The Issue, Part 2

Let’s start with the one that I think, may have the most impact on the horses. I’m talking about the north boundary fence. This is how the BLM describes the need for a strong fence, “Poor condition boundary fence is not “confining” the horses to their designated territory. Reconstruction of the existing north boundary fence and an extension (~1/2 mile) is necessary for a more effective barrier.” (BLM web) At first glance keeping the horses away from US Forest Service (USFS) land would seem like a good idea. After all, the last time the USFS wanted the horses off of their land they removed whole family groups, not even trying to relocate the horses to the designated range. However, it may end up doing more harm than good. When the BLM and USFS repaired the fence, they took out a significant portion of the summer range, including a waterhole. 

There aren’t a lot of natural waterholes on the range, and while the BLM has been adding what they call ‘guzzlers’ the horses tend to utilize the water at the highest elevations the most.

So how could this problem be solved? The biggest thing is to expand the boundary. Preferably I’d like to take the fence down and let the horses decided how far to go into USFS lands. But that’s wishful thinking, so I would like to see the fence rebuilt to where it was before. At the least, I’d like to see the range expanded to include more water. So, like I’ve mentioned before, fewer resources means fewer horses.

Kokopelli’s older brother Jemez


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s