Rob, I understand you strongly feel this way, with regards to the point I bolded and underlined. I've been able to find no evidence to support that claim. If you have evidence, not just your statement or opinion, that reducing feral horses will result in increased cattle grazing and thereby provide no net range improvement, I would like to see it, as I am getting more and more interested in this discussion and I would like to see such evidence, as seeing that evidence would surely influence where my views end up on this topic.
The reason cattlemen are suing is because the grazing privileges they have paid for are getting impacted by feral horses numbers being many-fold beyond what was promised in the Wild Horse and Burro Act and associated Federal legislation . None of the lawsuits I have read are to expand grazing beyond historical grazing privileges that come with their allotments.
As a general comment to the thread, when I put myself in the shoes of these grazing permitees, I'm not sure what choice to they have other than litigation. They have paid for grazing privileges that are being usurped by feral species. Advocates for that feral species have used the political process to negatively impact them and it is being done in violation of Federal Laws. In addition to their annual permit costs, many have paid for the underlying asset value these grazing allotments have as an marketable asset. Their asset values are being impacted. Seems reasonable that any of us would file a court case to protect our property values and our livelihood under a similar situation.
Peculiar how so many of these groups want to sue the BLM or USFS if they don't follow even minor regulations, all in the supposed name of wildlife and habitat. Yet, when an agency is directed by politicians to manage in the resource in this very damaging way, as is happening over huge landscapes with feral horses, none of these litigation-happy groups are stepping up to sue the BLM to get feral horses under control. Reason being, there is no money or notoriety in it.
Right now, the group forcing the BLM's hand is the feral horse advocates. They have been effective in using politics and litigation to hijack the BLM management of feral horses and burros. If I was King for a day, I would have attorneys heading down to Federal Court to balance the scales against this stupidity and let the professionals at the BLM do their job. Congress is a bunch of lazy ass clowns who would rather see our lands get mismanaged, and eventually sold, than to do their job and direct agencies with policy and funding to manage these lands.
For those wanting more info, the Appropriate Management Level (AML) as defined by Federal statute, decided by Congress when they passed these Federal laws, was set at 26,715 feral horses and burros to be tolerated on the range, even though all knew they were a non-native species. We are currently at 67,000+ of these feral animals, with populations doubling every five years. That does not count the tens of thousands of others now in capture facilities that cost $50,000 per horse, over its life. In capture facilities, they are enclosed and gelded, hardly making them a "wild" animal at that time. And we spend that much taxpayer money to keep them in these facilities.
If ever there is an example of a messed up political system to the detriment of native wildlife and native range, the feral horse and burro situation is the best example I can think of.
