Wild horse editorial needed to offer solution
What was the point of an “editorial” titled “Reducing wild horse roundups a good idea,” only to end with admitting you have no idea what the solution is?
The editorial caught, almost, both sides to this contentious issue and then blew the opportunity to offer insight and education, reducing it to a matter of financial impact to taxpayers. Anyone can criticize — the challenge is to offer constructive, realistic solutions.
Wild horses not only have the potential to starve themselves to death, they displace native wildlife by sheer size and forage consumption. They impact watersheds by destroying the vegetation that protects the soil.
Meanwhile, wild horse “advocates,” such as the ones from Connecticut who recently disrupted a BLM meeting, have no conception of how desert ecosystems function. Even in a good year (which we haven’t seen lately) the Great Basin does not grow grass like Connecticut and simply cannot support unregulated numbers of large ungulates.
BLM has the unenviable position of trying to balance opposing goals of an emotional issue. The solution must be based on the long-term sustainability of the native vegetation. If we are to maintain a non-native species in an environment where it cannot survive on its own, then someone will have to bear the cost (taxpayers? The “advocates” themselves)?
Fertility control may ultimately be the best solution for a difficult problem. It’s not free.
The Appeal has a duty to gather, and share, information. If I want to read no-no-no, I can read letters to the editor.
Andrea Minor
Carson City
