Tami Hottes speaks out for wild horses at national BLM board meeting on Earth Day

PM Tami Hottes WH&B Advisory Board

 

Tami Hottes, Director of Outreach at Protect Mustangs, champions wild horses’ rights to freedom and their land. She asked for the captives to receive shade and shelter and for a moratorium on roundups. Hottes stood up against forced drugging of wild mares with PZP (a pesticide made from slaughterhouse pig ovaries) at the national Wild Horse & Burro Advisory Board Meeting today.

Learn about the dangers of PZP in the Forum: https://www.facebook.com/groups/ForumPZPWildHorsesBurros

Sign the Petition for Shade & Shelter: https://www.change.org/p/bring-emergency-shelter-and-shade-to-captive-wild-horses-and-burros

Stand up for native wild horses and JOIN www.ProtectMustangs.org

Media placement spins wild horses as scary pests to push PZP at upcoming BLM meeting?

Pine Nut Wild Horses ©Anne Novak for Protect Mustangs

Pine Nut Wild Horses ©Anne Novak for Protect Mustangs

Are the PZP PUSHERS buying CNN media placement ahead of the BLM’s Wild Horse Advisory Board Meeting April 22-23rd in Ohio to PUSH PZP, take over and control America’s wild horses that they see as “pests” deserving of a pesticide for “birth control”? Follow the money and you find millions of donor dollars that would pour in (think of who is on the top of the PZP pyramid) if they were able to claim they solved the wild horse “problem” with PZP.  (EPA Pesticide Fact Sheet: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_search/reg_actions/pending/fs_PC-176603_01-Jan-12.pdf)

PM PZP Syringe Yearling Meme

 

Wild horses and the world’s forgotten animals
by Motez Bishara, for CNN April 21, 2015

(CNN)The Rolling Stones sang about them, and Ford named its most iconic sports car after them.

Their numbers are increasing, yet mustangs are among the ever-growing list of animals being eclipsed by the modern world.

That’s the view of Dutch artist Charlotte Dumas, who holds a particular fascination with the wild horses that populate the western U.S., together with the overall roles that animals play in society.

“Their physical presence may be growing, but what they stand for is deteriorating,” Dumas explains. “The whole idea of the wild and free horse is not sustainable anymore.”

From her observations, much of the world’s attention when it comes to animals either fixates on pets, which she says are “put on a pedestal, almost to excess,” or those consumed as part of the giant produce industry. “And then there is a big midsection that completely disappeared,” she says.

Dumas, 37, uses her medium of undirected portrait photography to humanize a largely anonymous subset of the animal population. She avoids zooms, taking photos only with portrait lenses that force her to get up close and personal with the animals — even when those subjects are wolves, wild dogs and tigers (she was safely behind a fence for the tigers).

Her two most recent bodies of work were recently on display at The Photographer’s Gallery in London. For “The Widest Prairies,” Dumas shadowed the mustangs from a trailer in Dayton, Nevada, while “Anima” is a video montage of military horses falling asleep in the stables of Arlington National Cemetery.

“Those horses make for a more appealing subject simply because they are more realistic of how most horses live, rather than in a very artificial habitat (catered to) horses that we might see in the Olympics,” says Dr. Thomas Witte, lecturer in equine surgery at the Royal Veterinary College in London.

Both projects required multiple trips from New York, where Dumas was living at the time, and countless hours behind the lens. Dumas believes taking her time is essential in order to catch the subjects in a relaxed and natural state.

The 12-minute film “Anima” was compiled from footage shot over the course of 15 nights, usually from midnight until 4 a.m.

“I encounter a lot of people in my work, and what they all find the strangest is that I stay around that long,” she explains. “(They ask), don’t you already have it by now?”

A press officer from the cemetery was assigned to accompany her during the overnights, shuffling back and forth between the stables and alerting Dumas when a horse was nodding off.

“I felt really guilty in the beginning because he had to be there for all these insane hours, but he didn’t mind at all,” she says.

The time spent allowed her to present a behind-the-scenes look at the working life of a regal animal. Known as caisson burial horses, the likes of Major and Ringo lead the procession for honored deceased servicemen up to eight times a day.

“(A working horse) is one of the few places where there is still this interaction where man and animal depend on each other,” says Dumas. “They are not as visible anymore, whereas they used to be very much part of everyday life.”

Tens of thousands of tourists go on African safari every year. Many will see the continent most beautiful beasts from the safety of a four-wheel drive vehicle, but some brave the bush on the four legs of a horse.

Witte points to an old adage in the veterinary world: that 10% of the world’s equine population receives 90% of the veterinary care.

“All those equids that are doing the grunt work and supporting their human families in developing parts of the world — the mules and donkeys — they get very little in the way of veterinary care and very little in the way of attention,” he says.

After such an intimate project, Dumas decided to profile the exact opposite type of horse for her followup — one with almost no human interaction or discipline.

“The wild horses have such a romantic connotation; I wanted to challenge myself, and see if it was possible to take a portrait of one,” she says. “I thought it was always a daring topic to go near, so it took me a while before I was ready to take that on. Practically they are very different from each other.”

Dumas spent nights in a trailer loaned by a wild horse preservationist in Nevada. The topic is controversial, since the free-roaming horses (numbering 40,815 throughout 10 states) can overpopulate and encroach on residential areas.

“They keep coming closer and closer to civilization because there is no food on the hills anymore. So (there is a question of) who’s infringing on who,” she explains.

Witte notes that overpopulation can lead to a spread of diseases between species. “Wherever you have that interface between human population and animal population, you’ve got to do something to control the situation; that is for animal welfare as much as it is for human convenience,” he says.

There are a further 16,203 horses up for adoption in holding shelters, and another 31,250 in long-term pastures. All the horses fall under the care of the Bureau of Land Management and are protected under the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971.

On a gamble, Dumas took to the mountains of Nevada and befriended a local watcher who put her up in her trailer. After studying the horses up close, Dumas decided to return months later — and noticed how their personalities had changed. Oddly, the more time she spent in the mustangs’ proximity, the less comfortable she became.

“I went in early spring which, was like mating season, and then they got really wild. You really had to be careful that you didn’t get caught up between two stallions fighting for mares,” she recalls. “The more I spent time with them, in a sense I got more and more afraid of them.”

Dumas’ other projects have profiled the retired search and rescue dogs of 9/11 (only one was reportedly still alive in 2014, 13 years after the World Trade Center attacks) and stray dogs in Palermo, Italy, along with tigers and wolves living in animal sanctuaries.

“They have so much power,” she says, recalling her nervousness around the tigers, “and when you see them up close they are so much bigger.” The tigers were shot at an eccentric private animal park in Texas that housed over 250 wild cats, while the wolves were photographed at a preserve in Colorado and in upstate New York.

Now back in Amsterdam, Dumas is focusing on her next projects: the logging horses of Lapland, Sweden, along with the eight native horse breeds of Japan, which she says are in danger of extinction.

Each series is part of a collective calling, to preserve a lasting image of a place in time for an unheralded group of animals that may not be around forever.

“What is the value of something that has no real direct use anymore to society?” she asks. “If there is no economic purpose, then they are just going to go extinct. That’s just how it is.”

# # #

Cross-posted from http://edition.cnn.com/2015/04/21/sport/wild-horses-photographer-charlotte-dumas/ for educational purposes

Is this CNN article another subliminal push for the registrant of PZP (The Humane Society of the United States) to take over wild horse and burro management based on using PZP?  Besides lobbying, are they buying media placements through PR firms too?

Learn more about PZP, the restricted use pesticide used as “birth control” that permanently sterilizes wild mares after multiple use on the Facebook Forum: https://www.facebook.com/groups/ForumPZPWildHorsesBurros

 

PM PZP Betrayal

Evelyn Fox Keller: The Gendered Language of #Science

Evelyn-Fox-Keller

his episode of World of Ideas featured theoretical physicist Evelyn Fox Keller on the rhetoric of science. When she first set out to be a scientist in the 1950s, Fox wondered why the language of science itself reflected patriarchal, masculine metaphors and values, and what it meant for the discipline. Here, she talked with Bill Moyers about her work on gender and the history of science.

TRANSCRIPT

BILL MOYERS: [voice-over] When Evelyn Fox Keller set out in the 1950s to be a scientist, she discovered it was a man’s world. Not only because most scientists were men, but because the language of science itself reflected masculine metaphors and values. Why is this so, she wondered? Trained since then as a theoretical physicist, she has taught mathematics and done research in mathematical biology, but it is her work on the history of science, her book, Reflections on Gender and Science, and her biography of the geneticist Barbara McClintock [A Feeling for the Organism] that brought me to the University of California at Berkeley where Dr. Keller teaches in the department of rhetoric.

[interviewing] What does rhetoric have to do with science, I thought, when I first heard about you?

EVELYN FOX KELLER: Right. That is a good question. Language, I think, is the mediator of human values and human expectations into our descriptions of nature. And if we want to understand how science reflects-the ways in which science is reflecting back to us particular expectations, particular values, we have to understand, we have to look at the language of science and see how that works, how the traffic between ordinary and technical language works as a carrier of, if you will, of ideology into science.

BILL MOYERS: And one of your chief contributions to this has been that gender plays a significant role in the language that scientists use to describe their work.

EVELYN FOX KELLER: It has played a very, very powerful role.

BILL MOYERS: And by gender you mean-you don’t mean sex, that-the given of nature, our biological difference, do you?

EVELYN FOX KELLER: No, I mean ideas of masculinity, ideas of femininity, that the language of sex and the language of gender have been extremely prominent in scientific discourse since the scientific revolution.

BILL MOYERS: And the dominant image has been?

EVELYN FOX KELLER: Well, Henry Oldenburg said it very clearly. The purpose of the Royal Society was to establish a truly masculine philosophy. What did they mean by a truly masculine philosophy? Francis Bacon said, “Let us establish a chaste and lawful marriage between mind and nature.” The purpose of this marriage was to bind nature–bring nature and all her children to your service, bind her and make her your slave. That was the purpose of the-

BILL MOYERS: Mind/husband-nature/wife. And the purpose of science was to give the mind, the husband, mastery over nature?

EVELYN FOX KELLER: That’s right. That’s right. That the central metaphor for the scientific revolution was a marriage between the mind and nature that was modeled on a particular kind of marriage, a patriarchal marriage, the purpose of which was the domination of nature, the bride nature.

BILL MOYERS: And the Royal Society of London was founded in 1662, and didn’t admit a woman until 1945.

EVELYN FOX KELLER: [laughing] Yes.

BILL MOYERS: That’s letting the language determine your policy for a long time.

EVELYN FOX KELLER: But science had a particular commitment to the notion that there was something special about what they were doing, a special kind of thinking, a special kind of philosophy, a special kind of activity

BILL MOYERS: What was it?

EVELYN FOX KELLER: -that was, in the most general sense, was thinking like a man. It was thinking–it was the idea, it was committed to an ideal of objectivity that was from the beginning equated in a very curious way, the equation between objectivity and masculinity is a very curious equation. And in fact, it was that equation that motivated my entire inquiry. I wanted to understand what does that mean, to say “thinking objectively is thinking like a man”? What could it mean? Where did such an idea come from? And more important, what consequences has it had for science?

BILL MOYERS: There were so many examples of these first scientists, 300 years ago, founding modern science, who used this masculine language to assign masculine virtues to science. Your book is full of them. Which is your favorite?

EVELYN FOX KELLER: The best quote I can think of is Joseph Lanville. He wrote: “That Jove himself cannot be wise and in love may be understood in a larger sense than antiquity meant it. Where the will or passion hath a casting voice, the case of truth is desperate. The woman in us still prosecutes a deceit like that begun in the garden, and our understandings are wedded to an Eve as fatal as the mother of our miseries,” He concludes: “Truth has no chance when the affections wear the breeches and the female rules.”

BILL MOYERS: He was saying that we have to exclude feeling, empathy, intuition from the search for this–how the world works?

EVELYN FOX KELLER: That’s right. But he’s doing it by attaching them to the female, to the female voice. He’s saying both. Excluding female–we’re excluding affection, feeling, emotion, because it’s female, and we’re excluding females because they bring affection, they carry with them affection. By that equation, by that equation between emotion and female, he is excluding both in one move.

BILL MOYERS: Whatever their motives, the consequences have been significant for science, and for all of us, right?

EVELYN FOX KELLER: Right. Once you have shown how important, how prevalent these images of masculinity and femininity and domination were, the question remains, so what? Right? That’s really the question. And it is very clear-let me take the arguments that would be made. One person might say: “Yes, but that’s just in the 17th century. We’ve left that long since behind.” Well, the response to that is that we haven’t left it behind, it is still with us, and just in case-just as an example, I brought-I looked in my office this morning-

BILL MOYERS: A scientist who does her research.

EVELYN FOX KELLER: -right. I just pulled out, as an example, a quote from C.P. Snow from The Masters, in 1951. He’s describing the young scientist, Luke, who has just had a breakthrough. “It’s wonderful,” he burst out, “when you’ve got a problem that is really coming out. It’s like making love. Suddenly your unconscious takes control, and nothing can stop you. You know that you’re making old Mother Nature sit up and beg, and you say to her, ‘I’ve got you, you old bitch.’ You’ve got her just where you want her.”

BILL MOYERS: Hmm. That’s 300 years after the birth of-

EVELYN FOX KELLER: That’s 300, 300 years after.

BILL MOYERS: -so what happened was that this, as a consequence of that era, there was created this ideology, that mythology, that objectivity, reason and the mind are male attributes, and subjectivity, feeling and nature are female attributes. But what did that mean to the history of science?

EVELYN FOX KELLER: That’s a question, I think, that really is the kind of question that faces all of the history and philosophy of science today, that we have learned — the hard way, I think — we have learned that the notion that science, whatever the motivations of the individual scientist, that science gives us a mirror, a reflection of nature, so that the laws of nature are in nature. We’ve learned that that picture of science just doesn’t work, that that’s a metaphor that has many functions, most of them political and social, that it really is not a very good description of the-of actually what happens, that actually, what happens is that the descriptions of nature, the theories of nature, are very complexly influenced by all kinds of social, cultural, psychological presuppositions.

BILL MOYERS: My friend at the University of Texas, a physicist, Steven Weinberg, talks about the universe as being one of overwhelming hostility. Now, do you feel the universe is hostile?

EVELYN FOX KELLER: Well, how can the universe be hostile? I also quote Steven Weinberg in this same lecture. That’s another example. You know — Steven Weinberg is somebody I quoted in my book on gender and science, also, here’s a wonderful quote. He says: “The laws of nature are cold and indifferent. We didn’t want it to come out that way; it just came out that way.” Well, I think that there is a sense in which we did want it to come out that way, that there is a — that the language of hostility, of coldness, of indifference is a human language, and that that human language is written into our descriptions of nature, into what Weinberg calls the laws of nature.

BILL MOYERS: So this is what-

EVELYN FOX KELLER: It’s written into the very notion of laws of nature.

BILL MOYERS: -in what sense?

EVELYN FOX KELLER: A law of nature is a very curious construct. It is–whose law is the law of nature? Where does the idea of a law of nature come from? And what is the function of a law of nature? The law of nature, the concept of a law of nature comes originally from the civic realm. Well, first it comes from the realm of God; the laws of nature were originally God’s laws. Now, in contemporary science, we don’t believe in God’s laws, but still, the laws are–have an existence in our imagination, somehow above the phenomena, but the phenomena must conform to the laws of nature.

And this is very important when you think about-actually how physicists work, and how We develop our science. Because what in fact we do is, we-you know, Francis Bacon gave us all kinds of memorable expressions about how we have to “vex” nature, that nature only under the art of vexation will reveal her true nature. Well, we do vex nature, we vex nature quite a bit. We twist and conform–we make–it is no easy task to make nature conform to the laws of nature.

Let me tell you–as a scientist I can tell you that it is very hard work to get nature to conform to the laws of nature. Nature has to–the natural phenomena have to be structured and constrained and twisted and vexed to an astonishing degree, and then they will obey the laws of nature. So what is this telling us about the laws-what are laws of nature doing? What is their relation to other kinds of phenomena?

BILL MOYERS: So when Steven Weinberg says that the laws of nature are as impersonal and free of human value as the rules of arithmetic, you’re not objecting to the formula as much as you are to the very language, the very use of the word law to describe the operations of nature. Is that what I’m hearing?

EVELYN FOX KELLER: I’m objecting to both. I’m objecting to the language of laws and also objecting to the notion that they are as free of human value as the rules of arithmetic. I think it’s not true. I think there is nothing, it is a fantasy that any human product could be free of human values. And science is a human product. It’s a wonderful, glorious human product.

BILL MOYERS: But what about nature? Nature is not a human product. I mean, the natural world is not a human product.

EVELYN FOX KELLER: Yeah, but science doesn’t give us nature. Science gives us a description of nature. Science gives us scientific theories of nature.

BILL MOYERS: And in the description of nature, we assign to that description our own subjective experience.

EVELYN FOX KELLER: There is no way of avoiding that. There is no way of–there is no magic lens that will enable us to look at–to see nature unclouded, with–uncolored by any values, hopes, fears, anxieties, desires, goals that we bring to it. There is no such magic lens. We interact with the world, we interact with the world in purposive ways, and it is very easy to see how values, whether they are values that come from an ideology of gender or ideology of class or ideology of-or commitment to militarism, it is relatively easy to see how the values will help guide the kind of question you want to ask.

BILL MOYERS: But you’re not arguing, are you, that if there were more women in science, we’d be studying acid rain instead of Star Wars? That’s-

EVELYN FOX KELLER: No, no.

BILL MOYERS: -more complicated.

EVELYN FOX KELLER: I wish that were true. I wish all we had to do was to bring more women in science, because we’re bringing more women into science now, and then it would change, you know. But no, it’s much more complicated, because these social, ideological patterns get imprinted onto the very structure of science. It’s a-you know, it has–there’s a momentum to the development of science. You don’t just come in and change it with–you come into science with a different language, first of all, you don’t come into science. I mean, that’s the first thing.

BILL MOYERS: You may came in, but leave fairly soon.

EVELYN FOX KELLER: You will leave very soon. So the first point is that in order to enter into this world, you have to become resocialized. So whether you are, you know, you may have had a different language or a different set of expectations or a different set of interests because you were socialized’ as a woman or because you were socialized as, you know, working-class, a black, or whether you were socialized as-you grew up in Japan or China. It doesn’t matter. When you enter into the world of science, if you want to be a member of this world, you have to learn its language. You have to learn the language of that world. So that’s the first point.

BILL MOYERS: Right.

EVELYN FOX KELLER: And the second point is that the language and the goals and the endeavor have a dynamic of its own. If it is the case, as I believe, if it is the case that the language of science shapes the actual content of science, what it-how we employ this wonderful, this wonderful human endeavor, this wonderful human talent, then I think that is far more important in the question of women and science. The question of women and science is important; I don’t want to say it’s not important.

BILL MOYERS: Right.

EVELYN FOX KELLER: But there are more–given the tremendous role that science plays in the world we live in, the idea that science could be redirected, that there could be changes in the way in which science is done and the way in which it moves, the direction in which it moves, that seems to me of even greater importance. That’s my principal argument. And my principal case, my strongest case for that argument, is the story of Barbara McClintock. I titled my biography of McClintock A Feeling for the Organism–it wasn’t for my agenda that I chose that title. The title was hers. It’s her deepest belief that you cannot do good research without a feeling for the organism. A feeling for the organism was her refrain.

BILL MOYERS: But what do you mean, Dr.

EVELYN FOX KELLER: “a feeling for the organism?”

EVELYN FOX KELLER: I mean, the ability to identify with the subject of study, to feel kinship with the subject that you are studying, instead of feeling engaged in a battle, in a struggle, in a state of opposition.

BILL MOYERS: And you really feel that’s primarily a female mode of approaching science?

EVELYN FOX KELLER: No. I believe that it’s been called a female mode of approaching science. I believe it is a human virtue, a human talent. We’re talking about empathy, the capacity for empathy. I don’t think that women have a corner on the market of empathy. I think that all of us are capable of empathy, although I do think that it’s not a talent that is very well developed in many men, because of the ways in which they’re raised. But it is precisely because it has been identified as a feminine virtue, as a feminine talent, that it has been excluded from science.

BILL MOYERS: Can you give me some specific examples? I mean, I can think of some very obvious ones. I think of the first atomic bomb was called “Fat Boy,” and it was delivered from the womb of a bomber named “Enola Gay,” a female delivering a weapon of destruction. But that’s probably too extreme an example for you.

EVELYN FOX KELLER: Well, isn’t it extraordinary–that metaphor. I mean, what do you make of it? That was a metaphor that really, really plagued me.

BILL MOYERS: I make of it that men were at war, and men were the scientists who invented the atomic bomb, and they gave it the name they would give something if they were playing in a schoolyard.

EVELYN FOX KELLER: Yes, except that the idea of the metaphor of bomb as baby is to me more than something a kid would do in a schoolyard. I mean, that carries, for me, far more import.

BILL MOYERS: And as you pointed out, the bombs with the thrust are called boy babies, and the bombs that were duds were called girl babies.

EVELYN FOX KELLER: That’s right, that’s right. That’s right.

BILL MOYERS: It isn’t just the 20th century, though, is it, Dr.

EVELYN FOX KELLER:? I mean, I think of Mary Shelley writing Frankenstein, carrying on that–depicting that story of the mad scientist down in his basement pursuing the secret of life, discovering the secret of life.

EVELYN FOX KELLER: Right.

BILL MOYERS: And then turning the secret of life into something monstrous.

EVELYN FOX KELLER: The difference, of course, is that that was a story.

BILL MOYERS: It was a story, but stories get at meanings. And here’s a–I’ve often wondered if this was a woman’s view of science, Mary Shelley writing Frankenstein as a parable about how a woman, or perhaps many women, saw science, pursuing perfection and finding instead the monster that destroys the creator.

EVELYN FOX KELLER: Except that that’s a story, a fantasy that has been embraced by many men. I mean, that story, the popularity of that story, Mary Shelley wrote it, but who reads it? Who reads the story of Frankenstein? That myth, that idea, that men, in seeking the secret of life, in seeking the power to create life without women, that’s really what that story is about. It’s the-that, along with many other stories. It’s about the co-optation of the procreative function by men. Itís a story of dispensing with female procreativity. That’s what that story is about. And what does it result in? It results in a monster–not the secret of life, but a monster who becomes the secret of death. It becomes an agent of destruction. That theme is with us everywhere, that theme that-and that was my interest in the metaphor of bombs as babies, that the idea that when men succeed in discovering the secret of life, in taking it in their hands, they will produce babies that will be agents of destruction. They will be the instruments of death. That is a cultural myth. That’s a cultural motif, and not just our own. It’s a motif that you find in many, many cultures. That’s a very archetypal story. It isn’t only Mary Shelley’s story. But stories are very powerful, and they speak very deeply to our deepest anxieties, our deepest desires. Still, there’s a difference between a story and the actual construction, technological structure. And I think these stories have had a lot to do-they tell us a lot about the motivation that has led us to the moment in time when we can all but create life out of a test tube. We are engaged in this activity, in this interaction with nature, if you will, with natural phenomena. We are seeking knowledge. For what? To what end? Knowledge-we are always we are very purposive creatures. Some people will say-I think McClintock would say, many other people would say we are just in it for the understanding, for the sheer understanding. And that’s very beautiful, and it’s very nice, and I can really resonate with that. But understanding always has consequences. For example, take the human genome project. The purpose of the human genome project is to give us a complete readout of the human genome so that–it’s not just for knowledge, why you know, why do we want a complete readout of the human genome? Why not a readout of all the molecules that make up our solar system? Why do we want the human genome? Well, we-it has, it’s not just for understanding. It has a purpose. We think it will give us better control over the genetic constitution of the human race. People say, “Well, it will help us cure disease.” I think-I don’t believe it. I mean, not many people do believe it.

BILL MOYERS: Right.

EVELYN FOX KELLER: The real purpose of the human genome project is to gain–is to fulfill a vision of control over the future course of evolution. I mean, that’s putting it very baldly, but that really was the vision that inspired the early development of classical genetics and molecular genetics. The idea was to get the future course of human evolution in one’s hand, and that’s a very extraordinary vision, that it speaks to a kind of control, a degree of control that one would not think of having in relation to a subject that one had a more erotic, more interactive, more reciprocal feeling–engagement with. That is control in the sense of-in the Baconian sense of domination, that nature is there to be steered, to be directed, to be-now who are we to steer and direct this-the future course of evolution?

BILL MOYERS: It’s very biblical, you know, men interpreting their mission from God to dominate the Earth.

EVELYN FOX KELLER: That’s right, it is biblical. It is exactly biblical. And scientists have inherited that mantle, that we don’t need God anymore
because we are doing it.

BILL MOYERS: But as a biologist, are you not curious about what will be learned from the human genome project?

EVELYN FOX KELLER: Of course I’m curious. I think that–you know, I have no doubt that it’ll be tremendously interesting and tremendously useful. But it will not–first, I do not think it will fulfill the fantasy. I do not think you can control the course of evolution by getting your hands on the genes, because I don’t think the genes are where everything is at.

BILL MOYERS: The public at large-there are people in the general public who think of this project as giving us the power to create the perfect human being, you know, that ultimately, down the road we’ll be able to connect way back in the genetic chain the potential for a disorder in that child that’s emerging so that we’ll avoid the crippling disease.

EVELYN FOX KELLER: Right. It is the desire for perfection, there’s no doubt about it.

BILL MOYERS: But that’s driven us for how many centuries now?

EVELYN FOX KELLER: Oh, many. And very productively, you might say. But also dangerously. I mean, that–in the 20th century, we can’t speak–any longer speak of the glories of science as an unmixed blessing. And it’s cost us and it endangers us, and it also empowers us. And the question is whether we can harness this resource or we can redeploy this wonderful creative resource in ways that would be more productive for the future survival and well-being of humankind.

BILL MOYERS: [voice-over] From her home in Berkeley, California, this has been a conversation with Evelyn Fox Keller, I’m Bill Moyers.

This transcript was entered on March 27, 2015.

FROM THE SHOW

Evelyn Fox Keller: The Gendered Language of Science

Cross-posted for educational purposes: http://billmoyers.com/content/evelyn-fox-keller/

Despite protests, BLM returns wild horses to range in Nevada

Fish Creek Mares Indian Lakes aka Broken Arrow 2015

April 12, 2015

RENO, Nev. (AP) — Despite the protests of a rural county and rancher, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management has returned some 160 wild horses to the range in central Nevada.

The agency returned the horses to the Fish Creek Herd Management Area near Eureka on Tuesday after being cleared to do so by the Interior Board of Land Appeals.

The BLM originally had planned to return some 100 mares treated with a fertility control vaccine and 80 studs to the HMA on Feb. 20. They were among 424 horses removed from the HMA during a roundup that ended earlier in February.

The bureau routinely thins what it calls overpopulated herds on public land across the West, sending horses that aren’t adopted by the public to pastures in the Midwest for the rest of their lives.

The agency also routinely releases mares treated with fertility control drugs back to the range after being rounded up. Varying numbers of studs also are released back to the range to help maintain the genetic viability of herds.

Eureka County commissioners and rancher Kevin Borba filed an appeal with the Interior Board of Land Appeals to block the return of any of the 424 horses to the range and to challenge the BLM’s assessment of how many horses the HMA can support.

But the board affirmed the BLM’s authority to return 162 of the horses to the range. Arguments in the case continue on the underlying claims.

Borba has said the BLM has drastically reduced his livestock allotments in the HMA while allowing well over twice as many horses in it as it can support. He and Eureka commissioners seek the removal of more horses.

Horse advocates praised the BLM’s return of the horses to the range, saying it’s in line with recommendations released in 2013 by a National Academy of Sciences panel calling for increased emphasis on fertility control to keep horse numbers down.

“Now is the time to move forward with innovative management that makes sense, keeping wild horses on their range and saving millions of tax dollars in the long term,” Neda DeMayo, president of Return to Freedom, said in a statement. “It is time for a new direction instead of wasting time and money obstructing positive solutions that will benefit the horses, wildlife, ranchers and the range.”

But not all horse advocacy groups support the use of fertility control drugs on mares.

“We want to see drug-free holistic management used for native wild horses,” said Anne Novak, executive director of Protect Mustangs. “(The fertility control vaccine) PZP sterilizes after multiple use and we’re concerned that will ruin survival of the fittest.”

Borba has said he thinks the fertility control vaccine is far less effective than the BLM and horse advocates claim, and horse numbers will further explode as a result. Ranchers view wild horses as competition for scare forage in the arid West.

Cross-posted for educational purposes only from the San Francisco Chronicle.

URGENT: They want them all wiped out except for a zoo-like herd!

© Anne Novak, all rights reserved.

© Anne Novak, all rights reserved.

Dear Friends of Wild Horses & Burros,

It’s urgent to send in comments by midnight April 10th against BLM’s horrid plans to wipe out the Kiger herd (Sprit is from the Kiger herd http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0166813) and Riddle herd in Oregon. Unless this is stopped they will leave only a few wild horses as a token to photograph and breed in a zoo-like setting.

The BLM is proposing to spend your hard earned tax dollars for a brutal helicopter roundup of 210 wild horses, and permanently remove and put in holding 120 thus stripping populations to the low end of BLM’s alleged Appropriate Management Level (AML). That would leave only 51 for Kiger HMA and 33 for the Riddle Mountain HMA. There are already too few remaining on the range. Stop the roundups!

Chasing them with helicopters or drugging them up with PZP–a pesticide, made from slaughterhouse pig ovaries–used for birth control for alleged ‘humane management in the wild’ is heinous, deceitful and must be stopped now. http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_search/reg_actions/pending/fs_PC-176603_01-Jan-12.pdf Spaying underpopulated wild horses or gelding studs must be halted too. This is a native species that must NOT be managed to extinction using tools like PZP.

Please send your comments by midnight Friday, April 10 to:

Lisa Grant
Burns District Office
Email: lgrant@blm.gov or BLM_Or_BU_Mail@blm.gov

Be sure to send your senators and representatives (http://www.contactingthecongress.org)
a copy of your email and request they intervene to stop this tragedy before it’s too late.

PZP lobbyists are paying a lot of money to fool your elected officials into believing wild horses are overpopulated and therefore NEED their EPA approved “restricted-use pesticide” for birth control when the truth is wild horses need their rights protected to the land they are supposed to be freely roaming on according to the 1971 law.

Here are seven talking points:

1. ) Raise the BLM’s alleged appropriate management level (AML) to create viable herds. Genetically viable herds are essential to ensure the herds survival based on natural selection. Both the Kiger and Riddle herds need to be allowed higher populations immediately.

2. ) Reduce livestock grazing that is currently getting 5 times more forage allocation than native wild horses.

3.) Stop shooting up wild horses with PZP. It is a pesticide that sterilizes after multiple use and is being used as a tool to manage native wild horses to extinction. It’s inhumane for many reasons and robs them of their right to survival of the fittest in the wild and would force them into breeding program with many problems such as this: http://protectmustangs.org/?p=8077

4.) There is no evidence of overpopulation according to the National Academy of Sciences 2013 report, therefore roundups are unjustified.

5.) Holistic management must be implemented to save the herds before they are all destroyed.

6.) Wild horses are a native species who prevent wildfires. When the herds are radically reduced from helicopter roundups then catastrophic wildfires follow costing taxpayers millions of dollars.

7.) Stop the roundups.

If you have already emailed a comment but didn’t realize how dangerous endorsing PZP is then you have the right to send the BLM an updated comment stating you are against using PZP (native, 22 or any other version). You will find a lot of information about PZP in the Facebook Forum on PZP https://www.facebook.com/groups/ForumPZPWildHorsesBurros Sadly groups that have signed contracts with BLM are pushing PZP as well as the registrant at the top of the pyramid. What they aren’t speaking about is the fact that mares are permanently sterilized after multiple use and that often fillies get raped by mobs of studs desperate to breed because their mares are on PZP.

Please share the Petition for Shade & Shelter to help the roundup victims that the BLM refuses to take care of properly: https://www.change.org/p/bring-emergency-shelter-and-shade-to-captive-wild-horses-and-burros

Thank you for taking action today to save America’s wild horses in Oregon from being managed to extinction and for helping the victims of previous roundups.

In gratitude,
Anne

Anne Novak
Executive Director
www.ProtectMustangs.org

Is PZP causing young fillies to be raped by mobs of studs?

 

By U.S. Government [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

By U.S. Government [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

Anne-Marie Pinter writes in the Forum on PZP, “Encore the yearling filly stolen by a band of bachelors and held hostage by a BAND of mature bachelor’s, that filly is too small to fight off an adult stallion let alone a band who will rape her whether she is heat or not because she cannot fight them off,and cannot outrun them- so not to worry if she lives thru it -she will be sterile as the cervix will be so badly torn it will never form a seal..Is it because of PZP-well go to BLM’s website and read under the fertility program management where they acknowledge since the use of PZP it has been “noted” stallions have started breeding yearlings and mares are foaling as 2-year-olds. underdeveloped and not mature enough to know how to be a good mother..this is NOT behavior ever noted by Ginger before the use of PZP..hope all you sleep well tonight, and realize-there are consequences to the use of PZP..this is one among many.”

JOIN the Forum on PZP https://www.facebook.com/groups/ForumPZPWildHorsesBurros to learn the TRUTH about PZP (Native, 22, etc.) Once informed people can’t support PZP and that’s why the PZP Pushers are trying to hide the information.

Comments needed against BLM Colorado’s plans to stampede and remove native wild horses

Take Back the Power (© Protect Mustangs with Photo © Cynthia Smalley)

Take Back the Power (© Protect Mustangs with Photo © Cynthia Smalley)

MEEKER, Colo. — The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) White River Field Office is seeking public comments on a proposal to gather alleged excess native wild horses in northwest Colorado. The BLM claims they want to sustain healthy public lands and wild horse populations yet their management levels are too low. Wild horses should have principal but not exclusive use of the land. The BLM’s multiple use manifesto is unfairly pushing wild horses off their native land.

The BLM is proposing to use a helicopter to locate and stampede wild horses toward a set of corrals as well as using water and bait trapping. The roundups could begin as early as September 2015. Up to 167 wild horses could be removed.

The White River Field Office manages the Piceance-East Douglas Herd Management Area to maintain a healthy wild horse herd in balance with other resources and uses such as mining, drilling and livestock grazing. This area currently has an estimated 377 wild horses, but the appropriate management level for that area is too low at only 135 and 235 wild horses. The adjacent West Douglas Herd Area is not managed for wild horses but currently has an estimated population of 365 wild horses. Cruel roundups could occur in either area as well as areas within the White River Field Office outside these boundaries.

The BLM planning documents, evaluating the proposed roundup and removal operations, are available at the White River Field Office at 220 E Market Street and online at www.blm.gov/co/st/en/fo/wrfo.html.

It’s important to send in public comments regarding the BLM’s proposed roundup and removal plans favoring other users by May 5. Written comments can be mailed to the White River Field Office, 220 E. Market Street, Meeker, CO 81641 or submitted via email to mkindall@blm.gov. General questions can be directed to Melissa Kindall at 970/878-3842.

Before including your address, phone number, email address or any other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including personal identifying information, could be made publicly available at any time. While individuals can request the BLM to withhold personal identifying information from public view, the BLM cannot guarantee it will be able to do so.

Links of interest™

West Douglas Herd Area Preliminary EA http://on.doi.gov/1Fy6cDy

West Douglas unsigned FONSI http://on.doi.gov/1IGsMdm

BLM claims no significant impact on Piceance-East Douglas Herd Management Area (FONSI) http://on.doi.gov/1Cb1DLT

Piceance-East Douglas Herd Management Area (Determination of NEPA Adequacy) http://on.doi.gov/1DgcbgH

BLM Colorado White River Office http://www.blm.gov/co/st/en/fo/wrfo.html

Speak out for wild horses & burros at the RAC meeting in Las Vegas April 24th

Nevada mustang © Carl Mrozek

Nevada mustang © Carl Mrozek

BLM Mojave-Southern Great Basin Resource Advisory Council to Meet

ELY – The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will meet with the Mojave-Southern Great Basin Resource Advisory Council (RAC) at 8 a.m., Friday, April 24, at the BLM Southern Nevada District Office, 4701 N. Torrey Pines Dr., in Las Vegas, Nev.

The RAC advises and makes recommendations to the BLM on public land management. Discussion items will include, but are not limited to, the Southern Nevada District Resource Management Plan, Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone and Mitigation, and Transmission and Corridors. The meetings are open to the public and provide the public an opportunity to make comments to the citizen-based council. A public comment period is scheduled at 11:15 a.m. The public is encouraged to attend and provide comment. Written comments can also be submitted to the RAC Coordinator, Chris Hanefeld at the Ely District Office, 702 North Industrial Way, HC 33 Box 33500, Ely, NV 89301. The agenda is available online at http://bit.ly/MOSORAC.

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act directs the Secretary of the Interior to involve the public in planning and discussion of issues related to management of BLM-administered public lands. The Mojave-Southern Great Basin RAC is one of three such councils in Nevada that accommodate this community participation directive. Represented on the council are commercial and non-commercial users including environmental, livestock, mining, Native American, and wild horse and burro interests and elected officials and state agencies.

For more information, contact Chris Hanefeld, BLM Ely District Office public affairs specialist, at (775) 289-1842 or chanefel@blm.gov

Job Listing: Wild Horse & Burro Monitoring Technician

Nevada mustang © Carl Mrozek

Nevada mustang © Carl Mrozek

The Great Basin Institute, in cooperation with the Bureau of Land Management Mount Lewis Field Office, is recruiting one rangeland ecologist, wildlife biologist, or botanist to conduct upland monitoring across the public lands. The Monitoring Technician will work cooperatively as part of a multi-disciplinary rangeland monitoring team. The overall objective is to collect and compile monitoring data within Wild Horse and Burro Herd Management Areas including but not limited to utilization, nested frequency, rangeland health indicators, water availability/condition, and wild horse or burro body condition. The Monitoring Technician may also be required to work as part of other monitoring teams collecting riparian or wildlife data or vegetation data for fire rehabilitation monitoring.

General duties include planning for and completing monitoring within Wild Horse and Burro Herd Management Areas working either alone or in cooperation with the Mount Lewis Field Office Wild Horse and Burro Specialist or other staff member, including other Monitoring Technicians. Monitoring will require adherence to Bureau of Land Management Technical References, use of digital cameras, and detailed documentation of field observations. The incumbent will be responsible for compilation of data, labeling digital photos and analyzing and display of data using GIS (ArcMap). GBI is seeking an associate to fill the monitoring technician position that will perform the following duties:

Wild Horse and Burro Monitoring – The Monitoring Technician will be responsible for documenting wild horse and burro body condition on the range under established BLM Protocol (Henneke Condition Scoring). The monitoring will also involve the documentation of animal presence and movement patterns, and habitat quality and quantity including rangeland health indicators and water availability/condition. The Technician may assist with collecting data for wild horse and burro NEPA documentation and assisting with gathers.
Plant Identification – plant and plant community identification, including the ability to use vegetation identification keys to properly identify upland range plants common throughout the Great Basin. Responsible for the identification of individual plants, describing existing and potential plant communities using soil survey and ecological site description information.
Soil Identification – Has exposure to identification of soils, and is able to use of soil surveys in order to determine soils grouped into the site, identify landscape and soil factors, and determine existing or potential erosional factors. This information would be utilized to aid in determining site potential and evaluation of current conditions.
Upland Monitoring Studies – Utilizing plant and soil identification skills, the Monitoring Technician will be responsible for conducting upland monitoring studies under established BLM protocol. Monitoring could include but is not limited to Utilization, Use Pattern Mapping, Ecological Site Inventory, Cover and Density techniques.
Location: Battle Mountain, NV is located ~220 miles east of Reno, NV and ~300 west of Salt Lake City, UT along Interstate 80. Battle Mountain and the surrounding area (pop. ~4,000) is predominantly rural; situated in the high desert (~4,500 ft. elevation) where ranching/mining are the local economic drivers. The Mount Lewis Field Office within the Battle Mountain District Office is responsible for managing approximately 4.5 million acres of public land typically of basin-and-range topography with Great Basin Desert/sage brush steppe ecotype.

Compensation & Timeline:

Rate of Pay – $16.00/hour
Medical benefits (health and dental)
Start Date: May 18, 2015 (or upon availability) – November 20, 2015, with potential for extension pending funding and a favorable performance review
Full time, 40 hours per week
Qualifications:

Applicants should have a combination of educational and field experience related to the position of interest (degree in Rangeland Management/Sciences, Wildlife, Ecology, Botany or other similar degree), including an understanding of basic principles related to the fields of botany, soil science, and/or livestock science; knowledge of Great Basin ecology, preferable; knowledge and ability to use various monitoring techniques to determine range vegetation and animal condition (e.g. utilization, nested frequency, rangeland health indicators, water availability/condition, wild horse body condition); knowledge and ability to identify rangeland vegetation and the functional aspects of rangeland ecology, riparian condition; and livestock and equine health); experience working with ArcGIS, desirable (includes ability to analyze and display data using ArcMap); ability to work independently and within a team environment; applicant should have good organizational skills; ability to navigate and collect data using handheld GPS units, required; ability to use a compass and read a topographical map; possess a clean, valid, state-issued driver’s license and ability to operate a 4WD vehicle on- and off-road; ability to communicate effectively, both written and orally, with a diverse audience; be physically fit to work outdoors, carry personal and field equipment, and withstand the rigors of the Great Basin in the summer, fall and/or early winter.

Successful applicant(s) must complete a Department of Interior (DOI) Background Investigation (BI) or submit paperwork to BLM human resources indicating an active and fully adjudicated BI has already been completed prior to beginning position.

How to Apply: Qualified and interested applicants should forward a cover letter, their résumé, and a list of three professional references to Amy Gladding, GBI HR Coordinator, at agladding@thegreatbasininstitute.org. Please include where you found this position posted. Incomplete applications will not be considered. No phone inquiries, please.

We conform to all the laws, statutes, and regulations concerning equal employment opportunities and affirmative action. We strongly encourage women, minorities, individuals with disabilities and veterans to apply to all of our job openings. We are an equal opportunity employer and all qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or national origin, age, disability status, Genetic Information & Testing, Family & Medical Leave, protected veteran status, or any other characteristic protected by law. We prohibit Retaliation against individuals who bring forth any complaint, orally or in writing, to the employer or the government, or against any individuals who assist or participate in the investigation of any complaint or otherwise oppose discrimination.

Cross-posted from The Great Basin Institute: http://www.thegreatbasininstitute.org/employment/research-associates-employment/wild-horse-burro-monitoring-technician/

URGENT: Help the WY14 get their hay!

Here is the first video clip released of some members of the WY14. Please help them raise the money before 3 p.m. (Pacific Time) March 31st to get their semi-load of hay. Donations are tax-deductible and sharing helps too. Here is the link: http://www.gofundme.com/HayDriveWY14Spitfire

The survivors need hay to grow strong and heal from the trauma of the roundup that sent all their herd members over the age of 2 to slaughter. The clock is ticking.. . Please help the WY14 and Baby Spitfire! It takes a village.

They send their love and are so grateful you care.

Many blessings,
Anne
Anne Novak
Volunteer Executive Director
www.ProtectMustangs.org