PTH's "Horses in Crisis" video EXPOSED!

The organization Protect the Harvest (PTH) is a Big Agriculture organization that advocates removing free-roaming horses to slaughter them in order to make room for cattle. They do so by presenting the age-old myth that free-roaming horses are “starving.” Protect the Harvest has made a video (Horses in Crisis) filled with untruths, skewed statistics, and an old dying wild horse allegedly starving (while at the same time surrounded by grass; notice the healthy, happy horse grazing on the hilltop in the background) — to push for slaughtering free-roaming horses in the U.S.

Cattle activists are featured prominently in the video as if they have complete knowledge of the situation. Ironically, not a single wild horse advocate is interviewed, even though they are talked about extensively. By only interviewing one side of the issue, the video deliberately hides the entire other half of the story. Protect the Harvest is actively and intentionally attempting to deceive its audience.

The video does have one accurate point, though: the BLM has too many horses in captivity to take care of them all, and caring for them is already incredibly expensive. However, instead of looking for alternatives to removals (such as on-the-range management), the video says the only answer is to kill the horses. It doesn't even mention on-the-range management. It pretends it doesn't exist.

I generally don't devote an entire journal to critiquing a single video, but there is an anti-Mustang subculture on DeviantART that gets its information from this video. Indeed, they quote it frequently. As such, it needs to be addressed.

Unlike Protect the Harvest, I will allow you to see both sides of the story. Feel free to watch the entire video below:

 

Horses In Crisis video critique:

The video opens by saying that the Wild Horse and Burro Act of 1971 “isn’t working.” That’s easy to say when the government branch put in charge of implementing it doesn’t actually follow it (www.elynews.com/2014/01/31/blm… , www.doioig.gov/sites/doioig.go… , www.wildhorsepreservation.org/… , www.wildhorsepreservation.org/… , www.ispmb.org/History.html , wildhorseeducation.org/essenti… , wildhorseeducation.org/burns-a… , etc.) The Bureau of Land Management has revised the Act so many times (www.wildhorsepreservation.org/…) that the original Act is largely ignored. Even more so, the BLM flat-out ignores the entire Act and even its own revisions when they “feel” they must. Organizations like Protect the Harvest have been bullying the BLM to ignore the Act (www.wildhorsepreservation.org/…). No wonder it’s not working.

 The video also mentions the “emotional connection to these animals,” in order to push the agenda that horse lovers are illogical. Notice how almost immediately after that sentence, the narrator describes horse lovers as trying to “complicate” the issue.

 Note the use of the word “feral,” not “wild” or “free-roaming” throughout the entire video. Anti-Mustang groups use the term “feral” as a loaded term. It sounds unappealing, like how the pro-choice community uses the term “fetus” to dehumanize the unborn. While both the terms feral and fetus are scientifically correct, the reason they are used in these contexts is obvious.

 “Laws, not warm fuzzy feelings,” says the rancher. What if the laws he speaks of were to threaten his ranch? How would he feel then?

 During his speech about “horses starvin’ to death,” the video shows a photo of a starving foal in a BLM corral. Oddly enough, I happen to know the story behind that foal. The foal was purposefully separated from his mother by BLM employees. He was clearly too young to be away from her and as such, he was left to starve. By the time BLM employees noticed and put him back with his mother, she had lost almost all of her milk. He was euthanized the Sunday that public observers brought him to the attention of the BLM, hoping that the BLM would feed him. (www.elainenash.com/2010/10/blm… , artandhorseslauraleigh.wordpre… , 

The second rancher interviewed obviously hasn’t read any of this:

www8.nationalacademies.org/onp…?
RecordID=13511&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+nationalacademies%2Fna+%28News+from+the+National+Academies%29
RecordID=13511&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+nationalacademies%2Fna+%28News+from+the+National+Academies%29
www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307…
www.thepetitionsite.com/takeac…
scholarship.law.umt.edu/cgi/vi…
www.publiclandsranching.org/ht…
static1.squarespace.com/static…
www.mikehudak.com/Articles/Che…
lshs.tamu.edu/docs/lshs/end-no…
www.biologicaldiversity.org/pu…
www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_rm/rm_gt…
www.publiclandsranching.org/ht…
www.thewildlifenews.com/2012/1…
www.gazettetimes.com/news/loca…
www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307…
vegetarian.procon.org/sourcefi…
www.publiclandsranching.org/ht…
www.mikehudak.com/Articles/CTN…
www.livestrong.com/article/372…
www.livestrong.com/article/507…
www.beechhillbison.com/buffalo…
www.komonews.com/news/consumer…
www.consumerreports.org/cro/vi…
www.merriam-webster.com/dictio…
www.horseoftheamericas.com/
www.ansi.okstate.edu/breeds/ho…
horsebreedslist.com/horse-bree…
www.equinenow.com/mustangbreed…
www.livescience.com/27686-must…
www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/graz…

 Once again, we see the subject of “emotion” brought up. Wild horse advocates are painted as illogical emotional people who don’t understand the issue. Naturally, not a single wild horse advocate has been interviewed.

 Continuing on, we see an extremely closed-minded and ignorant view of wild horse management tactics. “We only have two good options.”  Friends, this is a lie. Removals for adoption or euthanasia are not the only two options. Other options include, but are not limited to:

- Remotely-delivered fertility drugs – This is possibly the best solution, and could survive on its own if used correctly. Mustangs would not reproduce as quickly. Drugs such as Porcine Zona Pellucida (PZP) can be delivered remotely to mares in the form of a dart. The horses mustn't be rounded up or removed. PZP is also morally acceptable to all in that it simply prevents a mare from becoming pregnant instead of killing an unborn foal. Its effects also wear off over time, allowing a once-darted mare to become fertile again. This "reversibility" is very beneficial for the gene pool because all mares could potentially have foals, just not as many as they would naturally.
Since 1988, the wild horse population of Maryland’s Assateague Island has been successfully managed at 150 animals using the contraceptive vaccine PZP developed with the help of the Humane Society of the United States. Dr. Jay Kirkpatrick is assisting the BLM in implementing this non-intrusive contraceptive method across a growing number of herd management areas.
The method has proven very successful, is easy to administer (via remote darting of the mares) and does not disrupt the complex social structure of wild herds. Fertility drugs are also far less expensive than roundups. It costs roughly $300 - $500 to process a single wild horse for adoption, whereas it costs a maximum of around only $100 to render a mare infertile for at least two years. A March 2004 USGS study found that $7.7 million could be saved annually through the use of contraceptive measures alone. Unfortunately, the BLM only allots 6% of its budget to fertility drugs and other forms of on-the-range management.
ECONOMICAL BONUS: Fertility drugs are far, far less expensive to create, obtain, and distribute than the costly roundup operation currently in progress. Also, it could help to generate jobs that many people can perform, seeing as the darter mustn't pay for years of flight training prior to being hired.
- Rounding up Mustangs on horseback – If the fertility drug campaign must be supplemented by removals, similar to the horses on Assateague, running small-scale roundups of Mustangs on horseback (also like Assateague) would be an appropriate measure. Obviously, horseback roundups could never be a complete replacement for helicopter roundups due to the risks of injury to riders and domestic horses, but if done on a small scale and only as a supplement to fertility drugs, they would be much more humane. Mustangs would only be driven as fast as the saddle-horses can run. If the saddle horses can't take it, neither can the Mustangs. Obviously, this refers to galloping after a herd on horseback to gather them toward the capture corral, not using lassos to drag home each individual Mustang. No, it's not a perfect solution, but coupled with others, it can be part of one (notice I listed many options). One con to this solution is that the land must be mapped out previously, but seeing as the BLM has access to helicopters that shouldn't be a problem. Another downside is that it poses a risk of injury to saddle horse and rider. But look at it this way: people have been rounding up wild horses on horseback for thousands of years. Wild horses typically respond well to other horses with a herd instinct instead of with the terror that a helicopter induces.
- Ending/restricting human hunting of predators or possibly releasing existing predators into the wild – Predators would help to naturally manage the Mustang population, therefore giving less need for roundups. Unfortunately, Mustangs' natural predators are hunted by trophy hunters and by ranchers to protect their livestock, and thus they are less effective at controlling Mustang populations than they could be. While trophy hunting is pure selfishness (killing for pleasure), hunting to protect livestock at least has a purpose. However, there are other, non-lethal methods of protecting livestock from large predators. In Namibia, large dogs are trained to live with and protect sheep and cattle from cheetahs.
Mustangs and native wildlife were thriving before humans came and hunted their predators. By killing herbivores' natural predators, humans have hurt the ecosystems, causing wildlife, including Mustangs, to move into places where they didn't live before and/or to overpopulate.
One con for this is that the predators are dangerous to domestic animals such as cattle, sheep, domestic horses, and dogs. Hunting laws about predators make it legal to shoot a lion that gets on your property. If for some reason you can't shoot the lion, you can get help from the government. If someone’s going to plant himself in lion country, he’s going to have to deal with it. Killing off the native predators is not the answer.
ECONOMICAL BONUS: Hiring rangers to inspect wildlife would be much less costly than the expensive roundup operation currently underway.
- Giving helicopter pilots a set salary – Instead of paying pilots for each horse they bring in, by paying them a set salary, pilots would be less apt to drive Mustangs beyond their limits and BLM could save money. ECONOMICAL BONUS: Instead of paying each pilot $350 for each horse, the general amount of money poured into roundups could very well be greatly reduced. All in all, the U.S. would save a bit of cash.
- Deducting from pilots/roundup employees’ salaries or firing employees if animals are injured during a gather – Mustangs would be treated with greater care and respect.
- Bait-trapping – This could be a supplement to fertility drugs alongside horseback removals. Mustangs are lured by tasty treats such as alfalfa cubes (and with food and water in other areas) and therefore enter the corral at their own will. A con with bait-trapping is that predators such as wildcats like to prey on the captured horses, but a proper watch will prevent wildcat attacks. Currently, the BLM sets only one employee to guard the corral. It would be wiser to post two or more guards. That way, one can watch while the others sleep so he can frighten off at or kill any predator that gets too close. ECONOMICAL BONUS: Bait-trapping would reduce the need for helicopter roundups, which are incredibly expensive. It would also help to generate jobs for individuals who are willing to learn the ropes (no pun intended), instead of pouring huge amounts of money into a single man who already had enough money to afford helicopter flight training.
- More uses of Judas-horses during roundups – Mustangs follow the domestic horse instinctively and are less traumatized. Fortunately, the BLM already uses Judas horses quite often.
- Placing fencing or some kind of deterrent around the perimeters of HMAs (Herd Management Areas) / creating a large sanctuary for the horses --
While this would take a lot of effort and work to start up and a significant amount of work to maintain, it will help prevent wild Mustangs from roaming out of their designated lands and therefore reduce the need for roundups in general. In the long run it would most likely pay itself off. It would be extremely beneficial for "checkerboard" lands (lands that contain one square mile of HMA next to one square mile of cattle graze, back and forth, and so on). Instead of forcibly removing entire herds and thinning the gene pool, Mustangs could be managed within their HMAs through remotely-delivered fertility drugs and/or the other alternatives I have described. At least one water source would have to be provided within each fenced HMA. ECONOMICAL BONUS: Creating and maintaining the fencing would also help to generate jobs that the average laymen could perform, and by providing jobs may help reduce the dependency on government welfare and therefore take a piece of the load off the economy.
- Managing cattle and sheep ranchers as well as Mustangs – by returning to the Wild Horse and Burro Act, all the animals on public rangelands would be safer and more comfortable.

 The next interviewee describes how horses are the cause of habitat degradation and loss of plant life, but completely ignores cattle grazing as a possible contributor. This is illogical. Cattle grazing has decreased from 49% (1950s) to only 7% (today). In other words, there used to be over 50% more cattle on the land than there are today. There are currently over 4,000,000 cattle on public lands alone. 50% of 4,000,000 is 2,000,000. Add 2,000,000 to 4,000,000 and you get 6,000,000. That's a lot of cows. And the ranchers try to scapegoat horses? The BLM and anti-Mustang propagandists use documented evidence of feral horses causing damage in other countries, such as Australia, and use that evidence to claim that Mustangs in North America are causing damage. To put it simply, anti-Mustang propagandists are not even talking about Mustangs when they provide "evidence" of Mustangs causing damage to North American habitats! To claim that Australian feral horses (Brumbies) and Mustangs cause the same types and amounts of damage is absurd, and it doesn't take long to realize why. There are three main reasons: First, Australia houses more feral horses than all countries on planet Earth combined. That's a lot of horses. Mustangs are only one of multiple breeds/types of feral horses in North America. Second, Brumbies have few to no natural predators in Australia, whereas Mustangs have numerous natural predators (cougars, wolves, coyotes, bears, etc.) Third, Brumbies are possibly the only large herbivore in the Australian wild, whereas Mustangs are only one of many, many species of large, hooved herbivores, and they are by far not the biggest or the smallest. Essentially, Mustangs blend right into the North American ecosystem. Because we hunt their natural predators, Mustangs do need to be managed, just like deer, elk, and moose, but to say that they are invasive is a bit of a stretch.

There is no doubt that Mustangs are eating endangered plants and in many areas, larger herds are trampling delicate habitats. However, other, native wildlife, such as elk, deer, and rabbits eat those same plants and trample those same areas. Mustang advocates are astounded at the apparent narrow-mindedness of many anti-Mustang groups: all herbivores are eating the plants and living in the same areas, but only Mustangs are targeted as invasive. Mustangs, being non-native, are easy targets. It's easy to look at damaged habitats, see a non-native animal, and dismissively blame it without looking more closely. Thus the question arises: we know that Mustangs existed in populations much, much larger than they do now, and that native wildlife lived comfortably alongside them, including plants and animals that are now endangered, so what has changed? What has caused horses and wildlife to move into and graze in areas that they didn't inhabit before?

Fortunately, the answer is clear as to what has changed: cattle. By the time cattle ranching appeared on the American scene, free-roaming horses had been in the wild for over 300 years. Domestic cattle and sheep currently number around 4 million on public lands, and have numbered over 6 million in the past. They outnumber Mustangs 50 to 1 in most states, and 200 to 1 in others. That's 3 million more than there ever were of Mustangs on those same lands, and 160% more than the modern Mustang population. The huge cattle and sheep populations have pushed out native wildlife and Mustangs, displacing wildlife and causing them to live in and eat plants that are unnatural for them to eat. Although cattle are rotated seasonally, there are still millions on the land at any given time. Even when a space of land is evacuated, it is typically so run-down that wildlife do not move back into it. Thus, cattle move back and keep the land as their own. Even though it's clear that cattle greatly outnumber Mustangs and are also forcing Mustangs and other wildlife into unnatural and often inhospitable areas, anti-Mustang groups continue to argue that Mustangs, not cattle, are the true invasive animal. They say that because Mustangs are non-native, that they are automatically invasive. However, they completely ignore an enormous factor in the equation: cattle and sheep, the other non-native species. It's not logical to ignore the more abundant, newer, non-native animal and choose to accuse the rarer non-native animal that has lived in North America for hundreds of years longer, and also lives in populations much, much smaller than it used to, back when the ecology of the land was relatively harmonious. Since Mustang populations are lower than they ever have been, it's not logical to pin all the blame on them. The main cause of degradation to public lands is cattle and sheep, not Mustangs. Cows graze within a mile of water, often standing in it until the water is so soiled it’s unusable for some time, while wild horses are highly mobile, grazing from five to ten miles from water, at higher elevations, on steeper slopes, and in more rugged terrain. Horses and donkeys also have solid hooves which don’t tear apart the earth nearly as much as a cow’s cloven hoof. A congressionally-mandated study by the National Academy of Sciences found that wild horse forage use remains a small fraction of cattle forage use on public ranges. Private livestock outnumber wild horses at least 50 to 1 on public lands. (4 million cattle and sheep > 25,000 Mustangs.)

The video then goes on to describe how “history tells us that these horses will starve to death and have a catastrophic die-off.” Of course, he doesn’t give us an example of this happening in history. He just expects us to believe him. The video also completely ignores the fact that Mustangs have been in North America for over 500 years and are not having a catastrophic die-off, except in BLM corrals.

The next interviewee describes how one particular herd of horses can’t find water. I agree. This is bad. However, this is one particular herd of horses. To say that all Mustangs are without food and water is what’s known as a Hasty Generalization logical fallacy. Some people go hungry in the United States. Does this mean that everyone in the United States is starving? Of course not. We must look at each individual herd of horses in order to determine if the land is suitable to sustain them. If one herd is starving, I have absolutely nothing against performing emergency gathers to remove or relocate them. However, we shouldn't damage genetic viability in all herds because one herd is going through a hard time. The video is ignorant of this.

The video then describes how Mustangs are “starving.” The idea that Mustangs are starving is a well-believed lie propagated by the BLM to rally people to their cause.The truth is that Mustangs are not starving and many are fat. Despite federal protection, wild horses have been relegated to the most inhospitable areas of the range. Still, they have adapted and survived. Wildlife biologists in Mustang areas frequently photograph and watch Mustangs. They say that the majority are in good condition and there are always fresh horse hoof prints around the waterholes.

The few Mustangs that are starving are starving because their food and water has been fenced off for cattle. HMAs and wildlife reserves are typically placed in extremely inhospitable areas and are unable to sustain even native wildlife. There is more than enough public land to comfortably house all the Mustangs and an appropriate number of cattle. At the time being cattle outnumber Mustangs 50 to 1. There are currently more than 3,000,000 beef cattle on public grazing lands, around 1,000,000 sheep on public grazing lands, and fewer than 25,000 Mustangs on all American wild lands combined. Grazing on public lands is a privilege, not a right, and can be taken away. But while Mustangs are being squeezed out of their legal lands and managed to extinction, no one is managing the ranchers. Cattle are rotated, but the land is so run down that wildlife rarely ever return to it during its vacant periods, if wildlife return at all. On top of that, cattle that share land with Mustangs provide only 3% of the beef that America uses.

Occasionally natural disasters such as droughts and floods will take away graze or water and the only kind response is to try to take special action, but that’s relatively rare.

The video also gets the number of horses on public lands wrong. It says there are 52,000 to 100,000, when the BLM currently estimates around 38,000, and local wildlife biologists estimate fewer than 25,000 (www.livescience.com/27686-must… , www.twogoatsinc.com/science-he…). Perhaps the video is old and out-of-date. I’ll admit I didn’t bother to check the date. If that’s the case, why do anti-Mustang groups quote an outdated video? The video’s number of horses in holding facilities is wrong as well: the BLM currently openly admits to having over 50,000 horses in their holding facilities, which is roughly double than what there are in the wild. It seems that the answer is to stop bringing in more horses and find a way to manage the horses still on the range. This is what’s known as on-the-range management. Unfortunately, the BLM only allots 6% to 7% of its budget to on-the-range management. The rest goes to roundups and stockpiling.

The video makes the assertion that wild horse advocates “have never seen the Mustangs in the corrals.” This is a lie. Yes, we have seen them. That’s how we get photographs of them. That’s how organizations like the Cloud Foundation and Wild Horse Education can adopt some of them to rescue them from slaughter. Here is a website that documents a few stories (not all that come its way) of eyewitness accounts from wild horse advocates watching roundups: www.wildhorsepreservation.org/…

The next little segment is about ranchers going out of business. Note the extreme (and I mean extreme!) use of emotional language here. “Heart-wrenching,” “tears your guts out,” “the same feeling I had when my father died…” etc. The video criticizes wild horse advocates for having emotions, but it proudly displays rancher’s emotions.This is what’s known as hypocrisy.
I just have to mention one thing that stood out to me here: one of the ranchers interviewed describes his cattle as being like members of his family. I found this alagory confusing and a little disturbing. Is he saying that he raised his cattle to be his pets? If not, it means he was raising them for meat, which is what the majority of ranchers raise cattle for. Does this mean that he views his family members as meat..?

The video also implies that the lack of business for ranchers is somehow Mustangs’ fault. However, ranchers are the victims of changing public tastes, not horses. American beef consumption has been in decline for the past 10 years.

“$1,000 for a bushel of lettuce”? Last time I checked, cattle ranchers raised beef, not lettuce.

Ah, the “hungry Americans” card. More emotional language. The fact that some Americans like beef is irrelevant to the Mustang debate considering that America throws away tons (using the actual measurement of weight) of beef every year. In addition, cattle on public lands shared with Mustangs contribute an estimated 3% of America's beef consumption. Wildlife and cattle are killed for nothing but rancher and government greed. Instead of pouring more money and land into the beef industry, the economic response would be to find an alternative outlet for ranchers seeking more profit.

“Ranchers care more about animals than any of those people do.” Excuse me? Does this man claim to have some kind of telepathic power that encompasses the entire human population? How does he know this, exactly? Even more so, we see yet another attempt to paint wild horse advocates as ignorant crazies who run around in furry horse costumes. I don't know about you, but I have never once donned a furry horse suit ever in my life. The video's agenda against wild horse advocates is blatantly obvious.

“Wild horses and burros have virtually no natural predators.” This is also a lie. Mustangs do indeed have natural predators. These predators include, but are not limited to, cougars/mountain lions/pumas, bears, wolves, and coyotes. Cougars alone kill over half of Mustang foals born every year, even though they are heavily hunted by humans. Imagine what the full menagerie of predators could do if left unchecked by humans. It's possible that we wouldn't need removals of any kind, and there's a slim possibility that we might not even need much in the way of fertility drugs, either. The myth that Mustangs have no natural predators stems largely from the fact that many feral horses on the Barrier Islands (such as Chincoteague ponies) have no natural predators. Mustangs are often confused with Chincoteague ponies and thus many people assume that their situations are identical. This, however, is purely ignorant, as Mustangs live on the mainland's desert and mountain regions whereas Chincoteagues live on Assateague Island, a small island in the Barrier Islands chain.

Unfortunately, Mustangs' natural predators are hunted by trophy hunters and by ranchers to protect their livestock, and thus they are less effective at controlling Mustang populations than they could be. While trophy hunting is pure selfishness (killing for pleasure), hunting to protect livestock at least has a purpose. However, there are other, non-lethal methods of protecting livestock from large predators. In Namibia, large dogs are trained to live with and protect sheep and cattle from cheetahs.

The video gets population rates wrong. The National Academy of Sciences estimates a population growth rate of a maximum of 15% with the herd sizes doubling every 5 years, not 4 years. That’s still a lot of horses either way, but population growth rates would be better controlled by fertility drugs, not removals.

It’s not against the law to euthanize a suffering horse or to slaughter horses in the United States. I have no idea where this rancher got his "information" from. If it was ever true, it’s certainly not true anymore. Why is the video showing such outdated information, and why do anti-Mustang people fall for it?

The next section is about using excess animals to "feed starving people in other nations." I’m personally not against horse slaughter as long as it’s done humanely (horses are animals, after all), and I know horse lovers will probably hate me for saying that. However, BLM roundups are in no way humane. On top of that, why must we gather animals only to kill them when we could manage them on the range for much less money, and when we’re already throwing away tons (using the actual unit of weight) of meat every year? Why not use that extra beef that already exists to feed starving people in other nations instead of throwing it away? If we run out of meat from our farms, then we should branch out. There’s no point in spending millions of dollars every year to round up horses. That's some exspensive meat right there. Do those ranchers want to pay for that? I sure don't. It’s much cheaper to just raise animals for meat then to round them up with helicopters. Of course, it must be done humanely whatever we choose, but using roundups to feed people in other nations is very expensive. There are less expensive methods out there, if Protect the Harvest is actually worried about starving nations. Somehow I think they’re merely using this as more emotional manipulation.