Birth Control for Horses, Not for Women

Hey, Rep. Dan Burton...Afghanistan called. They said you stole their opinions & views on women and they want them back. LOL

Dan; Maybe you should try being raped, or raping; then you would have experience, from both sides, to be able to judge! Unfortunately you can only be enrolled on the list of shameful, right-wing activists who have NO IDEA AT ALL of the subject you so heartily chose to JUDGE, and then LEGISLATE! Shame on you! and your family must be SO pleased !!!

This in NOT an either-or position re: birth control for horses over women! Since the government has to figure out how to spend tax money, EACH and every issue is up for discussion.

If the government STOPPED spending MILLIONS of dollars rounding horses and giving them dangerous birth control, there would be MORE money for other programs. The Bureau of Land Management asked for $12 million over the 2010 $63 million budget. Tell your Congressmen not to approve the BLM request.

Two different issues, and both are important. The current attack on womens' rights by the Republicans in office is hideous, but allowing innocent "unwanted" horses to be born only to be rounded up and sent to horrible, suffering deaths in slaughterhouses is not OK either.

Some context is necessary here, RE: wild horses needing birth control. Wild horses in the US have no natural predators - wolves can take down weak and young horses, in the few areas they're present, but this is rare. As a result, the wild horse population doubles roughly every four years. There are about four solutions to this problem - spend millions to gather up and adopt out these horses (the problem is becoming, to who?), spend money on prevention (yes, for wild horses), slaughter them for glue, or introduce megapredators back into the American ecosystem - something that will never happen while we value being able to hike in the woods with confidence.

Republican or not, this problem must be considered - most people in BLM are working to preserve our ecological heritage and stability, and it is attacked on all fronts for being a "waste" of money, or "inhumane", or etc. etc. If we did not control the horse population, it would quite literally become an adorable plague we would have to brutally slaughter to save our farms and pastures. So please do not use it as a weapon here - contraceptive rights can stand on its own without such attacks on other issues.

Thank you.

Aren't there better options for the purposing of wild horses? Other countries who could use a horse population for transportation/farming etc? Why do we slaughter horses to make glue when you can make glue with flour and water?
Wouldn't the wild horse population regulate itself, like every other population of wild animal? Who are they hurting if left alone to live in peace and thrive or dwindle, as nature intends? Who is man's natural predator? Some would also say noone, but there are always predators... disease, famine, virus... none of which involve mortal combat... same with horses... We need to manage ourselves and leave the rest of the world be... there have been wild horses and wild buffalo and wild many things and none of them took over the world... The earth functions quite well without our medling... best thing we can do is control ourselves so we stop gobbling up the entire planet for ourselves like the disease and pestilence we lately so often seem to resemble...

A population will never outgrow it's environment... a fish in a fish tank remains small... leave nature alone ... for those who don't are altering our human nature towards something much more primal and backwards than was intended for our evolution...

If you have to go out and make an effort to round them up, then I think they are not as big of a problem as someone with a vested interest would like to imply... who wants the grass they are eating? The reality of a situation usually can be revealed by looking for the greed surrounding it.... which usually leads back to a power-trip as well.... No one has said a thing about why wild horses are a problem... do they raid chicken coops? cull herds of sheep? steal and kill human children? Why are they allowed to be rounded up for glue? who's making money on that? and why is it allowed? If the horses don't belong to a person, then noone should be allowed to make money on them (government?) On the other hand, if they are a wild natural resource (like fish in the ocean) they should be allowed to be culled/harvested like the other creatures for food or necessary uses as are deer, rabbits etc... WHY is the government rounding up the horses??? Horses are neither the threat of physical harm to humans nor a competitor for our food resources (at least I don't recall eating much grass lately) So..WHY is the government involved in spending our money to control the wild horse herds???? We have to depopulate them so someone else won't kill them for glue..... how about stopping those who are killing them for glue? Killing something so it won't be killed is the most idiotically flawed logic I've ever heard!!! Same as with the war re: feral cats... "we have to sterilize their population (abortion) and herd them up and kill them (animal control) so the don't die out there from starving and disease (which is oh so much MORE cruel...eh?) What are these people smoking???

I agree that comparing these 2 things does us a dis-service, and it ought to be taken down before it bites us HARD on the ass. I lived in a place where the deer had eaten themselves into a famine due to the lack of natural predators. Though I understand the point being made and DESPISE the rethuglicans for their crimes and their assault on women, this is apples and oranges. I agree with Mr. LaChance that contraceptive/womens rights can stand on it's own

A few dollars spent on birth control for wild horse populations is FAR more humane than THIS:

http://bit.ly/a2rSr1

http://s147271628.onlinehome.us/HorseSlaughter.wmv

We also need laws to prevent this from happening to domesticated horses as well! Horse slaughter is NOT A JOKE!

LJW - A population without natural predators can and will overpopulate. Horses are not native to America. They are, as you say, part of our 'meddling' - we brought them here during the colonial period, they escaped, and now they're here to stay. Yes, they will die of starvation, disease, and exhaustion if we let them. So will our population of elk, deer, and other herbivores, and then so will our population of natural predators such as wolves and coyotes. This isn't even mentioning the effects on our songbirds, rodents, bird of prey and other animals that rely upon a prairie not trampled to death by introduced species. At best, the horses will die back to an acceptable level, perhaps after causing another dust bowl thanks to depletion of soil-fixing grasslands, but inevitably causing the extinction or migration of many species.

The fact is, we are in a precarious position here, not even comparable to Australia's explosive rabbit and cat population in potential destruction. This is why the wild horse program was created. They are breeding too quickly for us to adopt out now, no matter how much money we throw at collection and promotion. There's only so much demand for horses you can't intially ride or touch without being kicked in the face. Horses can and will outcompete native fauna if they are allowed to - If this happens, not only would our western grazing lands be compromised, but many related areas would be heavily affected as well.

For our economy, for our ecology (the two are not independent of each other), we must control the wild horse population somehow, because nothing else will.

P.S. .... Just because the government doesn't fund something, doesn't make it invalid or unnecessary or make it go away... The government doesn't have to pay for everything that we want or need... "the government" is, supposedly "us" ... the money it gives to programs comes from "us" .... though it's easier to grab and channel money from a singular source (the government)... if the need and validity of the need is there, the money is there as well whether we individually have to sacrifice more of our own luxuries to afford the necessities, or whether the organization has to campaign on a more regional and local level and find other sympathetic sources... Sometimes we allow ourselves to depend too much on "the government" to provide necessities, programs, grants, etc.... all too often we depend on them to live our lives for us... if the government not providing $ for planned parenthood etc. means the salaries at centers built for the distribution of such can't be provided... then other buildings and organizations (churches/universities/Red Cross etc. can be used... consolidation, folks... Are those here really fighting for the provision of birth control to humans or fighting for their own jobs? Maybe we don't need a public health center in every district so it's more convenient... maybe we need 1 or 2 larger ones that are organized efficiently. Maybe we can't afford for everything to be as "convenient" and "easy" as we've come to feel entitled to... Maybe we should stop complaining, roll up our sleeves, reconnect ourselves to patience and clarity, get creative and find ways to sustain what we TRULY need and clean out the closet! I'm an artist, have been since the 1st grade. Make my living as an artist... and I have never experienced or been influenced by government funding for the arts. Art comes from life, and what's inside you. Government can't create it or eliminate it.... People! Start living your own lives! Let the government handle the FEW things government SHOULD be handling, and take a little more responsibility for your own lives and the world around you!! BE the solution to your problems!

Just how does Dan propose to provide birth control for horses? I doubt if we can convince them to wear condoms. The only effective way I know of is to castrate most of the males. A spring roundup, separate the yearling colts, castrate hem and turn them loose. I'm sure BLM must be doing something like that now. Cheap and effective. However that has nothing to do with rape. Women who are raped are victims of horrible brutality. Not only do we need laws to protect them, but those laws need to be actively enforced. No man has the right to hit, beat, or force himself on a woman, and that includes husbands to their wives. This whole idea of we need no laws and we need to pay for nothing is getting out of hand.

Um...birth control for wild horses would actually be a good idea, although I don't know how it would be done. I don't want to get too off topic, but they round up horses every year, and many are sent to live out their days in dirt pens. And guess who feeds them? If we could manage the ever growing population in a humane way that kept them from reproducing as rapidly, it would actually save money (because we wouldn't have to pay to feed unreleased ones forever) and also be better for the horses (no overcrowding and lives spent on dirt lots).

Anyway, that said, obviously what they're trying to do for women is awful and I oppose it.

Nice work, commentators. You've managed to become completely distracted by horses...

While humans and horses may be like apples and oranges species-wise, CONTRACEPTION is the issue they share. Republicans have a problem with preventing pregnancy as it intervenes with "God's will." However, they can justify that it's appropriate to use when they find it benefits them and their constituents financially, politically, etc. And that is because God doesn't have a will or a plan for other creatures, which is why it's okay to use contraception on them...?!!

The writer is comparing these two pieces of legislation to poke holes in the morally driven and self-righteous Republican belief structure as a means to undermine their goals. He's not necessarily saying that horses shouldn't be regulated, leaving them to be slaughtered. For arguments sake though, I'm going claim that Republicans are doing just that by blocking contraception for women who don't want children, effectively leading them to abortion. Oh boy, there's a dilemma that we all know the conservative legislative answer too.

LJW is right, nature (or God's hand) will regulate us horses and humans both in the end. Regardless of how high we sit in the divine hierarchy. Personally, I'd rather administer contraception to all who want it than wait for a nasty plague to take us down.

@ Maggie the voter: When you say "contraception" and I must assume the form of contraception would be sterilization, as it would be least costly and least involved..(do you know what kind of "contraception" is proposed?) I can't accept that we have the right to 'play God' with any species... You seem compassionate to the horses, yet you don't respect their right to life as you would a human's... the amazing horses that would never be born... well, you can't conceive that as a problem, because you don't see their lives as meaningful as humans... no great physicists or mathematicians in the horse herd... but perhaps a great leader, a superbly strong, superbly proportioned horse... whatever 'best in show' features would improve and forward the evolution of that species (which some day in the future we may again rely on)... you say contraception is more humane than slaughter... it may be less violent, but it's more deceitful and I tire of people feeling any animal should suffer any expense to solve the problems of greed, aggression, irresponsibility and dis-functionality of OUR species ... it pains you to see others slaughter horses for glue... so lets make LESS horses for them to slaughter... they're still getting slaughtered... lessening the numbers doesn't lessen the inhumanity... If you care.. let them live their natural lives, and stop the slaughtering... don't try to control the horses as a means of controlling the people (because you fear you cannot control the people)...

@Simon LaChance: You sound as if you resent the wild horse. As if it is rogue, or something gone bad... you say noone has much use for ..."there's only so much demand for horses you can't initially ride or touch without being kicked in the face"... When's the last time you rode an elk, or a moose, or a deer? WHY does the wild horse have to serve you in order to live a free and natural life? Elk, moose, buffalo, deer and MANY other animals including cattle and sheep GRAZE. The buffalo were native to America... what good did that do them?(They also trampled the plains)How do the cattle ranches deal with replenishing their grazing land? PERHAPS you should concentrate on land management? Fencing off regions of land with split rail fence that allows other animals to pass through but keeps out the horses while that land replenishes..you could even throw your money at re-seeding! How is it that elk and moose are 'good to go' but horses are perceived as destructive forces? They all have 1-2 offspring, are all large, all eat grass..... Who are the natural predators for elk, moose etc.? Bear? Wolves? And you're proposing that a wolf can take down an elk or a moose but not a horse? I swear I've seen bears and wolves take down horses all the time in the movies... must be true.! Are you saying they won't because horses taste worse than elk? I think I know some Asian restaurants that would disagree...
I have to laugh when you state "they aren't native" ... Could you please use that argument for closing the borders and keeping out the people who are not "native" to America, because we are running out of natural resources, expressly, land, which we keep taking more and more of from nature and the animals that were here long before us... Horses ate grass in other countries too... they are not an alien species that is eating something unnatural or which was not intended to be eaten... which continent they originated on is irrelevant. I suppose you should send all the potatoes back to where they originated as well! We changed our lifestyles from one where the horse was prominently important and utilitarian, to one which contaminates our environment and to where we have become dependent on foreign sources for fuel and, in following, gotten our country grossly indebted, to the brink of losing it entirely to other countries... perhaps we should focus on re-purposing the horse.. takes a little more work than pulling up to a gas station, but... LOL! But maybe those horses will come in handy when the gasoline stops pumping....

Regardless, the horse shouldn't have to EARN it's right to life any more than the elk or the moose... I see a very evident displacement of guilt in that expectation. Whether it out-competes the other fauna is up to them... (don't tell me an elk or moose can't take on a horse or defend it's own grazing spot! They are bigger and more aggressive! WITH HORNS) and if the 'foreign' horse is not welcome to live here (as you admit WE/people brought it here and it's had generations of offspring born in this land) then there's alot of free-loading 'foreigners' we'd be better off sending home as well... or should we just sterilize them or slaughter them for glue? Where does it end? I think your SOLUTION lies in land management. Starvation and disease are natural events in the life cycle. Contraception /sterilization are not. We are just another animal... we are not God... and we'll never even get close at this rate... Though I have hope for humanity, because the spirit of God is in all of us, just waiting to be realized... love, patience, compassion, acceptance, and humility are the only tools we need to solve any and all our problems... When we respect the earth and all the life on it as all integral and equally important and equally entitled, we'll find peace, and heaven on earth... sadly, at this point, few of us actually, truly want that... Please, when you think you've found the solution to such a problem... think a little further, until you find the right one : )

as far as birth control goes , the horses don't know any better that is why they are animals. humans, well they know what happens if you have unprotected sex they have the choice to get pregnant or not.i'm sorry but i think that the horses need the birth control, if people don't want to get pregnant then keep your legs closed , buy your own birth control or get your tubes tied. i'am not trying to be mean but like i said people can do something about their situation but horses cannot.

I don't know where rape came into this discussion... whether the government funds contraception (horses or humans) has nothing to do with the issue of rape. Rape is a crime. EVERY level and form of it is an unacceptable crime. Noone said anything about not having any laws. Government funding of extraneous programs or of things we should take more personal or more community responsibility for, has no connection to laws at all of any kind.

CONTRACEPTION is an entirely different issue. It is an unnatural occurrence in the circle of life, still we were given the ability to evolve and we evolved into having the ability to limit our own species... thought to be so much less painful than a plague... OK... except that that is not truly the motivation behind today's practice of contraception.... Today's practice of contraception has evolved from a shift in values and lifestyle from accepting and nurturing life to being too busy, too selfish, too impoverished, too afraid to welcome the renewal of life (our primary purpose/function) You can dig deeper into the psyche of all that... acknowledging that perhaps we strive to elevate ourselves from the rest of life by taking "control" over procreation and being able to choose NOT to procreate. Superb! I endorse any person who is so aware of their inherent selfishness to the point of not wanting to procreate, to have complete access to birth control. They will, in most cases, be limiting their own spiritual and emotional growth, in effect constructing the completely opposite effect of elevating themselves from the rest of (animal) life, for they eliminate or delay the one essential experience that truly elevates humanity. How many times do we find that the thing we feared, hated, or dreaded the most became the defining joy and transformation of our lives, hearts and spirits. This is not exclusive of having children, but of many life experiences, be it the hardest teacher, most demanding job or most difficult financial situation... or even a war...

I, myself, took birth control pills from the ages of 18-24. I wanted to have premarital sex without getting pregnant. I was not impoverished, or incapable... I was naively selfish... I was, in fact, a warm, generous and loving person who would've made a wonderful parent at any age and under any circumstance...yet, the acceptable lifestyle was to be properly married before having a child, so... even if I may not have gotten pregnant without them (I'd been having sex for 3 years already) I took the pills, at a (nurse)neighbor's counsel...I was married at 21 and felt secure enough in the relationship after 3 years to open up to the possibility of children. But the children didn't come... 8 years went by before my first pregnancy, and it was a miscarriage at approx 4 months. We were told to abstain for two months...then I got pregnant again immediately. After 9 years of marriage I finally had a child, but the relationship had lost it's former strength and we were divorced 6 months later. I never got a second chance at marriage and there are no other siblings for my child to grow up with. I wish I had left it to God. My decision was short-sighted. The time I took contraception may have been my best time to conceive. Some social mores are beneficial, but telling ourselves that life is only good and valid and valued under certain circumstances is NOT progressive, it's just sad, for us. Life should always be valid and valued in ANY circumstance. And we need to take more responsibility, individually for the communal protection of our species, as so many of earth's other creatures do so much better than we do ("It takes a village"...) A woman's right to choose must be maintained, for that decision (and path) is between her and God (who is spokesman for our inner selves, our future dreams and the life we don't yet know of..) but we should, as a community offer better choices than abortion, and better environments that support procreation more than contraception... so much we waste, destroy, never realize because of our fears, unnecessary fears... what if, what if... let's create a better life and deal with the actual problems that arise as they arise... even events that look eminent often never happen... terminal patients recover, people walk away from blazing infernos and horrendous car crashes... with more faith and less fear, we wouldn't be fighting about how we had to spend the billions of $ we don't have to spend in the first place... Maybe, just maybe, contraception isn't the best solution, anyway... maybe we need to think it through from another place ... what would it take to make contraception unnecessary? What is wrong in our humanity that we feel the need to kill our own species... and don't pretend that blocking a conception that would otherwise have occurred is any less murder than an abortion.. it may be more "humane" (Maggie) but the life is still taken... dead is dead, gone is gone... we can do better.... If every family would take in one unwed mother, orphaned child, homeless person, abandoned elderly or unwanted baby, not only would our nation (and world) be a better place, but our families and our spirits would be happier as well... our national resources would be better distributed and so many ineffective and wasted tax dollars would come back to us or go to places where they were actually effective and useful... Novel idea, huh? Caring for each other...??? Before you dismiss it as impossible, first meditate on what it would actually take to make it happen? And ponder all the benefits right down to consolidated resources..utilities, gas, food etc... two households for persons (1) and (4) or 1 household for persons(5) ? Better use of resources makes a better economy for all...

And it's OK that the government provides birth control, but for what we, as a people spend on cigarettes and amusement parks, it's really something we should take personal responsibility for... but (not in light of the current economy, but in general) when the government hands out food, daycare rent/utilities etc... why would anyone feel the need to be personally responsible for their sexuality? It's not like we're more evolved than the other animals!... : )

The events of the past few weeks have really brought the anti-contraception agenda of the anti-choice movement right out in the open. Anyone who still naively thinks it's about life for them or that we can compromise with them should be disabused of that.

@ Eva: The horses aren't SUPPOSED to "know any better" They're not doing anything wrong!! Nature is concerned with survival of the species, not the personal comfort of every creature... that is why creatures eat other creatures... all part of balance and survival and, like water, nature always finds it's balance. Then WE come along and decide there's too many horses or too many deer or too many rabbits or too many people... All we do is mess things up. Nature always prevails, whether it takes an earthquake or a tsunami or a drought or an ice age to make it right... if you have to kill something or someone as a last resort to defend your life, so be it... otherwise live and let live... we NEVER know the ramifications of the things we concoct ..just consider the destruction we do to ourselves with pharmaceuticals and food additives and growth hormones etc!! We are far too short-sighted and greed-motivated to be entrusted with managing the earth and all it's creation and resources... The whole idea of such control is one huge power-trip...

The horses should not be sterilized and prevented from living their natural specie's destiny. Change is a vital part of creation. Things come and things go. Populations rise and fall. We cannot pick a point in time and judge whether it's good or bad. Life will not end, as suggested earlier, if the horse population dominates at any given point in time... Herds of buffalo didn't end the world or destroy species because they trampled the ground.... but it's just like humans to shift the blame... WE'RE the ones paving all the grazing land... don't take it out on the horses! Conserve more natural land and build fewer buildings!!!! Why should the horses suffer for human greed!!!!

And @ Jenn: Contraception does not guard against plague!!! Seriously??? If we take lots of contraception, we won't get wiped out by a plague?? On the contrary..if we take lots of contraception we won't be able to survive or re-populate after a plague! Diseases only accompany overpopulation when the overpopulation is in a confined space where nature is not allowed to function on it's own...usually within man-made cities, but plagues usually come from random sources in nature, viruses or infections, one way nature uses to control population...even ours...

Someone better tell the men to stay away from the sheep and cattle.

@ Donna: The right to choose should never be compromised. Whether contraception and/or abortion is right or wrong...(positive and beneficial, or negative and detrimental)is inconsequential to an individual's right to choose what they want to do and how they want to live their lives. The right to choose encompasses everything.

We always have a choice. There's always a consequence of every choice. I don't see here how any choices are being taken away. Government funding does not dictate your choices, only whether or not the government will pay for your choices. They're not telling you you can't have contraception or abortions, just that they won't pay for them. The choice is still yours. What would you do if there WAS NO government? How would you make your choices then??

If they try to make abortion or contraception illegal and enforce such legislation...THEN your choices are being taken away.... If they withdraw funding, that just means you have to really believe in your choice enough to pay for it yourself or find your own donors to help you... and if nobody else...family,friends,community... will help you, then oh well... maybe it's not the right choice?? I'll bet an abortion is less expensive than a broken arm...

BTW, I signed the petition to stop them from changing the definition of rape... but you have to stop grouping all "women's" issues together to further your political agenda... rape, contraception, abortion, daycare services etc... are all different issues... medically necessary abortions or rape-related abortions are not part and parcel with "I just don't want to have a baby" abortions. The former should be covered (if necessary) the latter should not. The latter should be paid for by the individual. Period.

I doubt the concern in this issue is actually about rights...but moreso about whether certain organizations will or will not be receiving government appropriations..

I'm not a republican. I used to think I was more a democrat, because I used to believe they stood more for people and human rights... but politics anymore just uses public issues and concerns to push around our tax dollars to best suit themselves and the organizations created to legally get those tax dollars that purport to benefit us. So, though I do see the need for a government, I see NO need for either or ANY political party. We should be one people and govern on the issues and needs individually. There are good ideas on both sides and no one party being in control can EVER truly or best serve the people or country. "Parties" are one of the most destructive concepts to ever impregnate our society.

@ Ms Avis Deck ? To what are you referring?

Malaria, Bird Flu, Swine Flu are examples of "plagues"... Is your remark referring to "Aides" ? I believe Aides did originate from a source in nature, but not due to overpopulation. And though condoms may reduce the spread of something like Aides, it does not prevent the disease, and the disease did not originate from the act of having (normal)intercourse. No amount of birth control prevents something like Aides from existing... but on another note, look at what the fear of Aides did to alter the sexuality and sexual expression of a whole generation of our children, whose perceptions of life and love will never be the same...

I would be most concerned with women losing the rights to love and marriage than any others... because without those ..we all will be just animals... and not on the higher end of them... as so many of them unquestionably mate for life and raise whatever young they are blessed with.... :) Nearer the end of my life, I can say I have done nothing, accomplished nothing more wonderful or important than raising my child. There is no greater gift to the world, to him, or to myself. Whether contraception caused an infertility or not, I mourn the children, his siblings, that I never had... an emptiness that can never be filled... If that's what you'd like to choose... my prayers go with you... and I will defend your right to make that choice...

The horse issue is about money. Many private ranchers use public lands to graze their cattle, sheep, etc. This is what makes the wild horses a "problem." All the stuff everyone else said is also true. But don't be fooled about the GOP's bottom line. And no one is better at red herrings and obfuscation than they are.
The horses, like all other wild animals, deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. We (people) are the ones who "managed" their environment and threw it out of balance. This makes us responsible to them to restore that balance. But it is a very different matter than a woman's right to choose when or if to a child. (Apparently the GOP really only concerns itself with prenatal lives.) Get involved on behalf of the horses. They need our help. But don't confuse it with the much more urgent and frighteningly consequential agenda of the Religious "Right" and the neo-cons (be they GOP, tea partiers, or simply self-centered).
All people in favor of choice need to stand up and be heard now. And blogging won't get the job done. Make calls. Make signs, and bumper stickers. Donate to womens' health advocates (Planned Parenthood, NARAL, etc.). We may need to "March on Washington" over this, and every state capitol house too.
Cutting funding for Title 10 won't help the deficit - which is what the new House members claim to be so concerned over. The Supreme Court is now stacked to the right and could overturn Roe with ease. It's the most political slate of "Justices" in my lifetime (50 years). Womens' lives are in danger.

Yes there needs to be restrictions on women.

It is illegal in the US to kill horses but abortions are fair game!! Great news if your a horse!!

LJW - I'm not resentful at all of horses. I rather like them, actually. In fact, my ideal solution, as I said, would be to reintroduce megafauna (as in big cats, which I also like) where humans have destroyed that ecological niche. The lack of such a niche may be part of why the bison population was so enormous during the 1800s, as devastation from introduced disease swept over the Plains Indians that were hunting them. Of course, we'll never allow big cats in the west, because we can't deal with feeling even slightly unsafe or not being able to go to a place because of danger. And though they do hunt horses, mountain lions and cougars are too sparse and solitary to provide an effective check on wild horse population, compared to something like lions. So the next best solution is to control the wild horse population as humanely as possible.

I don't count letting them starve to death in droves as humane, as you seem to, nor do I like the idea of experimenting with letting them explode out of control, as has never happened before due to competition from bison and then displacement from habitat destruction and intervention from the Department of the Interior/BLM. Even if wolves can hunt horses, their population is kept thoroughly stunted because of the fears of ranchers and suburbanites. This is the sad reality we live in, and plugging up our ears and singing about how nature will help itself isn't going to be much comfort to a miserable starved equine such as myself.

Yes, that's right, I am a horse. Now anything you argue is going to sound silly in comparison, because you'll be arguing with a horse, or someone who thinks they are a horse, or both. In any case, my work is done here.

The contraception is dart injection for mares that lasts about two years (fertility reduction over the herd) - castrating the males wouldn't do it, as the remaining males would just end up with larger bands of mares (all of whom could produce offspring).

The darting program messes with the horses (mares go into season out of cycle with the seasons and foals can be born in late fall or winter instead of spring; mares continue to go into estrus and there's a lot more fighting between bands over that; not a lot of research on long-term implications for the populations). But it is still more humane than roundups. And cheaper. This is about resource abuse (sparing land for discounted ranch grazing rights, mineral exploration, etc.), animal abuse (helicopter roundups, holding pens), and conservation overall. Rep Burton is trying to do one right thing, let's keep that separate from another right thing (supporting women's reproductive choice). I'm for the predator introduction, myself... but starting with this approach is not a bad one.

My question: Why are we stooping to comparison between these two issues? It just puts our reasoning in a bad light to anyone who knows about the land management issue(s).

Stick to the issue at hand, and leave the other aside. Appeal to logic and reason - and even passion, rather than stooping to ridicule. I'm disappointed that we can't seem to do better than this. How about: "Rep Burton has made a very thoughtful and considered decision regarding his bill to support contraception for wild horses so that population management can occur without abuse to the environment or the animals involved. We urge him to consider how lack of the same access for women impacts the families of his constituents, who also have limited (and in many cases severely limited) resources and who want to be able to choose how far those resources must spread - both in terms of number of children and in terms of implication/cost over the long term if they cannot access preventive/well-woman care. The same implications for the long term that he is concerned with for land management and fiscal responsibility can and should be applied to the cost and impact to women and all families if these options are not available to them."

Frame it in terms he already clearly understands, rather than proving that we haven't bothered to even try to fathom what arguments would capture his attention and provide an opportunity for him to consider his position differently.

Simply put for Future Reference: The NWO won't need horses in their Armies any longer. It's soldiers - men & woman - that will be needed in their "apocalyptic" war on the East. Hence the ban on abortions.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Could someone explain to my why the anti-choice people are so pro capital punishment? My late mother was both anti-choice and anti-capital punishment. She believed that BOTH were murder.

@Simon,

Don't kid yourself. This isn't about a horse population getting out of control. Its about a cattle industry that wants to eliminate wild horses completely. Why does our government allow grazing from cattle on public lands? Yet, horses are rounded up when their numbers get above a certain amount?

http://indiana.sierraclub.org/chapter/n0006.html

Jeff - My opinion? Because we eat the cattle, and because they couldn't possibly pose a problem if they were to escape. Modern cattle are absurdly vulnerable to predation thanks to selection towards exactly what predators want, which is a largely immobile source of plentiful meat. Yes, cattle cause destruction, there's no denying that. And yes, horses are competition to cattle. That doesn't mean there aren't honest motives here.

The link you give doesn't quite cite any sources for its claim. I would like to hear more from this angle, but my suspicions here are of misinformation being spread on both sides, unfortunately. Regardless, there simply is no telling what an uncontrolled horse population would do to existing American ecology. There's no denying that they are a foreign species, with few real predators. We also have a model here with Australia, which arguably stands a much better chance with its larger range of predators, and soil compaction and disruption to vegetation is still quite real there. So we have the difficult choice of risking a potential disaster to save an introduced species we could as easily reintroduce, or gradually and humanely remove them to make room for native species, and yes, cattle.

I have no illusions that I'll influence lawmakers either way, but I would urge anyone with interest to try to sort through what propaganda there is and see this issue with reason on their own. All I really wanted to begin with was to point out the shady journalism displayed here, which colors and weakens an important issue unnecessarily.

I often cringe at the term "Wild horses" because it leads many to think that they are native to this country and we should not interfere with "nature"

Just to clear things up, there aren't any true WILD horses in America. Horses were introduced to the U.S. by the Spanish hundreds of years ago, so yeah, the population can't just "regulate" itself because these animals are feral. So technically they can outgrow the environment because they were introduced by humans. How can you say that they're not competing with other animals for food? They're destroying a fragile ecosystem because they do not belong there. Take a geography lesson on your own country and realize that there are grazing animals that live in the American west (Bison, pronghorn antelope, ect) that are competing for these resources.

Big oil and big cattle own and run the Bureau of Land Management. It all boils down to killing off the mustangs so that the big Repuglican Cattle Barons can graze their cattle on taxpayer funded public lands. They not only are guilty of poisoning the water holes in Nevada where wild horses are known to gather; they come up with lies about bison giving their cattle brusilosis(sic) so that they can kill off the bison that have migrated into the public lands where cattle are grazing. There has never been a case of bison spreading this disease to cattle. It's just another lie to keep the grazing land for cattle. I do not want cattle grazing on land that should be set aside for wildlife and as a taxpayer, am tired of subsidizing the big cattle barons.

In my opinion any man who thinks he has the right to speak about these type of issues (abortion, birth control, etc.) should be both castrated and have his tongue cut out. These are issues that no man will ever have to deal with, he deserves to have No say in the matter! And notice how the large majority of those against abortion and birth control are *gasp* men! What a surprise!

Also for anyone to say that it's "gods will" that a woman become pregnant or be raped and that anything that interfers with that (birth control/abortion) is unnatural and against "gods will" is not only a sick sadist, but I would love for every one of you to say that to a cancer or aids patient, tell them that they can not receive any medical treatments for their diseases and suffering, because obviously it was gods will that they have these diseases and to receive any medical treatment is unnatural!

people dont forget it cost the govt more to aid horses with their babies than to aid low income families/mothers with children and thats why we cant have no birth control for us. Lets all get pregnant and not work and live in a house made of grass and mud to help the govt out :D well survive off the lands!!!

This was another one of many GOP absurdities. I wrote a satirical poem about it (with accompanying music from the Rolling Stones) at http://newsericks.com/Planned-Horseparenthood. Please check it out and leave a comment to let me know what you think. (I also plugged one of your petitions.)

Peace all,
I think we are not looking at the signs. If the horse population is increasing and in some opinion, out of control...maybe it is telling us that the horses may be more of use to us in our future than we can see at this time.

Oh yes, I very much support Birth Control.

I do not, however, support Planned Parenthood's endless stream of illegal and immoral activities.

Start sending Title X to real community health centers rather than to a billion dollar company and some of the confusion might just clear itself up.

I’m wondering now if we can talk about your sites statistics – search volume, etc, I’m trying to sites I can buy adspace through – let me know if we can talk about pricing and whatnot. Cheers mate you’re doing a great job though.

I'm gone to inform my little brother, that he should also visit this website on regular basis to get updated from most recent news update.