Western Horse Watchers Association
Exposing the Hypocrisy, Lies and Incompetence of the Wild Horse Advocates
Opinion
A story in today’s online edition of the Tampa Bay Times highlights some of the horses and volunteers at the Wild Horse Rescue Center in Webster, FL.
Anybody who understands the reports and calculations on these pages knows the land can support way more than 27,000 wild horses and who’s getting rich at their expense.
RELATED: Adoption Incentive Fallout?
Refer to this 26-minute interview by KDNK Radio of Carbondale, CO, featuring the director of the Campaign Against America’s Wild Horses. Audio only, no transcript.
The host seems to know more about the subject than the guest.
The darting program mentioned at the end of the segment, which is harmless according to the advocates, is on the Virginia Range.
RELATED: Undeniable Truths of the Wild Horse World.
Congress should direct the BLM use a proposed funding increase to begin a robust and sustainable fertility control program for wild horses and burros, according to a news release by Return to Freedom, signatory to the rancher-friendly ‘Path Forward.’
These animals are federally protected, but most of their food has been assigned to privately owned livestock, so we need to reduce their numbers. Humanely, of course.
RELATED: Undeniable Truths of the Wild Horse World.
If public-lands ranching is the problem (which it is) and wild horses are not overpopulated (which they aren’t), then why not halt the darting effort as well?
The letter, linked to yesterday’s news release by Animal Wellness Action, calls for a moratorium on non-emergency gathers and removals of wild horses and burros until the BLM conducts a comprehensive review of its wild horse and burro program and the impacts of private livestock grazing.
Why would you want to review the WHB program and the consequences of permitted grazing? They are effects—too late, too far downstream in the management process.
You have to look upstream for causes, such as resource allocations and the land-use plans where they originate, as well as the statutes, regulations, attitudes, beliefs and external influences that precede them.
Solutions are always aimed at causes, not effects. Treating the symptoms can only prolong the problem.
As the publicity and propaganda surrounding the Onaqui roundup escalate, it’s time to state the obvious:
1. The greatest threat to America’s wild horses is public-lands ranching.
2. The advocates, with their darting programs, are #2.
3. The impact of drilling and mining, compared to #1 and #2, is negligible.
The advocates are getting rid of more wild horses than drillers, miners, loggers, hikers, campers, motorists, shooters and predators ever could.
As usual, the advocates want darting programs, not helicopter roundups, according to a story in today’s edition of Deseret News.
Livestock grazing should be limited to protect the ecosystem, not to shift the resources back to the horses.
The next roundup is set for July per the latest schedule.
RELATED: Running the Onaqui Numbers.
A report published yesterday by Gray DC, the Washington news bureau for Gray Television Inc, says the new but illegitimate administration agrees with the approach of the Trump administration, which features helicopter roundups and fertility controls.
“We’re going to let the science guide us.”
A spokesman for the Nevada Farm Bureau, a front group for ranching interests, applauded the decision.
Bringing equine populations down to AML means livestock operators will receive most of the resources in areas set aside for wild horses and burros.
The advocates will argue that the best way to get rid of the animals is contraceptives, not roundups, oblivious to the lopsided resource allocations they’ll be helping to achieve.
As for the science, you only need to look at the numbers in the EAs and RMPs and be able to compute some basic management indicators to know what the problem is.
RELATED: Will Letter to Haaland About Livestock Grazing Do Any Good?
The ‘harem hopper’ was finally spotted with a youngster from another band, according a story posted today by The Charlotte Observer.
Don’t worry, she’s not trying to steal the foal and the behavior has nothing to do with the darting program.
The studs, also confused, can’t understand why the mares aren’t bearing more fruit.
RELATED: Foal #6 Appears on Currituck Outer Banks.
Probably not. Elimination of livestock grazing in wild horse areas will likely originate in the judiciary, not in the bureaucracy and not in the legislature.
Last year, at the urging of the advocates, the politicians offered an exciting new alternative to helicopter roundups: Get rid of the horses with contraceptives.
These animals are being forced off the range because most of their food had been sold to public-lands ranchers, not because there are too many of them.
Although the letter has the right idea, Western Horse Watchers believes that its scope is too narrow. The absence of certain signatories should be of great interest.
RELATED: Letter to Haaland Seeks Thriving Ecological Balance?
The story last week by The New York Times about the $1,000 adoption incentive, and the ‘unintended’ consequences associated therewith, fueled the debate about the best way to get rid of wild horses. No surprise that the Campaign Against America’s Wild Horses was involved.
Subsequent coverage, such as this report by KLAS News, gives them an opportunity to push their ruinous fertility control programs.
They’re not questioning if the horses need to be removed, only if it can be done ‘humanely.’
“We’re calling it ‘slaughtergate.’ It happens about every decade,” Roy shared. “The BLM gets exposed to sending wild horses, federally protected wild horses and burrows [sic] to slaughter. And the reason this keeps happening is because the BLM keeps rounding up wild horses.”
Why won’t they look upstream in the wild horse management process? Why aren’t they interested in resource allocations and management priorities in wild horse areas?
Because the data would show that many of them are not overpopulated. They have too many cattle and sheep, not too many horses.
The argument in favor of fertility control would fall to the ground—and that’s not good for business.
RELATED: Adoption Incentive Backfiring or Working Exactly as Planned?
An advisory council, consisting of four individuals with expertise in business, law, conservation and Native American traditions, has been established for the project, according to a news release dated May 20.
Additional members will be announced in the next few weeks.
The proposed facility would be located in South Dakota.
The announcement concludes with a note about the organization’s research that led to a model for managing wild horses based on the idea of stable family bands.
Western Horse Watchers agrees with the concept and believes it warrants further study.
However, an email sent to ISPMB on March 6, asking for a link to the reports, which were to be published by the end of 2018 according to the second paragraph in a rebuttal of criticisms regarding conditions at the ranch in 2016, was never answered.
RELATED: ISPMB Building Heritage Center?
Legislation to stop horse slaughter in the U.S., known as the Save America’s Forgotten Equines (SAFE) Act, was introduced in the House today, according to a news release by Animal Wellness Action.
Previously, the measure was called the Safeguard American Food Exports (SAFE) Act.
Although it’s suggested in a guest column appearing in today’s edition of the Pagosa Daily Post, most of them are pushing contraceptives instead.
They’re not questioning if removals are necessary, only the best way to effect them.
Why would you want to go after the horses when 85% of their food has been diverted to privately owned livestock? Was the land not set aside for them?
The writer of a guest column appearing today in the Sierra Nevada Ally looks back at some of the issues that never came up in the hearings.
Although not stated explicitly, one of the most remarkable statistics in the debate is the amount of money the government spends on the WHB program and other grazing program ancillaries to prop up just 3.5% of the nation’s cattle output.
RELATED: SJR3 Fails?
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.
Western Horse Watchers Association 