Tuesday, August 9, 2011
Monday, August 8, 2011
Exemptions to FOIA Laws
As some of you may know, a couple of years ago,..I did a FOIA request to the BLM to find out the whereabouts of over 600 wild horses removed from the Seaman, Whiteriver and Caliente ranges in Nevada in 2009. By way of response they provided me with over 500 pages of documents some stemming from 2007 of which I did not request, all confusing and incomplete, and none of which were of the type of documents or info I requested, though they did release contractors contracts but blacked out THE PRICING INFO which makes it impossible to tell just how many horses were gathered because they dont go by the number of HEAD of horses but by the AMOUNT OF MONEY paid to the contractors for each horse gathered. In other words, on paper, they dont count horses but DOLLAR AMOUNTS. Soooooo, not being happy at all with the defendants assessment that the amount paid to the contractor per each horse removed is protected from disclosure.......and their failure to satisfactorily respond to my FOIA request , I am going to respond challenging them on that;
http://www.midland-mi.org/government/council/policies/foiaEXCEPT.htm
http://www.midland-mi.org/government/council/policies/foiaEXCEPT.htm
Saturday, July 2, 2011
Cloud Foundation Sues to Save Nevada's Wild Horses (and burros)
All - Let's pack the house to support our NV WH&B, the plaintiffs in this case & the legal team. Please post far & wide & forward to your media contacts.
-------------------------------------------------------------
For immediate release
Lawsuit filed to protect free-roaming American wild horses in Nevada
Despite thriving natural ecological balance--scorched earth policy runs roundups
RENO, NV (July 1, 2011) – In honor of the American spirit, independence, and freedom this 4th of July, the Cloud Foundation and individual wild horse advocates filed a lawsuit on Wednesday to stop the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) roundup of wild horses on the Triple B, Maverick Medicine and Antelope Valley Herd Management Areas (HMA), located on public land in eastern Nevada. The BLM has failed to show that these wild horses are a threat to the thriving natural ecological balance (TNEB) of this area or even that they are responsible for the few areas on this range which may be exhibiting some impacts from use. Despite the fact that these HMAs were specifically established for the protection of wild horse herds, the BLM is using the land mostly for other uses. There is nothing which justifies the BLM's decision to remove 80% of the wild horses (more than 1,700 stallions, mares and foals) currently residing on this 1.7 million acre range.
"The Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act does not allow the BLM to employ this intensive management action--removing these majestic symbols of the West from the range and depriving them of their freedom--without determining that such an action is absolutely necessary to maintain the thriving natural ecological balance of the range." states attorney for Plaintiffs, Rachel Fazio. "The BLM hasn't made this determination, so they do not have the legal authority to proceed with this roundup."
The wild horses of the Triple B, Maverick Medicine and Antelope Valley HMAs are free-roaming on the remote high desert mountains and valleys of east central and northeast Nevada--north of Ely, south of Elko on the Utah border. They have been characterized as a diverse, colorful, intermingling herd with some possessing old mustang origins. Many wild horses descend from an old Shoshone Indian herd known for pintos and paints, as well as a number of medicine hats, horses sacred to Native Americans.
"Wild horses and burros would be subjected to irreparable harm by chasing them with helicopters, branding and sterilizing them among other cruel acts including the potential for deaths," states Anne Novak, spokesperson for The Cloud Foundation. "We must stop this abuse now and legal action is the way to do it."
The Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief was filed in the United States District Court in Nevada on June 29, 2011. Plaintiffs include The Cloud Foundation, Craig Downer and Lorna Moffat. Rachel Fazio and Julie Cavanaugh-Bill are the attorneys for the plaintiffs suing: the United States Bureau of Land Management; Ken Salazar, Secretary of Interior; Robert Abbey, Director of the BLM and Gary Medlyn and Bryan Fuell, the two BLM field managers that approved the roundup.
The roundup was originally scheduled to begin on July 7, 2011, but in response to filing this lawsuit, the BLM has delayed the start of the round-up until July 16, 2011 to allow the Nevada District Court to take a preliminary look at the case.
A hearing on preliminary injunction will be held in the federal courthouse, located at 400 S. Virgina Street in downtown Reno, Nevada, on July 14, 2011 at 10:00 a.m..
"Americans across the country and citizens throughout the world look to the American wild horse as an historical icon of freedom," states Ginger Kathrens, Executive Director of The Cloud Foundation. "We simply cannot stand by while the very agency charged with their protection harasses, captures and removes thousands of free-roaming wild horses from the western range and ships them to the midwest to live out their lives in captivity--wild and free no-more."
Media Contacts:
Anne Novak
Anne@TheCloudFoundation.org
Tel: 415-531-8454
Lauryn Wachs
Lauryn@TheCloudFoundation.org
Tel: 617-894-6939
Links of Interest:
Read the full Complaint filed: http://bit.ly/iZ8yS3
Congressional Appeal to Stop the Roundups: http://bit.ly/g7bVMs
CNN Report on deadly roundups: http://bit.ly/m7PFX5
Latest BLM Roundup Schedule for 2011: http://bit.ly/iHNvU9
Interviews and media available on request.
http://www.thecloudfoundation.org/
-------------------------------------------------------------
For immediate release
Lawsuit filed to protect free-roaming American wild horses in Nevada
Despite thriving natural ecological balance--scorched earth policy runs roundups
RENO, NV (July 1, 2011) – In honor of the American spirit, independence, and freedom this 4th of July, the Cloud Foundation and individual wild horse advocates filed a lawsuit on Wednesday to stop the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) roundup of wild horses on the Triple B, Maverick Medicine and Antelope Valley Herd Management Areas (HMA), located on public land in eastern Nevada. The BLM has failed to show that these wild horses are a threat to the thriving natural ecological balance (TNEB) of this area or even that they are responsible for the few areas on this range which may be exhibiting some impacts from use. Despite the fact that these HMAs were specifically established for the protection of wild horse herds, the BLM is using the land mostly for other uses. There is nothing which justifies the BLM's decision to remove 80% of the wild horses (more than 1,700 stallions, mares and foals) currently residing on this 1.7 million acre range.
"The Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act does not allow the BLM to employ this intensive management action--removing these majestic symbols of the West from the range and depriving them of their freedom--without determining that such an action is absolutely necessary to maintain the thriving natural ecological balance of the range." states attorney for Plaintiffs, Rachel Fazio. "The BLM hasn't made this determination, so they do not have the legal authority to proceed with this roundup."
The wild horses of the Triple B, Maverick Medicine and Antelope Valley HMAs are free-roaming on the remote high desert mountains and valleys of east central and northeast Nevada--north of Ely, south of Elko on the Utah border. They have been characterized as a diverse, colorful, intermingling herd with some possessing old mustang origins. Many wild horses descend from an old Shoshone Indian herd known for pintos and paints, as well as a number of medicine hats, horses sacred to Native Americans.
"Wild horses and burros would be subjected to irreparable harm by chasing them with helicopters, branding and sterilizing them among other cruel acts including the potential for deaths," states Anne Novak, spokesperson for The Cloud Foundation. "We must stop this abuse now and legal action is the way to do it."
The Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief was filed in the United States District Court in Nevada on June 29, 2011. Plaintiffs include The Cloud Foundation, Craig Downer and Lorna Moffat. Rachel Fazio and Julie Cavanaugh-Bill are the attorneys for the plaintiffs suing: the United States Bureau of Land Management; Ken Salazar, Secretary of Interior; Robert Abbey, Director of the BLM and Gary Medlyn and Bryan Fuell, the two BLM field managers that approved the roundup.
The roundup was originally scheduled to begin on July 7, 2011, but in response to filing this lawsuit, the BLM has delayed the start of the round-up until July 16, 2011 to allow the Nevada District Court to take a preliminary look at the case.
A hearing on preliminary injunction will be held in the federal courthouse, located at 400 S. Virgina Street in downtown Reno, Nevada, on July 14, 2011 at 10:00 a.m..
"Americans across the country and citizens throughout the world look to the American wild horse as an historical icon of freedom," states Ginger Kathrens, Executive Director of The Cloud Foundation. "We simply cannot stand by while the very agency charged with their protection harasses, captures and removes thousands of free-roaming wild horses from the western range and ships them to the midwest to live out their lives in captivity--wild and free no-more."
Media Contacts:
Anne Novak
Anne@TheCloudFoundation.org
Tel: 415-531-8454
Lauryn Wachs
Lauryn@TheCloudFoundation.org
Tel: 617-894-6939
Links of Interest:
Read the full Complaint filed: http://bit.ly/iZ8yS3
Congressional Appeal to Stop the Roundups: http://bit.ly/g7bVMs
CNN Report on deadly roundups: http://bit.ly/m7PFX5
Latest BLM Roundup Schedule for 2011: http://bit.ly/iHNvU9
Interviews and media available on request.
http://www.thecloudfoundation.org/
Monday, June 20, 2011
Old But Interesting News (OBI) - "Classifying Fed. Public Land Grazing Permits
Publication restricted to suscribers to The Journal of Rangeland Management; 55 (1) Jan. 2002;
http://www.jstor.org/pss/4003256
Read where 85% of all public lands is utilized for private grazing, and there are 29,925 permittees. Would be interesting to be able to read the whole report,..but access is limited ......as you will see when you open the link
http://www.jstor.org/pss/4003256
Read where 85% of all public lands is utilized for private grazing, and there are 29,925 permittees. Would be interesting to be able to read the whole report,..but access is limited ......as you will see when you open the link
Saturday, April 30, 2011
Friday, April 29, 2011
Ranchers v. Wild Horses (and Burros) - An Old Case in FAVOR of the Equines
Setting forth the FACT that unbranded equines roaming our public lands are WILD animals same as the grizzley bears in our National Parks system; http://asci.uvm.edu/equine/law/cases/wild/hodel.htmand
and also increasing burden of proof on ranchers who claim the wild equines are destroying their private lands or livlihoods.....
and also increasing burden of proof on ranchers who claim the wild equines are destroying their private lands or livlihoods.....
This is an excellent case in support of the WH&B's. It states that the ranchers cannot succeed on this type of a "private property taking" claim unless they can prove a deprivation of the "economically viable use" of their property........in other words, they must show actual damage (costs) incurred to them or their businesses due SOLEY to the WH&Bs....it is not enough to merely claim the WH&Bs are "interfering" with their private property use. Also, another VERY important finding in this case (and something that the BLM has NEVER wanted to admit) is that Congress (and the courts, according to this case) consider the unbranded equines roaming our public lands,....to be WILD animals "same as the grizzly bears that roam our National Parklands." (See Allaed, 444 US @ 66, 100 S. Ct.@ 327) Of course, this being a 1984 case,...will need to be updated (Shepardized) to make sure these findings havent been over-turned.
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Nevadas Animal Cruelty Bill Moves Forward
But will it pertain to wild horses (and burros) and require those kept in confinement be provided with adequate shelter? Oh, thats right, that provision is already on the books in Nevadas current laws; Animal Cruelty Bill Moves Forward
...for all the good that it does.
...for all the good that it does.
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Update: Ely FOIA Lawsuit: BLM Releases Previously Withheld Documents
Click to enlarge doc, click again to make even larger
As some of you may know, I have been battling the Nevada BLM since late 2009 trying to find out what happened to 630 wild horses removed from the Seaman, White River, Golden Gate and Caliente Herds. I did a Freedom of Info request and they ...sent me over 700 "made up" documents that are impossible to decipher and didnt tell me anything. They also claimed that the gather contracts were exempt from disclosure do to "concerns" about "pricing" and the contractors rights.....lol. Of course I challanged that determination and lo and behold I won!!! The BLM released the contractors documents to me just last week.....but what have I really "won" cause these documents also dont tell me nothin. The contract reads not for "so many horses" but only lists that the payment will be for "so much a head" and OF COURSE the total pricing info is blacked out,...so it is impossible to tell HOW MANY head without knowing the total amount paid to them! Of course I am going to dispute the withholding of the pricing info on just those grounds. *Please note: Although I only asked for 2009 records, as you can see by this doc, they provided me with docs from 2006 on. Am posting this one just as an example for they all are more or less the same. ..
Friday, April 15, 2011
Donkey, Pony Pals Need New Homes / NY
Johnsonville: An animal lover in eastern New York needs to re-home several rescued animals due to failing health. Paco is a 4-year-old standard size spotted donkey who is very gentle and loving. His pal Li’l Lightning is a 12-year-old pinto mini-horse. Both are intact stallions. They need to be adopted together in a home with no other equines. Six rabbits are also in need of good homes. They include four black and white rexes and two black lop-eared rabbits. For photos or more information, please contact Christine. See them here; http://www.youtube.com/user/MuleKist#p/u/8/3PEH-nd9EEg Contact: Christine Phone: 518-753-7791 E-mail: mulekist@gmail.com
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Pinnacle West Capital Corp. Plans New Transmission Lines on Public Lands
APS plans new transmission line NW of Phoenix
PHOENIX
Arizona Public Service Co., a subsidiary of Pinnacle West Capital Corp., has filed an application to construct an above-ground electric transmission line on public lands between the cities of Buckeye and Peoria.
The federal Bureau of Land Management has started the public scoping period for an environmental impact statement to determine whether APS should be granted a right of way to construct, operate and maintain the proposed power system northwest of Phoenix.
The BLM will hear public comment on the proposal through May 26 and there are public meetings scheduled next month on the matter in Phoenix, Peoria and Wittman.
The 38-mile APS project would connect its Sun Valley Substation near Buckeye with the Morgan Substation near Peoria. It would cross about 10 1/2 miles of federal public lands in two separate locations.
PHOENIX
Arizona Public Service Co., a subsidiary of Pinnacle West Capital Corp., has filed an application to construct an above-ground electric transmission line on public lands between the cities of Buckeye and Peoria.
The federal Bureau of Land Management has started the public scoping period for an environmental impact statement to determine whether APS should be granted a right of way to construct, operate and maintain the proposed power system northwest of Phoenix.
The BLM will hear public comment on the proposal through May 26 and there are public meetings scheduled next month on the matter in Phoenix, Peoria and Wittman.
The 38-mile APS project would connect its Sun Valley Substation near Buckeye with the Morgan Substation near Peoria. It would cross about 10 1/2 miles of federal public lands in two separate locations.
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Saturday, April 9, 2011
Friday, April 8, 2011
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
New HAARP Facility in Fallon, Nv. ?
What is HAARP? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnRPZOUVhJ4 Whats that near Fallon, Nevada? http://stevebeckow.com/2011/03/weathercontrol-installation-nevada/ HAARP Website; http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Action Alert / To Stop the Funding
RELAY THE FOLLOWING MESSAGE TO YOUR REPRESENTATIVES ON BEHALF OF AMERICA’S WILD HORSES. SUBJECT: DOI/BLM Wild Horse & Burro Program – Stop Funding & Stop Roundups/Removals though FY11 & FY12 Appropriations I am an American taxpayer & a citizen who wants our iconic wild horses & burros to be properly protected & preserved for generations to come on their legal Western homelands. This is not happening with the current mismanagement of the Program by the BLM. They are using the sole strategy of cruel roundups, removals & warehousing of WH&B at huge taxpayer expense when more cost-effective, on-the-range management strategies could be utilized. They are managing America’s Western heritage to extinction & must be stopped until the whole Program is completely reformed. As your constituent, I request you to categorically support appropriations language right now that: - rejects the additional $12M funding for the Program in the FY11 CR & FY12 Budget & maintains the FY10 level of $64M both years. - suspends roundups/removals in all but verifiable emergency situations while the NAS conducts a scientific review of the Program. - prohibits the use of any funds to euthanize healthy WH&B directly or indirectly for slaughter. - funds public/private partnerships & allows conversion of livestock grazing allotments to WH&B use. - funds an independent, state-of-the-art census of WH&B on the range & in holding to obtain an accurate population baseline. - requires truly reformed, humane WH&B handling protocols. Thank you for your immediate attention. I would appreciate a response from you on whether or not you will support this request in the committee negotiation stage and/or when it comes up for vote on the floor in the near future. (Your Name and Address) Alert Courtesy of Carla Bowers. PH
Monday, March 21, 2011
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Premiere: A Nation Betrayed
WFLF Humanion Films
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Los Angeles, CA
March 21, 2011
Premiere of Independent Documentary Film about Horses Attracts Mounting Attention
“A Nation Betrayed, Saving America’s Horses” is an Official Selection of the 2011 Los Angeles Women’s International Film Festival and will premiere on Sunday March 27th.
Michael Blake (Dances With Wolves), Randal Kleiser (Grease), Paul Sorvino (Goodfellas), Linda Gray (Dallas), Ken Wahl (Wiseguy), The Barbi Twins, and Jennifer Lee Pryor are all involved and have confirmed their appearances for this event, as has Mexican matinee idol Jorge Rivero.
What: Premiere screening of “Saving America’s Horses” at the Los Angeles Women’s International Film Festival
When: Sunday March 27, 2011, 12:45 p.m. – seating begins at 12:30 p.m. Media line to follow screening.
Where: Laemmle's Sunset 5, 8000 Sunset Blvd., West Hollywood, CA 90046
Reception to follow: Attending ticket holders will be invited to stay for a special reception. Food for the reception will be provided by The Veggie Grill, with wine supplied by Du Vin.
The film is a compelling compilation of expert testimony, undercover footage and true life stories shot against the dramatic backdrops of America’s beautiful countryside. “A Nation Betrayed” depicts a country divided and inspires great hope for the protection of all horses and burros from cruelty. Directed and produced by Katia Louise, this feature length documentary examines the arguments made by both the proponents and opponents of horse slaughter as related to both domestic and wild equines. The film also explores environmental issues and the lethal health risks associated with the consumption of America’s horses by people.
"In Defense of Animals (IDA), applauds the selection of “Saving America’s Horses – A Nation Betrayed” by the Los Angeles Women’s International Film Festival." - IDA
See the powerful OFFICIAL TRAILER for SAVING AMERICA’S HORSES A NATION BETRAYED on the official film Website, at IMDB and at YouTube.
Presented by IMA Studios and Humanion Films. Saving America’s Horses is a Project under Wild for Life Foundation (WFLF), a CA 501 (c)(3) nonprofit corporation.
Press Contact: Mario James
mario@humanionfilms.com
admin@savingamericashorses.org
Links:
Tickets: http://www.brownpapertickets.com/event/159041
Film Website: http://www.savingamericashorses.org/home.html
Film Festival: Los Angeles Women’s International Film Festival
Theatre: http://www.laemmle.com/viewtheatre.php?thid=2
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Los Angeles, CA
March 21, 2011
Premiere of Independent Documentary Film about Horses Attracts Mounting Attention
“A Nation Betrayed, Saving America’s Horses” is an Official Selection of the 2011 Los Angeles Women’s International Film Festival and will premiere on Sunday March 27th.
Michael Blake (Dances With Wolves), Randal Kleiser (Grease), Paul Sorvino (Goodfellas), Linda Gray (Dallas), Ken Wahl (Wiseguy), The Barbi Twins, and Jennifer Lee Pryor are all involved and have confirmed their appearances for this event, as has Mexican matinee idol Jorge Rivero.
What: Premiere screening of “Saving America’s Horses” at the Los Angeles Women’s International Film Festival
When: Sunday March 27, 2011, 12:45 p.m. – seating begins at 12:30 p.m. Media line to follow screening.
Where: Laemmle's Sunset 5, 8000 Sunset Blvd., West Hollywood, CA 90046
Reception to follow: Attending ticket holders will be invited to stay for a special reception. Food for the reception will be provided by The Veggie Grill, with wine supplied by Du Vin.
The film is a compelling compilation of expert testimony, undercover footage and true life stories shot against the dramatic backdrops of America’s beautiful countryside. “A Nation Betrayed” depicts a country divided and inspires great hope for the protection of all horses and burros from cruelty. Directed and produced by Katia Louise, this feature length documentary examines the arguments made by both the proponents and opponents of horse slaughter as related to both domestic and wild equines. The film also explores environmental issues and the lethal health risks associated with the consumption of America’s horses by people.
"In Defense of Animals (IDA), applauds the selection of “Saving America’s Horses – A Nation Betrayed” by the Los Angeles Women’s International Film Festival." - IDA
See the powerful OFFICIAL TRAILER for SAVING AMERICA’S HORSES A NATION BETRAYED on the official film Website, at IMDB and at YouTube.
Presented by IMA Studios and Humanion Films. Saving America’s Horses is a Project under Wild for Life Foundation (WFLF), a CA 501 (c)(3) nonprofit corporation.
Press Contact: Mario James
mario@humanionfilms.com
admin@savingamericashorses.org
Links:
Tickets: http://www.brownpapertickets.com/event/159041
Film Website: http://www.savingamericashorses.org/home.html
Film Festival: Los Angeles Women’s International Film Festival
Theatre: http://www.laemmle.com/viewtheatre.php?thid=2
Friday, March 18, 2011
Bill targets violence against animals - News - ReviewJournal.com
By Ed Vogel
LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL CAPITAL BUREAU
Posted: Mar. 18, 2011 6:38 p.m.
Updated: Mar. 18, 2011 6:58 p.m.
CARSON CITY -- Gina Griesen, president of Nevada Voters for Animals, has fought for years to stop animal abuse in Las Vegas.
So it's no surprise that she wants state legislators to approve a bill that would make it a felony to kill, torture or maliciously injure an animal.
But she has an even better reason to support Senate Bill 223:
There is a link between animal abuse and domestic violence. Many violent criminals, especially serial killers, started as children who abused animals.
Stop animal cruelty, and you might stop some people abuse as well, she and others believe.
"Animal cruelty is really treated as a minor issue today, the same as jaywalking," Griesen said. "A guy can come up and shoot your horse in front of you and still it is a misdemeanor."
But the bill, which would make the first offense a felony, punishable by a one- to four-year term in prison if the animal lives, and a one- to five-year term if the animal dies, faces an uncertain future.
Farmers and ranchers oppose the bill, contending some of their practices might appear cruel to outsiders, but really are not.
And with passage, as many as five more animal abusers a year are expected to end up in prison -- a $100,000 plus cost that recession-plagued Nevada can ill afford.
Forty-four states already have laws that make malicious and willful animal cruelty a felony crime, usually punishable by time in state prison. Under SB223, introduced on Griesen's behalf by Sen. Shirley Breeden, D-Henderson, Nevada would become the 45th.
HUMAN-ANIMAL ABUSE LINK
Numerous studies and papers have been written in recent years showing a link between animal abuse and domestic violence.
There is even a New Jersey organization, the National Link Coalition, whose mission is making more people and legislators aware of the animal abuse-domestic violence link in hope they take action to make animals and people safer.
The FBI did its own study that found numerous serial killers, including Jeffrey Dahmer and Ted Bundy, tortured small animals when they were children.
In Southern Nevada, the operators of the Shade Tree Shelter in North Las Vegas noticed a dramatic difference in the behavior of abused women after the nonprofit organization opened its Noah's Animal House in 2007.
Abused women and children can take their pets with them and place them in Noah's when they seek protection in the shelter. The animal house is on the shelter grounds. Before the animal house opened, the average woman would return to the home of the abusing partner nine times and potentially expose herself to more violence.
"Now women who come here fleeing domestic violence return to the home of the abuser only 1 percent of the time," which is a lot less often, said Marlene Richter, the Shade Tree executive director.
"Here they are able to care about life through their pets. They usually believe the (awful) things that have been said about them by their abusers, but not what has been said about their pets. They cling to hope because of their pets."
Richter said the pet often becomes the pawn in homes filled with domestic violence. The abuser will threaten to kill and often does kill pets if the women and children leave. Women in the shelter have even been e-mailed pictures of their mutilated family pets, she said.
She knows of cases where the abuser put a dog in a freezer when the woman left. In other cases pets have been tortured in front of children.
In 60 percent of the cases of violence against women in the shelter, Richter estimates there also has been animal cruelty in their homes.
"If we rescue the lives of pets, we also rescue the lives of abused women and children," said Richter, who intends to testify for SB223.
PRO AND CON
Breeden expects opposition from hunting and ranching group as well as rural legislators. But she said the bill "is not to disallow hunting (with dogs). But if an individual goes out and mutilates a hunting dog, well that should be an issue."
Doug Busselman, the lobbyist for the Nevada Farm Bureau, is concerned that the bill would apply to livestock. He said overzealous regulators might misinterpret "certain management acts" as cruelty when they are accepted forms of animal husbandry.
As an example, he pointed out that the castration and dehorning of animals often is done without anesthetics. Animals also are branded with hot irons.
"Why do we need to make everything a felony?" Busselman asked. "Passing more laws doesn't make anything safer."
Sen. Dean Rhoads, R-Tuscarora, called SB223 "the worst bill introduced so far this session," noting that animal cruelty already is against the law and questioning why a harsher penalty is necessary.
He said decisions on whether livestock is mistreated are decided now by veterinarians, the brand inspector and county sheriffs.
But Natural Resources Chairman Mark Manendo, D-Las Vegas, said he is a "big animal person" who doesn't want any animal, livestock or pet, abused. He said sometimes legislators "need to put the (hammer) head down" because judges won't impose the penalties permitted by existing laws.
Animal cruelty is a misdemeanor in Nevada, usually punishable with a fine, but judges can order as much as six months in jail.
No inmates are in state prisons today for animal cruelty. A person must be convicted twice of animal cruelty before the crime becomes a felony with the third offense.
Griesen said the abuse link is too valid to ignore.
"Why do we wait to punish these animal abusers until after they harm a person? If they pass this law, maybe a father won't beat his child or his wife to death? Animals are the first to be abused in domestic violence situations."
While three of the five members of the Natural Resources Committee are co-sponsors of SB223, Griesen fears the bill will be put in legislators' drawers if testimony shows enforcement would increase state costs.
That will occur, according to the fiscal note for the bill developed by the Department of Corrections. It estimates that between three and five people a year could be imprisoned for extreme animal cruelty under such a law. It costs more than $20,000 a year to keep one inmate in prison.
COONEY THE DOG
Then there is the infamous case of Cooney, a 3-year-old female pitbull-beagle mix that was brought to the Reno headquarters of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in October.
Cooney's owner said he suspected a mouse somehow crawled into the dog's bulging stomach, so he cut a 6- to 8-inch hole in the dog's abdomen with a box cutter.
The dog later died.
Washoe County Animal Control officer Kathleen Denning spent 1½ months tracking the man down. He was a transient living in a van in Reno.
The man could not post the $640 bail so he spent about 40 days in jail for misdemeanor animal cruelty and then was released for time served in February. While some people may conclude he was mentally ill, Denning said he was judged competent to stand trial.
Griesen said that under the current law, he legally can acquire another animal.
She would like to name SB223 as "Cooney's Law" if it receives legislative approval.
The bill will have its first hearing, before the Senate Natural Resources Committee, at 3:30 p.m. Wednesday.
Contact Capital Bureau Chief Ed Vogel at evogel@reviewjournal.com or 775-687-3901
Original article w/ pics; Bill targets violence against animals - News - ReviewJournal.com
LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL CAPITAL BUREAU
Posted: Mar. 18, 2011 6:38 p.m.
Updated: Mar. 18, 2011 6:58 p.m.
CARSON CITY -- Gina Griesen, president of Nevada Voters for Animals, has fought for years to stop animal abuse in Las Vegas.
So it's no surprise that she wants state legislators to approve a bill that would make it a felony to kill, torture or maliciously injure an animal.
But she has an even better reason to support Senate Bill 223:
There is a link between animal abuse and domestic violence. Many violent criminals, especially serial killers, started as children who abused animals.
Stop animal cruelty, and you might stop some people abuse as well, she and others believe.
"Animal cruelty is really treated as a minor issue today, the same as jaywalking," Griesen said. "A guy can come up and shoot your horse in front of you and still it is a misdemeanor."
But the bill, which would make the first offense a felony, punishable by a one- to four-year term in prison if the animal lives, and a one- to five-year term if the animal dies, faces an uncertain future.
Farmers and ranchers oppose the bill, contending some of their practices might appear cruel to outsiders, but really are not.
And with passage, as many as five more animal abusers a year are expected to end up in prison -- a $100,000 plus cost that recession-plagued Nevada can ill afford.
Forty-four states already have laws that make malicious and willful animal cruelty a felony crime, usually punishable by time in state prison. Under SB223, introduced on Griesen's behalf by Sen. Shirley Breeden, D-Henderson, Nevada would become the 45th.
HUMAN-ANIMAL ABUSE LINK
Numerous studies and papers have been written in recent years showing a link between animal abuse and domestic violence.
There is even a New Jersey organization, the National Link Coalition, whose mission is making more people and legislators aware of the animal abuse-domestic violence link in hope they take action to make animals and people safer.
The FBI did its own study that found numerous serial killers, including Jeffrey Dahmer and Ted Bundy, tortured small animals when they were children.
In Southern Nevada, the operators of the Shade Tree Shelter in North Las Vegas noticed a dramatic difference in the behavior of abused women after the nonprofit organization opened its Noah's Animal House in 2007.
Abused women and children can take their pets with them and place them in Noah's when they seek protection in the shelter. The animal house is on the shelter grounds. Before the animal house opened, the average woman would return to the home of the abusing partner nine times and potentially expose herself to more violence.
"Now women who come here fleeing domestic violence return to the home of the abuser only 1 percent of the time," which is a lot less often, said Marlene Richter, the Shade Tree executive director.
"Here they are able to care about life through their pets. They usually believe the (awful) things that have been said about them by their abusers, but not what has been said about their pets. They cling to hope because of their pets."
Richter said the pet often becomes the pawn in homes filled with domestic violence. The abuser will threaten to kill and often does kill pets if the women and children leave. Women in the shelter have even been e-mailed pictures of their mutilated family pets, she said.
She knows of cases where the abuser put a dog in a freezer when the woman left. In other cases pets have been tortured in front of children.
In 60 percent of the cases of violence against women in the shelter, Richter estimates there also has been animal cruelty in their homes.
"If we rescue the lives of pets, we also rescue the lives of abused women and children," said Richter, who intends to testify for SB223.
PRO AND CON
Breeden expects opposition from hunting and ranching group as well as rural legislators. But she said the bill "is not to disallow hunting (with dogs). But if an individual goes out and mutilates a hunting dog, well that should be an issue."
Doug Busselman, the lobbyist for the Nevada Farm Bureau, is concerned that the bill would apply to livestock. He said overzealous regulators might misinterpret "certain management acts" as cruelty when they are accepted forms of animal husbandry.
As an example, he pointed out that the castration and dehorning of animals often is done without anesthetics. Animals also are branded with hot irons.
"Why do we need to make everything a felony?" Busselman asked. "Passing more laws doesn't make anything safer."
Sen. Dean Rhoads, R-Tuscarora, called SB223 "the worst bill introduced so far this session," noting that animal cruelty already is against the law and questioning why a harsher penalty is necessary.
He said decisions on whether livestock is mistreated are decided now by veterinarians, the brand inspector and county sheriffs.
But Natural Resources Chairman Mark Manendo, D-Las Vegas, said he is a "big animal person" who doesn't want any animal, livestock or pet, abused. He said sometimes legislators "need to put the (hammer) head down" because judges won't impose the penalties permitted by existing laws.
Animal cruelty is a misdemeanor in Nevada, usually punishable with a fine, but judges can order as much as six months in jail.
No inmates are in state prisons today for animal cruelty. A person must be convicted twice of animal cruelty before the crime becomes a felony with the third offense.
Griesen said the abuse link is too valid to ignore.
"Why do we wait to punish these animal abusers until after they harm a person? If they pass this law, maybe a father won't beat his child or his wife to death? Animals are the first to be abused in domestic violence situations."
While three of the five members of the Natural Resources Committee are co-sponsors of SB223, Griesen fears the bill will be put in legislators' drawers if testimony shows enforcement would increase state costs.
That will occur, according to the fiscal note for the bill developed by the Department of Corrections. It estimates that between three and five people a year could be imprisoned for extreme animal cruelty under such a law. It costs more than $20,000 a year to keep one inmate in prison.
COONEY THE DOG
Then there is the infamous case of Cooney, a 3-year-old female pitbull-beagle mix that was brought to the Reno headquarters of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in October.
Cooney's owner said he suspected a mouse somehow crawled into the dog's bulging stomach, so he cut a 6- to 8-inch hole in the dog's abdomen with a box cutter.
The dog later died.
Washoe County Animal Control officer Kathleen Denning spent 1½ months tracking the man down. He was a transient living in a van in Reno.
The man could not post the $640 bail so he spent about 40 days in jail for misdemeanor animal cruelty and then was released for time served in February. While some people may conclude he was mentally ill, Denning said he was judged competent to stand trial.
Griesen said that under the current law, he legally can acquire another animal.
She would like to name SB223 as "Cooney's Law" if it receives legislative approval.
The bill will have its first hearing, before the Senate Natural Resources Committee, at 3:30 p.m. Wednesday.
Contact Capital Bureau Chief Ed Vogel at evogel@reviewjournal.com or 775-687-3901
Original article w/ pics; Bill targets violence against animals - News - ReviewJournal.com
Nevada's Cruelty to Animals Statutes
Relevant portions in BOLD
Nevada Cruelty to Animals Statutes
NEVADA STATUTES
TITLE 20. COUNTIES AND TOWNSHIPS; FORMATION, GOVERNMENT AND OFFICERS
CHAPTER 244. COUNTIES: GOVERNMENT
HEALTH AND SAFETY
244.359. Ordinances concerning control of animals; license fee; applicability.
1. Each board of county commissioners may enact and enforce an ordinance or ordinances:
(a) Fixing, imposing and collecting an annual license fee on dogs and providing for the capture and disposal of all dogs on which the license fee is not paid.
(b) Regulating or prohibiting the running at large and disposal of all kinds of animals.
(c) Establishing a pound, appointing a poundkeeper and prescribing his duties.
(d) Prohibiting cruelty to animals.
(e) Designating an animal as inherently dangerous and requiring the owner of such an animal to obtain a policy of liability insurance for the animal in an amount determined by the board of county commissioners.
2. Any ordinance or ordinances enacted pursuant to the provisions of paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection 1 may apply throughout an entire county or govern only a limited area within the county which shall be specified in the ordinance or ordinances.
3. Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, a board of county commissioners may by ordinance provide that the violation of a particular ordinance enacted pursuant to this section imposes a civil liability to the county in an amount not to exceed $500, instead of a criminal penalty. An ordinance enacted pursuant to this section that creates an offense relating to bites of animals, vicious or dangerous animals, horse tripping or cruelty to animals must impose a criminal penalty for the offense. As used in this subsection, "horse tripping" does not include tripping a horse to provide medical or other health care for the horse.
TITLE 21. CITIES AND TOWNS
CHAPTER 266. GENERAL LAW FOR INCORPORATION OF CITIES AND TOWNS
POWERS OF CITY COUNCIL
266.325. Control of animals and poultry; collection of fee.
The city council may:
1. Fix, impose and collect an annual license fee on all animals and provide for the capture and disposal of all animals on which the license fee is not paid.
2. Regulate or prohibit the running at large and disposal of all kinds of animals and poultry.
3. Establish a pound, appoint a poundkeeper and prescribe his duties.
4. Prohibit cruelty to animals.
TITLE 50. ANIMALS
CHAPTER 574. CRUELTY TO ANIMALS: PREVENTION AND PENALTIES
SOCIETIES FOR PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS
574.010. Incorporation.
Any three or more citizens of the State of Nevada who incorporate as a body corporate under the general laws for corporations in this state set forth in chapter 78 of NRS for the purpose of preventing cruelty to animals may, except as otherwise provided in NRS 574.040, avail themselves of the privileges and benefits of NRS 574.010 to 574.040, inclusive.
574.020. Bylaws.
1. Such societies may make and adopt bylaws:
(a) Governing the admission of associates and members.
(b) Providing for meetings and assistant and district or local officers.
(c) Providing for means and systems for the effectual attainments of the objects contemplated by this chapter, for the regulation and management of its business affairs, and for the effectual working of the societies.
(d) Prescribing the duties of their officers, for the outlay of moneys, and the auditing of accounts.
2. Such bylaws shall not conflict with the laws of the State of Nevada or of the United States, or any provision of NRS 574.010 to 574.040, inclusive.
574.030. Elections; reports.
Such societies shall:
1. Elect officers and fill vacancies according to the provisions of their bylaws.
2. Make such reports of elections as are required of all corporations by law.
3. Report to the legislature, at each of its regular sessions, a full account of all their acts.
574.040. Arrests by members, agents and officers; exhibition of badge; resistance to officers unlawful.
1. Except as otherwise provided in this subsection and NRS 574.350, a member, agent or local or district officer of a society so incorporating, if authorized in writing by the trustees of the society, approved by the district judge of the county, and sworn in the same manner as peace officers are sworn, may make arrests for a violation of the provisions of this chapter in the same manner as is provided for other officers. The provisions of this subsection apply only to a society that, on the date the society submits an application to the district judge for approval for a member, agent or local or district officer of the society to make arrests pursuant to this subsection:
(a) Has at least 25 members; and
(b) Has been incorporated in accordance with NRS 574.010 for not less than 5 years immediately preceding the submission of the application.
2. Before submitting an application specified in subsection 1, the society shall submit to the sheriff of the county a complete set of the fingerprints of the member, agent or local or district officer of the society to whom the application relates. Upon receipt of the fingerprints, the sheriff shall forward the fingerprints to the central repository for Nevada records of criminal history for submission to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for a report concerning the criminal history of the member, agent or local or district officer of the society. Upon receipt of the report, the sheriff shall forward the report to the society. The society shall include the report in the application submitted pursuant to subsection 1.
3. A member, agent or local or district officer who is authorized to make arrests pursuant to subsection 1 shall, when making those arrests, exhibit and expose a suitable badge, to be adopted by the society
4. A person who resists such a specially appointed officer shall be punished for that resistance in the same manner as is provided for the punishment of resistance to other officers.
574.050. Definitions.
As used in NRS 574.050 to 574.200, inclusive:
1. "Animal" does not include the human race, but includes every other living creature.
2. "Police animal" means an animal which is owned by a state or local governmental agency and which is used by a peace officer in performing his duties as a peace officer.
3. "Torture" or "cruelty" includes every act, omission or neglect, whereby unjustifiable physical pain, suffering or death is caused or permitted.
574.055. Taking possession of animal being treated cruelly; notice to owner; lien for cost of care; disposition of animal; liability of officer; limitations and procedure when animal on agricultural land.
1. Any peace officer or officer of a society for the prevention of cruelty to animals who is authorized to make arrests pursuant to NRS 574.040 shall, upon discovering any animal which is being treated cruelly, take possession of it and provide it with shelter and care or, upon obtaining written permission from the owner of the animal, may destroy it in a humane manner.
2. If an officer takes possession of an animal, he shall give to the owner, if the owner can be found, a notice containing a written statement of the reasons for the taking, the location where the animal will be cared for and sheltered, and the fact that there is a limited lien on the animal for the cost of shelter and care. If the owner is not present at the taking and the officer cannot find the owner after a reasonable search, he shall post the notice on the property from which he takes the animal. If the identity and address of the owner are later determined, the notice must be mailed to the owner immediately after the determination is made.
3. An officer who takes possession of an animal pursuant to this section has a lien on the animal for the reasonable cost of care and shelter furnished to the animal and, if applicable, for its humane destruction. The lien does not extend to the cost of care and shelter for more than 2 weeks.
4. Upon proof that the owner has been notified in accordance with the provisions of subsection 2 or, if he has not been found or identified, that the required notice has been posted on the property where the animal was found, a court of competent jurisdiction may, after providing an opportunity for a hearing, order the animal sold at auction, humanely destroyed or continued in the care of the officer for such disposition as the officer sees fit.
5. An officer who seizes an animal pursuant to this section is not liable for any action arising out of the taking or humane destruction of the animal.
6. The provisions of this section do not apply to any animal which is located on land being employed for an agricultural use as defined in NRS 361A.030 unless the owner of the animal or the person charged with the care of the animal is in violation of paragraph (b) of subsection 1 of NRS 574.100 and the impoundment is accomplished with the concurrence and supervision of the sheriff or his designee, a licensed veterinarian and the district brand inspector or his designee. In such a case, the sheriff shall direct that the impoundment occur not later than 48 hours after the veterinarian determines that a violation of paragraph (b) of subsection 1 of NRS 574.100 exists.
7. The owner of an animal impounded in accordance with the provisions of subsection 6 must, before the animal is released to his custody, pay the charges approved by the sheriff as reasonably related to the impoundment, including the charges for the animal's food and water. If the owner is unable or refuses to pay the charges, the state department of agriculture shall sell the animal. The department shall pay to the owner the proceeds of the sale remaining after deducting the charges reasonably related to the impoundment.
574.100. Overdriving, torturing, injuring or abandoning animals; failure to provide proper sustenance; penalty.
1. A person shall not:
(a) Overdrive, overload, torture, cruelly beat or unjustifiably injure, maim, mutilate or kill an animal, whether belonging to himself or to another;
(b) Deprive an animal of necessary sustenance, food or drink, or neglect or refuse to furnish it such sustenance or drink;
(c) Cause, procure or allow an animal to be overdriven, overloaded, tortured, cruelly beaten, or unjustifiably injured, maimed, mutilated or killed, or to be deprived of necessary food or drink;
(d) Instigate, engage in, or in any way further an act of cruelty to any animal, or any act tending to produce such cruelty; or
(e) Abandon an animal in circumstances other than those prohibited in NRS 574.110.
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 either 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. The court may order the person convicted of violating subsection 1 to surrender ownership or possession of the mistreated animal.
5. The provisions of this section do not apply with respect to an injury to or the death of an animal that occurs accidentally in the normal course of:
(a) Carrying out the activities of a rodeo or livestock show; or
(b) Operating a ranch.
574.105. Mistreatment of police animal and interference with duties of police animal or handler unlawful; penalty; exception
1. A person shall not willfully and maliciously:
(a) Taunt, torment, tease, beat, strike or administer a desensitizing drug, chemical or substance to a police animal;
(b) Interfere with a police animal or a handler thereof in the performance of duties assigned to the police animal or handler; or
(c) Torture, mutilate, injure, poison, disable or kill a police animal.
2. A person who violates:
(a) Paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection 1 is guilty of a category D felony and shall be punished as provided in NRS 193.130.
(b) Paragraph (c) of subsection 1 is guilty of:
(1) If the police animal is not totally disabled or killed, a category D felony and shall be punished as provided in NRS 193.130, and may be further punished by a fine of not more than $10,000.
(2) If the police animal is totally disabled or killed, a category C felony and shall be punished as provided in NRS 193.130. In addition to the punishment imposed pursuant to this subparagraph, the court may require a person who is punished pursuant to this subparagraph to pay restitution to the agency that owns the police animal, including, without limitation, payment for veterinary services and the cost of replacing the police animal.
3. The provisions of this section do not prohibit a euthanasia technician licensed pursuant to chapter 638 of NRS, a peace officer or a veterinarian from euthanizing a police animal in an emergency if the police animal is critically wounded and would otherwise endure undue suffering and pain.
574.110. Abandonment of disabled animal unlawful; penalty.
1. A person being the owner or possessor, or having charge or custody, of a maimed, diseased, disabled or infirm animal, who abandons such animal or leaves it to die in a public street, road or public place, or who allows it to lie in a public street, road or public place more than 3 hours after he receives notice that it is left disabled, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
2. Any agent or officer of any society for the prevention of cruelty to animals, or of any society duly incorporated for that purpose, or any police officer, may lawfully destroy or cause to be destroyed any animal found abandoned and not properly cared for, appearing, in the judgment of two reputable citizens called by him to view the same in his presence, to be glandered, injured or diseased past recovery for any useful purpose, or after such agent or officer has obtained in writing from the owner of such animal his consent to such destruction.
3. When any person arrested is, at the time of such arrest, in charge of any animal or of any vehicle drawn by or containing any animal, any agent or officer of such society or societies or any police officer may take charge of such animal and of such vehicle and its contents and deposit the same in a safe place of custody, or deliver the same into the possession of the police or sheriff of the county or place wherein such arrest was made, who shall thereupon assume the custody thereof. All necessary expenses incurred in taking charge of such property shall be a charge thereon.
574.120. Failure to provide proper food and water to impounded animal; penalty.
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, 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.
574.130. Selling, offering to sell or exposing diseased animal.
A person who willfully sells or offers to sell, uses, exposes, or causes or permits to be sold, offered for sale, used or exposed, any horse or other animal having the disease known as glanders or farcy, or other contagious or infectious disease dangerous to the life or health of human beings or animals, or which is diseased past recovery, or who refuses upon demand to deprive of life an animal affected with any such disease, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
574.140. Sale of disabled horses unlawful.
It shall be unlawful for any person to sell any horse which, by reason of disease, could not be worked in this state without violating the law against cruelty to animals.
574.150. Poisoning or attempting to poison animals unlawful; penalties.
1. A person who unjustifiably administers any poisonous or noxious drug or substance to a horse, mule or domestic cattle, or unjustifiably exposes any such drug or substance with the intent that it be taken by a horse, mule or by domestic cattle, whether the horse, mule or domestic cattle are the property of himself or another, is guilty of a category C felony and shall be punished as provided in NRS 193.130. In addition to any other penalty, the court shall order the person to pay restitution.
2. A person who unjustifiably administers any poisonous or noxious drug or substance to any animal other than a horse, mule or domestic cattle, or unjustifiably exposes any such drug or substance with the intent that it be taken by an animal other than a horse, mule or domestic cattle, whether the animal is the property of himself or another, is guilty of a gross misdemeanor. In addition to any other penalty, the court shall order the person to pay restitution.
3. This section does not prohibit the destruction of noxious animals.
574.160. Throwing substance injurious to animals in public places unlawful.
A person who willfully throws, drops or places, or causes to be thrown, dropped or placed, upon any road, highway, street or public place, any glass, nails, pieces of metal, or other substance which might wound, disable or injure any animal is guilty of a misdemeanor.
574.180. Running horses on highway; penalty.
A person driving any vehicle upon any plank road, turnpike or public highway, who unjustifiably runs the horses drawing the same, or causes or permits them to run, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
574.190. Carrying animal in cruel manner; penalty.
A person who carries or causes to be carried in or upon any vessel or vehicle or otherwise any animal in a cruel or inhuman manner, or so as to produce torture, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
574.200. Intended applicability of provisions.
The provisions of NRS 574.050 to 574.190, inclusive, and 574.210 to 574.510, inclusive, do not:
1. Interfere with any of the fish and game laws contained in Title 45 of NRS or any laws for the destruction of certain birds.
2. Interfere with the right to destroy any venomous reptiles or animals, or any animal known as dangerous to life, limb or property.
3. Interfere with the right to kill all animals and fowl used for food.
4. Prohibit or interfere with any properly conducted scientific experiments or investigations which are performed under the authority of the faculty of some regularly incorporated medical college or university of this state.
5. Interfere with any scientific or physiological experiments conducted or prosecuted for the advancement of science or medicine.
6. Prohibit or interfere with established methods of animal husbandry, including the raising, handling, feeding, housing and transporting of livestock or farm animals.
Nevada Cruelty to Animals Statutes
NEVADA STATUTES
TITLE 20. COUNTIES AND TOWNSHIPS; FORMATION, GOVERNMENT AND OFFICERS
CHAPTER 244. COUNTIES: GOVERNMENT
HEALTH AND SAFETY
244.359. Ordinances concerning control of animals; license fee; applicability.
1. Each board of county commissioners may enact and enforce an ordinance or ordinances:
(a) Fixing, imposing and collecting an annual license fee on dogs and providing for the capture and disposal of all dogs on which the license fee is not paid.
(b) Regulating or prohibiting the running at large and disposal of all kinds of animals.
(c) Establishing a pound, appointing a poundkeeper and prescribing his duties.
(d) Prohibiting cruelty to animals.
(e) Designating an animal as inherently dangerous and requiring the owner of such an animal to obtain a policy of liability insurance for the animal in an amount determined by the board of county commissioners.
2. Any ordinance or ordinances enacted pursuant to the provisions of paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection 1 may apply throughout an entire county or govern only a limited area within the county which shall be specified in the ordinance or ordinances.
3. Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, a board of county commissioners may by ordinance provide that the violation of a particular ordinance enacted pursuant to this section imposes a civil liability to the county in an amount not to exceed $500, instead of a criminal penalty. An ordinance enacted pursuant to this section that creates an offense relating to bites of animals, vicious or dangerous animals, horse tripping or cruelty to animals must impose a criminal penalty for the offense. As used in this subsection, "horse tripping" does not include tripping a horse to provide medical or other health care for the horse.
TITLE 21. CITIES AND TOWNS
CHAPTER 266. GENERAL LAW FOR INCORPORATION OF CITIES AND TOWNS
POWERS OF CITY COUNCIL
266.325. Control of animals and poultry; collection of fee.
The city council may:
1. Fix, impose and collect an annual license fee on all animals and provide for the capture and disposal of all animals on which the license fee is not paid.
2. Regulate or prohibit the running at large and disposal of all kinds of animals and poultry.
3. Establish a pound, appoint a poundkeeper and prescribe his duties.
4. Prohibit cruelty to animals.
TITLE 50. ANIMALS
CHAPTER 574. CRUELTY TO ANIMALS: PREVENTION AND PENALTIES
SOCIETIES FOR PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS
574.010. Incorporation.
Any three or more citizens of the State of Nevada who incorporate as a body corporate under the general laws for corporations in this state set forth in chapter 78 of NRS for the purpose of preventing cruelty to animals may, except as otherwise provided in NRS 574.040, avail themselves of the privileges and benefits of NRS 574.010 to 574.040, inclusive.
574.020. Bylaws.
1. Such societies may make and adopt bylaws:
(a) Governing the admission of associates and members.
(b) Providing for meetings and assistant and district or local officers.
(c) Providing for means and systems for the effectual attainments of the objects contemplated by this chapter, for the regulation and management of its business affairs, and for the effectual working of the societies.
(d) Prescribing the duties of their officers, for the outlay of moneys, and the auditing of accounts.
2. Such bylaws shall not conflict with the laws of the State of Nevada or of the United States, or any provision of NRS 574.010 to 574.040, inclusive.
574.030. Elections; reports.
Such societies shall:
1. Elect officers and fill vacancies according to the provisions of their bylaws.
2. Make such reports of elections as are required of all corporations by law.
3. Report to the legislature, at each of its regular sessions, a full account of all their acts.
574.040. Arrests by members, agents and officers; exhibition of badge; resistance to officers unlawful.
1. Except as otherwise provided in this subsection and NRS 574.350, a member, agent or local or district officer of a society so incorporating, if authorized in writing by the trustees of the society, approved by the district judge of the county, and sworn in the same manner as peace officers are sworn, may make arrests for a violation of the provisions of this chapter in the same manner as is provided for other officers. The provisions of this subsection apply only to a society that, on the date the society submits an application to the district judge for approval for a member, agent or local or district officer of the society to make arrests pursuant to this subsection:
(a) Has at least 25 members; and
(b) Has been incorporated in accordance with NRS 574.010 for not less than 5 years immediately preceding the submission of the application.
2. Before submitting an application specified in subsection 1, the society shall submit to the sheriff of the county a complete set of the fingerprints of the member, agent or local or district officer of the society to whom the application relates. Upon receipt of the fingerprints, the sheriff shall forward the fingerprints to the central repository for Nevada records of criminal history for submission to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for a report concerning the criminal history of the member, agent or local or district officer of the society. Upon receipt of the report, the sheriff shall forward the report to the society. The society shall include the report in the application submitted pursuant to subsection 1.
3. A member, agent or local or district officer who is authorized to make arrests pursuant to subsection 1 shall, when making those arrests, exhibit and expose a suitable badge, to be adopted by the society
4. A person who resists such a specially appointed officer shall be punished for that resistance in the same manner as is provided for the punishment of resistance to other officers.
574.050. Definitions.
As used in NRS 574.050 to 574.200, inclusive:
1. "Animal" does not include the human race, but includes every other living creature.
2. "Police animal" means an animal which is owned by a state or local governmental agency and which is used by a peace officer in performing his duties as a peace officer.
3. "Torture" or "cruelty" includes every act, omission or neglect, whereby unjustifiable physical pain, suffering or death is caused or permitted.
574.055. Taking possession of animal being treated cruelly; notice to owner; lien for cost of care; disposition of animal; liability of officer; limitations and procedure when animal on agricultural land.
1. Any peace officer or officer of a society for the prevention of cruelty to animals who is authorized to make arrests pursuant to NRS 574.040 shall, upon discovering any animal which is being treated cruelly, take possession of it and provide it with shelter and care or, upon obtaining written permission from the owner of the animal, may destroy it in a humane manner.
2. If an officer takes possession of an animal, he shall give to the owner, if the owner can be found, a notice containing a written statement of the reasons for the taking, the location where the animal will be cared for and sheltered, and the fact that there is a limited lien on the animal for the cost of shelter and care. If the owner is not present at the taking and the officer cannot find the owner after a reasonable search, he shall post the notice on the property from which he takes the animal. If the identity and address of the owner are later determined, the notice must be mailed to the owner immediately after the determination is made.
3. An officer who takes possession of an animal pursuant to this section has a lien on the animal for the reasonable cost of care and shelter furnished to the animal and, if applicable, for its humane destruction. The lien does not extend to the cost of care and shelter for more than 2 weeks.
4. Upon proof that the owner has been notified in accordance with the provisions of subsection 2 or, if he has not been found or identified, that the required notice has been posted on the property where the animal was found, a court of competent jurisdiction may, after providing an opportunity for a hearing, order the animal sold at auction, humanely destroyed or continued in the care of the officer for such disposition as the officer sees fit.
5. An officer who seizes an animal pursuant to this section is not liable for any action arising out of the taking or humane destruction of the animal.
6. The provisions of this section do not apply to any animal which is located on land being employed for an agricultural use as defined in NRS 361A.030 unless the owner of the animal or the person charged with the care of the animal is in violation of paragraph (b) of subsection 1 of NRS 574.100 and the impoundment is accomplished with the concurrence and supervision of the sheriff or his designee, a licensed veterinarian and the district brand inspector or his designee. In such a case, the sheriff shall direct that the impoundment occur not later than 48 hours after the veterinarian determines that a violation of paragraph (b) of subsection 1 of NRS 574.100 exists.
7. The owner of an animal impounded in accordance with the provisions of subsection 6 must, before the animal is released to his custody, pay the charges approved by the sheriff as reasonably related to the impoundment, including the charges for the animal's food and water. If the owner is unable or refuses to pay the charges, the state department of agriculture shall sell the animal. The department shall pay to the owner the proceeds of the sale remaining after deducting the charges reasonably related to the impoundment.
574.100. Overdriving, torturing, injuring or abandoning animals; failure to provide proper sustenance; penalty.
1. A person shall not:
(a) Overdrive, overload, torture, cruelly beat or unjustifiably injure, maim, mutilate or kill an animal, whether belonging to himself or to another;
(b) Deprive an animal of necessary sustenance, food or drink, or neglect or refuse to furnish it such sustenance or drink;
(c) Cause, procure or allow an animal to be overdriven, overloaded, tortured, cruelly beaten, or unjustifiably injured, maimed, mutilated or killed, or to be deprived of necessary food or drink;
(d) Instigate, engage in, or in any way further an act of cruelty to any animal, or any act tending to produce such cruelty; or
(e) Abandon an animal in circumstances other than those prohibited in NRS 574.110.
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 either 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. The court may order the person convicted of violating subsection 1 to surrender ownership or possession of the mistreated animal.
5. The provisions of this section do not apply with respect to an injury to or the death of an animal that occurs accidentally in the normal course of:
(a) Carrying out the activities of a rodeo or livestock show; or
(b) Operating a ranch.
574.105. Mistreatment of police animal and interference with duties of police animal or handler unlawful; penalty; exception
1. A person shall not willfully and maliciously:
(a) Taunt, torment, tease, beat, strike or administer a desensitizing drug, chemical or substance to a police animal;
(b) Interfere with a police animal or a handler thereof in the performance of duties assigned to the police animal or handler; or
(c) Torture, mutilate, injure, poison, disable or kill a police animal.
2. A person who violates:
(a) Paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection 1 is guilty of a category D felony and shall be punished as provided in NRS 193.130.
(b) Paragraph (c) of subsection 1 is guilty of:
(1) If the police animal is not totally disabled or killed, a category D felony and shall be punished as provided in NRS 193.130, and may be further punished by a fine of not more than $10,000.
(2) If the police animal is totally disabled or killed, a category C felony and shall be punished as provided in NRS 193.130. In addition to the punishment imposed pursuant to this subparagraph, the court may require a person who is punished pursuant to this subparagraph to pay restitution to the agency that owns the police animal, including, without limitation, payment for veterinary services and the cost of replacing the police animal.
3. The provisions of this section do not prohibit a euthanasia technician licensed pursuant to chapter 638 of NRS, a peace officer or a veterinarian from euthanizing a police animal in an emergency if the police animal is critically wounded and would otherwise endure undue suffering and pain.
574.110. Abandonment of disabled animal unlawful; penalty.
1. A person being the owner or possessor, or having charge or custody, of a maimed, diseased, disabled or infirm animal, who abandons such animal or leaves it to die in a public street, road or public place, or who allows it to lie in a public street, road or public place more than 3 hours after he receives notice that it is left disabled, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
2. Any agent or officer of any society for the prevention of cruelty to animals, or of any society duly incorporated for that purpose, or any police officer, may lawfully destroy or cause to be destroyed any animal found abandoned and not properly cared for, appearing, in the judgment of two reputable citizens called by him to view the same in his presence, to be glandered, injured or diseased past recovery for any useful purpose, or after such agent or officer has obtained in writing from the owner of such animal his consent to such destruction.
3. When any person arrested is, at the time of such arrest, in charge of any animal or of any vehicle drawn by or containing any animal, any agent or officer of such society or societies or any police officer may take charge of such animal and of such vehicle and its contents and deposit the same in a safe place of custody, or deliver the same into the possession of the police or sheriff of the county or place wherein such arrest was made, who shall thereupon assume the custody thereof. All necessary expenses incurred in taking charge of such property shall be a charge thereon.
574.120. Failure to provide proper food and water to impounded animal; penalty.
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, 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.
574.130. Selling, offering to sell or exposing diseased animal.
A person who willfully sells or offers to sell, uses, exposes, or causes or permits to be sold, offered for sale, used or exposed, any horse or other animal having the disease known as glanders or farcy, or other contagious or infectious disease dangerous to the life or health of human beings or animals, or which is diseased past recovery, or who refuses upon demand to deprive of life an animal affected with any such disease, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
574.140. Sale of disabled horses unlawful.
It shall be unlawful for any person to sell any horse which, by reason of disease, could not be worked in this state without violating the law against cruelty to animals.
574.150. Poisoning or attempting to poison animals unlawful; penalties.
1. A person who unjustifiably administers any poisonous or noxious drug or substance to a horse, mule or domestic cattle, or unjustifiably exposes any such drug or substance with the intent that it be taken by a horse, mule or by domestic cattle, whether the horse, mule or domestic cattle are the property of himself or another, is guilty of a category C felony and shall be punished as provided in NRS 193.130. In addition to any other penalty, the court shall order the person to pay restitution.
2. A person who unjustifiably administers any poisonous or noxious drug or substance to any animal other than a horse, mule or domestic cattle, or unjustifiably exposes any such drug or substance with the intent that it be taken by an animal other than a horse, mule or domestic cattle, whether the animal is the property of himself or another, is guilty of a gross misdemeanor. In addition to any other penalty, the court shall order the person to pay restitution.
3. This section does not prohibit the destruction of noxious animals.
574.160. Throwing substance injurious to animals in public places unlawful.
A person who willfully throws, drops or places, or causes to be thrown, dropped or placed, upon any road, highway, street or public place, any glass, nails, pieces of metal, or other substance which might wound, disable or injure any animal is guilty of a misdemeanor.
574.180. Running horses on highway; penalty.
A person driving any vehicle upon any plank road, turnpike or public highway, who unjustifiably runs the horses drawing the same, or causes or permits them to run, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
574.190. Carrying animal in cruel manner; penalty.
A person who carries or causes to be carried in or upon any vessel or vehicle or otherwise any animal in a cruel or inhuman manner, or so as to produce torture, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
574.200. Intended applicability of provisions.
The provisions of NRS 574.050 to 574.190, inclusive, and 574.210 to 574.510, inclusive, do not:
1. Interfere with any of the fish and game laws contained in Title 45 of NRS or any laws for the destruction of certain birds.
2. Interfere with the right to destroy any venomous reptiles or animals, or any animal known as dangerous to life, limb or property.
3. Interfere with the right to kill all animals and fowl used for food.
4. Prohibit or interfere with any properly conducted scientific experiments or investigations which are performed under the authority of the faculty of some regularly incorporated medical college or university of this state.
5. Interfere with any scientific or physiological experiments conducted or prosecuted for the advancement of science or medicine.
6. Prohibit or interfere with established methods of animal husbandry, including the raising, handling, feeding, housing and transporting of livestock or farm animals.
Friday, March 11, 2011
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Wild Horses to Slaughter: ("Slicks in the Night") Anatomy of a Cover-Up
An old PEER Report based on information provided by a BLM Whistleblower who explains how paperwork is fudged to make wild horses and burros "disappear"
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxhbWVyaWNhbmhlcmRzNHxneDo1ZTMzMWRhMDE2YTZkNzg5&pli=1
And more on moving "Slicks in the Night" by Valarie James Patton;
http://www.equinewelfarealliance.org/uploads/A_Slick_in_the_Night_VJP.pdf
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxhbWVyaWNhbmhlcmRzNHxneDo1ZTMzMWRhMDE2YTZkNzg5&pli=1
And more on moving "Slicks in the Night" by Valarie James Patton;
http://www.equinewelfarealliance.org/uploads/A_Slick_in_the_Night_VJP.pdf
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Friday, February 25, 2011
Thursday, February 24, 2011
BLM "Accelerates" Reforms to WFH&B Management
From BLM Press Release
Date: February 24, 2011
Date: February 24, 2011
Contact: Michelle Barret, 202-208-6913
Tom Gorey, 202-912-7420
BLM Accelerates Fundamental Reforms to
Wild Horse and Burro Management
Tom Gorey, 202-912-7420
BLM Accelerates Fundamental Reforms to
Wild Horse and Burro Management
Agency to Cut Back on Gathers; Increase Fertility Control and Adoptions;
Strengthen Humane Animal Care and Handling Measures
Washington, DC – Director of the Bureau of Land Management Bob Abbey today announced that following an extensive public process, the agency is accelerating fundamental reforms to how it manages wild horses and burros on public lands.
The proposed strategy announced today includes reducing the number of wild horses removed from the range for at least the next 2 years; reaffirming the central role that the National Academy of Sciences (NAS)’s on-going review of the program will have on science-based management decisions; increasing adoptions; significantly expanding the use of fertility control to maintain herd levels; and improving its care and handling procedures to enhance the humane treatment of the animals. The BLM will continue to oppose the killing or slaughter of wild horses or burros as a management practice.
“We’ve taken a top to bottom look at the wild horse and burro program and have come to a straightforward conclusion: we need to move ahead with reforms that build on what is working and move away from what is not,” Director Abbey said. “To achieve our goal of improving the health of the herds and America’s public lands, we need to enlist the help of partners, improve transparency and responsiveness in the program, and reaffirm science as the foundation for management decisions. It will take time to implement these reforms, but as a first step we are aiming to increase adoptions and broaden the use of fertility control. And while we do this, we are reducing removals while NAS helps us ensure that our management is guided by the best available science.”
These reforms respond to the input of more than 9,000 members of the public who commented on last year’s Wild Horse and Burro Program Strategy Development Document through public meetings and written statements.
Specifically, the BLM proposes to:
NAS study—The BLM has commissioned the National Academy of Sciences to review previous wild horse management studies and make recommendations on how the BLM should proceed in light of the latest scientific research. The NAS review is expected to be completed in early 2013. Specifically the study will look at the methods for population modeling, the annual rates of population growth, fertility control methods, evaluation of carrying capacity of various lands to support wild horse herds, genetic diversity in wild horse herds, and predator impact on wild horse population growth.
Issue Procedures to Facilitate Long-term Care by Partners -- The BLM will release within the next 30 days specific procedures by which members of the public can apply to enter into partnerships with the federal government for long-term care of wild horses that are removed from the public rangeland.
Increase Science-Based Fertility Control. The BLM proposes to significantly increase the number of mares treated with fertility control – from 500 in 2009 to a target of 2,000 in each of the next 2 years during the NAS study, pending sufficient budget allocations. Director Abbey said the BLM’s ultimate goal is to make various fertility control measures the primary means to maintain healthy population levels. He said the BLM intends to work closely with the Humane Society of the United States to implement and monitor this expanded effort.
Reduce Removals – The BLM intends to reduce the annual number of wild horses removed for at least the next 2 years from 10,000 to 7,600 – a level that would essentially maintain the current number of wild horses and burros on the range. The NAS review would be completed in early 2013. Abbey said that while drought or other emergencies may require the removal of more than 7,600 animals, the BLM has decided to adopt this more conservative approach pending input from the NAS regarding the number of horses than can be safety and humanely left on the open range.
In addition, Director Abbey said the BLM will continue to strengthen areas on which it has already started. These include:
Enhance Humane Animal Care and Handling Practices. Director Abbey said the agency will conduct thorough reviews and add appropriate controls to the agency’s contracts and policies to strengthen humane animal care and handling practices. This will apply to both gathering contracts and short-and long-term holding facility contracts.
Promote Volunteerism in the Management of Wild Horses. The proposal calls for increased engagement of the public by enhancing public outreach, recruiting local volunteers to assist in monitoring the health of the rangelands where animals roam, and encourages partnerships to increase herd-related ecotourism.
Improve Transparency and Openness. Director Abbey also said it is important to reaffirm throughout the agency the BLM’s fundamental commitment to transparency in all facets of the wild horse and burro program. This includes increasing public viewing opportunities during gathers and at short-term corrals and long–term care facilities to the highest extent possible without compromising the safety of staff, members of the public, or the animals. The BLM is also committed to the accurate, prompt, and public release of information related to the program.
An analysis of the public’s comments and a detailed proposed implementation strategy will be posted at www.blm.gov February 28, 2011. The public is invited to review and provide comments to the BLM on this strategy through March 30, 2011, and should be submitted by email to wildhorse@blm.gov with “Comments on Strategy” in the subject line.
“This document reflects our commitment to work with all stakeholders to ensure that viable herds of wild horses and burros remain on our nation’s public lands for generations to come,” Abbey said. “We share a common goal to improve the wild horse and burro program and the health of the public lands we manage. Achieving this goal will require a determined focus on reform, new ideas, and opening a new chapter in the management of wild horses, burros, and our public lands.”
Strengthen Humane Animal Care and Handling Measures
Washington, DC – Director of the Bureau of Land Management Bob Abbey today announced that following an extensive public process, the agency is accelerating fundamental reforms to how it manages wild horses and burros on public lands.
The proposed strategy announced today includes reducing the number of wild horses removed from the range for at least the next 2 years; reaffirming the central role that the National Academy of Sciences (NAS)’s on-going review of the program will have on science-based management decisions; increasing adoptions; significantly expanding the use of fertility control to maintain herd levels; and improving its care and handling procedures to enhance the humane treatment of the animals. The BLM will continue to oppose the killing or slaughter of wild horses or burros as a management practice.
“We’ve taken a top to bottom look at the wild horse and burro program and have come to a straightforward conclusion: we need to move ahead with reforms that build on what is working and move away from what is not,” Director Abbey said. “To achieve our goal of improving the health of the herds and America’s public lands, we need to enlist the help of partners, improve transparency and responsiveness in the program, and reaffirm science as the foundation for management decisions. It will take time to implement these reforms, but as a first step we are aiming to increase adoptions and broaden the use of fertility control. And while we do this, we are reducing removals while NAS helps us ensure that our management is guided by the best available science.”
These reforms respond to the input of more than 9,000 members of the public who commented on last year’s Wild Horse and Burro Program Strategy Development Document through public meetings and written statements.
Specifically, the BLM proposes to:
NAS study—The BLM has commissioned the National Academy of Sciences to review previous wild horse management studies and make recommendations on how the BLM should proceed in light of the latest scientific research. The NAS review is expected to be completed in early 2013. Specifically the study will look at the methods for population modeling, the annual rates of population growth, fertility control methods, evaluation of carrying capacity of various lands to support wild horse herds, genetic diversity in wild horse herds, and predator impact on wild horse population growth.
Issue Procedures to Facilitate Long-term Care by Partners -- The BLM will release within the next 30 days specific procedures by which members of the public can apply to enter into partnerships with the federal government for long-term care of wild horses that are removed from the public rangeland.
Increase Science-Based Fertility Control. The BLM proposes to significantly increase the number of mares treated with fertility control – from 500 in 2009 to a target of 2,000 in each of the next 2 years during the NAS study, pending sufficient budget allocations. Director Abbey said the BLM’s ultimate goal is to make various fertility control measures the primary means to maintain healthy population levels. He said the BLM intends to work closely with the Humane Society of the United States to implement and monitor this expanded effort.
Reduce Removals – The BLM intends to reduce the annual number of wild horses removed for at least the next 2 years from 10,000 to 7,600 – a level that would essentially maintain the current number of wild horses and burros on the range. The NAS review would be completed in early 2013. Abbey said that while drought or other emergencies may require the removal of more than 7,600 animals, the BLM has decided to adopt this more conservative approach pending input from the NAS regarding the number of horses than can be safety and humanely left on the open range.
In addition, Director Abbey said the BLM will continue to strengthen areas on which it has already started. These include:
Enhance Humane Animal Care and Handling Practices. Director Abbey said the agency will conduct thorough reviews and add appropriate controls to the agency’s contracts and policies to strengthen humane animal care and handling practices. This will apply to both gathering contracts and short-and long-term holding facility contracts.
Promote Volunteerism in the Management of Wild Horses. The proposal calls for increased engagement of the public by enhancing public outreach, recruiting local volunteers to assist in monitoring the health of the rangelands where animals roam, and encourages partnerships to increase herd-related ecotourism.
Improve Transparency and Openness. Director Abbey also said it is important to reaffirm throughout the agency the BLM’s fundamental commitment to transparency in all facets of the wild horse and burro program. This includes increasing public viewing opportunities during gathers and at short-term corrals and long–term care facilities to the highest extent possible without compromising the safety of staff, members of the public, or the animals. The BLM is also committed to the accurate, prompt, and public release of information related to the program.
An analysis of the public’s comments and a detailed proposed implementation strategy will be posted at www.blm.gov February 28, 2011. The public is invited to review and provide comments to the BLM on this strategy through March 30, 2011, and should be submitted by email to wildhorse@blm.gov with “Comments on Strategy” in the subject line.
“This document reflects our commitment to work with all stakeholders to ensure that viable herds of wild horses and burros remain on our nation’s public lands for generations to come,” Abbey said. “We share a common goal to improve the wild horse and burro program and the health of the public lands we manage. Achieving this goal will require a determined focus on reform, new ideas, and opening a new chapter in the management of wild horses, burros, and our public lands.”
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
The "Rolex" Welfare Ranchers
The cattle grazing on public land only contribute to 3% of the American food supply. So essentially, we the taxpayers are subsidizing their presence in order to preserve the "way of life" for these cattle ranchers. This has little to do with providing food for the American diet.
Also...(from http://www.times.org/archives/1999/cows5.htm)
" Two percent -- or about 500 permitees -- run their cattle on about half of all BLM grazing lands. "This includes four billionaires, several oil companies and other wealthy interests. Further, less than 3 percent of the nation's beef ... is produced by public lands ranching," according to research gathered by the Natural Resources Defense Council and endorsed by a total of 34 groups and individuals.
These corporate cowboys, as well as those ranchers who are private individuals, receive an estimated $500 million annually in government subsidies."
and..."while there very well may be public lands ranchers named Buck or Gus or Red, those who own the most land are called, Hewlett-Packard, JR Simplot Co., Union Oil, Texaco, and Anheuser-Busch."
*******************************************************
These ventures for them are for the purpose of TAX WRITE-OFFS, because they aren't making money at this. Also, as long as they hold on to the permits they have a vested interest in the alloments, and can even rent them out to others AT A PROFIT.
THINK ABOUT IT.
Please get involved in the efforts to stop the genocide of our wild horses and burros, which is happening primarily to serve the purposes of corporations...also including corporations drilling for natural gas, drilling for oil, transportiing natural gas, and various sorts of mining for minerals all over the western states. These corporations are being allowed to RAPE OUR LAND for their own purposes, and they DON'T CARE ABOUT HUMANS EITHER. The corporations and the people who run them are NOT altruists, they are not doing it on behalf of the national welfare except in terms of how it might increase their own profits, and allow them to maintain their lavish and selfish lifestyles. They care only about themselves and their rich friends, and we let them do this, and we ENABLE THEM to do this.
********************************************************
"Livestock grazing is the most destructive and widespread practice on public lands and is responsible for the extinction and imperilment of numerous species across the west."
http://wolves.wordpress.com/2010/04/21/feds-fight-to-keep-names-of-ranchers-with-grazing-permits-secret/
More info here;
http://www.manesandtailsorganization.org/living_legends.htm
Also...(from http://www.times.org/archives/1999/cows5.htm)
" Two percent -- or about 500 permitees -- run their cattle on about half of all BLM grazing lands. "This includes four billionaires, several oil companies and other wealthy interests. Further, less than 3 percent of the nation's beef ... is produced by public lands ranching," according to research gathered by the Natural Resources Defense Council and endorsed by a total of 34 groups and individuals.
These corporate cowboys, as well as those ranchers who are private individuals, receive an estimated $500 million annually in government subsidies."
and..."while there very well may be public lands ranchers named Buck or Gus or Red, those who own the most land are called, Hewlett-Packard, JR Simplot Co., Union Oil, Texaco, and Anheuser-Busch."
*******************************************************
These ventures for them are for the purpose of TAX WRITE-OFFS, because they aren't making money at this. Also, as long as they hold on to the permits they have a vested interest in the alloments, and can even rent them out to others AT A PROFIT.
THINK ABOUT IT.
Please get involved in the efforts to stop the genocide of our wild horses and burros, which is happening primarily to serve the purposes of corporations...also including corporations drilling for natural gas, drilling for oil, transportiing natural gas, and various sorts of mining for minerals all over the western states. These corporations are being allowed to RAPE OUR LAND for their own purposes, and they DON'T CARE ABOUT HUMANS EITHER. The corporations and the people who run them are NOT altruists, they are not doing it on behalf of the national welfare except in terms of how it might increase their own profits, and allow them to maintain their lavish and selfish lifestyles. They care only about themselves and their rich friends, and we let them do this, and we ENABLE THEM to do this.
********************************************************
"Livestock grazing is the most destructive and widespread practice on public lands and is responsible for the extinction and imperilment of numerous species across the west."
http://wolves.wordpress.com/2010/04/21/feds-fight-to-keep-names-of-ranchers-with-grazing-permits-secret/
More info here;
http://www.manesandtailsorganization.org/living_legends.htm
Saturday, February 19, 2011
BLM releases amendment to McCullugh Peaks drilling plan in Wyoming
By MARTIN KIDSTON The Billings Gazette trib.com | Posted: Friday, February 18, 2011 12:30 am
The Bureau of Land Management released its amended environmental assessment last week, clearing the way for exploratory gas drilling in areas of the McCullough Peaks.
The Bill Berrett Corp. first proposed its Rocktober Unit Project in the fall of 2008. The BLM completed its environmental assessment in 2009, giving the company a green light to drill three exploratory wells.
But several environmental groups and a private landowner protested the plan, saying it didn’t do enough to minimize visual impacts to the area, and that it failed to consider the area’s wild mustang population.
Mike Stewart, manager for the BLM’s Cody Field Office, said the amended environmental assessment addresses those and other issues, and found that the project would have no significant impact.
“The wild horse issue revolved around adding cattle guards, but we substituted gates over cattle guards. We also did a thorough analysis of the visual resources out there, and we added a couple stipulations that weren’t in there earlier.”
Several other changes had also taken place since the BLM released its original 2009 assessment, including a federal order to review the land for such wilderness qualities as natural condition, opportunities for solitude and other supplemental values.
Stewart said the mountain plover, which is common to the area, has also been proposed for listing as a threatened species, and new stipulations had to be made to address key nesting habitat of sage grouse.
The issues were included in the new environmental assessment, Stewart said.
“There are seven wells total that we analyzed in that first assessment,” Stewart said. “They (the company) can go forward with three of those applications to drill with the new stipulations on them.”
Drilling the remaining four wells will depend on how the first three wells produce. If the project does move forward, Stewart said, an onsite inspection would take place to identify and protect any site-specific resources.
According to the BLM, the fully established drilling operation would include a network of roads and pipes used to transport natural gas from the wells to a proposed compressor station.
If fully realized, the drilling operation and needed infrastructure would disturb about 155 acres. If the first three exploratory wells failed to produce in commercial quantities, they would be plugged and reclaimed, the document said.
But the project, which hinges on economic conditions, is proposed for an area many cherish for its open views, remoteness, wildlife and pristine quality.
The Wyoming Outdoor Council, the Greater Yellowstone Coalition, the Biodiversity Conservation Alliance, Friends of a Legacy-McCullough Peaks Mustangs and a private landowner joined to protest the BLM’s initial assessment.
“This was a very sensitive area,” Stewart said. “There are lots of thoughts on it from Cody to other places.”
Contact Martin Kidston at 307-527-7250 or mkidston@billingsgaette.com
The Bureau of Land Management released its amended environmental assessment last week, clearing the way for exploratory gas drilling in areas of the McCullough Peaks.
The Bill Berrett Corp. first proposed its Rocktober Unit Project in the fall of 2008. The BLM completed its environmental assessment in 2009, giving the company a green light to drill three exploratory wells.
But several environmental groups and a private landowner protested the plan, saying it didn’t do enough to minimize visual impacts to the area, and that it failed to consider the area’s wild mustang population.
Mike Stewart, manager for the BLM’s Cody Field Office, said the amended environmental assessment addresses those and other issues, and found that the project would have no significant impact.
“The wild horse issue revolved around adding cattle guards, but we substituted gates over cattle guards. We also did a thorough analysis of the visual resources out there, and we added a couple stipulations that weren’t in there earlier.”
Several other changes had also taken place since the BLM released its original 2009 assessment, including a federal order to review the land for such wilderness qualities as natural condition, opportunities for solitude and other supplemental values.
Stewart said the mountain plover, which is common to the area, has also been proposed for listing as a threatened species, and new stipulations had to be made to address key nesting habitat of sage grouse.
The issues were included in the new environmental assessment, Stewart said.
“There are seven wells total that we analyzed in that first assessment,” Stewart said. “They (the company) can go forward with three of those applications to drill with the new stipulations on them.”
Drilling the remaining four wells will depend on how the first three wells produce. If the project does move forward, Stewart said, an onsite inspection would take place to identify and protect any site-specific resources.
According to the BLM, the fully established drilling operation would include a network of roads and pipes used to transport natural gas from the wells to a proposed compressor station.
If fully realized, the drilling operation and needed infrastructure would disturb about 155 acres. If the first three exploratory wells failed to produce in commercial quantities, they would be plugged and reclaimed, the document said.
But the project, which hinges on economic conditions, is proposed for an area many cherish for its open views, remoteness, wildlife and pristine quality.
The Wyoming Outdoor Council, the Greater Yellowstone Coalition, the Biodiversity Conservation Alliance, Friends of a Legacy-McCullough Peaks Mustangs and a private landowner joined to protest the BLM’s initial assessment.
“This was a very sensitive area,” Stewart said. “There are lots of thoughts on it from Cody to other places.”
Contact Martin Kidston at 307-527-7250 or mkidston@billingsgaette.com
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Update from the Field: 90-Day Stay of Execution for Over 500 Wild Buffalo
On Monday, February 14, U.S. District Court Judge Lovell rejected our Emergency Injunction and consequently sentenced over 500 of America's last wild buffalo to a death sentence. We are currently working on an appeal to this decision.
In the darkness of this decision, on Tuesday, BFC patrols were monitoring Yellowstone's Stephens Creek buffalo trap, anticipating the arrival of large livestock trailers that would arrive any day to haul the gentle giants away to slaughter. After hours of such heartbreaking vigilance, seeing buffalo forced into the handling area to suffer the tortures of squeeze shoots and sorting, we received shockingly fantastic news.
On Tuesday afternoon, Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer issued an Executive Order expressly forbidding Yellowstone National Park from shipping wild buffalo to slaughter facilities through Montana for the next 90 days. With all other routes closed due to snow, there are no other options for the Park. By his actions, Governor Schweitzer has effectively prevented Yellowstone National Park from slaughtering the 500+ wild buffalo currently trapped inside the Park's Stephens Creek facility.
BFC applauds this decision, celebrating Schweitzer's pronouncement not to allow slaughter, yet we are perplexed as to why Governor Schweitzer would make such a move. This is the same man who in 2005 reinstated the bison "hunt" as a form of "more tolerance" and who, just last year, boasted to livestock interests that "no governor in the history of Montana has killed more buffalo" than he has. In subsequent interviews following his executive order, Schweitzer is using the unsound argument of brucellosis as his flimsy reasoning, claiming to fear that transporting wild buffalo in livestock trailers could somehow threaten Montana's cattle with brucellosis. He is also claiming that the buffalo are Yellowstone's problem and that they must keep the population in check. Wild buffalo are ecologically extinct throughout their native range, and in great danger of becoming fully extinct with current management practices in place. If the brucellosis arguments Schweitzer is using were true, then hunting bison, elk and deer; bison quarantine; elk on the landscape; and numerous other activities would also be deemed unsound. As we see it, the governor is doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. What does this decision really mean for the buffalo currently in the trap, and for the others who need to access lower elevation habitat? Yellowstone Park officials have said they are frantically trying to interpret the meaning of the governor's order. Will the Park hold the 500+ buffalo until spring, risking injury, miscarriages, and sickness, or will they release them - as they should - and finally allow them to roam free? Does Schewitzer's executive order make the Interagency Bison Management Plan obsolete? There are more questions than answers with this incredible announcement. For now, we celebrate while we try to learn what is really behind it.
Yellowstone's immediate response has been to haze (push) buffalo further into Yellowstone, instead of ending hazing near the Stephens Creek Trap, as they have been doing for the sake of capture convenience. The Montana Department of Livestock's response has been to increase their patrols in the Gardiner area with the apparent goal of shooting bison. One bull escaped the agents by running up a steep mountainside and the agents have, as of this writing, been unable to shoot any others.
The Montana Department of Livstock tried to eliminate this wild bull buffalo from the landscape yesterday, but he escaped his aggressors and has lived another day wild and free!
The hunt also continues to take a toll on America's last wild population - which currently numbers fewer than 3,700 individual buffalo. More than 150 wild American buffalo have been killed by hunters on Gallatin National Forest lands, just outside of Yellowstone's northern and western boundaries. The Montana hunt finally ended on Feb. 15, and the Confederated Salish-Kootenai Tribes are also done with their buffalo hunt. The Nez Perce and the Confederacy of Umatilla Tribes are now the two entities hunting wild buffalo, both under treaty right. Their hunts will continue through the end of March. Wild buffalo will begin calving just a few weeks after that.
In the darkness of this decision, on Tuesday, BFC patrols were monitoring Yellowstone's Stephens Creek buffalo trap, anticipating the arrival of large livestock trailers that would arrive any day to haul the gentle giants away to slaughter. After hours of such heartbreaking vigilance, seeing buffalo forced into the handling area to suffer the tortures of squeeze shoots and sorting, we received shockingly fantastic news.
On Tuesday afternoon, Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer issued an Executive Order expressly forbidding Yellowstone National Park from shipping wild buffalo to slaughter facilities through Montana for the next 90 days. With all other routes closed due to snow, there are no other options for the Park. By his actions, Governor Schweitzer has effectively prevented Yellowstone National Park from slaughtering the 500+ wild buffalo currently trapped inside the Park's Stephens Creek facility.
BFC applauds this decision, celebrating Schweitzer's pronouncement not to allow slaughter, yet we are perplexed as to why Governor Schweitzer would make such a move. This is the same man who in 2005 reinstated the bison "hunt" as a form of "more tolerance" and who, just last year, boasted to livestock interests that "no governor in the history of Montana has killed more buffalo" than he has. In subsequent interviews following his executive order, Schweitzer is using the unsound argument of brucellosis as his flimsy reasoning, claiming to fear that transporting wild buffalo in livestock trailers could somehow threaten Montana's cattle with brucellosis. He is also claiming that the buffalo are Yellowstone's problem and that they must keep the population in check. Wild buffalo are ecologically extinct throughout their native range, and in great danger of becoming fully extinct with current management practices in place. If the brucellosis arguments Schweitzer is using were true, then hunting bison, elk and deer; bison quarantine; elk on the landscape; and numerous other activities would also be deemed unsound. As we see it, the governor is doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. What does this decision really mean for the buffalo currently in the trap, and for the others who need to access lower elevation habitat? Yellowstone Park officials have said they are frantically trying to interpret the meaning of the governor's order. Will the Park hold the 500+ buffalo until spring, risking injury, miscarriages, and sickness, or will they release them - as they should - and finally allow them to roam free? Does Schewitzer's executive order make the Interagency Bison Management Plan obsolete? There are more questions than answers with this incredible announcement. For now, we celebrate while we try to learn what is really behind it.
Yellowstone's immediate response has been to haze (push) buffalo further into Yellowstone, instead of ending hazing near the Stephens Creek Trap, as they have been doing for the sake of capture convenience. The Montana Department of Livestock's response has been to increase their patrols in the Gardiner area with the apparent goal of shooting bison. One bull escaped the agents by running up a steep mountainside and the agents have, as of this writing, been unable to shoot any others.
The Montana Department of Livstock tried to eliminate this wild bull buffalo from the landscape yesterday, but he escaped his aggressors and has lived another day wild and free!
The hunt also continues to take a toll on America's last wild population - which currently numbers fewer than 3,700 individual buffalo. More than 150 wild American buffalo have been killed by hunters on Gallatin National Forest lands, just outside of Yellowstone's northern and western boundaries. The Montana hunt finally ended on Feb. 15, and the Confederated Salish-Kootenai Tribes are also done with their buffalo hunt. The Nez Perce and the Confederacy of Umatilla Tribes are now the two entities hunting wild buffalo, both under treaty right. Their hunts will continue through the end of March. Wild buffalo will begin calving just a few weeks after that.
State hunters killed two young bull buffalo along the Madison River last weekend. Buffalo mourn or stay close when family members or comrades are lost. Hunters are shown thowing rocks and snowballs at the female buffalo who did not want to leave her killed family members.
BFC has been fully engaged in talking with hunters, letting them know what the buffalo suffer by state and federal agencies, and encouraging them to participate in efforts to gain ground for wild buffalo. Many hunters are unaware of how the buffalo are unjustly treated and killed by Montana and Yellowstone, and most who take the time to talk with us share our concern and desire for an end to the Interagency Bison Management Plan, and want wild buffalo roaming free on their historic range. As difficult as it is to bear witness to the hunting of this vulnerable population, we remain hopeful that hunters will realize their responsibility to the buffalo and begin to take the necessary actions to help the buffalo regain their native homelands throughout Montana and elsewhere.
Yellowstone National Park and Montana Department of Livestock officials have been hazing wild buffalo nearly every single day since winter begain.
Sadly, decision-makers continue to use living, breathing buffalo as chess pieces on the game board of the Montana and Greater Yellowstone landscape. State and federal agencies play political games while America's last wild buffalo continue to be disrespected, harmed, and killed by relentless harassment, captivity, hunting and slaughter. Habitat is the only solution to the buffalo question, and it is everywhere, all around us, just waiting for the human mind to change and embrace wild buffalo roaming free upon the landscape.
------------------------------
* WHAT YOU CAN DO
1. Contact Yellowstone National Park Superintendent Colin Campbell and tell him to set the buffalo free, pull out of the Interagency Bison Management Plan, stop harassing and killing wildlife and work towards habitat-based solutions for America's last wild buffalo! colin_campbell@nps.gov 307-344-2003
2. Contact your Members of Congress and urge them to intervene with the Park on your behalf and to support federal funding to protect America's last wild buffalo and their habitat. Ask them to support the re-direction of funds wasted on the Interagency Bison Management Plan towards habitat-based solutions that honor the wild integrity of our national heritage. Write Your Representative & Write Your Senators
3. Contact Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer and THANK HIM for the 90-day stay of execution, tell him he did the right thing. Please also remind him that wild buffalo must be allowed to access habitat in Montana. Brucellosis is not the issue, but habitat for wild buffalo is the solution. Remind him that until Montana embraces and respects wild, free-roaming bison, the state will continue to be globally shamed by these actions against America's last wild buffalo! Remind him that tourism sustains Montana. governor@mt.gov 406-444-3111
4. Sign BFC's Petition to National Park Service Director Jon Jarvis urging him to abandon the failed Interagency Bison Management Plan. (Go to Buffalo Field Campaigns website to sign; http://www.buffalofieldcampaign.org/)
5. Write Letters to the Editor to newspapers in your region to help raise awareness and bring an end to the unjust treatment of America's last wild buffalo.
6. Vote for wild buffalo and all wildlife with your money by Boycotting beef.
7. Volunteer with BFC by joining us on the front lines! volunteer@buffalofieldcampaign.org 406-646-0070
THANK YOU! Please spread the word to save these herds by telling everyone you know what is happening to the country's last wild buffalo and what they can do to . Knowledge is power!
------------------------------
* Who Wears the Pants in Montana?
Wild Bison and the Orwellian State by Kathleen Stachowski
Raise your hand if you've had measles.
OK, those of you with your hands up? We're going to permanently remove you from the population-just as a safeguard-in the name of disease risk management. What, you're objecting? Well, yes, that's true-evidence of past exposure doesn't mean you're actively infected now or that you can transmit the disease, but that's a minor detail, isn't it?... and better safe than sorry, right? So off you go, the line forms here. ... Read the full essay here
Kathleen Stachowski is a Buffalo Field Campaign activist/fundraiser and former board member. Contact her.
------------------------------
* Radio Interview with BFC's Mike Mease on Culture Shocks
Aired Feburary 15, 2011 - Listen here
------------------------------
* By the Numbers
AMERICAN BUFFALO ELIMINATED from the last wild population in the U.S. The last wild population is currently estimated at fewer than 3,700 individual buffalo.
2010-2011 Total: 153
2010-2011 Government Capture: 513
2010-2011 Government Slaughter:
2010-2011 Died In Government Trap: 1
2010-2011 State & Treaty Hunts: 153
2010-2011 Quarantine: 0
2010-2011 Shot by Agents: 2
2010-2011 Highway Mortality: 2
2009-2010 Total: 7
2008-2009 Total: 22
2007-2008 Total: 1,631
Total Since 2000: 3,864*
*includes lethal government action, quarantine, hunts, highway mortality
------------------------------
* Last Words
"When Congress drew a square on a map in 1872 and declared the enclosed 2 million acres as Yellowstone National Park, no one could tell its wild inhabitants the exciting news. Wildlife knows no boundaries. In fact, the largest wildlife migration in the lower 48 states leaves Yellowstone and passes by [the Gardiner Basin] every winter, returning to the park in the spring. Look upriver. There, herds of elk, deer, pronghorn antelope, bighorn sheep, and sometimes bison descend from the park's high plateaus and move down river in search of food and shelter. Elk travel as far as 20 miles through this valley. They follow each other single file along ancient routes trodden by hooves of their ancestors.
"Finding winter range is as instinctive for elk and deer as it is for us to find our way to the refrigerator. Thousands of hooved mammals escape the Arctic storms that whirl into Yellowstone by migrating to winter range. They repeat a centuries-old tradition of moving to lands free of snow where food is more plentiful and shelter is close by. To spot wildlife on winter range, look for grassy, sunny and windy slopes adjacent to clumps of trees or dense, north-facing forests. And please, watch all wildlife from a distance. When an animal flees from you, it uses energy that could be spent staying warm and well fed.
Think of Yellowstone National Park as the heart of a giant and this valley as an arm extending north. Migrating animals move like blood flowing to the fingertips and returning to the heart. The activity of people can constrict the migration arm that wildlife depends on for survival. "
~ From signs posted in Gallatin National Forest at a wildlife viewing area across from Devil's Slide, along the Yellowstone River just north of Yellowstone National Park. Why, with all of this sound logic, are wild buffalo so neglected in their needs to live as other wildlife? Why are they the only ones prevented from accessing the same critical winter range as all other area wildlife? This same corridor is extremely important for America's last wild buffalo, yet 500 are currently confined inside Yellowstone's Stephens Creek bison trap for attempting to access it, and countless others are repeatedly chased off this important landscape, or shot.
Raise your hand if you've had measles.
OK, those of you with your hands up? We're going to permanently remove you from the population-just as a safeguard-in the name of disease risk management. What, you're objecting? Well, yes, that's true-evidence of past exposure doesn't mean you're actively infected now or that you can transmit the disease, but that's a minor detail, isn't it?... and better safe than sorry, right? So off you go, the line forms here. ... Read the full essay here
Kathleen Stachowski is a Buffalo Field Campaign activist/fundraiser and former board member. Contact her.
------------------------------
* Radio Interview with BFC's Mike Mease on Culture Shocks
Aired Feburary 15, 2011 - Listen here
------------------------------
* By the Numbers
AMERICAN BUFFALO ELIMINATED from the last wild population in the U.S. The last wild population is currently estimated at fewer than 3,700 individual buffalo.
2010-2011 Total: 153
2010-2011 Government Capture: 513
2010-2011 Government Slaughter:
2010-2011 Died In Government Trap: 1
2010-2011 State & Treaty Hunts: 153
2010-2011 Quarantine: 0
2010-2011 Shot by Agents: 2
2010-2011 Highway Mortality: 2
2009-2010 Total: 7
2008-2009 Total: 22
2007-2008 Total: 1,631
Total Since 2000: 3,864*
*includes lethal government action, quarantine, hunts, highway mortality
------------------------------
* Last Words
"When Congress drew a square on a map in 1872 and declared the enclosed 2 million acres as Yellowstone National Park, no one could tell its wild inhabitants the exciting news. Wildlife knows no boundaries. In fact, the largest wildlife migration in the lower 48 states leaves Yellowstone and passes by [the Gardiner Basin] every winter, returning to the park in the spring. Look upriver. There, herds of elk, deer, pronghorn antelope, bighorn sheep, and sometimes bison descend from the park's high plateaus and move down river in search of food and shelter. Elk travel as far as 20 miles through this valley. They follow each other single file along ancient routes trodden by hooves of their ancestors.
"Finding winter range is as instinctive for elk and deer as it is for us to find our way to the refrigerator. Thousands of hooved mammals escape the Arctic storms that whirl into Yellowstone by migrating to winter range. They repeat a centuries-old tradition of moving to lands free of snow where food is more plentiful and shelter is close by. To spot wildlife on winter range, look for grassy, sunny and windy slopes adjacent to clumps of trees or dense, north-facing forests. And please, watch all wildlife from a distance. When an animal flees from you, it uses energy that could be spent staying warm and well fed.
Think of Yellowstone National Park as the heart of a giant and this valley as an arm extending north. Migrating animals move like blood flowing to the fingertips and returning to the heart. The activity of people can constrict the migration arm that wildlife depends on for survival. "
~ From signs posted in Gallatin National Forest at a wildlife viewing area across from Devil's Slide, along the Yellowstone River just north of Yellowstone National Park. Why, with all of this sound logic, are wild buffalo so neglected in their needs to live as other wildlife? Why are they the only ones prevented from accessing the same critical winter range as all other area wildlife? This same corridor is extremely important for America's last wild buffalo, yet 500 are currently confined inside Yellowstone's Stephens Creek bison trap for attempting to access it, and countless others are repeatedly chased off this important landscape, or shot.
Union of Concerned Scientists Job Opening: Resource Economist
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2011 4:56 PM
Subject: Resource Economist job at Union of Concerned Scientists
Resource Economist
Union of Concerned Scientists
Washington, DC or Chicago, IL Office
The Union of Concerned Scientists is a nationally prominent science-based nonprofit working on issues we believe to be the greatest environmental and security threats of our time. UCS combines rigorous scientific analysis with innovative thinking and effective citizen advocacy to achieve practical solutions. We strive for a future that is free from the threats of global warming and nuclear war, and a planet that supports a rich diversity of life. Our specific focus areas include global warming, renewable energy, advanced vehicle technology, nuclear power safety, nuclear weapons and related security issues, preserving the integrity of science, and sustainable agriculture.
As a core member of a vibrant and creative interdisciplinary team including ecosystem scientists, molecular biologists, economists, media professionals, lobbyists, and communications specialists, the Resource Economist will bring strong analytic skills and modeling expertise to our Food and Environment Program and to the organization as a whole. The Resource Economist will have significant opportunities to contribute to program strategies on agriculture and the environment and will bridge the gap between UCS and academic and government researchers focused on climate change and the competing uses of land for food, fiber, forest, and fuel.
The Position:
The Resource Economist will provide in-house expertise in land-use modeling to support UCS’s advocacy in the area of land use choices for food, fiber, forest, and fuel, and the incorporation of the unintended health and environmental consequences of various ranching and agricultural practices into policy debates.
Responsibilities:
Develop in-house expertise on climate change and land-use modeling
Develop program goals, strategies, tactics, particularly on agricultural, land use, and environmental issues.
Review and critique current policies; propose new policies to address new problems.
Design, implement, and manage research projects on land use and the externalities of agricultural and ranching policies.
Write program communications on agricultural, land use, and environmental issues.
Represent program on agricultural and climate issues.
Participate in developing fundraising strategies.
Qualifications:
Ph.D. in applied agricultural, resource, or environmental economics or other appropriate discipline
Demonstrated experience with relevant models associated with the competition of uses for land (e.g, GTAP, FASOM)
Familiarity with the economics of land use issues associated with the externalities of agricultural activities, renewable energy mandates, population and economic growth, and climate change
Strong analytic and project management skills
Understanding of how economics and advocacy shape public opinion and policy debates
Excellent writing and public speaking skills
Experience Needed:
Two or more years of progressively responsible experience in agricultural, environmental, or resource economics or other appropriate discipline
Familiarity with public policy process regarding agriculture, renewable energy, climate change, and land use
Demonstrated ability to produce reports on economics and policy issues and write about complex policy and economics matters for a lay audience
NGO experience is preferred but not essential.
To Apply:
The deadline for applications is posted on our website at http://www.ucsusa.org/about/jobs-at-ucs.html#Resource_Economist. Please submit a cover letter with salary requirements and how you learned of the position and resume via email to jobs@ucsusa.org and include “Resource Economist” in the subject line. Email materials in Word documents only. No phone calls.
Subject: Resource Economist job at Union of Concerned Scientists
Resource Economist
Union of Concerned Scientists
Washington, DC or Chicago, IL Office
The Union of Concerned Scientists is a nationally prominent science-based nonprofit working on issues we believe to be the greatest environmental and security threats of our time. UCS combines rigorous scientific analysis with innovative thinking and effective citizen advocacy to achieve practical solutions. We strive for a future that is free from the threats of global warming and nuclear war, and a planet that supports a rich diversity of life. Our specific focus areas include global warming, renewable energy, advanced vehicle technology, nuclear power safety, nuclear weapons and related security issues, preserving the integrity of science, and sustainable agriculture.
As a core member of a vibrant and creative interdisciplinary team including ecosystem scientists, molecular biologists, economists, media professionals, lobbyists, and communications specialists, the Resource Economist will bring strong analytic skills and modeling expertise to our Food and Environment Program and to the organization as a whole. The Resource Economist will have significant opportunities to contribute to program strategies on agriculture and the environment and will bridge the gap between UCS and academic and government researchers focused on climate change and the competing uses of land for food, fiber, forest, and fuel.
The Position:
The Resource Economist will provide in-house expertise in land-use modeling to support UCS’s advocacy in the area of land use choices for food, fiber, forest, and fuel, and the incorporation of the unintended health and environmental consequences of various ranching and agricultural practices into policy debates.
Responsibilities:
Develop in-house expertise on climate change and land-use modeling
Develop program goals, strategies, tactics, particularly on agricultural, land use, and environmental issues.
Review and critique current policies; propose new policies to address new problems.
Design, implement, and manage research projects on land use and the externalities of agricultural and ranching policies.
Write program communications on agricultural, land use, and environmental issues.
Represent program on agricultural and climate issues.
Participate in developing fundraising strategies.
Qualifications:
Ph.D. in applied agricultural, resource, or environmental economics or other appropriate discipline
Demonstrated experience with relevant models associated with the competition of uses for land (e.g, GTAP, FASOM)
Familiarity with the economics of land use issues associated with the externalities of agricultural activities, renewable energy mandates, population and economic growth, and climate change
Strong analytic and project management skills
Understanding of how economics and advocacy shape public opinion and policy debates
Excellent writing and public speaking skills
Experience Needed:
Two or more years of progressively responsible experience in agricultural, environmental, or resource economics or other appropriate discipline
Familiarity with public policy process regarding agriculture, renewable energy, climate change, and land use
Demonstrated ability to produce reports on economics and policy issues and write about complex policy and economics matters for a lay audience
NGO experience is preferred but not essential.
To Apply:
The deadline for applications is posted on our website at http://www.ucsusa.org/about/jobs-at-ucs.html#Resource_Economist. Please submit a cover letter with salary requirements and how you learned of the position and resume via email to jobs@ucsusa.org and include “Resource Economist” in the subject line. Email materials in Word documents only. No phone calls.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Monday, February 7, 2011
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
OBI NEWS: BLM Asks Ranchers to Buy Wild Horses
ld But Interesting News; 2006
BLM Director Clarke says the BLM has some 7,000 sale-eligible horses in its pasture holding facilities, primarily mares and geldings 11 years and older
http://www.kansasfarmer.com/story.aspx/plc/and/blm/launch/horse/burro/campaign/7985
BLM Director Clarke says the BLM has some 7,000 sale-eligible horses in its pasture holding facilities, primarily mares and geldings 11 years and older
http://www.kansasfarmer.com/story.aspx/plc/and/blm/launch/horse/burro/campaign/7985
OBI News: BLM Seeks Contracts for Long Term Holding
Old but interesting news,....posting because I heard it said (written) by BLM (in regards to the Pickins Plan) that they didnt have the authority to "farm out" wild horses to private individuals, saying (again) that in order to do so, they would have to change the law; http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/newsroom/2009/may/blm_seeks_bids_for.html
I was thinking then as I am thinking now,...just somemore typical BLM BS
They can (and do) anything the hell they want with our wild ones.....and THAT is the shame of it all.
I was thinking then as I am thinking now,...just somemore typical BLM BS
They can (and do) anything the hell they want with our wild ones.....and THAT is the shame of it all.
Oklahoma, Kansas, Under Extreme Blizard Warnings
Will the Wild Horses (and Burros) in the long term holding facilities be safe? Can they get to shelter from storm?
http://www.nws.noaa.gov/
Do you see any REAL shelter here, in this vid of the midwest facilities? Remember, these horses are in captivity and can only travel so far. What kind of real shelter are they providing for EXTREME Blizzard conditions? - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnU4g6WKbFo
Lets call Oklahoma BLM to ask; http://www.blm.gov/nm/st/en/fo/Oklahoma_Field_Office.html
Better yet, one BLM office covers all three midwestern states. Call them to ask about the wild horses in holding facilites in OK sand KS,....asking are they provided shelter from these blizzard storms? - http://www.blm.gov/nm/st/en.html
Click here for a county by county breakdown of the storm warnings in OK; http://www.weather.gov/alerts-beta/ok.php?x=1
http://www.nws.noaa.gov/
Do you see any REAL shelter here, in this vid of the midwest facilities? Remember, these horses are in captivity and can only travel so far. What kind of real shelter are they providing for EXTREME Blizzard conditions? - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnU4g6WKbFo
Lets call Oklahoma BLM to ask; http://www.blm.gov/nm/st/en/fo/Oklahoma_Field_Office.html
Better yet, one BLM office covers all three midwestern states. Call them to ask about the wild horses in holding facilites in OK sand KS,....asking are they provided shelter from these blizzard storms? - http://www.blm.gov/nm/st/en.html
Click here for a county by county breakdown of the storm warnings in OK; http://www.weather.gov/alerts-beta/ok.php?x=1
Monday, January 31, 2011
Saturday, January 29, 2011
FEED RECALL West Coast
A manufacturer has issued a voluntary recall of horse feed that was distributed in California, Nevada and Oregon because it may contain a medication that can be fatal to horses if fed at high levels.
Missouri-based MANNA PRO PRODUCTS announced Friday it is voluntarily recalling FAMILY FARM COMPLETE HORSE 10 HORSE FEED, LOT NUMBER 1006 because it may contain potentially harmful levels of the medication MONENSIN SODIUM, or RUMENSIN.
The feed was distributed January 11 through January 21 to retailers in these three states. No illnesses or deaths have been reported and retailers have removed it from their stores, but the company says customers who purchased the product should STOP FEEDING IT IMMEDIATELY.
Missouri-based MANNA PRO PRODUCTS announced Friday it is voluntarily recalling FAMILY FARM COMPLETE HORSE 10 HORSE FEED, LOT NUMBER 1006 because it may contain potentially harmful levels of the medication MONENSIN SODIUM, or RUMENSIN.
The feed was distributed January 11 through January 21 to retailers in these three states. No illnesses or deaths have been reported and retailers have removed it from their stores, but the company says customers who purchased the product should STOP FEEDING IT IMMEDIATELY.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Monday, January 24, 2011
Ely FOIA Request: Filling in the Blanks
Can you help? Need to know
1. How many Trailer Licences / Shipping Manifests
2. How many Brand Inspection Clearance Certificates
3. How many Border Crossing Stamps
4. How many receipts (into Ridgecrest Facility, ...Ca.)
What I am trying to show is
a. The number of trucks loaded
b. The number of trucks crossing borders / how many border crossing stamps
c. The number of horses received at Ridgecrest Facility
Start here on DOC 4: http://wildhorsewarriors.blogspot.com/2010/10/doc-4-trailer-licence-02368r-shipping.html
1. How many Trailer Licences / Shipping Manifests
2. How many Brand Inspection Clearance Certificates
3. How many Border Crossing Stamps
4. How many receipts (into Ridgecrest Facility, ...Ca.)
What I am trying to show is
a. The number of trucks loaded
b. The number of trucks crossing borders / how many border crossing stamps
c. The number of horses received at Ridgecrest Facility
Start here on DOC 4: http://wildhorsewarriors.blogspot.com/2010/10/doc-4-trailer-licence-02368r-shipping.html
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CHRISTINE A. JUBIC,
Plaintiff,
Plaintiff,
v.
KENNETH SALAZAR, Sec. of the United States Dept of the Interior,
Defendant.
Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants Motion to Dismiss Complaint
and Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Preparation of a Vaughn Index
Plaintiff CHRISTINE A. JUBIC, in Response to Defendants Motion to Dismiss my Complaint, object to same on the following grounds;
1.
(a) That the documents provided to me by the Defendants in reply to my FOIA request are incomplete, contradictory and confusing and are woefully inadequate to acertain the information asked for and needed in order to determine the fate and/or whereabouts of the wild horses and burros removed from the Ely, Nevada ranges during the 2009 gather season, and
(b) That the documents so provided show that over 600 wild horses were loaded onto ______trucks for shipment to California, but the documents show evidence of only ______trucks crossing the border into California and only _____ document evidencing receipt of ______horses at the Ridgecrest Facility in California facility, where is is alleged by BLM that ALL 600+ horses were shipped to.
(c) Defendants fail to claim any valid reason for dismissal of my Complaint
MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANTS TO SUBMIT A VAUGHN INDEX
2. Plaintiff moves this Court for an order requiring Defendant to provide within 30 days after service of this motion, an itemized, indexed inventory of every agency record or portion thereof responsive to Plaintiff’s request which Defendant asserts to be exempt from disclosure, accompanied by a detailed justification statement covering each refusal to release records or portions thereof in accordance with the indexing requirements of Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820 (D.C. Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 977 (1974).
(a) As evidenced by the Index of Documents provided to me by the Defendants in way of a reply to my FOIA request, Defendants are claiming the following documents are exempt from disclosure;
KENNETH SALAZAR, Sec. of the United States Dept of the Interior,
Defendant.
Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants Motion to Dismiss Complaint
and Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Preparation of a Vaughn Index
Plaintiff CHRISTINE A. JUBIC, in Response to Defendants Motion to Dismiss my Complaint, object to same on the following grounds;
1.
(a) That the documents provided to me by the Defendants in reply to my FOIA request are incomplete, contradictory and confusing and are woefully inadequate to acertain the information asked for and needed in order to determine the fate and/or whereabouts of the wild horses and burros removed from the Ely, Nevada ranges during the 2009 gather season, and
(b) That the documents so provided show that over 600 wild horses were loaded onto ______trucks for shipment to California, but the documents show evidence of only ______trucks crossing the border into California and only _____ document evidencing receipt of ______horses at the Ridgecrest Facility in California facility, where is is alleged by BLM that ALL 600+ horses were shipped to.
(c) Defendants fail to claim any valid reason for dismissal of my Complaint
MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANTS TO SUBMIT A VAUGHN INDEX
2. Plaintiff moves this Court for an order requiring Defendant to provide within 30 days after service of this motion, an itemized, indexed inventory of every agency record or portion thereof responsive to Plaintiff’s request which Defendant asserts to be exempt from disclosure, accompanied by a detailed justification statement covering each refusal to release records or portions thereof in accordance with the indexing requirements of Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820 (D.C. Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 977 (1974).
(a) As evidenced by the Index of Documents provided to me by the Defendants in way of a reply to my FOIA request, Defendants are claiming the following documents are exempt from disclosure;
Document # 27: BLM Contracting / Caliente Gather Contract / Purchase Requisitional Order & KG Livestock Invoices (11 pgs)
Document # 34: GG, SR & WR KG Livestock Statement of Work, Invoices, and contracting documents (11pgs)
Document # 39: KG Livestock Award / Contract
(b) The reason given for said non-disclosure is stated for these documents as such;
"Withheld to Consult with Contractor regarding the release of pricing information"
(c) Plaintiff respectfully submits that these document packets are being wrongfully withheld as they are the kind of documents kept during the course of regular BLM business and Plaintiff further submits that even the pricing information on these government contracts is disclosable under the U.S. FOIA laws.
(d) Plaintiff suspects that the documents being withheld "hold the secret" to the whereabouts of many of the un-accounted for horses that were loaded onto trucks but have no records of being delivered anywhere. Plaintiff suspects that alot of these horses are being sold outright to the contractors who are also in the rodeo / bucking horse breeding business.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court deny Defendants Motion to Dissmiss my Complaint and that an Order be issued compelling them to release the withheld documents, or in the alternative, to more fully defend their reasons for so withholding.
Respectfully submitted,
____________________________
Respectfully submitted,
____________________________
Christine A Jubic, Plaintiff, Pro Se
118 River Rd. 1st Fl.
Johnsonville, NY 12094
(518) 753 - 7791
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Complaint and Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendants to Provide a Vaughn Index
I will be working on this document over the next couple of days. Its in regards to the FOIA request I sent to BLM in attempt to find out what happened to the 680 wild horses removed from the Seaman, Golden Gate, White River and Caliente Herds in the summer and fall of 2009.
Some of you had volunteered to help review the volumous (but useless) documents they have provided to me by way of answer, and I thank those of you who have given feedback on them already. If you are one of the reviewers who have not given your input yet, now would be the time to do it, and I would appreciate it if you would. You know who you are, and that I value your opinions.....Val & Cindy this means you!
http://www.rcfp.org/foialetter/index.php?letter_id=96353&letter_code=dukxagkih
Again, thanks to all the rest.
Some of you had volunteered to help review the volumous (but useless) documents they have provided to me by way of answer, and I thank those of you who have given feedback on them already. If you are one of the reviewers who have not given your input yet, now would be the time to do it, and I would appreciate it if you would. You know who you are, and that I value your opinions.....Val & Cindy this means you!
http://www.rcfp.org/foialetter/index.php?letter_id=96353&letter_code=dukxagkih
Again, thanks to all the rest.
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Friday, January 14, 2011
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Run-a-Way Zebras from Hurst Ranch Killed by Ranchers Who Wanted Skins for Rugs
The Associated Press reports:
Three zebras that escaped last week from the Hearst Ranch (a stallion, his mare, and a weanling;) http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/world/3-striking-but-fugitive-zebras-of-the-renowned-hearst-ranch-in-california-killed-by-enraged-neighbors_100487422.html
were shot to death by neighboring ranchers who say the animals threatened their horses and cattle.
David Fiscalini, owner of the Green Valley Cattle Company, said he shot two of the zebras because they were chasing seven horses on his property about 10 miles from the Hearst Ranch.
After shooting the animals, Mr. Fiscalini took them to a taxidermist to have their hides tanned; he said he did not want to waste them.
via the New York Times; http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/13/us/13brfs-RUNAWAYZEBRA_BRF.html
In a related story filed by the Los Angeles Times:
“You can’t believe the controversy,” said Rosemary Anderson, whose husband is the taxidermist that handled the zebras.
“It breaks my heart to see it killed, because it’s wanton waste,” she said. “It’s very sad that it wasn’t handled in a different manner, but this rancher felt that was he taking care of his property and getting rid of a predator.”
A predator? Zebra?
Living 10 miles from Heart Castle, where did he think these highly dangerous predator Zebra came from? Surely cattlemen aren’t that stupid. Well, everything looks like meal to a cattle rancher I guess.
The article continues:
Stephen Hearst, the great-grandson of William Randolph Hearst, said he was shocked to learn about the killings.
He said the zebras rarely venture outside the fence that surrounds the Hearst Ranch, “but from time to time they do, and neighbors give us a call and we retrieve them.”
Here are couple more points made in another Associated Press story:
“Neighbors are usually there to help their neighbors, not shoot their zebras,” Hearst said. “It’s a shame they took that action.”
But Fiscalini said there wasn’t time. It’s branding time on his ranch, and replacing a horse that might have been injured in a clash with the zebras would have cost him tens of thousands of dollars, he explained.
via San Francisco Chronicle’s SFGAte.com >>
ZEBRA GRAZING WITH CATTLE ON THE HEARST RANCH
You will see from the opening images of this video the Hearst zebra grazing contentedly among cattle; http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=P7n0vYuM2mA
The poor unsuspecting zebra did not know when they unwittingly joined cattle on neighboring land they would be immediately shot on sight. The zebra were probably excited to see the horses and were just having a game. What a deadly game it turned out to be. And we agree. Wanton waste indeed.
Article; http://tuesdayshorse.wordpress.com/2011/01/13/runaway-zebra-from-hearst-ranch-killed-by-local-cattlemen/
Update: Outrage Continues; http://calcoastnews.com/2011/01/outrage-continues-over-shooting-of-hearst-ranch-zebras/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
