A story posted this evening by This Is Reno says the resolution has received roughly equal amounts of support and opposition.
Except that it’s really not a debate and there is no meaningful opposition.
Proponents of the measure want the horses removed now, using helicopters, while its opponents—the so-called advocates—want to get rid of them with contraceptives.
Nobody’s sticking up for the horses.
Nobody’s questioning resource allocations and management plans.
Nobody’s asking why only two of the 83 HMAs in the state are managed principally for wild horses and burros, per the original statute.
Nobody’s talking about grazing fees vs market rates, economics of roundups, base properties, True AMLs and consumer awareness of range-fed beef.
Notably absent from the testimony are concerns from drilling and mining interests.
RELATED: Wild Horse ‘Advocacy’ Groups React to SJR3 Hearing.
One thought on “SJR3 Stirs Up Wild Horse Debate in Nevada?”
Systematic decrease in allowed numbers and now decrease in reproductive replacement numbers proposed (geldings and spaying) Systematic decrease in critical habitats and critical habitat resources from 1971 to now.
Increasing lack of tranparency, accountability, oversight, and validated public participation. Rebalancing of our public land resources needs to take place. Special interests, profit taking entities, ranchers, herbivore hunters, extractors, need to be contained and numbers and resources for healthy wild horses, burros, and wildlife need to be evaluated, established, developed, and maintained on our PUBLIC LANDS. The public, the taxpayers, have too long been swindled by these special interest groups with powerful lobbyists and government in Washington catering to them. 1 horse to 25 or 50 livestock on public land depending where you are in the state. Is this equitable?