The Advocates Have No Role in Wild Horse Preservation

Defined by their unwavering support of the Montana Solution and management plans that assign most of the forage to public-lands ranchers, they are to be opposed at every opportunity.

This chart shows you what they’re trying to protect.

The Problem 12-04-22

The cart also explains why you see capture, branding, harassment and death of wild horses, all prohibited in the original statute.

“You have to manage the numbers to fit what’s available for the horses.”

This chart shows you what Congress intended.

The Solution 12-04-22

There was only one requirement for lands to be managed in this manner: Horses were found there when the legislation was signed into law.

If you’re thinking about a year-end donation to a group that talks about cruel and costly roundups, humane management, keep them wild and free, or protect our cherished horses, think again.

RELATED: The Carrying Capacity Puzzle.

One thought on “The Advocates Have No Role in Wild Horse Preservation

  1. Have DOI and BLM or Wild Horse Advocates even considered the additional habitat options as provided by Congress? Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) is a conservation ecology program in the western United States, managed by the Bureau of Land Management. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_of_Critical_Environmental_Concern,
    The ACEC program was conceived in the 1976 Federal Lands Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), which established the first conservation ecology mandate for the BLM. FLPMA supersedes the 1971 Free Roaming Wild Horse and Burro Act was passed after the Kleppe v New Mexico ruling.
    IN Kleppe v New Mexico, Justice Thurgood Marshall, representing the court’s unanimous opinion, found the Free Roaming Wild Horse and Burro Act to be Constitutional, and that the Property Clause gave Congress the power to protect wildlife (horses and burros) on the public lands, state law notwithstanding.
    . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_of_Critical_Environmental_Concern,
    Is it plausible that additional habitat for wildlife horse and burro herds can be created as an ACEC? In addition, FLPMA grandfathered pre-existing land withdrawals, explaining that Withdrawals were Designated Reservations for specific purposes. Isn’t it true that Herd Areas are the habitat imperative and necessary to the survival of our heritage herds? Because of these legal provisions, there are ample habitat options to repatriate warehoused horses slated for extinguishment. The available habitat that I am suggesting is not in competition with Mining, Ranching, or endangered species. It is a minute portion of the US federal government-owned 640 million acres of land and about 28% of the nation’s total surface, 2.27 billion acres that can amend fatally flawed Resource Management plans.. After all, the court in Mt. States v Hodel 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.”

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 )

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