Bill would block killing of wild horses, burros

Bill would block killing of wild horses, burros

“It is unacceptable for wild horses to be slaughtered without any regard for the general health, well-being, and conservation of these iconic animals that embody the spirit of our American West,” Rep. Nick Rahall, D-W.V., said in a statement.
By SANDRA CHEREB – Associated Press Writer

Meanwhile, back in Utah…

Resolution supporting horse slaughter passes
The Salt Lake Tribune

And in Wyoming…

Lawmakers decry interference in horse slaughter
By MARJORIE KORN – Associated Press writer

And in Montana…

House takes up bill to approve slaughterhouse
By JOHN S. ADAMS – Tribune Capitol Bureau

73 Responses to “Bill would block killing of wild horses, burros”

  1. Jeff Says:

    I believe humane sanitary slaughter of horses and burros, both domestic and feral, is the only way to go forward on this issue. Otherwise it is cruel to allow them to breed unchecked on the western range where they outcompete wild and domestic animals for grass. There is no market for hunting of these animals but there is a market for both human and pet consumption of thier meat. It is much more ecologically wise than euthanizing them or keeping them in pends forever.

  2. Salle Says:

    There wouldn’t be such a major appearance of overpopulation if the last administration hadn’t eliminated so much of their rangelands and leased it out to grazing permits to disguise the value of the land so that it could also be mined. Unfortunately, once again, anything wild and free is a threat to land-grabbers, in this case, it’s the wild horses.

  3. Ken Cole Says:

    While I am indecisive about this issue I do find it amazing how often the BLM blames wild horses for resource damage yet never propose to reduce livestock grazing which causes far worse damage. Horses use the land much differently than cattle and they DO have predators. Cougars prey on them regularly but they are being killed because they also prey on deer.

    I recently heard that 90% of the forage produced on public lands is used by livestock. That seem consistent with the BLM documents I read everyday which outline how many AUMs are reserved for wildlife and how many are reserved for cattle. The wildlife always gets the shaft whether it’s native or not.

    Wild horses do some resource damage but only in particular places. They only use water sources with particular features so as to avoid predators. Cattle just trash everyplace and shit everywhere. Horses aren’t the same.

  4. Robert Hoskins Says:

    As an “owner” of mustangs who has some experience as a backcountry horseman, my views on this issue are also mixed. Personally, you won’t find more loyal and skillful horses if you treat and train them with respect. My own mustangs are like family and I could no more get rid of them than I could my own children.

    However, under current conditions, with slaughterhouses closed in the US, there is no place to send “excess” horses other than to Canada or Mexico. The treatment of slaughter horses in Mexico is dreadful, simply dreadful. The slaughterhouses in Canada are better but shipping horses to Canada is expensive and time consuming, and so is not especially humane either.

    Without fundamental changes in wild horse management, it’s better that there be numerous horse slaughterhouses spread throughout the US than not. That would be the best of a bad conventional situation.

    Still, fundamental change is best. When you consider how few wild horses are on the range compared to how many cattle there are, and when you compare the ecological damage horses do to that of cattle, it’s clear that the best thing would be to get cattle off the public lands and turn them over to wildlife, including wild horses. We should also encourage the presence of large predators, especially mountain lions, which are effective predators of horses in the right terrain.

    Salle’s right; as with everything else, the mismanagement of wild horses is due to the rapacious, mendacious, and brutal demands of the livestock and other extractive industries for control over the Western commons.


  5. JimT Says:

    Thing is, Robert, do you really trust the BLM to manage this issue responsibly and ethically? or the states? There have been so many issues with their sales and horses being illegally diverted to slaughter houses…I do understand your point about overpopulation, but like others here, I believe the answer is doable without wholesale slaughter.

    Again, the damned stupid bovines are the problem for the landscape…Salle is so right.

  6. Salle Says:

    For those who didn’t look at the link thath I posted above…


    The Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act recognizes the wild horse as an “integral component of the natural system.” It stipulates that horses can only be removed from public lands if it is proven that they are overpopulating or are causing habitat destruction. It further mandates that the government “maintain specific ranges on public lands as sanctuaries for their protection and preservation.”

    In order to remove wild horses from public lands, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has claimed that horses are destroying critical habitat, competing for grazing lands, and overpopulating. But reports by the General Accounting Office and the National Academy of Sciences dispute such claims: BLM has never presented any evidence that horses destroy habitat, nor that their population levels are what it claims they are. In fact, reducing horse populations in a given area has a negligible effect on range conditions: after massive wild horse roundups, herd areas show little or no improvement, especially in instances when cattle numbers remain the same (or increase).

    In stark contrast with BLM’s assertions, scientific studies have shown that horses actually benefit their environment in numerous ways; vegetation seems to thrive in some areas inhabited by horses, which may be one reason the Great Plains were once a “sea of grass.” Generally, range conditions in steep hilly areas favored by horses are much better than in lower areas frequented by cattle.

    Cows have no upper front teeth, only a thick pad: they graze by wrapping their long tongues around grass and pulling on it. If the ground is wet, they will pull out the grass by the roots, preventing it from growing back. Horses have both upper and lower incisors and graze by “clipping the grass,” similar to a lawn mower, allowing the grass to easily grow back.

    In addition, the horse’s digestive system does not thoroughly degrade the vegetation it eats. As a result, it tends to “replant” its own forage with the diverse seeds that pass through its system undegraded. This unique digestive system greatly aids in the building up of the absorptive, nutrient-rich humus component of soils. This, in turn, helps the soil absorb and retain water upon which many diverse plants and animals depend. In this way, the wild horse is also of great value in reducing dry inflammable vegetation in fire-prone areas. Back in the 1950s, it was primarily out of concern over brush fires that Storey County, Nevada, passed the first wild horse protection law in the nation.

    The fact that horses wander much farther from water sources than many ruminant grazers adds to their efficacy as fire preventers. This tendency to range widely throughout both steep, hilly terrain and lower, more level areas, while cattle concentrate on lower elevations, also explains why horses have a lesser impact on their environment than livestock: when one looks at a boundary fence where horses range on one side and cattle range on the other, the horses’ side typically reveals about 30% more native grasses. Their nomadic grazing habits cause horses to nibble and then move to the next bunch of grass. This is why horse range is seldom denuded unless the horses’ natural grazing patterns are disrupted by human interference, mostly in the form of fencing.

    A team of Russian scientists, part of a cooperative venture with the United States, came in 2001 to study the effects of grazing animals on riparian areas in Nevada. They tested streams for nutrients and examined the desert and Sierra to learn techniques to improve the environment of their homeland. The scientists found that cows, which tend to camp around water sources, cause more damage to the stream banks than wild horses, which tend to drink and move on: “When we saw horses drinking from creeks, we didn’t see much impact except for hoof prints. The water looked clean, had good overhanging branches and there was no sign of erosion on the banks. There was an abundance of insects and animals, including frogs and dragonflies and water-striders.” Areas extensively used by cattle had fewer nutrients in the water and showed signs of bank erosion and other damage, concluded the study.

    Cattle trampling a natural spring on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest
    – Courtesy Center for Biological Diversity

    Horses have proven useful to other species they share the range with: in winter months, they have the instinct to break through even deep crusted snow where the grass cannot be seen. They also open up frozen springs and ponds with their powerful hooves, making it possible for smaller animals to drink. During the historic blizzard of 1886, hundreds of thousands of cattle were lost on the Plains. Those that survived followed herds of mustangs and grazed in the areas they opened up. Another positive effect of wild horses on biodiversity was documented in the case of the Coyote Canyon horses in the Anza Borrega National Park (California). After wild horses were all removed from the Park to increase big horn sheep population, bighorn sheep mortality actuality skyrocketed: mountain lions, wild horse predators, compensated the loss of one of their prey species by increasing their predation on other species.

    Wild horses should not be used as scapegoats for range degradation that is in fact primarily caused by private livestock: for instance, environmentalists have determined that in Nevada, home of the vast majority of America’s remaining wild horses, the herds have little impact on the ecosystem compared with the hundreds of thousands of cattle that also roam the Nevada range. The Western Watersheds Project acknowledges that “the main cause of degradation of public lands in the arid west is livestock use and not wild horses.”

    Copyright © 2004-2008 AWHPC. All rights reserved.
    Reproduction authorized solely for educational purposes,
    provided is credited as source.

    In essence, the BLM is lying.

  7. Brian Ertz Says:

    It always seems odd – how keen the eyes of land managers are at identifying horse-damage, yet how the same eyes on the same landcapes could be so blind to the same condition when hidden behind a herd of cattle

  8. Mike Post Says:

    The Act was crafted by the usual bunch of know-nothing politicians pandering to a horse loving public. Science played no role what so ever. Bottom line is that the these feral horses are just another invasive species that, contrary to the ACT, played no role in the forming of the western ecosystems. Feral horses do as much range damage as poorly managed cattle do. Ignoring the feral horse because the evil cow is still out there is not rational. Both animals need to managed. Once again, those animals who have an emotional hook for humans get special consideration and escape a rational scientific examination. If cows were “cute” I hate to think where we would be…

  9. Save bears Says:

    “If cows were “cute” I hate to think where we would be…”

    Awe come on, didn’t you ever watch “City Slickers”? Norman was a doll!!!


  10. JimT Says:

    Mike, you have any cites to studies that show wild horses are as destructive to habitat as cows?

  11. JimT Says:

    From the Animal Welfare Institute, an organization who is certainly not neutral on this issue, but gives us more fodder for the debate…Sorry for the size of the post, but it is interesting.

    MYTHS AND FACTS – Wild Horse and Burro Protection

    Myth: There are too many wild horses and burros on public lands and their numbers must be reduced.

    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 40,000 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 22,000 wild horses and 2,700 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.


    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. 249, introduced by Congressman Nick Rahall (D-WV) and Congressman Ed Whitfield (R-KY) in the House of Representatives to restore the slaughter prohibition for wild horses and burros. H.R. 503, the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act, reintroduced by Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Congressman Ed Whitfield (R-KY), Congressman John Spratt (D-SC) and Congressman Nick Rahall (D-WV) and in the Senate by Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) and veterinarians and Senator John Ensign (R-NV) as S. 311 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.

  12. Save bears Says:

    While interesting,

    I would need to see the scientific data to back up the claim that the Spanish reintroduced as opposed to introduced horses, with the scientific studies we can do now a days, I have a tendency to believe that may be a bit of a stretch…again, I would like to see the actual studies as well as data..saying they “reintroduced” a species that had been gone for several thousands or hundreds of thousands of years….is going a bit far….

  13. Barb Says:

    SaveBears, Have you read the National Geographic article?

    Either way, I don’t think there are going to be nearly as many cattle on public lands in the next 10 years or so as the land is just too valuable and expensive. They want it for energy development now, and that is gaining precedence over livestock grazing. The price of beef has really shot up in recent years. I am not familiar though with beef sales; what the trends are — anyone know if sales are decreasing or increasing over the past, say, 5 years?

  14. Barb Says:

    Also, how important is it that the animals be 100% NATIVE as long as they are not DISPLACING other native animals? If you want to get really technical, then, white man is certainly not NATIVE to N. America and here we are. So we should all leave according to that theory as we are really runing the land. (which is absolutely true!)

    I don’t believe horses or burros are TRULY DISPLACING any native animals nor are they “ruining” the land or FOOD SOURCES for native animals. I don’t believe there is any scientific evidence to back that up.

  15. Save bears Says:


    Yes, I am a research Biologist by trade, I read the reports, I look at data. I also do field work…

    Now we are saying even if not 100% native they rank higher on the animal kingdom scale,

    As far as white man, I have heard that advocated! White man should leave!

    If I had my way, if people want to ranch, I think they should be ranching Bison, it is an indigenous species, it is healthier for humans and it has more ability to survive without human intervention..

  16. JimT Says:

    I would bet if you contacted the Institute, they could give you the cite to the studies they mention about the history of the horse in the Southwest.

    I agree with you about bison 100%. I am not sure one could mandate such a thing on private lands, but on public lands, as a matter of habitat and ecosystem health..absolutely within the power of the regulatory agencies.

  17. Barb Says:

    I agree if “beef producers” insist on grazing on public lands (which really should be stopped), let’s at least get the cattle off and replace them with bison. This is a much more palpatable solution, at least in my mind, for the time being. Bison can fend off predators and generally live in harmony with them. If ranchers want to ranch on public lands, they have to take the “good” with the ‘bad” and that includes expecting and allowing for natural predation.

  18. Barb Says:

    So the Dept of Interior and BLM could say if you want to graze, you can ONLY graze bison?

    That would be a major improvement. Still, not the ideal solution as our public lands should not be used for private profit driven enterprises. (!) At all!

  19. Jeff Says:

    In the Southwest burros displaced desert bighorn sheep. The NPS elimnated burros from Grand Canyon NP, but they still run wild on neighboring reservation land. For those sitting on the fence on the issue I urge you to examine the options for dealing with an old pet horse, let alone 1000s of unadoptable horses. Butchering them for human or pet consumption is the most humane and environmentally sound way to deal with too many equines.

  20. JimT Says:

    Barb, it would probably take some legislation changes to FLPMA to make it happen, but yes, it could be done…

  21. JimT Says:

    Old pet horses should be euthanized by a qualified large animal vet. As for “unadoptable”, that is part of the issue up for debate, whether or not BLM created this situation through its mismanagement. Stay tuned for the will get interesting.

  22. Barb Says:

    Jeff, your comment “Butchering them for human or pet consumption is the most humane and environmentally sound way to deal with too many equines” seems harsh and unnecessary. The fact is, Americans do not EAT horses. Doesn’t that count for anything?

    If an animal “has” to die, then it “should” die in the arms of loving people, without FEAR and PAIN, like in a horrid nightmarish slaughterhouse.

    One simply cannot compare a slaughterhouse to kind euthanasia.

    Either way, I have a problem with “euthanizing” animals unless they are sick beyond repair. If humans created the problem, then we need to deal with it responsibly, instead of making the ANIMAL PAY WITH ITS LIFE.

    It wasn’t the animal’s fault it was born!!!

  23. Save bears Says:


    I have eaten a lot of horse meat in my life, we used to have actually horse meat markets where I grew up in WA, just as many horse meat markets as we had regular beef butcher shops,….

    I think you would be surprised how much horse meat gets used for human consumption in this country..

  24. Barb Says:

    It’s definitely not the “standard American diet.” There is something just wrong about eating something so beautiful that has been used for riding.

  25. Save bears Says:


    No it is not, not now a days, but there are many areas of the world that it is a staple of the diet…

    Here is a link I found:

    Of course in SE Asia, dogs are pretty normally accepted as a protein who is to say, I think it may be a block we have in our minds

    I have also eaten Cats(Mt. Lions) and quite enjoy Black Bear Meat, if it is prepare properly..

    I think we are now venturing into the same ground that is used to stipulate one religion over another!

  26. Barb Says:

    We will never agree on this stuff…. I have a problem eating any meat though I eat fish, chicken, turkey. It bothers me and I am trying to become a vegetarian (in a very meat-oriented society). I don’t like how innocent animals are treated in general by humans — with contempt and/or with a profit in mind, etc. I see animals as intrinsically valuable, as pets or simply to watch and enjoy in nature. There is nothing more stirring to my soul than to watch a horse run. Romantic, certainly, but human beings don’t make decisions on logic alone.

  27. Barb Says:

    The dogs in Asia are mainly on the black market; they are terribly mistreated, crowded together, and killed very brutally. In fact, many Asians think a dog stressed from a cruel killing is an “aphrodisiac.”

    I am hopeful that the people who cruelly mistreat animals will get theirs one way or the other — either on this earth or later.

  28. Save bears Says:


    Please don’t take me wrong, I am NOT advocating treating animals cruelly, but I can tell you, when I did my time in SE Asia in the military, it was not black market meat, it was sold in the stores and the restaurants, albeit, those markets and restaurants are a lot different than what we have in our “Civilized society”

    Now you are aware of how Chickens and Turkeys are slaughtered, Right?

    If your really trying to become a vegetarian, then I don’t see what the problem is, just stop eating meat, there is plenty of alternatives out there..

    Seems pretty simple, if you don’t like the meat industry, then don’t eat meat…

    And you are right, We will never agree, because I look at it objectively based on education and experience, you look at it romantically.. which I just can’t understand.

  29. Barb Says:

    You look at what, specifically, objectively?

    My main issue is truly with preventing animal cruelty; secondary, habitat. If that’s “romantic,” so be it. 🙂 If people would treat animals the way we want to be treated, it would be a much nicer, gentler world. \\\

    Someone can be “educated” and “experienced,” and “romantic.” They don’t have to be mutually exclusive.

  30. Save bears Says:

    And what leads you to believe, I don’t want animals to be treated with compassion? and want them treated the way I would like to be treated? I don’t condone animal cruelty in any way shape or form…and to my knowledge have never treated an animal cruel..

    You are the one that said horses take priority over cows today, but I am still trying to figure out, what makes one more important than another? Please explain that to me? You don’t want horses to be part of the food chain, and cows are part of the food chain? I am just trying to understand your position that is all!

    I never said you were right or wrong, but it is obvious, you and I have a differing opinion! Myself, I don’t want cattle on public lands, but I put no more worth in them than I do horses, wolves, rats, pigs, or any other animal in the world, they all have there place in the environment, I do believe that domesticated cattle have been a blight, not only here, but in Africa, where they are probably one of the biggest contributors to desertification of that continent…

    But I am just trying to understand your position. that is all…

  31. kt Says:

    Barb, This might help in understanding why someone would question everything. I never understood the troll business until I read this. It explains some of what is going on…

    A concern troll is a false flag pseudonym created by a user whose actual point of view is opposed to the one that the user’s sockpuppet claims to hold. The concern troll posts in web forums devoted to its declared point of view and attempts to sway the group’s actions or opinions while claiming to share their goals, but with professed “concerns”. The goal is to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt within the group.[12]

  32. Save bears Says:

    Kt, your depending on a contributor edited wiki to define somebody you have no understanding of, you keep saying that I have said things I never keep with it, I have already emailed Ralph about your attacks…we will see what he says!

  33. Save bears Says:

    By the way, kt, please again, I ask, show me where I said Condors should not be saved, as well as Cows should be saved, you still have not answered those questions have you?

  34. Ralph Maughan Says:

    We do try to keep trolls off this blog, but Save Bears has been commenting for a long time. I’m sure he (I guess “he”) is not a troller of any kind. Save Bears and KT are both respected members of this community.

    Ill treatment of horses, dogs, cows; and disputes over what is proper to eat make for strong opinions — emotional ones.

    I urge everyone to take a deep breath, so I don’t have to take any editor’s actions. I want to head back out to the AZ desert tomorrow and not sit in front of the computer screen.

  35. Elkchaser Says:

    Now this is some entertaining stuff.
    Properly regulated horse packing plants have a definite place in the big picture of things. Just look at all the domestic horses that are being dumped on the open range in the past few years – not a pretty sight.
    Also funny to see how someone can think that eating turkey and chicken is somehow more humane than eating beef, seeing that they are raised in tight pens crapping on each other then get their heads chopped off.

  36. kt Says:

    I can’t figure out how anything can be saved if there are always, always reasons not to do anything always raised. That sure seems to me like the definition of distraction, false flagging and all else at the wiki link to undermine, distract, etc. We can’t ‘cuz we can’t ‘cuz we can’t …

  37. Save bears Says:


    things do get saved, and if you don’t understand it then I can’t explain it to you and I suspect not many others can..

    You are completely off base in the way your read my posts and have got yourself in such a tight knot you can’t see what I am saying, yes, I play both sides of the coin, and I can’t say any one side of the coin is right or wrong based on the world we live in today..but to call me a troll was out of line, I am a Masters Degree holder who has worked for the very agencies you rail against, I no longer work for them because I also believe they did not have the best interests in mind of the people or the wildlife..

    Ralph has stated, I am not a troll, he has asked us to step back and look at things again, you don’t seem to want to do that…when you look at things from a scientific point of view, there is always going to be pluses and minuses, that is the only way we can achieve a balance…

    You need to step back, I know you want to restore everything, I admire your conviction, but alienating those who can help is not the best course of action to take…

    I want what you want, a balanced environment and have worked to that goal since the day I left the military, despite the frustrations big business throws at us..

    By the way, I have never said we can’t, and if I have, please point it out to me?

  38. Jeff Says:

    My concern abou t euthanasia is the toxicity of the corpse and its proper disposal. Landfills can’t and won’t take them, and once they are euthanized it is my understanding they are unfit for scavengers and if buried can become a ground water contaminant. I know many local outfitters that simply take old horses for long walks in the dark north facing timber and put a slug between their eyes. Utilizing their meat for either human or pet consumption is a better utilization of this resource that polluting the carcass with drugs via euthanizing the animal or creating a potentially dangerous carcass in the woods attracting all sorts of predators. We don’t eat all the food the U.S. already produces, we export a lot oversees, so the fact that most American don’t dine on equine doesn’t bother me a bit, we can export the meat to those who do like it, or use it in pet food. There are simply too many feral horses and burros to adopt them all to loving homes. I’m all for adoption programs but there are not enough homes and some animals are too old/wild to be adopted. For those animals sanitary slaughterhouses are the best course of action. This keeps streams and ground water clean, it keeps more horses from being dumped on the range, it allows a cheaper safer alternative to euthanasia, and it provides food for humans and or pets. Afterall some animals eat other animals.

  39. Mike Post Says:

    Ralph, you poor guy…fortunately we will never have this kind of foolishness over k-rats or snail darters, they just ain’t CUTE enough for our resident experts!

  40. SAP Says:

    Jeff, landfills will take them, at least around here in Montana. But you’re right, animals killed with sodium pentobarbital will poison any scavenger that feeds on them. If done properly, the bullet in the head is faster and less frightening than the syringe.

  41. jerry b Says:

    Mike Post….still waiting for you to back up your statements in the”Hamburgers are the Hummers of Food in Global Warming” post.

  42. Ryan Says:

    I’ve seen many waterholes completely destroyed by wild horses (in wilderness areas with no cattle) I’ve watched as they have ran off antalope, deer, and elk. I’ve spent a few hundred hours sitting in ground blinds or tree stands over water in wild horse country. They are very agressive towards native species. Also the manner in which they graze is much more detrimental to the native plants than even cows as they graze much closer to the ground killing off native grasses and shrubs. (as bad as land maggots IMHO) There should be no protection on them, but instead people who can’t think logically came up with the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act and had no biological background. These are the same kind of people who cringe when the thought of killing Feral cats comes around, but dont realize the enviromental costs associated with there un checked predation on native species.

  43. dbaileyhill Says:

    Earlier this week in the news (Oregon) there was a story about 5 bald eagles that were rescued after they had eaten from a horse whose owner used a drug, (sorry I cannot remember what it was), to put down a horse, then left the horse out for scavengers. The eagles were extremely ill, but luckily survived after being treated. 4 were released at the same time, the wildlife official was amazed to see them all released at the same time, which is extremely rare. The look of awe on the officials face was priceless. The 5th eagle is not well enough to be released yet, but is expected to be ready for release soon.

    I mention this not only for being a related issue that thankfully has a great ending but also because of something in human nature that relates also. First, though there are people who are aware of what their actions may result in, but simply do not care and do it anyway. The other people I am thinking of, who also contribute to many of the problems discussed on this site, have some type of psychological glitch that I can not comprehend. This is the simplest of examples; a person who tosses out garbage, or a cigarette and once the item is out of their hand, it ceases to exist… in their mind it is really gone.
    Although it has been since last summer that I have regularly contributed, I know the folks well enough who post here that you know a multitude of situations this applies to.
    There are people who are simply clueless, but after being informed change their behavior. The people I am referring to will never “get it”.

  44. dbaileyhill Says:

    Last year when a meat processing plant sold hamburger beef from downer cows to Oregon school’s, it was reported that nearly all fast food chain restaurants get their meat from South America.

    I am curious about any of your thoughts on how NOT purchasing beef from SA would change the beef industry here.

    Also, another tidbit of news was how dairy farmers are slaughtering their milk cows to sell the meat because they are not making money from milk sales.
    And I have heard that there has been a huge surplus of milk for quite some time. Yet sales of milk and milk products are down because of higher prices at the market. This does not make sense to me. (I am neither a rancher or economist).
    Could this be a result of subsidies given to the livestock growers?

    I think that maybe if antibiotics to promote growth and drugs administered to increase milk production where not used that eventually a few problems would end. These practices have been banned by the EU. I think that they are limited to using antibiotics only on sick livestock. (not sure about that though).

    Any thoughts???

  45. dbaileyhill Says:

    Sorry, i just realized i posted on the wrong thread….

  46. Barb Says:

    Ryan said “Their un checked predation on native species.”

    I mean, really, as if cattle haven’t seriously displaced wolves, coyotes, mountain lions, and countless other species by not only their own behavior, but that of their livestock owners.

    Don’t fool yourself that cattle are ever benign.

  47. JB Says:

    “There should be no protection on them….”

    Agreed. It is absurd that we protect non-native animals like wild horses while there is no protection for bison, who once ranged from the Rocky Mtns. to the Atlantic states. I’m not saying that all wild horses should be eradicated, but certainly they shouldn’t be held up on a pedestal simply because they are pretty.

  48. Barb Says:

    I guess I have a serious problem with people “advocating for the health of the planet” not even taking into consideration any justice for persecuted animals, such as our wild horses.

    Wild horses (or even cattle) are not the true enemy of our planet — man’s utter selfishness and cold-heartedness is the real scourge (as evidenced by comments such as “just put a bullet between its eyes…..) I kind of wonder how some of the people who say these kinds of things would feel if one of their loved ones, or even themselves, got a “bullet between their eyes………” Call me a romantic, but humans are capable of having logic, reason, evidence, and HEART.

    Humans are the worst species on the planet.

    Deal with it.

  49. Barb Says:

    JB — YOUu are not native to North America either. What gives you the right to say ONLY non-native are entitled to stay?

    Unless you are an American Indian, that statement is completely HOLLOW.

  50. JB Says:


    The only thing that gives any American “rights” is the Constitution, and I’m fairly confident it gives me the right to speak freely. 🙂

    First, Native Americans are of the same species as the rest of us, “homo sapiens.” Second, so called “Native” Americans were not native ~15,000 years ago. Third, quite clearly, humans are a different case. If you don’t understand why then don’t bother responding, you’re beyond hope.

    I very much like horses. In fact, horses were a very common subject for my early drawings and paintings. However, the species that has been introduced to N. America is not the species that was here 10,000 years ago, and, as Ryan points out, they are hard on native plants. They are a destructive introduced species. If you want to keep them as pets, great; but they do not belong on public lands IN MY OPINION.

  51. Barb Says:

    I don’t think the issue is so much “what is native,” as you have already pointed out that is irrelevant. Yet, I keep hearing “native” “native” “native.”

    The issue is getting to the TRUTH about what is truly destructive, and what may look destructive, but in actuality, is not. Mother Earth is pretty darn hardy, you know, including its plants.

    I would say on a scale from 1- 10, with horses being destructive to native animals and plants, and the livestock industry being destructive to native animals and plants, which rates higher?

    It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know the answer.

    Horses have not poisoned, shot, harrassed coyotes, wolves, mountain lions, bears, etc…….

    We need to focus on getting the livestock industry off ITS PEDESTAL first. Only then should people be debating the finer points of wild horses on our public lands, including is oil and gas drilling MORE destructive than horses.

    You can call me names “hopeless” and that is fine. I don’t lower myself to those silly games.

  52. Ryan Says:

    “Ryan said “Their un checked predation on native species.”

    I mean, really, as if cattle haven’t seriously displaced wolves, coyotes, mountain lions, and countless other species by not only their own behavior, but that of their livestock owners.

    Don’t fool yourself that cattle are ever benign.”

    Did you even read my post or do you have the reading comprehension of a second grader? That quote was about feral house cats. Please re read my post. Have you ever seen the destruction done on our wild lands by FERAL Non Native horses? Cows are no good too, but adding another non native species doesn’t help anything.

  53. Barb Says:

    Ryan, please grow up and stop with the childish insults.

    My point was that horses should not be and are not as important an issue as the all powerful livestock industry. Perhaps you are a part of the industry somehow.

  54. Ryan Says:

    While then atleast use an appropriate in context quote when slamming me next time. What you don’t seem to understand is that they are a plague, look no farther than the sheldon national wildlife refuge (which has no cattle) to see the destruction thy have caused. No I’m not a rancher or a big fan of range cows (hate range sheep with a passion) but illogical arguments about cuteness at the detriment to fragile desert ecosystems riles me up.

  55. Ryan Says:

    Horses do harass wolves, coyotes, bears, mt lions etc. They are fiercely protective of there herds.

    As for the bullet between the eyes, when I’m 80yrs old stricked with cancer and face the option of a long agonizing death or a bullet. I hope its a big one.


    We actually agreed, you should write this down. 🙂

  56. Barb Says:

    Ryan, please — don’t let us stop you from doing it earlier. 🙂

    PS: For the most part, horses and wolves ignore each other.

  57. Mike Post Says:

    Sorry Jerry B., I missed your request for backup data. I tend to ignore these strings after they start getting off-track and nasty. Kind of like this one…

  58. Barb Says:

    Ryan, sorry, let me clarify. I believe in using logic AND COMPASSION.

    Humans are not computers — we have emotions and feelings. Of course, you wouldn’t know it the way some people mistreat animals.

    Did you read the latest article in National Geographic about Wild Horses (Feb. 2009) IN 2005, two men from Wyoming and 2 from Idaho cut off a wild stallion’s testicles, left him to die.

    Nice huh?

    Where is the justice for these animals? That’s my point of contention with this issue. Abuses need to be rectified.

    The men got off with almost a slap on the wrist!

    There is something desperately wrong with a society that basically allows this kind of wanton destruction and mistreatment of animals.

    “A society’s progress can be measured in how it treats its animals.” — M. Ghandi

  59. Barb Says:

    “If you have men who will exclude any of God’s creatures from the shelter of compassion and pity, you will have men who will deal likewise with their fellow men.”

    ~St. Francis of Assisi

  60. Ryan Says:


    What does the national geographic article have to do with anything? There were murders in my home town last night, and dog fighting rings broken up last month. It doesn’t change the fact that horses are much worse per AUM on the west than cows as far as damage to the ecosystem. They are Non Native and compete with our native wildlife relatively unchecked. Unlike cows (which I still dislike) they are rarely removed from range lands, national monuments, or wilderness areas and decimate the ecosystem all year long. If you had observed the effects of wild horses on the ecosystem, you could probably have an edcuated opinion on it, not some romatized view based on the facts that “something so beautiful that has been used for riding.”
    Just an FYI no one has ridden any of those inbred flea bags in generations.

  61. Ryan Says:


    No cows at sheldon or Hart, horses and burros are the problem there. See article exerpt below.

    FWS to Cull Wild Horses at Nevada Refuge

    Overpopulation of wild horses in Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) is causing damage to the ecosystem, preventing mandated protection of native wildlife species. To address this, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services (FWS) proposed culling the herd from over 1,600 to between 100 and 200 in a recent draft environmental assessment. Currently, there is one horse per 300 acres in the 500,000-acre refuge, with the new management plan calling to reduce numbers to one horse per 5,000 acres.

    Wild horse and burro populations could double every four years without any control measures in place, negatively effecting water resources, wildlife habitats and associated fish, wildlife and plant populations, and posing safety risks along major public roads.

    Last year, 330 horses and burros were removed from the refuge; over 700 were removed the year before. Culled horses are put up for adoption, although wild horse advocates question the eventual fate of these culled horses. FWS screens buyers to assure that horses do not go to slaughterhouses, looking for adequate facilities and appropriate knowledge on horse care and handling. However, advocates claim that some horses probably do end up in slaughterhouses regardless of these measures.

    FWS’ wildlife refuges are not covered by the primary statute governing federal management of wild horses – the 1971 Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act – as is the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The National Wildlife Refuge System, managed by FWS, has a priority to manage native species, which does not include maintaining wild horse populations. In contrast, the BLM is mandated to maintain herds, with more than 30 BLM herd-management areas within a 200-mile radius of Sheldon NWR.

    The overpopulation problems in Sheldon NWR are damaging to all aspects of the ecosystem, according to Sheldon NWR project leader Paul Steblein. The refuge will not be able to support the species it is mandated to protect if the wild horse population continues to grow at the current rate, documented as high as 23 percent annually.

    A copy of the FWS Environmental Assessment is available online

    Sources: E&E Publishing, LLC (Environment &Energy Daily, Land Letter), Federal Register April 17, 2007 (vol. 72, no. 72)

  62. Ryan Says:

    Here is another one from the audobon society. (they are for sure in cahoots with the ranchers as well)

  63. Barb Says:


    Wild or feral horses are not “inbred flea bags” as you say. One of the big problems as the article points out is that it is currently humans who are deciding which should go, which should stay. That isn’t a good idea — “nature” needs to be deciding that. Ask yourself: Is nature ever “wrong?”

    Do you agree that it should be the people who should be the ones deciding how our public lands are used? If they want wild or feral horses, and this is environmentally feasible (not perfect) so be it, as long as native animals aren’t being drastically displaced. I think there is often a rush for man to get in there and try to “fix things” — to “quickly correct” what we see as “overpopulation.”

    As cruel as it may seem, nature (if in proper balance) has a way of dealing with overpopulations and that’s how I think it needs to be dealt with.

    Given that, I don’t know how prevalent wolves were in Nevada before they were wiped out by that wonderful agency Wildlife Services (that is where the largest concentrations of BLM land is), although I believe there are mountain lions, not sure.

  64. Barb Says:

    To clarify, the native predatory animals of Nevada would take care of “excess” wild horses. But then, I believe these horses ARE native.

  65. Save bears Says:


    Please post your reasons you believe they are native?

  66. Ryan Says:

    “To clarify, the native predatory animals of Nevada would take care of “excess” wild horses. But then, I believe these horses ARE native.”

    Please tell me by what logic you can possibly believe an introduced species is native? Also native predators are not equipped to control non native horses, contrary to poular beliefs.. Wolve aren’t the magic bullet and cougars much prefer native prey (mule deer, elk, and antalope) which are smaller and much less agressive than FERAL horses. You obivously have little first hand expirience with the damages Feral horses cause to the fragile desert ecosystem (also not ideal for wolves)

  67. Ryan Says:

    And BTW your is nature is wrong question is ludacris. The ecosystem will find some sort of balance, but most likely at the cost to native animals. I’d much rather see pronghorns, bull bats, mule deer, sage grouse, etc than inbred fleabag horses. (btw they are inbred in many cases due to limited genetic diversity)

  68. Barb Says:

    “the two key elements for classifying an animal as a native species are where it originated and whether it co-evolved with its habitat. The horse can lay claim to doing both in North America.” — Jay Kirkpatrick of ZooMontana.

    He further says: “The key to understanding why wild horses are the scapegoat for poor land management and worse politics is that unlike huntable wildlife and livestock, they have no “economic value.”

    If scientists say they have no “right” to be here because they are non-native, then all the cattle MUST also go that’s on our public lands.

  69. outsider Says:

    So barb does that mean ranchers are also native? They co-evolved with their habitat. Hell they are continuing to evolve even as we speak, in a few more cenurties some of them might not drag their nuckeles when they walk. As to the all cattle must go on public lands, well when you buy their permits then they can all be gone. Anything less would be like me taking your yard because I don’t like the types of pets you’ve got.

  70. Barb Says:

    Outsider, my yard is my property. I bought it, I own it. It’s called property rights.

    Public lands cannot be owned by individuals, so that comparison makes no sense. Individuals with land leasing permits do not have the same property rights. Those permits can also be revoked.

  71. Ryan Says:


    You obiviously have little expirience with wild horse damages to the ecosystem. Its been documented in numerous studies and you refuse to acknowledge the facts. By the logic your using, Cows are native to the west as well because they are relatives of bison. Each problem needs to be delt with individually not with the mindset that something else is a bigger problem. Cattle and Sheep on public land are a big problem as well, but they atleast have some controls. I believe that Ralph and others avoid these hot topic issues like wild horses a little bit, much in the same way that the rocky mtn elk foundation avoided the wolf topic as to not offend all of there constiuients.

    If your read the audobon article there were numerous quotes from scientists saying big cats can’t control wild horse numbers because they are an apex herbivore that the ecosystem has not adapted to.

  72. spirithorsebr Says:

    Jun 24, Barbara Ellen Ries, Arizona
    Senator Leahy Proposes ” Truth Commission to investigate and Online petition to investigate and prosecute constitutional abuses of Bush administration. Senator Leahy ~ Please investigate the documents from the BLM. One would hope that the time invested in this information be known and discovered. I hope and pray that this information dark and shocking as it may be is investigated. I hope for the wild horses sake, The Cloud Foundation and horse advocates as well as myself in the USA are represented and not and the laws for horses in the wild horse and burro act. Here’s body of the petition: I hereby join Senator Patrick Leahy’s call for the establishment of a truth and reconciliation commission, to investigate the Bush-Cheney Administration’s constitutional abuses so we make sure they never happen again. These abuses may include the use of torture, warrantless wiretapping, extraordinary rendition, and executive override of laws. A truth and reconciliation commission should be tasked with seeking answers so that we can develop a shared understanding of the failures of the recent past. Rather than vengeance, we need a fair-minded pursuit of what actually happened. The best way to move forward is getting to the truth and finding out what happened — so we can make sure it does not happen in any way shape or form. Thank you for any consideration. Documents on web below For Immediate Release Contact: Patricia Haight, Ph.D., (480) 430-2294, Julianne French, 520-309-5791, Documents from Bureau of Land Management Reflect Intent of BLM for Wild Horses in Holding Facilities & on Public Lands Signed by: [Your name] (Barbara Ellen Ries) Send this web site to friends family and others in support Easy to find the money trail or tail. Barbara Ellen Ries my web

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: