RSSWild horses beget wildly excessive legislation
Yakima Herald-Republic editorial board
E-mail
Print
Comments
More 'Opinion'
- Ruling underscores school districts' need for levies
- State must assure safety of its most vulnerable citizens
- Enforcement is key to any panhandling decision
- Bid to unionize child-care centers still a bad idea
- Confidential bank oversight won't return confidence
- Here's a chance to make a difference for heart attack victims
- CWU's plea for stable state funding is sensible (and unlikely)
This editorial appears in the July 24, 2009, Yakima Herald-Republic.
A year ago, one of our newspaper photographers took a picture that quickly became a favorite among our readers. The photo captured a herd of wild horses galloping along U.S. Highway 97 south of Toppenish. It's a picturesque vision of what many of us imagine the Wild West must have been -- mustangs running free against a backdrop of rolling hills.
But romantic visions of the past often clash with present-day realities. That's true with the fate of wild horses in the West, and it's a debate our 4th District congressman has entered with unaccustomed bravado. We are rooting for him on this issue, and hope he prevails.
Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Pasco, is leading the opposition to legislation that seeks to protect wild horses and burros under federal care. Backers of the measure say it will allow more room for these animals to roam and will bolster the Bureau of Land Management's wild horse and burro adoption program with new provisions. The bill also bans the commercial slaughter of these animals, something that high-profile animal rights supporters -- including Willie Nelson and Bo Derek -- have long advocated.
Hastings isn't buying any of this hype. In fact, he calls the bill "a new $700 million welfare program for wild horses" and condemns its potential fiscal impact in the face of a looming $1 trillion federal deficit.
Here are the highlights of the measure, which:
* Requires a wild horse census every two years.
* Provides enhanced contraception and birth control for the wild horses.
* Seeks the acquisition of 19 million acres of public and private lands to provide the horses a place to roam. This amount of land would replace the habitat lost from the original 52 million acres set aside by the 1971 Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act.
* Requests $5 million a year to repair damage caused by the wild horses on the federal land.
* Proposes home inspections of those wanting to adopt a wild horse.
When speaking recently on the House floor against the legislation, Hastings took great delight in pointing out the absurdity of the land purchase: "Taxpayers are being asked to buy up millions of acres of land for the enjoyment of wild horses, and then taxpayers will have to pay $5 million a year to repair the damage that these horses will do to these lands. Only in Washington, D.C., does this make sense."
It certainly makes no sense out here in the West, where wild horses have caused excessive damage to fragile rangelands and to salmon-rearing streams. These herds are a particular nuisance in Indian Country, where an estimated 20,000 wild mustangs in Washington, Idaho and Oregon are ruining medicinal plants and depleting other forage for wildlife.
Since the wild horses have no natural predators and their numbers have far exceeded their natural habitat's ability to support them, the situation is only going to get worse, especially when factoring in the annual foal crop that raises the population by 20 percent a year.
A bill in 2007 that cleared the House would have banned the sale or slaughter of the wild horses. It was one page long and would have cost $500,000 a year. The measure never made it out of the Senate.
What a difference two years make. With its potential $700 million cost, the new legislation goes far beyond the limited ban on the commercial slaughter of horses. We join Hastings and urge lawmakers to just say "Whoa!"
Indeed, herds of wild horses require more prudent management, but this is not the way to go. Proper culling of the ever-burgeoning populations of wild horses may be a necessary requirement. Tribal officials are considering that approach. However, with the closure of the nation's last three slaughterhouses two years ago, that remedy may be difficult to attain in the near future.
What we don't need is to acquire more land to accommodate more wild horses that no one seems to want -- not even Mother Nature.
* Members of the Yakima Herald-Republic editorial board are Michael Shepard, Bob Crider, Spencer Hatton and Karen Troianello.
It would appear from this article that, like Cong. Hastings, the editors didn't read the bill, listen to the floor debate or have any knowledge of the wild horse issue. Had they it would have been very clear that the dollar amount being tossed around was simply a political ploy used to distract folks from the importance of the Rahall wild horse bill. Thankfully, the overwhelming majority of the House (74-348) voted against Mr. Hastings amendment. This kind of onesided vote is clear that legislators knew something was not right with the claims being put out and repeated by the paper.
As for the points above, all but one can currently be done by the BLM and ar simply improved upon in Mr. Rahall's bill. All were recommendations by the GAO as a way of improving the program, saving money and protecting the horses. To me, it was wise of the bill's sponsors to try and improve a broken program. On the other hand, the Hastings amendment would have maintained the status quo by simply allowing the BLM to continue mismanaging the program, rounding more horses up and storing them in expensive holding facilities which consume 75% of the programs entire budget.
As for claiming the government would have to buy land, BOO, did I scare you? I shouldn't have because Mr. Rahall made sure to say it should be a GOAL of the BLM to find 19 million acres of land for wild horses. Remember, this 19 million acres where wild horses once roamed was already federally owned land. Now, if the federal government went around buying their own land that would be wrong, however, that is not the case or the request. US taxpayers own hundreds of millions of acres of land in the US. The BLM itself manages almost 300 million so I am sure they could find a few million for horses to live on for free.
Doesn't that sound more responsible and fiscally sound? The wild horse bill that passed would fix problems so the government can stop spending millions on a broken problem while Mr. Hastings wanted to ignore the problems and just keep tossing millions of dollars a year at a broken program. The wild horse bill that passed was the right step for the future of wild horses.
WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO CONCERNS FOR PEOPLE? It seems that there is more government protection for things like whales, eagles, salmon, and chipmunks than there are for unborn defenseless babies whose "mom" use abortion for birth-control or mistakes. How about throwing some of that big money our way, like for gang and crime fighting?
I guess people don't count anymore.
Sometimes I think the YHR editors are schizophrenic. One day they're criticizing Hastings for being against wasteful spending:
"Anti-stimulus chorus is off-key"
http://www.yakima-herald.com/stories/2009/02/19/anti-stimulus-chorus-is-off-key
(I bet the YHR wishes they could take that opinion piece back)
The next day the YHR uses their brains and decides to agree with Hastings and oppose wasteful spending (ie horse welfare program).
Once upon a time there were 300 million acres alotted to mustangs and the rest of the wildlife No more.The proliferation in population is not mustangs but people, everywhere! There is so little room left for anything other than man.Please read Mr. Hydes post Doc Hastings has it sooo wrong!
Report ViolationThe mustang is a non-indigenous species. While the country spends untold amounts of money to eradicate other non-indigenous mammals, birds, plants, insects, etc. that wreak havoc on our economy and well-being... what makes the mustang so special? Increasing their protected lands will merely give them more room to breed and expand their numbers exponentially. Then we will need to set aside even more public lands for their expansion in the future. Talk about uncontrolled spiraling inflation with no end in sight.
Report Violation
Posting Guidelines - Updated Aug. 21 2009
Readers are encouraged to use these forums to discuss issues affecting the
Yakima Valley. Debate the ideas presented in stories and other comments, but
refrain from personal attacks and offensive remarks aimed at others; e.g.,
you may call an idea idiotic, but don't say the person is an idiot. The
Herald-Republic reserves the right to remove any comment for any reason.
Examples include material that is obscene, encourages illegal activity or
stereotypes based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs and
other factors. Continued violation of these guidelines can lead to
suspension or revocation of your ability to post comments. If you believe a
comment is inappropriate, you can bring it to our attention by clicking the
"report violation" link by each comment. Guidelines revised Aug. 21, 2009.
Registered User?
