or burros unless the Secretary--
`(1) determines that the wild free-roaming horse or burro is terminally ill or fatally injured; and
`(2) ensures that the terminally ill or fatally injured wild free-roaming horse or burro will be destroyed in the most humane manner.
`(i) If the immediate health or safety of wild free-roaming horses or burros is threatened, such as in severe drought conditions, the Secretary may temporarily remove animals from the range.
`(j) The Secretary may remove from the range wild free-roaming horses and burros determined to be a threat to the health and well being of native plant or wildlife species.
`(k) Except in cases of removal under subsection (d), (i), or (j), if the Secretary removes wild free-roaming horses or burros from an area, the Secretary shall provide a public notice on the Website of the Bureau of Land Management 30 days prior to the planned removal.
`(l) The Secretary shall--
`(1) track the number of wild free-roaming horses and burros injured or killed during gathering or holding in a centralized database system;
`(2) determine what information on the treatment of gathered wild free-roaming horses and burros in holding and adopted wild free-roaming horses and burros could be provided to the public to help inform the public about the treatment of wild free-roaming horses and burros; and
`(3) ensure that such information is easily accessible on the Website of the Bureau of Land Management.'.
(h) By striking subsection (e) (relating to sale of excess animals).
http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?&item=&&sid=cp111SczUN&&refer=&&r_n=hr177.111&&dbname=cp111&&sid=cp111SczUN&&sel=TOC_27759&
Representative Chaffetz then offered an amendment to the Grijalva substitute (Chaffetz #2) that would require the Secretary of the Interior to take into account potential conflicts with oil and gas development, renewable energy resource development, and energy transmission when identifying and designating any new rangeland for wild horses and burros. The amendment was agreed to by voice vote.
(In other words, once placed into these "preserves" or whatever, they can be permanently removed from them if there arises any conflict of resources....so, once removed from their historic rangelands, they have lost all protections and will not be considered a resource for inclusion in "multiple-use" plans or lands.They will be shuffled around like cards in a deck stacked against them)
Representative Lummis then offered an amendment to the Grijalva substitute (Lummis #2) requiring the Secretary to conduct a study of the effects of the designation of new wild horse and burro range, and of the establishment of sanctuaries, on natural resources. The amendment was modified to only require an assessment of new designations and the amendment was then agreed to by voice vote.
(Ditto as italisized above)
Representative Lummis then offered an amendment to the Grijalva substitute (Lummis #4) requiring the Secretary to remove wild and free roaming horses and burros from the range if there is a threat to native plants and wildlife. The amendment was modified to make such removals discretionary and the amendment was agreed to by voice vote. (Discretionary? BLM dont know the meaning of the word....they just go right on ahead and do whatever they want,....anybody elses opinion bedamned.)
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
Section 1. Short title
Section 1 provides that this Act may be cited as the `Restore Our American Mustangs Act.'
Section 2. Reference
Section 2 establishes that all instructions in the bill to repeal or amend existing law shall be considered to be made to a section or other provision of the `Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971' (16 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.; hereafter in this report referred to as the `1971 Act'), except as otherwise expressly provided.
Section 3. Policy
Section 3 makes a minor amendment to the policy statement of the 1971 Act by striking the phrase `in the area where presently found,'. This is one of several amendments which will allow the BLM to find new range for wild horses and burros.
(Tearing out the heart of the WFH&B Act of 1971 is a "minor" amendment? This is the most important part of the Act as it statutorily designates these lands as historic wild horse and burro rangelands that SHALL BE used PRIMARILY for wild horse and burro use THROUGH ETERNITY. The intent of the Act was clearly to keep Our National Herds FOREVER upon their historic lands. This is the HEART of the Act that bestows a vested right and title to our Nations wild horses and burros to STAY and remain forever upon their historic rangelands! Do we really need to take this away from them simply in order to take some of them off the land to put them someplace else? I dont think so. I think there is a much more simple and safer way, in fact, I think there is a BLM or FLMPA law in place that already allows them to do that, though I shall have to go back and check, I am sure I read it somewhere, or at least, something like it. In any event, it would have been more prudent do write an addendum under that section that would allow for removal from or expansion of WFH&B range, as needs be, ...and not a severe amendment that will tear the heart out of the purpose of the Act and strip them of their right to stay upon their historic lands FOREVER. This "minor" amendment to the WFH&B Act just goes "a bit" too far. Talk about "over-kill" BLM to WFH&Bs - "Oh," we have to take away your right to your historic lands in order to give you more land," - Da Equines, "Yeah, right, whad do u tink we are,..stoopit?...You said that to the Indians too and look where they are today....not exactly "thriving" are they, particularly the ones out west, upon the lands YOU manage."
Section 4. Definitions
Section 4 amends Section 2 of the 1971 Act, by updating several existing definitions and then adding and defining two new terms.
Specifically, Section 4 includes the addition and definition of the term `thriving natural ecological balance' and the term `fatally injured or terminally ill'. They are defined as follows:
(g) `thriving natural ecological balance' means a condition that protects ecosystem health, the ecological processes that sustain ecosystem function and a diversity of life forms, including those species listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, and further ensures that wild horses and burros, livestock and wildlife species are given fair consideration in the allocation of resources on those lands where said species are authorized or managed consistent with the requirements of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-579) and other applicable law. The Committee would note that this term already appears in the law but has not been defined previously. In providing a definition, it is the Committee's intent that management of wild horses and burros be more consistent and balanced and that resource management decisions, including the allocation of forage, be more equitable.
(h) `fatally injured or terminally ill' means an animal exhibiting one or more of the following: (1) A hopeless prognosis for life. (2) A chronic or incurable disease, injury, lameness, or serious physical defect (including severe tooth loss or wear, club foot, and other severe congenital abnormalities). (3) A condition requiring continuous treatment for the relief of pain and suffering in a domestic setting. (4) An acute or chronic illness, injury, physical condition or lameness that would preclude an acceptable quality of life for the foreseeable future.
Section 5. Inventory and determinations
Section 5 amends and rewrites significant parts of Section 3 of the 1971 Act. References below are made to section 3 of the 1971 Act as amended by section 5 of H.R. 1018, and are as follows:
Section 3(a) of the 1971 Act is amended to update and clarify the Secretary's jurisdiction and responsibilities with regards to the management and protection of wild horses and burros. Specifically, a new provision is added, subsection (a)(7), which requires the Secretary to ensure that the acreage available for wild horses and burros shall never be less then the acreage available to these animals at the time of the passage of the 1971 Act. (Guess this is the provision that gives them back the 20 million acres the BLM took from them, but who knows where that will be...all broken up in little private and public parcels scattered all over the country. And after they have placed all the ones in the holding facilities, and the BLM can stop worrying about what to do with so many "excess" wild horses and burros,they can start gathering them up again from their historic ranges...dont you know them cayuses breed like rabbits? Once gathered, the ROAM Act allows for them NOT to be returned to freedom but instead, with go to one of them wild-horse theme parks they are planning (at a cost of 90 M). And not too forget, thanks to ROAM, once upon their new lands,....if at anytime the BLM determines that there isnt enough forage for them, or that they get in the way of oil or gas exloration, they can now be permanently removed. (Read the minutes, all of them) The WFH&B Act required that, once gathered, at least some of the equines be returned to their historic ranges at some point in time, either after conditions have improved on the ranges or that the emergency situation is over. The WFH&B Act also INSURED that despite whatever other use of their lands (oil, gas, utilities, wind farms etc.) the equines still have a right to stay, NO MATTER WHAT else goes on around them.)ROAM will take that protection away, and if the BLM does like it always does,...they will say that the wild horses and burros are in the way of exploration or development and will gather them off their lands. If ROAM passes it wont be long before ALL herds are permanently removed from their traditional lands because the BLM will allege (as they always allege) that there is not enough forage to sustain them and/or they are in the way of developments.The ROAM Act is a masterpiece of political ledgerdermain - it gives no protections for the equines upon their historic lands!
Section 3(b) of the 1971 Act is amended to require the Secretary to determine if a thriving natural ecological balance exists with regards to the population of wild horses and burros on public lands. (This is nothing new and these jerks wouldnt know what a thriving eco-anything would be; they have NEVER seen it with all them damn cows who have been pounding our praries to dust for over a hundred years; what would the BLM (formerly known as the U.S. Grazing Service) know about bio-diversity when they always were and always will be only about cows and their ranchers friends?) In order make that determination, the Secretary is first required to maintain an inventory of wild and free-roaming horses and burros on public lands. (This is nothing new either, as was supposed to have been done in 1972 and updated over the years)Two new subsections are included, which also require the Secretary to update the inventory every two years make the inventory available to the public on the Bureau of Land Management's website. (This is a new part and a good provision too, at last,...but still, does not make up for the bad.)
Section 3(c) is a new section which directs the Secretary to take certain actions in order to manage wild horses and burros and to achieve and maintain a thriving natural ecological balance on rangelands where these animals are found. (That is, where ever they decide to put them, and just what are these "certain actions" the Sec can take "to achieve and maintain a thriving ecological balance on rangelands "where these animals are found?" - Move them once again to where-ever the hell they want. Sounds like the same old same old to me)
Section 3(c) provides that fertility control shall be one of the tools that the Secretary shall use to manage wild horses and burros. It is the Committee's intent that the Bureau of Land Management shall research, develop, and implement enhanced fertility control for mares and/or stallions, including but not limited to surgical, chemical or immunocontraception or other safe, humane and effective methods of fertility control. (If herds are managed properly, with regular culling of some of the young adoptables, and the humane euthansia of the motrally wounded, sick or hopelessly suffering, artificial brith control would not be necessary....and YES there are natural predators also,...the same big cats, wolves and packs of coyotes that are killing all the ranchers cows and sheep that the gov't reimburses them for and taxpayers are footin the bill,...IN ADDITION to the $500 MILLION a year the gov't charges the taxpayers for the cost of administering the welfare grazing program.
Section 3(d) is a new section, but in drafting this section, substantial parts of section 3(b) of the 1971 Act were rewritten or deleted to accommodate a shift in policy. Specifically, the bill strikes language in section 3(b)(2)(A) of the 1971 Act allowing the Secretary to order `old, sick, or lame animals' to be destroyed. The bill also strikes section 3(b)(2)(C), which authorizes the Secretary to destroy any wild horse or burro, for which an adoption demand does not exist. (Well here is a revocation of the Burns/Reid Act that allows for the unlimied sale or destruction of the "three strikes" equines and those over 10 yrs old. Of course, this is a very good thing but STILL not enough to outweigh the bad of the ROAM Act. Do we really need the ROAM Act to revoke the Burns/Reid Rider? Of course not! This is the BLMs way of saying, "Listen, we wont kill your horses if you just let us take them off of their traditional rangelands and put them anywhere we want and sterilize them (both on and off the ranges) What kind of a bargain for the equines is that? Or, for us, for that matter, the american public who enjoy seeing them run free and wild upon the very same lands their ancestors roamed: TRADITIONAL lands. What would Wild Horse Annie think of this "ROAM" Act that took their statutory right to those lands away?
---To be continued
Section 3(d) provides that wild horses and burros may only be removed if the Secretary has exhausted all practicable options for maintaining a thriving natural ecological balance on the range, as laid out in section 3(c); and so long as the Secretary has determined that an adoption demand, by a qualified individual, exists; and so long as the Secretary can ensure their humane capture and removal. Once removed for private maintenance and care, the Secretary must ensure the humane treatment and care of these animals.
Section 3(e) updates section 3(c) of the 1971 Act. It authorizes the Secretary to transfer title of a wild horse or burro, to a qualified individual, one year after adoption of that animal. However, it provides that the transfer of title can only occur if the Secretary has determined that the individual has provided humane conditions, treatment and care for these animals.
Section 3(f) rewrites section 3(d) of the 1971 Act. This section provides that (1) wild and free-roaming horses and burros or their remains shall lose their status as wild free-roaming horses or burros, and shall no longer fall within the purview of this Act under certain stipulations listed under this subsection. However, under subsection (2) no animal ever covered under this Act, or its remains, may be sold or transferred for consideration for processing into commercial products.
Section 3(g) is a new section that requires the Secretary to implement a more effective and dynamic adoption program within one year of enactment of this subsection. Specifically, it requires the Secretary to: (1) implement more aggressive marketing strategies for the adoption program, including the use of the internet of other media to showcase adoptable horses; (2) explore public outreach opportunities, including agreements with local and state organizations that are using horses for rehabilitation, therapy or prisoner programs; (3) provide resources to properly screen and train potential adopters; (4) conduct tours of Bureau of Land Management facilities for interested parties; (5) develop a volunteer mentor and compliance check program for assisting the agency in facilitating successful adoptions; (6) develop a program through which potential adopters may be offered an economic incentive for successful completion of the adoption program; and (7) take all other actions that the Secretary determines to be necessary and useful towards expanding the wild horse and burro adoption program.
Section 3(h) is a new section which provides that the Secretary may not destroy or authorize the destruction of wild free-roaming horses or burros unless the Secretary, (1) determines that the wild free-roaming horse or burro is terminally ill or fatally injured (as defined in section 2(h)); and (2) ensures that the terminally ill or fatally injured wild free-roaming horse or burro will be destroyed in the most humane manner.
Section 3(i) is a new section that provides for emergency removal. It provides that if the immediate health or safety of wild free-roaming horses or burros is threatened, such as in severe drought conditions, the Secretary may temporarily remove these animals from the range.
Section 3(j) is a new section that provides that the Secretary may remove from the range wild free-roaming horses and burros determined to be a threat to the health and well being of native plant or wildlife species.
Section 3(k) is a new section. It provides that, except in cases of removal under subsections (d), (i), or (j), if the Secretary removes wild free-roaming horses or burros from an area, the Secretary shall provide a public notice 30 days prior to the planned removal.
Section 3(l) is a new section to address transparency. It provides that the Secretary shall (1) track the number of wild free-roaming horses and burros injured or killed during gathering or holding in a centralized database system; (2) determine what information on the treatment of gathered wild free-roaming horses and burros in holding and adopted wild free-roaming horses and burros could be provided to the public to help inform the public about the treatment of wild free-roaming horses and burros; and (3) ensure that such information is easily accessible on the website of the Bureau of Land Management.
Section 6. Private maintenance
Section 6 amends Section 4 of the 1971 Act. Specifically it directs that wild and free-roaming horses or burros that wander onto privately owned land, shall be returned to the public land.
Section 7. Cooperative agreements
Section 7 amends the 1971 Act to authorize the Secretary to enter into cooperative agreements with other landowners, and with state and local governmental agencies. This section also amends the 1971 Act to authorize the Secretary to enter into cooperative agreements with `other private entities' as well.
Section 8. Joint Advisory Board
Section 8 amends Section 7 of the 1971 Act. It increases the number of members that make up the Joint Advisory Board from 9 to 12 members.
Further, this section reorganizes the make-up of the Joint Advisory Board. It provides that the Advisory Board include at a minimum three representatives of the livestock industry, three representatives of the environmental community, three representatives of the animal protection community; and three scientists with expertise in wildlife management, animal husbandry, or natural resource management. It also provides that the nomination of members shall be conducted by public notice and comment in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. Appendix) and shall be for a term of four years. Finally it directs that no individual shall serve on the Board for more then two consecutive terms.
Section 9. Criminal provisions
Section 9 amends Section 8 of the 1971 Act. Specifically, it amends Section 8(4) and provides that any person who processes, transports for processing, or permits to be processed into commercial products a live or deceased wild free-roaming horse or burro for consideration, will be subject to a fine of not more than $2,000 or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both.
Section 10. Limitation of authority
Section 10 strikes all of section 10 of the 1971 Act. This section in the 1971 Act restricted the authority of the Secretary to relocate wild free-roaming horses or burros to areas of the public lands where they did not exist at the time of passage of the 1971 Act. This bill would lift that restriction.
This section also redesignates section 11 of the 1971 Act as section 10.
Section 11. Reports
Section 11 amends and updates the newly redesignated section 10 of the 1971 Act. Specifically, it updates the reporting requirements to require that not later than one year after the date of enactment of this section and annually thereafter, the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture shall submit to the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate a joint report on the administration of this Act, including a summary of enforcement and/or other actions taken thereunder, costs, and such recommendations for legislative or other actions as the Secretaries may deem appropriate.
H.R.1018
Restore Our American Mustangs Act (Reported in House)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
February 12, 2009
Mr. RAHALL (for himself and Mr. GRIJALVA) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources
June 23, 2009
Additional sponsors: Ms. BORDALLO, Mrs. MALONEY, Mr. WAXMAN, Mr. FARR, Mr. KUCINICH, and Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California
June 23, 2009
Reported with an amendment, committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed
[Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic]
[For text of introduced bill, see copy of bill as introduced on February 12, 2009]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A BILL
To amend the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act to improve the management and long-term health of wild free-roaming horses and burros, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Restore Our American Mustangs Act'.
SEC. 2. REFERENCE.
Except as otherwise expressly provided, whenever in this Act an amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other provision, the reference shall be considered to be made to a section or other provision of the Act of December 15, 1971 (commonly known as the `Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act'; 16 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.).
SEC. 3. POLICY.
The first section is amended by striking `in the area where presently found, as'.
SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.
Section 2 (16 U.S.C. 1332) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (b), by inserting `born or present' after `unclaimed horses and burros';
(2) in paragraph (c), by striking `which does not exceed their known territorial limits,';
(3) in paragraph (d)--
(A) by inserting `and any associated foals' after `his mares'; and
(B) by striking `and' after the semicolon;
(4) in paragraph (e), by striking the period and inserting a semicolon;
(5) in paragraph (f)--
(A) by striking `(1) which' and all that follows through `(2)';
(B) by inserting `, in accordance with section 3(d),' after `from an area'; and
(C) by striking the period at the end and inserting a semicolon; and
(6) by adding at the end the following:
`(g) `thriving natural ecological balance' means a condition that protects ecosystem health, the ecological processes that sustain ecosystem function and a diversity of life forms, including those species listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, and further ensures that wild horses and burros, livestock and wildlife species are given fair consideration in the allocation of resources on those lands where said species are authorized or managed consistent with the requirements of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (Public Law 94-579) and other applicable law; and
`(h) `fatally injured or terminally ill' means an animal exhibiting one or more of the following:
`(1) A hopeless prognosis for life.
`(2) A chronic or incurable disease, injury, lameness, or serious physical defect (including severe tooth loss or wear, club foot, and other severe congenital abnormalities).
`(3) A condition requiring continuous treatment for the relief of pain and suffering in a domestic setting.
`(4) An acute or chronic illness, injury, physical condition or lameness that would preclude an acceptable quality of life for the foreseeable future.'.
SEC. 5. INVENTORY AND DETERMINATIONS.
(a) Section 3(a) (16 U.S.C. 1333(a)) is amended as follows:
(1) By striking `is authorized and directed to' and inserting `shall--
`(1)'.
(2) By striking `, and he may' and inserting a semicolon.
(3) By inserting before `designate' the following:
`(2)'.
(4) In paragraph (2) (as so designated)--
(A) by striking `their' and inserting `the';
(B) by inserting `of wild free-roaming horses and burros' after `preservation';
(C) by striking `wherein' and inserting `where';
(D) by striking `deems' and inserting `, considers'; and
(E) by striking `desirable. The Secretary shall' and inserting `desirable;
`(3)'.
(5) In paragraph (3) (as so designated), by striking the period after `public lands' and inserting a semicolon.
(6) By striking `He shall' and inserting the following:
`(4)'.
(7) In paragraph (4) (as so designated), by striking `of this Act.' and inserting `of this Act;'.
(8) By striking `All' and inserting the following:
`(5) ensure that'.
(9) In paragraph (5) (as so designated)--
(A) by inserting `related to wild free-roaming horses and burros are' after `activities';
(B) by striking `shall be' both places it appears;
(C) by inserting `relevant State' after `in consultation with the';
(D) by striking `of the State wherein such lands are located';
(E) by striking `which inhabit such lands'; and
(F) by striking the period after `endangered wildlife species' and inserting a semicolon.
(10) By striking `Any' and inserting the following:
`(6) ensure that any'.
(11) In paragraph (6) (as so designated)--
(A) by striking `on any such lands shall take' and inserting `are made after taking'; and
(B) by striking `which inhabit such lands.' and inserting `; and'.
(12) At the end of such subsection, add the following:
`(7) ensure that the acreage available for wild and free-roaming horses and burros shall never be less than the acreage where wild and free-roaming horses and burros were found in 1971.'.
(b) Subsection (b)(1) of section 3 is amended as follows:
(1) By striking `(b)(1) The Secretary shall' and inserting the following:
`(b) In order to determine if a thriving natural ecological balance exists with regards to wild free-roaming horses and burros, the Secretary shall--
`(1)'.
(2) In paragraph (1) (as so designated)--
(A) by striking `a current' and inserting `an'; and
(B) by striking the period after `public lands' and inserting a semicolon and the following:
`(2) update the inventory every two years; and
`(3) make the inventory available to the public on the Website of the Bureau of Land Management.'.
(3) By striking `The purpose' and all that follows through `the Secretary' and inserting the following:
`(c) In order to better manage and protect wild free-roaming horses and burros, and to achieve and maintain a thriving natural ecological balance, the Secretary, not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this section, shall take the following actions:
`(1) Adopt and employ the best scientific, peer-reviewed methods to accurately estimate wild free-roaming horse and burro populations on public lands for purposes of the inventory required in subsection (b).
`(2) Develop a policy and standards, with public involvement, for setting consistent, appropriate management levels on public lands, based on scientifically sound methodologies.
`(3) Provide a public process, including a period for notice and comment, for finalizing appropriate management level standards.
`(4) Publish and distribute these standards to each field office so that the methodology for estimating population and determining appropriate management levels is consistent across public lands.
`(5) Train Federal personnel on the use of these standard techniques to estimate population and determine appropriate management levels.'.
(4) By striking `shall consult with' and inserting the following:
`(6) Develop and finalize the standards in consultation with--'.
(5)(A) By inserting `(A)' before `the United States Fish'.
(B) By inserting `(B)' before `wildlife agencies'.
(C) By striking `wherein' and inserting `where'.
(D) By striking `such individuals' and inserting `(C) individuals'.
(E) By striking `such other individuals' and inserting `(D) individuals'.
(F) By striking `he' and inserting `the Secretary'.
(G) By inserting `to' after `determines'.
(6) In subparagraphs (A) through (C) of paragraph (6) (as so designated), by striking each comma and inserting a semicolon.
(7) In subparagraphs (A) through (D) of paragraph (6) (as so designated), by moving the margins of such subparagraphs 4 ems to the right.
(8) After paragraph (6) (as so designated), by inserting the following:
`(7) Identify new, appropriate rangeland for wild free roaming horses and burros, including use of land acquisitions, exchanges, conservation easements, voluntary grazing buyouts, and agreements with private landowners to allow for the federally supervised protection of wild horses and burros on private lands, except that the Secretary shall assess the effects of new range for wild free-roaming horses and burros on rangeland health, riparian zones, water quality, soil compaction, seed bed disturbance, native wildlife, and endangered or threatened species and transmit the results of the assessment to the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate.
`(8) Establish sanctuaries or exclusive use areas, except that the Secretary shall assess the effects of sanctuaries or exclusive use areas for wild free-roaming horses and burros on rangeland health, riparian zones, water quality, soil compaction, seed bed disturbance, native wildlife and endangered or threatened species and transmit the results of the assessment to the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate.
`(9) In identifying or designating any new rangeland, or establishing any sanctuary or exclusive use area for wild free-roaming horses and burros, the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture shall take into account and avoid any potential conflicts with wind, solar, geothermal, oil, natural gas, energy transmission, and mineral resources potential of the lands affected by the identification, designation, or establishment.
`(10) Research, develop, and implement enhanced surgical or immunocontraception sterilization or other safe methods of fertility control.'.
(c) In subsection (b) of section 3, by striking `(2) Where' and inserting `(d) If'.
(d) In subsection (d) (as so designated) of section 3--
(1) by striking `determines' and all that follows through `horses and burros to be' in subparagraph (B) and inserting `has exhausted all practicable options for maintaining a thriving natural ecological balance on the range, the Secretary may provide that wild free-roaming horses and burros are';
(2) by striking `for which he determines' the first place it appears and inserting `so long as the Secretary has determined';
(3) by striking `and for which he determines he can assure' and inserting `and the Secretary can ensure';
(4) by striking `(including' and all that follows through `That, not' and inserting the following: `by requiring that--
`(1) no';
(5) in paragraph (1) (as so designated)--
(A) by striking `animals' the first two places it appears and inserting `wild free-roaming horses and burros';
(B) by striking `such' the first place it appears and inserting `the'; and
(C) by striking `and' after the semicolon and adding the following:
`(2) each individual adopter shall execute an appropriate attestation, pursuant to section 1001 of title 18, United States Code, affirming that adopted animals and their remains shall not be used for commercial purposes; and
`(3) wild free-roaming horses and burros may not be contained in corrals or short-term holding facilities for more than 6 months while awaiting disposition.'; and
(6) by striking subparagraph (C) and paragraph (3).
(e) Redesignate subsection (c) of section 3 as subsection (e) and in such subsection--
(1) by striking `Where excess animals have' and inserting `When a wild free-roaming horse or burro has';
(2) by striking `a period of';
(3) by striking `is authorized' and inserting `shall,';
(4) by inserting a comma after `transferee';
(5) by striking `to' before `grant';
(6) by striking `title to not more than four animals to'; and
(7) by striking `at the end of the one-year period' and inserting `title to that animal'.
(f) Redesignate subsection (d) of section 3 as subsection (f) and in such subsection--
(1) by striking `Wild' and inserting `(1) Except as provided for in paragraph (2), wild';
(2) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (4) as subparagraphs (A) through (D), respectively;
(3) in subparagraph (A) (as so redesignated), by striking `(c) except for the limitation of subsection (c)(1)' and inserting `(e)';
(4) in subparagraph (C) (as so redesignated), by striking `(b)'and inserting `(h)';
(5) in subparagraph (D) (as so redesignated), by striking `; or' and inserting a period; and
(6) in paragraph (5), by striking `(5)' and all that follows through `burro' and inserting the following:
`(2) No animal ever covered under this Act'.
(g) By inserting after section 3(f) (as so redesignated) the following:
`(g) Not later than one year after the date of enactment of this subsection, for the purposes of carrying out a successful wild free-roaming horse and burro adoption program the Secretary shall--
`(1) implement creative and more aggressive marketing strategies for the adoption program, including the use of the internet or other media to showcase horses and the adoption program;
`(2) explore public outreach opportunities, including agreements with local and State organizations that are using horses for rehabilitation, therapy, or prisoner programs;
`(3) provide resources to properly screen and train potential adopters;
`(4) conduct tours of Bureau of Land Management facilities for interested parties;
`(5) develop volunteer mentor and compliance check programs for assisting the agency in facilitating successful adoptions;
`(6) develop a program through which potential adopters may be offered an economic incentive for successful completion of the adoption process; and
`(7) take any and all other actions that the Secretary determines to be necessary and useful towards expanding the wild horse and burro adoption program.
`(h) The Secretary may not destroy or authorize the destruction of wild free-roaming horses or burros unless the Secretary--
`(1) determines that the wild free-roaming horse or burro is terminally ill or fatally injured; and
`(2) ensures that the terminally ill or fatally injured wild free-roaming horse or burro will be destroyed in the most humane manner.
`(i) If the immediate health or safety of wild free-roaming horses or burros is threatened, such as in severe drought conditions, the Secretary may temporarily remove animals from the range.
`(j) The Secretary may remove from the range wild free-roaming horses and burros determined to be a threat to the health and well being of native plant or wildlife species.
`(k) Except in cases of removal under subsection (d), (i), or (j), if the Secretary removes wild free-roaming horses or burros from an area, the Secretary shall provide a public notice on the Website of the Bureau of Land Management 30 days prior to the planned removal.
`(l) The Secretary shall--
`(1) track the number of wild free-roaming horses and burros injured or killed during gathering or holding in a centralized database system;
`(2) determine what information on the treatment of gathered wild free-roaming horses and burros in holding and adopted wild free-roaming horses and burros could be provided to the public to help inform the public about the treatment of wild free-roaming horses and burros; and
`(3) ensure that such information is easily accessible on the Website of the Bureau of Land Management.'.
(h) By striking subsection (e) (relating to sale of excess animals).
http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?&item=&&sid=cp111SczUN&&refer=&&r_n=hr177.111&&dbname=cp111&&sid=cp111SczUN&&sel=TOC_27759&
NMSU Ag-Economics Student Has Solution for BLMs Unwanted Wild Equines - Tells Americans to Eat Them!
WILD HORSES AND FEDERAL TAX DOLLARS
BY ASHTON GRAHAM
A paper submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for
AEEC 522 Economics of Public Expenditure
New Mexico State University
Las Cruces, New Mexico
November 2008
Wild Horses and Federal Tax Dollars
By Ashton Graham
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
The wild mustangs that roam the American west are horses descended from those brought to this country by Spanish explorers five centuries ago. These horses became a revered symbol of the Wild West and American freedom. Horses have been used for transportation, farming, mail delivery, war, meat and have been an integral part of United States history. At work and at play the horse has become a much-loved companion of the American public. Congress classifies horses as livestock (Ahern, et al., 2006), but the American public treats them more like pets.
While herds of wild mustangs still exist in the west today, no action was taken to protect these horses until the early 1950’s. During the 1950’s Velma B. Johnston, later nicknamed Wild Horse Annie, conducted her own research into how wild horses were rounded up by ranchers and hunters often referred to as "mustangers." Appalled by the inhumane treatment of the horses, Johnston began a grassroots campaign that primarily involved school children. Youngsters from across America sent letters to newspapers and legislators and attracted attention that outraged the public and made them aware of the issue. Newspapers published articles about the exploitation of the wild horses and burros and the Associated Press (1959) article, "Seldom has an issue touched such a responsive chord." Nevada Congressman Walter Baring (1959) introduced a bill prohibiting the use of motorized vehicles or aircrafts to hunt or harass wild horses on all public lands. The House of Representatives unanimously passed the bill, which became known as the Wild Horse Annie Act. (U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 2008)
The 1959 law did not include Johnston’s recommendation that Congress begin a program to protect wild horses and burros (Gorey, Factsheet on Challenges Facing the BLM in its Management of Wild Horses and Burros, 2008) Public interest and concern continued to increase, and with that came the realization that more federal action was needed. In response to the public outcry, the Senate unanimously passed the Wild Free Roaming and Burro Act in 1971. Under the act, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) was charged with the protection, management, and control of wild horses and burros. The act was intended to ensure that healthy herds would thrive on healthy rangelands. One of the BLM’s key responsibilities under the law was to determine the appropriate management levels of wild horses and burros on public lands. In 1976, the act was amended to allow officials or contractors to manage the animals by helicopter and motorized vehicles. In 1978, the act was amended further to authorize the BLM to euthanasia excess wild horses and burros for which an adoption demand by qualified individuals did not exist. (U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 2008)
In 1990, the U.S Government Accountability Office recommended that the BLM consider, for horses in long-term holding facilities, a variety of disposal options that included sterilization and euthanasia. Today, almost 20 years after the first long-term holding facility opened, with adoption demand declining and alternative disposal options still not being used, the BLM continued to open new long-term holding facilities to care for these unadoptable horses while the costs continued to escalate. (2008 GAO REPORT p. 62)
In 2004, the BLM was authorized to sell without limitation wild horses and burros that were either over 10 years of age or had been passed over for adoption at least three times. (2008 GAO Report, p.11 ) That meant that the BLM could sell the horses to individuals who planned to sell the horses for slaughter. Senator Burns (2006) the driving force behind the 2004 legislation said, "horses are bought and sold like cattle. With an old lame horse you sell them to the slaughter house to recoup cost. " (Brungardt, 2006) The BLM chooses not to destroy or sell excess horses because of public outcry concerns and congressional reaction. BLM has instead imposed limitations on the sale of excess animals in an effort to reduce the risk that animals purchased would be resold to slaughterhouses for profit. In 2005, BLM had buyers sign a "no slaughter" agreement. By not selling without limitation the BLM is out of compliance with the requirements of the law. (2008 GAO Report, p. 10, 60)
The BLM balances the needs of ranching, recreation and animal wildlife on public land. Of the 260 million such Western acres, about 35 million are home to free-roaming horses. Wild horses and burros have virtually no predators, and their herd size can double every three to four years. (Masibay, 2002) As a result, the BLM must remove thousands of animals from the range each year to control herd sizes. Currently, 33,000 (29,500 horses and 3,500 burros) roam BLM-managed rangelands in 10 Western states. (Gorey, Factsheet on Challenges Facing the BLM in its Management of Wild Horses and Burros, 2008 & Appendices A) While off the range as of June 2008, there are another 30,088 wild horses and burros that are fed and cared for at short-term (corrals) and long-term (pasture) holding facilities. (GAO Report, p.8 2008)
In fiscal year 2007, the BLM spent $38.8 million on its wild horse and burro program. The cost for holding wild horses and burros in short term- (corrals) and long-term facilities (private lands) was $21.9 million, meaning that holding costs accounted for more than half of what the BLM spent in Fiscal Year 2007 on its total wild horse and burro program. In fiscal year 2008, holding costs exceeded $27 million, accounting for three-fourths of the FY 2008 Congressional Appropriation of about $38 million for the BLM's total wild horse and burro program. This level of funding is not sufficient to support necessary removals from the range while maintaining lifetime holding facilities for older, unadopted animals. To continue its current removal and holding practices, the BLM would need $77 million by 2012. This is the figure projected by the BLM. (Gorey, Factsheet on Challenges Facing the BLM in its Management of Wild Horses and Burros, 2008)
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
The cost of keeping animals removed from western rangelands in holding facilities is rising and preventing the BLM from successfully managing other parts of the program, such as gathers and adoptions. The BLM cannot continue its current removal and holding practices under existing and projected budgets. In one year alone, from fiscal year 2007 to fiscal year 2008, energy costs for transportation and feed increased by 4 million. If the BLM does not control the off- the-range holding costs the program will continue to overwhelm the BLM budget. In 2008 the $27 million expenditure represented in 2008 74% of the budget. (Gorey, Factsheet on Challenges Facing the BLM in its Management of Wild Horses and Burros, 2008)
When asked about the BLM costs, lifelong rancher Coleman (2008) said that the BLM figures were low and contended that the BLM had a tendency to underplay how bad the situation was and that the costs they presented were not a true reflection of the actual overall cost. The costs to counties, cities, and individuals to take care of damage was not reflected in the BLM figures. (Coleman, 2008)
Even though the law requires humane destruction or sale without limitation, the BLM cannot continue to care for animals off the range. The costs for maintaining horses off the range are overwhelming the budget. The BLM program is at a critical crossroads. (GAO report p.62)
The BLM could take no action, but should the BLM refrain from removing excess horses from the range, the horses’ presence would impact the ecological balance on western rangelands. Overpopulation of herds would cause overgrazing of forage and lead to the eventual malnutrition and starvation of horses and burros. Overpopulation would cause damage to native vegetation and riparian areas and to wildlife areas, increase soil erosion, and lower water quality. Maxine Shane (2002) of the Bureau of Land Management, reminded those interested that vegetation and water were finite resources that all the species had to share. If the mustangs were to overgraze or eat plants down, they might not re-grow. (Masibay, 2002 & Appendices B)
As Vice President of The Public Lands Council, Charles Coleman toured numerous Western ranches talking with ranchers regarding their problems on public lands, primarily to look at wild horse problems. Coleman found that overgrazing was a problem. Horses will destroy water systems and run off cattle if the rancher is feeding his livestock. A single horse needs15 or 20 gallons of water a day. The cost is high to a rancher to maintain his/her infrastructure because of the damage horses do, the water they drink, and the amount of salt/mineral they eat. (Coleman, 2008)
The major problem with removing excess animals from public lands is what to do with them. In 1971, the BLM began an adoption program for wild mustangs, but there are not enough individuals available to adopt these horses. The horses are relatively inexpensive to adopt, with costs starting at $15. (Appendices C) Since the adoption program started in 1971, the BLM has placed more than 235,700 wild horses and burros into private care. (GAO Report p.3)
Like the free roaming animals, all horses and burros in holding facilities are protected by the BLM under the Wild Horse Free-Roaming Horse and Burros Act. It is these horses in the holding facilities that are putting a major strain on the BLM’s budget. Carrying for animals in captivity is expensive because of the price of feed, fuel, and transportation. Currently, animals placed in long-term facilities can live out the rest of their lives, which can range from 10 to 25 years depending on the age they enter the facility. (Masibay, 2002)
Coleman (2008) noted there was little knowledge about how many wild horses there are. No accurate census figures are available, which compounds the problem. (Coleman 2008) Accurate animal counts are critical to the BLM’s ability to properly manage wild horses and burros, but according to the Government Accounting Office (2008), the BLM consistently undercounts the animals. When asked about the numbers on the range, Coleman contended that no one takes keeps track of the horses and that while the BLM was responsible for keeping track of the horses, the Bureau lacked staff. The BLM herds are counted or estimated every three to four years. Democratic Representative Nick Rahal of West Virginia (2008) also criticized the BLM for mismanaging the program, inability to administer the budget with any trace of fiscal responsibility. (McAllister, 2008)
According the Strategic Research, Plan Wild Horses & Burro Management (2003), the BLM claimed that inbreeding was rare in wild horses and in the wild horses carried little disease. (U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division & Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, October 2003 Revised March 2005) However, horses in long-term holding facilities are concentrated, and infectious diseases can spread rapidly through animals. Health care includes numerous inoculations against pathogens, hoof trimming, and de-worming. The animals are wild, and handling creates stress. Additionally, they may be injured during handling, transport, and treatment. The BLM’s answer to these problems is to study optimal handling and healthcare practices. The support for this type of research is not economically feasible.
Central to the control of wild horse numbers have been programs that promote adoption. Ironically, that solution has become part of the problem. While a good deal of money is spent on it, a cost-benefit analysis shows that adoption as a solution is both inefficient and costly. Rancher Charles Coleman (2008) calls the adoption programs "great feel good programs" that do not come close to solving the problem because people do not adopt enough horses to make a significant difference. (Coleman 2008)
Because free ranging herds have the potential to double in size every four years, and the BLM now has over 30,000 horses in captivity, the federal government and the public must work harder to plan for the current and projected expenditures of the wild horse program. Gorey (2008) observed that solving the problem was an emotional and controversial issue. The BLM has extensive mustang adoption programs available through the Internet along with several on site auctions that were scheduled across United States each month through September 2009. The BLM has devoted a great deal of time, resources, and planning to fostering adoptions for wild mustangs. While the BLM mission was to protect, control, and manage the wild horse population, the adoption numbers continued to decline yearly, from 5700 adoptions in 2005 to 4700 in 2007 and fewer than 4000 to date in 2008. The adoption numbers do not come close to matching the 30,000 horses that are available for adoption. (Gorey, Public Affairs Office, 2008 & Appendices D)
Several other adoption programs operate across the country. One such program involves prisoners in mustang gentling programs at numerous correctional facilities. While these gentling programs result in adoptions through auctions, they do not significantly impact the large number of horses that are available for adoption. (Kerson, 2008)
The BLM praises the Wild Mustang Makeover as a program that has done much to bring attention to the complicated issues the BLM faces. (Madigan, 2008) However, the makeover program cannot keep pace with the number of mustangs available for adoption. While the event is entertaining and educational, it will not support the numbers of horses that are currently in holding facilities awaiting adoption.
In 2007, the Mustang Heritage Foundation, a nonprofit organization, created the Extreme Mustang Makeover event to showcase the recognized value of mustangs through a national training competition. The focus and mission of the Mustang Heritage Foundation is to increase the adoption of wild horses living in the BLM holding facilities. The Mustang Makeover competition brings together 100 horse trainers from across the United States. Each trainer trains a wild mustang for 90 days and brings the horse to an event to compete with the other trainers to determine who has the best-trained horse. In 2007, seventy-five mustangs were adopted for a total of $233,100 for a sale average of $3,108. The BLM received $125 per head as the minimum adoption fee, while the remainder was allocated for development and programs of the Mustang Heritage Foundation. As of 2008, the Mustang Heritage Foundation has been responsible for the adoption of nearly 1,000 mustangs through competitions and another of their programs called the Trainer Incentive Program. (Blasienz, 2008)
Since May 2005 Ford Motor Company has joined with the Department of the Interior to build public awareness for the plight of America’s wild horses and to help fund their adoption. The program has raised over $215,000 in donations, using funds to find home for hundreds of eligible animals. (Ford Motor Company, 2008) While Ford’s program is educational and worthwhile, the donations do not make up two percent of the BLM budget for the horses in captivity. This program’s fund raising efforts are minimal. The result is that the mystique of the wild mustang gets promoted, but there is a lack of attention to the costs to the federal taxpayer.
It is clear, then, that even with collaboration from the private sector, the government bureau charged with controlling wild horse numbers is failing to meet the challenge with their primary emphasis on animal adoption as the answer. Solutions other than adoption must be explored and considered.
Concurrent with the problem of controlling wild horse numbers is a human problem. Ten million people die every year of hunger and hunger-related diseases. Over 854 million people all over the world know what it means to go to bed hungry every night. That is more than the combined populations of the United States, Canada, and the European Union. Approximately 24,000 people die from the effects of hunger each day, almost one person every 3.5 seconds. (Hunger Facts: International, 2008) One of the questions that should be raised is, can one of these problems become a partial solution to the other? If the meat of slaughtered horses could be used to feed the hungry, the number of wild horses could be reduced significantly while starving people could be rescued from hunger. The use of the meat for pet food would also help absorb numbers.
Coleman (2008) advocated a system in which a certain number would be slaughtered and the meat used for pet food or sent to a country where the use of the meat for human consumption is accepted. Coleman saw that a structured program that called for a certain number of horses to be slaughtered annually would curb the horse population and make what remained more manageable. He also stated that decisions were being made based on emotion rather than science. (Coleman, 2008) In 2004 the BLM was authorized to sell, without limitation, wild horses and burros that were either over 10 years of age or had been passed over for adoption at least three times. The BLM has not followed this law because of the controversy surrounding selling horses for slaughter. (GAO Report, p.46,54)
One of the biggest challenges to reducing the numbers of horses by slaughtering is federal regulations and court rulings. (Ahern, et al., 2006 p.6) The estimated horse population in the US private sector is 9.2 million. USDA says 65,976 horses were harvested in the U.S. in 2004 and 91,757 in 2005. (Ahern, et al., 2006 p.3) These were unwanted animals in the private sector that were sold because they were no longer serviceable, were infirm or dangerous, or their owners could no longer care for them. Such horses moved through three U.S. plants, with the meat exported to Europe, Japan and Mexico. However, as of 2007, all three of the foreign-owned slaughterhouses in the United States were shut down. The horse slaughter industry continues to haul American horses to slaughter in Canada and Mexico, but that may end soon. Efforts are now underway in Congress to pass legislation to amend the Horse Protection Act to prohibit the shipping, transporting, moving, delivering, receiving, processing, purchasing, selling, or donation of horses and other equines to be humanely slaughtered for human consumption and for other purposes. (Ahern, et al., 2006)
Dr. Gary Potter (2006), Department of Animal Science, Texas A& M University, found that banning horse processing would do more harm than good to the horse welfare in this country. In a study commissioned by the Animal Welfare Council, researchers found that a horse-processing ban would devastate the horse market. (Ahern, et al., 2006) The researchers argued that the legislation did not provide fiscal support that would likely be needed to respond to an ever-increasing number of unwanted, abused, and neglected horses and that while those supporting a horse processing ban might have been be well-intentioned, such a ban will make things much worse for tens of thousands of other horses, the whole horse industry, and society in general. Those who supported the legislation offered no solution to care for the estimated 100,000 unwanted horses that must be dealt with annually in the U.S. Supporters of the legislation spread inaccurate information that is driving legislators to act on emotion and not on facts. This ban would cause more horses to stay on the market and thus be in competition with the mustang adoption program. The direct economic impact and future unintended economic impact of banning horse processing for human consumption is substantial. (Ahern, et al., 2006)
Thus is it that in 2008, the BLM was faced with ever-increasing numbers of animal in their care. The animal adoption programs in place did not solve the problem of excess animals because there were not enough adoptees to match the number of animals in waiting. Further, while the BLM had the legal authority under a 2004 law to slaughter some animals, public opinion and congressional reaction restrained them from using even their legal recourse. In addition, BLM required buyers to sign a statement that they do not intend to slaughter the animals. (GAO Report, 2008 p.9) The BLM also negotiated agreements with US Slaughter plants to notify the BLM if horses entered their facilities. (GAO Report, 2008, p.55) Still, if slaughter were to become part of the solution, the BLM would need to take a stand and have a plan ready to both implement and defend.
AVAILABLE SOLUTIONS
On June 30, 2008, federal official from the BLM made the highly controversial announcement that for the first time in agency’s history, it was considering the euthanasia of the surplus of wild mustangs and burros that were housed at holding facilities across the country. (McAllister, 2008)
To underscore this euthanasia announcement, Director of the BLM Jim Caswell (2008) contended that while euthanasia might not be a popular solution, it might have to become one of the alternatives to continued maintenance and adoption. (Madigan, 2008) Wild Horse Annie, as a proponent of saving the wild mustangs said that if the herd sizes became unmanageable, she would consider euthanasia a viable option. (Time Magzine, 1959)
While euthanasia of horses is a difficult topic and many oppose the idea, it is an alternative that needs to be considered given the current number of horses in captivity. In 1978, the Wild Horse act was amended to authorize the BLM to euthanasia excess wild horse and burros for which an adoption demand by qualified individuals did not exist. (GAO Report, 2008 p.11) Management of safe and proper disposal of horse carcasses presents another problem in order to as people and other animals might need protection from disease outbreaks and the potential of environmental poisoning from euthanasia drugs. (Ahern, et al., 2006)
If captive horses were to be killed, Coleman (2008) suggested that it would make sense to get some use out of the horses. There is a certain amount of cost involved with slaughtering, and the horses could pay for the system themselves. There are countries in which people eat horsemeat, and there are dog food companies that want to buy the meat. (Coleman, 2008)
An alternative that the BLM has investigated is fertility control in wild horses, though no free-range western horse herd has yet to be managed with contraceptives. The BLM does not believe one single fertility control agent or device is available that meets all the stated needs of the agency (U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division & Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, October 2003 Revised March 2005, p.25)
The National Mustang Association was founded to ensure the survival of the wild mustang. While their goal is to help these symbols of the Old West continue to lead a natural, free-roaming existence, this is the only organization that offers to let an individual adopt a horse without taking possession of it. (National Mustang Association Adopt-A-Horse-For-A-Year, 2002) This type of program, if well funded and marketed properly, has the potential to increase adoptions substantially. If Individuals were sent brochures, pictures, and information about a specific horse, a relationship could be built between the adopter and the horse.
Another idea that has been put forward is to have the federal government ask Americans to donate to the cause of preservation and include a box at the end of IRS forms, just as they do with fund for the presidential election, asking taxpayers to check a box to indicate a donation. (Dokoupil, 2008)
There are several ways to approach the problem of what to do with excess wild animals. Fertility control, adoption without possession, and taxpayer donations could be some of the answers, but the solution that remains the most likely to reduce the necessary number of animals remains slaughter. That final solution would bring with it a number of benefits.
BENEFITS DERIVED FROM SLAUGHTER
The first benefit of the slaughtering plan is financial. At the present time, the wild animal control program is costly and inefficient. This condition could be improved if a solution that would dramatically reduce the number of animals in the care of the BLM were to be adopted, and that solution is slaughter. Some data already exist to substantiate the money return. According to the USDA, the value of horsemeat sold for processing in the United States in 2002 was $26 million. If the BLM were to adhere to the law and sell without limitation, the federal government could profit from the sale of the horsemeat.
While horsemeat is not consumed in the United States, it is nutritious. A four-ounce piece of horsemeat contains 20% more protein 25% less fat, nearly 20% less sodium, double the iron, and 1 mg less cholesterol than a four-ounce serving of beef sirloin. Data from 2005 shows that almost five million people worldwide eat horsemeat processed in their countries. China leads the way with 204,000 metric tons. In the western hemisphere, Mexico and Brazil process 100,000 metric tons. (Ahern, et al., 2006)
The idea of feeding the hungry around the world, if properly presented, could help solve the BLM problem of caring for horses in captivity and for future horses taken off the range. The BLM could mount a positive campaign to feed the hungry around the world with the horsemeat. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (2006), there are 820 million chronically hungry people in developing countries. In Sub-Saharan Africa alone, there are 204 million; in Asia and the Pacific, 156 million; in India, 221 million; in China, 142 million. In the western hemisphere, in Latin America and the Caribbean area, there are 53 million. (Hunger Facts: International, 2008)
CONCLUSION
Though wild horses are a part of our American heritage, some action needs to be taken to reduce the numbers of wild horses in the open range and in captivity. One of the biggest problems with the numbers of horses that the BLM has to manage is the public’s opinion about what should be done with the excess horses. Adoption and fertility control appear to be acceptable options, but these options do not come close to solving the cost-benefits problem. Individuals and groups have played on emotions without giving adequate thought to the inefficiencies of the current program. While the BLM itself states that costs are rising, the American public resists the most efficient way to solve the problem. Emotion, not science, is driving the decisions that allow the inefficiency to continue.
Until pressure is put on the US Government and the BLM to comply with the law and effectively manage this inefficient program, costs will continue to outpace revenue. The Secretary of the Department of Interior must strengthen compliance and enforce consequences. Enacting legislation to prohibit transporting horses to Canada and Mexico would be detrimental to the equine industry and would inevitably put more strain on government entities for both horses in the private sector and horses under federal care. Americans need to accept and embrace the idea of using horsemeat for human consumption outside of the United States. While the decisions may be difficult, science and fiscal responsibility should dictate responses instead of emotions and special interests. An important solution is available and should be implemented. That solution would benefit the government financially and would benefit others around the world by providing a food source.
APPENDICES
BY ASHTON GRAHAM
A paper submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for
AEEC 522 Economics of Public Expenditure
New Mexico State University
Las Cruces, New Mexico
November 2008
Wild Horses and Federal Tax Dollars
By Ashton Graham
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
The wild mustangs that roam the American west are horses descended from those brought to this country by Spanish explorers five centuries ago. These horses became a revered symbol of the Wild West and American freedom. Horses have been used for transportation, farming, mail delivery, war, meat and have been an integral part of United States history. At work and at play the horse has become a much-loved companion of the American public. Congress classifies horses as livestock (Ahern, et al., 2006), but the American public treats them more like pets.
While herds of wild mustangs still exist in the west today, no action was taken to protect these horses until the early 1950’s. During the 1950’s Velma B. Johnston, later nicknamed Wild Horse Annie, conducted her own research into how wild horses were rounded up by ranchers and hunters often referred to as "mustangers." Appalled by the inhumane treatment of the horses, Johnston began a grassroots campaign that primarily involved school children. Youngsters from across America sent letters to newspapers and legislators and attracted attention that outraged the public and made them aware of the issue. Newspapers published articles about the exploitation of the wild horses and burros and the Associated Press (1959) article, "Seldom has an issue touched such a responsive chord." Nevada Congressman Walter Baring (1959) introduced a bill prohibiting the use of motorized vehicles or aircrafts to hunt or harass wild horses on all public lands. The House of Representatives unanimously passed the bill, which became known as the Wild Horse Annie Act. (U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 2008)
The 1959 law did not include Johnston’s recommendation that Congress begin a program to protect wild horses and burros (Gorey, Factsheet on Challenges Facing the BLM in its Management of Wild Horses and Burros, 2008) Public interest and concern continued to increase, and with that came the realization that more federal action was needed. In response to the public outcry, the Senate unanimously passed the Wild Free Roaming and Burro Act in 1971. Under the act, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) was charged with the protection, management, and control of wild horses and burros. The act was intended to ensure that healthy herds would thrive on healthy rangelands. One of the BLM’s key responsibilities under the law was to determine the appropriate management levels of wild horses and burros on public lands. In 1976, the act was amended to allow officials or contractors to manage the animals by helicopter and motorized vehicles. In 1978, the act was amended further to authorize the BLM to euthanasia excess wild horses and burros for which an adoption demand by qualified individuals did not exist. (U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 2008)
In 1990, the U.S Government Accountability Office recommended that the BLM consider, for horses in long-term holding facilities, a variety of disposal options that included sterilization and euthanasia. Today, almost 20 years after the first long-term holding facility opened, with adoption demand declining and alternative disposal options still not being used, the BLM continued to open new long-term holding facilities to care for these unadoptable horses while the costs continued to escalate. (2008 GAO REPORT p. 62)
In 2004, the BLM was authorized to sell without limitation wild horses and burros that were either over 10 years of age or had been passed over for adoption at least three times. (2008 GAO Report, p.11 ) That meant that the BLM could sell the horses to individuals who planned to sell the horses for slaughter. Senator Burns (2006) the driving force behind the 2004 legislation said, "horses are bought and sold like cattle. With an old lame horse you sell them to the slaughter house to recoup cost. " (Brungardt, 2006) The BLM chooses not to destroy or sell excess horses because of public outcry concerns and congressional reaction. BLM has instead imposed limitations on the sale of excess animals in an effort to reduce the risk that animals purchased would be resold to slaughterhouses for profit. In 2005, BLM had buyers sign a "no slaughter" agreement. By not selling without limitation the BLM is out of compliance with the requirements of the law. (2008 GAO Report, p. 10, 60)
The BLM balances the needs of ranching, recreation and animal wildlife on public land. Of the 260 million such Western acres, about 35 million are home to free-roaming horses. Wild horses and burros have virtually no predators, and their herd size can double every three to four years. (Masibay, 2002) As a result, the BLM must remove thousands of animals from the range each year to control herd sizes. Currently, 33,000 (29,500 horses and 3,500 burros) roam BLM-managed rangelands in 10 Western states. (Gorey, Factsheet on Challenges Facing the BLM in its Management of Wild Horses and Burros, 2008 & Appendices A) While off the range as of June 2008, there are another 30,088 wild horses and burros that are fed and cared for at short-term (corrals) and long-term (pasture) holding facilities. (GAO Report, p.8 2008)
In fiscal year 2007, the BLM spent $38.8 million on its wild horse and burro program. The cost for holding wild horses and burros in short term- (corrals) and long-term facilities (private lands) was $21.9 million, meaning that holding costs accounted for more than half of what the BLM spent in Fiscal Year 2007 on its total wild horse and burro program. In fiscal year 2008, holding costs exceeded $27 million, accounting for three-fourths of the FY 2008 Congressional Appropriation of about $38 million for the BLM's total wild horse and burro program. This level of funding is not sufficient to support necessary removals from the range while maintaining lifetime holding facilities for older, unadopted animals. To continue its current removal and holding practices, the BLM would need $77 million by 2012. This is the figure projected by the BLM. (Gorey, Factsheet on Challenges Facing the BLM in its Management of Wild Horses and Burros, 2008)
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
The cost of keeping animals removed from western rangelands in holding facilities is rising and preventing the BLM from successfully managing other parts of the program, such as gathers and adoptions. The BLM cannot continue its current removal and holding practices under existing and projected budgets. In one year alone, from fiscal year 2007 to fiscal year 2008, energy costs for transportation and feed increased by 4 million. If the BLM does not control the off- the-range holding costs the program will continue to overwhelm the BLM budget. In 2008 the $27 million expenditure represented in 2008 74% of the budget. (Gorey, Factsheet on Challenges Facing the BLM in its Management of Wild Horses and Burros, 2008)
When asked about the BLM costs, lifelong rancher Coleman (2008) said that the BLM figures were low and contended that the BLM had a tendency to underplay how bad the situation was and that the costs they presented were not a true reflection of the actual overall cost. The costs to counties, cities, and individuals to take care of damage was not reflected in the BLM figures. (Coleman, 2008)
Even though the law requires humane destruction or sale without limitation, the BLM cannot continue to care for animals off the range. The costs for maintaining horses off the range are overwhelming the budget. The BLM program is at a critical crossroads. (GAO report p.62)
The BLM could take no action, but should the BLM refrain from removing excess horses from the range, the horses’ presence would impact the ecological balance on western rangelands. Overpopulation of herds would cause overgrazing of forage and lead to the eventual malnutrition and starvation of horses and burros. Overpopulation would cause damage to native vegetation and riparian areas and to wildlife areas, increase soil erosion, and lower water quality. Maxine Shane (2002) of the Bureau of Land Management, reminded those interested that vegetation and water were finite resources that all the species had to share. If the mustangs were to overgraze or eat plants down, they might not re-grow. (Masibay, 2002 & Appendices B)
As Vice President of The Public Lands Council, Charles Coleman toured numerous Western ranches talking with ranchers regarding their problems on public lands, primarily to look at wild horse problems. Coleman found that overgrazing was a problem. Horses will destroy water systems and run off cattle if the rancher is feeding his livestock. A single horse needs15 or 20 gallons of water a day. The cost is high to a rancher to maintain his/her infrastructure because of the damage horses do, the water they drink, and the amount of salt/mineral they eat. (Coleman, 2008)
The major problem with removing excess animals from public lands is what to do with them. In 1971, the BLM began an adoption program for wild mustangs, but there are not enough individuals available to adopt these horses. The horses are relatively inexpensive to adopt, with costs starting at $15. (Appendices C) Since the adoption program started in 1971, the BLM has placed more than 235,700 wild horses and burros into private care. (GAO Report p.3)
Like the free roaming animals, all horses and burros in holding facilities are protected by the BLM under the Wild Horse Free-Roaming Horse and Burros Act. It is these horses in the holding facilities that are putting a major strain on the BLM’s budget. Carrying for animals in captivity is expensive because of the price of feed, fuel, and transportation. Currently, animals placed in long-term facilities can live out the rest of their lives, which can range from 10 to 25 years depending on the age they enter the facility. (Masibay, 2002)
Coleman (2008) noted there was little knowledge about how many wild horses there are. No accurate census figures are available, which compounds the problem. (Coleman 2008) Accurate animal counts are critical to the BLM’s ability to properly manage wild horses and burros, but according to the Government Accounting Office (2008), the BLM consistently undercounts the animals. When asked about the numbers on the range, Coleman contended that no one takes keeps track of the horses and that while the BLM was responsible for keeping track of the horses, the Bureau lacked staff. The BLM herds are counted or estimated every three to four years. Democratic Representative Nick Rahal of West Virginia (2008) also criticized the BLM for mismanaging the program, inability to administer the budget with any trace of fiscal responsibility. (McAllister, 2008)
According the Strategic Research, Plan Wild Horses & Burro Management (2003), the BLM claimed that inbreeding was rare in wild horses and in the wild horses carried little disease. (U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division & Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, October 2003 Revised March 2005) However, horses in long-term holding facilities are concentrated, and infectious diseases can spread rapidly through animals. Health care includes numerous inoculations against pathogens, hoof trimming, and de-worming. The animals are wild, and handling creates stress. Additionally, they may be injured during handling, transport, and treatment. The BLM’s answer to these problems is to study optimal handling and healthcare practices. The support for this type of research is not economically feasible.
Central to the control of wild horse numbers have been programs that promote adoption. Ironically, that solution has become part of the problem. While a good deal of money is spent on it, a cost-benefit analysis shows that adoption as a solution is both inefficient and costly. Rancher Charles Coleman (2008) calls the adoption programs "great feel good programs" that do not come close to solving the problem because people do not adopt enough horses to make a significant difference. (Coleman 2008)
Because free ranging herds have the potential to double in size every four years, and the BLM now has over 30,000 horses in captivity, the federal government and the public must work harder to plan for the current and projected expenditures of the wild horse program. Gorey (2008) observed that solving the problem was an emotional and controversial issue. The BLM has extensive mustang adoption programs available through the Internet along with several on site auctions that were scheduled across United States each month through September 2009. The BLM has devoted a great deal of time, resources, and planning to fostering adoptions for wild mustangs. While the BLM mission was to protect, control, and manage the wild horse population, the adoption numbers continued to decline yearly, from 5700 adoptions in 2005 to 4700 in 2007 and fewer than 4000 to date in 2008. The adoption numbers do not come close to matching the 30,000 horses that are available for adoption. (Gorey, Public Affairs Office, 2008 & Appendices D)
Several other adoption programs operate across the country. One such program involves prisoners in mustang gentling programs at numerous correctional facilities. While these gentling programs result in adoptions through auctions, they do not significantly impact the large number of horses that are available for adoption. (Kerson, 2008)
The BLM praises the Wild Mustang Makeover as a program that has done much to bring attention to the complicated issues the BLM faces. (Madigan, 2008) However, the makeover program cannot keep pace with the number of mustangs available for adoption. While the event is entertaining and educational, it will not support the numbers of horses that are currently in holding facilities awaiting adoption.
In 2007, the Mustang Heritage Foundation, a nonprofit organization, created the Extreme Mustang Makeover event to showcase the recognized value of mustangs through a national training competition. The focus and mission of the Mustang Heritage Foundation is to increase the adoption of wild horses living in the BLM holding facilities. The Mustang Makeover competition brings together 100 horse trainers from across the United States. Each trainer trains a wild mustang for 90 days and brings the horse to an event to compete with the other trainers to determine who has the best-trained horse. In 2007, seventy-five mustangs were adopted for a total of $233,100 for a sale average of $3,108. The BLM received $125 per head as the minimum adoption fee, while the remainder was allocated for development and programs of the Mustang Heritage Foundation. As of 2008, the Mustang Heritage Foundation has been responsible for the adoption of nearly 1,000 mustangs through competitions and another of their programs called the Trainer Incentive Program. (Blasienz, 2008)
Since May 2005 Ford Motor Company has joined with the Department of the Interior to build public awareness for the plight of America’s wild horses and to help fund their adoption. The program has raised over $215,000 in donations, using funds to find home for hundreds of eligible animals. (Ford Motor Company, 2008) While Ford’s program is educational and worthwhile, the donations do not make up two percent of the BLM budget for the horses in captivity. This program’s fund raising efforts are minimal. The result is that the mystique of the wild mustang gets promoted, but there is a lack of attention to the costs to the federal taxpayer.
It is clear, then, that even with collaboration from the private sector, the government bureau charged with controlling wild horse numbers is failing to meet the challenge with their primary emphasis on animal adoption as the answer. Solutions other than adoption must be explored and considered.
Concurrent with the problem of controlling wild horse numbers is a human problem. Ten million people die every year of hunger and hunger-related diseases. Over 854 million people all over the world know what it means to go to bed hungry every night. That is more than the combined populations of the United States, Canada, and the European Union. Approximately 24,000 people die from the effects of hunger each day, almost one person every 3.5 seconds. (Hunger Facts: International, 2008) One of the questions that should be raised is, can one of these problems become a partial solution to the other? If the meat of slaughtered horses could be used to feed the hungry, the number of wild horses could be reduced significantly while starving people could be rescued from hunger. The use of the meat for pet food would also help absorb numbers.
Coleman (2008) advocated a system in which a certain number would be slaughtered and the meat used for pet food or sent to a country where the use of the meat for human consumption is accepted. Coleman saw that a structured program that called for a certain number of horses to be slaughtered annually would curb the horse population and make what remained more manageable. He also stated that decisions were being made based on emotion rather than science. (Coleman, 2008) In 2004 the BLM was authorized to sell, without limitation, wild horses and burros that were either over 10 years of age or had been passed over for adoption at least three times. The BLM has not followed this law because of the controversy surrounding selling horses for slaughter. (GAO Report, p.46,54)
One of the biggest challenges to reducing the numbers of horses by slaughtering is federal regulations and court rulings. (Ahern, et al., 2006 p.6) The estimated horse population in the US private sector is 9.2 million. USDA says 65,976 horses were harvested in the U.S. in 2004 and 91,757 in 2005. (Ahern, et al., 2006 p.3) These were unwanted animals in the private sector that were sold because they were no longer serviceable, were infirm or dangerous, or their owners could no longer care for them. Such horses moved through three U.S. plants, with the meat exported to Europe, Japan and Mexico. However, as of 2007, all three of the foreign-owned slaughterhouses in the United States were shut down. The horse slaughter industry continues to haul American horses to slaughter in Canada and Mexico, but that may end soon. Efforts are now underway in Congress to pass legislation to amend the Horse Protection Act to prohibit the shipping, transporting, moving, delivering, receiving, processing, purchasing, selling, or donation of horses and other equines to be humanely slaughtered for human consumption and for other purposes. (Ahern, et al., 2006)
Dr. Gary Potter (2006), Department of Animal Science, Texas A& M University, found that banning horse processing would do more harm than good to the horse welfare in this country. In a study commissioned by the Animal Welfare Council, researchers found that a horse-processing ban would devastate the horse market. (Ahern, et al., 2006) The researchers argued that the legislation did not provide fiscal support that would likely be needed to respond to an ever-increasing number of unwanted, abused, and neglected horses and that while those supporting a horse processing ban might have been be well-intentioned, such a ban will make things much worse for tens of thousands of other horses, the whole horse industry, and society in general. Those who supported the legislation offered no solution to care for the estimated 100,000 unwanted horses that must be dealt with annually in the U.S. Supporters of the legislation spread inaccurate information that is driving legislators to act on emotion and not on facts. This ban would cause more horses to stay on the market and thus be in competition with the mustang adoption program. The direct economic impact and future unintended economic impact of banning horse processing for human consumption is substantial. (Ahern, et al., 2006)
Thus is it that in 2008, the BLM was faced with ever-increasing numbers of animal in their care. The animal adoption programs in place did not solve the problem of excess animals because there were not enough adoptees to match the number of animals in waiting. Further, while the BLM had the legal authority under a 2004 law to slaughter some animals, public opinion and congressional reaction restrained them from using even their legal recourse. In addition, BLM required buyers to sign a statement that they do not intend to slaughter the animals. (GAO Report, 2008 p.9) The BLM also negotiated agreements with US Slaughter plants to notify the BLM if horses entered their facilities. (GAO Report, 2008, p.55) Still, if slaughter were to become part of the solution, the BLM would need to take a stand and have a plan ready to both implement and defend.
AVAILABLE SOLUTIONS
On June 30, 2008, federal official from the BLM made the highly controversial announcement that for the first time in agency’s history, it was considering the euthanasia of the surplus of wild mustangs and burros that were housed at holding facilities across the country. (McAllister, 2008)
To underscore this euthanasia announcement, Director of the BLM Jim Caswell (2008) contended that while euthanasia might not be a popular solution, it might have to become one of the alternatives to continued maintenance and adoption. (Madigan, 2008) Wild Horse Annie, as a proponent of saving the wild mustangs said that if the herd sizes became unmanageable, she would consider euthanasia a viable option. (Time Magzine, 1959)
While euthanasia of horses is a difficult topic and many oppose the idea, it is an alternative that needs to be considered given the current number of horses in captivity. In 1978, the Wild Horse act was amended to authorize the BLM to euthanasia excess wild horse and burros for which an adoption demand by qualified individuals did not exist. (GAO Report, 2008 p.11) Management of safe and proper disposal of horse carcasses presents another problem in order to as people and other animals might need protection from disease outbreaks and the potential of environmental poisoning from euthanasia drugs. (Ahern, et al., 2006)
If captive horses were to be killed, Coleman (2008) suggested that it would make sense to get some use out of the horses. There is a certain amount of cost involved with slaughtering, and the horses could pay for the system themselves. There are countries in which people eat horsemeat, and there are dog food companies that want to buy the meat. (Coleman, 2008)
An alternative that the BLM has investigated is fertility control in wild horses, though no free-range western horse herd has yet to be managed with contraceptives. The BLM does not believe one single fertility control agent or device is available that meets all the stated needs of the agency (U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division & Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, October 2003 Revised March 2005, p.25)
The National Mustang Association was founded to ensure the survival of the wild mustang. While their goal is to help these symbols of the Old West continue to lead a natural, free-roaming existence, this is the only organization that offers to let an individual adopt a horse without taking possession of it. (National Mustang Association Adopt-A-Horse-For-A-Year, 2002) This type of program, if well funded and marketed properly, has the potential to increase adoptions substantially. If Individuals were sent brochures, pictures, and information about a specific horse, a relationship could be built between the adopter and the horse.
Another idea that has been put forward is to have the federal government ask Americans to donate to the cause of preservation and include a box at the end of IRS forms, just as they do with fund for the presidential election, asking taxpayers to check a box to indicate a donation. (Dokoupil, 2008)
There are several ways to approach the problem of what to do with excess wild animals. Fertility control, adoption without possession, and taxpayer donations could be some of the answers, but the solution that remains the most likely to reduce the necessary number of animals remains slaughter. That final solution would bring with it a number of benefits.
BENEFITS DERIVED FROM SLAUGHTER
The first benefit of the slaughtering plan is financial. At the present time, the wild animal control program is costly and inefficient. This condition could be improved if a solution that would dramatically reduce the number of animals in the care of the BLM were to be adopted, and that solution is slaughter. Some data already exist to substantiate the money return. According to the USDA, the value of horsemeat sold for processing in the United States in 2002 was $26 million. If the BLM were to adhere to the law and sell without limitation, the federal government could profit from the sale of the horsemeat.
While horsemeat is not consumed in the United States, it is nutritious. A four-ounce piece of horsemeat contains 20% more protein 25% less fat, nearly 20% less sodium, double the iron, and 1 mg less cholesterol than a four-ounce serving of beef sirloin. Data from 2005 shows that almost five million people worldwide eat horsemeat processed in their countries. China leads the way with 204,000 metric tons. In the western hemisphere, Mexico and Brazil process 100,000 metric tons. (Ahern, et al., 2006)
The idea of feeding the hungry around the world, if properly presented, could help solve the BLM problem of caring for horses in captivity and for future horses taken off the range. The BLM could mount a positive campaign to feed the hungry around the world with the horsemeat. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (2006), there are 820 million chronically hungry people in developing countries. In Sub-Saharan Africa alone, there are 204 million; in Asia and the Pacific, 156 million; in India, 221 million; in China, 142 million. In the western hemisphere, in Latin America and the Caribbean area, there are 53 million. (Hunger Facts: International, 2008)
CONCLUSION
Though wild horses are a part of our American heritage, some action needs to be taken to reduce the numbers of wild horses in the open range and in captivity. One of the biggest problems with the numbers of horses that the BLM has to manage is the public’s opinion about what should be done with the excess horses. Adoption and fertility control appear to be acceptable options, but these options do not come close to solving the cost-benefits problem. Individuals and groups have played on emotions without giving adequate thought to the inefficiencies of the current program. While the BLM itself states that costs are rising, the American public resists the most efficient way to solve the problem. Emotion, not science, is driving the decisions that allow the inefficiency to continue.
Until pressure is put on the US Government and the BLM to comply with the law and effectively manage this inefficient program, costs will continue to outpace revenue. The Secretary of the Department of Interior must strengthen compliance and enforce consequences. Enacting legislation to prohibit transporting horses to Canada and Mexico would be detrimental to the equine industry and would inevitably put more strain on government entities for both horses in the private sector and horses under federal care. Americans need to accept and embrace the idea of using horsemeat for human consumption outside of the United States. While the decisions may be difficult, science and fiscal responsibility should dictate responses instead of emotions and special interests. An important solution is available and should be implemented. That solution would benefit the government financially and would benefit others around the world by providing a food source.
APPENDICES
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
