3 Iron County (Utah) Commissioners are threatening to take the unlawful action of removing wild horses if the BLM doesn’t. Commissioner David Miller is quoted as saying “Volunteers are ready, corrals are prepared and feed has been secured in case the BLM does not act promptly.”
On a BLM adoption form, the BLM stated removing wild horses is a prohibited act:
“PROHIBITED ACTS
(a) Maliciously or negligently injuring or harassing a wild horse or burro;
(b) Treating a wild horse or burro inhumanely;
(c) Removing or attempting to remove a wild horse or burro from the public lands without authorization from the BLM;
(d) Destroying a wild horse or burro without authorization from the BLM, except as an act of mercy;
(e) Selling or attempting to sell a wild horse or burro or its remains;
(f) Branding a wild horse or burro;
(g) Removing or altering a freeze mark on a wild horse or burro;
(h) Violating an order, term, or condition established by the BLM under this part;
(i) Commercially exploiting a wild horse or burro;
Any person who commits a prohibited act is subject to a fine of not more than $2,000 or imprisonment for not more than one year,
or both, for each violation. ”
Would “each violation” mean a fine and imprisonment for EACH wild horse removed?
Will the BLM label these County Commissioners as “emotional publics” or “eco-terrorists?” Is it just a coincidence, or does it seem like County Commissions (with ties to Associations of Counties) are suddenly jumping on the bandwagon to get rid of wild horses? Could livestock and other special interests likely be behind this push? Who is forking over money to elect these County Commissioners?
Who are the 3 Iron County Commissioners?
David J. Miller (click on his name to link to a vimeo of Mr. Miller discussing the transfer of public land)
SOURCE: Salt Lake Tribune
Iron County to feds: Remove wild horses or we will
Chris Detrick | The Salt Lake Tribune Wild horses from Utah’s Swasey herd are rounded up by Cattoor Livestock Roundup Co in the West Desert near the Swasey Mountains Thursday February 14, 2013. Under the Bureau of Land Management operation 50 miles west of Delta, helicopter wranglers will gather 262 horses. One hundred will be released back into the Swasey Herd Management Area — one of Utah’s 19 HMAs on federal land. Many of the horses released will be mares treated with the contraceptive Porcine Zona Pellucida (PZP-22).
Iron County commissioners have given the Bureau of Land Management an ultimatum: Come up with an immediate plan to remove hundreds of wild horses from the area or residents will do it themselves.
As drought damages rangelands in southwestern Utah, the overpopulation of wild horses is threatening livestock and wildlife, said Commissioner David Miller. In response, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) wants to reduce the number of cattle allowed or “allotted” in grazing leases, Miller said.
“Inaction and no-management practices pose an imminent threat to ranchers who are being pushed to reduce their allotments by 50 percent thereby damaging the value of their private rights,” reads a March 30 letter signed by Miller and Iron County Sheriff Mark Gower.
Volunteers are ready, corrals are prepared and feed has been secured in case the BLM does not act promptly, Miller said.
The letter, addressed to BLM Principal Deputy Director Neil Kornze, gives the federal agency until noon Friday to present a plan for removing horses by a “time acceptable to mitigate the threats and adverse conditions” in Iron County.
A BLM management plan says there should be 300 wild horses in the area, but the agency estimates there are 1,200 animals, Miller said.
“We will take whatever action we have to take to reduce those numbers immediately,” Miller said Thursday. “We expect the BLM to take that action. If they refuse we cannot wait until the range is destroyed.”
Calls to the BLM were not immediately returned.
Read the rest of the article HERE
Categories: Horse News, Wild Horses/Mustangs
Straight from the Horse's Heart 
The BLM should remove all of the cattle on this range to protect it from drought and overgrazing. If you want to raise cattle, keep them on your property. You should not have more cattle than your property can support. If you can’t afford to buy more land, then you can’t afford to have that many cattle.
LikeLike
Precisely Vicky May Sane Minds Prevail !
LikeLike
Vickie, I’m sure you know this but grazing leases (10 years long now, and legislation is moving forward to extend the period to 20 years) are considered part of a rancher’s property value THOUGH IT IS PUBLIC LAND.
There is no way a rancher will walk away from their property values, and may not be able to if a bank is holding a mortgage based on the value including the lease.
This is a systemic problem based on an out of date and out of touch grazing law. We can’t blame the ranchers much for taking advantage of it but now they are invested solutions need to be brought forward to change the system without bankrupting those who are following the law.
This article states that some have been asked to cut their allowed AUMs by 50%, which means more than a 50% income cut since it includes next year’s calves etc. I don’t blame them for bitching but it’s not reasonable to look for them to change the system they are enmeshed in.
How can we support small business owners (ranchers) in ways that would enable us to dismantle this outdated system?
LikeLike
Perhaps it is time to find a way to undo cheap leases on public lands either for grazing or extraction of substances for private profit. Are they legal? Yes, BLM is authorized to allow additional uses, but the horses are designated first and primarily.
LikeLike
So Agree with you Vickie. They shouldn’t have anything to say about the Wild Horses. They are welfare cattlemen that cannot afford their own land and demand excess rights they shouldn’t have.
Politcs and Corruption are HUGE in this.
LikeLike
Intriguing. Yesterdays article was threats to commit mass destruction because thry.want him to keep his cattle.As for Damage to grazing rights value…..No such thing! The BLM has the Authority to do this reduction as the Federal Government states to Manage. It was Never intended Rights evolve to.ownership. This case is individual from any other legal right to possession is 9/10 of the law. The fact is its deeded to the Federal Agency and Oversight Allowed cattle in reduced not perpetually increased numbers. The grandfather clause doesnt allow for inheritance of land in Active Ownership by this Agency. Active means the Agency exists, operates a measure or full control of the leases which it has and manages the land. These people insinuate its about the Animals being managed. Apparently these Officials Know Less about the Agency than they say all horse people do, they dont realize its Bureau of Land Management. The artivles, acts, and laws govern the agencies actions, but theres no transferrance or implication of said transferrance in the leasing or welfare ranchers agreement. There is No land grabbers, caretakers rights, as fot their water right, if uou Are Stupid enough to put water on land you do not own it doesnt give you possession of the land. Then you.have graciously updated government property and when your lease is up you only own a little water. As for Iron Head vigilantes, let the Federal Agents arrests them for Vigilante actions based on what was clearly stated in Print yesterday they modified today to claim its not connected to this man losing cattle. Its out there they said it, its a threat against We the Peoples horses. This is blantant good ole boy syndrome with.wild delusion. Its doesnt reduce the value of the rights with reduction of cattle, they.only Pay for animals on the land allowable. So their imaginary value is what they pushed into Blm land that just was reduced. Sorry but this is land mamagement. The truth is they should shut costly welfare ranching down, remove all cattle and start fresh.
LikeLike
Thanks for the illuminating facts on grazing rights. It makes more sense than what the cattleman are asserting.
LikeLike
The American people own the public lands in the West and they are administered (supposedly) on our behalf by the national government under laws and regulations. This land and its resources belong to all citizens of the United States. There are countless stories and examples of locals who believe the public lands they lease belong to them. This Utah group appears to be a threat to the people of America. Where is the FBI and the Homeland Security?
Removal or reduction of domestic livestock which provides financial gain for any private or corporate owned institution should be activated in favor of protecting the land and the wildlife and wild horses and wild burros and their habitat that belong to the American people. As a matter of fact, by law the BLM can close appropriate areas of public lands to grazing use by all or a particular kind of livestock, if necessary, to provide habitat for wild horses or burros; to implement herd management actions; or to protect wild horses or burros from disease, harassment, or injury. 43 C.F.R. § 4710.5.
These are not “federal lands.” They are public lands. They never belonged to ANY individual, private or corporate entity. The land and the resources and the animals belong to you and me.
LikeLike
We The People, are for the Most part not informed of our rights as Taxpayers .. Thank You For explaining ~ Why this is a Job for The FBI or Homeland security No one really gets this ! Stop torturing innocent peoples in Guantanamo and Stop the War In Afghanistan . We Seem to have endless Monies for this . We need money here to rebuild Infrastructure maintain our Lands , Animals and the People
LikeLike
Great EXplanation grandmagregg…
LikeLike
BANKS
In 2000, the State Bank of Southern Utah submitted information
to the Supreme Court confirming that financial institutions hold
an estimated $10 billion in loans and related credit transactions
with the public lands ranching industry, with grazing permits
alone valued at approximately $1 billion.
Click to access report-WWUH-4-09_lowres.pdf
LikeLike
This is such an important document. Unfortunately, the Wild Earth Guardians do not consider equines native or even evolved here, as horses are not efficient in use of forage according to them on p.9. Everything else just drives our point home.
LikeLike
Chris, I just read this because your remarks got me curious. It makes a big distinction between domestic and wild horses regarding forage consumption, though of course they are the same species, just with different owners 🙂
Regardless, this data shows domestic livestock got 88.8% while wild horses got only 5.8% (less than the mule deer).
At least from this data set, it seems the complaint by hunters that horses are outcompeting their preferred species is not well founded.
Competition with Native Ungulates
Forage Allocation
The vast majority of forage on public land is allocated to livestock wherever grazing is permitted. In one study, scientists found that domestic livestock consumed 88.8 percent of available forage (cattle and [domestic] horses 82.3 percent, free-roaming horses 5.8 percent, sheep 0.7 percent), leaving 11.2 percent to wildlife species (mule deer 10.1 percent, pronghorn 0.9 percent, bighorn sheep 0.1 percent, elk 0.1 percent).41 Even where livestock have not consumed all available forage, the mere presence of domestic livestock can cause some wildlife to avoid the area.42
LikeLike
The wild horses and burros belong on the land…not the cows and sheep ! How would they like it if we rounded up their animals and sent them to slaughter without their knowledge ? They need to leave the wild horses and burros alone. They are not harming the land. The cows and sheep are !!!
LikeLike
Per the vimeo – it appears that David Miller wants his county to take action independent of the federal government but they have no problem taking federal subsidies from the federal government!
Iron County, Utah Summary Information
$11.4 million in subsidies 1995-2012.
• $4.63 million in commodity subsidies.
• $4036.00 in crop insurance subsidies.
• $1.19 million in conservation subsidies.
• $5.62 million in disaster subsidies.
http://farm.ewg.org/region.php?fips=49021
LikeLike
Energy, real estate interests fuel Herbert’s campaign
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/53942615-90/campaign-companies-energy-estate.html.csp
Governor’s re-election bid gets $235K from oil, gas and power companies
Big donors
Kimball Rasmussen, CEO of Deseret Power and an outspoken critic of solar and wind energy alternatives, gave $50,000 to Herbert’s campaign. CONSOL Energy, which operates one coal mine in Utah and recently closed another, gave Herbert $30,000.
Andadarko Petroleum Corp., which recently announced a major oil field development near Vernal in cooperation with the environmental community, gave the governor $25,000.
Real Estate developers and housing interests gave Herbert more than $200,000. Medical companies contributed more than $90,000 to his campaign, and technology companies gave more than $63,000.
Environmentalists said the contributions are not necessarily surprising and come from companies that stand to benefit from Herbert’s policies.
LikeLike
In March, Governor Herbert signed the Transfer of Public Lands Act — a law that demands the federal government hand over more than 30 million acres of public land now managed by the federal government to the State of Utah.
Once turned over to the state, many of these lands would be sold outright to the highest bidder while millions of acres would be thrown wide open to resource extractive industries
http://www.suwa.org/herbertslandgrab/
LikeLike
That story is amazing, Louie.
What is “todays” status of Utah’s Gov. Herbert’s plan?
Re: returnng control of federal lands to their respective states… these are not “federal lands.” They are public lands and they never belonged to the respective states or to the federal government. The land and its resources belong to you and me – the American people.
Theft is the taking of another person’s property – yours and my property, in this case. In criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime at some time in the future.
So is the Gov of Utah guilty of conspiracy?
LikeLike
IMHO, YES!
LikeLike
Reblogged this on "OUR WORLD".
LikeLike
hey, I’m telling you right now the b.l.m. needs to be reminded of their rules now!!!!
also the one behind all of this omucko and the democretens , they started the whole thing and all the goings on now with all this land grabbing and it started in 2012 go back and read peter defazio’s facebook page on n/r/d scroll half the way down to the jan.2012 it will tell you a whole lot and maybe give a plan of action,maybe I don’t know but oil exploration is the biggest push right now and it is really looking like it. now another thought ,ya”ll know e/u just had the scandel of the tainted meat thing . what better way of getting faith back in the industry as with drug free horses . just a thought !! I hate it either way . I’m praying that that would be false but……..
LikeLike
Interesting that this might well be Mormon country. Salt Lake has the highest rate of non Mormon and inactive Mormons in the whole state.
Mormons are suppose to abide by the law of the lands and not take matters into their own hands. This threat is an immediate threat to all wild horses.
Now who EXACTLY are the eco-terrorists? I have never heard of horse advocates implying direct harm to animal or person. Sure we get angry. And file lawsuits. We suggest that ranchers start running cattle on their own lands–thereby reducing the chance for conflict.
I hope someone can defuse this before people or animals get hurt. From listening to county commisioners type they are drawing a line in the sand.
Also please note–there is a Mormon judge who writes wonderful crime/suspense fiction. He seems like he would find for the law–but I’d hate for him to be put into a situation where he has to listen to this. These county folk are sure putting people into some nasty conflicts of interests.
LikeLike
The Mormon Church can’t get involved. They can if somebody breaks the law, are found guilty–they can take action on that person’s membership. From a legal point if they stepped in and TRIED to calm this down–it would seen as their implying someone’s guilt.
It is so frustrating. They have a totally ugly situation brewing with few options to mediate this. I’m scared that this will turn into a huge range war with the horses in the middle.
The man I spoke to was VERY nice. Honest he was. As a matter of fact he has been following this in the papers, so he knew what I was talking about. I just know I’m not the right person to speak for advocacy cause I stumble over myself! I’m not sure what me, myself, and I can do to try to calm this mess down but I wish these county commissioners would stand down before people or animals get hurt.
LikeLike
Hmmm…interesting.
Harry Reid is a Mormon and allows the harassment, collection to death camps and slaughter everyday….actually guides budgets and bills to do the same.
Oh, and let’s not forget public lands policy that allows these outrageous leases, equity and contract lengths.
Sorry…evil knows no religiously known boundaries.
LikeLike
Debbie Coffey continues to find all those obscure nails begging for a hammer—reviwed your 2011 article on the CBD after the radio show.
The documents and behaviors of government agencies, not only in our country but around the world, were based on the language federal agencies managing both land and horses are now using that exist in complete opposition to the language Congress used in the 1971 Wild Horse and Burro Act, the interest in drawing human visiting to the Park, that was behind the Park Service’s decision to purchase the ponies that the man who sold the Park Service the lands for Assateague Island National Seashore in 1976 and the subsequent five year review and study the Park Service ordered that began in 1978 and 1982 to study the effects of the ponies on the island’s eco-system.
By 1980 North Carolina Governor Jim Hunt protested the Park Service plan to remove the horses at Cape Lookout and instructed the Park Service that they could not move these horses or any other species until the Park Service had a comprehensive plan.
So is there any publically identifiable dynamic that could explain a shift of attitude that indicates when the Park Service in Maryland buys horses to get people to come to the new park they are trying to establish in MD in 1976, but by 1980 just two states South, the Park Service that bought the NC ponies when they purchased the land for Cape Lookout suddenly refer to the ponies as exotics and want to get rid of them.
In 1976 Congress passed the FLMPA without including the policy that the FWS, TNC, and IUCN tried to get written into it. This was the exclusion of any species that is found where it did not originate. The word of the times was exotic. However, when this attempt and others eventually failed, the effort that began as a method to remove species from western public lands was turned over to the IUCN’s legal team.
The IUCN’s legal team changed the word exotic to alien and wrote the provision that FWS, TNC, and IUCN could not get US lawmakers to pass was written into the 1992 UN Convention on Biological Diversity, expected by many to to signed by then President George H. W. Bush. President Clinton signed the CBD on June 4, 1993, but the Senate did not ratify it–in fact, never voted on it after 10 months of debate–which is in itself very telling. At this point, most people assume that the CBD just went away except for those parts that President Clinton wanted federal agencies to implement on a case by case basis.
However, this is where the President’s and UNEP’s fancy footwork and the very public IUCN and UCS partners keep the footwork going—keeping in mind that the goal that originated with FWS, TNC, IUCN concerned species they wanted removed from western public lands, the UN’s Programme for Global Governance of the Environment’s non-governmental international agricultural organization, the FAO got ready to meet in its headquarters in Rome. So in April 1996 the FAO’s tecnical experts met in Rome to rewrite the 1979 Update of the IPPC to include Article 8 (h) [to prevent, control, and eradicate alien species in states (nations) or parts of states where they are found].
In June the IUCN’s Invasive Species Specialist Group met in Trondheim, Sweeden for one of the many post convention convention’s, It is important to understand that members of the IUCN would have known at this time that Article 8 (h) would be included in the 1997 Update when the FAO was finished drafting it in January 1997. Therefore, the legal steps for removing the species that FWS, TNC, and IUCN had originally attempted to remove through various efforts at the level of state and federal governments in this country had been written into two international treaties that every country in the world that signed either of them would be expected to follow in order to be in compliance with international law.
The IUCN did have a few problems though. Based on the lack of success the FWS, TNC, and IUCN had had withut the UN behind them, they had to figure out how to re-educate people in aspects of botony and zoology that are essentially irrelevant in most scientific contexts. As a result, the presence of horses and burros and two species found where they didn’t belong because they did not originate where found—became the second biggest threat to human survival (man made global warming being the first). And due to the first, the second was even more critical.
The Secretariant agreed with the US representative that argued that the ISSG group so that they could educate the world about the threat of alien, invasive species that could destroy biological diversity and thus, all life on the planet. The FWS, IUCN, TNC paradigm has always recognized that getting rid of our wild horses particularly those federally protected would be a task that would include changing the values of our our culture. In fact, the OTA, the same federal agency that published the 1993 Report on Harmful, Non-Indigenous Species of the US includes other documents that describe the challenges that those who desire to change a culture face, but the one the IUCN decided to use is the approach that requires those that want to create the change to change the stories of the culture into something else. This is one of the reasons that the antithecal language of the IUCN when compared to the language of the 1971 Wild Horse and Burro Act is so telling. This is not the language of anyone who wants to preserve the horses or the burros or anything else American–this is the language of those who want to and are determined to change America no matter if they have to change the entire world in the process.
The Secretariat of the CBD agreed that ISSG needed a global education program to promote the eradication of species that are found in the American West as well as many other places on the basis that these species threaten every ecosystem they are found in and are invasive. So we see the Sierra Club doing a study of horse trails and deciing the horses are harmful. The Wildlife Society and TNC produce glossy anti-horse and burro flyers—the TNC even did one for Las Vegas—claiming the horse was not native. GISP was initially funded by the TNC, IUCN, FAO, and IUCN. The World Bank added its resources between 2004 and 2006, the critical years in terms of the implementation of the 2005 date of full force. Between 2007 and 2009 the World Bank’s partner, the Bank of the Netherlands funded GISP. GISP ended in 2009, but the IUCN ISSG’s is stil busily trying to get as many species eradicated as they can before the full magnitude of this deception hits all the people in the world who are and have been affected by this scam—which would all those people whose governments have created situations that are destroying their wild horses and burros and making it more difficult for people to own and care for domestic horses.
The fates of our horses and burros are based on international law. However, that international law is based on the trust that those nations that signed onto either the CBD or the IPPC agreed to follow measures that were based on sound science. That is the first rule of ethics in species eradication according to paragon of ethical behavior, the U.S. Fish Wildlife Service. The words sound science also appear in the 2000 Plant Pest Act passed by Congress. So, it would seem that Congress and our federal government’s realization that not only the listing of the horse and burro totally contradict what peer reviewed articles and books written by scientists who study the narrow fields that include the origin of specific species or clades of species.
The very fact the the Congressionally funded NRS and NAS Board of Agriculture structured study gave the 15 appointed scientific experts a fairly loose rein to study the BLM’s Wild Horse and Burro program, but prohibited the scientists from addressing the native or non-native status of the horse and burro, confirms that the NRS and NAS knew that the answer would be that there is an extremely high degress of probability (real scientists know that they can know nothing with absolute certainty) that the horse originated in North America between 1.75 and .8 million years ago based on a variety of paleoanthropological, genetic, geological, and atmospheric evidence that exists.
Let us not forget that the NRS NAS Board of Agriculture prohibited the scientists they selected from addressing the question of where the modern horse Equus caballus originated. The combined talents and scientific reputations of at least some of the scientists that participated in the study would have had the authority to stop the eradication of our wild horses and burros based on the claim that the species’ presence endangered all native plants and animals horse through the supernatural powers it had as an alien species. If these scientists had been given permission to address this question both we and the NRS, NAS Board of Agriculture know that the scientists could not come to any other conclusion based on both the evidence that existed byfore 1993 and the evidence that has been published since.
So what do the NRS and NAS stand to lose from allowing a group of scientists from addressing the most politically important question through the use of science. There is no evidence that any scientists fully understand how or why this policy came to be part of the U.S. policy, so scientists could have answered this question without necessarily understanding that the finding that the horse and burro are native to North America and have existed in every ecosystem from Florida to the Yukon region of Alaska above the ice sheet. The horse has lived in areas of the Atlantic coast that were once known as the coastal grasslands where the barrier islands are merely a sign that these grasslands were once here. The IPPC wants people to fear sea rise, but fails to address the fact that seas have already risen at least 500 feet since the last major glacial period. That would interfere with the NPS and FWS goals to eradicate wild horses that have made their homes along the fragments of the costal grasslands their ancestors once roamed and that exotic species fraud they exist on spouting would end.
The individual who invented and engineered the myth of the non-native origin of the horse is supported by both public and private funds through a position that was created just for him, so he could run to the four corners of the Earth and to colleges, universities, scientific conferences, near and yon to spready the fraud he created as the gospel truth—the gospel truth of the UN’s Environmental Programme. Most of us have figured out that what our government is doing on public lands has nothing to do with protecting the environment which is consistent with how the myth of the non-native horse originated and the interests of the public figures who have prospered and whose families have prospered due to the cooperation between scientifically credentialed individuals and the politicians who needed these individuals in order to get the public to believe that what began as a quest to have unfettered access to North America’s oil, natural gas, coal, precious metals, and rare Earth elements, had to grow into an entirely new and suddenly critical science–despite the fact that it contradicts every process nature has put into place.
The real threat to all living organisms on Earth is the hubris of people who arrogantly defy the processes that nature has put into place for our survival. Horses and burro live anywhere that humans can live, so what species do these thugs want to eradicate—-the ones that live in the places in North America where they co-evolved with the development of the oceans of oil, natural gas, coal, precious metal, rare Earth elements, and elements like phosphate and uranium. The reasons our horses are there is because their ancient ancestors once browsed the leaves of the topical plants and trees that have formed what FWS, TNC, and the IUCN want badly enough to destroy the entire world and everything that humans and other species need to exist.
The premise of the native versus non-native species does not exist. It is the product of scientific ambition and the political lust for power and the resources to fund that lust. That is all it is and ever was. Let’s hope a scientific authority can be found to put this matter to rest for once and for all—end the suffereing of animals—and the suffering of human beings like all of us who find it difficult to rest in the midst of such massive scientific, educational, political, and legal fraud.
LikeLike
HH
I can’t say that I was aware of or understand all that you explained here but the bottom line is very clearly stated and understood and agreed with, “It is the product of … the political lust for power and the resources to fund that lust.”
LikeLike
Now we see why the ranchers want the horses off the land. If the grazing is reduced, the value of their own private land is reduced. Because they have converted public land to their own (based on so-called leases), the value pf the public land grazing converts to enhance the value of their private land. So they can own a rock pile, “lease”public land (thousands of acres at 1.00+ an acre) and convert the real value. Therefore, they can take out loans, apply for grant money, crop buyout, dis4ter grants ec. Without the federal land, they can stll do all that but at a far lower value. Also, selling the rock pile puts money in their pocket because, it is attached to a BLM allotment.
Understand this is the purpose for the iMproved Grazing Act being pushed through (20 year).
The longer the ferals can act like they are dong business on public land, the longer they can draw out their welfare. They see the sunset. It is serious now, the devastation is their own doing, but if they can blame the horses and round up a few thousand, everyone will think it was the horses who did all the damage.
LikeLike
Jan, while I agree with your words I hasten to add that even if all the wild horses were removed forever, the damage done to the ecosystem since the open range days by millions upon millions of domestic (invasive) livestock have altered the ecosystems towards permanent regime change in most cases. I think it is sheer folly to assume that taking a few thousand widely-roaming horses off the range but leaving millions of livestock will make any significant change for the better to our damaged ecosystems. Restoration is in order, not more rounds of welfare ranching and blaming the victims.
LikeLike
Now we see why the ranchers want the horses off the land. If the grazing is reduced, the value of their own private land is reduced. Because they have converted public land to their own (based on so-called leases), the value pf the public land grazing converts to enhance the value of their private land. So they can own a rock pile, “lease”public land (thousands of acres at 1.00+ an acre) and convert the real value. Therefore, they can take out loans, apply for grant money, crop buyout, dis4ter grants ec. Without the federal land, they can stll do all that but at a far lower value. Also, selling the rock pile puts money in their pocket because, it is attached to a BLM allotment.
Understand this is the purpose for the iMproved Grazing Act being pushed through (20 year).
The longer the ferals can act like they are dong business on public land, the longer they can draw out their welfare. They see the sunset. It is serious now, the devastation is their own doing, but if they can blame the horses and round up a few thousand, everyone will think it was the horses who did all the damage. And I guess the bottom line, is they will avoid being held criminally responsible for usurption of the public trust in using the land, destroying it.
LikeLike
Who do you refer to as “ferals”? Wild Horses are not feral. That is a “Horse Hater” made-up term to describe our iconic NATIVE WILD HORSES and BURROS in order to facilitate their removal. I do agree that the blame for the destruction of the ranges by cattle and sheep is an excuse for the ranchers to put the blame on the horse who in actuality keeps the wild lands fertile and productive. It is their place in the scheme of things to restore and maintain the land.
LikeLike
I apologize for the errors and the thoughts that are not quite as clearly expressed as they could be. However, I think that it is critical that those of us at the grass roots level who may address people in Utah or other parts of the West that have been persuaded that the horse and burro are more harmful in ways that are simply not possible are informed that GISP spent over four million dollars getting them to come to that conclusion, and the USDA and other scientific organizations will not do any research to counter this. The mythologist with a PhD in biology who created was appointed to a six year term on the National Science Foundation and became a member of the NAS in 2012. He volunteered to edit the PNAS from 2008 through 2011 as well as the Public Library of Science PLOS since 2005, both periods when very specific research that supports the North American origin of Equus caballus have been published. However, graphic tricks and tricks with like only referring to North America’s horses as wild horses when the time period was 10,000 or more years ago or using the word caballoid or caballiene instead of Equus caballus. The December 29, 2009 edition of the PNAS identifies the specis of the North American horse as Equus caballus, but only in tables. Therefore, this article will not appear because it is not part of the text of the article. The research exists but one has to understand how the truth can be disguised in ways that allow the article to be scientifically correct, but difficult to find.
On the surface this would suggest a world wide conspiracy. However, when you add the names of the individuals that had to be in place to pull it off, it starts to look like a much smaller corporate and political story. But the goal has never been about saving the environment; it is about the natural resources that flow far below the feet of our horses and burros in the West.
LikeLike
It is very difficult to follow the twists and turns of this post, but intriguing. Again, for what purpose? Why the whb?
LikeLike
HH, can you provide links that name this mysterious biologist?
Also, I found this recently, which is alarming since it contradicts itself and it seems taxonomy can be changed at the click of a keyboard, contrary to anything I know about the scientific method:
http://www.ultimateungulate.com/NewTaxonomy.html
This seems to be a credible source but it says E. africanus is the WILD form of E. asinus… but I have read and also heard that the BLM/USFS renamed a wild burro herd E. africanus in order to eliminate them and then promptly rounded them up.
This list seems to offer the opposite taxonomy.
http://www.ultimateungulate.com/ungulates.html#Equidae
Order Perissodactyla
Family Equidae
Equus
Equus africanus African wild ass (wild form of the domestic donkey, Equus asinus)
Equus ferus Wild horse (wild form of the domestic horse, Equus caballus)
Equus grevyi Grevy’s zebra
Equus hemionus Asiatic wild ass, kulan
Equus kiang Kiang, Tibetan wild ass
Equus quagga Plains zebra
Equus zebra Mountain zebra
LikeLike
Most of these western ranchers are not our mom-and-pop neighbor ranchers that some of us remember from years ago.
Just an example of how most ranchers view OUR public land that they use and abuse:
Remember the Desatoya Nevada fiasco a few years ago – long story – but at that time, the owner of the private property owned 3,000 acres – enough to run maybe about 10 to 15 head of cattle in that part of Nevada without outside feed (buying and feeding hay and/or grazing his cattle on OUR land for almost nothing) but he has about 900 head of cattle! When you read this article excerpt below, you will probably catch the term “the ranch is on public land” … but his ranch is NOT on OUR land … his ranch is only 3,000 acres adjoining OUR 247,000 acre land. That irritates me to no end becaue most people have no idea that THEY own the public land and its resouces – not the government and not the rancher.
But, when he talks about “his spread” he says it is a 250,000-acre spread, “ On a late summer day, Coombs provided a tour of the 250,000-acre spread, where a vast valley of high desert and dry lake beds is a pedestal for towering mountain peaks. Most of the ranch is on public land managed by the BLM, with about 3,000 acres on private, deeded land. The operation handles roughly 900 head of cattle.” http://articles.latimes.com/2005/nov/06/news/adna-cowsgrouse6
LikeLike
Maybe it should have read “most of the ranch…ING is on public lands…” since that is the truth of it.
LikeLike
The range is being destroyed by welfare ranching, not wild horses. There are perhaps a few thousand wild horses on the range. There are hundreds of thousands of cattle PLUS sheep on the range; land that no one has paid for and taxpayers actually PAY the ranchers just to have their cattle on it. Never mind the immorality of the cruel roundups and even more cruel “holding” pens some of these horses have been held in for years upon years. It is unsustainable, unnecessary, and costs taxpayers millions every year to feed horses no one wanted to force into captivity anyway…except the welfare ranchers. My my…what a strangle hold welfare ranchers have on our government. It sounds a lot like organized crime.
And while we’re at it…PLEASE for humanity’s sake…ban the export of horses across U.S. Borders for slaughter. Horse slaughter is one of the most brutal and inhumane treatment of any animal.
LikeLike
Well said, Susan. I was thinking that if a person can claim this land without paying anything for it, then I want it for my herd of wild horses. That seems just as valid as a welfare rancher claiming it.
LikeLike
Jane Velez-Mitchell
Wyoming Wild Horses rounded up by BLM and sent to slaughter/Ginger Kathrens
http://www.hlntv.com/video/2014/04/04/wild-horse-roundup
Government rounds up 41 horses
By Mary Cella
updated4:48 PM EDT, Fri April 04, 2014
LikeLike
Iron County, BLM working on wild horse deal
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57774628-78/horses-county-blm-wild.html.csp
BLM is looking for a compromise with Iron County, but if the feds don’t act soon, locals may do the roundup.
By brett prettyman
The Salt Lake Tribune
First Published Apr 04 2014
LikeLike
“Originally posted in response to the Tainted Meat article”
I’m not suggesting something that would kill people; just something that would make them violently ill. Maybe a better idea would be to develop something that would make horse meat taste disgusting.
Another suggestion is to use a portion of all breed registrations, show fees and race purses to take care of America’s wild equines, and domestic rescues. I would be willing to have an option to donate a percentage of my tax return for this purpose. Maybe with the funds available the BLM could actually do the job that they are being paid to do with your tax dollars already, instead of wasting taxpayer dollars for rounding up, holding, and apparently selling horses to slaughter. Judging by how much the BLM has already spent on helicopter roundup and hotshot truckers, they do need some oversight on appropriate uses for tax dollars. Make significant portions of the public rangelands only to be used for the horses and burros; NO cattle or other livestock allowed. Increase the lease fees for welfare ranchers and enforce it, and significantly restrict leases for other natural resources to areas that are not sustainable to most wildlife.
There needs to be a new head of the BLM. Someone who can stand up to the special interest groups and do the job that the American Public have entrusted to them.
LikeLike
Vickie, I have done some research and it seems there is good reason to believe prions will be found in wild horses if they are not there already.The species barrier has been shown by peer-reviewed science to fail on repeated exposure in mammals. If wild horses are living around Elk (which most are) they are being repeatedly exposed. If they are dying from a wasting disease it might explain why there are so few horses to be found. Anything that fell ill and died would be eaten by scavengers pretty quickly, and the mortality would be more or less at random intervals so it wouldn’t raise suspicions.
LikeLike
If they were dying of a wasting disease, wouldn’t we see that in horses rounded up and not yet dead? But we do not. Correct?
LikeLike
Vickie, you spelled out a lot of solutions and I agree with your premise. We not only need a new head of the BLM, we need a new head of the DOI as after all that is who is in charge of the BLM. Problem is, how do we get new heads of these agencies? We are doing all we can to resolve these issues. There are lots of us these days and I am basically a newbee to this movement in comparison to RT or Ginger.
Even with a long history of knowing what is needed and with a slew of folks who really care, we are not solving the problems. The “Horse Haters” are getting more and more criminal and propose slaughter for our Wild Ones openly these days not only in conversation but in actions such as lawsuits and round ups. How do we overcome this without becoming criminal ourselves? Are there ways we have not tried? Would a class action lawsuit fly? I have been told, “no”. What do you suggest?
LikeLike
Elaine, I, like you, are a relative newcomer to this issue. I don’t know what the answers are. It seems like everywhere you turn there is corruption and greed. My suggestions were to make horse meat unpalatable to take away the market for it, and to provide more money for the welfare of the wild horses. I don’t know what can be done about the welfare ranchers and other special interests who want all of the horses gone so their livestock can completely ruin the rangelands. One small thing that I have personally decided is to stop eating beef, pork or lamb. Please continue to contact your representatives, the president and vice president, and anyone else who has any authority and press for passage of the SAFE Act to prevent the horses from being able to be transported out of the country for slaughter. And try to get everyone you know to do the same, and everyone they know, etc. Maybe if there is enough of a public outcry, someone will listen who can help save the wild horses for future generations of Americans to enjoy. It certainly is a lot more pleasing to watch wild horses running free than it is to watch a bunch of cattle standing around.
LikeLike
No, Vickie, I have been at it for a long while. I have made hundreds of calls to representatives, the President, and committee chairs; signed dozens of petitions; encouraged everyone I know; joined several Facebook pages; and made hundreds of comments particularly on articles. However, the facts are that without the SAFE ACT we cannot stop the slaughter of domestic and wild horses out of the country.
Although the slaughter of any Wild Horse under ten is illegal in spite of the Burns Amendment which was snuck into other legislation and should be challenged, that no longer stops them, and unfortunately, we have people in authority who are beholden to Big Ag and Big Energy and unlikely to allow the SAFE ACT to come to the floor for a vote.
I have not stopped fighting, but I have some personal items that must be attended to so I am not fighting full time as I have in the past. Politics is controlled by power and money. Big Energy is buying up long term inexpensive leases for mining and fracking on OUR public lands which were designated to our Wild Horses. I have high hopes as you do but believe that tough lawsuits and possibly a class action in behalf of the American people are our only answer. So far none of that has even left the ground.
LikeLike
this whole thing is an obvious set up. The cattlemen were most likely coached by BLM to write their threatening letter. BLM responds by saying….see! There ARE too many horses! We have to round them up! We only did it because of public demand that we act!
Beef producers are only supplying 4-6% of the beef for the US. There is no reason we should be forced to subsidize them by forfeiting our public lands and assets so they can continue receiving welfare grazing leases. If they want to supply the rest of the world with their beef instead of us……let them go there and do it…wherever that is.
LikeLike
This is treason!
These r American taxpayers horses and American taxpayers land .
The cattle ruin the land the pull the grazing grass up by the roots .
Horse
Nibble the grass shoots with out destroying the roots
LikeLike