Dear Environmentalists:

I grew up with a love for the environment. I was lucky to go to schools with resources available to fuel that passion, and grow as a student. Those opportunities as a child prepared me to successfully complete a degree in natural resource management.
When building a career around science you’re taught to be objective. With so many of the world’s issues, it’s tempting to compartmentalize. I can focus on the environment because it impacts me directly. I have the knowledge and resources to do something about it. It’s well within my comfort zone as an issue I can tackle.
Focusing on my strengths, I ignored other issues. They didn’t impact me, therefor, they did not matter as much. After all, I’d been raised to keep an open mind. As long as I was not racist, that was all I needed to do.
As I started teaching environmental education that changed a little. At first I was intimidated by the idea of teaching any student. Interpretation, like what I did volunteering at the MN Zoo as a high school student, is vastly different from environmental education.
Everyone starts somewhere, and as I learned I realized it was easier to teach and relate to students that looked like me, than black and brown kids. Since there were not that many brown kids on environmental ed field trips it was easy to discount my perception as lack of experience. Especially when many of those students were at alternative schools for those that didn’t thrive in traditional environments. It was easy to pretend that the increased challenge of teaching them was not my problem.
The more I taught the more I realized that students from predominantly brown schools did not have the same resources as those schools that were predominately white. The black students who were visiting nature for the first time as teenagers hadn’t gone on field trips sooner because they made a choice not to go, their schools hadn’t had the resources to go on field trips each year.
It was about then that I started being aware of my own bias. Because of my skin color I had been privileged growing up. My parents could ensure I was in the schools that met my learning needs, which enabled me opportunities to participate in field trips.
Although I began to understand privilege, I found it hard to do anything about it. Racism did not directly impact me. I was not racist. Therefor, as long as I understood that racism existed, and my privileges I did not need to do more.
Recently, I have begun seeking out books, plays, and movies with representation. It served to help educate me more about systemic racism. I began to understand that racism was more than bias and little things. Society is built to give white families opportunities. White people do not need to worry every day doing routine things that people will judge them based solely on skin color.
I value my community. In a way, we’re an ecosystem of people. If something is wrong with the rest of the ecosystem, we all feel it. It’s especially poignant for me this year, since I teach students that happen to be autistic, some of which happen to be brown. I am so worried what life will be like for them when they are teenagers if the world does not change.
Now I feel I have a textbook definition of racism, white privilege, and bias, but that is not enough. I need to do better at having a tangible presence in my community and speaking up for my clients. Getting to know the same students each day provides a tangible need for change.
I know how easy it can be to dismiss problems when you only see a student for an hour or two each year. But I challenge environmentalists and educators to get to know people a little better.
We need people of all backgrounds to support the environment. And those people need support. With global warming disparagingly effecting black communities more than white communities, it’s naive to think that the topics of race and the environment are separate.
I know not everyone is comfortable sharing their private feelings about race on public pages. But the world is watching how people respond to peaceful protest. The world is watching to see how you respond to systemic racism, and brutality. They want to know if your group is a safe place for those with all skin tones, or if you are inadvertently racist.
Please, even if you feel that your page has nothing to do with racism, speak up. There’s no rule that you need to have the solutions for systemic racism. There’s no rule that a statement regarding racism needs to be a novel, or address specific events either.
At the very least, if organizations expect long-term support they need to show that they are safe locations for people of diverse backgrounds to have conversations and share ideas. There should be expectations for those discussion, and a consequences for those that use vulgar and discriminatory language.
There are so many strong advocacy groups for the environment, but in order to maintain that strength they need to keep current to keep supporters. If those supporters feel they lack support themselves, they will look elsewhere for organizations to put energy into. I have the benefit of following many organizations since high school, and know from experience that the people that run the pages are open minded and value discussion. Unfortunatly, there are plenty of others on the internet that think the only right way to have a discussion is to agree with each other. If people disagree its disrespectful. It’s ok for people to use whatever language they like, as long as it is not directed at them.
There’s no one right way how to approach this. Overall, I have found leading by example to be the best approach. People are mirrors of each other. It’s easier said than done online, but when we treat people with decency, others will respond in kind. True some respond after having a bad day, and you can’t reach everyone. It’s important to let those people go, but there’s no excuse for limiting support to certain demographic just because other demographics are harder to teach.

It’s a little scary how this symbolism can bleed into wildlife when, in a herd like the Pryors with a diversity of color, some feel certain colors are more important than others.

Let it Go!

I love this time of year. I love seeing the foals born, the horses who made it through winter, the range green up. If comments on social media are any indication, it’s a favorite time for a lot of people. But with foals comes the wait. And when people wait they speculate. Which is fine, everyone copes with the end of winter differently, but often it can seem like a competition who can show the most knowledge. While people understandably worry about management in the Pryors, it can become a prediction about what the demographics in the Pryors should be. And, considering that the results of future population demographics will come with patience, it comes across as negative and takes away from the excitement of new foals.
Often, the topics seem to range in fads. The first fad in the season is: which mares are pregnant? Luckily, that practice seems to have calmed down over the years, with people seeming to trust the judgement of those that see the horses in person more. But there can still be those that claim that a mare that looked round all season without having a foal must have lost it. While I understand that keeping track of foals is a part of management, not all mares are going to foal each year.
This year the topic obsession seems to be the sex of each foal, and color. People have very specific goals for the unborn foals: fillies, flashy colors. It’s true: a variety of colors means healthy genetic, and you need both sexes to reproduce. But nature doesn’t care for our expectations for how is should be. Each foal is born because they are the best combination of their parents. Each foal survives, because their genes will give the best chance of being passed down when they are old enough.
If you’ve been following management in the Pryors you might think that these points are a little contradictory to herd health. After all, when I started following the Pryors there seemed to be the idea that rare colors needed to be preserved. Even now there seems to be the idea that some colors are more Spanish or primitive than others. The reality is: all colors are considered Spanish. And, while the more primitive colors harken to a time when horses first evolved on North America, all you need is matching DNA form them to be considered a native species. No one color is more important than another, so to reiterate, if all genetics are present all of the colors will be present if they are well suited to the environment.
Keeping an even sex ratio is another thing I understand. In other herds, sex ratios are often skewed my management which results in unstable bands. But, that is usually applicable when helicopter roundups are the primary management. For perspective, the last helicopter roundup in the Pryors was 2009, and I believe even then the intention of the Billings BLM was to keep the sex ratios even. Yes, the last couple of years have seemed like a plethora of colts have been born. Many worry that without more fillies, the genes in the Dryhead will suffer.
I get it: I want all my favorite horses to have the chance to be parents, but that is not how nature works. Yes, there are periodic bait trap removals in the Pryors, but I wouldn’t go as far as to say sex ratios in the Pryors are caused by management. As, hopefully, we all know everything in nature happens for a reason.
The way I look at it, is even in a herd like the Pryors nature has to compensate for poor management decisions. In the early days of “management” horses were removed primarily based on the preference of locals. Which means the flashier looking horses were removed. Management has evolved since then, but there have always been ways that it could be improved to utilize more adaptive management. Lately, even PZP has been lacks. Nature is going to take advantage of a situation and explode. Explosions are messy, and unpredictable, and nature will do whatever it wants.
And since nature can be so messy it can lead some to ask: why won’t some mares leave their natal bands? For some of the bands people are worried about, they are just that remote away from other horses. Or, the band stallion is wary and doesn’t let horses near. Or she’s really bonded to her mama or sister or other relative or mare in the band. There’s a variety of reasons why a mare won’t leave her natal band, and no one wants to see her bred by her dad.
Here’s the thing, though, staying in one’s natal band isn’t an automatic guarantee that you’ll be bred by a relative. When a mare is young enough, she is paraded to different bands to be bred at her father’s approval. If for some reason, that does not happen it’s not the end of the world. I’ve said it before I’ll say it again: if inbreeding were as bad as people imply, nature would not let it happen.
It’s true, in the context of management all of these demographics are important to look at, but even in management ensuring all bloodlines have a chance to be represented is the most important factor. Even, then there’s a time and place for conversations about management. If the post is about a band or foals, keep the conversation to that topic. Yes, there are stressful parts of advocacy, but that doesn’t mean we need to bring it to every single post.
Advocacy groups will tell us when thing change, so we do not need to ask hypothetical questions either. As far as I’m concerned, no news is good news. When pages are posting about foals keep the topic on foals. When pages post about management keep the topic on management.
Spring is a time for renewal, and while it is also a time to see which horses survived winter it is only as negative as you make it. Even when horses pass away there is the sweet to the bitter in the idea that they lived their lives out in the wild. There’s already enough negativity in the world without us letting it overshadow the positive by bringing it up at inappropriate times. If you are tempted to make negative comment about a topic outside of our control make like Elsa and let it go.

Electra is an example of why predicting what will happen in spring is so challenging. Since she has been a prolific mare, she has a permanently round shape. She’s surprised us with foals at an older than typical age, but is most likely done foaling. She also seems to be healthy regardless of if she’s in foal, which negates the stereotype that a mare’s lifespan is automatically shortened the more foals she has.

The Rescue Complex

I have an unpopular opinion: rescue is not humane management. I’m going to even go as far as to say that rescue isn’t even management. This might ruffle some feathers, so I’m adding a sentence here for people to stop and think about how they are feeling. If my opinion upsets you, take a break from the internet, and read when you can have an open mind, or if a difference in opinion is a deal breaker stop reading entirely.
I phrase it like that, thinking people might be defensive because I know there are a lot of strong advocacy groups that have rescue as part of their management plan. I’m not trying to critique those groups, or pretend to know more about their individual herds than they do. Because I respect the knowledge of the groups I have intentionally tried not to share my opinion about rescue, but I also know that there are numerous other herds whose advocacy groups do not constantly post about removing horses and needing donations for rescue. I also have not shared my personal opinion, because without knowing exactly why I disagreed I couldn’t make an entire educational post out of my opinion.
Here’s the thing: the best management mimics natural selection. Those that promote rescue claim they are because they only remove horses if there was no chance of them living in the wild. Removing them gives them a chance of recovery, and a new purpose. Half of that statement seems reasonable: no animal deserves to suffer, and adopting out a horse does give them a new chance at life. The rest of it misses the mark.
Whether or not an animal can survive in the wild is only the first half of natural selection. The second, if you’ll borrow an idea from Lion King, is that the resources from organisms that die are returned to the soil. It’s tempting to feel good about rescue since the suffering horses are no longer taking in valuable resources, but when you remove a horse you take away resources from predators. With no body to decompose, you also take away resources from the new grass that might grow there and from the other horses in the long run.
Plus, although there are many conditions that horses cannot survive mustangs are resilient. The injuries that domestic horses with vet care would have succumbed to recover with no sign of infection. Horses that people think will need euthanasia disappear only to be found months later without sign of earlier injury. The way I look at it: if a mustang can survive in captivity with whatever ails them then they have a chance in the wild. More often, the horses removed do not survive. In which case, they could have been put down in the wild to continue the cycle of natural selection without suffering.
Which brings me to the point about why I have never liked the idea of rescue without knowing why. People justify it by saying all wildlife species get rescued, but no wildlife rescue sets out with the goal of domestication. The option for other wildlife is to be released back into the wild, to have a life of captivity in a zoo or education facility, or euthanasia. Other wildlife are not rescued, they are rehabilitated.
It is true that mustangs are so adaptable when they are removed from the wild that they adjust to life in captivity faster than other wildlife. They cannot be released back into the wild once removed and treated, otherwise they risk habituation and lose some of their wildness. Which is why, you’d think, it would be better to keep the horses in the wild, even if it means euthanasia, than to rescue them.
That isn’t to say advocates should ignore the condition of horses. Foals separated from their mamas have a better chance of recovery than a stallion with a broken leg, for example. But it is also worth noting if the cause of stress is natural or man-made. If the issue is natural, then that’s survival of the fittest at work and people need to accept that. If the injuries are not natural, then efforts need to be made to prevent conflicts with humans.
Rescue is expensive, and management needs to be adaptive. Organizations that have rescue as part of their management plan also need to pay attention to the causes. If the majority of causes are natural, then advocates need to accept the realities of natural selection. If the issues are due to humans then money should be prioritized to problem solving ways to prevent those conflicts. True adaptive management is proactive and saves money. Pouring money into a continuous problem is reactive.
It’s easy for me to say all this from the convenience of a computer. I recognize that I do not have the same context local advocates do, and am not trying to critique the groups that have rescue as part of their management plan. I just feel that often for those groups rescue happens more frequently than other herds report horses passing away naturally. I feel advocacy groups should be open to the expertise of their supporters, and transparent about where their money goes.
There is no herd that has no conflict with people, and there is no easy way to navigate that conflict. There is no herd that I know of that does not have some form of management, and with that management comes with ensuring injured horses do not suffer. But even as hard as it is to see, those decisions need to be made objectively. Decisions on which advocacy groups should be made objectively. There’s no rule that you need to agree with every aspect of an advocacy group in order to support them. If you plan on supporting an advocacy group, especially if you plan on donating, ensure where they are putting their money matches with your values and has a focus on keeping the horses wild. There is nothing wrong with humane management, but make sure you are being honest about rescue and not implying it is is scientific or the same as rehabilitation.

Because I am intentionally avoiding making this post about any specific organization, here’s a generic photo fo a California Quail.

Pryor JHMAP Comment Period

Recently, the Billings BLM opened a comment period for a JMHAP. I’m not going to lie, JHMAP is a term I am unfamiliar with, but to me it seems most similar to a RMP where all management possibilities are listed, without it being a specific management timeframe. Yes, helicopter roundups are back on the table, but it is one of many possible management tools. No roundups or removals are scheduled at this time.
I am not trying to dismiss the seriousness of this document. There is absolutely no reason for helicopter roundups or bait/water trap removals in the Pryors. I am just trying to clarify what type of document this is, so people can make their comments accordingly. The most important part of making comments is ensuring they are based in science, and specific to the Pryors. It is also highly important to read through the JHMAp carefully and make comments that are specific to the Billings BLM.
While I know organizations are going to come up with “talking points” I worry that people will see that the BLM’s document is only seven pages long and procrastinate. Even though the BLM’s document is short, there is a lot packed in it. I understand that people want to get their comments right, but I encourage people to start drafting their comments now even though they have not been provided talking points. Even if one is brand new to advocacy, it does not take much to see that helicopter roundups should not be used in management plans.
The biggest thing that I think even advocates take for granted is natural selection. The reason people take it for granted is because mountain lions, the main reason foals pass away, are not a protected species. Even without mountain lions, old horses pass away each year. Unexpected things like foaling complications, lightening, and injuries play a role in natural selection as well. That isn’t to say wild horses are not adapted to their environment: for every hardship they face they are able to over come it. Going over those adaptations is out of scope for this blog post, so if you’d like to learn more you can look at some of my other blog posts or look up other resources.
The highest priority the Billings BLM should be making is to utilize adaptive management. When used correctly PZP paired with natural selection is enough to create a stable population in the Pryors. The safest way to approach this is to give all yearling fillies the primer. From ages 1-4 a mare will receive PZP. Once a mare is five she will be off PZP until she has a minimum of two foals. That way there is one foal minimum to replace the genes of she and the foal’s father. If the population allows it, then a mare can have more foals. Ones the mare has contributed to the gene pool, she will be placed back on PZP. That way, PZP use is adapted to each mare rather than a generic effort.
Another overlooked form of management is range improvements. While the Billings BLM has done a good job of adding guzzlers (man-made water sources) little else has been done to manage the land. The Billings BLM also needs to address reseeding, invasive species control, and (dare I say it) prescribed fires. For an agency with land management in their name they do very little managing the land.
Realistically, there is not enough genetic diversity in the Pryors to support any type of removal. There is a lot in the JHMAP that lacks scientific basis, but the fact that helicopter roundups are back on the table is especially troubling. If advocates accomplish just one thing during this comment period, it would be to completely eliminate helicopter roundups.
Unfortunatly, the compromise for a lack of roundups is often PZP and bait/water trap removals. If removals take place, they need to be scientific, and based on the JHMAP the current selection process is troubling. The two things that need to be considered when selecting horses for removal is genetic diversity and adoptability.
The easiest way to determine adoptability is to remove horses between the ages 1-4. Genetic diversity is a little harder to plan for. At a minimum, each mature mare and stallion needs at least two offspring in the wild.
This is where the criteria the BLM has listed for removal is unscientific and moot. Like humans, fertility in horses naturally wanes as they get older. When the oldest horses are the ones that are most likely to disappear in winter, removing them wastes resources that could have been used on a scientifically backed management tool. Similarly, removing mares because they are non-responders to PZP shows a lack of understanding of natural selection. Those mares have something about their genes that nature is saying should continue to be passed down. If the BLM deems a removal necessary, then a mare’s youngest offspring can be removed instead.
There’s part of every management plan in the Pryors that is subjective. Some feel certain colors and confirmation are more Spanish or primitive. The truth is: no one trait is more important than another. Scientifically, if the traits people value help them survive in the wild, then all that is needed is for all bloodlines to have a chance to be represented. The Billings BLM seem determined to treat the Pryors like a breeding farm, and advocates will have to make sure they make subjective management recommendations rather than decisions based on who their favorites are.
Beyond ensuring that comments are scientific, remember that the BLM employees are human. Even if you don’t think they will show respect towards advocates, they are still deserving of the respect you would like to receive.
I know people would rather wait until advocacy groups provide “talking points” but even though the deadline for comments seems far away I honestly think people will need the entire time to draft thoughtful comments. There’s no rule that you have to write a novel, or even cover all the points that an advocacy group sets. Considering the BLM often lumps similar replies together, it’s probably best if people do not cover all the points from an advocacy group, especially if they are not as confident in submitting comments. It is important, that regardless of how long your comment is your points are backed up with strong science. I encourage everyone to, please start drafting your comment now. I promise it will be easier to edit and add to your comments accordingly once there are talking points, than to wait and not have enough time to write your comments well.

Since Cloud tends to get people’s attention, here he is.

Be Positive

If you’ve followed wild horse advocacy for a while, you know it’s a group of people with opinions, many of which think their way is the only right way. While I am all for self confidence, being open minded is how we learn and come up with creative ideas. Nothing in life is black and white, but there’s still plenty of people that think they can do it better than someone else.
For whatever reason, this seems especially abundant in the Fish Springs HA. For those of you that don’t know, the range is unfenced and adjacent to neighborhoods. Historically, when mustangs have gotten into neighborhoods, the population control has been to remove those horses. While local advocates have been trying to make a difference, over the holidays 21 horses were removed.
Since everyone wants what is best for the horses, everyone and their brother had an opinion on how to find good homes for the horses. It was a black and white split between people who thought sanctuaries were the only way, or those that thought private homes were the only way. With more people in favor of sanctuaries it wasn’t an even split, but people on either side were unwilling to see the value of looking into all homes regardless of if they were private or sanctuaries.
Luckily, it seemed to be a wakeup call for advocacy groups that they needed to work together in order to create the best outcome for the once wild horses. With so many people working together, I knew they would need to wait to provide information until it was clearer, but some seemed to see the lack of information as inaction. At the time, all we knew was the groups cautioned against bidding on the horses.
Justifiably, people responded with confusion and anger. I had a feeling there was still more information coming, but I was still surprised that they would take this tactic. After all, without bids the horses stay in holding.
Later it was revealed that they had plans for the horses that were removed. Since they were removed in family units, they wanted those families to stay together. Limiting who bid would help ensure that those that had room for entire bands could adopt.
Considering that there would be more removals in the future, it made sense to use strategy when horses need homes. No one from the organizations was saying a sanctuary was better than a private home. They were just prioritizing need and planning ahead.
Regardless, it did not stop people from sharing their disappointment that most of the horses went to sanctuaries. They seemed to think it would alienate the trainers if they were needed in the future. While I could see where they are coming from, I have a higher opinion of people than they will hold a real or imagined grudge forever. I still fell confident that when the time comes there will be trainers ready to step up, but I digress.
Once bidding was over, people expected the horses to go to their new homes instantaneously, but things take forever and a day in government. No news, meant we had to be patient, and once the horses were adopted updates were in the hands of their new humans. It did not stop people from spreading rumors about the conditions in holding or why it seemed like it was taking time. There was concern about one stallion that wasn’t getting along with other horses, the mud, and the health of new geldings. While this isn’t an attempt to go in depth about holding facilities, I want to make it clear that there has been no evidence of abuse or neglect or any dramatic thing people were trying to imply about Palomino Valley.
Finally, we were hearing stories about the horses getting loaded for their new homes. Luckily, it was exciting news and provided limited opportunities for critique. The horses were going to be in quarantine to help them settle. The biggest question was: when will quarantine be over?
While the horses were in quarantine, updates slowed. I think people forgot that nothing exciting happens in quarantine. It did not stop them from wanting updates on their precious horses.
Again, I understood where people were coming from, but they seemed to think if there were no news something bad had happened. They seemed to think that the Fish Springs horses were the only ones that were being cared for. As if the only updates they owed were to the people that followed the Fish Springs horses, and they had to make updates about the horses as soon as anyone asked.
Recently horses have begun transitioning out of quarantine. Which has brought an increase of updates on them. You’d think people would be satisfied with the updates we do get, and trust that their care is good. But, of course, that is not the case.
If the horse was in training, they should be in a sanctuary. If they are in a sanctuary there are too many fences, or not enough horses. Training or transitions were going too fast, or too slow. It’s easy to critique from the comfort of one’s computer or phone. In these hard times we should be celebrating the positives rather than fixating on the negatives. Or worse, finding negatives that don’t exist.
For perspective, there are thousands of horses in holding. 21 one horses might seem hard to place by Fish Springs standards, but most of the horses in holding are there by the hundreds during roundups. There are vast areas of improvement needed, but the Fish Springs horses have it good in comparison.
I’m not saying that creating a better future for the Fish Springs HA isn’t important, but the fight lies in preventing more horses from getting removed. If people want to pick a fight to make sure the horses have good homes picking it with those already providing good homes is not appropriate. If you are going to pick that fight, focus on the horses still in holding.
It’s important to be well informed, and to speak up if something is wrong, but it is not appropriate to be negative all the time. If an organization has proven to be reputable, there needs to be a certain level of trust when they make decisions. By extension, we can assume those organizations would not have placed the horses in their new homes if they did not trust that it would be a good fit. We can, then, trust that those homes are giving the horses good care.
Before you are tempted to post something negative ask yourself: does it help? It’s also important to ask: does this photo, video, or post tell the full story? The answer to that question is always no, but it is always true that the pages showing those updates have the best interest of the horses at heart. There’s no need to bring negativity to a positive situation by assuming you know more than those providing good homes. If you still think you have something to say, then perhaps putting it to a PM in the page that provides an update is better than brining everyone else down. Not when as humans we have the ability to lift each other up.

While I have not been to the private homes, or sanctuaries that the Fish Springs horses are at, I have been to other sanctuaries and homes. I know that other mustangs in those situations have good homes, so I know that one is not better or worse than another. Thus, because I trust the advocates that helped the Fish Springs horses find homes I know that their homes are good too.

Let’s come together!

As I hinted in my last post, Samson’s band has been removed from the Fish Springs HA. As usual emotions are running high. As usual when emotions run high, misinformation runs rampant. With that combination it can be hard for people to be open to, let alone understand the facts of a situation. By spreading misinformation, they are just perpetuating the stereotypes about advocates, so here are the truths that are pertinent to the Fish Springs HA.
Myth: It’s the [Insert Special Interest Groups] Fault
Fact: the two uses for the Fish Springs HA are literally wildlife habitat and recreation. While increased traffic in the range habituates the horses to people, no special interest group such as cattle, oil, gas, ect. called for this removal. These groups do not exist for this herd.
Myth: It’s the BLM’s Fault
Fact: while the BLM are the ones conducting removal operations, they are mandated to follow the Wild Horse and Burro Act. Part of following the WH&B Act is management, and what management techniques are acceptable is determined by whichever administration that is in office at the time. Regardless of one’s political views, different administrations have had different approaches, and Trump’s approach has been to treat public land like something for sale. The BLM is also mandated to listen to the American public. Which means the BLM needs to navigate the parameters set by the Trump administration, WH&B Act, and the needs of the American public when making management decisions. The BLM is just doing their job to the best of their ability.
Myth: It’s the Advocate’s Fault
Fact: While I don’t have a high regard for the Pine Nut group at the moment, that does not mean all local advocates are the same. Many do have a solid understanding of management, regardless of if they are affiliated with an advocacy group. When the only thing people can agree on is that entire bands should not be removed, advocates were not the one who complained about the horses.
Myth: Taking down/Vandalizing/Protesting the Trap will Help*
Fact: The trap is on private property, so trying to do anything to it is trespassing. Even if the trap were on public land, tampering with the trap is still illegal. even if you feel you will be responsible for the consequences or will not get caught, your actions will still reflect badly on the advocates. Not only will you have simply delayed the removal, you risk making it harder for advocates to have a positive impact on management.
Myth: They’re all Going to Die!
Fact: I hate seeing horses removed, because I know that there is a chance that they will not get adopted. I also know that even if they get adopted, there is no guarantee that it will be a good fit. Yet, I also know that life is not black and white, and when I expect the worst it has a way of happening. If all people are doing is posting that the horses are going to end up going to slaughter, then at best they were languish in holding facility, at worst they will end up going to slaughter. On the other hands, I have seen some tremendous cases of horses finding good homes when people come together. While it is important to be realistic about a situation, you can still accept the possibility of the worst case scenario while planning ahead so the best case scenario can happen.
Myth: Sanctuaries are the Only Way!
Fact: Don’t get me wrong, I would prefer bands stay together forever and think sanctuaries are great for the horses already in holding. At the same time, it is more important to me that the horses go to the right home, and a creditable sanctuary will know when to say they are full. Thus, unless people want the horses to languish in holding, it is better to find alternatives than to wait until a sanctuary has enough space for an entire band. Since the horses are so intelligent and adaptable, there is also no rule that they need to be released into a pasture with no contact to the outside world. If the adopter knows what discipline is best for their horse, many horses not only adapt to domestic life they thrive with their new purpose.
Myth: Horses Need to be Adopted in Pairs
Fact: Since horses are social animals I can understand where people are coming from. However, as mentioned wild horses are adaptable. Unless you know the potential adopter, there is no way of knowing what their facilities are like. Even if they can only adopt one horse, they may already have horses or other animals. Regardless if they have animals, whomever adopts them will become their herd.
Myth: Holding is the Literal Best/Worst
Fact: While I’ve never personally been to holding, I’ve heard mixed reports about conditions. Some think it’s a horrible, dirty place where the horses are over crowded no shelter with only food and water as consolations. Some think that it’s great that the horses are getting food and water each day and that conditions are perfect. While I have no doubt some holding facilities meet those extremes, it’s more likely that most of the holding facilities are somewhere in between. While I feel strongly that no mustang should stay in holding in the long run, and that they should have a bigger purpose than just getting food each day, the BLM employees that care for the horses in holding are doing the best they can. They are not the ones in charge of public land management. While it is important to keep BLM employees accountable if standards are not being met and to find the horses homes, taking out management decisions on those caring for horses in holding is not appropriate.
Myth: Opening the Gates/Releasing the Horses will Ensure their Freedom
Fact: Trying to impact management in any way, even if it is to release the horses in holding is illegal. Even if someone adopts a mustang and releases them it is illegal. At that stage, an adopted mustang will have been branded so the BLM will be able to remove the horse again and return it to their owner. Like many items on this list, having an illegal approach just reflects badly on the advocates trying to create positive changes to management making their efforts harder.
Myth: Litigation will Ensure their Freedom
Fact: Litigation is only successful if advocates can prove that the BLM acted illegally. As explained above, the BLM is following the Wild Horse and Burro Act. Since the BLM is following the Wild Horse and Burro Act, there is nothing illegal about removing horses via bait trap. Thus, the only thing litigation would do is distract from finding the horses homes, keeping the rest wild while wasting time and money.
While this doesn’t cover all the misinformation, these are the main points people’s emotions have been misconstruing. It’s important to care for the horses. Emotions can spur us into action, but we also need to be rational enough to find solutions. Fighting with other advocates because their facts contradict your opinion does not help the horses. If we want to show the BLM that we are capable of assisting management, then we need to show we can work together. Because if advocates can’t work together we can’t expect the BLM to want to work with us. We can feel what we need to about management, but we also need to accept what we cannot change and find realistic solutions for what we can.
*Since I started writing this post reports are that the trap will be taken down. However, the BLM still plans on reducing the herd to 58, in the realistic possibility a removal will happen again impacting the trap is still illegal.

Even Old Mama will have no issues adjusting to being domesticated with the right person, or situation.

The Truth about the Pine Nut Advocates

EDIT: Since writing this all but two of Samson’s band have been removed. Regardless of how the Pine Nut group wants to spin the information about this, we are seeing the repercussions of their inaction. Last I heard, rather than take responsibility for the lack of MOU that could have prevented this, they are trying to blame the community for not wanting a MOU signed. As I learn more I will share on my facebook page, and here.
Part 1: Building Rapport
In 2017 I started a job in NV. Eager to explore the state with the most mustangs, I set out to find an advocacy group that could point me in the right direction to see wild horses near Reno. I quickly found the Pine Nut Wild Horse Advocates group on facebook. Based on their posts they were knowledgeable, and passionate about building community. After waiting for the range to dry up, and some convincing that I was serious about viewing the horses, they gave me directions. When I missed a turn on my first visit to the range they texted me so I would know. When I called for help because I’d gotten stuck, they sent help. When I got stuck on a name, they would help me identify the horses.
Wanting to thank them, I decided to donate my photos from my trips to the range. Since they featured so many talented photographers already, I knew it would be a long shot if I were included in their ranks. But the more I visited the range, and got to know the horses the more I also got to know the people through facebook. Eventually, they started sharing my photos, stories, and even included some of my photos in a calendar. When I had to return to MN I left with lasting friendships.
Part 2: Leadership Changes
Despite no longer being local, I could still tell when the Pine Nut group went through leadership changes. Sometimes the posts on the page were well balanced, letting anyone post their opinion and have discussions. Sometimes the posts were purely emotional, and only those that agree with the page can share.
When management needs became more dire, it became more blatantly obvious the direction the page was headed. Despite the rapport I had built with the page, even when I shared facts about management, they were even going as far as deleting posts and blocking people from the page. While I understand that people do not want to hear negative things about an organization, all the information I am providing comes directly from their posts on their facebook page over the years.
Part 3: Management Repercussions
If this were it, then it would just be a difference in opinion on how to run a facebook page, but the Pine Nut group has repeatedly claimed they are in the process of signing a MOU with the BLM. The BLM is mandated to use the best available science when making management decisions. If the way they present information is emotional, it does not convey a rational approach to understanding the facts of management. If the Pine nut group is not open to the facts provided by other advocates, it does not convey an ability to be open to having a meaningful relationship with the BLM.
Part 4: Repeating Management Mistakes
Further, the information provided to the Pine Nut page is not consistent making it difficult to wade through the anthropomorphism to find consistent facts. Thus far the only contents I have found are that since they are darting every mare with PZP they do not need to worry about genetic diversity, and that they plan on removing bachelors upon signing a MOU with the BLM.
While I agree with using PZP, using it on all the mares will result in a non-reproducing herd in five years. At a BLM count of 78 horses, if they only remove the horses that they deem will be the easiest to adopt out they risk inbreeding if they do not also consider genetics regardless of if they sometimes get new horses from the Pine Nut HMA.
Plus, primarily focusing on which bachelors should go repeats the mistakes of management when entire cohorts of bachelors were removed. Which is why very large bands were formed with only a few established band stallions contributing to the gene pool. With limited competition, it risks limited genetics being passed down. Thus, a strategy focusing on which bachelors are removed risks falling into the same pattern of past management. Considering that past management has consisted of removing horses that wander into neighborhoods, and the Pine Nut group has made that recommendation it’s not an unprecedented idea. We can only hope the BLM is open to hearing from others when the MOU is signed.
Part 5: Final Thoughts
While people are determined to feel that the Pine Nut group is well-meaning, I have been an advocate for long enough to know when others are in danger of screwing over a herd. I am sure Friends of Animals thought they were well meaning when their litigation stopped management in several herds, as does Return to Freedom with their “The Path Forward” plan. While it’s preferred advocates work together, I worry that it’s only a matter of time before larger organizations than this humble photography blog speak out about the Pine Nut group. A group that could have the potential to be well respected again, and do real good may soon be disbanded if they are not careful.
The moral of this blog post is: no matter what regard you have for a group or person do not let it bias you toward your opinion of facts. Being a non-profit with the word advocacy in its name does not make it a reputable organization. Supporting the wrong group can do serious harm to the long term health of the herd if that group does not understand facts.
The good news, that one does not need to support or be a part of an organization in order to be a strong advocate. The people that made the group a great one all those years ago are still around. They are the ones that still care about having a strong community of thoughtful people. With or without the Pine Nut group, the horses in the Fish Springs HA will still have strong advocates.

Since this post is content heavy here’s a pretty picture to make it better.

Quality vs. Quantity

When I first became an advocate, I thought that the more people that knew about wild horses the better. Then, magically, roundups would cease, and wild horses would live in the wild without human intervention. While I still believe that the more people who are aware about wild horses the merrier, I have come to realize that some of the barriers to impacting management comes from advocates themselves. Don’t get me wrong: I’d like to think all advocates are good hearted. I’d like to think all advocates mean well. But when I see those that consider themselves advocates seem to be more interested in spreading subjective opinion than fact, it is hard to see that.
While I know everyone is entitled to their opinion, the strongest advocates I know are always open to new learning. It is important that the learning be based in facts. Some people, even seem to provide just enough facts to seem creditable, while deliberately providing pseudoscience. Again, I want to think the best of people, but when they deliberately provide misleading information it is naive to think everyone has good intentions. There’s enough incorrect information out there without everyone trusting the first person they see on the internet.
While each person has their own method for finding creditable information, I thought I would list my own steps in determining if I should support a group or organization. The first thing I look for is how the present information. Some feel information need only be factual or emotional. While I prefer factual, emotional intelligence is also important. With the right combination of emotion and logic, organizations show they are ethical. If there is one or the other, especially if there are no facts it probably isn’t a creditable organization.
Since I already mentioned some pair creditable information with pseudoscience, this is easier said than done. It can be hard to tell which facts are true, and which are opinion. Ultimately, if the science is valid it should have a source. If someone is confident in the information they provide, they should be able to give you a scientific study for all parts of it.
Which brings me to my next part in considering if someone is creditable: how they respond to discussions. At the very least, they should be respectful but if they are representing an organization they need to be professional. If they want to convey that, then they should be happy to provide their source to those that ask. If they are unable to provide the source, are insulting, or would rather censor comments than provide education it is a sign that they are not providing creditable information.
You’d think just fact checking would be enough, but I still like to validate that they put their money where their mouth is. If I like an advocacy group, I want to support them. With so many issues surrounding wild horses, I want to make sure my money is utilized in the way I want. Before donating, research the website of the group you are considering. Most organizations will have examples of how they use donation money. They should have documentation proving that they use donations the way they say they do. If people want a specific use for the donation, they may even have a comment box for people to write in that desire.
My last item I consider before donating is how often they ask for donations. While I understand that non-profits run on donations, they should still have budgets. Those budgets should account for routine costs. Using a hypothetical that in no way references any organization here is an example.
Let’s pretend that the mission statement of an organization is to let the horses live out in the wild and they only do rescues if absolutely needed. Let’s pretend that every day, sometimes multiple times a day the post about rescuing horses. Let’s pretend they always act surprised how much a rescue will be and that without donations, it there would be no hope for the horse’s care.
While I understand accidents happen if there were truly an organization like this, my first red flag would be how frequently they rescued horses. If the mission is truly to let the horse live as nature intended, then that should include natural selection. If an organization cannot pay for a rescue, then there are ways to end an animal’s suffering while letting their body rest on the range. While it can be hard to know the exact costs until a vet looks at the rescue, if the organization cannot meet basic costs they should not have made the rescue.
This is just one nonexistent example of how I decide where my donations should go. Regardless of the reason, I always weigh the pros and cons before donating. Everyone makes different decisions regarding where their money could go. Just because I make my decisions one way doesn’t mean everyone has to.
Similarly, just because there are things about an organization that prevent me from donating to them, doesn’t mean I cannot support them. There’s no rule that you have to agree 100% with everyone. Everyone has strengths and weaknesses. Part of being a strong advocate means being part of a strong community despite differences. While it is important to think critically about where one gets information, and where they spend their money, it is equally important to build connections.

Regardless of where people get their information, or what opinion they have looking at any management or organization objectively is imperative.

Mustang Mismanagement: Pessimism

As more people get involved with wild horse advocacy it seems the first thing they hear about is roundups. When it can feel like there were so many advocates before them that haven’t put an end to roundups, it can feel discouraging, and like nothing advocates will do will help. It can be tempting to look only at the negative, and ignore the progress that has been made.
The thing about everything in life, though, is there is no such thing as either or. Even when things seem to hit rock bottom, life always has more of a context than just positive or negative. When looking at the facts of management, it is vital to look at the entire picture. Without a basic understanding of land management, advocates cannot make accurate management recommendations. As new advocates start to do research, it can be tempting to search social media rather than studies. There can be a lot of myths about management that can make an already bad situation seem hopeless.
Myth: Wild Horses are Feral:
Some think that since mustangs can adapt to adoption, and share some of the markers for domestic breeds they are feral. The truth is, DNA from fossils shows that horses evolved on North America. Further, the DNA is the same as the modern day mustang. Although current sciences supports that horses traveled the Berring Land Bridge before becoming extinct, and reintroduced by Conquistadors the the more fossils found the more the gap between those two dates decreases. It wouldn’t surprise me if more fossils are found that show that there were still a few mustangs remained on North America even during the period where they were thought to be extinct.
While it’s true different herds have different characteristics that are similar to different domestic breeds, that does not make them any less wild. Plenty of wildlife have a region specific subspecies. While those subspecies have adaptations that enable them to survive their specific environment, they are still part of the species as a whole. Thus, since mustangs have traits in different herds that help them stay adapted to their environment the horses in different herds are subspecies of each other.
Myth: Mustangs Roam Wide Open Spaces:
When you look at numbers on the BLM website it looks like there are thousands of horses roaming the west free as can be. Since the BLM uses outdated science to make population estimates, these stats are inflated and misleading. The reality is that each group of horses is fenced in what are known as Herd Management Areas (HMAs). This is where the idea that each group of mustangs is a subspecies comes in. Even herds adjacent to each other have clear boundaries and genetic makeups. It also means that although mustangs are adapted to their individual HMA, they only have a finite amount of resources within that HMA.
Myth: Mustangs Don’t Need to be Managed:
If you’ve made it this far, you might note that some parts of this blog seem contradictory. You may be thinking: if the herds are underpopulated, why do they need to be managed? If they are adapted to their environment, why does it matter if the herds are fenced? Unfortunatly, the BLM is mandated to managed public land for multiple uses, and the horses are often used as scapegoats for degradation caused by cattle, oil, gas, etc. If left with no public opinion, the BLM will use helicopters to roundup the horses. If advocates speak up for horses, they are more likely for the BLM to use adaptive management.
Myth: Helicopters are the Only Way Mustangs are Managed:
What this should read is that at this time, helicopters are the primary way mustangs are managed. There are plenty of adaptive management techniques the BLM should be using such as PZP, range improvements, protecting predators, etc. It is imperative that advocates make adaptive management recommendations for any chance of helicopters being eliminated.
Myth: PZP Does Not Work:
Some feel that since the majority of herds are still managed via helicopter, PZP either is harmful, or does not work. The truth its, there is no creditable study that shows that PZP impacts anything other than a mare’s fertility. If roundups are the primary management for a herd, then PZP is either not being used or not effectively being used.
Myth: Limiting Stallion Reproduction Works
If you’re in the camp that PZP is ineffective, you may think that new measures are needed. For the purpose of this point, let’s pretend I did not just disprove that PZP lacks effectiveness. Controlling which stallions breed does nothing to control population, unless no stallions are able to reproduce. In that case, you will soon see the entire herd extinct.
Myth: Some Mares are Born Sterile
While I am a huge promoter of PZP, some are determined to think it can do no wrong. While there’s nothing wrong with PZP itself, if used for 5 consecutive years in a row, a mare will be sterile. While it’s true some mares have higher levels of fertility than others, an organisms purpose is to reproduce. Plus, even in well documented herds, people are unable to see all aspects of life in the wild. It is far more likely that a mare that has not been seen with a foal lost all her foals, possibly paired with natural low fertility, then she was born sterile. To me, someone claiming a mare was born sterile, especially if she is under 10, is more of an excuse to ignore how PZP works than to show an understanding of ecology.
BLM Employees are Evil
Debating good vs. evil seems more a topic for a philosophy debate, but I’m of the opinion that people are inherently good. I am also of the opinion that BLM employees are inherently lazy. All they want to do is find the easiest way to manage public land within the parameters of the Wild Horse and Burro Act. Right now, the easiest way to manage the horses for the BLM is helicopter roundups. However, the BLM is also mandated to seek the opinion of the entire American Public when going through the NEPA process. If the only people that respond to EAs are representing oil, gas, and cattle industries then roundups will continue. If more people promote adaptive management, and volunteer to administer it, the BLM are more likely to respond favorably.
Contacting Politicians is the Only Way
Sometimes people have a one size fits approach to management, and although some techniques are more effective than others all efforts are important. I personally have found faster change by participating in the NEPA process. However, everything in government has checks and balances. Within those checks and balances is a chain of command. At the very top is the president. While the president does not make herd specific discussions, their opinions about public land as a whole can set the tone for the rest of the administration. Even if the president’s focus is not on wild horses, if they protect land more than they destroy it, it is more likely that advocates will successfully form partnerships with local BLM field offices.
The next chain of command is congress. Congress decides how much funding the BLM should receive. They are supposed to balance the needs of all their constituents, but they are often go with what they think will be the least expensive “fix”. The result is often catering to special interests (cattle, oil, gas), rather than taking an intelligent look at land management. Thus, if advocates want a better chance of cooperation from BLM employees, they need to elect people that are more open to supporting rangeland health. Regardless, if one only focuses on politicians, they miss opportunities for real change.
Litigation is the Only Way
While I understand that roundups are inhumane and should be illegal, it is important to understand the parameters set by the Wild Horse and Burro Act. While harrasment done by the public is illegal, BLM contractors using helicopters to roundup the horses is not. Litigation is expensive, and advocates are only successful if they can prove that the BLM violated the law. Even if advocates are successful, all litigation does is delay management. Often, when the litigation is over, the BLM will just use the management technique that is worse than the one they proposed in the first place.
Holding Facilities are Inhumane/ The Horses Stay there Forever!
Don’t get me wrong, life in holding is an unacceptable fate for mustangs. However, I do not feel the need to make an already bad situation worse. Overall, when I have heard from those that have gone to holding facilities to adopt a horse, BLM employees do want to ensure good care for the once wild mustangs. It’s true the BLM does not seem to believe in giving the horses in holding shade, pens can be crowded, and as a result unclean, but I doubt the BLM employees that care for the horses are high on the totem poll to make decisions that impact those conditions. Sometimes, when an organization as whole is a hot mess express, those on the bottom are just doing the best they can. Even if conditions were perfectly spotless, holding would still not be an ideal place for a mustang to be.
Solutions
I’ve made an effort to make this as unbiased as possible, so it is true that there is plenty to be negative about. I can see why people would chose to be negative. However, negativity can lead to inaction. All advocates have the goal to leave the horses alone in the wild, but inaction only results in more roundups. Ending roundups can seem like an overwhelming goal, but when you have big goals you break them up into smaller ones.
As of now, the most effective way to end roundups is PZP and other adaptive management techniques. The best way to implement those techniques is by forming partnerships with local BLM field offices. To help smooth the way for local partnerships, vote for politicians that support the environment, and keep them accountable. Keep well informed with science, help other advocates, and understand management: there are plenty of ways to help the horses. Sometimes steps that seem small have big impacts. While realism is important, when people are negative nothing gets done. When everyone does a small step here and there positive outcomes occur.

Wild horse ranges provide some of the coolest rainbows. If that’s not lucky and positive I don’t know what is.

Mustang Mismanagement: Colorists

If you’ve followed wild horse herds you probably know that everyone has a favorite color. Which is fine until it becomes less of an opinion and more of a statement of an individual horse’s worth. When one horse’s color is valued over another, it starts to feel more like a domestic breeding farm than pristine wilderness. And, although everyone is entitled to their opinion, when people value colors as such it bleeds into the way the horses are managed. When opinions bleed into the ways horses are managed then it opens the door for increased inbreeding. Which is ironic, since a variety of colors is thought to show high genetic diversity.
To help illustrate this, I thought I would go over a brief overview of color. While it is not needed to understand the specifics, a basic understanding of color genetics can help show how the horses are related. Some colors are only possible with specific pairings, so if the horses with those possibility only come from one line, it limits which horses could produce those colors. Especially in a small population, horses related to each other will start breeding and lower the health of the herd.
Like a lot of the things as people are starting out, the idea that color is an indication of genetic diversity is an oversimplification. What it really means is that if every genetic line has the opportunity to reproduce all colors will have a chance to be represented. If certain colors are no longer being represented, it can be an indication that genetic diversity is low. Management is best done objectively. If a removal is to take place, making recommendations based on color are not objective. Nor is wanting one horse to have more offspring than another because they have not passed down your favorite color.
No one color is more important than another one. Favoring one color over another just puts pressure on the genetics from one line. There’s nothing wrong with having one’s personal opinion regarding a favorite color. Letting ones favorite bias them against other horses, especially regarding management decision, is inappropriate.

Noble started out bright orange and darkened to liver chestnut. Niobrara started out bay and ended up bay roan. Some like chestnut better than other colors, because it is considered rarer.