Pickens v. Bureau of Land Management

I knew something was up when I read that the Bureau of Land Management found "flaws" in Madeleine Pickens' plan to create a sanctuary for wild mustangs using 1 million of their acres. Shortly after I read that, I received an email from Madeleine Pickens' people saying that she was going to Washington to testify before a House subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands on the importance of H. R. 1018, the Roam Act.

Clearly they were not seeing eye to eye on something and most likely, I surmised, it had to do with money. Close. In this case it is both land and money.

In her testimony before the House Subcommittee, Pickens spoke about the strong sentiments associated with the wild mustangs and the importance of preserving the "wild and romantic" imagery of America's past. "While England may have the tale of Henry VIII and his wives, and France may have had Napoleon and Josephine, we in America were blessed to have Lewis and Clark, cowboys and Indians, the Pony Express and wild horses. . . We need to respect our history and respect our God-given heritage," she said. "Let's allow the American people to have the chance to enjoy and experience these reminders of our history which are alive and well today roaming the West."

No one is disputing the sentimental and historical value of Ms. Pickens argument, especially Rep. Nick Rahall, D-West Virginia--who is the chair of the committee before which she is testifying. What is at dispute is the land on which these horses are to roam.

The 1 million acres that Ms. Pickens is seeking are part of the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) grazing allotment. There have never been wild horses on these parcels, including back in 1971 when the Free Roaming Horses and Burros Act was enacted. Therefore, according to Ron Wenker, the agency's director for Nevada, "Because BLM grazing allotments under consideration by your foundation did not have wild horse herds in 1971, wild horses cannot now be placed there."

The second area of contention is the $500 per head, per year, stipend that Ms. Pickens is requesting to take the horses off the government's hands. "You've got to get some kind of break from the government," she said. Pickens estimates that her plan would save the government as much as $700 million in costs (spent for long-term holding) by 2020. The government projects the 2009 holding costs for horses in long term-care are $10.3 million and $22.6 million for those in short term facilities.

The government already pays ranchers $475 per animal, per year to provide long-term care for federally owned horses on private land and offered Pickens the option to do likewise, if the horse sanctuary was located on private land.

I think there are a couple of things going on here, not the least of which is the fact that those ranchers who are ranching government horses are going to lose a significant portion of their income. Second, the government does not want to give up any of its lands because I am guessing there are cattle that graze there and they are getting a nice stipend from the cattle ranchers to let them graze. "We've had a lot of push back from landowners in Nevada, cattlemen," elaborated Pickens. "I wish they would see this as a positive plan rather than a negative."

And then there is the problem of lack of leadership in the BLM. Obama has yet to name anybody to the post since BLM Deputy Director Henri Bisson retired. "It's a simple deal," said Pickens. "We take the horses; you pay a stipend for it; part goes into the foundation and it pays for the ranch and the horses get taken care of."

Sounds simple enough but let's see how long it takes for House of Representatives to realize that this is all about the BLM and the cattleranchers holding the horses hostage.