Saddle Sores
This and the sagging economy, which has discouraged people from committing to the major expense of feral-horse adoptions, have obliged the agency to pay for more gathers and build more long-term holding facilities (up from one in 1988 to 11 in 2008 to 17 in 2011). Gathers are almost always done with helicopters, which—according to the horse activists—terrify the animals so that they stampede, killing themselves. Less than one percent die, many from hideous preexisting maladies. But these days there isn’t a gather anywhere that isn’t protested. “Join a protest or start your own!” instructs the Cloud Foundation’s website, which offered a list of nine protests planned for October 2010 alone. At this writing, litigation by feral-horse activists has delayed gathers planned for 2010 in Nevada’s Calico horse management complex, Nevada’s Tuscarora area, and California’s Twin Peaks area.
The American Wild Horse Preservation Campaign may not be exaggerating when it reports that the BLM received more than 10,000 letters opposing the Adobe Town-Salt Wells gather. Carol Walker, who lobbies against management of feral horses when she isn’t photographing them, hand-delivered 3,516 of those letters to the agency’s office in Rock Springs, Wyoming.
I met Ms. Walker at the gather. She repeatedly expressed concern that “there’d be no horses left in Adobe Town.” This was hardly the case, as BLM staffers kept assuring her. While most captured horses would be trucked to holding facilities in Canon City, Colorado, and Rock Springs, dozens would be released. None would be surgically sterilized, but the mares would be injected with the anti-fertility drug porcine zona pellucida (PZP), which doesn’t always work and, even when it does, wears off after about three years. Unlike Kathrens, who wrote the foreword to her book, Walker doesn’t oppose PZP. But she does oppose gathers.
What struck me most about the horses I saw rounded up was their nonchalance. Horse activist propaganda notwithstanding, they didn’t “stampede.” Mostly they trotted. The helicopters, piloted by experienced cowboys who work on the ground as well, hovered a mile or so behind. Occasionally a horse would snort or whinny, but they clearly weren’t “terrified.” Their domestic genes became even clearer in the holding pen, where they calmly drank and ate. Of the 97 captured that day, not one sustained even minor injury.
Such facts are rarely reported because the media gets most of its information from the feral-horse lobby. Consider these rantings presented as news by Nevada’s KLAS-TV’s “chief investigative reporter,” George Knapp: “The way it looks, BLM has decided to turn the mustangs into . . . a classified, off-limits, shadowy mystery, something no one in the government can talk about and no one in the civilian world can access.” That’s because: “Every time a band of horses nearly collapses after being driven in terror by roaring helicopter blades over miles of rough terrain, BLM gets pummeled.” Knapp has even tried to tie Nevada gathers to the Gulf oil disaster by suggesting that the BLM’s real motive for controlling feral horses is to free up land for a pipeline that will supply British Petroleum with natural gas. His source: Ginger Kathrens.
Consider also this fiction, tirelessly spun by Kathrens and then reported as news by the Billings Gazette: “The Pryor [Mountain] horses are direct descendants of the mounts used by Spanish Conquistadors.” As with all feral horses, these are mongrels, descended from livestock owned by everyone who ever dumped or lost horses in the West from 1540 to 2010.
I did see a fair and balanced media response to my 2006 Audubon piece—from Felicity Barringer of The New York Times. More typical was NBC’s Today Show, which dispatched a film crew to my house. I spent an afternoon quoting scientific literature and explaining what feral horses do to wildlife. With that NBC sent another crew to Montana to interview Dick Walton and Clayton McCracken—two wilderness advocates who had expressed alarm about gross damage by feral horses to the Pryor Mountains. According to Walton, the interviewer “had no apparent interest in the Pryors or what [Walton] had to say about them” and continually tried to bait him into advocating lethal control so as to present a convenient foil for Kathrens, who wants more, not fewer, feral horses on public land. When the Today Show piece aired it included not a word Walton, McCracken, or I had uttered and, as Walton accurately puts it, “was very much a romantic Cloud/Ginger spot including inaccurate and misleading info and certainly not indicating the real problem of damage to the land.”
What will our federal government and Congress do about feral horses, which Salazar correctly observes are “out of control” and creating a “huge problem”? When BLM director Bob Abbey was pushing the Salazar Initiative, he issued this statement: “Everything is on the table for discussion except two things: (1) the euthanasia of excess healthy horses for which there is no adoption demand and (2) the unrestricted sale of unadopted animals.” In other words, he intends to continue defying the directive Congress gave his agency with its amended Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act.


pitiful press
I thought Audubon would present factual information, not bias and scorn packaged as journalism.
America's wild horses are not feral, they are a reintroduced native species. The horse originated in North America, nowhere else. Ross MacPhee, curator of the Department of Mammalogy at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, said the mustangs are classified as Equus caballus, which “evolved from more primitive forebears” in North America. “There is therefore no question that it is `native’ within any reasonable meaning of that word – much more so than bison, for example, whose immediate ancestry is Asian,” MacPhee said. “Yes, it disappeared from our shores for a few thousand years, but that has no bearing scientifically on whether it is historically `native.” Bighorn sheep evolved in Asia and migrated here recently compared to the horse yet you refer to them as sensitive desert creatures and consider them native. That seems to happen with species that hunters prefer.
"A feral horse is a far greater threat to native ecosystems than a cow." That is an outright lie and downplays the fact that cows are on public lands in numbers 42 times greater than the equid population. Apparently you aren't listening to the conservation scientists who have said for decades that cattle are the problem on the public lands. It also seems that you fail to understand that the 1971 Act that gave the wild horses & burros their territory made horses the principle in those protected areas, so in those areas the livestock should be removed first if there is a resource conflict. The 1971 act gave the horses 54M acres of public land which has been reduced to 31M acres by BLM. By your reasoning, 75,000 horses (includes the horses in holding) is too much for 31M acres to bear, yet 3M livestock on 160M acres is not much of a problem for existing wildlife? In Adobe Town & Salt Wells, even 2500 horses is not too many for 1.6M acres. Did the BLM mention how much they spend on predator control to protect the livestock of the welfare ranchers? Those natural predators, left in place, could help naturally maintain equid populations. But BLM is there for the ranchers and DOI, not science, law, or even common sense.
The condition of the land should determine overpopulation. The ALM is an arbitrary number that has very little to do with actual range conditions. BLM has increased authorized livestock grazing levels after removing horses. Dr. Patricia Muir, Director of Oregon State University's Environmental Sciences Undergraduate Program: "This emphasis by the BLM on grazing use over other uses is typical: of the range improvement monies that BLM can account for since 1980, 96.5% were used to benefit livestock. Major challenges to BLM's and Forest Service's management practices are actually coming from the courts rather than from changed legislation… For example, a coalition of environmentalists and others brought suit against the BLM over grazing in five canyons in Utah, and a Federal judge stopped grazing on those allotments. The judge decided that BLM had violated and even defied federal law in administering the grazing permits there. Grazing was banned there until an approved environmental impact statement is completed, and it is demonstrated that grazing is in the best interests of the canyons and the public. The same kind of thing happened in the Stanley Basin in the Sawtooth National Recreation Area in ID, where a suit brought by a coalition of fishermen and environmentalists was successful in requiring that 2/3 of the cattle be removed from the area."
2009 Elk - 950,000 (only in the 10 states with wild horse & burro AMLs)
2009 Pronghorn Antelope - 780,808 min (only in the 10 states with wild horse & burro AMLs)
2008 Bighorn Sheep - 70,000
2009 Wild Horse & Burro AML - 26,831
Wyoming:
WY Wild Horse AML (2008): 3,725 (0.4%)
WY Bighorn Sheep (2000): 6,483 (0.6%)
WY Elk (2009): 95,000 (9.4%)
WY Pronghorn Antelope (2006): 300,000 (29.8%)
WY Mule Deer (2005): 480,000 (47.6%)
WY Livestock Authorized Use/Cattle (2009): 122,706 (12.2%) *
WY Livestock Actual Use/Cattle (2009): 57,115 (6.1%) *
* Calculated using BLMs 2009 WY Livestock Authorization Rpt of annual forage as represented by AUMs and divided by 12 to represent the potential head of cattle as expressed through year-round grazing.
There are BLM offices and contractors that do care about the horses so I hope that is what you observed. However, if you aren't experienced with equines you may not recognize subtler forms of abusive handling or if you are biased, you may ignore it completely. If you've watched the many many videos of the choppers who come extremely close the horses, run them quite hard in both cold & hot weather, or even hit the horses & burros with their skids you would understand the reason so many horse lovers are concerned about these wild horses being treated like they are brainless livestock.
former Audubon admirer