Wild Horses May Be Sold to Slaughter

Stan4dSteph · 03-09-2005, 10:21 AM

I saw a news story on ABC News recently that disturbed me. A rider to the federal Appropriations Bill (sponsored by Senator Conrad Burns) amends the 1971 Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act, opening the door for wild horses living on public lands to be sold into slaughter.

The rider amends the 1971 Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act to allow the sale of wild horses for processing into commercial products.
It also exempts horses bought pursuant to a new "horse sale" program from the criminal provisions of the Act that make it a crime to process or permit to be processed into commercial products the remains of a wild horse or burro.
The rider adds a new subsection to the Act, creating a "horse sale" requirement that mandates that BLM sell "without limitation, at local sale yards or other convenient livestock selling facilities" all wild horses who are either over 10 years old, or who have been offered for adoption 3 times unsuccessfully. BLM is required to continue to sell horses until all "excess animals" are disposed of and AMLs (appropriate management levels) are reached in all wild horse areas. [Summary source: http://www.savewildhorses.org]

The Bill created the Wild Horse and Burro Authority under the Bureau of Land Management which is charged with selling the wild horses and burros. Luckily the first sale was to a group who wants to protect the horses.

Selling wild horses to slaughter is like selling out our national heritage. They're a symbol of the West. It's not too late to let your feelings be know. Write your Representatives and Senators. Write to the BLM. Contact information can be found at the Wild Horse & Burro Freedom Alliance webpage.

cirquelover · 03-09-2005, 10:32 AM

This seems sad and wrong.

Thanks for letting us know, I hope it truly isn't too late!

Alex · 03-09-2005, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Selling wild horses to slaughter is like selling out our national heritage. They're a symbol of the West.

Well, to be fair, selling wild horses to slaughter is our national heritage and a symbol of the West. It was standard practice for a long time (see, for example, The Misfits for one example).

Personally, as pretty as they are, they're an introduced species and I wouldn't have much problem if they were removed completely, though I doubt that'll happen. A similar issue is being faced by the National Park Service at Point Reyes National Park, where introduced deer species are driving out the endangered tule elk. Per the BLM's web site (perhaps not a disinterested party), there are 37,000 wild horses when the non-impacting population would be 28,000. The size of a herd can double every five years.

BLM has always been tasked with keeping the herds on public lands at non-impact levels but were always hampered by the fact that they couldn't easily remove or dispose of the animals. In addition to the 37,000 truly wild horses, 24,000 are held in holding facilities (medium term/long term at a cost of more than $20 million/year. In addition to that, almost $40 million/year is spent trying to adopt the excess horses out. Under the new law the proceeds from sales will go to enlarging the adoption program.

BLM's census indicated that the new law affects about 8,400 horses and their strong preference is to adopt them to interested parties rather than putting up for sale.

If you want to adopt one of the horses before it goes to sale, there is an adoption auction going now. Information is here and a horse can be adopted for as little as $125 (though you have to pick it up).

But is only because of their symbolic status that the horses and burros are afforded even this much protection. If it were any other introduced species there would be a large lobby advocating their complete removal.

blueerica · 03-09-2005, 01:35 PM

Wow, interesting thread...

It's a shame I don't have much to add, particularly after Alex's well-put response.

Despite all that, it still makes me sad.

BarTopDancer · 03-09-2005, 01:37 PM

. Poor horsies

Am I the only one who sees a giant contridiction in the term "selling wild"? They're wild animals. Let them be wild. If it was selling lions, tigers or bears [oh my] to slaughter there would be a huge outcry.

Of course I could be way off base (and I'm sure someone will point that out).

Gemini Cricket · 03-09-2005, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

Personally, as pretty as they are

...they're delicious to some pets?

I thought Alex's answer was well put, too.

I can't help but thinking this is another example of politicians helping out big business again.

Bleh.

Not Afraid · 03-09-2005, 02:30 PM

My all means it is sad. Wild horses and burrors are an American Heritage. I do understand the need for population control. There have been several relocation efforts recently - the Channel Islands sheep and the effort to repopulate the fox on Catalina. Man introduces non-native specis to an area that begins to take over. This happens even more often with plants than animals. But, when something is a "symbol" of an area, era, or National ideal, there has to be a careful way of accomplishing the needed task. Are we going to chop down all eucalyptus trees because they are non-native?

I don't know. I'm rambling while eating soup. Yum. Soup is good food.

Ghoulish Delight · 03-09-2005, 02:32 PM

But, as Alex notes, we're not talking about an endangered species. Nothing's going to disappear, the wild mustang is thriving quite nicely. Too nicely.

And for the record: I'll volunteer to start the effort to remove all eucalyptus trees. Right after I abolish all palm trees.

Gemini Cricket · 03-09-2005, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

And for the record: I'll volunteer to start the effort to remove all eucalyptus trees. Right after I abolish all palm trees.

Thank goodness. I have one of each in my yard that needs to go. Come over right away.

Alex · 03-09-2005, 03:24 PM

An interesting article on the history of eucalyptus in California and the fight over their removal.

It has an amusing parallel in that much like the federal law that protected wild horses to the point that they became a detriment on the ecology, Santa Cruz has a law, the Heritage Tree Ordinance, that protects eucalyptus trees as an important symbol, even to the detriment of public safety (they are highly flammable and fall over a lot) and local ecology.

Most land and park management agencies advocate for the complete removal or extensive restriction of eucalyptus trees. I know the East Bay Resional Park System (Alameda and Contra Costa counties) has extensive projects in many of its parks to replace eucalyptus with native species. Eucalyptus is a main reason why there is no redwood second growth in the Oakland hills (which used to have redwood forests just as impressive as on the Mendocino coast).

03-09-2005, 10:21 AM	#1
Stan4dSteph Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: East Bay Area, CA Posts: 3,156	Wild Horses May Be Sold to Slaughter I saw a news story on ABC News recently that disturbed me. A rider to the federal Appropriations Bill (sponsored by Senator Conrad Burns) amends the 1971 Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act, opening the door for wild horses living on public lands to be sold into slaughter. The rider amends the 1971 Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act to allow the sale of wild horses for processing into commercial products. It also exempts horses bought pursuant to a new "horse sale" program from the criminal provisions of the Act that make it a crime to process or permit to be processed into commercial products the remains of a wild horse or burro. The rider adds a new subsection to the Act, creating a "horse sale" requirement that mandates that BLM sell "without limitation, at local sale yards or other convenient livestock selling facilities" all wild horses who are either over 10 years old, or who have been offered for adoption 3 times unsuccessfully. BLM is required to continue to sell horses until all "excess animals" are disposed of and AMLs (appropriate management levels) are reached in all wild horse areas. [Summary source: http://www.savewildhorses.org] The Bill created the Wild Horse and Burro Authority under the Bureau of Land Management which is charged with selling the wild horses and burros. Luckily the first sale was to a group who wants to protect the horses. Selling wild horses to slaughter is like selling out our national heritage. They're a symbol of the West. It's not too late to let your feelings be know. Write your Representatives and Senators. Write to the BLM. Contact information can be found at the Wild Horse & Burro Freedom Alliance webpage.
	Submit to Quotes

03-09-2005, 10:32 AM	#2
cirquelover Cruising around in my automobile... Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Oregon Posts: 2,617	This seems sad and wrong. Thanks for letting us know, I hope it truly isn't too late!
	Submit to Quotes

03-09-2005, 01:35 PM	#4
blueerica Nueve Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 6,497	Wow, interesting thread... It's a shame I don't have much to add, particularly after Alex's well-put response. Despite all that, it still makes me sad. __________________ Tomorrow is the day for you and me
	Submit to Quotes

03-09-2005, 01:37 PM	#5
BarTopDancer Prepping... Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Here, there, everywhere Posts: 11,405	. Poor horsies Am I the only one who sees a giant contridiction in the term "selling wild"? They're wild animals. Let them be wild. If it was selling lions, tigers or bears [oh my] to slaughter there would be a huge outcry. Of course I could be way off base (and I'm sure someone will point that out). __________________ Spork is the new MacGyver Postcards From My Edge
	Submit to Quotes

03-09-2005, 02:30 PM	#7
Not Afraid HI! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 17,108	My all means it is sad. Wild horses and burrors are an American Heritage. I do understand the need for population control. There have been several relocation efforts recently - the Channel Islands sheep and the effort to repopulate the fox on Catalina. Man introduces non-native specis to an area that begins to take over. This happens even more often with plants than animals. But, when something is a "symbol" of an area, era, or National ideal, there has to be a careful way of accomplishing the needed task. Are we going to chop down all eucalyptus trees because they are non-native? I don't know. I'm rambling while eating soup. Yum. Soup is good food.
	Submit to Quotes

03-09-2005, 02:32 PM	#8
Ghoulish Delight I Floop the Pig Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Alternative Swankstyle Posts: 19,348	But, as Alex notes, we're not talking about an endangered species. Nothing's going to disappear, the wild mustang is thriving quite nicely. Too nicely. And for the record: I'll volunteer to start the effort to remove all eucalyptus trees. Right after I abolish all palm trees. __________________ 'He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.' -TJ
	Submit to Quotes

03-09-2005, 03:24 PM	#10
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	An interesting article on the history of eucalyptus in California and the fight over their removal. It has an amusing parallel in that much like the federal law that protected wild horses to the point that they became a detriment on the ecology, Santa Cruz has a law, the Heritage Tree Ordinance, that protects eucalyptus trees as an important symbol, even to the detriment of public safety (they are highly flammable and fall over a lot) and local ecology. Most land and park management agencies advocate for the complete removal or extensive restriction of eucalyptus trees. I know the East Bay Resional Park System (Alameda and Contra Costa counties) has extensive projects in many of its parks to replace eucalyptus with native species. Eucalyptus is a main reason why there is no redwood second growth in the Oakland hills (which used to have redwood forests just as impressive as on the Mendocino coast).
	Submit to Quotes