TO: Colorado Senate Agriculture & Natural Resources Committee
Dear Chairman Dylan and Committee Members:
First, please allow me to re-assert my standing as an American and taxpayer in the matter of the proposed publicly-funded management project cited in SB23-275 for publicly-owned American wild horses on federal lands using public funding.
As the Bureau of Land Management representative testified, some federal tax dollars would be provided into the proposed project envisioned by SB23-275 along with Colorado tax-dollars.
Sadly, in the interest of my civic duty, the Public Trust, Colorado State and Federal taxpayers, wildlife interests (cost-effective sustainable conservation of the wild horses in Colorado) as well as natural resource interests (forest and agriculture), I am disappointed in the manner in which testimony was handled during the Committee session.
And given that millions of tax dollars are at risk for funding an arguably doomed project based upon past results, this issue must be brought to the attention of American taxpayers. Spending millions of tax dollars annually on ‘Fertility Control’ (‘PZP’) does not economically address the issue at hand causing the range war for grazing resources. Even sterilized horses must eat!
This why Fertility Control via PZP used for the past 20+ years has not stopped expensive taxpayer-funded roundups that are brutal to wild horses and the landscape. Not to mention the scientifically proven adverse genetic and health impacts of using PZP on wild horses. And after the expensive roundups, the ongoing exorbitant and soaring costs for off-range holding and feeding of stored wild horses is necessary spending ($250 million per year).
All of that is unnecessary, given wild horses can be humanely and cost-effectively relocated to economically and ecologically appropriate wilderness areas where their presence is financially beneficial and they no longer compete for grazing with livestock.
The normal time-period allotted for public testimony at virtually all county, state and Federal public input events, is three minutes, and is the universally standard amount of time allotted for public testimony. The clock was started at my introduction, even before I began my statement.
I for one, fully expected to be allotted the full 3 minutes to make my oral presentation and spent considerable time to prepare a statement that could provide a logical explanation of our opposition to SB23-275 and deliver that orally within 3 minutes.
Even as the testimony period began, the time clock on the witness desk was set back from the standard 3 minutes to 2 minutes by someone?
Based upon the testimony given, it’s no stretch to suspect that the collective assembly of supporters for SB23-275 carefully coordinated with each other prior to providing statements in a manner that allowed the equivalent of a very long position statement to be told in ordered segments by each of the registered collective supporters.
American Wild Horse Campaign, The Cloud Foundation (their representative Charlotte Roe was permitted over 3 minutes to speak), Animal Welfare Institute, Sierra Club, Aria, and others had seemingly coordinated in advance to have each corroborating witness in favor of this spending bill provide in-turn a segment of a large comprehensive statement in favor of the bill.
This organized presentation provided the agents working in favor of the bill with a manifestly unfair advantage in arguing and supporting their position.
Those witnesses testifying in opposition to the SB23-275, such as myself, were held to 2 minutes by your clock and our polite etiquette, out of respect for the committee’s time and the process.
Moreover, those witnesses testifying in opposition to the bill did not work out any coordinated presentation where each individual statement was an integral part of a strategically designed larger comprehensive statement.
Arguably, given that there is potentially millions of dollars in annual grants and other monies that would benefit some of these organizations and the personal salaries of their officers, they are arguably conflicted. In many cases, these organizations pay their officers and executive directors handsomely from monies they receive. As such, these organizations should also be required in the interest of transparency to inform the Committee that they have monetary conflicts of interest.
Speaking for myself and my nonprofit, we are all unpaid volunteers, so we do not have a conflict of interest that influences our science or opinions.
As we now see, some of organizations are monetarily conflicted since they would benefit financially with Fertility Control (PZP) grants (money) and also from donations collected on the arguably false statement that using PZP will halt roundups of wild horses should the bill pass.
These organizations would benefit at the expense of Colorado and American taxpayers.
This must not stand.
I hereby respectfully ask that the parties who appeared in person and remotely in opposition to SB23-275 be timely provided with an opportunity to present their full 3 minute statements in opposition of the bill in writing, and have those statements integrated in-full context into the record associated with the bill as it moves into the next round of consideration.
I am making the Colorado media and taxpayers associations aware of what has transpired today in hopes that they will report to Colorado and American taxpayers about this proceeding, which seems to be setup in favor of those supporting this wasteful, economically ineffective — it does not solve grazing conflicts with wild horses; sterilized horses proposed via the SB23-275, still eat and compete for grazing resources — and according to the best available science, this is a genetically reckless bill.
I strongly urge the Chair and Committee members to read the published articles and view the news videos below from your local, regional and national press as to my statements herein in support of this request.
I would appreciate a response at your earliest convenience. Thank you.
Respectfully Yours,
William Simpson