A story posted yesterday by The Daily Caller said Utah Senators Mitt Romney and Mike Lee sent a letter dated May 3 to the Senate Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and Related Agencies urging the removal of a rider that prohibits euthanasia and slaughter of wild horses and burros gathered from public lands in the western U.S.

The rider has been attached to appropriations bills for the Department of the Interior since 2011.

These animals are “devastating the land, negatively impacting other species living in the area and prohibiting an effective multiple-use management of the land,” according to the letter.

What are the odds that it was drafted by one or more special interest groups or was influenced by such groups?  That the senators don’t have a clue about issues affecting western rangelands?

The story did not indicate what the other species were, but the reference in the letter to multiple use almost certainly means privately owned cattle and sheep.

RELATED: Wild Horse Overpopulation?

At the AWHC booth on Day 2 of the Western States Horse Expo, 05/10/19.

Animal protection groups urged a federal judge yesterday to block the sale (without limitation) of wild horses removed last year from the Devil’s Garden Plateau WHT, which was set to begin on May 13.

Plaintiffs believe the animals could be sold for human consumption.  That they might end up in pet food or other products apparently was not a concern.

A public-lands rancher attending the hearing said the horses drain resources that cattle and other wild animals need to survive.

The report did not say if any oil or mining companies had intervened in the case.

RELATED: Horses at Double Devil Corrals Now ‘Three Strikers’, Devil’s Garden Horses Get Short End of Stick.

A guest column dated 05/02/19 in Drovers, a publication for the beef industry, says the plan should be rejected for several reasons, and any path going forward should have contraception as its centerpiece.

How exactly does that qualify as opposition?  It doesn’t.  It’s resignation to the ranching agenda, acceptance of the overpopulation narrative.

The proposal will reduce wild horse and burro numbers by 70% on lands set aside for the horses and burros, so they can be replaced by privately owned cattle and sheep.

It’s absurd, but nobody wants to talk about it.  What are they afraid of?

RELATED: Private Sanctuaries: End-Game of Wild Horse Management Plan.

Much has been written in recent days about the proposal, how it will reduce wild horse populations by 70% in the next three to five years and how population growth in the remaining herds will be suppressed by contraceptives and sterilization.

But what the plan’s supporters really want to see—most of them beef producers operating on public lands—is the transfer of all wild horses to private sanctuaries.

And now, an editorial by an Arizona rancher (and brother of a former supreme court justice), is making the rounds in some news outlets, pitching the idea to the public.

“Without a doubt, private wild horse sanctuaries can be a win-win for wild horses and horse lovers.  With more sanctuaries in place, perhaps the BLM can concentrate on ways to keep the free-roaming wild horses from overpopulating the open range.”

Recall that the Public Lands Council, a cheerleader group for the ranchers, wants HMAs and WHTs abolished (fourth bullet item below).

With the BLM largely divested of the wild horse ‘business,’ it can dedicate more resources to their for-profit enterprise.

Thus, the proposed management plan will put a smile on the faces of public-lands ranchers, not wild horse advocates.

Privately owned cattle and sheep should be raised on private lands, not wild horses and burros.  The proposal must be defeated.

RELATED: New Wild Horse Management Plan: Reinforcing the Narrative.

In an editorial published today by the Mesquite Local News, the writer, commenting on a proposal announced last week for managing wild horses and burros on public lands in the western U.S., states

“Currently the animals in many herd management areas are so overpopulated that they are starving and damaging water resources.  Grazing land needed by cattle and other wild animals is depleted.”

TRANSLATION: Wild horses are robbing too much forage from the poor ranchers, on land set aside for the horses.  The horses need to go.

Can’t get much more absurd than that.

Truth is, these people have never accepted the WHB Act and have worked steadily towards its nullification.

Backers of proposal, which will reduce wild horse populations by 70% on western rangelands, were mostly beef producers and a few animal protection groups.

There were no supporters from the oil and gas industry.  Nobody from the timber industry stepped forward.  Mining companies were silent.

RELATED: New Wild Horse Management Plan: Reinforcing the Narrative.