Sunday, April 5, 2009

A Royalty Tax on the Breeding of Equines?

Why not?

The equine industry in the USA has a long history of over-production resulting in so many "unwanted" horses they pose a threat to public health and safety, cause an undue burden on equine rescues and devalues the worth of the American horse in general. Therefore, the breeding of equines should be subject to a tax of some kind, in hopes to compel less, but better, breeding.

The monies thusly generated could be put into a national or state run fund to assist existing equine rehoming and retirement facilities, and to create more.
-----------------
Just like the royalty tax some are proposing for mining on federal lands, to make it more equitable for everyone;

MEASURE WOULD REVAMP 1872 MINING LAW
By Sue Major Holmes, AP Writer

U.S. Sen. Jeff Bingaman says there's no justification for continuing hard-rock mining on public land under a law passed well over a century ago.

Bingaman, D-N.M., has introduced a measure that would set royalties on hard-rock mining on federal lands for the first time, establish a fund to reclaim abandoned hard-rock mines and eliminate patenting — which has conveyed title to mining companies to develop mines on public land for as little as $2.50 an acre. Congress has passed annual moratoriums on further mineral patent applications since October 1994.

Mining for metals such as gold, silver and copper currently is governed by a law passed in 1872 after the California gold rush, when Congress was trying to encourage settlement by offering free minerals and land to those willing to go West and mine.

"We don't have that for coal, we don't have that for oil and gas," said Bingaman, chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

The 137-year-old law needs reform, particularly in light of today's economy and the health, safety and environmental issues raised by mining and abandoned mines, he said Friday.

"We need to keep a healthy mining industry, but there's no way to justify continuing to operate under this law. ... There's some general agreement about that. The question is can we get agreement on the right set of changes," he said.

For decades, both Republicans and Democrats have introduced bills to change the mining law, but Bingaman said none has passed the Senate in the 27 years he's been in Washington.

In 1995, then-Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt highlighted the law by rolling out a large Christmas-wrapped box with "$2.9 billion" stamped on the side when mining rights estimated to be worth that much were turned over to a private company for $1,745.

Bingaman's proposal calls for royalties, to be determined by the interior secretary, of between 2 percent and 5 percent of the value of the mine's production (5% of the value of the animal?). The amount is comparable to what Canada, several Canadian provinces and several states, including New Mexico, charge in royalties, he said.

Royalties could be reduced for all or part of a mining operation if the mining company shows clear and convincing evidence that production would not occur without a reduction. Royalties would not be collected on land producing in commercial quantities at the time the law is enacted.

The revenue would go into a reclamation fund.

Mineral activities on federal land also would require a permit and financial assurance for reclamation.

The National Mining Association said it supports an update of the mining law.

"We believe that would help provide some greater level of predictability on where federal mining legislation is going to be," said Carol Raulston, spokeswoman for the agency.

She said the association will look at the proposed royalties "in light of the new economic environment."

Past efforts to reform the law have run into problems because of the gap between House and Senate proposals, particularly in the area of royalties, Raulston said.

In recent sessions, the House has proposed 8 percent royalties, which Raulston said would be the highest government royalties in the world. She said that would harm the competitiveness of the American industry, "since all these commodities are sold on the world market and the price is set on the world market."

Jeremy Vesbach, executive director of the New Mexico Wildlife Federation, said Bingaman's measure is a big step forward.

"This will bring us more into the modern age of mining, similar to oil and gas, where they lease the land but not own it," he said.

Royalties would mean some money to restore land and water as well, Vesbach said.

The proposal also addresses reclamation, establishing a program to reclaim abandoned hard-rock mines in 14 western states, partly funded by a fee based on the value of production.

Raulston said the Washington, D.C.-based mining association was pleased by the cleanup provisions.

The measure would set up a grant program for states for reclamation projects and for public entities and nonprofit organizations for collaborative restoration projects to improve fish and wildlife habitat affected by past hard-rock mining.

State Mining and Minerals Director Bill Brancard said his agency appreciates the effort to fund cleanup.

"New Mexico's long history of mining has left a legacy of thousands of abandoned mine features that pose a threat to public health and safety," Brancard said in a statement.

The bill also directs the secretaries of interior and agriculture to work together to prevent "undue degradation" in administering mining activities on national forests.



http://wildhorsewarriors.blogspot.com/2009/04/1872-mining-law-to-get-with-times.html

Saturday, April 4, 2009

Montana Gov "Vetos" Slaughter Bill for WRONG Reasons, Cites "Constitutional Concerns" with Language of the Bill

Apparently, the Mt. Gov is OK with the idea of a horse-slaughter plant in Montana, stating that .. "I believe owners should have access to a legal method to put their horses down as necessary and appropriate -- due to age, infirmity, or other legitimate circumstances..."

Did anybody tell the gov that there already is "a legal method to put (their) horses down as necessary?" Its called Humane Euthansia!...
Apparently, this guy is not against horse-slaughter per se, he is just concerned about the Constitutionality of the bill, as written with all those protections against legal challanges. He did not actually "veto" the bill in toto, but made suggestions for amendments.

Wait and see, the amended bill will be back before him soon, and will pass next time when the bill can withstand constitutional scrutiny.

CJ

---

Montana Governor Vetoes Horse Slaughter Bill
Cites Constitutional Concerns April 3, 2009

The Honorable Bob Bergren Speaker of the House State Capitol Helena, MT
59620 The Honorable Robert Story, Jr. President of the Senate State
Capitol Helena, MT 59620 Dear Speaker Bergren and President Story:
In accordance with the power vested in me as Governor by the
Constitution and the laws of the State of Montana, I hereby return with
amendments House Bill 418, "AN ACT AUTHORIZING INVESTOR-OWNED EQUINE
SLAUGHTER OR PROCESSING FACILITIES; PROHIBITING A COURT FROM GRANTING AN
INJUNCTION TO STOP OR DELAY THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN EQUINE SLAUGHTER OR
PROCESSING FACILITY BASED ON LEGAL CHALLENGES OR APPEALS OF A PERMIT,
LICENSE, CERTIFICATE, OR OTHER APPROVAL ISSUED IN CONJUNCTION WITH
ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS; SETTING BONDING REQUIREMENTS; AND AMENDING SECTIONS
75-1-201, 75-2-104, 75-5-614, 75-5-621, 75-5-641, 81-9-111, 81-9-112,
81-9-115, 81-9-116, 81-9-201, 81-9-229, AND 81-9-230, MCA." I
begin by saying that my proposed amendments do not prevent the licensing
and operation of a horse slaughter facility in Montana. My amendments
retain those aspects of HB 418 that clarify existing law to ensure that
a horse slaughter facility, if licensed to operate in Montana, conforms
to Montana's current laws pertaining to all livestock slaughter
facilities. My amendments are focused on eliminating what I believe is
the unnecessary and potentially harmful special treatment that would be
granted to one particular industry under this bill. Before addressing
my specific amendments, I want you to know that, like you, I believe
horse owners must be responsible for the health and care of their
animals. Like you, I believe it is unacceptable that any horse would be
left starving or to die due to neglect. I also believe owners should
have access to a legal method to put their horses down as necessary and
appropriate -- due to age, infirmity, or other legitimate circumstances.
While I understand the value in licensing horse slaughter facilities, it
is equally important that any facility approved to operate in Montana
comply with this state's health and environmental laws. Therefore,
a person applying to license a horse slaughter facility who wishes to do
so in accordance with Montana law has nothing to fear from the
amendments I propose. Specifically, my amendments address the
limitations imposed upon a person seeking to bring a legal challenge to
a license approving a horse slaughter facility. Those limitations are
found in sections 1 and 2 of HB 418, which my proposed amendments would
strike. I believe sections 1 and 2 of the bill are unnecessary, cast
too wide a net, and suffer from potential constitutional infirmities.
Section 1 of HB 418 would prohibit a court from enjoining the
construction of a horse slaughter facility based on a challenge to a
permit or license approving the facility under Montana's
environmental laws. An injunction is a remedy in equity available to
litigants to preserve the status quo where a remedy in law would be
inadequate. The remedy of injunction is not freely granted. It is my
opinion that current statutory standards for the issuance of injunctions
already provide sufficient safeguards to ensure the remedy of injunction
will only be available to a party under limited and justified
circumstances. For example, § 27-19-201, MCA, authorizes a court to
grant a preliminary injunction only if it appears the applicant will be
successful on the merits, a great or irreparable injury would occur if
the activity were allowed to continue, when it appears the adverse party
is doing or threatening to do an act in violation of the applicant's
rights, or for other similarly justified equitable reasons. In other
words, I believe that the legal standards currently in existence
sufficiently safeguard the rights of all parties, and, conversely, that
the restriction upon a court's power to enjoin construction of a
facility unnecessarily tips this balance. Section 1 of HB 418
additionally would impose liability for "all financial losses"
incurred by the facility as a result of an injunction halting operations
of the facility if the person bringing the challenge is ultimately
unsuccessful. As a practical matter, and I assume the bill was so
designed, this penalty provision would have the effect of chilling any
efforts to enjoin the operation of a constructed horse slaughter
facility by a person challenging the adequacy of the permit,
notwithstanding the real harm that might be caused by the continuing
operation of the facility. I am unaware of any equivalent provision in
Montana law, and I believe its inclusion in this bill unfairly tips the
balance by discouraging a challenger from seeking what would otherwise
be a legitimate injunction for the benefit and protection of public
health and safety. Again, I believe the current, established legal
standards relating to the issuance of injunctions – including the
current standards pertaining to an award of costs and damages to persons
wrongfully enjoined – are sufficiently stringent and properly
balance the competing rights of litigants. I do not believe special
rules are necessary or appropriate for this particular industry.
Turning to section 2 of HB 418, I am concerned that this mandatory
surety bond requirement, established in the bill at the high rate of 20%
of the cost to build or operate the facility, and imposed upon any
person who challenges a license granted to operate a horse slaughter
facility, would effectively deny citizens access to the courts in
Montana, in contravention of Article II, section 16 of the Montana
Constitution. I am unaware of any other provision in Montana law
requiring the posting of a surety bond as a condition to bringing a
challenge to the issuance of a permit under Montana's environmental
laws. I also question the language found in subsection (4) of section
2, which authorizes an award of attorney fees and costs on grounds that
the challenge was "without merit." I believe the meaning of
that expression is unclear and would, itself, lead to litigation.
Current law already provides courts with well-settled authority to
sanction parties or their attorneys who file pleadings in court for
improper purposes. As with my other concerns, I see no reason to impose
new, special, and undefined standards in this bill, applicable to this
one industry, where current law adequately provides for sanctions in
proper circumstances. In addition to the above amendments, I also
propose an amendment to section 12 of the bill. As written, the bill
requires "investor-owned" horse slaughter facilities to be
licensed pursuant to Montana's licensing laws. My amendment would
require all horse slaughter facilities, whether "investor-owned"
or otherwise, to be licensed. The remainder of my amendments are
necessary to coordinate with the amendments to strike sections 1 and 2
of the bill. I recognize that HB 418 has stirred the emotions of
many. As a current and long-time horse owner, myself, I understand
those feelings. However, I have endeavored to make my decisions on the
bill based on what I believe is the correct approach from both a policy
and a legal perspective. I respectfully ask that you support my
proposed amendments to HB 418. Sincerely, BRIAN SCHWEITZER
GOVERNOR cc: Legislative Services Division

Friday, April 3, 2009

Illinois Tables Horse-Slaughter Bill

Click on title above to read more good news about a defeated horse-slaughter bill

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Kentucky Gives Non-racing Breed Incentives

Wed Apr 1, 2009 8:03 am (PDT)
Kentucky Horse Racing Commission Approves Funds to Non-racing Breeds

Eleven groups to receive funding
(Still, no money for rescue and/or retirement)

Jamie Eads, KHRC

The Kentucky Horse Racing Commission (KHRC) recently voted to provide ten applicant groups of non-racing breeds with funding from the Kentucky Horse Breeder’s Incentive Fund (KHBIF) for the period covering 2009-2011. A total of sixteen applications were submitted to the Commission. Applicants were selected based on the criteria set forth by the KHBIF statutes, regulations and mission of the fund.

"The non race advisory committee met to review and discuss the applications and I applaud their due-diligence,” said Jamie Eads, director of the Division of Breeder’s Incentives. “The KHBIF was thrilled with the added interest from so many breeds and is excited to continue working together to ensure the strength and growth of the horse industry in Kentucky."

KHBIF will use the same formula established in the first period (2006-2008) for splitting the monies proportionally among the breeds. This formula is the number of horses certified by each national registry residing in Kentucky divided by the total number of horses submitted by each affiliate’s national registry.

The resulting percentage will be multiplied by the monies collected to give the breed their total dollar figure award from the fund. This percentage will cover the three-year period of 2009, 2010, and 2011.

The Commission approved the following applicants (applicants new to this registration period appear in

italics):

• Kentucky Appaloosa Owners Association

• Kentucky Arabian & Half-Arabian Breeders Association

• Kentucky Miniature Horse Association

• Kentucky Morgan Horse Association

• Kentucky Paint Horse Club

• Kentucky Paso Fino Horse Association

• Kentucky Quarter Horse Association

• Kentucky Rocky Mountain Horse Association

• Kentucky Saddlebred Owners & Breeders Association

• South Central Hackney Association

The following applicants were denied for KHBIF funding for the 2009-2011 period. These applicants did not meet the criteria established by the KHBIF and Non-Race Advisory Committee.

• Kentucky Belgian Warmbloods of Kentucky

• Mountain Horse Breeders Incentive Fund (AGHA, KMSHA, MPH, UMH).

• Purebred Morabs of Kentucky

• Kentucky Pony Association

• Kentucky Shayga Arabian Horse Association

• Walk Horse Alliance of Kentucky

The Commission elected to defer the Kentucky Walking Horse Association application to be reviewed by the Rules Committee and re-submitted to the Commission at a later meeting.

For more information, please visit our website www.khrc.ky.gov or call 888-KYBREDS.

Wednesday, April 1, 2009

Montanas' "No Challange" Slaughter Bill UnConstitutional?

Helena IR Editorial Urges Schweitzer Veto of Horse Slaughter Bill
Will the governor brandish his veto pen?




By Dan Testa , 03-30-09

"Left in the West" points out an editorial I missed: The Helena Independent Record's board last week urged Gov. Brian Schweitzer to veto the bill encouraging horse slaughter in Montana, which recently passed the state Legislature. I anticipate increasing calls from many on the left for Schweitzer to kill this bill in coming weeks. The objections derive from, not so much the issue of horse slaughter itself, but the provisions in the bill which prevent environmental legal challenges to a proposed horse slaughter operation at certain stages of its development. And that's exactly what the Helena IR editorial points out:


The fact is, all horses die, and not every owner can afford to euthanize the animal and give it a proper burial. It’s a costly process, and you can’t just euthanize a horse and leave it in a field to rot.

However, Butcher’s bill is far off base, and raises significant questions.

Since when can a legislative act limit the legal authority of a court?

Or, for that matter, how can the Legislature limit a citizen’s right to challenge a government action by any legal means possible?

This bill would set a poor precedent for an industry that has already shown disregard for environmental regulations elsewhere.


Over at Left in the West, Jay Stevens wondered why this bill didn't draw more objections earlier in the legislative process. It's a good question, and I, for one, thought the language in the bill preventing courts from halting construction of approved facilities, or requiring legal challengers to post bonds for 20 percent of a slaughter house's construction cost, would have gotten altered somewhere along the line as the bill moved through committees. Surprisingly, somehow it didn't. Maybe environmental concerns over a horse slaughter house aren't considered as serious as, say, large-scale coalbed-methane development. Or maybe interest in fast-tracking some industrial development in this session is simply too powerful to stand in the way of. But the decision now rests in Schweitzer's lap as to what to do with this bill, and on this issue, I'm not willing to predict which way he's going to fall.

Click on title above to see comments;
http://www.flatheadbeacon.com/articles/article/helena_ir_editorial_urges_schweitzer_veto_of_horse_slaughter_bill/9248/

Horse Drawn Coaches to Replace Busses in Ca Town

Horse drawn coaches to replace Blue Buses


By John Wilkes Booth


April 01, 2009

COLORADO AVE — In light of $21,000 worth of fines leveled against the Big Blue Bus for some eco-unfriendly practices by the California Air Resources Board, the city-owned Big Blue Bus company announced Tuesday some very eco-friendly and sustainable changes in its operations.

As a pilot program, fuel-burning buses will be abandoned on three BBB routes and replaced with horse-drawn coaches. The horse-drawn coaches will hold up to eight people with six inside and two on the roof. Each coach, similar to the stagecoaches of the old west, will have a team of eight horses and a driver.

Coaches will not carry strong boxes, so armed guards will not be needed.

The three routes featuring the exclusive horse-drawn conveyances will be the no. 11 Crosstown, The Sunset Ride and the no. 4 San Vicente Boulevard and Carlyle Avenue lines.

"This is the first time in nearly 100 years a municipal transit company has embraced the tried and true, old technology of horse--drawn vehicles to eliminate fuel purchases and carbon emission problems," BBB spokesperson Lotsa Seats said.



advertisement
The non-fuel vehicles will be phased in during the summer months. If the pilot program is successful, Phase Two will see horse coaches operating on the no. 3 line on Montana Avenue/Lincoln Boulevard, and no. 2 Wilshire Boulevard line.

City Hall expects to initially purchase 92 coaches from an Amish company, the Bird-In-Hand Coach Co. of Lancaster, Ohio. The Amish company also manufactures the high energy fireplaces advertised on television.

Seats disclosed that coaches will begin arriving in a few weeks. With summer coming on, Bird-In-Hand has already switched to coach fabrication from fireplace building, Seats said.

Unlike the old stagecoaches of the Wild West, Santa Monica's coaches will be made of aluminum and have wood frames. They will be painted a "Bruin" blue. Coaches will be stored in a vacant lot across from the Santa Monica Courthouse.

City Hall is purchasing 460 horses that will be stabled in a large tent directly behind City Hall where the old police building was formerly located. Another 320 horses will be rented from "Equines 'R' Us," a motion picture livestock rental firm in Culver City.

"By using horses we eliminate the need for both foreign oil and natural gas," said Santa Monica Mayor Ken Fenser. "The horses are a 100 percent renewable and recyclable technology. They eat hay and straw and the droppings can be sold as fertilizer. You can't get any more sustainable than that."

In a high tech twist, the tented stable is configured to collect the methane gas the horses expel in the tent when they aren't .

Meanwhile, a meth addict was seen cooking a fresh batch in the median near the Fourth Street stairs.

news@smdp.com


http://www.smdp.com/Articles-c-2009-03-31-51814.113116_Horse_drawn_coaches_to_replace_Blue_Buses.html

Montana Vet Speaks Out Against Horse-slaughter

From an equine vet in Montana, and a representative of the Montana Grass-roots Horse Coalition;

Hello,

I know many of you and many of you know me. I know many of you to be very good, honest, decent people and it saddens me to see the lies that are being spread about the issue of horse slaughter. We are all entitled to our beliefs as we are entitled to share & stand up for our beliefs. I feel the need to clarify some absolute lies that have been circulating via email.

If you are in favor of horse slaughter, you are entitled to that, but please know some truths. The pictures and videos are real. They are not made up or sensationalized. The wounds, broken legs, foals born in feed lots, pictures of shod horses, pictures of peoples pet horses in feed lots and at slaughter, videos of horses being repeatedly hit with the captive bolt, overturned cattle trucks with 60 horses mangled..those things are real, they are not made up or sensationalized. Please just accept that fact for what it is. Horse slaughter and its journey for the horse is not humane. If you are OK with that treatment of the horse, that is certainly your choice, but it is sad to me when I hear people deceiving themselves by saying that they are sending their horse to slaughter because it is humane. If I offered to buy your horse and guarantee you that I would haul it and treat it inhumanely then kill it in an inhumane method, there is no way that many of you would sell your horse to me. But that is what we are doing when we drop off our horse at the sale ring and walk away with a small check and a rosy thought in our mind that our horse went to some green pasture with a good owner, mind you, many horses do get this good end, but many do not and to close our eyes & just hope it all works is sad because reality is, the slaughter horse is destined for a very bad journey.

I am tired of the emails circulating that say PETA is sensationalizing, blah, blah, blah. The truth is PETA is NOT at all involved. The people who are spreading that rumor to incite anger are really being ridiculous. I have been a very involved person against horse slaughter, I know the opponents and I assure you PETA is not involved. I also assure you that other rumors circulating are false as well. There is not an abandoned horse problem, the Montana Grass Roots Horse Coalition has done a county by county survey and the rumors are false. Additionally, the allegations have been studied on a national level and have been proven false. It is a ridiculous argument anyway because the reality is that there is still a loose horse market, horse slaughter is still going on so if there were abandoned horses, the people who would do that would do it regardless of access to a slaughter facility as there is still access to horse slaughter. This false rumor is being spread by proponents to incite fear.

Furthermore, the Montana Grass Roots Horse Coalition is simply a group of Montana horse people who are against horse slaughter. In fact, some of the people started out leaning towards being more in favor of slaughter, then the more they researched & studied the issue, they failed to see how or why horse slaughter is a good thing. Not one person who is at the core of the group is a member of PETA, not one person is a vegetarian, not one person is an animal activist and they are all really nice people from around the state who live year round in Montana. Most of you would really like them if you were to ever meet them (or, if you do know them, you already know them to be good people). It is shameful for Linda Grosskopf, the editor of Western Ag Reporter and Stan Weaver to say that the group was made up by Animals Angels. The thing that is made up is the email Stan circulated. That organization does have a website and I personally have downloaded and distributed some of their stuff, but that organization is in no way connected to the Montana Grass Roots Horse Coalition. The reality is that Linda and Stan out & out lied to you about this issue. One of the people in the Montana Grass Roots Horse Coalition does have that email address and she did email around fact sheets. It is ironic that so many of the emails Stan Weaver is sending have so many false things in them and are sent in such a way as to try to elicit fear. Fear of who is involved and lies to create fear. If you are a horse slaughter proponent, you are certainly entitled to that opinion but please make your decisions on facts, not lies or fear.

It is true that the opponents have hired a lobbyist to fight HB 418, but it is also true that AQHA has spent well into 6 digits on their own lobbying for horse slaughter. Additionally, there are MT organizations that have also hired lobbyists in favor of horse slaughter, I assure you, this is no fear that proponents should have, they have more lobbyists than the opponents. Additionally, it is very confusing how AQHA can campaign for us to have horses as partners, family members and pets and yet promote horse slaughter. No wonder so many people don't want to face the reality of how cruel horse slaughter is. The AQHA is totally advertising a double standard.

Another thought, the horse slaughter industry wants young, healthy animals.it is a human meat consumption industry, they do not want the old, thin crippled horses. This is not a way to get rid of old horses. The average age of the horse slaughtered is 7. This is reality, so it really should be asked, do you want to raise horses as food animals. That is really the issue and that is what beliefs should be based on. Certainly there are people who will say yes to this and people who will say no but let us argue about that fact, not fears and lies.

There are horses that are unsafe, horses that are ill, people that cannot afford their horses. What would happen if all of us great minds in the horse community came together to deal with these things as a community. What happens if the lobbying money (assuredly, proponents have spent far more than opponents) was used to help programs develop. To help create euthanasia funds, spay and gelding programs, rescue programs, educational programs, feed programs to help people through a short term crisis with their horses, scholarships to help fund equine programs, and lots of other positive things that haven't yet been thought of.

Furthermore, we have learned so much about the care of older horses that still have great value in the horse community.their value in human rehab programs, human therapeutic programs, teachers to young & silly colts and teachers to young and/or inexperienced horse people. There is a lot of work that can be created around these old horses, jobs and money that can stay in our communities and in our industry. Horses of all ages need farrier work, veterinary work, dental work, massage & other body work, feeds, caretaking jobs, etc. All of this is part of the horse community and supports that community. Slaughter plants simply take their profits overseas. Except for the sale rings and killer buyers who make money on slaughter horses, but they do have a food animal market to make money on. They can still make their money there.

Why not come up with good, positive ways to treat our horses humanely and create good and honest work in the horse community. Why not go back to our western roots of helping each other when in need.

We are all good, intelligent people who can do amazing things if we will work together.

In closing, please be passionate about your beliefs, but please base your beliefs on truths not on fear or on lies.

Thank you for your passion and for your efforts,
Dr. Lisa Jacobson
Equine veterinarian
Clyde Park, MT


*It is well to note that EVERY horse councel in every state is organized "for slaughter" under the umbrella policy of The American Horse Council. I personally have sent surveys out to each individual horse council in every state seeking to determine their official stand on the issue. The New York Horse Counsel is the only one that responded and that in the affirmative for pro-slaughter. The others didnt bother to reply, not ONE of them.