Fellow activists:
The American wild horses are in dire straights, and we need a savior
for them, or two. In our movement, we have the Mad Cowboy (Howard
Lyman). Now I introduce to you the Wild Horseman (I just coined it). I
believe that the two of them should work together, because both have a
stake in the matter, on both sides of the fence, as it were.
When I was on my 4th Compassion for Animals Road Expedition last year
(CARE-4 - Jul-Dec 2006, covering 32 states), I came across a remarkable
gentleman in New Mexico by the name of Carlos LoPopolo, a bear of a man
in his 60s, a very good match for Lyman at least physically, who has
devoted his life to saving the wild horses of New Mexico. The cattle
barons are forcing their way on to more and more BLM (Bureau of Land
Management) land, displacing the wild horses with their cattle - as they
do everywhere else, including the Amazon Rainforest. It is a matter of
the cash-cow versus the free-horse. In this money worshipping society of
ours, there is no contest, at least not thus far.
While I was there, Carlos� project associate, wildlife biologist Dr.
Paul Polechla of the University of New Mexico, gave me a walking tour of
the two wild horse preserves they were, still are, fighting to protect.
Somewhat to my dismay, we did not glimpse any horses (though there were
fresh horse roof-prints aplenty), but we did encounter a number of cows.
Of course the cattle barons are destined to eventually be defeated by
AR, AW and VV (vegetarianism and veganism), but their doomsday won�t
come for decades yet. By then, there will be no wild horses left, unless
we do something specific for them NOW.
The following article, by Carlos, is hot off the oven, and between
the lines and numbers, you can sense his frustrations, disgust, and, for
the sake of the horses, desperation. Whatever help you can extend in his
direction will be greatly appreciated. Drop him a line of encouragement
at least. Thank you.
Anthony Marr, founder Heal Our Planet Earth (HOPE)
www.HOPE-CARE.org
www.all-creatures.org/HOPE
www.MySpace.com/AnthonyMarr
by Carlos LoPopolo
From most of the information I have gathered, it seems as if the BLM
and the National Forest Service have different standards for productive
animals (those which produce an income) and non-productive (those that
do not produce an income).
The best example is the forage consumption rate of a productive
animal compared to that of a non-productive animal. Beef cattle which
weigh an average of 1,000 pounds per head consume an average of 26
pounds of dry forage a day. This means that one steer or cow consumes
780 pounds of dry forage a month and 9,360 pounds of dry forage a year.
For the BLM controlled land in central New Mexico, this means the
land which maintains 8 animal units or 8 head per section (a section
being 640 acres) produces 205 pounds of dry forage per day per section,
or 6,240 pounds per month and 74,880 pounds a year. If we now take that
same land and apply the formula these agencies use for the consumptive
rate of a non-productive animal like the wild horse, we cannot place as
many animals on the land. Amazingly, the same land that can maintain
eight animal units of 1,000 pound beef cattle can only maintain 5.7 head
of non-productive, wild horses, even though these horses are 200 pounds
lighter than the beef cattle, on average. How does the government
validate this claim? First, one must know that all figures can be
manipulated to give the required results, if the factors used to
validate those results are also controlled. Here, the factor that must
be manipulated is the consumptive rate of the non-productive, wild
horse. This is done by making the claim that the wild horse, even though
it is smaller than most beef cattle, eats more than the average beef
cow/steer. The factor used is that the metabolism of the wild horse is
higher than that of a cow or steer. When this factor is applied to the
formula, the government claims that the 800 pound wild horse consumes a
monthly rate of 1,080 pounds of dry forage, as opposed to the 780 pounds
of dry forage that is consumed by the cow or steer. As one can see by
these figures, the wild horse would consume almost one and a third times
the dry forage of a cow/steer.
With this information in mind, we can now start to see how the
Government is able to eliminate the non-productive, wild animals of the
land they are supposed to be maintaining for the public. Let us take a
close look at New Mexico and what has happened here over the last 36
years with the protection and maintenance of the wild horse territories.
We can start with the knowledge that New Mexico, at one time, had at
least four (but it is believed as high as seven) wild horse areas
administered by the BLM. We definitely know that there were four and we
know that today there are only two remaining.
The acreage of the original four wild horse areas totaled 88,653
acres, but now has been reduced to 24,505 acres, a reduction of 64,148
acres over the last 36 years (The wild horse territories were
established in 1971, 36 years ago.) This shows an average reduction of
1,781.8 acres a year for the last 36 years. Now, if we use the
government's formula and convert that into dry forage, we come up with
approximately 504,812.5 pounds of dry forage lost to the wild horse per
year. Another way of putting it is that the BLM has eliminated enough
land and forage to maintain 1,402.25 wild horses in the last 36 years,
or 38.9 wild horses a year. If this rate keeps up, and it seems to be
maintaining its momentum, the wild horse should be eradicated from New
Mexico soil, controlled by BLM, within the next five years.
That is the story on the BLM; surprisingly, the tale is not that
different when dealing with the National Forest Service. Again, the
manipulation of the figures plays an important role in the eradication
of a non-productive animal, such as the wild horse. Even though the
Forest service is not as open with information as is the BLM, it is
still obvious that the land in the forested areas of New Mexico is much
more productive, forage-wise, than the land located in the desert areas
like most of the land that is administered by the BLM. We will use, for
lack of information, the same figures we used for the land, knowing
these figure will represent the minimal amount of forage available on
forest land.
The National Forest Service, like the BLM, leases the wild horse
territories to cattle growing groups. The total amount of beef cattle
allowed to graze on the wild horse territories controlled by the United
States Forest Service here in New Mexico is 16,961 head or mother units
(a mother unit is a cow and calf). Recognizing that the average beef cow
needs 26 pounds of dry forage a day to sustain itself, this means the
wild horse territories must produce at least 440,986 pounds of dry
forage a day for the cows to survive.
The Forest Service claims that the proper amount of wild horses on
these territories should be no higher than 148. Therefore, if we now
take the consumptive rate of the wild horse, which is 205 pounds of dry
forage a day per head, we can add 30,340 pounds of dry forage a day that
the land must produce. This makes a total of 471,326 pounds of dry
forage per day that the wild horse territories must produce to maintain
the levels of wild horses and cattle permitted by the National Forest
Service. The best way to see if that is even viable is to again use the
government figures and calculate the land needed to maintain this many
animals. We need 1,356,880 acres to maintain 16,961 beef cows and
another 166,175 acres to maintain the wild horses. What the Forest
Service claims is that the forestland produces on 151,648 acres of land
(that is the total land located within the Forest Service wild horse
territories) the equivalent to 1,523,055 acres of BLM desert land or
lowlands. This is a ratio of almost ten to 1. The only problem we have
is that, as we have mentioned, most of the BLM land is located in the
desert. One of the two remaining BLM wild horse territories is located
next to a national forest, and on that territory the BLM claims they can
only maintain 23 horses on approximately 24,505 acres. Yet across the
fence, the Forest Service is saying that it can maintain ten times that
many animals on that much land. This reasoning makes us in the wild
horse preservation field believe the government is systematically trying
to eradicate the wild horse and, in fact, doing a very good job of it.
Return to Letters
Since 