Yesterday’s article by The New York Times noted that the BLM spends $60 million per year to keep 51,000 wild horses and burros in off-range holding.  The story did not indicate what the agency receives from the ranchers to whom their food is sold.

A report from August 2020 shows that approximately 98% of the animals in off-range holding are horses so let’s assume it’s 100% for simplicity.

The forage sold to the ranchers would be 51,000 × 12 = 612,000 AUMs per year.

Grazing fees would provide 612,000 × $1.35 = $826,200 per year, at current prices.

The government spends $60 million per year on the horses so it can collect less than $1 million per year from the ranchers.  Nobody in the private sector would do that.

Wild horses and burros are removed from their home range to make sure the ranchers receive their allocated share of the resources, not because they’re overpopulated.

Opposition to the practice has been minimal, although the method of removal has been the subject of recent debate: The advocates want to get rid of them with contraceptives, while the government and the ranchers prefer helicopters.

RELATED: Adoption Incentive Backfiring or Working Exactly as Planned?

The last two animals were put down by their caretakers last month after the state’s warming climate became too much for them, according to a report by KMSP News, the FOX affiliate in Eden Prairie, MN.

About ten years ago, zookeepers noticed that the heat and humidity were affecting the herd, so they decided not to breed them any more and not acquire any new members.

Does the climate change?  Yes.  Is it caused by man?  No.  So why did they do it?

One possibility is that the state is not suited for that type of animal and they never should have been moved there in the first place.

Another possibility, given the political leanings of the state, is that the animals were sacrificed to help you believe a lie.

A third possibility is that it was an act of terror, designed to scare you into submitting to their wicked agenda.

Have you been wearing a mask lately?  Are you terrified by an overblown virus?  Have you taken the death jabs?  If one is good, why not go for the triple crown?

Could the same thing be happening on America’s public lands?

Have the roundups, not necessary from a resource viewpoint, convinced you that wild horses are overpopulated?  How about the videos of foals being thrown to the ground by wranglers and dragged back to the traps?

What about horses stockpiled in off-range corrals (all of whom could be returned to the range if livestock grazing was discontinued on just a few dozen HMAs)?  Are you ready to support fertility control, sex-ratio skewing and sterilization?

And now, with stories emerging about the slaughter of wild horses, are you willing to accept the government’s pro-ranching agenda?

Wild horses adopted with the $1,000 payout are ending up at kill pens, according to a story in today’s online edition of The New York Times.

Statements condemning the practice, by farm bureaus, stock grower’s associations and cattlemen’s groups, were not mentioned in the article.

The advocates point to it as justification for fertility control programs.

Nobody’s thinking in terms of cause and effect.  Slaughter, a result of the wild horse management process, cannot fix the problem, it can only prolong it.

You have to look upstream.

Public lands in the western U.S. can support many more horses than the government admits, but those resources have been assigned to privately owned livestock.

RELATED: Adoption Incentive Fallout?

The American people may not realize the extent to which their government caters to ranching interests on public lands in the western U.S., as noted in a commentary posted yesterday by The Record-Courier of Gardnerville, NV.

Areas set aside for wild horses and burros have been zeroed out, AMLs have been reduced and habitats have been altered to suit those interests.

As land, food and water shift to privately owned livestock, the number of wild horses and burros in those areas must go down.  Resource enforcement plans, which read like pest control programs, maintain the status quo.  The Proposed Action for the Calico Complex is just one example.

Would horses and burros be better off if the statute was restored to its original form?

Probably.  Are additional protections needed?

Velma knew that they’d need protection from the ranchers but she did not realize—and could not realize—that they’d also need protection from the advocates.

Areas where wildness is at greatest risk are those where the advocates are most actively involved.

The list is too long to enumerate and one organization in particular seems to be a common cause among them, evident in yesterday’s story about the Onaqui herd.

RELATED: Hard to Call Them Wild.

That’s the theme of an article about wild horses in Oregon by Eugene Weekly.

Imagine a Venn Diagram for two mutually exclusive events A and B, where A is public-lands ranching and B is wild horse preservation.  Where’s the common ground?

There isn’t any.  Expressed mathematically, A ∩ B = ∅.

Where’s the common ground in the Arab-Israeli conflict, given that one side wants the other side wiped off the map?  Same for the communists and the capitalists.

And so it is in the wild horse world.

As for the truth, it’s in the data, despised by the advocates but served up regularly on Western Horse Watchers.

You can register here.

Although the platform was billed as a Twitter / YouTube hybrid, it’s still not clear how those services can be accessed.

RELATED: FRANK Scaled Back.

The writer of a story in yesterday’s online edition of the Daily Camera asks why their numbers are so low relative to the number of cattle allowed in the area.

The management plan allows up to 70 burros in the HMA, equivalent to 35 wild horses, requiring 420 AUMs per year.

Table 2 in Section 3.3.1 of the 2016 DR / Final EA for resource enforcement actions in the area shows 10,899 AUMs per year assigned to livestock on five allotments, but does not indicate how much of that resource falls inside the HMA.  See page 26 in the pdf.

Although the management priorities in the HMA can’t be determined from the data in the EA, the author suggests that they’re not consistent with the intent of the WHB Act and he’s probably right.

Henceforth only women with large breasts will be considered.  Other intersectionalities are desired but not required.

“Hey Western Horse Watchers, body proportions are not intersectionalities.”

Yeah, right.

You are now free to reimagine your public lands.

RELATED: Disaffected Trump Voter.