Please forward to interested parties who would be interested in serving on a committee for the Coyote Canyon Heritage Herd Area (permanent sanctuary) and make calls and visits to local congressional/ Board of Supervisors.
Need chair persons and committees.
Passage of ROAM by the House was a huge step in the right direction and was supported by Congressmen Billbray and Issa. Hunter must be convinced now to take steps to establish the Beauty Mt permanent herd area for our Heritage herd, a distinct population segment for which habitat is mandated. Those are the operable key legal words under the Endangered Species Act that gives our elected officials the foundation to proceed.
Intermediate, and immediate options to be considered
Need Volunteers for a committee to meet with
1. the Orange County Scout Managers of Lost Valley. Either pasture lease or project partnership Lost Valley has Coyote Canyon wild horse documented free roaming history and good pasture but not fenced.
2. Mataguay Scout Reservation , either pasture lease or project partnership
The 600 acres at Mataguay is also close enough for easy management. mostly fenced( project manager David.Hodges@scouting.org)
3. Vista Irrigation District for Barrel Springs pasture includes intersection at Hyw S2 and S22. Lease should be minimal, fence repairs needed, can get grant.
Previously VID managed the Barrel Springs pasture for cattle. Since the last burn the pasture is in real good shape and close enough to manage with supplemental hay in the winter. I attended a VID Board Meeting several months ago and the board mentioned this as a possibility. Need committee for follow up. Contact David.Hodges@scouting.org, Board Chair Paul Dorey.
4. San Diego Board of Supervisors ...request Board to make Declaration of Coyote Canyon Heritage Herd. Would probably help to have a committee member rep for each district. Petitions have been submitted for this purpose.
5. Congressionals Hunter, Issa, and Bilbray to proceed with Beauty Mt. I am assured by BLM last week that this is doable.
Please distribute to all contacts to see who is willing to take a committee chair for CCCDA and organize a committee for each of the objectives as outlined.
This just in from the lastest issue of Equus (August 2009) -by Matt Wilson: (My comments in italics...your comments always welcomed!)
"In the wake of a significant decrease in wild horse adoptions this year, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is offering new incentives to encourage people to consider taking mustangs home. As of April 28, 1,685 horses had been adopted in fiscal year 2009, which began on October 1, says Tom Gorey with the BLM public affairs office. That is only 51 more than this time in 2008, which was one of the worst years ever for horse adoptions. In 2008, the BLM placed 3, 700 horses into private care, down from 5,700 in 2005, Gorey says. The cost of a standard adoption is $125. 'I think the economy has been affecting horse adoptions. It's a combination of the increase of hay, fuel and overall maintenance cost,' says Gorey. 'We will have adoption days and come back with half or more of the horses that we took.' To reverse this trend, the BLM is offering a $500 cash incentive to those who adopt horses that are 4 years old or older, which tend to be more difficult to place. The money is awarded to the adopter after a one-year trial period if the agency inspection confirms that the horse has been receiving proper care. (and I hope to hell they remove it if it hasn't!) The current free-roaming horse population in the country is approximately 36,000, which is 9,400 more than the maximum of 26,600 that 'can exist in balance with other public rangeland resources and uses' (well...that's just plain ol' BLM BS!) according to the BLM website. In addition to that, there are 32,000 more wild horses and burros in holding facilities across the country awaiting adoption" (or slow death!)
Action Alert: AHC Seeks to Document Equestrian Access Issues onPublicLand The American Horse Council has launched a new effort to collect information on access issues equestrians are experiencing on federal lands. The center piece of this effort is an AHC online form riders can use to report their personal experiences regarding trails and federal lands that have been closed to them or other access issues. This online form is located here Horse Council Survey.
Efforts to gain support for legislation to protect equestrian access to public land have been hampered by a lack of information regarding the reduction of trails, trail heads and the closure of public lands to horses and pack animals. This new initiative will allow the recreational riding community to report when they are forced off a trail or are fighting to stay on a trail. This information will be used to clearly demonstrate the extent of the problem and the need for action on the part of Congress or the federal land agencies.
The online form can also be used to document any successes riders have had keeping a trail or area open to horses. Such information is needed as well.
The AHC is requesting that its member organizations help spread the word about this new program by placing information about it on their websites and or in their organization newsletters. More information about this initiative and the form to report access issues can be found here Horse Council.
If you have had any access problems accessing public lands, please complete this form If you have friends who ride on public lands (at your barn, your neighborhood or farm), please share this survey with them. If you belong to any horse owner/rider organizations, please share this survey with them. We need to have our voices heard. Thank you.
M. Sue Middendorf
11812 Ivanhoe Street WheatonMD20902-2052 301-942-7776
Sue Middie@yahoo.com
The first annual National Wild Horse Adoption Day, organized jointly by several advocacy groups, humane organizations and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), will be held September 26, 2009. The BLM estimates that if 1,000 horses are adopted as a results of the event, the agency would save $1.5 million in horse maintenance costs. More than 65 events are scheduled for locations across the country. For information visit National Wild Horse Adoption Day
As a conservative I disagree with the Republican rationale depicted in this article. The passage of this bill provides more viable options for managing the 1971 Wild Horse and Burro Act which will better utilize public and historic grazing lands that can accommodate viable herds. Managing them locally by non profits/agency partnerships could further save as well as stimulate the local tourist economy. Maintaining our Heritage Herds has not /will not cost the American Public even a fraction of the cost of habitat and copious litigation for endangered species. The huge expense has been in removal, feed lots, and adoption. This cost could be drastically reduced. Please contact your local Board of Supervisors and state legislators to encourage cooperation at all levels. kat
I'd like to hear Congressman Duncan's response to this!!
re H R 1018 RECORDED VOTE 17-Jul-2009 1:15 PM QUESTION: On Passage BILL TITLE: Restore Our American Mustangs Act Michael, Is it true that my own Congressman Duncan D. Hunter voted against this bill to restore the intent of the Wild Horse and Burro Act after California Heritage Herds have been made extinct in the wild? .... in light of the Desert Protection Act that has been manipulated for purposes that do not benefit the American public and through use plans by which our heritage herds were removed? Is Congressman Hunter willing to sit down and talk with his San Diego constituents regarding this matter that is crucial to restoration of the remnants of our only Heritage Herd, the Coyote Canyon Caballos d' Anza?? Sincerely
Kathleen Hayden POB 236 Santa Ysabel, Ca. bcc groups
FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 577
H R 1018 RECORDED VOTE 17-Jul-2009 1:15 PM QUESTION: On Passage BILL TITLE: Restore Our American Mustangs Act
Abercrombie Adler (NJ) Altmire Andrews Baca Baird Baldwin Bartlett Bean Becerra Berkley Berman Berry Biggert Bilbray Bishop (GA) Bishop (NY) Blumenauer Bono Mack Boucher Brady (PA) Braley (IA) Brown, Corrine Burton (IN) Butterfield Calvert Campbell Cao Capps Capuano Carnahan Carney Carson (IN) Castle Castor (FL) Chandler Chu Clarke Clay Cleaver Clyburn Cohen Connolly (VA) Conyers Cooper Costello Courtney Crowley Cummings Davis (AL) Davis (CA) Davis (IL) DeFazio DeGette Delahunt DeLauro Dent Dicks Dingell Donnelly (IN) Doyle Edwards (MD) Edwards (TX) Ellison Engel Eshoo Etheridge Farr Fattah Filner Frank (MA) Frelinghuysen Fudge Gallegly Gerlach Gonzalez Gordon (TN) Grayson Green, Al Green, Gene Grijalva Gutierrez Hall (NY) Hall (TX) Hare Harman Hastings (FL) Heinrich Higgins Himes Hinchey Hirono Hodes Holden Holt Honda Hoyer Inslee Israel Issa Jackson (IL) Jackson-Lee (TX) Johnson (IL) Johnson, E. B. Jones Kagen Kanjorski Kaptur Kennedy Kildee Kilpatrick (MI) Kilroy King (NY) Kirk Kissell Klein (FL) Kratovil Kucinich Lance Langevin Larson (CT) Lee (CA) Levin Lewis (CA) Lewis (GA) Lipinski LoBiondo Loebsack Lofgren, Zoe Lowey Luján Lynch Maffei Maloney Markey (MA) Marshall Massa Matsui McCarthy (NY) McCollum McCotter McDermott McGovern McIntyre McMahon McNerney Meek (FL) Meeks (NY) Michaud Miller (MI) Miller (NC) Miller, George Mitchell Mollohan Moore (KS) Moore (WI) Moran (VA) Murphy (CT) Murphy, Patrick Murtha Nadler (NY) Napolitano Neal (MA) Nye Oberstar Obey Olver Ortiz Pallone Pascrell Pastor (AZ) Payne Perlmutter Peters Pingree (ME) Platts Polis (CO) Price (NC) Quigley Rahall Rangel Reichert Reyes Richardson Ros-Lehtinen Rothman (NJ) Roybal-Allard Royce Ruppersberger Rush Ryan (OH) Sánchez, Linda T. Sarbanes Schakowsky Schauer Schiff Schrader Schwartz Scott (GA) Scott (VA) Serrano Sestak Shea-Porter Sherman Sires Slaughter Smith (NJ) Smith (WA) Snyder Speier Spratt Stark Sutton Thompson (CA) Thompson (MS) Tierney Titus Tonko Towns Tsongas Turner Upton Van Hollen Velázquez Visclosky Wasserman Schultz Waters Watson Watt Waxman Weiner Welch Wexler Whitfield Wilson (OH) Woolsey Wu Yarmuth Young (
---- NOES 185 ---
Aderholt Akin Alexander Arcuri Austria Bachmann Bachus Barrow Barton (TX) Bilirakis Bishop (UT) Blackburn Blunt Boccieri Boehner Bonner Boozman Boren Boswell Boustany Boyd Brady (TX) Bright Broun (GA) Brown (SC) Brown-Waite, Ginny Buchanan Burgess Buyer Camp Cantor Capito Cardoza Carter Cassidy Chaffetz Childers Coffman (CO) Cole Conaway Costa Crenshaw Cuellar Culberson Dahlkemper Davis (KY) Davis (TN) Deal (GA) Diaz-Balart, L. Diaz-Balart, M. Doggett Dreier Driehaus Duncan Ehlers Ellsworth Emerson Fallin Flake Fleming Forbes Fortenberry Foster Foxx Franks (AZ) Garrett (NJ) Giffords Gingrey (GA) Gohmert Goodlatte Granger Griffith Guthrie Halvorson Harper Hastings (WA) Heller Hensarling Herger Herseth Sandlin Hill Hinojosa Hoekstra Hunter Inglis Jenkins Johnson (GA) Johnson, Sam Jordan (OH) Kind King (IA) Kingston Kirkpatrick (AZ) Kline (MN) Kosmas Lamborn Larsen (WA) Latham LaTourette Latta Lee (NY) Linder Luetkemeyer Lummis Lungren, Daniel E. Mack Manzullo Marchant Markey (CO) Matheson McCarthy (CA) McCaul McClintock McHenry McHugh McKeon McMorris Rodgers Melancon Mica Miller (FL) Minnick Moran (KS) Murphy (NY) Murphy, Tim Myrick Neugebauer Nunes Olson Paul Paulsen Pence Perriello Peterson Petri Pitts Poe (TX) Pomeroy Posey Price (GA) Putnam Radanovich Rehberg Rodriguez Roe (TN) Rogers (AL) Rogers (KY) Rogers (MI) Rohrabacher Rooney Roskam Ross Ryan (WI) Salazar Sanchez, Loretta Scalise Schmidt Sensenbrenner Sessions Shadegg Shimkus Shuler Shuster Simpson Skelton Smith (NE) Smith (TX) Souder Space Stearns Stupak Sullivan Tanner Teague Terry Thompson (PA) Thornberry Tiahrt Tiberi Walden Walz Wamp Wilson (SC) Wittman Wolf Young (AK)
---- NOT VOTING 9 ---
Ackerman Barrett (SC) Coble Graves Lucas Miller, Gary Schock Taylor Westmoreland __._,_.___
. .
__,_._,___
Thursday, July 16, 2009
In a letter to Congressman Darrell Issa, Kathleen Hayden of Coyote Canyon Caballos d'Anza writes:
"Dear Congressman Issa,
I have visited your Vista Office and sent many letters regarding this issue and have not received any response from you . I hope to hear from you now regarding these issues that are near and dear to me and our multiple user groups. More wilderness means less access for all of us to our pioneering heritage of old ranches, mines, homesteads and to the ranges of our free roaming Coyote Canyon Heritage Herd of wild horses.
Despite the news release BLM continues to acquire private property in this area from "not so willing sellers", and certainly not for multiple use either. The last management plan for this area was fatally flawed for failure to protect historic cultural values and activities, in addition to removing Congressionally protected free roaming wild horses and burros. The next plan will circumvent even more. Do you remember the petition to rescind the Desert Protection Act? All predictions were accurate and we continue to suffer the consequences.
The Beauty Mt area, as well as Coyote Canyon, was once the historic range of our free roaming Heritage Herd and should be designated as permanent wild horse habitat. See attached history, please. Since both Riverside and San Diego County Boards of Supervisors adopted RS 2477 resolutions please be reminded that more wilderness conflicts with pre existing historical access including Ca. historic Riding and Hiking Trail ( CRHT) aka Cienaga Truck Trail. Wilderness Designations result in route degradation and would inhibit multiple use campgrounds/horsecamps along the trail as provided in the original 1945 Ca. legislations. I respectfully await your reply Kathleen Hayden POB 236 Santa Ysabel Ca. 92070 Coyote Canyon Caballos d' Anza, manager"
"Issa proposes 21,000 acres of wilderness" (North County Times, 7/11/09) "Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Vista, is proposing to build on the foundation of recent wilderness additions in Riverside County and protect more than 21,000 acres of chaparral, canyons and forest next door in northern San Diego County from development and vehicles ... Both areas are directly across the county line from the new Beauty Mountain Wilderness and newly expanded Agua Tibia Wilderness in Riverside County east of Temecula."
RELATED: "Wilderness areas" (BLM-California) Includes recently-designated Agua Tibia and Beauty Mountain wilderness areas.
Please contact the following Congressmen and let them know that more wilderness means less access for all of us to our pioneering heritage of old ranches, mines, homesteads and historic range of our free roaming Coyote Canyon Heritage Herd.
Despite the news article BLM continues to acquire private property in this area from "not so willing sellers", and certainly not for multiple use either. The last management plan for this area was fatally flawed for failure to protect historic cultural values and activities in addition to removing Congressionally protected free roaming wild horses and burros. The next plan will circumvent even more. Please remind Congressman Issa that the Beauty Mt area, as well as Coyote Canyon, was once the historic range of our free roaming Heritage Herd and should be designated as permanant wild horse habitat. Since both Riverside and San Diego County Boards of Supervisors adopted RS 2477 resolutions please be reminded that more wilderness conflicts with pre existing historical access including Ca. historic Riding and Hiking Trail ( CRHT) aka Cienaga Truck Trail. Wilderness Designations result in route degradation and would prohit new campgrounds/horsecamps along the trail as provided in the original 1945 Ca. legislations.
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.
Thank you,
Kathleen Hayden
POB 64
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 proposalthe 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 thatthese 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’tthisthen 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 afederal 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 extinguishour free roaming heritage herds?
Restated, is there any way the public can stop BLMfroma Full Force and Effect issued the day before the final removals?What would that process be?
Will BLMuse 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, BLMcircumvent 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 thatthe Regional Solicitor can submit evidence regarding the actions taken as a result of those “verbal orders”, as ifthose 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 - andNOT 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 thatan 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, animpossible 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/whenwas “in depth monitoring” information released to the public?
Weren’t these exact same HMAs thatwere issued “new” AMLs in 2003 andthe “monitoring reports” BLM made reference toas 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 thatEly BLMissued the lowest AMLswhile boostinglivestock 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 thatthe 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 explainBLM’scircumvention 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? (NationalHistoric 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 NEPAreview , 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.
Sincerely,
Kathleen Hayden
POB 64
Baker, Nevada 89311"
This blog is dedicated to bringing to the public's attention the plight of the wild horses of the United States of America, and specifically to the battle now being waged to restore the Coyote Canyon Wild Horse Herd to its native habitat, the Beauty Mountainregion of federal lands located in San Diego and Riverside Counties. This area is representative of the habitat that this unique and historic band of wild horses was removed from. Beauty Mountain is adjacent to Coyote Canyon, site of the herd area set aside to provide a home range for these animals under the Wild Free-roaming Horse and Burro Act granting them protection in their free roaming condition in perpetuity.
The Coyote Canyon Herd is a microcosm of the wild equid problem and solution.
Cara Sehat Cantik
-
Info Kecantikan dan Kesehatan
www.carasehatcantik.com/
Tips Cara Memutihkan Badan Yang Alami Dan Sehat ... Wanita mana yang tidak
ingin selalu terlihat cant...
In Conclusion
-
After much reflection and meditation of this five-year journey regarding my
research and involvement in the Department of the Interior/Bureau of Land
Manag...
Update on the Morgan story
-
Regular blog reappeared - so back we go to Fuglyblog.com. We are in the
process of transferring to a new web host so more downtime MAY happen -
don't worry...
When Congress Forgets...
-
When Congress Forgets...
As we enter the second session of the 110th Congress, we still have to pass
HR 503 and S. 311. There has been little movement ...
.JPG)
Posts
