BLM to Decimate Onaqui Herd, Advocates Offer to Do That

“The science is on our side,” according to a delegate of the Cloud Foundation, stating that “there are win-win solutions that can benefit the ranchers and our wild horses.”

The reference, of course, is to PZP darting of wild mares.  The term appears three times in this article by The Salt Lake Tribune.  Drive the birth rate to zero and let the herd die off.  Don’t let the horses reclaim any of their food from the cattlemen.

Any of you still wondering who the turncoats are in the wild horse world?

Undeniable Truth #2.

RELATED: Capitulation to Ranching Agenda at Onaqui Mountain HMA.

Free-Roaming Horses Native to North America?

Watch how quickly the focus shifts to free-roaming horses on public rangelands—just 20 seconds into the video.  Would their story differ from that of horses in other areas?

In this film about science, did they use scientific methods to collect the data and present their findings?

Where in the North American fossil record do cattle and sheep appear?  Are they working on a video for that?

This is not science, it is agenda-driven information intended to confuse or mislead, also known as propaganda.

Be very skeptical when you see statements such as “management of these animals informed by independent science,” which was added to the text of AJR-5 in California.

AEA Still Promoting Automatic Darting Machine

Refer to this news release by American Equine Awareness.

The advocates won’t oppose it because it can accomplish automatically what they’ve been trying to achieve manually: Getting rid of wild horses with contraceptives.

Western Horse Watchers believes there are some aspects of the machine that its developers aren’t disclosing, such as what happens if studs come in for the bait or the mares continue to feed after they’ve been darted.  How will they be repelled?

On the range, will the higher horses allow the lower horses to get near it?

RELATED: Automatic Darting Machine to Ditch Microchips?

How the Cattlemen Impose Their Will on Us

They’re not lobbying the politicians, as we saw yesterday.  They’re schmoozing the bureaucrats, who never have to face the voters.

The practice came up last year, when BLM moved its headquarters to Grand Junction.

Why all the uproar?  Loss of access by special interests.

Two years ago, when interviewed about the proposed move, a Colorado senator said “Washington is infested with special interests.  You mean to tell me that BLM is insulated from that?  They’re infested.”

Congress doesn’t write land-use plans and specify AMLs.  How long do you think they’d last if the American people knew they assigned most of the resources in wild horse areas to privately owned livestock?  That would be political suicide.

They may agree with it, but they let the bureaucrats do the dirty work.

Cattle and Horses

How Many Livestock Are on the Onaqui Mountain HMA?

Would you be upset if it was 2,250 cow/calf pairs for six months per year?  What would you say if it was 1,800 cow/calf pairs for four months and 5,250 ewe/lamb pairs for six months?  Would you feel better if it was 7,500 ewe/lamb pairs for nine months?

All three cases have the same resource loading, 13,500 AUMs per year.

The management plan allows 210 wild horses for twelve months, requiring 2,520 AUMs per year.

How do you make the comparisons simple?  Look at the resource allocations.

Livestock numbers depend on livestock types and grazing seasons.

But the forage allocations tell you immediately that the HMA is managed primarily for livestock.

You can also compute the number of horses displaced from the HMA by livestock, the True AML, and, if you know the current population, the number of excess horses.

RELATED: Resource Allocation Quiz, Filling in the Gaps at Healthy Horse HMA.

Bypassing the American People

A story dated July 9 by Tri-State Livestock News describes the reaction of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association to an executive order committing $500 million to expanding processing capacity in the beef industry.

The order was intended to promote competition in the American economy and directs the USDA to consider issuing new rules defining the “Product of the USA” label on beef so consumers have accurate, transparent information at the grocery store.

The term ‘rulemaking’ appears 21 times in the order.

In Sec. 5. (i) (ii), the Secretary of Agriculture shall consider initiating a rulemaking to define the conditions under which the labeling of meat products can bear voluntary statements indicating that the product is of United States origin, such as “Product of USA,” to ensure that consumers have accurate, transparent labels that enable them to choose products made in the United States.

The issue is not the labels.  As an aside, do you think producers of range-fed beef would welcome labels like this?

RANGE FED

PRODUCED ON PUBLIC LANDS

Ensuring that consumers have accurate information is the last thing on their minds.

The concern is the rulemaking.  The new rules will be created by the unelected bureaucracy, not your elected representatives.

They may be tied to a statute, or have the appearance of such, but you have no voice in the process.

Look at the rules affecting wild horses and burros.  Do they uphold the statute—which was crafted by your representatives—or contradict it?

So much for consent of the governed.

Onaqui DC Commentary

In Washington, DC with Marty Irby and colleagues.

Keep in mind that the rancher-friendly ‘Path Forward‘ will enforce resource allocations already on the books.  It changes nothing.

You have to look upstream in the management process at the land-use plans, federal regulations and the bureaucracy that writes them.

The American people and their representatives have been sidestepped.

RELATED: Onaqui DC Rally Tomorrow.

Black Mountain Roundup, Part 2, Day 122

The operation began on March 9, a resource enforcement action that follows a wild burro removal in 2020.  Gather stats through July 8:

  • Burros captured: 243, up from 209 on Day 111
  • Goal: 500
  • Returned: 0
  • Deaths: 0
  • Shipped: 209, up from 154 on Day 111

The cumulative total on the gather page is 246.

Foals accounted for 16.5% of the burros gathered.  Of the adults, 56.7% were male and 43.3% were female.

Fertility controls will not be applied and the incident is not open to public observation.

There are 34 burros in the unaccounted-for category.

Supplemental statistics:

  • AML: 478
  • Current population: Unknown
  • Forage liberated to date: 1,458 AUMs per year
  • Water liberated to date: 1,215 gallons per day
  • Burros displaced from HMA by privately owned livestock: 1,222
  • True AML: 1,700
  • Excess animals: Unknown

RELATED: Black Mountain Roundup, Part 2, Day 111.

Cibola-Trigo Roundup, Day 6

The operation began on July 4, a sequel to the nuisance roundup of 2020.

Gather stats through July 9:

  • Burros captured: 131
  • Goal: 200
  • Returned: 0
  • Deaths: 1
  • Shipped: 130

Foals accounted for 12.2% of the burros gathered.  Of the adults, 50.4% were male and 49.6% were female.

Fertility controls will not be applied and the incident is not open to public observation.

Data quality is good.  The number of unaccounted-for burros is zero.

RELATED: Cibola-Trigo Nuisance Roundup in Progress.

Assateague Name-That-Foal Contest Starts Next Week

Six foals were born this year, according to a report by the Maryland Coast Dispatch, providing more opportunities for public involvement.

The article said the current population is 83, which may include the mare lost last week.

The population was 78 in March.

That means a herd of 77 could only produce 6 foals, a 7.8% birth rate, five years into the adaptive phase of the management program, also known as the PZP-free phase.

The advocates are half right: The darting program is effective but definitely but not safe.