The ~Texas~ Mustang Project's Blog

Working for better management options and cohabitation through compromise and communication for the American Wild Mustang

Stinkingwater HMA Wild Horse Gather Documents & Evidence…

Posted by Texas Mustang Project on June 15, 2010


This post is going to be “short and sweet”. We’re all pressed for time right now in a way like I don’t think we’ve been in a long time. So here goes… Take a very close look at these documents… It’s not what I expected to find necessarily, but I found them just the same and I am now passing them on to you guys for review.

Three Rivers Resource Area

Burns District Project Planning Updates

 

Advertisements

11 Responses to “Stinkingwater HMA Wild Horse Gather Documents & Evidence…”

  1. LOUIE COCROFT said

    TRACIE, THANK YOU. I COULDN’T HAVE FOUND ANY OF THAT. I THINK WE NEED TO START ASKING HOW THEY CALCULATE THOSE APPROPRIATE MANAGEMENT LEVELS AND THERE ARE BIG QUESTIONS AS TO HERD MANAGEMENT AREAS.

  2. LOUIE COCROFT said

    WHAT LITTLE I GOT TO WATCH OF THE BOARD MEETING, I CAN SEE WHO IS MAKING THOSE DECISIONS.

  3. sandra longley said

    I want to drop something in here..If you have already previously read these secret documents, read them again after you have read this EA..these were done a year ago..called alternative management options- many of the options they discussed have been implemented in this EA, gather and return and management of this herd..

    http://www.thecloudfoundation.org/index.php/news-events-a-media/news/resources/329-altmanag

  4. sandra longley said

    I am going to repost some comments i put on craig downers piece over at Fitchs that relate to this:

    the first census done was in 1977-161 horses ist gather done in 1978-179 horses..My suggestion would be to go back to that number of 179. The land supported that number originally without management..now that they are doing a good job of managing cattle and resources..there should be no problem with that original number standing..their 2009 census…guess what..179 horses..expected to be 210 at gather time the 1st of July..There have been 6 gathers over the lifetime of this herd..they went 13 years inbetween gathers 1992 to 20005 and guess what foal rate went down to 11-15% from a high of 50% the year AFTER the gather

  5. sandra longley said

    Read the Stinking Water HMA EA, the Cattle allotment EA and all the documentation on pasture rotation ect posted over at The mustang project Blog page..The blm in this district is very proactive in range management, I like and approve of much they have done..and give blame equally to cattle and WH-and have implemented the plans to mitigate.fencing to protect streams and riparian damage from both cattle and horses yet building a water gap to service those animals and developing new watersources in areas underutilized because of the lack of water there.and that is what good range management should be…aums for wildlife are actually in their charts and discussed..There are STILL way more aums alloted for cattle than anything else, and horses are STILL the only animal being removed..by their good range management practices…THEY have solved their problems..therefore there should be NO need to remove horses to an AML of 40! Multiple use..should be just that..not a weapon or means to punish one species for the bad management or lack thereof attributed to human failings. They are soooo close to being right on this one..Its the pressure to hit that AML number..how do we get around that one..how do THEY get around it???Help -!!! we could get this one right!

  6. sandra longley said

    My conclusion…179 AML is the true AML of this HMA..40 to 80 AML does not truly reflect what can be carried on this HMA and in fact returning only 40; 5-10 of those being geldings- is genetically damaging to the herd, as geldings have no social structure or contribution to a wild herd and are a form of birth control and being returned for 2 purposes-so that breeding animals are reduced in AML and to contain costs from long term holding as per their suggestions in the ‘secret internal document” I refrenced in my first post above

  7. LOUIE COCROFT said

    WE ALSO NEED TO BRING UP THE WAY THE COUNTS ARE DONE–A COW AND CALF COUNTED AS ONE, WHILE A MARE AND FOAL ARE COUNTED AS TWO.

  8. sandra longley said

    6…windmill test towers going in on the stinkingwater HMA, also testing of Pueblo MT..mentioned in passing in the EA..never underestimate the hidden impact. I did some google research in this area to get the info. One windfarm approved on private ranch in the Steens.

  9. sandra longley said

    called the district office, snail mail only for comments

    Richard Roy
    Burns district, BLM
    28910 Hi 20 west
    Hines Oregon, 97738

    COMMENTS POSTMARKED BY TODAY!

  10. sandra longley said

    Richard Roy
    Stinkingwater HMA/EA/ COMMENTS
    Dear Mr. Roy,
    I have read all the documentation that is background as well as the WH EA- and that would include the Cattle allotment EA, as one is meaningless without the other, given the public lands operate on a principle of multiple use..all other uses must be considered in evaluating a single use.
    I would like to point out that I was born and raised in Oregon saw my first wild horse roundup in 1969, spent many summers in burns and a couple of those building the stinking and drinking water pass roads.As well, I have been a QH breeder with 5 stallions and a herd of mares-up to 60, I have used line breeding in my program and followed the advice of my mentor, Hank Weiscamp, no doubt the foremost expert that ever lived on line breeding and boots on the ground genetics. I have also worked on cattle ranches in Nevada that had allotments. and worked as a paralegal for the Assist. US Attorney of Calif..which does not mean i am an expert on any of these things…just that I come from an informed perspective.
    I have read all the EAs on every HMA to be gathered this year, and i am happy to say this is the first one where I have encountered real range management..Your people and department needs to be commended, I had always ‘assumed” that was the job of the BLM, until I read all the EAs and could find no real proactive management going on.As a result of your due diligence you have appeared to have in place all that is needed to solve your problems created by cattle and wild horse, reprarian and stream damage…Having said that, and because of your good work- I do not see the necessity of conducting a gather that would eliminate 170 wild horses from the range, especially at at time when the economy is such that thousand and thousands of horses are in long term holding unable to be adopted-and we the taxpayers are footing a bill for nearly a 100 million a year..I think you will find the every day tax payer has reached the tipping point on this-who know or care nothing about the wild horses..Given the fact that your first census conducted in 1978 showed 161 horses on the land, before good management procedures were implemented, i would come to the conclusion the HMA should easily sustain that number of 161..Given the additional factor of a much needed wet spring..the land should be recovering nicely..and with the addition of new water sources in previously under utilized areas and new fencing..it seems you could postpone this gather for a few years to see if indeed your efforts have paid off..I see you as a ‘forward” thinking branch of the BLM and would hope that you could continue that approach by setting a precedent here that others may follow…When you provide good range management..there is room for all..and no “one” stakeholder in the multiple use options should pay the price or carry the burden of failing to manage the land..Since there is no need to remove cattle numbers, there should be no need to remove wild horse numbers or issue more hunting permits for deer, elk or antelope..I am asking for multiple use to be used not as a weapon but in measured equal proportion to the benefit of all users. I mean this to be in support of the “no action” alternative for the reasons stated above.

    Having made my first position clear, I would like to state if you proceed with this gather-there must be genetic testing done on this herd, I can find nothing of record on this herd done for testing, and it appears by your gather chart that while testing was being done on other herds, this one had gone 13 years without being gathered..which maybe the only reason it is still genetically viable…when this herd has been gathered it has been taken to below genetically viable numbers, and altho it does not have an immediate effect it is cumulative..once you actually start seeing the results of inbreeding..it is too late..the herd is destroyed..there are signs such as depressed size, depressed immunity, low birth rates, broken bones ect that are not so obvious as genetic inbreeding problems we normally see, but I must repeat..once you see those signs your herd is genetically dead..So if you do this gather and take this herd again to 40 horses and then again in 4 years take it to 40 head-you will be zeroing this herd out for all intents and purposes..its a slow death or a fast death, pick your poison.If you do this i ask you consider adding an older herd stallion from an unrelated herd area to make sure there is a new gene pool added to this herd to insure it has a viable future.
    I find some very interesting and informative trends that show up in your gather charts, the high foaling rates the year after gathering, and the low rates of fertility or foaling in following years, and then the sudden jump in the later years to the 20% figure so unilateral to all HMAs across the west since the use of computer modeling..i find that somewhat disturbing.
    I want to close by again thanking you for the noticible effort your team has put into your management of the land, and that is reflected in the comments I hear from other people on your behalf..But on behalf of the horses and the value i place on their place on the lands I grew up on..I ask you to be on the cutting edge of fo rward thinking and a new way of looking at this process.
    Reference article 1, included is a position i support and refer to specifically on the danger of removing wild horses as to the role they play in fire suppression.

    thank you, please keep me informed as a person of interest and stakeholder,
    Sandra Longley
    65085

  11. LOUIE COCROFT said

    SANDRA, THANK YOU! THAT WAS GOING TO BE MY NEXT QUESTION.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: