If Wild Horses Aren’t Going To Be Managed – Why Should Anything Else?
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
In the constant and predictable fashion of those who do not believe that Wild Horses should be subject to population control or any other fashion of management – a lawsuit has been filed and has been successfully used to delay the planned gather of Wild Horses that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) was looking to conduct the first part of December. The court case, as described in news accounts, suggest that the reasons for not gathering don’t deal with the responsibilities of the BLM to manage the horses in compliance with their land management duties or even within the direction of the Wild Horse and Burro Act. The groups who have caused the delay of the gather are basing their arguments on not controlling horse populations and the risk associated with injury should the gather take place.
Perhaps if the BLM is not to manage Wild Horses, since Wild Horse advocates don’t want the horses managed or their populations controlled – why should BLM exist for any purpose? It has long been the case that livestock operators who use the lands under federal agency management have been required to submit to standards of performance. Regulations dictate that range conditions must be achieved through the appropriate management of livestock numbers, time of use and other requirements. Meanwhile the animals that BLM does have responsibility to control and manage (Wild Horses and Burros) apparently don’t have the same requirements.
Government bureaucrats who are paid to manage Wild Horses and Burros don’t seem to be given the tools, resources or any of the accountability that they require of the other resource users who use public rangelands. Congress and political allies who use their skills of public spectacle (including lawsuits) for pandering and fund raising, preventing meaningful management activities to be carried out and growing the Wild Horse and Burro populations to levels that can’t be brought under control.
Earlier this year we saw legislative efforts by Congressman Nick Rahall of West Virginia to deal with the matter of too many Wild Horses in established territories by erasing the boundaries set through the 1971 Wild Horse and Burro Act. Having too many horses was solved, even if the damage to natural resources would not be.
At the recent Wild Horse and Burro Conference in Sparks, NV, sponsored b y the Society for Range Management, the idea surfaced that the appropriate number of horses should be established on the basis of how well excessive numbers are dealt with. If adoption is the only recourse for dealing with the excessive production, the number of appropriate horses should be factored to fit with that limitation. Currently about 3,000 horses are placed through adoption channels. With a 20 percent reproduction rate, the levels of Wild Horses should be established in accordance with those mathematic formulas. That way a sustaining population would be kept in check without irreparable damage being done to the range resources that other legal users of these resources depend on.
If BLM can’t or won’t be required/allowed to manage Wild Horse and Burro numbers within appropriate management levels – why should they be permitted to exercise authority over any of the other users?
In the constant and predictable fashion of those who do not believe that Wild Horses should be subject to population control or any other fashion of management – a lawsuit has been filed and has been successfully used to delay the planned gather of Wild Horses that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) was looking to conduct the first part of December. The court case, as described in news accounts, suggest that the reasons for not gathering don’t deal with the responsibilities of the BLM to manage the horses in compliance with their land management duties or even within the direction of the Wild Horse and Burro Act. The groups who have caused the delay of the gather are basing their arguments on not controlling horse populations and the risk associated with injury should the gather take place.
Perhaps if the BLM is not to manage Wild Horses, since Wild Horse advocates don’t want the horses managed or their populations controlled – why should BLM exist for any purpose? It has long been the case that livestock operators who use the lands under federal agency management have been required to submit to standards of performance. Regulations dictate that range conditions must be achieved through the appropriate management of livestock numbers, time of use and other requirements. Meanwhile the animals that BLM does have responsibility to control and manage (Wild Horses and Burros) apparently don’t have the same requirements.
Government bureaucrats who are paid to manage Wild Horses and Burros don’t seem to be given the tools, resources or any of the accountability that they require of the other resource users who use public rangelands. Congress and political allies who use their skills of public spectacle (including lawsuits) for pandering and fund raising, preventing meaningful management activities to be carried out and growing the Wild Horse and Burro populations to levels that can’t be brought under control.
Earlier this year we saw legislative efforts by Congressman Nick Rahall of West Virginia to deal with the matter of too many Wild Horses in established territories by erasing the boundaries set through the 1971 Wild Horse and Burro Act. Having too many horses was solved, even if the damage to natural resources would not be.
At the recent Wild Horse and Burro Conference in Sparks, NV, sponsored b y the Society for Range Management, the idea surfaced that the appropriate number of horses should be established on the basis of how well excessive numbers are dealt with. If adoption is the only recourse for dealing with the excessive production, the number of appropriate horses should be factored to fit with that limitation. Currently about 3,000 horses are placed through adoption channels. With a 20 percent reproduction rate, the levels of Wild Horses should be established in accordance with those mathematic formulas. That way a sustaining population would be kept in check without irreparable damage being done to the range resources that other legal users of these resources depend on.
If BLM can’t or won’t be required/allowed to manage Wild Horse and Burro numbers within appropriate management levels – why should they be permitted to exercise authority over any of the other users?
Posted by Doug Busselman at 12/1/2009 9:45 AM 
Categories: Public Lands
Tags: Nevada Wild Horses Bureau of Land Management
Categories: Public Lands
Tags: Nevada Wild Horses Bureau of Land Management
I wish I had the pictures from the my days on the Nellis Test Range. I would plaster them all over the web and tell the horse advocates this is what you are asking for. Is it what you want for the wild horses?
Reply to this