Interesting Concept Of Not Doing Assigned Responsibilities
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
According to the position attributed to him in news accounts from the Elko Free Press, Bureau of Land Management Director Bob Abbey has indicated that if his agency is sued in an attempt to require the agency to manage Wild Horses at levels that meet the land’s carrying capacity for sustained use – the agency will simply increase the numbers of horses that they say fit on the land and get rid of other users to accomplish their purpose. This threat is intended to stave off efforts to require the BLM from doing their job, as directed by their land management mission and even the law dealing with Wild Horse management.
Through the use of strategies from the playbook of Cloward-Piven those who do not want to see Wild Horses managed have successfully maneuvered the land management agency into a position where they simply can’t manage the excessive horses on the land. Currently more Wild Horses reside in holding facilities than on the federally-managed lands and the care and feeding of these horses suck up financial resources to the extent that appropriate controls of the horses on the federal lands can’t be accomplished. Whenever incremental gathers are proposed and started, geared to bringing at least one small area of responsibility to appropriate management levels, so-called “horse advocates” sue and challenge the agency’s intention, delaying further the work that needs to be done.
The “solution” the agency is hoping to get away with using is not to do anything and seek input from the National Academy of Science, who are exploring something about the “science” which the BLM says they use in not managing the Wild Horses they are supposed to be managing. Perhaps it will also include an evaluation of the mathematics used to count how many animals are on the rangelands not being managed. Reports indicate that the other part of the new management process will be increased fertility-control methods to hopefully reduce the nearly rabbit-like capability of Wild Horse populations to reproduce.
Meanwhile, other land users (who once were included in the mix for the “multiple use” concept that BLM is supposedly responsible for accomplishing under the agency’s mission and legislative mandate) are warned to not take legal actions to require the agency to do their jobs, because they’ll solve their inability to manage at appropriate levels by increasing the numbers of allowable Wild Horses they aren’t going to manage at appropriate levels. This administration has also decided to solve the illegal immigrant problem the same way – by not following the laws when it gets in the way of meeting the requirements of following the law.
In the case of use of the federally-managed lands, those who use the lands for livestock grazing are held accountable by BLM when they fail to meet the obligations of standards for rangeland health. These same standards obviously don’t apply to the agency when it comes to them doing their jobs and managing the use (Wild Horses) that they have direct responsibility for. It’s going to be challenging to listen to the land management agency’s sermons about how much they care for the land, when their actions demonstrate the reality of where they stand.
According to the position attributed to him in news accounts from the Elko Free Press, Bureau of Land Management Director Bob Abbey has indicated that if his agency is sued in an attempt to require the agency to manage Wild Horses at levels that meet the land’s carrying capacity for sustained use – the agency will simply increase the numbers of horses that they say fit on the land and get rid of other users to accomplish their purpose. This threat is intended to stave off efforts to require the BLM from doing their job, as directed by their land management mission and even the law dealing with Wild Horse management.
Through the use of strategies from the playbook of Cloward-Piven those who do not want to see Wild Horses managed have successfully maneuvered the land management agency into a position where they simply can’t manage the excessive horses on the land. Currently more Wild Horses reside in holding facilities than on the federally-managed lands and the care and feeding of these horses suck up financial resources to the extent that appropriate controls of the horses on the federal lands can’t be accomplished. Whenever incremental gathers are proposed and started, geared to bringing at least one small area of responsibility to appropriate management levels, so-called “horse advocates” sue and challenge the agency’s intention, delaying further the work that needs to be done.
The “solution” the agency is hoping to get away with using is not to do anything and seek input from the National Academy of Science, who are exploring something about the “science” which the BLM says they use in not managing the Wild Horses they are supposed to be managing. Perhaps it will also include an evaluation of the mathematics used to count how many animals are on the rangelands not being managed. Reports indicate that the other part of the new management process will be increased fertility-control methods to hopefully reduce the nearly rabbit-like capability of Wild Horse populations to reproduce.
Meanwhile, other land users (who once were included in the mix for the “multiple use” concept that BLM is supposedly responsible for accomplishing under the agency’s mission and legislative mandate) are warned to not take legal actions to require the agency to do their jobs, because they’ll solve their inability to manage at appropriate levels by increasing the numbers of allowable Wild Horses they aren’t going to manage at appropriate levels. This administration has also decided to solve the illegal immigrant problem the same way – by not following the laws when it gets in the way of meeting the requirements of following the law.
In the case of use of the federally-managed lands, those who use the lands for livestock grazing are held accountable by BLM when they fail to meet the obligations of standards for rangeland health. These same standards obviously don’t apply to the agency when it comes to them doing their jobs and managing the use (Wild Horses) that they have direct responsibility for. It’s going to be challenging to listen to the land management agency’s sermons about how much they care for the land, when their actions demonstrate the reality of where they stand.
Posted by Doug Busselman at 8/25/2011 5:30 AM 
Categories: Public Lands
Tags: Wild Horses Nevada Bureau of Land Management Public Lands Management
Categories: Public Lands
Tags: Wild Horses Nevada Bureau of Land Management Public Lands Management
If BLM had any guts they would invoke their right to humane euthanasia and put down the surplus horses. If the horse advocates didn't want the surplus horses put down they could adopt them and care for them.
Reply to this
Actually, if the BLM had any guts they'd manage according to the law - which mandates "minimal" management and wild horse ranges to be managed principally for wild horses. Instead cattle outnumber wild horses 50 to 1, 150 to 1, and everyone blames range "damage" on wild horses. The problem with long term holding is the BLM has "over-gathered" and "over-managed" while letting domestic livestock dominate wild horse legal ranges. And the problem with public lands grazing of domestic livestock is: it's not necessary, the contribution to the nation's beef supply is, what? 3% or so. The program doesn't pay for itself and costs taxpayers, costs more when wild horses are rounded up to give more forage to livestock, costs even more when predators are killed by the government to protect livestock on public lands. Why don't public lands ranchers quit draining taxpayers to support their "lifestyle" and support their own cattle on their own land like the vast majority of (non-public lands) ranchers do?
This article is full of false information. How many times has a lawsuit postponed or stopped a round up?
Reply to this
I don't believe that your perspective is represented by the actual facts of the circumstances. I understand why you push your story -- it just doesn't actually fit the real situation of what is taking place on federally managed lands.
Reply to this
Doug, I don't believe that your perspective is represented by the actual facts of the circumstances. Congress asked the BLM to wait until the NAS study was done, yet the BLM continued on with round ups, they did not stop, they did not slow down. Your statement that wild horses have "rabbit-like" capability to reproduce shows you are not interested in addressing this issue realistically. How many "litters" do rabbits have in a year compared to one foal born to one mare in a year? How can you expect to be taken seriously?
Reply to this
I'm not sure how you can disagree with facts...?
"...the primary cause of the degradation in rangeland resources is poorly managed domestic (primarily cattle and sheep) livestock.”
”Unlike cattle who tend to congregate and settle in riparian areas, wild horses and burros are highly mobile, typically visiting watering areas for only short periods of time. To make matters worse, livestock are concentrated in grazing allotments at artificially high densities during the critical growing season when vegetation is extremely vulnerable to permanent damage. This overgrazing sets the stage for habitat degradation that may not be immediately apparent, but can cumulatively cause massive vegetation dieoff.” (U.S. GAO)
Wild horses are a native species, evolving in North America *with the landscape* (important to plant defense and dispersal mechanisms) over a 60 million year period.
They are also wild (vs. feral, estray, etc.) by definition:
“Wild state” is defined (by the Dept. of Agriculture – 9 CFR 1.1) as:
“Wild animal means any animal which is now or historically has been found in the wild, or in the wild state, within the boundaries of the United States, its territories, or possessions.”
“Wild state means living in its original, natural condition; not domesticated.”
(As mentioned, horses evolved in North America, so this is indeed their “original, natural condition” and if you've ever observed a gather, or tried to get "up close and personal" you'll agree that they are obviously not domesticated.)
How do you figure that 20-30,000 horses - which travel 20 or so miles per day, utilize higher elevations, eat off of trails in a patchwork pattern, and come in to drink vs. lounging in riparian areas could possibly cause more rangeland damage than millions of head of subsidized livestock?
Reply to this
It has BEEN challenging listening to the land management agency's mantra of "caring for the land" when their actions RE: the proposed SNWA pipeline also demonstrate the reality of where they stand.
Reply to this
AML info is random and outdated, and doesn't reflect accurate real world numbers. Look to the recent (and controversial) Calico gather for evidence of this:
BLM, according to their own field monitoring agent (Glenna Eckle) was unaware that the horse population was 5.5 times the (arbitrary) AML (some as old as 1982) because their impact on the range was not detected during range monitoring. (Eckle - “…I assumed that we were close to those population estimates of being under AML, and so the monitoring data was meeting management objectives that we had identified. And again, I was thinking we had a smaller population…”)
Per this testimony, BLM had no reason to round up these horses at all because the law requires that they maintain a thriving ecological balance on public land, and *they were*.
Since certain lands are indeed set aside for use by wild horses, eliminating or minimizing other uses is not troublesome or extreme, and updating AML to reflect accurate usage and carrying capacity is honest and proper.
Reply to this
There are no surplus or excess wild horses. According to the BLM's own records of those removed there are approximately only 21,000 now left free in all the West. Millions of ares have been zeroed out and taken from themthat should be reastored to those in the holding facilites. Millions of cattle and sheep have destroyed public ranges and riparian areas. This was proven by a GAO 1990-91 study that found wild horses innocent. They are a native, re-introduced species as proven by DNA and palenontological studies also. Why are some greedy ranchers trying to wipe them out ? Thousands of these horses served in our wars and died with our troops and they helped settle the West . They are a national treasure and must be protected and preserved as mandated by the Wild Free Roaming Horse and Burro Act so that generations to come can enjoy them. We owe them that much.
Reply to this
Barbara...while I don't agree with your numbers or the points of your argument (the Wild Horses are not in danger of extinction) -- I do believe that you have a right to your opinion.
Reply to this
Do you live where the wild horses live? Do you see how quickly they multiply? Do you watch cattle and sheep management on the range? Have you ever seen a herd of "broomhead" horses? Stubby, mutated creatures, which we would have if they were truly left without management. This is the "national treasure" you want. If you do not live it and see it. How can you call it evil names or visa versa call it a treasure. I hope when you come to see your national treasure, you drive right into one.
Reply to this
Mare's can have only one foal a year, never seen a rabbit give birth to only one kit. The wild stallion Cloud sired five foals one year, only four survived due to just one female cougar. This is how the eco system works, you yay hoo's are always out to destroy what nature provides us.
Reply to this
Ladies I hope you all are wearing boots because the BS is getting deep. We manage wildlife numbers to maintain a balance between numbers and available habitat. There were no horses on the American continents when the Spanish arrived. Yet horses appear in the fossil record. Have you ever wondered why the horses disappeared? Do wild horses need human management to keep the population from crashing? My observations lead me to believe that this is the case. If you get what you're advocating you're going to end up with a pile of bleached bones and a landscape of noxious weeds.
The assertion that the mean evil ranchers hate the horses is a load of BS. If the ranchers had wanted the wild horse gone they would have been gone long before 1971 and the passage of the wild horse and burro act. The truth is that the ranchers are the best friend the wild horse have. Who do you think maintains the water the wild horses drink? The ranchers are out on the ground more often than the BLM or horse advocates.
My advice to you all is to use your head for something more than a parking lot for hats and ear rings. Leave off the emotion and try logic for a change. We wouldn't having this discussion is Roy Rogers had ridden off into sunset on cow.
Reply to this
["We manage wildlife numbers to maintain a balance between numbers and available habitat."]
Yet Calico was rounded up despite the lack of negative impact on the range, and monitoring that showed they were under AML...
["There were no horses on the American continents when the Spanish arrived."]
Horses were here for 60 million years, and gone for 8,000 at most (DNA evidence). That's a shorter amount of time than a human vacation. When you return home after traveling, surely things are as you left them, you still know how to utilize them, and you still "fit in."
["Have you ever wondered why the horses disappeared? Do wild horses need human management to keep the population from crashing?"]
They were killed off through over-hunting by humans migrating IN to America by way of the same Bering Land Bridge that the horses used to get OUT and disperse to the rest of the world. Horses were doing just fine until people came along. (2 million of them around 1900, down to 20-30,000 now.)
In addition, the complaint about horses, and the reason some humans seem to think they need to manage them, is because they are thriving, not because they are dying off and need help.
["Who do you think maintains the water the wild horses drink?"]
You mean the public water, on public land, that subsidized ranchers use to raise private livestock? It already belongs to us - the citizens - and to the horses and other wildlife. Ranchers may maintain "improvements" which were added to keep cattle and sheep out (capping springs and such) and maximizing water output for large livestock herds, but horses managed perfectly well using springs and seeps.
["My advice to you all is to use your head for something more than a parking lot for hats and ear rings."]
I will if you will. (Didn't that condescending "don't worry your pretty little head about things like this" stuff go out in the 50s?)
["Leave off the emotion and try logic for a change."]
Speaking for myself, I have often been accused of being too logical, and not emotional enough. You might be able tell by my posts, and by the fact that no one has disputed me directly. Why? Probably because they can't, since facts are facts.
["We wouldn't having this discussion is Roy Rogers had ridden off into sunset on cow."]
Ah, but he *did*. I'm glad you finally "got it" there at the end.
Reply to this
The majority of horse advocates that comment on threads parrot a list of talking points. They haven't really thought about the issues and checked for gaps in their knowledge base and taken steps to fill the gaps.
For example, the water (including springs and seeps) in the State of Nevada belongs to the citizens of the state. It is not "public" in the sense of "public lands" (federal managed lands). The state engineer grants water rights to private individuals who can show beneficial use. Beneficial use includes water for livestock and wildlife. Wild horses are not recognized as a beneficial use under Nevada water law. The water on the "public lands" is privately owned. The people who use the grazing permits own the water. The water right owners may exclude wild horses if they choose. This right had been affirmed by the courts. Under Nevada water law the federal land management agencies are prohibited from holding water rights because they own no livestock. If the horse advocates and the BLM don't play nice with owners of the water rights, there will be no water. No water no wild horses.
Reply to this
Footloosehorse, I agree with you 100%
Some people are so blinded by their prejudice that they cannot see the truth however.
Reply to this
What a mean remark from jojo. I have been out West to see the wild horses and also have 3 that were rounded up by the BLM plus 3 Arabians. I have been a Pony Club mom, 4-H horse club leader, dressage steward , walked thororbreds and have been around horses all of my 72 years. Wild horses are beautiful, have great conformationand movement and tough hooves that are studied by farriers. My father raised beef cattle so I know a few things about cattle too. Horses will never over graze if allowed to roam , and they never pollute water with their feces like cattle do. Cattle cause erosion also.The cow paths never disappear.
Some folks still have a lot to learn about horses both wild and domestic or
how to tell the truth.
Reply to this