Some radical wild horse advocates just keep repeating the same misinformation over and over, hoping people start to take it as truth. This is illustrated by this thread on a High Country News article.
A common WH advocate talking point is that horses are native to North America. EPA defines introduced species as “species that have become able to survive and reproduce outside the habitats where they evolved or spread naturally". The early American horse had been game for the earliest humans on the continent. It went extinct about 7,000 BC, just after the end of the last glacial period (as a poster mentions, this was a different species than the horses here now). Thus it did not evolve here or spread naturally but was spread by Spaniards and other Europeans who brought horses to the Americas in the sixteenth century. If WH advocates claim horses are native because an animal they descended from ran here thousands of years ago, then elephants are native too. But you know what? It really doesn’t matter. We humans manage native wildlife and we manage introduced wildlife. But WH advocates want no management of wild horses at all. This is an unreasonable position IMHO.
The second is that wild horses do not destroy native ranges. In fact, one advocate has even contended that they “enrich habitat.” What? Folks, this isn’t that hard. A non-native species in large numbers is not enriching habitat. Then we have a poster who contends that horses do not compete with native wildlife. Whoa. Really? Gee, I didn’t know the forage out there was labeled and horses left the forage assigned to the wildlife alone. These are not well-thought out assertions from people who are speaking from emotion. I agree with what many say about ranching and too much livestock on public land. But this in no way legitimizes their agenda to have thousands of wild horses running free destroying the range. This is like when a 5-year old child tells his parents it’s okay to do something bad because their friends do it. If we don’t let small children get away with this, we shouldn’t let WH advocates get away with it either.
The third talking point is that BLM is lying about science and breaking the law. However, WH advocates sue BLM nearly every time they gather wild horses and they almost always lose. Because the agency knows they’re going to get sued every single time they pick up a WH, they are very diligent in gathering range data in Herd Management Areas. WH advocates tried to stop the massive round up in Nevada several months ago. The judge, again, ruled in favor of BLM and the gather went on. If BLM data are cooked, why are they winning gather litigation? Dozens of judges are not part of this conspiracy. You are losing all these gather court cases because you’re lying about who has the accurate science. And the assertion that BLM is "managing wild horses to extinction" is laughable. There are currently 37,000 wild horses and burros still roaming public lands, up from 25,345 in 1971.
Wild horses are an extremely emotional issue. What we need are fewer extremes. We need logical solutions, not radical ones. We shouldn’t be considering euthanizing horses. That’s extreme. But radical solutions are the only ones acceptable to most WH advocates. In every single issue we see on public lands, there has to be some compromise. But too many WH advocates don’t seem to know the meaning of the word compromise.
Neely writes “Wild horse lovers tend to prefer contraception to roundups,” which is true. However, the fact is that many WH lovers also detest contraception, saying it’s cruel. So as far as population control options available, round ups are out, and so is contraception. What does that leave? NOTHING. No management of wild horses. Let them breed at 20% recruitment rates forever. Let thousands, then hundreds of thousands of horses destroy our native ranges.
Make no mistake, this is exactly what some WH advocates want. There are moderate WH advocates, who do a lot more good for horses than these radical ones: http://www.gjsentinel.com/lifestyle/articles/local_group_blm_work_together. Too bad these sensible voices are drowned out by the radical. There is room for WHs on our public lands. They have a place there. But these lies and extreme positions are not helpful in managing our ranges effectively.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
The author seems to be confusing opinion with fact here. Before accusations of lies are bandied about, further research should probably be done. I could easily debunk most of the statements made here but, in the interest of brevity, will stick with one.
The lawsuit to which the article refers is still in court. Final arguments won't be presented until later this month. The judge could not rule in favor of a restraining order to prevent a roundup but warned the BLM that it would be "unwise" to continue as planned. Why? Because part two of the lawsuit appeared to have "strong merit" and held a good possibility that the BLM would be required to return the horses to freedom. The judges reference to strong merit also included the possibility that long term holding facilities currently warehousing 37,000 wild horses could be found "illegal".
The BLM chose to roundup the horses anyway. Over 120 horses have died because of it and the death toll continues to rise.
Most animals with a population in the low 5 digits would be placed in consideration for an endangered classification. Wild horses are not. Aah but I digress. Lets get back to being brief.
The range data referenced here has often been negated in court testimony by other BLM employees. Add to that scientific documents created by our own government and past years of experience with BLM lies (documented) and you get a recipe for mistrust- and yes a few extremists.
This article has painted wild horse advocates not only with false statements but also with a wide brush of contempt. Perhaps the opinion of the author comes from the opposite extreme.
Thanks for your comment.
Notwithstanding one law suit, most round ups around the west go through ever year.
Non-native species cannot be listed as endangered under the ESA. Again, when there are more horses on public lands now than there were 40 years ago, it's hard case to make that the horses are endangered. Wild horses have always been managed at relatively low numbers and they continue to do fine.
I am most definitely not arguing from the other extreme. I like wild horses, I go to visit them often in the Herd Management Area I live near. I firmly believe there is a place for them on public land.
Maybe you can tell me a compromise solution that you'd be willing to live with? There is room for common ground, as long as one side is not arguing euthanasia and the other is not arguing ending roundups altogether.
Nice blog Jer. I like reading what ya got. I'll argue from the other extreme since you've got the horsey folk already.
Wild horses don't belong on the range. Period. They're more destructive than cattle and cannot be managed in the same sense that livestock can (cows and sheep all get rounded up and put back on a truck every season but no one seems to complain about that).
Because I'm a vegetarian, I can say I don't like seeing cattle either but until people want to stop eating cows, they'd best stop complaining them and contributing to the problem. If it were really up to me, non natives wouldn't be out there. From a veg perspective, we do just about all we can to make sure natives are seeded, and when worse comes to worse, plants used for seeding after fires are to be sterile and cannot spread. Wouldn't it be nice if horses could be the same? Just finish off what's out there and away we go? People would have to appreciate the wild antelope instead. What a tragedy.
Horses are simply invasive and not adapted to the environment in which they dominate. They have no natural predator and cannot seem to stop breeding even when conditions render dead animals next to dry water holes. A European animal is better suited in Europe, not here. The American West has no place for these feral animals.
It's really too bad that the horse advocacy groups don't show in their videos the kind of damage they do to the range, to wildlife, and to each other in drought years (which seems to become every year now). It's also too bad that instead of complaining about BLM roundups, they could actually contribute ideas and assistance.
Not to mention all that advertising money they could put towards humane sterilizing efforts... Take all those studs and wack 'em. You wouldn't have a population problem if the males were incapable of breeding. They'd probably behave better too.
It ain't no thing.
OMG, thank you! Finally, a voice of reason amidst all of these wild horse advocates spouting misinformation! "Wild" horses are feral horses and are not entitled to any sort of conservation that a native species warrants. Furthermore, why do we need to conserve horses? They are already overpopulating and outstripping their food supplies. Should we designate some critical habitat for these "threatened" beasts? Give me a break! You might think of horses as representing the spirit of the west or whatever, but there are legitimate conservation concerns with native species that deserve more attention. And the money you make the federal government waste each time you sue them just takes away from worthier causes. This whole "BLM conspiracy theory" is laughable. It would be funny if it weren't such a waste of time and energy. Guess what, horse advocates- every time you sue the BLM, it takes money away from them being able to actually MANAGE your precious horses! So, if you would rather your tax dollars be used to fight ridiculous battles in court, go ahead and keep suing (and losing). If you think wild horses are a benefit to the environment, go drive to a rangeland in Nevada that has been wiped out by horses. It's easy for people to sit in the comfort of their living rooms and talk about the beauty of a "wild" horse when they don't see first-hand the damage these feral animals create.
Post a Comment