Letter to BLM
"Dear Amy et al,
It has come to my attention that the Ely district wild and free roaming horses have been gathered and shipped to the BLM facility in Ridgecrest Ca.
Still unanswered are the Legal Questions and my comments protesting gathers of our Heritage Herds, and the Ely districts horses in particular.
These questions are based on the various Preservation Acts, namely the Wild Horse and Burro Act, National Historic Preservation Act sec 106 and ESA distinct population segments.
In defiance of the West Douglas finding and decision, land managers continue to zero out and remove non excessive free roaming wild horses from their legally mandated habitat and transport them across state lines for adoption.
The aforementioned laws and processes are circumvented in the facilitation/application of management plans that remove free roaming wild horses and burros These plans are fatally flawed.
The federally mandated herd areas were, and continue to be, grossly under inventoried and misrepresented. The FREE ROAMING WHBA clearly mandated and intended permanent herd areas (ranges) designated.
To sustain viable herds, under the ESA these ranges would be called areas of permanent critical habitat. The term "range" is defined as the amount of land necessary to sustain an existing herd or herds of free roaming wild horses and burros which does not exceed their known territorial limits, and which is devoted principally, but not necessarily exclusively, to their welfare in keeping with the multiple use management concept for the public lands 16 USC 1332 c (page 10 West Douglas memo)
Also restated from the West Douglas Court memo:
#1333 is the only program authorized for removal of excess animals. The court finds that Congress clearly intended to protect non excess animals from removal and that BLMs removal authority is limited to excess animals with in the meaning of the ACT . The court finds that BLMs decision to remove an entire herd is an impermissible construction of the Act under step two of Chevron. It would be anomalous to infer that by authorizing the custodian of the wild horses and burros to "manage" them, Congress intended to permit the animals' custodian to subvert the primary policy of the statute by capturing and removing from the wild the very animals that Congress sought to protect from being captured and removed from the wild. Congress did not authorize BLM to manage the wild horses and burros by corralling them for private maintenance or long term care as non wild free roaming animals off the public lands. Upon removal for private adoption and or long term cares herds would forever cease to be wild free roaming horses as components of the public lands contrary to congress intent to protect the horses from capture. The court states that is difficult to think of a management activity that is farther from a minimal feasible level than removal.
The court finds that the only plausible inference to be drawn from the omission of any procedure from removing non excess animals is that Congress did not intend for BLM s management authority to be so broad. Further more the Act contains no provision for the adoption sale or destruction of non excess animals removed. The court infers from the 1978 repeal that Congress intended to eliminate BLMS discretion to destroy non excess animals in order to maintain the habitat.
Title to the land
Isn't it true that Real estate law is abundantly clear that pre existing contracts/ covenants/appurtenances attach to the land? Or that the
Free Roaming wild horse and burro mandates cannot be abrogated by transferring title to the land or through conflicting management plans?
Our free roaming herds are held by the government in fiduciary trust (breached) for the American people in perpetuity. They represent the uniquely LOCAL cultural Native American and pioneering history. (National Historic Preservation Act (sec 106 process)
When herds cease to intermingle with other free roaming wild horses they evolve into distinct population segments. They and their habitat is protected under the Endangered Species Act whether or NOT they are listed.
The feral issue is MOOT per ....Proposed Nevada Test and Training Range Resource Management Plan and Final EIS Comment 87, BLM Response, pg. E-25 "The issue of a wild horse as an invasive species is moot since the 1971 WHBA gave wild free roaming horses "special" status based on their heritage of assisting man settle the "west"…
Please also refer also to NOTE From: NHPA expert (testimony) Thomas F. King, PhD whose query remains unanswered to date.
TFKing106@aol.com To: Kats@hughes.net ; firstname.lastname@example.org ; email@example.com ; firstname.lastname@example.org ; Alex_Neibergs@ca.blm.gov Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 6:39 AMSubject: Re: stop the Clark Mt gather
Kat -- I confess to being quite unable to keep up with the twists and turns of this matter, but can anybody tell me how BLM has purported to comply with Section 106 of NHPA on this federal undertaking? My guess is that they've treated Section 106 as an entirely archaeological matter and made the brilliant observation that horses aren't archaeological sites, but if this is the case they are gravely out of compliance with the law, and ought to do something about it
Thomas F. King, PhD
PO Box 14515, Silver Spring MD 20911
NEW from Left Coast Press: Our Unprotected Heritage: Whitewashing Destruction of Our Cultural and Natural Environment. February 2009.
Appreciation in advance for your response,
Coyote Canyon Caballos d'Anza
Santa Ysabel, Ca. 92070"
Majority of Canadians Oppose Horse Slaughter According to New Nanos Poll - News provided by Canadian Horse Defence Coalition A Nanos Poll was taken across Canada in June 2019 by Ottawa, ON lobbying firm, The Parliamentary Group. F...
15 hours ago