Wild Horses of Lincoln County/WHOA vs NMLB
COURT DATE: November 16th 2017
1:00PM at Carrizozo 12th District Court
Sunday, November 12, 2017
Court Hearing on the fate of our Wild Horses of Alto!
Wild Horses of Lincoln County/WHOA vs NMLB
COURT DATE: November 16th 2017
1:00PM at Carrizozo 12th District Court
Spent some time today with our captured herd. They are so undeserving of what is being done to them by the TRO & the court case. Hopefully there will be a decision on the 16th & this nightmare will end for them. We are in need of donations to continue caring for them. There have been so many caring people in the community, around NM & out of state that have dug deep in there pockets to make sure these horses are given the best care possible & it has been GREATLY appreciated. Hopefully we just have to get them through the 16th & this nightmare will be over for them. So please if you can donate please do so. Call Peggy Annen-Schoemann @ Little Bear Feed @ 973-2388. We now are starting them on alfalfa so the bales are a little cheaper.
Wednesday, September 13, 2017
From the Ruidoso News: WHOA president submitted a statement on her organization's position and participation.
While a dozen or more members of a horse herd that roamed the Alto area are confined to fenced pens awaiting their fate, individuals who voiced support for the horses in the past seemed to have split into different sides with different goals.
Saturday, several of the original supporters who sounded the alarm after the horses were rounded up by a homeowner and later hauled to Santa Fe by the New Mexico Livestock Board, and five who signed on as official caretakers of the horses when they were returned, called a meeting to discuss the equines’ future.
But when members of the Wild Horse Observers Association arrived, the story gets hazy with both sides contending the other was disruptive and intimidating. WHOA is a nonprofit Placitas-based organization that filed for a temporary restraining order to prevent the state from selling the herd at auction.
Ruidoso Police Chief Darren Hooker said his officers were on stand-by to ensure no major problems developed at Wingfield Park in Ruidoso. Although a permit for use of the park pavilion had been obtained by Barbara Yates, one of the meeting organizers, the individuals decided to regroup at a local real estate office.
“I told the officer that our message is not about fighting, our message is about truth and facts,” Yates said Monday. “So we decided to leave to help the officers keep the peace.”
She emphasized that most of the local people at the meeting were not members of any organization, but individuals who still are committed to the welfare of the horses.
One of the major criticisms by those at the relocated meeting was their contention that WHOA is not contributing financially toward the physical care of the horses despite collection jars in the county stating that purpose. They urged that donations for the horses be paid directly to Little Bear Feed in Capitan, where an account is established. They said if anyone is concerned about past donations, they can request the charities investigation arm of the New Mexico Attorney General’s Office to look into the finances.
Another criticism is their contention that a resolution is needed to ensure the future care of the horses, who now are in limbo awaiting a judge’s ruling on a motion for summary judgment in favor of WHOA and a motion by the state attorney general’s office on behalf of the livestock board that when WHOA filed the suit, it had no standing on the issue, because it did not have a county resident on its board.
Yates, Melissa Babcock and Robbi Davis among others point to an agreement by the Livestock Board that depending on the judge’s ruling, caretaker signers for the horses would have first option to adopt and that any other applicants would be screened. If any horses from a roaming herd are penned in the future, the board would consult the community before taking action, an element missing in the original situation.
Yates noted that while an informal similar agreement was struck before, the new agreement would have force of law with court action.
Ari Biernoff, the lawyer who represents the livestock board from the attorney general’s office and was at the meeting, said that the agreement was worked out when he met earlier in the year with the nine signers who are responsible for the horses while they are confined.
The individuals at the meeting seemed convinced the horse herd could not be released to roam the Alto area again. Yates explained that “public land” where the horses could be “allowed” is practically nonexistent and does not include the national forest. Defining the term “public land” was one of the issues Bryant wanted to research before ruling on the two motions, she pointed out.
“We all love these horses and want them to stay on our mountain and be under the local care and control of the community, because that’s who been watching out for them all along,” Yates said. “The livestock board has said they are not interested in rounding up wild horses. That’s not their job. But if (WHOA) keeps us in court as (WHOA president) Patience O’Dowd has done in Placitas, these horses are in legal limbo and it’s not fair to them. They are living breathing creatures and to me that is cruel. I’m not saying they are not getting proper care, but they can’t halter break them, they can’t even do simple things like farrier care without all this drama and stress on the horses. It’s not right.
“We all were told 120 days (and the horses’ fate would be settled) and it is way past that.”
O’Dowd stated her position in a prepared statement submitted to the Ruidoso News:
“The community of Ruidoso and Alto are overwhelmingly united for the freedom of these majestic wild horses. This is clear from the over 94,000 signatures for freedom, and wild horse tourism, also from the 95 (percent) of the Enchanted Forest community in a door to door petition filed with the court. This support for freedom also includes three of (the) signers, one being a life-long horse professional as well as WHOA/Wild Horses of Lincoln County experts.
“All money raised for the Alto horses from within the community and from outside the community has been spent, and will be spent, on these horses for their care and their freedom. There are no salaried WHOA board members. WHOA has spent over $15,000 for feed and care of the horses and continues as able while the opposition increases costs by delay. This documentation (is) available.
“WHOA has not delayed the courts. The courts scheduling order stated that motions should be filed by April 10, 2017, and WHOA respectfully filed its last motion for Summary Judgement on that date. However, since that date, the NMLB has filed four motions, all long after the requested end date for motions. Each motion requires a minimum of six weeks to allow both sides to respond, and allows for three extensions for each side. Hence, each motion can delay court resolution for two months or even more. Each motion also increases costs for attorney's fees for freedom and hay costs for internment. WHOA has respected the courts scheduling order.
“WHOA has not changed sides and has stayed true to the Mission Statement, which is freedom. WHOA has replied to the motion to dissolve the Temporary Restraining Order and adopt out all the horses. This is a question for the courts and the experts. WHOA opposes this motion.”
Although one herd's ultimate disposition is unresolved, at least two other horse herds still roam the Alto and Ski Run Road area.
Thursday, September 7, 2017
Sunday, April 2, 2017
Stallion sightings both sides of Hwy 48
 |
| Using an old photo, but The Stallion can be seen just wandering around neighborhoods all by himself. It is as if he is going by checking all their stomping grounds. Are they here? Photo by Shannan Dobbs-Gabaldon |
Wild horses still protected under prevailing law
Head of the Wild Horse Observers Association offers some comments about bills
The dead include House Bill 446 called Wild Horse in Statute and the accompanying House Memorial 102, Protection of Wild Horses. Also among the dead were House Joint Memorial 17, Protection of Wild Horses, and Senate Bill 126 introduced by Republican Pat Woods from Broadview, that would have changed livestock and wild horse definitions. That last bill was opposed by many local wild horse advocates as an attempt to eliminate the existence of wild horses in the state by classifying horses as livestock, but supported by some who contended the bill’s provisions protected property owners as well as horses. A second bill introduced by Woods, Senate Bill 184, Disposition of Trespassing Wild Horses, also died in committee.
The only survivor among the passel of proposed legislation was House Bill 390, Equine Rescue and Shelter Right of Refusal. The bill gives registered equine rescue or retirement facilities the first right of refusal to purchase an unclaimed horse classified as estray, or those that have been cruelty treated or caught while trespassing. If an owner doesn’t claim an estray equine within the allotted few days after the last publication of notice, a rescue or retirement facility will be given the chance to purchase the horse. If neither action occurs, the state livestock board has the right to sell the horse, which would include buyers with the intent to slaughter. If no bids are received, the board can order the horse to be humanely euthanized.
Patience O’Dowd, who heads the Wild Horse Observers Association, the group that interceded after the roundup of a dozen members of a wild horse herd in Alto, offered some observations about the bills considered in the state legislative session that ended earlier this month.
She said the insertion of exemptions for horses of Spanish colonial origin in Wood’s SB126 was not pushed by her organization, it was another group that works with the livestock board.
“It was a shill,” she said. “All it did was make a bad bill look good. It did not improve things at all.”
Thankfully some legislators were educated enough on the issue not to be fooled, she said. They correctly understood the rule of law.
“WHOA had two very successful years in the legislature in 2006 and 2007,” O’Dowd said. “In those two years we passed SB655 and three memorials.”
The senate bill was the basis for the successful court cases and was codified in state statute, defining Spanish colonial horses, requiring them to be relocated to horse preserves, allowing for adoption and providing for the control of wild horse population by means of birth control.
During the 2017 legislative session, three lobbyist organizations attended every committee meeting speaking for SB126, O’Dowd said.
“They all were ganging up to support 126, which is a bad bill for wild horses and would remove their protection as wild horses,” O’Dowd said. “So we had a stream roller coming down on these wild horses while we’re in the middle of (the) district court (case) and they were attempting to basically play legislative favoritism and roll over our judicial branch of government.”
WHOA previously received a temporary injunction against the sale of the Alto herd after it was rounded up, and is challenging in district court, the jurisdiction of the New Mexico Livestock Board insistence that wild horses are estray livestock.
People just didn’t bother reading the bill when they saw that an animal protection voters group backed it, O'Dowd said.
“Luckily there are people in roundhouse who know how to read for themselves,” she said. “Luckily, a new fiscal analysis was written at end that admitted to legilslative favortism and a clear attempt to overturn all financial investment and time of the people and the court and the previous legislature."
Under SB126, few if any horses would have been considered wild and pass the test for protection. The bill also contained nothing to stop the livestock board from declaring a wild horse an estray livestock. The board previously has never declared any horse “wild,” not even the Spanish colonials, despite the board’s own genetic testing showing the Placitas horses at 91 percent to 96 percent Spanish markers, significantly more than the 80 percent probability required, according to WHOA’s web presentation on the bill. The other problems with the amended bill were that wild horses would have to originate on public land, they could be classified as livestock and would have preempted federal law by removing the requirement that livestock be domestic or owned. The bill would have placed the wild horses under a board that never has recognized their existence as wild, the website stated.
Senate Bill 126 wasn’t taken down for lack of time, O'Dowd said. “It was taken down because of those issues. We did everything every step of the way we could under the law."
“Because of that, the wild horses prevailed and they are still protected and we still have a viable court case and we will still be there in court for those horses," she said. "We would have anyway, because we would have taken further action. The horses have nothing to hide from. The truth and law are on their side. Since 126 didn’t pass, the horses remain under the same protection that they had from existing laws 10 years ago.”
While HB390 was “a decent bill” in its original form, amendments changed that, O’Dowd said.
“For the horse rescuers, HB390 gives them first right of refusal, so they don’t have to compete with kill buyers or the public,” she said. “They have to pay $100 or $200, which is what they usually pay now, sometimes less. It just gives them first opportunity, so it will protect a few estray livestock equine from kill buyers. But those not bid on in the first round and that the rescue groups don’t take, the kill buyers will take them in the second round. That second option wasn’t there in the (original bill).” According to testimony, the livestock board and industry requested the amendments and the sponsor allowed them, she said.
Several wild horse bills debated in legislature
As the New Mexico Legislature prepares to close its session, debate still boils over how to protect wild horses and private property
One side is focusing more on protection of private property rights and the other on protection of the horses and their freedom.
The latest proposed legislation is House Memorial 102 introduced by State Rep. Joanne J. Ferrary, a Democrat from District 37, with input from Patience O’Dowd, head of Wild Horse Observers Association. Her organization won a temporary injunction against the sale of a dozen members of a “wild” herd hauled away and then returned to Lincoln County by New Mexico Livestock Board. The case is pending in district court. The memorial acknowledges the role of the conservation division of the state Department of Game and Fish in “protecting, maintaining and enhancing wildlife habitat,” and requests the division conduct an interim study and to provide recommendation for the protection, maintenance an enhancement of wild horse herds and habitat in the state.
The memorial notes that the state has not managed the population of wild horses by immunocontraception in the last 10 years despite public policy, and contends management more likely would occur if a specific state agency had jurisdiction. Several tribes and pueblos already are managing wild horse population by immunocontraception and officials with two nongovernmental organizations as well are trained to administer the drug by darting, the memorial states. Fewer than 300 wild horses are on federal and state grazing lands in New Mexico compared to half a million cattle, it contends.
A long list of stakeholders in the well-being of wild horses included artists, outfitters, horse rescue groups, rural economic development organizations and the state tourism, the memorial states.
The New Mexico Livestock Board has exercised control over the wild horses of the state, considering them to be estray livestock subject to capture and disposal by the board, but the conservation services division is better suited to determine the status, needs, habitat requirements and issues of human interaction with wild horses than the board, according to the memorial. After tangling with the livestock board over horses in Alto and Placitas, wild herd advocates also seem to lack trust in the livestock board's intentions, a significant impediment.
The legislature’s website listed the memorial Tuesday as referred to the House State Government, Indian and Veterans Affairs Committee.
O’Dowd insists that advocates for the well-being of the wild horse herds can no longer support Senate Bill 126, introduced by State Sen. Pet Woods, a Republican from District 7, if they claim they are against the slaughter of horses. The amended bill passed the Senate 32-2 and was sent to the House State Government, Indian and Veterans Affairs Committee.
The bill classifies horses as livestock, but defines a wild horse as unclaimed without obvious brands or other evidence of private ownership determined by the board to originate from public land or federal land or to be part of, or descended from a herd that lives on or originated from public land. Excepted are horses that are subject to the jurisdiction of the federal government pursuant to the federal Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act and those determined to a Spanish Colonial horse.
Captured horses could be relocated to a preserve, adopted or humanely euthanized. A herd could be removed from a range, if the range improvement task force of New Mexico State University makes that recommendation after evaluating the condition of the rangeland in response to a request from the livestock board.
One of the key players in the situation with the Alto herd contends whether the horses there came from the reservation or from the wilderness area of the national forest is irrelevant, because both are federal land.
“So that gives the so-called wild horses special dispensation,” she said. “It does not mean that if they are found wandering on private property, stallions threatening mares or the well-being of private land or person that the private landowner doesn’t have the right to call the NMLB. This bill gives that protection to private land owners.”
She contended it is “highly unlikely” anyone is going to complain about horses on public land unless someone is injured on the highway.
She also noted that the state fence-out law does not mean that a person must have a fence, but if an owner does not put up a fence, and cattle or other livestock enter the property and cause damage, the owner then cannot register a legal claim for damage reimbursement.
Genetically verified Spanish Colonial horses are considered valuable by breeders, she said. Few have been verified in New Mexico. Senate Bill 126 also addresses testing to determine if a captured horse is of Spanish colonial heritage and if it is, to relocate it to a state or private wild horse preserve created and maintained to protect Spanish colonial horses.
“If not, (the bill reads that) it shall be returned to the state public land, relocated to a public or private preserve or put up for adoption by the agency on whose land the wild horse was captured,” she said. The livestock board is the proper agency to manage wild horses and livestock, she contended.
Other pending legislation includes House Bill 390, introduced by State Rep. Nathan Small, a Democrat from District 36, which would allow an equine rescue group first chance to purchase an unclaimed estray horse or it will be euthanized, later amended to allow public bid. Advocates contend that bidding would include buyers headed to a slaughter house. The amended bill was passed by the House 50-17 and referred to the Senate Conservation Committee. The initial aim of the bill was to prevent cruelty to livestock, advocates say.
House Bill 284, also introduced by Woods, hasn’t moved from the Senate Conservation and Senate Judiciary Committee referral. That bill deals with trespass on private land by horses, giving the Livestock Board jurisdiction and clarifying procedures to be followed when wild horses come into the custody of the board, including adoption, relocation to a preserve or euthanasia.
Friday, March 24, 2017
Horse bill stalls in legislative committee - Ruidoso News
Game and Fish officials contend they lack expertise to manage wild horses and the effort would divert resources from indigenous wildlife
Both the bill and the memorial were introduced by State Rep. Joanne Ferrary, a Democrat from District 37, and both were tabled in committee this week, according to a legislative spokesman. As the legislature prepares to shut down at noon Saturday, the bill sits in the House Energy and Natural Resources/House Judiciary Committee and the memorial, proposed by Patience O'Dowd of the Wild Horse Observers Association, languishes in the House State Government, Indian and Veterans Affairs Committee.
The bill would have expand the jurisdiction of Game and Fish under the Wildlife Conservation Act to include wild horses without defining the term, writers for the Legislative Finance Committee noted in their analysis. The bill provides another definition of “wild horse,” as simply a horse “showing no indicia of ownership.” That differs from the definition in existing law governing the disposition of wild horses captured on public land, including descendants of Spanish colonial horses, the analysts stated.
The bill would transfer jurisdiction over those horses from the state livestock board to game and fish and would task the latter agency with determining when preservation of the genetic stock and range conditions require the use of birth control to limit a wild horse herd population. The bill also would extend the duty of private landowners to fence their properties from trespassing horses to include wild horses.
The report states that game and fish officials estimate $340,000 for start-up costs in Fiscal 2017, that would include hiring a wild horse biologist, conducting a survey of the state to determine the locations of wild horse herds, and building or leasing facilities to temporarily house horses while DNA testing is conducted. Another $100,000 would be needed each year to continue the work, plus a $50,000 annual estimated cost per horse to house and maintain any captured Spanish colonial horses in perpetuity, if no one adopts them and there is no public land or wild horse preserve available.
Listed as significant issues in the report were that adding wild horses to the definition of wildlife under the WCA is contrary to procedures laid out in state statute under the act. A species first must be listed, a process that could take nine months to one year and is only applicable to species of wildlife indigenous to the state, which does not include wild horses.
A second issue is that the livestock board has jurisdiction for managing wild horse, because their employees work with the animals and have expertise and access to facilities. Assigning the task to game and fish would take away resources from managing native wildlife species, they stated.
Other issues include that the bill provided no chance for an owner to claim a horse that may not be branded, tattooed, microchipped or showing other indicia of ownership. And the release provision conflicts with language that horses be adopted or relocated to other public land or to public or private preserves.
The analysts noted that the wildlife definition would “open the door for (game and fish) to create a permitting system for horse hunting as wildlife.” They argued that no long-term effective contraception methods exist and that fertility control would have to be administered annually.
The analysis contends the deadline to finish the survey of December 2017 is unrealistic, because the agency has no expertise to manage wild horses, new staff would have to be hired and existing staff would require significant training. The agency also has no authority to implement any recommendations derived from a study. The transfer of jurisdiction would divert financial resources and could cost an initial $400,000 plus $800,000 in additional personnel for habitat analysis, plus the expense of helicopter surveys.
The analysts also had problems with some of the wild horse population figures in the memorial, but acknowledged that by not passing the bill, confusion over the capture and disposition of wild horses may continue.
Tuesday, February 28, 2017
Wild horses signs removed then returned to highway
Wild horses" signs attracted tourists as well as warned of potential traffic hazards
The Ruidoso News contacted the department Monday and on Tuesday, at least two of the signs were back in place on NM48, but that may only be a temporary action.
Emilee Cantrell, DOT public information officer, said new signs more in line with Federal Highway Administration guidelines will take the place of the horse signs soon.
“Keeping our roads safe is our number one priority,” she said. “There have been more than 100 accidents in the area over the last five years, so it’s absolutely imperative that we do all we can to make travel safer. That’s why we are changing the signs to better protect motorists in the area.”
However, until the new signs are ready for installation, the old signs were put back in place.
An advocate for the wild horse herds that roam the Alto area leading into Ruidoso said the four horse signs instilled local pride in the uniqueness of the area and they drew tourists. “Wildlife Crossing” signs would be a significant come down on the “mystique” and tourism scale, she said.
The advocate for the herds, including a dozen horses now impounded locally while the court decides their fate, said she thinks the action by the DOT is connected to that court case.
The signs are reminders of the conviction of many locals that the herds are wild by common definition and have been for generations, she said.
The signs were located north of Alto Café on NM48, one at Angus, and two on Ski Run Road.
Several calls by concerned residents were made to the New Mexico Highway Department asking if that agency had removed the signs. They claim they were told initially that the signs were not removed and that because of the cost of the signs, such a theft would be a felony. But a subsequent call confirmed the action was taken by the DOT.
“I firmly believe it is because of our pending court case regarding the Wild Horses of Lincoln County in an effort to get everything set up for us to fail in future cases should there be any,” the advocate said. “After all, how can they continue to claim the horses aren't wild, if the State of New Mexico placed the Wild Horses signs in the first place?”
The case is pending in the 12th Judicial District Court and depending on the outcome, could place jurisdiction for the herds of roaming horses in the hands of the Livestock Board to be handled like cattle.
Wild horse bill would designate new experts
Joe Cook and the museum he runs are designated by state law as experts on wild horses with the power to order them captured, moved, neutered or even euthanized. He has no idea why.
“It was really a mistake,” he says.
Cook is director of the University of New Mexico Museum of Southwestern Biology and also curator of its mammal division.
The state law currently being disputed between the New Mexico Livestock Board and advocates for Ruidoso’s free-roaming horses puts the museum in sole charge of determining whether any given herd of wild horses is too big for its own good or for the range it occupies.
“That language was put in there 10 or 12 years ago without our knowledge,” Cook told the News in a phone interview Tuesday. “It was slipped in there, and unfortunately we didn’t know about it.”
Cook would like very much to see the museum slipped back out of the law, and it’s possible he may get his wish.
A bill currently making its way through the state Senate would amend the law to remove Cook’s museum and give its statutory job to something called the Range Improvement Task Force at New Mexico State University in Las Cruces.
This time legislators have at least given their designated wild horse experts a heads up.
“I’ve been approached,” said Task Force coordinator Samuel Smallidge, who has a doctorate in range science. “I haven’t spent a lot of time thinking about it. I know these things have a tendency to be amended.”
Smallidge is probably right not to invest too much time in the new assignment yet. The main thrust of Senate Bill 126 involves other changes to the law that may encounter stiff resistance, since they appear to strengthen the Livestock Board’s control over wild horses that some horse advocates don’t think the board should have.
Swapping in the NMSU Task Force for the Museum of Southwestern Biology appears unrelated to that goal, except for one thing. The proposed new language would get the Task Force involved with wild horses only when the Livestock Board called on them.
The existing state law contains no such requirement. The museum’s mammal division is authorized to take action on its own if it determines “that a wild horse herd exceeds the number of horses that is necessary for preserving the genetic stock of the herd and for preserving and maintaining the range.”
In such a case, the museum can order birth control measures on the herd, and have excess animals either moved to other public land or to a horse preserve, or adopted or sent to a rescue facility. Animals found by a veterinarian to be crippled or unhealthy can be euthanized on the museum’s authority.
The museum wasn’t a completely off-the-wall choice for the job. Cook has a doctorate in biology, and he and his staff do study the relationship between wildlife populations and their environments.
“But not wild horses,” he said. “We feel we’re not the right people to help figure out anything about wild horses in New Mexico. We’re not horse specialists.”
But under the proposed amendments, the Task Force would do nothing unless the Livestock Board asked it to assess any given herd of wild horses.
“Upon request of the board to determine the viability of a specific New Mexico wild horse herd on the range they occupy,” the statute says the Task Force will make an assessment and report back to the Livestock Board. Then it’s up to the board to do all the things the law now says the museum would do, i.e. moving, adopting, neutering or euthanizing excess animals.
One other change from existing law is that there’s no mention in the proposed amendments of “preserving the genetic stock of the herd.” The focus of the Task Force would be entirely on the range.
Smallidge said the Task Force is well qualified for the role the proposed amendments would assign to it.
“The Range Improvement Task Force does represent demonstrated capabilities in collecting scientific data to inform decision makers regarding the ecology and management of New Mexico rangelands,” Smallidge said.
“Regarding the legislation,” he added, “I will leave that in the hands of the New Mexico Legislature and respond appropriately to their decision.”
Wednesday, February 15, 2017
Senate committee passes horse as livestock bill
Senate Conservation Committee passes bill that eliminates the classification of domesticated horse and lumps equines as livestock with specific exceptions
Despite the efforts of advocates, they reported that members of the Senate Conservation Committee passed the bill in less than five minutes.The bill was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. A series of hearings before the conservation committee led to modifications of the original bill submitted by State Sen. Pat Woods, a Republican from Quay County, that eliminates the classification of domesticated horse.
While under the amended version horses still would be lumped into the broad definition for livestock that fall under the jurisdiction of the New Mexico Livestock Board, specific exceptions were included for Spanish colonial horses and for a “wild horse” defined as an “unclaimed horse without obvious brands or other evidence of private ownership that is determined by the board to originate from public land or federal land or to be part of or descended from a herd that lives on or originates from public land; but does not include horses that are subject to the jurisdiction of the federal government pursuant to the federal Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act.”
Public land does not include federal land controlled by the Bureau of Land Management, the Forest Service or state trust land.
Under the amended version, a wild horse captured on private land in New Mexico at the discretion of the livestock board “shall be” humanely captured and relocated to state public land or to a public or private horse preserve; adopted by a qualified person (for an adoption fee); or humanely euthanized provided the option is the last resort when the horse is determined by a licensed veterinarian to be crippled or otherwise unhealthy or cannot be relocated to a public or private wild horse preserve or adopted.
A new section throws in another wrinkle for the future of “wild horses” such as the herds in Alto. That section in the amended bill provides when requested by the board to determine the viability of a specific New Mexico wild horse herd on the range they occupy, the range improvement task force of New Mexico State University will evaluate the range conditions to determine the number of wild horses that the range can support while maintaining its ecological health.
The task force will report the results of the evaluation to the board. “If required, the board may cause control of the New Mexico wild horse herd population through the use of birth control and may cause excess horses to be humanely captured” and relocated, adopted or euthanized.
A second bill introduced by Woods, SB284, which has not yet been heard in committee, specifically deals with trespassing horses on private land. It gives the livestock board jurisdiction over any horse trespassing on fee simple private land and charges board representatives to attempt to determine ownership and simultaneously to notify animal rescue organizations.
“If no owner can be identified after five days, the horse shall be offered to animal rescue organizations. If no animal rescue organization assumes ownership after two days, the board may auction the horse,” SB284 states.
“These people apparently are hell bent on getting rid of the wild horses,’ one wild herd advocate said.
Noting that the incoming president of the New Mexico Cattle Growers Association backed the bill, contending it provided a remedy for a private land owner beleaguered by trespassing unowned horses, a Santa Fe attorney with government background said, “My question is, if a deer or elk eats her trees, does she had a remedy? If a skunk sprays her dog, does she have a remedy? If a coyote eats her cat, does she have a remedy? Is the state required to provide a remedy at taxpayer expense for every intrusion of wildlife onto private property?” The attorney also questioned if any data exists showing that overgrazing by wild horses has occurred on private land and how that data compared to grazing by other wild animals.
Local wild herd advocates mobilized in large numbers after the livestock board in August 2016 hauled away a dozen members of a herd in Alto that had been penned by a private land owner. A lawsuit was filed by the Wild Horse Observers Association that resulted in a temporary restraining order against the sale of any of the horses in the herd. Under an agreement approved by the court, the horses were returned to the county until the court decides on the status of the herd as wild. That case still is pending in the 12th Judicial District Court.
Wednesday, February 1, 2017
Update on Legislative Bill - info from ZozoCommunity news
As
I understand it, a proposed New Mexico Senate Bill 126 ("Wild Horse
Kill Bill 126") will re-define ALL horses in the state as "livestock".
This will mandate authorities to round up and place feral horses into a
system which can include capture, removal, possible adoption, and
possible slaughter. Other, humane protocols are being developed, and this law will block that. This would directly impact the "Alto Wild Horses" still awaiting a legal judgment.
There
will be a Committee Meeting Thursday morning, and our voices must be
heard before then to prevent this bill from proceeding.
PLEASE contact each senator below. Simply click on their email address and write " I object to SB126 ". It only takes 5 minutes -- or call and leave a brief message. (you can also add each of their addresses to the same email)
We need to take a breather and consider what is best for the horses. This really is important.
Background The New Mexico Livestock Board (NMLB) is in court for allegedly abducting and selling protected wild horses illegally at auction, and to kill buyers.
Senator Pat Woods and the Attorney General are trying to change the law midstream to enable wild horses to be considered livestock and disenfranchise the people and the judicial branch of government.This bill as amended, states livestock does not have to be domestic or owned, which is required by federal law, and weakens the status of our wild horses.
- This definition would conflict with the federal definition of livestock
- Allows road kill of many animals to be defined as Livestock
- Allows exotic animals in captivity to be defined as livestock!
- Conflicts with the NM State Wild Horse protection statute
- Endangers federally protected wild horses
Lastly the unintended consequence of passage of this bill by removing federally required domesticated language would be to allow non-domesticated feral or wild equines and exotic animals to be slaughtered or sold for food in New Mexico.
Editor’s Note: I realize this was an inflammatory issue before, but I’m not sure the changes posed are really going to help. If you think this is important, please send the email. If not, don’t do anything and just see what happens.
Senator William Payne
Capitol Phone: (505) 986-4703
Email: william.payne@nmlegis.gov
Senator Peter Wirth Capitol Phone: (505) 986-4393
Email: peter.wirth@nmlegis.gov
you can subscribe to the electronic newsletter: ZozoCommunity News by emailing with subject "subscribe to
zozocommunity@tularosa.net
Tuesday, January 31, 2017
Taking care of those in need in the herd
Releasing either of two horses with medical issues back into the wild with others rounded up last year would be cruel, livestock officials contend
 |
| photo showing bay colored horses (photo by Mark Stambaugh in 2015) |
The motion comes from the defendant in litigation filed last year by Wild Horse Observers Association Inc. against the New Mexico Livestock Board. The board is asking the court to modify its orders of Sept. 8 and Dec. 5 to permit the two horses to be adopted by local residents. In the motion, Attorney Gen. Hector Balderas, who represents the livestock board, wrote that despite repeated requests, the attorney for the association has not provided a substantive response and he presumes the association opposes the motion.
However, Patience O’Dowd, who heads the association, said Monday, WHOA has not been allowed to see all the veterinarian’s reports or to send in another veterinarian.
“Attorney Gen. Balderas and the (livestock board) are opposing WHOA’s 2007 passed legislation in court, which currently is the only legal avenue to adoption of any of New Mexico’s wild horses, including these two,” she said. “This motion is just look-good noise.”
The 2007 legislation, Senate Bill 655, says that a wild horse captured on public land will be tested and if it is not a Spanish colonial horse, “it shall be returned to the public land, relocated to a public or private wild horse preserve or put up for adoption by the agency on whose land the wild horse was captured.”
Public land is defined basically as all land except federal land controlled by the Bureau of Land Management, the Forest Service or state trust land controlled by the State Land Office. A wild horse is defined as an unclaimed horse on public land that is not an estray. The bill was signed by the governor and codified in state statutes the same year it passed.
In the motion filed Thursday, Balderas wrote, “In the course of caring for the herd, the responsible residents have observed that two specific horses …have pressing medical conditions that require prompt attention and demonstrate that these two horses, regardless of the court’s disposition of other issues in this case, should remain in the care of a responsible human being and not be turned loose to fend for themselves.”
The horses are under the care of veterinarian Becky Washburn, who agreed the horses need to be placed in private permanent homes, he wrote.
 |
| example of a sorrel color (photo by Mark Stambaugh, 2015) |
The second horse is a bay male who was kept by a private individual for five months before the 12- members of the herd were picked up and he was brought into the case. He suffers from undescended testicles, which puts him at risk of developing testicular cancer. Washburn recommended possible surgery. He was expelled from the herd previously and shows signs that he is fully domesticated, Balderas wrote in the motion.
“The board agrees that the residents who have cared for the herd of horses are in the best position, along with a licensed veterinarian with whom they have consulted, to assess their welfare and their needs, and therefore, the board supports their desire to adopt these two specific horses,” Balderas concluded in his motion.
Latest on wildhorse status - Ruidoso News, Jan 27, 2017
Details of substitution bill to define horses as livestock and protect private property rights not available except to legislators
 |
| A driver on New Mexico Highway 48 heading into Ruidoso caught this shot of the herd before they were rounded up last year.(Photo: Courtesy/Melissa Babcock |
State Sen. Pat Wood, a Republican from Quay County, submitted Senate Bill 126, which was scheduled initially to be heard Tuesday in Santa Fe by the Senate Conservation Committee on which Woods is the ranking member. He said Friday the bill was aimed at protecting private property rights. Others saw it differently. A copy of the substitution bill was not online Monday and details about the changes were not available. "The only ones to get to see it are the legislators," a committee spokesman said.
“The proposed amendment to the definition in the livestock code is very significant,” a Santa Fe attorney with experience in government said Friday about the original bill. “The effect is to completely abolish the category of wild horses. It would have the effect of overruling the opinion of the court of appeals. It would have the effect of designating all horses found anywhere in the state as ‘livestock’. That means no more wild horses and possibly no more personal horses. It also means that all horses whose owner is unknown shall be considered estray. The changed definition of livestock would automatically apply to estrays. The New Mexico Livestock Board disposes of estrays, which means it would now dispose of formerly wild horses.”
Last year, advocates for several wild horse herds that roam the Alto and Eagle Creek area of Lincoln County came to verbal blows with officials from the state livestock board when the livestock staff rounded up about a dozen members of one herd and hauled them to Santa Fe. Trying to keep the horses in a “wild” definition to be released again, litigation was filed challenging the board’s jurisdiction over the herd and asking the court for a temporary injunction to stop the sale of the horses. That case remains in the 12th Judicial District Court. The horses were returned to the county where they are being kept together as a “herd,” with as little human interaction as possible.
The Court of Appeals ruling was produced as a result of litigation over some wild horses in Placitas filed by an advocacy group known as the Wild Horse Observers Association (WHOA). Patience O’Dowd, who heads that group, was concerned Friday about more than the effect of the bill on wild horses. She contended it also could impact safeguards on meat for food consumption.
“I would have hoped to see either the attorney general’s office or the New Mexico Livestock Board in doing the fiscal analysis would have highlighted the issues this (original) bill raises,” she said. “The definition of livestock at the state level goes against the definition on the federal level and does not make it stricter, but looser. I am quite surprised.
“At the federal level, livestock is defined as domestic and owned, which gives some control over what we end up eating. The way they have it written, how do we know it is not road kill?”
“(Livestock board officials) have gone into court and the appellate court ruling let them know clearly that all horses are not livestock,” she said. “The attorney general’s office is (the livestock board’s) lawyer and they should be clear on that decision. Even if they pass this law, all horses will not be livestock in this state, because there are federal horses in the in Cibola National Forest in Socorro. So again, they are going against federal law and the state does not have that right. They can make stricter laws, like if they wanted to say horses are wild in forest, but stop helicopter round ups. But especially involving food safety, it’s almost an insult to New Mexico. What do they think we are?”
During a short break in the legislature’s session Friday, Woods told the Ruidoso News that his bill had nothing to do with conflicting state and federal laws about wild horses.
“After reading some articles in the newspapers and talking to some brand inspectors, I began to wonder if a private landowner had a horse that strayed on him, who does he call,” Woods said. “Who takes jurisdiction over that horse when (the property owners) has something impacting him that is not his and he’s wanting to get it off his property. I think the courts kind of left that up in the air. What I intended to do with my bill is simply give the livestock board jurisdiction over horses. That way that guy out in the country wherever in New Mexico has one place to call to let them deal with a stray horse.”
Woods said he’s been contacted by people who are concerned about the wild horse herds, “But really, that’s got nothing to do with the bill I’m running. What I’m trying to do is protect private property rights.” The senator said the livestock board seemed to him as the logical agency to handle such horses, but others point to state Game and Fish, which operates wildlife refuges across New Mexico.
“This has nothing to do with federal lands, it has nothing to do with any of that, it’s just to do with private property rights,” Woods said. “They want to bring up the fact that there are federal and state laws that deal with wild horses. I’m not talking about any of that stuff. I’m talking about what a private property owner, and what does he do.”
In an analysis of the (original) bill, the AG’s office stated that SB126 “will assist the livestock board in the successful enforcement of existing laws regarding the health, ownership and transportation of livestock in the state by eliminating inconsistencies in the statutory definitions.” The AG’s staff noted that it may be worth investigating the legal implications of adding “carcasses” to the definition of livestock to persons who trade in animal carcasses, among them butchers, whose job is to remove meat from carcasses, and people who traffic in hides.
However, Department of Game and Fish officials asserted that to remove “domestic or domesticated” from the state law could create ambiguity in the management authority between two statutes, one for protected wildlife species and game fish, especially as it pertains to the management authority of certain species of poultry, sheep and goats.
In the Legislative Finance Committee’s analysis of the bill, no fiscal impact was noted. In the bill’s synopsis, the authors wrote that existing language includes domestic animals used or raised on a farm or ranch, but the amendment would remove that wording. “Language including the carcasses of animals covered in those definitions, as well as exotic animals in captivity, is added,” they note.
Former state senator Steve Komadina weighed in on the original bill in a letter supplied to the Ruidoso News dated Jan. 27, and addressed to the conservation committee chairman. He pointed out that legislation on a state level could not preempt federal law and also had to be compatible with state law.
"This SB126 is fraught with legal issues as it conflicts with at least four laws and regulations at the same time risking food safety in New Mexico," he wrote, adding that the bill appeared to have been "hastily written and hastily reviewed." The attorney general caught neither the issues put forward by game and fish nor those he noted, Komadina wrote. He also disagreed that no fiscal impact would be involved, noting that the state already spent thousands of dollars fighting horse slaughter since 2013. "The unintended consequences of passage of this bill by removing domesticated language would be to allow nondomesticated animals feral or wild equines to be slaughtered for food in New Mexico and jeapardize our food source."
The bill "would raise further ethical issues of disenfranchisement, judicial branch interference and even malfeasance," he wrote. Komadina noted that wild horses are a big tourism draw. He asked that the bill be tabled for the 2017 session of the legislature.
Reviewing the court of appeals decision, the Santa Fe attorney who ask not to be identified, cited several conclusions of the court finding that wild undomesticated horses are not estray, because they are not livestock. State code defines a “wild horse” as “an unclaimed horse on public and that is not an estray,” and livestock is defined as “all domestic or domesticated animals that are used or raised on a farm or ranch and includes horses” and a list of other animals.
The association contended the Placitas horses were not livestock, because they never were domesticated or used or raised on a farm or ranch, a definitional requirement. The livestock board and intervenors contended that the “plain and unambiguous definition of livestock means and includes all horses everywhere in New Mexico.” They argued that carving wild horses out of the definition of livestock would be illogical, impractical and unfeasible to implement, because wild horses would be exempt from cruelty, sale and transportation provisions of the livestock code.
The court wrote that it agreed with the association and concluded that livestock does not cover the five undomesticated animals in Placitas that were the subject of the litigation. The judge wrote that other animals are excluded from the definition such as bighorn sheep and bison, turkey, deer and elk commonly found in New Mexico.
“The board is required to search for the owner of estray livestock, publish notice of the impoundment of estray livestock and eventually, sell estray livestock for the benefit of the owner. Surely, the legislature did not intent to require that the board search for the owner of wild animals, including sheep, bison, turkey, deer, elk and other wild animals that are not domesticated, impound them proceed to publish notification of the impoundment and then proceed to sell them,” the appeals court wrote. The judge went on to conclude that to avoid an unreasonable result, “we interpret the definition of livestock to include only domestic or domesticated animals, while game animals includes only wild animals, thus we reject the argument that all horses anywhere in New Mexico are livestock because horses are included within the definition of livestock.”
O’Dowd urged those opposed to the proposed changes to the existing language defining livestock or seeking more information to contact the chairman of the Conservation Committee Joseph Cervantes, a Democrat from Dona Ana County, at 505-986-4869 or 505-986-4393, and Attorney General Balderas at 575-490-4060. Lincoln County is represented in the Senate by Sens. William Burt, a Republican from Alamogordo, in District 33 and Elizabeth Stefanics, a Democrat in Santa Fe from in District 39.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)