I know this blog has been silent as my time has yet again been taken up with the latest round of roundups to Courtroom that have gleaned two more legal precedents… so I will take a moment to fill y’all in on a few details.
The first win at Jackson came after three weeks of working (by invitation) on issues at Jackson. BLM was not proactive in addressing a situation we saw in that area before. They attempted to use a justified issue (regardless of the root cause) to create a broad sweep action that was actually against their own policy. We made no headway in discussion so instead we won in Court.
What we won was more language to build on. That language has been sorely missing in the Courtroom conversations. However with each win the vocabulary and the credibility of the documentation brought by us grows.
Example the win in the Ninth Circuit created language that allowed the Restraining Order won last year to pilot conduct to be turned into an Injunctive Order (active) last week. Even though the case in the Ninth is on another issue the conversation related to roundups as a non-resolved issue as the actual operation appears over. So the conduct issue was able to stand on the access issue.
That same conduct issue then created the venue to bring Jackson to a win. That win has added new language that can now be used to solidify that BLM can’t use an issue (regardless of cause) in one quadrant to justify a broad sweep action. That has again given the horses another “piece.”
Just as the case in Owyhee that brought the closure of public land (i.e. no observation at all) into the realm of unconstitutional action but failed to bring the foaling season issue to the plate because the conversational language and the credibility with the Court had not been established. But because of that win daily observation became a reality… with that came the other two cases on that stone.
I have been extraordinarily busy this past year, and even more so these last six months, creating a few avenues. I have been working with other journalists and in venues that will bring other issues into the light.
Every one of these stepping stones came from a seemingly endless marathon that has included traveling on dirt roads alone in ice storms to conferences with government personnel and Courtroom action. The work is every day, almost all day.
I have focused on my work that you all expect from me. Yet every time I have another win ugly voices raise in the chorus of derision. Not from the “other side” but ours.
In the last two and a half years the documentation and cases I have stood for and worked my fanny off compiling and researching have brought the horses precedent of language in the battle that has not existed before. Each case that Cowan brings on my behalf has walked out with a win. He does not charge us full fee ever and has done a good chunk of this work gratis because there are no funds. I am sick to death of listening to those that make full fees held up as “better” than someone like that.
And to put my “lifestyle” into perspective I own nothing but a few items of clothing, three cameras, a computer and my dog. I do not even own solely the truck I drive. I can’t even get new glasses.
So if you want to support this work, support it. If you don’t at least recognize the validity and use the stepping stones to further the cause.
I have to get up at 5. There are several issues that are very pressing right now in holding and on the range. More soon.
3 hours left… cut and paste and make comments your own. they count individual comments…. also make sure you add the numeric notation in the subject line!
Mare and foal that were run twice in one day only to be left without their band at Jackson Mountain
Jackson Mountain Wild Horse Roundup Gathers Lawsuit
On June 8, 2012 the Bureau of Land Management began a helicopter roundup of wild horses in the Jackson Mountain area in Northern Nevada. This roundup is occurring during foaling season. The BLM handbook on wild horse and burro management prohibits such activity.
The handbook states in part: “The capture of wild horses by using a helicopter to herd the animals is prohibited during the foaling season, which is defined as six weeks on either side of the peak foaling to assure that young foals are mature enough to be able to remain with their band during gather activities.”
Plaintiff Laura Leigh, founder of Wild Horse Education, has been attempting to dialogue with the Agency prior to the start of the operation and on a daily basis to resolve issues. Attorney Gordon Cowan of Reno Nevada filed the suit yesterday.
“It is with a sad heart that this lawsuit is filed,” states Leigh “the idea that this is foaling season and that extreme care must be taken does not seem to be understood. I saw one of the most egregious unnecessary runs I have ever seen at any roundup occur at Jackson Mountain and the urgency for change in behavior is still not comprehended on the ground.”
Leigh brought suit to last years BLM roundup of the Triple B complex that resulted in the Courts taking action and shutting down the operation. The BLM then did a review of the roundup and found that the alleged misconduct had occurred and they would take corrective action. The agency has to date not implemented any standard of humane care for handling animals.
Arizona Congressman Raul Grijalva the ranking member of the House subcommittee of National Parks, Forests and Public Lands, in an interview with the Seattle PI, maintains the agency is conducting the roundup “under cover of an emergency,” but the situation facing horses around the Jackson Mountains does not meet the BLM’s own criteria for an emergency.
“All attempts to gain appropriate action through conversation are met with the statement that we are making baby steps,” said Leigh “but baby steps are not acceptable as the lives of these babies are continually placed in jeopardy.”
~~~ Please follow at wildhorseeducation.org as my time to update this blog is VERY limited!
The legal action and documentation can be supported through contributions to Wild Horse Education
http://wildhorseeducation.org
As the conversation shifts from “How the hell did we get here?” to “Monitoring and assessing operation” here are day 1 notes. Please follow WildHorseEduaction.org as I may not get to this blog daily.
Also I want to say a prayer for the magnificent Conquistador, a stallion of the Pryor Mountains. He passed today with no obvious sign of injury. Ginger went to search for him as he had not been seen… Run Free Forever beautiful, beautiful stallion.
~~~
BLM began the emergency roundup at Jackson Mountain today. The operation began in the area where water has been hauled, literally. The stock tank was located within the wings of the trap.
Temperatures today were unseasonable cool.
The range is in serious compromise. Very little, to no, new growth was noted.
Driving was aprox 2 plus hours to the trap location from Winnemucca. As the roundup progresses distances are expected to increase.
Four runs were made today, two prior to arrival. Meeting time may move to 5am.
The first run witnessed was the largest run of the day. However observation vantage was poor. Two animals broke from the trap and were pursued. After the animals disappeared from site the helicopter was called off. REDAD THE REST AT: WildHorseEducation.org
Jackson Mountain emergency roundup during peak foaling season, Day 1
After days of conferencing with Gene Seidlitz, District manager, certain objectives were sought by Laura Leigh, Wild Horse Education, as well as by other advocates nation wide through calls and letters to the office.
The objectives that were sought:
Bait and Water trapping be utilized as a first line of any removal operation.
Formal restrictions to an over grazed range, not voluntary, by permitees. (Including the cattle still occupying the HMA to the North of the most severely effected area that are still on the range)
Roundup parameters be extended to reflect an emergency situation and that obtaining “AML” not be a first line but simply a removal geared at reducing immediate stress to the environment.
Formal parameters written into the Record on humane handling protocol specific to the nature of the drought and foaling season. (Handling and monitoring specifics were included in the conversation)
Birth Control (PZP) use would not be effective this time of year and should not be utilized. Gelding or other permanent sterilization was not appropriate.
On June 7, 2012 a final Decision was released.
Instead of publishing the Record of Decision first the agency opted to publish a “Q & A” that does not appear to reflect any of the points of discussion except in peripheral fashion.
Bait and water trapping has been refused.
There is no note of Livestock restrictions throughout the HMA.
The roundup objective is “within AML.”
The notes on humane handling appear to be the identical claims made in the past when horrific conduct was documented.
However PZP and Gelding will not be utilized.
As the record of decision has now been published it appears that the conversations engaged in were either not understood clearly by BLM or that the operation continuing without any change is an immovable priority.
They will restrict the livestock voluntarily removed from the South but the permitee that still has cattle directly to the North will not be restricted. As the claim is that animals are moving off HMA to find resource why is it so hard to comprehend that the resource within the HMA must be preserved? If there is an effected wild horse population in the South why is it so hard to understand that they must move the cattle to the North off the HMA in order to encourage movement by the horses into the North?
They did put a “handling protocol” into the decision record. At least that gives an intention that the importance of a protocol is necessary. However the points listed will encompass the justification for unacceptable handling we have seen in the past. Not one of the specifics requested appears in the document in the language requested. A three mile distance was discussed (even though one half a mile will be enough to cause irreversible damage to foals) and the Decision record goes to seven.
“At the moment it is all I can do to contain my disappointment and get my gas tank filled,” said Laura Leigh, founder of Wild Horse Education, “There are two open cases, one to conduct. If these postings by BLM are any reflection of the efficiency and care to be taken during a “foaling season” roundup I will be very busy gearing up for Court.”
~~~
Please support our efforts in the field. The cases are open in Federal Court and the documentation must be made daily.
An active case to Humane Care is solely supported at this time by donations to Wild Horse Education.
THIS is what occurred under the “discretion” of the EXACT same people doing this operation. The so called “humane parameters” listed in the Decision Record would allow identical conduct.
WILL this agency EVER have a soul. conscience or backbone enough to create a REAL standard and ENFORCE it?
Almost every day I get emails or letters from students or others looking for information or opinion on the issues of wild horses and burros. I try to answer the emails the best I can but I often can not get to all of the inquiries.
I am going to print my responses to one of the emails and maybe that will help clarify my opinions and “thoughts.”
Ready for a place to call home (Elyse Gardner) 6171 did find a home after this photo was released and I was sent pics of him “home.”
~~~~
Just had a very busy week and not much time to write back.
Many of these questions have multiple caveats to the answers. However I will try to be as succinct as possible and if something is not clear to you feel free to write back.
I’ll answer one at a time.
2/6/2011 copyright Laura Leigh
Do you think roundups are necessary?
This question actually has a two part response.
Under the law (Federal land within BLM and USFS jurisdiction) a viable population of wild horses and burros are to be managed on the land “here presently found” in 1971 as a priority user within those boundaries as “integral to the landscape.”
If all of the above criteria are met (in actuality, not opinion) then according to law animals suitable for the adoption program would be prioritized for removal from the range into the adoption program. Identification of such individuals and those too fragile (ill, old) would occur prior to the operation and removal would occur accordingly.
As the primary purpose of “management” of wh&b’s on public land is an act of protection, a standard of humane care would/should be in place and strictly enforced.
Presuming that all data was accurate and current to support a notion of removal (or a stochastic event, fire, drought), and all steps were taken to mitigate damages from other uses, then a roundup should occur.
Current management does not provide such standards. Nor do current management practices include any standard for humane treatment and consequence for violation.
If not what other methods would you recommend to regulate the horse population?(birth control/gelding) What I meant was do you think the BLM should be rounding up horses or do you think the horses should be left alone to let them die a natural death?
This question also has layers of law that need to be considered in any answer.
Under law animals are to be managed as “wild” and integral to the landscape. A “wild” population is defined as a population capable of reproducing itself and needs to be managed with “minimal feasible” interference.
Current use of fertility drugs demonstrate a disregard for the impact on band structure and the natural reproductive season on the range. The last couple of years we have seen an increase in foals born “out of season” placing their survival in question as well as the survival of the mares involved.
There are cyclical resources available on the range. As harsher weather approaches animals need to “store up” to survive and give birth in the spring and summer as resources are more abundant. This reduces the stress on the mare and foal.
If fertility control is to be utilized seasonal effectiveness must be a factor.
Permanent sterilization (gelding, spaying, vasectomy) is another multi-layered answer.
If the population of sterilized animals is used to decrease the number of reproductive animals below a number that can “reproduce itself” it is a violation of law. The concept of sterilized animals on the range may in itself be a violation of current law.
However within the realm of personal opinion I am not entirely against the careful and selective use of certain techniques in an effort to decrease the number of horses in holding as a temporary strategy. Yet no permanent “solution” should be implemented without comprehending the ramifications of that action.
For example at the recent Wild Horse and Burro Advisory Board meeting in Reno there was discussion about spaying mares. There were rampant comments made by members of the board that demonstrated a lack of knowledge of both the law and protocol that was staggering. Members talked about domestic horses that had been spayed without complication and a “study” done at Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge (Sheldon is not under the jurisdiction of the Act). First there was no “study” done at Sheldon. In that instance mares had been subjected to field spaying (in one instance through the rectum) with a high death rate from the procedure itself. The mares that survived were released with absolutely no follow up. Second the domestic horse being spayed has a hospital and then substantial follow up with observation, rest and antibiotics. Rounding up a wild horse creates a situation where the stress itself creates an unsuitable candidate for any invasive procedure. Then to knock her out have her fall on the ground and surgically remove her Uterus or ovaries and then release her… it creates an image that outrages the mind.
There is another drug called “Gonacon” (and others) that may create a non-reproductive female. The idea being that a mare over 10 could be treated and live out her life on the range without continuing to reproduce. Yet the ramifications to herd structure, where you have non-estrus mares, is not known.
So let us step back a moment and look at current protocol:
1. Animals are removed from the range in a bulk operation that fails to identify band members. (Genetic contribution of individuals is not known).
2. Any mares released are given PZP-22 that keeps them in estrus causing the band stallion (and other stallions) considerable stress on a range that supposedly has limited resource (reason for roundup).
3. The population is then “sex-ratio” skewed releasing more males than in a natural population possibly increasing the stress to the population.
4. Often the data to support the operation in the first place is conjecture and other options to mitigate the circumstances have not been explored.
Run Free (Stone Cabin, 2012) older mares released back to the range after PZP treatment
So here is my personal answer.
I do not believe that this agency is capable of utilizing any permanent sterilization as an effective and appropriate tool under law. Could it be a useful tool if done correctly? Perhaps. Is this agency that has no real data, perpetuates a “feral” livestock machine that fails to recognize the law and operates in a bubble where they control the information used in any study (NAS) capable of using this tool appropriately? Absolutely not.
If you think the horses should be left alone can you please explain why you think so since I read about what happend to the Nellis Wild Horse Range whose horse population was left alone and the horses were just dying of starvation and dehydration and some of the horses would just pitch over and die!
Do I believe “death on the range” is appropriate?
Yes, in the natural order of things. For example all parameters of structure have been met (appropriate range conditions, mitigated damages from other uses) and you have an older band member that dies a natural death. Yes, that is appropriate.
However if we are talking about an extreme situation where we will have a massive die off (stochastic) no. Horses by their nature have been useful companion animals and hold a special place in the hearts of Americans (why we have an act of Congress for protection). In those cases removal toward adoption is appropriate action as intended by law.
Also keep in mind that horses don’t just die off suddenly in massive numbers unless there disease, sudden restriction of resource (fence) or contamination of environment. Whenever you see these claims ask yourself why?
The “left alone” claim is a whole separate question.
I know very few people that truly feel these animals should be “left alone.” The basic nature of public land management is that they will never be “left alone” as increasing impacts to the environment occur.
The issue is appropriate management as “wild and integral,” a protected American heritage species, under the law of the land and that of common decency.
The “left alone” conversation appears to be more of a PR spin intended to discredit the validity of argument. One of the tools any debate student learns is that if your argument is weak attack the person delivering the message. If advocates can be portrayed as “meaning well but not comprehending” you have created doubt to any concern they raise.
Or if you think the wild horses should be rounded up, even if they risk inhumane treatment, please explain why. Also if you think the Wild Horse population should be managed what do you recommend should be done that the BLM is not doing such as gelding/ immunocontraception unless you think the BlM is doing a good job, minus the inhumane treatment during roundups, with the Adopt-A-Horse-Program.
I will try to finish this novel I’ve written to you.
In order to address the crisis situation we are in (and the crisis is NOT over population on the range) you need to begin by looking at the mistakes that were made initially in the implementation of law.Then you need to correct them.
Serious mistakes were made at the onset.
The original boundary lines were inaccurate. These lines were drawn in a fashion that was influenced by local politics. These lines were drawn in a manner that clearly did not comprehend the concept “wild and free roaming” and failed to take into account the fact that these animals move. Seasonal migration patterns were not taken into account creating the “off HMA” assertions that generate an inappropriate conversation about horses moving because of lack of resource. Did you know we actually have HMA’s that do not have a water source within the boundary lines? I think it is a fair assessment to say that in 19721 horses drank water.
First and foremost that serious error must be corrected and the authority to do so is currently within the discretion of the Secretary of Interior and could be accomplished.
Second the term “viability of use’ must be clearly defined.We do not know what that standard actually is in terms of genetics and habitat.
WH&B’s are a mandated primary user in the aprox. 10% of public land they occupy. They are literally being managed into bankruptcy. When we talk about genetic bankruptcy and have a conversation that addresses numbers the agency expert (Cothran) will quote a number of 120-150 animals. When further questioned about the reasoning areas will be cited that contain a small number of animals yet fail to take into account that those areas are small in size and highly managed (not vast). Further questioning reveals that “if” genetic anomaly is noted other animals can be introduced from other ranges. That concept is a “feral livestock” breeding program statement. It fails to recognize that each herd is unique to the landscape where it is found. A horse in Twin Peaks has a very different history and “look” than a horse from Paymaster or Antelope. These animals are there living symbol of the history of the American West and each population is unique to that history of the land.
So now we come to another place in the conversation.
If these first two points are “fixed” we can then begin a solution based conversation. The animals then have appropriate range and we comprehend each population with a clear standard of viability.
The fair share of that resource must be allotted within each area to sustain the viability of this user (wh&b’s) under law.
If all of these factors are met and population needs to be controlled tools such as fertility control and the adoption program would be utilized.
However the value of that animal must be demonstrated through fair use of the land and a standard for humane care during handling. If you don’t have these two basic premises clearly established management will continue to reflect the very conditions that created the need for the law, a feral resource treated as a pest.
So no, I do not believe current management is a “good job.” Many basic areas such as appropriate boundaries, viability and humane care must be addressed prior to any discussion about more tools that can be mismanaged takes place.
Do I believe “good practice” is possible? Yes. But it needs to begin with an honest conversation based of fact.
Rope around her neck. They use a horse and rider to pull on her neck. Third horse to try to squeeze through the inappropriate gate that day.
Can you respond to this quote by Guilfoyle? Joan Guilfoyle said, “. . . some accidents are inevitable in large gather operations and that the agency is developing a comprehensive animal welfare plan that will standardize procedures for managing on the range, during gathers, adoptions and transportation and in holding facilities.”
“We do not have “some accidents.” We have constant disregard demonstrated in practice, multiple events daily. The simple concept of a care standard was not included in the vocabulary of this agency until it was forced. BLM internal investigations found infractions that include dragging, kicking animals in the head and contact by helicopters appropriate until a federal Judge stopped a roundup.The most basic premise of the Act is to protect and care for these animals. How can any action this agency takes be trusted until a standard is in place? ”
