The Associated Press reports:
BILLINGS, Mont. — Dozens of wild mustangs from the Pryor Mountain Wild Horse Range along the Montana-Wyoming border are slated to be removed this year to reduce the size of the famous herd.
The federal Bureau of Land Management on Wednesday announced approval of a roundup that would reduce the 170-horse herd to 120 or fewer animals.
The agency says the roundup is needed to keep the horses from overgrazing their 38,000-acre range — the nation’s first wild horse preserve.
Tuesday's Horse 
I hear you Boo Boo. I understand.
LikeLike
Just so we all know, How many horses would you accept as a maximum number of horses before action is taken to limit their population? You can belieive that the BLM and wild horse advocates involved in the planning process have discussed this number at some point. My guess is they have some excellent rationales based upon science instead of “feelings and emotions”. Animal Units: look it up. Get a topo of the Pryors and mark out then measure actual range land capable of supporting a herd of horses. Cross reference that with water sources and readjust your total acres to better reflect what is actually up there. I bet it has been done already and you can get access to it if you really cared about these horses.
The people that have commented to date obviously have not done their research, OR they are of a mind to promote distortion and misinformation (overgraze;Gobi desert; nuts; shoot ’em all and feel good; (conspiracy to commit) retaliation for lawsuits; Occupy the Pryors!; ALL of US are real angry. Every lawsuit based upon false or misleading information is a waste of money that could be used more productively to improve the range or water sources, promote remote viewing, good things for horses. I am sure the easily OUTRAGED! are more interested in the OUTRAGE! emotional high than in either the horses or the problem. So, don’t be useful idiots (unless you are). Do your homework and base your opinions and political actions on something other than emotions. AND PLEASE define how many is enough horses, so we can get beyond this endless loop of OUTRAGE! at any attempt to limit the population to prespecified and agreed upon (scientifically established) numbers of horses.
One great way to raise money for all the foundations exploiting wild horse/mustang roundups is to project OUTRAGE! over any attempt to limit the number of horses out there. Then to claim victim status with distorted and selective posts. Then exploit the idiots out there for the money they can give to a foundation.
Just for the record, when you have the max number you would except would you let everybody know what it is. Then when the next round of OUTRAGE! from the next group of useful idiots hits the air, you can stand with those who came before you as the dirty SOB’s that are advocating the killing of mustangs for fun and pleasure.
I’m for responsible management of wild horse/mustang populations based upon science and economic realities. What you are doing with these types of comments makes US ALL real angry.
LikeLike
If you are so knowledgeable about this then spew forth your wisdom, oh wise one. No doubt you have spawned from the loins of the BLM.
LikeLike
Boo boo,
I assume you are responding to my post.
You mock me, and ridicule me in your first sentence. In your second sentence you say I am not human, but something “spawned”. Then you finish that sentence with a reference that the BLM is some demented male monster and I am an offspring of that monster, very possibly the result of sexual assault.
Not a word about mustangs, no positive solution oriented thoughts, just personal attack.
I am human, I have thoughts, and they just aren’t like your thoughts. If you are implying that your thoughts, opinions, emotions and political position are somehow more legitimate than mine, I have to ask: “by what right?” How does this assumption of personal righteousness and condemnation of monsters like me help solve these very real problems?
My comments are based on the fact that horses in the Pryor Mountains (or anywhere else) require management. Management means removing some horses from the overstressed habitat so that the horses don’t exhaust their resources and destroy themselves by depleting or degrading their habitat. I want the readers here to specify what their concept is regarding maximum numbers of horses. There has to be a number. You clearly don’t like the one the BLM has. Once the horses are removed from the habitat and come under the care of the BLM the numbers of choices available for managing them are limited. They can be held indefinitely in corals, fed, watered, subjected to animal husbandry care including veterinary treatments. It would be easy to argue at this point they are owned and no longer free or wild. Horses in corals are expensive, more than half the budget for BLM is tied up in “holding in limbo” all these horses. Adoption is not feasible. I’ve adopted five over my lifetime. Almost all sanctuaries are maxed out because there are too many horses.
We quickly run out of romantic and fun “happy ending” alternatives for these thousands of horses kept in limbo. We have only hard choices to make regarding them. We can’t keep spending money like this or in this way. Not even if every mustang advocate dedicated all their property, all their income, and all their time to “happy ending” alternatives. The only thing left for consideration is the hard choices.
I think the choice is clear. Horses HAVE TO BE MANAGED. That means their population has to be limited. Horses will HAVE TO BE REMOVED FROM THEIR HABITAT. Once removed from habitat, ALL OF THOSE HORSES WILL HAVE TO BE MANAGED. Some kind of culling will have to occur so the best horses remain available to their wild herds, available for adoption/rescue/ownership, or? After the culling, the unfortunate not so good horses will have to be killed. My vote would be for killing and using every single part possible. That means Slaughter Houses will have to be “reintroduced”, properly licensed, regulated, inspected, and allowed to operate.
I love horses. The mustangs I have had the privilege of knowing and sharing my life with have been wonderful horses. All my horses are dead now, all died of natural causes at an old age (in their 30’s). I provided as good as I could for them while they were alive, and am certain what I gave them; in no way repaid what they gave me. Liberal environmentalists now dominate the landscape around me and this will be the last generation of the working ranch where horses are part of everyday life. Animal advocates/environmentalists/progressive liberals are directly responsible for the death of my culture. I have very little humor for them and I read with amazement what they advocate for. On the one hand its sacred respect for the living and the other hand is such hate and disrespect it’s hard to believe these people can be so fractured.
Insult me call me names make derogatory comments about my heritage and method of being born, assume my “guilt” by my associations, attack my qualifications, but if your interest in this is about horses, then address the issues. I made some good points that are going to run contrary to the romantic imaginations of the overly emotional that dominate sites like this. I see sites like this stirring up people who don’t have to directly live with the problem. I see half truths and distortions being used for some purpose, and that purpose doesn’t seem to be realistic problem solving that is going to benefit these horses or their range. If this is about “outrage highs”, get your “outrage highs”, but I don’t see perpetrating perpetual outrage as being productive or helping horses in any real way.
You have such a low opinion of people who don’t see this issue through the same romantic lens. It is as if you believe everyone should believe as you do or they should be hated and exterminated. I’m old enough to remember exterminations and it is hard to see the people who love and respect the sacred thing and hate and disrespect so intensely they could exterminate a whole culture. It’s hard to be a decent human being belonging to a proud culture so hated by the people on sites like this. And why do you hate and disrespect me? Because part of my proud cultural heritage that built this nation and its identity includes making hard realistic practical choices that aren’t “happy ending” romantic fantasies based upon distortions and misinformation and emotions. After you exterminate my culture and silence me in ridicule and derision, you will still have to deal with this too many wild horses problem.
Feel good? When you realize what you have to do, you won’t feel good about what you have to do. It just won’t change what you have to do. Or you could allow yourself to indulge in delusions of sacred advocacy and tear to pieces anyone that suggests you are deluded. You could let the BLM be the monster, slaughterhouses be abominations, and your outrage perpetually your right. Or you could break this endless loop and join the rest of us who have to make “unhappy ending” choices. My money is on advocates maintaining sustainable delusions and endless victim loops. The foundations need you; rtfitch needs you. There will still be too many horses, and their won’t be any working ranches cause animal rights activists will have everyone believing animals are humans too, can’t be owned or killed by man, and man is bad and the earth would be better off without anybody who isn’t an animal rights activist.
Pinon, Cheyenne, Star Ro, Nevada, and Sheldon had a pretty rich life, they didn’t end up meat or political pawns. They had it good because of a working ranch run by decent proud human beings who owned and raised and killed animals and sold them for profit. Hope this helps unsettle you.
Unless your comments weren’t in reply to mine.
Then “never mind”.
LikeLike
Romanticism aside, there are those of us who believe there is no room for horse slaughter, contrary to what you choose to believe in. The so-called “need” for horse slaughter is circular logic; horse slaughter exists because there is a market for horse meat.
As for the wild horse population, why cull the indigenous creatures that inhabit these lands? Why not “cull” the cattle that have insidiously taken over these public lands that were intended as sanctuaries for these horses and other wildlife, now damaged by widespread overgrazing? The livestock lobby has tried to dismantle the wild horse and burro law and with it’s political clout has the potential to push policy toward a mustang-free America. And then there is the energy sector.
At the beginning of the 20th century, there were about 2 million mustangs in the wilderness all living in harmony with the land; now there are less than 25,000. The acreage of the land hasn’t changed, only the corruptness and greed of America.
There is no point in arguing with someone with your perspective just as you may feel thwarted by the likes of people with view points contrary to your own. No one “hates” or “disrespects” you and remember you were the one who first “insulted” us and berated us for our love and respect of the wild ones; an American cultural icon that is now prey to eradication by the BLM.
Rather than simply accept these grim realities that are thrust upon the American people by the US government and as you say “join the rest of us who have to make “unhappy ending” choices”, it is people like us who work to make change happen.
Change is the law of life. And those who look only to the past or present are certain to miss the future. ~ John F. Kennedy
LikeLike
https://tuesdayshorse.wordpress.com/2012/04/05/blm-approves-pryor-mustang-roundup-for-2012/#comment-7493
Well said Boo Boo. Thanks for the thoughtful response. Better than the first one by far.
I don’t see any other way. The circular logic argument applies to No-Kill management too. Advocates force no-kill philosophy into practice. Horses breed and increase in numbers. Horses eventually exceed habitat capacity. “Something has to be done by somebody” because there are too many horses on the range, too many in limbo holding, too many to rescue or adopt. The amount of money to keep them in limbo is too great. All No-Kill avenues are exhausted. “Lethal management” is put into effect. Advocates go nuts over the killing of horses made necessary by their advocacy for No-Kill.
Thirty some years ago, it was a big problem. I bought into the pleas for adopt a mustang and did. THEN I educated myself as to what was happening and why. I read up on the unrealistic management strategies, law suit utilization and intimidation, animal rights activist philosophy; I came to the conclusion that there was going to be no good outcome especially for the horses. They were being LOVED TO DEATH.
I don’t think the need for horse slaughter is because of a huge demand for horse meat. I think horse slaughter is much more complex an issue. To me it is use every single piece without waste. If you can come up with a “happy ending” outcome that is feasible and affordable, I much prefer that. I just don’t see it happening.
I don’t see culling as a problem, even if the horses out there were indigenous. One of my mustangs had a lot of draft horse in it. I won’t be convinced that he was indigenous. I think the more accurate term for them would be feral not indigenous.
The insidious takeover of range intended as horse sanctuary by livestock? Historically speaking, I am pretty sure public lands are public lands and that sanctuaries are a very recent designation.
I think you are misinformed about “widespread overgrazing” by livestock. It happens and there are consequences, but only a fool kills what makes his business successful. Rangeland managed by agriculture producers is in much better shape, more biologically diverse, and has greater carrying capacity than any “natural” unmanaged land. The caretakers of the range are the private citizen ranchers who have an interest in the health of the land. Government has never been a good steward because they have political considerations to subject themselves to. All research I have read suggests that the more politically influenced an environment, the less productive it is.
I also disagree with you regarding no point in arguing. I think it is import for the parties involved in this issue to engage in some kind of exchange of ideas. And regarding the no one hates or disrespects me or my opinions. Your first reply wasn’t respectful or honoring, it was full of distain and disrespect (spawn loins oh wise one etc). There is plenty of active hate and disrespect towards anybody who does not share the advocate’s viewpoint. Read rtfitch, that guy is poison. Other advocate sites where I have had the temerity to post comments have not been at all shy about saying how much they hate me and my kind, how what we do is abominable, and how we should be exterminated. I don’t berate your love of wild ones, I berate you for imposing your views on others and taking action that negatively affects my whole culture. I love horses; I was in the Pryor’s and photographing those mustangs 40 years ago. You don’t do that for things you don’t love. The BLM is not trying to exterminate the mustang. That is not what they are doing. And defending a government agency makes my skin crawl.
This situation isn’t being thrust upon the people by the government. This situation has been dumped in its lap by advocates promoting no-kill management. Make change happen, but I don’t see how forcing a philosophy that has no practical chance of working onto the BLM, the mustangs, and the economically effected is a viable option. I think the idea of No-Kill is a good one; it’s just not at all practical or realistic. There is not the same amount of range that there was. Range is finite and the resources on that range are finite so therefore the total number of animal units (mustangs) has to be finite. I don’t see how you can get around that, no matter how strongly you feel.
IF the change you advocate for results in “happy endings” for mustangs, I say go for it. IF the change you advocate for is ignoring the reality posed by ever increasing horse populations on limited range, I think you know you are wrong. IF the change is you want to see livestock producers, farmers and ranchers, and people of the western culture to be driven out of existence to make room for mustangs that will eventually exceed even that expanded habitat’s capacity, you are way out of line. What right do you have to advocate that? And you can’t righteously attack a culture that is not your own. You would feel it would be an inconceivable thing to do to the Rain Forrest cultures or for example, what makes agricultural producers any less valuable.
I advocate for the realistic and economic management of the mustang. Including lethal population control methods and processing of carcasses into useful products. I advocate for proper regulation, modern efficient and inspected processing operations. Change is the law of life, but is seems just so it isn’t you who has to change. Some of you think you are more equal than the rest of us, you are not.
I wish for you your happy ending outcome; just don’t achieve it by sacrificing my culture. Some of us take good care of our land and animals. When we are gone the only people with horses will be pet owners or race horse operators or the rich. When we are gone the only agriculture producer will be the huge corporate farms or Ted Turner’s, and I know you wouldn’t be a fly speck on their picture window. So be careful what you wish for or you’ll have thousands of horses with stunted bodies and big heads in corals (out of sight out of mind), huge uncaring corporations that will do what they want, and subdivisions full of your financially generous horse lovers living on habitat, but no more ranches or ranchers.
LikeLike
Dear dogmantrainer
As much as I would like to consider and understand your stance on the plight of horses with regard to slaughter, the BLM and other issues related to the dilemma that presents itself as the ill-fated demise of the horse, whether you believe it or not, I have spent years dwelling on the existence of the horse (and other animals) as it pertains to life as we know it. The contribution of the horse and other animals in as far as the richness of our experience and interaction adds an element to life that nothing else compares to.
While you would relegate “animals” to a lower level and claim to “own” them, I for one prefer to interact with them to fully comprehend the unbiased love they communicate and the commitment they express in unwavering loyalty, something that many humans fail to possess.
And so, it is not that I hate you or ridicule or scorn you, you are simply a human with your own opinion, which you are entitled to. What you seem to have missed is a vital connection, something so powerful and so magical – the oneness with the “lesser species” according to you – that I really pity that you cannot feel the elation that comes with it.
As much as you would have us all change or conform to your “sensible” mind, there is no one who is of this conviction that would agree with you. For us, it is you who is missing out on pleasure and the “meaning of being”.
Try as you may, you will never change the minds of those who strive for the betterment of our most precious companions.
I wish you no ill-well, What I do wish is that you would,for a moment, err on the side of compassion and love.
Be well.
LikeLike
These horses have 38,000 acres how in the world can they overgraze that much land?? This isn’t the Gobi Desert. What these nuts would like to do is go in there and shoot all of them just to make themselves feel good. With Cloud being the first one killed. I put nothing past these self important nut cases. But they will destroy this herd if it’s at all possible that’s their intention and then spit in our face if anyone objects.
LikeLike
Occupy the Pryors?
What the hell; the weather will be decent…
LikeLike
This is nothing more than retaliation for the lawsuits filed against the BLM!
Maybe it is time for civil disobedience!
LikeLike
I could not agree more……….it makes us all very angry.
LikeLike