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; http://www.truth-out.org/energy-companies-big-plans-exploit-american-west-feed-chinas-insatiable-appetite-coal65530

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; http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xf0fwy_u-of-a-student-beth-freniere-interv_lifestyle

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; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9NLTcwwvOs

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 removal.....so 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,...as 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 FLPMA....so 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 www.conservationlands.org.

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, ...by 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,...it 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; http://www.mynews4.com/story.php?id=30879&n=122
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