Posted on 08/03/2009 11:45:58 AM PDT by jazusamo
More often than not I worry that our elected representatives in Washington DC have completely lost touch with the common man.
They spend money like there is no limit to the amount that can be provided by the American taxpayer and when we complain, they treat us like we are idiots. They talk down to us and with a smile and a pat on the back tell us not to worry they are looking out for our best interest.
So far I have had to exempt Lynn Westmoreland from this criticism. Maybe he hasn't been inside the Beltway long enough to be corrupted. Maybe, just maybe, he's the actual personification of "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington."
By in large the problem in Washington can be laid right at the feet of the thousands of paid lobbyists who make their living (and very good ones at that) by convincing the members of Congress that some bill their clients want passed is the best thing since sliced bread.
In years past I have made trips to Washington as part of a delegation representing the Farm Bureau Federation of Georgia.
During our three-day jaunt we visit with the representatives and senators from Georgia who represent us in our nation's capitol. In all honesty we are lobbyists. But we are grassroots lobbyists - unpaid volunteers who attempt to get the message across to congressional members that agriculture is as important to the welfare of this nation as defense. Maybe more so. For without food and clothing, all the armies in the world won't do us any good.
Allow me to get back on subject here.
I'm a horse person. Have been most all of my life. I don't care who you are, or who you think you are, there's no one in this country who cares more about Equus Caballus than me.
In recent years, however, a few fringe groups have attempted to hijack our Congress into passing bills that are loosely designed to protect the horse, but actually do more harm than good.
There are the various bills designed to prevent the harvesting of horses for meat. That's a hot issue in many animal-lover circles. But I won't go into that.
Today's topic is the so-called wild horse that roams the lands in our nation's west. The trouble is that the likelihood that there actually are any wild horses out West is problematic. Sure there are some horses running wild, but they aren't what we call truly wild horses.
Suppose some cattle got away from a herd and wandered freely across the rangeland in the Western United States. Would they be wild cattle. If they had calves, would the calves be wild? No, they would be feral cattle, and their offspring, that had escaped from domestic herds.
That is the case in most all of the "wild horse" herds that roam on federal land. The herds are destructive. They over-graze the range land. They take food out of the mouths of cattle that are raised to feed our nation's population.
Moreover, they take food that would otherwise be available for the real wild animal population, animals that are truly wild and have been living in this land long before the humans and the horses came.
I'm likely as much of a romantic as any one out there reading this. That's just a part of the cowboy makeup. There is something to be said for seeing a herd of "wild horses" running free. But there's just as much to be said for a herd of buffalo (bison), elk or antelope.
There are too many "wild" horses on our federal lands. Efforts by Congress, conservationists and animal lovers to control the population and lessen the damage to our environment by these free-ranging herds have largely been unsuccessful.
Now there is a move afoot to put more land under federal control so that even more "wild" horses can live in the West. For more than 40 years the wild horse and burro population has been federally protected. But the herds have grown unmanageable.
So, the answer, according to a bill that has passed the House and is headed for the Senate, is to spend $700 million to acquire more land -- more land that will eventually lead to even larger unmanageable herds that will eventually need even more land. People are out of work. They are losing their houses. The country is deeply in debt. Congressional leaders and the Obama Administration are spending billions of dollars on programs that some politicians think are unnecessary.
And now a bill comes along and passes the Democrat-controlled House to spend millions more acquiring land so more and more feral horses can roam the western United States just so some animal lovers can one day say, "I saw this magnificent herd of wild horses running free while I was on vacation out west."
If they were truly wild horses, those who are direct descendants of the ones brought over the Spanish in the 1500s, then maybe I could see. But they aren't. They are feral horses. There is a difference. And they aren't worth another $700 million of our tax money.
And that comes from a person who loves horses and has for more than 50 years.
(Kerlin’s family roots go back generations in southwestern Fayette County. He’s a regular columnist for this newspaper)
You would be wrong. I know ranchers in Eastern Oregon and have ridden on roundups, helped brand and vaccinate and not as a dude on a paid dude ranch.
...I’m in Lex, KY. If I’m forced to be included in this, I want a pinto...
I’ll have to remember where I learned it: I am under the impression that a wild horse keeps moving to the food, whereas a cow (essentially, an eating machine) stands and eats until it is gone.
That would explain your preference for their side of the story. If I was a rancher, I'd like the government to give me handouts too. As a taxpayer, I'd prefer that those ranchers pay something approaching fair market value for what I'm giving them.
It is better for the lands for any animal herd to graze and wander on... leaving the grazed land to rest and revitalize (by contributing natural fertilizer also - which is much better for the land than all the chemical fertilizers today, but, I digress).
The “wild” horse herds do this, but the cattle also do. This was why the massive herds of buffalo were always on the move, but the land they traveled was some of the most fertile land to ever exist.
If you know any horse people, ask them how long it takes a couple of horses to turn a fenced acre into bare dirt.
God made grass to grow and be harvested by ungulates, which in turn would be harvested by us.
By the way, I also think horses are livestock and should be treated as such.
LOL!
The BLM have adoptions (auctions) for the horses they have penned, don’t know if they have them that far east but they go for very reasonable prices and I believe they have some pintos. :)
Oh, I've seen it done. Soon, I will be on my way to one (actually, two of the paddocks there are bare). If I left the impression that horses cannot do damage, my apologies.
Here's my central objection*:
you take a rancher who has a vested interest in keeping the federal gravy train rolling, and he'll tell you that his cattle are less destructive than wild horses. This, despite the fact that the horses he replaces/displaces/whatever are vastly outnumbered by his cattle. In other words, he's not moving one horse off the land to feed one of his cattle. He's probably replacing that horse with ten or twenty of his animals. I don't know what percentage of ranchers move their herds indoors for the winter. I know some do not. The issue that the cattle might only be on the land for six months is a red herring. It's the damage that is done while they are there (three, six, nine months, whatever), and their superior numbers.The ranchers' claim that the wild horses are over-grazing the land, so they need to be replaced by many more grazing cattle (oh, and will you please lease me the land for pennies?) is silly.
_____
*I'm just making up the numbers.
....Moved to Lex, KY two year ago. Not into the racing and betting here in KY, not really into riding, but, if I could start with all these horse lovers here, they might soften their hearts for bringing in the mustangs to KY. Maybe if they are conservationists, conservatives of the planet. Deal me in...
During droughts the number is lowered. This is what caused the Sagebrush Rebellion.
Some of these good old boys working for the land agency actually have degrees in Range Management.
Range.net keeps an eye on grazing BLM lands and FSEEE keeps an eye on grazing Forest Service land
Further complicating the situation, livestock, wildlife, recreational users, and extractive industries, such as timber harvesting and mining, also compete for useof the land. Wildlife populations are kept in check through natural predators and hunters. Livestock populations are controlled by federal land managers through limits established in permits issued to ranchers. But controls on wildlife and livestock numbers do not apply to wild horses and burros. They are protected legally from human hunters and have few natural predators. In the absence of these checks, wild horse and burro populations increase, on average, about 15–20 percent each year.
Of course as the reintroduction of wolves move further and further south into "wild" horse areas their predation will increase.
Thanks...I know the BLM keeps close tabs on lease land in Eastern Oregon. The many enviro groups are the ones wanting to completely stop cattle grazing on federal lands and as time passes it seems more and more enviros are working for BLM.
his wife ( can’t remember her name) was on the radio a few weeks ago and I couldn’t believe she is behind this crazy plan- i respect her love for horses,too, but this is out of line - she’s a bleeding heart libbest lib i ever did hear.
You are absolutely correct. Gelding is also pretty cheap. They used to round up and sell “mustangs”, but the process was so convoluted and with such restrictions it just about wasn’t worth it. Don’t know if that is still the case, haven’t looked back into it for a very long time.
Those enviro groups I mentioned above were a good source of info because they both aggregated an index of news stories on BLM and Forest Service.
When Bush came in, it was less of a hot topic, except, he began conferring recreational rights to some of the leasing right holders.
BLM leases might be a deal for the ranchers in the west, however these ranchers by no means make huge profit margins, and earn every dollar they make.
Hunting and fishing in Eastern Oregon on BLM and USFS land has exposed me to grazing practices in these areas. Over the past 20 years I believe ranchers and BLM and USFS have worked together to minimize damage done by grazing. Lots of new fences have been erected to keep cattle out of riparian areas, and cattle are moved out of areas once they have grazed it. In many of these areas the benefits include reducing fuel for wildfires, and the benefit of having been grazed (rhizomes thrive after being eaten down to a certain point).
I look at the cattle ranches in the west as a benefit to wildlife. They preserve some of the best lower elevation wintering grounds. If these ranchers go out of business, the land will be made into destination resorts with golf courses and mansions. This will eliminate vital wintering grounds that elk and other wildlife eak out an existence's on during harsh winters. Just look at Central Oregon and the Jackson Hole.
Wild horsed should be managed like other wildlife. In areas where there are too many, capture them and sell them accordingly. Some might make fine working animals, others need to be sold to Camp Alpo. We certainly should not be spending $700 million to coral and feed them.
Good post, I couldn’t agree more.
Like you I have hunted Eastern Oregon since 1961 and have first hand knowledge of ranching and ranchers there. They are not getting a free ride from the government, many just barely make it and they do help sustain wildlife.
BLM spokesman Tom Gorey said the 1971 act charges the agency with managing and protecting the living symbols of the Western spirit while ensuring that their numbers are in balance with other rangeland uses.
"To achieve this balance, the BLM must remove thousands of animals from the range each year to control the size of herds, which have virtually no predators and can double in population every four years," he said in a statement.
Tribal rangeland managers now estimate 20,000 wild horses are overrunning Indian Country in Washington, Idaho and Oregon, with an annual foal crop raising the population by some 20 percent a year.
Too many horses: Northwest tribes consider slaughter facility for wild horses
You don’t seem to understand that these ranchers lease land near their ranches, not on the other side of the state and they usually lease the same tracts for many years.
You need to get a subject you are more familiar with, rude dude.
And I'll continue to maintain that claiming that wild horses are over-grazing the land in order to reserve it for over-grazing is bull manure, and you either believe it or are simply trying to change the subject to something else.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.