Showing posts with label H.R. 1018. Show all posts
Showing posts with label H.R. 1018. Show all posts

Monday, August 10, 2009

Picken's Rescue Plan in Peril


Madeleine Pickens continues to fight for wild horses despite setbacks.

Last fall when the BLM announced it would consider euthanizing the nearly 30, 000 wild horses at its various holding facilities, wild horse advocates scrambled for solutions.

To date, the most promising plan is one proposed by Madeleine Pickens, wife of Texas oil billionaire, T. Boone Pickens. Her solution includes the private purchase of nearly one million acres of land in Nevada, and would save the taxpayers millions of dollars.

The BLM countered with two new options, and has subsequently created a real catch-22 for the Pickens' Plan. Please read the details in the very informative article by Nancy Cole, Publisher of The Equestrian News, a newspaper "Uniting Southern California's Horsepower."

(Madeleine Pickens is pictured here at a fundraiser at the Del Mar Country Club in June 2009 with yours truly - P.S. I'm the redhead :)

Sunday, July 19, 2009

Congress Votes to Pass the ROAM H.R. 1018 - Some Would Disagree

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

How Did Your Congressman Vote on H.R. 1018 - Restore Our American Mustangs!

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

Ayes Noes PRES NV
Democratic 206 47 2
Republican 33 138 7
Independent
TOTALS 239 185 9

---- AYES 239 ---

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
__._,_.___



.
.

__,_._,___

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

BLM Does Not Care What Public Thinks!! and Will Continue to Wipe Out America's Mustangs! (Whether you like it or not)



Department of the Interior

feedback@ios.doi.gov
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.

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 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.

Sincerely,
Kathleen Hayden
POB 64
Baker, Nevada 89311"

Monday, July 6, 2009

The "Restoring Our American Mustang" (ROAM) Act. (H.R. 1018)

CONTACT:
Allyson Groff or Blake Androff, 202-226-9019
House Panel Acts to Ensure America’s Wild Horses Continue to Roam Free

Washington, D.C. – Rejecting the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM)
slaughter of otherwise healthy horses as a viable management tool, the
House Natural Resources Committee today approved legislation introduced by
Chairman Nick J. Rahall (D-WV) that will ensure the continued protection of
thousands of America’s free-roaming wild horses and burros that make their
homes on America’s public lands.

“While Americans cheer on the thoroughbreds at Churchill Downs this
Saturday, I would submit that the plight of the American mustang is not
something of which we can be proud,” said Rahall. “While the BLM, the
agency charged with their safekeeping, has publicly spoken of killing these
majestic creatures as a solution to a burgeoning budgetary problem, I know
that we can, and must, do better. This legislation would ensure a safe
future for thousands of healthy wild mustangs.”

In 1971, the Congress adopted the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act –
which stated that wild horses are “an integral part of the natural system
of the public lands” – to protect wild horses from “capture, branding,
harassment, or death.” Since then, the BLM, charged with management of the
animals on public lands, has allowed for the general public to adopt wild
horses that have been captured when their population becomes excessive.

Last summer, the BLM announced that the combined lack of funding,
facilities, and future options may require the killing of as many as 30,000
healthy wild horses and burros. Shortly after, the GAO released the
findings of its investigation, which revealed a host of troubling problems
plaguing the BLM’s wild horse and burro program.

“Protection and management of the wild horses and burros on our public
lands is an important federal responsibility - but it is clear that the
federal government has not been adequately meeting that responsibility,”
said Rahall. “This legislation will remedy many of the critical lapses that
are taking place under the 1971 Act by invoking a number of commonsense
measures, including preventing the BLM from resorting to slaughter as a
solution for management.”

The Restoring Our American Mustangs (ROAM) Act (H.R. 1018), introduced by
Rahall and co-sponsored by Raúl M. Grijalva (D-AZ), Chairman of the
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands, would amend the
landmark 1971 Act to implement changes suggested by the Government
Accountability Office (GAO). The bill would:

• Promote the use of better science to determine whether
the amount of range that is available to wild horses is capable of
sustaining them.

• Restore the amount of range available to wild horses when
the law was first enacted in 1971, through a combination of public
and private lands controlled by entities seeking to establish
sanctuaries, and reduce the number of animals that are culled from
the herds and placed in holding facilities.

• Provide the BLM with the authority to enter into
cooperative agreements with private entities to establish wild
horse sanctuaries on non-federal lands.

• Bolster the adoption program and implement sterilization
and other fertility controls.

• Prohibit the killing of healthy wild horses and burros.

The Committee adopted an Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute offered by
Grijalva that included technical and clarifying changes in response to
input from the Administration and advocacy groups.

-30-


ALLYSON L. GROFF
Communications Director
Committee on Natural Resources
U.S. House of Representatives
1324 Longworth House Office Building
202.226.9019 | resourcescommittee.house.gov
• reply

Friday, July 3, 2009

Bill to Amend the Wild Horse Free-Roaming and Burros Act

To amend the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act to improve the management and long-term health of wild free-roaming horses and burros, and for other purposes.
current 111st session of congress Other Bill Titles (1 more)Hide Other Bill Titles

* Official: To amend the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act to improve the management and long-term health of wild free-roaming horses and burros, and for other purposes. as introduced.

2/12/2009--Introduced.
Amends the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act to revise provisions concerning the management of such animals.
Requires the Secretary of the Interior (for Bureau of Land Management- [BLM] administered lands) or the Secretary of Agriculture (for Forest Service-administered lands) to:
(1) update the inventory of such animals annually and make it publicly available on the BLM website;
(2) take specified actions to estimate populations of, and establish management levels for, such animals;
(3) identify new rangelands, arrange for supervised protection on private lands, and establish sanctuaries or exclusive use areas for such animals;
(4) implement enhanced surgical or immunocontraception sterilization or other safe methods of fertility control;
(5) exhaust all practicable options of maintaining horse and burro populations in the range before providing for the capture and removal of excess animals for private maintenance;
(6) take specified actions to promote the adoption program;
(7) temporarily remove horses or burros from the range if their immediate health or safety is threatened; and
(8) provide specified public information on animal removals, range changes, and treatment. Requires adopters of horses and burros to affirm that adopted animals will not be slaughtered for human consumption. Prohibits:
(1) the use of helicopters or other airborne devices to remove such animals;
(2) containing such animals in holding facilities for more than six months while awaiting disposition; or
(3) the destruction of such an animal unless the Secretary determines it is terminally ill.
Expands the membership of the advisory board on the management and protection of such animals.
Applies criminal penalties to any person who transports a live or deceased horse or burro for processing into commercial products.
Sets forth new reporting requirements on the management of such animals.


All bill actions:
* Added to calendar on Jun 23, 2009: Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 94..
* Jun 23, 2009: Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 111-177.
* Added to calendar on Apr 29, 2009: Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 21 - 14..
* Apr 29, 2009: Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
* Apr 29, 2009: Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands Discharged.
* Mar 03, 2009: Subcommittee Hearings Held.
* Feb 17, 2009: Referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands.
* Feb 12, 2009: Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
* Feb 12, 2009: Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E256)
* Introduced on Feb 12, 2009.

To see more about this very important bill and follow it's progress go to OpenCongress