What do I know about horses? Not much
This was sent on a horse list I’m on:
>>PLEASE GO TO THIS LINK AND SEE WHAT THE BLM HAS PLANNED FOR OUR WILD HORSES!!! WRITE LETTERS, DO WHATEVER YOU CAN TO HELP!!!! THANK YOU, ______<<
>>Here is a link to the BLM statement about their plans with the horses.
http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/wild_horse_and_burro/Statement_06_30_2008.html<<
Help me understand this:
From the link on the BLM website, "It is clear the agency cannot continue current removal and holding practices under existing and projected budgets. Neither can the BLM allow horses to multiply unchecked on the range without causing an environmental disaster. That's why the BLM is exploring options to exercise its legal authority to (1) sell older and certain other unadopted animals “without limitation” to any willing buyers and (2) euthanize those wild horses and burros for which no adoption demand exists."
Okay, so the BLM (taxpayer funded) is saying they cannot afford to feed and care for the 30,000 animals they have been caring for. They also say, without any backup, "Neither can the BLM allow horses to multiply unchecked on the range without causing an environmental disaster." I query what environmental disaster we're talking about? Do the horses overgraze and all die as a result? Do they destroy the habitat? As with any species introduced into an environment which they are not native to (horses are relatively recent in Americas-- 1500s saw the conquistadores bringing over horses of which some escaped and became the first "wild" herds), I can see how the ecology of a system might not be set up to have the checks and balances necessary to keep the herds small and healthy. Yet, there isn't any regulatory way to keep the herds down.
We know this works for elk, and deer, and moose, all similar quadruped omnivores who can overpopulate and overgraze an area if they have no natural predators and you cannot hunt them. Thus, when you re-introduce a native specie like wolves back into a system, they act as a balance to the herds, because the only way to control the population of these herds is to either open up more land for them (something which appears not possible) or to remove them through killing them or domesticating them.
Have I missed something so far?
Since there aren't enough people to domesticate them in this free-market economy, we "euthanize" them which is a really sterile term for "kill."
So what should our letters say? Which Peter do we suggest they rob to pay Paul? The budget is a closed system, there are $x available, and $y of that is given to the BLM to manage the land, and $z is given to programs where they house and feed wild horses. That's our nickel [and to what benefit for the public? You remove animals from the free range and feed them with food from the non-free range]. I'll bet most of our households are also closed systems-- we receive a regulated amount of money in pay from our jobs, or regulated amounts from investments and retirement income. Of that system, only a percentage is available to feed and house horses. The rest buys gas. :p So what solution should we hand the politicians, other than "please don't kill the beautiful horses"? Unless you're willing to release the wolves, you're going to need a human solution, one that costs money, else the horses overgraze the areas they're in, soil erosion occurs, rainfall isn't soaked up into aquifers, and instead takes valuable topsoil downstream, resulting in a rangeland that is then grazed bare by the rapidly dwindling herds. The system is self-regulating, but I think this is the environmental disaster that the BLM is thinking of, where the animals die of starvation and the range they use is destroyed for many years. I'm sure that the deleterious effects of overgrazing have probably been well studied by scientists in the 20th century.
Does the phrase ". . . (1) sell older and certain other unadopted animals “without limitation” to any willing buyers. . ." mean selling to the Canadian horse meat industry? What are the other options? Go out and geld all the stallions? As with the dog and cat problem, you cannot give a good home to every animal because you have a substantial overpopulation of the animals. (Thus the campaigns for cheap spay and neuter.) [The gelding of the stallions would probably not be successful, other than weakening the existing herds because the program would probably tend to geld the most visible stallions, which are those with family groups, and would probably miss the stallions which are loners because they haven't been able to successfully fight other stallions to gain mares and yearlings.]
So, what is the solution? What do we write our congressmen to do?
>>PLEASE GO TO THIS LINK AND SEE WHAT THE BLM HAS PLANNED FOR OUR WILD HORSES!!! WRITE LETTERS, DO WHATEVER YOU CAN TO HELP!!!! THANK YOU, ______<<
>>Here is a link to the BLM statement about their plans with the horses.
http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/wild_horse_and_burro/Statement_06_30_2008.html<<
Help me understand this:
From the link on the BLM website, "It is clear the agency cannot continue current removal and holding practices under existing and projected budgets. Neither can the BLM allow horses to multiply unchecked on the range without causing an environmental disaster. That's why the BLM is exploring options to exercise its legal authority to (1) sell older and certain other unadopted animals “without limitation” to any willing buyers and (2) euthanize those wild horses and burros for which no adoption demand exists."
Okay, so the BLM (taxpayer funded) is saying they cannot afford to feed and care for the 30,000 animals they have been caring for. They also say, without any backup, "Neither can the BLM allow horses to multiply unchecked on the range without causing an environmental disaster." I query what environmental disaster we're talking about? Do the horses overgraze and all die as a result? Do they destroy the habitat? As with any species introduced into an environment which they are not native to (horses are relatively recent in Americas-- 1500s saw the conquistadores bringing over horses of which some escaped and became the first "wild" herds), I can see how the ecology of a system might not be set up to have the checks and balances necessary to keep the herds small and healthy. Yet, there isn't any regulatory way to keep the herds down.
We know this works for elk, and deer, and moose, all similar quadruped omnivores who can overpopulate and overgraze an area if they have no natural predators and you cannot hunt them. Thus, when you re-introduce a native specie like wolves back into a system, they act as a balance to the herds, because the only way to control the population of these herds is to either open up more land for them (something which appears not possible) or to remove them through killing them or domesticating them.
Have I missed something so far?
Since there aren't enough people to domesticate them in this free-market economy, we "euthanize" them which is a really sterile term for "kill."
So what should our letters say? Which Peter do we suggest they rob to pay Paul? The budget is a closed system, there are $x available, and $y of that is given to the BLM to manage the land, and $z is given to programs where they house and feed wild horses. That's our nickel [and to what benefit for the public? You remove animals from the free range and feed them with food from the non-free range]. I'll bet most of our households are also closed systems-- we receive a regulated amount of money in pay from our jobs, or regulated amounts from investments and retirement income. Of that system, only a percentage is available to feed and house horses. The rest buys gas. :p So what solution should we hand the politicians, other than "please don't kill the beautiful horses"? Unless you're willing to release the wolves, you're going to need a human solution, one that costs money, else the horses overgraze the areas they're in, soil erosion occurs, rainfall isn't soaked up into aquifers, and instead takes valuable topsoil downstream, resulting in a rangeland that is then grazed bare by the rapidly dwindling herds. The system is self-regulating, but I think this is the environmental disaster that the BLM is thinking of, where the animals die of starvation and the range they use is destroyed for many years. I'm sure that the deleterious effects of overgrazing have probably been well studied by scientists in the 20th century.
Does the phrase ". . . (1) sell older and certain other unadopted animals “without limitation” to any willing buyers. . ." mean selling to the Canadian horse meat industry? What are the other options? Go out and geld all the stallions? As with the dog and cat problem, you cannot give a good home to every animal because you have a substantial overpopulation of the animals. (Thus the campaigns for cheap spay and neuter.) [The gelding of the stallions would probably not be successful, other than weakening the existing herds because the program would probably tend to geld the most visible stallions, which are those with family groups, and would probably miss the stallions which are loners because they haven't been able to successfully fight other stallions to gain mares and yearlings.]
So, what is the solution? What do we write our congressmen to do?