• Welcome to the Chronicle Forums.
    Please complete your profile. The forums and the rest of www.chronofhorse.com has single sign-in, so your log in information for one will automatically work for the other. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are the views of the individual and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of The Chronicle of the Horse.

Announcement

Collapse

Forum rules and no-advertising policy

As a participant on this forum, it is your responsibility to know and follow our rules. Please read this message in its entirety.

Board Rules

1. You’re responsible for what you say.
As outlined in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, The Chronicle of the Horse and its affiliates, as well Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., the developers of vBulletin, are not legally responsible for statements made in the forums.

This is a public forum viewed by a wide spectrum of people, so please be mindful of what you say and who might be reading it—details of personal disputes are likely better handled privately. While posters are legally responsible for their statements, the moderators may in their discretion remove or edit posts that violate these rules. Users have the ability to modify or delete their own messages after posting, but administrators generally will not delete posts, threads or accounts upon request.

Outright inflammatory, vulgar, harassing, malicious or otherwise inappropriate statements and criminal charges unsubstantiated by a reputable news source or legal documentation will not be tolerated and will be dealt with at the discretion of the moderators.

2. Conversations in horse-related forums should be horse-related.
The forums are a wonderful source of information and support for members of the horse community. While it’s understandably tempting to share information or search for input on other topics upon which members might have a similar level of knowledge, members must maintain the focus on horses.

3. Keep conversations productive, on topic and civil.
Discussion and disagreement are inevitable and encouraged; personal insults, diatribes and sniping comments are unproductive and unacceptable. Whether a subject is light-hearted or serious, keep posts focused on the current topic and of general interest to other participants of that thread. Utilize the private message feature or personal email where appropriate to address side topics or personal issues not related to the topic at large.

4. No advertising in the discussion forums.
Posts in the discussion forums directly or indirectly advertising horses, jobs, items or services for sale or wanted will be removed at the discretion of the moderators. Use of the private messaging feature or email addresses obtained through users’ profiles for unsolicited advertising is not permitted.

Company representatives may participate in discussions and answer questions about their products or services, or suggest their products on recent threads if they fulfill the criteria of a query. False "testimonials" provided by company affiliates posing as general consumers are not appropriate, and self-promotion of sales, ad campaigns, etc. through the discussion forums is not allowed.

Paid advertising is available on our classifieds site and through the purchase of banner ads. The tightly monitored Giveaways forum permits free listings of genuinely free horses and items available or wanted (on a limited basis). Items offered for trade are not allowed.

Advertising Policy Specifics
When in doubt of whether something you want to post constitutes advertising, please contact a moderator privately in advance for further clarification. Refer to the following points for general guidelines:

Horses – Only general discussion about the buying, leasing, selling and pricing of horses is permitted. If the post contains, or links to, the type of specific information typically found in a sales or wanted ad, and it’s related to a horse for sale, regardless of who’s selling it, it doesn’t belong in the discussion forums.

Stallions – Board members may ask for suggestions on breeding stallion recommendations. Stallion owners may reply to such queries by suggesting their own stallions, only if their horse fits the specific criteria of the original poster. Excessive promotion of a stallion by its owner or related parties is not permitted and will be addressed at the discretion of the moderators.

Services – Members may use the forums to ask for general recommendations of trainers, barns, shippers, farriers, etc., and other members may answer those requests by suggesting themselves or their company, if their services fulfill the specific criteria of the original post. Members may not solicit other members for business if it is not in response to a direct, genuine query.

Products – While members may ask for general opinions and suggestions on equipment, trailers, trucks, etc., they may not list the specific attributes for which they are in the market, as such posts serve as wanted ads.

Event Announcements – Members may post one notification of an upcoming event that may be of interest to fellow members, if the original poster does not benefit financially from the event. Such threads may not be “bumped” excessively. Premium members may post their own notices in the Event Announcements forum.

Charities/Rescues – Announcements for charitable or fundraising events can only be made for 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations. Special exceptions may be made, at the moderators’ discretion and direction, for board-related events or fundraising activities in extraordinary circumstances.

Occasional posts regarding horses available for adoption through IRS-registered horse rescue or placement programs are permitted in the appropriate forums, but these threads may be limited at the discretion of the moderators. Individuals may not advertise or make announcements for horses in need of rescue, placement or adoption unless the horse is available through a recognized rescue or placement agency or government-run entity or the thread fits the criteria for and is located in the Giveaways forum.

5. Do not post copyrighted photographs unless you have purchased that photo and have permission to do so.

6. Respect other members.
As members are often passionate about their beliefs and intentions can easily be misinterpreted in this type of environment, try to explore or resolve the inevitable disagreements that arise in the course of threads calmly and rationally.

If you see a post that you feel violates the rules of the board, please click the “alert” button (exclamation point inside of a triangle) in the bottom left corner of the post, which will alert ONLY the moderators to the post in question. They will then take whatever action, or no action, as deemed appropriate for the situation at their discretion. Do not air grievances regarding other posters or the moderators in the discussion forums.

Please be advised that adding another user to your “Ignore” list via your User Control Panel can be a useful tactic, which blocks posts and private messages by members whose commentary you’d rather avoid reading.

7. We have the right to reproduce statements made in the forums.
The Chronicle of the Horse may copy, quote, link to or otherwise reproduce posts, or portions of posts, in print or online for advertising or editorial purposes, if attributed to their original authors, and by posting in this forum, you hereby grant to The Chronicle of the Horse a perpetual, non-exclusive license under copyright and other rights, to do so.

8. We reserve the right to enforce and amend the rules.
The moderators may delete, edit, move or close any post or thread at any time, or refrain from doing any of the foregoing, in their discretion, and may suspend or revoke a user’s membership privileges at any time to maintain adherence to the rules and the general spirit of the forum. These rules may be amended at any time to address the current needs of the board.

Please see our full Terms of Service and Privacy Policy for more information.

Thanks for being a part of the COTH forums!

(Revised 1/26/16)
See more
See less

Save Cloud and his herd!!

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Save Cloud and his herd!!

    Please sign the petition and send to all of your email contacts!!!

    http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/sav...-his-wild-herd
    Yo/Yousolong April 23rd, 1985- April 15th, 2014

    http://notesfromadogwalker.com/2012/...m-a-sanctuary/

  • #2
    Signed.
    "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." Albert Einstein

    http://s1098.photobucket.com/albums/...2011%20Photos/

    Comment


    • #3
      An interesting topic.

      We are all patting people on the back just now for taking the decision to euthanise their horse rather than letting it go to some uncertain future where it could end up going through auction or to an abusive home. Why are these horses any different? I would rather that they humanely culled these horses to a decent level rather than put them in holding pens (where, if you read the article on CNN just recently there are apparently more than 3,000 already being held) and leave them there for years on the offchance that they might get adopted. Perhaps I don't know enough about the issue, but it seems reasonable that an increasing number of wild horses, especially in this economy, should be culled.

      You also have to consider local farming and the impact on the increasing numbers to adjoining farmland.

      I was brought up in an area where deer were culled every year. There was a crazy outcry from people who thought of Bambi and couldn't bear the thought of her relatives being humanely killed (and they were, most of the time very cleanly shot - babies first, then moms). Population control is essential to manage the world's resources, just a shame we havne't worked out how to force it onto the most destructive animal - humans.

      Comment


      • #4
        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 tolerate all kinds of animal idiosyncrasies.
        I've found that I don't tolerate people idiosyncrasies as well. - Casey09

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Lori B View Post
          Can someone please explain to me how it is that the wild horses are the problem?
          Your mind is already clearly made up and I do not wish to fight with you. However I will tell you why horses are "the problem".

          #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.

          #2 Since the 1960's the US Government has known it needed to do more "Birth control" in the mustang herds and has done little or nothing.

          #3 Corn is nearly $8 a bushel it was just 3 years a go $2 a bushel. At this rate it WILL cost $20 per pound to feed a steer to market weight. Who do you know that can afford to pay $20 per pound for meat? I know no one who can.

          #3 Is so very important. Do you realize we are facing a WORLD WIDE food CRISIS? Because corn is SO HIGH? And that food crisis WILL happen here in the USA make no doubt about it!

          When our farm bill offers the poor(the largest growing population in AMERICA today) $1 per day to EAT yet will pay in ADDITION to the $8 per bushel corn $2 per bushel in farm subsidies this year Our system is out of whack! Read your farm bill! I know no one but me probably does, certainly no politicians, but it is very interesting to see that the haves will have more and the have nots will simply starve away.

          Thinning the herd is a wise choice. Finally some action from our government to control the herds that they SHOULD have done in the 1960's!

          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!
          "If you don't know where you are going, any road will take you there"

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Kate66 View Post
            There was a crazy outcry from people who thought of Bambi and couldn't bear the thought of her relatives being humanely killed.
            Bambi was a he, not a she.
            Donald Trump - proven liar, cheat, traitor and sexual predator! Hillary Clinton won in 2016, but we have all lost.

            Comment


            • #7
              And beef cattle ARE indigenous?

              Yeah, that's an important distinction, clearly.
              I tolerate all kinds of animal idiosyncrasies.
              I've found that I don't tolerate people idiosyncrasies as well. - Casey09

              Comment


              • #8
                How many threads on this do we need?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by SillyHorse View Post
                  Bambi was a he, not a she.
                  Whoops - sorry! As you can see, I didn't much care what happened to bambi either :-)

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    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.
                    Your post shows us why there is a problem here.
                    You don't know what is going on and any "cause of the moment" as this one, drummed up to get donations for any one group that invents those causes will put out myths and propaganda.

                    Please, before getting incensed and "going ballistic" following someone else's bandwagon, lean what the real questions are in any issue.
                    If you would do that, we could resolve those issues.

                    The truth is that the feral horses were given, after much discussion that you evidentlly don't know about, certain ranges and a basic number of horses were assignated to those.
                    All that was fought probably before many here were born, in 1971.

                    BY LAW, those horses are protected in determining numbers and in determinded ranges.
                    Those feral horses are to be a SYMBOL, not an ever expanding invading animal species in enviroment they don't belong in and damaging those ranges and the true native species that truly belong there.

                    For your information, there has been a record breaking ongoing drought in the West and so the carrying capacity of those ranges is very low.
                    The BLM was given the mandate to handle the ranges and in those the native plant and animal species and, as a SYMBOL, a certain number of horses in very specific ranges there.

                    The BLM has not been able to do it's job, because those groups that live from that controversy, that is the only reason they exist and the donations they receive their only means of support, those groups DON't want to cooperate and lose their jobs.
                    They have been tying the BLM in knots with lawsuits and PR campaigns against everything they try to do, all these years.
                    Those are matters of record, you can look that up and see that it is so, just as they are doing now.

                    Remember, no one is talking about elilminating that invasive species, the feral horses, but to contain their growth to the by law mandated numbers appropiated to those lands also by law mandated for them.

                    Now, to bring in cattle or sheep or any other use, also regulated by laws, that is insane.
                    Why?
                    First, because those lands are not one big block of free land for the taking, but a checkerboard of private land and land under different state and federal ownership and management.
                    Are you telling the poeple living there to take their cattle off their own, private land?

                    Those lands that are privately owned are MANAGED so the grass first is not damaged by overgrazing and that means the right number of animals graze it for the right number of WEEKS in a year to use part of the grasses and leave the rest.
                    We can't do that with wildlife and feral horses, they are there year around and that is why in droughts we need to manage them, in the best interest of their ranges and species.

                    That is all the BLM is doing, best it can in the political situation they find themselves in, wilth their hands tied and everyone secondguessing everything they do.
                    That would be fine, if it was not that some of those everyones were not people that either don't understand the issue or groups that want to continue the controversy, that gave them one of the best runs in donations, other than slaughter, that they ever had.


                    Since 1991 we have not run our average number of cattle, for four years there we didn't even have any cattle, so as to keep our ranges from degrading and all the BLM is doing is trying to manage, best they can, as they were mandated by laws, right now that means taking excess numbers out of there.

                    Remember, cattle graze some of that land in very specific and restricted numbers for a very FEW WEEKS a year, if at all.
                    The management of livestock in those lands is a completely different situation than the feral horses.
                    To lump cattle management and feral horses together makes for good controversy pr bites, gives a focus on a common enemy, but is just that, a PR move, not reflecting reality.


                    You would not want feral horses overrunning the West any more than you would want rats and mice overrunning your house, no matter how cute you think they are.

                    That is why there were limits set to feral horse numbers and ranges and, when they overrun those limits, we all should try to do what we have to do to curb those numbers to what those lands can carry, not let them destroy them.

                    Some ask why not give feral horses more lands?
                    Why would we want to do that?
                    That was discussed in 1971 and that is what the laws are.
                    Those feral horses are supposed to be A SYMBOL.
                    We don't have any other use for them, as the adoption figures show us plainly.
                    The resources to manage the feral horses we have now are already overstretched.
                    You are asking, if I understand you right, to remove any other livestock and then add more feral horses and ranges for the BLM to manage, when we can't seem to get that done with today's numbers?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      There is a concurrent thread going on right now on this same topic here:

                      http://www.chronicleforums.com/Forum...d.php?t=155305

                      Seems that the little pr mice have been busy.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Don't talk down to me.

                        I do not hold this opinion because of "PR Mice".
                        I tolerate all kinds of animal idiosyncrasies.
                        I've found that I don't tolerate people idiosyncrasies as well. - Casey09

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I don't each much beef. And it would do most of us good to eat less. I am not a PETA or animal rights or vegan person. However, I don't support letting the availability of ONE source of protein to drive land use policy over millions of acres. Mustangs are just a part of this larger issue.
                          I tolerate all kinds of animal idiosyncrasies.
                          I've found that I don't tolerate people idiosyncrasies as well. - Casey09

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Lori B View Post
                            Don't talk down to me.

                            I do not hold this opinion because of "PR Mice".
                            I am not "talking down to you".
                            I am stating facts.
                            I happen to know what is going on, since I was there in the early 1970's in WY, when all that was going on and have lived close to those areas since then.
                            I am a farm/ranch/wildlife manager and so KNOW what the real issues are.

                            I somehow don't think that you, sitting in MD, if you have ever been to the West at all, know what is going on, other than the PR you may be reading.
                            Why do I think so?
                            Because of what you posted.

                            Give me INFORMED reasons why you want to do what you want to do, that MAKE SENSE for the REAL situation here and we will talk.

                            Since when is giving real information on a topic, not hearsay, "talking down"?


                            Answering your second posting:
                            The cattle production from those federal lands is but a meager 2% of the suppy of domestic cattle in the USA.

                            Not really a significant "protein source" for our customers.
                            On the other hand, those cattle in the West are using a renewable resource that would go to waste otherwise, along with managing the land so it is thriving.
                            Judicious use of grazing in any area that is right for it will give you a much better environment for ALL species there than mismanaged or not managed ranges.

                            As the Sierra Club or Nature Conservancy, I don't remember who it was, found out.
                            They bought many hundred thousands of acres, removed the cattle, let them lay idle for ten years and, looking across the fence at the well managed grazing lands, comparing them with their sparse bunchy grasses, bare spots and washouts from erosion, decide to rent grazing rights again, so the ranges were restored back to their previous lush state.

                            Grazing management has, as all in life, improved tremendously as an art and a science.
                            Grazing has it's uses in more ways than providing some extra protein, with the good use of the renewable resource our grasses are.

                            I also don't "eat much beef", whatever you call "much", that I assume you mean more than a sensible amount.
                            As with everything in life, moderation is the key.

                            And no, I am not "talking down to you", just informing you, as I expect you may not know about all this.
                            Last edited by Bluey; Jul. 11, 2008, 09:38 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              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.
                              I tolerate all kinds of animal idiosyncrasies.
                              I've found that I don't tolerate people idiosyncrasies as well. - Casey09

                              Comment


                              • #16
                                Just me being anal-retentive...

                                but the fossil record indicates that horses did develop from eohippus here in North America, including what is now the American west. Then they either died out here or were hunted to extinction by early humans, but not until after some of them had crossed the Siberian land bridge into Asia, so they continued to live there and spread into Europe.

                                That said, their numbers must be managed or they will suffer and starve to death, same as any other animal that eats.

                                Comment


                                • #17
                                  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.
                                  Look, blaming all "ranchers" in general for the problems of the feral horses is like saying "all horse owners" are to blame because they don't adopt those horses.

                                  There are a relatively small number of "ranchers" involved in those state and federal grazing permits, that are very strictly regulated.
                                  Cattle permits are given for very strictly controlled areas and a few WEEKS a YEAR of grazing.
                                  Most ranchers don't want anything to do with that mess, unless your PRIVATELY OWNED land is right in the midst of that mess.

                                  Comment


                                  • #18
                                    Originally posted by Lori B View Post
                                    I don't each much beef. And it would do most of us good to eat less. I am not a PETA or animal rights or vegan person. However, I don't support letting the availability of ONE source of protein to drive land use policy over millions of acres. Mustangs are just a part of this larger issue.
                                    That you prefer to eat less beef is not a reason for you to dictate the dietary habits of your fellow citizens.

                                    As Bluey has noted, the grazing of livestock is subject to all kinds of limitations. Limitations on AUMs, limitations on time of year and length of grazing, etc.

                                    The horses are out there year 'round. In drought conditions as we have mostly had for the past decade, they have no choice but to overgraze. In the desert, once a section of land is overgrazed, it takes years for it to recover. I could give you a tour that includes both areas hammered by poor livestock management AND areas hammered by feral horses and wild ungulates, i.e. where there is no livestock grazing at all.

                                    Why mustang herd sizes need to be controlled, first of all, is that 'the public' demands that these horses be cared for. Which means NOT allowing nature to take its course and just let the surplus starve. Other factors include the management of other wildlife species, in particular sensitive species and their habitat.

                                    My husband the judge famously heard a case here in Utah where the livestock proponents sued because an environmental group was buying up grazing permits and NOT using them. My husband ruled that no, the Taylor Grazing Act does not state that you actually have to use the permits. Ruling upheld on appeal. But guess what? The environmental group in question soon realized what government biologists have been saying for some time now- that an appropriate level of livestock grazing benefits the ecosystem. So, they got Bruce Babbit to help them buy a ranch, and they are now in the cattle business. I've been told they are studying effects of varying levels of grazing (pertaining to AUMs, length of grazing, time of year etc) so they might soon have some useful info for everyone's database.

                                    Comment


                                    • #19
                                      they will kill them all

                                      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

                                      Comment


                                      • #20
                                        more honest years ago

                                        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.
                                        at least in the 50s and 60s, politicians and ranchers said openly that all mustangs should be killed (alpho was the biggest consumer of the mustangs then). now they say "managed" and "sharing" the range.
                                        well let me get ready to be flamed.

                                        Comment

                                        Working...
                                        X