Billionaires at The Public Trough

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!


The 1971 Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act, Section 4 requires that the BLM remove wild horses from private land if requested by the land owner.

This removal also complies with the court-ordered 2013 Consent Decree which directed that all wild horses be removed from checkerboard BLM lands within the HMAs. Not removing all wild horses from the checkerboard would result in non-compliance with the Act and Consent Decree.

BTW. The very same organization that wrote the miss-information article linked above, agreed to the terms and conditions of the 2013 consent decree.


Adoption. Removed wild horses will be sent to BLM holding facilities in Canon City, Colorado and Rock Springs, Wyoming, and prepared for adoption. The wild horses will be available for adoption at the Rock Springs Wild Horse Holding Facility, the Mantle Adoption and Training Facility in Wheatland, theWyoming Honor Farm in Riverton, the Wild Horse Inmate Program in Canon City and through the BLM's online adoptions.



Less than half of the wild horses are to be rounded up, and then adopted. That is not eradication.
 
Last edited:
I don't have any info about PETA or their lobbies...I'm just a guy who's forming his own opinions..and I have no reason to believe they dramatize situations any more than to believe cattle ranchers dramatize their agenda....we all read what we read, see what we see but there's no reason to turn a discussion into a team sport with two sides. It's ok....take it for what it's worth. To believe there's no mismanagement of cattle ranching practices is a choice you make from information that rings true to you. Isn't that what we all do? I sincerely hope the ranchers in your neck of the woods have our best interests at heart

I agree, every special interest group on every side is now guilty of dramatizing their information. Which is very sad.

That is why I question everything I read. If a topic interests me, I start researching the information to find the entire truth, not just the info that supports one side of an agenda.

Another angle I have used is to research where the money comes from to finance a miss-information campaign. Concerning environmental issues, the same few foundations keep rising to the surface. Follow the money.

As far as this public lands grazing issue we are discussing. My opinions are based on 6 decades of boots on the ground eye witness encounters. I have seen very little if any damage caused by cattle free range feeding. I have never seen a conflict with wildlife due to overgrazing. Now are all the ranchers in compliance with their permits? I have no way of knowing if their permit is for 100 cattle or 1000.
 
Here is another related story.
The bison herd in Yellowstone is going to be culled.

I wish the title of the article did not say ranchers against conservationists. I consider myself a conservationist and believe too many of a species creates as much of a problem, and sometime more, than a species that is endangered by too few.

The goal should be a balanced healthy herd to create a balanced ecosystem. The bison herd in Yellowstone is too large. About half of the bison herd is infected with brucellosis which is contagious and can spread to other species. The herd needs to be culled.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ers-against-conservationists/article28776843/
 
What's all this fuss over a wild horse? There are none. All horses in the wild in North America are domestic or offspring of domestic horses. Perhaps lost by a Spaniard a long time back, but domestic none the less.
 
It is all about special interest groups with agendas fighting over management of our public lands, wildlife and fish.

Management of our ecosystem is now handled in the courts, not by science and research with the goal of achieving a balanced ecosystem.

The side with the most money and political clout wins. The loser is always the ecosystem. The more courts cases and legal filing made the further out of balance the ecosystem becomes.

The problem with over protecting one species is that it never takes into account the affect it will have on the other species that share the same habitat. People that support the “save this or that” feel good campaigns do not realize how much damage they are causing to the rest of the ecosystem.
 
What's all this fuss over a wild horse? There are none. All horses in the wild in North America are domestic or offspring of domestic horses. Perhaps lost by a Spaniard a long time back, but domestic none the less.

You bring up an interesting point. Horses are not native to our hemisphere or country. By the old definition, they are an invasive species. However, the definition of invasive species gets changed to satisfy agendas.

Example.
Horses and hogs where first introduced into the USA by Europeans at about the same time. Wild hogs living on public lands are considered an invasive species, wild horses living on the same public lands are not.

Another definition that has changed drastically is old growth trees. The old accepted definition was determined by the age of a tree. A legal filing now has the definition set by the diameter of a tree. This was done by a special interest group to take control over larger middle aged trees that did not fit the originally definition of old growth.
 
We aren't too far away from lab-grown meat, eggs and milk. It exists now, but big improvements will be needed to make it financially and palatally rewarding. But it is coming and all these farming, environmental and humane ideals should be put largely to rest once that future arrives. It's going to be weird, to purchase Lab-grown beef or chicken, a lot of people will reject it at first, but it's coming.
 
What's all this fuss over a wild horse? There are none. All horses in the wild in North America are domestic or offspring of domestic horses. Perhaps lost by a Spaniard a long time back, but domestic none the less.
so, no wild dogs either eh?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top