Feral Horse Hunts Anyone???

OK, I remember your education and thought you were still in the field... my original point was that a big obstacle to getting this problem solved is reduced horses simply means more cattle grazing. (In fact, cattlemen are suing to reduce horses.) Take the grazing out of the equation and more people will be willing to manage the horses. It still might not be able to be solved though... for better or worse you and I and everyone else has a say in how the land is managed and killing horses is a tough sell to start with.

Rob, I understand you strongly feel this way, with regards to the point I bolded and underlined. I've been able to find no evidence to support that claim. If you have evidence, not just your statement or opinion, that reducing feral horses will result in increased cattle grazing and thereby provide no net range improvement, I would like to see it, as I am getting more and more interested in this discussion and I would like to see such evidence, as seeing that evidence would surely influence where my views end up on this topic.

The reason cattlemen are suing is because the grazing privileges they have paid for are getting impacted by feral horses numbers being many-fold beyond what was promised in the Wild Horse and Burro Act and associated Federal legislation . None of the lawsuits I have read are to expand grazing beyond historical grazing privileges that come with their allotments.

As a general comment to the thread, when I put myself in the shoes of these grazing permitees, I'm not sure what choice to they have other than litigation. They have paid for grazing privileges that are being usurped by feral species. Advocates for that feral species have used the political process to negatively impact them and it is being done in violation of Federal Laws. In addition to their annual permit costs, many have paid for the underlying asset value these grazing allotments have as an marketable asset. Their asset values are being impacted. Seems reasonable that any of us would file a court case to protect our property values and our livelihood under a similar situation.

Peculiar how so many of these groups want to sue the BLM or USFS if they don't follow even minor regulations, all in the supposed name of wildlife and habitat. Yet, when an agency is directed by politicians to manage in the resource in this very damaging way, as is happening over huge landscapes with feral horses, none of these litigation-happy groups are stepping up to sue the BLM to get feral horses under control. Reason being, there is no money or notoriety in it.

Right now, the group forcing the BLM's hand is the feral horse advocates. They have been effective in using politics and litigation to hijack the BLM management of feral horses and burros. If I was King for a day, I would have attorneys heading down to Federal Court to balance the scales against this stupidity and let the professionals at the BLM do their job. Congress is a bunch of lazy ass clowns who would rather see our lands get mismanaged, and eventually sold, than to do their job and direct agencies with policy and funding to manage these lands.

For those wanting more info, the Appropriate Management Level (AML) as defined by Federal statute, decided by Congress when they passed these Federal laws, was set at 26,715 feral horses and burros to be tolerated on the range, even though all knew they were a non-native species. We are currently at 67,000+ of these feral animals, with populations doubling every five years. That does not count the tens of thousands of others now in capture facilities that cost $50,000 per horse, over its life. In capture facilities, they are enclosed and gelded, hardly making them a "wild" animal at that time. And we spend that much taxpayer money to keep them in these facilities.

If ever there is an example of a messed up political system to the detriment of native wildlife and native range, the feral horse and burro situation is the best example I can think of.
 
Rob, I understand you strongly feel this way, with regards to the point I bolded and underlined. I've been able to find no evidence to support that claim.
I never said that as my personal opinion, only that is the argument the anti horse folks need to overcome. I don't feel strongly or fight the public land grazing issue anymore, but I'm not dumb enough to not see the issues or the BS justifying it, nor the general biological opinion that it is damaging.

I would personally prefer that all wild horses were removed from the public lands in question. I wouldn't care if you mowed them (and feral cats) down with machine guns.

What I do feel strongly about is that you folks are pissing in the wind as long as grazing is on the table. That's my point.
Cows = Pissing+In+The+Wind.

1_pointer - Obviously if they reduced horses and kept the cattle usage the same the conditions would be better.
 
I wouldn't care if you mowed them (and feral cats) down with machine guns.

Feral cats are an interesting pickle. I recently delved into the current research on feral cat management, both here and abroad. They reproduce at staggering rates, and are almost impossible to exterminate (with the exception of small islands, but the level of effort required to do so is exceptional). I lobbied loudly for mass killing of all feral cats for a long time, now I typically support more of the "humane" trap, spay/neuter, release programs, which are equally as ineffective but make people feel a lot better. From what I found in my research coyotes are hands down the best control mechanisms on cats (along with other predators), I would image wolves may be for horses as well... hopefully we'll find out sooner rather than later, as the range in many places can't take much more horse abuse and hunting/mass killing just aren't socially acceptable.
 
Our ancestors hunted them, and they are still eaten in much of the world, I hear they are tasty so why not? Because much of the US and other parts of the world sees them as pet, or noble creatures I guess. So hunting them will never happen even if it makes sense.
To bad our fore fathers didn't realize that the buffalo was a noble creature. I will be hunting here in Colorado with a bunch of hay burners, this year. They kind of remind me of Bernie Sanders followers, just waiting for someone to feed them. Not sure if anyone has thought of the outcome for the states that think they are going to take over the Federal lands. Could be quite the sh!t show!
 
I spent three years between Ely, NV and Alamo, NV and it's sad the damages that feral horses have done. Combined with cheat grass the habitat loss has been great. Those horses are angry too. I had one charge me several times by Caliente, NV that needed a bullet. As far as eating one, I'm ok without eating one.
 
Way more fun that shooting housecats or prairie dogs.

I love my two cats so offense taken. Ok I'm over that!

My home state of Utah always seems to find money to fight the federal government over something they don't like. I would support them giving notice to the federal government to manage the horse herds at the numbers in the management plans; if the federal government didn't comply then have the state round the horses up. Place in holding and start a tab for feed and care until the government accepts custody of the horses. If they don't comply; auction the horses off. This action would bring a federal lawsuit and opportunity to bring the issue to a head.
 
Most of my experience with wild horses was in wyoming, west and north of rawlins. No doubt a horse drinks an amazing amount of water in a day. A very precious commodity in that area. I'm Sure the deer, elk, and antelope would enjoy a few hundred less of them! This seems like nearly the same as trying to delist wolves and Grizzlies. The Species is recovered X3, lots of politics involved, lots of repercussions if left unmanaged. But all for an invasive species. A win on managing horses would be as epic as any.
 
I did not sift through all the comments on this topic so I am not sure if this was mentioned or not. If these horses are posing a threat to a ranchers livestock can they not protect it just like they would from wolves and bears? I would guess indirectly they are impacting the cattle by taking grass and water away.

I know farmers up here get permits to kill geese in the summer when they destroy their crops. I would guess each state is different on laws on how they protect their animals and crops.

People shoot hogs out of helicopters and no one blinks an eye, but if you shot sea biscuit I would guess it would make the nightly news.
 
Rob, I understand you strongly feel this way, with regards to the point I bolded and underlined. I've been able to find no evidence to support that claim. If you have evidence, not just your statement or opinion, that reducing feral horses will result in increased cattle grazing and thereby provide no net range improvement, I would like to see it, as I am getting more and more interested in this discussion and I would like to see such evidence, as seeing that evidence would surely influence where my views end up on this topic.

The reason cattlemen are suing is because the grazing privileges they have paid for are getting impacted by feral horses numbers being many-fold beyond what was promised in the Wild Horse and Burro Act and associated Federal legislation . None of the lawsuits I have read are to expand grazing beyond historical grazing privileges that come with their allotments.

As a general comment to the thread, when I put myself in the shoes of these grazing permitees, I'm not sure what choice to they have other than litigation. They have paid for grazing privileges that are being usurped by feral species. Advocates for that feral species have used the political process to negatively impact them and it is being done in violation of Federal Laws. In addition to their annual permit costs, many have paid for the underlying asset value these grazing allotments have as an marketable asset. Their asset values are being impacted. Seems reasonable that any of us would file a court case to protect our property values and our livelihood under a similar situation.

Peculiar how so many of these groups want to sue the BLM or USFS if they don't follow even minor regulations, all in the supposed name of wildlife and habitat. Yet, when an agency is directed by politicians to manage in the resource in this very damaging way, as is happening over huge landscapes with feral horses, none of these litigation-happy groups are stepping up to sue the BLM to get feral horses under control. Reason being, there is no money or notoriety in it.

Right now, the group forcing the BLM's hand is the feral horse advocates. They have been effective in using politics and litigation to hijack the BLM management of feral horses and burros. If I was King for a day, I would have attorneys heading down to Federal Court to balance the scales against this stupidity and let the professionals at the BLM do their job. Congress is a bunch of lazy ass clowns who would rather see our lands get mismanaged, and eventually sold, than to do their job and direct agencies with policy and funding to manage these lands.

For those wanting more info, the Appropriate Management Level (AML) as defined by Federal statute, decided by Congress when they passed these Federal laws, was set at 26,715 feral horses and burros to be tolerated on the range, even though all knew they were a non-native species. We are currently at 67,000+ of these feral animals, with populations doubling every five years. That does not count the tens of thousands of others now in capture facilities that cost $50,000 per horse, over its life. In capture facilities, they are enclosed and gelded, hardly making them a "wild" animal at that time. And we spend that much taxpayer money to keep them in these facilities.

If ever there is an example of a messed up political system to the detriment of native wildlife and native range, the feral horse and burro situation is the best example I can think of.
Well said and I agree! One more tidbit, each wild horse herd as managed also have population limits set by land use plans. It would be an interesting exercise to tally those up and compare them to the overall number as allowed in the WHBA. My guess is the sum of the individual plans would far exceed that of the overall number set by the "organic" act.

I'm kinda interested to see where these permittee lawsuits go. Not sure any in the past ever made it to setting precedence, but I do know the BLM has lost more than once in NV on trying to reduce permitted grazing on allotments when the horse numbers were over the objectives they set and failed to maintain.

I can only imagine the shrill shrieking that'd be heard if permittees were some 200% above permitted...

This has to be impacting both Desert Bighorns and California Bighorns in NV. Surprised the well-heeled sheep groups haven't pushed this issue harder.

RobG- The cattle numbers are constrained by the LUPs and subsequent permit decisions. Even with 0 horses the numbers can't be increased over what has been analyzed in those without more analysis. Which would be protestable and appealable. There is no impacts analysis of the horse numbers. You seem to know a different type of "conservationist" than I do if you and them find that a better situation...
 
There are many species found in North America during the Pleistocene that went extinct here but may still be found in Eurasia or Africa (or at least close relatives). The American lion (Panthera leo atrox) or cave lion is very similar if not larger than the species that still exist in Africa and Asia. If one of these modern lions were accidentally re-introduced into North American I think a lot of people would have problems with it. The African and Asian lions evolved in their habitat and fill a niche in that ecosystem. If introduced into an area where they and more importantly their fellow animals have evolved to fit the the niche they are in (absent lions) it would certainly upset the order that has been established over thousands of years. Same for the horse, since they had been absent from the landscape for so long everything (plants and animals) have evolved to fill the appropriate niche left absent by the extinction of the horse in North America. With their re-introduction 500 years ago they certainly have changed the landscape and are occupying niches that used to support native species. The horse being a herbivore obviously has a different impact than would a prey species like a lion, the impact however may be more severe than that caused by a carnivore.

My other big concern for Midwest and East is the feral pig. They are certainly doing as much damage as the horse in Western landscapes. The pig however has become a popular "game" species and is now being managed by private entities. An industry has developed over the years to insure that sustainable number of pigs are left on the landscape because of the profit incentives they offer. I only raise this point to counter the anti horse sentiment.

In my opinion both species should be managed back to extinction in the wild. If you want to raise livestock (horses and pigs) great. When we allow them to go feral and upset a delicate balance that has been established over tens of thousands of years we are playing with environmental fire. As I do not support the re-introduction of African lions I also do not support these non-natives on the landscape.

We do need to remain sensitive to the broader population. Talking about shooting horses will not make us more popular with the public at large. We can manage our way through this problem but it will take $$$. Rounding them up would be a first good step. Castrating (or other means of birth control) would certainly help to reduce the population and may be more palatable to the general public. I don't think the adoption thing will work, there are just too many.
 
I'm glad you are calling these animals feral because that is exactly what they are. I've had horses for riding and packing and really enjoyed them but I totally agree something needs to be done about the overpopulation of them on federal lands. Nevada has about 80% of the feral horse population and everywhere you go there are horses, even in the very dry south end of the state.
 
One is easily regulated/managed with the laws currently on the books and one is not... Either one needs to be managed to adhere to the objectives of the management plans for the area. See my first sentence for figuring out which one it is easier to accomplish this with.


Then why are judges often required to get the management agencies to regulate/manage with the laws currently on the books???
 
Then why are judges often required to get the management agencies to regulate/manage with the laws currently on the books, in the manner in which the litigants (who are not scientists) want to see the laws interpreted???

Fixed that for you.:cool:
 
Randy, I think if you really got involved in the cattle issues south of us you would find out that Jose is spot on. That issue really has different dynamic than the issues around here. I've been there, done that, hated the whole damn mess, and now that I'm back in Montana where conditions are better suited to cattle I'm fine never fighting another cattle disaster again.
 
Slaughtering horses for human consumption has been off/on illegal in the last few decades. I don't think you can do it now. What are the options for killing horses these days?
Too bad too. I have never eaten one that I know of, but I know of a few guys who went to Africa and said Zebra was amazing table fare.
 
MTNTOUGH - Use promo code RANDY for 30 days free

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
110,805
Messages
1,935,062
Members
34,883
Latest member
clamwc
Back
Top