The writer of a guest column appearing today in The Hill argues that deteriorating conditions on public lands in the western U.S. have more to do with climate change than wild horses, and that a massive conservation program is needed to stop it.
Given the political leanings of the publication, those could be code words for deindustrializing and depopulating western rangelands.
The piece could have been written at the behest of ranching interests. Notably absent are terms such as ‘cattle,’ ‘livestock,’ and ‘grazing.’
Yet, approximately 250 million acres have been designated for public-lands ranching, with many of the BLM allotments in the Improve category.
The article includes the usual propaganda, such as “developing a humane contraceptive that will effectively slow the growth of wild horse populations” and incentivizing private landowners to “support the relocation of wild horses to suitable lands.”
How exactly does relocation of wild horses to private sanctuaries and remote wilderness areas achieve the original goals of the WHB Act?
What happens when you use phony problems as a basis for action?
The author is a legal advisor for The CANA Foundation, a non-profit group whose founder supports horse slaughter.