A report posted today at The Daily Sentinel, titled ‘Volunteers understand why horses have to go,’ explains how the so-called advocates at Friends of the Mustangs are working with the BLM to remove 60 of the 190 horses in the Little Bookcliffs Wild Horse Range.

“Gathers involving the Little Book Cliffs herd have tended to be less controversial…

[BLM’s Jim] Dollerschell said he thinks one of the reasons there is less contention in the case of Little Book Cliffs gathers is because of the longtime partnership the BLM has had with the Friends of the Mustangs in managing the herd.”

Maybe those ‘Friends’ are drunk on PZP fumes.

At the Pryor Mountains, advocates took legal action to stop a planned roundup.

At Sand Wash Basin, advocates brought in water to help the horses cope with drought.

But at Little Bookcliffs, advocates help set the traps.

What the hell is wrong with these people?  Couldn’t they figure out a way to keep the horses on the range by bringing in food and water?  Drought is a temporary condition, why are they making permanent changes?

The author of the report, possibly aligned with ranching interests, couldn’t resist taking a shot at the horses:

“The pressure the horses are currently putting on their habitat is made evident as travelers leave it and cross into a livestock grazing area that’s still replete with grass.”

Yeah, we should get rid of the horses and replace them with cattle.  Go pound sand, dude.

RELATED: BLM Plans Roundup at Little Bookcliffs Wild Horse Range.

The BLM’s Wild Horse and Burro program is at a crossroads, according to an article posted today by the American Veterinary Medical Association.  The author claims that HMAs are overpopulated by 100 percent to 1,500 percent.

“There were 81,951 animals on 26.9 [million] acres of public rangelands and 44,730 animals in corrals or pastures as of mid-2018…

To give some perspective, the BLM says ideally 27,000 of these animals can live in balance with livestock and wildlife on public lands.”

This is another example of misuse of figures.  The aimed-at population of 27,000 animals and available land of 26.9 million acres pertain to HMAs only.  The observed population of 81,951 animals corresponds to all lands, including HMAs.  You can’t compare 81,951 to 27,000 and conclude wild horses and burros are overpopulated because they don’t have the same land-basis.

Note that the combined AML of 27,000 animals (horses and burros) and available land of 26.9 million acres yield a population density of one animal per thousand acres, just one twelfth (8.3%) of the density typically allowed for livestock.

There are real problems and stated problems.  The stated problem is that wild horses are overpopulated on western rangelands.  The real problem is that they compete with livestock for forage, depriving public-lands ranchers and their overlords of benefits owed to them in exchange for their campaign contributions and political support.

What you see on the range is not private-sector capitalism.  The helicopters, the bait traps, the zeroing-out of HMAs and reductions of AMLs, the video propaganda and bogus news reports, all are the result of a special interest using the media and instrumentalities of government to achieve its agenda.  It needs to be broken up.

If you’re a numbers guy, this article in NorCal Fishing News, dated 08/26/18, will make you smile.  (Not sure how it got into a fishing report, might be a reprint of figures published elsewhere.)

The video below shows some vegetation on the side of a road in the Virginia Range near sunset on 08/24/18.

You might think somebody took a sickle to that brush but the work was done by wild horses.  Remaining stalks are about six inches tall, no trimmings to clean up.  It’s nature’s fire control regimen.

See also this story in Markets Insider dated 08/23/18.

The article also stated that the BLM typically allows eight cow/calf pairs per square mile, equivalent to eight wild horses per square mile.  That yields a stocking rate for livestock of 12.5 animals per thousand acres, compared to an aimed-at population density of one animal per thousand acres for horses on BLM lands.

Who benefits from this arrangement?  Is this what Congress intended on lands set aside for wild horses and burros or is it a twisting and stretching of ‘multiple use’ by the BLM, on behalf of the livestock industry?  Is this the meaning of ‘thriving ecological balance?’

The figures at the end of the article hint at the idea of replacing AMLs with pie charts that show how resources are allocated among consumers on HMAs.