|
The effort to require the Bureau of Land Management to implement a humane management strategy for America's wild horses with the immunocontraception, porcine zona pellucida (PZP), advanced through a FY21 U.S. House spending bill.  Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) offered an amendment to the “State, Foreign Operations, Agriculture, Rural Development, Interior, Environment, Military Construction, and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act”, which would mandate that at least $11M of the Bureau of Land Management’s FY21 wild horse and burro budget be allocated to administering PZP to mustangs on the range. Cosponsors of Cohen's amendment: U.S. Representatives; Dina Titus (D-NM), Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), Joe Neguse (D-CO), Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA), David Schweikert (R-AZ), David Price (D-NC), Peter King (R-NY), Deb Haaland (D-NM), John Katko (R-NY), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), and Ben McAdams (D-UT). Opposition: By a vast majority, the U.S. House passed the amendment, but it did meet with one outspoken voice of opposition: Rep. Chris Stewart (R-UT). Stewart, who is a leading architect of the misguided and reckless, “Path Forward, 10 Years to AML agenda” for wild horses, decried the amendment. He stated on the U.S. House Floor, "While I appreciate the gentleman's concern for wild horses, it will end up hurting more than it helps." Stewart went on to say, “The amendment seeks to push PZP contraceptive. The only problem with that is it doesn't work.” Rep. Chris Stewart (R-UT) opposes humane fertility control, PZP, for wild horses. It’s extremely troubling that Rep. Stewart attempted to sabotage the amendment, especially as his 10 Years to AML agenda partners include the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA), and Return to Freedom (RTF). All three of these organizations support the use of PZP. In fact, HSUS holds the registrant for PZP under the name “ZonaStat-H” for use on wild horses and burros, ASPCA has provided financial support for PZP research and development, and RTF successfully utilizes PZP on the wild horses residing at their sanctuary.
The next hurdle for the $11M mandate on PZP use will be in the U.S. Senate's FY 2021 spending bill that will be drafted and voted on in the next few months.  Republican Congressman Chris Stewart brought together ranchers, animal-protection advocates and others on Wednesday to brainstorm solutions for protecting wild horses. Evocative symbols of the American West, wild horses have also become a thorny national political issue that's often left ranchers and animal-protection advocates at odds. Congress budgeted more than $80 million for the wild horse program last year, but the U.S. Bureau of Land Management overspent that by more than $2 million. Stewart has introduced an amendment to a recently passed House spending bill that gives the BLM more authority and a $15 million funding increase for managing horse populations. The U.S. Senate also included provisions in its version of the Interior Department spending bill that address wild horses.
U.S. Rep. Chris Stewart, R-Utah, brought together groups that are typically at odds for a discussion of solutions for the nation’s wild horse program. Among the groups that attended were:
They asked Stewart to continue the talks. Nancy Perry, a lobbyist for ASPCA, said the national program for wild horses is at a crossroads. "That's causing everyone to come together, put aside our differences and ask, 'What can we do together on this issue?'" Perry, who also attended the roundtable, said. Beaver County Commissioner Tammy Pearson, who is also a rancher, conceded that solving the wild horse problem will take collaboration and time. "We've had years and years that we've been saying, and begging and pleading to get this done," said Pearson. "And the problems have been that BLM has been restricted in what they can do." Stewart, who calls himself a horse lover, said no one wants to see the horses, the land and rural Utah communities suffering. In a previous version of his amendment, Stewart gave the BLM authority to euthanize healthy horses in government corrals. But that's no longer part of his proposal. "This coalition will stay together because we truly love these animals," said Stewart, adding that some wild horses in southern Utah are starving to death. "Most people think that's not a great outcome for them." Source: KUER
 According to new public opinion research released today, a majority of voters in eight Western states oppose the idea that the management and costs of America’s national forests and other public lands should be transferred to state governments. The survey of 1,600 voters, conducted jointly by a bipartisan polling team of two leading national opinion research firms, Public Opinion Strategies and Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates, is the first in-depth analysis of Western voters’ views about state-level proposals to transfer U.S. public lands to state ownership.
Across the eight-state region, 59 percent of respondents agree that having state government assume full responsibility for managing U.S. public lands, including paying for all related costs, would not be fair to taxpayers in their state. These voters believe that transferring U.S. lands to state ownership would result in having to raise state taxes or sell off prized lands to cover expenses. Only 35 percent of respondents agreed with the arguments put forward by proponents of efforts to transfer U.S. lands to state control. “In New Mexico, we have a deep connection to our public lands. They are part of our history, our culture, and our economy,” said Sen. Martin Heinrich (D). “These lands belong to all of us, and it is imperative that we keep it that way. Efforts to seize or sell off millions of acres of federal public lands throughout the West would bring a proliferation of closed gates and no trespassing signs in places that have been open and used for generations. These privatization schemes would devastate outdoor traditions such as hunting and fishing that are among the pillars of Western culture and a thriving outdoor recreation economy.” “It’s no surprise that Montanans want to keep their public lands public,” said Sen. Jon Tester (D). “These places not only create lasting memories for our families, they are also huge economic drivers for our communities. We must keep these treasured places accessible for our kids and grandkids, and I will keep working to improve that access.” In 2012, the State of Utah enacted a law calling for U.S. public lands to be transferred to the state of Utah. Similar proposals have been put forward or are in development in seven other Western states. “The overwhelming majority of Westerners view the national forests and other public lands they use as American places that are a shared inheritance and a shared responsibility,” said David Metz, president of FM3 Research. “Rather than supporting land transfer proposals, voters say their top priorities are to ensure public lands are protected for future generations and that the rangers and land managers have the resources they need to do their jobs.” The survey was conducted by phone between September 10 and September 14 and reached 1,600 voters; 200 voters in each of the states of Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming. For a summary of state-specific results, click here. “The idea of states taking over control and the costs for managing these lands is pretty divisive. Successful policy proposals usually start with far greater support,” said Lori Weigel, a partner at Public Opinion Strategies. “The first barrier this proposal seems to encounter is that while the federal government isn’t popular in these states, voters are far more positive about the role these specific agencies are playing.” Although more Westerners disapprove than approve of the job the federal government is doing—at negative 41 percent approval —more Westerners approve than disapprove of the jobs that U.S. land management agencies are doing; the approval ratings for the Bureau of Land Management—14 percent—the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service—58 percent—the U.S. Forest Service—57 percent—and the National Park Service—60 percent—are all well higher than their disapproval ratings. What’s more, 94 percent of respondents’ said that their last visit to national public lands was a positive experience. “This bipartisan research found that Americans believe we should be protecting parks and public lands for future generations, not selling them off to the highest bidder,” said Matt Lee-Ashley, a Senior Fellow and the Director of the Public Lands Project at the Center for American Progress. “It also shows that the politicians and special interests behind these land seizures schemes are well outside the mainstream in the West.” For an analysis of the survey results, click here. For a PowerPoint summary of the bipartisan research, click here. For the survey results, click here. Additional resources: State Efforts to ‘Reclaim’ Our Public Lands, by Jessica Goad and Tom Kenworthy “Bundy’s Buddies” – Four-part series from the Center for American Progress Action Fund Source: Center for American Progress |
|
|
WHO WE ARE
|
COMMUNITY
|
LATEST NEWS
|
RESOURCES
|
|