“They have a right to be here,” according to the narrator of a video about Sand Wash Basin HMA, an area set aside for wild horses but shared with privately owned sheep.
Seriously? You have a right to place your property on land you don’t own?
Since when do you need a permit to enjoy your rights?
My truck has been out in the rain for years but it didn’t have to be that way. All I needed to do was to go next door and demand my rights.
Livestock grazing on public lands is a privilege, not a right. What the government gives, the government can take away. Please read The Bill of No Rights.
The remarks run from 09:16 to 12:11 in the video. Would sympathies for the ranchers correlate with participation in fertility control programs?
You bet it would.
RELATED: Ties Between PZP Zealots and Public-Lands Ranchers Revealed.
BLM announced today the completion of an Environmental Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for management actions involving wild horses and burros in the Southern Nevada District.
The decision authorizes the removal of those animals on public and private lands to (1) mitigate safety concerns near roads, (2) reduce landowner complaints, and (3) respond to emergencies.
The scope does not include the removal of horses and burros to achieve AML, but does include the removal of excess horses and burros outside of HMAs and HAs.
Section 1.4 in the final EA says that wild horses and burros will be removed from private property after “reasonable efforts to restrict the animals…have failed,” suggesting that state fence-out rules are a factor in responding to landowner complaints.
RELATED: Comments Invited on Southern Nevada Nuisance Gather Plan.
The Virginian-Pilot reported the arrival of new foal, spotted this morning in a wooded area of the Currituck Outer Banks. Observers were unable to determine the sex of the youngster, according to the story.
The Livestock Probability Map, supplied with other scoping documents for permitted grazing on the Sonoran Desert National Monument, says this about the “limited mobility” of cattle on page 5 (citations omitted):
The location of water and salt play a large role in the movement of cattle across a landscape. In general, livestock do not travel more than 2 miles from water on flat terrain and no more than 1 mile in rough terrain. Distance from water and slope are two common variables used to predict livestock distribution in almost every environment. Furthermore, range condition is generally related to the distance from livestock water points.
And you thought only wild horses and burros were responsible for rangeland impacts near water sources?
What about the last statement ? How does rangeland health vary with respect to distance from water? The farther the better?
If that’s true, animals with greater mobility (and lower stocking rates), such as wild horses and wildlife, would be expected to have a smaller impact.
RELATED: Management of Western Rangelands in 2018.
On the Kiger HMA with Matt.Cook.Oregon.
Is that horse poop at 3:13? Or could it be from other users of public lands?
On Assateague Island (Virginia side) with A Papp.
Yesterday’s post about wild horses denied a spot on their home range only considered areas currently designated for horses.
What about areas no longer designated? There are many of them, but let’s take a look at the Caliente Complex in eastern Nevada, which consists of nine former HMAs.
An estimated 39,920 AUMs per year have been diverted to privately owned livestock.
How do you determine the number of horses that the resource could support?
Horses graze twelve months per year, so divide the livestock AUMs by 12.
In this example, 3,327 horses have been denied a place on their home range.
That brings the total in yesterday’s post to 40,000, which accounts for 80% of the horses in off-range holding.
Contraceptives are not the answer. The problem is public-lands ranching.