BLM's Wild Horses mtg in Boise, Idaho - Page 7 - The Horse Forum
View Poll Results: Should Wild Mares be Darted?
With PZP Contraceptive 2 66.67%
With GnRH Sterilization 1 33.33%
Voters: 3. You may not vote on this poll

 148Likes
Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #61 of 82 Old 07-12-2019, 09:38 AM Thread Starter
Foal
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: By Cowtown NJ (kinda)
Posts: 194
• Horses: 0
it sounds like the public needs to unite and question the BLM and their management of America's public lands

reminds me of Tim DeChristopher saving attempting to save 22,500 areas (116 parcels) https://rtfitchauthor.com/2013/07/02...ption-exposed/

these posts have certainly educated me about some of the issues facing America and that we all basically want the same thing a healthy and happy land and animals
pasomountain likes this.
WildAbtHorses is offline  
post #62 of 82 Old 07-12-2019, 10:45 AM
Yearling
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: California
Posts: 825
• Horses: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsms View Post
For fiscal year 2018:

Beginning inventory = 81,951
Ending inventory = 88,090

The current estimated on-range wild horse and burro population (as of March 1, 2019) is 87,885, a 7.25 percent increase over the 2018 estimate of 81,951.

That gives a 7.25% increase on the range at the end of the year. But 11,472 were removed, so the total population increase was 17,611. With a beginning inventory of 81,951, that was an increase in population of 21.5% in one year. Had the BM done nothing, the end year number on the range would have been 99,701.

Hard numbers. My guess of 20% was an underestimate.
The 11k horses removed do not count toward population increase. They clearly decreased the population by 11k by removing them. The population increased by about 6k. Around 7% growth. You can't just add those 11k horses to the 6k horses and say that's the population growth, it's not.

Here's why this is tricky, even to people who are trained in counting, tracking, and monitoring populations. Say for example you took 200 horses off the range in 2015, then 3 years later you reintroduced those animals to the range. Would you count that as population growth? You could say the population decreased then increased, but did the population change if you compare the years 2014 to 2018? What if you compare the years 2016 to 2018?
Filou is online now  
post #63 of 82 Old 07-12-2019, 11:02 AM
Showing
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: southern Arizona
Posts: 11,793
• Horses: 4
Quote:
Originally Posted by Filou View Post
The 11k horses removed do not count toward population increase. They clearly decreased the population by 11k by removing them. The population increased by about 6k. Around 7% growth. You can't just add those 11k horses to the 6k horses and say that's the population growth, it's not.
Not only CAN I add them, I MUST. I was giving 20% growth as the population increase if horses are not controlled in any way. If the BLM does nothing, horse herds can grow at 20% a year. Or more. Which is why control is vital.

To calculate that growth, one must include BOTH the increase of the horses left on the range WITH all those removed as a control measure. Once you know the rate of growth without control measures, you can determine how much control is needed. You can also see that right now the BLM is only about 50% effective at controlling the growth, at a time when the herds are already 3 times larger than the feed available for sustained use.

If we are only 50% effective at controlling current growth, and the herds need to be reduced by 70%, then obviously what we are doing now - our best efforts - are grossly inadequate. It makes discussion of shipping mustangs to Germany or increasing their use by the Border Patrol ridiculous! We are not even controlling the current growth, let alone making a dent in reducing the herds to where they are sustainable!
COWCHICK77, boots and Avna like this.

Riders ask "How?" Horsemen ask "Why?"
bsms is offline  
post #64 of 82 Old 07-12-2019, 11:18 AM
Yearling
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: California
Posts: 825
• Horses: 2
Even if you include the removed horses and their 7% growth it comes out to about 750 additional horses. If you include the 11k horses, and their theoretical 750 horse growth rate then the population growth % does not change.

Calculating the population growth based on the BLM doing nothing is different than calculating the actual population growth rate. Obviously the BLM is removing the horses, so it's not accurate to include removed animals in the growth estimations.

Last edited by Filou; 07-12-2019 at 11:27 AM.
Filou is online now  
post #65 of 82 Old 07-12-2019, 11:47 AM
Weanling
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 588
• Horses: 0
??? He is calculating overall uncontrolled growth to establish what the baseline would need to be for effective management. Uncontrolled growth is, as bsms says, over 20%.
COWCHICK77, bsms and boots like this.

Absorb what is useful, reject what is useless, add what is essentially your own. - Bruce Lee
AndyTheCornbread is offline  
post #66 of 82 Old 07-12-2019, 12:18 PM
Yearling
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: California
Posts: 825
• Horses: 2
Hey, that's totally fine, but that's not an accurate description of what is going on on the range!

Horses ARE being removed from the range therefore it IS controlled. I think that makes the 7% a more accurate number. It's not a hypothetical situation, it's a real situation.

The difference is one is a net increase, the other is a gross increase. Both are correct, but one is more accurate of what IS happening on the range, and one is more accurate of WHAT COULD BE happening on the range.

Last edited by Filou; 07-12-2019 at 12:24 PM.
Filou is online now  
post #67 of 82 Old 07-12-2019, 12:56 PM
Yearling
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: California
Posts: 825
• Horses: 2
Hmm,
Last post didn't go through...


Another way of looking at this.

By removing 11,000 horses the BLM has mitigated 13% of population growth on the range.
Filou is online now  
post #68 of 82 Old 07-12-2019, 01:20 PM
Showing
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: southern Arizona
Posts: 11,793
• Horses: 4
My original quote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by bsms View Post
...The horrible problem is that mustangs make lots of horses just like him, increasing 20% each year, and there is NO MARKET for them...
The mustangs make horses at a rate of 20% or more a year. They have to go somewhere. Where do they go? From the BLM:

Wild horse and burro program in Fiscal Year 2018.

Total beginning fiscal year: 81,951
Total removed: 11,472
Total on range at the end of fiscal year: 87,885
Estimated sustainable population: 26,690

Of the 11,472 removed:
Total placed into adoption: 3,158
Sold "to any willing buyers": 1,451
Added to holding pens/pastures: 6,863
Total in holding: 48,375. max capacity of holding: 56,581

BTW: The total removed greatly increased this year. In 2017 the total removed from the range was 4,209, in 2016 it was 3,320 and in 2015 it was 3,819.

61% of the Wild Horse and Burro budget is being spent on holding horses. That is down from 66% in 2015. All data from here:

https://www.blm.gov/programs/wild-ho...m/program-data
boots likes this.

Riders ask "How?" Horsemen ask "Why?"
bsms is offline  
post #69 of 82 Old 07-12-2019, 01:58 PM
Yearling
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: California
Posts: 825
• Horses: 2
I can appreciate that question. It's a different kind of discussion from the population growth management angle.

If the BLM controls their range population growth potential through capturing and removing mustangs, what will they do with all the animals they capture and hold?
Filou is online now  
post #70 of 82 Old 07-12-2019, 03:29 PM
Weanling
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 344
• Horses: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by boots View Post
@pasomountain . The National Cattleman's Association is NOT in favor of exterminating the feral horses.

Ranchers like seeing them. We don't mind feeding them when they come on our private property. Just like we don't mind feeding and watering all the deer, elk, antelope, birds, rodents, and amphibians.

But we want sensible management that benefits all species.

Not every rancher that uses govt leases belongs to the cattlemen association. Some raise sheep. . But y'all should appreciate the work they do improving conditions for wildlife.

How many acres of riparian ground have you improved? How many acres of forage have you removed the noxious weeds from? How many roads and paths that have begun eroding into streams from recreational users have you and your friends recovered?

You're welcome.
Good for them. They should repair the destruction caused by millions of cattle. What put me off from the cattlemen or ranchers or whatever is when I read years ago that they are behind the slaughtering of the last wild buffalo in Yellowstone--

"ďIt would be devastating. It could put you out of business,Ē says Gilles Stockton, director of the Montana Cattlemanís Associationís central district. BUT
there has never been a confirmed instance of bison spreading brucellosis to cattle. Thatís not to say that buffalo canít infect cows, the way several other wild species, like elk, are known to do. They certainly could, at least in theory. But a buffalo-to-cow transmission has never been documentedónot in the past century, not ever."
You notice they are not slaughtering all the elk that could infect cattle though because elk bring in a lot of money from hunting.

Now if the Cattlemen are forming an alliance with wild horse advocates then it's more likely because these new sterilization events will drastically reduce the herds that compete with their precious cattle--not because they all have warm fuzzy feelings about mustangs--

https://www.statesmanjournal.com/sto...ps/3574917002/

Sheep are also destructive because they rip grass out by the roots--unlike horses who just crop the grass.

Horses are proof that God wants us to be happy
pasomountain is offline  
Closed Thread

Tags
blm , bureau of land management , hilton boise idaho , july10-2019 , wild horses

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the The Horse Forum forums, you must first register.

Already have a Horse Forum account?
Members are allowed only one account per person at the Horse Forum, so if you've made an account here in the past you'll need to continue using that account. Please do not create a new account or you may lose access to the Horse Forum. If you need help recovering your existing account, please Contact Us. We'll be glad to help!

New to the Horse Forum?
Please choose a username you will be satisfied with using for the duration of your membership at the Horse Forum. We do not change members' usernames upon request because that would make it difficult for everyone to keep track of who is who on the forum. For that reason, please do not incorporate your horse's name into your username so that you are not stuck with a username related to a horse you may no longer have some day, or use any other username you may no longer identify with or care for in the future.



User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome