Corruption of the 1971 W.H. & B. Act of must end

 

Cross-posted from http://prophoto7journal.wordpress.com/2013/04/14/corruption-of-the-w-h-b-act-of-1971-needs-to-end/

by Photographer and Journalist

john_babe_pond_sideWild Horse and Burro Act of 1971, and the corruption within, is discussed here.  Indeed a noble Congressional situation and passed unanimously at the time.  The spirit was a good-faith gesture, by Law, toward America’s Wild Horse Herds — But something happened, something terrible happened, and it involved corruption from the top down, and terms of “Acceptable Abuse” which changed everything:

Congressional findings and declaration of policy, and states clearly:

“Congress finds and declares that wild free-roaming horses and burros are living symbols of the historic and pioneer spirit of the West; that they contribute to the diversity of life forms within the Nation and enrich the lives of the American people; and that these horses and burros are fast disappearing from the American scene. It is the policy of Congress that wild free-roaming horses and burros shall be protected from capture, branding, harassment, or death; and to accomplish this they are to be considered in the area where presently found, as an integral part of the natural system of the public lands.”

The Breaking Down of the Wild Horse and Burro Act of 1971

The initial “blast” of ingenuity and a caring spirit exists in the very opening of the W.H. & B. Act of 971.  From then onward reality, the harsh mistress, enters into the realm of managing America’s Wild Horse Herds.  This actual spirit of well written “Congressional Declaration” becomes nothing more than deception.  Oddly, not by Congress, who had an honest concern toward America’s Wild Horse Herds, and correcting the blatant mistreatment of them within a protective context.  No, this comes down to the Department of the Interior, the Bureau of Land Management, and corruption combined with government dishonesty.

We have seen an absolute-reality take place, the disappearance over the years of the care and appropriate managing of America’s Wild Horse Herds.  The Reality:  Proper Management has been replaced with what is termed “Acceptable Abuse” which demonstrates beyond a doubt that the W.H.&B.P. Board of Consultants and the Bureau of Land Management are and always have been unqualified and corrupt; this is an absolute and quantitative reality directly related to their mismanagement or corrupt administration of America’s Wild Horse Herds.  The Federal court cases alone demonstrate beyond a doubt this is reality, and at heavy cost to taxpayers, yet ignored and replaced by misinformation and outright lies to the public, cloaked in some type of odd reasoning with hopes the public will accept it!  The Public has not!

The consultants on the board have a narrow margin of backgrounds.  Their history of demonstrating no knowledgeable context of proper management of horses, other than a livestock mentality, becomes quite obvious within their decisions.  This becomes significant, extremely devastating and on the road toward extinction of our wild horses, in their unqualified behavior to manage America’s Wild Horse Herds.

The absolute destruction of our Wild Horse Herds becomes more applicable, and fit to their purpose — all the while at a much higher cost to taxpayers.  The actual No-Roundup / No Abuse management paradigm, basically leaving the wild horses on America’s Public Lands with a manage-to-enhance and safe-guard them, in reality saves taxpayers $Billions of dollars!  But ignored, because in their minds it is only taxpayer money, and to hell with taxpayers!

This leads to erroneous and contemptible management by BLM; whereas, the W.H.& B. Act of 1971 becomes ignored to the point of being null and void.  This leads to another harsh reality, contentiousness rather than preservation; management driven by animosity rather than a standard set for the protection of a vulnerable specifies; and a total waste of taxpayer money, with no proper or legitimate explanation toward expenditure.  The W.H.&B. Act of 1971 simply becomes a deceptive-cloak to hide and obtain money, because in reality there exists no type of proper management or care of America’s Wild Horse Herds what so ever and in accord with the Act.

Vulnerable Species Leads to Extinction

We have learned many things over the years when it comes to extinction of our wildlife.  Apparently, these same learned attributes remain ignored by those same people, who claim to be our nation’s Stewarts of our PublicLands and America’s Wildlife.  Well documented lessons from the past, although ignored currently, still remain the key toward avoiding extinction of a species.

For example yes, there is a difference between a Wild Horse and a domesticated bred horse;  Yes, there is a difference between the many species of wolves, and the domestic dogs of the world; It is this simple to understand.

1.  Slow moving animals are no competition to man-made devises such as helicopters used in the wild horse herd roundups — i.e. no legitimate reasons are ever given to conform to the W.H. & B. Act of 1971 for legitimate roundups — the W.H. & B. Act is ignored in total;

2.  Large animals are vulnerable to over-hunting as well as to government agencies convoluted lies and misinformation, which it has been shown in history, many times, leading to species extinction of many animals;

3.  Altruism, or specifies that have come close to civilization, bonds established in regard to images or friendships, etc., have become detrimental to many species throughout history — i.e. wild horses, wolves, buffalo, Steller’s Sea Cow, the Passenger Pigeon, etc;

4.  Vulnerability due to restricted habitat has been a major cause of wild life extinction throughout history, and is well documented — a lesson here to be not only learned but placed into management paradigms, especially when managing wild horses or wolves;

5.  A related, and certainly obvious situation within this context, is the “Over-Specialization of Habitat”  — and within this discussion cattle and the lies perpetrated by government agencies such as the BLM to enhance our Public Lands with cattle, oil, energy, mining, and other corporate circumstances, etc. . . and to hell with America’s natural ecological habitats and wildlife.

With this categorical explanation, which is well documented and referenced quite well, yet ignored, remains troublesome to the majority of Americans.  The real-truth is any species that suffers from several of these factors can be quickly eliminated.

Conclusively

The fact is that ecological systems are vulnerable to many environmental situations.  Our civilization intruding upon any of these systems becomes detrimental to the over all balance of many other ecological systems.  Our civilization has a history of taking-over lands that once belonged to wildlife and vegetation, and those same elements of nature are now extinct, sadly!

Public Lands and Range Mangers do have access to wildlife that is beneficial to America’s Ecological systems.  It can be attributable to a “language of protection” toward our environment (which includes Wild Horse Herds), if they are qualified to observe these situations.  Most of them are not qualified, so good management is currently non-existent!

Listening and observing what our natural environment has to tell us is of significance, always.  A point of discussion currently that is picking up momentum within the environmental community is the fact of how we identify the difference between a technical report generated by a political agenda — compared to a technical report that positively approaches resolution toward solving a serious environmental or wildlife issue of concern.

Yes, we can use the wild horse herds to let us know of ecological viability within many ecological systems, simply by their presence and health.  Ironically, to many environmentalists, to include terrestrial and wildlife research biologists, government agencies and their consultants ignore this situation.

This is due to government employees lack of qualifications to manage our Public Lands; due to lack of ingenuity and competence to tell the truth; and, due to our present government employees lack of ethics and responsibility in safe-guarding taxpayer money.

When we have proper information, and the public needs this information to rationally confront our government presently, we have the tools to enhance and better America’s over all environment.  If we ignore any of the historical facts, then combine them with arrogant management decisions, we will lose not only wildlife but significant and life giving habitat that keeps us all alive.  Ultimately, the fact is we need better representation and the reality of more and better qualified people to manage our wildlife and environmental situations of this world.

The Wild Horse and Burro Act of 1971 exemplifies this situation to the thousandth degree, and America’s Wild Horse Herds are paying the price — government agency’s bad behavior and bad decision making — when compared to actually following the very premise of what the Act outlines — and the ever present historical value of managing not only a diverse realm of ecological systems, but our wildlife as well.

____________________________

The Wild Horse and Burro Act of 1971 Explained.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_and_Free-Roaming_Horses_and_Burros_Act_of_1971

Burea of Land Management version of the W.H.&B. Act of 1971http://www.wildhorseandburro.blm.gov/92-195.htm

The Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971 (without BLM reference and perspective)http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+Wild+FreeRoaming+Horses+and+Burros+Act+of+1971.-a0141802026

Dry saline land: an investigation using ground-based geophysics, soil survey and spatial methods near Jamestown, South Australia. By R.W. Fitzpatrick, M. Thomas, P.J. Davies and B.G. Williams

Literature Review of Factors Influencing Public Perceptions of Water Reuse. By Murni Po, Juliane D. Kaercher and Blair E. Nancarrow – NOTE: This report has been updated in 2004 – click here for the updated version.

Development of a strategy for monitoring Australia’s natural resources: a discussion paper. By Mac Kirby, Neil McKenzie and Myriam Bormans

Quantifying and managing sources of sediments and nutrients in low-lying canelands. By Christian H. Roth, Fleur Visser, Robert Wasson, John Reghenzani and Ian Prosser

Use of APSIM to simulate water balances of dryland farming systems in south eastern Australia. By K. Verburg and W.J. Bond

Salt Transport in the Bremer Hills, SA. Interpretation of Spatial Datasets for Salt Distribution. Fourth report for NAP South Australian Salt Mapping and Management. Chris Smitt, Jim Cox and Phil Davies

Modelling catchment-scale nutrient generation. By Lachlan T.H. Newham and John J. Drewry

The Floodplain Risk Methodology (FRM): A suite of tools to rapidly assess at the regional scale the impacts of groundwater inflows and benefits of improved inundation on the floodplains of the lower River Murray. By Kate Holland, Ian Jolly, Ian Overton, Matt Miles, Linda Vears and Glen Walker

Ecological Risk Assessment for the Wetlands of the Lower Burdekin. By Bart M. Kellett, Terry Walshe and Keith L. Bristow

Ivanhoe Plain Aquifer Pumping Trial July 2003 – April 2005: Stage 1 OrdRiver Irrigation Area, Kununurra, Western Australia. By Anthony J. Smith, Duncan Palmer, Daniel W. Pollock and Ramsis B. Salama

Modelling periphyton biomass, photosynthesis and respiration in streams. By J. J. Christopher Rutherford and Susan M. Cuddy

Effects of salinity on stream ecosystems: improving models for macroinvertebrates. By J. Christopher Rutherford and Ben J. Kefford

A conceptual model of particulate trapping in riparian buffers. By Lachlan Newham, Kit Rutherford, and Barry Croke

Preliminary Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points Plan (HACCP) – Salisbury Stormwater to Drinking Water Aquifer Storage Transfer and Recovery (ASTR) Project. By Swierc, J., Page, D., Van Leeuwen, J. and Dillon, P.

A Bilingual User’s Guide for the Decision Support Tool for Managing Re-Vegetation and its Impact on Hydrology (ReVegIH) in the Coarse Sandy Hilly Catchments of the Loess Plateau, China.  By Li, L.T., McVicar, T.R., Van Niel, T.G. Zhang, L., Li, R., Yang, Q.K., Zhang, X.P., Mu, X.M., Wen, Z.M., Liu, W.Z., Zhao, Y.A. and Liu, Z.H.

Mapping Perennial Vegetation Suitability and Identifying Priority Areas for Implementing the Re-Vegetation Program in the Coarse SandyHilly Catchments of the Loess Plateau, China. By Tim R. McVicar, ZhongMing Wen, Tom G. Van Niel, LingTao Li, QinKe Yang, Rui Li and Feng Jiao

Managing Change: Australian structural adjustment lessons for water. By J.C. McColl and M.D. Young

Estimates of average hydraulic drivers for sediment and nutrient fluxes in the GBR catchments from SedNet. By F.J. Cook and A. Henderson

Idealised analogue for predicting groundwater response times from sloping aquifers. By Glen R. Walker, Mat Gilfedder, and Warrick R. Dawes

Understanding spatial patterns of discharge in semi-arid regions using a recharge-discharge balance to determine vegetation health. By Rebecca Doble, Glen Walker and Craig Simmons

Modelling the fate of molinate in rice paddies of South Eastern Australia using RICEWQ. By Evan W.Christen, Wendy C. Quayle, Sang-Ok Chung and Ki Jung Park

Pesticide use in the 6th Creek sub-catchment, Mt. Lofty Ranges, S.A. and assessment of risk of off-site movement using Pesticide Impact Rating Index (PIRI). By Danni Oliver and Rai Kookana

Pesticide use in the Ord River Irrigation Area, Western Australia, and Risk Assessment of Off-site Impact using Pesticide Impact Rating Index (PIRI). By Danni Oliver and Rai Kookana

An Automated Remote Digital Image Collection System. By Aaron Hawdon and Rex Keen

Spatially Distributing 21 Years of Monthly Hydrometeorological Data in China: Spatio-Temporal Analysis of FAO-56 Crop Reference Evapotranspiration and Pan Evaporation in the Context of Climate Change. By Tim R. McVicar, LingTao Li, Tom G. Van Niel, Michael F. Hutchinson, XingMin Mu and ZhiHong Liu

Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009

 

Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009
Great Seal of the United States.
Full title An act to designate certain land as components of the National Wilderness Preservation System, to authorize certain programs and activities in the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture, and for other purposes.
Enacted by the 111th United States Congress
Effective March 30, 2009
Citations
Public Law Pub.L. 111–11
Stat. (pending)
Codification
Wild and Scenic Rivers ActNational Trails System Act,Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008, and others; see below
Title(s) amended Title 5Title 36Title 40
Legislative history

The Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (Pub.L. 111–11H.R. 146) is a law passed in the 111th United States Congress and signed into law byPresident Barack Obama on March 30, 2009.[1]

Contents

Legislative history

110th Congress

On June 26, 2008, Senator Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico introduced the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2008 (S. 3213). Although the bill had some support from both Democrats and Republicans, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, the Senate never voted on the measure due to threats by Senator Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma) to filibuster the bill.[2]

111th Congress

S. 22

On January 7, 2009, Bingaman introduced the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (S. 22), a new bill which incorporated 159 bills that had been considered by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources during the 110th Congress and, in some cases, earlier Congresses.[3] Despite vehement opposition from Coburn and some other Republicans, the Senate passed a cloture motion on January 11 by a vote of 66-12[4] and then passed the bill on January 15 by a vote of 73-21, with four members not voting.[5]

The bill was then sent to the House of Representatives, where it was expected to pass by a wide margin.[6] The bill was held at the desk instead of being sent to a committee.

On March 11, 2009, the House considered the bill under suspension of the rules, meaning that a two-thirds vote would be required for passage. Those voting in favor of the bill (predominantly Democrats) fell two votes short of a two-thirds majority, 282-144. 34 Republicans voted in favor of the bill, while three Democrats voted against it: Dan Boren of Oklahoma, Jim Marshall of Georgia, and Collin Peterson of Minnesota.[7] House Democrats could then have brought the bill back to the floor under regular procedure, which would have allowed Republicans to submit amendments to the bill.[8]

The bill, as voted on by the House, had been amended by Jason Altmire (D-Pennsylvania), to prohibit the closing of the lands described in the bill to hunting and fishing, presumably to persuade sportsmen and hunters to vote for the bill.[9]

H.R. 146

On March 3, 2009, the House of Representatives passed a bill under suspension of the rules, the Revolutionary War and War of 1812 Battlefield Protection Act (H.R. 146), 394-13. On March 12, one day after the House failed to pass the Omnibus Public Land Management Act, Reid announced that he would file cloture on H.R. 146. While in the Senate, the bill was amended to include a majority of the text in S. 22.[10] The Senate voted 73-21 for cloture and 77-20 to pass the bill. The House agreed to the Senate amendments, 285-140, on March 25.[11]

President Barack Obama signed the bill into law on March 30, 2009, declaring one provision unconstitutional in his signing statement.[12]

Wikisource has original text related to this article:

Components

Title I

Title I of the bill designates two million acres (8,000 km²) of wilderness in nine states (CaliforniaColoradoIdahoMichiganNew MexicoOregonUtahVirginia, and West Virginia) for protection through addition to theNational Wilderness Preservation System. Among these lands are:

Title II

Title II establishes a National Landscape Conservation System, to include Bureau of Land Management-administered National MonumentsNational Conservation AreasWilderness Study Areas, components of the National Trails System, components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, and components of the National Wilderness Preservation System.

Title II also designates three new National Conservation Areas (Fort Stanton – Snowy River Cave National Conservation AreaSnake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area, and Dominguez-Escalante National Conservation Area) and one new National Monument (the Prehistoric Trackways National Monument in the Robledo Mountains of New Mexico). It also transfers lands in Nevada, Utah, Idaho, and Washington to federal control.

Title III

Title III authorizes the United States Secretary of Agriculture to, through the Chief of the United States Forest Service, conduct studies in the interest of preserving open space in southern Colorado and deliver “an annual report on the wildland firefighter safety practices…including training programs and activities for wildland fire suppression, prescribed burning, and wildland fire use, during the preceding calendar year.” Title III also prohibits further oil and gas leasing, geothermal leasing, and mining patents in a stretch of the Bridger-Teton National Forest; this provision was based on a bill being crafted by Senator Craig L. Thomas of Wyoming before his death.

Title IV

Title IV authorizes the Chief of the Forest Service to solicit (from regional foresters) nominations of forest landscapes of at least 50,000 acres (200 km2), primarily consisting of national forest lands, which are in need of “active ecosystem restoration,” for the carrying out of ecological restoration treatments. The Chief, acting on behalf of the Secretary of Agriculture, then may select up to ten of these proposals, aided by a fifteen-member advisory board, to be funded in any given fiscal year. For each proposal selected, 50% of the expenditures of the execution and monitoring of ecological restoration treatments would be paid for by a Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Fund in the United States Treasury. However, each proposal’s expenditures are limited to $4 million per year.

Title V

Title V designates thousands of miles of new additions to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. It also adds six trails to the National Trails System: the Arizona National Scenic Trail, the New England National Scenic Trail, the Ice Age Floods National Geologic Trail, the Washington-Rochambeau Revolutionary Route National Historic Trail, the Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail and the Trail of Tears National Historic Trail.

Title VI

Title VI creates a number of new United States Department of the Interior programs. One of these programs, the Wolf Livestock Loss Demonstration Project, gives states and Indian tribes federal grants to help livestock producers to reduce livestock loss due to predation by wolves in non-lethal ways, as well as for the purpose of compensating livestock producers for their loss of livestock due to predation by wolves.

Another part of Title VI, the Paleontological Resources Preservation Act, was originally a Senate bill introduced in 2007 by Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii). This provision establishes stronger penalties than previously required for nonpermitted removal of scientifically significant fossils from federal lands. The provision was endorsed and strongly supported by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, an international association of professional and amateur vertebrate paleontologists. In contrast, the Association of Applied Paleontological Sciences, an association of commercial fossil dealers, opposed the measure.

Title VII

Title VII makes three additions to the National Park System and expands current National Park designations. It also authorizes an American Battlefield Protection Program, a Preserve America program, a Save America’s Treasures Program, and a Route 66 Corridor Preservation Program, all to be carried out by the National Park Service. New National Park System components would include:

Title VIII

Title VIII designates ten new National Heritage Areas at the cost of $103.5 million:

Title IX

Title IX authorizes three new studies to examine new reclamation projects under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Reclamation. It also creates 15 new water and endangered fish projects in four states. Furthermore, Title IX puts some federal water reclamation facilities under local control and funds conservation efforts.

Title X

Title X codifies the settlements of three water disputes in California, Nevada, and New Mexico, in an effort to resolve decades of litigation.

Title XI

Title XI reauthorizes the National Geologic Mapping Act of 1992 at a cost of $64 million per year through the year 2018. It furthermore authorizes groundwater surveys in New Mexico, also by the U.S. Geological Survey.

Title XII

Title XII creates five new oceanic observation, research, and exploration programs at a cost of $2.6 billion, including programs for undersea research, undersea and coastal mapping, acidification research, and ocean conservation. One provision, the Integrated Coastal and Ocean Observation System Act, would “establish a national integrated System of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes observing systems, comprised of Federal and non-Federal components coordinated at the national level by the National Ocean Research Leadership Council” in order to “support national defense, marine commerce, navigation safety, weather, climate, and marine forecasting, energy siting and production, economic development, ecosystem-based marine, coastal, and Great Lakes resource management, public safety, and public outreach training and education.”

Title XIII

Title XIII deals with miscellaneous bills, including one that funds the National Tropical Botanical Garden in Hawaii and another that increases the number of Assistant Energy Secretaries in the United States Department of Energy to eight. Title XIII also amends the Fisheries Restoration and Irrigation Mitigation Act of 2000 and the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act.

[edit]Title XIV

Title XIV, the Christopher and Dana Reeve Paralysis Act, provides $105 million over five years for coordinated paralysis research by the National Institutes of Health.

[edit]Title XV

Title XV grants the Smithsonian Institution $69 million for laboratory and greenhouse construction at three Smithsonian facilities.

Acts amended

The Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 amended the following acts of Congress, in order of first appearance:

References

  1. ^ “Obama signs public lands reform bill”. CNN. 30 March 2009. Retrieved March 30, 2009.
  2. ^ “Wyoming Range bill looks dead for year”. Casper Star-Tribune. 15 November 2008. Retrieved February 14, 2009.
  3. ^ C-SPAN
  4. ^ Vote 1, via Senate.gov
  5. ^ Vote 3, via Senate.gov
  6. ^ “Senate passes protection bills; Wyo Range, Snake River measures now go to House”. Casper Star-Tribune. 15 January 2009. Retrieved February 14, 2009.
  7. ^ Roll Call 117, via House.gov
  8. ^ O’Connor, Patrick (2009-03-11). “House GOP derails public lands bill”The Politico. Politico.com. Retrieved 11 March 2009.
  9. ^ Phillips, Kate (2009-03-11). “Public Lands Bill Defeated in House”The Caucus blog (NYTimes.com). Retrieved 11 March 2009.
  10. ^ http://dpc.senate.gov/dpcdoc.cfm?doc_name=lb-111-1-37
  11. ^ Major Actions on H.R. 146, 111th Congress
  12. ^ Savage, Charlie (March 30, 2009). “Obama Issues Signing Statement With Public Lands Bill”The New York Times. Retrieved May 20, 2010.
  13. ^ “Owyhee Canyonlands Wilderness Areas”. Bureau of Land Management. Retrieved July 10, 2011.

External links