Talk:Free-roaming horse management in North America

Move to "Free-roaming horse management"

This article was created in 2013 by user:Jaime1231 who has never edited since creating the article. It appears to have been a student project, but also to be an advocacy page for http://www.wildhorsepreservation.org/. I propose giving it a more neutral title, and reworking it to a NPOV. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 12:53, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• I agree that it needs some work and has a POV problem in places, but there is also some decent source material that maybe just needs to be re-read and the article re-worked for a more neutral tone (I like that it taps Canada as well as the USA). I had two thoughts: 1) Take a look at feral horse and maybe think about if it's a good idea to add a "management" section there - that's a huge job because that article is worldwide, with different ecosystems having different needs, but I think it would enhance that article. 2) If this article focuses on America's "Wild" horses - and it does, then maybe we need to work "North America" into the title. I don't know for sure what I think about "Free-roaming horse management" - I'm not opposed, just want to chew on it for a bit... Montanabw^(talk) 01:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I definitely don't want to take on world wide feral horse management. And, except for the horses protected under the WFRH&BA, management isn't much of an issue-the herds are small enough that the excess horses can be rounded up and sold or adopted. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 13:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Heh. The Aussies have similar issues with Brumbies in some areas, actually, and I think there is not a lot of support for the Danube Delta Horse or the feral herds in New Zealand (lots of rhetoric there that sounds like the 1950s ranchers here), but yeah, discussing the whole planet is daunting, most of the individual articles have some management discussions anyway (the [{Namib desert horse]] is particularly fascinating - speaking of a desert-based feral population). But even under the Act, the biggest battles are in Nevada, most everywhere else, there is controversy, but the numbers are not as daunting. Maybe the title here should be "BLM Mustang management" or something - as if we aren't going to also drag in the Chincoteague pony and whatever else, it really is mostly BLM we are discussing. Tthe Canadian stuff could be spun off into relevant existing articles like Sable Island horse or a new article just on Canadian feral horse management could be created. I'd be glad to do the splits and spinoffs if you think it's a good idea. Montanabw^(talk) 05:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I think your previous idea of "North American feral horse management" including the Canadian and eastern US herds would be good, with a split off about Mustang Management, with the definition of "Mustang" being a free-roaming horse in the Western U.S. (most of them are managed under the WFRH&BA, but not all, such as the Virginia Range herd, the Sheldon herd or the Salt River horses) The definition would include a short blurb on the history of mustang, how it once described the horses brought in by the Spanish that went feral in Texas and surrounding areas in the 17th and 18th centuries, but now refers (mostly) to the horses that went feral in the late 19th and early 20 centuries would work. That would result in two reasonably sized articles. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 12:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

If you are OK with the title North American feral horse management, I have no objection if you want to do the move (or I can if you want, doesn't matter) There may be a feral herd of the Nokota horse in North Dakota too (need to look into that more , I guess). The NPS and Forest Service have some herds, too. (The Maryland side of Assateague Island is, I think, managed by NPS, for example) But given the contentiousness of the origins and current bloodlines of the Mustang issue we are/were/ having at Mustang, I think we can just link to the history section of the Mustang article and avoid it here altogether, though perhaps a history of roundup methods may or may not be worth a note in this article, though maybe that too could be handled at Mustang... my main thought is "whatever we do, do it once so we don't have WP:CFORK problems" - and don't have the same debate scattered across a dozen pages. (An example of what I don't like to see is that the animal rights folks sort of were given their own little ghetto at animal treatment in rodeo to keep them out of the rodeo article. But I'm too chicken to AfD the fork so it just languishes there.) I'm open to further discussion! Montanabw^(talk) 19:25, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Move and split. Mustangs in one, everything else in the other (I would put the Nokota horse with the "others"). Brief history in this article with link to that one, Brief blurb on management in that article with link to this one. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 19:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Confused: One article just on Mustang management and one on the non-Mustangs of the west plus those on the east coast and in Canada?? Given that almost all the other feral breeds already have their own articles (Banker horse, Sable Island pony, Chincoteague pony, Nokota horse, etc.), most with at least a nod to their management, I think we could actually address all of them in about three paragraphs here with links (i.e. NPS management includes fe, fi, fo and fum, Private management includes x, y, z and Madeline Pickens, Horses foo and bar inhabit National seashores or monuments, blah, blah, blah ...). How about we move first and then start to plug and chug on content; any splits or spinoffs will probably become quite obvious during the process. Montanabw^(talk) 22:46, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Not quite the split I envisioned, but we could start with one and see where it goes. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 23:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I actually don't think we need to split at all - yet. I'm thinking this article can encompass all of North America due to the many existing articles on the various feral landrace breeds on the east coast. Articles such as horse or Bureau of Land Managment are quite long and comprehensive... I think we should rename but keep it as one article until or unless some section becomes so unwieldy that a split is clearly a good idea. What title do you thing we should use? (Keeping it as simple as possible). After a couple days, wondering if your original idea of "free-roaming" is best (no POV for either "wild" or "feral") but add in "North America" as that is where we are talking (Mexico is also in North America, but I have no data on Mexico feral populations- do you??) Montanabw^(talk) 00:58, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

As far as I know, there are no free-roaming herds in Mexico.Lynn (SLW) (talk) 17:24, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I've never studied the issue, so no help here. All I know is that WP has folks who looooove to slap on the "globalize" tag. But if it doesn't bother you, it doesn't bother me, so I guess it's "proceed until apprehended." Montanabw^(talk) 06:23, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

So, is North American free-roaming horse management too klunky? Or maybe Free-roaming horse management in North America? Meh. Brain. Fried. Montanabw^(talk) 06:23, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's not just "American" which is what seems to bother those that criticize for lack of "globalization". Lynn (SLW) (talk) 12:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Meh. Pick your favorite of our proposed titles and go ahead and move. If I think there is a need for refinement, I'll say so, but I think so long as we don't imply it's a worldwide thing (i.e. add geographic modifier) I'm good with it... Montanabw^(talk) 21:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The second one Lynn (SLW) (talk) 00:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

OK. Have you done an article move? Not too tough, I can walk you through it if you aren't sure... but it's easy to use the "move" tab. Montanabw^(talk) 05:42, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Was simple enough, but I forgot the "-" Lynn (SLW) (talk) 12:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh Canada!

Tripped over this while looking for Cothran's studies of Colonial Spanish Horses... stuff on Canadian herds. May be useful here. Montanabw^(talk) 07:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

• http://www.lrgaf.org/articles/Wild%20Horse%20DNA%20Report%202015.pdf

Lead not supported by the body of the article

These statements that were inserted into the lead:

Advocates for free-roaming horses argue that that the BLM favors other types of livestock when determining the AML for free-roaming horses on BLM administered lands. In contrast, the livestock industry maintains that there are too many horses and that the BLM fails to manage their numbers, allowing overgrazing. Other organizations focus on the overall ecosystem and are critical of the impact of horses on wildlife.

are not supported by the body of the article. If there is concern about POV, it needs to be fixed in the article before the lead. As my part of the revision of the article, I feel that these issues are out of scope, and do not intend to address them. If someone else wants to, that's fine, but I'm tagging the statements as uncited, and will change the lead back if no one gets around to supporting it in a reasonable length of time. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 11:46, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

There was some content in there earlier, but it must have been removed in the rewrite. I felt that the previous wording was also unsupported and too editorial in tone. I am OK with adding some source material, which is needed all the way around. We could also just chop all editorial content from the lead. Wild Horse advocates clearly hold the position that there is too much "management" and the livestock industry believes there is not enough. I support teaching the controversy. Montanabw^(talk) 23:12, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

you know what, on second thought, I think the best approach is to just toss everything from the lead that is at all debatable and keep it a little tighter. So here's the whole pile:

Advocates for free-roaming horses argue that that the BLM favors other types of livestock when determining the AML for free-roaming horses on BLM administered lands. In contrast, the livestock industry maintains that there are too many horses and that the BLM fails to manage their numbers, allowing overgrazing. Other organizations focus on the overall ecosystem and are critical of the impact of horses on wildlife. ... Because there are a limited number of long-term holding facilities, short-term holding facilities are filled to capacity, limiting the BLM's ability to round up horses and causing numbers to rise above AML on public rangelands.

We can slowly re-add what can be sourced, or just leave it be. Or do a new lead. But the POV must be carefully managed. Montanabw^(talk) 23:35, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there's a POV issue. Right now, it's a simple synopsis of what has happened since 1971. It's not until the controversy is addressed that POV is a problem. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 00:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Tossing the previous edit to the above that had a bit of editorial language, and also the uncited material still there on long and short term holding facilities keeps the lead only to what is in the body text without "extrapolation." My view is that so long as both/all viewpoints are addressed, it's fine to discuss, but I have other fish to fry right now and no real time to do the research so if tossing it all - both sides - minimizes drama, I can live with that, particularly as the phrasing is posted here and could be revisited later. Montanabw^(talk) 04:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

One example of problematic phrasing that is too editorial in tone and not supported expressly in the body text: "short-term holding facilities are filled to capacity, limiting the BLM's ability to round up horses and causing numbers to soar above AML on public rangelands." Nothing in the article supports "filled to capacity", and a word like "soar" is editorial in tone. Basically, the lead needs to be kind of "boring" in the sense that it summarizes the content of the article, or else is independently sourced it does not summarize. Montanabw^(talk) 04:11, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, if you don't have time to work on the article, maybe you should leave it alone until you can do something besides a mass revert. I'm reverting it back, and will edit the two or three words you had an issue with. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 11:02, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I see you put some of what I had put in, but I have put back some more of what you took out. Two points of clarification:

1. The Rahall Amendment was passed in May 2005. The Colorado RAC (I changed the name of the ref from ColoBLM to ColoRAC) statement is incorrect that it was 2006, or that it repealed the Burns Amendment. In late 2004, Burns inserted his rider into the 2005 appropriations bill. The bill passed, but a few months later, after the public outcry, Rahall got the amendment passed.
2. The statement of the WFRHABA that says: "That no wild free-roaming horse or burro or its remains may be sold or transferred for consideration for processing into commercial products." applies to the Federal agencies. You can't take it out of the context of: "(5) upon destruction or death for purposes of or incident to the program authorized in section 3 of this Act; Provided, That no wild free-roaming horse or burro or its remains may be sold or transferred for consideration for processing into commercial products." So, BLM cannot, in lieu of destroying animals, send them to slaughter. However, horses sold "without limitation" as stipulated by the Burns amendment, are, by definition, no longer wild and free roaming, no longer protected by the act, and may be taken by the buyer to slaughter (as may adopted horses for which title has passed). That is why the Rahall amendment stated: "for the sale of wild horses and burros that results in their destruction for processing into commercial products" (emphasis added). Your statement in the lead, although accurate for horses protected under the Act does not quite reflect the issue and also had an editorial tone by use of the work "expressly" so I removed it until the issue can be better addressed in the body of the article.

LOL Lynn (SLW) (talk) 18:34, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• I did a revert and then restore with rewrite; just a way of working that is better for me. I have no issue correcting the dates on the changes. We can work on the language, I'm all for precision and accuracy. I do think it is important to be very precise - and comprehensive. I figure if you and I can agree on language, phrasing and sources, we will be about as NPOV as can be (well, the pink ponies and magic unicorns brigade will think we are both big meanies, but everyone else will think we reached a balanced article). Montanabw^(talk) 04:19, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oh, and indeed - I missed the LOL. Yeah, that's about the level of discourse, save for the four-letter words and rants about firearms (on both sides). But then, it's still more sophisticated than the average presidential candidates' debate right now...  :-P Montanabw^(talk) 04:23, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• Tweaked it again, kept most of what you did (and if I omitted any sources or citations, it was unintentional, I tried to keep it all there). I did put back some of my phrasing in the lead, but spent another chunk of time on trying to tweak it to be NPOV and only a basic summary. I figure that if one of us says the other used a POV adjective or phrase, then yeah, a rewrite is needed. I'm going to go on a hunt for the actual US Code of the current Act, as amended... one thing I know how to do is interpret legislative history. I may not be able to access annotations outside of LEXIS, but I'll dig... Montanabw^(talk) 05:28, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• • Paydirt: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/16/chapter-30 you have to click through section by section, but the "Notes" tab on each section contains a lot of legislative history. It's very tedious reading, but... it seems to be mostly complete. Montanabw^(talk) 05:33, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• • And if you want your head to explode, I also found the Code of Federal Regulations on this: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/43/part-4700 (And subpart 4730 is ineffective due to the continuing riders on the appropriations bills, so moot even if in regulation...) and https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/36/part-222 Montanabw^(talk) 05:34, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• • And... the precise language of the section of the law that contains the Burns rider language... https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/16/1333 (e) - and the history says it is new language. Montanabw^(talk) 05:42, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

So, the Burns Rider took out the statement that says: "That no wild free-roaming horse or burro or its remains may be sold or transferred for consideration for processing into commercial products." I was probably once aware of that, but you forget a few things in 10 years. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 07:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you are right, clicked the link to the legislation (linked in the "Notes" tab) and it looks like it both chopped (d)(5) and added (e). But also note Section 1338(a)(4) still prohibits "processes or permits to be processed into commercial products" of any animals that are not defined as "excess animals" provision of 1331 (e) he Burns amendment. So adopted horses don't fall under that provision, I don't think. (?) And it's all moot because the funds are not allowed to be used anyway due to the annual riders put into the appropriations bills - and ditto for American slaughter (that said, in Montana, plenty of horses take a one-way trip to the slaughterhouse in Calgary anyway...sigh). And that little provision probably cost Burns reelection in 2006, or at least it didn't help him any. Montanabw^(talk) 23:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Titled horses go to slaughter all the time. Kill buyers are very careful to get the title of branded mustangs they buy. Once they are titled, they are no longer protected by the Act. The BLM can have an adopter sign a statement that it doesn't intend to sell to slaughter, but if, after title is passed, the adopter decides the horse just isn't going to work out, or if it gets injured, they can sell to whomever they want, including a kill buyer.Lynn (SLW) (talk) 23:40, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Rework of Original Article "Done"

Okay, I'm pretty much done with the rework of the original article. It gives a much better overview of the issue than did the original. There still needs to be another section added discussing contraception, sterilization and possible solutions to make the program sustainable. But, first I'm going to go back and clean up what is there. Find citations for uncited material and clean up some of the incomplete cites. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 15:31, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, right now, the more rational "Preservationists" are pushing for contraception and sterilization rather than the fringe "kick off all the cows, throw some wolves into the mix and let nature work it out" crowd. So, I see the controversy more along the line of: Do we (as a nation) spend the money (and it will be expensive) to roundup and sterilize tens of thousands of horses, and make room for them on the range until they die, or do we go with the more pragmatic option of destroying/slaughtering them? That seems to be the two sides right now. Congress is pushing the BLM to try to figure out how to accomplish the first option. We'll see. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 16:24, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Set up a sandbox page to put sources as I find them. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 16:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Two immediate replies: 1. I suggest taking the list-defined references and renaming them with the lead author's name (and date if same author has more than one article, i.e. "Smith2004") and then alphabetizing them. Or, at least alphabetize them by current ref name. 2. I agree that it would be good to discuss current stuff like contraception and sterilization (and estimated costs, the GAO must have something out there). Cool to make a sources sandbox, too, by the way. Montanabw^(talk) 22:28, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Where you and I appear to mostly agree is that the massive holding facilities situation is unworkable and not a long-range solution. But, I think we also have to acknowledge that the slaughter issue is not on the table at present (sorry for the bad pun) for reasons that go far beyond the mustangs; with the national moratorium on inspections and closure of slaughter facilities, a slaughter option for mustangs is just not going to be a factor. I mean, when they are trying to shut down horse racing, rodeo and the carriage rides in Central Park, the PETA problem is a bigger bugaboo than just feral horses. Montanabw^(talk) 22:28, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

As for the rest, I think that to say that destroying/slaughtering is "the pragmatic" solution (even if it is) is to venture too far into POV land. We CAN state that some people favor this option, and explain it, but we can't state that it is superior. (Though, to be fair, I think that putting "starvation and/or wolves" out there is only reasonable, as starvation, at least, IS the reality if nothing changes...and frankly, in Montana, the wolves prefer smaller game, sheep and calves over the bison they were released to control; I doubt they'd do much for horses, either, other than to thin out the same "unadoptable" animals). I think that anti-cattle argument is in a lull at the moment, but it will be back; the real issue there is more the grazing numbers of domestic livestock allowed generally and the grazing lease prices than whether the competition comes from horses or elk. (At least in Montana, it's all about Elk...the fight in the Pryors is almost entirely over the size of the horse herd and what the range can support, there isn't even really a cattle issue there...) Montanabw^(talk) 22:28, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm just trying to go where the law is taking this, and not go too deep in to the emotions on either side. It's all at the whim of Congress. That's what people don't get. They get all pissed off at the BLM for implementing the law, when it's Congress that can't get it's act together and give the agency a workable law. Who couldn't have predicted that this whole long-term holding "solution" was only delaying the inevitable? All this crap about whining about all the cows is a red herring. The reality is, to keep a stable population, you have to remove horses, and if you can't adopt them all, you have to do something else with them. Doesn't matter what the AML is or how many cows are out there. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 22:47, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, I do agree that emotions need to stay out, though sometimes the issues do have to be mentioned. I also agree that even absent cattle there would be a horse population issue in most areas today, as "letting nature take its course" really does mean predation, starvation, or both - and starvation means degradation of the range ecosystem in the process! I also have a lot of respect for the career BLM people on the front lines, who are placed into a no-win situation by their higher ups (with your antagonists range from Bundy to Pickens, it's clear you are in a labor of Sisyphus!) The BLM is only trying to implement the will of Congress (I wouldn't say "whim", precisely - Congress responds to who is yelling the loudest, thus it is usually a reactive body, not a proactive one, and with only two farmers in the US Senate, there's not much inside expertise). But the AML issue is related to cattle numbers by preservation advocates, red herring or no, and the debate usually is framed as "ranchers versus Wild Horse Annie." There are a few hunter and conservation groups that weigh in, usually on the side of the ranchers, but they are not the biggest players. But anyway, I'll look at your edits after a bit, been kind of busy and can only look over this article when I have time to focus. Montanabw^(talk) 23:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Free-roaming horse management in North America. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150430072723/http://www.nal.usda.gov:80/awic/pubs/HorseHistory/intro.shtml to http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/pubs/HorseHistory/intro.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111007123015/http://www.wildhorsepreservation.org/legislation/nas_report.html to http://www.wildhorsepreservation.org/legislation/nas_report.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

This Paragraph

Controversy surrounds the presence of feral mustang herds on Federal lands (including BLM, Forest Service, Park Service and Department of Defense). Supporters of horses being present take two positions. Some, including the federal government consider them a non-native species, but culturally significant and with a place on the range. Others view them as them feral livestock. Others consider them a reintroduced native species. Some opponents view them as an introduced species that draws resources and attention away from true native species. Other opponents are primarily concerned about feral horses degrading rangeland and competing with private livestock for public land forage. The need for more sustainable management is generally agreed upon because of the degradation of the western range in areas inhabited by free-roaming horses, but what and how management occurs is hotly debated. Advocates for free-roaming horses suggest reducing the numbers of sheep and cattle allowed to graze on public lands, ranching interests hold the opposite, while wildlife advocates want to prioritize native species over both domestic livestock and free-roaming horses. really sucks. Please do not put it back in for the following reasons:

1. You wrote: "Controversy surrounds the presence of feral mustang herds on Federal lands" like everyone looks at it in black and white. as to whether or not they should be present at all. The rest of the article talks about prioritization that horses should have when competing with scarce resources, which is a more accurate portrayal.
2. You wrote: "Supporters of horses being present take two positions." then only gave one position.
3. You wrote: "Some, including the federal government consider them a non-native species..." That statement is unsourced.
4. You wrote: "Some, including the federal government consider them...culturally significant and with a place on the range." No, that was the 1971 Congress, which can't be equated with "the federal government".
5. You wrote: "The need for more sustainable management is generally agreed upon because of the degradation of the western range in areas inhabited by free-roaming horses, but what and how management occurs is hotly debated. Advocates for free-roaming horses suggest reducing the numbers of sheep and cattle allowed to graze on public lands, ranching interests hold the opposite , while wildlife advocates want to prioritize native species over both domestic livestock and free-roaming horses." but the source cited does not say that. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 19:12, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

References

You are welcome to add additional sources and more explanations. It is also inappropriate and against WP:NPA and [{WP:AGF]] to state that content "sucks". Your own edits added incomplete or inaccurate material as well -- Sponenberg did work on Spanish populations, but so did Gus Cothran. There have been edits to this article that over time may have separated content from sources, which is one reason why edit-warring doesn't work. Proper research without POV-pushing does. Montanabw^(talk) 00:33, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Could you please explain:

1. Why you condescendingly imply that I am doing something incorrectly, and that I may only do it in the manner the you deem to be correct?
2. Why you simply reverted edits back to the way you wanted them without addressing the issues brought forth on talk, and snarkily repeated my edit summary?
3. Removed sourced material about Sponenberg under the guise of stating Cothran also did "work on Spanish populations"
4. What edits of mine "added incomplete or inaccurate material as well"?

Who are you implying:

1. Is edit warring?
2. Who hasn't done proper research?
3. Who is POV pushing?

Thank you. I am reverting back to the version of the past several weeks. Please stop edit warring and actually fix the problems with your edits, and provide specific examples for what you think is wrong with mine, rather than do sweeping generalities. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 00:30, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

The section on Land use controversies contains several themes: how free-roaming horses are viewed by the interested parties; the nature and extent of problems arising; and how management might solve those problems. I believe that the version with six paragraphs has a far superior introduction, which sets the scene for the rest of the section and the themes it encompasses. Without that introduction, the alternate, shorter, three-paragraph version seems to me to flit from one idea to another in a less structured way, which is confusing for the reader. I see no reason for an edit war to force one editor's preferred version over one that is easier to comprehend. --RexxS (talk) 02:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I diasgree the lead paragraph is far superior, for the reasons I gave above. I've replaced it. If you feel it could be better, please edit it constructively, not ignore issues to justify your part in escalating an edit war. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 03:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC) If all you do is revert, your role in this is obviously nothing more than tag-teaming. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 03:20, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I disagree that your version is superior for the reasons I've given. I've replaced it. The version I have restored is far better than your attempts to impose your own POV on the issues. The edit war is being driven solely by your inability to answer the reasonable points raised by two other editors. You won't get your own way simply by by trying to force it into the article. --RexxS (talk) 09:31, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

This article has long had to deal with edit-warring over a strongly pro-removal POV versus a more balanced approach that tries to explain the views of all sides. There are also concerns about cherry-picking sources and misusing source material in a manner that exceeds the scope of the source. Poor writing, OR and SYNTH have also been problems on this and other related articles. The whole mess is complicated by one editor's penchant to make dozens of small edits that make it virtually impossible to distinguish the quality content from the inappropriate content. This leave an editor such as myself with little choice other than WP:TNT to revert first and then try to sort out what needs to be added from previous edits to improve the article. If another editor finds my efforts to "suck" or to be "condescending," I cannot control the emotions of others and it does become quite wearing to deal with article content when disputes escalate into personal attacks instead of addressing content concerns in a win-win fashion. Montanabw^(talk) 03:42, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Do you think you could just stop the posturing and respond to the comments that I made at the beginning of the section? The ANI was closed, not in support of your actions, but because it became evident that your lack of doing so was the real problem here. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 10:29, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

If a serious discussion about the topic of this article is wanted, it might better to not start with "stop the posturing". Also, particularly since there is a dispute that has already been to ANI, it would be much better to pose one issue and invite comments. An actionable proposal regarding one change to the article would be even better. Focusing on article content gets better results. Johnuniq (talk) 10:53, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I believe that's what I did at the beginning of this thread. It only works if it's responded to in a constructive manner. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 11:27, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

In addition, it was really bad form when, upon getting the ping from RexxS at the ANI, The editor in question made a total of three edits afterwards. One, to come on here and write that paragraph, and two at ANI. This paragraph unequivocally influenced another editor at ANI who paraphrased much of it. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 14:32, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I closed the ANI thread because it was getting close to (but not quite reaching) the level of all-out personal attacks, and not helping resolve the dispute. I will say this:

• Saying "this content sucks" is not a personal attack, it is simply one editor's opinion on the article. (It might be incivil, sure, but I'm sure as hell not sanctioning for that - indeed, I have said variations of "this prose looks like an uneducated drunk wrote it" from time to time so I would be the pot calling the kettle black)
• According to the article stats, Lynn (SLW) has written the majority of text in the article and made the most edits, therefore it stands to reason that they're going to have an interest in its quality. Equally, Montanabw has made a significant contribution to the article, and I know has a track record on writing horse-related GAs and FAs here.

You don't need much to get an all-out flame war on Wikipedia; all you need is two people who are passionate about the topic and think that their version is best for the article. I can't really speculate on which one of you is right, as it's not my expertise, suffice to say that I think you're going to have to punt this to WP:DRN and see if you can reach agreement there. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:50, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

No personal attacks on my part. I would have been happy for RexxS to acknowledge his mistake of thinking that MBW had started this thread and then began reverting me because he thought I was out-of-line for not responding to "her" comments, and to not be so quick next time to not jump in and assume that disputes between MBW and I are my fault. In retrospect, his behavior makes a little more sense to me now that I know he thought that, but when I brought up the ANI, I was completely frustrated with what he was doing. I don't take issues to ANI lightly, because, IMHO, the process is even more dysfunctional than BRD. I'm a big girl and can handle my own disputes. I don't really think it needs to go to DNR, it just needs for MBW to either take the time to respond to specific comments, or if she doesn't want to take the time right now, let me edit in in peace instead of bouncing in, reverting, writing a quick paragraph implying I am POV pushing and not doing proper research, then bouncing off to what she really wants to focus on at the moment. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 11:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

And I would have been happy if LynnWysong had stopped accusing me of things I didn't do as a result of not reading what I wrote. At 03:00 (UTC) on 31 July when she posted on Montanabw's talk page and reverted, instead of coming to this talk page, she had made no attempt to respond to Montanabw's comments right here: This is the permalink to how the page looked when I came to see what had happened. Anyone can follow that link and verify the truth of that. Montanabw's comments had been left unanswered, and LynnWysong had simply reverted to her preferred version without discussion and then gone to make a fuss on Montanabw's talk page. In fact LynnWysong took another day and a reversion of my reversion before she deigned to return to talk under pressure from me. Even then she made no attempt to address my concerns with her treatment of the opening paragraph of Free-roaming horse management in North America #Land use controversies and still has not done so. Hers is disgraceful behaviour for an editor on a collaborative project, and she should be ashamed of herself. As for "I don't really think it needs to go to DNR ..." "it just needs for everybody else to get off an article that I own, and let me write it my way without interference." That isn't going to fly on Wikipedia. --RexxS (talk) 16:53, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

You still don't get it @RexxS:. Montananbw's comment was only the last paragraph. Those were MY comments that she left unanswered. Look at the July 9 signature above the last paragraph. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 17:09, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

On the contrary, it's you that doesn't get it, LynnWysong. You didn't respond to Montanabw's comments: instead of discussing them and making your points here, you went ahead and reverted again. What part of "you're expected to discuss on the article talk page" can't you get your head around? --RexxS (talk) 17:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Please, @RexxS: specifically tell me what comments I didn't respond to? Lynn (SLW) (talk) 17:16, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Because, surely @RexxS: you cannot think that it was such a terrible thing that I reverted after I responded to MBW's comment on her talk page, but not have any problem with her reverting without making a substantive response to my comment. How is one so "disgraceful", and the other acceptable? Lynn (SLW) (talk) 18:36, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

And, if you want to talk timeline, I believe I did not revert you for several hours after I asked you to revert yourself. You did not give a substantive response to that request; you came on my talk page and accused me of trolling. So, I reverted. You came right back on and reverted, and posted on the talk page. I responded on the talk page, and to just replace the problematic paragraph, which you just reverted again. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 18:44, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Read my comment on 02:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC) above. Everybody else has. What's your response to it?

1. A complete non-sequitur about the lead paragraph that I'd never even mentioned: "I diasgree [sic] the lead paragraph is far superior, for the reasons I gave above."
2. Your usual battlefield response to everything: "I've replaced it."
3. Your repeated patronising personalisation of a disagreement plus a personal attack: "If you feel it could be better, please edit it constructively, not ignore issues to justify your part in escalating an edit war."

I don't call that a response to my attempt to explain that I thought you were worsening the opening of Land use controversies. Your attitude toward any disagreement by other editors is a disgrace, and your edit-warring is a blight on this article. Why are you so incapable of addressing the issues I raised? --RexxS (talk) 19:16, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Okay, so this is what you (@RexxS:) wrote: "The section on Land use controversies contains several themes: how free-roaming horses are viewed by the interested parties; the nature and extent of problems arising; and how management might solve those problems. I believe that the version with six paragraphs has a far superior introduction, which sets the scene for the rest of the section and the themes it encompasses. Without that introduction, the alternate, shorter, three-paragraph version seems to me to flit from one idea to another in a less structured way, which is confusing for the reader. I see no reason for an edit war to force one editor's preferred version over one that is easier to comprehend." Yes, I read that, so I did not replace the entire section. But the "introduction" as you called it (I called it the lead, not realizing it would confuse you), has the following problems:

1. "Controversy surrounds the presence of feral mustang herds on Federal lands" like everyone looks at it in black and white. as to whether or not they should be present at all. The rest of the article talks about prioritization that horses should have when competing with scarce resources, which is a more accurate portrayal.
2. "Supporters of horses being present take two positions." then only gave one position.
3. "Some, including the federal government consider them a non-native species..." That statement is unsourced.
4. "Some, including the federal government consider them...culturally significant and with a place on the range." No, that was the 1971 Congress, which can't be equated with "the federal government".
5. "The need for more sustainable management is generally agreed upon because of the degradation of the western range in areas inhabited by free-roaming horses, but what and how management occurs is hotly debated. Advocates for free-roaming horses suggest reducing the numbers of sheep and cattle allowed to graze on public lands, ranching interests hold the opposite , while wildlife advocates want to prioritize native species over both domestic livestock and free-roaming horses." but the source cited does not say that.

References

You kept reverting to the paragraph with those problems, but did not fix them. You kept hammering me for not addressing MBWs vague concerns, but ignored mine. That is why I said "I diasgree [sic] the lead paragraph is far superior, for the reasons I gave above" replaced it, and asked you to fix it (edit it constructively) if you felt the paragraph with the problems I listed had different problems. Instead, you just reverted it. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 20:22, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

And please settle down. One cannot edit war by oneself. You were right there doing it too. My actions were no more "disgraceful" than yours. And I have no doubt you would have taken me to ANI if I hadn't done so first. Now, would you please answer my question: Why do think that it was such a terrible thing that I reverted after I responded to MBW's comment on her talk page, but not have any problem with her reverting without making a substantive response to my comment? How is one so "disgraceful", and the other acceptable? Lynn (SLW) (talk) 20:36, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

If you can't understand the difference between the lead and the opening paragraph of a section, then please read WP:LEAD and try to get to grips with what it is ("... the section before the table of contents and the first heading"), rather than blaming everyone else for your confusion.

You clearly did not read what I wrote, nor what I added back into the article that you insisted on removing four times.

1. You find the sentence "Controversy surrounds the presence of feral mustang herds on Federal lands" a problem. The section is titled "Land use controversies" – are you saying there is no controversy? The sources would disagree with you.
2. You find the sentence "Supporters of horses being present take two positions" a problem, claiming that the version I restored only gave one position. Yet the text clearly states "Some, including the federal government consider them a non-native species, but culturally significant and with a place on the range. Others view them as them feral livestock." I'm pretty certain that's two positions, not one. What is your basis for thinking there is a problem with my edit?
3. If you wish to challenge the veracity of the statement "Some, including the federal government consider them a non-native species..." as unsourced, the convention here is to apply a {{citation needed}} tag as described in the first section of our verifiability policy. Please note the policy If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it. This is basic good manners in a collaborative environment, although I understand you have problems coping with that.
4. Since Congress is the legislative arm and the federal government is its executive branch, I disagree that legislation passed by Congress is somehow disconnected from the agency tasked with implementing that legislation. I would not quibble if you were to make the argument that "Congress" is a more direct reading of the source, but I can't agree that the wording I used is inaccurate.
5. The source cited addresses the need for more sustainable management and several aspects of the debate, so the solution is not to throw out what we have, but to build on it with the additional sources already available, such as I.G.H.A..

I think you would very much benefit from reading WP:PRESERVE before edit-warring to take out useful content when sources are available to support it.

Now I've done you the courtesy of addressing the points you raised with Montanabw, not with me, would you be so kind as to address the points I actually did make? --RexxS (talk) 21:18, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I'd be happy to address the points you made @RexxS:, when you finish responding to me: Why do think that it was such a terrible thing that I reverted after I responded to MBW's comment on her talk page, but not have any problem with her reverting without making a substantive response to my concerns, that had been on the talk page for three weeks? (and were the ones I was referring to when I said "I disagree the lead paragraph is far superior, for the reasons I gave above. I've replaced it. If you feel it could be better, please edit it constructively, not ignore issues. So they weren't just points I raised with MW, if you were going to insert yourself into this, they applied to you to.) How are my actions so "disgraceful", and the other acceptable? Lynn (SLW) (talk) 22:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

This page is for discussing improvements to the article, and it's not your property. So address the article issues instead of ducking all of them.

• Your gutting of the first paragraph of Land use controversies was criticised by me as making the article worse. You've not attempted any justification of your removal of the wording that outlines the themes contained in the rest of the section. That introduction is good writing: by setting the scene it allows the reader to have a framework for the varied issue that ensue in the rest of the section.
• You've called the opening "Controversy surrounds the presence of feral mustang herds on Federal lands" a problem. I say it's not; it's no more than a statement of the basic theme of the section and is utterly appropriate to begin that section. What's your refutation?
• You claim that my text stating "Supporters of horses being present take two positions" is a problem apparently because there is only one position given. I've demonstrated unequivocally that the subsequent text, "Some, including the federal government consider them a non-native species, but culturally significant and with a place on the range. Others view them as them feral livestock", show two different positions taken by supporters of horses being present. How do you justify your removal of that fact four times?

I have demonstrated that your complaints are overblown and lacking in substance. They can be dismissed as just so much noise. Now, it's time you stopped trying to OWN this article and started seeking compromise where you disagree with other editors, instead of trying to force your personal preferences into it. Failing that, dispute resolution is available. Please don't confuse it with ANI again, otherwise you're likely to get another poor reception. --RexxS (talk) 16:00, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh stop it. You have come on this page, ANI, my talk page and your talk page maligning me. Now justify your actions. Answer my question: Why do think that it was such a terrible thing that I reverted after I responded to MBW's comment on her talk page, but not have any problem with her reverting without making a substantive response to my concerns, that had been on the talk page for three weeks? (and were the ones I was referring to when I said "I disagree the lead paragraph is far superior, for the reasons I gave above. I've replaced it. If you feel it could be better, please edit it constructively, not ignore issues. So they weren't just points I raised with MW, if you were going to insert yourself into this, they applied to you to.) How are my actions so "disgraceful", and the other acceptable? Lynn (SLW) (talk) 16:05, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

And RexxS Just FYI, I am not going to collaborate with you on the terms you've laid out here. Your actions have not left you in position where you get to dictate terms to me. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 08:24, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

That's just fine, LynnWysong. I have no inclination to collaborate with anyone who shows the battlefield mentality that you do; and you do not seem capable of collaborating anyway. I'll continue to make improvements where I see them, and I'll ignore your attempts to OWN the article. --RexxS (talk) 16:52, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Two suggestions

(1) Do not refer to other editors. Refer only to content/edits. Do not use the word "you" (or any other personal pronoun), or mention any names. Mention only content, text, edits, sources.

(2) If discussion languishes, follow the careful steps in WP:DISCUSSFAIL. But remember to always be completely civil and neutral, and remember that your hands must be clean.

-- Softlavender (talk) 11:08, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

What do you think of editors writing things like: "Poor writing, OR and SYNTH have also been problems on this and other related articles?" No it doesn't use pronouns, but it's under no uncertain terms an underhanded way of implying the person you are in dispute with routinely engages in "Poor writing, OR and SYNTH" and so are more likely to be at fault in the conflict. Do you think that editors that routinely resort to such tactics have clean hands @Softlavender:?

I'm not going to discuss or refer to other editors, or comment on posts that have already occurred here. Henceforward please refer only to specific article content. In referring to specific quoted article content, one may also note how it can possibly be improved in one's view, or what policies or guidelines or best practices it may breach in one's opinion. It's always helpful to suggest an alternative wording or choice, and why. If pressed, one can always say "In my opinion this paragraph/section/sentence has several problems, namely _____", but please do not refer to other editors. It's OK to say "I", but it's not helpful to say "you" or "s/he" or to name names. Softlavender (talk) 11:54, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm just pointing out that severe damage to the collaborative process can be done without using a single pronoun, or directly referencing an editor, and when these tactics are engaged in, they should be recognized for the destructive influence they have. Makes one want to go to their talk page, and call them on it. <edit> (and it's especially destructive to write it on a talk page during an ANI that is the talk page is the subject of, since people coming to said talk page from the ANI can see the implication, and will know full well who it refers to)<end edit> Lynn (SLW) (talk) 12:02, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

But, I have learned a lesson here. When someone makes destructive comments like that on an article talk page, when responding to them on the talk page, be sure to clearly point out how destructive they are. Don't count on talk page watchers to get the point if you don't. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 12:52, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

It is especially important on controversial topics to avoid commenting on user motives and it is important to focus on content without using emotionally-laden terms such as "sucks." Make specific suggestions and be sure your one's own edits improve sourcing and content, not merely swap one set of wording and sources for another. I hope this helps. Montanabw^(talk) 05:43, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, since you have violated Softlavender's rule of not using pronouns, I will too. Your input doesn't help. Just like the paragraph you wrote that started all of this, you are making vague implications that I am "commenting on user motives" and "merely swap(ing) one set of wording and sources for another". At the beginning of the previous section, I gave specific examples of why I reverted your most recent edits, so your suggestion that I "Make specific suggestions" seems a bit disengenous. It is you that needs to follow that advice, instead of continually making implications such as "Poor writing, OR and SYNTH have also been problems on this and other related articles" Such statements are far more destructive to the colloborative process than a simple statement that content "sucks." Lynn (SLW) (talk) 07:13, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

My apologies for failing to be clear that I was using a depersonalized, editorial "you". Though there have previously been only two primary editors on this piece, it was my intention to provide general advice and guidelines on how to best collaborate on wikipedia, which is what I have actually been trying to do all along, with varying degrees of frustration, of course. And "poor writing, OR and SYNTH" is an accurate description of what the problems are; a vague vulgarity combined with a demand to not revert is not conducive to collaboration. Montanabw^(talk) 19:36, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Making general implications is what is not conducive to collaboration. I outlined specific problems, you reverted without addressing those problems, instead chosing to focus on a "vague vulgarity" (I know we are both of an age where once saying that would bring gasps in polite company, but it is now common venacular and not worthy of an indignant response). Then you made implications POV pushing and unsourced material. They are nothing but implications if you don't point out exactly where those things are occurring. Basically, if you want to edit an article, you should take the time to do it properly, not just do a drive by revert and not address specific issues but instead whip out a quick statement implying the other editor is guilty of improper editing, so that you can get on to what you really want to edit. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 14:43, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

• OK, now, here's the scoop: 1) The play-by-play of where legislation is at is not really appropriate until the dust settles and legislation either passes or fails. We can put in whatever was going on at the end of the last Congress (2016) and if new legislation was introduced in 2017, it is OK to maybe put in one sentence saying that it's alive again, but to have updates every month is apt to create a quickly-dated article. I moved the Sponenberg bit to the history section and truncated it a bit. There are also studies by Gus Cothran that indicate Spanish markers in DNA of multiple groups, even those with fewer obvious Spanish phenotype. It's perfectly reasonable to state just those facts, but it must be framed neutrally, not by framing "everything else" -- the 1930s section already discusses the wide range of sources of free-roaming horses, no need to be repetitive. Finally the bit that concludes with the Endnote about Zoo Montana and PZP is off-topic. Montanabw^(talk) 04:35, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

The problems in the paragraphs (uncited statements, incorrect statements, etc., were still not fixed. I restored the accurate ones. Also, I restored the verbiage about the current status. I don't have 5,000 articles on my watchlist, I'm perfectly capable of keeping this one updated. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 01:29, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Free-roaming horse management in North America. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/pubs/HorseHistory/intro.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160729102543/http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/prog/wh_b/appropriate_management.html to http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/prog/wh_b/appropriate_management.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121006165853/http://www.canadiangeographic.ca/Magazine/ma05/indepth/international.asp to http://www.canadiangeographic.ca/magazine/ma05/indepth/international.asp
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.mjtimes.sk.ca/section/2009-11-05/article-186065/Saskatchewan-considers-new-law-to-protect-wild-ponies-in-the-Bronson-Forest/1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:46, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

BRD

The reason I tossed a lot of the congressional tug-of-war discussion is that it's all going to change next year anyway. All the legislative drama that goes on with the WFRH&BA is mostly a soap opera. I think a few words or a year-end summary is appropriate, but the play by play is undue weight. There's an argument to be made for a stand-alone article on the endless legislative maneuvering, but all that is actually notable is what gets done as each session of Congress adjourns. I'd like to see a solid summary through 2016 and then a sentence discussing where things might be heading this session in terms of what's been introduced... much of which may wind up being cut later. I also fail to see what the problem is with mentioning the private sanctuaries. They exist; if there are factual concerns, then let's find better sources. Montanabw^(talk) 06:39, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

1. It is your opinion that maintaining current status of legislation is undue weight. In my opinion, it is fine. Articles talking about current events get updated as events progress. I'm willing to do the updates, I don't know why you should object as long as I keep up with them. I guess we could do an RFC, since this seems like a impass.
2. It is misleading to put in info on Sanctuaries that have entered into a contract with the BLM to maintain horses managed under the FRWH&BA in a section is which called [Western US herds not managed under the FRWH&BA]. Personally, I don't think that any horses in private sanctuaries are free-roaming and do not in the article at all. Free-Roaming horses are ownerless and found on commonly owned government or Indian lands, not those that are owned by individuals and maintained under private lands. Look at the first sentence of the lead. You added the info about Madeleine Pickens sanctuary some time ago; I didn't think it fit at the time, but left it in. Personally I think the material on the BLM contract section fits in the article better, just not in that section. I'm willing to compromise: Take out the references to Madeleine Pickens and RTF, and put the info on Deerwood farms and the other sanctuary in the section above. Congress encouraged the BLM to work with entities that want to maintain sanctuaries for excess horses as an option for maintaining excess horses, however it is not close to being a solution to the problem, as Pickens went into her project thinking it would be. The only sanctuaries that have been successful in being approved are small scale, not involving thousands of horses or using public grazing lands-something that could make an actual dent in the problem. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 13:49, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
   • Since it has been almost a month with no response on the talk page, I am assuming concurrence and made the change. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 11:14, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
     • Sorry, I've been rather busy. I do not concur. We could trim the info on sanctuaries and explain what they are with more summary and fewer details. But this isn't the place for your usual hatchet job on Pickens. Montanabw^(talk) 01:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
       • Umm, you've made about 200 edits in the intervening period. If you want to take the stance that no one can make a change in an article with the word "horse" in it without first getting your agreement, the excuse that you are too busy to collaborate doesn't fly. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 21:19, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
         • I am behind on my watchlist because I was focusing on more recent things. I have about 40-50 articles per day pop up and catching up the backlog is an ongoing problem. I recently reduced my watchlist from about 5000 articles to about 4000 articles. But this one didn't flag in the recents, and I missed the original comment here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montanabw (talk • contribs) 18:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

The question of the overpopulation problem and the issue of sanctuaries are somewhat separated. The real problem is that there is not enough land set aside for horses. We both know that cattle ranchers have never wanted feral horses on public lands because they view them as competing with cattle, and this has created an all or nothing debate that goes nowhere. I have some sympathy for the environmentalist community's position that horses are to some extent invasive (at least in Nevada), and the overpopulation issue IS real (contrary to what the hardcore wild horse advocates say) but the real problem is that there is no natural predation because the BLM is all about supporting the cattle industry, not ecological balance. Montanabw^(talk) 01:14, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Please speak to issues, not to editors. My "usual hatchet job" is not just casting aspersions, but does not address the basic fact that privately owned horses are not free-roaming, and thus do not belong in this article. Please also keep your biased POV out of this, and stop trying to assert with by "we both know" that I agree with your assessment of the situation. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 14:16, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I struck the comment about Pickens. But it is also not fruitful to suggest that one not comment about editors then comment about an editor, eh? I suggest we both declare a truce here on that point. We each disagree with what we perceive to be the other's position on the issue, and we have to just agree to disagree. Somehow we should be able to reach a middle ground, however. So let's keep plugging away at it. Some do have BLM horses, and it is important to discuss them. We can't really omit Pickens, as though she doesn't have BLM horses, her intent is to create a sanctuary for free-roaming horses, so even though she may not have animals that fit the legal definition in the act, we need to mention what she does have... which are feral horses from other sources, basically. Montanabw^(talk) 18:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes we can and should omit her. She may have a handful of titled BLM horses, but the vast majority are not. The other sanctuaries do have BLM horses - they actually are still the property of the Federal gvt. Until such time as Pickens can get her sanctuary established, which is looking like never, all she has is a large scale rescue. Same with Return to Freedom. Neither of them are sanctuaries actually working with the BLM to maintain unadopted horses. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 19:34, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

And then you add her back in elsewhere with the whole story. Make up your mind. I honestly am not all that vested in what Madelyn Pickens is doing. In the meantime, I trimmed that bit a little and clarified and restored the content you removed. These private (non-BLM-licensed) sanctuaries do have some BLM horses, presumably obtained via adoption or something; if you've got the scoop on how they've done so, feel free to expand. But they DO house BLM and other feral horses, and given that the scope of this article is all of North America (not must the BLM), it seems appropriate. Montanabw^(talk) 22:15, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

"Natural" predation of feral horses

Because this discussion is at least tangentially germane to the management of free-roaming horses (both US and Canada), I'm moving it back from my talkpage and answering here. Montanabw^(talk) 18:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC):

I thought I'd bring this: "The question of the overpopulation problem and the issue of sanctuaries are somewhat separated. The real problem is that there is not enough land set aside for horses. We both know that cattle ranchers have never wanted feral horses on public lands because they view them as competing with cattle, and this has created an all or nothing debate that goes nowhere. I have some sympathy for the environmentalist community's position that horses are to some extent invasive (at least in Nevada), and the overpopulation issue IS real (contrary to what the hardcore wild horse advocates say) but the real problem is that there is no natural predation because the BLM is all about supporting the cattle industry, not ecological balance." over here to discuss, since it is inappropriate to discuss the subject on the article talk page. Not that I agree for a minute that "the real problem is that there is no natural predation" but the rationale that it is "because the BLM is all about supporting the cattle industry, not ecological balance" is untenable since it is not the BLM that manages predator populations, it is State wildlife agencies, and APHIS. As mandated by Congress, the only animals that BLM manages are feral horses and livestock that grazes public lands under permit.

In addition, "natural predation" of an introduced species is an oxy-moron. There may be predators that can exploit the opportunity presented by the presence of feral domestic horses, but horses are not their natural prey. To achieve an "ecological balance" to be struck between them would involve centuries of co-evolution and adaptation. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 15:40, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the horse is an introduced or a re-introduced species, it has "co-evolved" on this continent for a good 500 years or so, and predator "control" is a part of the overall picture. Who does it is not the point; predator control is performed on BLM and other public lands, whether it is a federal agency such as Wildlife services (which DOES control predators on BLM land) or APHIS, or state fish and game officials, or whomever. It is clear that the cattle industry wants cheap grazing land and predator control, so that's what happens. That's the political side of the issue. Montanabw^(talk) 18:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

The predator issue aside, the overpopulation problem is basically a phenomenon of the last few decades, and again you wisely pointed me to the Taylor Grazing Act as one point at which this whole issue may have begun. So, modern management is the problem, not the horse itself, otherwise it probably would have devastated the range by about 1700 -- not unlike what rabbits did in Australia. Instead, in certain areas, it thrived (thinking in particular of the Horse Heaven Hills, Wallowa Valley, and other favorable topography) Now, your previous point about feral horses not being particularly common in the Great Basin until recently is a point well-taken; they are a cold dry climate animal, better suited to slightly lusher areas. But that's not where they were settled, and I would be interested in knowing more about how Nevada became ground zero for this entire situation... Montanabw^(talk) 18:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

On that note, this article is useful to explain my position. Montanabw^(talk) 18:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I shan't be discussing this here. It is OR POV-pushing on your part and belongs on your talk page.Lynn (SLW) (talk) 20:39, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

We are discussing theoretical content to add to the article, though it is not likely to be added at present as predation is not widely discussed as a management technique for wild horses (though research on mountain lion predation on feral herds would be interesting to look at). It is, however, one of the approaches looked at by the environmental community in general for management of other large herbivores, such as elk, the reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone park is an example. While you are welcome to draw my attention to a topic on my talkpage, it is my custom as a rule to move discussion about a single article to the talkpage of that article. Montanabw^(talk) 22:04, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Just FYI, Wildlife Services is a division of APHIS https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/wildlifedamage/SA_Program_Overview Lynn (SLW) (talk) 23:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Predation and predator control seem worth covering as part of overall topic of management of North American free-roaming horses, even if we do need to be clear about which agency is responsible for what. Agreed that confusing language like "natural predators/predation" should be avoided.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  23:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

You and MBW go ahead. As far as I'm concerned, the only worthwhile discussion of it is why it wouldn't work (in order to debunk the few groups out there that are advocating for Congress to change the laws to get rid of livestock grazing and allowing the Great Basin to turn into some kind of Jurassic Park type of experiment), which is already alluded to in the article. This sentence "Where there is natural balance of predators and prey, mustang numbers tend to stay in balance. However, in many areas, natural predators have been eliminated from the ecosystem." in the Mustang article is supported by a biased source, which has since removed the page where it was found. I've tried to remove the sentence, but the POV pushing that was demonstrated here has prevented it. If you google "feral horse predator control" the only source that makes such a bold statement is WP. Wonder why WP has such a bad rap? Lynn (SLW) (talk) 11:43, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

The simple solution to the wording issue is to remove both cases of "natural": "Where there is balance of predators and prey, mustang numbers tend to stay in balance. However, in many areas, predators have been eliminated from the ecosystem." Aside from overuse of "balance", that's perfectly fine (if it's well supported in sources). No one is building artificial predators – robot tigers roaming the landscape killing horses and deer and unwise humans. No "unnatural" balance is being maintained, e.g. by using laser-firing satellites to selectively zap predators and prey. If there are significant efforts to hunt or relocate predators, then that is an "unnatural" effect, so use ing "natural" in front of "balance" would actually be wrong. Either way, "natural" serves no purpose in either of the affected constructions. Useless verbiage should be cut out generally, and definitely should by when it introduces ambiguity or conflict, as is the case here.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  19:25, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

It is not well supported by sources. It's not supported by sources at all. It had one source that was biased and unreliable, and even that source was removed, probably after the National Academy of Sciences Report came out. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 20:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

The only scientifically reliable information on the effect of predation on wild horse populations in the deserts of North American is here "However, the influence of predation on horses in the western United States is considerably limited by a lack of habitat overlap both with mountain lions and with wolves. Another constraint is that among free-ranging horse populations, foals are the usual prey, and predation on adults has rarely been documented until the recent studies in Nevada. Population size is not affected as much by foal survival as it is by adult survival (Eberhardt et al., 1982), and foal survival is strongly affected by other variables (such as weather)." Now, to take that statement, and try to support, in the article, that it is livestock interests that prevents predator control of feral horses would require tons of original research because one would have to assert and support that wolves could be successfully transplanted to the Great Basin and Red Deserts to make up the uninhabited predator niche where most of the horses are found. (The article already states that Mountain lions, which are already plentiful in the Great Basin are not found in the desert basins where most of the horses are). The implication that the only reason that wolves are not currently found in those areas because livestock interests wouldn't tolerate it is unsupportable. One would have to do studies on the range of wolves prior to white settlement (when the wolf populations were wiped out) to determine if they were even found in those areas to begin with. The Fish and Wildlife Service states here that: "Historically, gray wolves were found throughout most of the United States..." (emphasis added) Wolves and grizzly bears tended to be found in areas where there was more abundant prey unlike that found in the interior of the Great Basin, which, if you read the early explorer's accounts, was very sparse. I have lived in the interior of the Great Basin most of my life, and I have never heard of wolves historically being found here. So, now man has introduced a large non-native herbivore to the Great Basin and Red deserts, so the discussion would be whether man should to introduce a non-native predator to those areas to try to maintain the population. So find a scientifically sound article that discusses the possibility and then bring it into the article. Until then, all you are doing is original research and speculating. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 13:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

"The only ..." – You're setting up a "can't prove a negative" fallacy. The fact that a source appears to be reliable doesn't preclude the existence of other reliable sources. It's a common situation that sources conflict, and we just note when they do and point to the sources, for readers to make up their own minds which side, if any, they believe. When I said above that "Predation and predator control seem worth covering", that didn't mean "worth covering only from one particular perspective I'm a champion of"; I have no dog in the fight about which assessment of predation is correct, and am actually more interested in the fact that there's real-world debate about whether the effect is happening and makes a difference. I don't find it very credible that mountain lions, coyotes, etc., have zero effect on feral horses, though it may well be that they don't have a very significant one.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  19:25, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

True, there may be other credible research out there that contradicts that of the National Academy of Sciences, but if someone wants to find it they will have to look for it themselves, because I think it's a waste of time. And, without those sources, there is nothing to support the POV that feral horse populations can be controlled by predators, and that the only thing that is preventing the solution to "the real problem" which "is that there is no natural predation because the BLM is all about supporting the cattle industry, not ecological balance." Lynn (SLW) (talk) 20:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

And I am going to say this because it needs to be said...It is the individual ranchers of "the cattle industry" that have to sit back and watch the suffering of the feral horses because of the fallacies that are spread by the so-called pro-mustang groups. Seriously? Who wants to have a situation where horse populations are controlled by wolves? Just go on youtube and watch videos of a cow moose frantically trying for 15 minutes to protect her terrified calf from a pack of wolves. It is the cattle ranchers who, after having their livelihood devastated because the horses have destroyed the range they depend on to feed their cattle then have to watch the horses die of starvation and thirst, and who often intervene to bring them water. Then, they are ones who are vilified for wanting the horses to be removed. I am disgusted that WP is being used to spread the misinformation that allows this situation to continue. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 00:56, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

What happened to "I shan't be discussing this here."? This is veering way off the topic (improving this article) into WP:NOT#FORUM and WP:GREATWRONGS territory. WP isn't here for debate about how things should be.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  08:13, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

This is why I originally took it MBW's talk page, where it belonged. This did not start as "we should discuss predator control", in fact MBW herself said "though it is not likely to be added at present as predation is not widely discussed as a management technique for wild horses". It started as: "The real problem is that there is not enough land set aside for horses. We both know that cattle ranchers have never wanted feral horses on public lands because they view them as competing with cattle, and this has created an all or nothing debate that goes nowhere...the real problem is that there is no natural predation because the BLM is all about supporting the cattle industry, not ecological balance." This is about a pervasive POV that exists across several articles despite my attempts to ratchet it back. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 12:15, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I am with SMcCandlish on this. A discussion of "management" needs to discuss all forms and whether they are effective. And, remember, wild horses do not only live in the Great Basin, they are also found in the Pacific Northwest and the Rockies. As for predation, yes, a wolfpack kill is not pretty, nor is a mountain lion kill, but either is preferable to starvation or being shipped on a cattle truck down to a Mexican slaughterhouse, which is where they would wind up; it's not like anyone will shoot first and haul off the carcasses for rendering later. As far as horses "devastating" the range, the other discussion that is probably out of scope here are ranchers who overstock beyond the AMUs allowed for cattle on their grazing leases, to the extent they even have them (**cough** Bundy **cough**) and also, cattle are definitely not a native desert species-- and that is another elephant in the living room. Montanabw^(talk) 22:11, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Again, you demonstrate a POV that does not allow for any degrees between extremes. According to your statements, there's no options between kicking off all the livestock from public lands and letting nature take its course, or rounding up horses and sending them to slaughter. You want to allow nature to take its course, so you keep trying to skew the discussion against the bad bad ranchers. The purpose I had in writing this article is to present an accurate history and current assessment of the situation. I can't help that you do not like the direction the reality of the situation is leading to. Congress is not going to rescind the present laws and allow nature to take its course. So, all you are doing by trying to skew articles to make it sound like the livestock owners are the bad guys in this is hurting good people. You can't just point to one bad apple (who is where there aren't even any horses) to justify doing so. The real problem is that Congress has kicked the can down the road so long by not addressing the problem that horse numbers cannot be stabilized without removing more horses than can be adopted out that now the problem is out of control and is reaching critical mass. Finding a solution that doesn't require euthanasia of 100,000 horses will require that people get rid of their all or nothing thinking. Madeleine Pickens thought that she had the solution, but found out that she didn't really understand the intracacies of the problem. Few people do. But, what I don't understand is why anyone who thinks that its okay for predators to kill massive numbers of horses objects to humane euthanasia of the same horses. Dead is dead, right? Lynn (SLW) (talk) 08:14, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Follow up: I trimmed the bit that LynnWysong added about predators to just note the mountain lion study. As far as I can tell, there is no overlap of current wolf range and feral horse range. All I can find on wolves are accounts of attacks on confined horses ( like this), mostly on anti-wolf reintroduction sites, which would not meet our RS standards. While there is some material on historic attacks by Eurasian wolves on horses (along with a statement that the horse co-evolved with the wolf), I don't think we have enough to add anything to this article at present. As for bears, meh. They mostly eat carrion. Montanabw^(talk) 22:32, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

You did far more than that. You reverted everything I did to reflect your all or nothing POV ("this has created an all or nothing debate that goes nowhere") I wrote this article to give a balanced picture of the situation, I do not need your permission to refine it. I reverted back. You have displayed and admitted to an obvious POV against competing uses of the public lands and aren't even making rational edits. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 01:05, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Propaganda article

This article seems like a dubious topic in itself for Wikipedia. Furthermore, it states a whole raft of points as fact that are in effect highly controversial, or even soundly disproven. 63.224.196.30 (talk) 23:43, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Long story (much of it in talk here and elsewhere), but in part it is a spinoff of material that was bogging down other articles. If you want to suggest constructive edits to the article, please do so. Montanabw^(talk) 23:43, 31 December 2022 (UTC)