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.
Read ROAM
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=gmail&attid=0.1&thid=12c50be5a3149605&mt=application/pdf&url=https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui%3D2%26ik%3D73cb654079%26view%3Datt%26th%3D12c50be5a3149605%26attid%3D0.1%26disp%3Dattd%26zw&sig=AHIEtbTzk8jY5kVovckfLv6yA6iUwGVAZw&pli=1
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!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
I had hoped that ROAM would be true to it title Restore Our American Mustangs, but there were too many tricky wordings that could be used to castrate the herds and to displace them still from their rightful areas. These could have been remedied by changing the bill to retain the good parts and excise the bad and to expand. I gave input on this but no one in Congress carried through! It is still theoretically possible for this to happen but we would really have to have someone who is very motivated and believes in the cause!
There would be nothing GOOD left of the ROAM Act even if we could remove the FLPMA provisions. The way it is written the wild ones would still be divested of their statutory right to remain on their traditional lands....being in that case, it would be better just to ditch ROAM altogether and fix the original WFH&BA of 1971 back to its original form, only better (to cover all WFB&H upon ALL public lands)...and FLPMAs mandatory multiple use / sustainability of yield requirements should not apply, as they should not apply regardless...
Post a Comment