Don’t Be Deceived by the Wild Horse Advocates!

AMLs are small because most of the forage in wild horse areas has been assigned to privately owned livestock.

Roundups enforce those assignments.

If you shift the resources back to the horses, the AMLs are much higher.  They represent the number of animals the areas could support if they were managed principally for wild horses, as specified in the statute.  Western Horse Watchers calls them True AMLs.

The ranchers want to get rid of the horses so they can enjoy more of what their allotments have to offer.

Although the advocates protest the roundups, they, like the ranchers, want to see wild horse numbers go down, as a result of their fertility control programs, not helicopters.

They never contest the land-use plans and resource allocations arising therefrom.

They are in business to sell PZP.  You see their influence when state and local officials call for humane management of these animals.

Instead of crashing the horses into pipe panels, stalk them with clipboards and darting rifles, drive birth rates to zero, and let the herds off.

There are few if any voices speaking in their defense.

Welcome to the love triangle on America’s public lands.  It’s a big club but hopefully you’re not in it.

Love Triangle on Americas Public Lands 08-19-21

One thought on “Don’t Be Deceived by the Wild Horse Advocates!

  1. The Lacey Act enforces protection for Native N. American wildlife as “laws, treaties, regulations or Indian tribal laws which regulate the taking, possession, importation, exportation, transportation or sale of fish or wildlife or plants.” https://www.animallaw.info/article/overview-lacey-act-16-usc-ss-3371-3378.
    https://www.animallaw.info/article/lacey-act-americas-premier-weapon-fight-against-unlawful-wildlife-trafficking.

    The question of whether the underlying law has a sufficient nexus to wildlife protection is one of law, to be decided by the court. The government bears the burden of establishing that wildlife protection is one of the purposes of the underlying law. [FN326]”The 1976 Supreme Court (Kleppe v New Mexico) wildlife decision confirmed the wildlife horse/burro status.
    The same intent of the Lacey Act is expressed in Mt. States v Hodel whereas the court found that “In structure and purpose, the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act is nothing more than a land-use regulation enacted by Congress to ensure the survival of a particular species of wildlife.”• In May 22, 1980 the court issued a Conviction for conversion of Government property of adopted wild horses leading to slaughter, US v Hughes.
    .
    In May 2003 Proposed Nevada Test and Training Range RMP and Final EIS Comment 87, BLM Responded,
    “As to their special status, BLM states “The issue of a wild horse as an invasive species is moot since the 1971 WHBA gave wild free-roaming horses “special” status based on their heritage of assisting man settle the “west. This special status includes distinct population segments and/or evolutionarily significant units (ESU) . https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4185076/.
    “Robin S. Waples codified the ESU in the administrative context in 1991, defining it as a population unit that, first, “[i]s substantially reproductively isolated from other conspecific population units,” and, second, “[r]epresents an important component in the evolutionary legacy of the species.”” Though the biological literature has elaborated the ESU into several related concepts, Waples’s 1991 definition has remained in force at NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service. The two most commonly discussed conservation units are evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) and management units (MUs). ESUs, are granted legal protection in the USA (under the Endangered Species Act . Genetic data are not, however, a prerequisite for ESU identification. If direct observation or geographic separation indicates reproductive isolation and evolutionary distinctiveness, for example, the agency can designate an ESU with no genetic data at all.
    Omitted from Resource Management plans is compliance with BLM and ESA special status species regulations, As a protected native special status speciesfor relocation, and, designated HMAs as Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC), managed by the Bureau of Land Management under FLPMA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_of_Critical_Environmental_Concern
    USFWS is the primary agency to amend fatally flawed Resource management plans. Most succinctly on the issue of management in her MEMORANDUM OPINION ROSEMARY M. COLLYER, District Judge stated:
    “BLM’s authority to “manage” wild free-roaming horses and burros is expressly made subject to “the provisions of this chapter[,]” 16 U.S.C. § 1333(a), including the provision that “[i]t is the policy of Congress that wild free-roaming horses and burros shall be protected from capture….” Id.§ 1331. It would be anomalous to infer that by authorizing the custodian of the wild free-roaming horses and burros to “manage” them, Congress intended to permit the animals’ custodian to subvert the primary policy of the statute by capturing and removing from the wild the very animals that Congress sought to protect from being captured and removed from the wild. It is difficult to think of a “management activity” that is farther from a “minimal feasible level” than removal”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s