Conference noted::equitation

    
    Ever since the program was started the BLM was supposed to 
    destroy any/all unadoptables. They have not been doing so,
    as no one was enforcing it and they didn't want to see the
    destruction of all the animals.  The horses that were going
    to the rodeos and such places, were the older unadoptables.
    It's difficult, there are over 6,000 horses in holding pens
    across the country, until someone comes up with a plan,
    it's not going to get much better?  They're still looking into
    controlling the population by some sort of birth control, but
    that is in the middle of legislation so it won't be  in the
    immediate future.
    
    

It is unfortunate that the mass adoptions are creating more problems than
solutions.  It seems to me that allowing large numbers to be sent to a
centrally located holding area - closer to more potential owners - would
initiate more adoptions.  I don't think this process should be eliminated,
but should be monitored more closely.

For most people, like myself, the expense and expertise necessary for the
adoption of these animals is out of the question.  If only a better program
were created to solve some of the problems associated with it, as Linda has
mentioned.  If enough experienced horsepeople could get together and brain-
storm the issues I bet they'd find answers to this situation.  

I'm wondering if some of the decisions the BLM have made regarding resale, etc
have really hurt the program.  Economically speaking, after all, horses are 
expensive to keep and you can't be sure that the horse will ever be a 
useful individual.  Wouldn't it make more sense to allow a small profit margin
on the sale of a rehabilited horse by an experienced trainer?  

just my two cents....
    
    

>                       -< BLM Wearing Black Hats Again >-

   set flame = MAXIMUM
   
   What an unforunate title for this note.  The truth is, as shown in reply
   .1, the folks at the BLM are really the guys in the white hats. They have
   been breaking the law for quite some time now by not doing what the law
   said they must do, namely, destroy the un-adoptable animals. 
   
   It really irritates me when I see someone go off half-cocked because of a
   biased story they heard or read.  I have personnel experience with some
   folks at the BLM, and they too are real people who care about the animals
   they have to deal with. 
   
   So, lets get our stories straight after this, OK?

   set flame = off
   
   I agree there may be a better way to solve the problem, and it's not
   letting the horses run loose.  They overpopulate and eat their way out of
   range land because they have no natural predators. 

   But, until a better way is found, let's all do what we can to support
   the BLM because they're doing a hell of good job in a very trying
   situation.

   Peace
   
   			Marty

    Dear Marty, I don't intend to carry this on to hundreds of flame-on
    and flame-off notes.  I am and have been involved and concerned
    about this wild horse problem from the start so I didn't "just"
    read an article on this.  What I and so many other people get tired of
    is the fact that the biggest complainers of the wild horse population
    (the ranchers) try to get the profits off the wild horse sales one way
    or the other and the BLM supports them. The BLM knew what the ranchers
    were going to do with their "adopted" horses yet sanctioned it.
    
    Why sell the so-called "adopted" horses to the ranchers so they
    can in turn make the profit from selling them through the auction
    sales for slaughter?  If those horses cannot be adopted due to poor
    health, age, etc. I'd rather see them put down humanely right there
    in the holding pens.
    
    

An article from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer dated 20-AUG-87    

Walla Walla, Washington
=======================
INMATES WON'T BE WILD HORSE TAMERS AFTER ALL

A program that would have allowed minimum-security inmates at the Washington
State Penitentiary to tame wild horses has fallen through.

The Bureau of Land Management, which manages public lands in 11 Western
states, has discussed such a program with the state Department of Corrections
for more than a year.

BLM Officials were hoping to sign a contract with the Corrections Department
in June, but pulled out because of the high cost and high number of horses
associated with the program, Rick McComas, a BLM natural resources specialist
in Spokane, said yesterday.

Plans called for the transfer of about 300 wild horses, mostly from Oregon,
to specially built facilities at the Walla Walla prison by fall.  BLM was
to pay the prison $2.50 a day per horse, with the prison assuming housing
and other cost.

    Just a note in response to .5, that's only in that particular prison.
    Their program is currently working well in the Nevada prison and
    I believe New Mexico.  The inmates only handle them (no riding).
    They gentle them for vet/blacksmith care, brushing and leading.
    I believe you can specify one that's saddle broke, but it costs
    the buyer money (approx. $400) and they only do it on a request
    basis. Not enough experienced inmates.
    

   re: .4
   
   OK, I'll leave the flame off.  But, I feel that I must answer your
   question.
   
>    Why sell the so-called "adopted" horses to the ranchers so they
>    can in turn make the profit from selling them through the auction
>    sales for slaughter?  If those horses cannot be adopted due to poor

   I think there's a very good reason for selling the horses to the
   ranchers.  The horses prior to being captured were grazing on the
   ranchers range and reducing it's capacity to nuture cattle.  This 
   means the ranchers are unable to make as much money as they would if
   the horses weren't there.  Ranching is a very labor intensive and low
   paying proposition, so why souldn't they make some money on animals
   that are using their resources and reducing their abilty to make a
   profit.  (the folks who make money on beef are those with feed lots,
   and they don't make all that much).  Also, it would cost the BLM money
   to kill the unadoptable horses, and if they sell them then the BLM has
   more money to support the program, maybe enough to be able to move some
   to areas with a larger population where they would be adopted. 
   
   I have one other thing to say about ranchers.  They are dependent
   on horses to make their living, and the vast majority of them love
   horses as much as it appears you do.  But, and it's a big but, since
   horses are not pets (usually) they treat them differently.

   You're probably thinking that I'm on the side of the ranchers,
   well you're right, BUT, I'm also on the side of the horses.  What
   I really am is pragmatic and objective.  ie. I don't anthropomorphize
   horses, and I don't consider them pets.

   I read this several times and I think I managed to keep the flame
   off.  If I haven't, then I apologize.
   
   Peace
   
   			Marty

.7
    No, the flame was kept down enough.  Now I know why you feel the
    way you do.  However, you misinterpret my feelings.  Although I
    admire the horse very much, I don't consider them to be "human beings"
    nor do I believe a horse's use is another "pet".  I realize
    there are many ranchers who also admire their horses - usually blooded
    stock such as Quarter Horses - and have a good working relationship
    with them.  To them a horse is easily replaced and not much different
    than a machine.  
    
    I still don't agree (that's your opinion and I respect it) that
    the ranchers should profit in the sale of unadoptable wild horses.
    I don't mind the BLM profiting so as to maintain their expenses
    while keeping the horses before adopted but not to send the animals
    right back to the very thing many of us (and the BLM) tried to rescue
    them from - overcrowded cattle trucks on their way to the
    slaughterhouse because the ranchers don't want to share the land
    between their cattle and the wild horses.
    
    Didn't I read someplace in this notes file that cows and horses
    actually benefit from grazing the same areas or was that regarding
    something else?  Anyway, I don't believe the wild horses have anything
    to do with the ranchers not getting their top $ for their beef.
    It could be caused by more vegetarians now (I'm not one) or government
    restrictions such as the farmer has to endure.  
    
    I do agree that the wild horse herds may have to be culled sometimes
    until there is a better solution to the breeding problem.  I
    don't agree that they should be subjected to unnecessary cruelties
    just because they happen to be in the way of the rancher.  This
    kind of thing has happened too often in the past not only to animals
    but also to human beings who were in the way and not considered
    useful.
    
    I too apologize if there seemed to be flames here; didn't mean to
    emit any.
    
    Have a good day.
    Pat
    

   re: .8
   
>                                                      I realize
>    there are many ranchers who also admire their horses - usually blooded
>    stock such as Quarter Horses - and have a good working relationship
>    with them.  To them a horse is easily replaced and not much different
>    than a machine.  

   Most ranchers don't have blooded quarter horses.  My statement still
   stands, most ranchers care a great deal about the their horses.
   There's a great C&W song about the greatest cowboy of them all,
   it talks nothing about cows.  The song is about the relationship
   of the man and his horse (if it were about a man and a woman it'd
   be a love song), and that's how ranchers feel about horses.  So,
   I don't agree that ranchers think of horses as machines.

>                     Anyway, I don't believe the wild horses have anything
>    to do with the ranchers not getting their top $ for their beef.

   I agree feral horses have nothing to do with ranchers getting top
   dollar for their beef.  
   
   What the feral horses do is reduce the carrying capacity of the land
   for cattle.  Here in New Mexico a majority of the ranches have carrying
   capacities of 4-10 cow/calf units per section (640 acres).  So, five or
   ten horses can use the resources of an entire section.  Consider this
   example:  A small ranch, say of ten sections, with a capacity of 7
   cow/calf units per section.  This ranch will support 70 cow/calf units.
   Suppose there are ten feral horses sharing this land.  This ranch can
   then only support 63 cow/calf units, a reduction of 10%.  His income
   will be reduced by about that amount, but his expenses are very nearly
   the same as if he had all 70 units (taxes, maintenance, working horses,
   etc), and he'll go broke if only a few more horses show up on his land. 
   
   The rancher has fewer cows/calfs to sell per year, hence he doesn't
   make as much money.  That's why I don't see anything wrong with
   ranchers making money by buying and reselling feral horses.  The horses
   are using the ranchers resources without the rancher being able to
   realize anything from that use. 
   
   I'm not trying to change your belief about ranchers making money.
   I'm trying to make it clear that the ranchers aren't the bad guys,
   and neither are the folks at the BLM.  Which was the original intent
   of my flame reply.

   Again, I did not intend to flame, and I apologize in advance for
   any you perceive.
   
   Peace
   
   			Marty

    
     Okay, Marty.  I'm on the side of the Mustangs and your on the side
    of the ranchers and so the battle goes on.
    

    The Sept. issue of Equus has an article on the wild horse/BLM problem.
    The title is 'Time Growing Short for Thousands of Wild Horses As
    16-year Debate Blazes'.  Some of the highlights of the article
    are as follows:
    
    o The BLM proposed to remove nearly 1/2 of the 60,000 wild horses
    
    o As of early June, approx. 10,000 horses were in holding pens
      at a daily cost of $2.55/head (taxpayer tab of $25,000/day
      or $9.3 million/year)
    
    o To reduce financial burden & remove 15,000 head still roaming
      free on public lands, BLM drafted 5 point policy for managing the
      herds. 
      
      - continue Adopt-a-horse program: $125/horse, $75/burro
        adopters must be 18 yrs & over, no prior convictions of inhumane
        treatment & to have suitable facilitied & equip. to handle an animal
      - allow special adoptions at altered fees
      - maintain program at Colorado State Penitentiary & establish
        others like it
      - place horses in privately funded sanctuaries located on private
        land
      - to humanely destroy captured horses remaining after 90-days
        
    o By law, the BLM must provide forage rights for livestock on public
      land.  For $1.35/mo, a rancher may turn out 1 cow & calf or 5 sheep,
      but some ranchers lease the land from the govt, then sublease the
      acreage to other cattlemen for profit.
      
    o The sheep and cattle comsume > than 70% of the available forage,
      the wildlife gets 25%, and the horses only 5%
     
    o The BLM is open to suggestions for revising its proposals
    
    The article is pretty long, but I tried to give some of the details.
    The address to write to for info on the Adopt-a-Horse program:
    
    BLM, Office of Public Affairs (130)
    Rm. 5600 MIB
    Washington, DC 20240
    (202)-343-5717
    
    Comments/suggestions can be addessed to:
    
    The Director (250)
    BLM 909 Premier Bldg.
    Washington, DC 20240
    
    info on private sponsorship:
    
    WIld Horse Sanctuary
    P.O. Drawer B
    Shingletown, CA 96088
    (916)-474-5770
       
     

   re: .10 
    
>     Okay, Marty.  I'm on the side of the Mustangs and your on the side
>    of the ranchers and so the battle goes on.
    
   You're wrong.  I am very much on the side of the mustangs.  What I'm
   against is labeling people who have views that are just as valid as
   your's as being the "BAD" guys.  As I said in .9.   
   
   "I'm trying to make it clear that the ranchers aren't the bad guys, and
    neither are the folks at the BLM.  Which was the original intent of my
    flame reply." 

   Since you want to persist in believing the folks in the BLM and the
   ranchers are the bad guys, I guess you'll continue to ignore the
   perfectly valid reasons (their livelihood) they have for doing what
   they do.
   
   It's obvious that you believe that horses are more important than
   people.  So be it.  I'll not respond again.  As the old saying goes
   'it does no good to beat a dead horse'.

    .12
    
    Since you don't intend to respond anymore, it really doesn't matter
    I guess.  But for your information I "do care about people" as well
    as the welfare of all animals.  I really don't think I said "all"
    BLM people were bad guys (or wearing black hats).  Just stated some
    well known facts about what was the latest happenings to the (I
    believe you referred to them as "feral" horses) captured Mustangs
    and my feelings on the matter.  I never said all ranchers were "bad
    guys".  There are many ranchers (some former BLM personnel) who are trying
    to help the Mustang survive for future generations to enjoy.
    
    

   Feral is a term that applies to formerly domesticated animals that have
   become wild.  The mustangs here in the west, and the dingos in Australia
   are the two best known examples.
   
   Peace
   
   			Marty

    
    Oh, thank you for letting us know what "feral" means.  I'm sure
    none of us really knew.
    
    (Thought you weren't going to respond anymore?  Have you tried "Soapbox"
    yet?  Sounds like your kind of notes file.)
    
    

    
    
    	Folks this notes conference was never intended to be the next
    ROCKY 12.  I suggest that we move on, and discuss other things --
    besides us horse people are suppose to be easy to get along with
    right !?
    
    	=davek./moderator
    

re: .15
    
>    (Thought you weren't going to respond anymore?  Have you tried "Soapbox"
>    yet?  Sounds like your kind of notes file.)

   I don't intend to respond anymore to the discussion on why the BLM (and
   ranchers) are good guys or bad guys, since it's clear that it's a
   religious issue.  I do intend to respond to other discussions. 
   
   Yes, I've tried soapbox.  It seems to be a bunch of sophomoric bullsh*t.
   There doesn't seem to be any real attempt at serious discussion in there,
   so I've removed it from the list of conferences I participate in. 

re: .16

   Sorry Dave, I replied to .15 before I read your note.
   
   Peace
   
   			Marty