EDIT: WE are getting emails from people freaking out about the language again on the transfer of horses from BLM to Forest Service and other agencies etc like border patrol (this references the transfer or “adoption” of a horse by an agency, not an individual. In 2016 they did the same thing for nonprofits etc so that organizations, not individuals, could take horses). We explained that in a QnA video during FY 2017 Appropriations last FALL, when this happened before. This is NOT a “freak out over the moon” thing. Last year we added that it would be appropriate to use a definition of workhorse and add the language of the prohibition for sale to slaughter. The prohibition language was added, we were told the definition of workhorse is defined by the adopting agency ie pack horse, patrol officer, etc). We will write more soon. (If the issue you have with language “no oversight after title, and that is an issue, you need to address that program wide in adoption and sale across the board, not this).

One more edit: … I just found out the public “flip out” has had a nasty side effect to advocacy credibility at the Senate level. Ouch. Remember folks… proactive, not reactive. A lot is on the line and things that need attention are, once more, going overlooked.

This is a VERY fast post to talk about the spending bill. Most of this language that takes us through 2017 is “held” to the places outlined in the Omnibus bill for fiscal year 2017. The BIG battle on Appropriations is coming in the FY 2018 bill.

Politico ran a small piece on a few things that were hidden in the bill and you can see it here: http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/05/02/6-policies-congress-hid-in-the-new-spending-bill-000431

When WHE reviewed it yesterday what we saw, because we are wild horse focused, are two concerns:

The “any reasonable plan be adopted” has connotations about “what is reasonable” that are disturbing as states and profit driven interests will see opportunity most American’s could not afford to engage. We also see this as a place for debate on having those with only dollar signs in their eyes move into agreements that disallow public participation, observation, removals of horses and a potential “give away” or subsidy creation.

The other is the creation of the BLM nonprofit. House bill 1668 was not approved yet the language was snuck into the bill. This gives profit driven interest more influence. It also has the potential to hurt efforts by existing non profits to help wild horses. With only one cosponsor and not even passing the House this smacks of Conrad Burns and sale authority snuck into the Omnibus in 2004. Read here:  https://wildhorseeducation.org/2017/04/02/hr-1668-not-a-good-thing-for-wild-horses/

This nonprofit should not be formed without due process. It should not be snuck into the spending bill. This was wrong on many levels.

We need to be really careful right now about all the things people point fingers at and keep watching for the sneaky things.

If you want to “complain” about the non profit being formed that gives more power to big money influence, without process, you can call: