Proposed government policy to curb wild horse population

[Twisterdog]

I live in an area with a large "wild" horse population. They aren't technically "wild", they are actually "feral" horses. These horses are not native to North America, they are descendants of domestic horses who escaped the Spanish and American explorers and pioneers. You can see large herds of them within twenty miles of the town I live in.

The BLM's management of these horses has always come under fire, as long as I remember. The current course of action is to round them up and auction them off to buyers. One must fill out an application and agree to keep the horse for a period of time. Good in theory - just like the adoption process for shelter dogs and cats. However, what happens in practice is that most people find they got in over their heads in breaking and training. And the period of time they must keep the horse is relatively short. So, a good number of these horses end up being sold after a year or two ... often to NOT good places.

I fully agree with the author's statement that livestock is the biggest single damaging element to Western lands. A few thousand horses and pronghorn are absolutely NOTHING compared to hundreds of thousands of cattle roaming free on public lands.

[Suki Wingy]

While it depresses me that we have come to this, culling the wild horse population IS responsible. It's sort of a last resort. There is not enough land, there are not enough responsible people to adopt and take care of them. They are being euth'd instead of being untamable and unwanted, therefore condemming their life since they are wild and unable to be caught to have basic vet care preformed on them such as hooves, teeth floated, emergency care. It also makes sure bad owners don't take them and breed them, creating more.

I also acknowledge that there is simply not enough free land left for them to roam, the best case senario would be to take some grazing land and allow it to be reclaimed back to its natural state. I already think we don't have enough land. Since this land is mostly privately owned by ranchers, they will never willingly give it up. There is, however, Eminent Domain, which would allow the government to take the land since it would then be determined public.

I don'rt know. I feel like in delicate issues such as this one there will always be peiple speaking up and arguing one way or another without really knowing anything about what they are arguing about. That's not to say that I know much more than I've already stated.

[Twisterdog]

Since this land is mostly privately owned by ranchers, they will never willingly give it up. There is, however, Eminent Domain, which would allow the government to take the land since it would then be determined public.

Actually, this isn't the case in the west, where these horse herd roam. The vast majority of land in Wyoming and Nevada, where the largest wild horse herds are, is public land. It is not owned by ranchers, it is federally managed land that techinally belongs to all of us. But because everyone has equal rights to use the land, that means ranchers can turn their cattle loose on public lands to graze. They techically are "renting" the land, since they do pay the government a small fee per cow, but it is laughably tiny amount.

There is plenty of food in the high desert areas, where these horses roam, for the native species. Horses, pronghorn, rabbits, coyotes ... all could live perfectly well together if left alone. It's the hundreds of thousands of cattle that cause the problems. And the ranchers who own them have a lot of political clout out here.

[jennielynn1970]

Taking the land through Eminent Domain is not a solution. All that happens is that the person who owns the land originally gets screwed when it comes to the gov't paying them for their land.