Sustainable Cowboys or Welfare Ranchers of the American West?
Report analyzes taxpayer bailout of U.S. public lands ranching [Part II of a series on ranchers]
Five hundred million dollars. That’s what 21,000 ranchers who graze their livestock on America’s iconic western rangelands are estimated to have cost US taxpayers in 2014 — and every year for the past decade. This averages out to an annual taxpayer subsidy of $23,809 per rancher — approximately a quarter of a million dollars each since 2005. So why does this small subset, representing just 2.7% of US livestock producers, protest the “welfare rancher” label?
The public lands grazing program is welfare.
That $23,809 — and it’s a lowball figure — is a form of public assistance similar to other welfare programs. The only difference is, it doesn’t arrive as a check in the mail. It instead represents a loss covered by taxpayers: the very large difference between what public lands ranchers pay in fees to the US government and what public lands grazing costs taxpayers every year. But it’s still a subsidy, as a newly updated economic analysis, Costs and Consequences: The Real Price of Livestock Grazing on America’s Public Lands, makes clear. And the recipients aren’t low income; a large number are millionaires and some are billionaires and multi-billion dollar corporations on Forbes various “rich lists”. Cattle barons, if you will.
Public lands ranching costs western ecosystems, wildlife and taxpayers.
“Several federal agencies permit livestock grazing on public lands in the United States, the largest being the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Department of Agriculture’s United States Forest Service (USFS).
The vast majority of livestock grazing on BLM and USFS rangelands occurs in the 11 western states of Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Oregon, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, Washington and Wyoming.
Rangelands are non-irrigated and generally have vegetation that consists mostly of grasses, herbs and/or shrubs. They are different from pastureland, which may periodically be planted, fertilized, mowed or irrigated.”
So says the report, which was prepared by three economists for the Center for Biological Diversity and published in January 2015, the latest of numerous studies (see list at end of this article) to examine a program Americans know nothing about.
The 44-page fiscal analysis describes a federal program that exploits not just taxpayers but is ruinous to public lands and the wildlife that inhabit it, a viewpoint shared by rangeland science experts and conservation groups, from Defenders of Wildlife and the Center for Biological Diversity, to WildEarth Guardians, Western Watersheds Project, and many others.
An obvious culprit identified in the report (and its predecessors) is the negligible fee that livestock operators pay to graze a cow and her calf or five sheep for an entire month on public lands, otherwise defined as an AUM (animal unit month). In 2014 it was just $1.35 (priced less than a can of dog food) — a figure that is the lowest fee that can be legally charged.
The $1.35 figure has barely budged over the past 34 years and is well below the market price to graze on private land ($21.60). Fees set by other federal agencies and individual states on public property are also significantly higher.
In 2014, BLM and USFS permit holders paid an estimated $18.5 million in fees to graze 1.14 million livestock “units” on the 229 million acres of federal land used for grazing. But only a fraction (between one-third and one-quarter) of that $18.5 million actually went into the US Treasury, according to the report. The majority was diverted to range rehabilitation and improvement funds to construct fences for containing livestock, and improving vegetation and forage. In other words, two-thirds to three quarters of the low fees ranchers pay go right back into their pockets, leaving approximately $7.9 million to help defray total costs…which are, well…enormous.
Indirect costs significantly higher than direct costs.
The study indicates that, in 2014, $143.6 million was directly appropriated to the grazing program (an amount that’s been consistent over the last 10 years). Some quick math reveals that, on average, public lands ranchers paid just $376 for what cost taxpayers $6,838 last year.
But that doesn’t reflect the indirect costs: 34 related programs and services enumerated at the back of the report (Appendix A, tables 1-4) that aren’t directly budgeted under grazing by BLM and USFS budgets or that are carried out by other government agencies or at the state and local level. These aren’t figured into the $143.6 million appropriated for the grazing recipients.
The entries either benefit livestock producers or remediate damage tied to their operations. Multiple programs deal with soil erosion, desertification, and the spread of noxious weeds while others deal with damage to streams, watersheds and riparian areas. Several others address harm to archeological and cultural resources (oftentimes, of indigenous peoples) and recreational areas used by the public. Four remedy harm to wildlife. Fire management and control is a big issue, too.
Two controversial programs directly remove and kill wildlife that threaten livestock at taxpayer expense. USDA Wildlife Services spends $8 million to kill millions of native predators every year, courtesy of an unknowing public. The BLM’s Wild Horses and Burros program also removes thousands of federally protected horses and burros each year from designated wild horse habitat so that, during the ongoing drought, more water and forage are available for ranchers on public assistance. The cost of that program tops $80 million a year. That’s $380 per rancher to kill predators (wolves, coyotes, bear, cougars, bobcats and eagles) and ten times that much ($3,809) to get rid of wild horses and burros.
Add in the USDA’s livestock assistance program, under which payments are made directly to ranchers due to natural disasters, like droughts. And don’t forget all the various agencies indirectly involved with federal grazing issues and consequences: The US Army Corps of Engineers, the EPA, the USDA, and Dept. of Justice. What does it equal? Special interest welfare estimated between $500 million and $1 billion a year.
Here’s where the cattlemen’s claim to be great stewards of public grassland and forest preserve gets exposed — just like their disavowal of receiving welfare payments.
States the Western Watersheds Project,
“Public lands ranching is the most widespread commercial use of public lands in the United States. Ranching is one of the primary causes of native species endangerment in the American West; it is also the most significant cause of non-point source water pollution and desertification.
Public lands ranching significantly contributes to climate change by emissions of the global warming gases nitrous oxide and methane; it causes loss of soil carbon reserves by causing erosion and by substantially reducing the landscape’s potential to sequester carbon.”
Almost a year ago, Cliven Bundy ripped into low-income Americans for collecting government subsidies at the same time that he was stiffing the government of $1 million in back grazing fees. Since then, only a handful of articles have called out the rest of his public-lands ranching brethren for the hand-outs they receive. The mainstream media acts as though all that welfare ranching stuff disappeared with Bundy’s armed rebellion.
The time is here for journalists to inform the public about the federal grazing program. For too long, they’ve let the 2.7% of US livestock producers run away with the “sustainable” cowboy narrative — leaving the public, public lands, and wildlife paying the price.
This is Part II of a four-part SourceWatch series on ranchers in the media.
Part III: Bad Ranchers, Bad Cows (peer-reviewed study of damage caused by cattle grazing in a national wildlife refuge)
Part IV: Forbes Billionaires Top US Welfare Ranchers List
Read Part I: The Media Adores Ranchers. Here’s Why They Shouldn’t.
Studies and Reports:
Costs and Consequences: The Real Price of Livestock Grazing on America’s Public Lands, (Jan. 2015) by Christine Glaser, Karyn Moskowitz and Chuck Romaniello for the Center for Biological Diversity
Grazing Fees: Overview and Issues (June 2012) by Carol Hardy Vincent, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy for the Congressional Research Service (Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress)
Trampling the Public Trust (Jan. 2010) by Debra L. Donohue for the Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review
Fiscal Costs of Federal Public Lands Livestock Grazing (2005) Wild Earth Guardians
Taking Stock of Public Lands Grazing: An Economic Analysis by Thomas M. Power, Ph.D., Chair of the Economics Department at the University of Montana
Livestock Grazing: Federal Expenditures and Receipts Vary Depending on the Agency and the Purpose of the Fee Charged (Sept. 2005) Government Accountability Office (GAO)
Assessing the Full Cost of the Federal Grazing Program (Oct. 2002) by Karyn Moskowitz and Chuck Romaniello for the Center for Biological Diversity
Welfare Ranching: The Subsidized Destruction of the American West Edited by George Wuerthner and Mollie Matteson
Big Cattle, Big Gulp (Feb. 4, 2015) by Christopher Ketcham for The New Republic
Federal Grazing Program in Bundy Dispute Rips-Off Taxpayers, Wild Horses (April 25, 2014) by Vickery Eckhoff for Forbes
Grazing Improvement Act Will Fleece Taxpayers While Harming Environment (Dec. 3, 2013) by James McWilliams for Forbes
On Wyoming’s Range, Water Is Scarce but Welfare Is Plenty (July 9, 2012) by Andrew Cohen for The Atlantic
 Fiscal Costs of Public Lands Livestock Grazing, WildEarth Guardians, 2005; http://www.sagebrushsea.org/pdf/factsheet_Grazing_Fiscal_Costs.pdf; Moscowitz, K. and C. Romaniello.2002. Assessing the Full Cost of the Federal Grazing Program. Center for Biological Diversity. Tucson, Az. The estimated cost of the deferral grazing program at $500 million is consistent with estimates developed by other experts, Karl Hess (former special advisor on policy to the Assistant Secretary for Program, Policy, and Budget of the Department of the Interior) and Johanna Wald (senior attorney and Land Program Director, Natural Resources Defense Council) estimated the annual cost of the federal grazing program to be approximately $500 million. Hess, K. and and J.H. Wald. 1995. Grazing reform: here’s the answer. High Country News 27 (18). The Economic magazine has also reported the annual cost of the federal grazing program to be $460 million. Subsidized Cow Chow. The Economist (Mar. 7, 2002): 9.
 Costs and Consequences: the Real Price of Livestock Grazing on America’s Public Lands, p. 6: “In 2013, the BLM issued 15,739 permits to livestock operators and there were 5,711 livestock operators who had permits to graze in the national forest system. The numbers of USFS and BLM permits and livestock permit holders are not directly additive, but due to a number of livestock operators who have permits from both agencies and/or more than one grazing permit per agency, the total number of livestock operators is likely to be fewer than 21,540. This compares to the approximately 800,000 ranchers and cattle producers in the United States. (Statistic Brain, 2012). The number of operators benefitting from the USFS and BLM grazing program in the West is therefore less than 2.7 percent of the nation’s total livestock operators.
 The fee for 2015 was raised to $1.69 per AUM. According to Christine Glaser, one of the analysis’ three authors, “This miniscule increase does not change the basic message that the PRIA fee percentage of private fees has been decreasing pretty dramatically since 1981, and also between 2002 and 2013. See Table 10 in the report.”
 Fiscal Costs of Public Lands Livestock Grazing, WildEarth Guardians, 2005; http://www.sagebrushsea.org/pdf/factsheet_Grazing_Fiscal_Costs.pdf
Thank you for all the details. It is depressing but important to know.
According to the 10th Federal circuit up until last week when a newly appointed judge set aside a ruling made in 2006 this is all Cow dung. No one in the USA has the right to kill eagles or any other predator that are protected under the endangered animals act. Now as far horses and burro the Government rounds them up every year to sell for slaughter to politicians friends they aren’t worried about grazing cows. This whole article is just an opinion who personally sounds like they are jealous they are getting a larger cut for themselves.
Put your money where your mouth is!!
Oh John! My goodness aren’t you funny!
Regarding Cliven Bundy, Fox News likes that he steals welfare from taxpayers because it thinks it makes for lower meat prices:
“’When you graze your cattle there, you keep the price of meat down for the American consumer,’ [Sean] Hannity said.”
Of course one rancher cannot possibly affect the price. It just fattens his own profit. Not that lower prices would justify it anyway.
Why did they pick on one farmer, Mr. Bundy, I think they need to appologize.
Cliven Bundy, owed (and prob still owes) more than $1 million in back grazing fees, and his family and supporters pointed weapons at federal agents. I don’t think anyone needs to apologize to him.
It is so wrong, unfair and many other words I would like to say that American Taxpayers are forced to pay for the abuse and suffering of these Historical wild herds. The cattlemen and mining operations have very deep pockets and are lining those of congress, senate and higher to use the public lands that belong to every American to not only destroy them but to kill out our National Treasures. The wild herds have bloodlines that go back to the same bloodlines of the horses that not only helped build our country but they also carried our soliders to battle. The saddest part is my grandchildren will not be able to enjoy seeing the beauty of these herds in the wild or the visit the beauty of these lands once the mining operations are finish stripping the National resources from them. I as a USAF veteran, American taxpayer and animal lover believed the when the Constitution says “Government for the People” was true. Now I know it is now “Government is for the Greedy”.
Excellent article – the American public does need to know this exploitation of OUR PUBLIC LANDS is causing desertification (as GAO Reports have stated for decades) and extinction of native species that have key roles to play in these arid rangelands. Wild horses for instance disperse seeds replenishing what they consume, they also consume dry brush thereby reducing wildfire fuel. They can not fill their niche at ridiculously low populations and continue to be eradicated by the agency mandated to protect them, BLM. BLM is funded by taxpayers but serves special interests plundering our public lands.
Agree, it would have stopped if they were not making a profit from it, government crooks. Paid by the ranchers, and big business, that are already taking the taxpayer money.
Taxpayers should not have to prop up livestock producers who cannot make it on their own. Time to bring an end to welfare ranching.
What can be done to address the problems associated with public lands livestock grazing? There is a simple answer: end it. Get the cows and sheep off, let the wild creatures reclaim their native habitat, and send the ranchers a bill for the cost of restoration.
A Must Read:
MAD COWBOY: Plain Truth from the Cattle Rancher Who Won’t Eat Meat
by Howard F. Lyman
A fourth-generation Montana rancher, Lyman investigated the use of chemicals in agriculture after developing a spinal tumor that nearly paralyzed him. He blasts through the propaganda of beef and dairy interests — and the government agencies that protect them. Persuasive, straightforward, and full of the down-home good humor and optimism of a son of the soil, Mad Cowboy is both an inspirational story of personal transformation and a convincing call to action for us all.
Really really, so let me get this straight, we pay these wranglers with our tax money, also these ranchers don’t really pay much for the grazing rights on public lands so if there’s a shortfall, we are also left with the bill?????Next with their profits these ranchers are able to live quite well, and if they need money to pay lobbyists to get the wild horses, burros, and wolves off the land, we also are paying these goons who call themselves lobbyists and ranchers are able to pay with our tax money which sustains them quite well, this is all too much for me, our Wild horses and burros, and the predators that kept everything in check, (the wolves) have been scuttled off our public lands, at the pleasure of these goons who call themselves “ranchers” makes me wanna holler@@@@STOP it.This really is a form of upper level WELFARE and it certainly isn;t fair to all of us who are paying for these whiners to keep us their abuse of the horses and burros, the BLM has already gotten rid of all the wolves, they call it “management????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
I think the welfare ranchers are backed by the Cattlemen’s Assoc. , Big Ag and the Farm Bureau and that they have paid off politicians in D.C. too.
Yes it involves HP computers, Ted Turner, Hilton Hotels, and the Bundy’s and more , like they need it.
Yes — that is why a beef boycott could change this in a heartbeat, but Americans are simply not willing to give up their precious steaks and burgers — even many of those who CLAIM to care about wild horses, wolves and bison. Total disconnect and / or hypocrisy (for those who DO understand).
Thank you for exposing this massive disgrace. Like so many issues, it has been “business as usual” for decades out of the public eye. The only hope is getting the word out. What I hate about it even more than the environmental degradation is the persecution of wildlife species on behalf of ranchers. No species is exempt, from wild horses to coyotes to crows to wolves to bears to bobcats, and on and on and on. The brutality of methods and the immense, ongoing suffering is staggering. Once again, Vickery, thank you. All of us who care about wild horses and other species and who value ecosystems that exhibit wholeness must talk and talk and talk and talk and talk about it — never being silent. Every one of us has an ownership stake in public lands, but you’d sure never know it. Keep talking until our collective ownership is evident.
Please get this to the public. Welfare ranchers need to be held accountable. Save our wild horses and wild life. Am tired of paying for there stealing.
re sold at auction for non slaughter purposes so Jay buys them for nothing and he sells the to K who then sells them for slaughter for animal and human consumption, You are I or anyone who wants to purchase these horse would never even get a chance to bid of these animals because if you aren’t on the list from DC folks or you are actually what they call a welfare rancher having 10 acres per animal This whole article is just more BS. Instead of worrying about public lands used for grazing hunting or whatever if people in this country do not stop the feds from selling public lands to foreign corps for strip mining and don’t even have to follow EPA rules about ground contamination or back filling then we are in trouble Read how you extract yellow cake uranium will get you sick because after the area is mined most groundwater is contaminated forever more and the remaining ground is also useless
our wild horses and burros need to remain free and wild. These horrific and terrifying roundups are unnecessary and cruel. It is the cattle that need to be reduced.
The BLM is getting very close to having a rebellion on it’s hands!! ARE YOU LISTENING BLM??? The American taxpayer is damned sick and tired of dishonest, on the take, self serving, special interest sustaining, politians and departments who pay us no mind until it’s election time again. WE HAVE HAD IT!! You are basically pawns for the self serving life stock ranchers on OUR land. We did not authorize what you are doing,despite what you think, and we will keep on until changes are made.. and you lose your jobs in the process.. Graft and corruption has consumed you!! Don’t let he door hit you on the way out..
I would say that yes rebellion is not too far off. No leadership has emerged to deal with this issue that is seriously starting to boil over. People will not stand by and allow themselves to be used and abused, and they are completely horrified and sick to death with the abuse and utter mismanagement of their iconic wild horses and burros. Isn’t anyone bloody listening? Hello? You can’t say you didn’t see the public unrest coming. Stop the round ups, return the 60,0000 warehoused horses to the homes guaranteed to them by the 1971 Act, and start moving these cows and welfare ranchers off the land. Public IS public folks. DEAL WITH THE PROBLEM. It’s a no brainer, if you have a spine.
So you want a rebellion because BLM charges too little, and Bundy wants a rebellion because BLM charges too much. Maybe being in the middle of two extremes shows BLM is doing OK. Charges like graft and corruption are pretty serious, please cite several examples.
By the way, I pay more to feed my goldfish than ranchers pay to graze a cow/calf ‘unit’ for a month. So if you care, why don’t you write your representatives asking to raise the fee or change management practices as well as writing online rants. Also, why single out BLM? No other agency is driven by special interests influencing Congress? P.S. Take an anger management class, that’s not healthy.
This article, though not terribly surprising, is both disturbing and important. Unfortunately, it is a very small tip of a very large iceberg of externalities big AG would rather stay below the surface. Hopefully, articles such of this will shed more light on the issues. Realistically, we are a long way from seeing any real change.
Thank you Vickery Eckhoff for as always getting to the nitty gritty of $ costs to the taxpayers for subsidizing welfare cattleman destroying our public lands and driving our wildlife into extinction. Although other forms of welfare corporations like Haliburton or Pfizer get more attention in the media, those among the welfare cattlemen deserve to have the spotlight shown upon them as you do so well. For in the darkness in which they operate unknown to the public they are bringing about the turning of our Western lands into Wasteland and the extinction of our wild horses, wolves and other species who are about to vanish forever – collateral damage in the war waged on Mother Earth by corporate greed.
Miss those Shane Destry comments.
perhaps some welfare ranchers will meet up with some of the illegals who marijuana farm on public land and a huge battle will wipe out both sides. There’s cartel in them woods too. Why bother smuggling it when they can just grow it here. The BLM is on the take and not just from those ranchers… Those welfare farmers need to buy some land already and work it.
pls copy and paste this so we can have readable material to hand out on thursday..there will be tons of people in and outside the nugget..we cant get their attention with just shirts or signs. not many going, but the general public and others need to see this stuff. most are pro blm and fall for their lies. we need to make more advocates right now!! pls my printer is broken and i cant send pictures i dont know how or obama would get all the grapic photos we have to see. ty
The time is way overdue to expose these thieves. They are destroying what is cherished by Americans and are dictating what lives and dies on public lands, while the BLM and USFS caters to their every whim. Thank you Vickery Eckhoff for another well written and informative article.
Thanks for bringing the greater truth to light! This is such an ignored issue and so much of this travesty of justice occurs because of the abject complacency of people. It’s high time to wake up and change our lifestyle, before this whole marvelous life-supporting ecosystem comes crashing down around up. I particularly detest how the wonderful returned North American native wild horses are being scapegoated and blamed by the public lands livestock industry, the big game hunting establishment, etc. This is so devilishly wrong and must be countered. Thanks for the breath of fresh air for the living planet Earth, all you great researchers and writers who still care. Now to translate this into much needed reform. This remains our challenge, everyone’s.
article posted by our ex Governor Schweitzer. About half way through you will see information about the Koch Bros and their dealings in Montana. I had no idea. Welfare ranchers for sure.
I’m not sure the website posted on above note. http://www.greatfallstribune.com/story/opinion/guest-opinions/2015/02/19/schweitzer-blasts-group-medicaid-stance/23684267/
Keep it coming.
This is just mind boggling??? B.S., politics, probably illegal!!!
Starting out using data and numbers from Center for Biological Diversity pretty much ruins your whole so called ‘facts’. Aren’t they the same institute that was fined $600,000 for fabricating fraudulent evidence! And of all things, for trying to take Federal grazing rights from a rancher! Makes your whole numbers skewed from the start.
Wilderness Packer: there’s only one way to settle that, and that’s for you to list the data you say is fabricated below. I’ll be happy to take a hard look at any numbers with you as well as sources and confirm if they are indeed real or fabricated. Let’s get started!
How about just starting with getting your links to your foot notes to work?
Once you get proper links to your footnotes we sure can.
But first off I can see this – “The entries either benefit livestock producers or remediate damage tied to their operations. Multiple programs deal with soil erosion, desertification, and the spread of noxious weeds while others deal with damage to streams, watersheds and riparian areas. Several others address harm to archeological and cultural resources (oftentimes, of indigenous peoples) and recreational areas used by the public. Four remedy harm to wildlife. Fire management and control is a big issue, too.”
So are you trying to say the horse’s deer, elk and antelope do not spread noxious weeds? Don’t ever damage streams, watersheds or riparian areas? Soil erosion? How is that only tied to the cows Ms Eckoff? I am pretty sure I have never seen a horse with wings on any of the many ranges I have been to, so they must walk on the land too.
So without the links fixed to check the numbers, right off the bat I have a problem with your 500 million number if you are trying to say everything done to benefit the range is only for the ranchers. Re-seeding certainly benefit’s all animals and all the range animals are guilty of either walking on or eating some of the rangeland(not just the cows). And also if you are getting your number of $500 million from CBD then I certainly see why your numbers are skewed.
What a horrible and misleading article. You should be ashamed for even writing such drivel.
For one – when a rancher rents from private ground, the lessor bears responsibility for insurance costs, maintenance, fencing and feed costs. When a rancher has a grazing permit, the rancher is responsible for all those costs. The difference in those costs is why there’s a difference in the AUM costs to lease the ground for grazing.
The costs of administrating are self-regulating costs. They would be there regardless if the ranchers were there.
The Burro program – that’s a cost to manage them at levels so they don’t starve themselves out or over-graze the lands they roam. And the costs to manage wildlife are again not the responsibilities of ranchers.
Seriously – this type of journalism is HORRIBLE. You should be ashamed.
The article examines economic data provided by the BLM, US Forest Service and GAO. I see you haven’t disputed it; just that you don’t like it. As for overgrazing, if you can find me a peer-reviewed article on research showing that damage to federal grazing permitted lands is caused by wild horses and not cattle and sheep, I will give you $50. If you can’t, you give me $50.
You want data? Well, just for you.
I want my $50 payable to my paypal account.
Justin…you owe Vickery $50. Please pay your debt. You would have taken the money if you could have found ANYTHING to back your position.
Sorry – I just realized you said something different. Ignore the $50. But I’ll look up the damage to lands by wild horses, because apparently Google is hard to use for some people.
Sorry. I misread that. No $50 for showing you the different AUM costs study.
I’ll find information about wild horse grazing for you since Google is so difficult.
Now about that $50 you owe me.
Justin, the abstract of the study you sent says: “Information about their influence on vegetation and soil characteristics in semi-arid rangelands has been limited by confounding effects of cattle (Bos taurus) grazing and a lack of empirical manipulative studies.”
There is no proof of horses overgrazing, because to prove it, you need “empirical manipulative studies” on the influence of cattle in same areas. And it’s immaterial if horses have an influence in areas where there aren’t cattle. That’s not what I asked you. Besides, which, having an impact is not the same as “overgrazing.”
I’ll give you my paypal payment info in a moment. You owe me $50.
Wrong. Besides, you misread MY statement initially. I inferred that the burros are managed TO PREVENT OVERGRAZING. That they aren’t overgrazing at the moment actually means that the program is working, although is a tremendous financial failure.
You asked for a peer-reviewed study indicating damage to federal grazing lands (which they are) that are not caused by cattle (which they are not, in this case). You received a peer-reviewed study indicating damage to federal grazing lands not caused by cattle. You don’t get to change the rules.
Pay me. Either way, I’m simply going to discount any stories you do from now on as it’s evident you bias your stories for biased political beliefs.
You need to pay up the $50 to Vickery, which will be donated to mustang welfare. You approved wrong … period.
You can send that $50 to my paypal account.
Let me cut and paste for you — again — what the challenge was. Here it is:
“As for overgrazing, if you can find me a peer-reviewed article on research showing that damage to federal grazing permitted lands is caused by wild horses and not cattle and sheep, I will give you $50. If you can’t, you give me $50.”
The challenge says “federal grazing permitted lands”, not “federal grazing lands.” Further, it’s specific to “overgrazing damage” that is attributable to horses and not cattle and sheep.”
Your study is not on permitted land, so you’ve failed.
You, sir, owe me $50.
I think Justin was one of those guys in the movie Unbranded. It flopped and he doesn’t have 50 bucks.
Or he buys “grass-fed beef” at Whole Paycheck and hes busted till next week. Give him a break.
Darned autocorrect. That was supposed to say that you were proved wrong … NOT approved.
It’s okay. I’m very familiar with how progressive liberals twist things around to avoid paying money out of their own pocket. You owe me $50 and everybody can see that. Good.
That you ignore the study about the difference in AUM costs on private v. public lands is also very telling about your biased agenda and horrible articles. Because it doesn’t fit in with your preconceived notions, you ignore it and start some silly spaghetti monster bet (although I supplied with you a peer reviewed study identifying riparian damage to the environment done by wild horses on federal grazing lands – so it’s not quite the spaghetti monster in that sense).
It’s rather simple: you only report that which spins the needle toward whatever cause of the month you’re willing to support, facts be damned.
But don’t worry your pretty little head much longer. The case determining federal unenumerated land ownership in perpetuity is coming up soon. Your socialistic land practices won’t survive much longer.
I knew from the get-go that there are no peer-reviewed studies proving that overgrazing damage on federal grazing permitted lands is caused by horses and not cattle, and you fell for it. You accepted the deal, you did not come up with a study on permitted land; and you lost.
Yes, I am a liberal. But that’s has nothing to do with your failures of reading comprehension. The economic data above isn’t biased, it’s from the BLM, the USFS and the GAO. Those are facts, and they are not damned. But you are.
You’re out $50, friend.
Justin, pay up already! You are SO out of your league here and can’t believe you can’t see that! Shame on you!
Justin, come on pay up! It’s ok to lose, you just have admitted it, pay up and fight for the wild horses. Welcome to the truth!
Pay up, dude!
There really isn’t a way of writing this that isn’t going to sound snotty, but I hope it translates…
There are folks who see ” wild horses and burros” and it sets off all kinds of negativity. It doesn’t matter how logical the rebuttal, how thorough or deep the research goes or how many citations are provided to show proof of the veracity of the information; there are people who find wild equines and the people who advocate for them repugnant. And nothing can be said to dissuade them.
Justin seems to be very passionate about his belief system, and it would take more than Vickery’s considerable knowledge to dissuade him. Capitulating to a ‘loss’ would likely cost Justin MORE than simply the $50. It might also weaken a lifetime of single-minded prejudice against animals that cost taxpayers absolutely nothing while they live on the range – but 10’s of millions after capture.
Justin pay up, you need a different line of work. Cattle ranching like no profit movies will come to an end
Justin, man up n pay up!!! You failed to provide any study.
Sorry, but that study counts. It shows that damage to the environment does IN FACT occur due to horses on federal grazing land. Your implication was that horses do not cause damage – the study proves they do. PAY ME. See, there’s this little legal thing called inference, and the inference here is that I supplied the necessary study meeting applicable and reachable requirements. In a court of law, I would win without question. You owe me $50.
The rest of your BS is immaterial as I did not say cattle do not do any damage to the environment – but then again, you didn’t mention what good the cattle do for the environment either. By design, I’m sure.
From the article – the numbers you cite are misrepresented. The public grazing fee is not a welfare subsidy, and the study I presented you proves it. It costs the rancher MORE to run on public grounds when all the other fees that the rancher doesn’t have to pay for private ground are calculated in. Not to mention even including the cost of managing wild burros as those are costs that would be incurred anyway. Due to you being so used to reporting biased spins, it doesn’t surprise me in the least that you can’t comprehend that your “interpretations of data” are flawed and biased.
Later. I’m done with this nonsense. Liberals: staring facts in the face and shouting “NOPE! NOT TODAY, FACTS! NOT TODAY!”
You owe me $50 bucks.
Justin, just grow a pair and pay up. You weren’t able to rise to Vickery’s polite challenge, and trying to twist words and come up with excuses is pathetic. PAY UP OR SHUT UP. Sheesh.
BTW – if we really wanted to get technical, there was not a time limit anyway. I could provide a study 8 years from now if I had to, although, the first study met your requirements anyway. Ta ta.
I welcome any peer-reviewed studies proving that overgrazing on permitted federal grazing land is attributable to horses and not cattle and sheep. If you find any, please send; and thanks for trying, Justin!
I expect a follow up UNBIASED article detailing the costs of AUM comparing private to public lands based on the report I linked to above. It is misleading to say ranchers are getting a welfare deal on public grazing allotments by simply comparing the leasing fees. There are other fees involved in public leasing, as well as benefits to both. A conscientious journalist would report ALL the facts and let the chips fall where they may.
To say that overgrazing on permitted federal grazing is ONLY attributable to horses and not cattle is a ridiculous assertion, and a ridiculous quest. We do know that cattle do disturb the environment – that’s never been a question. But to say that horses do not also disturb the environment is a naive fallacy. Given the same number of cattle and horses in similar environments, you may even be able to declare which disturbs more, or which does more damage. But without those conditions, you’re simply attempting to prove or disprove the flying spaghetti monster, and the only way you’re going to do that is by fallacy conjecture, which is a failure in itself.
For those of you who seem to think I don’t know what I’m talking about: I was raised on a cattle, sheep, and horse ranch on the Western Oregon coast. 2800 acres private + a USFS lease on another 1200 acres. I’m very familiar with what cows and sheep accomplish, as well as being familiar with what horses can accomplish when enough of them are together. We also wintered about 80 head of elk on two different plots and I’ve seen firsthand just what damage they can do when feed is running scarce. That’s pretty much what animals do: search for food, and as it dwindles, do whatever is necessary to survive, and I’m confident you’re not going to legislate any of them into feeling empathy for grouse or turtles. That management practices are always in order is beyond question – but understanding how all of them work together and compromising the needs of all involved is a better workable solution. We cannot be adamant about removing cattle so our children can hike everywhere they want to anymore than we can be adamant about overgrazing to the point of making millions of acres of sand dunes. Land has resources, and as such, should be utilized, as without it, we’re left with an economic impact in the red zone. Instead of complaining that those costs are there, we should be investigating opportunities to mitigate those costs. Taking extreme positions either way isn’t going to be for the benefit of anyone.
Ms. Warner: horses do indeed create paths, as well as utilize existing paths. They also “unload” where ever it is they decide – water or land. Please don’t make extreme prejudicial comments that don’t have any basis in reality. I’m not longer a rancher, nor a BLM employee. I’m a salmon fishing guide 🙂 But I still go big game hunting, mushroom hunting, and hiking all over Oregon. I’m not against wild horses per say, but I’m not going to suggest that running too many horses won’t damage the ecosystem as much as cattle. ALL animals need to be managed appropriately, and all avenues of economic gain need to be explored, especially in areas of renewable resources.
And now I’m tired of typing. Good day.
Justin, the 1990-91 GAO study found that the millions of cattle on public lands have caused the range and riparian area destruction and not the few thousand wild horses. Look it up and pay up. Western Watersheds Project has lots of proof also. Furthermore my dad raised cattle and I have seen the erosion they caused and know how they pollute the water with E.coli. I’ve had horses most of my 77 years and they have never made “cow paths” and ditches or defecated in the water. Maybe you are a welfare rancher or a BLM employee as you are so against our wild horses. I have 5 rescued mustang mares also as well as domestic horses.
I’ll tell ya what – to all these people thinking I owe $50. If any of you can find a study proving there is NOT a flying spaghetti monster in space, I’ll give everyone here who comments $50. If you can’t find one, then you all owe me $50.
See the ridiculousness of her “challenge” yet?
Having raised a lot of horses myself I can attest that, per head, they are every bit as destructive to land as cattle, PLUS they chew up wooden fences.
That’s a specious argument: because, according to grazing fees, in 2014, there were 30 times as many cattle as wild horses in BLM territory; 83 times as many cattle as wild horses in US Forest Service territory; and in 83% of all federally permitted grazing lands, no wild horses, whatsoever. Furthermore, those ratios are at their lowest levels, due to declines in grazing. Only a few years prior, there were 50 times as many cattle as wild horses on BLM land. Further, there is extensive research on the damage done by cattle on grazing lands (but virtually none about horse damage).
You can see that data and that research here: http://dailypitchfork.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/BLM_USFS-grazing-analysis_2014_Daily-Pitchfork.pdf
As a closing point, I’ll say that raising horses doesn’t qualify you to judge the impact of horses in the wild. But that should be obvious to anyone.
Dear feral horse lovers,
Lacking predators, these equines proliferate freely on some of the most arid, fragile real estate in the US. Their habits are every bit as destructive as cows, plus they travel much farther and guard water sources from wildlife and cows alike. In just the past 4 years managing feral horses has cost taxpayers nearly $300 million, plus $50 million annually for feeding the captive horses culled from public lands. If you REALLY love these creatures, perhaps you need to adopt a half dozen or so.
So you would agree, then, that it’s silly for US taxpayers to hold wild horses in captivity, because of the cost. But you know what cost is even larger? The cost to subsidize 21,000 livestock permittees. That program (which is the driver of the wild horse round ups) is economically ruinous for US taxpayers, not to mention environmentally ruinous to the grazing lands the public owns, and the wildlife that lives there, protected by law.
I agree with Justin that there are many more data points that need to be factored into determining the appropriate level of federal grazing fees and the environmental trade-offs.
I agree with Vickery that federal grazing fees have largely been determined by politics and not the result of a clear headed analysis of what is reasonable for the lessee, the tax payer and the environment.
A task force composed of respected public lands advocates, public lands grazers, federal agencies, economists, and biologists, if left to their own devices might actually come up with some constructive proposals. Of course they would immediately come under withering fire from the very communities they represented. And therein lies the problem, not just with this issue, but with much of our national discourse in general.
For anyone who believes the answer is to simply remove the cattle and let wild horses and burrows take their place, I ask you to take a longer view. The wild horses, and burrows compete with elk, deer, pronghorn, bison and all manner of wildlife for the limited natural resources. They have two imperatives, eat and procreate, which the do exceedingly well. If left unchecked they already have demonstrated that they can (and would on a grander scale) abuse sensitive habitats ultimately to the detriment of themselves and all our native wildlife. Cattle at least have the advantage of being limited to defined numbers.
What is the long term answer for wild horse and borrow management? Most wild horse advocates object to hunting, which addresses elk, deer and pronghorn. Most object to round-ups, which addresses livestock.
So what are we left with?
Contraceptives are not practical other than in very small scale controlled circumstances and certainly not in the vast numbers that would present themselves after removing the public land grazing. Does anyone anticipate the introduction of mass numbers of wolves, bears and mountain lions to keep things in check?
If none of the controls above suit your tastes morally or practically, then you are ultimately left with starvation and disease for your controls and only after catastrophic habitat damage. I’ll let everyone decide for themselves if those are moral and practical options.
If we want to preserve ferral horses and burrows because of their link to the romance of of our western history, then I say we preserve the western rancher for the same reason….but, under terms that respect both their rights and the rights of the public.
P.S. I won’t hold my breath.
Eat less meat it is healthier and preserves much more than our health. It preserves land and water.
Well I hate to bring this up . All you wild animal loving cow haters. You need to realize that the horse is an invasive species in the US. It was introduced by the Spanish conquistadores.
As such, it (by law) must be eradicated from all public and federal land.
Now I am not a horse hater , but I do find this fact interesting.
I also find it interesting that most if not all environmentalists ignore this fact.
Pay up Justin, you know deep down you owe it, at least show 1 of you guys is a man of their word.
Pay up, Justin.
Justin, hold firm and thank you. You may be a lonely voice here but you are not alone in your views.
All food production in this country is subsidised, folks. Even the farmers markets contributors are eligible for breaks, to reward their good works,I suppose. And the mid-west ranchers who are looking after all of those displaced wild ponies? They probably won’t want to give them back, since they’re a good income stream, thanks to you and me.Someone gets to pay, no matter what.
Yes, and in this case, those paying aren’t just taxpayers, but hundreds of millions of acres of public lands damaged by livestock overgrazing, and the attendant destruction of biodiversity, wildlife and watersheds. This is a disproportionate amount of damage that supplies under 3% of the nation’s beef. Adding insult to injury, most public lands ranchers do not accept responsibility for that, and many don’t even recognize their grazing leases as being a form of public assistance. I could go on.
Please do, Vickery. Please expand on how grazing leases are a form of public assistance even though I’ve already provided you the necessary materials to show how it’s simply not true. But, by all means, please show your stance so I can refute it too.
The solution to this mess is to acknowledge that the “business” of Western cattle ranching on public lands exists only on artificial life support. Bundy et al are simply freeloaders, who think that waving bibles and wearing cowboy hats gives them a pass on what, in any other context (e.g., SNAP) would be called “welfare”. I would advocate for a 10 year program to re-purpose those subsidies, train Western cattle ranchers for a new economic activity that is not environmentally destructive, and puncture once and for all the absurd myth of god-fearing, rugged individualist patriot rancher.
Hatchit piece…I want to see all the softies on here whining for the wild horses, and wild land you’ll never see cause you aren’t interested in leaving your ivory towers to even go there, get off your butt and raise your own meat. According to the constitution that you’ve never read this land is not all ours cause the federal government is legally not suppose to ne holding this land. It belongs to the states it falls in…so tired of ignorant whiners..I’d love to see ya’ll get off your pansy butts and do one tenth of the work this ranchers do so you can eat your fillet mingun with feat of it being tainted meat from china…ya’ll disgust me. Sheep you are.
You did everything but address the numbers which do not lie.
PS: I stopped eating filet mignon years ago. And I stay away from food with China as a country of origin. Further, there are many commenters here who live in Western states. More, probably, than ranchers who, it may be argued, don’t get out of their manure silos much. If they did, they might come to understand why the subsidies they get aren’t welcome by the taxpayers who pay for them.
Watch the documentary, “Cowspiracy, the Substainability Secret”. Cattle are destructive to our environment. My dad raised them and I saw what they did to his farm–polluted water with E.coli, caused erosion, ruined trees, etc. Ranchers and farmers have caused the killing of 2.7 predators too.
Thank you, Vickery…… Many BLESSINGS
Thank you, Vickery ….Well said!
Putting money back into caring for rangeland does not seem like a problem to me, and it certainly doesn’t put money into the pockets of anyone I know who ranches. In fact, my family is required to build fences, water holes, and restore land at their own expense in addition to what the government might do. If there is government welfare connected to rangeland use, it is for wild mustangs who have no one but the taxpayer footing the bill for the enormous damage they do to the fragile eco systems they trample. …..and for their care in blm holding corrals. There are 70,000 excess mustangs now over the 27,500 the ranges can handle sustainably. This problem was caused by laws and lawsuits wild horse lovers passed and filed that tie the hands of government agencies who are charged with managing them sustainably. It is now a crisis and you and all the other advocates have to step up now and take responsibility for the problems you have caused. It is long overdue that wild horse advocates work for the 27,500 the range WILL sustain rather than supporting a wild horse over population that is devastating great swathes of the west. The so called “welfare ranchers” are not allowed to use more than their allotted share. What makes you believe wild mustangs should have limitless access?
To bad people think it is a welfare program. What bothers me the most is who among all the the people want to have to pay the price that beef will go to if they start raising the rates for grazing the cattle. Nuff said.
Americans would eat less beef (as they used to) and our public lands would be in better shape, if it wasn’t so cheap to over graze, if the price of beef wasn’t artificially held low. It’s a subsidy, and subsidies are a form of welfare.
The welare ranchers only supply 3% or less of the beef. Farmers supply the rest. The 1990-91 GAO stydy found that the millions of cattle on our public lands destroy the range and riparian areas and not the few thousand wild horses. Wild horses are symbiotic to ecosystems and benefit other wild animals also. THere used to be 2 milion wild horses before ranchers introduced cattle and started killing them as well as the predators.
listen to biologists. like mr bauer and craig downer. some of you people havent got one clue aboutt the truth. blm lies PEROD and animals will go to extinction and our lands will be stolen. it is happening now just like we said. its illegal and horrific. and anyone who said horses shit noxious weeds? they are fire preventers cows do not eat cheatgrass horses DO! but they certainly arent out there trampling the range! cows are and cows produce more methane gas than the worlds cars. they stand in place filthy the water horses do not do that. and btw its proven they are native. but even if you think they are not? they are our symbols of freedom they are not livestock. did u see how many cows fought in our wars or became police cows? they need to be left alone and blm has to stop lying to us and our reps who lie too! here is ONE artical if u can phathom what a biologist says and its from yrs ago there are even fewere now. man destroys range cows destroy range no horses trample wildlife at all! In a recent article that was published in the Washington Post, under Health and Science, entitled “U.S. looking for ideas to help manage wild-horse overpopulation”, a plea was sent out by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), a plea that requested ideas as to how to manage the wild horse and burro population in the wild. This plea was reinforced by claims that the wild horse and burro population, on the western rangelands, was approximately 40,605 wild horses and or burros. Additionally it was stated that there would be at least a 15% to 20% annual population growth rate of these wild horses and that in 6 years, by the year 2020, that number will have grown to be about 145,000 wild horses and burros in the wild. Its claims also stated that contraceptive efforts had failed, and that the range lands could only sustain about 26,677 wild horses and or burros. The undying claims of the BLM are that it is, in its efforts, out to help maintain a thriving natural ecological balance. This is the motivation to justify its roundups of thousands of wild horses that it says are destroying the rangelands of the west. As a biologist, there is a scientific response to these allegations that the public needs to take into consideration before swallowing these claims of the BLM.
There are numerous factors that govern population growth in the wild for wild horses and burros, or lack of population growth. The National Academy of Sciences did a study of the wild horse populations, using 8,764 wild horses, in the wild, as a basis for the following statistics. It found that 1st year mortality rates annually ranged between 14% and 50%. Beyond this, adult mortality was found to annually range between 5% and 25%. What this means is, that in any given year, equine mortality on the range lands would be anywhere between 19% and 75% of the total population of wild horses. I would ask that the reader to let these percentages sink in. This mortality occurs naturally, due to predators of the wild horses and burros, which do indeed exist, along with environmental and weather related factors, which also affect competitive grazers. In addition sex ratios were found to average around 55% female and 45% male. This must be considered as obviously only females can put a foal on the ground. This is something that the BLM statistics do not reflect, but have conveniently neglected in its population growth claims. The genders of foals must be taken into consideration, as not all foals are female, and only those that are females can begin to reproduce, but only after the 2nd year. Added to this are considerations of delayed implantation, when the gestation period of a mare actually extends, due to stressful conditions on the range. Spontaneous abortion also needs to be mentioned, along with selective breeding by the band stallions, whereby perhaps only one mare, if any at all, are bred, under harsh range conditions. It then must be stated that added to this natural inhibition are those artificial adjustments added by the BLM that only serve to encourage the extinction of these wild ones. The use of the PZP contraceptive is one, which has been found to inhibit reproduction in those mares that were treated, for up to 2 years, carrying with it other physiological side effects. After the roundups of the BLM, which have been very aggressive, and relentless, roundups of which this individual has both documented and videoed, sex ratios are adjusted to roughly 47% female to 53% male. This man made decrease in female density, along with the aggressive use of PZP by the BLM, have devastating effects on wild horse and burro populations. These only encourage annual reproductive rates that are far less than natural on range mortality. The result is diminishing numbers of wild horses and burros on the rangelands of the west. To further complicate population growth are the countless illegal killings of the wild horses, motivated by age old prejudices, most of which go uncaught. Also what must be included are the aggressive roundups of the BLM. All of these variables serve not only to disprove the astronomical population growth rates of the BLM but also overall numbers in the wild.
The false allegations, by the BLM, that the numbers of wild horses on the range, could increase from 40,605 to 145,000 by the year 2020, a 6 year period, can easily be illustrated by a similar scenario. This occurred in the 2009/2010 Calico Mt. round ups, that occurred in northwestern Nevada. In this situation, according to the BLM, at the end of the 2004/2005 gather there were 575 horses total existing in the five HMAs making up what would be called the Calico Mt complex. That population of 575, according to the BLM, in just a 4 year period, had grown to 3055 horses. Of those 3055 horses and burros the BLM intended to gather 2,476 – 2,787 horses, then releasing up to 264. The sex ratio after the 2004/2005 gather, however, was reported to be only 47% female and 53% male, which means only 47% of those horses would be able to contribute to a population growth. Added to this, the PZP contraceptive had been administered, which was still in the experimental stage, and has been proven to disrupt the social structure of the wild horse and burro bands as well as to result in an increase of futile matings. Of those 47% mares, 239 were said to have been inoculated with this PZP contraceptive which has roughly a two year effect.
Second, as stated earlier, it has been found that the minimum adult on the range annual mortality to be approximately 5%. This factor also was not included in the BLM’s calculations which further reduced the possibility of this meager wild horse population of 575 in reaching 3055 horses in just a 4 year period. Indeed, the number of horses that were rounded up, were only 1,992, at which point no other horses could be found. Yet calculating a population growth from 575 horses to even 1,992 horses in a 4 year period, including just a 5% annual mortality, 47% of the population being mares being able to put a foal on the ground, and eliminating 239 of that 47% for the first 2 years because of PZP, it would require a 125% annual reproductive rate to offset these variables to reach that number. Such reproductive rates do not occur in nature, which leads one to question or theorize exactly how those horses got out there!! To state that 40,605 wild horses could increase to 145,000 horses in just a 6 year period, while factoring in natural mortality rates along with all other natural variables, would require astronomical reproductive rates to offset those variables. Such reproductive rates do not and never will occur in nature. Indeed, using the BLM’s own population statistics, factoring in nature’s mortality, sex ratios, aggressive use of PZP, while subtracting wild horses that have been rounded up, the numbers of wild horses and or burros remaining in the wild are in the low teens, if that. Our wild horses and burros, existing in the wild, are close to extinction!!
wild horses in Montana’s Pryor MountainsIn spite of the BLM’s assertions, that it is striving to maintain a thriving natural ecological balance, its methods and the manner in which they are being carried out, are anything but natural, nor do they bring about any balance. Indeed, it is by these very methods, that the BLM uses, that the wild horses and burros, along with other aspects on the range are being thrown out of balance. Nature, through its own mechanisms, has been maintaining what the BLM have termed, a thriving natural ecological balance, for thousands of years, without the artificial methods of mankind. Indeed, it is mankind’s incessant belief that he must manage nature, which has thrown nature continually and consistently out of balance. This makes the wild horse and burro program of the BLM completely unnecessary. This program, however, is the very avenue by which the wild horses and burros will be raped from their legally designated lands, and nature destroyed.
This brings up a vital question to the reader. With such factors as these existing, that govern wild horse and burros populations, along with the unnatural efforts of the BLM, that further degrade these same numbers, what are the true motivations of the BLM for distorting the numbers of wild horses and destroying these vital natural resources to true ecological balance? The answer lies partly in livestock, mining, and energy interests. The cow flop gets deeper when one realizes that in order for the BLM to acquire continued and increasing appropriations from congress, it has to justify the appropriations that it has already been getting. Appropriations means not only a continued Wild Horse and Burro Program, but a lot of money to be made, not just for BLM employees but contractors that the BLM employs in the roundups, like the Cattoors, and Sun J, helicopter contactors. This translates to a situation where the BLM has to somehow convince the public and congress, by whatever means possible, that the wild horses and burros are breeding like rabbits, and that the numbers are way out of control. Here comes the deceit and distortion of numbers. Somehow the public, for the most part swallows what the government is saying, hook line and sinker, without seeking the truly scientific truth, a truth which is for the most part grade school science. For example, the BLM could say that the appropriate management level of wild horses in a certain area is only 600 wild horses. In truth there may be only 300 wild horses there, but the BLM, to justify removal, continued appropriations, and appeasement of the livestock industry, will claim 900 horses existing in the area. It will in turn say we need to round up 300 horses to bring the numbers back to its appropriate management level of 600, (see article entitled “The Unnatural Concept of the Appropriate Management Level”). It will roundup 300 horses, zero out the area to make it available for the livestock industry, and still claim that there are 600 wild horses existing in that area. This is a simple illustration but it is a tactic of the BLM. This further translates to a governmental conspiracy by our government against wild horse and burro populations, in the wild, (see books written by wildlife ecologist, Craig Downer, “The Wild Horse Conspiracy “, and “Wild Horses: Living Symbols of Freedom”).
In conclusion, the wild horses and burros are a vital component to ecological balance out on the range lands of the west, the benefits of which are innumerable as opposed to cattle. The numbers of these beautiful animals must be dictated, however, by nature itself and not man, through its own mechanisms. Only in this manner will wild horse numbers be in balance with all other forms of wildlife, including those of the predators of the wild horses. The wild horses are just this, wild, and in the wild, no matter how harsh or how mild the conditions may be, is where their beauty and their benefits exist and can be experienced. The range lands that were once filled with vast numbers of wild horses, and other forms of wildlife, are now quickly dying due to the artificial efforts of our government. The rangelands, however, can easily sustain not only the wild horses and burros existing out there now, but also every one of those in holding facilities, which now number well over 40,000. The truth is that every one of those wild horses and burros in holding facilities, if released back to the areas from which they were taken, along with those in the wild, would help bring the balance back to the rangelands, a balance that is so very vital!!
Robert C. Bauer