Western Horse Watchers Association
Exposing the Hypocrisy, Lies and Incompetence of the Wild Horse Advocates
Opinion
If no mining companies signed on to the proposed WHB management plan, what other users of public lands endorsed it?
(a) Ranchers
(b) Loggers
(c) Hikers
(d) Campers
(e) All of the above
Answer: A
BONUS QUESTION: The WHB Act of 1971 was prompted by the killing and slaughter of wild horses on western rangelands by _______________.
RELATED: ‘Path Forward’ Quiz.
How many oil companies signed on to the ill-conceived management plan for wild horses and burros?
(a) One
(b) Four
(c) Seven
(d) Eleven
(e) None
Answer: E.
BONUS QUESTION: How many mining companies?
RELATED: ‘Path Forward’ Discussed.
The number of wild horses and burros in off-range corrals and long-term pastures (around 50,000) can be explained by the misappropriation of forage on just a few dozen HMAs.
The forage allocated to privately owned cattle and sheep on public lands in the western U.S., about nine million AUMs per year, would support at least 750,000 wild horses and burros, enough to empty all of those corrals and pastures fifteen times over.
You don’t have a horse problem on western rangelands, you have a ranching problem.
RELATED: Hypothesis, Subject to the Test of Future Experience.
Refer to the comments from 40:52 to 42:44 in this radio segment on the ‘Path Forward’ by KNPR of Las Vegas. The program host asks if there is a perfect model for managing wild horse populations.
The guest, a member of the Wild Horse and Burro Advisory Board and science advisor for Return to Freedom, pointed to Assateague as the gold standard (Maryland side of the island, ponies on the Virginia side are managed by the annual swim).
Seriously?
The size of the herd declined from 78 in November 2018 to 75 in November 2019, there is clear evidence of a problem with its sex ratio and genetic diversity may be inadequate.
And you’re holding that up as an example of success?
The only non-lethal option for on-range management of wild horses and burros in the American west is to end public-lands ranching and restore the WHB Act to its original form.
RELATED: ‘Path Forward’ Discussed.
Listen to the remarks from 42:45 to 43:51 in this radio segment on the ‘Path Forward’ by KNPR of Las Vegas. Yep, reduce horses to allow more vegetation [for the ranchers].
The ill-conceived management plan, which will remove 70% of America’s wild horses and burros from their home range and slow the growth of the remaining herds, was not created by two opposing groups—it was written by comrades in arms!
Wild horse advocates were barred from the process because they’re on the fringe and might try to undo four years of ‘progress.’
A few months ago the PZP zealots said darted mares become ‘self-boosting’ after five years. Now, they refer to mares ‘reactivating’ after five years. Listen to the remarks from 18:38 to 20:33 in this radio segment on the ‘Path Forward’ by KNPR of Las Vegas.
Folks, these are code words for sterilization.
The PZP zealots are on the same side of the debate as the public-lands ranchers, differing only in methodology.
Don’t give them a penny.
The number of wild horses and burros in off-range corrals and long-term pastures can be explained by the misappropriation of forage on just a few dozen HMAs.
Half of those animals can be accounted for by the misuse of forage on 13 HMAs.
The underlying premise of the ill-conceived WHB management plan is that public-lands ranching is a given, self-evident, unchanging.
It is not.
Who will prevail on western rangelands? Wild horses and burros or privately owned cattle and sheep?
The man-made power outages in California over the last few days have set a new low water mark for people living there.
Publicly, the governor opposes them. Privately, he and his Marxist travelers are fully on board with them.
If there are any regrets in his mind about the situation, it’s that the kill switch is still in PG&E’s hands, not his.
Refer to this AP report, posted today.
You don’t need that much money and that much time. You only need an executive order, effective Monday morning, ending public-lands ranching. The driver of the roundups, and the warehousing of captured animals, will be gone.
There is no ‘two-state solution’ on western rangelands. There is no ‘working together,’ not when the other party wants you wiped off the map.
It’s free-roaming horses or privately owned livestock. Take your pick.
In this video, Celeste Carlisle, RTF scientist and WHBAB member, speaks about wild horse fertility control at the Pathways 2019 Wildlife Conference in Estes Park, CO.
Discussion of the ‘Path Forward,’ to which RTF is a signatory, begins at 15:20.
Yes, they are getting hammered for it, and rightly so.
Wild horse preservationists were barred from the formulation, you see, because they are fringe groups—there would be no advancement in the discussion (16:32).
That’s what happens when you try to reconcile two incompatible views.
How can anyone look at the AUM distribution on lands set aside for the horses, such as in this post, and conclude that fertility control is the answer?
As reported yesterday, the forage allocated to domestic livestock in the Antelope Complex would support over 10,000 wild horses. The forage allocated to livestock on the Triple B Complex would support over 4,000 wild horses.
The problem is not uncontrolled reproduction, it is public-lands ranching.
RELATED: PZP Zealotry on a Global Scale.
Five areas were considered this week in a series of posts about the number of wild horses that have been displaced from public lands by privately owned livestock.
Yep, 8,127 wild horses have been denied a place on their home range by pro-ranching statutes and regulations of the federal government.
How many more HMAs would you have to look at to reach 50,000—the number of wild horses and burros languishing in off-range corrals and long-term pastures?
The government spends roughly $50 million every year to care for those animals, with the expectation of receiving just $12 million per year from the ranchers.
The ridiculous ‘Path Forward‘ will only make the situation worse.
There is no wild horse problem on western rangelands.
Public-lands ranching is rarely mentioned in news reports, such as this one, and most of allegations against the horses are aimed at getting them off the land—land that was set aside for them—so their food can be sold to the ranchers at fire-sale prices.
It’s a gravy train if ever there was one.
RELATED: Greatest Threat to Public Lands: Wild Horses and Burros.
A judge has ruled that the BLM cannot give itself power to decide which HMAs will be managed primarily for wild horses and burros, and that the ‘thriving ecological balance’ of the WHB Act refers to wildlife, not privately owned cattle and sheep. With livestock coming off the Twin Peaks HMA at the end of the grazing season, by how much can the AML be increased?
A. 2,265
B. 1,550
C. 925
D. 385
E. 95
Answer: A (27,178 ÷ 12).
That’s on top of the 758 wild horses currently allowed by plan.
Four years have passed since new rules went into effect regarding the labeling of range-fed beef. Consumers, angered by the way wild horses were being treated, refused to buy the product, putting the public-lands ranchers out of business, including those at Silver King HMA. With the livestock gone, by how much can the AML be increased?
A. 84
B. 313
C. 850
D. 1,645
E. 2,004
Answer: E (24,028 ÷ 12).
That would be in addition to the miniscule 128 wild horses already allowed by plan.
Suppose the Devil’s Garden ranchers gave up their permits because the grazing fee had been brought in line with the cost of warehousing wild horses in off-range pastures ($60 per AUM vs. the current $1.35). By how much could the AML be increased?
A. 1,309
B. 1,064
C. 897
D. 436
E. 149
Answer: A (15,711 ÷ 12).
On top of the 402 wild horses already allowed by plan.
The Warm Springs HMA can support 1,800 wild horses, but only 200 are allowed, because most of the forage has been sold to public-lands ranchers.
Many of the former inhabitants have been languishing in BLM corrals for a year, at a cost of $5 per day per head. That’s almost $1.5 million per year for 800 horses.
The HMA has enough capacity to empty those corrals twice.
The ranchers pay $26,000 per year to graze livestock on the same territory.
Yep, the government is spending $1.5 million per year to warehouse wild horses so they can collect $26,000 per year from the ranchers, on land set aside for the horses.
Eventually, most of the captives will be moved to long-term holding, at a cost of $2 per head per day.
Even then, the economics stink. Nobody in the private sector would do that.
The situation reeks of politics, favoritism and special interests, all at the expense of America’s wild horses.
RELATED: Warm Springs Quiz.
If the Warm Springs ranchers joined the productive side of the economy, working their own cattle on their own land, by how much could the AML be increased?
A. 99
B. 256
C. 614
D. 1,008
E. 1,616
Answer: E (19,392 ÷ 12).
In addition to the 202 wild horses already allowed by plan.
If the Saylor Creek ranchers had to get real jobs, instead of sponging off the taxpayers, by how much could the AML be increased?
Answer: 933 (11,193 ÷ 12).
On top of the 50 already allowed by plan, bringing the total to 983.
Refer to this story in AZ Central, published earlier today. Hopefully, personnel at the Salt River Wild Horse Management Group will be allowed to post a rebuttal.
RELATED: Strangles Hits Salt River Horses.
The legislation was drafted by the Subcommittee for Interior, Environment and Related Agencies and approved by the Senate Committee on Appropriations last week. It still has to be put to a vote of the full Senate and be reconciled with the bill in the House.
The House authorized $6 million for a ‘Path Forward’ pilot program earlier this year.
The Senate authorized $35 million for the ‘Path Forward’ in FY 2020.
Almost all of the senators on the Subcommittee are liberals. The two in the ‘minority’ are not paragons of conservatism (grades from Conservative Review).
Look at the first page of the ‘Path Forward.’ There are no endorsements from oil companies, mining companies, timber companies.
So who on the Subcommittee is in bed with the public-lands ranchers? Which senators would benefit from fewer wild horses in their state?
The BLM manages wild horses and burros in ten western states, while the Forest Service manages wild horses and burros in nine western states.
The demonic plan was not discussed in the Appropriations Committee meeting last week, even though the Bill for Interior contained a large expenditure for the new item.
You can listen to the audio here. Remarks about the bill run from 30:37 to 43:30.
Apparently, the guilty parties don’t want to be identified.
Western Horse Watchers Association 