Talk:Wild and Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971/Archive 4

Proposal 2
I propose this language:

At the beginning of the 20th century as many as two million feral horses may have roamed the American West.[8] However, no comprehensive estimate of free-roaming horse numbers had been performed in the 19th or early 20th centuries, and thus the two million figure is speculative.[6] However, horse numbers were in decline as domestic cattle and sheep competed with them for resources.[9] Ranchers shot horses to leave more grazing land for other livestock, other horses were captured off the range for human use, and some were rounded up for slaughter.[8] At the time the 1934 Taylor Grazing Act was passed, it was estimated that 150,000 horses roamed wild on public land subject to the Act. When that legislation was enacted, ranchers obtained individual grazing allotments and the fee to graze a horse was twice that for a cow. As a result, ranchers allowed unbranded horses to run loose rather than pay for them, and management of horses running on the range was initially left to Mustangers and local ranchers.[10] It was not clear if there were too many horses, or that the land was incurring damage due to the presence of the horses.[11]

By 1939, the U.S. Grazing Service (the predecessor to the BLM) began to directly hire people to remove horses from public land.[12] The United States Forest Service periodically gave ranchers notice to round up their strays and thereafter shot any remaining horses.[13] After World War II, horses were removed in larger numbers to meet the demands of the pet food market. By the 1950s, the free-roaming horse population was down to an estimated 25,000 animals.[14]

Advocates for free-ranging horses were unhappy with the Forest Service and BLM's culling procedures. They argued that herding horses from the air or by motorized vehicle (such as motorcycles) terrorized the animals and caused numerous and cruel injuries. Led by Velma Bronn Johnston—better known as "Wild Horse Annie," a secretary at an insurance firm in Reno, Nevada—animal welfare and horse advocates lobbied for passage of a federal law to prevent this kind of hunting.[13] Their efforts were successful. On September 8, 1959, President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed into law the Hunting Wild Horses and Burros on Public Lands Act (Public Law 86- 234, also known as the "Wild Horse Annie Act"), which banned the hunting of feral horses on federal land from aircraft or motorized vehicles.[15]

Also at issue were BLM practices for managing horses in protected areas. Under BLM policy, ranchers could release a branded mare into a herd and then, the following year, round up the band the mare ran with for slaughter or sale.[16] In Nevada, state law permitted ranchers to round up any unbranded horses on their private land and slaughter or sell them.[17] Concerned about these practices, and about continuing horse hunts in unprotected areas, Johnston and her group began working to pass federal legislation to protect feral horses throughout the U.S.[16] She was joined by a number of prominent people, including country music singer Judy Lynn, Gunsmoke actress Amanda Blake, and New Hampshire Union Leader publisher and conservative William Loeb III.[17]

With this:


 * In 1930, there was an estimated population of between 50,000-150,000 free-roaming horses. When the 1934 Taylor Grazing Act was enacted, the public (General Land Office) lands were divided into individual grazing allotments and ranchers began to be charged fees to graze their animals on the land. The fee to graze a horse was twice that for a cow, and as a result, ranchers, already hit hard by the Depression, ceased branding their horses and allowed them to graze the public lands as "mavericks" adding to the numbers of horses that had started going feral over 50 years earlier.  Management of horses running on the range was initially left to Mustangers and local ranchers.  It's not clear if there were too many horses, or that the land was incurring damage due to the presence of the horses, but by 1939, the U.S. Grazing Service, which had been formed to administer the Taylor Grazing Act, began to directly hire people to remove horses from public land. The United States Forest Service periodically gave ranchers notice to round up their strays and thereafter shot any remaining horses. After World War II, the BLM was formed by combining the General Land Office and the Grazing Service.  It no longer directly removed horses from the lands it administered, but issued permits to hunters.  It is unknown how many free-roaming horses were on the public lands at the end of World War II, but the relentlessly hunting to meet the demands of the pet food market probably exceeded their reproductive rate, resulting in a decline.  By the 1950s, the free-roaming horse population was down to an estimated 25,000 animals.


 * Driving to work one day, in 1050 Velma Bronn Johnston was following a truck overcrowded with horses and saw blood dripping from the back. She followed it to a slaughterhouse and upon learning they were free-roaming horses gathered from private and state lands in Nevada's Virginia Range she took action to ensure more humane treatment of free-roaming horses when captured and transported.


 * On her initiative and Nevada State Senator James Slattery's actions, Nevada passed a bill that made free-roaming roundups by planes and cars illegal on state and private lands. Although the free-roaming horses on all lands in the State were under the jurisdiction of the State estray laws, federal lands, administered chiefly by the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service, which comprise almost 85% of the lands in Nevada were exempt from the law due to objections from the agencies that the law would hamper attempts to remove the horses from the public rangelands. As large parts of Nevada were thereby excluded from the bill, Johnston continued to fight for protection of the free-roaming horses throughout the state and across all the federal lands in the west. She initiated a massive letter writing campaign by students to Senators and Congressmen.  On September 8, 1959, the campaign resulted in the federal legislature passing Public Law 86-234 which banned air and land vehicles from hunting and capturing free-roaming horses on federal land. This became known as the Wild Horse Annie Act.


 * Passage of the Wild Horse Annie Act did not alleviate the concerns of mustang advocates, who continued to lobby for federal rather than state control over the disposition of free-roaming horses. Since most of the horses descended from the rancher's herds that had been running unbranded since passage of the Taylor Grazing Act, ownership of the free-roaming herds was contentious, and ranchers continued to use airplanes to gather them Federal agencies also continued to try to eliminate horses from areas where the were perceived to be causing resource damage.  In 1962, public pressure lead to the establishment of the Nevada Wild Horse Range, and in 1968, the Pryor Mountains Wild Horse Range was established. In 1969, the National Mustang Association, headquartered in Utah, persuaded Senator Frank Moss to introduce a bill (S-2166) to protect the remaining mustangs of Spanish descent under the Endangered Species Act of 1966.  However, since the bill also called for the removal from public lands of all non-Spanish horses, it came under heavy opposition. Federal protection for all free-roaming horses was ultimately accomplished by the passage of the Act, which specifically states:  "A person claiming ownership of a horse or burro on the public lands shall be entitled to recover it only if recovery is permissible under the branding and estray laws of the State in which the animal is found." which alleviated the problem of horses being rounded up under the auspices of belonging to local ranchers.  From that time on, a trespass fee authorized under the Taylor Grazing Act was enforced on ranchers who claimed ownership of horses on public lands if they did not have a permit and paid fees to graze them. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 14:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The bit in the first paragraph is useful, though "50 years earlier" is not accurate, given that horses had been feral in the west since at least the 1600s. I'm honestly wondering if we need a separate article on the Wild Horse Annie Act. I invite you to compare this article to Horse Protection Act of 1970 which is a FA-class article (and one of the peer reviewers was a lawyer) You will see there that the history section isn’t terribly long, it mostly focuses on the problem leading up to the need for the legislation. While we do need a history section here that’s a little longer (as the issue goes back farther), it still needs to stay focused and be mostly a summary with links to the more comprehensive articles. Basically, that's my concern. (And Kleppe came after the Act, not before). Montanabw (talk) 19:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * "(And Kleppe came after the Act, not before)" What??!!!  This is why I'm getting ready to just start editing the article again.  Trying to do any kind of constructive collaboration is pointless.  You just come on here, make a few random comments, and take off for 3-4 days.  If you're not really interested in fixing it, I will.  Lynn (SLW) (talk) 20:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Kleppe v. New Mexico was decided in 1976. WP:BRD applies.  You can edit, and as in other articles, I can disagree and revert; the burden is on you to justify your additions. You have some good ideas and you have pointed out some issues with sources.  The problem is that you also have suggestions that aren't very good and have some poor sources.  I have pointed those out to you. I suggest that you look where we agree and edit in those areas; that's what collaboration is all about.   Montanabw (talk)  23:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, random comment abou Kleppe vs New Mexico. How can I collaborate with someone who's going off on tangents about something that isn't even up for discussion at this point? And no, essays are not something I am obligated to adhere to.  You have an obligation to have a valid reason to revert, not just blindly rely on an essay that says in the third sentence:  "Care and diplomacy should be exercised."  Now if you're not really interested in improving the article but instead on trying to control my editing of it, then I'm just going to do it my way. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 00:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I have perfectly valid reasons to revert and I have said them over and over until I am blue in the face. "Doing it your way" is not collaborating. I have worked very hard to try and verify and incorporate your better material, but it is exhausting because you just don't ever learn. Take it to a drama board and see if you can find someone who cares.  Montanabw (talk)  23:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * It is your opinion they are valid. And, you know what they say about opinions.  I've gone back to just directly editing the article.  If you have problems with something I've changed, make a counter change.  I know there's some refs you don't like the format of.  Suggest how to handle them.  Lynn (SLW) (talk) 14:58, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, for starters, do not remove sourced material, tag it if it is a problem. If the link is dead or unusualble, tag it.  You don't replace something with a source that is of lower quality or less accessible.  Because of the massive rewrite you did (dozens and dozens of edits) I am going to have to revert to the last "clean" version and once again review the changes and restore what is not controversial. You need to express specifically what you need to edit instead of totally rewriting everything.   Montanabw (talk)  23:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay, well we got nowhere in the last two weeks. So, I'll let you work on it for the next two. The article needed to be totally rewritten. It was a mess. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 23:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm working on it. You are right that some of the citations were inconsistent, at least for FAC level.  I do think you found some good source materials, and I will tak your page numbers on Wyman and Ryder on good faith because I don't have time to look them up.  Some of what you have added was helpful and I'm keeping it.  Other things (such as a citation to a dissent as proof of Mustang bloodlines; the Mountain States Legal Foundation is a notoriously right-wing group) were not so great.  We haven't wasted two weeks, but we would move along a lot better if we could keep a neutral a tone as possible.   Montanabw (talk)  00:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)