Sunday, September 9, 2012

BLM proposal: Another waste of taxpayer money

PPJ Gazette

BLM proposal: Another waste of taxpayer money
The BLM has ramped up the removal of wild horses at a dizzying pace and it is hard trying to  keep up with them and comment on all of them (maybe that’s why the BLM waited to the last minute to send out all the press releases about roundups).  Below is an open letter to the BLM regarding the Challis Herd Management Area in Idaho.
Debbie Coffey  © Copyright 2012  All Rights Reserved
September 9, 2012
Mr. Steve Ellis, BLM Idaho State Director
Mr. Joe Kraayenbrink, BLM Idaho Falls District manager
Mr. Todd Kuck, Challis Field Office Manager
Mr. Kevin Lloyd, BLM Rangeland Management Specialist
RE:  DOI-BLM-ID-1030-2012-0006-EA
Dear Mr. Lloyd, Mr. Kuck, Mr. Kraayenbrink and Mr. Ellis:
I urge you to select Alternative 5, NO ACTION.  Also, the proposed Challis Wild Horse gather may be in violation of laws, and the above proposed Preliminary EA gives misleading information to the American public.
On 1.3 Purpose and Need for Action, this EA states this action is needed “to be consistent with the established AML” (Appropriate Management Level) and that this action would “restore a thriving natural ecological balance.”
Actually, your proposed action wouldn’t restore a thriving natural ecological balance.  It would do just the opposite, and violate the law.  The Wild Free Roaming Horse and Burro Act of 1971, even with amendments, stressed that wild horses are “to be considered in the area where presently found, as an integral part of the natural system of the public lands.”
1) I believe your proposed action will be creating a non-viable herd.  
It seems that in the last genetic analysis of the Challis herd, the samples were received by Dr. Gus Cothran September 10, 2002 (about ten years ago), and the report was issued about a year later on September 15, 2003.  At that time, on page 3 of Dr. Cothran’s report, 25% had a frequency of less that 0.05, and he stated “This low frequency puts these variants at a high risk of loss.”  Will your proposed removal create an even higher risk of loss of not only frequency (putting variants at risk), but also risking variability and viability?  Read MORE...

No comments:

Post a Comment