The economic attractiveness of the scenario considered yesterday, which was based on data from Table 3-3 in the Draft EA for resource enforcement actions in the Desatoya HMA, was zilch.

• Spend $954 to remove a wild horse from his home range
• Spend $568 per year to keep him in long-term holding
• Collect $16 per year from the rancher to whom his food is sold

So the question arises: By how much would the grazing fee have to increase to justify the endeavor from an economic viewpoint?

A crude approach to the problem would be to solve for x in the following expression, where 12 represents the forage that would have been consumed by the horse but is now available to livestock (AUMs per year), x is the grazing fee ($ per AUM) and 568 is the cost of long-term holding ($ per year).

12 × x = 568

The answer is x = $47.33 per AUM.  The fee would have to increase from $1.35 to $47.33 to pay for long-term holding.  But it doesn’t pay for the cost of capture and doesn’t reflect the time-value of money.

That’s why the BLM used present values in the EA.

Another way to answer the question is to model the situation in a Excel, using the built-in present value functions.  Most of the cells in this example have text and numbers except B13, B15, B17 and B19, which have formulas.

If you put the data in different cells the formulas won’t work.  The sign convention for cash flows is negative for expenditures, positive for revenues.

The present value function discounts a series of future payments (or receipts) back to the present, for a given interest rate and time period, which in this case were taken from the EA.

The model assumes that a captured horse is not adopted and is transferred immediately to long-term holding.  The analysis in the EA is a bit more complex, using both short-term and long-term holding, a topic for future discussion.

The present value of the capture cost is $954, as it occurs at the start of the process.

The other transactions are assumed to occur at the end of the year and are assumed to be constant over the life of the project.

• Beginning of year 1: Spend $954 to capture a wild horse
• End of year 1: Spend $568 for holding, receive $16 in grazing fees
• End of year 2: Spend $568, receive $16
• End of year 3: Spend $568, receive $16
• ¦
• End of year 25: Spend $568, receive $16

The present value of the proposal is the difference between the present value of the grazing revenues and the present value of the holding costs, minus the capture cost.

The formulas are as follows:

• B13: =12*B5
• B15: =PV(B9/100,B11,-B13)
• B17: =PV(B9/100,B11,B7)
• B19: =B15+B17-B3

The cell formats were changed to two decimals, getting rid of the accounting formats applied by Excel when entering financial functions.  You can download a copy of the spreadsheet here.

The present value of the proposal, in cell B19, is negative, meaning the present value of the costs exceeds the present value of the revenues.  It is a bad investment.

By how much would the grazing fee have to increase to make the present value of the proposal positive?

Try entering some larger values in cell B5, observing the effect in B19.  You may have to enable editing when the file opens, depending on the security settings of your computer.

The amount that flips the present value from negative to positive would be the smallest fee that makes wild horse roundups economically viable.  If the proposal involved a mix of short-term and long-term holding, as in the EA, the fee would be higher.

Of course, everything is off the table until areas identified for wild horses and burros are managed principally for wild horses and burros, as specified in the original statute.

The present-value analysis following Table 3-3 in the Draft EA, as noted yesterday, shows there is no economic justification for wild horse roundups.  That would be a substantive comment.

If the present value of the costs exceeds the present value of the benefits, the proposal should be rejected.  In this case, the proposal is to remove and warehouse wild horses.

Another comment involves the rationale for the benefit calculation: Money spent on removing and warehousing wild horses is offset by grazing fees, not the price of hay the ranchers would have to pay if (OMG) their livestock were confined to private property with imported feed.

• Spend $954 to remove a wild horse from his home range
• Spend $568 per year to keep him in long-term holding
• Collect 12 × $1.35 = $16 per year from the rancher to whom his food is sold

There’s no way you could get that past your boss in the private sector.

Concerns about resource allocations and management priorities, although valid, should not be submitted as they are outside the scope of the project.

Comments on the EA can be submitted through January 9.

RELATED: New Desatoya Gather Plan Available for Review.

The $10 million payment is acknowledged on page 14 of the Division G Explanatory Statement for the FY 2021 appropriations bill.

Those funds, derived from grazing fees, are plowed back into the program every year to make life better for the public-lands ranchers.  Refer to paragraph (b)(1) in Section 1751 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (the ‘No Rancher Left Behind Act’).

Money to remove animals that rob forage from the ranchers, such as wild horses and burros, is discussed on page 13 of the statement.  Taxpayers provide those funds.

The current fee is $1.35 per AUM, determined by a formula in Section 1905 of the Public Rangelands Improvement Act.  Note that the base fee, $1.23 per AUM, was set in 1966.

Section 3.2.8 in the Draft EA for resource enforcement actions in the Desatoya HMA notes that the value of grass hay in Nevada is $68 per AUM.

That means the ranchers are paying two cents on the dollar to feed their livestock, even on lands set aside for wild horses and burros.

Paragraph (a)(9) in Section 1701 of FLPMA says the United States shall receive fair market value for the use of the public lands and their resources, unless otherwise provided by statute, which in the case of livestock grazing is PRIA.

Now you know why there is so much interest in achieving and maintaining AMLs, the goal of the rancher-friendly ‘Path Forward.’

What would happen if grazing fees reflected market conditions?

Table 3-3 in the EA provides costs associated with roundups and off-range holding.

In the discussion that follows, the present value of gathering and holding an animal over a 25 year period was estimated to be $15,950.  The present value of the benefits arising therefrom—forage available to privately owned livestock over the same period—was estimated to be $14,209.

The present value of the costs exceeds the present value of the benefits, meaning it’s a bad investment.  Nobody in the private sector would do it.

But insulating the ranchers and their overlords from the realities of a free market is what the grazing program is all about.

If grazing receipts were used in the benefit calculation ($1.35 per AUM), instead of avoided costs ($68 per AUM), the present value would be nil and the proposal would never even see the light of day.

RELATED: Grazing Program Ancillaries.

The Division G Explanatory Statement in the FY 2021 appropriations bill does not direct the BLM to spend $11 million on wild horse contraceptives, although it does include an expectation that wild horse management actions will “include a robust expansion of fertility control utilizing methods that are proven, safe, effective, and humane.”

That may signify the end of the story, at least for now.  Roundups and off-range holding will likely consume most of the budget, as adoptions go down and surrenders go up.

It’s sad, really.  An idea so good that even the Rolling Stones would support it.

RELATED: PZP Amendment Omitted from Senate Spending Bill?

Well, maybe 400 years.  Before anybody was talking about immunocontraception and humane management practices.

Refer to this report by The Virginian-Pilot, posted this morning.

RELATED: Helicopter Finds Winter Hideout of Corolla Wild Horses.

You should never approach wild horses unless you’re a trained volunteer with CO2 pistol, CO2 rifle or blowgun in hand.

A report published yesterday by WAVY News shows several people getting too close to the horses, which is illegal.  The photo initially appeared on socialist media.

Cruelty, enticing, harboring, luring, seizing and failure to report injury are also unlawful, according to the story.

RELATED: Currituck Horses at Great Risk?

The $2.3 trillion measure includes $900 billion in Covid relief, according to a report published today by AP News, and, presumably, a $14 million increase in the WHB program to pursue an “aggressive, non-lethal population control strategy” for wild horses and burros on America’s public lands.

RELATED: House Spending Bill Increases WHB Funding.

Many in the horse world know it as a dewormer.  But if you search for Ivermectin Covid-19, you’ll find reports on its use in treating the virus.

The local feed store had it in paste form on December 24.  But it also had several other types of dewormers.  There were no special warning signs in that area—Ivermectin not fit for human consumption—and there were no indications that it was being taken off the market or going out of stock.

My guys get Panacur on an as-needed basis.  It’s expensive but works well.

RELATED: Colt’s First Worm Treatment.

This article by The Daily Pitchfork, dated December 12, is an example of what doesn’t come up when you’re searching for information about wild horses.

It’s almost as if the companies running the search engines have an agenda or something.

RELATED: ‘Wild Horse Wars’ Refuted.

If we have three co-equal branches of government, why is there so much interest in the presidency?

The political party trying to force its way into the White House hates Christmas as much as it hates the Constitution.

What exactly did they do yesterday?  Spend some time in front of their holiday trees, listening to holiday music, wishing each other happy holidays?

Most of its members already subscribe to the movement discussed in this video, they just haven’t come out of the closet yet.

Some want no-horse ponies, mares that have become sterile through extended use of contraceptives.

Do they agree with the idea of managing HMAs primarily for livestock and HAs almost exclusively for livestock?  Sure looks like it.

How do they differ from the public-lands ranchers?  The ranchers want AMLs achieved as quickly as possible, while the ‘advocates’ want herd sizes reduced gradually.

Unfortunately, darted mares consume resources assigned to ‘other mandated uses of public lands,’ and that’s at the center of the debate.

RELATED: What Is a One-Horse Pony?

He came into the world that you might be saved from eternal damnation.  Thanks to Megan Smith for the video.

Courtesy of Megan Smith.

When the words or deeds of one person cause others to lose the faith or act in ways that offend God, you have a scandal.

Here are a few facts about the material world, in case you didn’t get the memo:

• It’s God’s creation
• You don’t get to make the rules
• All men will be held to the same standard

Keep these things in mind when you look at a nativity scene and see the Word made flesh, lying in a manger.

There are tens of thousands of churches but only one standard.  Which one has the fullness of the truth?

RELATED: What Triggered the ‘One-Horse Pony’ Remark?

It was a question about the Hunter Biden scandal, originally covered by the New York Post, and the rivers of money associated therewith.

If you’re on socialist media, you were likely insulated from the story in the weeks before the election, thanks to the jackals who run those services.

RELATED: What Is a One-Horse Pony?

That’s how the would-be usurper of the White House referred to a Fox News reporter yesterday, after he asked an embarrassing question, but does the animal actually exist?

Of course it does.

It’s a wild mare subject to ‘humane management practices.’  Barren most of her life, except for the year when the PZP zealots decide not to dart her.

So says the writer of a letter to the editor of The Salt Lake Tribune, published today.

In the wild horse world, ‘overpopulation’ means they’re consuming more than their allocated share of the resources, usually just crumbs.  The lion’s share goes to privately owned cattle and sheep.

Roundups are not necessarily a bad thing for wild horses, according to the writer of the Sac Bee article, because humans will “find them loving homes and a life of fresh hay, warm barns and veterinary care.”

No more hooves stuck in cattle guards.

Instead, they’ll be locked in stalls and fed a steady diet of bits, spurs, tiedowns, blankets, braided tails and maybe even shoes, everything they dreamed of while on the range.

And, of course, everybody has a heated barn with running water, except the host of Western Horse Watchers.

RELATED: Sac Bee Publishes Hit Piece On Wild Horses.

The article, based on recent events at the Devil’s Garden WHT, features just about every piece of anti-horse propaganda you can imagine.

The management plan, not considered in the story, assigns most of the resources to privately owned livestock.  Everything else follows from that.

RELATED: Devil’s Garden Horses Get Short End of Stick.

The federal government sells about 12 million AUMs per year to public-lands ranchers, across 155 million acres, mostly in the western U.S.

That transaction generates about $16 million per year in revenue for the government, which manages those lands—supposedly—for the benefit of the American people.

How much of that income is produced in areas identified for wild horses and burros?

One way to answer the question is to scale the revenue according to acreage.

The management plans assign 27 million acres to horses and burros, approximately 17% of the land authorized for grazing.  The estimated revenue would be .17 × 16 = $2.7 million per year.

Another approach would be to consider the resource allocations in areas designated for wild horses and burros, where the plans allow 27,000 of them.  Data reviewed on these pages suggest that livestock receive eighty to eighty five percent of the forage, excluding wildlife.  That means they receive four to five times as much as the horses and burros.

If that’s true in other areas, the forage assigned to livestock in areas identified for horses and burros would be 27,000 × 12 × 5 = 1.6 million AUMs per year, worth $2.2 million per year at current prices.

Not much of an offset for the tens of millions of dollars spent every year—confiscated from American wage earners—to remove and warehouse the horses and burros, so the ranchers can enjoy more of what their allotments have to offer.

The major economic benefit accrues at harvest time.  Of course, those revenues stay with the ranchers and their overlords, not the American people.

It’s redistribution of wealth, classic socialism.  That’s what the farm bureaus, stockgrower’s associations and cattlemen’s groups are trying to defend.