BigHornRam
Well-known member
Poor Conrad! One minute everyone is blasting him for bringing home the bacon. The next minute they are blasting him for trying to save the taxpayers some money. No wonder nobody wants to get anything accomplished in D. C.. Those that try, spend more time picking bird shot out of their backside.
Grim provision shows lack of horse sense - Sunday, Dec. 12, 2004
SUMMARY: Sen. Conrad Burns' horse-killing amendment addresses a legitimate problem - insensitively.
While others in Congress were packing billions of dollars worth of goodies for the folks back home into the Omnibus Appropriations Bill sent to the president last week, Montana's Sen. Conrad Burns busied himself with insertion of a rather odd - and, as it turns out, controversial - little amendment effectively authorizing the wholesale slaughter of wild horses. Just our luck. Other states get loads of pork, and we wind up with blood on our hands.
Burns' amendment touches on a legitimate problem. But his solution and especially the manner in which it was legislated is earning Burns a well-deserved verbal horse-whipping in the national press. The state made famous for its wanton slaughter of Yellowstone National Park's bison as they struggle to reach winter range now has a senator who wants to feed enduring symbols of the Wild West to Frenchmen.
The root of the problem is that too many wild horses roam public lands in the West, mostly the Southwest. The land only has so much carrying capacity. Overgrazing by wild horses is no better than overgrazing by domestic livestock. Responsible stewardship of both horses and land requires managing populations. The federal Bureau of Land Management estimates some 36,000 wild horses roam lands that can sustain only 26,000. Overpopulation affects the health of the land, plants and wildlife - as well as the health of wild horses and burros.
Unlike edible big game animals, wild horse populations aren't something you can control through hunting. And no one wants to see these magnificent animals gunned down and left for scavengers. Instead, the BLM manages horse and burro populations by capturing surplus animals from overstocked ranges and offering them to the public for adoption. Unfortunately, not all these animals are desirable or suitable as pets, hobby horses or pasture ornaments. Thousands of them finish out their lives living in feedlots awaiting unlikely adoption.
Enter Sen. Burns. The amendment he slipped into the spending bill directs the BLM to auction off wild horses and burros aged 10 years and over if they haven't been adopted after three trips through the adoption process. The amendment eliminates the longstanding restriction barring people from slaughtering wild horses obtained from the government. Right now, there are some 14,000 horses cooling their hooves in government feedlots. Unsuitable for adoption, thousands of these animals are destined for the knacker if sold without restriction.
Perhaps there is no more practical solution for culling wild horse herds. But surely there's a better way to introduce that solution than sneaking it into a huge spending bill. In tacking his amendment, unannounced, onto a totally unrelated piece of legislation, Burns bypassed all the discussion, hearings and debate that might have helped the public get its mind around this thorny issue. His method foreclosed all possible alternatives. And, likely, it stirred up enough controversy to spark the kind of emotional backlash that could undermine efforts to manage wild horse herds over the long-run.
One final point: The BLM is the agency saddled with the responsibility for managing wild horses, and it says it never asked Burns for his "help." An aide doing the talking for Burns Friday says he doesn't know who asked the senator to introduce the amendment. This is something worth knowing. If Burns and - through its lack of due diligence - Congress aren't going to defer to the professionals in charge of resource management, then the public at least deserves to know who's calling the shots on public range lands.
Grim provision shows lack of horse sense - Sunday, Dec. 12, 2004
SUMMARY: Sen. Conrad Burns' horse-killing amendment addresses a legitimate problem - insensitively.
While others in Congress were packing billions of dollars worth of goodies for the folks back home into the Omnibus Appropriations Bill sent to the president last week, Montana's Sen. Conrad Burns busied himself with insertion of a rather odd - and, as it turns out, controversial - little amendment effectively authorizing the wholesale slaughter of wild horses. Just our luck. Other states get loads of pork, and we wind up with blood on our hands.
Burns' amendment touches on a legitimate problem. But his solution and especially the manner in which it was legislated is earning Burns a well-deserved verbal horse-whipping in the national press. The state made famous for its wanton slaughter of Yellowstone National Park's bison as they struggle to reach winter range now has a senator who wants to feed enduring symbols of the Wild West to Frenchmen.
The root of the problem is that too many wild horses roam public lands in the West, mostly the Southwest. The land only has so much carrying capacity. Overgrazing by wild horses is no better than overgrazing by domestic livestock. Responsible stewardship of both horses and land requires managing populations. The federal Bureau of Land Management estimates some 36,000 wild horses roam lands that can sustain only 26,000. Overpopulation affects the health of the land, plants and wildlife - as well as the health of wild horses and burros.
Unlike edible big game animals, wild horse populations aren't something you can control through hunting. And no one wants to see these magnificent animals gunned down and left for scavengers. Instead, the BLM manages horse and burro populations by capturing surplus animals from overstocked ranges and offering them to the public for adoption. Unfortunately, not all these animals are desirable or suitable as pets, hobby horses or pasture ornaments. Thousands of them finish out their lives living in feedlots awaiting unlikely adoption.
Enter Sen. Burns. The amendment he slipped into the spending bill directs the BLM to auction off wild horses and burros aged 10 years and over if they haven't been adopted after three trips through the adoption process. The amendment eliminates the longstanding restriction barring people from slaughtering wild horses obtained from the government. Right now, there are some 14,000 horses cooling their hooves in government feedlots. Unsuitable for adoption, thousands of these animals are destined for the knacker if sold without restriction.
Perhaps there is no more practical solution for culling wild horse herds. But surely there's a better way to introduce that solution than sneaking it into a huge spending bill. In tacking his amendment, unannounced, onto a totally unrelated piece of legislation, Burns bypassed all the discussion, hearings and debate that might have helped the public get its mind around this thorny issue. His method foreclosed all possible alternatives. And, likely, it stirred up enough controversy to spark the kind of emotional backlash that could undermine efforts to manage wild horse herds over the long-run.
One final point: The BLM is the agency saddled with the responsibility for managing wild horses, and it says it never asked Burns for his "help." An aide doing the talking for Burns Friday says he doesn't know who asked the senator to introduce the amendment. This is something worth knowing. If Burns and - through its lack of due diligence - Congress aren't going to defer to the professionals in charge of resource management, then the public at least deserves to know who's calling the shots on public range lands.
