Tag Archives: Burros

Dangerous times for wild horses and burros

Posted on by
20

PM Pesticides Sign Colin Grey : Foter.com : CC BY-SA

 

 

Dear Friends of Wild Horses and Burros,

There are several dark forces at work who want to control America’s wild horses and burros. Some want to steal them from the people so corrupt state officials can hunt and kill them or sell them to slaughter. Others want to drug them with EPA approved restricted-use pesticides such as PZP that sterilize WILD mares after multiple use. Fertility control research trials are big business. Left unchallenged, wild horses and burros will continue to be lab rats for human fertility control research. Many soulless degenerates want to slaughter wild horses for human consumption abroad. They really want to make room for energy development and subsidized grazing on public land at the expense of wildlife and especially wild horses and burros.

Be careful what you sign. Read everything carefully. Please read this petition carefully too then send it to your friends and family so the voiceless can be protected from the exploiters and the killers. If you want to know the truth behind the facade . . . follow the money.

Thank you for taking action to help America’s wild horses and burros by sharing this petition (http://www.change.org/p/defund-and-stop-the-wild-horse-burro-roundups) via email and through your social networks. Together we can shine the light on the truth to turn things around. Stop the Roundups!

Many blessings,
Anne

Anne Novak
Founder & Executive Director
www.ProtectMustangs.org
Contact@ProtectMustangs.org

 

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

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

The Department of Interior’s plan to manage wild horses to extinction began in 2009

Posted on by
DOI & BLM Press Release
Contacts: Frank Quimby (DOI) , 202-208-6416
Tom Gorey (BLM) , 202-912-7420

Secretary Salazar Seeks Congressional Support for Strategy to Manage Iconic Wild Horses
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar today proposed a national solution to restore the health of America’s wild horse herds and the rangelands that support them by creating a cost-efficient, sustainable management program that includes the possible creation of wild horse preserves on the productive grasslands of the Midwest and East. (Today the majority of America’s wild horses are held captive in long-term holding in the Midwest except for those who have been sold out the back door to slaughter.)

“The current path of the wild horse and burro program is not sustainable for the animals, the environment, or the taxpayer,” Salazar said in a letter outlining his proposals to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and eight other key members of Congress with jurisdiction over wild horse issues.  Salazar said he is “proposing to develop new approaches that will require bold efforts from the Administration and from Congress to put this program on a more sustainable track, enhance the conservation for these iconic animals, and provide better value for the taxpayer.” (Former Secretary Salazar was Tom Davis’ neighbor wasn’t he? Tom Davis –alleged pro-slaughter fellow–can’t tell anyone where the 1,700 wild horses went that he purchased from BLM for $10 each. Salazar threatened to “punch out” reporter Dave Phillips when he asked Salazar what happened to the wild horses sold to Davis.)

Bob Abbey, Director of Interior’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM), commended the Secretary for his initiative, saying, “The proposals we are unveiling today represent a forward-looking, responsive effort to deal with the myriad challenges facing our agency’s wild horse and burro program.”  Abbey added, “We owe wild horses and burros on Western rangelands high-quality habitat. We owe the unadopted wild horses and burros in holding good care and treatment.  And we owe the American taxpayer a well-run, cost-effective wild horse program. Today’s package of proposals will achieve those ends.” (Bob Abbey retired.)

The challenges to the BLM associated with maintaining robust wild horse populations in the West have been recognized by the Senate Appropriations Committee, which has warned that program costs have risen beyond sustainable levels and directed the BLM to prepare a long-term plan for the program.  The Government Accountability Office also found the program to be at a “critical crossroads,” affirmed the need to control off-the-range holding costs, and recommended that the BLM work with Congress to find a responsible way to manage the increasing number of unadopted horses.  In response to Congressional direction, Salazar’s proposals aim to achieve a “truly national solution” to a traditionally Western issue.

In four decades under the BLM’s protection, wild horses that were fast disappearing from the American scene are now experiencing rapid growth.  Secretary Salazar noted that some 37,000 wild horses and burros, which have virtually no natural predators, roam in 10 Western states, where arid rangelands and watersheds “cannot support a population this large without significant damage to the environment.” (What about livestock that outnumbers wild horses and burros at more than 50 to 1?)

The BLM works to achieve an ecological balance on the range by removing thousands of wild horses and burros from public rangelands each year and then offering them for adoption.   Unadopted animals are cared for in short-term corrals and long-term pastures.  With the sharp decline in wild horse adoptions in recent years because of the economic downturn, the Bureau now maintains nearly 32,000 wild horses and burros in holding, including more than 9,500 in expensive short-term corrals.  In the most recent fiscal year (2009), which ended September 30, holding costs were approximately $29 million, or about 70 percent of the total 2009 enacted wild horse and burro program budget of $40.6 million.  (Note: the 2013 budget was more than $75 million)

A key element of the Secretary’s plan, designed to address concerns raised by the Senate Appropriations Committee and the Government Accountability Office, would designate a new set of wild horse preserves across the nation.  Citing limits on forage and water in the West because of persistent drought and wildfire, Salazar said the lands acquired by the BLM and/or its partners “would provide excellent opportunities to celebrate the historic significance of wild horses, showcase these animals to the American public, and serve as natural assets that support local tourism and economic activity.”  The wild horse herds placed in these preserves would be non-reproducing.

In his letter, Salazar also proposed:

  • Managing the new preserves either directly by the BLM or through cooperative agreements between the BLM and private non-profit organizations or other partners to reduce the Bureau’s off-the-range holding costs.  This coordinated effort would harness the energy of wild horse and burro supporters, whose enthusiasm would also be tapped to promote wild horse adoptions at a time when adoption demand has softened.
  • Showcasing certain herds on public lands in the West that warrant distinct recognition with Secretarial or possibly congressional designations.  These would highlight the special qualities of America’s wild horses while generating eco-tourism for nearby rural communities.
  • Applying new strategies aimed at balancing wild horse and burro population growth rates with public adoption demand.  This effort would involve slowing population growth rates of wild horses on Western public rangelands through the aggressive use of fertility control, the active management of sex ratios on the range, and perhaps even the introduction of non-reproducing herds in some of the BLM’s existing Herd Management Areas in 10 Western states. The new strategies would also include placing more animals into private care by making adoptions more flexible where appropriate.

Noting that his proposals are subject to Congressional approval and appropriations, Salazar said he and Director Abbey look forward to discussing them with members of Congress “as we work together to protect and manage America’s ‘Living Legends.’”

A copy of the letter is online at www.blm.gov. For background information on the national wild horse and burro program, please visit the BLM’s Website at www.blm.gov.
The BLM manages more than 245 million acres of public land, the most of any Federal agency. This land, known as the National System of Public Lands, is primarily located in 12 Western states, including Alaska. The BLM also administers 700 million acres of sub-surface mineral estate throughout the nation. The BLM’s mission is to manage and conserve the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations under our mandate of multiple-use and sustained yield. In Fiscal Year 2013, the BLM generated $4.7 billion in receipts from public lands.
–BLM–

Appeal to President Obama to abolish cruelty towards wild horses and burros

Posted on by

PM Obama Poster web.001

Presidents’ Day 2014

Dear Mr. President,

We request a 10 year moratorium on wild horse & burro roundups for scientific research before they are wiped out. Here is our growing petition: http://www.change.org/petitions/sally-jewell-urgent-grant-a-10-year-moratorium-on-wild-horse-roundups-for-scientific-research

There is no overpopulation problem despite what the spin Dr.s say. What we find on the range is an underpopulation problem.

Recently the Washington Post covered the crisis: http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/us-looking-for-ideas-to-help-manage-wild-horse-overpopulation/2014/01/26/8cae7c96-84f2-11e3-9dd4-e7278db80d86_story.html and mentioned the Princeton study showing Wildlife and cows can be partners, not enemies, in search for food http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S32/93/41K10/index.xml?section=featured

Americans and people around the world want the cruel roundups to stop. The petition to defund and stop roundups is growing too: http://www.change.org/petitions/defund-and-stop-the-wild-horse-burro-roundups

We request the U.S. government stop removing wild horses and burros to allow fracking on the land. Fracking pollutes the environment and causes global warming. Here is the petition to protect them from fracking: https://www.change.org/petitions/sen-dianne-feinstein-don-t-frack-wild-horse-land

We respectfully ask that the U.S. government classify America’s wild horses, E. caballus, as a native species and protect them correctly. The petition is here: http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/save-our-native-wild Horses originated in America and were either returned to their native land or never left. More information can be found here: http://protectmustangs.org/?page_id=562

After native wild horses and burros are torn from their land they are held captive in pens without shelter. This is horrible and violates basic humane standards. The petition for emergency shelter and shade is growing and the public is outraged: http://www.change.org/petitions/bring-emergency-shelter-and-shade-to-captive-wild-horses-and-burros

This is what some roundups look like:

Please order the BLM to abolish mustang atrocities!

Thank you for your attention to this urgent matter.

Sincerely,

Anne Novak

Executive Director of Protect Mustangs

www.ProtectMustangs.org

Read about the wild horse crisis in the news: http://protectmustangs.org/?page_id=218

Moratorium on roundups needed for scientific research before sterilization

Posted on by

PM Hazard Foter Public domain Marked Sterilize

“Currently there is no evidence of overpopulation but the runaway train for fertility control and sterilization bashes down the tracks,” explains Anne Novak, Executive Director of Protect Mustangs. “We request a ten-year moratorium on roundups for scientific studies on population, migration and holistic land management. Science must come first.”

Please sign and share the petition for a moratorium on roundups: http://www.change.org/petitions/sally-jewell-urgent-grant-a-10-year-moratorium-on-wild-horse-roundups-for-scientific-research

Cross-posted from the Sacramento Bee for educational purposes.

Panel: Sterilize wild horses to cut population

By Sean Cockerham
McClatchy Washington Bureau

Published: Thursday, Jun. 6, 2013

WASHINGTON – The federal government should do large-scale drug injections of wild horses to make them infertile, according to a highly anticipated recommendation from the National Academy of Sciences.

The report released Wednesday said the Interior Department’s strategy for wild horses is making a bad situation worse. The government has rounded up nearly 50,000 wild horses and put them in corrals and pastures.

More of America’s wild horses are now in holding facilities than estimated to be roaming the wild, in what the National Academy of Sciences called a failure to limit the animals’ fast-growing numbers.

The Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management requested the report amid frustration and skyrocketing costs of the wild horse and burro program. The annual cost to taxpayers of the program has nearly doubled in four years to $75 million, with more than half going to costs of holding facilities.

The BLM says roundups and holding facilities are needed because swelling horse populations are too much for the wild range to sustain. Wild horse advocates say the issue is really about favoring the interests of ranchers whose cattle and sheep graze upon the public lands.

The National Academy of Sciences said a big problem is that the Bureau of Land Management doesn’t really know how many wild horses and burros there are in America, or their true impact on the rangelands. The report concluded that BLM is likely underestimating the number of wild horses in America and that their populations are growing by as much as 20 percent a year.

The independent panel of scientists that wrote the report said the agency needs a more defensible scientific backup for its decisions on wild horses, including consideration of the impact of livestock on the range.

“The science can be markedly improved,” said Guy Palmer, a Washington State University professor who led the panel.

The government’s roundups of wild horses are just making the population problem worse, according to the report. Shutting tens of thousands of horses in holding facilities means less competition for food and water on the range and more population growth, it concluded.

Leaving the horses alone to roam the range would lead to a competition among them for food and water that would meet the goal of cutting their numbers, according to the report. But “having many horses in poor condition, and having horses die of starvation on the range are not acceptable to a sizable proportion of the public,” the authors concluded.

The best alternative is a widespread use of fertility control measures, the independent scientific panel decided. They recommended chemical vasectomies for stallions and the injection of the contraceptive vaccines GonaCon and porcine zona pellucida for mares.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/06/06/5475171/study-sterilize-horses-to-drop.html#comment-923308337#storylink=cpy

In contrast, Karen Sussman of the International Society for the Protection of Mustangs and Burros has been studying herds in her care for 13 years. The results show healthy social structures of wild horses control population.

ISPMB herds show that functional social structures contribute to low herd growth compared to BLM managed herds

As we complete our thirteenth year in studying the White Sands and Gila herds, two isolated herds, which live in similar habitat but represent two different horse cultures, have demonstrated much lower reproductive rates than BLM managed herds.  Maintaining the “herd integrity” with a hands off management strategy (“minimal feasible management”) and no removals in 13 years has shown us that functional herds demonstrating strong social bonds and leadership of elder animals is key to the behavioral management of population growth.

ISPMB’s president, Karen Sussman, who has monitored and studied ISPMB’s four wild herds all these years explains, “We would ascertain from our data that due to BLM’s constant roundups causing the continual disruption of the very intricate social structures of the harem bands has allowed younger stallions to take over losing the mentorship of the older wiser stallions.

In simplistic terms Sussman makes the analogy that over time Harvard professors (elder wiser stallions) have been replaced by errant teenagers (younger bachelor stallions).  We know that generally teenagers do not make good parents because they are children themselves.

Sussman’s observations of her two stable herds show that there is tremendous respect commanded amongst the harems.  Bachelor stallions learn that respect from their natal harems.  Bachelors usually don’t take their own harems until they are ten years of age.  Sussman has observed that stallions mature emotionally at much slower rates than mares and at age ten they appear ready to assume the awesome responsibility of becoming a harem stallion.

Also observed in these herds is the length of time that fillies remain with their natal bands.  The fillies leave when they are bred by an outside stallion at the age of four or five years.  Often as first time mothers, they do quite well with their foals but foal mortality is higher than with seasoned mothers.

Sussman has also observed in her Gila herd where the harems work together for the good of the entire herd.  “Seeing this cooperative effort is quite exciting,” states Sussman.

ISPMB’s third herd, the Catnips, coming from the Sheldon Wildlife Range where efforts are underway to eliminate all horses on the refuge, demonstrate exactly the reverse of the organization’s two stable herds.

The first year of their arrival (2004) their fertility rates were 30% the following first and second years. They have loose band formations and some mares are without any harem stallions.  Stallions are observed breeding fillies as young as one year of age.  Foal mortality is very high in this herd.  Generally there is a lack of leadership and wisdom noted in the stallions as most of them were not older than ten years of age when they arrived.  In 2007, a decision to use PZP on this herd, a contraceptive, was employed by ISPMB.  This herd remains a very interesting herd to study over time according to Sussman.   “The question is, can a dysfunctional herd become functional,” says Sussman who speculates that the Catnips emulate many of the public lands herds.

In 1992 when Sussman and her colleague, Mary Ann Simonds, served on the National Wild Horse and Burro Advisory Board, they believed that BLM’s management should change and recommended that selective removals should begin by turning back all the older and wiser animals to retain the herd wisdom.  Sussman realizes that the missing ingredient was to stop the destruction of the harem bands caused by helicopter roundups where stallions are separated from their mares.  “Instead, bait and water trapping, band by band, needed to be instituted immediately,” says Sussman.  Had this been done for the past twenty years, we would have functionally healthy horses who have stable reproductive rates and we wouldn’t have had 52,000 wild horses in holding pastures today.   BLM’s selective removal policy was to return all horses over the age of five.  When the stallions and mares were released back to their herd management areas by the BLM, younger stallions under the age of ten fought for the mares and took mares from the older wiser stallions.  This occurs when there is chaos happening in a herd such as roundups cause.

Sussman also believes that when roundups happen often the younger stallions aged 6-9 are ones that evade capture.  This again contributes to younger stallions taking the place of older wiser stallions that remain with their mares and do not evade capture.  She is advocating that the BLM carry out two studies: determining the age of fillies who are pregnant and determining age structures of stallions after removals.

Currently Sussman is developing criteria to determine whether bands are behaviorally healthy or not.  This could be instituted easily in observation of public lands horses.

Taken from BLM’s website:  “Because of federal protection and a lack of natural predators, wild horse and burro herds can double in size about every four years.”

White Sands Herd Growth: 1999-2013 – 165 animals.

BLM’s assertion herds double every four years means there should be 980 horses or more than five times the growth of ISPMB’s White Sands herd.

Gila Herd Growth:1999-2013- 100 animals.

BLM’s assertion herds double every four years means there should be 434 horses or nearly four times the growth of ISPMB’s Gila herd.

Sussman says that BLM’s assertion as to why horse herds double every four years is incorrect. The two reasons given are federal protection of wild horse herds and lack of natural predators. ISPMB herds are also protected and also have no natural predators, but they do not reproduce exponentially. She adds that exponential wild horse population growth on BLM lands must have another cause, and the most likely cause is lack of management and understanding of wild horses as wildlife species.  Instead BLM manages horses like livestock. “According to the Wild Horse and Burro Act of 1971, all management of wild horse populations was to be at the ‘minimal feasible level’,” Sussman says. “When the BLM’s heavy-handed disruption and destruction of wild horse social structures is the chief contributing factor in creating population growth five times greater than normal, than the BLM interference can hardly be at a ‘minimal feasible level.’”

Sussman concludes that ISPMB herds are given the greatest opportunity for survival, compared to the BLM’s herds which are not monitored throughout the year.  “One would assume,” Sussman says, “herds that are well taken care of and monitored closely would have a greater survival rate.  Yet, even under the optimum conditions of ISPMB herds, they still did not increase nearly 500% like BLM herds.”

It’s time for a moratorium for scientific studies like Sussman’s. We need to help the wild horses and burros not harm them. Let us use science to guide us.

Report unveils wild horse underpopulation on 800,000 acre Twin Peaks range

Posted on by

Northern California/Nevada Border Twin Peaks Wild Horse and Burro Herd Management Area Aerial Population Survey November 26th 2013

by

Craig C. Downer, Wildlife Ecologist

Jesica Johnston, Environmental Scientist

Catherine Scott, Photo Journalist

Abstract from the report:   An independent aerial survey was completed over northeastern California and northwestern Nevada for the Twin Peaks Wild Horse and Burro Herd Management Area on November 26th 2013. The objective was to estimate the population of wild horses (Equus caballus) and burros (Equus asinus) and to monitor the habitat recovery from the Rush Fire, which burned 315,577 acres in August 2012. The flight and pilot were arranged through the LightHawk organization.

During the aerial survey a total of 44 horses and 36 burros were counted along the 207 miles of transect strips within the Twin Peaks Herd Management Area boundary.

Using an aerial strip transect method, the survey estimates the populations of wild horses and burros in the Twin Peaks Wild Horse and Burro Herd Management Area as follows:

(a) 351-459 wild horses (includes some mules)

(b) 230-287 wild burros

Over 300 photographs and continuous video footage were taken during the flight. Photos were taken by Craig Downer, Jesica Johnston and Catherine Scott, and video footage was courtesy of pilot Ney Grant. All this was made possible due to the coordination and support from LightHawk.

See the video flyover here: http://vimeo.com/81195843

Click here to read the full report

Click here to see the photos

Craig Downer is a member of the Protect Mustangs Advisory Board.

Welcome to ‘frackland’: does a river have the right not to be polluted?

Posted on by
by Shannon Biggs 27 January 2014

Hydraulic fracturing for natural gas or ‘fracking’ is one of the dirtiest forms of energy on the planet. Halting its destructive impact requires regulation and community control, but also something much deeper: the transformation of relationships between society and nature.

aerialFracking-300x214

Baldwin Hills in the middle of Los Angeles, the largest urban oilfield in the United States. Credit:  Transition Culver City. All rights reserved

Human laws have not forgotten nature, but neither have they protected it. Nowhere is this failure more apparent than with ‘hydraulic fracturing’ for natural gas and oil, an extreme energy extraction method commonly known as ‘fracking.’ Along with tar sands mining and mountaintop removal, fracking is one of dirtiest forms of energy on the planet, releasing huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere according to the US Environmental Protection Agency.

Halting the destruction wrought by fracking requires new regulations and community controls over drilling, but it also involves something much deeper: the transformation of relationships between society and nature. Currently, human laws treat nature as mere property. In future, we must recognize that the ecosystems which sustain human life also have the right to exist, flourish and regenerate their natural cycles.

Some 400 million years ago, ancient aquatic environments dried up, cementing fine sedimentary deposits over the millennia into hard shale, which now lie two miles or more below the surface of the earth. Today, through technology developed by Halliburton and other corporations, along with plenty of industry-friendly political will and legal heft, these ancient shale formations represent the new subterranean playgrounds of the oil and gas industry worldwide.

Hydraulic fracturing is an advanced drilling technique that injects millions of gallons of water, sand, and toxic chemicals miles underground at pressures high enough to crack hard shale, thus releasing natural gas and oil that has been ‘trapped’ in its fissures. In the USA this technique produces 300,000 barrels of natural gas each day, and has pushed US oil output to a 25-year high. As Stephen Schork, puts it, president of the Schork Group energy consulting firm, “you can’t swing a cat without hitting a barrel of oil in North America. It’s amazing how quickly things can change.” As this map shows, pretty much everyone in the USA lives downstream from ‘frackland’ and the pollution it creates. Here are some ‘fracts’ that everyone should know:

If fracking is so destructive, why are oil and gas companies allowed to override community concerns and site new wells directly in their midst?  This question gets to the heart of the matter about the legal rights of nature and of people.

In the USA, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and similar laws at the state level effectively legalize environmental harm by regulating how much pollution can occur. Rather than preventing environmental destruction, these laws codify it, assuming that the best that can be done is to slow the rate of devastation. How else could we legalize the damming of rivers, the removal of whole mountaintops for coal mining, or fishing the oceans to extinction?

We codify our values in the law, and Western societies have treated nature in law and culture as a “thing” to be dominated – amoral, without emotion or intelligence, and lacking any real connection to human beings. In this way we justify and rationalize our exploitation of the natural world. Nature is seen as a possession or as property, rather than as a system that governs our own wellbeing. These ecosystems have no legal standing in most courts of law.

What do have legal standing are the energy corporations, which are in fact legal fictions on paper that can shield their CEO’s and their shareholders from liability for their decisions. By contrast, the communities in which the wells are located are denied the authority to say “no” to fracking, even as their health, safety and welfare are at risk each time a well is fracked.  In many states fracking is unregulated, and in some areas it isn’t even monitored. Most communities aren’t notified that fracking is happening close by.  Cloaked in constitutional protections, exemptions and well-greased political cover, the oil and gas industry stands on solid legal ground as it rolls into town.

Some communities, however, are beginning to change the rules of the game. Nineteen communities in six states (Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, Colorado, New Mexico and Maryland) have successfully banned fracking by writing new laws that place the rights of residents and their local ecosystems above the interests of corporations. They join the ranks of 160 communities across the USA who have already banned other harmful practices, along with Ecuador, Bolivia and (to some extent) New Zealand which have recognized the rights of ecosystems at the national level.

Take, for example, the town of Mansfield in Ohio. In 2012 this community of 50,000 people was slated to receive toxic frackwater waste from Pennsylvania. Under state law there was little that they could do to stop it, since dumping unwanted fracking chemicals into “injection wells” in Ohio is legal.

Nevertheless, concerned residents proposed an amendment to the town’s charter that affirms the rights of the local population to decide if injection wells are allowed within its boundaries.  Suddenly, a matter of local concern became a major political issue for oil and gas companies and their Political Action Committees or PACS, which raise money on their behalf. Corporate contributors poured in over $300,000 to pay for TV advertisements and glossy brochures sent through the mail, which were designed to frighten residents into voting against the amendment on the grounds that it would be a “jobs killer”.

The majority of Mansfield’s residents rejected this hype, reasoning that any jobs related to injection wells would not be as plentiful as promised, and that dumping toxic waste into the town’s industrial park seemed more likely to chase away new business than to attract it. As the town’s Mayor put it at the time, “We don’t like outsiders telling us what to do.” The amendment was passed with 63 per cent of the votes cast. Crucially, it subordinates corporations to the concerns of the community by stripping them of their legal “personhood” and other constitutional privileges, and recognizing the rights of natural ecosystems to be free from frackwater dumping.

In 1973, Christopher Stone, a law professor at the University of Southern California, published a famous article called “Should Trees Have Standing?” In it, he explained why it is so hard to think about the rights-less as having rights. Citing the struggles of Abolitionists against slavery and of Suffragettes in favor of votes for women, Stone’s article showed how every emerging movement to recognize such rights has been deemed radical, and perhaps even treasonous.

In the same vein, it may seem strange to argue that rivers and forests also have rights. But how different would it be in the world if the Amazon River could sue oil companies for damages, or if those responsible for oil spills could be forced to make the Gulf of Mexico “whole” once again, or if communities could be empowered to act as stewards for their local environments and ecosystems?

The movement for the rights of nature has seen its ranks swell in recent times, as more and more communities realize that the law does not protect them from harm. The connections between our bodies and the web of life that sustains them are made more real with every industrial accident and incursion. As Mahatma Gandhi once said, “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, and then you win.”  When it comes to the rights of nature, nobody is laughing anymore.

~

Cross-posted for educational purposes. Click on the original Open Democracy article  to comment: http://www.opendemocracy.net/transformation/shannon-biggs/welcome-to-frackland-does-river-have-right-not-to-be-polluted

BLM Resource Advisory Council Meeting to be Broadcast on Web

Posted on by
Cows in Nevada (Photo © Anne Novak)

Cows in Nevada (Photo © Anne Novak)

From a BLM press release:

Reno, Nev.— The joint meeting of the Nevada Bureau of Land Management’s three Resource Advisory Councils (RACs) will be broadcast over the web on February 6 and 7 at http://www.blm.gov/live/.

The meeting is being held at the High Desert Inn, 3015 Idaho Street, Elko, NV. A public comment period is scheduled for Feb. 6 from 4 to 4:30 p.m. Written comments can also be submitted to RAC Coordinator Chris Rose at crose@blm.gov or by mail at: RAC Comments, Attn: Chris Rose, 1340 Financial Blvd., Reno, NV 89502.

The agenda and additional information will be posted at http://on.doi.gov/1bkJm1g. Individuals who plan to attend and need further information about the meeting or need special assistance such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations may also contact Chris Rose.

The Sierra Front-Northwestern Great Basin RAC, the Northeastern Great Basin RAC, and the Mojave-Southern Great Basin RAC each have 15-members that represent a variety of public land interests. The Nevada RACs advise the Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM Nevada State Director, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in Nevada.

The BLM manages more than 245 million acres of public land, the most of any Federal agency. This land, known as the National System of Public Lands, is primarily located in 12 Western states, including Alaska. The BLM also administers 700 million acres of sub-surface mineral estate throughout the nation. The BLM’s mission is to manage and conserve the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations under our mandate of multiple-use and sustained yield. In Fiscal Year 2013, the BLM generated $4.7 billion in receipts from public lands

—BLM—
RAC 2014 tri rac agenda

Sign up for Intro to Environmental Law (free)

Posted on by
(Photo © Grandma Gregg)

(Photo © Grandma Gregg)

What:  Introduction to Environmental Law and Policy Course
 
 
When:  Starts Monday, January 13, 2014  (This is not a cutoff date.)
 
Where:  Anywhere, anytime, on-line.
 
Length:  Six weeks
 
Professor:  Don Hornstein, J.D., University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
 
Cost:  FREE — including all materials that you’ll need
 
Register:  FREE — It’s a very simple procedure too.
 
Earn:  A Statement of Accomplishment, but no college credit.
 
Prerequisites:  None.  Designed for the under-grad.
 
Format:  Videos (15 to 20 minutes each) and short readings per topic.
 
Repeat:  Rewatch the videos and reread the readings as often as you like.
 
Quizzes:  Typically 8 questions, multiple choice.  Take when you’re ready.
 
Retake:  To improve your score on any test, you can retake it … twice!
 
Participation:  There are opportunities to take part in a forum if you’d like.
 
Professor Hornstein teaches what is known as “positive law” (what the law actually is) as opposed to “normative law” (what the law ought to be).  He is an outstanding teacher.  
 
The course imparts insight into how lawyers and judges think and reason with regard to environmental law.  It does not specifically address wild horse and burro issues.  But the information is still relevant for our purposes.  For instance, one of the first topics covered is “nuisance law.”  On the surface, it might not seem applicable to our advocacy.  But wait — don’t the wild horses and burros get blamed for being nuisances when they step outside the invisible boundaries of their herd management area?  So, understanding “nuisance” as a legal concept — determining what is and what is not deemed a nuisance according to the courts — can make us better-able to defend our clients.  Advocates who have reviewed and responded to BLM environmental assessments will already be familiar with many of the terms, concepts, and laws that are discussed.  
 
Dr. Hornstein has many teaching assistants that help him.  They are eager to answer questions.  Also, you will find that students from all over the world, not just America, take the course.  Last term, there were reportedly about 20,000!  Yes, twenty thousand!  
 

 A special thanks to Marybeth Devlin for bringing this class to our attention.

 
 

7 legal points for wild horses and burros

Posted on by
Truck in the pens (© Anne Novak, All rights reserved)

Truck in the pens (© Anne Novak, All rights reserved)

by Kathleen Hayden

1. Wild horses and burros are no less “wild” animals than are the grizzly bears that roam our national parks and forests (Mountain States v. Hodel) neither the states of the federal government have the right to harm Our Heritage Wildlife as found by the 1995 Supreme court Ruling Babbit v.Sweet Home.

2. The Babbit v Sweet Home case found that the term “take” means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. 16 U.S.C. § 1532(19)

3. By a 6-3 vote, the Court upheld the statutory authority of the Secretary of the Interior to include “habitat modification and degradation” as conduct which constitutes “harm” under the ESA.
In addition to the statutory provisions described above,

4. Section 5 of the ESA authorizes the Secretary to purchase the lands on which the survival of the species depends. Accordingly, Sweet Home maintained that this Section 5 authority was “the Secretary’s only means of forestalling that grave result [i.e. possible extinction)

5. As a result, based upon “the text, structure, and legislative history of the ESA the Supreme Court concluded that “the Secretary reasonably construed the intent of Congress when he defined ‘harm’ to include ‘significant habitat modification or degradation that actually kills or injures wildlife species.

6. Pursuant to BLM’s 2001 Special Status Species Policy requirement that “sensitive” species be afforded, at a minimum, the same protections as candidate species for listing under the ESA. It called on BLM managers to “obtain and use the best available information deemed necessary to evaluate the status of special status species in areas affected by land use plans . . . .

7. See Policy at § 6840.22A. Under the Policy, those land use plans “shall be sufficiently detailed to identify and resolve significant land use conflicts with special status species without deferring conflict resolution to implementation-level planning.” Id. (Case 4:08-cv-00516-BLW Document 131 Filed 09/28/11 Page 8 of 37 (Sagegrouse decision)