Americans had 90,000 American wild horses living wild and free in America in 2016 according to the Bureau of Land Management (‘BLM’). The BLM’s May 2024 census stated there were just 59,000, and that was before 20,000 more wild horses were rounded up during the balance of the year.
Keep in mind that in the early 1900’s there were 3-million cultural-heritage American horses on our wilderness landscapes, living wild and free, and an integral part of American tradition and the landscape.
Today, approximately 39,000 are all that’s left…
Over the past 8-years, 51,000 American wild horses are virtually unaccounted for. And there is no system to audit horses (census) the BLM alleges are sent to “off-range” holding in Bureau of Land Management’s (‘BLM’) contracted corrals.
The BLM claims they are housed in numerous contracted off-range corrals, but are unwilling to allow anyone to randomly visit and audit American-owned Wild Horses allegedly stored in off-range corrals = No Proof of Life Audit.
This brings up an important question of a potential fraud against U.S. Citiens and Taxpayers by the BLM.
American taxpayers are paying about $1,400.00 per year for each horse housed in BLM contracted off-range corals (sometimes called ‘off-range pastures’). Estimates based on BLM roundups suggest there should be about 70,000 wild horses warehoused in BLM contracted corrals/pastures. Based-on the BLM’s numbers, those 70,000 wild horses cost American taxpayers $98-Million/year.
So if some have died, are missing or worse, sold out the back gate for cash to a slaughter house transporter, taxpayers are being defrauded, and anyone involved in the black market sale of American wild horses is guilty of conversion.
Sound far fetched? Not so much…
Former Obama appointed head of the Department of Interior Ken Salazar and his good friend and neighbor Tom Davis were implicated in the illicit sale of 1,795 American taxpayer-owned wild horses into slaughter.
The General Accounting Office (‘GAO’) and Newsweek verified this crime, yet nobody was punished or fined! That is true apartheid, where the laws that apply to one class of citizen are not applicable to another class (politicians). That is not how a Constitutional Republic is run.
The BLM’s excuse for not allowing independent audited visitations is that the corrals are on contracted private property. However, the horses are owned by the American public and American taxpayers have an unequivocal right to the knowledge.
Meanwhile, American taxpayers are funding the BLM’s Wild Horse mismanagement nightmare costing over $200-Million/year for a wastefully cruel and draconian program.
In 1971, U.S. President Richard Nixon signed the Federal Act protecting American Wild Horses & Burros. The preamble to the Act made this important statement of fact:
This must-see video by Animal Equality shows what’s happening to many American horses, including American heritage wild horses that are supposed to be federally protected by the 1971 Free-Roaming Wild Horse & Burro Protection Act:
A Genuine Cost-Effective Solution for All Stakeholders:
Wild Horse Fire Brigade has a proven Plan that offers a nature-based solution that is a win-win for all public lands stakeholder, provides a humane lifestyle for wild horses where they resume their natural roles as wildfire fuels managers in vacant wild lands, beyond any competition with livestock or mining enterprises. In this naturally evolved role, each wild horse that is appropriately relocated from areas of economic conflict, provide American taxpayers with $72,000.00 in wildfire fuels management services over the course of their average life-span in the wild.
Here is Presentation that was well-received by legislators and BLM managers in Nevada at the Wild Horse Roundtable, sponsored by the Nevada Lands Council:
- Resistance state: Tracking California’s lawsuits against the new Trump administration
- The Silent Votes: How the Klamath Tribes’ Journey to Citizenship Illuminates Native American Voting Rights
- Klamath Water Users and Bureau of Reclamation Agree to New Programs Funds
- Trump Details ‘Very Nice’ Letter Left Behind by Biden
- Tension Erupts at Yreka City Council Over Mayor Selection Process and City Attorney’s Role
Arrest Avery Theatre bookings chinook CHSRA coho Copco Dam Removal Dunsmuir Dunsmuir Elementary Easter Egg Hunt Etna EtnaCa FERC Forest Service gardening Irongate Iron Gate Jail KCOC klamath Klamath National Forest klamath river Klamath River Dams KNF KRRC McCloud Montague Mount Shasta Mt Shasta obituary Rodeo Salmon Scott River Scott Valley Scott Valley Agriculture Water Alliance Siskiyou Siskiyou County Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors Siskiyou Golden Fair USDA KNF weedca YPD Yreka Yreka City Council
US v Hughes,Conversion Court Name: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS, NINTH CIRCUIT Primary Citation: 626 F.2d 619 (9th Cir. 1980) Date of Decision: Thursday, May 22, 1980 Conviction for conversion of Government property /wild hores adoptions to slaughter UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DONALD WAYNE HUGHES, Defendant-Appellant The court held that, regardless of whether the WFRHBA intended to create an ownership interest in wild horses, the government has a property interest in wild horses that it has captured, corralled, and loaned out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_%28law%29
Conversion, as a purely civil wrong, is distinguishable from both theft and unjust enrichment. Theft is obviously an act inconsistent with another’s rights, and theft will also be conversion. But not all conversions are thefts because conversion requires no element of dishonesty. Conversion is also different from unjust enrichment. If one claims an unjust enrichment, the person who has another’s property may always raise a change of position defense, to say they have unwittingly used up the assets they were transferred. For conversion, there always must be an element of voluntarily dealing with another’s property, inconsistently with their rights.
Depriving owner of possession
The exercise of ownership over property may take a number of forms. All that is required is that the defendant exercise control over the chattel in a manner inconsistent with the plaintiff’s right of possession.[102] The gist of a conversion is not the acquisition of the property by the wrongdoer, but the wrongful deprivation of another’s property which the owner is entitled to possess.[103
Disposal of property
An action for conversion may be predicated upon an improper disposal, removal, transportation, delivery, or transfer of possession of property to one not authorized by the owner to receive the property.[106] The Restatement (Second) of Torts states that, with some exceptions, one who makes an unauthorized delivery of a chattel to a person not entitled to its immediate possession is subject to liability for conversion to another who is so entitled.[107]
Federal sovereign immunity
In the United States, the federal government has sovereign immunity and may not be sued unless it has waived its immunity or consented to suit. The United States has waived sovereign immunity to a limited extent, mainly through the Federal Tort Claims Act, which waives the immunity if a tortious act of a federal employee causes damage, and the Tucker Act, which waives the immunity over claims arising out of contracts to which the federal government is a party.