Thursday, December 30, 2010

TGRM or "How to Breed the Best Rodeo Stock from Mustangs"

Total Genetic Resource Management;

Walker Bucking Stock Horses / Breeders

Recognize any mustangs here?

Funny how they make NO MENTION the horses bloodlines. Must be killing them that they cant BRAG about the Mustang blood in them! Of course, breeding mustangs for profit is ILLEGAL.

No Bull! Bucking Stock BIG Business

Get a load of the price of these bucking stock bulls....

Cant help but wonder how many of these prize bucking stock bulls are grazing on public lands?

Same holds true for bucking stock horses....they even sell live seamen from them!

Below is a directory of bucking stock dealers and, although most of them are just advertizing the bulls they have for sale,....bucking stock is bucking stock and where they have cows they also have horses. Not sure? Give them a call and ask if they have any bucking stock horses with "Mustang" blood in them;

TRUST that the rodeo-stock breeders are getting the pick of the best wild Mustang stallions coming off of the ranges...

Mystery Solved as to Where All the "Choice" Gathered Mustangs Have Gone

Listen close as long-time Rodeo-Stock Breeder SHarry Vold says "Mustangs" Essential for Breeding Good Bucking Horses!!

Harry Vold has been breeding rodeo stock for over 50 years.

See also: Bucking Horses Have Their Own Registry!

The American Bucking Horse Registry Requires DNA Sample to Register a Horse and I am wondering, what kind of DNA are they looking for? Hum......

Wednesday, December 22, 2010

DOI / BLM, WH&B Management = Conflict of Interest

I found your post to George Knapp wanting some evidence of Slazar not wanting horses on the range and decided to go looking and found this - Cameron Bryce, a BLM ecologist wrote that "wild horses do not belong in western ecosystems" - in the attached link.

"What is truly motivating BLM’s massive roundup strategy? It would seem to be a deadly combination of their belief that wild horses do not belong on the range and that the land should be used for extractive purposes: livestock grazing, oil and gas development, uranium mining, siphoning off of water etc. Cameron Bryce, a BLM ecologist, wrote that “wild horses do not belong in western ecosystems,”

Continuing onward I saw on
a reference to an Environmental Assessment where I think the quote initialy arose -

Overview of Current Situation and TCF
The Cloud Foundation - dedicated to the preservation of wild horses on our public lands, and the protection of Cloud's herd in the Arrowhead Mountains of Montana.

Monday, December 20, 2010

Eye On Nevadas "Feral Horse" Commission

If you are interested in receiving notices regarding meetings and other public information of the Nevada Department of Wildlife's - Feral Horse Committee

Please contact this very cordial and professional person:

Suzanne Scoreby (Employee at the Valley Road, Reno NDOW office who handles mailing lists, not specifically related to the Feral Horse Committee)

You will give her your name and email address to put on the mailing list.

FYI: A reminder of the Feral Horse Committee's Agenda: they drafted a letter to be sent to the State Water Engineer asking for the removal of all wild horses on federal lands in Nevada. This was tabled due to improper proceedure regarding the letter's introduction. It will be reintroduced at a meeting of the Feral Horse Committee.

Many thanks,

Dorothy Nylen

Friday, December 17, 2010

If I Were a "Mother Org."......

1. I would be proposing to our legislators that we compile and submit a bill to Congress declaring our American Equines to be a National Treasure, and protecting them ALL from slaughter.

2. I would be encouraging all members to go about and protest holding THE INDUSTRY responsible for its overbreeding and of being ok with sending their horses to slaughter.

3. I would be working on a lawsuit charging the BLM with statutory nullification and acting in excess of their legal authority, and (in California Surrogates Court, for breech of the Leo Heil Trust.)

4. I would also include in this lawsuit a claim that the BLM is in violation of Humane Laws for allowing the captured wild equines to stand in long term holding pens without any shelter from the sun and/or inclimate weather.

5. I would be encouraging all members to meet the pro-slaughters on every and any front to counter their pro-slaughter propaganda.

6. I would be encouraging all members to engage in a boycott "of all things" pro-slaughter (this inculdes the meat and cattle industry) to "hit them where it hurts."

7. I would suggest that our supporters quit asking politely and start DEMANDING an end to horse slaughter....

This is only a partial list, but I tell you one thing for sure, if I were a "Mother Org" I would NOT allow our supporters to put all their faith in the politicians to get what we want done....

"Those who profess to favor freedom, yet deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightening. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters. This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will."

– Frederick Douglass, African-American abolitionist

Get Active - Act Up! - Move Mountains - Go ARA!

Thursday, December 16, 2010

Wild Horses to Slaughter

An old report but nothing much has changed;

Taking a STAND for the horses in Las Vegas

by Brogan Horton on Saturday, December 4, 2010 at 10:35am

As many of you have heard, January 3rd-6th will be a sad day for horses. There is a conference in Las Vegas at the South Point Casino called, “The Summit of the Horse Conference”. This conference is a meeting of the biggest pro-slaughter heads in the country. The event organizer is Sue Wallis, the very same Sue Wallis who thinks that horses, domestic and wild alike, should be slaughtered and be fed to our children in schools and colleges. They are going to discuss, "How to deal with UNWANTED feral horses", "How to restore slaughter in the USA" and " How to deal with unwanted and abandoned horses".... a few guest speakers include:

-The BLM's Chief Bob Abbey
-Dave Catoor- Sue Wallis- Wyoming
-Ike Sankey – Joliet, Montana
-Sankey Pro Rodeo – PRCA stock contractor
-Larry Johnson, Nevada Sportsmen for Fish & Wildlife and former member of BLM Wild Horse and Burro Advisory Committee
-Arlen Washines, Yakama Nations
-Frank Bowman, Illinois Horse Council
-Katherine Minthorn Good Luck, Umatilla, Inter tribal AgricultureCouncil & Northwest Tribal Horse Coalition
-Jason Smith, Warm Springs Tribe
-Tim Amlaw, American Humane
-Temple Grandin & Mark Deesing from Grandin Livestock Systems
-Joey Astling, USDA/APHIS Slaughter Horse Regulation
-Jennifer Woods – Humane Handling and Assessment Tool Project
-Bill DesBarres, Horse Welfare Alliance of Canada
-Chris Gould, Canada, World Breeding Federation of Sport Horses
-Manuel Sada, Criadores de Caballos Deportivos Mexicanos AC, Mexico

It’s basically a giant conference of horse killers.... the BLM (our government, who is paid with OUR tax dollars) is now saying slaughter is a the only reasonable means of disposal for the "Mass"abundance of wild horses.

We have an incredible opportunity to make a HUGE difference in Las Vegas!

SHARK has SO generously donated the use of their "TIGER truck", a truck with 4 HUGE TV screen's surrounding it playing looped video. We will drive around downtown Las Vegas, showing the general public images of what they are REALLY talking about inside the summit meeting. Driving back and forth in front of the Casino, in front of the pro-slaughter people walking in and out... Imagine the impact, and attention this would bring to our cause! To be able to EXPOSE the truth to the general public, RIGHT in Sue Wallis' face!!! The look on her face will be priceless, and worth EVERY PENNY!

We are in need of funding to RUN the truck! It needs to be driven from Chicago to Vegas for the Event

- The truck runs on diesel- The screens run on a gasoline generator

We need your help to make this happen!! This is our CHANCE to stand up for the horses in the faces of those who oppose us!

Please donate the following to help:

We need: Frequent flyer miles to get our volunteers to and from the event- Gas cards to run the truck and get it from A- B

Any donation can be made to:

(please include a mailing address for your tax write-off receipt)

Mail Check or Money Order to: (Gas cards can be mailed to the same address)
Animal Rescue Unit P.O Box 50 North Bridgton Maine 04057

We need to stand together, to be the voice for the horses, for their future!

Brogan Horton
President & Lead Investigator
Animal Rescue Unit
Phone (207) 939-7852
Fax (207) 647-3798
Please also know that there is plans for peaceful protests and demonstations outside of the South Point Casino, and all are welcome to come to Vegas on Jan. 3rd thru 6th to join the "Friends of Equines FOES of Equine Slaughter" folks who will be there protesting the event. Contact Chris Jubic at MuleKist@Gmail.Com for more info on the demos.

Also, any anti-horse slaughter advocates who may wish to go to the Summit and partake in the question and answer period can do so by registering at the "reduced" rate of $100 by signing in as a Sponsor of Friends of Equines, as we have already bought a table in order to have our anti-horse slaughter voices heard. Here is the link to the "Pro-Slaughter Summit" if you want to register to go;

Hope to see you there, inside or out!
Thanks for caring!

Tuesday, December 14, 2010

Friends of Equines to Attend the Horse-Slaughter Summit and Made it Possible so That You Can Too!

FRIENDS OF EQUINES has paid the $500 vig to Sponsor YOUR PLACE at the table for FULL PARTICIPATION in the Pro-Slaughters "Summit of the Horse" - Calling all Anti-Horse-Slaughter Advocates to Attend - Register Today Under FRIENDS OF EQUINES for only $100 and HAVE YOUR ANTI-HORSE SLAUGHTER VOICE HEARD!!!!! Price goes up tomorrow so be sure and register today!
Register here under "Sponsoring Org" (Friends of Equines) for $100;

Price goes up to $200 tomorrow. Important to REGISTER TODAY!
Tell your friends,....Tell THE MOTHER ORGS! They can get in on the cheap but must register TODAY!!!

Calico "Unlimited Sale" Mares to be Reunited with Their Stallions

Good News, yes of course, that these 95 ex-wild horses were rescued from the BLM, but not exactly a "Return to Freedom," and what of the other 1,827 still standing in holding pens throughout the midwest?

Here is a puzzle I am hoping someone of the wild horse and burro experts might help me to solve....

In this article RTF says that 1,922 horses were gathered from the Calico Complex last year...however, in the documents provided to me thru my FOIA request, the figure was much lower at 640 or something like that. Can anyone explain the discrepencies? If so, I wish you would. I am working on an ans right now to the DOJ about the FOIL Request, so it would really help me to know. What are the correct figures and why dont they jive?


A Short History of the Sagebrush Rebellion and Nevadas Assault on Wild Horses (and Burros)

Prior to the federal partisan-R take over by Sagebrush rebellion/post passage of the 1971 Act, the budget was about 12 millions dollars for the BLM WH program. These ranchers (sagebrush rebels headed by NV State Senator Dean Rhoads, a BLM permittee, and his rural buddies) tried to squeeze that out as well, hoping that they would be able to take over the management (attack and destroy) of America's wild horses-burros as the State (rural counties, etc) could manage their perceived problems much more efficiently, etc. (Yeah...slaughter). Once cowboy Bush took over, the budget gradually increased for massive irresponsible illegal roundups (on-going). Former NV U.S. congressman Jim Gibbons-R sponsored a committee hearing (invitation only-Dean Rhoads-R, NV John Ensign-R, Tony Lesperance-R, etc.) on 7-13-1998 in Reno for the purpose of repealing/gutting the 1971 WHB Act. Subsequently NV Governor Jim Gibbons (soon to be EX) who was NV U.S. Congressman at one time introduced into the 106th Congress his special interest bill H.R. 2874 to amend the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act to provide for delegation to STATES (i.e. NDA, public lands ranchers/commissioners, etc) of the powers and duties under that Act regarding management of wild free-roaming horses and burros, and for OTHER PURPOSES (?) into the House of Representatives on 9-15-1999. Gibbons' co-conspirator was Hansen of Utah. Then NV State Senator Dina Titus-D went to D.C. and testified against it! Gibbons treated her rudely (his MO toward women). The Bill failed. BUT THEN Nevada wrote their own Wild Horse-Burros Management Plan (Cathy Barcomb was part of this) that was contrary (illegal) to federal law but became the law of the Nevada land to manage WHBs. Then the sagebrush rebels introduced NV S.B. 486 as an amendment to NRS 561.045 to change the NRS language from wild horses to FERAL LIVESTOCK in 2003 (5-5-2003). I testified against this bill to no avail. A done political deal. THUS between the NDA, BLM and the Nevada ranchers, it gave these rogue authorities to illegal power to treat America's wild horses-burros as FERAL LIVESTOCK or even "estrays" and off to auction/slaughter they go!!!! December 2004 Harry Reid/Conrad Burns "rider" that gutted the 1971 Federal Act, etc.

Over the years, this scam and plot against America's wild horses-burros and take over of OUR public lands as their private lands (and now water) has been well orchestrated and carried out by these corporate greedy thugs...what has and is happening to America's wild horses-burros is ditto as to what is happening to our country now by this same greedy and selfish faction. It’s an ugly and evil story that our WHB have endured. And Obama is doing nothing to help.

Carson City NV

Saturday, December 11, 2010

Last Chance for "Equine Rescue Professionals" to Register for "Organization of the Horse's" 1st Annual Horse-Slaughter Summit

"Equine Rescue Professionals" can register for $175.00. Worth it to have your anti-horse slaughter voices heard at this very important venue where all the pro-slaughterer's will converge under one roof. This is a golden oportunity to confront them with the hard questions and the cold hard facts that are in favor of the anti-slaughter side;

We encourage all equine advocates against horse slaughter to go, and be a TRUE "Voice of the Horse" in this Pro-slaughter organized forum.

Sue Wallis's "Organizations of the Horse" Cornering Market on Wild Horsemeat Cloning

Tuesday, December 7, 2010

How the Grinch (Salazar) Stole Equus

A HollandTech Production;

Nevadas Newly Formed "Feral Horse Commission" Seeks to Take Wild Horse & Burros Water Rights Away


By its own laws, BLM has a DUTY to SUE for Water Rights on Public Lands / Excerpt from Jubic v. BLM,..2008. Dismissed for lack of standing. Merit of issues not addressed;

BLMs Claim of Insufficient Water

61. Water sources in arid regions are always “limited.” However, the Ely / Lincoln County Districts of Nevada have the largest water supply in the whole of the state with numerous streams, wells, rivers and creeks. Furthermore, there are plans for a great expansion for increased water sources for the entire state of Nevada as is part of the development plans for this area . (See "Ely District Development Plans, ROD Ex.C). See also Notice of Availability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Lincoln County Land Act Groundwater Development and Utility Right-of-Way Project, Nevada

62. Also as a result of the development plans, wildlife areas are being expanded with plans to put water "guzzers" in place so that the wild deer and elk will have water. Plaintiff submits that the defendants have a duty to provide for or allow access to same for our Nation’s wild horse herds. Plaintiff argues that the problem is not a lack of water sources but a lack of water rights. Nevada is a state that claims rights to all the waters and water sources within the state and, in fact, has been involved with much litigation with the BLM on this matter. A great part of the water problems on federal lands is owing to the fact that more grazing permits than ever are being retired. When that happens, the ranchers, who claim the water rights based upon state law “custom and usage,” shut off their "guzzlers" and other water supplies to the lands as they are no longer needed for their cows. As a consequence, the wild horses are forced to travel further in search of water, sometimes crossing invisible jurisdictional lines and getting themselves into trouble and danger of being shot by the ranchers as “strays.”.

63. There is no doubt that acquiring access to Nevadas waters is a legal, not a geographic problem or based on insufficiencies. Plaintiff submits that despite the difficulties and legalities involved in achieving water rights in Nevada, the BLM nevertheless has a duty to see to it that adequate water is available for the wild horses that roam within their various HMAs. Plaintiff further submits that the defendants have failed in that duty;

"It is BLM policy to conform with applicable state laws and administrative claims procedures for water rights when managing and administering all BLM programs and projects, except as otherwise specifically mandated by Congress. The State Engineer Office in the Division of Water Resources of the Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, administers water rights programs in Nevada based on beneficial use and the Doctrine of Prior Appropriation. The State of Nevada regulates its water rights programs using guidance in chapters 533 and 534 of the Nevada Revised Statutes. The BLM will acquire and perfect water rights necessary for public land management purposes according to these state laws and procedures. (Emphasis added.) The BLM also will protect existing water rights of the U.S. by protesting or providing comment during the state permitting process on applications for new water rights or for changes to existing water rights that may interfere with BLM’s ability to utilize such water for public land management purposes."

BLM needs to sue Nevada for water-rights on our public lands. If they do not, they are leaving themsleves open to a lawsuit from one of us for dereliction of their duty to so provide.

Sunday, December 5, 2010

New Public Lands Act in the Making?

Weigh In to Encourage Your Senators to Reject Omnibus Approach

It is time to have your voice heard again as 10 Democratic Senators sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) urging him to move a new public lands omnibus bill during the current “lame duck” session of Congress. The legislation would limit access to more than two million acres of public lands in 13 states, while creating new national parks, monuments and wilderness areas and may include other provisions.

As you will recall Congress used procedural gimmicks to enact a similar omnibus bill in 2009, and we must make it clear to Congress that passing massive omnibus bills at the 11th hour is no way to manage our public lands.
Please click the Take Action link below to let your Senators know you oppose a new massive omnibus public lands law and that a repeat of the 2009 law will mean more restrictions to access.

Get involved

China Buying Up Public Lands in Texas

Public Land Council v. Babbit

This is the case that says grazing permits can be held for NON-CATTLE purposes;
I been telling ya ll, its not about cows anymore. Hasent been for a long long time..

The grazing permits are as good as gold for holding title to public lands FOR ANY purpose...they can even be sub-leased!

Saturday, December 4, 2010

Nevadas Animal Cruelty Law

574.120. Failure to provide proper air, food, shelter or water to impounded animal unlawful; penalties

1. A person who has impounded or confined any animal shall not refuse or neglect to supply to the animal during its confinement a sufficient supply of good and wholesome air, food, shelter and water.

2. A person who violates subsection 1:

(a) For the first offense within the immediately preceding 7 years, is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be sentenced to:

(1) Imprisonment in the city or county jail or detention facility for not less than 2 days, but not more than 6 months; and

(2) Perform not less than 48 hours, but not more than 120 hours, of community service.

The person shall be further punished by a fine of not less than $200, but not more than $1,000. A term of imprisonment imposed pursuant to this paragraph may be served intermittently at the discretion of the judge or justice of the peace, except that each period of confinement must be not less than 4 consecutive hours and must occur at a time when the person is not required to be at his place of employment or on a weekend.

(b) For the second offense within the immediately preceding 7 years, is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be sentenced to:

(1) Imprisonment in the city or county jail or detention facility for not less than 10 days, but not more than 6 months; and

(2) Perform not less than 100 hours, but not more than 200 hours, of community service.

The person shall be further punished by a fine of not less than $500, but not more than $1,000.

(c) For the third and any subsequent offense within the immediately preceding 7 years, is guilty of a category C felony and shall be punished as provided in NRS 193.130.

3. In addition to any other fine or penalty provided in subsection 2, a court shall order a person convicted of violating subsection 1 to pay restitution for all costs associated with the care and impoundment of any mistreated animal under subsection 1, including, without limitation, money expended for veterinary treatment, feed and housing.

4. If any animal is at any time impounded as provided in subsection 1, and continues to be without necessary food and water for more than 12 successive hours, any person may, as often as it is necessary, enter into and upon any pound in which the animal is so confined and supply it with necessary food and water, so long as it remains so confined. Such a person is not liable to any action for such entry, and the reasonable cost of such food and water may be collected by him from the owner of the animal, and the animal is not exempt from levy and sale upon execution issued upon a judgment therefor.

Amended by Laws 2001, c. 572, § 5, eff. June 13, 2001.

Good and Bad News from Bob Abby

Rules Out Euthanasia and/or slaughter for wild equines, but is ok with SalaZoos;

Personally, I dont believe A WORD he says,....he is, after all, the next worse thing to a politician. Hes a Washington bureaucrat.

BLM Procedures for Contracting

Mobile Slaughter on the Move in California Cattle Country

Friday, December 3, 2010

Write Your Own Amendments

All we need is some legislative help;

Big-Meat & Ag Folk to Hold Horse-SlaughterFest in Vegas: Betting on a Big-Win for Legalizing Mustang-Burgers & Steaks

The Event:

Main Speaker an ignorant, Lying, Cheating, Horse-Killing, Cattle-rustlin, Hog-factory farmer owner and overall BIG TIME looser, Trent Loos. Learn more about his shady past in the link below;

Tuesday, November 30, 2010

Energy Companies Big Plans to Exploit American West to Feed Chinas Insatiable Appetite for Coal

So this is why the Powder River Herds had to go?

The coal-rich Powder River Basin, which straddles the Montana and Wyoming border, holds about 800 billion short tons of coal, or 20 percent of our nation's entire reserves. Coal from the area is highly desirable due to its low sulfur content, which often allows coal to be burned without exceeding air limits for sulfur emissions.
As such, companies in the U.S. are working fast to figure out the best way to ship Powder River Basin coal to Asia, and China in particular. It's just a short rail journey from Wyoming to the Pacific Northwest, where a new port is being eyed to become coal ready. These companies are also working hard to open up additional mines in the region, as most of the coal available in the Powder River Basin has yet to be tapped.

Full article here;

Friday, November 26, 2010

Feedback on Ely FOIA Docs Due

The time has come to share our input with the DOJ on the FOIA Docs regarding the Seaman, Golden Gate, White River and Caliente herds gathered last year. The nearest I can tell by the mish-mash of documents provided is that, out of the 689 horses alleged gathered, according to the shipping manifests, only 675 were loaded onto trucks,..but according to the Unloading Documents, only 476 were offloaded (but documents dont say where.) 557 horses are marked as freeze branded, but also, docs do not say where or when. When I add up the horses trucked as per stated on the Brand Inspection Clearance Certificates, I get a total of 1,031 horses - and ALL of these are marked "Unbranded."

Total # of horses gathered : 689

# indicated as loaded
onto trucks (unbranded) 675

# indicated as offloaded
(unbranded) 476

# indicated as branded 557

# indicated as shipped
(unbranded) 1, 031
under licence


675 Seaman, Golden Gate, White River & Caliente horses loaded onto trucks, we have only
476 offloaded somewhere, for a shortage of
199 Seaman, GG, WR & Caliente horses (NOT indicated as off-loaded anywhere / missing)

Anybody get anything different? Anybody got anything to add?


Equine Reproduction Seminar The Netherlands

Friday, November 19, 2010

Students Interview BLM about Wild Horse (and Burro) Adoptions

Pt. 1;

Pt. 2: Listen close as this BLM guy tells how the BLM "never liked" the horses and considered the all as "strays," and that the BLM "was not too happy" when the Wild Horse and Burro Protection Act of 1971 was passed;

Helicoptor Contact / Assault / Twin Peaks, Ca. 2006

Another BLM "Promotional" vid. See how the copter pilot pushing along an already exhausted horses with the landing skis of his machine. See also horses panicking on a trailer at approx 5:04;

Thursday, November 18, 2010

Wild Horse & Burro Land Use Plans According to FLPMA: Non-Existant

Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Land Policy & Management Act of 1976, ALL Lands, regardless as to whether or not they were previously designated for a certain pupose, are required to HAVE FOR THEIR OWN, a Land Use Management Plan. I do not believe that after the passage of the FLPMA in 1976, that the BLM EVER developed any land use plans for the lands occupied by the wild equines. Of course the law goes on to say that these land use plans, "WHERE APPROPRIATE," can be revised, but I submit that you cannot revise something that does or did not exist. There is NO original land use plans for wild equine lands that recognizes the wild equines as a resource in and of itself, or that dont call for their you can see the Land Use Plans the BLM is using to remove the wild equines is a revision of NOTHING! The BLM NEVER did, (to the best of my knowledge) "develop" or maintain any land use plan for ONLY wild horse management, but instead incorporated their management into other land use plans as a means to remove them from those lands. BLM failed to comply with the provisions of this chapter in that they never did develop any land use plans for the sole purpose of managing wild equines on their traditional lands. If anybody knows of one, I would be glad to see it.

Furthermore, since FLPMA provides an exemption from multi-use requirements for lands previously designated for a certain purpose, there should be NO wild equines removed from their traditional lands, short of emergency. Because of FLPMAs exemption clause, none of the sections below paragraph (a) would apply to wild equines grazing upon their traditional lands "as found" in 1971.

FLPMA § 1712. Land use plans

(a) Development, maintenance, and revision by Secretary

The Secretary shall, with public involvement and consistent with the terms and conditions of this Act, develop, maintain, and, when appropriate, revise land use plans which provide by tracts or areas for the use of the public lands. Land use plans shall be developed for the public lands regardless of whether such lands previously have been classified, withdrawn, set aside, or otherwise designated for one or more uses.

(b) Coordination of plans for National Forest System lands with Indian land use planning and management programs for purposes of development and revision
In the development and revision of land use plans, the Secretary of Agriculture shall coordinate land use plans for lands in the National Forest System with the land use planning and management programs of and for Indian tribes by, among other things, considering the policies of approved tribal land resource management programs.

(c) Criteria for development and revision
In the development and revision of land use plans, the Secretary shall—
(1) use and observe the principles of multiple use and sustained yield set forth in this and other applicable law;
(2) use a systematic interdisciplinary approach to achieve integrated consideration of physical, biological, economic, and other sciences;
(3) give priority to the designation and protection of areas of critical environmental concern;
(4) rely, to the extent it is available, on the inventory of the public lands, their resources, and other values;
(5) consider present and potential uses of the public lands;
(6) consider the relative scarcity of the values involved and the availability of alternative means (including recycling) and sites for realization of those values;
(7) weigh long-term benefits to the public against short-term benefits;
(8) provide for compliance with applicable pollution control laws, including State and Federal air, water, noise, or other pollution standards or implementation plans; and
(9) to the extent consistent with the laws governing the administration of the public lands, coordinate the land use inventory, planning, and management activities of or for such lands with the land use planning and management programs of other Federal departments and agencies and of the States and local governments within which the lands are located, including, but not limited to, the statewide outdoor recreation plans developed under the Act of September 3, 1964 (78 Stat. 897), as amended [16 U.S.C. 460l–4 et seq.], and of or for Indian tribes by, among other things, considering the policies of approved State and tribal land resource management programs. In implementing this directive, the Secretary shall, to the extent he finds practical, keep apprised of State, local, and tribal land use plans; assure that consideration is given to those State, local, and tribal plans that are germane in the development of land use plans for public lands; assist in resolving, to the extent practical, inconsistencies between Federal and non-Federal Government plans, and shall provide for meaningful public involvement of State and local government officials, both elected and appointed, in the development of land use programs, land use regulations, and land use decisions for public lands, including early public notice of proposed decisions which may have a significant impact on non-Federal lands. Such officials in each State are authorized to furnish advice to the Secretary with respect to the development and revision of land use plans, land use guidelines, land use rules, and land use regulations for the public lands within such State and with respect to such other land use matters as may be referred to them by him. Land use plans of the Secretary under this section shall be consistent with State and local plans to the maximum extent he finds consistent with Federal law and the purposes of this Act.
(d) Review and inclusion of classified public lands; review of existing land use plans; modification and termination of classifications
Any classification of public lands or any land use plan in effect on October 21, 1976, is subject to review in the land use planning process conducted under this section, and all public lands, regardless of classification, are subject to inclusion in any land use plan developed pursuant to this section. The Secretary may modify or terminate any such classification consistent with such land use plans.
(e) Management decisions for implementation of developed or revised plans
The Secretary may issue management decisions to implement land use plans developed or revised under this section in accordance with the following:
(1) Such decisions, including but not limited to exclusions (that is, total elimination) of one or more of the principal or major uses made by a management decision shall remain subject to reconsideration, modification, and termination through revision by the Secretary or his delegate, under the provisions of this section, of the land use plan involved.
(2) Any management decision or action pursuant to a management decision that excludes (that is, totally eliminates) one or more of the principal or major uses for two or more years with respect to a tract of land of one hundred thousand acres or more shall be reported by the Secretary to the House of Representatives and the Senate. If within ninety days from the giving of such notice (exclusive of days on which either House has adjourned for more than three consecutive days), the Congress adopts a concurrent resolution of nonapproval of the management decision or action, then the management decision or action shall be promptly terminated by the Secretary. If the committee to which a resolution has been referred during the said ninety day period, has not reported it at the end of thirty calendar days after its referral, it shall be in order to either discharge the committee from further consideration of such resolution or to discharge the committee from consideration of any other resolution with respect to the management decision or action. A motion to discharge may be made only by an individual favoring the resolution, shall be highly privileged (except that it may not be made after the committee has reported such a resolution), and debate thereon shall be limited to not more than one hour, to be divided equally between those favoring and those opposing the resolution. An amendment to the motion shall not be in order, and it shall not be in order to move to reconsider the vote by which the motion was agreed to or disagreed to. If the motion to discharge is agreed to or disagreed to, the motion may not be made with respect to any other resolution with respect to the same management decision or action. When the committee has reprinted, or has been discharged from further consideration of a resolution, it shall at any time thereafter be in order (even though a previous motion to the same effect has been disagreed to) to move to proceed to the consideration of the resolution. The motion shall be highly privileged and shall not be debatable. An amendment to the motion shall not be in order, and it shall not be in order to move to reconsider the vote by which the motion was agreed to or disagreed to.
(3) Withdrawals made pursuant to section 1714 of this title may be used in carrying out management decisions, but public lands shall be removed from or restored to the operation of the Mining Law of 1872, as amended (R.S. 2318–2352; 30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.) or transferred to another department, bureau, or agency only by withdrawal action pursuant to section 1714 of this title or other action pursuant to applicable law: Provided, That nothing in this section shall prevent a wholly owned Government corporation from acquiring and holding rights as a citizen under the Mining Law of 1872.
(f) Procedures applicable to formulation of plans and programs for public land management
The Secretary shall allow an opportunity for public involvement and by regulation shall establish procedures, including public hearings where appropriate, to give Federal, State, and local governments and the public, adequate notice and opportunity to comment upon and participate in the formulation of plans and programs relating to the management of the public lands. Law without the media filter

ROAM Act Un-Salvagable - Needs 2 B DITCHED!

The ROAM Act is basically an amendment to the Wild Free-roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971,...the most important part of the 1971 Act is that is gives the wild ones a STATUTORY right to occupy their traditional rangelands (as found in 1971). ROAM was created on the basis of BLM claims that they do not have the "authority" to place the (excess) horses anyplace else because of the provisions of the 71 Act,... but this claim is PURE un-adulterated BLM BULLSHIT as other provisions of BLMs administrative "Wild Horse & Burro Managment" laws give them the discretionary power to place the "excess" equines basically where ever they want with whomever they want, either by private contract or treaty. Once you realize this you will see that it is clear that there is and never was any need to amend the 71 Act simply so the BLM could place the "excess" equines onto lands where they "were not found in 1971." It is important to remember that the ROAM Act was a creation of Salazar and Sen Harry Reid of Nevada, so you just have to ask yourself what their ulterior motives may have been and the answer is plain: to divest the wild ones of their statutory right to remain on their traditional lands so they could eventually get them ALL out of their traditional rangelands so they could put the land to other uses or outright sell it.

Another problem with the ROAM Act is that it MANDATES a multi-use (and, more covertly,...a "sustainability of yield" ) requirement for the lands the horses will occupy, persuant and according to the provisions of the Federal Land Planning & Managment Act of 1976 (FLPMA) - HOWEVER, what the BLM fails to recognize is that there is an EXCEPTION in FLPMA that stipulates that the provisions of this act DO NOT apply to lands designated for a certain use prior to the 1976 enactment of in other words, the multi-use (and sustainability of yield) requirements of FLPMA DO NOT apply to the traditional lands of the wild ones, as found in 1971 - so of course, FLPMA SHOULD NOT be used as the basis for an amendment divesting the wild ones of their STATUTORY right to remain on their traditional lands or requiring a muli-use of any of the lands they may occupy, on or off their traditional lands.

Based on the interweaving of FLPMA provisions into the ROAM Act, it can be seen as un-salvagable, that is, if we believe that the best interest of the wild ones would be to PRESERVE their statutory entitlement to their tradional lands and/or to be principal users of same.


After reading this, if you agree, then ask your representatives to DITCH the ROAM Act and
and (re-)amend or (un)amend the WFHBA of 1971 to give them back the statutory right to remain on their historic lands.....

and also to re-insert the provision that the wild ones should be the "principal users" of same (another entitlement to the wild ones the BLM has struck out of the WFHBA of 1971. )

Remember advocates, we are fighting not only for the wild equines but for their right to remain on their traditional lands. The ROAM Act will strip that away and at the same time MANDATE a multiple use and sustainability of yeild requirement ANYWHERE they may (be allowed) to stand, on or off public lands!

The Henke Affair

And I am just finding this out? How come ya'll didnt tell me someone from the BLM got caught with their fingers in the cookie jar again? But then again, what else is new, eh? Lol.

Thursday, November 11, 2010

BLM, USFS Sued for Directing Employees to Ignore Environmental Laws

BLM and USFS sued for allegedly directing employees to ignore energy law
Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP David Erickson and Mark Anstoetter USA

November 5 2010

An oil and gas industry association has sued the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) over instructional memoranda purportedly directing federal employees to ignore the categorical exclusion provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Act). W. Energy Alliance v. Salazar, No. 10-237 (D. Wyo. 10/21/10). The complaint asks the court to declare invalid rules issued by the agencies on May 17 and June 9, 2010, allegedly directing agency employees to ignore section 390 of the Act. Section 390 exempts from NEPA’s procedural requirements five “minimally intrusive” energy development activities allowed under federal oil and gas leases issued by the Department of the Interior.

The activities exempted by section 390 are those that (i) disturb less than five acres, (ii) are conducted at a site where drilling has occurred within the past five years, (iii) are conducted at sites where drilling is already authorized, (iv) involve placement of a pipeline in an approved right-of-way, and (v) involve “maintenance of a minor activity.” According to the complaint, the new rules prohibit the use of exclusions based on conditions that do not exist in the Act and were adopted without public notice or opportunity for public comment.

Thursday, November 4, 2010

Buffalo Field Campaign: Update

One week from Monday, beginning November 15 and lasting through February 15, wild buffalo that migrate into Montana will likely be shot by hunters. Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks are holding another hunt without habitat, a hunt for a species that is ecologically extinct in Montana. Forty-four State tags to kill bison have been issued for areas north and west of Yellowstone National Park, and if there is a normal winter migration, an additional 100 wild bison could be killed in this canned hunt. Montana's bison hunt is highly controversial. It is yet another tool Montana is using to stop wild bison from migrating into the state. This canned hunt does not replace hazing, capture and slaughter activities carried out under the Interagency Bison Management Plan, it is used in addition to it. Hunters who participate in Montana's bison hunt are being used by the Montana Department of Livestock as yet another tool of intolerance against native wild bison.

At least two First Nations - the Nez Perce and the Confederated Salish-Kootenai Tribes - will also be hunting buffalo under treaty right, though their season will differ from that of Montana.

In addition to our year-round presence in West Yellowstone, BFC will again be present near Gardiner on the north side of the Park. Our Gardiner camp will remain active for as long as the hunt is underway, or longer should the buffalo need us to stand witness. It is critical that we are able to be the eyes and ears for the buffalo in these locations where they migrate yet it is a huge financial challenge for us to do so. If you can help keep us on the front lines we will be better equipped to stand with the buffalo and share their story with the world. During the hunt, BFC will engage willing hunters in dialogue to talk about the threats wild bison face in Montana, and how they can help take a stand to restore this magnificent, gentle giant throughout it's native range.

Since our last Update, brucellosis has made appearances in a few livestock herds, far from the current home range of America's last wild bison. Brucellosis is a bacteria that was brought to North America with the arrival of Eurasian cattle. While it hasn't been a significant human health issue since the advent of pasteurized dairy products and it hasn't been a threat to wildlife outside of livestock industry politics, brucellosis has been a driving force behind bad wildlife management decisions throughout the Yellowstone area, including the ongoing slaughter and harassment of the Yellowstone herds. Brucellosis has become a very convenient tool for livestock interests to use against wildlife, to maintain control over grasslands habitat. Livestock interests are always quick to place blame upon wildlife, rather than take responsibility for better managing livestock or even removing them from areas of critically important wildlife habitat.

Despite these efforts, three cows from a Wyoming cattle ranch tested positive for brucellosis last week. It was just a matter of time as the cattle ranch is located near ill-conceived government-sponsored elk feeding grounds. Wildlife advocates have been trying to shut these feed lots down for many years but have been met with resistance by ranchers who favor them because it keeps wild elk off of native habitat currently occupied by cattle. Shortly after this news, Montana papers responded by announcing that they intend to capture and test up to 500 wild cow elk. We have warned that it would only be a matter of time before Montana livestock interests set their sites on elk in addition to buffalo. Lastly, just the other day, one of Ted Turner's domestic bison herds was found to have brucellosis. These bison, or beefalo, came from Turner's Bozeman-area Flying D Ranch, just a stone's throw from where the quarantined Yellowstone buffalo now reside on Turner's Green Ranch. There is absolutely no chance that the quarantined buffalo, stolen from Yellowstone when they were wild calves, are the source of infection.

These incidences are more critical bits of evidence that wild buffalo are not the source of brucellosis transmissions to livestock. There has never been a single documented case of wild bison transmitting brucellosis to cattle, even during the decades prior to the heavy-handed tactics carried out under the Interagency Bison Management Plan. In the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, the combined governments of Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana--along with the U.S. Government--are wasting taxpayer money by focusing on containing the natural migration of wild buffalo. Phasing out Wyoming's feed grounds and acquiring habitat for bison and elk would be far more effective use of taxpayer money. Livestock production is the common denominator of trouble whether it's bison, elk, wolves, bears, water quality, grasslands health, or human health. Cattle are also the most obviously manageable element; the only reasonable solution is to shift the focus on controlling them and ensuring that they are not a threat to our wildlife and wild places.

~ Stephany

Hikers Try to Stop Agua Caliente-BLM Land Swap

Reported by: Marissa Mike
11/03 10:48 pm
Many valley hikers weren't happy with a potential land exchange by the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians and Bureau of Land Management. They expressed concern at the Palm Springs City Council Meeting on Wednesday night.

"We're outraged and very disappointed," Donna Genett, an avid hiker said. "We're doing everything we can to stop this from happening."

Right now, the BLM and the tribe have worked out the details of the swap.

The areas they own, within the Indian Canyons and the San Jacinto Mountains, looked like a checkerboard.

Tom Davis, the Chief Planning and Development Officer of the tribe, said the move would make it easier to manage the land.

The tribe would follow the same management polices of the BLM, Davis added.

The BLM had the option to develop the land, but did not. Some hikers thought there was a good chance the tribe would develop the land, which could mean fewer areas for hiking.

"It's not likely we'll develop on the land," Davis said.

Hikers expressed concerns about trail restrictions and potential fees.

When asked if there was a possibility that the tribe would charge fees ever, Davis said, "I can't say that."

The BLM was accepting public comments until November 19.

Conservation group to meet at J.W. Marriott in advance of BLM summit

By Paul Takahashi (contact)

Thursday, Nov. 4, 2010 | 1:25 p.m.

Top conservationists and public lands leaders will descend upon Las Vegas for a “Friends Rendezvous” summit Nov. 12 through 14 to discuss the future management and direction of National Conservation Lands in the West.

The meeting will take place at the J.W. Marriott Hotel in Summerlin, 221 N. Rampart Blvd., next weekend, just before the start of a major Bureau of Land Management summit that will also determine the future course of public lands.

The discussions from both conferences will affect about 800 National Conservation Land areas in the West, including nearby Red Rock Canyon and Sloan Canyon national conservation areas.

“The National Conservation Lands still lack a unifying management vision as well as necessary policies and procedures to ensure their outstanding resources are adequately protected,” Conservation Lands Foundation executive director Chris Soderstrom said in a statement. “The Rendezvous will be a great time for us to come up with recommendations and ideas that we can share with BLM management and staff at their summit.”

About 40 local friends groups – volunteer organizations working to protect local national conservation lands sites – will be attending the meeting. Friends of Red Rock Canyon, Friends of Sloan Canyon and Friends of Gold Butte will represent the Las Vegas area at the Rendezvous.

The Conservation Lands Foundation is an organization that works to conserve 28 million acres of National Conservation Lands between the Rocky Mountains and the Pacific Ocean. Some of the group’s more prominent members, including former Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt and award-winning author and documentary filmmaker Dayton Duncan, are expected to attend the Rendezvous.

For more information, visit

Gonzalez updates Nyssa Chamber on BLM activities in area

Thursday, November 4, 2010 10:43 AM PDT

Vale District Bureau of Land Management Director Don Gonzalez addresses the Nyssa Chamber of Commerce during its meeting at the Thunderegg Coffee Company in Nyssa Wednesday.

NYSSA — Don Gonzalez, who has been manager of the Vale District of the Bureau of Land Management for nine months, oversees a district that stretches from the Nevada border to southeast Washington and deals with such issues as wilderness and grazing and the operation of a major tourist center.

Gonzalez was the main speaker Wednesday at the monthly meeting of the Nyssa Chamber of Commerce at the Thunderegg Coffee Company.

There are just pockets of BLM-managed land from Baker County north to Washington and west to Morrow County, but Malheur County has about 4.1 million acres of BLM land, Gonzalez said.

While most of the BLM in Malheur County is rangeland, the Vale district manages about 35,000 acres of forest in Baker County, he said, with some of it logged, but the agency also has contracts for biomass used in generation of energy.

The Vale district has about 150 permanent employees and 95 temporary workers, most of them seasonal firefighters. This year, there were six crews in the Snake River Valley firefighting program, Gonzalez said.

“Normally, we try to have 10. Our fitness standards are taking a toll,” he said, commenting the district has not had a big fire project for several years. “We also have an Oregon Trail Interpretive Center.”

Staff works in partnership with the Baker City Chamber of Commerce, he said, and the BLM has put “quite a bit of money” into the Ontario Municipal Airport for resurfacing projects. The BLM stations a single-engine fire retardant planes at the Ontario facility during the fire season and may put a helicopter there, Gonzalez said.

He also lamented the declining number of students in natural resource programs, saying it is hard to find people qualified for natural resource jobs.

Prior to Gonzalez’s talk, Jay Chamberlin, Owyhee Irrigation District manager, gave an update on the water situation. The irrigation season ended with less than 92,000 acre feet of water left in usable storage, or 12 to 13 percent of capacity. It should be about 450,000 acre feet, the 30-year average, he said.

“We’re at the bottom of the tank,” he said. “Pray for a good snowpack. Rains aren’t enough.”

However, the recent rains were welcomed, he said, explaining the aquifer needs to be soaked to help create a good runoff in the spring.

“It’s the life blood of the valley,” he said of water.

Irrigation district officials are also looking at retrofitting the power plant, situated on the side of Mitchell Butte, to try and get more power from it. Noting that the power is generated from irrigation releases, Chamberlin said it takes more irrigation demand to make more power.

Solar Plant on Public Land to Get Stimulus $$$$

Yes, another solar plant approved: Genesis project clears federal regulators

November 4, 2010 | 12:54 pm

Feels like this fall has been all about desert solar, all the time.

Federal regulators on Thursday pushed through yet another large proposal, approving the 250-megawatt Genesis Solar Energy Project for construction.

With the go-ahead from the Bureau of Land Management, plus the California Energy Commission permit awarded in September, Genesis can now take advantage of federal stimulus funds to cover up to 30% of the project costs, which comes out to roughly $300 million.

The Riverside County installation, backed by a subsidiary of Florida-based NextEra Energy Resources, will use parabolic-trough solar thermal technology to make enough energy to power up to 188,000 homes. The company estimates the project will create nearly 1,100 jobs at the height of construction and 50 permanent operating positions once construction wraps up, likely in late 2012 or early 2013.

In an oft-repeated story this season, Genesis will also sit on a large patch of public land -- and will pay for the privilege.

In addition to leasing the nearly 1,950 acres that make up the site 25 miles west of Blythe, developers must fund more than 2,000 acres of land -- habitat for the local desert tortoise and the Mojave fringe-toed lizard -- to mitigate potential environmental damage from construction. They will also use a dry-cooling plan for the mirrors instead of the water-intensive wet-cooling technique.

Interior panel lets Wyo. coal leasing move ahead



A federal appeals board has denied a request by environmental groups concerned about climate change to delay selling coal leases at two surface mines in northeast Wyoming's Powder River Basin.

Sale of the leases next to Foundation Coal's Belle Ayr Mine and Peabody Group's Caballo Mine could allow the surface mines to expand.

Burning coal in power plants releases the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide. The groups WildEarth Guardians, Sierra Club and Defenders of Wildlife sought the delay so the U.S. Bureau of Land Management could further review how leasing additional coal at the mines could affect the earth's climate.

The Interior Department Board of Land Appeals denied the request last Thursday. The panel held that the groups didn't show how immediate or irreparable harm would result from going ahead with the competitive lease sales as planned.

The groups continue to appeal the BLM's July lease decision. Two lawsuits WildEarth Guardians has filed are meanwhile moving ahead: One challenges another Wyoming coal lease, the other how the BLM goes about leasing coal in the Powder River Basin.

The appeals and lawsuits add uncertainty to an already sluggish process for leasing federal coal in Wyoming, said Marion Loomis, executive director of the Wyoming Mining Association.

"We need those leases to go forward in a timely fashion. It's already a year behind and it was my hope we would see one or two of those leases come up yet this year," Loomis said Wednesday.

"According to BLM that's not going to happen, so it's going to be more delay under the best of circumstances."

The Powder River Basin produces more coal than any other U.S. region by far. The coal accounts for nearly 14 percent of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions when it is burned in power plants, according to the BLM.

The Interior Board of Land Appeals ruling pointed out that the BLM considered climate change and concluded that if the coal weren't mined, other coal mines would meet demand and overall coal burning to generate electricity wouldn't decrease.

"We're scratching our heads going, 'Where is it going to come from?' This is 42 percent of the nation's coal," said Jeremy Nichols, with WildEarth Guardians. "To us, it says the BLM wants to punt. They want somebody else to deal with this problem."

Wyoming's congressional delegation and 33 other members of Congress asked Interior Secretary Ken Salazar in a September letter to strongly defend the federal government's coal leasing practices.

GOP: Big Changes Planned for Public Lands Management

Wednesday, November 3, 2010

Nullification Today

Interview with a Zomie by Dr. Thomas Wood;

Nullification, in the sense used in this vid, is something we SCREAM when a law is imposed upon us that we think goes against the Constitution. We claim that that law which we are expected to abide by is NULL because it goes against a constitutional right, clause or provision. In the legal sense, persuant to the Constitution, nullification of a law can only be done by the legislature, which alone has the power to make, modify, amend, void or otherwise change the laws it makes. In this sense of the word, the BLM, by ignoring the provisions of the Wild Free-roaming Horses & Burro Act (WFHBA) of 1971, particularly the part that says the wild equines have a right to remain on their historic lands, ignoring it,...they are, in effect, nullifying that particular provision of the law. Since only the legislative body of our govt can make or modify law, when an administrative body such as the BLM acts in such a way as to nullify statutory law, creates a "seperation of powers" issue that may run afoul of the Constitutional provisions granting sole lawmaking powers to our legislative branch of govt. Not only is the BLM unconstitutionally nullifying statutory law, they are abusing and acting in excess of their authority in doing so.

The History of Nullification: The VOIDING of Federal Law

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

Wild Deer v. Gas in Wyoming

And whats the big mystery about the decline?

Mad Welfare Rancher Cows and Sheep to Blame

Public Comment for the Burning Man Festival

I say we support this SEVEN WEEK event and go to burn SalaCZAR and Reid, Abby and T. Boone Pickins & Don Glenn in effegy;
Major players in the theft of our wild horses (and burros) and the selling of our public lands.

Monday, November 1, 2010

Virginia Range Horses "On the Lamm"

PLEASE CROSS POST where appropriate.

Today (Monday Nov. 1) we had what we considered to be a very positive meeting with Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto and some key members of her staff. Representing the advocates were Carrol Abel, Bonnie Matton, Shirley Allen and myself, along with Mike Holmes as our side's "expert."

Having everyone in one room, we discussed a whole array of issues ranging from what we considered to be violations of state laws in how Virginia Range horses were being sold by the Department of Agriculture, as well as our allegations involving extortion, the Susan Pohlman horse dumping incident, improper cancellation of cooperative agreements, improper destruction of public records, and what might and what might not be criminal violations as opposed to civil violations (violations that do not have criminal penalties attached to them under Nevada law.)
Since we were still pursuing possible criminal issues, it probably is not appropriate to comment other than to say that certain staffers were instructed to look into certain occurrences.
It is my personal observation that the members of Ms. Masto's staff came away with a better understanding of some terms and issues that specifically relate to horses and livestock, and we came away with a better understanding of some of the nuances of Nevada criminal procedure.
With respect to the Virginia Range horses that are presently standing at the Fallon Livestock Exchange, I was informed by Mr. Wayne Howle, Ms. Masto's Solicitor General, that a directive had been issued basically instructing the Nevada Department of Agriculture to not sell any horses in its possession until Ms. Masto's office could review the situation and determine the procedures that the Department must follow. We thank Attorney General Masto for her quick response to this particular request.

Now that we don't have to worry about horses being sold tomorrow (Tuesday) we will focus on resolving what we can of the other issues that we raised. Ms. Masto and her staff offered some suggestions that might prove beneficial in seeking long term resolutions to some of the concerns that we raised.

At the very least we all now have a better understanding of the various aspects to the problems that we were discussing. As a result we should be able to effectively address those issues that are addressable, and present a case to the Legislature regarding those areas where the state statutes were overly ambiguous so that they can amended to eliminate "manipulation" by individuals wishing to subvert the law.

On behalf of the advocates present, we thank Ms. Masto and her staff for facilitating some very constructive dialogue. Now we just need to stay on course and get results where we can.

":O) Willis

Hi-Court Stripping Away the EPA

Big-Horn Die Off Attributed to Domestic Sheep

Independant CAST Report (Pasteurellosis Transmission;)

USDA Report LIES about Brucellisos Transmission

Blames bison for transmission to cows;

Brucellosis in YellowStone: Update

Friday, October 29, 2010

U.S. Expands Search for Resources into Outer-Space / is NASA In Bed w/ BLM? Lol.

Prob'ly also hooked-up with the Kepler Folk;
I wouldnt be one bit suprized

They got their shit into heard of their connection to BP?

PROOF OF CRIME / Harassment

The Wild & Free-Roaming Horses & Burros Act of 1971

§ 1331. Congressional findings and declaration of policy

Congress finds and declares that wild free-roaming 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. 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.

Exhibit A@ 2:13;

More proof of "gather" cruelty vids; Running Babies to Death

Lame Babys, at least one had to be euthanized due to outer-hoof wall coming off

Thursday, October 28, 2010

BLM Above Anti-Cruelty Laws / Update (See Footnote)

Watch here as the BLM Contractor torments an exhausted mare by actually PUSHING her along with the landing ski of the copter and ask yourself, is this type of behavior necessary or was the guy just trying to show off his pilot skills? And aint it un-necessarily cruel? Who in their right might could answer in anything but the afirmative? Why do they get away with it?

Federal Animal Welfare Acts;

Looks like the USDA is where to file our complaints....Hello

I have just got off the phone with the USDA APHIS in regards to the Federal Animal Welfare Laws asking if these laws apply to our wild horses and although I spoke to just a secretary,...she told me straight away that these laws do not apply to the wild horses managed by BLM. When I asked her why the HORSE PROTECTION ACT does not apply, she told me because the law was meant (only?) for show horses as the act is intended to protect them against "soreing," the practice of intentionally laming a horse to enhance his gait for show, i.e.; Tennessee Walkers and other "high-stepping" horses are the usual victims of this cruel practice....

HOWEVER, upon a thorough reading of the Act, I find the contrary to be true,...that the Horse Protection Act DOES NOT specifically state the law should be applied to only "show horses," and moreover has provisions to prohibit the TRANSPORT of lamed horses,.....and upon a reading of the law it DOES apply to ANY horse "so lamed",....including our wild ones and heres why: (pertinent parts highlighted in red)



Sec. 1822. Congressional statement of findings

The Congress finds and declares that--
(1) the soring of horses is cruel and inhumane;
(2) horses shown or exhibited which are sore, where such
soreness improves the performance of such horse, compete unfairly
with horses which are not sore;
(3) the movement, showing, exhibition, or sale of sore horses in
intrastate commerce adversely affects and burdens interstate and
foreign commerce
(4) all horses which are subject to regulation under this
chapter are either in interstate or foreign commerce or
substantially affect such commerce; and
(5) regulation under this chapter by the Secretary is
appropriate to prevent and eliminate burdens upon commerce and to
effectively regulate comm

From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access
[Laws in effect as of January 22, 2002]
[Document not affected by Public Laws enacted between
January 22, 2002 and January 16, 2003]
[CITE: 15USC1821]



Sec. 1821. Definitions

As used in this chapter unless the context otherwise requires:
(1) The term ``management'' means any person who organizes,
exercises control over, or administers or who is responsible for
organizing, directing, or administering.
(2) The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of Agriculture.
(3) The term ``sore'' when used to describe a horse means that--
(A) an irritating or blistering agent has been applied,
internally or externally, by a person to any limb of a horse,
(B) any burn, cut, or laceration has been inflicted by a
person on any limb of a horse,
(C) any tack, nail, screw, or chemical agent has been
injected by a person into or used by a person on any limb of a
horse, or
(D) any other substance or device has been used by a person
on any limb of a horse or a person has engaged in a practice
involving a horse,

and, as a result of such application, infliction, injection, use, or
practice, such horse suffers, or can reasonably be expected to
suffer, physical pain or distress, inflammation, or lameness when
walking, trotting, or otherwise moving,
except that such term does
not include such an application, infliction, injection, use, or
practice in connection with the therapeutic treatment of a horse by
or under the supervision of a person licensed to practice veterinary
medicine in the State in which such treatment was given.
(4) The term ``State'' means any of the several States, the
District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin
Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Trust Territory of the
Pacific Islands.

(Pub. L. 91-540, Sec. 2, Dec. 9, 1970, 84 Stat. 1404; Pub. L. 94-360,
Sec. 3, July 13, 1976, 90 Stat. 915.)


1976--Pub. L. 94-360 added pars. (1) and (2), redesignated subsec.
(a), defining ``sore'' as meaning that certain substances or devices had
been applied to any limb of a horse prior to Dec. 9, 1970, resulting in,
or reasonably likely to result in, such horse suffering physical pain or
distress when walking or trotting, as par. (3) and, as so redesignated,
struck out requirement that such substance or device had to have been
applied prior to Dec. 9, 1970 in order for a horse to be considered
``sored'' for purposes of this chapter, and substituted par. (4)
defining ``State'' for subsec. (b) defining ``commerce'' as between a
point in any State or possession of the United States and any point
outside thereof, or between points within the same State or possession
of the United States but through any place outside thereof, or within
the District of Columbia, or from any foreign country to any point
within the United States.


From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access
[Laws in effect as of January 22, 2002]
[Document not affected by Public Laws enacted between
January 22, 2002 and January 16, 2003]
[CITE: 15USC1824]



Sec. 1824. Unlawful acts

The following conduct is prohibited:

(1) The shipping, transporting, moving, delivering, or receiving
of any horse which is sore with reason to believe that such horse
while it is sore may be shown, exhibited, entered for the purpose of
being shown or exhibited, sold, auctioned, or offered for sale, in
any horse show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or auction
that this paragraph does not apply to the shipping, transporting,
moving, delivering, or receiving of any horse by a common or
contract carrier or an employee thereof in the usual course of the
carrier's business or employee's employment unless the carrier or
employee has reason to believe that such horse is sore.
(2) The (A) showing or exhibiting, in any horse show or horse
exhibition, of any horse which is sore, (B) entering for the purpose
of showing or exhibiting in any horse show or horse exhibition, any
horse which is sore, (C) selling, auctioning, or offering for sale,
in any horse sale or auction, any horse which is sore,
and (D)
allowing any activity described in clause (A), (B), or (C)
respecting a horse which is sore by the owner of such horse.
(3) The failure by the management of any horse show or horse
exhibition, which does not appoint and retain a person in accordance
with section 1823(c) of this title, to disqualify from being shown
or exhibited any horse which is sore.
(4) The failure by the management of any horse sale or auction,
which does not appoint and retain a qualified person in accordance
with section 1823(c) of this title, to prohibit the sale, offering
for sale, or auction of any horse which is sore.
(5) The failure by the management of any horse show or horse
exhibition, which has appointed and retained a person in accordance
with section 1823(c) of this title, to disqualify from being shown
or exhibited any horse (A) which is sore, and (B) after having been
notified by such person or the Secretary that the horse is sore or
after otherwise having knowledge that the horse is sore.
(6) The failure by the management of any horse sale or auction
which has appointed and retained a person in accordance with section
1823(c) of this title, to prohibit the sale, offering for sale, or
auction of any horse (A) which is sore, and (B) after having been
notified by such person or the Secretary or after otherwise having
knowledge that the horse is sore.
(7) The showing or exhibiting at a horse show or horse
exhibition; the selling or auctioning at a horse sale or auction;
the allowing to be shown, exhibited, or sold at a horse show, horse
exhibition, or horse sale or auction; the entering for the purpose
of showing or exhibiting in any horse show or horse exhibition; or
offering for sale at a horse sale or auction, any horse which is
wearing or bearing any equipment, device, paraphernalia, or
substance which the Secretary by regulation under section 1828 of
this title prohibits to prevent the soring of horses.
(8) The failing to establish, maintain, or submit records,
notices, reports, or other information required under section 1823
of this title.
(9) The failure or refusal to permit access to or copying of
records, or the failure or refusal to permit entry or inspection, as
required by section 1823 of this title.
(10) The removal of any marking required by the Secretary to
identify a horse as being detained.
(11) The failure or refusal to provide the Secretary with
adequate space or facilities, as the Secretary may by regulation
under section 1828 of this title prescribe, in which to conduct
inspections or any other activity authorized to be performed by the
Secretary under this chapter.

(Pub. L. 91-540, Sec. 5, Dec. 9, 1970, 84 Stat. 1405; Pub. L. 94-360,
Sec. 6, July 13, 1976, 90 Stat. 916.)


1976--Pub. L. 94-360 substituted provisions prohibiting the
transportation, receipt, exhibition, sale, or auction of a sored horse,
and the showing, sale or auction of a horse bearing any device or
substance prohibited by regulation of the Secretary, and making the
management of a horse show, exhibition, or sale, responsible for failure
to disqualify such horses from participating, and for interfering with
the conducting of inspections by the Secretary of horses in the show or
of the management records, for provisions authorizing the inspection of
horses, transported in commerce, and requiring the management of shows
and exhibitions to maintain such records as the Secretary prescribes
Provisions now covering the maintenance of records and the inspection of
horses are set out as section 1823 of this title.

From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access
[Laws in effect as of January 22, 2002]
[Document not affected by Public Laws enacted between
January 22, 2002 and January 16, 2003]
[CITE: 15USC1823]



Sec. 1823. Horse shows and exhibitions

(a) Disqualification of horses

The management of any horse show or horse exhibition shall
disqualify any horse from being shown or exhibited (1) which is sore or
(2) if the management has been notified by a person appointed in
accordance with regulations under subsection (c) of this section or by
the Secretary that the horse is sore.

(b) Prohibited activities

The management of any horse sale or auction shall prohibit the sale
or auction or exhibition for the purpose of sale of any horse (1) which
is sore
or (2) if the management has been notified by a person appointed
in accordance with regulations under subsection (c) of this section or
by the Secretary that the horse is sore.

(c) Appointment of inspectors; manner of inspections

The Secretary shall prescribe by regulation requirements for the
appointment by the management of any horse show, horse exhibition, or
horse sale or auction of persons qualified to detect and diagnose a
horse which is sore or to otherwise inspect horses for the purposes of
enforcing this chapter.
Such requirements shall prohibit the appointment
of persons who, after notice and opportunity for a hearing, have been
disqualified by the Secretary to make such detection, diagnosis, or
inspection. Appointment of a person in accordance with the requirements
prescribed under this subsection shall not be construed as authorizing
such person to conduct inspections in a manner other than that
prescribed for inspections by the Secretary (or the Secretary's
representative) under subsection (e) of this section.

(d) Recordkeeping and reporting requirements; availability of records

The management of a horse show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or
shall establish and maintain such records, make such reports,
and provide such information as the Secretary may by regulation
reasonably require for the purposes of implementing this chapter or to
determine compliance with this chapter. Upon request of an officer or
employee duly designated by the Secretary, such management shall permit
entry at all reasonable times for the inspection and copying (on or off
the premises) of records required to be maintained under this

(e) Inspection by Secretary or duly appointed representative

For purposes of enforcement of this chapter (including any
regulation promulgated under this chapter) the Secretary, or any
representative of the Secretary duly designated by the Secretary, may
inspect any horse show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or auction or
any horse at any such show, exhibition, sale, or auction.
Such an
inspection may only be made upon presenting appropriate credentials.
Each such inspection shall be commenced and completed with reasonable
promptness and shall be conducted within reasonable limits and in a
reasonable manner. An inspection under this subsection shall extend to
all things (including records) bearing on whether the requirements of
this chapter have been complied with.

(Pub. L. 91-540, Sec. 4, Dec. 9, 1970, 84 Stat. 1405; Pub. L. 94-360,
Sec. 5, July 13, 1976, 90 Stat. 916.)


1976--Pub. L. 94-360 substituted provisions relating to the
inspection and disqualification of horses participating in horse shows
and exhibitions, the issuance of regulations by the Secretary, and the
maintenance of records by horse show management, for provisions
prohibiting as constituting unlawful acts the exhibition of sored
horses, the transportation in commerce for purposes of exhibition of any
horse that had been sored, and the conducting of any show or exhibition
in which sored horses appear. Provisions now covering such unlawful acts
are set out as section 1824 of this title.

STUDY the USDAs Animal Wefare Act and the Horse Protecton Act, and see if you dont agree that these laws DO apply to the BLM specifically in their gathering and transport processes involving sored and / or lamed wild horses and burros, and if you find the laws apply or SHOULD apply, send your complaints to:

USDA Animal Inspection Services

47oo River Rd.

Riverdale, MD 20737


*This is the law that gives the USDA the authority to inspect horse auctions so dont let them tell you that they dont have jurisdicition when you call up to complain about lame horses you see at these places...

Wednesday, October 27, 2010

DOC 39: KG Livestock Award / Contract - 9/1/09 Steve Sando

These documents, although indexed as DOC 39, were not provided as the BLM is claiming these docs are exempt from discosure until which time they can consult with the contractor on the release of "pricing" information......