Activist attacks and celebrity endorsements
How wild horse advocates spin-doctor a volatile issue and spread misinformation
They are one of Nevada’s most misunderstood attributes. From long eyelashes in Disney movies to the ongoing anthropomorphic attitudes expressed by all stripes of mostly well-intentioned folks, Nevada’s wild horses are universally admired. They are also endlessly mired in controversy.
This is to be expected. As our “backyard pets,” that appear essentially harmless and carefree, it is easy to understand why people would be offended as the suggestion of removal of horses from rangelands—or human interference of any kind.
These good intentions are driven by emotion and passion, which frequently step in the way of reason and the desire to seek out science-based knowledge of the issue, especially if such information ends up unpleasant or contradictory to one’s beliefs. Nothing exemplifies this more than the uproar recently stirred when none other than Willie Nelson and Snoop Dog recorded audio commercials urging people to call Nevada’s governor to “intervene on behalf of our wild horses.”
What prompted this international campaign–the state received angry responses from as far as Switzerland–were statements made by Nevada’s Department of Agriculture saying the horse bands needed to be removed from the Virginia Range outside of Reno, a range that is the only horse area managed by the Department of Agriculture in the state*. Most are managed by the Bureau of Land Management. Since the statement was made, the amount of spin-doctoring occurring about this issue is coming from all kinds of activist fronts.
For instance, Snoop Dog’s and Willie Nelson’s transcripts are virtually identical, and both are engaging:
“Yo, what up? This is big Snoop Dog and we’re in extreme danger of losing the largest wild horse herd in the country. A precious part of our western heritage will be gone forever unless you help right now.
“The Nevada Department of Agriculture intends to quickly remove all 1,200 of those beautiful animals–the whole herd, and send them to livestock sale where they can be sold for slaughter.
“Call Nevada Governor Gibbons right now and urge him to intervene on behalf of our wild horses. Call 775-684-5670.
“These magnificent horses depend on you. Thank you.”
The text is misleading. To the unknowing, it makes it sound like the state is going to remove all of its horses. Information readily available from the Bureau of Land Management clearly states:
“The current estimated population of wild horses and burros is about 16,143. The estimated appropriate management level (AML) is 13,098 animals.”
The horses in question, about 1,200, reside in a specific area and are in fact estrays–once domestic animals now wandering the range.
The problem with feral horses and burros is that they multiply quickly even under poor conditions. BLM states:
(Read this to see what happens when nature takes its course with ungathered horses).
Once gathered, attempts are made to adopt them. If unadopted, the horses go to holding facilities, which you and I pay for–and the price of hay is incredibly high right now. There are more than 31,000 of these animals at BLM holding facilities.
But let’s not let facts get in the way of advocacy interests. The messaging used by activists is that Nevada’s feral horses are part of our heritage and thus represent the state’s brand. To remove them, or reduce their numbers, is to therefore impact Nevada’s brand, tourism and economic development.
There are two neglected points with this assumption: First, horse gathers regularly occur in the state and have for years, so gathering from the Virginia Range would impact only this range, not the state as a whole; and second, Nevada’s brand is identified with many things, including gambling and prostitution.
Ranching has also been part of the state’s brand and heritage for equally as long as introduced horses and burros have been, if not more so. Ask ranchers their opinion of wild horses and one may be surprised to hear strong words for urbanites and celebrities asserting the brand of the entire state.
So to focus Nevada’s brand on wild horses suffers from ethnocentrism, geographic arrogance and agricultural prejudice. Outside the bounds of the Reno, Sparks and Virginia City areas, the perspective of range horses differs greatly. Moreover, failure to provide any room for other perspectives means the intent here isn’t to educate or even provide honest dialogue.
It is to sway opinion with misinformation.
*DISCLOSURE: I do not work for this department. As part of my public information duties, I assist the state’s Commission for the Preservation of Wild Horses, which is also not directly associated with the Department. My department is currently seeking to sue the Bureau of Land Management to increase funding for the management of Nevada’s free-roaming horses and burros. Nevada has nearly half of the nation’s feral horses and burros but receives disproportionately less funding to manage the animals.
[ad]
June 4th, 2008 at 2:30 am
Bob,
Great post! Thanks for providing all of your unique perspectives and insights. This is a fascinating and extremely emotional debate! One that I hope we can leverage the Web 2.0 to perhaps usher some more transparent and responsible dialog and get this issue resolved! One thing is very apparent: no few are talking nicely and even fewer are talking directly to each other!
Would you join up at http://www.nvwildhorses.com and re-post? We’re hoping to have a great conversation involving all perspectives and moderating out the school-yard name-calling.
Hope to meet you in person soon, too!
Regards,
David
June 4th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Biologists and ecologists for the BLM claim that wild horses overgraze and impede their ecosystems viability. I will point out that is a fabricated claim in order to manifest a reason to reduce herd sizes. Other ungulates such as elk,caribou,pronghorn take two to three times as much forage than that of a horse just to stay warm in cold winter months.So if the rangelands are under climatic stress it is not because of wild horse over grazing.
I realize that some of what you are about to read does not apply to the the Virgnia Range wild horses but I think it applies for a better understanding about the misconceptions that have been reported by the Bueau of Land Managments wild horse experts.
Large ungulates require enormous amounts of nutrients in order to fuel their explosive kinetic energy banks for eluding predation.Thus making it even more essential for them to ingest large amounts of forage compared to horses.
Mature stallions weigh between 800-1000 pounds. A mature male elk or caribou weighs about the same and sometimes more..In order for large wild native ungulates to supply their explosive engines they begin to forage by gorging on early spring shoot and that foraging is constant throughout the summer and fall months. wild horses do not gorge because they regulate their metabolisms through their genetic programming. If there is competition for forage between horses and other ungulates it is the horses that lose the battle for grazing space. Not the other way around.
As for pronghorn,deer and antelope,the forage volume can double that of elk and caribou because their metabolic burn is at a much higher rate. I wont get into caloric and glycogen burn because that is just to complex. However, their need for fuel to be able to launch like a rocket and maintain that speed for long distances when evading predators requires an exuberant amount of forage. Pretty much like the game bird vs the chicken. So where does the wild horses rank on the volume of forage scale? At the bottom. Why? I will explain it briefly..
An equid will only intake as much forage as it needs to sustain its energy.When forage ranges become sparse due to drought or wild fires their metabolisms will slow down to a point that they will eat minimal amounts of forage. Other ungulates do not act in this manner. The elk,caribou etc will forage off whatever it can find and that means even eating the buds which are essential to new growth. They will even decimate new growth to the point that it cannot rejuvenate. Equids do not ravage grazing areas! I am simply saying that other ungulates are the cause of destruction on rangelands?
Balance is not achieved by eradicating one species in order to maintain anothers. Wild horses have been targeted because they are the easiest to manage by the means of gathers.
Have you ever watched wild horses forage among elk and deer? I have and I will tell from experience that there is no competition between them. The only competition is the one that the Bureai of Land Managment creates.
The Fish and Wildlife and Forestry Services exacerbate the problem for the horses because they too target the horses for removal to appease the big game commission.
Up to date the BLM has reported that their are 28,000 wild horses roaming free and their goal is to reduce that down to 27,500. The 28,000 that they report is not a realistic number because as of 2005 the wild horse herds on a national level was 25,000. Do you see the contrast? Maybe not,so I will break it down for you in short.
For one,horses as you know do not breed like rabbits.One mare will usually foal one per season and on rare occasion two. The foals will sometimes nurse up to 3 years.That in and of itself will slow reproduction down among those mares even more so. As reported by the BLM the 25,000 wild horses roaming free as of 2005, less than half of them were of mature breeding age.That means that mares would have to had reproduced at a rate of 1000 foals per year in order to have reached the 2007 total of 28,000. IMPOSSIBLE!
Can you see my point with the way the BLM fabricates and methodically manufactures wild horse totals? They manipulate numbers in order to eradicate them from rangelands at their discretion.
The wild horse management or mismanagement if you will has been a farce for nearly 40 years now. According to conflicting reports by the BLM they are planning to reduce herds to a national total of 11,000 or less by the year 2011. The BLM claims that 27,000 is their goal for now. At the rate they are eradicating them wild horse totals will be far less than that if you do the math.
Anyone that reads this and wants to refute my claims I will be more than happy to inundate you with a plethora of vital information that contradicts the BLM biologists,Ecologists and the notorious wild horse specialist’s claims. I may not change your mind on your personal feelings about wild horses, but sure as there is corruption in the wild horse program. I will surely point out alot of the misconception that you may have been told about them.
Here are some facts and myths you may know or not know.
Fact: The opposite is true – there are too few wild horses and burros on our public lands, and unless their numbers grow, the survival of these special animals is in jeopardy. During the 1800’s, it is estimated that there were more than two million wild horses and burros roaming the West. These animals, along with countless wildlife species ranging from bison to wolves to prairie dogs, were the victims of ghastly extermination efforts, primarily to make way for private domestic livestock grazing. Today, there are less than 20,000 wild horses and burros remaining on millions of acres of our Western public lands. Tragically, the interests of these “living symbols of the historic and pioneer spirit of the West” are being forfeited for those of the livestock industry and other commercial operations.
Many wild horse and burro herds are being managed at such dangerously low numbers that their long-term health and genetic viability are seriously imperiled. In 1999, the federal government sponsored a wild horse and burro population viability forum in which several leading scientific experts including Drs. Gus Cothran, Francis Singer and John Gross, participated. One of the main issues discussed was that smaller, isolated populations of less than 200 animals are particularly vulnerable to the loss of genetic diversity when the number of animals participating in breeding falls below a minimum needed level. This scenario sets the stage for a host of biological problems associated with inbreeding including reduced reproduction and foal survival, reduced adult fitness and physical deformities. Only about one quarter of the herds under active management have a population objective of greater than 150 animals, much less 200. Numerous herds are being managed at levels between 40 to 70 animals and some even fewer. Either geographical or artificial barriers isolate many of these herds. Rather than address this grave problem by increasing population targets for these animals, the agencies charged with their protection, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the United States Forest Service (FS), have decided to further reduce wild horse and burro numbers by half to a shocking 15,000 wild horses and 1,700 wild burros.
Myth: Wild horses and burros must be rounded up to save them from dying of starvation or thirst.
Fact: While the BLM argues that wild horses and burros are being rounded up for their own good to keep them from dying of starvation or dehydration in areas affected by fire and drought throughout the West, animal advocates have frequently found that herd areas stricken by so-called “emergency conditions” weren’t nearly as bad off as the BLM claimed. Not only were wild horses and burros doing just fine, but livestock often remained in the same areas or were returned to the areas in short order. Of course, once the wild horses and burros are gone, they are gone for good – moving in the direction of achieving the overall objective of drastically reducing populations as quickly as possible. By attempting to justify extra removals as “emergencies,” the BLM is able to tap into emergency funds from other programs and go over and above their allocated budgets to meet this goal.
Tragically, many wild horse and burro herds suffer needlessly due to the fact that they have been unable to roam freely throughout their entire herd areas because of fences and other impediments that have been constructed to accommodate livestock. Hence, they are unable to access forage and water to which they are legally entitled. Wild horses and burros have survived droughts and fires in the past and will survive them in the future, just as do other wild animals, if they are treated as wild animals and left alone.
Myth: Wild horses and burros are destructive to the environment and must be removed in order to protect ecosystem health.
Fact: Wild horses and burros, like any wildlife species, have an impact on the environment, but due to their natural behavior, their impact is minimal. In fact, wild horses and burros play a beneficial ecological role, for example, by dispersing seeds through elimination, thereby helping to reseed the landscape. They also blaze trails during heavy snowfall and break ice at watering holes, helping weaker animals to survive during harsh winter months. Wild horses and burros can also serve as food for predator species such as mountain lions.
That said, if BLM and FS officials would have the public believe that they are genuinely concerned about ecosystem health, then they must refrain from conducting business as usual — viz., turning a blind eye to the indisputably overriding cause of habitat degradation: livestock grazing and public encroachment. For years, the agencies have permitted extremely high levels of livestock use on public lands, resulting in soil erosion, water contamination and depletion, as well as deterioration of vegetation. While wild horses and burros may be blamed for these problems, the agencies’ own data indicate otherwise. Little has changed since the release of the 1990 U.S. General Accounting Office Report, Improvements Needed in Federal Wild Horse Program, which concluded “… the primary cause of the degradation in rangeland resources is poorly managed domestic (primarily cattle and sheep) livestock.” Unlike cattle who tend to congregate and settle in riparian areas, wild horses and burros are highly mobile, typically visiting watering areas for only short periods of time. To make matters worse, livestock are concentrated in grazing allotments at artificially high densities during the critical growing season when vegetation is extremely vulnerable to permanent damage. This overgrazing sets the stage for habitat degradation that may not be immediately apparent, but can cumulatively cause massive vegetation die-off.
Myth: Wild horses and burros are an exotic or a feral species and must be removed to protect native wildlife.
Fact: Not so. The paleontological record shows that the cradle of equine evolution occurred in North America, beginning more than 60 million years ago. Conventional theories postulate that horses introduced by the Spanish more than 500 years ago were a different species than those horses who existed in North America prior to their mysterious disappearance approximately 10,000 years ago. However, mitochondrial DNA analysis of fossil remains indicates that E. caballus, the “modern” horse, is genetically identical to E. lambei, the most recent equine species to evolve in North America more than 1.7 million years ago. Hence, it can plausibly be argued that the Spanish actually “reintroduced” a native species, one which evolved on this continent and which has adapted and flourished both biologically and ecologically since its reintroduction. Interestingly, some scientists question the theory that all horses became extinct 10,000 years ago. They are only now beginning to analyze fossil remains that may eventually support this hypothesis.
Moreover, simply because horses were domesticated before being released is biologically inconsequential. Observing horses in the wild demonstrates just how quickly domesticated behavioral and morphological traits fall off. According to Dr. Patricia Fazio, “The key element in describing an animal as a native species is (1) where it originated; and (2) whether or not it co-evolved with its habitat.” By virtue of their evolutionary history, biology and behavior, these animals are native wildlife. In addition, the 1971 WFHBA rightfully recognized them as an “integral part of the natural system of the public lands.”
Wild Horses as Native North American Wildlife - Compiled by Jay F. Kirkpatrick, Ph.D. and Patricia M. Fazio, Ph.D. (PDF version)
MYTH: Ranchers depend upon livestock grazing for their livelihood and wild horses and burros are creating an undue hardship on their operations.
Fact: While some small family ranchers do depend upon livestock for their primary source of income, the top grazing permits on our public lands in terms of numbers of livestock are held by corporate interests including the Hilton Family Trust, Anheuser-Busch, Inc., Nevada First Corp., and Metropolitan Life Co. In 1992, the General Accounting Office reported that just 16 percent of the approximately 20,000 public lands grazing permittees controlled more than 76.2 percent of forage available on BLM lands and most of these were either very wealthy individuals or big corporations. These wealthy corporate interests are much more concerned with paper stock than livestock, and with preserving their tax write-offs than a way of life. For the most part, removing wild horses and burros translates into just one more form of corporate welfare.
Studies indicate that most ranchers are choosing to diversify their sources of income. Today, less than 3% of our nation’s beef is produced on public rangelands. Ranching on both public and private lands accounts for less than 0.5% of all income by Western residents. In 1994, the Department of the Interior concluded that the elimination of all public lands grazing would result in the loss of only 0.1% of the West’s total employment. Changing times and demographics, not a small number of wild horses and burros, are responsible for the decline of the ranching industry’s importance in the West. The time has come to help wild horses and burros and to assist ranchers who want to voluntarily transition from a profession that is taking its toll on their pocketbooks.
MYTH: WITHOUT FEDERAL GRAZING PROGRAM ASSISTANCE, RANCHERS WOULD BE UNABLE TO CARRY ON A CHERISHED FAMILY TRADITION AND WAY OF LIFE.
Fact: Small family ranchers, just as small family farmers, have far more to fear from corporate interests than they do from responsible federal lands management policy. In fact, about 70% of cattle producers in the West own all the land they operate and do not rely on public lands grazing whatsoever. It can reasonably be argued that those ranchers who benefit from ridiculously cheap public lands grazing fees and other government subsidies associated with federal grazing permits have a distinct advantage over those who do not. Many of these ranchers who now fancy themselves as modern day “cattle barons” are millionaires and billionaires who made their fortunes in other businesses – e.g., Texas oilman, Oscar Wyatt, Jr. former chairman of Coastal Corp., McDonald’s French fries supplier John Simplot, and Mary Hewlett Jaffe, daughter of William Hewlett of Hewlett-Packard fame. The top 10 percent of public lands grazing permit holders control a striking 65 percent of all livestock on BLM lands and 49 percent on FS lands. The bottom 50 percent of public lands grazing permit holders control just 7 percent of livestock on BLM lands and 3 percent on FS lands.
Because public lands grazing allotments require ownership of private base property and wealthy individuals and corporations own more private property (i.e., base property), they wind up with more federal grazing allotments. Hence, these wealthy operations benefit from numerous taxpayer subsidies, while small family operations struggle to make ends meet. These “cattle barons” and corporations are increasingly buying out small ranching operations — acres at a time. With rising operating costs and mounting debts, most small family ranchers are looking for work outside the ranch and a way out of ranching.
Some ranchers have expressed an interest in a proposal that would provide for their needs as they transition into other lines of work. If a rancher voluntarily relinquishes his/her federal grazing permit, the government would compensate the permitee $175 per animal unit month (the amount of forage necessary to graze one cow and calf for one month). Not only would such an arrangement help ranchers and be a huge cost savings to taxpayers (see last myth), but it would also allow forage to be reallocated to wildlife including wild horses and burros.
MYTH: Removed horses and burros are adopted to loving homes through the government’s “Adopt a Horse or Burro Program.”
Fact: While the BLM has an obligation to ensure that the persons adopting wild horses and burros are “qualified” adopters, many people do not fully understand the responsibility and commitment that are required to care for an adopted animal, thus setting the stage for failed adoptions. Rigorous screening of potential adopters, education and monitoring are critical to the success of any adoption. Sadly, the BLM has failed in all of these areas. In 1997, the Associated Press uncovered enormous and egregious abuse within the adoption program, including the revelation that many individuals were adopting large numbers of wild horses only to turn around and make sizable profits by selling them for slaughter. To make matters worse, The New York Times reported on a Justice Department investigation that revealed that BLM had a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on this issue, and that in fact many employees were well aware that adopters intended to sell horses for slaughter after receiving title. Only after being sued by wild horse advocates did the BLM agree to adopt measures to stem the tide of horses going to slaughter, but even then, countless horses fell through the cracks.
Of immediate concern is an amendment to the WFHBA that was slipped into the Interior Appropriations bill in the last Congressional session, requiring horses 10 years-of-age or older or those who have not been adopted after three attempts to be sold at auction without limitation. Such “sale authority” will open the floodgates of wild horses being sold to slaughter for profit. More than 8,000 wild horses may immediately wind up on the dinner plates in fancy overseas restaurants, and countless more will follow unless legislation is swiftly enacted to repeal this ill-conceived amendment. H.R. 297, introduced by Congressman Nick Rahall (D-WV) and Congressman Ed Whitfield (R-KY) in the House of Representatives and S. 576, introduced by Senator Robert C. Byrd (D-WV) in the Senate, will restore the slaughter prohibition for wild horses and burros. H.R. 503, the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act, reintroduced by Congressman John Sweeney (R-NY) and Congressman John Spratt (D-SC) will ensure that no horse meets this appalling fate.
The 1971 Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act and its legislative history make it clear that Congress, with overwhelming public support, intended for wild horses and burros to be protected in the wild, and removed only when necessary, and if removed, guaranteed humane treatment. They were never to be sold for slaughter.
Myth: With thousands of wild horses and burros awaiting adoption, the program is too costly and the only solution is to either sell or destroy “excess” animals who haven’t been adopted or are deemed “unadoptable.”
Fact: In 2001, the BLM adopted a reckless strategy to reduce the numbers of wild horses and burros on public lands by more than half by the year 2005, without any environmental review whatsoever. Up to that point in time, adoptions had kept pace with removals. Increased removals resulted in a backlog of animals awaiting adoption. Many animals were automatically shipped to long-term holding facilities and never even put up for adoption. With more than 20,000 animals languishing in holding facilities, costs for the inflated number of removals and the animals’ care have mounted – all directly attributable to BLM’s own misguided strategy. BLM’s FY 2005 budget for administering the program was $39 million.
However, if the BLM were genuinely interested in fiscal responsibility, the agency would provide the public with a detailed analysis of the full costs of administering its livestock grazing program. A recent analysis of the budget records concluded that the net direct loss (calculated as the Congressional Appropriations for the program less fee receipts to the Treasury) of the livestock program was at least $72 million for the BLM and $52 million for the FS; the full costs are likely to be three to four times these amounts. However, with the multiple taxpayer subsidies ranchers receive ranging from below-market-value grazing fees to fire and weed control to predator and “pest” control to range improvements, to price supports, to the regular removal of wild horses and burros, etc., it is certain that the agency loses hundreds of millions of dollars each year. Removing livestock instead of wild horses and burros would indeed be the most fiscally responsible action the agency could take.
Last but not least.
Where is the line drawn between the meaning of wild and the meaning of feral? I am not referring to Miriam Webster or Wikipedias meaning of the words. I am referring to how wild horses have been labeled as feral invasive species to suit those whom which want them eradicated. Wild horses have bred in the wild for the last 100 generations. The wild horse species that we have known for the last 500 years has been reared in the wild and became part of a thriving ecosystem. Im sorry but if you are under the impression that just because wild horses have been assumed to come from domestic stock in the 1500’s and you still believe that should remain categorized as feral species then you are hoplessly ignorant.
First of all there still is no proof that wild horses went extinct from North America 10,000 years ago. That is all based on conjecture because the simply is no proof what happned to equus. So please do not send me a message or email on wild horses history. Believe me I am rewritting the book on those presumptuos claims and don’t need to read what I have been contesting for years.
Lets assume that ALL wild horses did come from domestic stock at one time or another and did happen to stray onto ranglands and remain as a feral species. Those horses are considered feral once they become independant from human care. Feral horses offspring will become less feral and more wild with each and every new generation making them nothing but wild. The longer that any domestic species is reared in wild the more they should be considered a wild species and no longer feral regardless of their origin. Especially after 100 generations and 500 years of adaptaion!
The longer that a species has become part of an ecosystem and contributes to it’s viabilty the more they should not be categorized as feral or as an invasive species.
Please feel free to email me at TBjUsdCal@aol.com
June 9th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
Wild horse herds double in over a four year period?? That is the most absurd statement I have ever heard! I thought I was seeing things when I read that the herd increased by one third over an 18 month period. Now I see its doubled. Wow! Where does this crap come from. How many mature mares foal per year? Then tell me how many of those foals survive their first season? Then tell me how many reach mature breeding age? After you give me the answer to those questions then I will tell you how much herd or band increases over a 4 year period. LOL. Doubled! LOL. That statement was the best! LOL.
June 9th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
Since you got more than enough space in your first response (which never really addressed the thrust of the original post), and your second response is essentially better directed at the source of the quote (which you misconstrue by deliberately leaving out the word CAN), please consider who and what you are addressing before submitting a post again. If you have questions or complaints about BLM, please take it up with them directly–or take it to another forum.
June 11th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
Oh gee Im sorry! I thought that this was an open forum and not for specific topics. FYI! I have taken this up with the BLM,USFG and USFC..This was just another avenue to express the my findings to people whom I thought might be interested. I see that is not the case and that was just verified by your rhetorical post.
Where does it say on your forum that one thread or blog HAS to correspond with another? If I was supposed to post my original comment elsewhere on this forum then you should have directed me before approving it and I would have been glad to do so.
I was simply attemting to reeducate those who are totally ignorant to the wild horse travesty but I see that as always it gets opposed or ignored for some selfcentered reason. Those being the readers of this forum that have different overviews of the situation.
I presume that you dont appreciate sound information on your forum because if you did I wouldnt have had to read that nonsense that you posted in your last comment. Its all relevent whether you agree or not.
June 11th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
As I understand it the difference between a Wild Horse and an Estray horse is weather it’s on BLM land or private/state land and it’s status under the Wild Horse and Burro Protection act. Now doubt, they’re ALL feral.
Removing them and reducing their numbers doesn’t hurt our brand. Having articles in the LA Times about Nevada’s wild horses being sold for slaughter hurts our brand.
-M
June 12th, 2008 at 1:49 am
I assume you’re speaking of the state of Nevada in terms of being “our brand.”
If so, of the myriad problems facing the state, to isolate wild (feral) horses as the singular issue worthy of noted emphasis, especially in light of selecting the more marginal–even if media-celebrated– spokespeople as representatives, misses the generally accepted more important priorities (e.g., achievement gaps in education, budget cuts, natural resource issues, text-messaging acumen and so on).
Furthermore, to speak collectively for “our brand” is presumptuous–to be nice. If Las Vegas were to suffer a significant terrorist attack, “our brand” would be more seriously impacted than the thought, and subsequent ire, of wild-horse dog food.
If brands are a reflection of the bottom line, or vice versa—admittedly, it’s debatable, especially if we speak only qualitatively–then I sincerely hope efforts directed at branding concerns in the future will be granted more consideration. And fairness.
June 13th, 2008 at 10:27 am
I will make my last comment on this forum and leave you with this..
if you are sure without a doubt sure that wild horses are all feral and I mean all feral..Then you really need to research genetics and how they play a major role in making a species wild after 500 years of adaptation in the wild and fully independent of relying on humans in order to survive.
Wild horses may have been feral at one point in time but as I said.”after 500 years of adaptation in the wild they are no longer feral” Period. Exclamation point!
June 20th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
BLM sees need for emergency wild horse gathers due to drought and overpopulation
Reno, Nev.-Ten consecutive years of drought, overpopulations of wild horses in some herd areas and poor forage conditions are setting up emergency gather situations in at least three herd areas within the next 30 to 60 days. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Nevada will receive additional
funding to perform emergency gathers of nearly 1,700 horses to be removed from the Nevada Wild Horse Range north of Las Vegas on the Nevada Test and Training Range, the North Stillwater Herd Management Area (HMA) south of Winnemucca and the Fox and Lake Herd Management Area south of Gerlach.
Site visits by BLM’s program lead and a veterinarian, as well as field office monitoring of these herd areas, show competition from too many horses for dwindling water supplies and extremely poor forage conditions. Without an emergency gather, many of these horses could perish on the
range.
BLM expects to start gathering the Nevada Wild Horse Range and the North Stillwater HMA within the next two weeks.
Gathered horses are taken to BLM’s holding facilities, located in Ridgecrest, Calif., Fallon or Palomino Valley, Nev. Horses that are gathered by BLM are available for public adoption.
Under the 1971 Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act, BLM is required to manage horses and burros only in those areas where they were found in 1971. Through land use planning, BLM evaluates each herd area to determine if it
has adequate food, water, cover and space to sustain healthy and diverse
wild horse and burro populations over the long term.
Today, nearly half of the nation’s wild horses and burros live on Nevada
rangelands managed by the BLM. These Nevada horses move with the seasons
within 102 HMAs comprising nearly 16 million acres of public land. Having
herd populations at appropriate management levels is key to managing the
rangeland resources.
For more information on BLM Nevada’s Wild Horse and Burro Program or to view a map of Nevada’s HMA’s, visit: http://www.blm.gov/nv/.
June 23rd, 2008 at 10:29 am
Good perspective however it this instance it is grossly misapplied.
The Virginia Range horses are NOT BLM horses. They have NEVER BEEN BLM horses, and this issue has absolutely nothing with BLM.
The Virginia Range herd originally came under the jurisdictions of the counties in which the horses ranged and were historically managed by groups such as the Virginia Range Wildlife Protection Association. Virtually all of the costs associated with managing the herd were borne by these groups and a Storey County homeowners’ association. This herd, an icon of the Comstock National Historic District, originally cost the taxpayers virtually nothing.
In 2001 Paul Iverson, the Director of Agriculture, made the ill advised decision to assert State authority and place the horses under the jurisdiction of the Department. That action precipitated a gradual shift of costs to the taxpayers and was accompanied by the typical loss of efficiency that occurs when a state bureaucracy takes over what is essentially a local issue.
Mr. Iverson retired due to an illness and Don Henderson took the reins as Director of Agriculture. For several years there was a rather strained but workable marriage between the Department and the participating wild horse groups. The wild horse groups accepted and placed hundreds of excess horses, provided emergency winter feeding (primarily put out to discourage horses from entering poorly designed subdivisions that were built on the wild horse range) and took care of injured horses and orphan foals. This stuff is not spin and is part of the public record and can be verified in news media archives.
Then comes Governor Jim Gibbons who may very likely become the most controversial governor in Nevada history. Gibbons appointed an anti-government crusader Tony Lesperance to be the new Nevada Director of Agriculture. Lesperance comes from such circles as the Shovel Brigade and Sagebrush Rebels that include outlaw ranchers such as Mr. Donald D. Alt who like to dump their cattle on vacant lands that they claim to own but they don’t, and run cattle on public lands without authorization. (Please note that outlaw ranchers make up a small but annoying minority of Nevada ranchers and don’t represent the industry as a whole.) Mr. Alt owns no rangeland in the Virginia Range but he likes to let his cattle loose on other people’s property claiming that since Nevada is a fence-out state, if they don’t like his cows property owners need to fence them out. Alt is constantly bending anyone’s ear who will listen that the Virginia Range horses are eating HIS grass. (We have Alt on videotape claiming to law enforcement authorities that his cattle are legally based on parcels deeded to Nevada Bighorns Unlimited. Larry Johnson, past president of NBU, confirmed that Alt’s cattle could be found on NBU’s land but that Alt had no legal standing and certainly neither owned the land or had a contract to buy it.)
Nevada is experiencing the worst fiscal dilemma since the Great Depression and one that may possibly be the worst in the state’s history. It’s a relatively small state and the current state budget shortfall is now estimated to be over $1.2 billion. That may not be much in California or New York, but it’s a staggering amount here in Nevada. Yet Director Lesperance in paying patronage to his buddies concocted a wild story that he presented to the state’s Interim Finance Committee claiming that the horses were starving, that the range had been eaten bare and that the state could no longer afford to feed the Virginia Range horses. He applied for, and got, a lot of money in order to double the size of the state corrals and bring in the horses “as rapidly as possible.”
Lesperance’s folly was later rationalized in the context that the state needed to build an emergency ward of sorts to hold horses in the event of a blizzard… never mind that nobody could remove horses from the range during a blizzard to get them to the state corrals and that an air service had already agreed to air drop hay to horses if we had some kind of unprecedented accumulation of snow. Some of this stuff is just too bizarre to process. The more plausible explanation is this.
One of the state’s old ranching families has turned to “growing houses.” They are building “California style” developments along the western edge of the wild horse range, complete with wide boulevards that have lush grass medians and shoulders. These developments surround the one major wildlife water source and the developers don’t want to provide fencing to keep horses out or provide alternative water. The horses come in to drink and naturally enjoy the buffet set out by the developers and become hazards to automobile traffic. There is a groundswell by the public to hold developers more accountable and Washoe County citizens have a grass roots no-growth initiative in the works. But the rationale remains- why build a fence specified in NRS 569.431 when you can get the taxpayers to “remove” the problem?
Ironically the Virginia Range herd is one of the healthiest in the country and a significant number of mares have been vaccinated with the temporary contraceptives PZP and GnRH in order to keep the reproduction rate of the herd in balance with what the non-profit groups can absorb and place with adopters. Many of the birth controlled mares were actually reported by folks involved in the study as being overweight. There was so much vegetation that fire season started a few weeks early this year. And the state has never spent a dime on feeding horses in the wild, the wild horse groups do that. (One of the emergency hay storage depots is on one of my properties.) But Director Lesperance went on record stating that the horses were starving, the range was eaten bare and the state couldn’t afford to keep feeding the horses.
You’re worried about spin? Director Lesperance is trading in outright lies and anyone who wishes to take a little time and research the record can make that determination.
Let’s talk about livestock sales and slaughter. If you live in Nevada you know that most unpedigreed and untrained horses that go to the regions livestock sales are bought by the kill buyers. It doesn’t matter that the three US slaughter plants have closed. Nevada horses get shipped through Idaho to Canada. It’s been that way for years. One of the scandals that generated Congressional interest in the slaughter issue involved a couple of loads of ungentled Pyramid Paiute mares that were shipped to the Fallon Livestock Auction, started dropping foals in the transport and at the auction, were sold to the kill buyers and foals only a few days old were dumped in a consignment lot to die. A NDA Brand Inspector lost her job over that fiasco. Why do you think Republican Nevada Senator John Ensign introduced the anti-slaughter bill? It’s because it is a real issue here.
Here’s the problem with respect to the Virginia Range horses. They are only a taxpayer liability if they are trapped in greater numbers than the adoption groups can absorb. At that point they are on the taxpayers’ dole so long as they remain in the state corrals. (The state actually boards the horses with the prison industries authority.) The Department of Agriculture has been contacting consignment dealers to see who would be willing to take these huge numbers of horses that Lesperance plans on bringing in. Even Forrest Gump could figure out where that road leads.
The reality is that there is no crisis in the Virginia Range and there won’t be so long as proactive herd management continues. The major landowners, including the Tahoe Reno Industrial Center (the largest industrial park in the world) like having the wild horses around. Drive through TRIC and you will see wild horse murals, art and horses painted on the water towers. Since about 80,000 acres of the facility are open space, the horses are quite compatible and are an attraction to businesses as the environment is much more pleasant than some inner city industrial park.
The fundamental problem here is accountability. We have a Director of Agriculture who doesn’t think that he is accountable to the public or the State Board of Agriculture. He’s in his 70s and doesn’t give a poop about what anyone thinks. We have a Governor who is obsessed with texting his girlfriend all day on his state provided cell phone and having to put up with his estranged wife who now lives in the guest house on the Governor’s mansion grounds. Living in Nevada is like living in Days of Our Lives, except that if they put this stuff on TV nobody would believe it.
What you can believe is that the Virginia Range and its horses are healthy. They are part of the largest national historic district in the country. The last opinion poll in the Nevada Appeal (our capitol’s newspaper) put public support for the horses at over 83 percent. The “field active” wild horse groups (who refer to themselves as the “ground pounders”) are still involved in managing the herd and dealing with range issues, landowners, placing excess horses, etc. in spite of the apparent insanity taking over the Nevada Department of Agriculture.
Want to talk about spin? Maybe you ought to research what’s really going on out here on the Virginia Range, or better yet, actually spend time on the range and rely on first hand observations. We’re out on the range virtually every day and we do have some clue as to what we’re talking about.
BTW, the “brand” argument came from Twelvehorses, who was the last time I checked Nevada’s largest media development firm for tourism. They understand tourism and what motivates people to come to Nevada rather than drop their money at Atlantic City, riverboats or their own Indian casinos. They also understand that tourism is in the tank and if the Department of Agriculture has its way, the negativity produced over one of Nevada’s ecotourism attractions will just add to our misery.
This is what is really happening. Check the facts for yourself.
Willis Lamm, President
LRTC Wild Horse Mentors
Stagecoach, NV
June 23rd, 2008 at 7:15 pm
Thanks for your response.
I’m not sure why folks continue to ignore a couple key points in this debate: 1. By saying “Nevada’s wild horses” (as the video and associated site both do), one can’t reasonably expect outsiders to automatically assume a difference between the Virginia Range horses and the BLM horses. To later emphasize this distinction to me only colors the original attempt at framing the issue. 2. Of all issues facing Nevada, to make a video focusing on one herd of horses is disingenuous, especially when dressing it up as concern for the state’s brand and tourism prospects, of all things. See my reply to a previous response above.
After meeting with Twelve Horses’ CEO more than a week ago, I extended an invitation to Twelve Horses to partner on addressing other natural resource/western heritage issues facing the state because I am under the assumption the agency is genuine in wanting to present multifaceted points to this debate. I’m also assuming it is truly concerned about the state’s brand identity in all of its various expressions. I’m still looking forward to the opportunity and hope to receive a response from them in the near future.
[Edit Oct. 10, 2008: More than one phone message and email to the Twelve Horses CEO as follow-up to this conversation went unanswered, which is fascinating in light of early, original interest in this post (and issue), my online comments elsewhere and other discussions. Consequently, I have through work since developed a series of videos about Nevada's wild horse adoption process (again, Twelve Horses was invited to be a part of this effort, with no response), which to me represents one of the greatest needs in addressing the situation: getting the horses adopted after they are rounded up. You may follow the four-part video series here:
. Parts 1 and 2 have been posted and 3 and 4 are still being edited.]