Kicking-Up mY heels *weeKend! {WØW}

*a PROUD ~mommy~ ! KicKing-UP my heels* this WeekEnd + Monday ! …(05/18-05/20, 2013) “;{)

    Nat. Geo. asked: “IF you could BE – any North American WILD animal??” – Tweet –
    (( I would wanna BE: ¤ wild & Free mare, Mariah ¤ on Pryor Mountain WILD HORSE RanGe !! ))

|| Thank you*, Cloud Foundation, for my “borrowing” of YOUR photo’s *SentiMent* ! {I dunno of ANY other 1 ~ that could Answer “Nat. Geo’s Question”!? } ||

Advertisements

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

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

Join 23 other followers

%d bloggers like this: