The loss of nine free-roaming horses in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest is just another day at the office for the advocates.
At the Salt River, they’ve taken the herd from 450 to 280.
The largest attempted eradication of wild horses is not being carried out by the BLM in Wyoming but by the advocates at the Virginia Range.
The number of horses lost is not known because they scrubbed their darting resources page and the monthly reports posted thereto. The final result could go as high as 3,000.
New programs are springing up wherever they can convince the bureaucrats that they have a better way.
They are enemies of America’s wild horses and don’t deserve a penny of your support.
They are the pesticide pushers, enemies of America’s wild horses and servants of the public-lands ranchers.
They couldn’t convert an AML to AUMs if their lives depended on it, much less compute a forage allocation for livestock in an area identified for wild horses.
But they know how much adjuvant to add to the PZP and how long to mix them.
The opponents of motorized removal want to pummel the mares with pesticide-laced darts, which inevitably leads to permanent infertility and herd collapse.
The total preference, a little over 90,000 AUMs, is equivalent to 7,500 wild horses.
Taxpayers will receive $121,500 per year for the resource at the current grazing fee, while they spend $6 per day per head, or $16.4 million per year, to care for 7,500 wild horses in off-range holding.
Nobody in the private sector would do that.
But a government agency co-opted by a special interest would, especially when it’s aided and abetted by a cadre of frauds who claim to be voices for the horses.
The herd reduction program will continue for at least two more months according to a report by the Payson Roundup.
The ringleader of the Salt River Wild Horse Darting Group, a forward base for the Campaign Against America’s Wild Horses, told her followers that “the only thing that’s certain is that the future for the Salt River Horses is extremely uncertain.”
This is nonsense. The herd has no future because SRWHDG ruined the mares with PZP.
The long-term effects of the pesticide were known from the beginning by everyone involved but swept under the rug to win public assent.
Breeding, not mass sterilization, assures long-term viability.
A new contract, if one is needed, would provide for documentation and mopping up as the herd fades to extinction.
A secondary task would be to bring the liars and frauds to justice.
Those who claim that wild horses are a nonnative species and don’t belong on public lands rank among the greatest supporters of nonnative species on public lands.
The first criterion corresponds to one wild horse per thousand acres (25,600 animals on 25.6 million acres according to the last page of the 2025 population dataset).
These two figures suggest that public lands in the western U.S. can support many more wild horses than the government admits.
The advocates, long on zeal but short on truth, want you to focus on #1, an arbitrary value that feeds the overpopulation narrative and maximizes rancher prosperity while supplying a rationale for their darting programs.
If the goal was rangeland health, most acreage grazed by livestock, which includes areas identified for wild horses, would be in the Maintain category.
A report by the Congressional Research Service puts the cost of short-term holding at $6.00 per day and the cost of long-term holding at $2.35 per day.
For every AUM assigned to livestock in the lawful homes of wild horses, the government collects $1.35 from the permittee while it spends $70 to $180 to care for the horse displaced thereby.
Nobody in the private sector would do that.
If they really cared about costs, Congress would direct the government to put the horses back on the range and relieve the ranchers of their grazing permits, while making the necessary changes to the statutes.
The third edition of the National Pesticide Applicator Certification Manual should be available for sale this week—giving you plenty of time to order one for Valentine’s Day.
It’s a no-brainer. What advocate isn’t striving to become a certified applicator of restricted-use pesticides?
Unfortunately, the publisher does not donate a percentage of the selling price to Rifles for WretchesTM or similar charity that equips the advocates with the tools of their trade.
The manual is intended as a study guide for those planning to take the Pesticide Applicator Certification Core Exam.
The 2014 edition states on page 51 that restricted-use pesticides (such as PZP) demand special attention because there is reason to believe they could harm humans, livestock, wildlife or the environment even when used according to label directions.
Such as permanent infertility in mares.
Unlawful use of pesticides is discussed on page 39.
Failure to use the product as directed on the label.
The advocates want you to think of PZP as a medication, always referring to the product as a vaccine.