Lawsuit Filed to Challenge Triple B Roundup

Posted Jul 6, 2011 

Courtesy of  Laura Allen 

Animal Law Coalition

A lawsuit has been filed to try to stop BLM's planned round up and removal of at least 1,726 wild horses from 1,682,998 acres of the Triple B, Maverick Medicine and Antelope Valley herd management areas (HMAs) in eastern Nevada.

Plaintiff The Cloud Foundation describes, "The wild horses of the Triple B, Maverick Medicine and Antelope Valley HMAs are free-roaming on the remote high desert mountains and valleys of east central and northeast Nevada--north of Ely, south of Elko on the Utah border. They have been characterized as a diverse, colorful, intermingling herd with some possessing old mustang origins. Many wild horses descend from an old Shoshone Indian herd known for pintos and paints, as well as a number of medicine hats, horses sacred to Native Americans".
Only 472 horses would remain after the Triple B roundup, and the mares would all be treated with an immunocontraceptive drug, PZP, to prevent pregnancy for up to 2 years.  This would leave an unnatural sex ratio of 60% male.
46,000 cows and sheep would be allowed to remain to graze.

According to the Bureau of Land Management, the 1,726 wild horses, with about 975 acres per horse, are destroying the range. But apparently 46,000 cows and sheep are having no effect at all on the condition of the range or water. The BLM refused even to consider the effect of so many cows and sheep on the range, let alone reducing their numbers.

As the Complaint filed by Plaintiffs The Cloud Foundation, Craig Downer and Lorna Moffat explains, "Those that are not re-released (about 1,700) would be transported by big rig trucks to long term holding facilities in the Midwest of the United States, where they would live out their lives in confined, zoo-like conditions, separated by sex or sterilized, wild and free-roaming no more.
"Family members would be permanently separated-stallions and mares from each other, and mares and stallions from their foals. Long-term family bonds would be forever severed.  Incarcerated in long-term holding facilities in the Midwest, stallions would be gelded, mares would typically be separated from the gelded stallions, and the acres per wild horse in these fenced facilities would be only a tiny fraction of what it is in their natural homeland in the HMA."

The BLM is required to justify its brutal roundups and removal of wild horses and burros from the range in Environmental Assessments called EAs. Under the National Environmental Policy Act, "whether by Environmental Impact Statement or Environmental Assessment, the agency must ‘study, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of action in any proposal...'" 42 U.S.C. §4332(E). The implementing regulations provide that this consideration of all reasonable alternatives is "the heart of" the environmental analysis. 40 CFR §1502.14.

EAs when issued in cases recommending roundups of wild horses and burros are typically cookie cutter reports go something like this: The few wild horses and burros, as in this case, are causing degradation of the range and water sources; the range cannot support the horses and most or all are "excess" which must be removed.

Typically, these EAs fail to mention the numbers of livestock that are more likely the culprit of any range degradation or lack of water. There are any number of cases where the evidence establishes that, in fact, the range can support the few wild horses that under the Wild Free Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971, 16 U.S.C. §§1331 et seq., are supposed to be protected from "capture", "harassment" and "death" and managed at "the minimal feasible level". Only "excess" horses, those that represent an overpopulation, can be removed. The goal is to maintain a "thriving ecological balance".

In this case the Decision Record ("DR"), Finding of No Significant Impact ("FONSI"), and Final EA ("FEA") were issued on May 17, 2011. True to form, BLM claims the few horses are degrading the range. As the plaintiffs' point out, "the BLM [fails to] explain how any noncompliance with land standards ...is not primarily the result of livestock grazing, which is about eight times higher and more intensive than grazing from wild horses". Complaint, par. 36.

The roundup was to have begun by now but the BLM delayed it pending a July 14, 2011 hearing before the Nevada federal District Court on the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction to stop the roundup and removal.   
(read complete article here)

Horse Slaughter to Remain Illegal in House Bill

By Laura Allen
Animal Law Coalition
Saving America's Horses ABM

Update June 16, 2011: By a vote of 215-200, the U.S. House of Representatives approved H.R. 2112, the 2012 agriculture appropriations bill.

Rep. Jim Moran's amendment made in committee remained intact in the final version.

Under Rep. Moran's amendment, inspections required for horses bound for slaughter for human consumption will remain de-funded as they have been since 2006. This means if the House version becomes law, commercial horse slaughter for human consumption will remain illegal.

More: http://www.animallawcoalition.com/horse-slaughter/article/1809

Judge Dismisses Suit Challenging Calico Roundup

Posted May 24, 2010 

by Laura Allen

Animal Law Coalition

Update May 24, 2010: U.S. District Court Judge Paul L. Friedman has dismissed this case, entering summary judgment in favor or the BLM. A copy of the opinion is attached below.
The judge found the issues related to the legality of the round up of the Calico Mt. Complex wild horses are moot because the roundup has already occurred.

The judge explained that while he denied plaintiffs In Defense of Animals, Craig Downer and Terri Farley, a preliminary injunction that would have stopped the roundup before it occurred, they should have appealed that denial. Because they failed to appeal the denial of the motion for preliminary injunction at the time, Judge Friedman said he could not now hear their claims.

(There is an exception to the mootness doctrine for claims that are capable of repetition but evading review, meaning acts or omissions which could never be challenged in court because it would be moot by the time the court could reach a decision. That exception would have applied in this case. But, said the judge, for that exception to apply and for the court to be able to review the plaintiffs' claims, they would have had to appeal the denial of the motion for preliminary injunction.)

The judge also dismissed their remaining claims for lack of standing. The judge explained that plaintiffs were challenging the legality of warehousing wild horses in long term holding facilities including as Interior Secy. Ken Salazar has proposed, on "preserves" in the midwest or East. The judge acknowledged that when he denied the motion for preliminary injunction, he did state there was a likelihood of success on that claim. Wild horse enthusiasts, wildlife ecologists, advocates and many other citizens as well as the plaintiffs in the case, hoped the judge's words meant he intended to end the warehousing of wild horses in long term facilities and pave the way for them to remain free roaming on the range.
 
But now, said Judge Friedman, he does not believe the plaintiffs have standing to pursue that claim. He explained that plaintiffs did not show the injury they would suffer from the roundup of the wild horses was related to placement in long term holding facilities. He said they only established a causal connection between their suffering and the round up and removal of wild horses from the Calico Mt. Complex.
The judge then said they also lacked standing to pursue the claim added by the plaintiffs after denial of the motion for preliminary injunction under the National Environmental Policy Act, ("NEPA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321, et seq. They alleged the BLM had failed to consider the significant environmental impact of holding wild horses in long term holding facilities.

A "procedural injury" such as a NEPA claim was not sufficient to establish standing, said the judge, unless the plaintiff showed a causal connection between the NEPA violation and their injury. The judge found the plaintiffs had not established such a connection.
   
For more on this case, read Animal Law Coalition's report and update below and for more on the brutal roundup and removal of the Calico wild horses....

2010 Not a Good Year for Horse Slaughter Proponents

May 17, 2010 

by Laura Allen

CHICAGO, (EWA) - Equine Welfare Alliance and Animal Law Coalition applaud the grass roots efforts in 2010 that have resulted in a series of political defeats for those who want to bring horse slaughter back to the United States.
Of course, commercial horse slaughter for human consumption remains illegal in the U.S. and no state law can change that. Nonetheless, proponents of the cruel practice have tried to use state legislatures to try to convince Americans to bring horse slaughter back to the U.S.
In Missouri, for example, a bill, H.B. 1747, introduced by state Rep. James Viebrock, purported to allow the state to register and license and even provide inspections for horse slaughter facilities. There was even talk of building a horse slaughter plant in a small town in the state. 
The bill raised a howl of opposition from horse advocates across the state and country, leading some of its sponsors to become irate to the point of returning opponents' emails unread or forwarding them en masse to one opponent. Some legislators even left harassing, intimidating messages on an opponent's voice mail. 
Although state Sen. Dan Clemons announced publicly that Viebrock's bill would progress no further, its provisions were quietly buried in another, unrelated bill, SB 795. A firestorm of public anger erupted when this underhanded tactic was discovered, and the provisions were removed.
EWA's John Holland and former Kaufman, Texas Mayor Paula Bacon testified against HB 4812 in Tennessee, a pro-horse slaughter bill. Mayor Bacon described the economic and environmental devastation a horse slaughter facility caused to her town. Holland told legislators about the declining demand for horsemeat and stepped up enforcement of EU regulations and new restrictions that will likely mean fewer and fewer American horses will be eligible for slaughter. Add to that the dangers of American horsemeat from the toxic drugs given to horses here as established in a recent study published in the peer reviewed journal, Food and Chemical Toxicology, Association of phenylbutazone usage with horses bought for slaughter: A public health risk, and, said Holland, "it would make no sense and, in fact, would be irresponsible for legislators to promote horse slaughter with this bill".  The bill was then sent for "summer study", essentially withdrawing it for the session.
Also this year, an investigation revealing the cruelty of horse slaughter horrified European consumers and caused the second largest grocer in Belgium and Holland to remove American horse meat from its shelves and a major distributor to assure customers it will only sell European horse meat.
The Carry the Kettle first nation tribe in Canada declined an offer of economic assistance to reopen the Natural Valley Farms slaughter plant in Saskatchewan. The plant had been closed by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency after it was discovered dumping blood into the local river and leaving waste in shallow pits.
In Illinois, a bill aimed at repealing the state's 2007 ban on slaughter was withdrawn by its sponsor when it failed to muster support.
Florida's legislature unanimously passed legislation toughening laws against those who butcher horses, or sell or purchase horse meat. The legislation was signed into law Friday by Governor Charlie Crist.
The people of Hardin, Montana said no to a proposed horse slaughter plant in their city and even amended city ordinances to prohibit the slaughter of more than ten animals in a seven day period.
Even Jim Schwartz, director of the Wyoming Livestock Board was puzzled by a law sponsored by state Rep. Sue Wallis, that made "send to slaughter" an option for horses in the custody of the Board.  "Send to slaughter is not an option in my opinion," said Schwartz. We agree.

Remind IL Legislators of Cavel

Please find an update regarding yesterday's hearing on the IL Legislation H.B. 4812 and what you can do to help. (courtesy of Animal Law Coalition)

It's Time to Remind IL Legislators of Cavel

Update Feb. 24, 2010: The Agriculture & Conservation Committee voted after a hearing yesterday, Feb. 23, 2010, to approve H.B. 4812, a bill to repeal the 2007 ban on horse slaughter for human consumption.

The bill is already on the House calendar for second reading.  

WHAT YOU CAN DO

Click here to find Illinois representatives, and then click on their names and write or call each one and urge them to vote no on H.B. 4812. Please be polite! If you live in Illinois, be sure to tell your representative that you live in his or her district.

Tell Illinois legislators: The voters in Illinois already rejected horse slaughter in 2007 and don't want to see it return to the state. Horse slaughter is cruel and has no place in American culture. The GAO and countless obsrevers have established when slaughter occurred in the U.S., horses were being slaughtered while still conscious. Think of the pain, the terror of these animals; they suffer terribly.

Tell Illinois legislators that banning horse slaughter does not lead to an increase in abandoned or unwanted horses; that is a myth and studies have shown stories planted in the media about numbers of unwanted or abandoned horses are simply false. Horse slaughter actually enables overbreeding, creating a secondary or salvage market. Horse slaughter is driven by a demand for horse meat generally consumed as a pricey delicacy in some foreign countries. 92% or more of horses purchased and sent to slaughter are healthy. This is a for profit practice that should not be subsidized by Illinois taxpayers.

It is a seedy practice that leads to an increase in horse theft, and leaves communities where slaughtering facilities have been located, with significant negative impacts ranging from nuisance odors to chronic sewer and environmental violations.

Also, the U.S. has never tracked drugs that may be in horses sent to slaughter for human consumption. The European Union has realized just how dangerous horse meat may be for consumers and has issued guidelines regarding these horses.  This only underscores horses are not a food animal; they are our companions and pets.

Remind Illinois legislators of Cavel  

A state of the art pre-treatment system was built in DeKalb, Illinois in 2004 for the horse slaughter facility owned there by Cavel International, Inc.  That horse slaughter operation even had special Industrial Waste Permits that allowed much higher (8 times higher) contamination levels for wastewater leaving the slaughter house. But, the Cavel horse slaughter house was still not in compliance. It was not out of compliance a few times. This facility was in significant non-compliance hundreds of times. This does not include the numerous safety violations documented by the FSIS. 

Cavel discharged about 13,000 gallons of wastewater each day from the more than 500 horses slaughtered each week. The wastewater contained excessive levels of decomposition and waste from slaughtered horses. In one report A Cavel employee acknowledges "chunks" from slaughtered horses were oozing out of tanks.  

The DeKalb Sanitary District levied a total of $80,500 for violations from 2006 until the facility was finally closed in 2007. At one point Cavel tried to avert discharge from the facility from entering the District's collection system. 

As with other slaughter houses in the U.S., the Dekalb operation created no good jobs and paid no taxes; it was of no benefit at all to the community, only a detriment.  

For the complete Article and Information, Click here:

http://www.animalla wcoalition. com/horse- slaughter/ article/1138