Department of the Interior
1849 C Street, N.W.
Dear Secretary of the Interior
In order to adequately represent public input on critical issues such as land use plans and natural heritage resources all authorized offices must be able to accommodate public comments by email. This is not always the case.
Free Roaming Wild Horse and Burro advocates have been asking for answers to the obvious illegal “zeroing out” of these herds since last fall with no one YET stepping up to the plate to provide sincere answers.... It is painfully apparent that the BLM Ely District will circumvent public protests and accommodate special interests that continue to wipe out our Heritage Herds.
Baker, Nevada 89311
July 12, 2009
Public Comments on the Caliente Complex
Victoria Barr – Field Manager
Caliente Field Office -Bureau of Land Management
P.O. Box 237 - Caliente, NV 89008
Fax #: (775) 726-8111
Is it true that BLM plans to zero out 11 wild horse herd areas (HAs) from Nevadas Ely district?
Is it true that only 620 wild horses, or one horse per 2,237 acres occupies 11 Herd Areas containing 1,386,992 acres?
Isn’t the Caliente Complex wild horse removal proposal the last leg of the Nevada Ely District’s Office ongoing march towards the final elimination of almost 1.6 million acres of wild horse habitat “zeroed out” this past December in their new Resource Management Plan (RMP) - even while Madeleine Pickens is trying to secure 1 million acres to protect them?
Isn't it true that despite the fact that the ROAM Bill is working its way through Congress, BLM continues its aggressive gathers egregiously circumventing the intent of the 1971 Act?
Is it a fact or NOT that once BLM signs the final decision to remove these horses down to the new “allowable management level” (AML) of 0, this will initiate the one and only opportunity for the public to legally appeal BLMs decision to zero out the Herd Management Areas through the Interior Board of Land Appeals (BLM calls it “dropping its Herd Management Area status”, which is why the former HMA’s are now being called Herd Areas instead)?
Is it true that alhough BLM already zeroed these areas out this past December, in order to legally appeal a BLM decision, first BLM must issue a final decision to take action on that decision?
Is it true that the land use plan could NOT be appealed last December because BLM failed to take definitive action on the habitat wipe out and their issuance of a zero tolerance policy for any wild horse population whatsoever in this livestock dominated area?
WHO determined that these removals are “legally crucial” and will BLM issue the final decision under the “Full Force and Effect” clause they created for themselves back in the 90’s, which allow removal of the wild horses before the decision?
Doesn’t this then allows IBLA to rule (like they always do) that since all the wild horses are now sitting in holding pens, appealing their removals is a “moot point”?
As a result isn’t it true that a federal court will not stop BLM either by issuing an Injunction if the removals are already underway ? Isn’t this a perfect choice for government officials seeking to permanently extinguish our free roaming heritage herds?
Restated, is there any way the public can stop BLM from a Full Force and Effect issued the day before the final removals? What would that process be?
Will BLM use the "Nuisance Gather" or the "Emergency Gather" clause to take them out, prior to releasing the news of the new RMPs Final Decision to the public as done in prior instances?
Will BLM only to give a “verbal order” to remove them as done on the Nevada Wild Horse Range gather last summer?
Doesn’t, BLM circumvent any legal challenge by failing to “sign” a decision and IBLA is bound by the fact that they can’t rule on a decision without a signature?
Isn’t it convenient that the Regional Solicitor can submit evidence regarding the actions taken as a result of those “verbal orders”, as if those actions don’t exist because it was only done “verbally?
Is there is a special division of IBLA that legal challenges to a land use plan must be filed in - and NOT the place BLM tells you about in the “Public Notice of Right to Appeal” included in every decision?
Doesn’t the flyer state that the public has the right to appeal the decision at a n address that only applies to the REMOVAL of the wild horses, not the AMLs that BLM is reducing the wild horses and/or burros to, in the removal proposal?
Isn’t that an unrelated, disconnected department?
Isn’t it true that the public has to file one appeal for removing all the wild horses and then a separate appeal for the new AMLs of 0 issued in the land use plan, ...and that these two appeals won’t be enough to cover all the areas BLM zeroed out because BLM is splitting up the decisions via separate proposals.?
Is it a fact that in order to address all the herds and habitats the new RMP zeroed out, the public would have to file at least two appeals per each final decision BLM issued?
Wouldn’t it be ruled a moot point since the wild horses will most likely already be gone before anyone could submit legal documents to IBLA or a federal court anyway?
Doesn’t the process incur an an overwhelming burden of astronimical legal fees, an impossible hurdle for the members of the public?
For all intents and purposes doesn’t this effectively deprive individuals due process in order to defend its’ Heritage Herds?
Isn’t it true that one of the federal laws BLM and other government agencies are bound to examine is President Clinton “Environmental Justice”to see whether the proposal disproportionately affects the environment of people granted minority or low income status?
Where/when was “in depth monitoring” information released to the public?
Weren’t these exact same HMAs that were issued “new” AMLs in 2003 and the “monitoring reports” BLM made reference to as an Appendix never managed to make it to THAT EA either?
Where does the ruling exist allowing BLM the authority to override a Congressionally mandated land use designation to maintain free roaming heritage herds (preserved and protected) where they were found in 1971).
Isn’t it true that Ely BLM issued the lowest AMLs while boosting livestock authorizations?
Isn’t it true that acreage deals were given to “priority” wildlife species of which wild horses weren’t considered part of and how thousands of acres of wild horse habitat just “disappeared” in the land use planning process?
Isn’t it true that the legally mandated issues of forage production and carrying capacity to determine AML, were never actually included in BLMs decisions to zero out both herds and habitat?
Please explain BLM’s circumvention of the Free Roaming Wild Horse and Burro act by approving two huge new multi-million dollar developments in the same areas as the wild horses are being removed from.
What is the percentage of free roaming horses compared to other wild life and livestock in the Ely District?
What is the percentage of impact, past and present, of environmental damage compared to other wild life and livestock?
Please define specific damage attributed to free roaming horses compared to other wild life and livestock.
Isn't it true that all free roaming herds are an integral part of each local geographical heritage landscape and subject to preservation laws? (National Historic Preservation Act Sec 106 review and foreclosure).
Isn't it true that distinct population segments have evolved in geoghraphic areas and are subject to Endangered Species Act mandates for critical habitat called (ACECs areas of critical environmental concern)
Isn't it true that there were deficiencies in the 1971 inventoried herd areas resulting in fatally flawed and politically motivated land management plans that mandate emergency NEPA review , prior to moving these herds to extinction as they exist in the wild?
Explain the descrepancies between the free roaming herd AML process and the AUM's for livestock.
Please provide an answer from the AG to the legal question posed is: 1. Are free roaming herds and their Congressionally mandated Herd Areas, a permanent encumbrance (A claim, right, or lien) upon the title to real estate which passes with title.
2. this pre existing covenant may not be extinguished through land manangement plans.
Isn't it true that expanding herd areas would make the cost of maintaining free roaming herds less than the cost of round ups, short and long term holding, and adoptions?
I protest further roundups pending resolution of the issues and state for the record that I believe DOI has violated its fiduciary duty to maintain our historic cultural resource of free roaming herds for the American Public.
Baker, Nevada 89311"