Questions Surrounding A Nevada Wild Horse “Eco-Sanctuary”
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
Traveling around rural Nevada, the proposal offered by Madeleine Pickens to set up a Wild Horse Sanctuary, using federally managed lands in conjunction with private property, is being hashed over fairly extensively. Having purchased an Elko County ranch with connected livestock grazing permits, the basic game plan that is outlined in the proposal is to have the Billionaire turn her deed to the ranch over to a non-profit “Saving America’s Mustangs” corporation.
If the federal government were to buy into the plan, they would give Saving America’s Mustangs custody of perhaps 10,000 Wild Horses currently held by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in holding facilities and possibly other Wild Horses gathered off federal lands. It would seem, from the wording in the “Prospectus”, that the feds would be paying an amount based on what BLM is paying for their long-term hold costs now AND $500 per-horse, per-year to Saving America’s Mustangs…for their “custody”.
Questions Galore!
Part of the challenge in dealing with this proposal is the manner in which the deal is presently an exclusively Washington, D.C.-based approach. Working at the highest levels of the government bureaucracy, by those who have no touch with the resource, it could easily end up being a completely wired process with all the details worked out inside the Beltway and arrangements consummated without any hint of legitimate public involvement.
Further, the way very basic details are handled will make a whole lot of difference:
What would the status of the “Wild Horses” be when they are on the “eco-sanctuary”? Are they “owned property” (livestock) in the possession of Saving America’s Mustangs? Does the federal government maintain ownership and do the animals continue to be “Wild Horses” confined on the eco-sanctuary? How does that fit into federal management guidelines about how Wild Horses are maintained in Herd Management Areas? How do those numbers fit into Appropriate Management Levels for lands under the responsibility of the BLM?
As it relates to forage on the federal lands, the permits currently considered to be cattle grazing permits would need to be converted to horse grazing…wouldn’t the decision process for making that conversion be a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) consideration? How does that affect the grazing permit and the terms included as part of the permit? How much actual “decision” potential would be allowed? Would it be an honest evaluation of the merits – or would it be like the Bureau of Reclamation decision process where the variables don’t really matter -- cause the answer is already determined?
In order for the horses to qualify for water rights in Nevada, they would need to be considered livestock – not Wild Horses…there isn’t a beneficial use for Wild Horses and the federal government isn’t allowed to receive a water right for livestock water. If the water rights used to water the horses are held as livestock water rights by Saving America’s Mustangs doesn’t that make the horses “livestock” and therefore subject to all the other provisions of Nevada state law pertaining to livestock ownership?
If a “Wild Horse” grazing operation is permitted the ability to fence off federally managed lands to maintain their “livestock” as the exclusive users of the federally managed lands – does that mean cattle grazing operations would be granted the same consideration…in and adjoining other Wild Horse management areas? Are the actual Wild Horses -- not in the deal, but on the land next to the “ranch” -- being controlled (either fenced away or fenced in) in ways that other Wild Horses in other areas are permitted to be dealt with?
Whatever shortcuts to public evaluation processes or special considerations provided for this project will reflect poorly on the already questionable way in which BLM “manages” Wild Horses – often in excess of their standards and appropriate levels. It will be worth monitoring the developments that take shape…
Traveling around rural Nevada, the proposal offered by Madeleine Pickens to set up a Wild Horse Sanctuary, using federally managed lands in conjunction with private property, is being hashed over fairly extensively. Having purchased an Elko County ranch with connected livestock grazing permits, the basic game plan that is outlined in the proposal is to have the Billionaire turn her deed to the ranch over to a non-profit “Saving America’s Mustangs” corporation.
If the federal government were to buy into the plan, they would give Saving America’s Mustangs custody of perhaps 10,000 Wild Horses currently held by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in holding facilities and possibly other Wild Horses gathered off federal lands. It would seem, from the wording in the “Prospectus”, that the feds would be paying an amount based on what BLM is paying for their long-term hold costs now AND $500 per-horse, per-year to Saving America’s Mustangs…for their “custody”.
Questions Galore!
Part of the challenge in dealing with this proposal is the manner in which the deal is presently an exclusively Washington, D.C.-based approach. Working at the highest levels of the government bureaucracy, by those who have no touch with the resource, it could easily end up being a completely wired process with all the details worked out inside the Beltway and arrangements consummated without any hint of legitimate public involvement.
Further, the way very basic details are handled will make a whole lot of difference:
What would the status of the “Wild Horses” be when they are on the “eco-sanctuary”? Are they “owned property” (livestock) in the possession of Saving America’s Mustangs? Does the federal government maintain ownership and do the animals continue to be “Wild Horses” confined on the eco-sanctuary? How does that fit into federal management guidelines about how Wild Horses are maintained in Herd Management Areas? How do those numbers fit into Appropriate Management Levels for lands under the responsibility of the BLM?
As it relates to forage on the federal lands, the permits currently considered to be cattle grazing permits would need to be converted to horse grazing…wouldn’t the decision process for making that conversion be a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) consideration? How does that affect the grazing permit and the terms included as part of the permit? How much actual “decision” potential would be allowed? Would it be an honest evaluation of the merits – or would it be like the Bureau of Reclamation decision process where the variables don’t really matter -- cause the answer is already determined?
In order for the horses to qualify for water rights in Nevada, they would need to be considered livestock – not Wild Horses…there isn’t a beneficial use for Wild Horses and the federal government isn’t allowed to receive a water right for livestock water. If the water rights used to water the horses are held as livestock water rights by Saving America’s Mustangs doesn’t that make the horses “livestock” and therefore subject to all the other provisions of Nevada state law pertaining to livestock ownership?
If a “Wild Horse” grazing operation is permitted the ability to fence off federally managed lands to maintain their “livestock” as the exclusive users of the federally managed lands – does that mean cattle grazing operations would be granted the same consideration…in and adjoining other Wild Horse management areas? Are the actual Wild Horses -- not in the deal, but on the land next to the “ranch” -- being controlled (either fenced away or fenced in) in ways that other Wild Horses in other areas are permitted to be dealt with?
Whatever shortcuts to public evaluation processes or special considerations provided for this project will reflect poorly on the already questionable way in which BLM “manages” Wild Horses – often in excess of their standards and appropriate levels. It will be worth monitoring the developments that take shape…
Posted by Doug Busselman at 10/26/2010 4:18 AM 
Categories: Public Lands
Tags: BLM Nevada Wild Horses Madeleine Pickens Natural Resource Management
Categories: Public Lands
Tags: BLM Nevada Wild Horses Madeleine Pickens Natural Resource Management
The Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. reports that there are some 111,000 unwanted horses in the US. There is a glut of horses after PETA influenced legislation made horse slaughter illegal.
If they can make horse slaughter illegal, they can make any meat animal illegal for slaughter. Supporting unwanted animals instead of utilizing them for their best purpose is wasteful. This country cannot keep being so wasteful of our valuable resources.
Some are beginning to think that animal rights/welfare/cruelty/bioethics is not so much about freeing animals but the take over of bourgeiosie' means of production ala Karl Marx' COMMUNIST MANIFESTO
They may be on to something.
Lord knows, this social justice and al the liberation philosophies sound like pure Marxism when one starts to compare what they say to what Marx said in his manifesto. Check it out at:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm
"But let us have done with the bourgeois objections to Communism.
We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.
The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.
Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.
These measures will, of course, be different in different countries."
Reply to this
If this is going to work, there are several conditions that should be met.
1) The "foundation" adopts the mustangs and they become livestock. This would solve the benificial use issue and the permit issue. BLM grazing permits can be issued for domestic horses.
2) The federal should not pay the foundation $500/hd/year to take the mustangs.
3) The rangeland health standards apply to this permit the same as any other permit issued by BLM.
Reply to this
good start
Reply to this