Defending the Ranchers

“They have a right to be here,” according to the narrator of a video about Sand Wash Basin HMA, an area set aside for wild horses but shared with privately owned sheep.

Seriously?  You have a right to place your property on land you don’t own?

Since when do you need a permit to enjoy your rights?

My truck has been out in the rain for years but it didn’t have to be that way.  All I needed to do was to go next door and demand my rights.

Livestock grazing on public lands is a privilege, not a right.  What the government gives, the government can take away.  Please read The Bill of No Rights.

The remarks run from 09:16 to 12:11 in the video.  Would sympathies for the ranchers correlate with participation in fertility control programs?

You bet it would.

RELATED: Ties Between PZP Zealots and Public-Lands Ranchers Revealed.

Solving Wild Horse ‘Problem’ Will Be Hard Pill to Swallow

So says the writer of an opinion piece that appeared last week in the East Oregonian.

The solution “will require the removal of at least 60,000 horses, most of them through killing, and a commitment to remove by one means or another 5,000 per year to maintain an appropriate level.”

That’s about 70% of the horses currently on public lands in the western U.S., in line with the rancher-friendly ‘Path Forward.’

After all, the government just killed hundreds of bison in Yellowstone National Park to protect cattle, so why not horses?

The population limit set by the government, approximately 27,000 wild horses and burros on 27 million acres (which works out to one animal per thousand acres), is not a function of available resources.  Rather, it is the number of animals the land can support after diverting most of the food and water to privately owned cattle and sheep—on lands set aside for the horses and burros.

If you don’t think that’s true, just look at this example.  If you do believe it, you’re just seeing a “nefarious motive,” according to the author.  Leave the poor ranchers alone.

The fences that hold livestock in also keep horses out.  That may not be a problem on allotments with grazing seasons of two or three months per year, but what about areas that are in use for eight to twelve months per year, with stocking rates five to ten times higher than the horses?

Would that explain the movement of horses off their HMAs?

Would it account for conditions that don’t meet standards for rangeland health?

Have the most productive areas been given to the public-lands ranchers?

Stop imagining things!!!  There is no nefarious motive (even though it looks like sabotage).  If anything, it’s just an ‘unintended consequence’ of the grazing program.

WHB Act Has Been Nullified

On the Little Bookcliffs WHR in western Colorado, one of four areas set aside for wild horses and burros (out of roughly 200) that’s managed principally for wild horses and burros, per the statute.

The denominator doesn’t include areas where WHB were found in 1971 that have been commandeered for other mandated uses of public lands.

What about the other 196 areas set aside for WHB?  Most of the resources have been diverted to the other mandated users, a truly sad state of affairs for these animals.

The roundups, adoption incentives, training programs, off-range warehousing, darting programs, sterilization research, sanctuaries and preserves reflect that reality.

RELATED: Suggestion for the Big-Name Advocacy Groups, Hypothesis Revisited.

Nuisance Gather Plan for Southern Nevada Approved

BLM announced today the completion of an Environmental Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for management actions involving wild horses and burros in the Southern Nevada District.

The decision authorizes the removal of those animals on public and private lands to (1) mitigate safety concerns near roads, (2) reduce landowner complaints, and (3) respond to emergencies.

The scope does not include the removal of horses and burros to achieve AML, but does include the removal of excess horses and burros outside of HMAs and HAs.

Section 1.4 in the final EA says that wild horses and burros will be removed from private property after “reasonable efforts to restrict the animals…have failed,” suggesting that state fence-out rules are a factor in responding to landowner complaints.

RELATED: Comments Invited on Southern Nevada Nuisance Gather Plan.

EPA Ordered to Reconsider PZP Registration

A U.S. District Court Judge ruled yesterday in favor of Friends of Animals regarding the detrimental effects of PZP, a pesticide applied to wild horses and burros to reduce herd sizes.  Long-term use can result in sterilization.

Many of the so-called advocacy groups accept and promote wild horse fertility control, with some of them actually providing it, to the delight of the public-lands ranchers.

A news release by FOA said that the EPA will now be required to review the “evidence of unintended—and previously undisclosed—side effects on both targeted mares and wild horses in general.”

Stallions on the Maryland side of Assateague Island. where contraceptives have been applied for many years, have a high mortality rate, the sex ratio of the herd is far from normal and genetic diversity may be compromised.  But the PZP zealots point to it as a model of wild horse management.

RELATED: Assateague Herd Declines in Latest Census.