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.
A story in today’s online edition of the Charlotte Observer describes a brawl between two stallions who were having a serious conversation—about mares, in all likelihood.
The studs share overlapping territory, according to the report.
Their herd is not growing, although nature is telling them to fill their niche.
Guys, it’s not you. It’s the advocates.
Getting rid of wild horses with helicopters is bad, according to the advocates, but getting rid of them with contraceptives is good, so let’s take a closer look at the idea.
How long would it take to cut the size of a herd in half?
If the birth rate is zero, courtesy of the advocates, and the death rate is 5% per year, about fourteen years.
If the death rate is 10% per year, about seven years.
How long would it take to cut the herd by 80% (e.g., 500 to 100)?
Assuming the birth rate is zero and the death rate is 5% per year, 32 years. If the death rate is 10% per year, about 16 years.
That means the advocates would have to dart the mares for at least 16 years to get the population down to AML?
No. The mares would be sterile after five years, so they could walk away and ruin another herd.
There’s no point in discussing acreage, AMLs, stocking rates, resource allocations and genetic viability, because, under their plan, none of those things matter.
The double standard was on full display at the April 22 rally, as protesters marched from a park to the Black Mesa District Office.
You may get the impression from photos by the White Mountain Independent that the event was co-opted by the PZP zealots but it was organized by them.
Instead of tearing families apart in roundups, it’s better to not have them. No natural breeding patterns, no turning over of the genetic soil.
The problem is not enough land and too many livestock but nobody’s talking about that.
They couldn’t agree on the best way to depopulate the planet?
UP NEXT: Tensions increase as government, ranchers and advocacy groups can’t agree on the best way to get rid of wild horses.
RELATED: Double Standards in the Wild Horse World.
Why would you want to do that?
So they can be moved from places where they’re not wanted.
Not wanted by whom? Most Americans want these animals protected.
Remote wilderness areas not particularly suited to livestock grazing.
Can you corroborate that?
Why can’t the horses be moved?
It’s not allowed per Section 1339 of the statute.
Would they be safe in their new homes?
Probably not. The writers speak for the ranchers, not the horses.
A trip to the feed store yesterday found empty slots where the dewormer used to be.
Other types, with different active ingredients, were available.
If ranchers take voluntary non-use of their grazing allotments this year because of insufficient resources, what happens to their animals? Are they confined to deeded acres, known as base properties, and fed at the going rate?
If so, why can’t the ranchers do that year around?
The comment period closed today. Public concerns have not been addressed and a decision has been not been reached. But apparently it’s a done deal.
The governor wants a solution that balances multiple uses, including forage for livestock and habitat for wildlife, according to a report in today’s edition of Sweetwater Now.
A pest control program for wild horses would meet the requirement—and satisfy the special interests that influenced or drafted the governor’s letter.
Wild horses, like other animals, take their cues from their environment. If a herd is to regulate its own size, it needs a feedback loop that compares the current state of affairs to the desired state of affairs. The larger the gap, the greater the effort to close it.
Some observers have noted that roundups increase reproduction, which makes sense in view of the feedback model. The gap has increased and nature says ‘Fill your niche!’
If you drive a car, you’re already familiar with feedback loops.
The speedometer shows the current state. You compare that to the desired state—the speed limit—and act accordingly. If you’re merging onto a freeway, the gap is large so you ‘put the pedal to the metal.’
Now, suppose you step on the gas but nothing happens. Worse, suppose you hit the gas and the car slows down.
That’s what PZP does to the feedback loop.
A roundup tells the herd to hit the gas while the advocates are stepping on the brakes.
The helicopters and darts are flying not because the carrying capacity of the land has been exceeded but because the resource allocations have been violated. The horses are never allowed to seek their level.
In a poll commissioned last year by The Cloud Foundation, 69% of respondents opposed the removal of wild horses from 1.5 million acres of public lands in southern Wyoming to accommodate the oil/gas and livestock industries, according to a report by Cowboy State Daily, an online news service.
The survey likely referred to the Rock Springs RMP amendments, which were instigated by grazing interests, not the oil and gas industry. Four HMAs are affected.
Release of those results coincided with the comment period for wild horse management actions in the same area, affecting five HMAs.
Although both projects target wild horses in the Wyoming Checkerboard, the distinction is not clear in the article.
A wild horse herd increases from 200 to 300 animals in three years, a 14.5% annual growth rate. The government removes 100 horses at the end of year three, leaving 200 on the range.
Another herd has 200 wild horses and does not grow over the three year period, thanks to the advocates, who limit the birth rate. At the end of three years there are 200 horses on the range.
Both cases yield the same results. The government got rid of the horses with helicopters while the advocates got rid of them with contraceptives.
The first case is condemned while the second case is acclaimed.
That is the double standard.
Contraceptives can’t shrink a herd from 300 to 200 horses in three years.
They should let the ‘advocacy’ groups do that, according to a letter appearing in today’s online edition of the White Mountain Independent.
This is the double standard of the wild horse world.
The Salt River Wild Horse Management Group and the American Wild Horse Campaign did not team up to oppose the new Heber management plan. They have been in cahoots for several years, taking the Salt River herd from over 100 foals annually to the single digits in 2021.
It’s the second lowest growth rate ever, according to a report posted yesterday by AP News, less than one percent per year (0.72% if you want to split hairs).
How much of the increase was due to illegal immigration?
Social Security is going bust because we’re aborting/contracepting/sterilizing ourselves out of existence.
The same mentality has carried over into the wild horse world, spearheaded by the ‘advocacy’ groups.
Refer to this job posting. Proficiency with a darting rifle not required.
What about Vilsack?
RELATED: Haaland to Head Interior?