New Legislative Guide Available

After much longer than I thought it would take, our Legislative Guide is now available. The guide will help users navigate their way through the legislative process, figure out what the steps in passing a bill are and help make lobbying as effective as possible.

I hope that everyone finds the guide helpful and useful as the new session of Congress begins. It is written for equine welfare advocates, but others may find it useful if they are interested in any type of legislation. Obviously I couldn't write something that will answer every single question, but I hope that it will answer most and I stand ready to answer any questions that the guide doesn't address. Within reason of course!

The Guide is only available right now in PDF format, but should be available in other formats soon. I just wanted to get it out as soon as possible for the new session. You can download it by going to the AHDF website or to get it quicker download it directly by clicking here.

Please don't forget to support the AHDF when you visit our site. Much of our efforts are limited by our budget, even though we are 100% staffed by volunteers and have limited overhead. All donations are tax deductible as we are a recognized 501(c) 3 organization. If you make a donation and need a receipt for your donation please let us know when you make the donation as we only provide receipts on request.

Equine Welfare Bills Introduced

The 111th Congress is in session and bills are being introduced that affect our beloved equine. The text of the bills, as introduced will follow below the post.

First is HR 503 which would prohibit the transport of equine for the purpose of slaughter or the possession of horse flesh for the purpose of human consumption. It currently has 60 cosponsors with Rep Conyers as the sponsor. It has been assigned to the House Judiciary Committee.

The AHDF fully supports this bill and its humane agenda as we have since the first horse slaughter ban bill. It would protect horses from going to an inhumane death in Canada and Mexico and would prevent the opening of horse slaughter plants in the United States.

Second, is HR 305 which would prohibit the use of double decker trailers in transporting equine. It does NOT prohibit the use of these trailers for other animals, just horses, hence the title Horse Transportation Safety Act. The bill currently has 2 cosponsors and has been assigned to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

The USDA has ruled that Double Decker (DD) trailers cannot be modified or made humane for the use in transporting horses and have regulations prohibiting the use of them in transporting horses. I'm sure that everyone can agree that this agency can’t be considered overly humane, so their decision can be viewed as fair. The USDA has tried to enforce this but have been hindered by a loophole that they have been attempting to correct. Even those supporting the slaughter of horses agree that they are unsafe for horses.

The reasons these trailers are bad for horse is simple. Horses hold their heads upright and these trailers, designed for shorter necked animals, do no allow them to raise their heads properly. Horses transported with their heads lowered experience respiratory difficulties and tend to develop shipping fever. For the trailer to be modified to carry horses on multiple levels it would exceed height restrictions.

These trailers, when involved in accidents, cause more damage and take MUCH longer to “clean up” than other trailer accidents. Usually it runs into 6-10 hours where the roadway is blocked, and the use of hundreds of man hours and that is if they have the proper training. That is because of the number of animals involved. The documented accidents (which do appear, at least to rational folks, to happen far too frequently) have a death rate of 80% compared to 25% of the horses hauled in trailers designed for horses. These trailers are more top heavy than other trailers on the road. Also, most hauling to slaughter are usually also overweight and avoid weigh stations and DOT inspections making them even more dangerous to EVERY driver on the road with them. All accidents involving these trailers have resulted in multiple citations.

The AHDF does support the bill, but it isn’t the answer to all the problems that we have with horse slaughter. It wouldn’t change the fact that horses going to slaughter can be transported more than 24 hours without food or water. It wouldn’t stop the transport of horses into Canada and Mexico where the horses are treated inhumanely both before and during slaughter. This bill ONLY stops the use of these trailers which are inhumane for the transport of horses.

Third, soon a bill will be introduced to protect our nation's wild horses and burros. The text of the bill and what it proposes is not yet available. However, we expect it to restore the protections stripped away by the infamous "Burns Amendment". The AHDF has provided commentary on the bill and are anxiously awaiting the final text the sponsor chooses. As soon as a bill number and text are available we will post it. We fully expect to support the bill.

If you would like to see if your Representative is a cosponsor you can go to Thomas and enter the bill number and then click on Cosponsors. We will provide updates on the bills as they become available. If you are reading this post online at Hooflinks please subscribe to the blog to get the updates.

H. R. 503

To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit certain conduct relating to the use of horses for human consumption.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 14, 2009

Mr. CONYERS (for himself, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr. ACKERMAN, Ms. BERKLEY, Mr. BILBRAY, Mrs. BONO MACK, Ms. BORDALLO, Mr. BROWN of South Carolina, Mr. CAPUANO, Mr. CASTLE, Mr. COHEN, Mr. CUMMINGS, Mr. DEFAZIO, Mr. DELAHUNT, Ms. DELAURO, Mr. GALLEGLY, Mr. GERLACH, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. GUTIERREZ, Mr. HALL of New York, Mr. HINCHEY, Mr. INGLIS, Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas, Mr. JONES, Mr. KING of New York, Mr. KIRK, Mr. KLEIN of Florida, Mr. KUCINICH, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Mr. LOBIONDO, Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California, Mrs. MALONEY, Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York, Mr. MCCOTTER, Mr. MCGOVERN, Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California, Mr. MITCHELL, Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin, Mr. MORAN of Virginia, Mr. PATRICK J. MURPHY of Pennsylvania, Mr. NADLER of New York, Mr. PAYNE, Mr. PLATTS, Mr. RAHALL, Mr. RANGEL, Mr. ROTHMAN of New Jersey, Mr. RUPPERSBERGER, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. SCOTT of Virginia, Mr. SERRANO, Mr. SHERMAN, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, Ms. SUTTON, Mr. VAN HOLLEN, Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Ms. WATSON, Mr. WEXLER, Mr. WHITFIELD, Ms. WOOLSEY, Mr. WU, and Mr. YOUNG of Florida) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

---

A BILL

To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit certain conduct relating to the use of horses for human consumption.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Prevention of Equine Cruelty Act of 2009'.

SEC. 2. SLAUGHTER OF HORSES FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION.

(a) In General- Chapter 3 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`Sec. 50. Slaughter of horses for human consumption

`(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), whoever knowingly--

`(1) possesses, ships, transports, purchases, sells, delivers, or receives, in or affecting interstate commerce or foreign commerce, any horse with the intent that it is to be slaughtered for human consumption; or

`(2) possesses, ships, transports, purchases, sells, delivers, or receives, in or affecting interstate commerce or foreign commerce, any horse flesh or carcass or part of a carcass, with the intent that it is to be used for human consumption;

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years or both.

`(b) If--

`(1) the defendant engages in conduct that would otherwise constitute an offense under subsection (a);

`(2) the defendant has no prior conviction under this section; and

`(3) the conduct involves less than five horses or less than 2000 pounds of horse flesh or carcass or part of a carcass;

the defendant shall, instead of being punished under that subsection, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

`(c) As used in this section, the term `horse' means any member of the family Equidae.'.

(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for chapter 3 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

H. R. 305

To amend title 49, United States Code, to prohibit the transportation of horses in interstate transportation in a motor vehicle containing two or more levels stacked on top of one another.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 8, 2009

Mr. KIRK (for himself, Mr. COHEN, and Mr. WHITFIELD) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

---

A BILL

To amend title 49, United States Code, to prohibit the transportation of horses in interstate transportation in a motor vehicle containing two or more levels stacked on top of one another.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Horse Transportation Safety Act of 2009'.

SEC. 2. TRANSPORTATION OF HORSES.

(a) In General- Chapter 805 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`Sec. 80505. Transportation of horses

`(a) Prohibition- No person may transport, or cause to be transported, a horse from a place in a State, the District of Columbia, or a territory or possession of the United States through or to a place in another State, the District of Columbia, or a territory or possession of the United States in a motor vehicle containing two or more levels stacked on top of one another.

`(b) Civil Penalty- A person that knowingly violates this section is liable to the United States Government for a civil penalty of at least $100 but not more than $500 for each violation. A separate violation occurs under this section for each horse that is transported, or caused to be transported, in violation of this section. On learning of a violation, the Attorney General shall bring a civil action to collect the penalty in the district court of the United States for the judicial district in which the violation occurred or the defendant resides or does business.

`(c) Motor Vehicle Defined- In this section, the term `motor vehicle' means a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public highways, but does not include a vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

`(d) Relationship to Other Laws- The penalty provided under this section shall be in addition to a penalty or remedy available under any other law or common law.'.

(b) Conforming Amendment- The analysis for such chapter is amended by adding at the end the following:

`80505. Transportation of horses.'.

Animal Rights v Animal Welfare

So often those involved with the issue of horse slaughter get lumped with certain animal rights groups. Most of us find it fairly insulting since it can't be further than the truth. Most of the folks involved in the issue of ensuring that equine are treated humanely know that animals aren't the same as humans. Some of us would even find such a comparison insulting... to the horses. Unlike people animals are pure in their thoughts and motives. Because of the random grouping of animal rights and animal welfare I wrote an article to include in packets delivered to Congress. I thought that I would share it with everyone so that people could explain the difference to those who simply don't understand. I hope you all find it useful, I just ask that the content, if used elsewhere, not be changed and the AHDF cited as the source.

Animal Rights or Animal Welfare?

One of the major stumbling blocks for most humane organizations is a misconception about the difference between animal rights advocates and animal welfare organizations. While one group enjoys a good reputation, the other has a shady and somewhat sordid past and sometimes employ fanatical means to accomplish their goal(s).

The largest and best-known animal rights group is PETA. In its past history, PETA has employed tactics that are not within social norms and at times border on illegal. Other groups have employed tactics that are illegal and are damaging to society and property and even ultimately their cause. PETA and other animal rights groups believe that animals, like humans, have certain rights. Conversely, animal welfare organizations have a solid and reputable history, but may not be as well known because of their moderate modus operandi. The ASPCA began when a group of socially conscious people gathered to improve life for working horses and children. Many other similar groups as well as local chapters, mimicked ASPCA’s way of doing business. These groups believe that there are humane ways to treat animals while they are doing their jobs (e.g., movie production, law enforcement, Army support, racing, and ranching and farm production support). Most of their membership are animal owners, who believe that animals are a useful part of our lives, enjoy animal events and believe that humans are the caretakers of animals.

The majority of people who support a ban on horse slaughter are animal welfare advocates and horse owners. While those involved with animal rights groups may be aware of the issue of horse slaughter, they are not actively involved in the fight to end horse slaughter. They are not interested in working with those who race horses, train horses or even own them. Animal rights groups believe that horses should all be “returned” to the wild, while animal welfare advocates believe that certain animals are companion and work animals and that they serve a useful, intended and respected place in society. Specifically, they, along with the American public, admire and revere horses as special to our heritage and culture.

There is a subset of animal welfare groups, those that specifically deal with horses. The majority of these groups supports a ban on slaughter and includes the American Horse Defense Fund, equine rescues nationwide, and numerous other equine interest groups. These groups are specifically interested in the welfare and care of horses and most have day-to-day interactions with horses and are staffed by horse owners. These groups are trained in spotting and protecting equine from abuse and see horse slaughter as a form of equine abuse. They support a ban as a way to end the abuse. Many of these groups are not political and don’t usually get involved with political debate, but they have stepped forward and are active in the fight to ban horse slaughter.

While Congress often gets letters and calls from members of the Humane Society of the US and are often contacted by livestock producers, there is a segment of the population that Congress is hearing from on this issue that don’t fit the normal mode. These people are the average person who has weighed the facts and determined that horse slaughter is inhumane and should be illegal. Classifying them all as animal rights activists is not accurate or fair. This issue is about the few speaking for the silent majority on an issue that is neither well known or sexy, in fact the brutality of the methods used to slaughter horses (different and less humane than that of livestock) is not fit for the evening news nor something that parents want to share with their children about our present society, the one that has a long history of protecting and held in the highest regard.

Votes Needed

Recently Change.org hosted a program to allow people to add topics and vote on them. The top 3 topics in each area would get financial and lobby support from change.org. The horse slaughter issue was on the list. Unfortunately, there were 3 different groups posting the question, this split the vote and none of them moved to the next round. When I realized, 3 days before the vote cut off, that the wild horse issue wasn't even presented I quickly got it up. However, we failed to get the votes to move to the next round.

That doesn't mean the Obama administration won't hear your voice. It just means that the issues won't get the added support from change.org. The Obama administration does have their own site where questions can be proposed, voted on and answered. Currently, there are about 75-80 horse related questions posted that could use votes. Some are supportive of protecting the wild horses and banning horse slaughter and some are opposed. I think that everyone is smart enough to read and decide for themselves how to vote. I can say that on some topics, specifically the horse slaughter issue, the votes are running evenly between supporting and opposing.

If you are interested in voting or even proposing your own question you should go to http://change.gov/page/content/openforquestions20081229/ put "horse" into the Search Questions box and you will see every question that mentions horses. Of course, you can also read and vote on other very interesting questions facing the administration as well, so it is a great tool to be heard.

The administration will answer the questions soon, so votes are needed. You will need to register to vote. This is a great opportunity to have your voice heard by an incoming administration and a way to advance our causes as a new president takes office.

BLM Opens Nominations for Advisory Board

There has been much talk about the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Wild Horse and Burro Advisory Board. In 2007 the BLM accepted more than 50 nominations for the 2008 vacancies on the board. A year later and long after the current appointments expired, no appointments have been made. Not only that, but the Board has met and voted on controversial subjects with the former appointees voting as thought their appointments were valid and not expired.

Why this is happened is subject to some debate. When questioned the answers vary widely. One response was that all of the nominations were "lost". Another response was that the USDA was holding the files and hadn't released them back to the BLM. (The Advisory Board reports to the Secretary of the Interior, Director of the BLM, Chief of the Forestry Service and the Department of Agriculture.) Another answer is that all nominees were rejected and the sitting members have been reappointed. Still another answer is that the appointees sit on the board at the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior and the terms have been extended until new appointments are made. Whatever the excuse, and none of these are acceptable, the Board should not have met until proper appointments were made.

In late 2009 3 more appointments expire. The BLM is calling for nominations for the postions of Wildlife Mangement, Humane Advocacy and Livestock Management. The deadline for nominations is 17 February 2009 and individuals and organizations may nominate one or more individuals that they feel are qualified to fill the positions open.

To nominate an individual you must submit a nomination letter(s) plus resume that include the nominee’s name, address, profession, relevant biographical information, references, endorsements, and specific category of interest.

The key here is that they are asking for ENDORSEMENTS. This means that each nominee should be endorsed by a professional organization from the field in which they are going to serve. In the last round of nominations we recommended that several nominees be put forward and we again recommend this plan of action for the Humane Advocacy postion. However, these nominees should be supported by an organization which will make this a little more difficult. I (Shelley Sawhook) have been asked to be a nominee for the position and any organization or individual who would like to nominate me will need to email me directly at president@ahdf.org for my resume. If anyone would like to endorse me as a nominee please contact me as well so my resume can properly reflect that information.

If you choose to nominate another individual I highly suggest that organizations decide on their nominee quickly to ensure that your nomination is received in plenty of time. If you are an individual seeking a nomination that you seek out endorsement early to be seriously considered for the position. February seems like a long way off, but paperwork can cause delays and you don't want all your work to have been done in vain.

Nominations should be sent by February 17, 2009, to the National Wild Horse and Burro Program, Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior, P.O. Box 12000, Reno, Nevada 89520-0006, Attn: Ramona DeLorme, or fax: (775) 861-6618. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may contact Ms. DeLorme at any time by calling the Federal Information Relay Service at 1–800–877–8339.

Thanksgiving and Helping the AHDF

I hope everyone had a great Thanksgiving day and that includes our four hooved friends as well. While mostly we talk about the negative, but honestly we have a great deal to be thankful for. The slaughter plants in this country are all closed, the wild horses have had a reprieve, more and more people are becoming aware of the issues facing our beloved equine and we are among people who care.

I know that tomorrow morning is the official start of the holiday shopping season. I know that many of us don't have the disposable income we have had in previous years. All non-profits are suffering right now and the AHDF is among them. But rather than asking for donations, although those are ALWAYS welcome, I am asking that if you are doing online shopping use the AHDF Mall or one of our other resources where AHDF gets a portion of your purchases. Many if not all stores are offering the same early specials online as in the stores and most are offering specials only available online. So visit us at http://www.mypowermall.com/mall/113800 and help AHDF with your purchases. You can also shop at iGive, http://www.igive.com and specify AHDF as your charity. The AHDF also has many cute and funny items for sale at our Cafe Press store at http://www.cafepress.com/*HorseDefense*. Finally, R9 Custom Horse Creations offer a program where you can buy custom saddle pads and the proceeds go toward feeding the horses in AHDF's care. So, simply by shopping for your holiday items you can help the AHDF, what could be easier?

Again, I hope everyone had a happy and full day with family and loved ones. I know I did.

History Repeats

I am sure that everyone has heard the saying that "If you don't learn from history you are doomed to repeat it". That is why Save Our Wild Horses has been working so hard find the historical data to add to the site. During our search we have come upon a number of articles that show how the BLM has managed our wild horses illegally. Most of the stories are not news to those who have worked on the wild horse and burro issue since the beginning, but sometimes we need a reminder of the history so we can prevent repeating it.

The first series of articles is dated only 2-3 years after the passage of the Wild and Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act. They were so horrific that they triggered a congressional investigation and became a part of the congressional record. Below is part of that record. It shows that the BLM has not acted and has never acted in the best interest of the horses within its care.

From the Chicago Tribune, June 9, 1974

The Roundup that Became a Slaughter

(by Robert Young)

“So that is what we did… I mean it was gruesome… we sawed that one Sorrell mare’s legs off with a chainsaw, and now that’s the truth,”--- Idaho rancher’s narrative of a range horse roundup

Washington,---The country around the Lost River and Lemhi mountain ranges in eastern Idaho is rugged and remote.

And it is country where a roundup of a herd of free-roaming horses near the town of Howe more than a year ago has attained nationwide notoriety.

Animal protectionists are outraged over the roundup’s bloody brutality as recounted by ranchers who took part. The government is accused of sanctioning a roundup in violation of a federal law protecting the West’s wild horses.

The roundup took place intermittently during January and February of 1973. In March of that year, the Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Agriculture Department’s Forest Service started a joint investigation. Their probe was completed last January and a report turned over to the Justice Department---a report made public only late last month.

The federal inquiry into the Howe roundup followed protests from the Washington-based Humane Society of the United States and American Horse Protection Association that the 1971 Wild and Free-Roaming Horses and Burro Act was violated.

That law protects wild horses and burros on government-owned range lands in Western states under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and the Forest Service.

William B Robison, a local cattleman, in the late fall of 1972 began to organize a roundup of 50-60 horses which he claimed were owned by himself and other ranchers.

In December 1972 ranchers met with Walter (Ed) Jones BLM district Manager and former cattleman, to discuss government regulations issued under the wild Horse protection law, as well as Robison’s roundup. According to those attending the meeting, Jones took Robison’s word that the horses were privately owned and said if that were the case, they were in trespass on public grazing lands and should be removed.

A month later, helicopters were used in two unsuccessful attempts to drive the horse herd into a corral trap. A third attempt, this time using a small airplane to “haze” the animals, also failed. Only one horse, a white stallion, was captured. Federal statues enacted prior to the 1971 law prohibit use of aircraft or motor vehicles to harass, capture, or kill wild horses.

The roundup by then was attracting more than local attention. William Stauffer, a Howe resident, was convinced that the horses were wild. Stauffer both inquired at the BLM District office and wrote a letter to Sen. Frank Church (D) Idaho. Church’s office asked the BLM what was going on.

Robison meanwhile had enlisted the help of Bill Yearsly, a horse dealer from the nearby town of Blackfoot, and Max Palmer, a horse trader from Sugar City.

A party of ranchers on horseback made a fourth attempt to round up the herd, but only 6 animals were captured and taken to Palmer’s ranch. The government investigation showed that 5 of the horses were unbranded.

Yearsly later recalled that at this point, he wanted to abandon the roundup, but Robison urged him to continue, saying he was being pressured by Jones to get the horses off the public range. The horse dealer also quoted Robison as saying that if the horses could not be captured, they were to be shot.

Palmer led a party on a fifth attempt during the 3 days of Feb. 17 thru 19 and trapped 21 horses at the edge of a cliff. Yearsly and others went into the trap Feb. 19 with “hog rings”---metal devices clamped into a horse’s nostrils to hinder and make the animal more manageable.

According to the accounts of those there, 4 of the trapped horses by then had fallen over the cliff to their death’s and 3 others had wedged horses so deeply in rock clefts they could not be freed. The throats of the 3 animals were cut with a hunting knife and their legs cut off with a chainsaw so the carcasses could be pushed over the cliff.

By Feb 25, another 20 horses had been captured and taken to Palmer’s ranch. Three other horses broke their legs trying to avoid capture and Palmer shot them. Palmer later reported he also noticed the carcasses of two more horses, dead from unknown causes.

Robert Amy, one of the ranchers participating in the roundup, was questioned by BLM and Forest Service Agents on Jan. 9^th this year and said Jones, the BLM district manager, had told the local cattlemen that “They had better do something” about the horse herd. Amy said the cattlemen agreed something had to be done about the horses running loose on grazing land, but felt they “couldn’t live” with the wild horse protection law.

According to the BLM-Forest Service report, 34 of the horses surviving the whole roundup were shipped to Robison on March 1, 1973, to North Platte, Neb, to be slaughtered for dog food. The animals were cleared for shipment from the stockyards at Rexburg, Idaho by a state brand inspector even tho they were not branded and Robison had no bill of sale to show he had acquired them from private owners. The inspector said he was not familiar with the state law dealing with unbranded livestock.

As soon as hey learned of the roundup and shipment of the horses to North Platte, the Human Society of the United States, the American Horse Protection Association, and Mrs. Velma (Wild Horse Annie) Johnston of Reno, NEV., president of Wild Horse Organized Assistance (WHOA), protested to BLM officials in Washington. BLM interceded and 17 of the horses and 2 colts were shipped back to Idaho Falls where they are still being stabled and fed at BLM expense.

Palmer, the Sugar City Horse dealer, said that most of these animals belong to him. But, Sen. James Abourezk (D), S.D. and Rep. Gilbert Gude (R), Md. have filed a counter-claim that the horses belong to the American people.

Robison also told government investigators that the horses were near starvation and wouldn’t survive the winter because the range couldn’t support them.

BLM officials concede that Jones, who retired last month, encouraged the Howe roundup and failed to observe proper procedures when he made the judgment on his own that the horses were neither wild nor unclaimed and thus not protected by the wild horse law.

The American Horse Protection Association and the US Humane Society are relentless in their determination that a horse roundup will not happen again, that the law will be enforced, and those who violate it will be punished.

In April, 1973, the two organizations filed suit in the District of Columbia Federal Court against the Interior and Agriculture Departments, the BLM and Forest Service, and 13 individual officials. The complaint charged that the defendants failed to enforce the wild horse protection law and not only allowed, but encouraged, the illegal, “grisly and inhumane” horse roundup. The suit asks $10 million in damages, with any money awarded by the court to be placed in trust for the protection of wild horses and burros and the enforcement of existing protective laws.

The civil suit was filed after the Justice Department decided there was not enough evidence for criminal prosecution.

Mrs. William L. Blue, vice-president of the American Horse Protection Association, and Frank J. McMahon, the Humane Society’s Investigation director, scoffed at the Justice Department’s assertion that there is not enough evidence for prosecution.

Mrs. Blue accuses federal officials of “total indifference” in enforcing a law Congress intended to be a National Heritage and living symbols of the old American West. Mrs. Blue asserts that even tougher protective legislation is needed because wild, free-roaming horses have been fast disappearing. Their number is estimated to have declined to 17,000 to 20,000 from 2 million at the beginning of the century.

The next series of articles was the highly publicized articles written by Martha Mendoza from January 1, 1997.

Roundup is Beginning of End for Herds.

By Martha Mendoza

Reno, Nevada--A multimillion-dollar federal program created to save the lives of wild horses is instead channeling them by the thousands to slaughterhouses, where they are chopped into cuts of meat. Among those who might be profiting from the slaughter are employees of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the agency that administers the program. These are the conclusions of an Associated Press investigation of the U. S. Wild Horse and Burro Program, which has rounded up 165,000 animals and spent $250 million since it was created by Congress 25 years ago.

The program was intended to protect and manage wild horses on public lands, where they compete for resources with grazing cattle. The idea: Gather up excess horses and offer them to the public for adoption. Nothing in the law prevents anyone, however, from selling horses to slaughterhouses once they gain ownership. While it is common for old or lame horses to go to slaughter, nearly all former BLM horses sent to slaughter are young and healthy, according to slaughterhouses.

The program’s rules let anyone adopt up to four horses per year, paying $125 for each healthy animal. If the adopters properly care for the horses for one year, they get title to them in the form of BLM certificates bearing a number freeze-branded into each horses hide. Using freeze-brand numbers and computer records, the AP traced more than 57 former BLM horses sold to the slaughterhouses since September. Eighty percent of them were less than 10 years old and 25% were less than 5 years old. Horses are often ridden well into their twenties. At the Cavel West Slaughterhouse in Redmond, Ore., for example, the proprietor, Pascal Derde, displayed a sheaf of BLM certificates for horses he recently butchered and sent to Belgium for human consumption. Asked about the AP’s findings, Tom Pogacnik, director of the BLM’s $16-million-a-year Wild Horse and Burro Program, conceded that about 90% of the horses rounded up go to slaughter. Has a program intended to save wild horses, as a symbol of the American frontier, evolved into a supply system for horse meat? "I guess that’s one way of looking at it,""Recognizing that we can’t leave them out there, well, at some point critters do have to come off the range."

Clifford Hansen, a former U.S. senator from Wyoming who introduced the bill to create the program, said he now wishes he could remove his name from the legislation. "The law was intended to recognize the significance of wild horses and burros," said Hansen, now 84, "but talk about a waste of public funds!"

The government spends up to $1,100 to round up, vaccinate, freeze brand and adopt out a horse. Although adopters pay $125 for each healthy horse, a lame or old horse can be bought for as little as $25, or even acquired free. After holding the horses for a year, adopters are free to sell them for slaughter, typically receiving $700 per animal from the slaughterhouse. The sellers find no shortage of horsemeat buyers. The demand for American horsemeat has long been strong in Asia and Europe.

Government officials offered conflicting opinions on whether it is legal or ethical for BLM officials to adopt and sell wild horses.

The AP matched computer records of horse adoptions with a computerized list of federal employees and found that more than 200 current BLM employees have adopted more than 600 wild horses and burros. Some of these employees, when contacted, could not account for their animals. Others acknowledge that some of their horses were sent to slaughterhouses.

In Rock Springs, Wyoming, the BLM corrals are run by Victor McDarment, whose crew rounds up horses from open ranges in Wyoming and arranges adoptions. According to BLM database records, McDarment has adopted 16 horses. His estranged wife adopted nine. His children adopted at least six. His girlfriend adopted four. His ex-wife adopted one. His co-workers in the corrals and their families adopted 54. McDarment said he could not account for the whereabouts of all the horses. "I don’t keep track," he said. Some ended up with Dennis Gifford, a Lovell, Wyoming, rancher and rodeo contractor who said he has tried to breed them for rodeo stock. He said he is sure some of McDarment’s horses were slaughtered. They have to end up somewhere, Gifford said.

Federal law prohibits U.S. government employees from using public office for private gain. The U.S. Office of Government Ethics said this means BLM workers are not allowed to profit from BLM programs. But Gabriel Paone, the Interior Departments ethics official in Washington, said there is nothing wrong with BLM employees adopting wild horses and then selling them for profit. "They’re not doing this as public officials." Paone said. "They’re doing this as private citizens."

The federal government is conducting several reviews of the Wild Horse and Burro Program, with two audits and two reports to Congress expected to be completed in 1997. "I welcome the scrutiny," Pogacnik said. Pogacnik said. "It can only help."


The last is more recent and it is copyrighted so I cannot post it here. It comes to us from the Quarter Horse News and is about the Jackson Mountain Horses. The BLM failed to act appropriately and 185 horses died during and after the horses were removed. You can read the story by going here.

The Secretary of the Interior is supposed to oversee our wild horses. Instead over 19 million acres have been removed from the program, in violation of the law. The population level of horses, otherwise known as Appropriate Management Level (AML), is arbitrarily set with little or no scientific data to support it and most data has been manipulated. In fact, the law requires that each herd area should be self-sustaining, and since 90% of the herd areas are set below genetic viability, the law isn't being followed.

The BLM is not appropriately managing our wild horses and they never have. We MUST take action to protect them before they no longer exist. Please call your Senators and your Congressperson and ask that Congress investigate the management of our Wild and Free-Roaming Horses and Burros. To find your Senators and Representative visit the Save Our Wild Horses website. The site also offers sample letters to jump start your communications, but remember letters, emails and phone calls are most effective if they are in your own words.