Denver area folks invited to RMEF presentation

[RobG]

I know of more than one instance in NV that a judge ruled that the cattle grazing cannot be reduced as the wild horse herds were over objective. Therefore, it could not be determined that the cattle were the cause for the range conditions not meeting standards. AFAIK the funding for horse gathers comes from DC and is not a part of the normal budget. If DC doesn't appopriate the funds, which they haven't been for some time for some places, the horse numbers cannot be removed. That is not "conservation" with any focus on the habitat.

It is quite apparent from you comments you are more a fan of hands off management than I and IMO Big Fin.

You correctly called it management, not "Real Conservation." I got no problem if people want to call public land grazing management.

The last time I ran across the horse issue was twenty years ago. It seemed more similar to the feral cat issue than ESA species related. I.e., it was really the PeTA types that didn't want the horses killed, not the environmentalists. The twist with horses was the anti-cattle folks are involved. Their position was that if the public land is being overgrazed get your *bleeping* cattle off it first.

I couldn't sleep last night so I did some research on the network erroneously called Al Gore's (NECAG). and verified my memory was correct.

I did find a lawsuit: http://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/sltrib/news/57890048-78/wild-horses-blm-utah.html.csp. It was brought by ranchers.

The ranges are deteriorating as wildlife, horses and livestock compete for scarce grasses, brush and water, the ranchers say.

I looked specifically for enviro lawsuits by the CBD and didn't find any, but I did find this press release from them:

SACRAMENTO -- Anti-environmental CA State Sen. Morrow (R-San Diego) has introduced two bills that threaten Anza-Borrego Desert State Park, the largest in the State. His bills to build a road (SB 1338) and to introduce non-native wild horses in Coyote Canyon (SB 1294) are terrible ideas for the environment, and contrary to the purpose and mission of California State Parks.
Roads fragment & damage habitat, stress wildlife, facilitate spread of weeds & trash, and increase water & air pollution. Wild horses have no place in desert ecosystems, and do significant damage to critically important riparian areas such as Coyote Canyon. They also compete with endangered Peninsular Ranges bighorn sheep and other native wildlife for water and limited forage, and may pose a risk of disease to wild bighorns.
The Center for Biological Diversity and other conservation groups support keeping motor vehicles, wild horses and other non-native invasive species out of Coyote Canyon

[edit - I better add that I saw a pile of lawsuits out there from "horse freedom" type groups out there but I vehemently oppose lumping those groups in with anyone but animal rights groups.]

My research was brief and may have missed something, but seemed to confirm what I remembered about the issue and it really isn't comparable to the problem with ESA politics and environmentalists. Let's talk about how "wolves, grizzly bears, lynx, and sage grouse" politics are stopping "Real Conservation" and stop beating this dead horse...

 

[Khunter]

Northwoods if you are commenting on my post, i am not speaking of animal rights groups at all. Speaking of the groups that block so many resource use and extraction proposals accross the west. Citizen action groups, wilderness groups, NIMBYs, and myriad groups with 'conservation' in their name that want broad swaths of public land left untouched and thus unconserved, but rather "preserved".

 

[Big Fin]

Will the presentation delve into the topic of so-called conservation groups that profiteer off the notable species and speak of doing good conservation work but actually do a best nothing and at most great harm?

SFW and BGF as a couple examples...

Only as the comment of "We have our own issues within the conservation world." I suspect when we give the presentation in SLC on April 8th, followers of those groups will be in the room. And, since we allow an open mic for Q&A, I would be very surprised if we get out of there without an audience member trying to make some point about it, pro or con.

Open mics come with great risk, such as in ABQ on Friday when a person went to the open mic and criticized RMEF for defending public land ownership, the agencies, and their professional staff. David Allen spent some time in his portion of the presentation talking about how those who advocate changing ownership of the land as a cure-all for improving land management might want to give more thought to that position. This person who represents a very large constituency wanted to make sure the world knew that their organization disagreed with RMEF's position that state transfer is just another way to rid the public of their land. David stood and gave the person a very informed rebuttal. The person at the mic continued to tell us how "we don't understand" all the issues, etc.. Eventually, it was agreed to disagree.

I can see something like that happening in SLC. We are not inviting that conversation as it is dilutive to the message we are providing here, but we will not back away from the discussion if an audience person brings it up.

 

[elkduds]

These semantic arguments are in the top drawer of the toolbox of "divide and conquer." Had an example in my Inbox yesterday from CO repub congressman Doug Lamborn. He replied to my input opposing state ownership of USFS/BLM lands by spouting a few statistics about how impressive the National Park Service is. Apples vs zebras.

I consider myself a hunter, conservationist and environmentalist, more motivated by principles and outcomes than by bumper stickers. I don't have to agree w every aspect of a position to find value in it. Our system of government was built to encourage compromise because it unifies us. That government currently rejects compromise in favor of division, because we the electorate have put professional opponents in place. We are the only ones that can restore an effective government. While so divided, we are vulnerable to the voice and trend du jour, i.e. federal lands belong to the states, and privatization of outdoor recreation. IMO.

 

[Lv2hnt]

Arizona has been, and continues to be, affected adversely. The problem created by the 1971 equine act is VERY real here in Arizona, as it is in other western states. Politics and its shirt-tail litigation continue to the detriment of wildlife.

The following addresses only the burro issue (free-running horses in the American West compound the issue) ---

"Proper federal resources needed to address stubborn burro issue

It is the role of the Arizona Game and Fish Department to conserve, protect and manage more than 800 wildlife species within the state’s boundaries – more than any non-coastal state in our nation. To fulfill that promise, the Arizona Game and Fish Commission and Department must stand as a barrier against all threats to our wildlife.

It’s a heavy responsibility carried out by all who serve at the Department, and it’s why we are pressuring the federal government to provide the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) with the resources needed to meet its obligations and return the state’s burro populations to appropriate management levels.

Under the Wild Horse and Burro Act of 1971, the state should have no more than 1,316 burros within its borders. Yet surveys estimate the population at 4,411 – more than 235 percent above the appropriate management levels established by Congress and administered by the BLM. Between 2012 and 2014, the BLM has spent more than $216 million to gather, house and feed excess animals until someone adopts them yet the sad reality is that the vast majority are never adopted.

Storing and feeding burros does very little to tackle the real threat looming over our wildlife. If the federal government and horse and burro advocates had the resolve to control the overpopulation of burros, imagine how that $216 million in federal funding could be better spent. It could mean extra dollars to support veteran services, infrastructure needs of our National Parks or programs for our nation’s vulnerable children and the elderly.

Because the problem has gone unabated for decades, we are now in a position where an overabundance of burros, which is a non-native and feral species, now outnumbers our native iconic bighorn sheep population in the Black Mountains near Kingman. This growing imbalance is having a direct impact on the state’s native wildlife and that is utterly unacceptable.

As their populations grow by up to 20 percent per year, burros continue to devastate fragile desert ecosystems and compete with sensitive wildlife species for forage and water. That’s in addition to damaging critical wildlife habitat, crowding existing native species and fouling waterholes relied upon by native bighorn sheep, mule deer, Gambel’s quail and migratory songbirds.

Desert wildlife species typically consume only those parts of plants that easily grow back. However, burros eat the bark and remove entire limbs from trees and consume native grasses down to the roots, preventing them from returning. In some cases, habitat damage by burros is so severe that native wildlife has b displaced from their home territories throughout western and central Arizona.

As the agency responsible for conserving and protecting Arizona’s wildlife, there’s too much at stake for the Arizona Game and Fish Commission and Department to sit idly by.

Our federal leaders and Congress must realize that this is a very serious issue that negatively affects Arizona wildlife and habitat. Unless action is taken soon, it may take a lifetime to reverse the damage burros continue to cause to Arizona’s critical wildlife habitat.

Unfortunately it may take legal action by the Game and Fish Commission to help our federal agencies to wake up and Congress to fulfill their obligations to Arizona’s habitat and wildlife."

(Kurt Davis serves as chairman of the Arizona Game and Fish Commission)

Meanwhile, with no real predators, Arizona's wild burro population continues to double every 5 years ...