# Petition: Tell Whole Foods: Adopt Mustang-Safe Meat Standards



## NeverSlapYourHorse (Aug 19, 2015)

Please help America’s wild horses signing this petition: 
American Wild Horse Preservation Campaign


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

I support the ranchers.


----------



## Dreamcatcher Arabians (Nov 14, 2010)

Me too. ^^^^^


----------



## COWCHICK77 (Jun 21, 2010)

I support the beef industry and it supports me.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## boots (Jan 16, 2012)

I like the feral horses more than any mis-guided money grabbers I have ever met and/or listened to.

If you really care... really care... about the horses educate yourself by getting your hip pockets out in the field (on the range) where the horses live and see what the conditions are. Learn how ranchers, and sensible, sustainable grazing practices help the horses and all other species. Learn about reproduction rates of the horses and the effect of that on all species that share the land. From bugs to birds. Learn about safe and healthy horse herds.

Stop supporting organizations that take resources away from the agencies with their wasteful, but lucrative (to them), lawsuits.

People who support those groups, like those pushing and signing this petition, do not like the horses nearly as much as I do. They only cause harm. Much harm.


----------



## Cherie (Dec 16, 2010)

Everyone that thinks all feral horses must be saved (for who knows what reason) should just adopt about 100 of them and feed them for ever on THEIR land until they all die of natural causes. 

It is not reasonable or workable to keep them all when the only natural predator they now have is man. To try to keep them all on Public lands (which is all interspersed with privately owned but unfenced land) is no more reasonable that to try to return 10 million bison to our prairie land, displacing all of the farmers and stockmen and city dwellers there. With our current population and food needs, neither is possible or workable.


----------



## Persephone2015 (Jun 5, 2015)

I love seeing mustangs run wild and free. I even adopted one. 

Roundups are necessary to control populations. I do think the laws are a bit skewed against the horses...but at least the current methods allow certain areas to have herds, etc. I do not support legalizing slaughtering the mustangs, as this practice is what almost exterminated them in the first place. 

But I've been finding that a lot of the wild horse advocate groups don't necessarily believe in factual information either. Since adopting my mustang in March 2015, I joined quite a few groups just to learn as much as I can about my horse. But I've left most of them as I didn't like how they were ok with spreading lies, preying on the ignorance of people, and how they were attacking BLM personnel. 

Long story short...I won't be signing even though I am happily pro-mustang. I just don't trust most of the 'advocate' groups out there from first hand experience.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

My mustang is a good little guy, but he belongs here and not on the range:








​ 
After all, where can you find a Water-Pik on the range?


----------



## boots (Jan 16, 2012)

I tire of the disregard for all other species by the "save every feral horse" crowd. 

They do not understand that by having a singular focus the are in effect saying "Wipe out bird habitat." "Reptiles don't matter." "Deer, elk, and antelope? Oh, they'll always be there." 

Let the horses over breed? Let them stomp watering holes into hard packed dirt? Erosion takes time. They don't see the effects because they haven't spent a life committed to the land and all things on it. Including plants.

Careful, thoughtful management of a fragile ecosystem that hosts a variety of life forms with a variety of needs. That is what is needed. It takes planning, labor, and money.


----------



## Saddlebag (Jan 17, 2011)

The ferals have reached such numbers they are destroying the land and starving. I'd rather see a bullet put in them than have them go thro the agony of a slow death. Imagine the ulcers. I'm all for protecting small herds but like everything else there needs to be some control.


----------



## Remali (Jul 22, 2008)

Have not, and will never, ever support the ranchers. Petition signed. Ranchers do as much, no, MORE to damage the land.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Some abuse their permits - but remember, a rancher using public land PAYS for it and is monitored. You don't like the results, blame the FS or BLM - but both the FS & BLM often screw the rancher without cause, too.

A room mate of mine from college once paid $100,000 for a grazing permit. The next year, he was running 10% of his allotment when he got a letter saying his allotment was cut in half. He pointed out he was only running 10%, so it wouldn't change what he was doing. The BLM replied, "We are cutting what people are RUNNING by 50%, not what they PAID FOR - so he ended up having paid $100,000 for about $5,000 in feed.

Another time, he spent $20,000 on water improvements on the permit, then had the permit revoked the next year. Sorry boy - the US government sure appreciates the $20K in improvements, but you'll never get ANY benefit from it!

This for a guy who normally clears around $15,000/year in profit.

Feral horses are not different from deer. An overpopulation in the absence of natural predators will destroy the land. The difference is that we don't issue horse permits for hunting...


----------



## Chevaux (Jun 27, 2012)

bsms said:


> ... "We are cutting what people are RUNNING by 50%, not what they PAID FOR - so he ended up having paid $100,000 for about $5,000 in feed.
> 
> Another time, he spent $20,000 on water improvements on the permit, then had the permit revoked the next year. Sorry boy - the US government sure appreciates the $20K in improvements, but you'll never get ANY benefit from it!
> 
> ...


 This is slightly off topic but this does not appear to be a sound business venture to get into. Would it not make more sense, from the rancher perspective, to either purchase land (surely $100,000 would get something reasonable) or ranch elsewhere or reduce the number of cattle you are running?


----------



## jgnmoose (May 27, 2015)

Sometimes these "wild horses" are actually owned by the ranch that is rounding them up for sale/adoption.


----------



## jgnmoose (May 27, 2015)

Chevaux said:


> This is slightly off topic but this does not appear to be a sound business venture to get into. Would it not make more sense, from the rancher perspective, to either purchase land (surely $100,000 would get something reasonable) or ranch elsewhere or reduce the number of cattle you are running?


Prices vary a lot depending the part of the country, but as a very rough average $100,000 would purchase about 100 acres. 

The land itself changes how many head of cattle per acre it can support. You could make a decent cattle operation to help support a family on 100 acres in North Texas because it is natural grassland. It takes a lot more acreage per head in the arid climates of the western states. 

To put it in perspective for a huge ranch though, the famous four sixes ranch (6666ranch.com) in Guthrie Texas is about 270,000 acres and that is in the natural grasslands of the southern Texas Panhandle.


----------



## COWCHICK77 (Jun 21, 2010)

Chevaux said:


> This is slightly off topic but this does not appear to be a sound business venture to get into. Would it not make more sense, from the rancher perspective, to either purchase land (surely $100,000 would get something reasonable) or ranch elsewhere or reduce the number of cattle you are running?


I'm on my phone, but you should see a map of the western US showing "federally owned" land compared to private/deeded land. 
Just for an example, over 80 % of Nevada is" federally owned".


----------



## Chevaux (Jun 27, 2012)

Thank you for your reply, jgnmoose.


----------



## COWCHICK77 (Jun 21, 2010)

Okay my answer was rather vague and doesn't really explain if you don't understand where I live which jgnmoose brought to my attention. I should wait until I'm in a better frame of mind to explain but here goes anyhow..lol
Simply put, of the 57 million acres in Nevada 48 million of it is federally controlled and much of it grazed. Depending on what part of Nevada you're in it can take 10-20+ acres to run an animal unit. 
Even though Nevada isn't considered a huge cattle producing state, we graze or house a large amount of those cattle before they hit the feed yards that come from other states. People ***** about the price of beef in stores now? Shut down grazing, see what happens.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Chevaux said:


> This is slightly off topic but this does not appear to be a sound business venture to get into. Would it not make more sense, from the rancher perspective, to either purchase land (surely $100,000 would get something reasonable) or ranch elsewhere or reduce the number of cattle you are running?


You buy a permit to provide food. Buying the land would be prohibitively expensive - out west, you measure grazing land in square miles, not acres. Private land is available, but there isn't a lot of it and it costs more. However, it also provides more, and my friend STRONGLY prefers to rent private versus gambling by "buying" a permit on public land.

But if you want to stay in business, you have to be flexible. You pay less for public permits because they are risky - as my friend found out - and the feed is usually lower quality. He survived the $100,000 permit fiasco by letting his sons do the work for a couple of years while he drove coal trucks to keep from going under.

An Internet picture, but typical:


----------



## Overread (Mar 7, 2015)

*is not US based at all*

I thought the USA had predators of larger game (something the UK currently totally lacks - our biggest is a fox) or have these areas been managed for so long that natural predators have been managed to local extinction? 

That is certainly something that would, in my view, be as a result of ranchers as they are a specific stake holder eager to avoid loses to their herds. Understandable certainly, no one wants their livelihood eaten. However surely it would be more sensible to consider restoring natural predators to allow for some natural control over wild horse herds (accepting that the horses shouldn't even be there in the first place of course if we are talking naturally


----------



## jgnmoose (May 27, 2015)

Overread said:


> *is not US based at all*
> 
> I thought the USA had predators of larger game (something the UK currently totally lacks - our biggest is a fox) or have these areas been managed for so long that natural predators have been managed to local extinction?
> 
> That is certainly something that would, in my view, be as a result of ranchers as they are a specific stake holder eager to avoid loses to their herds. Understandable certainly, no one wants their livelihood eaten. However surely it would be more sensible to consider restoring natural predators to allow for some natural control over wild horse herds (accepting that the horses shouldn't even be there in the first place of course if we are talking naturally


Mountain Lions. Some states in the Mountain West have also tried re-introducing wolves. Unless I am forgetting something, that is about the list.

The little bit that I know they don't charge into a herd of horses and start eating them. Wild horses are pretty good at mowing down predators.


----------



## boots (Jan 16, 2012)

COWCHICK and jgn.... Good explanations.

Re: predators. Mtn lion and wolves, plus coyotes for the lame and infirm. 

The Feds did a great job introducing the non-native Canadian grey wolf. Thing is: For all predators, they go after the easiest food. Horses are not the easiest to catch and eat.

There isn't any unused land just sitting out here. And besides the leasing fee and the costs involved in getting the lease initially, I don't find it worthwhile to lease gov't land. Once I got the lease, I became responsible for everything, without any benefit of ownership. It was better for the land, the wildlife, and my own livestock, because the Feds would screw it up anyway.

I only go with grazing associations now when I need additional grass.

One grazing association I'm in got accused of baiting the herbivores for hunting. Nope. Ours, well-managed, just had so much more grasses, shelter, water, protection than the BLM eroded, barren, "no-livestock" land across the fence everything came over. 

Fortunately, we were letting an ag college track our performance, not manage it, just track it for a study, so everything was well documented and the Feds couldn't sue us all into oblivion, as they have been known to do to other ranchers. 

For those that think ranchers are evil destroyers of all things natural:

A big "YOU'RE WELCOME" for all we do to feed, water and shelter the nation's wildlife! Whether on public or private land. 

What have you done today?


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

My friend used to run sheep on a section of land. His permit was stopped because they didn't want his sheep infecting Bighorn Sheep. 15 year later, the Bighorn Sheep all died off in that area. No one knows why. But as my friend put it, "At least they can't blame ME!"


----------



## boots (Jan 16, 2012)

bsms said:


> My friend used to run sheep on a section of land. His permit was stopped because they didn't want his sheep infecting Bighorn Sheep. 15 year later, the Bighorn Sheep all died off in that area. No one knows why. But as my friend put it, "At least they can't blame ME!"


I'm betting "they" found a way, anyhow. :icon_rolleyes:


----------



## COWCHICK77 (Jun 21, 2010)

I not really sure where to start as I am not very articulate and often have problems conveying my ideas but I am going to give it a shot anyhow. And I will probably have to add as things come to me. LOL!

First off, did you know that 85% of US grazing lands are unsuitable for growing crops? Grazing cattle on that land doubles the area that can be raised to grow food.(source=USDA)

Responsible grazing is beneficial to plant and wildlife. When grass is not grazed it dies, becomes brittle, breaks off then creates thatch. The thatch will smother out new growth causing the spacing between grasses to come further and further apart reducing the amount of plants for cattle, horses, sheep or wildlife to feed on. That thatch also creates a fire hazard dangerous to all of us. 

Like boots had mentioned when a lease is acquired the permit holder is responsible for maintaining water, fences, etc. The permit holder does not own the land but they do own the grass and water. Maintaining water is also crucial to wildlife AND the mustangs. For those that don't know, just because you are a lease holder it doesn't mean you can use the land as you please. In short, the BLM or USFS sends a range con. you tour your lease, he then tells you what day you can turn out, how many head and for how many days based on the grass available. If you are not gathered off by the set date, over stocked or over grazed, allowed cattle in riparian areas you will be fined and they hold the right to take your lease away. _Overgrazing does not help anyone!_
The cattle are regulated the horses are not. The horses are not moved off before the grass is over grazed, they are overpopulated and over stocked. The BLM who's obvective is, and I quote directly from their website: 
_"the BLM’s overall objective is to ensure the long-term health and productivity of these lands and to create multiple environmental benefits that result from healthy watersheds."
_but is failing miserably due to mismanagement of horse herds and everyone is suffering. Ranchers livelihood, the horses, cattle, wildlife and land. I don't want the horses completely eradicated but they do need to be managed in a healthy way for everyone involved.

The map attached below shows the amount of land in the US that is federally controlled. (I prefer the term federally controlled as it is unconstitutional for the federal government to own land except for D.C. and land necessary to operate forts and ports,Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17. But that's for a whole other thread!) Buying enough land to run the amount of beef needed to feed America plus what we export would be impossible. The price of beef for consumers, simply put, is effected by beef inventory numbers and the cost of production. Basic economics. 
So let's say they do shut down all federal grazing for cattle. Cattle are all raised in feedlots their whole lives as opposed to spending 97% of their lives as pastured/grazed animals. Imagine the cost of feed, labor, water treatment, medicine needed to treat cattle kept in close quarters(disease travels and effects more cattle) And grass fed and/or natural beef would be a thing of the past. There are some who will read this and think, "it wouldn't affect me, I don't eat beef or raise my own." Think again. Do you know how many thing are made from beef? (very brief and short list pictured below) The prices of those items will also rise.

Just a few things to think about.


----------



## boots (Jan 16, 2012)

Very good information, Cowchick. 

That parcel that couldn't sustain wildlife that I mentioned? It used to be leased for cattle grazing. It was very pretty. Had several good water holes. And, a windmill that I kept going, via extra work and cost on me, even when my cows weren't on it. They were only on it 10 weeks, then 7 weeks, then 6 weeks, due to lawsuits by enviros. The windmill, the only source of water in the area in the winter months, was deemed illegal. So suffers the animals. All the small springs gone now.

Five years after the enviros got all grazing ended (mine and the leases of others). It is eroded hard pan in lots of spots. And only a travel way for herbivores from private to private. Five years! That should be criminal. It is even void of healthy insect populations.

Once when I was out on that ground last summer, a gov fellow told me I couldn't be. lol. Anyone and everyone else could, in his mind, but not the gal that took such good care of it. I asked him if he didn't think it odd that the ground was only used by native herbivores as a highway between private ground. He said "We always knew it was important for migration." Yeah. So did the rest of us. But we also managed to forage for the good of all, too. 

I told him to sue me to keep me off. I wanted to see what damage was done and what noxious plants were thriving (inedible by wildlife) so I could plan to protect my own.

I never heard from him again. Tool.

So, to the OP and any others who want to save each and every feral horse: Again I ask, "What have you, or the organizations you support, done to make the lives of the feral horses and all the other living creatures in the ecosystem better?"

Do you really understand what "symbiotic relationship" in the context of a large ecosystem means? Do you care?


----------



## Dreamcatcher Arabians (Nov 14, 2010)

I always wonder when the enviros start getting involved, "Are they really trying to do good by the animals, land, watershed, whatever? Or are they just trying to keep someone else from doing what they wish they had the stones and ability and mentality and skills to do?". Kind of a "If I can't have it, by God, nobody else will either." thing.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

I think a lot of people 'feel good' believing there are still places where everything is 'wild' and 'free'. They don't necessarily want to GO there, they just find the idea it exists comforting. I've flown over "wilderness areas" where the lack of water means "no truck = no human", because neither human nor horse can carry in enough water to keep them going far. But a lot of the nature-lovers I run into are from the city, and they don't love it in the sense of wanting to LIVE there. Just visit briefly, or see from a highway, and know it is 'out there somewhere'.

I think a lot of folks are like that with mustangs. They want to believe...










Me? The coyote scat I see tells me wild animals here live very rugged lives. Most of the deer I've seen coming thru deer check stations in the desert have about 0% body fat. I see no sign my horses, including BLM 100% mustang Cowboy, have any desire to roam free. Not if it means finding their own food and water and keeping themselves safe from predators. They like their hay delivered, prefer pellets, believe water belongs in buckets and should be clean and like fences that coyotes don't cross.​


----------



## 6gun Kid (Feb 26, 2013)

What most people don't understand is when I , or boots, or cowchick run on blm land, we aren't sucking at the government tit and getting something for nothing. *WE *pay, far more than most people realize, for the ability to run the number of animals we are told to run, for as long as we are told to run. With this little bit of concession, we get the joy of working like a rented mule *year round, *to keep up fences, water holes, windmills,etc. etc. 
The BLM, take into consideration all fauna on the land they control, which includes feral horse, deer, elk, horny toads, gila monsters, and what have you. So Ranchers are taking nothing from feral horses, despite what the tree huggers and bunny lovers are telling you. 
In fact the feral horses are responsible for the over grazing and erosion because nobody tells them when to leave, and they graze the grass to the dirt, they pound water holes into sludge, which dries up and blows away, and guess what? that is the end of that water hole. Do I want mustangs gone? No, I am a huge fan of mustangs, but the fact is we have allowed sentiment to create a problem for which there is no good answer. The wild bands are several thousand head over sustainable limits, and the feed lots and long term facilities are full to bursting, with a few hundred meager adoptions a year.


----------



## Allison Finch (Oct 21, 2009)

bsms said:


> Feral horses are not different from deer..


Yes they are!

Deer are native animals that, at least, belong there. Horses are NOT native, they are escaped domestic animals who have become invasive and will damage the land beyond repair. I won't get into the cattle vs horses debate, but I don't think the horses belong on land that cannot sustain them OR using valuable resources to maintain them beyond what the land can sustain.

They have gone beyond what the land can sustain in too many places putting NATIVE animals at risk of extinction. That I do care about. IMO, feral horses should be kept on reserves paid for by the unicorn worshippers and removed from wild areas that cannot sustain them.

I have seen too many horrible photos of feral horses starving to death on such lands.


----------



## 6gun Kid (Feb 26, 2013)

Allison Finch said:


> . IMO, feral horses should be kept on reserves paid for by the unicorn worshippers and removed from wild areas that cannot sustain them.
> 
> I have seen too many horrible photos of feral horses starving to death on


Today you win the internet!


----------



## Naphth (Jan 7, 2015)

Is there a better explanation of this? It's hard to sign something when it provides so little connection, "SOME PEOPLE SELL BEEF TO A GROCERY STORE AND THEY ROUND UP HORSES PETITION THEM" is not a good argument.


----------



## Overread (Mar 7, 2015)

From what I'd learned in this thread its basically a case of ranchers exerting control over an invasive non-native species. 

In general something that I would say is a good thing; yes there is a positive benefit for the ranchers; but at the same time invasive non-native species can do untold damage when left unmanaged. Especially if the non-native species appears to lack any viable predator (then again in most relationships prey control predator populations more so than predators control prey populations - although its always a duality and often more complex due to many predators having more than one prey species). 

It is a hard topic to discuss because the victims in it, in this case the horses, are blameless. They are simply surviving in the environment to which they have found themselves. Many people dislike the idea of animals being killed for doing nothing other than what comes naturally to them, especially when those actions have no visible negative impact on humanity [or where such impact is far removed from those against the cull]. 

Population control is a difficult topic and one where there are very easy abuses to be made in the interests of profit and personal gain. Indeed as can be the case, a rise in a species for control can result in an increased market for demand (in the hunt itself, in the produce) and that in turn can result in artificial promotion of the population to maintain and even grow to fit the market demand. Thus what was once control soon become farming.


----------



## Speed Racer (Oct 21, 2009)

Horses aren't slaughtered in the US for food any longer, and mustangs are Federally protected from being rounded up for that purpose.

Feral horses that are rounded up and auctioned off are also protected from kill buyers for at least two years post auction. Domestic - bred horses can be sold at any time to kill buyers.

People who have no clue from where or how their food gets to the supermarket shouldn't be trying to regulate anything. Most of them have only seen cattle and horses in pictures, but apparently know better than those experienced with them.


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

Allison Finch said:


> . IMO, feral horses should be kept on reserves paid for by the unicorn worshippers and removed from wild areas that cannot sustain them.


Quote of the day right there...

http://www.horseforum.com//www.pinterest.com/pin/create/extension/


----------



## KsKatt (Jun 2, 2014)

Speed Racer said:


> Horses aren't slaughtered in the US for food any longer, and mustangs are Federally protected from being rounded up for that purpose.
> 
> Feral horses that are rounded up and auctioned off are also protected from kill buyers for at least two years post auction. Domestic - bred horses can be sold at any time to kill buyers.
> 
> People who have no clue from where or how their food gets to the supermarket shouldn't be trying to regulate anything. Most of them have only seen cattle and horses in pictures, but apparently know better than those experienced with them.


It's my understanding that mustangs are being sold to kill buyers on a pretty regular basis. It's not suppose to happen, but it is. You really trust the BLM? Don't. They just get transported to Mexico and the meat sent overseas.


----------



## Speed Racer (Oct 21, 2009)

Everyone screaming about the BLM needs to get a grip. They're the Bureau of LAND Management, not the Bureau of Feral Horses. They're doing the best they can with a no - win situation. These people are bureacrats not horse ranchers, and were never intended to be. Blame yourselves for expecting miracles from a government entity not qualified to do what the public wants.

You don't want horses going to Mexico to slaughter? That's the fault of the short sighted idiots who had the US plants shut down, so don't cry crocodile tears about it now. Anti-slaughter folks were told what would happen if the US plants shut down but didn't listen, so blame them.

Slaughter is not inherently evil, and instead of letting those horses sit in holding pens year after year costing taxpayers millions, maybe they need to be turned into food. Horse meat was eaten in this country up until the 1960s, and was in dog food until the mid to late 1980s, so this obsession with not slaughtering one particular livestock animal is very recent.


----------



## Cherie (Dec 16, 2010)

While I agree with everything Speed Racer said, I want to know who gave you your 'understanding' that horses were being sent to Mexico by the BLM. Was it some 'animal rights' group? Was it the USHS? What distributor of pure BS have you been listening to?

I live 7 miles from a big ranch that USED to run cattle. Cattle got very high and one big ranch near here sold their commercial cattle. This ranch now runs 1500 head of aged mustang geldings that were never adopted. This only costs the taxpayers more than $500,000.00 every year. 

The good news? The ranch does not feed them or manage them at all. More good news? The ranch is making more money than they ever made with less labor. They let them live 'all natural' until they die of natural causes. The bad news? Once a year the BLM does a head count and brings in more geldings from the holding pens at Pauls Valley that have not been adopted. So, us taxpayers keep paying out $500,000.00 a year to keep these horses in knee deep grass for ever.

Another ranch owner we know very well has one of the biggest ranches in northern Oklahoma next to the 'National Tall Grass Prairie'. They also sold their cattle and collect more the $2,000,000.00 a year from the BLM to run feral horses. Again, these horses are 'boaarded' there until they die of natural causes. 

Now, do you really think that if the BLM was shipping horses south to Mexico for slaughter, these big ranches would be draining their money and other resources keeping useless, un-adoptable horses for ever on these big ranches until they die of natural causes? 

Thousands of horses go through our local auction every year. It is now owned by one of the biggest slaughter buyers in the US. A BLM horse that has been adopted may occasionally slip through the cracks, but the BLM never ships horses to slaughter. 

At this auction, all slaughter-bound horses are micro-chipped and hauled to Presidio, Texas, over 700 miles. They have to be inspected by USDA Vets and are again examined by Mexican Vets. They are loaded into trailers and the trailers are sealed so no horses can be added or taken off until they reach their destination, usually another 700 or 800 miles..

If slaughter was brought back to the US where it belongs, it could be much better regulated and there would be much better handling and care. 
The alternative would be for you and everyone that is so worried about the BLM mustangs to just go out and adopt about 100 of them. They gotta go somewhere as long as they are breeding like rabbits out on a desert that will not support them all.


----------



## Dreamcatcher Arabians (Nov 14, 2010)

Can we talk about the BLM mustangs for a minnit, please? Back in the day before they became "protected to death", when they came off the rez they were little, skinny and not a huge danger or problem to train. A woman, whose name I don't know, got sucked in by the AR group in her area when she was looking to buy a horse and she got conned into adopting 2 mustangs from.....yep, Pauls's Valley. Someone gave her 2 mares, aged 5-7 years old, HUGE mares, and very very fit. Also very very unhandled. She sent them to my trainer to be gentled and maybe saddle broke. She'd been assured by the AR folks, they'd be really easy, no harder than a domesticated 2 year old. WELL, after they tried to tear down the round pens, kill the trainer and his hands, they finally were able to get some hands on these mares. Yeah, better him than me. Now if these had been the youngstock she'd been promised, it might have been ok, but she got slipped some ringers. These mares were TOUGH. It's been several months now, she's out of money and the mares are no longer in training. She's got them out on cheap board in someone's field and they will not let anyone near them. She won't make arrangements to get them hauled to her, she doesn't have the facilities or the know how to deal with them. So now what? Eventually she'll quit paying board and guess what? They'll end up at an auction, no doubt. Or she'll have them put down. Who did that help? We'd all be better off if they'd be sold for meat. The mustangs are not all pink, fuzzy, free Bubble Up and Unicorn F*rts. They are feral, wily and not easy to train and handle. THAT is why they shouldn't be "adopted" out to the general public. The population needs to be controlled to fit the lands they're on and excess needs to be culled, just like we do with deer. Ever heard of deer season? We need something like that for these excess horses. We do NOT need to keep more and more and more of them on private reserves funded with taxpayer dollars.


----------



## jimmyp (Sep 5, 2013)

Until they find a suitable use for wild horses, Ill support the ranchers.


----------



## Cherie (Dec 16, 2010)

These may have been some of the 'free' mares that Pauls Valley gives away. Aged mares that have not been adopted in a certain amount of time are available 'free' to approved homes. (Not slaughter buyers or 'bucking horse breeders, etc.). They started doing this during the great horse recession in 2007-??? to get rid of them. 

Here is a link to the ACTUAL numbers of USDA managed feral horses actually living on the range and living in BLM holding facilities like the one at Pauls Valley and includes long-term leased range land like the ones I spoke of. These numbers were updated in February, 2016, so they are current.

Quick Facts

As you can see, there are now over 105,000 BLM owned feral horses and burros. We started out in 1971 with approximately 20,000 of them.

The drought stricken deserts of the western states cannot support even half of the feral horses attempting to live on them. They are ruining the habitat of all of the other actual native species including endangered animals and plants as well as all of the game animals that were already living there.

Meanwhile, all of the completely ignorant animal rights nuts want them left alone to keep multiplying at the rate of doubling their numbers every 4 years. That would be just great. Then all of them along with the deer, elk, antelope and all other native species can die with them. 

*Just WHAT is the BLM supposed to do? Where are these tens of thousands of unwanted horses supposed to go?*


----------



## Dreamcatcher Arabians (Nov 14, 2010)

Cherie said:


> These may have been some of the 'free' mares that Pauls Valley gives away. Aged mares that have not been adopted in a certain amount of time are available 'free' to approved homes. (Not slaughter buyers or 'bucking horse breeders, etc.). They started doing this during the great horse recession in 2007-??? to get rid of them.


Those mares may have been part of that program, but whoever picked the horses for this gal charged her, they weren't free. The whole thing was a little smelly. She lives out of state and someone down there handled picking out the mares, probably someone who was affiliated with whatever AR group got their hooks into her in the first place. 

So, you have a woman and her daughter who were looking for a pair of riding horses so they could have mother daughter time out riding together. They meet up with a "rescue" or "AR" nut who sells them the Fairy Tale of the Romantic Mustang who will develop an extra strong bond with you once you build your relationship based on love and trust. How am I doing so far on the fiction story category? They are put in touch with a person who will handle the actual transaction for them and find them a suitable pair at the BLM facility. She finds a trainer who will handle these horses because he's done it before, successfully, and has them transported to him sight unseen. They come off the trailer and and HOLY COW these things are over 16 hands, 1500 lb or better and they are no more yearlings than I am. Trainer says, "OH WAIT A MINUTE HERE. I don't think this is what she signed up for." and he calls her and describes the horses, who she can hear in the background trying to dismantle his holding facilities. Well, no, that's not what she thought she was getting, but they are so pretty she decides to keep them anyhow. He says, "Well, I will do the best I can with them, but you understand 60 days is not going to get these 2 under saddle.". She says it's ok and so it begins. She gets behind on training bills, I don't know the dollar figure but trainer's daughter says, "I could have put down a NICE down payment on a brand new car." on the amount. He finally has to call and say that he's going to stop training and have them put in a pasture situation until she's caught up on the money. They have been sitting in a pasture fenced for Elk for the last several months. She is current and could move them but won't, she can't handle them and doesn't have facilities to hold them and cannot find a boarding situation that will accept them anywhere near her. 

I see 4 victims here. The horses, the woman and her daughter. No one got served well by this scenario. And unfortunately, the horses will probably come out on the dirty end of the stick when she either runs out of money or gets tired of paying board for 2 horses she's never going to see in person or handle.


----------

