A Very Good Man with a Not So Very Good Plan

A staunch wild horse advocate and a man I dearly love for his compassion for the environment and all living things,.. has come up with a new plan to suggest to the BLM for a way to manage our wild horses and burros. Read all about it in his own words by clicking on to the link below;

http://rtfitch.wordpress.com/2010/06/17/renowned-wildlife-ecologist-calls-for-drastic-changes-in-blm-wild-horse-program/#comment-9630

And here is my response:

Craig, You know I love you dearly and I want what you want for the wild ones, for them to remain wild and free upon their traditional lands, ....and it seems to me they already have land set out for them as "reserves" and that is their traditional lands, as so stated by the Wild Horse Annie Act of 1971, which as you know REQUIRES them to be the principle users of same. As you also know, the BLM is ignoring this provision of the 1971 law and are using the Federal Lands Planning and Management Act (FLMPA) enacted in 1974 as an excuse for decimating the herds and/or zeroing them out off their GUARANTEED lands. Prior to FLMPA there was no requirement for any other use of the land, though the language of the Wild Horse Annie Act allowed for discretionary "any other use of the land," so long as the wild ones had principal use. Along came FLMPA in 1974 which set forth a new mandatory multi-use requirement on all public lands. In addition to the new mandatory multi-use requirement, a "sustainability of yield" was outlined as a crucial consideration in any resource and/or land management plan. In other words, "profitability" is now a major concern in formulating any resource or land use plans. In addition to all of this, FLMPA also requires that any decisions regarding land use and resource management plans be effected through written "Land Use and/or Resource Management Plans" as outlined in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) established in 1970 - (This is the Act that requires BLM to let us submit public comments - for all the good it does) Anyways, BLM believes that it can decimate the herds and even zero them out as long as they follow the requirements of FLMPA and NEPA and do it through written plans. That is how they "justify" divesting the wild ones of their land in favor of "more lucrative" endeavors, (sustainability of yield) i.e.; energy and/or exploration (oil & gas, wind farms, utility corridors, and even expansion of wild life reserves (big game hunting) and community building, all of which (of course) are more profitable than keeping wild horses (and burros) roaming free on their traditional lands. So BLM thinks they are operating under the law when they decimate or remove the wild ones off their land simply because they can make more profitable use of the land,...as is REQUIRED by the "new" FLMPA laws. HOWEVER, and I cannot stress this enough,...what BLM fails to realize is that there is an EXEMPTION in the FLMPA laws that DOES NOT require "multiple use and sustainability of yield" for lands that have been designated for a certain use PRIOR to FLMPAs 1974 Act! "Those lands," FLMPA says, should be managed according to the law that was in place prior to FLMPAs enactment! So you see, the BLM is nullifying not only the provision of the Wild Horse Annie Act of 1971 that REQUIRES the wild ones to be principal users of their traditional lands, but by their ignorance, they are nullifying the EXEMPTION clause of the FLMPA law as well!! What is needed to keep the wild ones entitlement to remain on their traditional lands AND to be PRINCIPAL USES of same, is a legal challenge to the BLMs nullification of these important federal statutes. This is some VERY serious stuff as the federal courts as well as our Congress frown upon administrative agencies upsurping the lawmaking (and breaking) powers of the legislature. What is needed to WIN this constitutional challenge is a savvy lawyer well versed in Constitutional law. Do this, and if we are successful, there will be no need to find new "reserves" or for the building of any Salazoos. The wild ones can stay on their traditional lands AND be principal users of same. What have we got to lose? What would it hurt to try? Isn’t that what we all really want for the wild ones,.. to stay on their traditional lands, and to be the principal uses of same? -