‘The Wild Horse Is Us’

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: ecowiz @ 07/07/2008 5:51:53 PM

    This is a scientific issue based on the ecology of our ecosystem dependent Earth. The horse in question is a non-native, introduced, transported animal that is not us; it is Europe's. The horses are being removed because they are consuming this ecosystem. These horsed left their ecosystems and ecological checks and balances back in Europe. Only native animals and plants are biological diversity, i.e., the strands in the web of all life and the rivets holding spaceship Earth together.

    The introduction of non-native species is a top agent of the extinction of biological diversity or the living animals and plants that, altogether with soil and water -- are an ecosystem. These horses are consuming the habitats, foods, nurseries, covers and protection of the biological diversity. When these herds of hooved locust feet slice the earth beneath their hooves, they disturb the soil, which directly kills the native plants but also establish weeds, other non-native, transported plants that have no jobs or roles in this ecosystem, just like the horses. The weeds are not in the food chain with the native animals, and native plants are at the bottom of the ecological pyramid, in which all life in the system depend for food, shelter, habitat, etc.

    This is an issue of many specie losses to one animal from Europe. Every aspect of life as we know it is governed by ecosystems -- the climate, oxygen, the composition of the atmosphere, fresh water, checks and balances on pests that consume ecosystems and man's crops and the checks and balances on viruses that cause pandemics.

    These horses left their checks and balances back in Europe. The National Academy of Sciences,THE EXTINCTION OF BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY IS A THREAT TO CIVILIZATION SECOND ONLY TO THERMONUCLEAR WAR." This is an issue governed by the ecology of Earth and Earth's biological diversity, synonymous with all life on Earth. Does a bird destroy his own next? :

  • Posted By: whatabunchofincompetentaholes @ 07/02/2008 3:59:35 PM

    I think if I were a mustang that had run free and wild, I'd rather be dead than cooped up in a holding pen for the rest of my life. Unfortunately, this whole issue demonstrates government bureaucracy at this absolute worst; mismanagement, corruption, politics, and pure old fashioned greed, with a living being suffering as a result. The BLM has the technology at its disposal to sterilize all but a handful of the best, healthiest mustangs and could do so at a fraction of the cost of holding them in pens indefinitely. The BLM doesn't do so because the point of the roundups is to get rid of the mustangs so the ranchers can use OUR public lands for their own financial gain. The wild horse, my friends, is in danger of being "managed" right out of existence, which would be a happy day for cattle ranchers. Herd management has never been about controlling the numbers. The numbers are now down to 42,000 horses on millions of acres of publicly owned rangelands, close to what in most species would be considered "threatened" levels, particularly compared to the numbers that were on the ranges even 20 years ago. There are now more mustangs in government holding pens, costing us taxpayers $13 million a year to "manage") then there are on the ranges. And there are FAR more privately owned cattle (3 million or so) on public lands than mustangs.
    This policy is a total disgrace.

    • Posted By: CGA1 @ 07/07/2008 4:23:29 PM

      FACT; There are no wild horse ranges in Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, North or South Dakota. But there are BLM lands.

      FACT: Not all Wild horse ranges share grazing areas with cattle.

      FACT: the size and number of BLM lands and permits were established in 1934. Taylor Grazing Act.

      FACT: The size and locations of Wild Horse Ranges were established in 1971. The ranges were not to be expanded and the maximum capacity for a healthy balance between horses, wildlife, and the multi-use plan of federal lands was set at 27,000 mustangs.

      FACT: The policy regarding the humane euthenasia of excess mustangs removed from the ranges and not adopted in the program, was set up in 1973 and 1978.

  • Posted By: FredCDobbs @ 07/02/2008 3:00:29 PM

    These horses and burros are not native. I can show you large sections of desert in Arizona that burros has grazed clean. They are pushing out native animals (big horn sheep). Round them all up, butcher them and send them to France.

    • Posted By: abovecoolmom @ 07/02/2008 3:04:05 PM

      Big horn sheep live in the mountains. They do not graze on the flat lands. Get your information correct. You heartless #$@%^&$.

      • Posted By: CGA1 @ 07/07/2008 4:06:31 PM

        There are differnt strains of big horn sheep.. try looking up the desert big horn sheep..before you start calling people names.

        The Desert Bighorn are comprised by some accounts of four subspecies. They live in dry, desert mountain ranges and foothills, near rocky cliffs, in an environment that is almost waterless and relatively barren of vegetation. In the winter they range farther from their meager water sources to browse on vegetation in full leaf. As summer approaches, they move closer to remaining water supplies and reduce their own water output by resting during the day in caves or under rocky overhangs.


        Recent genetic evidence indicates the Sierra Nevada Bighorn is a unique form of Bighorn found only in the Sierra Nevada. Sierra Nevada Bighorn are rarer than the Florida Panther, and rarer than the California Condor. They are clearly one of the most endangered mammals of North America. In 1986 these sheep were reintroduced to the Mono Basin from a population further to the south. Now the population in Lee Vining Canyon is the primary hope for the future of Sierra Nevada Bighorn

    • Posted By: GeorgeU1951 @ 07/02/2008 4:12:07 PM

      I love the Fred C.Dobbs handle. In what film did the Bogart character have that name ? I like to use Pclages, an acronym for the Seven Deadly Sins: pride,etc. I know nothing about this issue, but 60K mustangs spread across 10 western states doesn't seem to be very much. Plus, the federal gov't owns most of the land west of the Mississippi. If I show this article to my wife, who loves horses, she's gonna want to buy land in Montana, and adopt some horses. As long as I can have an aircraft landing strip, and can walk out on the front porch naked, and shoot at tin cans to my heart's content, I'm game.

  • Posted By: HueJardon @ 07/02/2008 3:28:00 PM

    "After surviving the ice age"

    Please get your facts right. Horses died out in North America and were reintroduced by Europeans. They are now an invasive species.

    • Posted By: palmerlinda@charter.net @ 07/02/2008 3:31:57 PM

      I'm sorry did I miss something?? Some of you don't realize the ice age happened in Europe as well (oops I'm sorry there was no division of land as we know it today-was there)

      • Posted By: Jennygirl @ 07/02/2008 3:46:39 PM

        Sorry but I don't recall seeing herds of wild cows running across the frontier. Talk about invasive species!!!!! These are government lands that ranchers are using to feed their cows and if they have to compete with our wild heritage then too bad! Again ...ranchers are using OUR wild lands and if we want to keep the horses free and roaming then they have to deal with it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        • Posted By: CGA1 @ 07/07/2008 3:53:47 PM

          I guess you didn't read your history books. Look up Longhorn cattle.. you might find there were herds of cattle running around on the frontier the same time as the horses. Makes since since they both arrived at the same time by the Spanish Explorers.

    • Posted By: bushisretarded @ 07/02/2008 3:33:46 PM

      Seems I've read that somewhere before.

  • Posted By: shodanhalo @ 07/02/2008 4:14:55 PM

    Of course they should NOT control herd population in this way. Competition for food will naturally control the population, as it does in all natural systems. Wild animals should be able to find their own food, and not have their diet supplemented by humans in most cases. The proper, but likely most arguable, course of action would be to induce controls on cattle populations; Americans need to cut down on their meat intake as it is. Cut back on cattle herds responsibly, and wild horses will have sufficient resources to feed themselves, while leveling-off their population.

    • Posted By: CGA1 @ 07/07/2008 3:48:36 PM

      Learn a little more about the western eco system.

      Fact; The ranges must be managed in accordance to the multi-use designation of Federal lands.

      Fact: Horses graze year round as do the wild life. Horses graze by cropping the grass close to the ground. Too close for the wildlife which have only bottom teeth, to grasp any blades of grass to feed themselves.

      Fact: Cattle do not graze on every wild horse range, nor is there a wild horse range on every BLM permit.

      Fact: Ranges meant to support 27,000 horses in a good year is not going to support over 30,000 in bad years.

      Fact: The horses have no real natural predators and over 219,000 horses have been removed and adopted since 1978.

      Fact: Cattle numbers DO get reduced and Ranchers comply as directed. It is a double standard that the BLM does not follow its own guidelines regarding the reduction of over populated horse ranges.

  • Posted By: gwrmlr @ 07/02/2008 5:13:34 PM

    I agree, to a certain extent, that wild horses are not native and should be better controlled. But don't be mistaken and beleive for a moment that the issue doesn't have anything to do with the cattle industry and the cheap grazing land that they use in the way of BLM federal lands.

    Ranchers or their supporters who contend that they are providing a positive environmental on the land are just plain wrong. Cattle are not native to this country, either. While I realize we need to feed them because of the beef industry, call it what it is: cheap food for the beef industry to keep prices down in the stores. But don't try to pass any bull that grzing cattle are beneficial to the environment. If they are, put one in your backyard, cityfolk.

    • Posted By: CGA1 @ 07/07/2008 3:36:04 PM

      http://news.ucanr.org/newsstorymain.cfm?story=926
      University of California Cooperative Extension (UCCE) natural resources farm advisor Sheila Barry has researched the modern evolution of California grassland and low-impact rangeland management techniques. She works closely with land managers in the Bay Area, which is now witnessing a resurgence of managed grazing on open land.

      A major benefit of grazing open grassland is fire fuel management, Barry said. However, she believes an even more important driver is improving the habitat for threatened and endangered species, such as the red-legged frog, the California tiger salamander, the Western burrowing owl and the golden eagle.

      Even insects profit from grazing. Barry considers the Bay Checkerspot Butterfly to be the ???poster child of grazing benefits.???

      Kinda makes you go Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

  • Posted By: ellieroo @ 07/02/2008 1:19:57 PM

    The BLM is the worst run government agency in this whole sad and sorry administration. They created their problem because they were paid to remove wild horses so cattle and sheep can graze and destroy the land! Go forth people try and find these vast herds of mustangs! All you will see is herd after herd of cattle and sheep using PUBLIC land for free!

    • Posted By: CGA1 @ 07/07/2008 3:27:38 PM

      Then you haven't tried very hard to go to the wild horse ranges.. They are out there, many times easily seen from the roads. At least the ranges that have roads through them.

      Ranchers don't graze for free.. the lands are in better condition now than a hundred years ago thanks to holistic range management. Do some research on sites that you may not agree with.

  • Posted By: scomata @ 07/02/2008 3:53:43 PM

    This is no different than what they want to do to the wolves, despite the fact that ranchers are reimbursed by the government for any losses, the ranchers are going to get their way again. BTW, there has NEVER been a unprovoked attack on a human by a wolf in all of north american history, including native verbal hitory that goed back over a thousand years. This has nothing to do with what is right or wrong, democratiic or republican. This is a perfect ecxample of special interests getting their way. Clinton did and Bush does oversee the same agency that does not change policy with administrations. They simply give in to the ranchers and the President hears about it after it has blown up.

    • Posted By: CGA1 @ 07/07/2008 3:21:36 PM

      Icy Bay, Alaska - Six-year-old John Stenglein and a nine-year-old friend were playing outside his family's trailer at a logging camp when a wild wolf came out of the woods towards the boys. The boys ran and the wolf attacked young Stenglein from the back, biting him on the back and buttocks. Adults, hearing the boy's screams, came and chased the wolf away. The wolf returned a few moments later and was shot. According to Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) officials, the wolf was a healthy wild wolf that apparently attacked without provocation. The boy was flown to Yakutat and recieved stitches there for his wounds. Later, however, the bites became infected and the boy had to be hospitalized. (Reports and Interviews on file and available upon request.)



      Vargas Island, British Colombia - University student, Scott Langevin, 23, was on a kayak trip with friends. They camped out on a beach and, about 1 AM, Langevin awoke with something pulling on his sleeping bag. He looked out and came face to face with a wild wolf. Langevin yelled at the wolf and it attacked, biting him on the hand. Langevin attempted to force the wolf toward a nearby campfire, but as he turned, the wolf jumped on his back and started biting him on the back of his head. Friends, hearing his yells, came to his aid and scared the wolf away. Fifty (50) stitches were required to close the wound on Langevin's head. British Colombia Ministry of Enviroment officials speculate the reason for the attack was due to the wolves occasionally being fed by humans although there was no evidence that Langevin or any of his party fed these animals. (Reports and Interviews on file and available upon request.)



  • Posted By: Abrannam @ 07/02/2008 3:54:44 PM

    I am ashamed of the American government - they created this mess they need to be responsible and clean it up. They decided to try to control nature and have made a bigger mess that instead of fixing they just want to kill and sweep under the rug. They are giving permits in WY and MT to kill these horses like they are prairie dogs. Big dollars are more important than living animals that could face extinction at the hands of Americans. This is just sad.

    • Posted By: CGA1 @ 07/07/2008 3:21:01 PM

      State your source for giving out permits to hunt the wild horses.

      I bet you don't have one.

  • Posted By: professorpat @ 07/02/2008 4:13:42 PM

    I guess that I should not wonder that the Government wants to get rid of the wild horses. They, as most of us are just a bother to them. They only are concerned when it comes to their paycheck, do they at all even bother to listen to us. The selling off of the BLM land across the US continues, as keeping are Heritge is just to much of a bother. The BLM has been in the pockets of the ranchers for most of it's life, with entitlements of leases from generation to generation of ranchers, at prices that were under market 50 years ago, and remain unchanges. It is a joke that they say there are 33,000. wild horses, it is a known fact that they do not really know how many there are. If the horses are causing a problem to the ranchers, let make it simple, get ride of the ranchers, as they are not paying their way either.

    • Posted By: CGA1 @ 07/07/2008 3:07:40 PM

      How about we get rid of ignorant people?

      If you knew anything about the BLM and Ranching you would realize just how factless your opinion is.

      1971--- 9,700 mustangs.
      1978---Wild horse areas over populated, adoption program started to ease the excess horses.
      1978-2004----219,000 mustangs have been adopted in the adopt a horse program.

      present day--- 20,000 horses in various holding pens across the country. Nearly 50,000 mustangs on ranges meant to support 27,000.

      Not all BLM permits have wild horse ranges, nor do all wild horse ranges share grazing with ranchers.

      Do a little research on a website that is impartial rather than one that spouts only it's view point.

  • Posted By: Lynflo @ 07/02/2008 4:13:25 PM

    If I recall the last horse euthanasia, it was done with power saws, leaving the doomed animals to thrash around as they bled to death after the lose of one or more legs or gashes in their necks or sides.

    • Posted By: CGA1 @ 07/07/2008 3:00:56 PM

      Good lord, you truly are clueless!

      Euthanisia is done by either drugs, a bullet to the brain or captive bolt to the brain. State your source for that crap about power saws!

  • Posted By: terrisusan @ 07/02/2008 4:22:55 PM

    Death and murder is the Bush administrations answer to everything. Sounds like GOOD CHRISTIAN VALUES TO ME. This country was buildt on the broken bones of these horses ancestors. God help us all if the only answer is to slaughter them. Does anyone realize that prior to the invention of the motor car, a horse and buggy was the main means of transportation, plowing fields, etc? If we were still using the horse and buggy today we would not be in the situation we are today with oil and all the baggage it comes with. The wild horse population is as American as apple pie and we owe it to them to take care of them and/or manage them in a respecful and humane way. I just can't imagine the horse organizations and animal rights groups would let this happen. Maybe it's a good time to donate to the charities that support these horses who are true American Heros.

    I

    • Posted By: CGA1 @ 07/07/2008 2:58:04 PM

      The policy was set in place in 1973 to euthanize excess horses, and again in 1978. President Bush wasn't in office then..

      do some research.

  • Posted By: american pie @ 07/02/2008 4:30:05 PM

    What the BLM doesn't tell the American Public is that for years they have been shrinking the amount of acres of the land the wild horses are 'allowed' to graze on. They'll fence off water sources and then claim the horses have no water. Of course they don't the water has been FENCED OFF. The BLM is the most crooked corrupt branch of the government and there must be a good investigative reporter out there that can sink their teeth into the BLM and really find out what they are doing with all of our money. Get rid of the cattle, make the ranchers own the land they graze on.

    • Posted By: CGA1 @ 07/07/2008 2:53:29 PM

      The Ranchers already own the land they graze on. The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 gave them the right to graze on BLM lands that are within or adjoin their Ranches. They pay to graze the cattle for an alloted amount of time. They must maintain the ecosystem of that land to support the wildlife as well. The lands are evaluated yearly and cattle numbers are adjusted as it needs. (It has never been increased).

      Wild Horse Ranges are not on every section of BLM land. They are on the ranges where they were located in 1971. Those ranges are monitored and numbers reduced for the good of that environment.

      Fenced off waterholes?? So a Ranchers cattle suddenly have the ability to defy the natural law of physics and leviate over the fences to get to water?

      The only waterholes ever fenced off where those that dried up due to drought and became mudholes and boggs that trapped the wildhorses and wild life and killed them and the ones in the Nellis Wild Horse Range that was found to become poisoned by nitrate buildup and killed over 100 horses. There are no Cattle Grazing Permits on the Nellis Range.

      Do some research before you pass along Slander.

  • Posted By: Freedom4Mestano @ 07/03/2008 2:41:37 AM

    Kiwani, I totally agree with your ideas and comments. I am both a horse lover and horse owner and I live in Colorado. I own two horses, one of which is a Mustang. They are beautiful, intelligent, incredible animals and I absolutely detest what the BLM is trying to do to them. My Mustang has the best personality of any horse I've ever owned, and I'm sure if he could talk he would tell the BLM they stink and how dare you treat an important symbol of the American West with such disrespect!!!

    Kiwani, I absolutely LOVE your ideas of how to deal with the problem - especially the thought of giving them to the Native Americans. What a brilliant idea, considering how respectful the Native Americans were of all of their animals, along with the land and their Mother Earth. They consider(ed) many of their animals to be sacred, and I really feel that they would know best how to take care of them. I have had horses most of my life, and I have always respected the Native Americans and their way of life because they RESPECT everything. I am a white person who, more often than not, is ashamed to be white. I have long identified with Native Americans and their way of life. I decorate my house in Southwestern because of my love for the West and its heritage. That includes the Native Americans and most importantly, the Mustangs.

    I wish Colorado had its own herd of wild horses, but to my knowledge, we do not. It makes me sick every time I hear from friends who are working so hard to save them that the BLM and/or government is trying to destroy them by using one form or another.

    As you said, we have Bush and his lousy administration to thank for this fiasco. Again, like you, I absolutely agree that Bush should've been out of office long, long ago. In fact, he never should've been re-elected. I think the idea of a "Thank God He's Gone" holiday is terrific!!!

    The horses should be allowed to roam free. Your comment about the cows eating more grass is correct. There are billions more cows than there will ever be wild horses. I agree that they could be moved to other states in the West where grass is more plentiful and definitely tall and getting out of hand. There is absolutely no need to destroy them. I'm sure the BLM hasn't bothered to explore any other options because they want the easy way out to save their precious money, so they can waste it on other things like destroying the earth.

    The wild horses need to be protected at all costs. I, personally, would like to get them out from under the government's control. Oh, if only I had the power to do so. Gee, maybe we ought to turn the tables and just euthanize the BLM instead. Then we could turn our attention to the Bush Administration and euthanize them as well. That would certainly solve all of our problems.

    God Bless American and God Bless the Wild Horses!!!

    • Posted By: CGA1 @ 07/07/2008 2:25:54 PM

      Colorado has four wild horse ranges.

      the Little Book Cliffs ( where I got one of mine from)
      Piceance Basin White River Field Office, Meeker
      Little Book Cliffs Grand Junction Field Office
      Sandwash Basin Little Snake Field Office, Craig
      Spring Creek .

      and the

      • Posted By: CGA1 @ 07/07/2008 2:41:47 PM

        Cattle do not eat more grass than horses. Cattle regurgitate and chew their cuds. Horse graze constantly. Cattle graze differently than horses, who crop very close to the ground whereas cattle graze the tops of the grass.

        BLM has explored many, many options regarding the management of the horses since 1973. Many times it is the wild horse advocate groups who cause more harm than good by preventing roundups, allowing the horses to over-populate, and over graze to the point the herd health failed, the old and yound didn't have enough forage to survive on.

        And no, it isn't the cattle ranchers or cattle grazing fault. Especially when the many wild horse ranges do not have any cattle grazing permits on them? Nellis WIld Horse Range has none, not one..can you explain that one?

        How can explain the WH herds that are managed well, have the best year round grazing for all, have healthier and larger horses? I've seen them and the horses from those ranges are highly prized at adoptions. McCoullogh Peaks herd and Some from the Red Desert Ranges in Wyoming.

        If you contributed to a wild horse group, why don't you ask them where is the land they bought to put those un-adoptable horses on? Where are their sanctuaries??

        By and large, Ranchers have done more for the benfit of the mustangs than any of you have.
        Oh and I have seen plenty of horses from the reservations getting run through the loose horse (killer pen).Billings Montana and Worland, Wyoming..so much for the Native American reverence for the "Mystical majestic Horse"..

  • Posted By: CGA1 @ 07/07/2008 2:08:11 PM

    Over 219,000 Mustangs have been adopted since 1978.

    The wild horse ranges population maximum capicity is 27,000.

    There are up to 50,000 on the ranges with over 20,000 in holding pens all over the country. Do the math.

    Ranges meant to support 27,000 horses in the best conditions is not going to support more than that.

    There are NO wild horses ranges in Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Kansas, North and South Dakota. There are BLM permit areas in thos states.

    There ARE TWO wild horse ranges in Colorado. They are the western part of the state. A lot of Ranches have BLM permit areas inside their own boundaries or adjoining their properties. But are no where near a wild horse range. My Ranch is 300 miles from the nearest wild horse range.

    BLM has NEVER increased the cattle allotment size on a permit area. They have often reduced the amount according to the environment study done yearly. Ranchers often reduce and even rest the permit areas for a year according to what the range needs.

    Ranchers often adopt mustangs and use them as ranch horses. How many have any of you adopted?

    Ranchers have taken in hundreds of unadoptable mustangs in the incentive program started in 2004. How many have you taken in?

    Cattle are now being used in areas as fire reduction by using controlled grazing techniques, which Ranchers have done for decades. They eat and keep down the invasive woody, fire feeding plants, have been proven time and time again ( to the disgust of anti-grazing groups) that cattle have benfited the lands vs removing them.

    Oh ans since some of aren't "getting the message".. this policy about destroying the excess horses, has been in the opriginal law since 1973. Pres. Bush has nothing to do with this. Do the math.

  • Posted By: CGA1 @ 07/02/2008 4:40:40 PM

    Ranchers already OWN much of the land they graze on! Many public land areas are located inside Ranch lands! Ranchers also improve the permits for grazing and water sources for all.

    Anti-grazing groups have been slandering Ranchers for years and one Rancher was able to sue for Slander and the group that did it forked out $600,000 for the despicable lies told.

    Ranchers montor the lands and reduce the amount of cattle for the permits as to allow plenty of grass for all. They do it because they know the land. The cattle are on for 3 months a year.

    Ranchers are not the problem.

    The horses have over populated their assigned ranges to the point for the ecosystem of that area needs some removed for the good land. Many of the horses in the adoption program are unadoptable for amny reasons.

    It takes over $2,000 per horse to take care of the 30,000 horses in the adoption program.

    You want to help? Go out and adopt one for a measly $125.00 a head! I adopted 3! I have had one for 18 years! I use him on the RANCH!

    • Posted By: busby @ 07/02/2008 5:34:55 PM

      Can you explain why ranchers want wolves killed when they are reimbursed for cattle predation? Can you explain why ranchers demand the slaughter of American buffalo when they come too close to the borders of Yellowstone when brucillosis (sp) has been proven to not damage beef and it is just as fit for human consumption as uninfected beef. And can you explain why cattle are supplemented with additives using animal protein. When you give an herbivore animal products you run the risk of mad cow disease which is tranmittable to humans? Horses are expensive to maintain properly but the rewards are wonderful. This is just another political issue and when the mustangs are just about gone, we will have another law to protect the 50 that might be left. But we will be overrun with cattle that are fattened up with stuff that we maybe shouldn't have in our bodies and, oh yes, there will be plenty of overgrazing of public land. By the way, how much is the cost of leasing an acre of public land per year, about $10 bucks?

      • Posted By: CGA1 @ 07/07/2008 1:50:22 PM

        Yep, sure can.
        Ranchers do get get re-embursed for depradation of livestock by wolves, but not as often as you think, nor is it as easy as you think. They practically have to have a video recording of the attack in progress. How likely is that going to happen? When the pastures are often a 1,000 acres in size. Even if you catch a wolve chowing down on your calve, a horse or even your new colt or even your own dog.. the "experts" will claim it was "already dead". When the Mother wolf is teaching her cubs how to hunt by taking practise runs through a sheep herders flock, ripping out throats, gutting them and eating none of them.. well you don't have a vidoe of it do you? oh might have been a pack of dogs..In the mean time the sheep hereder is ruined, the rancher has lost thousands from their own livestock.


        Brucellousis, has been proven to have been spread by the Bison who stray from the Park. Any cattle found to have been infected are destroyed and the entire herd is quarantined, the herds anywhere near the area get quarantined, the state looses the "Brucellosis free status" and the cattle can not be sold or transported out of state. It is the Governments responsibility to prevent the spread of brucellosis and the Ranchers loose their entire livelihood because of
        it.

        There have been wolf attacks in Americas history and there have been reported attacks of wolves in recent years. I hear Central Park might be a nice place to put wolves. After all they used to be there at one point in history.

  • Posted By: HeyBetz @ 07/02/2008 3:33:18 PM

    Here we go again! Let's take a guess who is really behind this yet again. The ranchers are, so who is BLM and the gov't kidding? The horses, just as the wolves are imposing into grazing land and the ranchers have always gotten their way in the end. It's about money when animals are concerned, about their "management", their deaths and eventually their extinction. Is this all for the good of the people as a whole, or to line the pockets of certain individuals? When is Man going to finally realize that for every action there is always a reaction. Once the earth and all of it's inhabitants are destroyed at the hand of man, that's it, there is no second chance.

    • Posted By: CGA1 @ 07/07/2008 1:35:58 PM

      BS. The policy for destroying humanely, the excess wild horses has been in the law since it's inception in 1973.

      Stop demonizing the very people who know more about the ecosystem of the western regions. 90% of the BLM lands don't have a wild horse range on them.
      Taylor grazing act gives Ranchers the right to graze BLM lands which adjoin their own, or are within their own property! They pay not only for the per head the cattle are on the range, they also, at their own expense, put in water source improvements, develop springs, irrigate and improve the grazing for all.

      How do I know? I am a Rancher. I have helped develop several springs and water sources for all.

      I am more than 300 miles from the nearest wild horse range. What do I use as ranch horses? 3 adopted Mustangs!

      Several Ranchers have adopted Mustangs from the BLM. Others have taken in dozens of older, unadoptable Mustangs to live out their lives in the incentive program started in 2004.

      Stop with the slander and get your facts straight instead of believing the hype thrown around by advocay groups that haven't bought the first bit of ,land to start a sanctuary or taken in any mustangs.

  • Posted By: CGA1 @ 07/07/2008 1:23:48 PM

    In comment to the 2 million mustangs as of two decades ago and now 27,000 population.. Highly incorrect. If there was 2 million wild horses, ever, it was back when the west was still wild, and I don't believe anyone was running around counting them! When the Wild Horse act went into effect, there was an estimated 9,700 horses on ranges as of 1971.

    FACT: In 1973, when the law went into effect, the management of said horses included the destruction of excess horses. That has been in the LAw the whole time. It's nothing new!
    President Bush wasn't President then..duh! So all you screaming it is a "Bush policy" need to do a little research and check out the law past the first paragraph!

    The Law also states the horses are to managed on the ranges they were located on at that time..being 1973! The law did not intend to "reestablish the horses to historic population, in fact states they are to be managed in a way that reflects the multi-use plan of those ranges, within a healthy eco-system that also supports wildlife.

    The Law further states that the populations are to be evaluated and any excess horses are to be removed and placed into the adoption program, allowing the the range to support the remaining horses at a healthy level.

  • Posted By: OETKB @ 07/07/2008 4:47:22 AM

    The mustangs are an invasive species with no economic benefit. Like most invasive species, including the zebra mussel, emerald ash borer and purple loosestrife, they wreak havoc on the environment. If you consider yourself to be "Green", there is a stronger argument for eradicating them than there is for saving them.

    For those who consider them to be a romantic part of our heritage, remember the historical fate of all animals: if we can???t ride them or eat them, we will tolerate them only so long as they stay far away from us.

    If you want to save them, find a way to make them profitable.

  • Posted By: Brien Comerford @ 07/04/2008 2:34:41 PM

    Wild horses and mustangs are majestic creatures that are a major part of American culture. Humans are indebted to horses because they were our only means of transport for centuries. To kill wild horses or mustangs is akin to malevolent animal abuse and crimes against nature.
    Brien Comerford

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse