# Congress looking to unload thousands of wild horses and burros



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Couldn't read it without disabling ad-blocker. However, I support removing significant numbers of wild horses in order to protect the land. I actually support killing a number of horses, since we already have 40,000+ packed into holding with little prospect for adoption.

"_As of March 1, 2016, there were 67,000 horses and burros on public lands and 45,000 in government holding pens. Computer models show that the current population, including foals born in 2016, is approximately 75,000 wild horses and burros. The controversial nationwide Appropriate Management Level (AML), defined as “the number of horses to have thriving ecological balance with the vegetation, wildlife, and livestock usage,” is 27,000...

...As of March 1, 2016, there were nearly 13,500 wild horses and burros living in feedlot-type short-term holding pens and another 31,500 living in long-term pastures. Take a minute and let those numbers sink in. All 45,000 of these wild animals were gathered off the range, segregated by sex, castrated, branded, given shots, and doomed to sit in a feedlot for about five years."
_
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/features/environment/wild-horses-part-one/


----------



## boots (Jan 16, 2012)

Congress needs to back up/support the law enacted so many years ago. The Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act (1971).

https://www.wildhorseandburro.blm.gov/92-195.htm

I am disgusted that the save-every-feral-horse groups make the BLM waste money and resources by suing that agency over every attempt to control the population of feral horses and burros. To the detriment of all wildlife.

They sue over moving herds. They sue over birth control. They sue if the horses are fed. They sue if the horses aren't fed. They sue over studies that show degradation of forage and water that all wildlife depends on. They sue over studies that support the need for equid-free areas for reptiles.

I don't always agree with BLM policies, but in this case they are a lot more sensible than the other groups. I really, really disagree with paying private citizens or corps to house the horses/burros that aren't adopted.


----------



## EstrellaandJericho (Aug 12, 2017)

bsms said:


> Couldn't read it without disabling ad-blocker. However, I support removing significant numbers of wild horses in order to protect the land. I actually support killing a number of horses, since we already have 40,000+ packed into holding with little prospect for adoption.
> 
> "_As of March 1, 2016, there were 67,000 horses and burros on public lands and 45,000 in government holding pens. Computer models show that the current population, including foals born in 2016, is approximately 75,000 wild horses and burros. The controversial nationwide Appropriate Management Level (AML), defined as “the number of horses to have thriving ecological balance with the vegetation, wildlife, and livestock usage,” is 27,000...
> 
> ...


I can agree, especially if they aren't conformationally well put together and are not progressing the breed.


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

EstrellaandJericho said:


> I can agree, especially if they aren't conformationally well put together and are not progressing the breed.


That is an interesting thought to pursue, If they are a breed, there must be a type, or a breed standard, and I believe that is not the case, remember my actual knowledge here is zero, I'm surmising and thinking out loud. If we cull to 'progress' the breed there has to be some sort of guidelines to go by, unless we are just talking about obvious issues.

Next thought, each and every mustang that does get a home through the adoption process fills one space in the 'horses with homes' category, and the number of homes available is finite, while the supply of horses needing homes appears infinite.....so it just means that a horse from a breeding program gets shipped instead.

As a horse lover, we need less horses, I support the wildies, but they have to be maintained at sustainable numbers on the land, to ensure the health of the herd and the environment.

Those who are in holding pens, does not appear to be much of a life, so I guess I would time limit them, if they have not been adopted in a certain time, they are put down. If we are talking huge numbers, then the Govt should allow facilities to deal, I believe they are called slaughter houses...


----------



## horseluvr2524 (Sep 17, 2013)

I don't know a lot about how the chincoteague wild ponies are managed, but I've become more interested in them since I'm now living 2.5 hours from them (I'm hoping to go to pony penning day this summer!). I believe I read that it is the Chincoteague island fire department that manages the wild ponies living on Assateague island. They keep the herd at about 150. Once a year, they drive the ponies across the channel from Assateague to Chincoteague (pony penning day) and separate out the ones that are to be sold. They are very well managed, though I've honestly no idea if all the sale ponies always sell, and what they do with those that don't.

I wish that a sensible management plan like the one for the chincoteague ponies had been put in place for the mustangs. Of course, the difference is one island of wild ponies vs. hundreds of mustang herds going through multiple states (much harder to manage of course). Now it is too late. There really doesn't seem to be any option other than slaughter/euthanasia. I can only hope that the ones suitable to be using horses (younger, put together well) will be spared, and instead cull the older horses and those with very bad conformation.


----------



## LoriF (Apr 3, 2015)

As unrealistic as this is. I support getting cows off of public lands. They don't belong there and they are not a native species. The modern horse has been proven to have originated here and migrated across the bearing straight and then became extinct in the Americas. They were then reintroduced when modern Europeans came over. Cow were never here at all until they were introduced. I'm not against cattle ranches at all but if you want grazing land for them then buy it and kill whatever you want on YOUR land that YOU bought. You know what though, if there were no cows to eat, I would not have a problem with going out and getting my own deer or bison or whatever other wild meat there is. I was fine with cattle until I realized that the same people who wanted favor for their endeavors now want to get rid of everything that belongs here to do their business. 

I don't think for one minute that if politicians pockets were not being lined or put into office in the first place by special interests anyone would give a hoot what was wandering around out there. Why don't we just leave it for the horses, wolves, puma, bison and every other wild animal that roams there and let them handle it. 

Speaking of bison, they are being threatened now too because ranchers don't want them near their herds and expose them to disease. The same disease that was introduced to the millions of bison by the cows in the first place. The millions that are no more.

Sometimes I think that none of it matters because we are all going to choke and drown on our own plastic anyway.


----------



## aubie (Aug 24, 2013)

Excellent post Lori. It not just cows that they want to have the land, but "deals" for minerals.


----------



## george the mule (Dec 7, 2014)

What so many fail to acknowledge is that they _are_ feral equines; a non-native, invasive species. If Americans want "Wild Horses" on public lands, they need to accept appropriate management strategies; Sterilization, and where that is impracticable, more (er, um) aggressive means of population control.
A licensed hunting season, perhaps?
I would much rather see an animal humanely PTS than starving to death, or dying of thirst. Perhaps the BLM should send a bill to members of the (mostly) city-dwelling "Save_the_Wild _Horse" community?
Just my $.02.


----------



## JoBlueQuarter (Jan 20, 2017)

Very well put, @LoriF! My sentiments exactly.


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

I am sad to see all cattle farmers getting thrown under the bus..YES there are dodgy dealings, there are bad situations, and horrible people, BUT not everyone can go kill the meat they need to eat.

It's funny, the experiments they have done in the UK, taking cattle, sheep and or goats out of sensitive areas, then the fauna reverts to something they weren't intending, you need grazing animals in the right concentration to maintain the habitat. What sort of grazer depends on the area......because they way they graze, if they are a nipper or a ripper, etc, makes a difference to the result.


----------



## LoriF (Apr 3, 2015)

@george the mule In my eyes, that is only partially true. I don't know why equus became extinct in the Americas, but they did originate here. So if a tiger raised in a zoo is re introduced to India if they all became extinct there, that would make them feral? 
I don't buy the feral thing because there are other animals here that are non native and invasive that people are making a buck on and it's ok. 

Would it be different for you if the Equus did not become extinct here and there were escapees that were bred here hundreds or thousands of years ago? Does it matter? Wild horse (or feral, who cares what you call them) along with wolves, puma, bison, coyote, not to mention the birds, fish and every other wild thing would handle themselves a lot better without our meddling. It is our human greed that ruins things. Wildlife needs to be given space to do their thing and they would be fine. Including horses. Take cows out of the picture and no one would care or bother with the other animals except maybe to visit and enjoy the pristine environment. Humans are the most destructive, invasive species on the planet. So what do we do with ourselves?

And yes @aubie what you say is true too.


----------



## LoriF (Apr 3, 2015)

Golden Horse said:


> I am sad to see all cattle farmers getting thrown under the bus..YES there are dodgy dealings, there are bad situations, and horrible people, BUT not everyone can go kill the meat they need to eat.


I am not throwing cattle ranchers under the bus. What I am talking about is happening. Wolves, bison, puma, certain fishes and birds are dropping by the numbers due to peoples greed. A lot of those same animals in proper number would take out a lot of the weaker horses and the populations would be normal for the area. Those animals have always been here. Like Aubie said, it's not just the ranchers but they do have a big hand in it. Our politicians are persuaded by money and who is going to vote for them. Plain and simple.

We are living right now in an era of the largest extinction rate this planet has ever seen so far. What does that say about us?


Also, don't forget that cows came from your area, no? And so they belong there. We probably could have a nice balance that didn't destroy the environment but greed gets in the way. 

I'm not attacking cattle ranchers JUST BECAUSE. I'm doing it because they are attacking everything that is supposed to live there. How many wolves and puma do think have been shot because one of them ate a cow here and there? More than the one who did the killing, I can tell you that. To me, the loss of a cow here and there to a predator is just the cost of doing business in an environment that has those predators. I don't see anyone freaking out because a wolf ate a deer, do you? I wonder why that is. If you don't want competition for grazing space then buy your own space and do what you want with it. 

The public lands are just that, Public lands that are supported by tax dollars. That means by everyone who lives here, not just for the use of special interest groups.

Editing to say that maybe our tax dollars would be better spent on advertisements to tell the public that they should love to eat horse meat just like they did a couple of decades ago with the beef industry. Maybe that would help.


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

I believe it is not all about them or us, but about balance....and few activists groups talk about balance, they are usually at one extreme or the other.

We need to feed the population, try and make sure that family farms can survive and make a living, I fear that they are another breed in danger of extinction, and also maintain viable populations of wild life.

It is hard to get balance, it is always hard, if it was easy we would have it already.

For instance:

Living in the UK there is not a predator that will take a healthy calf, and I have always had a soft spot for wolves, thought they should be protected.

Then we moved out to Canada, and had our own land, and kept cows, and we lost more than one calf to coyotes.....my live and let live attitude changed a little. I have no idea what I would think if I bought land near public lands, and had a wolf, mountain lion etc come off those lands and prey on my livestock! Heck when we visited the USA all those pretty little Prairie Dogs were so CUTE.....the gophers here changed from cute to vermin when we saw the damage they were doing to crops and grazing land....


----------



## COWCHICK77 (Jun 21, 2010)

I'd just like to make a few points to consider before jumping on the band wagon.

First question, if the horses currently in holding are destroyed there still is no solution to make the horse advocates happy as far as population control other than taking permit grazing away. Who are they going to blame when the range is destroyed due to continuing lack of management, horse numbers are out of control and the wildlife is suffering yet the cattle and sheep are gone?

Ranchers are not free-loading off government land. 
Yes, the leases are cheaper than what one would pay for a private ground lease. But here is what the tax payers get in return.

* Ungrazed land costs the BLM $5 an acre to maintain. Grazed land, $2/acre to maintain.

* Ranchers provide volunteer fire fighting efforts. A lot of ground and wild life is destroyed by wild fires. Grazing also reduces those fuels and provides habitat for wild life through proper grazing practices.

* Ranchers develop water and maintain riparian areas with their own money. This also provides water for wild life and the horses.

People from back east don't really have a concept of what it takes to run an AUM(animal unit month) Here, it can take, at the least 10 acres to run a cow/calf pair or a horse.
40 acres sounds like a lot of ground to own but in reality it won't hold 2 horses year round here. When they see the amount of acreage in leases they seem to think we are overcrowding our barren desert like a feedlot which is not the case.

When a rancher has a govt. lease they do not to get run the ground as they see fit. We have to adhere to strict set of guidlines. We are told when we can turn out, how many head and for how long. It provides no benefit to us to over graze. If the grass does not come back the next year we are not allowed to use that lease until the range con. sees fit. Heavy fines and court dates may also occur. It is also our job to keep our animals out of riparian areas, and if not, again fines may occur. At some point they may revoke the permit completely due to non-compliance.
With 85% of Nevada being govt. owned land it can make it hard to find private leases here. It is important to us maintain our grazing. 

_Unfortunately the horses are not managed the same as the cattle._ 
They are not moved off of ground they have over grazed nor are the number of horses being maintained by gathers. 
They are not very truthful about their numbers. In places I have worked, far out in the brush, off the road, where HMA's are only to hold "X" amount I see "Y". More than what is being reported. It is obvious it is catching up with the BLM as the state vet two years ago had declared this an emergency. There simply is not enough feed or water to maintain the numbers out there, the real numbers. I seen those horses starving and dying, I have seen the ones that have been splattered all over the highways. 

I know people want to see the wild horses as a western icon and consider them a breed. I'm sorry, they are not. My family has been here for a couple of generations. Before the govt. got into the wild horse business. My grandfather used to gather herds local to his ranch, cull them and turn out domesticated mares and stallions to improve them, the offspring were gathered and used as ranch horses. My grandfather was not the only one to do so. It was a common practice. These horses are a result of domesticated horses turned loose. They are not native.

In the article posted above there was talk about paying people $1000 to adopt. Think about that, what part of any of that is a good idea????


----------



## SilverMaple (Jun 24, 2017)

-The pressure from gas/mineral companies and lobbyists regarding removing the horses from the land is more of the issue here than the cattle ranchers. You just don't hear as much about it because of the money and deals involved.

- One of the issues with the adoption is that the most desirable horses, the stocky ones with Spanish traits, are the ones snapped up by adopters, leaving the small, weedy, jug-headed, undesirable type in pens and on the range. I would hope if a large-scale cull is done, that the horses are sorted and those possessing the Spanish traits are those allowed to remain, while the least desirable are removed. Harsh, yes, but if you want to keep a smaller herd and be able to keep adoptions somewhere in the ballpark of sustainable, you have to have horses people want. Additionally, these Spanish-type horses are those most-closely associated with the 'original' horses reintroduced to North American by the Spaniards.

- I am also one of the people that find it very hard to believe that every.single.horse in the vastness of the Americas disappeared. I suspect isolated pockets here and there remained, to be later intermingled with the herds that were reintroduced. Humans are still finding animals long-thought to be extinct, even in areas that are much more highly populated than colonial America. What happens to the mustang if sometime in the future, evidence shows they may not have been a reintroduced species after all? 

- Something needs to be done to control populations, even if it's just for those horses in the holding corrals who have no hope of adoption. The amount of money needed to maintain them is staggering, and if that money could be spent on actually looking into future care and management of the herds rather than simply paying a feed bill, it would do a lot more good. If herds are slated for destruction, I would hope they meet a gentler end than a truck ride to Mexico, but I suspect the money involved will not lead to a quick and painless end for those horses, which is my biggest issue with culling them.


----------



## LoriF (Apr 3, 2015)

Golden Horse said:


> I believe it is not all about them or us, but about balance....and few activists groups talk about balance, they are usually at one extreme or the other.
> 
> We need to feed the population, try and make sure that family farms can survive and make a living, I fear that they are another breed in danger of extinction, and also maintain viable populations of wild life.
> 
> ...



Yeah, but does anyone ever stop to think that maybe our crops and grazing land are damaging the gophers homes? Why do we have the god given right to be here but nothing else does unless they aren't bothering us.


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

To consider horses as part of the ecosystem because they once were, many thousands of years ago, is a bit odd. The Western US has adapted to life without horses in the food chain for a long, long time.
They are not necessary to the health of animals above or below them.

That cannot be said for animals such as the wolf, and Grizzly bear. 

Humans pretty much removed them, in the last 200 years, from the Western N. America (much of Canada are still vibrant with them). The results were negative on the ecosystem.

We need to put up with the damage or danger inherent with these two major preditors in order to return the ecosystem to it's fullest health.

We should also consider allowing beavers to populate greater areas, as they are INCREDIBLY valuable to the same ecosystem.

But, wild horses? no. as pretty as they are, and I love them, they are not a necessary building block to the health of the whole system.

And, Cattle, if managed in the way that makes their grazing and movement emulate that of the long gone giant herds of bison CAN be considered valuable members of this web of animals.


----------



## LoriF (Apr 3, 2015)

SilverMaple said:


> -The pressure from gas/mineral companies and lobbyists regarding removing the horses from the land is more of the issue here than the cattle ranchers. You just don't hear as much about it because of the money and deals involved.
> 
> - One of the issues with the adoption is that the most desirable horses, the stocky ones with Spanish traits, are the ones snapped up by adopters, leaving the small, weedy, jug-headed, undesirable type in pens and on the range. I would hope if a large-scale cull is done, that the horses are sorted and those possessing the Spanish traits are those allowed to remain, while the least desirable are removed. Harsh, yes, but if you want to keep a smaller herd and be able to keep adoptions somewhere in the ballpark of sustainable, you have to have horses people want. Additionally, these Spanish-type horses are those most-closely associated with the 'original' horses reintroduced to North American by the Spaniards.
> 
> ...


I agree that maybe the horses in holding pens need to go to slaughter. Kind of like hitting the reset button. But, what have we learned from it. Probably nothing. 

I would hate to see them killed with no benefit at all but because we are such jerks, that probably wouldn't happen humanely. So what if it cost a lot of money to do it that way. It would probably still be less than feeding them for years.

Those horses on the range deserve to be there just like anything else. If we left the wildlife alone to handle themselves it would be good. Right now, the predators have been brought down to such small numbers that any kind of grazing animals are getting to be too much.


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

LoriF said:


> Yeah, but does anyone ever stop to think that maybe our crops and grazing land are damaging the gophers homes? Why do we have the god given right to be here but nothing else does unless they aren't bothering us.


Well lets cull a few people so we don't have to feed so many? I'm sorry rescourses are short and control is in..

Still always struggle with this argument...should we worm our horses, cull flies, spray for mosquitoes? Pests are pests be they wriggly, or furry we deal with them.

There is a difference between control and eradication though....


----------



## whisperbaby22 (Jan 25, 2013)

I'm in the NOT a "non native invasive species" camp. 

There are a lot of good points here. But a recent study talks about how large animals kind of disappear when humans show up. 

LA Times, April 28, 2018 science file titled "A dramatic shift in mammal sizes" if anyone is interested.


----------



## EstrellaandJericho (Aug 12, 2017)

SilverMaple said:


> -The pressure from gas/mineral companies and lobbyists regarding removing the horses from the land is more of the issue here than the cattle ranchers. You just don't hear as much about it because of the money and deals involved.
> 
> - One of the issues with the adoption is that the most desirable horses, the stocky ones with Spanish traits, are the ones snapped up by adopters, leaving the small, weedy, jug-headed, undesirable type in pens and on the range. I would hope if a large-scale cull is done, that the horses are sorted and those possessing the Spanish traits are those allowed to remain, while the least desirable are removed. Harsh, yes, but if you want to keep a smaller herd and be able to keep adoptions somewhere in the ballpark of sustainable, you have to have horses people want. Additionally, these Spanish-type horses are those most-closely associated with the 'original' horses reintroduced to North American by the Spaniards.
> 
> ...


I can agree with this. I feel like the wild mustang should be managed more like abreeding program... Because some people like the feral horse to train rather than a domestic. My sweet mustang is VERY different than my domestic mare. I can see why some people may prefer getting a mustang who has been a horse for a few years with little to no human interaction opposed to one that has been imprinted. But I can subscribe to a mass culling. I would prefer death over the horsey concentration camps these unwanted mustangs are in currently.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

LoriF said:


> I am not throwing cattle ranchers under the bus. What I am talking about is happening. Wolves, bison, puma, certain fishes and birds are dropping by the numbers due to peoples greed...Like Aubie said, it's not just the ranchers but they do have a big hand in it. Our politicians are persuaded by money and who is going to vote for them. Plain and simple....
> 
> I'm not attacking cattle ranchers JUST BECAUSE. I'm doing it because they are attacking everything that is supposed to live there....If you don't want competition for grazing space then buy your own space and do what you want with it...


If those charges were true, you would have a point. But I spent some time doing vegetation surveys in central Utah in the 80s. There were rumors a few bears survived, but never saw any. No one dreamed of mountain lions in the area. But a friend grazes sheep there - and has for 30 years. The bears are back and so are the mountain lions. One of their horses was jumped by a mountain lion last year, after which the herders started carrying rifles - for their OWN protection. And they had more kills to bears last year than to coyotes.

Grazing permits are expensive and the ranchers are often 'encouraged' to build improvements. On the state land near me, the best water sources for ALL life in the area are the stock ponds - built by ranchers, although cattle run on the land a couple weeks out of the year.

Grazing permits, unlike horse herds, can and are adjusted frequently. My friend once paid $100,000 for a grazing permit. The next year, the government cut it by 90% - and the terms of the permit don't allow him to argue. Paid $100,000 and got nearly nothing for it.

Across the west, public grazing (paid for, remember) is getting tough to find. The ranchers I've met PREFER private grazing permits, which they view as a much better value. But much of what was grazing land is now banned to cattle and sheep.

Ranchers have little or no political power. Politicians listen to votes, and the overwhelming voting advantage is in the cities. And those votes are to get rid of the greedy cattlemen, and worse still, the evil range maggot sheep, and let the wild horses of America symbolize freedom...

Unlike a rancher, no one in the government can tell a herd of wild horses, "There has been a drought so your numbers are cut 50% effective immediately!" You cannot shoot them, sterilize them, round them up or do ANYTHING to restrict their numbers without political risk. With no controls put on them, they just grow until the numbers are destructive.

It is child's play to manage sheep and cattle on public range, since the manager can cut their numbers, immediately, at any time and for darn near any reason. You can increase hunting to deal with deer. But the mustang? Good luck winning votes by killing "Spirit".

And FWIW, 1.5 of my 3.0 horses are mustangs. I like that mustang influence, but I don't like what unrestricted feral horses can do to the land. Ranchers are regulated. For the most part, wild horses are not. Huge difference.

I spent the summer of 1980 working these mountains. Almost no sheep grazing at the time, and darn few predators too:








​
Went there last fall. The vegetation is in better shape, the predators are back, wildlife is abundant - and it has been grazed by thousands of sheep since the 90s. I fell in love with those mountains 38 years ago this summer. If anything, they are more beautiful now than in 1980.


----------



## george the mule (Dec 7, 2014)

LoriF said:


> Those horses on the range deserve to be there just like anything else. If we left the wildlife alone to handle themselves it would be good.


All horses currently in The Americas are a non-native, hence "invasive" species. The fact that they lived here perhaps 10,000 years ago, and then became extinct should tell you something about the environment that they lived in changing, such that it was unable to support them.

But regardless of how you define their presence, they have to be _managed_ appropriately if they are to co-exist in the contemporary landscape. Um, unless you are proposing that they simply be allowed to graze the land down to dust, and then starve to death, which is what they are doing now . . .

The other, and primary "invasive" species here is **** Sapiens, who, as far as can be determined, originated in Northern Africa. And a particularly destruct breed they are. Somehow, tho, I can't see anyone supporting a cull of that species, altho it would undoubtedly solve many problems 

And just because someone commented about this above, here in Semi-rural Palmer Lake, we have an abundance of Mule Deer, a fairly large itinerant Elk herd, Black Bear, Coyote, Fox, Mountain Lions, and Bobcats.

I have seen all of the above in my back yard, and I would say that their numbers are increasing rather than otherwise. Just FWIW.

I'm not against the US government keeping horses, just against them becoming "Hoarders".


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

george the mule said:


> The other, and primary "invasive" species here is **** Sapiens, who, as far as can be determined, originated in Northern Africa. And a particularly destruct breed they are. Somehow, tho, I can't see anyone supporting a cull of that species, altho it would undoubtedly solve many problems


Yup



george the mule said:


> I'm not against the US government keeping horses, just against them becoming "Hoarders".


And heck yup


----------



## 4horses (Nov 26, 2012)

I hate the idea of mass killing being the only option our government supports. If it is left in the hands of the government, and the special interests that run the government, there will be nothing left (as everything will be developed or leased to farmers).

I live in Florida and we have/had a small population of wild bison. One got hit by a car and the local government came in and rounded them up and sold most of them off. They wanted to do the same with the wild horses but were blocked. Those animals are running on 21,000 acres, all are in good health. There was no need to remove any of them. Maybe 40 bison on 21,000 acres? Now maybe 20 left. It is not hard to see them being managed to extinction. 

The same with the wild horses. Entire herds will be eliminated from some areas. Those areas will be handed over to farmers for their cattle or leased out to special interests. I cannot support mass murder. That is what we are talking about here. I fully support population control by PZP injection. PZP injection is the only way to get sustainable herd sizes and stop the population from growing. 

I would also think that they could take bachelor bands, geld them, and ship them to an area without horses. Think of all the state parks that don't have horses, but could easily hold about 20 or 30 geldings. It's certainly cheaper than feeding the horses for life in a holding pen and it doesn't include slaughter. The mares could be placed separately, in an area prepared for PZP administration. 

Even if they mass slaughter the horses in holding, it does nothing to fix the problem. The horses left in the wild will continue to breed and you will end up back where you started. 

The truth is, i think the 8 million cattle on public lands are pushing out the horses. It is not that the population of horses is unsustainable. Only certain areas are.

Take a look at the number of horses per state:
https://www.blm.gov/programs/wild-horse-and-burro/about/data/population-estimates

The only state that really has an overpopulation problem is Nevada. The rest of the states could implement fertility control.


----------



## 4horses (Nov 26, 2012)

Only 10 states have wild horses. Why not redistribute them to states that have none?


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

4horses said:


> Only 10 states have wild horses. Why not redistribute them to states that have none?


Lets spread the problem out rather than facing up to it....


----------



## LoriF (Apr 3, 2015)

bsms said:


> If those charges were true, you would have a point. But I spent some time doing vegetation surveys in central Utah in the 80s. There were rumors a few bears survived, but never saw any. No one dreamed of mountain lions in the area. But a friend grazes sheep there - and has for 30 years. The bears are back and so are the mountain lions. One of their horses was jumped by a mountain lion last year, after which the herders started carrying rifles - for their OWN protection. And they had more kills to bears last year than to coyotes.
> 
> Grazing permits are expensive and the ranchers are often 'encouraged' to build improvements. On the state land near me, the best water sources for ALL life in the area are the stock ponds - built by ranchers, although cattle run on the land a couple weeks out of the year.
> 
> ...




They started gathering these horses since when? The seventies? The answer is not to gather them and then just hold them in pens. The idea of adoption is a nice one but not realistic. Not enough people in this country can or want to adopt a wild mustang. In the seventies, there were not many predators left. 

You yourself are telling me that the predators are back in Utah and the mountains are more beautiful than you have ever saw them so maybe in your area things have changed and it's working. Obviously horses are not over grazing the mountains or they would be devastated right now. 

Why have there been so many bear kills? More than coyotes? Because they are eating the sheep? I really don't think that a bear should be killed just because you see one either. Get dogs to protect the sheep from bears. There are breeds specifically bred for that job. If a bear comes along and eat a sheep it will come back. If they have a run in with one of those dogs they won't. But they still get to live.

If private grazing is more profitable for sheep herders and the mountains in Utah are benefiting it sounds like things are looking up for the area. I have never really thought that sheep were devastating the environment.

Also, it's not sheep farmers in Utah that are wanting bison to stay out of the state and away from their stock during their migration. I'ts cattle ranchers in Montana who don't want them there because they worked so hard to rid their herds of disease. Who was working so hard for the bison who contracted the disease from imported cattle in the first place? No one, because there were no short term profits from it.

Since North America was first being settled by new comers, it seems that we have been working awfully hard to destroy the land instead of caring for it. I'm glad to hear that in some places that is changing.


----------



## boots (Jan 16, 2012)

LoriF said:


> As unrealistic as this is. I support getting cows off of public lands.
> 
> Speaking of bison, they are being threatened now too because ranchers don't want them near their herds and expose them to disease. The same disease that was introduced to the millions of bison by the cows in the first place. The millions that are no more.


Get cattle off public lands and the BLM, Forest Service, Game and Fish Dept, and others will have pretty big, expensive shoes to fill.

Most people don't realize that ranchers have to maintain and improve water for all users. Wildlife and recreational. Ranchers have to monitor forage. Lie about that and your opportunity to lease any where, ever, is done. Ranchers have to repair eroded areas. Even if their cattle don't use that part of the lease. Ranchers are the eyes for the Fed and State agencies. You agree to pay a per head fee for "x" amount of time (anywhere from 6 weeks to 3 months), but if the rains don't come you have to move your cattle. That is sensible. But you can still be held liable for reduced forage if the grass looks bad at the end of the season. Even though you haven't had animals on the lease.

They are the first to spot poachers, people harassing and harming wildlife with 4-wheelers, side-by-sides, bicycles, dirt bikes, blocking wildlife's access to water, druggies growing pot and making meth, running backwoods *****houses for tourists, people dumping trash, and so on.

I eliminated my leases on public land years ago. I don't even go to Forest Service or Wilderness areas any more. They are overrun with people and their toys.


----------



## COWCHICK77 (Jun 21, 2010)

4horses said:


> I hate the idea of mass killing being the only option our government supports. If it is left in the hands of the government, and the special interests that run the government, there will be nothing left (as everything will be developed or leased to farmers).
> 
> I live in Florida and we have/had a small population of wild bison. One got hit by a car and the local government came in and rounded them up and sold most of them off. They wanted to do the same with the wild horses but were blocked. Those animals are running on 21,000 acres, all are in good health. There was no need to remove any of them. Maybe 40 bison on 21,000 acres? Now maybe 20 left. It is not hard to see them being managed to extinction.
> 
> ...



The cattle numbers on public land have decreased over the years as grazing has become more restricted due to govt. control. 

The BLM hasn't issued any new grazing permits for many years, so no, not all the land will be leased and developed for farmers. 
And also, you can't farm public land the permits are used for grazing of livestock to maintain native grasses. The only thing that gets developed are springs and water which benefits all wildlife.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

There are no wild horses in those mountains. I hope there never are.

There are more bear kills than coyote kills lately because the numbers of bears are up, and bears like sheep. However, no one killed the bears. No one. 

They do have dogs running in the sheep to help with coyotes. They probably won't get any more dogs like that. Just aren't convinced they help much. The dogs may help with coyotes. May. Not with bears or cougars.

There isn't a big problem managing sheep or cattle on public lands, because they ARE managed. You run as many cattle or sheep in any given year as they decide you can, and where they decide and for how long they decide. Grazing on public land is managed. Not always well and grazing is very low on the manager's priorities. But it is paid for and actively managed.

The problem with the horses is they are NOT managed. Got too many? Tough. Try to sterilize them and the city people complain you are poisoning them. Try to hunt them? Killing Spirit! Try to round them up? Cruel and inhumane. Try to adopt them out? Lots of regulation and too few horses worth the effort. Most of the time, it is cheaper and easier to just buy a good horse.

With 45,000 being held, more in need of being removed, and about 2,500 a year being adopted, something has to give. Right now, it is the land...


----------



## LoriF (Apr 3, 2015)

I really don't see how any of those other problems make it right to block wild bison from their migration. They can just as easily monitor those things by helicopter instead of using them to round up horses. Catch them and arrest them. I"m not saying that people shouldn't even be there at all. I also said that if there was a balance then it would work. But with people, it never seems like there can be a balance. We just have to keep repeating history over and over again until we are no more. 

Horses can be kept in check just as easily as the predators keep other grazing animals in check, but they have to be able to be there in the first place. And that is where it all started in the first place because predators were eating up precious profit. The west wasn't really meant for cattle as there is limited vegetation. I've seen pictures of mounds of Bison skulls from way back. Why? Because it was fun and their were millions of them. Not anymore.

Minnesota and Wisconsin are so inundated with deer that they are becoming a hazard. Why? Because the predators were being removed at alarming rates. Now they (the predators) are making a comeback and people are uptight that they are killing deer. Weekend warrior hunters go out there, make their camp fires, drink their beer and get loud, run around on their four wheelers and then don't get any deer. And then what do they do? They blame it on the wolves saying that there are not any deer around.


----------



## LoriF (Apr 3, 2015)

tinyliny said:


> To consider horses as part of the ecosystem because they once were, many thousands of years ago, is a bit odd. The Western US has adapted to life without horses in the food chain for a long, long time.
> They are not necessary to the health of animals above or below them.
> 
> That cannot be said for animals such as the wolf, and Grizzly bear.
> ...



My whole point Tiny is that if people would leave the predators alone, there would not be such an overpopulation of horses or anything else for that matter. As one person said, it was common practice to release their stallions to improve the wild herds. They didn't have to do that, they did it for there own benefit. Maybe they shouldn't have, maybe it wasn't such a great idea after all. The other point is that people use the reason of "they aren't wild, they are feral" as an excuse to rid all of them. Well, what I'm saying is, if that goes for the horses then it should go for all animals that are non indigenous. At least the horses were here naturally at one time which cant be said for the other non indigenous species. The land and it's habitants have taken care of itself for thousands of years and all of a sudden we come along and think that we have to micro manage it for it to be good. 

Humans minds are a trip. I often think how hysterical it is that people left the squalor that they came from, landed on this pristine land where people had been living for a long time since they migrated across the bearing straight, had the nerve to call these people savages, and then proceed to try to turn this pristine land into squalor.

I don't think that they really have any other choice but to unload them. It's gotten too far out of hand to do anything else. But, can't we learn from our mistakes or are we going to just continue status quo?


----------



## Joel Reiter (Feb 9, 2015)

bsms said:


> Ranchers have little or no political power. Politicians listen to votes, and the overwhelming voting advantage is in the cities. And those votes are to get rid of the greedy cattlemen...


Having read through this thread, I have agreed with many of the posts and liked them accordingly. But the statement above needs to be emphasized and comprehended. All the money involved in cattle grazing on public land is a mouse pee in the ocean compared to the influence of organizations that oppose control of wild horses.

I love mustangs. One of my favorite horses is a mustang. My niece has competed in the Extreme Mustang Makeover and is now a certified TIP trainer. But that stupid article that is the source of this thread talks about horses being held on "pastures", like the wild horses awaiting adoption are living on some kind of horse resorts. Most of them are just overcrowded holding pens and seem like quite a hellish existence for their occupants.

Eliminating all cattle and sheep grazing on public land will do zero to solve the mustang overpopulation. Anybody who really cares about horses, who actually understands what is going on, who really doesn't want the animals or the environment to suffer, would advocate a massive population reduction.

And in my mind, anyone who donates a single dollar to an organization that fights the BLM's effort to do the right thing with the mustang population is contributing to the torture of horses. Because I'm sorry people, there isn't a magic solution.


----------



## LoriF (Apr 3, 2015)

Joel Reiter said:


> Having read through this thread, I have agreed with many of the posts and liked them accordingly. But the statement above needs to be emphasized and comprehended. All the money involved in cattle grazing on public land is a mouse pee in the ocean compared to the influence of organizations that oppose control of wild horses.
> 
> I love mustangs. One of my favorite horses is a mustang. My niece has competed in the Extreme Mustang Makeover and is now a certified TIP trainer. But that stupid article that is the source of this thread talks about horses being held on "pastures", like the wild horses awaiting adoption are living on some kind of horse resorts. Most of them are just overcrowded holding pens and seem like quite a hellish existence for their occupants.
> 
> ...


I didn't even read the article about keeping the horses somewhere and I agree that it is a stupid idea. I didn't read it because I am so tired of the same old argument from both sides. 

I just don't agree with eliminating the horses off of the range completely with the argument that they are feral. If you are going to do that then get rid of all animals that are not native from the range lands that weren't meant to support so much anyway. If no one can agree on how to manage things then let nature manage it and leave the wild life to do their thing. There is enough land in this country for farm animals to support our eating habits, but it seems that people always want to try to shove a square peg into a round hole. If people didn't want to destroy the herds of bison like they did then we could be eating them right now.


----------



## Dreamcatcher Arabians (Nov 14, 2010)

CBS evening news had a blurb about how Congress is considering PAYING people to take a mustang. I'm so against that it's not even funny.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Thinking about the predator solution...when it is my time to go, if someone gives me a choice between a gun and a mountain lion eating me alive...I'll take the gun.


----------



## george the mule (Dec 7, 2014)

boots said:


> I don't even go to Forest Service or Wilderness areas any more. They are overrun with people and their toys.


Alas how true this is. Wilderness designation, at least in Colorado, pretty well marks the end of any chance for seclusion; even very remote areas are pretty well "overgrazed" by humanity. If you know where to look, our National Forests still offer some very rarely visited areas, but even those are diminishing (or being declared "Wilderness"). Sigh :-(



LoriF said:


> If no one can agree on how to manage things then let nature manage it and leave the wild life to do their thing. If people didn't want to destroy the herds of bison like they did then we could be eating them right now.


Lori, Mother Nature is a cruel old lady, and some of us love horses (and other life forms), and would rather not see them struggle in hopeless misery. IMO, we got them into this mess, and we are responsible for getting them out of it. A certain number of wild/feral horses could absolutely graze and lead "normal" lives on our public lands. Exceed that number, and some are gonna starve. That's Natures Way, but I think we can, and should do better. The term is "Triage", and I think we are at or beyond that point.

Oh, BTW; I had Bison for dinner the other night. Domestic "Free Range" Bison from the next county over. Private ranch-lands AFAIK.

'Nuff said on this subject; I'm off this thread. Bye! Steve


----------



## boots (Jan 16, 2012)

bsms said:


> Thinking about the predator solution...when it is my time to go, if someone gives me a choice between a gun and a mountain lion eating me alive...I'll take the gun.


No kidding. Mtn lion attack the hind end and eat their way in once the animal is immobilized. Usually tearing open the chest cavity while it is still alive while its' mates or mom race around panicked. Wolves run them nearly to death and then, very often, take out the necks and start eating while the prey is still alive. Coyotes hamstring most animals and eat them alive, butt forward. They will eat the nose off a fawn or calf (elk or bovine), or foal as it is being born (mom can't run), and then start on the mother's rear. Leaving the youngster to bleed to death.

You come across the still living animal, moaning and crying. Even deer and antelope make very sad noise. Calves bawling, their mamas calling to them. Horses making terribly weak nickers as you pass. 

Federal offence to finish the miserable unfortunate off. 

Starvation is not kind, either. Mares will leave their starving offspring in order to save themselves. Their babies run until they drop and continue to call. The only response is from predators.

The myth of an old 'stang laying down, falling asleep, and just dying a peaceful death is a hobbyist's daydream.

I like horses more than that.


----------



## Joel Reiter (Feb 9, 2015)

LoriF said:


> I just don't agree with eliminating the horses off of the range completely with the argument that they are feral.


I have never heard that particular argument.


----------



## boots (Jan 16, 2012)

I know more than a thousand ranchers and ranch families. 

I know of not one that wants the horses all gone. That is money making hype from the save-every-feral-horse money machine.


----------



## valley ranch (Oct 12, 2017)

Our lower spread in On the Nevada High Desert ~ there isn't enough Mustang anymore to eat the Cheet Grass ~ so ~ we have range fires instead ```
The Mustang ~ is more of a Native ~ than we are ``` There are no more herds ~ only ~ Bands of up to 8 ~ of these beautiful creatures ``` Yeh ~ there is a band of over in Stagecoach of close to 18 ~ hope the don't drive them ~ into traps ``` The BLM is pulling for the truckers ~ who take our horses ~ to Mexico ~ to the Slaughter House ~ yes ~ their brother in law ~ can make a lot of money ~ and maybe they are willing to share some ~ but we know these horses ~ love to see them ~ and there are so few of them today ```

They are not destroying the land ~ they're improving it ~ by being there ```


----------



## horseluvr2524 (Sep 17, 2013)

bsms said:


> They do have dogs running in the sheep to help with coyotes. They probably won't get any more dogs like that. Just aren't convinced they help much. The dogs may help with coyotes. May. Not with bears or cougars.


I agree with everything you've said. Just curious about this part. What kind of dogs are they using? I've read some amazing things about livestock guardian dogs. I recall one story of a huge flock of sheep being shepherded up a mountain trail by several shepherds and 4 or 5 great pyrenees dogs. Long story short, a grizzly showed up and started trying to get at the sheep. The dogs drove the bear off several times, allowing the shepherds and sheep to get safely away.

From what I've read (no first hand experience), livestock guardian dogs have been used for hundreds of years to drive off all predators including the big ones like mountain lions and grizzly bears. They range in temperament from mild (great pyr) to highly protective and aggressive (caucasian ovtcharka). Maybe these are worth your friend looking into? I've read of them being used for nomadic lifestyle, though most modern day LGD owners don't recommend that. I do think they are capable of it though, from testimonies I've read of people who have seen them following flocks through towns in countries not so industrialized.


----------



## valley ranch (Oct 12, 2017)

We love it if a band comes by ~ to ~ nibble the Russian Olive ~ overhanging the fence ~ but haven't had any come this way for a couple years ~ their numbers are too low ``` 

Went out for a ride ~ us all ~ and saw a lovely band ~ short while back ~ there are thousand and thousands of miles or open empty land ~ and not enough horses or cattle ~ to eat all that fuel ``` **** I hate to hear the ~ son a ssss ~ who hate the mustang ~ talking rot ~ " They'r damaging the land " ~ Hell they are ```

Oh ~ and good afternoon ```





Richard


----------



## horseluvr2524 (Sep 17, 2013)

boots said:


> No kidding. Mtn lion attack the hind end and eat their way in once the animal is immobilized. Usually tearing open the chest cavity while it is still alive while its' mates or mom race around panicked. Wolves run them nearly to death and then, very often, take out the necks and start eating while the prey is still alive. Coyotes hamstring most animals and eat them alive, butt forward. They will eat the nose off a fawn or calf (elk or bovine), or foal as it is being born (mom can't run), and then start on the mother's rear. Leaving the youngster to bleed to death.
> 
> You come across the still living animal, moaning and crying. Even deer and antelope make very sad noise. Calves bawling, their mamas calling to them. Horses making terribly weak nickers as you pass.
> 
> ...


I completely agree, but could not like your post 

Why is it a federal offense to finish them off? I don't understand the reasoning (is that considered 'hunting' out of season?). It seems terribly cruel.


----------



## boots (Jan 16, 2012)

valley ranch said:


> Our lower spread in On the Nevada High Desert ~ there isn't enough Mustang anymore to eat the Cheet Grass ~ so ~ we have range fires instead


You are under the impression that the feral horses have magic mouths and teeth that tolerate *cheat grass*? Are you aware of what happens to any herbivore, domestic, wild, or feral, that eats mature cheat grass? Ever hear of lump jaw? Ever seen an animal blinded by those seeds? Ever see a skin abscess caused by cheat grass digging in?

They eat the young stuff like every herbivore on the range lands. 

It makes good hay, too, if harvested young. It is drought-resistant, too. 

You have range fires because the land is underutilized and because the Fed and State agencies don't allow basic rotational grazing. No way will that save-every-feral-horse groups allow them to be moved for range health.

As far as the feral horses being "more native" than we are. I will disagree. I have family that is both Mexican and Spanish. The Mexican-Indian side has been here longer than any horses the Spaniards brought. And my people have been in what is called the US longer than about any one, except northern tribes, to whom I am also related!


----------



## valley ranch (Oct 12, 2017)

You can drive for hours and not see a band ~ or ride up and around and see ~ grassy land as far as the eye can see ~ empty grassy land with ~ a band of six ~ with a thousand acres behind them with ~ not a creature nor man to care ```

These mustang are part of our treasure ```

We talked to the BLM couple while back ~ about adopting a horse ~ then when we said ~ trailer's hooked up ~ we're on our way ~ no eah ~ we only have six ready for adoption ~ I was just there ~ you have couple hundred ~ no they haven't had their shots ~ We'll take em to a vet ~ no you can't do that ~ no this ~ not that ~ but they give em to the truckers for 
$10.00 ~ without shots ~ why is that ~ lousy son a ma grits ```

We've a couple a three Mustang here ~ man they'r nice looking ```


----------



## valley ranch (Oct 12, 2017)

I'm under the impression of nothing ~ na partner ~ I know they'r horses ~ but they eat a bit of Shockleys Desert thorn as well ```

Cheet Grass n Desert thorn ~ we have miles and miles of ```

Well that's great ~ you got people here who ~ were here before dirt ~ tell me what that means ~ do they want to rid U.S. of the Mustang ~ Or ```


Oh ~ by the way ~ forgot to mention : Glad to meet you ```

Richard


----------



## boots (Jan 16, 2012)

valley ranch said:


> You can drive for hours and not see a band ~ or ride up and around and see ~ grassy land as far as the eye can see ~ empty grassy land with ~ a band of six ~ with a thousand acres behind them with ~ not a creature nor man to care ```
> 
> These mustang are part of our treasure ```
> 
> ...


You ride for a few hours, barely covering range. And you think the horses don't hear and smell you? 

So what if you see some forage. What is it? What are the water sources? 

If you treasure the horses, as I do, you will get a lot of education on range management and horse health.


----------



## valley ranch (Oct 12, 2017)

boots ~ the Mustang don't run and hide from us ~ and ~ the land is covered with grass ~ uneaten ``` This seasons grass is growing in and last years grass ~ it still there ```

So ~ you'r in favor of gather n killing the horses ~ that's where this is going ```


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Yeah, I'm in favor of killing the horses before they kill the land. We manage deer. And sheep. And cattle. Do it to preserve the land. Destroy desert land - and much of the western US is desert land - and a few months of abuse can take decades to recover.

The BLM is not selling mustangs for $10 to be trucked to Mexico for slaughter. 



> As of March 1, 2016, there were nearly 13,500 wild horses and burros living in feedlot-type short-term holding pens and another 31,500 living in long-term pastures. Take a minute and let those numbers sink in. All 45,000 of these wild animals were gathered off the range, segregated by sex, castrated, branded, given shots, and doomed to sit in a feedlot for about five years. They have been or will be released onto a foreign pasture in the Midwest bearing no resemblance of their former wild lifestyle. *Each horse will live on that long-term pasture until he gets old, or has organ failure or an injury*. Then he will be destroyed in as humane a manner as possible.
> 
> 
> The cost for all 45,000 of these horses *is approximately $50,000 per horse over its lifetime*. That’s more than twice what I paid to go to college. Although the Wild Horse and Burro Act specifically states that “The Secretary shall cause additional excess wild free-roaming horses and burros for which an adoption demand by qualified individuals does not exist to be destroyed in the most humane and cost-efficient manner possible,” this option hasn’t been utilized due to lawsuits, public outcry, and congressional riders. The expense of holding all these horses *has crippled the BLM’s wild horse budget to the point where it’s  spending two- thirds of its entire budget, nearly $50 million in 2016, warehousing horses in short-term and long-term pastures.*"
> ...


Don't know how much anyone else pays in taxes, but I don't want $50,000 per horse spent on horses whose population can double in 4 years.


> The Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Land Management care deeply about the well-being of wild horses, both on and off the range, and it has been and remains the policy of the BLM not to sell or send wild horses or burros to slaughter. Consequently, as noted in a report issued in October 2008, the Government Accountability Office found the BLM not in compliance with a December 2004 amendment (the so-called Burns Amendment to the 1971 Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act) that directs the Bureau to sell excess (unadopted or unsold) horses or burros “without limitation" to any willing buyer. Further information about the BLM's sales program. View a sample bill of sale. The bill of sale, among other things, states that the buyer agrees not to process any of the sold horses or burros into commercial products, or to knowingly sell or transfer ownership to any person or organization whose intent is to commercially process the animals. On January 4, 2013, the BLM announced a policy stipulating that no more than four wild horses or burros may be bought by an individual or group within a six-month period without prior approval of the agency's Assistant Director for Renewable Resources and Planning....
> 
> ...Livestock grazing on BLM-managed land has declined by 32 percent since 1971 (when Congress passed the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act) -- from 12.8 million Animal Unit Months (AUMs or forage units) to 8.7 million AUMs in 2016."
> 
> https://www.blm.gov/programs/wild-horse-and-burro/about-the-program/myths-and-facts


Also worth noting: In Arizona, the BLM manages 364 mustangs and 6,241 burros. Not a lot of press for wild burros...


----------



## valley ranch (Oct 12, 2017)

Well ~ I want to apologize for jumping out of my tree ``` I am regret it ~ please ~ I had no right to act all ~ huffy ```

Please forgive me ~ I started blabbing before thinking ~ that's never good ```

As for the Mustang ~ we ~ the girls an I do all we can to save em ~ there's no money ~ in saving horses ~ we do what we can ~ cause we love em ```


Forgive me ```

Richard


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

these are the sorts of discussions we will need to have, more and more, as we progress into a WORLD that is so affected by human habitation that only by careful management will some of the world's more delicate animal populations survive. 
This is going to become the 'norm', not an oddity.

we'd best get used to the whole idea.


----------



## JCnGrace (Apr 28, 2013)

I don't want the feral horses gone completely but there needs to be a means to control them to sustainable populations. In some ways I'm against birth control because knowing human beings they'd screw that up by letting the more undesirable ones stay fertile. 


I'm all for zoos or other animal sanctuaries that house carnivorous animals to be able to purchase them for food. That would help, maybe minor help but still every little bit counts, offset some of the costs. Then there are the hungry people in this country. I got no problem with stocking food banks with horse meat. I'm sure if your hungry enough you wouldn't have an aversion to eating it. Those solutions seem so simple to me that I can't understand why everyone doesn't see them but the animal activist who are mainly clueless about animals have more say so than folks with common sense.


----------



## 4horses (Nov 26, 2012)

Here is the problem, as i see it. Let's look at Texas after hurricane Harvey. They had thousands of dogs in shelters all needing homes and new dogs incoming. Instead of putting all the dogs down, they shipped them to other states. If one state has an overpopulation of dogs, you don't see the federal government coming in and passing a law to put down all stray dogs in the entire U.S. The overpopulation problem with horses is mostly just in one state, therefore it makes sense to redistribute the horses to states where demand is higher

Issue 1) the BLM does not do a good job of getting them adopted. Especially to the eastern states. There are limited shipments to Florida if at all. When I wanted to adopt one, i would have to drive 8 hours to northern Georgia. People aren't going to adopt if they have to drive a 16 hour round trip!

Issue 2) the fencing requirements. Most horse people have standard fencing at 5 feet. They should lower the fencing requirements to 5 feet and instead require double fencing - at least 2 fences between the horse and any roads. This way if you already have a roundpen, you are set to go. Or allow a single fence of 6 feet. 

Issue 3) the one year ownership requirement - change this to 6 months and you might get more trainers interested in adopting for resale.

Issue 4) not enough online adoptions. They list maybe 200 horses every couple of months. If they started listing 200 horses a month and adopting them out, they may have better odds at increasing turnover. If the pound doesn't list the dogs available for adoption online, chances are they won't get adopted. 

Issue 5) they need more satellite facilities. Again located in Eastern states to make it easier to adopt.

Issue 6) they need to use PZP to stop population growth. This should have been implemented a decade ago. 

Issue 7) they need to coordinate with university vet schools and do gelding clinics.


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

Dogs can be kept in almost any living situation; urban or rural. they cost a fraction of the cost of horses to care and keep. 

It would be so cool if people kept horses with the commonness of keeping dogs, all over the place, in backyards, inside the house, with 'dog . I mean horse walkers to take them out for walks when the owners are out working at Amazon and such.

just kidding.


----------



## Dreamcatcher Arabians (Nov 14, 2010)

The main problem with getting Mustangs adopted is, they're feral. And they're not the cute little Mustang from days gone by, now that they've been mixed with whatever escapes or gets turned out and survives, some of them are HUGE. The guy I use for colt starting got 2 of them in. They were supposed to be about 14-15 hands high, mares (that's the only thing the owner was told that was true), gentled and about 2-3 years old. The were in fact both over 16 hands, about 12-15 years old and unhandled. They dang near took his barn down. He had them for 3 months, working to gain trust and get them safe to handle and the owner quit paying the bills. 

Trainer and I were talking about it and he told me that is not an uncommon scenario, most of the Mustangs that he has gotten are totally NOT what the owners (who bought on line) were led to believe they were buying and were completely above 99% of people's ability to handle for a LONG time. Most people want a horse they can handle and ride now, not a year or 2 in the future.


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

4horses said:


> Only 10 states have wild horses. Why not redistribute them to states that have none?


They wouldn't survive long in most of the North East States - its all so heavily forested with what bit of open land there is being fenced for agriculture or horses. 
Even the deer don't do well here in the winter months and either starve to death or get killed on the roads - if they aren't shot by someone, they're the luckier ones compared to the other two options.


It would be a terrible shame for these feral horses to disappear but there has to be a sensible balance and control measure to enforce that. If X acres of land supports X number of horses in a healthy condition you can't have X+ on it.


----------



## SilverMaple (Jun 24, 2017)

4horses said:


> Only 10 states have wild horses. Why not redistribute them to states that have none?


Because most states do not have public land in large-enough quantities to support a viable herd. Most states are also dealing with a swelling human population and less and less land for agriculture to feed those people, much less worry about wild horses. 

They'd be shot in 3 days if turned loose here in Iowa to destroy cornfields and soybeans... if they weren't dead of colic and founder first... it's not like most states have endless acres of grass and streams and idyllic horse habitat. Instead most are overcrowded by people, roads, commercial farms and livestock for human consuption, and cities. Heck, finding pasture for domestic horses is nearly impossible in some areas with the rising costs of land. Great Plains and Western states are facing ever-increasing years of drought to the point where habitation of any type is under threat, whether from native wildlife, cattle, or people. 

Allowing nature to take its course is not the best source of action, either. Slaughter in a Mexican plant is inhumane, but it's much faster than slowly starving to death or dying due to lack of water. Dead is dead, but one is over in a few minutes, and the other takes days, weeks, or months of agony. 

I'd be all for a culling of the less-desireable of that most-invasive of species, **** sapiens. The human race is breeding itself into extinction, and fewer people would not be a bad thing in any sense of the word. Heartless? Probably. True? Yes.


----------



## SilverMaple (Jun 24, 2017)

The fencing and housing requirements make sense. Lowering the fence height will simply mean peoples' mustangs will jump out and run frantically down the road until they're hit by a car or break a leg or are shot as 'risk to the public' by law enforcement because they can't be caught. 

Have you ever worked with a mustang straight off the range? They'd go over or through a 5' fence in a heartbeat. The facility requirements make sense. If you don't have facilities that meet those needs, you have no business having a mustang. And the 1 year agreement before sale is in place so people don't adopt a bunch, turn them out pasture to eat for free all summer, and sell them for slaughter in the fall. At least if it's a year, you have to pay for hay over the winter so it's at least a partial deterrent.


----------



## SilverMaple (Jun 24, 2017)

Dreamcatcher Arabians said:


> The main problem with getting Mustangs adopted is, they're feral. And they're not the cute little Mustang from days gone by, now that they've been mixed with whatever escapes or gets turned out and survives, some of them are HUGE. The guy I use for colt starting got 2 of them in. They were supposed to be about 14-15 hands high, mares (that's the only thing the owner was told that was true), gentled and about 2-3 years old. The were in fact both over 16 hands, about 12-15 years old and unhandled. They dang near took his barn down. He had them for 3 months, working to gain trust and get them safe to handle and the owner quit paying the bills.
> 
> Trainer and I were talking about it and he told me that is not an uncommon scenario, most of the Mustangs that he has gotten are totally NOT what the owners (who bought on line) were led to believe they were buying and were completely above 99% of people's ability to handle for a LONG time. Most people want a horse they can handle and ride now, not a year or 2 in the future.


We had the opposite problem-- mustangs so small and weedy they were barely 13 hands, and so narrow and short-backed nobody had a saddle that would fit them. I went with a friend to an adoption event a few years ago, both of us intending to get a horse, and we left with an empty trailer. Just nothing there that was remotely attractive or large enough to use as a ranch horse, which was what we were looking for. These horses looked like scrawny yearlings and were all full-grown. Yeah, good feed and they'd fill out a bit, but you aren't going to fix the overall build and conformation. Most people there that day felt the same way, because very few ended up taking home a horse. 

Most people interested in adopting a mustang go into it with rose-colored glasses thinking it's all going to be butterflies and rainbows and that the horse is going to love them and they'll gallop off into the sunset and live happily ever after, and it doesn't work that way. Most trainers capable of doing justice by a mustang have all the business they can handle with well-bred horses, and most owners, by the time they resort to a trainer, have realized they now have thousands of dollars wrapped up in a horse that they are afraid of, and that's the end of the mustang dream for them. He's sold for pocket change on CL or if he's lucky, a pasture pet for life and they buy what they should have the first time-- a broke older horse they can enjoy with their current skillset.


----------



## valley ranch (Oct 12, 2017)

This girl's a Mustang ~ they'r easy keepers ~ survival of the fittest ~ don't get all the horse sickness ~ seems ``` 

Smart ~ daughter trains em ~ easy ~ they want to learn ~ good animals ~ like people ~ not fussy with food ```


----------



## Joel Reiter (Feb 9, 2015)

SilverMaple said:


> Yeah, good feed and they'd fill out a bit, but you aren't going to fix the overall build and conformation.


My experience is similar. At the event I attended the majority of the horses had conformation faults. These horses were hauled more than a thousand miles for this adoption. It's bad enough they can't slaughter the poor quality horses, but to pick them out to haul all over the country is absurd.


----------



## valley ranch (Oct 12, 2017)

She gets em saddle ready ~ they like her ~ she likes them ```

They good to the land ~ they don't drink up the water ``` What a treasure these sweeties ```


----------



## valley ranch (Oct 12, 2017)

There was this woman ~ when into the butcher shop ~ asked ~ to look at a chicken ~ held it up by it's legs ~ sniffed it here n there ~ the butcher says: Lady ~ think you could pass a test like that ```

Looks like it might rain ~ I got these new boots on ~ daughters gave me ~ like to break em in 
~ so I can get em off ~ without a boot jack ```


There is ~ over the hills west ~ this great looking stallion ~ one of his mare is heavy ~ like to ride over ~ sit up on that knoll n ~ watch ~ you know make sure no coyote bothers her while she's giving birth ~ her stallion can most likely take care ~ less there's a bunch of em ```


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

I like my 13.0 hand BLM mustang. He was free because no one else wanted him. He eats as much and drinks as much for his size as the other horses. My main riding horse is an Arabian/Mustang mix. Good horse, but he wouldn't sell for much either.

Meanwhile, there are 45,000+ in holding, the population is increasing by over 5,000/year, and there are 2,500 adoptions a year. The math says it isn't going to work.


----------



## valley ranch (Oct 12, 2017)

Sweet looking thing ~ built as well ~ as most people ~ me thinks ~ sometimes she still has that ~ you're not gona hurt me look ~ she'll get over that ~ a day or so ```


----------



## 4horses (Nov 26, 2012)

Let me clarfy: what i meant when i said redistribute them to states that have none is to either try and get them adopted in those states or release a herd that is already gelded or sterilized.


----------



## valley ranch (Oct 12, 2017)

Well ~ like them to redistribute the ones they took ~ back here ```

Congress ~ from what I heard ~ said: NO ~ to the 40,000 + ~ the greedy ~ wanted to take ~ I don't think there's that many left ```

Richard


----------



## valley ranch (Oct 12, 2017)

Have you heard it said that wild horses are destroying their habitat? What do they mean, those who spread this slander against these animals~ are they saying they are eating the food growing ~to the ground ~drinking every gallon of water, or are they causing erosion~ nothing could be farther from the truth.
That’s what the BLM is telling, brainwashed people. I’ve ridden, drove, flown over and on the much of this land and there are not near enough horses, burros or cattle to destroy this land~ not near enough even to eat down the fuel so that each summer we would have fewer range fires. 

The Public and Private lands combined~ we are talking about are nearly 700 million acres~ you can count how many animals would be needed so as to have an a 5 acre plot for each one, or a 1acre plot.


The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is an agency within the United States Department of the Interior that administers more than 247.3 million acres (1,001,000 km2) of public lands in the United States which constitutes one-eighth of the landmass of the country.[2] President Harry S. Truman created the BLM in 1946 by combining two existing agencies: the General Land Office and the Grazing Service.[3] The agency manages the federal government's nearly 700 million acres (2,800,000 km2) of subsurface mineral estate located beneath federal, state and private lands severed from their surface rights by the Homestead Act of 1862.[3] Most BLM public lands are located in these 12 western states: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washingtonand Wyoming.[4]



We don’t have enough horses on public or private land to control the overgrowth of plants they were free to eat before this land became states, horses and burros are helpful, if allowed, in eating what would be range fire fuel.


----------



## valley ranch (Oct 12, 2017)

There's room for cattle ~ there a fellow ~ well ~ several miles from here ~ he's got a few head ~ this is open range ``` His few head ~ will help the land rather than hurt it ```


----------



## valley ranch (Oct 12, 2017)

Have you heard it said that wild horses are destroying their habitat? What do they mean, those who spread this slander against these animals~ are they saying they are eating the food growing ~to the ground ~drinking every gallon of water, or are they causing erosion~ nothing could be farther from the truth.
That’s what the BLM is telling, brainwashed people. I’ve ridden, drove, flown over and on the much of this land and there are not near enough horses, burros or cattle to destroy this land~ not near enough even to eat down the fuel so that each summer we would have fewer range fires. 

The Public and Private lands combined~ we are talking about are nearly 700 million acres~ you can count how many animals would be needed so as to have an a 5 acre plot for each one, or a 1acre plot.


The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is an agency within the United States Department of the Interior that administers more than 247.3 million acres (1,001,000 km2) of public lands in the United States which constitutes one-eighth of the landmass of the country.[2] President Harry S. Truman created the BLM in 1946 by combining two existing agencies: the General Land Office and the Grazing Service.[3] The agency manages the federal government's nearly 700 million acres (2,800,000 km2) of subsurface mineral estate located beneath federal, state and private lands severed from their surface rights by the Homestead Act of 1862.[3] Most BLM public lands are located in these 12 western states: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washingtonand Wyoming.[4]



We don’t have enough horses on public or private land to control the overgrowth of plants they were free to eat before this land became states, horses and burros are helpful, if allowed, in eating what would be range fire fuel.


----------



## COWCHICK77 (Jun 21, 2010)

valley ranch said:


> Have you heard it said that wild horses are destroying their habitat? What do they mean, those who spread this slander against these animals~ are they saying they are eating the food growing ~to the ground ~drinking every gallon of water, or are they causing erosion~ nothing could be farther from the truth.
> That’s what the BLM is telling, brainwashed people. I’ve ridden, drove, flown over and on the much of this land and there are not near enough horses, burros or cattle to destroy this land~ not near enough even to eat down the fuel so that each summer we would have fewer range fires.
> 
> The Public and Private lands combined~ we are talking about are nearly 700 million acres~ you can count how many animals would be needed so as to have an a 5 acre plot for each one, or a 1acre plot.


The horse advocates claim it is the cattle and sheep grazing that is destroying habitat. 
Horses destroy habitat and grasses when there are too many for an area to support. Madaeline Pickins place is the perfect example. You should see it. The ground looks like an arena due to overgrazing and too many horses.
The cattle and sheep numbers are controlled the horses are not. We(permit holders) are told how many head we can turn out for how long then they must be pulled out to prevent over grazing. In areas where the horses share grazing with livestock, the livestock leave the horses do not still feeding on what is left. On those areas where livestock grazing is permitted the permit holder maintains the water whether it be developing springs or trucking water out to tanks at which benefits all; livestock, wildlife and horses.

Rotational and hollistic grazing plans using livestock benefit native grasses and habitat for wildlife. Horses do not use those practices naturally obviously and especially not so when there are too many in an area and the water is too far. You spoke of feeding off Cheat Grass and boots explained very well why that doesn't work all year around or after the feed dries and hardens. Controlled, concentrated grazing with livestock can eliminate those fire fuels more efficiently. The reason you see more fires is because grazing and logging practices have been reduced significantly over the years. It is not due to lack of horses. I am familiar with the horse situation in Stagecoach, Dayton, Virginia City area. I used to see the same horses every day there plus people feed them. With that said you can't use the the horses there as the model for the horses situation everywhere else. I've seen the difference just within the state. Ive been places where supposedly there were no horses, seen horses. Been on HMAs where were 3 times as what they can hold. 

I have yet to hear anyone say get rid of all the horses. There can be a balance but at this point there is none.




valley ranch said:


> The Public and Private lands combined~ we are talking about are nearly 700 million acres~ you can count how many animals would be needed so as to have an a 5 acre plot for each one, or a 1acre plot.


This is extremely flawed thinking as far as animal and grass management is concerned. I encourage you to learn about how AUMs are calculated and why.


----------



## COWCHICK77 (Jun 21, 2010)

As a side note because I think there's a misconception that all 44,000+ horses are going to slaughter however I haven't read up on the subject since the story first broke about a year and half ago, but this was my understanding then:
The BLM advisory board simply voted "yes" on a paragraph already in the The Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971
(Public Law 92-195):

"The Secretary shall cause such number of additional excess wild free-roaming horses and burros to be humanely captured and removed for private maintenance and care for which he determines an adoption demand exists by qualified individuals, and for which he determines he can assure humane treatment and care (including proper transportation, feeding, and handling): Provided, That, not more than four animals may be adopted per year by any individual unless the Secretary determines in writing that such individual is capable of humanely caring for more than four animals, including the transportation of such animals by the adopting party; and [PRIA 10/25/1978]

The Secretary shall cause additional excess wild free roaming horses and burros for which an adoption demand by qualified individuals does not exist to be destroyed in the most humane and cost efficient manner possible."

My understanding was they were not going to euthanize all 44,000. Advisory board suggesting to make the older horses who have been in holding easier to adopt and if they were still not adopted they may opt to euthanize humanely.

I believe the only thing that has changed was the proposal to pay $1000 to adopt a horse.
Again, horrible idea.
People are already joking about adopting, sticking the cash in their pocket and turning the horse loose.


----------



## boots (Jan 16, 2012)

It's not just grassy or brushy looking stuff that animals need to survive. They need water. And they need the right kind of forage.

There is a reason some parts of the west require 75 acres per pair (mother and offspring) and up to 250 acres per pair. AUM (animal unit months).


----------



## valley ranch (Oct 12, 2017)

There's water ~ or ~ they wouldn't be there ```

Yep ~ and leave the rest be ~ what say ```

The horse advocates ( as you call us ) don't claim cows and sheep ~ are anything ~ the cattle fellows ~ claim the sheep do ~ and I understand that ```

But aside from ~ all the claims ~ there plenty of forage and water ~ and ~ not enough horses or cattle ```

We're just on different sides of the Slaughterhouse ~ I guess you know what I like ~ and ~ I'm guessing I know the other ```


----------



## Kaifyre (Jun 16, 2016)

Sterilization, either long or short term, is an answer. Culling undesirable animals is another. I believe we should always have a viable population of mustangs in America. How many is viable? Obviously the numbers we have today are in general not viable, it would take someone with more brains than I to figure out an exact number. Proper management of feral horse herds would be an absolute necessity. All of these ideas could be used, or just a few, and we would have a manageable, viable feral horse population that wouldn't be eating itself to starvation or dying of thirst. But before we can achieve this glorious balance we need a mass culling. I don't like it, I loathe the idea, but there are simply too many at this point. Like someone else said, they need a reset. 

I would separate all the animals based on conformation first. Anything with a conformation that does not enhance the "breed" (type, whatever) is culled. I would also cull those who will never make decent riding horses, because once a viable population is achieved, adoption can be a way of managing the herds, and no one is going to want to adopt a weedy 13 hand nag with bowed legs. Thus, those with decent conformation and decent riding size will be allowed to breed and pass on those genetics. It would take a lot of work in the beginning. A mass culling would not be taken well by the mostly ignorant city dwelling populace either. I fully support doing something worthy with the animals as well, process them and sell them as meat, as dog food, whatever. If their lives must be taken, don't make it be in vain - take those lives and do something with them. The money made off the bodies could fund further birth control and herd management techniques. 

If we do this consistently and do it the right way, after a few years we'll have a manageable feral horse population that is desirable by the public, and is healthy. Once their numbers are down enough, birth control, sterilization, and adoption will keep the numbers in check permanently, and then we will have no more use for barbaric mass cullings. Sometimes, in order to create, we must first destroy. The thought of killing thousands of horses for the crime of being born is abhorrent to me, but sometimes we must close our eyes and harden our hearts and do what is necessary for the good of the species as a whole. If they are managed effectively, mass cullings need only be a temporary stopgap solution. Right now there are simply too many of them for their environment to support. Something must be done, because leaving them to starve to death or die of thirst in the hundreds and thousands is inhumane to the extreme. 

-- Kai


----------



## boots (Jan 16, 2012)

@Kaifyre - Those are some reasonable ideas. With good science behind them.

Unfortunately, unreasonable groups sued, and won, to stop any of it because any management of the feral horses is considered cruel to them.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

valley ranch said:


> ...But aside from ~ all the claims ~ there plenty of forage and water ~ and ~ not enough horses or cattle ```
> 
> We're just on different sides of the Slaughterhouse ~ I guess you know what I like ~ and ~ I'm guessing I know the other ```


Ummm...there is not "plenty of forage and water". If there were, the upper limits of grazing would be higher. There are times each year with ample forage and water, and cattle or sheep can be moved onto the land in the time of plenty. THEN REMOVED. The USFS or BLM gives the rancher dates when he can move animals on, and when he MUST get them off.

But the horses are there all year. What a range manager typically will see is not bare ground, but a change in which species of plants are growing. That is why I did vegetation surveys for the Utah Division of Wildlife years ago - to allow them to monitor changes in vegetation, which in turn would tell them if an area had too many deer. They used it to guide levels of hunting.

BTW - one of my jobs back then included collecting data for a study that showed heavy grazing by sheep during certain times of the year would increase the food available for wildlife. But for it to work, the sheep needed to be moved on and then OFF. It requires management!

PS - I studied range management between getting my degree in biology and giving it up for the military. Never worked in range management and I'm now about 40 years past my "sell-by" date. But I'm sure this is still true: 

_No range manager worth his pay would EVER let the land be stripped bare before taking action!_​


----------



## 6gun Kid (Feb 26, 2013)

valley ranch said:


> There's water ~ or ~ they wouldn't be there ```
> 
> Yep ~ and leave the rest be ~ what say ```
> 
> ...


I walked away from this post repeatedly, and my wife told me to shut up and keep moving. But, this was the last straw. You claim to have a spread in the high desert, and then in this last post you claim there is plenty of forage and water. You, sir, are in committable denial. Water and forage are scarce in the Great basin, and science has shown if there were nothing else on the forage, feral horses would over take the range. I get, and wholeheartedly agree, with the romance and image of mustangs free on the range. But, the numbers are not sustainable, they just aren't. Unfortunately, I only see one solution, and that is mass euthanasia. Keep the best for adoption, euthanize the rest, and maintain an acceptable herd on the range. Nobody I know, wants them gone. They just want them managed. Texas has very little federal land, but I had a BLM lease (on an area with lots of rain and grass), and I will never do it again. It is legal theft by the government.


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

If I could like your post more than once, @6gunkid I would!


----------



## Dreamcatcher Arabians (Nov 14, 2010)

Golden Horse said:


> If I could like your post more than once, @6gunkid I would!


Me too! I've been sitting on my hands and breaking my fingers.


----------



## valley ranch (Oct 12, 2017)

This solution for some areas ```


----------



## valley ranch (Oct 12, 2017)

We are on the ~ High Desert ~ Jack ``` Some parts of the country are ~ water poor ~ others are more fortunate ```

Nevada ~ 84% is owned by the government ```


Have a great day ```


----------



## boots (Jan 16, 2012)

I'm a big fan of Alan Savory. I recommend anyone take his courses, if they are interested. He sure doesn't do things willy-nilly, though. And our gov'at agencies are barely beginning to look at the success he and others are having.

I do want to add that if one has the opportunity to see truly feral horses, please resist the temptation to follow them or get close to them. The herd leaders don't appreciate it, and they occasionally get aggressive, and messing around in their territory most often makes them abandon that area. That might mean they go somewhere with less desirable conditions which causes them hardship.


----------



## valley ranch (Oct 12, 2017)

Well Guys ~ I don't know if ~ Food has been taken out of your mouth , by these animals, or ~ you work for a rancher who want more for him , they've come on your un fenced property and eaten your corn or you'r just resent their freedom ~ that you'd like em dead ```

But, you remind me of the people who want to take my gun ~ to make me safe ``` How bout next time you're talking to the Lord ~ asking for something special ~ ask Him ~ to give you a sign ~ if you'r coming at this from the right way, hating these creatures ```


Real good meeting you ~ every one ```

Richard


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

valley ranch said:


> How bout next time you're talking to the Lord ~ asking for something special ~ ask Him ~ to give you a sign ~ if you'r coming at this from the right way, hating these creatures ```


 Please. No one here hates these horses. 
Culling a herd has nothing at all about hatred for a species, its about managing them in a way that guarantees that the remaining ones will have a healthy life in their designated area rather than die of starvation or in some cases prevent breeding genetic traits that won't do them any good in the long term.
If a was to go out and buy 30 horses and put them on my land that supports 5 horses in good health with supplementary feed and water in the winter and didn't buy any extra feed to give these 30 now horses then they would all suffer and most would die of starvation in the winter if they didn't die of thirst. I would be accused of animal abuse - and rightly so - I certainly wouldn't be hailed as a horse lover.
Even if you removed the cattle from the scenario the feral horses would eventually increase to take up that space and the problem would start all over again.
If there aren't enough homes for them to go too then humane slaughter is the best option unless a sterilization process can be put in place.


Some of the horses are nice, too many are just scrubby looking pony types, too many have conformational defects, a lot have mindsets that don't make them easy to do anything with. On top of that there are lots of better horses and ponies selling for next to nothing that have been handled and broke, a lot of them are registered so adding more to that every month just increases the problem.
Then there's the whole 'free/dirt cheap horse' thing that attracts beginners that don't have the experience, facilities or even know how much keeping a horse is going to cost. 
I always think that when you hear the success stories about things like this you don't hear the hundreds of ones that failed miserably.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Double post...HF database error...


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

valley ranch said:


> Well Guys I don't know if Food has been taken out of your mouth , by these animals, or you work for a rancher who want more for him , they've come on your un fenced property and eaten your corn or you'r just resent their freedom ~ that you'd like em dead...


No wild mustang has taken any food from me. Nor from very many ranchers, since I don't know any ranchers who have grazing permits on land also occupied by wild horses and burros - don't forget the Magnificent Western Burro! Nor would cutting back on the numbers of wild horses increase anyone's grazing permit. Not by a single AUM.

Don't resent their "freedom". And don't want them dead. Not ALL Of them. 

I merely want their numbers not to exceed the land's carrying capacity. I don't want land overgrazed by sheep, cattle - or wild horses. And burros. Arizona has a lot more wild burros than wild horses.




















"The wild small donkeys are cute. They're also invasive, with an estimated population of 4,800 in Arizona. That’s 3,000 more than the federal government says the environment can sustain...*Last year, the agency adopted out only 50 burros across the state.*" 










https://science.kjzz.org/content/30...-curbing-arizonas-burro-boom-through-adoption​


----------



## valley ranch (Oct 12, 2017)

Greetings bsms ~ Yeh, I understand ~ I think the Burros are kinda neat as well ~ we/I don't see them up here much , nor camels ~ they still have the Camel races in Virginia City ```






Richard


----------



## valley ranch (Oct 12, 2017)

Hello Jeydee ~ Well ~ I don't see ~ the Free Horses ~ starving or overgrazing ~ or eventually overpopulating the land ~ and ~ I do get out ~ they won't/can't be there if the land won't stand it ``` 

Glad to hear ~ you don't hate the Wild horses ~ never meant for you to think I was saying you personally did ~ a bunch of of em ~ do hate the horses ~ you can hear it ~ when they'r saying what they mean to say ~ they mostly hold back ~ and ~ say they want to: Control them, Keep them safe and healthy ~ want to look after them ~ but it comes out at times ~ Like: There destroying the land ~ that they haven't destroyed in 100s of years ~ and they'r holding up Liquor Stores ~ na haven't heard that yet ~ but close ```

The life, safety and freedom to live ~ is not a popular thing ~ so they don't get the interest of the Left wing media or anti U.S. Hollywood Creeps ~ there's just a few people who have the time and try to look out for em ~ we're not always successful ~ cause the ones that have that itch ~ keep working to get them dead ```

Richard


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

valley ranch said:


> Hello Jeydee ~ Well ~ I don't see ~ the Free Horses ~ starving or overgrazing ~ or eventually overpopulating the land ~ and ~ I do get out ~ they won't/can't be there if the land won't stand it ```


Was trying to stay out of this one... I have no personal experience of feral horses in the states. I do over this side of the pond though, where 'brumby' numbers are HUGE, and can't imagine why it would be any different over there. Feral animals, including horses, do indeed breed up in good seasons, to numbers well past sustainable, so in normal/poor(depending where you're talking) seasons, not only does the land get severely trashed, but they starve themselves - & many other creatures - out. 


> ~ a bunch of of em ~ do hate the horses ~ you can hear it ... : Control them, Keep them safe and healthy ~ want to look after them ~ but it comes out at times ~ Like: There destroying the land ... ~ and they'r holding up Liquor Stores


Assuming those things mean people(on a horse forum no less) hate horses, strikes me as no more rational as your last sentence above. I suppose you just haven't experienced it personally so you don't believe its possible.


----------



## valley ranch (Oct 12, 2017)

Greetings loosie ~ We had a property ~ between Brisbane and Toowoomba ~ wife was born in Oz ``` Interesting ~ I saw cattle in Australia herded ~ by a fellow on a motorcycle ```

Maybe you're right loosie ~ we believe what we see```






Richard


----------



## COWCHICK77 (Jun 21, 2010)

valley ranch said:


> Hello Jeydee ~ Well ~ I don't see ~ the Free Horses ~ starving or overgrazing ~ or eventually overpopulating the land ~ and ~ I do get out ~ they won't/can't be there if the land won't stand it ```


I have been in places where they are over populated, starved and thirsted. 



> Glad to hear ~ you don't hate the Wild horses ~ never meant for you to think I was saying you personally did ~ a bunch of of em ~ do hate the horses ~ you can hear it ~ when they'r saying what they mean to say ~ they mostly hold back ~ and ~ say they want to: Control them, Keep them safe and healthy ~ want to look after them ~ but it comes out at times ~ Like: There destroying the land ~ that they haven't destroyed in 100s of years ~ and they'r holding up Liquor Stores ~ na haven't heard that yet ~ but close ```


I don't hate the horses nd think they ALL need to be slaughtered. I just feel they need to be controlled.

They only destroy the areas where they are overpopulated and the water is lacking. Water spacing is crucial to spreading cattle and it is no different for horses. 





> The life, safety and freedom to live ~ is not a popular thing ~ so they don't get the interest of the Left wing media or anti U.S. Hollywood Creeps ~ there's just a few people who have the time and try to look out for em ~ we're not always successful ~ cause the ones that have that itch ~ keep working to get them dead ```
> 
> Richard


I'm not going to speak for anyone but myself.

I don't hate the horses.
The frustration for me lies where those who think all the horses should be free without management are who have no concept and understanding of what it takes to manage grass and livestock. There is a whole science behind it. 
My mentor has told me on many occasions that most of what they teach in colleges and the Ranching for Profit schools will cause you to go broke here in NV. NV is hard on horses, women and cows. It's like living on a different planet, we are a unique state. 
It's not as simple as reading a Cherry Hill book on Horsekeeping and calculating 1acre per horse and calling it good.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

We don't have wild horses (or burros) around here. We do have some of the world's leanest deer. Coyote scat suggests the coyotes live off of anything. And I've watched cattle eating prickly pear.

Every experience I've had or seen with the BLM indicates they are anti-rancher. When I worked for the US Forest Service in the 80s, "Multiple Use" dominated. Now...getting good publicity with city voters dominates. A friend spent a year working as a secretary in a BLM office. She said the people in that office would be happiest if only BLM people were allowed on the land. She said the people there acted as if public lands were their private playground.

The idea the BLM is trying to get rid of wild horses to satisfy cruel, greedy ranchers just doesn't match anything I've ever seen from them. But even the BLM is getting their nose rubbed in the reality that wild horses (and burros) can overrun the land. Which many range managers predicted 40 years ago...


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

Off topic of horses specifically, it's pretty rotten to see areas that were known as good - albeit semi arid - grazing land in the past(did you get out to Western Qld or NSW while you were here Richard?), that have been over stocked with sheep & cattle(& invaded by rabbits & hares) - they've been allowed to breed up when the going is good, then die en mass when 'drought'(the normal 'season' for much of Oz) returns. And takes the water, land, topsoil, saltbush & other slow growing plants with them. Now all that's left is 'real' desert.

Further north, pigs & buffalo do serious damage to the environment. And they can both breed up like there's no tomorrow in a very short time. Leichardt was a famous explorer of the 'Top End' who discovered what is now Kakadu & described it as a veritable paradise. When only a number of years later(forget how long but it was very short for the damage done), others visited the area, they thought Leichardt must have 'gone troppo', as the areas he described as paradise were a revolting, salty quagmire. Buffalo & pigs had been introduced to Arnhemland only short years earlier & had already bred up & wreaked havoc. One of the effects they had was to destroy natural levee banks which stopped the tidal rivers flooding the land when the tide was in. With these broken, salty water inundated the land & fresh water lakes & creeks, killing vast amounts of flora & fauna. It's taken many years to put it right - and it takes ongoing huge efforts on the part of rangers, to keep the buffs & the pigs down enough that it doesn't again fall to rack & ruin.

Then we can go on to talk about the gorgeous foxes & cute pussy cats... they don't destroy the land, so surely they too have a right to their life & freedom?? They're just responsible for massive losses - & in very many instances total extinction - of native wildlife.

And yes, I'm well aware that humans are by far the biggest decimators... and responsible for allowing the others. But if we don't seriously control & attempt to rectify the damage we have allowed in the past, what hope is there for any of us?? We do need this world...

For the record, I don't hate cattle, sheep, bunnies, foxes or buffs, or other damaging ferals any more than I hate horses. To acknowledge the damage they do & say they need controlling doesn't equate to hate in the least.


----------



## SilverMaple (Jun 24, 2017)

Similar situation going on in the Navajo Nation. An estimated 500,000 wild/feral horses live on the reservation, which is about the size of West Virginia, and due to drought, horses are dying of thirst or starving to death after becoming trapped in the mud digging for water below the surface. Are they moving off the reservation to better grazing and water? No. So that throws the whole 'they'll simply go where there's better food and water' theory out the window. 

A 'feral horse hunt' with licensed hunters and tags was proposed earlier this year to reduce populations of horses nobody had claimed, but public outcry stopped it. 

Some of the pictures on Facebook of the hundreds of dead horses that starved to death trapped in mud while trying to find water are just heartbreaking... one post had an account of 111 dead horses found in one area in just one day.


----------



## Dreamcatcher Arabians (Nov 14, 2010)

I used to travel through the Navajo lands from Flagstaff up through Moab into Colorado. I would see several herds every time I drove through there. Always wondered how they survived, it's was pretty barren.


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

Can't 'like' your post @SilverMaple, but thanks for sharing that.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

Oh well shoot. I'll do a post. Haven't read all, but wanted to point out to people who may not know, the original bill that is still in force allowed for overpopulation to be euthanized. Not slaughtered but euthanized, just like unwanted dogs and cats are.

It bothers me in many ways that we live in a world where dog and cats have to be euthanized but I don't have the where with all to care for them all.

And the same with horses. I would sadly go with euthanizing before a life that some in captivity are living. But never slaughter. I agree with what I have read about there not being such a thing as humane slaughter for horses because of the psychological make up. They are just to fearful.

But it is the BLM that has decided not to euthanize due to public pressure. They are and always have been authorized by congress to euthanize the excess.

I also might add that I read somewhere that the minimum horse herd size for genetic stability (no throwbacks) was 200.

The discussion or arguments about whether the horse is native or feral don't mean much to me. My thoughts are the real problem is that with the mega fauna die off 10,000 plus years ago most of the horse's natural enemies died off. If the horse had survived that die off and remained here as a definite native species, there'd still be a problem of over population.

I've wondered if the saber toothed tiger had survived the die off if there'd ever have been the huge buffalo herds that existed at the time of settlement.


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

I'm not getting the difference between 'euthenasia' & 'slaughter'? Well, apart from 'euth' being a bit of a 'fluffy' term in this case IMO - euth is meant to mean putting someone out of their misery, whereas in the case of culling animals, it's generally about putting them out of someone else's misery.

What does 'slaughter' mean that's so bad, compared to killing them another way?


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

Generally when animals are designated for slaughter, at least here in the USA, the animals are not treated individually but instead handled in mass transport to the slaughter house and handled in mass at the slaughter house.

If a horse were slaughtered individually as with euthanasia, I would not see much if any difference between the two. There are some horses that are slaughtered individually for feeding zoo animals for instance. I cannot strongly oppose this even though I'm not particularly happy about slaughter or zoos.

Cattle's first defense against danger is to circle the wagons. Self endangering panic only comes much later. Cattle can be humanely handled in a properly designed and ran slaughter house, according to Temple Grandin.

But horses, again based on Temple Grandin, have a first defense of escape to the degree that they will inflict severe injury to themselves and anything nearby. The terror that the horse experiences in the transport and handling facilities of a slaughterhouse defies the definition of humane handling, again based on Temple Grandin's belief. Others may happen to disagree with her assessment, but I happen to agree.


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

So why can't they kill them where they are/at the feedlots & then haul them to slaughter?? Is it because there are no nearby slaughter plants in the US these days, so they need to transport them long periods & the meat would spoil? That's the excuse that they need to transport live brumbies huge distances to knackeries here... since they closed down all the meatworks up north.


----------



## evilamc (Sep 22, 2011)

loosie said:


> So why can't they kill them where they are/at the feedlots & then haul them to slaughter?? Is it because there are no nearby slaughter plants in the US these days, so they need to transport them long periods & the meat would spoil? That's the excuse that they need to transport live brumbies huge distances to knackeries here... since they closed down all the meatworks up north.


No horse slaughter allowed in US, so they have to be shipped over the border.


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

evilamc said:


> No horse slaughter allowed in US, so they have to be shipped over the border.


That's right. Most horses designated for slaughter in the USA go to Mexico where inspection is sadly way under what it was in the USA, in most places, as I read. I should say I have no first hand experience.

But slaughter is a moot point at present as the BLM has flatly said, "We ain't gonna slaughter even though we are allowed to by Congress".


----------



## Knave (Dec 16, 2015)

I have avoided posting here. I try to understand that people have different life experiences than I do and that is why people make different assumptions. 

The knowledge base I have is one of overpopulation. When my husband and I went camping at a certain place there were at least five hundred horses running together. Funny, that was BLM and when we crossed the fence into ‘wilderness’ there wasn’t a single horse.  I see starving horses. A friend of ours was kicked off of his grazing permit for the horses. He took a video of dead and dying horses desperate for water at a dried up hole.

This was sad. I love horses, but I don’t believe in starving anything to death. I also don’t believe that horses are more valuable than cattle and sheep. These animals are managed and they provide for us too. I don’t want to starve either. If you think they are more valuable than livestock, then they more valuable to deer and elk? 

The horses are like feral dogs in the city. I don’t understand why people cry over the horses and allow the puppies to go to the pound. Is it because the majority of people crying over horses are actually effected by the puppies? They have seen starving dogs... I love dogs too, but I’ve zero problem with what people in the cities to do protect them and the animals.


----------



## Knave (Dec 16, 2015)

http://https://m.youtube.com/watch?t=310s&v=zalUPD2xSOw

Ok, let me see if this works.


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

Things like the slaughter/euthnasia question will always come around full circle to the stupidity of closing US slaughter houses where horses going through could be properly supervised to ensure that things were done in as humane a way as possible.
Again - it has nothing to do with hating horses - its all about accepting reality. There will always be a need for these facilities and that fact's proven by the numbers of horses that are now having to suffer the stress of being shipped long distances over the border and in many cases to places where little to no thought is given to how they are treated when they arrive and when they go through.
There's a demand worldwide for horse meat. The money made from selling culled mustangs for food at regulated plants right here in the US could go back to helping the remaining herds to stay healthy.
Euthanasia on site with ensuing disposal just costs them money, even when done with a bullet.


----------



## COWCHICK77 (Jun 21, 2010)

If I remember correctly, slaughter isn't illegal in the US. However the gov't funding is gone for regulating and inspecting the slaughter houses.
But in certain states, CA being one, transporting horses or buying them with intentions of shipping to slaughter is illegal.


----------



## Dreamcatcher Arabians (Nov 14, 2010)

COWCHICK77 said:


> If I remember correctly, slaughter isn't illegal in the US. However the gov't funding is gone for regulating and inspecting the slaughter houses.
> But in certain states, CA being one, transporting horses or buying them with intentions of shipping to slaughter is illegal.


You are correct. It's not illegal to slaughter the horses, it's illegal to sell uninspected meat for human consumption. There is no law against being able to slaughter or have a horse slaughtered for your own consumption here in the US. Congress removed all funding for USDA inspectors in the slaughter plants and we've never been able to get it back, so there is in effect, no slaughter for human consumption of the meat, in the US.


----------



## AtokaGhosthorse (Oct 17, 2016)

Yeah, I've stayed out of this thread because there's just no good answer for the problem. 

I'm fairly pragmatic when it comes to animals though and that comes of living almost all of my life in a rural area.

Neighbors' dog/dogs (or even your own) killing chickens, threatening to attack children? A bullet takes care of that real quick. I've been known to sit on my own front porch with my bow and my arrows tipped with some big broadheads, waiting on a neighbor dog who tried to attack me twice while pregnant and my daughter who was then 4 on several occasions - just so no one would hear the gun shot and tell the owner. That dog was going to just disappear.

Stray cats get thinned out.

A beloved family dog that gets ran over gets put down because seeing him (Bandit is very much missed) suffer and bleed out and you know the vet clinic is closed and they will not consider this an emergency.

Our bull calf was kicked hard enough in the ribs by our bull last weekend that he was foaming at the mouth, couldn't breathe, and was dying in agony. We had to shoot him.

That's an awful reality that farming and ranching folks with livestock and animals have to deal with. Vets in rural areas are NOT going jump in an ambulance and rush out on a Saturday afternoon or a Sunday morning. Period. And their clinics usually close at noon on Friday and have 8-5 hours during the week with a lunch time closing at noon. They're not EMS with round the clock coverage for emergencies.

Move on to wild animals - deer populations are a shining example of how well managed, responsible hunting (dare I say culling?) can cause a species to not just rebound, but become healthier, more lovely and magnificent in about a decade. I get real ugly and short with 100% anti-hunting people. Without a large predator, prey species like horses and deer, whatever, will breed and breed and breed until they're unhealthy and starving and dying. To my knowledge, there are not enough large prey animals left to handle the large numbers of horses roaming wild. We have destroyed the natural balance with our good intentions.

We need to get real about horses, and people need to see the reality, not the sappy Hollywood produced tv shows, the movies, or the romantic books aimed at teenage girls about unreal horses.

Personally, I feel like if we're going to be subjected to those horrific ASPCA commercials about cats and dogs that make me want to hug my grouchy, smelly old Schnauzer, the commercials that put the grim reality right in front of our faces for all to see, then we need to do the same for horses.

People do. not. know. and they are simply not aware of the harsh reality feral horses endure, or that kill pen horses endure from the start, to the awful ending in Mexico.

That makes a bullet to the head and a burial at a family plot under a big oak (our resting place for our animal family) seem like the mercy it can be.


----------



## horselovinguy (Oct 1, 2013)

I will _*not *_get into the conversation and posting of this but I will supply a web address so information, as factual as possible is seen regarding slaughter in one article.
This may not offer both sides of the issue, but one of the better articles containing information from many areas of the issue.
How, where, why and what is done to the animal...
Many, many questions and answers are presented...it is then our decisions, our conscious that makes the decisions of life or death and by what means...
_Is horse slaughter illegal


_


----------



## Hondo (Sep 29, 2014)

The REAL problem is being entirely skirted in this discussion. The real problem was the result of Louis Pasteur's efforts to win a sort of X prize offered by the French military for preserving food for a longer time as a means of extending their area of warfare, so to speak.

Out of those efforts came pasteurization and the germ theory of disease. And out of that came what is referred to as the "sanitary sewer systems" of today's modern large cities. Without the germ theory, people in cities would have continued to die when the cities got to a certain population.

Now the cities and resulting populations grow without limit.

If it weren't for that doggone Louis Pasteur and his doggone germ theory there'd be enough room for us, the horses, and everything.

TIC (tongue in cheek)


----------



## EmberScarlet (Oct 28, 2016)

For the "I don't see starving mustangs" argument... Your not looking very hard, then.

When I was in Western Oregon in April to scout our wagon train route, we saw three herds of mustangs. All of them looked half starved, I was surprised a few of them weren't dead already... 

That's all I'll say.


----------



## 4horses (Nov 26, 2012)

The Navajo Nation is the main area with an overpopulation of mustangs. This is mainly because the government will not and has refused to give them funding to manage the herds. No funding = no management.

The Navajo Nation is an extremely poverty stricken area with limited government support. The people who live there are probably going to get cancer due to radioactive contamination of water and food sources due to uranium mining. I would support allowing the reservation and only the reservation to hunt and use those horses for meat purposes but that meat would be contaminated. I doubt there is a market for radioactive horse meat... Part of that area is or should be a superfund site. Th e land maintained by the Navajo nation is one of the main locations with a horse overpopulation problem. The navajos would have been able to manage their herds but the government has effectively tied their hands. The people in that area have bigger problems to worry about- poverty, high cancer rates, contaminated water, poor education, and few job prospects.

Forty percent of the tribe lacks running water. How do you expect people who lack even basic necessities to manage a herd of horses with no government funding? The navajo children drink contaminated water on a daily basis, live in contaminated houses, and eat contaminated food. The government turned its back on those people. It turned its back on the horses and allowed this problem to spiral out of control. And whoever ends up eating horsemeat... That meat will be contaminated, no doubt about it. It's not like horses read signs, saying do not drink, the water is highly contaminated. If your only water source for 30 miles is contaminated, that is what you and your livestock drink, contaminated or not.

For some reason the news rarely mentions anything about this issue which is a shame because more needs to be done. Much more.


----------



## LoriF (Apr 3, 2015)

AtokaGhosthorse said:


> Move on to wild animals - deer populations are a shining example of how well managed, responsible hunting (dare I say culling?) can cause a species to not just rebound, but become healthier, more lovely and magnificent in about a decade. I get real ugly and short with 100% anti-hunting people. Without a large predator, prey species like horses and deer, whatever, will breed and breed and breed until they're unhealthy and starving and dying. To my knowledge, there are not enough large prey animals left to handle the large numbers of horses roaming wild. We have destroyed the natural balance with our good intentions.
> 
> We need to get real about horses, and people need to see the reality, not the sappy Hollywood produced tv shows, the movies, or the romantic books aimed at teenage girls about unreal horses.


And this has been exactly my point the whole time. I don't really even see where hunting horses even needs to be done that much if the predators were there. They are the ones who need to be put back. That is where I would like to see my tax dollars go. 

I don't have a problem with hunting at all for food to eat. I do have a problem with killing just to do it or because said animal is bothering you. Exception would be neighbors nuisance animals as it is their responsibility to keep them under control.

I really believe that if people have a problem coexisting with wildlife then leave and live somewhere else. It's not like there isn't enough spaces to live without them. Haven't we sucked up enough space already?


----------



## mmshiro (May 3, 2017)

AtokaGhosthorse said:


> I've been known to sit on my own front porch with my bow and my arrows tipped with some big broadheads, waiting on a neighbor dog who tried to attack me twice while pregnant and my daughter who was then 4 on several occasions - just so no one would hear the gun shot and tell the owner. That dog was going to just disappear.


:-o I only have one question: Long bow, recurve, or compound?


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

4horses said:


> ...I would support allowing the reservation and only the reservation to hunt and use those horses for meat purposes but that meat would be contaminated. I doubt there is a market for radioactive horse meat... ...The navajos would have been able to manage their herds but the government has effectively tied their hands....The navajo children drink contaminated water on a daily basis, live in contaminated houses, and eat contaminated food...


_
"The Wild and Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act only protects horses and burros on government land; *free-roaming and feral horses on tribal land are not protected by this law.*..

...Gloria Tom, NNDFW director, stated in 2017 that hunting is just one part of a multiple-strategy management program for the Navajo Nation’s feral horse population, which is *estimated at over 38,000 *via an aerial survey conducted July 24-August 3, 2016. According to this study, population densities of feral horses on the Navajo Nation are high, compared to other management areas (the BLM, as an example, estimated about 55,000 horses roaming across seven western states in 2016)...

...*A rally and march in opposition to the horse hunt* is planned for March 2, 2018 at Navajo Veterans Park in Window Rock, Arizona....*"*_

UPDATED: Navajo Nation Department of Fish & Wildlife Feral Horse Management Hunt Canceled | HORSE NATION

The Feds don't control horses on the Navajo Nation. The Feds don't have the right to do so. But the same people who oppose any control of mustangs on BLM land also oppose it on the Navajo Nation. So do many Navajo, I suspect.

"_Following the release of the hunt proclamation horse advocates, including members of the Facebook group Indigenous Horse Nation Protector Alliance, organized a rally for Friday morning in Window Rock, Arizona, to protest the hunt.

__Gloria Tom, the director of Navajo Nation Department of Fish and Wildlife, *said the public outcry led to the cancellation*._"

https://www.daily-times.com/story/n...-horse-hunt-canceled-navajo-nation/374931002/

And there is very little danger that the horse meat would be radioactive! The land is not contaminated. The water is not. The homes are not. There are many problems and challenges there, but no one glows in the dark.

This is not due to radioactivity, but lack of management of feral horses:










Click to enlarge, but it is even uglier full sized!​_
"With tens of thousands of wild horses roaming Navajo Nation -- the 2016 study estimated more 38,000 -- the problem is not limited to Gray Mountain.

“This tragic incident exemplifies the problem the Navajo Nation faces in an overpopulation of feral horses,” Navajo Nation President Russell Begaye said in a statement. “There is a process for round-ups and it begins with the local chapter. What they need is a resolution requesting a round-up, which prompts the assistance of the Navajo Nation and BIA. Help is there, but they have to ask for it.”...

*According to the Navajo Nation, the 191 horses died of natural causes.*

“These horses weren’t shot or maliciously killed by an individual,” Navajo Nation Vice President Nez said. *“These animals were searching for water to stay alive. In the process, they, unfortunately burrowed themselves into the mud and couldn’t escape because they were so weak*_*.*” - * May 03, 2018*

Nearly 200 wild horses found dead, buried in mud on Navajo Natio - Arizona's Family

Also: http://www.azfamily.com/story/38107...es-got-stuck-in-mud-of-dried-up-watering-hole


----------



## george the mule (Dec 7, 2014)

bsms said:


> Click to enlarge, but it is even uglier full sized!


I really hadn't planned on coming back here, but . . .

Look at this foto carefully folks; this is "natures way" of culling excess populations. Do you like what you see?

"Makes me want to cry :-(" Steve


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

This discussion is so much like one I got into on the FB group page of the village where I grew up - its not truly a village any more though and I barely recognize a lot of it.
Someone posted photos of a small herd of deer wandering around a housing estate (sub-division), they looked half starved and some are apparently injured from collisions with cars and encounters with large dogs when they jump into gardens. It seems that they frequently find dead one's - either from vehicle accidents or possibly poisoned by house owners who've got fed up of having their gardens trashed.
Several of the group's members were screaming out about loss of habitat with all the building going up in the area - even though they all live in houses that weren't there 40 years ago. It sounds tragic unless you know that those deer never had any habitat in that village because all of the new building was done on farmland where deer were shot on sight if they set foot on it. The natural habitat which is about 8 miles away is still there, untouched but the deer are managed. The deer they're seeing in the village come from a parcel of land that the local council bought after the opencast mining had finished on it and designated as 'natural wildlife site'. They moved a group of deer on to it that they were given by a farmer from his herd that had been bred domestically for venison. It all started out really well until the misguided 'animal lovers' were outraged at the idea of the increasing herd being culled and protested about it to the point that they've now outgrown that area and are living on people's lawns.


----------



## COWCHICK77 (Jun 21, 2010)

Bsms pointed out the overpopulation on the rezs doesn't have anything to do with the gov't, they are sovereign. Those horses are not considered mustang.

Several years back the Wadsworth Indians gathered their horses, sold them at the Fallon sale yard because they didnt have enough feed for them and they were over populated. There was so much drama from the wild horse people. They harassed the tribe, the sale barn and people buying horses. I went down to pick up a few horses for my neighbor who was a tribe member and was harrassed because supposedly my truck and trailer looked like a killer buyer?
But the gov't is supposed to fix the horse problem on the rez? They can't deal with the issue they created.


----------



## carshon (Apr 7, 2015)

Introducing large prey animals back into the population is not going to work. There is no such thing as an unpopulated area - and prey animals prey on the weakest animal they see. In most cases it would be humans. So if we were to introduce bear and mountain lion into the Navajo Nation (just as an example) these animals are not going to go after the horses - they are going to go after the goats, lambs, calves, dogs, cats and children. All of which would be easier prey than a horse. Prey animals are generally not selective and if there is easier prey they are going to east that first.

I am a horse lover and am all for reintroducing prey animals into their natural habitat - but it has to be studied first. You just can't drop a mountain lion off in NW IL. You know what happens? It starves to death. 3 years ago our local DNR had to shoot a starving mountain lion that had come down from the bluffs looking for food. He holed himself up in a barn on a farm about 20 miles from me. The farmer did not want him killed - but he also did not want his cows killed. Our DNR is not equipped to handle game like this and did not have a tranquilizer gun so they had to shoot it. Lots of public uproar. But when the necropsy results were made public it was just sad. The cat weighed about 70lbs- way smaller than it should have for a 1-3 yr old big cat. It was starving - it may have killed some lambs in upper IA but was not able to hunt enough game to keep itself healthy and when people started seeing it - it just ran and ran and never stopped to hunt - and eventually it just ran until it starved. We have had black bear come down from WI more frequently in the last few years and the same thing can be seen. Starving scared animals that are being chased by people with cameras.

The real issue is humans - but since our only known predators are other humans we have to deal with population control of invasive species (whether native or not) in order to keep our own species fed and housed. This is the hard truth. The human race has to learn to co-exist and population control is going to have to be a part of that. And protecting our nature areas from people, ATV's and corporate interests is going to have to be a part of that as well.


----------



## COWCHICK77 (Jun 21, 2010)

On the subject of natural predators...
It would take an over population of cats, which there is plenty of here, to pull the horse numbers down.
And very rarely do you see a cat killed horse.
So who controls the cat numbers? Do you let them die of starvation when there's too many and not enough room for them?

ETA...Carshon posted before I did and put it much better than myself!


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

BTW - need to back off some on the "glow in the dark" comment. There was a lot of uranium mining on the Navajo Nation, and there are a ton of abandoned mines. Uranium mining has been banned there since 2005. A few years later, the feds took some responsibility for the mining, since it was the sole buyer of uranium. Superfund has been involved. The underground mines are literally uncounted, but hundreds are known to exist and (predictably) the safety standards in the 50s & 60s were nil.

So it IS a big issue, but not in the sense that the free-ranging horses would have radioactive meat. Serious health concerns for former miners and many of their families and I should not have been flippant about it. I apologize for that.


----------



## SilverMaple (Jun 24, 2017)

I'm well aware that the horses on the Navajo Nation are not BLM herds, I was using it as an example of what is also happening on some BLM lands-- due to drought, there is no water, and the horses are dying of thirst. It's an example that 'there must be water or they wouldn't be here' being a false statement, and of 'nature taking its course' that so many are promoting as the ideal solution.... 

I'd much rather be shot in the head than die in the mud trying to get a drink.....

I have friends who live on the reservation. I will be going to see a friend there this summer. It is a huge and beautiful place with some wonderful, happy people even amongst the poverty and struggle. The NN has much bigger issues than the horses. There are people on the reservation trying to do the right thing and control the herd population so they aren't suffering, but money, cultural issues, and corruption keep getting in the way. Horses are sacred and valued, having horses is a right among the Navajo, and not having any because you can't afford them is not seen in the same light on the reservation as it is by outsiders-- if you have horses, you have value. Many Navajo also feel the the earth and nature will do as it wishes, and if that means drought and starving horses, that is what nature intended. Again, a different thought process than what many of us have, but that is also standing in the way of culling the herds. The battle of the feral horses is ongoing on the reservation, with many different sides. In the meantime, the horses are overpopulated and dying. My friends on the reservation frequently feel unsafe riding outside their arenas because feral horses and stallions are always around. Fences are pushed over and domestic horses attacked by feral horses trying to get to water and hay. The pipe corrals around my friends' hay buildings look like Ft. Knox to keep feral horses out. 8' pipe and electric reinforcement, or they go right through it and will eat a year's supply of hay overnight. She doesn't leave hay out overnight for her horses in their pipe corrals anymore, or stallions will push down her pipe panels to get to it. Feral horses are hit on the roads or trapped in cattle guards and need to be shot. One friend carries a rifle in her truck for precisely this reason, and usually has a few 'orphaned rez babies' on her place that she works to raise, gentle, and rehome. It's a drop in the bucket, but it's something. The whole situation is a mess made worse by record drought, and sad to see.


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

4horses said:


> The navajo children drink contaminated water on a daily basis, live in contaminated houses, and eat contaminated food. The government turned its back on those people.


WHAT??!!! I 'liked' your post earlier, but only skimmed it & clearly missed that until I read it was quoted. I'm just flabbergasted! I was just lost for words - except for a number not allowed to be written here - and disgusted! How on earth can your government allow that, to it's own people???!!!


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

^^ It hasn't.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Wiki seems to have a good article on uranium mining on the Navajo Nation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining_and_the_Navajo_people

Lots of failures, but some progress has been made. And it won't be totally solved in my lifetime, I'm sure.










https://www.epa.gov/navajo-nation-uranium-cleanup/cleaning-abandoned-uranium-mines

Colorado faces similar challenges:

"_More than a billion dollars has been spent cleaning up radioactive tailings piles and lessening toxic leaks into rivers and aquifers at nine defunct mills in Colorado. Nearly 20 million tons of radioactive tailings sit in disposal sites where they must be monitored in perpetuity. Hundreds of acres of unusable water fill contaminated aquifers.

Much has changed in the understanding of uranium milling since that toxic legacy was created. New regulations are in place to make the industry safer. But those regulations are still untested. Costs for dealing with its inevitable contamination are as long-lived as its radioactive leavings: The state’s latest regulations call for the monitoring of new mill waste for 1,000 years._" 

https://www.denverpost.com/2010/09/04/toxic-legacy-of-uranium-haunts-proposed-colorado-mill/

Doesn't directly involve horses, of course. But like wild mustangs, there are serious environmental problems without easy solutions.


----------



## JoBlueQuarter (Jan 20, 2017)

Just thought I'd drop a link here: https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2018/05/04/us/ap-us-drought-dead-horses.html.


----------



## AtokaGhosthorse (Oct 17, 2016)

mmshiro said:


> :-o I only have one question: Long bow, recurve, or compound?


Compound. I've had it for 20 years. 

I wanted one, husband said: The day you can draw MY bow, I'll buy you a bow.

I did draw his... and I can't remember what the draw weight was, but it was insanely high. I kept telling myself I just had to get the cams to break over, and then it had some crazy let off on it, so I knew I'd be able to hold it long enough to let it back down without a dry fire. :smile:

I did it once, he wasn't home, he called b.s.

I drew it again with him standing there.

The bow he bought me is a man's bow - I needed it for the draw length. Women's and Junior/youth bows were just too short and too light.

I still shoot it for giggles when the kids get mouthy and want me to 'prove it', but I don't hunt. I'm just too lazy for that.

I WAS going to kill that dog with it though... and I used to sit around and wait on gophers to pop up out of their holes, just for fun. I've never shot a gopher, but it wasn't from a lack of trying. MAN they're quick!


----------



## mmshiro (May 3, 2017)

AtokaGhosthorse said:


> Compound. I've had it for 20 years.


I started with a take-down recurve a few years ago, then I got one of these babies:

Grozer Traditional Recurve Bows Hungary

It's a bio-composite horse bow, reconstructed based on 1,000 year-old technology, and one day I'll actually shoot it from a horse!


----------



## AtokaGhosthorse (Oct 17, 2016)

LoriF said:


> I really believe that if people have a problem coexisting with wildlife then leave and live somewhere else. It's not like there isn't enough spaces to live without them. Haven't we sucked up enough space already?


Here's a little more thread drift:

Plano, Allen, and McKinney, Texas have exploded in terms of housing and people moving out into the suburban sprawl of the DFW area. I mean, in just two decades cotton, wheat, and corn fields, forested areas/woods are now immaculate housing divisions for people in spotless SUVs.

The native wildlife adapted very, very quickly, specifically coyotes and bobcats.

With regard to the bobcats, they're making a heck of a living hitting up trash bins and climbing fences to eat out of Fluffy the Black Lab's food dish. They're fat, happy and not as shy as they should be, but still fearful of people - which has led to people freaking out and calling animal control when they catch a glimpse of one.

One video/news clip I watched had a near-hysterical lady on there LOSING HER MIND about she was afraid this one bobcat was going to hurt... her pitbull or eat/run off with her toddler (Dingo ate my baby!?).

Cut to animal control officer kind of chuckling about this while talking:

Folks, you have moved into THEIR land. They were here before you, and part of the beauty of living 'out' is that you have an opportunity to see these animals in the wild, not in a cage. No, we will not respond to calls about a bobcat eating out of your dog's feed bowl. No, we cannot relocate them, they will just return. No, we will not shoot them dead. No, it will not hurt your pitbull or your toddler.


----------



## AtokaGhosthorse (Oct 17, 2016)

mmshiro said:


> I started with a take-down recurve a few years ago, then I got one of these babies:
> 
> Grozer Traditional Recurve Bows Hungary
> 
> It's a bio-composite horse bow, reconstructed based on 1,000 year-old technology, and one day I'll actually shoot it from a horse!


Wow, THAT is awesome! Even more awesome you really might be able to shoot it from a horse one day.

I'm just going to celebrate the first time I manage to ride at a hard lope and not feel the urge to grab the back of the saddle. :cowboy:


----------

