Like helicopters, the fertility control pesticides are tools for boosting rancher prosperity, a goal of federal agencies charged with wild horse protection.
This is why the helicopter ban is a ruse: It changes the way wild horse removals are carried out but does not stop them.
In a 2012 paper posted by the Billings School of PZP Darting and Public Deception, Jay Kirkpatrick, developer of the Montana Solution, speculated that “the greatest cause for opposition to PZP is the failure of advocacy groups to understand that there are really only two choices for wild horse management – roundups and removal or fertility control. There are no other choices.”
He noted in his opening remarks that “oversight by The Humane Society of the United States assures that the vaccine is used only to slow reproduction and may not be used for the extermination of entire herds. PZP is designed to bring about short-term infertility and is reversible, if not used beyond five consecutive years. It reduces the need for gathers and preserves the original gene pool in each herd.”
All of this turned out to be false.
On Assateague Island, where the pesticide was applied for over twenty years, the herd has been ruined.
On the Salt River and Virginia Range, advocates associated with the Campaign Against America’s Wild Horses are using the product to reverse population growth, not slow it.
They don’t follow EPA rules for its use.
A common violation is failure to wear the proper PPE.
In other areas, the advocates use the product to control horses that interfere or could interfere with animal agriculture, a purpose for which it was not approved.
In some cases, the justification is safety hazards to passing motorists, another illicit use.
The product label indicates PZP is intended for use on female wild horses and burros, privately or publicly owned, that are capable of doing environmental damage. That’s it.
There are two other reasons why population suppression is necessary, or not necessary, depending on your point of view:
- Habitat loss
- Confiscation and reapportionment of resources
If you think more land should be taken from the horses and given to the ranchers, along with their food and water, you’ll demand greater use of pesticides and helicopters.
If you believe the trend is unacceptable, and want the land managed principally for the horses as specified in the original statute, you’ll oppose removal by any means.
RELATED: How the Advocates Respond to Habitat Loss.
Western Horse Watchers Association 