By Laura Singleton The Independent
“To clarify – the Forest Service needed to come up with a wild horse management plan for the Heber horses,”
photo by Laura Singleton
WHITE MOUNTAINS — Eleven years ago 19,700 acres of the Black Mesa Ranger District in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests were designated the Heber Wild Horse Territory following litigation initiated by horse advocates to halt a proposed round-up of horses in the area.
The 2007 settlement of that litigation included a stipulation to “collaboratively engage the public to complete a territory management plan for the Heber Wild Horse Territory,” (HWHT).
A December press release from Arizona State University’s Global Institute of Sustainability has documented completion of the first enormous step in creating a viable management plan for the nearly 300 horses living in the forest east of Heber and south of State Route 260.
The Forest Service, Arizona Game and Fish and the Arizona Department of Agriculture participated as observers to the work group and were occasionally called upon to provide relevant information, data and details about how the agencies make decisions that are within their legal obligations and guidelines.
“The overall goal of the formation of the working group was to convene a diverse group of citizens to seek informed, creative, solution-oriented recommendations for consideration by the Forest Service as it makes decisions related to the HWHT management plan,” says draft one of the final report summary published by ASU.
Why a formal work group?
“To clarify – the Forest Service needed to come up with a wild horse management plan for the Heber horses,” said ASU Associate Professor Michael L. Schoon.
“The Forest Service was looking for a neutral convener because they didn’t want this to be a Forest Service project, although it’s for the Forest Service. They wanted advice but they wanted it to be apart from them and distinct from them,” added Schoon.
By allowing ASU and Southwest Decision Resources (SDR) to drive an independent process, the work group remained a “neutral endeavor initiative.”
And, neutrality is critical for the work group because of the controversial nature and competing interests surrounding wild horses including those currently living in the designated Heber Wild Horse Territory.
“The Forest Service is required to have a management plan as a result of the territory that was designated by Congress as a place for wild horses,” explained Schoon.
Who are the stakeholders?
Including members of ASU and SDR, there were approximately 14 to 20 volunteers who participated in the work group. These individuals were selected to represent “all potential interests related to this management,” states the press release.
Wild horse advocates, ranchers, wildlife managers, members of the public, residents of the region, scientists, veterinarians, equine specialists, equine rescues, equestrian recreation, local government officials including Navajo County and members of The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) were included in the working group.
What is the controversy?
The objective of the management plan is to “establish balanced use between permitted horses, livestock, and wildlife as part of the multi-use plan,” states the final report.
A number of items were among the issues stakeholders discussed. There is general disagreement on whether the horses are “wild/native or feral/non native.” As a result, some do not believe the Heber horses should be given protection under the 1971 Act. “It is believed [by some stakeholders] that the horses now in the territory are due to either horses migrating from the adjoining reservation or strays that have become accustomed to living at large,” states the report.
The responsibility of maintaining Heber Wild Horse Territory boundary fences between the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests and the White Mountain Apache Tribe is unclear, which contributes issues with possible feral horses,
There is also perception that ranchers don’t want any horses on the landscape because of alleged overgrazing from horses that impacts cattle forage abundance, water, etc.
There is a perception that horse advocates do not want horses managed or controlled in any way.
Some feel that there is a lack of fairness that cattle use is monitored through fees, pasture rotation, changing stock rates, etc. and suggest a revision of permitted grazing to include allotment and forage allocation for both horses and cattle.
Some respondents were concerned about direct competition between native wildlife species such as deer, pronghorn and elk and the horses.
What are the recommendations?
In summary, “Many interviewees indicated that forage availability and habitat impacts are the main challenges to managing horses in the HWHT,” states the report. Management theories vary greatly depending upon stakeholder interest, experience and perspective.
For this reason, the report recommends the utilization of scientific data measuring livestock grazing capacity and current range health conditions. For example, management of rangelands livestock considers the estimated amount of forage a cow will eat in a day.
The same must be determined for horses and other forage consuming wildlife such as elk, deer, antelope, etc. A formula called Animal Unit Equivalency, prepared by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, is recommended in determining how much pasture is required for a specific number of animals.
Click (HERE) to view report.
Categories: Horse News, Wild Horses/Mustangs
Straight from the Horse's Heart 
Need to read the whole report, but this intro declares they concluded a need to research forage consumption needs by species, reinventing a wheel that has long been well understood and widely published. Hope the rest of the report is more useful.
LikeLiked by 2 people
We believe the Heber Wild Horse Territory management plan is not about protecting the horses but more about culling the herd which is something the Forest Service planned on doing in 2005. However, a court injunction in 2005 and a Federal Court Order in 2007 prevented them from doing so.
From the Court Order:
“The Forest Service agrees to refrain from any gathering or removing of horses within the Heber Wild Horse Territory as well as, on the Black Mesa and Lakeside Ranger Districts (which are considered the Sitgreaves National Forest) until the Forest Service completes, with public involvement, an analysis and appropriate environmental document pursuant to NEPA and develops a written Heber Wild Horse Territory Management Strategy. The Forest Service will involve the public, including the Plaintiffs, in scoping for this analysis.”
So in order for the Forest Service to carry out their 2005 plan to remove the horses they are required to have a management strategy. We would like to make it clear that according to documents made public by the Forest Service, the Heber Wild Horse Herd population has remained consistent from 2005 to the present day with no Forest Service gathers and without the use of birth control. There is no proof of an overpopulation of free-roaming horses in the Sitgreaves National Forest.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you for the truth and for all of your efforts to save these horses.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The link provided does not lead to the actual report. Here’s one that includes “updates” current as of Nov. 2018 for the “ASU Heber Horse Collaborative.” The Nov. update is titled “final” but on opening it is named Final Report, Draft 1 so it’s not clear if this is the actual final report.
Interestingly, one of the recommendations in this report is to baseline management on “pre-settlement conditions for Ponderosa Pine…” though they don’t define settlement in that section. Do they mean Spanish conquerors, or migrating native tribes, or the first white people, or ??? If one considers the Spanish arrival as the baseline, that would be around 1540, nearly 500 years ago. We can document climate conditions at that time by various means, but have to consider larger climatic shifts and state-and-transition models to assess the realism of managing an ecosystem to match conditions from hundreds of years in the past.
They seem to agree this is impossible as on pg. 9 they “propose accepting current conditions as a starting point” when managing forage resources.
Hats off to all for what looks like a difficult undertaking, and I suggest everyone read it more carefully, as I will, since this may be used to inform future management in other herds.
https://heberhorsecollaborative.asu.edu/updates/
LikeLiked by 2 people
One additional comment, as I’ve seen this in other government language. The original Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burro Act of 1971 includes at least four references to “thriving natural ecological balance” in the management requirements:
“The Secretary shall manage wild free-roaming horses and burros in a manner that is designed to achieve and maintain a thriving natural ecological balance on the public lands.”
However, notice in this report on pg. 15 the footnotes drops the word “natural” in multiple references:
“The Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA) defined the goal for managing wild horse (or burro) populations in a thriving natural ecological balance as follows: “As the court stated in Dahl v. Clark, supra at 594, the ‘benchmark test’ for determining the suitable number of wild horses on the public range is ‘thriving ecological balance.’ In the words of the conference committee which adopted this standard: ‘The goal of WH&B management ***should be to maintain a thriving ecological balance between WH&B populations, wildlife, livestock and vegetation, and to protect the range from the deterioration associated with overpopulation of wild horses and burros.’ ” (Animal Protection Institute of America v. Nevada
BLM, 109 IBLA 115, 1989).”
Since introduced livestock can in no way be construed to be natural, this omission should be noted and amended on every occasion. The natural origins of horses are inarguably in N. America, regardless of what came later.
The 1971 law includes this term intentionally and it should not be randomly edited out without objection.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Good catch!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I would also like to add that there was only one wild horse advocate on the Heber Wild Horse Territory working group who actually had knowledge of the Heber wild horses and the forest where they live. She was our group’s representative, Mary Hauser. She was terminated from the working group via phone message by Convener: AZ State University Michael Schoon, Assistant Professor. He said it was their opinion that she had “not been working in the spirit of the Collaboration”. It is our belief that she was fired for not going along with much of what was being recommended by the working group, including their recommendation to cull the herd.
LikeLiked by 1 person
THE ILLEGAL PROCESS OF A COLLABORATIVE GROUP
Posted on September 20, 2018
Heber Wild Horse Management Plan will be drafted by people who have no interest in providing management for the health or protection of the wild horses. The only real advocate for the horses was just fired. Fired from a working group??
They fired her through a voicemail…how cowardly is that?!?!
Click here to listen
https://citizensagainstequineslaughter.org/2018/09/20/the-illegal-process-of-a-collaborative-group-its-the-trend/
LikeLiked by 2 people
The Heber Wild Horse Territory Collaborative Working Group Terminated Me Via Voicemail
Michael Schoon
LikeLiked by 2 people
The Deck is Stacked Against the Heber Wild Horses
The Heber Wild Horse Territory Collaborative Working Group Terminated Me Via Voicemail.
My Public Response by Mary Hauser
The reason I am writing a public response following my termination by the Heber Wild Horse Territory Collaboration Working Group is not to defend myself in the public’s eye. It is because I have seen the inside workings of this group and I am terrified as to what is being planned for the Heber Wild Horse Herd and I think the public has a right to know.
In Mike Schoon’s voicemail he said, “In our opinion you have not been working in the spirit of the Collaboration.” He never said what that “spirit” was, so I’m left to draw my own opinion. My opinion is because I would not conform to what I believe to have been their preset agenda for their ultimate management plan which will decimate the herd and send more than 3/4 of the Heber herd to a fate unknown.
As excited as I was to join the Collaborative Group and represent the Heber Wild Horses and their Territory, I am just as disappointed to see how it was orchestrated and carried out over the last twelve months. Arizona State University along with Southwest Decision Resources was contracted and paid to administrate the working group. The initial problem I had was for a meeting of this magnitude where in attendance we had the Forest Service, BLM, and Arizona Game and Fish officials as well as, cattle grazing permittees, and other interested parties involved and yet no official minutes were ever taken at any of these meetings.
I repeatedly asked for minutes to be taken during the first three meetings so that meetings could be reviewed. This would have been a nice paper trail for someone who would have wanted to know who made comments and who is in favor and who is not. There are very important decisions being made during these meetings and people should be held accountable for their decisions. I was told they were not taking minutes because they were not necessary. ASU answers…Someone would take Notes.
Originally I felt my contributions to the group would be to support and protect the herd with my long term observations and studies of the herd, individual workings of the bands, and my knowledge of the forest. However, I realized I was being forced out of my role as a contributor and into the role of a quiet observer of a well orchestrated screenplay of a management plan for the Heber Wild Horse Territory. I believe this was plan which appeared to have already been devised and laid out prior to the first meeting of the Collaborative Group.
The reason this became so obvious is that members of the Collaborative Group openly admitted to me at the onset of these meetings that they did not have much, if any knowledge of the Sitgreaves National Forest. Many, including some of the Forest Service personnel, had never even been out into the forest until a field trip with this group.
The next startling obvious change occurred when people who had never owned a horse or had very limited to no experience with the Heber Wild Horses were suddenly full of knowledge. Those same people now were full of suggestions about the logistics of gathering, monitoring, tagging, placing tracking collars, and darting birth control. They also took active roles in decisions on how many horses would be left on the land without education or concern of genetics or viable herd numbers.
Their sudden knowledge gave me the impression that they had been hired as actors (without pay) and apparently given scripts to drive the direction of these meetings that were already planned out. The meetings moved swiftly to follow the path of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) recommendations and the activities that BLM currently engages across our nation.
It also became obvious within the first three meetings that there was no education of the day to day life of the Heber wild horses. When I attempted to educate, defend or make a point in support of the Heber Wild Horses it was ignored. Sometimes I would receive a follow-up phone call from one of the ASU members, Michael Schoon, to ‘correct’ me and advise me on what I could, should or should not say during the meetings. Meanwhile it appeared others had freedom of speech.
Early on the BLM took the lead of this Collaborative Group even though these horses are not on BLM land. The BLM agent controlled the direction of how things were going to be carried out. The Forest Service employees to this point made very few comments even though they are charged with the management of these horses. Per the Wild and Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971 the Forest Service has the responsibility to designate Wild Horse Territories and implement management plans for those Territories. Through the years the Forest Service had failed to devise a plan to manage the Heber Wild Horse Territory, so it’s not surprising that they have passed their responsibility off to the BLM which has had years of experience stripping the American West of wild horses.
We have to make it clear that there is nobody left on the working group panel who is truly an advocate for the horses. We know it by their own words…one of the so called advocates suggested “euthanasia” as a way to cull the herd. We know it by their actions…the Forest Service illegally contracted with ranchers in the 1980s and 1990s to capture and remove free-roaming horses without ever having a management plan. Then again in 2005 they announced they were going to remove free-roaming horses until a court injunction prevented them from doing so. We know it by their inaction…a working group member turned her back on the wild horses for approximately three weeks in an area she was assigned by Forest Service to deliver water to during the drought.
Over the course of the meetings their lack of professionalism was displayed as shown here in their final voicemail termination. This came as no surprise because they knew I would NEVER accept their plan to manage the Heber Wild Horse Herd into extinction.
To the Forest Service: This is notice to insure that my name is NOT to appear on any documentation connected with the Heber Wild Horse Territory Management Plan.
Turn on your volume to hear the video…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Closed door meetings are AGAINST THE LAW
THE SUNSHINE ACT
National Freedom of Information Coalition
Protecting Your Right to Open Government
Arizona Open Meetings Act
The Arizona Open Meetings Act states that it is the public policy of Arizona that meetings of public bodies be conducted openly and that notices and agendas be provided for these meetings which contain such information as is reasonably necessary to inform the public of the matters to be discussed or decided.
If the Arizona Open Meetings Act is violated, any person affected by the alleged violation may commence a suit in the county superior court in order to require compliance with this act. If the court decides that the violation was in an effort to evade the public or to purposefully withhold information from the public, the court may remove that person from office.
Open Meetings Act A.R.S. §38-431 et seq.
https://www.nfoic.org/coalitions/state-foi-resources/arizona-foia-laws
LikeLiked by 2 people
From Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER)
ANIMAL CRUELTY CASE VS. U.S. FOREST SERVICE SIDELINED
Two Horses and a Mule Died of Dehydration in Arizona’s Apache-Sitgreaves Forest
Posted on Jun 22, 2017
More than most federal agencies, the U.S. Forest Service uses horses and mules in its daily operations. Consequently, care and maintenance of equine livestock is an important duty on many national forests.
But there was a major breakdown of those responsibilities on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest in Arizona. In May of 2016, two horses (named Snip and Diesel) and a mule (named Little Bit) were moved out of the forest’s corral to a place aptly called Rattlesnake Pasture, which had not been occupied by horses for at least a decade because it had no reliable water source.
The animals were left unattended for four weeks without water during the hottest time of the year, with temperatures in the area ranging from 105 to 112°F. In late June, someone finally checked and found all three animals dead from dehydration.
An internal Forest Service investigation produced a final “report” that was only one page long yet was a model of obfuscation. It concluded that:
“Contributing to this unfortunate outcome was a compilation of past practices, unknown policies, poor communication, failure of leadership, local fire conditions and accretion of duties to an inexperienced employee.”
In short, the Forest Service held no one to account. Greenlee County took a different view and in April 2017 filed nine misdemeanor animal cruelty counts stemming from the animals’ deaths against two Forest Service employees, including the district ranger (who has since retired) responsible for livestock care.
“Spin, Diesel and Little Bit died of thirst but the real killer was inattention to duty compounded by official indifference,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch, noting the forest has a Livestock Management Plan which requires equines be inspected at least once every two
https://www.peer.org/news/press-releases/animal-cruelty-case-vs.-u.s.-forest-service-sidelined.html
LikeLiked by 2 people
The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present–and is gravely to be regarded.
Dwight D. Eisenhower
https://www.counterpunch.org/2003/04/07/the-cia-is-back-on-campus/
LikeLiked by 2 people
THEY’LL COME FOR YOUR BIG GAME SPECIES NEXT: A 2-YEAR-OLD WARNING COMING TRUE
Posted on December 8, 2018 by CAES
IN 2016 CAES BOARD MEMBER VAL CECAMA-HOGSETT WARNED THAT BIG GAME SPECIES WOULD BE THE “NEXT” TARGETS OF THE LIVESTOCK INDUSTRY.
©CAES2018
From the article you can see the story being built:
1. “The thriving goats spread disease and compete with the bighorns for food.”
However the article lightly glosses over a much more serious threat to bighorn sheep in the United States: “Pneumonia, which also can be carried by herds of domestic sheep in the backcountry, is an especially severe threat for bighorn sheep populations in Wyoming and elsewhere.”
2. “Mountain goats and bighorn sheep are both native to the Rocky Mountain region. Grand Teton’smountain goats aren’t native to the park, however. They descended from mountain goats introduced southwest of the park in the 1960s and 1970s.”
So, native, but not native because they have migrated, or were a native species of this country moved for hunting and have naturally adapted? Were they ever there? YES, they were and they are not a different species that was historically found there.
This is again the similar argument made against our wild horses. They are native to North American, but if they went extinct for a short period at the end of the Pleistocene Era, and ones that had moved to Europe via the Bering Land Bridge were then brought back to this continent…does that mean they lose their native species?
3. “The goats are reproducing rapidly. Now might be the best time to reduce or eliminate the animals before they’re too numerous to bring under control, according to the Park Service.”
s with our wild horses who are blamed for damage done by commercial livestock, these mountain goats will be the next victims of corporate greed.
https://citizensagainstequineslaughter.org/2018/12/08/theyll-come-for-your-big-game-species-next-a-2-year-old-warning-coming-true/
LikeLiked by 2 people
This article fits right into what Mary Hauser experienced during the many meetings she attended while on the HWHT collaborative working group. I just put in a couple of things from the article but the whole article should be read. The main takeaway is that the collaboratives serve the purpose of furthering a preset agenda by the Forest Service. When the collaboratives conclude, after the recommendations have been massaged to fit that agenda, the Forest Service will say they had public input which just so happens to agree with what they wanted in the first place. Of course they do not mention that anyone who disagrees with what they want will either be sidelined or outright terminated.
The Problem With National Forest Collaboratives–Why They Don’t Serve The Public Interest.
by GEORGE WUERTHNER on AUGUST 13, 2014
PARADIGMS SUPPORT EXTRACTION
“Beyond these obvious conflicts of interest, there are starting assumptions that serve to limit participation as well. Basically those who agree with the basic premise that our forests need to be “managed” and are “improved” by logging are those who self-select to be on collaboratives. Those who may question such starting assumptions have limited opportunities to voice their objections and disagreements and if they attend at all, often become frustrated and leave. This self selection process guarantees certain outcomes and recommendations.
There is also a lot of group pressure to “get along”, so even when environmentalists are paid to attend the meetings and may have some different ideals than the overall group philosophical values, it is difficult for anyone to make any substantial differences except along the margins. It takes real courage to attend such meetings and continuously voice objections, or concerns that run counter to the dominant paradigm. Most environmentalists I’ve encountered at collaborative meetings are subtly pressured to agree to actions that they are uncomfortable supporting, but resisting the social pressure to “cooperate” is difficult.”
~~~~
“Nevertheless, I think it’s important for the media, politicians, agency personnel, and the general public to recognize the inherent conflicts and limitations of collaborative efforts. No one should automatically assume that collaborative are reaching the best outcomes in terms of public interest , much less the best interest of our forests.”
http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2014/08/13/the-problem-with-collaboratives-why-they-dont-serve-the-public-interest/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Just a portion of a long and detailed (older) document..and doubtful that much has changed
Public lands ranchers even take out loans using permits as collateral. A 1979 survey of appraisers and loan officers in New Mexico showed that they considered Forest Service permits to be worth $944 to $1163 per animal unit and BLM permits $667 to $888 per animal unit (Ferguson 1983). Some ranchmen have taken federal agencies to court over proposed livestock reductions, contending that the government is taking “their” property (Synar 1986). Here in southern Arizona, after a man inherited a public lands ranching operation from a deceased parent, IRS taxed him on the value of the grazing permit as well as the ranch. Indeed, grazing permits are handed down through the generations like priceless family heirlooms. Obviously, both the government and private sectors consider public lands grazing permits of great value.
Click to access Chapter%207%20pp368-371%20and%20373-421.pdf
LikeLiked by 2 people
No doubt who is running the show when it comes to the Sitgreaves National Forest…the welfare ranchers.
Heber Wild Horses: Legendary Or Problematic?
By AARON GRANILLO • JUN 5, 2015
“Larry Gibson is a third-generation rancher in Heber. His barn is lined with dozens of haystacks – food for his 900 head of cattle. They also graze in the forest, but in recent years, Gibson says there hasn’t been as much to eat.
“A lot of these areas, you know, we go and measure the grass before the cows ever get there. There may be 80-percent usage before we ever get there,” Gibson says. “If the horses have eaten the feed, you can’t bring your cattle up.”
In his own lifetime – 57-years – Gibson’s seen the wild horse population increase exponentially. He pays the Forest Service about $1,600 a month for grazing rights, and feels he’s not getting his money’s worth. Gibson believes there’s one solution to protect livelihood and land.
“So in my opinion, the best thing to with these up here (the wild horses) would be remove every one of them. Whether they go to adoption, or, you know, I hate to say it, euthanized or to a slaughter plant,” Gibson says. “I mean that sounds kind of harsh, but something has to be done with them.”
~~~~~
For one thing, Larry Gibson does not own the ranch associated with the public lands grazing lease, he was working for the owner who was a multi state, public lands cattle rancher. So when Gibson says he pays for grazing rights, I seriously doubt a ranch hand like Gibson pays out of his pocket, it would be the owner who pays. Just the same as the 900 cattle he mentions…not really his cattle. The ranch has since been sold since this interview.
The rest of the text along with the audio of the interview can be read/heard at the link:
https://www.knau.org/post/heber-wild-horses-legendary-or-problematic
LikeLiked by 1 person
I must add that there has never been any proof that the wild horses are eating 80% of the grass or other forage. Horses are not the only animals to graze in the Sitgreaves, there is a very large elk population and also deer. The elk and deer populations greatly outnumber the wild horses.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RECORD DESTRUCTION REQUEST
Agency: US Forest Service
Records Involving:
WILD-FREE ROAMING HORSES AND BURROS
GRAZING AND LIVESTOCK USE FEE PERMIT SYSTEM
RANGE IMPROVEMENTS
Pesticide Use, Management and Coordination
Suitability Requirements, Training, and Standards
Energy Management
Publicly Managed Recreation Opportunities
Trail, River, and Similar Recreation Opportunities
Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Acquisition
Timber Appraisals
Destroy: 5, 10, 20, 30, and 75 years
NARA’s Decision: Approval recommended
Deadline NARA gave me for submitting comments: October 8, 2018
PDF: 10 requests and appraisals
http://altgov2.org/records-destruction-requests/
LikeLiked by 2 people
This covert policy operates at even the most basic level. A Forest Service district ranger picks up a dozen salt blocks at the local feed store “as a favor” for an influential rancher. A BLM range specialist helps Rancher Jones round up stock under guise of “checking out the range conditions.” A state range manager can get a stockman friend “a good deal on a cattle guard for your new fence … maybe even get it for nothing if we play our cards right.” Government employees spend time chasing cattle and sheep out of unauthorized areas, closing gates, and mending broken or cut fences, rather than insisting that the ranchers responsible do so. These little stories are day-to-day reality on the Western range; I’ve seen them all and more. There are, of course, many conscientious agency employees. Still, much covert, mutual back-scratching is prevalent between government officials and stockmen. Both realize that they have a good thing going at the public’s expense, so why jeopardize it by letting the public find out?
Click to access Chapter%207%20pp368-371%20and%20373-421.pdf
LikeLiked by 2 people
Speech made regarding the Heber Wild Horse Herd on the floor of the House of Representatives by Hon. Raul M. Grijalva…
HONORING ARIZONA’S WILD HORSES
SPEECH OF
HON. RAÚL M. GRIJALVA
OF ARIZONA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 6, 2007
· Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Arizona ‘s wild horses living in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests.
· The residents of the State of Arizona deeply value these magnificent wild horses.
· These beautiful wild horses are truly the “Living Symbols of the West,” as described by the Wild Horse and Burro Act passed by Congress in 1971 to protect the wild horses of the United States .
· The Rim Country wild horses date back to mounts brought by Father Eusebio Kino, who began his 1653 mission to eastern Arizona by setting out from the lands of my constituency in southern Arizona and traveling across our State northeast to the “borders of the lands of the Apacheria which border on New Mexico.”
· These original Spanish horses are the great ancestors of the Mogollon Rim country wild horses. They were the mighty Andalusian war horse, whose origins go back more than 28,000 years to the original Iberian horse; the magnificent Spanish Barb; and the graceful and fluid Spanish Jennet, the mount of many of the great kings of Europe; and the strong bloodlines of these original horses appear almost unchanged in our Rim wild horses 400 years later.
· Our Arizona Rim wild horses are the direct descendants of the Spanish horses prized by the conquistadors so highly that the foals were carried in hammocks to protect their legs until they were old enough to travel on the forced marches; and prized by the early cattlemen for their endurance and heart and were the very mounts of the U.S. Cavalry as they rode to protect and expand the American west.
· The Arizona Rim Country wild horses living in Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests are a most precious natural resource to be preserved for our children and grandchildren who will be able to see them for generations to come.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Southwest Decision Resources have been paid at least $139,762 to operate their so-called public input (actually done behind closed doors) meetings per usaspending.gov. And yep … you and I paid for this revolting procedure.
And how did they manipulate the Heber Wild Horse Collaboration meetings?
Answer: by using the old “spin doctor” method of control via manipulation. Mind control (also known as brainwashing, coercive persuasion, thought control or thought reform) refers to a process in which a group or individual systematically uses manipulative methods to persuade others to conform to the wishes of the manipulator(s).
In other words, the ultimate decision was already decided by the USFS and they hired the Southwest group to use manipulation to make it look like it was a legitimate group study which it was not.
Obviously the one and only true wild horse advocate (Mary) in the study group refused to follow the desired end result of the USFS and so she was “fired”.
More info: https://ppjg.me/2013/02/04/bureau-of-land-mismanagement-excels-at-manipulation-training/
LikeLiked by 3 people
Who was present at those meetings..where NO MINUTES were taken?
Southwest Decision Resources
Who We Are
http://www.swdresources.com/who-we-are.html
LikeLike
NAME AFFILIATION/PERSPECTIVE/EXPERTISE Working Group members
• Ole Alcumbrac – Veterinarian
• Bryan Cook – Local government
• Soleil Dolce – Equine Rescue
• Ethan Ellsworth – Rancher
• John Hall BLM – AZ Wild Horse and Burro Lead
• Rodney Porter – Rancher
• Barb Rassmussen – Wild horse advocate
• George Ruyle – Academic
• Bruce Sitko Citizen – unaffiliated
• Vashti “Tice” Supplee – Wildlife management
• Bob Vahle – Wildlife management
• Walter “Chip” Wilson – Equestrian recreation
USDA Forest Service observers
• Stephen Best – Apache-Sitgreaves NFs
• David Evans – Apache-Sitgreaves NFs
• Tolani Francisco – USDA Forest Service – Region 3
• Teresa Gallagher – Apache-Sitgreaves NFs
• Wendy Jo Haskins – Apache-Sitgreaves NFs
• Steven Johnson Apache – Sitgreaves NFs
• Richard Madril Apache – Sitgreaves NFs
• Nancy Walls Apache – Sitgreaves NFs
Cooperating Agency observers
• Bob Birkeland – AZ Game and Fish Department
• Jacqueline Hughes – AZ Department of Agriculture
• Chris McCormack – AZ Department of Agriculture
• Leatta McLaughlin – AZ Department of Agriculture
ASU/SDR convening and facilitation team
• Julie Murphree – Arizona State University
• Michael Schoon – Arizona State University
• Carrie Eberly – Southwest Decision Resources
• Larry Fisher – Southwest Decision Resources
• Abby Fullem – Southwest Decision Resources
• Andi Rogers – Southwest Decision Resources
11 Note that this list represents only those participants who attended a majority of WG meetings and Task Group discussions. It is not all-inclusive, as some participants attended only a few of the meetings. This list should also not in any way be construed as indicating support for WG recommendations.
It’s interesting that the USDA Forest Service people are referred to as “observers” when the US Forest Service is listed as a Project Partner.
Heber Wild Horse Territory Resource Management Planning
https://sustainabilityconnect.asu.edu/connect/projects/view/306
LikeLiked by 1 person
RED FLAG
Southwest Decision Resources
Andi Rogers
Sr. Program Associate
“15 years with the Arizona Game and Fish Department”
Andi is a wildlife biologist by training, whose career has primarily focused on natural resource conflict resolution. Before joining Southwest Decision Resources in 2013, she spent
15 years with the Arizona Game and Fish Department. During that period she served as the endangered California condor biologist, and the Habitat Specialist in Flagstaff, Arizona. Andi is well versed in a wide range of natural resource issues which include topics such as wind energy development, National Forest and BLM policies and directives, NEPA, ESA, transportation planning, forest and rangeland restoration, and grazing management on public lands.
Andi has a Bachelor’s degree in Zoology from the University of Montana and a Master’s degree in Wildlife Science from the University of Arizona
http://www.swdresources.com/who-we-are.html
LikeLike
ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY and CHARLES KOCH FOUNDATION
When universities sell their souls, why do they have to sell so cheaply?
By MICHAEL HILTZIK
JUL 30, 2014
The case involves Arizona State University, which on Tuesday posted a job for an assistant professor in the history of capitalism and political economy. What caught the eye of Loomis, who teaches history at the University of Rhode Island, was the suggestion that applicants display a research focus including “the relations between free-market institutions and political liberty in modern history.”
That sounded a little propaganda-ish to Loomis. As it happens, the appointment is in ASU’s new Center for Political Thought and Leadership, which was seeded in part by a five-year grant of $1.129 million from the Charles Koch Foundation. The center’s director is Donald Critchlow, a historian who calls himself an “American conservatism expert” and whose works include a book about conservative influences in Hollywood dating back to the 1950s and an admiring biography of Phyllis Schlafly
.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that. Except that a university’s connivance in what sounds to be a predigested outlook on intellectual history raises obvious questions, the main one of which is: If ASU was to sell its intellectual soul, couldn’t it have gotten more than $1.129 million for it?
There’s nothing new about academic institutions bowing down before major donors. Usually the quid pro quo is the donor’s name on a building or an endowed chair, but it’s not uncommon for other strings to be attached. Donors from across the intellectual and political spectrums have demanded that their money fund overly narrow research, or require their approval of appointees. Some object to university activities that have nothing to do with their grant or bequest.
That’s where a responsible university draws the line.
A fairly supine 2011 profile of Charles Koch in Philanthropy magazine acknowledged that “protests flared around a $1.5-million grant” to Florida State University from Koch for an economics program. (Koch demanded the right to approve the appointees, and his foundation rejected most of the initial candidates.)
https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-when-universities-sell-their-souls-20140730-column.html
LikeLike
ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY and the KOCH FOUNDATION
Professor: A disturbing story about the influence of the Koch network in higher education
In 2017, Arizona State University launched the new School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership, which was funded by the state legislature. The birth of the school was controversial at ASU, in part because it absorbed two think tanks that had been heavily supported by the right-wing Charles Koch Foundation.
The post below describes the process of the school’s establishment from the point of view of Matthew J. Garcia, who was the director of Arizona State University’s School of Historical, Philosophical and Religious Studies from 2012 to 2017. He left ASU for Dartmouth College, “sickened” by the events that led to the establishment of the School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership. He is now a professor of history and Latin American, Latino and Caribbean studies at Dartmouth.
Charles Koch and his brother, David, are billionaires who have spent part of their fortune to promote their anti-regulation, pro-business views of economics as well as their positions on social issues (such as climate change denial). They have been leaders in a conservative movement that believes U.S. higher education is dominated by liberals intent on indoctrinating young people.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2018/04/22/professor-a-disturbing-story-about-the-influence-of-the-koch-network-in-higher-education/
LikeLike
Please submit your comments to the original article – thanks.
https://www.wmicentral.com/news/latest_news/heber-wild-horse-territory-work-group-completes-report/article_43c3802e-1dd8-5cda-833c-eb7a01dde770.html
LikeLike