The Bone Trail – fiction proven fact yet again…..sadly

HELPER — Federal agents impounded 47 Bureau of Land Management horses Friday at the Port of Entry here, preventing the likelihood of the animals being hauled by truck for slaughter in Mexico, officials said.

Gus Warr, the Utah director of the BLM’s Wild Horse and Burro program, said the horses were safely delivered to the agency’s center in Herriman while the investigation continues.

“There were a number of red flags that went up in the beginning and it remains an active investigation with our agency, the FBI, state agencies and the U.S. Attorney’s Office,” Warr said.

Multiple people are the target of the investigation, which spreads to Willard where some of the animals were held before being stopped in Carbon County, Warr said.

The sale of the animals occurred on paper at the Herriman facility but involved animals in the agency’s long-term holding pasture in Oklahoma.

Unlike the bureau’s adoption program, these animals are direct-sold to buyers under an agreement that includes an intent clause that prohibits subsequent sale for slaughter, Warr said. The horses are 11 years or older and may be bought for use as brood mares, for private equestrian pleasure or simply put out to pasture by the purchaser.

The last U.S. slaughterhouse for horse meat intended for human consumption closed in 2007 under a ban that went into effect that year. The prohibition has not stopped wholesale shipments of live animals to either Canada or Mexico where they are slaughtered for human consumption — mostly to supply overseas markets.

Warr said the BLM is keenly aware of the demand outside of the United States and watches for so called kill-buyers who purchase the horses for such a destiny.

“The BLM is trying to be proactively ahead of the game, which is what happened here,” he said.

But the owner of the truck that was hauling the horses said late Friday that her husband was only helping out a friend by allowing the horses to stay on their property, the DK Ranch in Willard.

The Deseret News is not naming the woman or her husband because the investigation is ongoing and no arrests have been made.

“We are known for buying slaughter horses,” she said, “but it was just our truck that was being used.”

She said the animals were bound for Texas, but were not going to be slaughtered, adding that the type of truck they were being hauled in was not a slaughter-style truck.

But Warr said the paper trail of where the animals were headed did not match up to the reality of where they were impounded — leading his agency to believe they were intended for slaughter.

“Our primary concern at this point is that they were not going where they were supposed to.”

Email: amyjoi@desnews.com

Twitter: amyjoi16

© 2011 Deseret News Publishing Company | All rights reserved

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705388791/BLM-seizes-horses-in-suspected-slaughter-ring.html

I first became aware of Buck Brannaman in the summer of 1999. I had just adopted a wild horse from the Bureau of Land Management and with this mare began lessons with a local trainer who had worked with Brannaman and Ray Hunt for several years. I saw Brannaman at a colt starting clinic one day as an auditor. I was aware that Nicholas Evans had loosely based the main character of his book “The Horse Whisperer” on Brannaman, and I knew that Brannaman had been a consultant and Robert Redford’s double on the set of the film.

Since 1999, I have used some of the techniques taught by both Bill and Tom Dorrance ( Tom Dorrance mentored Ray Hunt over the years and Ray Hunt was Buck Brannaman’s mentor) with my own horses.

So, when I heard the news from the Sundance Film Festival that a documentary about Brannaman had been well received, I was, of course, delighted.

I’d like to address my thoughts on the film in two different ways: first, as a moviegoer, and secondly as a horsewoman.

I find it remarkable that Cindy Meehl has had such good success with her directorial debut in this film. I think she has a good eye for subject matter of course, but, she clearly had Brannaman’s trust throughout the film, and his candor on many difficult subjects was both touching and heart wrenching. To come through so many challenges in his life with so little self-pity speaks to his character as a human being. And, either from good luck or good connections, Meehl found an excellent editor that took the hours and hours of interviews and clinic footage and successfully pared it down to run in an acceptable timeframe. The cameos and comments by Robert Redford were delightful, as were the clips from set of “The Horse Whisperer.” Some of the jokes made during the film are very funny, and help balance some of the darker tone that come when Brannaman talks about his horrific childhood.

So, as a film, it is superb, and I fully expect it to be a serious Oscar contender next March.

As a horsewoman I saw very little in the film that I had not seen before at various clinics I have attended over the past 20 years. One exercise was new to me that I liked very much – in the colt starting class Brannaman had the attendees mount up on their young horses in a round pen saddled but with no bridle, and he pushed them through walk-trot-canter as a group using a flag – a wonderful confidence builder for both the rider as well as these young, green horses. And, of course, Brannaman himself with his impeccable timing and positioning when working with horses is a joy to behold. This comes not only with years of experience, but is just a gift some people are fortunate enough to have. And Brannaman has it in spades.

However, I could not help but notice that some of the more troubled horses were blown and exhausted both in his clinics and also in the example of a Ray Hunt colt starting class, which is what it took to get a saddle on them. I understand that in the limited time of the clinic sometimes this is what it takes to get that first ride, and getting that first ride is the expectation of the people attending the clinic. It leaves the question though as to what is going to happen with the people take their horses home – will the lesson stick, or will it simply open a can of worms that the owner will have to cope with? I’ve had to deal with the can of worms before, and it has not been a pleasant experience.

Another issue I have always had with Brannaman (and many others of the Vaquero school) is what I consider to be a close minded approach as far as other methods.  Operant conditioning is an example (clicker training) which I know works, and works VERY well with certain human/horse combinations. Not all people, especially women, are comfortable with wading in with a rope halter to make corrections. This type of dogmatic approach can lead to difficulties for rider/horse pairs if the flag/rope halter method just doesn’t work for them. Not everyone is going to be able to get their head around the concept of a ‘soft feel.’ Good horsemanship can be very much like religion – and I believe there is no ‘one true path’ and it is always troublesome to be shut down when you might believe that any particular technique is just not right for you and your horse.

I also have never liked his ranch roping clinics. I find it bothersome that cattle and calves are terrified, roped and thrown for no good purpose except for entertainment and developing a skill that 90% of people that attend his clinics will never use. I find it a strange dichotomy – the methods he uses to get people working better with their horses in colt starting helps us as humans to raise our knuckles up a few more inches from the ground.  It enables us to hold our heads up with a little more dignity and compassion, and teaches us many things about ourselves. Then for ranch roping, the knuckles drop back down again, compassion is lost, and any progress to improve us as race seems to evaporate.

At the end of the film there is a tense moment when Brannaman is giving some straight talk to a young woman. She had brought in a loco stallion to see if something could be done with him to make him less dangerous. She had raised the stallion in the house on a bottle after he had lost his dam, and these types of situations rarely work out well for the horse. Orphaned horses raised by humans are some of the worst to deal with, as Brannaman points out and he is quite right. He was angry about the entire situation, and justifiably so. He was much kinder to the woman than I would have been, but I think it speaks well for her courage that she let this be aired in the film. Hopefully she was able to make some changes in her life for the better.  Things did not work out so well for the horse, I’m afraid.

All in all a good film though, and I will say that I applaud Brannaman for all the work he has done over his life to help people become better horsemen and women.  Especially considering the abuse he had to endure as a child – his life could very easily have gone in a very bad direction, and to see him rise up from those ashes to become such a fine man is inspiring.

http://www.buckthefilm.com/

HOUSTON, (WHFF) – Noted equine author and wild horse advocate R.T. Fitch and his wife, award winning wild horse photographer Terry, have combined their legal forces with journalist/videographer Laura Leigh to form a unified wild horse legal advocate organization whose mission is to “place people between wild horses and extinction”.

Wild Horse Freedom Federation (WHFF) is a registered non-profit organization, 501c3 pending, that brings together a consortium of major animal welfare organizations, as both plaintiffs and advisors, for the sole purpose of legally challenging the federal, state and local governmental agencies who’s inappropriate agendas include harassing, capturing and removing wild horses and burros from U.S. public lands.

While the Fitch’s legal actions, personally funded with assistance from Front Range Equine Rescue, the ASPCA and private donations, bring forth the issue of bad data utilized to zero out wild horse herds, Ms. Leigh’s filings, supported entirely by public donations and assistance from Wild Horse Education, address the issue of First Amendment rights and appropriate access.  Both can claim incremental victories as all of their cases are ongoing and in the spotlight of the global equine advocacy community.

Yet now these actions sit within one umbrella organization.

“Our mission is simple”, states R.T. Fitch president and co-founder of WHFF, “we are now working together to find the chink in the armor of the government agencies that hold themselves above the law and reproach of the American people and then concentrate on this weakness.  We are not a horse rescue, sanctuary or anything of the sort, but instead a consortium of equine welfare organizations and private citizens who feel that our last recourse in stopping this Wild Horse Harvesting Machine is in the courts of the United States Judicial System.”

“We have always been totally aligned and on parallel paths,” explained Laura Leigh VP of WHFF, “but now we will pull our legal pursuits together. This will unify the advocate community structure with more effective communication toward accountability to law and the American public.”

Equine photographer Terry Fitch adds, “We just need this nonsense to stop.  It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that the government’s facts and numbers are skewed against the wild horses and burros.  There needs to be a moratorium on these useless and costly wild horse stampedes while we take the time to accurately account for how many wild horses and burros are still left free roaming on their designated public lands.”

Wild Horse Freedom Federation’s current list of plaintiffs include the ASPCA, Colorado Wild Horse and Burro Coalition, the Cloud Foundation, Front Range Equine Rescue, Habitat for Horses and private citizens Dr. Don and Toni Moore and journalist Laura Leigh.

Wild Horse Freedom Federation (WHFF) is a registered, Texas non-profit corporation with 501c3 status pending.  WHFF puts people between America’s wild equids and extinction through targeted litigation against governmental agencies whose documented agendas include the eradication of wild horse and burros from public, federal and state lands.

In The Bone Trail, Nell Walton hooks the reader from the very start. We can feel the unrelenting heat and isolation of the desert, and the vulnerability of those who venture there. I was immediately drawn into this exciting story about the disappearance of two wild horse advocates – mystery, thriller and romance all into one.

Walton’s book is inspired by the true-life events with which many horse lovers are familiar – the brutal helicopter roundups of wild mustangs off U.S. public lands, hearing of them being run to exhaustion into long-term warehousing facilities, where many face illness and death. But, there is more to this story, something far worse, and investigative journalist Kate Wyndham is determined to discover the truth, even at great personal risk.

Every single character in this novel is lively and engaging – from the cold-blooded mining security staff to the Shoshone Reservation inhabitants to the stonewalling local police. Before we know it, we are following Kate’s terrifying trail, gripped with fear and sickened by the possible outcome.

This is one of those books the reader hopes will never end. Rumor has it that Walton is working on a sequel and there is no doubt readers will be lined up to get their hands on it.

http://www.horsesall.com/

Yesterday I spent some time evaluting grazing permits and their annual costs to the American taxpayer.  Today I did a more thorough study, with even more disturbing results.

Wild Horses Moved Out - Cattle Moved In - on the Taxpayer Dime!

First off, lets take a look at how much public land has grazing permits available (BLM is Bureau of Land Management, FS is U.S. Forest Service):

• BLM – 160 Million Acres
• FS  -  95 Million Acres

Giving us a total of 255 Million acres of public land with grazing permits available under management of these two divisions of the Department of Interior.

In Fiscal Year (FY) 2006 the following numbers of ‘operations’ (ranchers and ranches) were authorized to utilize grazing permits:

• BLM – 15,799
• FS  -      7,039

Giving us a total of 22,838 Operators with grazing rights.

In FY 2006, the following numbers of AUMs were utilized by these operators (AUM is an Animal Unit per Month and is defined as a month’s use of occupancy of the range by one animal unit, which includes one yearling, one cow and her calf, one horse or 5 sheep or goats.  Standard unit for calculating grazing costs.)

• BLM – 7,536,412 AUMs utilized (fees paid) out of 12,634,580 available (adjusted according to range status and other conditions)
• FS     – 6,806,797 AUMs (fees paid) utilized out of 9,432,572 available

Giving us a total of 14,343,209 AUMs utilized in 2006.

Since 2007, AUMs prices have been set for both agencies at $1.35 per AUM (AUM prices have varied from $1.35 to $2.31 since 1981 – see yesterday’s post). $1.35 is the lowest fee that can be charged.  In 1966 , the AUMs were set at $1.23 per AUM.

“It (the $1.35) is generally lower than fees charged for grazing on other federal lands as well as on state and private lands. A study by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that other federal agencies charged $0.29 to $112.50 per AUM in FY2004. While the BLM and FS use a formula to set the grazing fee …, most agencies charge a fee based on competitive methods or a market price for forage. Some seek to recover the costs of their grazing programs. State and private landowners generally seek market value for grazing, with state fees ranging from $1.35 to $80 per AUM and private fees from $8 to $23 per AUM. The average monthly lease rate for grazing on private lands in 11 western states in 2006 was $15.10 per head.”*

Costs to the U.S. Government (and the American taxpayer) to manage these programs was as follows in FY 2004 (as determined by the General Accounting Office[GAO]):

• BLM – $58.3 Million
• FS    – $74.2 Million

Giving us a total of $132.5 million in management costs in FY 2004 (there is some discrepancy between the estimated management costs of the GAO and some private organizations  – i.e. the Center for Biological Diversity estimates the cost to be $500 million annually)

Fees received for grazing permits in FY 2004:

• BLM – $11.8 Million
• FS     - $ 5.7 Million

Giving a total of $17.5 Million received, a deficit of $115 Million in administrative costs alone to manage the permits for the ‘operators’.

So – let’s take these numbers and try to get an idea of the amount of subsidies ‘operators’ with these grazing privileges received in 2004 (as statistics are rarely evaluated for these programs – I am mixing and matching FY 2004 and 2006 just for the sake of illustration.)

If we take the average monthly lease rate for grazing on private lands in the West at $15.10 per AUM  (as determined by the USDA in 2006 – see above) and subtract the current rate out ($1.35)….that shows an average loss to the American taxpayer of $13.75 per AUM.  So now we take the total AUMs utilized  – 14,343,209  – and multiply by this loss (14,343,209 x $13.75) shows an average lost revenue of $197,219,123.00.

Giving us (arguably) a total loss to the American Taxpayer of $312,219,123.00 ($115 million + $197,219,123.00) in one year to maintain grazing permits in the West.  That averages out to an annual subsidy of $13,671 per operation (total/22,838 operators) - above and beyond the competitive advantage they are getting AGAINST OTHER TAXPAYING AMERICANS by being able to graze cattle at rates far below going market price.

We also need to look at how the cost of grazing rights have NOT been properly adjusted for inflation since 1966, when the costs were $1.23 per AUM.

The inflation rate since 1966 is 592.53%.  Adjusting for inflation alone the base cost from 1966 ($1.23 x 5.9253)  would be approximately $7.29 per AUM.

So, when you take this base figure, and adjust for inflation then compare it with the $1.35 per AUM that is currently being paid, it becomes evident that these ‘operators’ are only paying 18.5% of what was paid in 1966!

This make me mad.  Considering the tremendous budget deficit in the U.S. we just cannot afford to have these types of entitlement programs any longer.

And, of course, according the the BLM’s own Environmental Impact Assessments - cattle and other ungulates are NEVER to blame for damage on the range, it is always the Wild Horses and Burros that cause the problems.  Therefore they must be ‘subtracted.’

I have nothing against the ranchers that hold these grazing permits – they can graze their cattle as long as it doesn’t interfere with wild horse and burro forage in Herd Management Areas, and the damage to the Western Ecosystem is limited.

They just need to pay their fair share, like the rest of us and not be given an unfair competitive advantage against other taxpaying ranchers who are not able to benefit from such preferential treatment from the U.S. Government.

*http://www.cnie.org/NLE/CRSreports/08Apr/RS21232.pdf

The above is also the source for statistics in this blog post.

In an online discussion I was having with a pro-rancher/anti-wild horse individual I used some specific information from the BLM in my argument as to why the current wild horse roundups were unnecessary.

First, let’s start with the BLM’s statement on grazing feeds for 2011:

The Federal grazing fee for 2011 will be $1.35 per animal unit month (AUM) for public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management and $1.35 per head month (HM) for lands managed by the Forest Service. The 2011 fee is the same as last year’s. An AUM or HM – treated as equivalent measures for fee purposes – is the occupancy and use of public lands by one cow and her calf, one horse, or five sheep or goats for a month. The newly calculated grazing fee, determined by a congressional formula and effective on March 1, applies to nearly 18,000 grazing permits and leases administered by the BLM and more than 8,000 permits administered by the Forest Service.

The formula used for calculating the grazing fee, which was established by Congress in the 1978 Public Rangelands Improvement Act, has continued under a presidential Executive Order issued in 1986. Under that order, the grazing fee cannot fall below $1.35 per AUM, and any increase or decrease cannot exceed 25 percent of the previous year’s level.

The annually determined grazing fee is computed by using a 1966 base value of $1.23 per AUM/HM for livestock grazing on public lands in Western states. The figure is then calculated according to three factors – current private grazing land lease rates, beef cattle prices, and the cost of livestock production. In effect, the fee rises, falls, or stays the same based on market conditions, with livestock operators paying more when conditions are better and less when conditions have declined.

The 2011 grazing fee of $1.35 per AUM/HM grazing fee applies to 16 Western states on public lands administered by the BLM and the Forest Service. The states are Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. The Forest Service applies different grazing fees to national grasslands and to lands under its management in the Eastern and Midwestern states and parts of Texas.

The BLM, an agency of the U.S. Department of the Interior, manages more land – 245 million surface acres – than any other Federal agency. Most of this public land is located in 12 Western states, including Alaska.

The Forest Service, an agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, manages 193 million acres of Federal lands in 44 states, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/newsroom/2011/january/NR_01_31_2011.html

So,  since 1966 the AUM grazing fees have gone up .13 per animal unit per month…..and is locked to increase no more than 25% from the previous year.

Inflation??  What’s that??………..I wish we could have done the same with gas prices!! 

Grazing Fees Historically:

1983…………………$1.40                     1992…………………$1.92                             2001…………………$1.35

1984…………………$1.37                       1993…………………$1.86                           2002…………………$1.43

1985…………………$1.35                        1994…………………$1.98                           2003…………………$1.35

1986…………………$1.35                         1995…………………$1.61                          2004…………………$1.43

1987…………………$1.35                         1996…………………$1.35                          2005…………………$1.79

1988…………………$1.54                         1997…………………$1.35                          2006…………………$1.56

1989…………………$1.86                         1998…………………$1.35                          2007…………………$1.35

                                                                                                                                       2008…………………$1.35

http://www.cnie.org/NLE/CRSreports/08Apr/RS21232.pdf

I believe this figure of $1.35  – plus the small amounts of increases despite inflation proves the power the Western cattle lobby has in Washington.  I have ranchers in my family.  Unfortunately, they had to BUY their own land to run cattle on, and I do not think it is fair or just that the American taxpayer basically winds up subsidizing competition for these ranchers who aren’t lucky enough to be able to graze their herds practically for nothing on land owned by the American public.

But, on another note, let’s just look at the massive amounts of area the BLM manages (from their own publications):

The Wild Horse and Burro Herd Management Areas (HMAs) encompass 26,596,458 acres out of the 245 million acres that the BLM currently manages  – (FYI – those HMAs have been shrinking for some time.)

The BLM estimates there are 38,400 (a number that I believe is inaccurate and too high) wild horses and burros currently roaming on this land.

So – that means nearly 700 acres per horse – in areas that were set aside for them by the 1971 Wild Free Roaming Horse and Burro Act…..but they are overpopulated and in danger of starving and so must be removed and shipped to holding facilities to languish forever.

Yeah – right.

Additionally:

BLM and the FS typically spend far more managing their grazing programs than they
collect in grazing fees. For example, the GAO determined that in FY2004, the agencies
spent about $132.5 million on grazing management, comprised of $58.3 million for the
BLM and $74.2 million for the FS. These figures include expenditures for direct costs,
such as managing permits, as well as indirect costs, such as personnel. The agencies
collected $17.5 million, comprised of $11.8 million in BLM receipts and $5.7 million in
FS receipts - a loss of $115 million.

Bill Clinton tried repeatedly to get the grazing fees up to a real standard – which – the average monthly lease rate for grazing on private lands in 11 western states in 2006 was $15.10 per head.

More information:

http://www.cnie.org/NLE/CRSreports/08Apr/RS21232.pdf

I’m sorry – there is nothing pretty about this, nor does it show anything I consider to be good horsemanship. I can’t help but wonder what the port size of the bit might be.

The Bone Trail – when art imitates life………:-(

Prayers to those who lost loved ones. They must have been desperate.

Two words instantly come to mind in cynical business circles when a tragedy occurs under a big company’s watch: damage control.

Barrick Gold Corp. landed in a firestorm of controversy last week when seven villagers were gunned down and a dozen more were injured in a brutal clash at its troubled North Mara mine in Tanzania, run by its African Barrick Gold division.

Though Barrick spun off its higher-cost African assets last year to the newly-created London-based firm, the Toronto bullion behemoth remains the majority owner.

And since Barrick’s name is literally on it, the Toronto headquarters is forced to wear — and ultimately repair — the hit to its global brand, and it won’t be easy, say industry watchers and public relations experts.

“The paradox is that the mining industry has come a long way in improving itself in terms of trying to mitigate their environmental impacts and to improve their social impact, yet there is the perception that they still aren’t doing the right thing,” says Paul Klein, founder of Toronto firm Impakt which specializes in the field of corporate social responsibility, or CSR.

Experts agree that on the communications side, the company did the right thing by promptly releasing a statement about the “security incident” in which 800 villagers reportedly stormed the site with machetes, hammers and rocks to steal gold ore from a crusher.

“You have to show you get it. The longer you take the more likely it is that you’re not going to pass the ‘empathy test’,” says Joe Chidley, senior vice-president of Veritas Communications, which specializes in crisis management.

Next, if there’s any wrongdoing or culpability on the part of the company, you have to admit it, he advises.

In this case, both the company and the Tanzanian police have launched two separate investigations into the violent confrontation to address security concerns at the site, where Barrick has been in an ongoing battle with locals who scavenge for gold-laced rocks on the lucrative property.

“You also have to establish yourself as a credible source of information about the incident because there are so many voices out there that you are not able to control,” adds Chidley.

Even Jamie Kneen, spokesman for known industry critic Mining Watch Canada, acknowledges that Barrick has clearly learned that lesson already when they’ve been forced into crisis management mode.

“They’ve been doing that fairly consistently. They put out their version of things before it’s too late.

“But the bottom line is people are dead and I think every time this happens it adds to the negative perception of Canadian companies internationally,” says Kneen.

“This story will not go away,” warns Steven Theobald, a communications specialist at Idea Workshop in Toronto.

“Barrick is a global leader in the movement for mining companies to be more socially responsible, so it is vital that it handles this situation properly,” he says.

“Barrick needs to explain what went wrong and how it will work with the communities to prevent further tragedies,” he advises, noting the crisis provides “an opportunity to prove that the company does indeed treat the communities as partners and stakeholders.”

Stan Sudol, a communications consultant and mining industry blogger, recommends that the Canadian government establish a fact-finding mission, headed by a respected, retired, non-partisan individual, to go to Tanzania “to shed light on this incident. It’s the only way to get credibility back to the Canadian mining sector.

“No one is going to believe any report coming from Barrick or the Tanzanian government” on this incident, he notes.

No matter how the company spins it, the optics are pretty bad when seven people lose their lives on your property, says Theobald.

“You cannot justify killing people because they are stealing, so Barrick better not even try,” he says.

“They have to be transparent about it and take action quickly,” offers Klein.

“All kinds of difficult things happen in this industry. The reality is that this is an area (geographically) where there is a lot of risk, and I’m skeptical that they will ever fully mitigate the risk,” he says.

The best they can do at this point is to acknowledge the tragedy of it and work locally to help the community, says Klein.

He recommends even going “above and beyond” what’s legally required of them by providing compensation to the victims’ families.

http://www.thestar.com/business/companies/article/994827–controlling-the-damage-to-gold-mining-s-gritty-image