Hello world! what could U possibly Mean by Written Law?


I’m sorry, but I just Can NOT Understand!–several phrases [and Intents]!: (1)to accomplish this they are to be CONSIDERED IN in the Area where presently FOUND, as integral part of natural system of the public lands…
Matt said, Considered in area where presently found = key part, AND
(2) #Interpreted 2 mean: managers supposed to CONSIDER these areas FOR horses, but that does NOT mean they are REQUIRED 2 use ENTIRE area for Horses. Many wild horse Areas have “HERD AREAS” = much LARGER than Herd-#Management-Areas that horses actually Live in (PRYOR’s has a LITTLE bit of HMA out of HA)!! #!*WHY* ??
(3) PM-WHR = combination of agency + private rangelands AUTHORIZED FOR USE by wild horses.—!-Not to be CONFUSED with Wild Horse RANGE which =special Designation which only BLM-portion of PM-WHR has status. [???]
(4) Forest Service Planning documents for the Pryor’s ONLY ALLOW for management of “HORSES in Area Q” up there… !
–OK, IF Herd AREAS = the Areas where Horses WERE found 1971″, then #WHY are Wild Horses NOT #Authorized to Use# ANY and ALL of such Areas??
WHY would a HMA or RANGE ever EXCLUDE any of such legally-Entitled land area?? (and PM Horses may USE ONLY a LITTLE bit of their HA)?!! –this just makes absolutely *No Sense to me!!?
The so-called managers of this Law-given Land were chosen to be the BLM; so
WHY/HOW could any Mgr. only consider, but Not ALLOW protected wild Horses to HAVE ACCESS to every Inch of that land, which IS legally-set aside FOR them?? HOW do they consider any Personal Opinion— as ABOVE the Federal Law??
same– for the FOREST Svc (other Employees of tax-payers!); #I don’t CARE if# the FS or NPS have subsequently Planned, for any Reason, to give wild Horses ACCESS to ONLY a tiny portion called ‘Area Q’ up there!! WHY are they also ABOVE the Law??
When the 1971 law was enacted; Every bush, rock, soil space, hiking trail, road, water source, or ‘initials carved into a tree’:::that WERE WITHIN the HERD Area where HORSES were Found! >>was legally Designated *Primarily* FOR their *Use*! (and Only *secondarily* FOR any other purpose)! So, I do NOT understand
WHY it would be Differently interpreted for Land area that was *historically* or *subsequently* said to belong to a (especially a *PUBLIC-owned*/*entitled* Area), like *Forest Service*, or TO a *Park Service*, or TO a local *Neighborhood Watch area*, or Public *garden space*..!! the LAW stated: -That specific- land/soil/water area WAS to BE managed FOR wild horses!
And IF I or You had already, OR later, Planned-to-Use Any of it (land, tree, rock) for some other purpose of our Own, –then We SHOULD Not and Would Not be allowed to DO so!–If such other plan Use would EXCLUDE, in any way, Concurrent and Primary USE by the wild horses!!
i.e. We would be S-#-out-of-luck 🙂 ? and Expected to come up with a Different Plan..?!
soWHY would the *Forest Service* (& similarly in other areas, like a named *National REFUGE area*), or even *Aunt Beas Quilting Club* NOT be REQUIRED to comply with the law?? It should just be too bad for their *other plans*, as well?!
andeven though *subsequent laws* talk about Allowing for Multiple-USEs; such Extra dreamed-up Uses.. should also NOT be allowed to *Change the Primary* Use ??! If they can *non-intrusively Co-Exist* with the Horses USEthats fine! IF Notcome up with a different Plan!
[I am assuming here, *the Intent* of Multiple-Uses was mainly FOR/so Public citizens could also Use such land…like for hiking, camping, skiing, singing, meditation, swimming…etc]-but such Use could Not include Owning or Destroying or PERMANENTLY Changing that area FOR oneself, at the EXPENSE of *the Primary USE-rs* (Wild Horses/Burros)?!
Please explainWHY this is not Correct ??
[last question, i swear]: Exactly and Precisely, *WHAT ARE these multiple uses planned* for the Pryor Mountain HORSE AREA??, and for *the HMA*??, or for *the National Park*??, and
the *Custer National Forest* ???
WHAT exactly DO they *wish to USE this land FOR*that *necessitates Excluding legally-protected ACCESS* to the Wild Horses there ???
truly sorry if Im just too dense to Read & Understand the Intent of U.S. Law? (having earned a doctorate degreeone might conclude that I Should be able to logically understand Laws as written?) Maybe *Every One ELSE GETS it*!? & Im just an idiot citizenbut, I DONT THINK SO! ??
http://pryorwild.wordpress.com/2011/01/12/january-12-2011-fertility-control-ea/trackback/
http://pryorwild.wordpress.com/2011/01/12/january-12-2011-fertility-control-ea/trackback/

Reply

Leave a Reply

Advertisements

4 Comments (+add yours?)

  1. cssssswv
    May 04, 2011 @ 19:23:03

    I’m sorry, but I just Can NOT Understand! several phrases [& Intents]:…(1)to accomplish this they are to be “CONSIDERED ‘IN’ in the area where presently FOUND, as Integral part of natural system of the public lands.”
    Matt said, “Considered in area where presently found”= key part, AND
    (2)”interpreted 2 mean: managers supposed to CONSIDER these areas FOR horses, but that doesN’T mean they are REQUIRED 2 use ENTIRE area for horses. Many wild horse areas have HERD-AREAS…much LARGER than Herd-Management-Area that horses actually LIVE in. (Pryor’s has a LITTLE bit of HMA out of HA)”…*WHY*?
    (3)”PMWHR=combination of agency + private rangelands AUTHORIZED FOR USE by wild horses…Not to be CONFUSED with Wild Horse RANGE, which= special designation of which only BLM portion of PMWHR has status.”
    (4) “Forest Service’s planning documents for the Pryor’s ONLY ALLOW for management of HORSES in Area Q up there…”
    –OK, if “Herd Areas”=the Areas where Horses WERE found 1971, then WHY are Wild Horses NOT “authorized to Use”…ANY & ALL of such areas??
    –WHY would a HMA or RANGE ever EXCLUDE any of such “legally entitled land area”?? (& PM Horses may USE ONLY a LITTLE bit of their HA)?…this just makes absolutely *No sense to me! The so-called ‘managers’ of this law-given land were chosen to be the BLM; so
    –WHY/HOW could any Mgr. only ‘consider, but not Allow’ protected wild Horses to HAVE ACCESS to every inch of that land which IS legally-set aside FOR them?? HOW do they ‘consider’ any personal Opinion as ABOVE the federal Law??
    –same for the ‘Forest Svc’ (other Employees of tax-payers)…I don’t CARE if the FS or NPS have subsequently ‘planned’, for any Reason, to give wild Horses ACCESS to ONLY a tiny portion called ‘Area Q’ up there!! WHY are they also ABOVE the same Law??
    –When 1971 law was enacted; every bush, rock, soil space, hiking trail, road, water source, or initials carved into a tree…that WERE WITHIN the HERD Area where HORSES were Found…was legally designated *Primarily* FOR their Use (& Only *secondarily* FOR any other purpose)! So, I do NOT understand –WHY it would be Differently ‘interpreted’ for land area that was ~historically or subsequently~ said to ‘belong’ to (especially a PUBLIC-‘owned’/entitled area) like Forest Service, or to a Park Service, or to a local Neighborhood Watch area, or Public garden space..!! the Law stated That specific land/soil/water area WAS to BE managed FOR wild horses! & –if I or You had already, or later, ‘planned’ to use Any of it (land, tree, rock) for some other purpose of our own…then We SHOULD Not & Would Not be allowed to DO so…IF such ‘other plan use’ would EXCLUDE, in any way, concurrent & primary USE by the wild horses!!
    i.e. we would be ‘S-# out-of-luck’ 😉 & expected to come up with a Different plan..?!
    –Why would the *Forest Service* (& similarly in other areas, a *National REFUGE? area*), or even *Aunt Bea’s Quilting Club* NOT be REQUIRED to comply with the law?? It should just be ‘too bad’ for Their *other plans*, as well!
    –even though subsequent laws talk about Allowing for “multiple-USEs”; any such Extra dreamed-up Uses.. should also NOT be allowed to Change the Primary use ??! IF they can *non-intrusively Co-Exist* with the Horses’ USE…fine! IF Not…come up with a different Plan…!
    [I am assuming here, the INTENT of Multiple-uses was mainly FOR/so Public citizens could also Use such land…like for hiking, camping, skiing, singing, meditation, swimming…]–but such Use could not include ‘Owning or Destroying or PERMANENTLY Changing’ that area for oneself, –at the EXPENSE of the primary Use-rs (Wild Horses/Burros)…Please explain–WHY this is not Correct ??
    –[last question, i swear]: Exactly & Precisely, WHAT ARE these ‘multiple uses’ planned* for the Pryor Mountain HORSE AREA??, the H-MA??,
    the Nat’l Park??, &
    the Custer National Forest ???
    WHAT exactly DO they wish to USE this land FOR—that *necessitates Excluding legally-protected ACCESS to the Wild Horses there???
    –truly sorry if I’m just too dense to read & understand the Intent of U.S. Law? (having earned a doctorate degree..one ‘might conclude’ that I Should be able to logically understand Laws as written?) …Maybe *Every One ELSE GETS it*!? & I’m just an Idiot citizen…but, I DON’T THINK SO! ??
    http://pryorwild.wordpress.com/2011/01/12/january-12-2011-fertility-control-ea/trackback/

    Reply

    • C. Stone
      Jul 19, 2011 @ 02:51:15

      On Jan 20, 2011 Linda D said::::On pg 7, 1.4, *Relationship to Planning*, -Preliminary Environmental Assessment says:
      The Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971 (PublicLaw 92-195) as amended, Sect 1333(b)(1) states that Secretaries of Interior & Agriculture SHALL *determine Appropriate management levels* of wild FREE-roaming horses / burros ON areas of PUBLIC lands; + determine whether
      *appropriate management levels*..be ?achieved by Removal or Destruction of excess animals, or options (sterilization or natural *controls on population* levels)? According to 43CFR4700.0-6, ?Wild horses SHALL be *Managed as self-sustaining populations* of healthy animals ?in Balance with other Uses + Productive Capacity of their habitat?.
      In addition, 36 CFR 222.21 states that wild horses “within USFS Territories” be administered *to Maintain thriving ecological Balance *considering them* an? INTEGRAL component of multiple USE resources?, and regulating population + accompanying need for forage/habitat in correlation w/—uses recognized under Multiple–Use Sustained Yield Act–1960.?? OK, I am wondering about–the Meaning that says *maintain a thriving ecological balance CONSIDERING THEM AN INTEGRAL COMPONENT OF the MULTIPLE USE RESOURCES*?! -referring to the WILD *HORSES on USFS territories*…..To me, that should Not mean *totally Eliminating them from USFS land*, which is what happened in last gather, plus is still being worked on, is it not? I’ll continue to read, maybe answer my own question by doing so, but m/b U can HELP me understand this part if u have time. Thanks”
      ** [a partial answer–(to question ABOVE Mine)! ~~CLEAR as mud now? 😦
      On Feb 9, 2011 “pryorwild” (mgr of Pryor Mtn Wild Horse Range Center) said:
      ?a couple things I’ve heard in regard to the FS [Forest Service] HORSES:
      from intro of 1971 Act:.. Congress that wild free-roaming horses and burros shall be Protected from capture, branding, harassment, or death; and to accomplish this
      they are to be considered IN area where presently found*, AS an *integral part of the natural System of the Public lands*.
      *Considered IN the area where presently found* is KEY part…. I’ve seen/heard this *INTERPRETED to mean* that: ?–Managers are *Supposed to consider* these areas For HORSES,
      but that Does *Not mean that they are…Required to use*… the entire area For HORSES……. Many wild-Horse-Areas have *Herd-AREAS* that are much larger than *herd-MANAGEMENT-areas* that horses actually LIVE In. (the Pryors has a ‘little BIT’ of H-M-A out of H-A, the [Twin] Peaks a ‘fair amount’, the Fifteenmile ‘quite a bit’).
      Also, FOREST SERVICE ‘Plan’ docs…FOR Pryors* [Herd MANAGMT Area]
      …ONLY ALLOW FOR management of HORSES *in Area Q* up there; called ‘Forest Service Triangle’, ON N.W. part of Range that is…*actually -FS- Territory*. A resource is 43CFR Part4700 =section ABOUT wild horses; can be read: http://law.justia.com/us/cfr/title43/43-2.1.1.4.92.html
      Hope this kind of helps! Matt=”pryorwild” ***{Matt actually directly answered ME…on another page…will try to Find it again}

      Reply

    • C. Stone
      Jul 19, 2011 @ 03:48:18

      ***found it ! Here is the ‘attempted’ Answer from Matt @PryorWild…(don’t blame him!…at least he Tries…Very hard to make Sensible interpretations for us!) :::: On May 9, 2011 7:09pm pryorwild said:
      Hello! I’ll try to answer these to the best of my ability.
      *Managers on BLM and Forest Service lands* are apparently only
      Needing to consider the WILD HORSES where they were found in 1971. I have seen this ?taken to mean?
      that Wild Horses CAN be managed on these lands. *However, they can
      Only be* managed IN Areas where there WERE wild horses found in 1971, and
      there is *no REQUIREMENT to manage horses in these Areas*….. There are different Reasons for Herds that have Lost alot/all of original *Herd Areas*.
      That ?sliver of closed HA? on south end of PM-WHR is called the ?Administrative Pastures?; was basically CLOSED so it could be used as ~extended trapping/pasture area of sorts in days of horseback gathering.
      This Decision was made in *Resource Management Plan* = big and long-lived *planning documents* in BLM. This particular RMP, like many others in the West, is currently being REdone. The PM-WHR is a *Range* in the true definition. Private land…is only abt 600 acres; very small compared to larger area of the Range on Public lands. Private land is *leased by the BLM* for Use by the HERD.
      *Creation of the PM-WHR* did Change some major activities on the Range:
      There were *livestock allotments* that were Closed. *Mineral resources* were Withdrawn. *Large portions* of the Range were made *Wilderness Study Areas*.
      The situation with horses being Allowed on any FS [FOREST Svc] lands BEYOND Area Q triangle has existed for abt as long as ‘the Range’. There are conflicting reports of
      Whether or not there was… *Extensive USE of other AREAS* by Pryor Mtn Wild HORSES.
      *Planning processes in the past* LED to current *Boundary following Lost Water Canyon* and *BLM–FS boundary*.
      Further, there are currently *stakeholders* who do NOT Want to see HORSES out in these areas. The PM-WHR itself WAS *set aside for the HORSES*, #but# Multiple USE still is a *Governing factor*…in–the ?bigger picture–of the Pryor Mountains?.
      ?ON Forest Svc lands this includes:
      *Wilderness* land, *Hunting*, a little *Livestock Grazing*, other Forms of *Recreation*. This all again, ?especially *Pertains to…lands Adjacent to*, but NOT Part of…”the current Range”.
      (I am not bringing NPS [Nat’l Park Svc] into this too much as 1971 Act is not really affecting portions of PM-WHR *in Bighorn Canyon NRA*) [Natural RESOURCE Area].
      I guess *to summarize*, there are People who believe…that the HORSES do not belong OFF the Range…just as much as Others may Believe…that the HORSES Do belong there…
      OR that *Other multiple Use activities* have NO place ‘on the Range’.
      Everyone Wants ?their Piece of the Pie?; and ?everyone has Some pie?, but
      there is some Disagreement over Sizes and Types of Pie everyone received.
      **It really *is Confusing*. There is a–?jumbled mess of National law?–, + *Local-level planning* documents, + a *diversity of Uses* and *stakeholders*, And a small amount of REAL Estate…in a relatively harsh environment.
      Let me know if I didn’t answer your questions and we will talk about this some more! Thanks, Matt

      Reply

  2. cssssswv
    Dec 17, 2011 @ 03:37:24

    Actually, the MORE that I Read over these….the MORE *Worrying Are*
    more recent Documents & stories, regarding those *Rapid EcoRegional Assessments* (REAs), that ?BLM intends to conduct on Each eco-region?, *which contains any Land or Resources* under? BLM
    administration!?
    Apparently they Have somehow Succeeded in REMOVAL of Livestock
    Grazing effects or areas to be *Considered in/as Any component* of Natural- or
    Human-controlled “disturbance Factors” or
    “Causal Agent”…with potential to ?affect the *baseline condition? or ?to Predict future vulnerability*..of any/all ecologic & environmental *resources of conservation Concern*, During all the Ecoregional Assessments!!
    —REAs intend 2 provide: *basis for Use-planning,
    Decision-making, ?adaptive Management framework?
    for BLM overall…[Yet the Scientists are PROHIBITED from considering any aspect of LIVESTOCK Grazing or Allotment????]
    ….Hmmmm…smelling a rotten cow-paddy somewhere…do You?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 23 other followers

%d bloggers like this: