Lots of people think I hate horses

[draggonlaady]

because of my opinions on horse slaughter and on management of "wild" mustangs and burros. And I guess that they're entitled to think that. But I'm not convinced they're right. I am rather concerned about this bill:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-1018&tab=summary

Which has apparently passed through the House already.

Important points!
1: laws should not be made based on emotion, they should be made based on logic. I think that across the board, not just on this topic.

2: "Wild" mustangs and burros are not. They are feral, descended from introduced and released animals brought here by Europeans. They are not part of the "thriving natural ecological balance" in these areas, therefore it is by definition impossible to maintain that "thriving natural ecological balance" with the presence of thousands of feral animals.

3: This bill "Revokes provisions that allow the Secretaries to destroy: (1) old, sick, or lame animals; (2) excess horses and burros for which an adoption demand does not exist," but does not specify what the Secretaries can do with those animals. "Promote the adoption program" they say, but there are over 30,000 BLM horses and burros that have been in "short-term holding" facilities for YEARS because nobody wants to adopt them. It is almost a certainty that nobody wants to adopt old, sick, and lame horses that are well-trained and gentle; who do they expect to adopt the old, sick, and lame completely untrained, never been around humans, feral horses?

4: "Requires adopters of such horses and burros to affirm that adopted animals and their remains will not be used for commercial purposes." So... I can't adopt a half dozen horses to train and use on a dude ranch? Why the bloody Hell not? If I'm willing to put the time and money into adopting and training them, I should be able to use them as horses, just like any other horse, right? And how far out are they defining "commercial purposes"? Because I can see some twisted damn lawyering taking this to mean that you can't use them as herding horses on a cattle ranch either, because if they belong to the ranch they are company property for commercial use. I'm almost certain that what they mean is that horses are not supposed to be sold to slaughter and used, for example, as zoo animal feed. That's not clear from the statement though.

Comments

[evil-egg.livejournal.com]

So basically this is the Man saying "fuck you animals of the genus Equus, you're on yer own"?

[draggonlaady.livejournal.com]

No, this is saying that taxpayers need to pay to maintain these herds, and the managers have to keep them healthy and not destroy the ecology of the places they live, but the managers are not allowed to euthanize excessive horses, or sell them to people who will eat them, or sell them for commercial purposes, or keep them long-term in short-term facilities (which has been being done for years already). So how exactly are they supposed to meet all these requirements with thousands of horses that have no natural predators in these areas? Can't let them over-produce and over-graze, but you can't kill them, can't hold them in corrals, and God forbid you sell them for slaughter.

[evil-egg.livejournal.com]

Once again, the square peg of unthinking legislation is forced into the round hole of real life.

[brainweevil.livejournal.com]

That's what she said.