Protect Mustangs & Friends of Animals intervene after Wyoming sues feds to reduce number of wild horses

BLM roundup in Wyoming

For Immediate Release

Jenni Barnes, staff attorney, FoA’s Wildlife Law Program 720.949.7791; jenniferbarnes@friendsofanimals.org
Mike Harris, Director, Wildlife Law Program; 720.949.7791; michaelharris@friendsofanimals.org
Anne Novak, Executive Director, Protect Mustangs; 415.531.8454; anne@protectmustangs.org

Underpopulated national treasures at risk of being wiped out.

Cheyenne, WY (December 17, 2014)—Protect Mustangs based in California and Friends of Animals (FoA) based in Connecticut have filed a motion to intervene in a lawsuit filed by the State of Wyoming against the United States Department of Interior and the United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to get even more wild horses removed from the state. The State of Wyoming alleges that the federal respondents have failed to take action on the state’s request to remove “excess” wild horses from the range in Wyoming.

“In September, BLM proceeded to remove 1,263 wild horses from the Wyoming range, which reduced populations in the affected areas to below their Appropriate Management Levels (AMLs),” said Jenni Barnes, staff attorney for FoA’s Wildlife Law Program. “I am appalled at Wyoming’s attempt to remove even more wild horses from our public lands. We all have a right to be involved in decisions about our public lands, yet it appears that Wyoming is trying to bypass this process and make a side deal with BLM to eradicate wild horses. Friends of Animals will not just stand by while this happens and we are intervening to protect the freedom of the last remaining wild horses in the state.”

FoA and Protect Mustangs, both non-profit animal advocacy organizations, and their members, have long-standing involvement in conserving wild horses in the western United States generally, and have specific conservation, academic, educational and recreational interests in wild horses in Wyoming.

The organizations are concerned that the BLM has shown a willingness to settle actions seeking to force the removal of wild horses in Wyoming. For instance, this past summer, when Rock Springs Grazing Association filed a lawsuit against the BLM to force it to remove all wild horses from the Checkerboard area, a mix of federal and private land that runs along an old railroad route across southern Wyoming, BLM did not advocate for wild horse conservation. Instead BLM entered a consent decree with the plaintiffs in which BLM agreed to remove all wild horses from the Checkerboard area.

“We feel compelled to intervene because the BLM isn’t protecting America’s wild horses and burros the way they should,” said Anne Novak, executive director of Protect Mustangs. “BLM’s new wipe-out plan is to complain their hands are tied and then invite states and other land-grabbers to sue them to roundup wild horses—under false claims of overpopulation. This subterfuge must be stopped.”

“BLM’s ridiculously biased ‘appropriate management level’ always favors commercial livestock grazing and the extractive industry over wild horses and burros on public land,” states Novak. “The State of Wyoming and the BLM are trying to blow away the 1971 Protection Act wherein wild horses and burros should receive primary but not exclusive use of designated areas on public land. Just follow the money to understand why they don’t like wild horses.”

FoA and Protect Mustangs oppose all removals of wild horses and believe the AMLs set for the Herd Management Areas in Wyoming are too low, outdated and do not accurately reflect the number of wild horses that are needed to maintain genetic viability to prevent extinction and to create a thriving natural ecological balance in the state.

“The American public is outraged because elected officials aren’t doing anything to stop cruel roundups and sterilization experiments on our native wild horses,” explained Novak. “It’s disgusting and shameful. Risky drugs like PZP and other forms of sterilization are a sham at this point because there aren’t enough wild horses left on millions of acres of public land.”

“Wild horses must be protected in Wyoming,” states Craig Downer, wildlife biologist, author and member of Protect Mustangs. “They restore the ecosystem as a deeply rooted native in North America with a unique niche that helps other species thrive.”

Novak pointed out that according to the National Academy of Sciences’ 2013 report, there is “no evidence” of overpopulation.

###

Links of interest™:

WY Motion to Intervene

Wyoming sues feds claiming too many horses (AP) http://www.sfgate.com/news/science/article/Wyoming-sues-feds-claiming-too-many-wild-horses-5943755.php

Appropriate Management Level (National Academy of Sciences) http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13511&page=195

Feds’ cruel roundups https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yF49csCB9qM

Livestock grazing (Center for Biological Diversity) http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/public_lands/grazing/

Genetic viability (Wikipedia) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_viability

The Horse and Burro as Positively Contributing Returned Natives in North America (Craig Downer) http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/journal/paperinfo.aspx?journalid=118&doi=10.11648/j.ajls.20140201.12

Protect Mustangs is a nonprofit organization who protects and preserves native and wild horses. www.ProtectMustangs.org

Friends of Animals, an international animal protection organization founded in 1957, advocates for the rights of animals, free-living and domestic around the world. www.friendsofanimals.org

 

Anti-fracking Protesters to Rally Outside BLM Auction in Reno Tuesday

Photo © Karen McLain Evening Light | Design by Anne Novak for ProtectMustangs.org

Photo © Karen McLain Evening Light | Design by Anne Novak for ProtectMustangs.org

Coalition Urges BLM to Cancel Lease Sales to Protect Water, Health and Environment

RENO, Nev.— Protesters wearing blue and carrying water jugs will rally outside the U.S. Bureau of Land Management office in Reno on Tuesday morning to protest the auction of fracking leases on public lands. The auction of over 150,000 acres in Lincoln and Nye counties in BLM’s Ely District will begin at 9 a.m. at the BLM Nevada State Headquarters building located at 1340 Financial Boulevard in Reno. Frack-Free Nevada and Nevadans Against Fracking, which is organizing the protest, is calling on the BLM to cancel the sale in order to protect water, people, wildlife and quality of life from the dangers of fracking.

The protest will be Tuesday, Dec. 9, from 7:45 a.m. to 9:15 a.m.

“Fracking is a big risk to Nevada’s water, and without adequate clean water, we have nothing,” said Dan Patterson, with the Center for Biological Diversity, a member of the coalition. “The fracking industry wants to get its hands on Nevada, but while they reap profits, our wildlife and water supplies will pay the price. Across the state, from Reno to Austin and Reese River Valley, to Ely, eastern Nevada and Las Vegas, Nevadans want to protect our water, quality of life, lands and wildlife from the fracking push.”

Fracking uses huge volumes of water, mixed with sand and dangerous chemicals, to blast open rock formations and release oil and gas. The controversial technique is being proposed on hundreds of thousands of acres of public lands managed by the BLM across Nevada.

A typical hydraulic fracturing process uses between 1.2 million and 3.5 million gallons of water per well, with large projects using up to 5 million gallons. This water often resurfaces as “flowback,” which is often highly polluted by fracking chemicals as well as radioactive materials from fractured shale.

Fracking has brought environmental and economic problems to rural communities across the country. Accidents and leaks have polluted rivers, streams and drinking water. Regions peppered with drilling rigs have high levels of smog, global warming gases, as well as other airborne pollutants, including potential carcinogens. Rural communities face an onslaught of heavy truck traffic — often laden with dangerous chemicals used in drilling — and declining property values. Wildlife habitat is also fragmented and degraded.

“Fracking is part of a larger problem, a problem where money trumps common sense and we jeopardize our precious water for a few dollars,” said Dawn Harris of Frack-Free Nevada and Nevadans Against Fracking. “Nevada state and local officials should ban fracking to protect our water, as people in places like Denton, Texas and San Benito County, California have done.”

“Nevada’s precious groundwater should not be sacrificed for short term profits of corporations. In our arid desert, groundwater should always trump oil,” said Bob Fulkerson of the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada.

Communities directly affected by oil and gas fracking, as a result of these sales, were not alerted by BLM in advance of preparing lease sale.

“Nevada Tribes have a vested interest in protecting our ancestral homelands from being harmed by the oil & gas industry,” said Jennifer Eisele, of the Shoshone Paiute Tribes, Duck Valley Indian Reservation. “We have a spiritual relationship with Mother Earth and it is our duty to protect our natural resources for the future existence of ourselves and descendants. Exploitation of fossil fuels may harm our water quality and damage our agriculture, which is our primary means of economic support.”

“Water is precious in the desert. I’m afraid of fracking chemicals being injected into our groundwater,” said Jennifer Messina of Ely, a retired teacher. “People are working to promote eastern Nevada as a great place to live and visit. All our efforts are lost if fracking poisons our ground.”

“BLM has a mandate to protect the safety of the environment and human health, but both BLM and the oil and gas industry have poor records,” said Dr. Bonnie Eberhardt Bobb of Austin, Nevada, in southern Lander County. “Dangerous fracking fluids could seep in to our groundwater. Disposal of fracking waste by injection in to the ground has also been correlated with increased earthquake activity.”

This summer, Lander County Commissioners objected and filed administrative protests over BLM’s sale of oil and gas fracking leases in Big Smokey Valley. Earlier this fall, the Lander County Water Board unanimously passed a resolution opposing any drilling or fracking in the Middle Reese River Valley, near Austin, due to threats to town water sources.

The Center for Biological Diversity is a national, nonprofit conservation organization with more than 800,000 members and online activists dedicated to the protection of endangered species and wild places.

Frack-Free Nevada and Nevadans Against Fracking seeks to protect Nevada’s precious water, maintain the health and quality of life of Nevada communities, guard our air quality, improve agriculture and ranching, and preserve wildlife.

What is “Native PZP” ?

PM PZP Syringe FB

We are against using anything as a pesticide on native wild horses and burros. The EPA passed PZP as a restricted-use pesticide for wild horses and burros in 2012. This gave wild horses and burros the designation of PESTS and must be reversed.

We asked Jay Kirkpatrick, Ph.D to define “Native PZP” and this is what he said.

“Native PZP is the family of glycoproteins extracted from porcine zona pellucida and administered without any alterations, such as “PZP-22″, in which the PZP is encased in a biodegradable, non-toxic material so that it has a longer duration of action (and which doesn’t work!). Research is ongoing elsewhere to find out why it doesn’t work. SpayVac is a proprietary product made in Canada and the effects of this formulation cause both uterine edema and ovarian damage. Native PZP does neither – based on a 28 year data base.” ~ Jay Kirkpatrick, Ph.D

The Science and Conservation Center
2100 S. Shiloh Road
Billings, MT 59106

Gunnison Sage Grouse Downgraded to “Threatened,” Allowing Oil and Gas Development and Other Threats to Continue

WIKIMEDIA

WIKIMEDIA

WASHINGTON— Bowing to political pressure, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service today designated the Gunnison sage grouse as “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act instead of the more protective “endangered” status proposed in January 2013. Downgrading the grouse to “threatened” will let the agency propose a special pro-industry rule to continue allowing activities threatening the grouse’s habitat, including oil and gas development, livestock grazing and urban sprawl. The grouse has been recognized as endangered since 2000 and is at severe risk of extinction.

“The undeniable reality is that the Gunnison sage grouse is in on the verge of disappearing forever,” said Amy Atwood, endangered species legal director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “It needs the full suite of legal protections that only recognition as an endangered species can provide.”

The Gunnison sage grouse’s range has declined to 7 percent of its historic range with most of the remaining populations in grave danger. The Service has acknowledged for 14 years the species needs protection under the Endangered Species Act but, following years of political interference, did not begin the listing process until after it entered into a pair of settlement agreements with the Center for Biological Diversity and WildEarth Guardians in 2011.

“The Gunnison sage grouse has been recognized as endangered for 14 years and nothing the Fish and Wildlife Service has said today makes that any less true,” said Travis Bruner, executive director of Western Watersheds Project. “This decision suggests that the Fish and Wildlife Service, in contradiction with its mandate, has placed other priorities above protection of the Gunnison sage grouse.”

The listing process for the Gunnison sage is being handled by the Fish and Wildlife Service’s Mountain-Prairie Region, located in Denver, which has repeatedly bowed to political pressure in recent months, having denied much-needed Endangered Species Act protection to the Montana grayling, wolverine and two Rocky Mountain plants.

“The efforts by agencies, counties, and the State of Colorado to conserve the Gunnison sage grouse are a step in the right direction, but full protection is needed in order to save this charismatic bird,” said Atwood.

The Gunnison sage grouse’s historic range included parts of Colorado, Utah, New Mexico and Arizona, but the species now occurs only in seven small populations in southwestern Colorado and southeastern Utah, with only about 4,700 individuals remaining. Livestock grazing, oil and gas drilling, motorized recreation and urbanization have contributed to the ongoing decline of the bird.

The Center for Biological Diversity is a national, nonprofit conservation organization with more than 800,000 members and online activists dedicated to the protection of endangered species and wild places.

Western Watersheds Project works to protect and restore public lands and wildlife in the West through education, public policy initiatives and legal advocacy.

Join the open forum: Using PZP on federally protected wild horses and burros, is it safe?

PM PZP Syringe Yearling Meme

 

The open forum on PZP for federally protected equids is held on Facebook here and everyone is welcome: https://www.facebook.com/groups/ForumPZPWildHorsesBurros/

Statement:

“If the good people of Nevada choose to use PZP to manage their wild horses on state land it’s up to them because that is a state issue. Americans across the country are concerned PZP isn’t safe and don’t want their wild horses and burros on federal land to be given the restricted-use pesticide hailed as “birth control” but known to sterilize after multiple use. If PZP advocates can prove PZP is 100% safe for native wild horse and burro herds, won’t sterilize them, ruin genetic variability or cause behavioral abnormalities then it could be considered as a management tool. Until then other holistic management tools must be examined. It’s time for a freeze on roundups, drugging and removals for scientific reevaluation. We need to get it right for our icons of American freedom.” ~ Anne Novak, Executive Director of Protect Mustangs

Equine reproductive immunology Ph.D speaks out in 2010 against using PZP on wild horses

PM President Obama Listen to the Science

November 27, 2010

Jared Bybee, Wild Horse and Burro Specialist

Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management

Billings Field Office

5001 Southgate Drive

Billings, Montana 59101-4669

VIA FAX: 406-896-5281

RE: Pryor Mountain Wild Horse Range Fertility Control Preliminary Environmental
Assessment Tiered to the Pryor Mountain Wild Horse Range Environmental Assessment and Herd Management Area Plan May 2009 EA DOI-BLM-MT-0010-2011-0004-EA

Dear Jared Bybee:

Background

I appreciate the opportunity to submit comments on the Pryor Mountain Wild Horse Range
Fertility Control Preliminary Environmental Assessment Tiered to the Pryor Mountain Wild
Horse Range Environmental Assessment and Herd Management Area Plan May 2009 EA DOI-BLM-MT-0010-2011-0004-EA. My background is in equine reproductive immunology and wildlife conservation. I applaud the Billings Field Office of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a thoughtful approach to this issue. Cover letter 4700 (010.JB) dated November 2010 and signed by James M. Sparks, Field Manager states that the BLM would consider comments and revision to the EA or unsigned FONSI as appropriate. I urge a “no action alternative” as outlined on page 7 and 8 of the EA. This request is based on two pieces of new scientific evidence about effects of current immuno-contraception use.

Porcine Zona Pellucida (PZP) Contraception

The proposed action as stated on page 7 of this EA would exempt “mares ages 5-10 unless they have produced foals, or are part of a large bloodline.” This is reminiscent of the approach taken with the Assateague Island wild horse population. It is a compromise approach to this issue, in comparison to placing all mares on PZP. However a recent study shows that mitochondrial DNA diversity is low in the Assateague Island horse herd (Eggert et al. 2010). Since mitochondrial DNA is inherited from the mother (mare), this is evidence that female inherited genetics on Assateague Island wild horses is under represented. It is imperative that this be assessed before rolling out a similar management plan for the Pryor Mountain wild horses.

There is a recent Princeton University study on PZP effects. Consecutive PZP applications, analogous to the proposed action plan in this EA, showed that mares gave birth later in the season, and were cycling into the fall months (Nunez et al. 2010). In a state like Montana where freezing temperatures are found in the fall, this can have serious and long term effects on foal survivorship.

I must include a statement on long term consecutive use of PZP. Any form of PZP contraception is not completely reversible in mares depending on the length of use of PZP. Contraception can only be reversed when the antibody titer decreases to 50-60% of the positive reference sera (Liu et al. 2005). Mares treated for 7 consecutive years do not return to viable fertility (Kirkpatrick and Turner 2002; Kirkpatrick et al. 2009). The issue of reversible contraception is very important to be able to maintain wild equines in the United States. Long term treatment with PZP has inherent negative potential for this herd.

I am requesting a new look at the proposed fertility control action for the Pryor Mountain wild horses.

Sincerely,

Christine DeCarlo, Ph.D.

Lori S. Eggert, David M. Powell, et al. (2010). “Pedigrees and the Study of the Wild Horse
Population of Assateague Island National Seashore.” Journal of Wildlife Management
74(5): 963-973.

J. F. Kirkpatrick, A. Rowan, et al. (2009). “The practical side of immunocontraception: zona
proteins and wildlife.” J Reprod Immunol 83(1-2): 151-7.

J. F. Kirkpatrick and A. Turner (2002). “Reversibility of action and safety during pregnancy of immunization against porcine zona pellucida in wild mares (Equus caballus).” Reprod
Suppl 60: 197-202.

I. K. Liu, J. W. Turner, Jr., et al. (2005). “Persistence of anti-zonae pellucidae antibodies
following a single inoculation of porcine zonae pellucidae in the domestic equine.”
Reproduction 129(2): 181-90.

Cassandra M. V. Nunez, James S. Adelman, et al. (2010). “Immunoctraception in Wild Horses (Equus caballus) Extends Reproductive Cycling Beyond the Normal Breeding Season.” PLos ONE 5(10): 1-10.

(Posted for educational purposes)

 

Bogus Science and Profiteering Stampeding Their Way into Wild Horse Country

 

PM Jaime Jackson

A Review of Using Science to Improve the BLM Wild Horse and Burro Program: A Way Forward (2013)

by Jaime Jackson, AANHCP Executive Director

I’ve reviewed the entire 300+ page National Academy of Sciences report—clearly a major undertaking by all the scientists involved and a bit of a “heavy” read—including its academic findings and recommendations (“A Way Forward”) which are, in the end, woefully predictable. Thinking about it, however, the scientists who created the report really had no choice, given the limits of the Wild, Free-roaming and Burro Act itself, if we are to accept that, but to work within its boundaries and the conundrum set upon them by that law’s specious political and land management premise and somehow respond to the task put upon them by the BLM. Clearer and more honest minds might have said, “I want no part of such a nasty, skewed project.” I also gleaned the biographies of each scientist to see what kind of understanding they would bring to the table regarding horse care based on their education and training, and if they seem like “clear minded” thinkers who could think outside the box in the best interest of any horse. On that note alone, wild horses are in trouble.

Because the “limits” put upon the NAS committee by the wild horse law are what they are, and because these are basically mainstream scientists drawn out of academia, it is entirely logical that they would recommend regulating wild horse and burro populations, in their words, “with science”. But what kind of science, one might ask? Well, the fact is, it’s the same brand of science, and scien- tific minds in today’s academia, that has failed the domesticated horse. We’re talking about scientists who serve the special interests of government and its lobbyists, the agricultural and pharmaceutical industries, and so forth, that have given us drugs and feeds and management practices that cause laminitis and other metabolic breakdowns of the horse. Indeed, it is all profitable for the very community that has created this “science based” disaster for horses. I’m not just spewing words here without foundation, horses truly suffer for it, and it is this bad science and corresponding harmful equine management practices that have given birth to and fueled the internationally burgeoning NHC movement. That is a fact—and it is a fact also that these scientists, and the special interests that fund them, refuse to acknowledge NHC because what we do and advocate for gets directly to the bottom of ethics and profiteering and inbred academic close-mindedness.

The authors of this NAS report have very skillfully woven together what is genuinely good sci- ence with the bad, while ignoring other good science altogether—all to the end of supporting the bogus proposition that their brand of “science” favors a lasting solution for wild horse management. If one reads their report carefully, however, one can sense the palpable excitement and impatience behind their drug-based recommendations. For example, they urge the BLM to step up an accurate numbers count in the HMAs (which, arguably, given that agency’s past, can never be trusted) because, they suggest, the quantities of PZP and other pharmaceutical agents needed to cleanse wild horse country will surely be vastly greater than what was used in their scientifically con- taminated control study done to the Assateague ponies of the U.S. east coast (cited in their re- port). Assateague was not good science, anymore than what has happened to those horses long before the government’s study. It catered to the drug industry and the same eugenics science that the U.S. and British governments sanctioned and used against people during the greater part of the 20th century (up to the 1960s and 70s), and that was astutely “borrowed” from by Nazi Germany for its extermination campaigns to “rid the world of undesirables”.

Just as tactfully, and just as predictably, the NAS authors stated that predation behavior was not viable, ignoring Drs. Turner and Morrow’s mountain lion predations studies referenced in my books, The Natural Horse and Paddock Paradise, and which proved the viability of natural predation on wild horse herds. Of course, the reason that natural mountain lion and wolf predation won’t work, and which the NAS report fails to explain, is because BLM management practices have provided for their extermination and/or removal under welfare ranching pressure that deflects the truth of what’s happening within their grandfathered land leases born of the Taylor Grazing Act and the BLM’s inception.

I could easily go on, and on, and on, nit picking the massive tangled NAS report, but would just be wasting my time and yours with the report’s self-serving “word salad”. The fact is, there is no genuine solution in their report that respects the natural integrity of America’s wild, free- roaming horses. And there is no debating the authors of the report either, for they are completely sold out to the very special interests who have never seen value in our wild horses. In fact, it is the science community that has recently aided and abetted the government in reclassifying wild horses legally as “pests” so that the pesticide PZP can be used on them for birth control purposes. You see, the NAS report is no surprise, as its convoluted “commandments” have been systematically orchestrated and colluded with by just about everyone in sight, including—and I am sad to say—nearly every purported “wild horse protection” group and sanctuary in the United States. Many of these groups stand to “gain” from this collusion, including the HSUS that co-owns patent rights to PZP.

Tax payers can expect to pay more, not less, as they watch their wild horse herds deteriorate genetically under the government’s Nazification of the HMAs through racism-based eugenics. This is because there is profit motive at its foundation. In fact, the report cautions that “public confidence” and trust will be an important part of the “master solution”. Inundating tax payers with scientific “word salad” that few can understand, is understood. Clearly, the public does not understand the underlying issues, except what they hear in the news. From that vantage point, this does not bode well for our wild horses.

What is needed is a new vision and a new law for genuine wild horse preservation. The current law is bankrupt and offers no real protection, let alone preservation. Science, industry and the big government have joined claws and are at war with Natural Selection, because they are losing—and they know it. And, it is for this reason, that Science is now being called upon to step up the delusion that the war on nature can and will be won. Like the war on cancer, no such victory is forthcoming. But because the war is profit driven, the war is welcome. Read the NAS report with a critical eye, and you will see this. In the end, HMAs will become zoos with GMO wild horses. Like those we see in the wild horse protectionist’s “sanctuaries”: sad, pathetic parodies of real wild horses. Is this what the public envisioned when it stood behind the original wild horse protection law? Of course not. but, here today, government and science and industry (and its camp following ersatz wild horse protectionists begging for crumbs), all hand in hand, are going to exploit wild horses and unwitting taxpayers for what they can—until, at long last, nature has proven them wrong, and the deceptive game is exposed for all to see. The Assateague model, which they will cite and hold up, is a broken one. But they are counting on an uninformed public to buy into it. Those of us in the NHC movement know better and can refute it with facts by simply looking at the hooves of those horses, if not the non-adaptative environment they are squeezed into be- cause of an historical fluke. Looking through the bios of the NAS committee members, I seriously doubt that any of them would have a clue of what I’m talking about.

The Obama Administration, as much of the voting public on both sides of the aisle have come to realize, is a compromised, “sold out to big industry” travesty that is going to stand be- hind the eugenics science and land grab scheme fully intended to bilk the taxpayer and pad the pockets of profiteers who, quite frankly, don’t give a damn about wild horses. That includes Sally Jewell, Obama’s hand-picked clone of Ken Salazar to head the Department of the Interior (BLM’s overseer), who is no friend of the wild horse or any horse. She came right out of big banking and the oil industry. Check out her bio on her DOI government website. She will go right along with “big science” because that is where the money is and because, the fact is (and it is not rocket science to figure it out), it will lead to the decimation of wild horse herds. James Kleinert’s film “Wild Horses and Renegades” draws a direct line between Jewell, “wild horse pests” and their extermination, and the land grab now going on in BLM country by big industries such as BP and backed by the Obama Administration.

Let me put it in simple terms — it’s just a matter of time before they’re shoeing wild horses in the HMAs! If you don’t want that, support the AANHCP’s vision for genuine, lasting wild horse protection and taxpayer relief. See it here: http://www.aanhcp.net/index.php? option=com_content&view=article&id=218&Itemid=85

NAS report: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php? booksearch=1&term=1&record_id=13511&Search+This+Book.x=27&Search+This+Book. y=15

NAS committee members: http://dels.nap.edu/Committee/committee-membership/DELS-BANR-10-05

Jaime Jackson’s piece in PDF: PM Jamie Jackson Using Science to Improve the BLM Wild Horse and Burro Program

Jaime Jackson bio and info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaime_Jackson

Reprinted from the June 7, 2013 publication here at www.ProtectMustangs.org

PZP EPA Sterilisant

International News: American wild horse advocates seek freeze on roundups

New Zealand paper reports: 

The Bureau of Land Management is wiping out America’s wild horses,” says Anne Novak, executive director of the group. “We need to stop the roundups and protect our native wild horses.”

Protect Mustangs described the appropriate herd management level of 138 for the area as out of date and lacking in scientific merit.

“We must ensure native wild horses can survive upcoming environmental changes,” Novak says.

“The minimum population for a genetically variable herd is 150. Why are PZP advocates and the BLM allowing wild horse herds to fall below safe numbers?”

Read the full article here: http://horsetalk.co.nz/2014/11/03/american-wild-horse-advocates-seek-freeze-roundups/#axzz3HzasTBgg