Many of you sent letters to Gene Seidlitz of the BLM’s Winnemucca district in reference to the “Disposition of Inventory” at the Broken Arrow.
Gene’s response (he chose to respond to the group using Craig’s letter as the one to respond to. He did NOT respond to my request) :
Thanks for your continued interest in the Calico Complex. This note serves
as a response back to all of you regarding the recent flight by Mr. Craig
Downer which indicated only 50 wild horses and 350 livestock within
portions of the Complex.
As stated during the Calico Complex Gather, we have been planning for the
post gather population survey for this area and/or areas within the Tri
State area. Based on the significant amount of wild horse movement in and
outside of the HMA’s in this general area (northwest portion of Nevada)
this is the first time we will count the NW corner of the state to get a
comprehensive inventory. We intend to implement the Simultaneous
Double-Count with Sightability Bias Correction method. This methodology is
outlined in IM 2010-057. This method should yield the most accurate counts
possible. The BLM considers the methodology a valid tool for developing
estimates of horses (wild and feral) populations. It is a peer-reviewed
methodology, recommended by the USGS and BLM National Horse and Burro
Program research coordinator and tested on some BLM HMA’s and National
This flight is tentatively scheduled for the summer of 2010 with a
certified pilot and three crew members. Although we have had offers from
some of you to fly with the BLM, regulations, policy and protocols that
address both safety and liability issues are grounds to deny your requests.
Once the population survey is completed, the data will have to be compiled,
analyzed and then presented. At this time, I can not provide you with an
exact date for this data to be available to you and others.
Thanks for your continued interest in the WH/B program and the Calico
My response to Gene:
I thank you for responding. However your response is not a response to the requests.
The requests were directed, not at the survey that we all know is going to be done this summer, but to the disposition of inventory at the Broken Arrow. The disposition of that inventory is premature until the survey is complete using the parameters of current knowledge.
1. BLM has identified “new” knowledge based on movement among the various jurisdictions involved in the planning for the new complex.
2. A gather was conducted where insufficient numbers to complete the contract were found.
3. A new protocol has been outlined, but not implemented, for data collection within that complex.
Based on these three issues alone, any disposition of inventory is premature and borders on irresponsibility to the mandate to protect these horses as well as to the mission statement of the new complex.
Exclusion of interested participants in the actual “count” protocol creates the need for a project to be designed by the interested party that uses the same protocol, yet is executed independently. This will create the very situation you claimed you wanted to avoid at our meeting. We will then have the “us and them” battle with data obtained in an identical manner, instead of a “we” approach to “moving forward” in the “new direction” claimed in DC.
I realize the microcosm management issues at the district level yet feel strongly that the need exists to follow the intention of cooperation as promised during such “productions” as the meeting I just attended.
I hope to hear a response from you that is directed at the core request in each letter you received.
Act on this information at your own discretion (courtsey of dictionary.com):