The Chronicle of the Horse
MagazineNewsHorse SportsHorse CareCOTH StoreVoicesThe Chronicle UntackedDirectoriesMarketplaceDates & Results
 
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 102
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    45,642

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cloudyandcallie View Post
    the blm will not be happy till they "remove" ie kill all the mustangs (call them ferals if you will but they are mustangs for me).
    remember the lands they range on (except for a few managed herds on ranches) are OUR LAND.
    we must take back our land from the ranchers who lease for pennies on the dollar.
    i'll give up beef if necessary. don't eat sheep anyway.
    we need to take back the range from the ranchers, geld most of the studs (no study to show if geldings are attacked by stallions, this issue has been on another thread and there are "bachelor bands" of stallions around also).
    take back our land, manage the herds by gelding, and turn loose all the unadoptables to run free again.
    and give them back their water holes that are fenced off by ranchers.
    wild horse annie is probably so frustrated in heaven watching the same issues that were going on in the 1950s still going on in 2008
    Too uninformed to even warrant a response.

    When we don't know about the issues at hand, please get informed first, before posting an opinion.
    It is the smart thing to do.

    Wild horse Annie would surely be and very sad at what her efforts have brought for the feral horses she so cared for.
    I expect she never thought many would spend the rest of their lives in legal limbo in feedlot pens.

    What a mess is right and it is not "ranchers" or the BLM, although not always doing things right, that is to blame for it.



  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jun. 9, 2006
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    240

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Woodland View Post
    I do not want a mustang - do you? Unless you are willing to take one and train it and feed it yourself don't you don't get an opinion on it in my book. NO ONE WANTS A MUSTANG. They are hard to train, small, feral, with little resale value. I have two here in my lesson program I adore! Would I want another - probably not. They are quirky. And not for everyone.
    Wow, that is a pretty uneducated response. As a mustang owner and a "traditional type" english horse trainer and instructor, I would have to greatly disagree. They are not harder or even different to train- they are horses. I have dealt with horses of all breeds and types. Overall not every breed is for every discipline, and not everyone meshes with every horse. That is not a mustang trait. Mustangs (like any horse) can be trained to do ANY discipline as long as they are suited to them.

    Every horse can be quirky. Not every horse is meant to be a lesson horse either.

    Did you start the two in your lesson program? Their behavior could have more to do more with their training then their breeding.

    Why don't people want them? I think it has more to do with uneducated and unfounded beliefs and attitudes like this, that keep mustangs in a second class status. I am not saying they are the best breed but, they are not the worst either.
    Last edited by undersaddle; Jul. 11, 2008 at 11:17 AM. Reason: spelling and adding
    Proud Mom of a 2005 Nevada Mustang **Mistress X**
    Undersaddle Equestrian Services
    www.undersaddle.com



  3. #23
    Join Date
    Oct. 18, 2000
    Posts
    22,487

    Default

    The ranchers aren't the ones driving the decision, and BLM doesn't want to kill all the feral horses.

    Geez folks, try thinking for yourselves instead of crying over each action alert you get.

    And yes - I do think that if folks believe all these hysterical emails and alerts - they're not getting the entire story. If a person is interested in learning how decisions are made, and what the stakes are - they're not going to get it from these feral horse groups.

    If in doubt - talk to any wildlife biologist or conservationist and you'll start to develop a greater understanding.

    The entire world does not revolve around horses, folks.



  4. #24
    azerica Guest

    Default

    I signed and spread the word on other forums.



  5. #25
    Join Date
    Aug. 4, 2005
    Location
    Oakland CA
    Posts
    224

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lori B View Post
    Millions of privately owned cattle (million!!!!) are grazed on publicly owned land across the west.

    Fewer than 100,000 wild horses graze and live on that same PUBLIC land.

    If you ask most (non-beef farming) U.S. citizens which group of animals they would like to see accommodated preferentially, it ain't gonna be the cattle.

    Can someone please explain to me how it is that the wild horses are the problem?

    This whole issue makes me ballistic. Completely ballistic. Why we let cattle ranchers dictate U.S. policy to us through their lapdogs at the Dept. of the Interior is completely incomprehensible.

    I'm with you. I have two mustangs. I do believe the problem is with the ranchers and that the grazing fee should be raised. The Taylor Act, 1932, authorizes Congress to set grazing fees. So, keeping in mind that this Act dates from 1932, today, the highest grazing fee is a little over $2.00 per head, and the lowest is $1.35 per head (Nevada). The post office is raising fees faster than this!

    So, when you contact your senate and congressional representatives, please insist that they revisit these grazing fees. They are grazing on public lands and we, the public, should insist on our voices being heard.

    Here's a letter to the BLM from Reps. Rahall and Grijalva. All of the questions they pose need to be answered in full before anything else goes down re these horses.

    This letter is more about the proposed euthanasia plan than Cloud, but it pertains to Cloud's herd as well.
    --------------------------------------------------
    I cross-posted it from the ABR board.




    it.~. )louse of fRepresentatiues

    GRACE F. NAPOLITANO. CA STEV/IN PEARCE. NM RUStl O. HOLT. NJ HENRY E. BROWN. JR.. SC


    RAOL M. GRIJALVA. AZ LUIS G. FOAT\JF.iO. PA


    MAOELEINE Z. BOADALLO. GU

    QImmittu on Natural iRt.alturct.a

    CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, W/I JIM COSTA. CA LOUIE GOHMERT. TX

    OAN BOREN. OK TOM COLE. OK

    JOHN P. SARBANES. MD ROB BISHOP, UT


    .s.al,ingtnu. iat 211515

    GEORGE MILiER. CA BILL SHUSTER. PA

    EDWARD J. MARKEY. MA BILL SALI.ID


    PETER A. DEFAZIO, OR DOUG LAMBORN. CO

    MAURICE D. HINCHEY. NY MARY FALUN. OK

    PATRICK J. KENNEDY. RI ADRIAN SMITH. NE

    RON KINO. W1 ROBERT J. WITTMAN. VA

    LOIS CAPPS. CA JAYINSLEE. WA MARK UDALl, CO JOE BACA, CA


    CHRISTOPHER N. FLUHR HILDA L. SOLIS. CA

    REPUBUCAN CHIEF OF STAFF

    STEPHANIE HERSETH. SO HEATH SHULER, NC

    July 9, 2008

    JAMES H. ZOIA

    CHIEF OFSTAFF

    Mr. Henri Bisson Deputy Director of Operations Bureau of Land Management Department ofthe Interior 1849 CSt, NW Washington, DC 20240

    Deputy Director Bisson:


    It has come to our attention that you recently advised the National Wild Horse and Burro Advisory Board that BLM is considering two options to deal with populations of wild horses on the range and in holding pens -euthanasia or stopping the roundups of wild horses -in an effort to moderate agency expenditures under the program. It is also our understanding that the Board will consider these options at its next meeting in September.

    As you know, in June of 2007 we requested that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) conduct a comprehensive review ofthe BLM's management ofwild horse and burros on public lands. We did this because ofcontinued concern that this program is being mismanaged, because we felt the BLM did little to address concerns raised by a 1990 GAO report, and because of recent changes to the Act in 2004.


    The report is due to be completed in September of2008. In the interim we strongly urge you to refrain from any further action until the report is released and the BLM, the Advisory Board and the Congress has time to review the GAO's findings.


    You may be aware that the BLM's inability to administer the budget ofthe Wild Horses and Burros program with any trace of fiscal accountability is a long-standing concern and must not be used as a death sentence upon these celebrated symbols of the American West. For instance, the 1990 GAO report "Rangeland Management: Improvements Needed in Federal Wild Horse Program "(GAO/RCED-90-11 0) found that the BLM lacked the data to even determine the number ofwild horses that the range can support and thus the number to be removed.

    Mr. Henri Bisson

    July 9, 2008

    Page 2

    Yet, the BLM continued with an aggressive roundup regime that has now placed almost onehalf of the wild horse population in holding pens.

    Pending the completion ofthe latest GAO report, and prior to your taking any further actions regarding this program that could be viewed as arbitrary and capricious, we would ask the BLM to respond to the following:

    1) The BLM states that the "appropriate management level" (AMLs) of wild horses and burros on public rangelands is 27,300 horses. What scientific data is used to determine that number?

    2) What are the actual numbers of wild horses and burros on public lands? How are those numbers determined, and what is the scientific basis for the census methods in use?

    3) What is the total acreage managed by the BLM for wild horses and burros?


    4)
    It has been reported that over 19 million acres ofland, on which wild horses and burros existed at the time of the passage of the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act in 1971, is no longer available for wild horse and burros. Is this figure accurate? If so, what is the justification for terminating wild horse and burro use of these lands?

    5) Why has the BLM not reintroduced wild horses/burros to lands that previously were available to the animals in 1971, which have subsequently been closed to their use?

    6) To what extent has the BLM pursued land acquisitions, exchanges, conservation easements and voluntary grazing buyouts in both checkerboard and non-checkerboard areas to accommodate the needs of wild horses?

    7) A 1982 National Academy of Sciences report urged the BLM to use PZP immuno contraception (PZP), finding it to be an effective and proactive method for managing horse populations. A 2004 Interior Report by the US Geological Survey found PZP reduced the overall costs of wild horse management. In 2006, the BLM signed a MemorandumofAgreementwiththe Humane Society ofUnitedStatestobeginworking together on promoting PZP. To what extent is PZP being used by the BLM? And what percentage of the BLM budget has been devoted to contraception in any given year or annually?

    8) What is the ratio of horses the agency has contracepted and put back on the range versus those taken off for adoption or long term holding? Specifically, in which herds has contraception been administered? When was it used? What were the results?

    Mr.Henri Bisson

    July 9, 2008

    Page 3

    9) For at least the past five years, the BLM has been aware of the soft market for the adoptionofwildhorses,and ofitsinabilitytomeetitsadoptiongoals. Yet,theBLMstill continued to remove twice the number of horses then was conducive to finding adoptive homes --according to their own estimates. Knowing that the BLM was unlikely to receive a significant increase in its budget for this program, what was the management plan for disposing of these animals, absent euthanasia?

    10) The BLM has relied heavily in the last eight years on long term holding facilities for horses which the BLM aggressively removed but could not adopt out; and the BLM continued to add to these facilities despite the fact that they were aware ofthe increasing costs and shrinking budgets. What was the long term plan for their care given rising costs, absent euthanasia?

    11) The potential for wholesale killing ofthousands of healthy wild horses marks a complete turnaround in management policy. Although it is a legally available option, it has never been used in the history of this 37-year old Act. Shouldn't such a major action on the partofthe BLM warrant a NEPA decision-making process?

    12) How would you intend to "euthanize" these horses if that option is chosen?

    13) Would there be live transportation involved prior to the killing, or will horses be killed on the range or at the holding pens? Would the agency intend to allow for commercial sale of the carcasses?

    14) Would the public be allowed to view the killings to ensure they are humane?

    15) What is the cost of mass euthanasia, including disposal of the carcasses?

    Again, we strongly urge you to refrain from any further action until we have important information on the BLM's implementation of the program in hand. Only then can we move forward in a more informed, open and deliberate way, and with input from all those concerned with the health, well being, and conservation of this venerable animal which embodies the spirit of our American West.

    Sincerely,

    NICK J. RAHALL, II Chairman Committee on Natural Resources

    RAUL M. GRIJALVA, Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks, Forest and Public Lands



  6. #26
    Join Date
    Aug. 9, 2007
    Posts
    9,370

    Default correct

    Quote Originally Posted by Lori B View Post
    Millions of privately owned cattle (million!!!!) are grazed on publicly owned land across the west.

    Fewer than 100,000 wild horses graze and live on that same PUBLIC land.

    If you ask most (non-beef farming) U.S. citizens which group of animals they would like to see accommodated preferentially, it ain't gonna be the cattle.

    Can someone please explain to me how it is that the wild horses are the problem?

    This whole issue makes me ballistic. Completely ballistic. Why we let cattle ranchers dictate U.S. policy to us through their lapdogs at the Dept. of the Interior is completely incomprehensible.
    what is so amazing to me is that whenever I post the same thoughts, people say I am uninformed. And I've just been involved in and following this issue since the early 1950s, so guess i need a few more years to learn that it's in the mustangs "best interest" for them to be "managed"???????????
    oh well, the bureaucrats and ranchers have more influence in congress than do we "horse lovers".
    and mustangs can do dressage and other "english" things. I saw one in coth a while back, dressage horse, forget the name.
    but let me get my unpopular, and therefore "uneducated" self off of this thread. wait, I thought the thread was started by op wanting to save the mustangs, not "manage" them?????????????



  7. #27
    Join Date
    Aug. 4, 2005
    Location
    Oakland CA
    Posts
    224

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Woodland View Post

    #1 Horses are not an indigenous species to US soil. They were brought by the Spanish and other European countries to help in the conquests.

    I do not want a mustang - do you? Unless you are willing to take one and train it and feed it yourself don't you don't get an opinion on it in my book. NO ONE WANTS A MUSTANG. They are hard to train, small, feral, with little resale value. I have two here in my lesson program I adore! Would I want another - probably not. They are quirky. And not for everyone.

    Unless you can offer a solution, culling the herds is the best option I have heard in decades!
    This is just ignorant! As for them being "not for everyone," that would depend on temperament and training, just like it would be for any other horse.

    I wasn't aware that cattle evolved here. The horse left during the Ice Age, continued it's evolution, and returned /wEuropeans. Although it's not the same horse that left, it returned well-adapted to thrive in it's place of origin. Horses do belong here.
    Last edited by bridgetah1; Jul. 11, 2008 at 12:55 PM.



  8. #28
    Join Date
    Sep. 2, 2005
    Location
    Upstate NY
    Posts
    14,002

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by J Swan View Post
    The ranchers aren't the ones driving the decision, and BLM doesn't want to kill all the feral horses.

    Geez folks, try thinking for yourselves instead of crying over each action alert you get.

    And yes - I do think that if folks believe all these hysterical emails and alerts - they're not getting the entire story. If a person is interested in learning how decisions are made, and what the stakes are - they're not going to get it from these feral horse groups.

    If in doubt - talk to any wildlife biologist or conservationist and you'll start to develop a greater understanding.

    The entire world does not revolve around horses, folks.
    Two thumbs up to JSwan! Well said.



  9. #29
    Join Date
    Oct. 18, 2000
    Posts
    22,487

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cloudyandcallie View Post
    wI thought the thread was started by op wanting to save the mustangs, not "manage" them?????????????
    Feral horses are not an endangered species, and the BLM is charged with managing them.

    The herds don't need to be "saved" - there is no threat of extinction. I worked in conservation; and am well versed in the challenges that land managers have to face each day.

    The feral horses groups reasoning is too simplistic. I have nothing against feral horses, don't want them to disappear from our soil, and think they are actually quite versatile horses.

    I also love deer, elk, and every other domestic and wild animal that lives in this country. But I'm not about to support fuzzy bunny policies that end up causing more harm than good. If there are not enough predators to keep prey populations in check - the population becomes unsustainable; or causes reductions in other prey species. In turn, populations remain in smaller areas for longer periods of time because there are no predators to scatter them.

    Concentrations of herbivores and other prey species, increasing populations, lack of predation - all contribute to habitat destruction. BLM isn't charged with horsekeeping - they're charged with managing public lands - for the public benefit - not the benefit of horse lovers.

    A great deal of money is spent renovating these public lands; removing invasive and exotic species; removing old fences, minimizing habitat loss, and protecting threatened or endangered ecosystems. That's the mission.
    Like all government agencies there are special interests groups engaged in a tug of war over it - but the work continues.

    All you people see is the Horse. What all of you appear unwilling to learn about it how a species can affect its environment.

    I think it's sick that these horses are rounded up and live their lives in a pen - and y'all think that's OK.

    No wild animal deserves to be in a cage; it's worse than death. And yet - y'all insist upon cages. How sad.



  10. #30
    Join Date
    Aug. 4, 2005
    Location
    Oakland CA
    Posts
    224

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by trubandloki View Post
    Two thumbs up to JSwan! Well said.

    I would like all the information that you refer to. Why don't you endeavor to answer the questions posed by Reps. Rahall and Grijalva?



  11. #31
    Join Date
    Sep. 2, 2005
    Location
    Upstate NY
    Posts
    14,002

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bridgetah1 View Post
    I would like all the information that you refer to. Why don't you endeavor to answer the questions posed by Reps. Rahall and Grijalva?
    Um, I am totally thinking you did not mean to quote me? Because I have not avoided any body questions.



  12. #32
    Join Date
    Oct. 18, 2000
    Posts
    22,487

    Default

    You would?

    How about reading up on conservation? Wildlife biology? Land management issues? What our agencies are doing to restore and protect ecosystems? How many UN bioreserves are on this continent? It's science. It's nothing new. Your state game department has management plans for wild animals, will have habitat restoration projects, reforestation projects, cleaning up nature preserves/parks - and so it is with federal lands too. Cleaning up streams, monitoring water quality; determining causes of habitat destruction and/or loss, observing and monitoring populations of various species, tracking species and obtaining data about health, territory, etc.

    Trouble is - it isn't very sexy. It doesn't much pr - no petitions, no tearful requests for help. It's just a bunch of people that go out in adverse conditions, take samples of scat, pull weeds, sit on a hillside in the freezing cold and count elk for 10 hours, examines grazing areas to figure out which species is eating what and when and for how long, takes water quality samples, and then they come back to the office and work some more.

    And then, they get to meet with angry residents who are sick of seeing starving horses or elk, who are tired of hitting them with their cars, and then they get to be yelled at by AR nuts who think they are murdering the elk and horses, and then they get to respond to some congressman who doesn't know shit from shinola and try to give him a science lesson - which the congressman doesn't want - he just wants to please the voters.

    Oh yes - it's wonderful work. People who work in conservation don't do it for the money - they're scientists and they want answers. The answers they come up with aren't intended to please you - they're intended to be the result of good science.



  13. #33
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    45,642

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by J Swan View Post
    You would?

    How about reading up on conservation? Wildlife biology? Land management issues? What our agencies are doing to restore and protect ecosystems? How many UN bioreserves are on this continent? It's science. It's nothing new. Your state game department has management plans for wild animals, will have habitat restoration projects, reforestation projects, cleaning up nature preserves/parks - and so it is with federal lands too. Cleaning up streams, monitoring water quality; determining causes of habitat destruction and/or loss, observing and monitoring populations of various species, tracking species and obtaining data about health, territory, etc.

    Trouble is - it isn't very sexy. It doesn't much pr - no petitions, no tearful requests for help. It's just a bunch of people that go out in adverse conditions, take samples of scat, pull weeds, sit on a hillside in the freezing cold and count elk for 10 hours, examines grazing areas to figure out which species is eating what and when and for how long, takes water quality samples, and then they come back to the office and work some more.

    And then, they get to meet with angry residents who are sick of seeing starving horses or elk, who are tired of hitting them with their cars, and then they get to be yelled at by AR nuts who think they are murdering the elk and horses, and then they get to respond to some congressman who doesn't know shit from shinola and try to give him a science lesson - which the congressman doesn't want - he just wants to please the voters.

    Oh yes - it's wonderful work. People who work in conservation don't do it for the money - they're scientists and they want answers. The answers they come up with aren't intended to please you - they're intended to be the result of good science.
    You forgot to mention all those sitting behind a computer screen, somewhere way in the East, that have become instant experts.
    Some after reading a few posts, others after a lifetime sitting where they are, way away from the ranges in question.
    THAT of course makes them experts also.
    None that have ever set foot anywhere near the parts of the country involved.
    Or maybe drove thru them, looking out their windows.
    Now those people want to tell everyone that has been forever and is living today with those problems how to solve them.

    Just a little head's up to those that think they know, but really are just talking.
    Those problems are not new, the conditions keep changing, what you read or hear today is not what was yesterday or many years ago.

    People here are trying their best to do what is right, believe it or not, for all, the ranges, that without them being healthy they WILL NOT be able to sustain ANY animals and all that those lands support.

    The wild horses are but one more concern, that is being addressed best it may, along the many others here.
    Following the bandwagon of the groups that live for these causes of the moment controversies is disingenuous of any smart, sensible person.

    Just stop and think for yourselves and if you don't know, learn about it, from ALL sides.
    Then you can talk about what you like or not and make sense.

    Being brainwashed into thinking that all in the West are rapers of the land and feral horse haters is like being from the West and living under the impression that the East is shoulder to shoulder people and a cesspool of polluted rivers dumping all that effluent into the sea.

    There are more sensible ways to understand our world than making our minds out of bits and pieces of myths and overblown stories, taken out of context, we hear about or read here and there.



  14. #34
    Join Date
    May. 30, 2003
    Location
    The Old Northwest
    Posts
    1,259

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Woodland View Post
    I do not want a mustang - do you?
    Yup, I do. Owned one in the past (who is now semi-retired as an up-down lesson horse), would take another in a moment. In fact, I'm looking into bidding on a horse in the internet adoption that the BLM has going on right now. Great horses.
    "No, not anything goes, I said no rules!"



  15. #35
    Join Date
    Nov. 18, 2004
    Location
    Catonsville, MD
    Posts
    6,964

    Default

    Living in the west does not give you a preferential vote in how this FEDERALLY OWNED land should be managed. It. Just. Doesn't. Really.

    Nor does my location Maryland somehow or other render my votes irrelevent. You can look it up.
    I tolerate all kinds of animal idiosyncrasies.
    I've found that I don't tolerate people idiosyncrasies as well. - Casey09




  16. #36
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    45,642

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lori B View Post
    Living in the west does not give you a preferential vote in how this FEDERALLY OWNED land should be managed. It. Just. Doesn't. Really.

    Nor does my location Maryland somehow or other render my votes irrelevent. You can look it up.
    Maybe not, but it does let me know what the real issues are and how to go about it to make everything work.
    It is called knowledge and perspective.

    How would you feel if I would tell you how to manage, say, the Chesapeake Bay?
    I also have the right, of course, to tell you what I think you should do.
    I also get to vote, but I know it would be silly of me to try to say what you need to do in your backyard.

    That is the important difference, I KNOW that I don't know.



  17. #37
    Join Date
    Nov. 18, 2004
    Location
    Catonsville, MD
    Posts
    6,964

    Default

    But it wouldn't occur to me to treat you like an uppity ape in the jungle. I have not dictated anything, I have suggested that the current set of rules, to the extent that I understand them, are driven by the interests of folks who get to pay less than market rates to run cattle on publicly owned lands, and that reconsidering the prices paid for using this land that is publicly owned and reconsidering whether culling mustangs will solve the overgrazing problems or damage done by drought, might be in order. For having such temerity, I get slammed and slammed hard. Ordinarily I find you a very thoughtful and considerate poster, but when anyone wants to question ranching practices or slaughter, that seems to go out the window.

    And unless you want to stand next to the Chesapeake Bay and shovel chicken$hit into it with a backhoe, I'm quite happy to hear what you have to say about improving our water quality. That is where we differ, kemosabe.
    I tolerate all kinds of animal idiosyncrasies.
    I've found that I don't tolerate people idiosyncrasies as well. - Casey09




  18. #38
    Join Date
    Jun. 30, 2008
    Posts
    66

    Default

    I have to agree with J Swan and Bluey.

    I'm over here sitting at my laptop on the east coast, but I do know that here, with the market at a low, mustangs have very little market value for english. While I don't doubt that they can be fantastic horses(I've only seen one, and it was spooky as all hell, recently adopted) as I've seen from many videos, pictures, and hearing people's personal experience - they do not have much value.

    Most people don't bat an eye at the population control for deer, small animals, etc., but with horses...? Completely different story. Why? Especially when their means of population control is, imo, alot more fool-proof and less fool-proof than the hunting of other animals(which I personally, don't mind, having seen sooooo many deer laying on the side of the road when I drive on highways)



  19. #39
    Join Date
    Jan. 9, 2006
    Location
    GA
    Posts
    2,590

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lori B View Post
    I don't recall making any specific policy recommendations. I am simply suggesting that the decision drivers for the policy that is in place now are stacked in favor of ranchers, and that I'm not convinced that what ranchers want to be able to do on public lands and what the rest of the public would want to see done on those same lands are the same. I question the necessity of culling mustangs when they are a fraction of the number of cattle and sheep on public range lands. Is this incorrect? I don't think so.
    Ranchers and farmers feed the world, the horses entertain us. I love horses obsessively, but I am also practical. Have you ever seen what a horse does to pasture as compared to what a cow does to it? Horses pull it up by the roots if grazing is bad, a cow only crops it, leaving the root.

    As for the public lands, well, grazing leases are not cheap and the BLM is not easy to deal with on them with all the rules and regulations that the ranchers have to follow to preserve the grass.

    Wild horses are a symbol of the old west, and America itself in some ways, but they are out of hand and going to starve/die off etc without some sort of culling of the herds. They are overgrazing, over crowded and need oversight. There has to be a happy medium between the barbarism of the old roundups of mustangs and where we are now. They deserve to be treated respectfully, like all living creatures, but they don't have rights other than to not be abused.

    One of the other posters on here made a good point-not many people want a Mustang. I certainly don't. I am not a registration snob by any means, but I have seen too many of them that are poorly made up, and bad tempered to want to deal with one. Even if you have a nice one-nice enough to breed-the chances of a throwback are too much to chance it.
    http://community.webshots.com/album/548368465RfewoU[/url]

    She may not have changed the stars from their courses, but she loved a good man, and she rode good horses….author unknown



  20. #40
    Join Date
    Oct. 18, 2000
    Posts
    22,487

    Default

    I can't tell who you were responding to - but if it was to me I'm not slamming anyone. I'm asking people to explore and learn about the ENTIRE issue; not just about the feral horses.

    And though I have not shoveled chicken shit into the Bay, I have done a heck of a lot of conservation work at VCR, and a heck of a lot more in other places. Just check out the UNESCO site http://www.unesco.org/mabdb/br/brdir.../USAmap.htmand see how many incredible reserves we have in the US. That's just the tip of the iceberg. The conservation efforts are incredible. And the very agency y'all are castigating is actually doing some pretty good work on making sure our natural world is passed on intact to future generations. A world that does include wild horses.

    But - like any government agency it's unwieldy, top heavy, sometimes ruled by politics, has incompetent management or employees- etc. And from that perspective - I'm not a very happy camper.

    I know none of us want any animals to suffer. I certainly don't. But all of you seem to be terribly angry about something you actually know nothing about. Every land manager is going to have to deal with a population problem at some point. In some parts of the country - feral hogs are wreaking havoc. Not only on crops - but on preserves, timberland, and state and federal parkland.

    Wild pigs are scary and ugly - no one is crying over them when they are killed. But the same cannot be said of wild horses - because they are pretty and we write stories about them.

    The damage they can do to an ecosystem, agriculture and the public is similar. So similar steps are taken.

    In essence - that is all this is. It's unattractive, it's problematic, but that doesn't mean it's not the best decision from a land management perspective. On the other hand - it may not be. But unless you know what is going on with conservation efforts, know what BLM's challenges are, and what the science is..... your opinion will be based on conjecture and it's simply not valid.

    The wild herds out West are not the only feral horse populations in the US. The east coast has its own feral herds; and they have their own problems with increasing population density, collisions, decrease in adoptions, etc.

    I think it's awful. But unless humans decide to control their own population and actually reduce it - we're going to have to control the populations of other species.




    Quote Originally Posted by Lori B View Post

    And unless you want to stand next to the Chesapeake Bay and shovel chicken$hit into it with a backhoe, I'm quite happy to hear what you have to say about improving our water quality. That is where we differ, kemosabe.



Similar Threads

  1. The silver lining around the cloud... (long)
    By Damrock Farm in forum Sport Horse Breeding
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: May. 3, 2012, 10:24 PM
  2. Boarding in St Cloud/Kissmmee FL
    By Kuegel in forum Horse Care
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: Jun. 8, 2010, 03:35 PM
  3. Cloud the mustang part 3
    By tkhawk in forum Off Course
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: May. 13, 2010, 11:05 PM
  4. Cloud Nine Pads
    By blackcat95 in forum Hunter/Jumper
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: Apr. 24, 2010, 06:23 PM
  5. CLOUD the 3rd year tomorrow @ 8pm PBS
    By tidy rabbit in forum Off Course
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: Oct. 27, 2009, 06:42 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
randomness