Culling wild horses to protect the rangeland and the BLM taking owned cattle such as Bundy’s are different episodes. The rights of owners have to be observed. Wild horses have no owners.
Culling leading to slaughter or sales to new owners should be the main management step. Catch & release after castration or fixing mares is costly and should be done only on wild horses for special reasons, not as rangeland protection.
How are they different? Bundy’s cattle were labeled ‘feral’, too:
“The resolution claims many of Bundy’s cows have been running loose on the range for so many years that
they can no longer be considered domestic...and would be a menace to those handling them, it said.
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/57792018-90/utah-cattle-county-blm.html.csp
Sounds like a typical resolution to destroy wild horses, doesn’t it? Maybe it was that ‘feral’ labeling that led to the mindset it was ok to use Bundy bulls for shooting practice.
One doesn’t have to be a PETA drumbeater to realize different rules for handling rangestock is a beartrap, when ‘feral’ versus ‘domesticated’ is subject to arbitrary determination at the whim of some alphabet agency.
As for wild-roaming horses, just like Bundy cattle they also have owners, under 1971 Public Law 92-195 and 2009 H.R.429. I’d like their rights to humane treatment upheld as much as I want Bundy’s rights to humane treatment of his cattle upheld. I see no difference.
Horses, wild or domesticated, are good for range land, just as cattle are.
The turf needs heavy animals to break it up, or invasive species like ‘cheat’ kill off the native grasses.
.