Talk:Wild and Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971/Archive 1

Notes for GAN
Just dropping any questions here as I read through the article:

Overall, looking really good. Are there any major additions/changes we need to make (asking the people who've read all of the source material)? I've moved the contents of the Act to a new section and worked the lead into a summary of the article, please have a read-through to make sure I didn't miss nuance. Otherwise, I think it's pretty close to ready for a GA nom. Dana boomer (talk) 18:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Implementation, "But there was strong disagreement over whether the population had actually increased as much as this, if at all." The previous sentence states the number as fact, this implies that maybe it's not fact. We should probably state in the previous sentence who gave this number, then expand upon this sentence as to why there were disagreements over the population estimate.
 * I'm not being able to open the GAO paper. Is it not working for anyone else?
 * If you mean this link, I just opened it successfully today. --MTBW
 * Now opened. - DB
 * Implementation, "The Pryor Mountains Wild Horse Range was one of only three HMAs solely dedicated to feral horses." What were the other two?
 * Check Mustang article?? Not sure I have it there, but I might?? --MTBW
 * Finally got the GAO paper to open, so expanded this info. Not in the Mustang article - it should be transferred there when we get around to working on that article. - DB
 * In 2008, the BLM was found to be noncompliant. Has anything changed since then?
 * Subsequent action, "as of May 2011 it has not been repealed." Has anything changed since then?
 * Those two will need research. I get a lot of my stuff from '"The Horse'' - they post a lot of good news updates with links to original sources. --MTBW
 * See below for a bunch of The Horse articles that could go a ways towards fleshing out the last little bits of this article that need work. - DB
 * I think I've updated the above two about as much as we can, at this point. - DB


 * If you can do the wikifairy and wikignoming work of restructuring and rearranging things, I can go back to the source stuff. I created this article in something of a rush, mostly to clean up redlinks, so it undoubtably needs more work. What it boils down to, though, is that the BLM is forever trapped in a war between pro-wild horse and pro-livestock grazing advocates that approaches the intensity of the abortion debate. And to both sides there are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics.  (big sigh) We definitely want to get this article to GA before tackling Mustang, as it is a preview of things to come.    Montanabw (talk) 22:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yup, I can do the wikignome stuff. And as soon as I convince my computer to open PDFs, I can start taking a look at some of the source material, too, although since you have a good base in it it will probably be easier for you to take the lead on that part. Dana boomer (talk) 23:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think at this point I'm done expanding/updating the areas I was concerned about. Anything you're concerned about with my additions (I don't think I took anything out)? As far as I'm concerned, a quick c/e and this could probably be put up for GAN. Pinging back in User:Montanabw (this is one of the good things about the new notification system!) Dana boomer (talk) 21:28, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll go through it. I'm sometimes better at fixing the stuff that might come up at GAN.  We probably should add an infobox, the legislation one is kind of cool looking... see, for example, Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009,  Want to do it or shall I?  (Maybe should think about adding to HPR also... FYI)   Montanabw (talk) 23:47, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm cool with an infobox in either/both articles. Would you mind adding them? You're better with the legalese than I am... Dana boomer (talk) 00:36, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, will get on it in the next couple of days.  Montanabw (talk) 22:04, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Any further thoughts here, User:Montanabw? I think once the infobox is in (if you want it), and the first point above is addressed, we should be good to go for GA. It'll need more work for FAC, but it's solid as-is, I think. Dana boomer (talk) 15:15, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I've yet to do a real thorough run-through, been a little crazy lately. Montanabw (talk) 05:41, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Going through their archives, listing articles here that may have interesting tidbits:
 * The Horse articles
 * Dispersal/Holding Options, 2004
 * Slaughter Prevention, 1998
 * Potential Spaying of Mares, 2013
 * Added bit to Implementation section. - DB 9/20/13


 * Potential New Contraceptive, 2013
 * Added bit to Implementation section. Neither this nor the above are extremely significant, until they actually start using them, so I just added one sentence for both. - DB 9/20/13


 * Overall Article on History, Costs, Politics, etc., 2001
 * Overall Updates on Costs, Politics, Adoptions, etc., 2009
 * Used a bit of this to expand Implementation section, but more good info here. - DB 9/20/13


 * 2010 Lawsuit, 2010
 * Update to 2010 Lawsuit, 2011
 * New Welfare/Roundup Policies, 2013 (includes direct link to BLM website on new policy)
 * Added into Legal challenges section. - DB 9/21/13


 * TRO on Helicopter Use, 2011
 * Added into Legal challenges section. - DB 9/21/13


 * Potential Amendment, 2009
 * Bill passed House but died in Senate, see House Status and Senate Status - DB 9/20/13
 * Added all three links to SCA section. - DB 9/21/13

Some of these may have nothing of use, others (the overall articles, possible amendments, etc.) will be good info. Dana boomer (talk) 22:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

America's Last Wild Horses
The google books link you dropped in external links (to America's Last Wild Horses) is a book that I have - the 1999 updated version. It's been quite a while since I read it, but I can go through it again and see if there's anything useful in there. It won't have anything recent, and I don't know how much more we want to expand the history, but may have a few bits we can add. Don't think it'll be anything that will affect the broadness criteria for GAN, but could give us a push if we wanted to take the article to FAC. Dana boomer (talk) 16:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, I think we should keep one link to the full text of the Act - maybe the one in the External links section? Dana boomer (talk) 21:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The infobox I added now contains that link, so I tossed it in the other two places. I agree on the Ryder book, we should also pop that into the EL section of Mustang for later.   Montanabw (talk) 22:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

"wild"
This article uses "wild" where it is a part of the legal technical language but the animals in question are feral as the wild horse became extinct in North America at the end of the Ice Age and all extant horses today are descended from once-domesticated animals. In 1971, Congress used "wild" instead of "feral" just as in 1821 they said "Indian" instead of "Native American." And technically, they said "wild free-roaming". There is nothing derogatory about this. Montanabw (talk) 04:48, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Protected
I've protected the article due to edit warring. I'm not thrilled with all the uncivil personal comments on the talk page either. Clean up your acts and find consensus. Dreadstar ☥   19:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Article improvement
Any edits to this article need to be coordinated with existing sources or have new sources provided that pass WP:RS. This is a GA-class article and all material must be properly attributed. Montanabw (talk) 19:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The number of mustangs on the range in the past is highly speculative. The best approach may be to look at minimum and maximum estimates and make an edit that discusses the range.  J. Frank Dobie is a valued historian, but his guess of 2 million is simply an estimate, there appears to be no hard data to back it.  The BLM may have more reliable numbers if we choose to look there.   Montanabw (talk)  19:56, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Sources:
 * Evans clearly sources the 2-5 million figure.
 * J. Frank Dobie gave the 2 million estimate that is the most commonly used
 * Lynhaug just says "millions"
 * The BLM points out that there are no formal estimates at all.

What are Evans' sources, and why aren't they being referenced? The BLM references Dobie http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/whbprogram/history_and_facts/myths_and_facts.html but implies that his numbers are highSheriWysong (talk) 22:13, 21 February 2015 (UTC) You also removed my reference to Anthony Amaral, who is a respected expert on wild horses. You are removing references by historians in preference to experts on horse care and registries. I seriously doubt that Evans could be a reliable source. SheriWysong (talk) 22:13, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

This is what you are attributing to Evans: "By 1900, there were two to five million feral horses in the United States." Here is what Evans actually wrote: "Although no accurate estimates of feral horse numbers exist for the 1700s and 1800s, there were believed to be 2 to 5 million head.  The greatest numbers occurred in the Southwest, especially west-central Texas.  At the end of the 1800s, most wild horse concentrations were found west of the Rocky Mountains." Thank you for steering me to this. It backs up what I wrote in the article. I will be changing it back, but will add in references to Evans. SheriWysong (talk) 22:13, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, stop edit-warring and massively rewriting the article, just for starters. And please leave the lead alone.  This is a WP:GA article and so changes need to be discussed and thought through constructively.  I do agree with you that the five million figure is not fully substantiated, even Dobie's two million was a wild guess.  We need to make some changes there.  However, what you are doing with this article is going in and making mass changes without even discussing consensus.  Now settle down and DISCUSS! I also am not convinced that Amaral is a "respected expert" - he wrote some books, but I don't even see the Mustang one.  Montanabw (talk)  06:00, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

As for your changes:
 * 1) You gave zero sources for your "200,000" feral horses. Dobie estimated two million.  No one actually ever did a census.
 * 2) "the higher numbers are probably grossly inflated." That might be true, but it's WP:SYNTH on our part - with no census, there could have been that many, there could have been 100,000.  We don't know.
 * 3) Assertions that the largest concentrations of horses were in Texas and the Columbia basin are also speculative; the only actual numbers we have is from the census taken when the Act was established.
 * 4) Most of the additional history you added is irrelevant to the legislation anyway.
 * 5) Plus, much of it doesn't appear to be footnoted, though I cannot access full text of the 1971 Time article to determine if what you added can be verified there.
 * 6) Amaral's book is one I can access via a local library, but not over the weekend, I will see it for myself.
 * 7) Walker's book was from 1945, long predating the Act. Much of what you attribute to him is the bit about the King Ranch, which is irrelevant, as I don't even think there are HMAs in Texas today.

I did incorporate some of your material changing the 2-5 million number to 2 million, citing to the BLM as the best RS on this. We can discuss other changes to the article as we go, but please do not edit the lede AT all and if we are going to make other content changes, discuss your thoughts first. Montanabw (talk) 06:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: I compared the recent version of this article to the version that passed GAN, and there have been some substantive changes that have crept into the article. I am going to revert back to the GA-passed version and go forward from there to restore the wikignoming fixes and useful additions.

As for your changes: '''#You gave zero sources for your "200,000" feral horses. Dobie estimated two million. No one actually ever did a census.''' '''#"the higher numbers are probably grossly inflated." That might be true, but it's WP:SYNTH on our part - with no census, there could have been that many, there could have been 100,000. We don't know.''' That number comes from Amaral, who estimated there were 100,000 in Nevada at that time. At least half the horses would have been in Nevada #Assertions that the largest concentrations of horses were in Texas and the Columbia basin are also speculative; the only actual numbers we have is from the census taken when the Act was established. EVERY source referenced talks about the horses being in Texas and the surrounding area. But they were gone from those areas by 1900. There simply were not millions of horses by 1900, if there EVER were. #Most of the additional history you added is irrelevant to the legislation anyway. That is your opinion. It gives context to the figures of millions of horses that is quoted so often. #Plus, much of it doesn't appear to be footnoted, though I cannot access full text of the 1971 Time article to determine if what you added can be verified there. Well, you didn't look very close, because I had added in about a dozen footnotes. '''#Amaral's book is one I can access via a local library, but not over the weekend, I will see it for myself. This is not "just my opinion," this is the CONSENSUS of the people who originally brought this article to GA status, and the reviewer, and the people who contributed since. Montanabw (talk) 07:17, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Walker's book was from 1945, long predating the Act. Much of what you attribute to him is the bit about the King Ranch, which is irrelevant, as I don't even think there are HMAs in Texas today.''' Once again, it provides context for the history.  SheriWysong (talk)
 * Geez, stop "shouting" with the boldface. If you bothered to look, you would see that I altered the 2-5 million bit, when I looked at Evans, I agreed with your conclusion that there is no independent verification for the five million figure.  Dobie's number is also a wild guess, but the BLM independently verifies that he offered the only figure that exists at all.  There was no scientific survey, so it's all a guess.
 * 1) I do not accept that Amaral is even a legitimate source, but I can find the book locally so I will take a look at it in a few days (the location it's at is closed on Mondays). If there was a census of 100,000 horses in Nevada, there will be independent verification; if you have the book, what did he source for the 100,000?  But 200,000?  You have just admitted that's your own made up number.  We simply cannot do that.  At best, we can say that Amaral estimated that in year XYZ there were 100,000 horses in Nevada.
 * 2) You have no source material for your 1900 numbers, either. "Gone from those areas by 1900"?  Unsourced also.  You. Must. Provide. Reliable. Sources.
 * 3) Your "dozen footnotes" are not really relevant to the legislation. This is an article about legislation, not the entire history of horses in the west.

I'm not shouting. I'm just using boldface to differentiate your comments from mine. Amaral's source for his number is Rufus Steele's 1911 article. https://books.google.com/books?id=LGhEAQAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false page 757, which estimated 70,000. Since, most of the HMAs are currently in Nevada, it's not much of a stretch to say that, in 1900, most of the feral horses were in Nevada, which would mean that there could not have been more than 200,000 in the U.S. at the time. As far as horses being gone from most areas east of the continental divide not being sourced, EVANS said that "At the end of the 1800s, most wild horse concentrations were found west of the Rocky Mountains." which I didn't need him to tell me, but if you want a published source, there it is. If you are going to reference any of the sources that say there were once millions of horses in the U.S. you have to give such a large number proper context. That number had been greatly reduced by 1900, because the horses were gone from the areas of greatest concentration by then. Dobie DID NOT say there were that many horses in the American West in 1900, the BLM myth and fact webpage you referenced made that very clear, he was referring to an earlier period, and it is misleading to imply that the area he was talking about (Texas, the Great Plains and the Columbia River Basin) is the same place they were found in 1900. Even if there were STILL horses in those areas today, they wouldn't be subject to the Act, because there is very little BLM land in those areas. So, bottom line, if you want to remove the history I put in that's fine if you use Amaral's number, which is probably the best out there, but if you use Dobie's or Evan's, you have to qualify it. And BTW, Amaral's book is much more objective and well-referenced source than Ryden's. Amaral was a history professor at UN Reno.SheriWysong (talk) 07:43, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


 * You obviously didn't even read what I inserted... word search for "Dobie" - you'll see the difference. You are right that he didn't say "1900" and I made another tweak to fix that. I think you can agree with what's there now, as far as it goes.  I have sourced and described the two million number in a manner consistent with the BLM's web site without paraphrasing it too closely. Dobie said in his book, "at no time... more than..."  The BLM uses the late1800s-early 1900s concept.  We seem to have originally agreed that Evans was inaccurate about the five million number, and he is also wrong about the "west of the Rocky Mountains" concept - as the major wild horse populations of Montana and Wyoming are east of the divide (acknowledging that Oregon and Nevada have significant numbers too, of course...).  If Amari used Rufus Steele, what we have in the source you provided is Steele- and that's an even better source but only Nevada  and only 1911  - and it still is simply Steele's estimate that in 1911 there were about 70,000 "wild" horses in Nevada.  We cannot extrapolate beyond that. I rather liked the "more wild horses in Nevada than citizens" comment - it's apt.  But the bottom line is that to edit wikipedia, we cannot make up our own numbers or extrapolate too far beyond the sources. Now I'm calling it a night and I suggest you look at the change I made to the population estimate and I really think it should meet your requirements.  I'm not going to trust the Amari source until I look at it, which I will be able to do, but it will be a few days, work permitting. And why are you going on about Ryden- her book isn't even a source for this article.  Montanabw (talk)  08:50, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I went in and made more changes. Evans was NOT wrong about the "west of the Rocky Mountains" concept. This is the entirety of what he wrote: "Although no accurate estimates of feral horse numbers exist for the 1700s and 1800s, there were believed to be 2 to 5 million head.  The greatest numbers occurred in the Southwest, especially west-central Texas.  At the end of the 1800s, most wild horse concentrations were found west of the Rocky Mountains." I referenced the BLM map to show where all the HMAs are. The reality is, when feral populations were at their peak (which was probably less than Dobie guessed, and certainly less than Evans' qualified statement), they were mostly EAST of the Continental Divide, but by 1900, most of the horses that had been east were already gone. The land had been claimed and settled, and the horses eradicated. The only place horses remained ("remained" being used loosely here, because as you will learn as you read the Amaral book, horses were being introduced west of Continental Divide at the same time they were being eradicated east of it) on the public domain, for the most part, WEST of the Continental Divide. And, I consider myself competent to assess Amaral's credentials, he was a well published historical scholar, so did not wait for your approval to use him as a source.

The Ryden book is on the webpage as an external link. She implies that the Indians in the interior of the Great Basin kept horses, and that those horses were the seed stock of the horses that are there now. That is incorrect. Early white explorers documented that there were no horses in the region, either feral or belonging to Indians. As of the early 1800's feral horses were East of the Continental Divide and in the Columbia River Basin, just as Dobie stated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SheriWysong (talk • contribs) 14:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


 * You just earlier said that the five million number was ridiculous and spoke disparagingly about the Evans book, now you defend it. You obviously have no clue what you are talking about at all, so yes, I also question the value of anything you present as a source, because at the very least, your "200,000" estimate already shows that you are willing to play fast and loose with information. And Texas, I hate to break it to you, is EAST of the Rocky Mountains.  We lack adequate reliable sources on this, and it isn't relevant to the legislation of 1971 anyway, so I prefer to omit it rather than engage in WP:SYNTH.  You are a new user, you don't understand how sourcing works on Wikipedia, we can't insert what has been omitted just because it seems logical.  Rydan is irrelevant here, as it is merely an external link, and yes, actually the Shoshone, originally of the Great Basin, were one of the earlier tribes to get horses; once they did, they moved to better hunting lands, where they remain today.  But again, that is not relevant to THIS article, which is about legislation. I recommend that you turn your attention to Wild horse preservation, which is more of an overview article and quit messing up this one.   Montanabw (talk)  03:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the five million number was ridiculous but not the way Evans had portrayed it, what was ridiculous was how it paraphrased in THIS article. No, I did not speak disparagingly of the Evans book, What I said was "I seriously doubt that Evans could be a reliable source (for numbers of mustangs). I was absolutely correct in that, but when I looked up what Evans had actually, I realized that what HE said was accurate that some BELIEVED there were that many; what I disparaged was that this page portrayed it as a well-sourced fact and even gave it a date (and then you had the unmitigated gall to say that I misquoted Amaral). Then YOU said, earlier in this thread that he had clearly sourced the figure, which was obviously not true and now that you actually read what he said you want to drop him like a hot potato because what he did say does not fit your agenda. And YOU are arbitrarily and capriciously reverting my edits, not discussing them with me FIRST and giving bogus excuses for doing so, then accusing me of "massive rewrites" and edit warring. I am not a new user, and I obviously have AS MUCH if not more knowledge base here as you do. You aren't even aware of an important source such as Amaral, and your decree that he can't be used as a source until you approve him is appallingly arrogant. I have provided good reasons why the "millions" number needs to be put in context; and your ignoring my reasons can only lead me to conclude that your "preference" to not state what several sources (including Evans) do, that the "millions" of wild horses that are spoken of were EAST of the Continental Divide, is an obvious attempt to mislead readers into thinking that there was once millions of horse WEST of it, where most of them are today (Evans was accurate in that statement also). You are also wrong what you say about the Shoshone, but that's not the point here. I do not have to accept the self appointed status of you and those that share your biases as the ultimate authorities of what can go on this page. There are several misleading inaccuracies in this page, so stop trying to tell me how stellar it is.SheriWysong (talk) 11:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted the page back. I am not going to accept your position that my only choice here is to allow you to make any edits after we discuss them OR THAT I MUST TOLERATE YOUR FLIPPANT REVERTING OF MY EDITS. That is against Wikipedia policy, and you have done it to me three or four times now. I am willing to discuss my edits with you, but only if you are fair and objective and stop trying to twist my words and patronize me. Stop trying to intimidate me with the "we can't allow this on Wikipedia" nonsense. If you are so concerned with the integrity of Wikipedia, you have an obligation to disclose all sources that have relevant information and not repress them and the information within them because they would alter the way you "prefer" to portray history.SheriWysong (talk) 14:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * You are edit-warring against consensus on a GA-class article. Where there are errors, they can be discussed with reliable sources. However, you have already edited this article to add WP:SYNTH and WP:OR material with your claim of "200,000" horses, which is not even supported by the source you claim you obtained it from.  Evans was the source for the five million, I said the material clearly was sourced, I made no comment as to the quality of Evans, I merely applied WP:V.  Upon assessment, in part due to your questioning the source, I realized that there is no other source out there that I could find to justify the five million figure.  I'll look at Amaral, but I am not seeing evidence that he is a "respected scholar."   Montanabw (talk)  19:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)