Utah House gets regressive

SALT LAKE CITY — State lawmakers took aim at what one representative calls “animal-rights terrorists” who shoot videos or photos on farmers’ property without permission to create propaganda to destroy the agriculture industry.

"This is not about animals. This is a group of people who want to put us out of business. Make no mistake about it," said Rep. Mike Noel, R-Kanab, a rancher and farmer.

Noel said ranchers are good people who care for their animals and "we certainly don't want some jack wagon coming in and taking pictures of them."

100% on board? Really? Except, of course, for the people that aren't ...

(But Wallis has never counted those in her personal polling.... )

Horse meat processing plant proposed in the Ozarks

The horse meat produced near Mountain Grove would be sold for human consumption.

February 23, 2012|by Linda Russell, KY3 News | lrussell@ky3.com

MOUNTAIN GROVE, Mo. -- A company called Unified Equine wants the Ozarks to be home to its first processing plant for horse meat for human consumption. The proposed plant would be just east of Mountain Grove near the Wright-Texas County line in the Twin Cities Industrial Park.

Unified Equine has been working on its business model for two years. When federal legislation in November brought back the ability for the USDA to inspect horse slaughter plants, the Wyoming company got serious about finding its flagship location.

From Canadian Horse Defence Coalition (CHDC)

IMPORTANT UPDATE: LES VIANDES DE LA PETITE-NATION SLAUGHTER PLANT TEMPORARILY CLOSED

Posted on February 22, 2012

Les Viandes de la Petite-Nation Inc. slaughter house in Quebec has been temporarily closed, with inspections and audits being conducted at the plant by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA). La Petite-Nation (LPN) was the subject of the December 2011 investigative report by the Canadian Horse Defence Coalition (CHDC) entitled “Pasture to Plate: The True Cost of Canada’s Horsemeat Industry”:http://www.defendhorsescanada.org/lpn.html.

You can click here to read the rest of the update.

Odds and Ends

Some scary stuff

http://www.lmaweb.com/news-information/

I was for it before I was against it .... (and other head swiveling public comments);

http://www.avma.org/issues/animal_welfare/unwanted_horses_faq.asp

“Grazing Must Yield” On Public Lands In Southwestern Idaho

Western Watersheds has done it again. Love this article and some of the comments are interesting as well.

Judge rules SW Idaho grazing allotments illegal - Associated Press 2/13/2012

Back to district court she goes

I'm not a legal anything. I didn't even stay in a Holiday Inn Express, but this is my ramshackle, little blog and for me, this is an exercise, nothing more. I'm hoping someone better able to analyze this decision puts out a more formal analysis, but right now I see Ms. Leigh having to go back to district court and with a narrowly defined burden of proof that will either make or break this effort. I know everyone is basking in the glow of a win, but is this decision a "done deal?" I'm not astute enough in the law to know.

Are there any "old timers" out there who will testify that access has become more restrictive and that there is actually less input into roundups now than there used to be? It seems that Ms. Leigh will need to provide that evidence in order to make this case (though, in the past, if there was little public involvement, that doesn't mean that should continue). The dissenting judge might have made it a little easier on Ms. Leigh in the next round in court but he did uphold the decision of the majority (even if he didn't agree on the reason).

Also, the way I read this decision, it only applies to roundups at Silver King. The court decided the case was not moot as Attorney Cowan's language was read to include all future roundups at that HMA as well, overriding the decision by the district court that plaintiff's case was moot because the roundup had already occurred. Does this set a precedent for the next case? I can only hope.

Text of part of the decision to be found here: http://horsebackmagazine.com/hb/archives/14111

The whole decision to be found here (courtesy of R.T. Fitch) http://www.box.com/s/62706b6124qjmoonrmxy

.... and we
reverse.

"Case: 11-16088 02/14/2012 ID: 8067432 DktEntry: 49-1 Page: 2 of 18
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), and we
reverse. Because the preliminary injunction motion seeks
unrestricted access to future horse roundups, and not just the
one that took place in 2010, this case is not moot. As to the
merits of Leigh’s First Amendment claim, the district court
erred by failing to apply the well-established qualified right of
access balancing test set forth in Press-Enterprise Co. v.
Superior Court (“Press-Enterprise II”), 478 U.S. 1, 8-9
(1986)."

...... whether the viewing
restrictions are narrowly tailored to serve

the government’s overriding interests.

"Accordingly, we
remand this case for the district court to consider in the first
instance whether the public has a First Amendment right of
access to horse gathers, and, if so, whether the viewing
restrictions are narrowly tailored to serve the government’s
overriding interests."

(Not sure I like the remand part .. that means it has to go back to the district court. I hope to read more about this later to find out if my concern is justified.)

.... it is not moot
as applied to future gathers in Silver King.

"However, Leigh’s preliminary injunction
motion concerns “all horses captured from Silver King,” and
is in no way limited to the 2010 gather. Therefore, the motion
applies to all future horse gathers at Silver King.....

Although the preliminary injunction does not apply
to horse gathers conducted in other locations, it is not moot
as applied to future gathers in Silver King."

.... Under this framework, a court cannot rubber-stamp an access restriction simply because the government says it is necessary.

" .... Press-Enterprise II right
of access test is not limited to criminal judicial proceedings.
Accordingly, we hold that the Press-Enterprise II test applies
to Leigh’s claim that the BLM’s viewing restrictions violate
her First Amendment rights. Press-Enterprise II balances the
vital public interest in preserving the media’s ability to monitor
government activities against the government’s need to
impose restrictions if necessary for safety or other legitimate
reasons.
Under this framework, a court cannot rubber-stamp an
access restriction simply because the government says it is
necessary."

.... By reporting about the government, the media are "surrogates for the public."

"By reporting about the government, the media are

“surrogates for the public. ...... (“[I]n a
society in which each individual has but limited time and
resources with which to observe at first hand the operations
meetings)"

.... The district court’s order denying Leigh’s motion for a preliminary injunction fell short of the rigorous scrutiny that Press-Enterprise II requires.

"The district court’s order denying Leigh’s motion for a
preliminary injunction fell short of the rigorous scrutiny that
Press-Enterprise II requires. The district court focused mostly
on its conclusion that Leigh was not treated differently than
other members of the public, a consideration that is not part
of the Press-Enterprise II balancing test......

.... the issue here is whether the viewing restrictions were unconstitutional. On that question, the district court failed to conduct the proper First Amendment analysis.

"The relevant question is not whether the BLM
prohibited Leigh from observing the horse gather altogether;
as in California First Amendment Coalition, the issue here is
whether the viewing restrictions were unconstitutional. On
that question, the district court failed to conduct the proper
First Amendment analysis."

And here is when I get to my "oh damn, moment" and here is what Ms. Leigh will have to prove to the district court (and this seems to me to be a narrow window of proof).

.... First, the district court must determine whether the public has a right of access to horse gathers by considering whether horse gathers have historically been open to the general public and whether public access plays a positive role in the functioning of gathers.

"We remand this case for the district court to conduct
the analysis that Press-Enterprise II requires. First, the
district court must determine whether the public has a right of
access to horse gathers by considering whether horse gathers
have historically been open to the general public and whether
public access plays a positive role in the functioning of gathers.
Second, if the district court determines that a right of
access exists in this case, it must determine whether the BLM
has overcome that right by demonstrating an overriding interest
that the viewing restrictions are essential to preserve
higher values and are narrowly tailored to serve those interests.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we reverse and remand to the
district court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED."

The dissenting opinion makes a good point and might have made a decision that would have been less restrictive upon Ms. Leigh when she goes back to district court. .. " Ms. Leigh has not established an historical tradition of public access to horse gathers or holding facilities. Because the district court applied the wrong legal standard, remanding to allow Leigh to attempt to present evidence that would establish those facts is one way to proceed. Judge Smith has selected that option. But when we review a denial of a preliminary injunction, “we may affirm the decision of the district court if the result is correct, even if the district court relied on a wrong ground or gave a wrong reason.”

It's not over until it's over.

BLM Appoints Second Supporter of Horse Slaughter to National Wild Horse and Burro Advisory Board

(Courtesy of) and By: The Cloud Foundation

COLO. SPRINGS, CO (Feb. 8, 2012) – The Cloud Foundation strongly protests the appointment of another pro-slaughter member to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Wild Horse and Burro Advisory Board. On February 5, 2012, Secretary of the Interior, Ken Salazar, named Callie Hendrickson of Grand Junction, Colorado as the newest member of the Board. Hendrickson will fill the General Public position, replacing Janet Jankura of Ohio who applied to serve another term but was denied.

__________________________

Contrary to Gorey's measured statement to Horseback, you can see the BLM official spin in this article in the Columbian.

"He (Gorey) told The Associated Press the horse defenders are resorting to dishonest scare tactics to help push their "anti-management agenda by any means possible." "

_________________

And of course, Andrew Cohen's always thoughtful and poignant article in the Atlantic.

"This kind of political and bureaucratic deck-stacking -- the BLM truly couldn't find a neutral new member for the Board? -- is a recurring theme in the story of these horses. The people who are responsible for their protection and management typically have enormous conflicts of interest against them. The Secretary of the Interior, Ken Salazar, is a Colorado rancher. The governor of Wyoming, Matt Mead, is a rancher. And the beleaguered, old Wild Horse Protection Act is only as sound as the men and women who interpret and implement it."

Canadian Anti-slaughter Billboard - donations needed

Current status:

Some numbers for Owyhee

Re: scoping letter for upcoming Idaho Black Mountain and HardTrigger roundups.

This page is a work in progress. Deadline for submissions for the scoping letter was yesterday. Once again, the RMP is our downfall as it sets the AML's. Even though AML's are not the law, they are the guidelines and the BLM can always point to it and simply say they are following their own guidelines.

Also, the Livestock AUM's for each HMA is not easily found. I have requested that they be added to the upcoming E/A so that we will know the "fairness" of the allocations to wild horses. However, per my conversation with Idaho field office this is what I was told.

• The total livestock AUM's for the district (of which the herd areas compromise only a small part) is 135,116.

• There is no readily available data on how many of those livestock AUM's are currently being used.

• The total AUM's for the wild horses in all three herd areas is 2,304. Black Mountain AUM's are 540. Hardtrigger AUM's are 1,176 and the third HMA which is not part of the roundup plan is allocated the remaining 588.

• The total AUM's for other wildlife, mule deer, pronghorn antelope and Big Horn sheep is 2,673. That numbers is for the whole district. Everything is marginalized in favor of livestock. No surprise.
  (The hunting in the district is managed by Idaho Fish and Wildlife, not the BLM).

• If the gather finds more than 190 horses, even 191 horses, they will reduce to low AML which means removing nearly 100 horses. They will administer PZP-22 to any mares they release.

• They have no data on the current population rate of growth even though PZP was administered two years ago. I was told the herds rate of population growth, prior to PZP, was 25% per year up to 29% per year.

Doing the math, the AUM's for the wild horses is around 1.7% of the total AUM's for the livestock. However, the available number for the livestock is for the whole district, of which the HMA's are less than a tenth of the area so I can't determine how much livestock grazing is allocated for each of the HMA's which are to be rounded up. Even the staff person I spoke to yesterday told me it would take her quite a while to find that information.

However, for the purposes of the scoping letter and the eventual E/A, it will make little difference. The RMP is the windmill we are forever trying to stop from turning. Luckily, I have a fondness for Don Quixote.