(Beth Clifton collage)
Sanctuaries & anti-slaughter legislation address the wrong end of the problem
DENVER, Colorado––Wild horse advocates rejoiced on February 8, 2023 when the $29-million-a-year Wild Animal Sanctuary announced the purchase of 22,450 acres near Craig in northwest Colorado, to become The Wild Horse Refuge.
“Spanning 29 square miles, a landmass larger than Manhattan, the refuge will serve to rescue and protect hundreds of wild horses,” enthused Alexander Kirk for 9News in Denver.
“The Wild Animal Sanctuary said the refuge is being created in response to wild horse round-ups conducted in 2021 and 2022 by the Bureau of Land Management at Colorado’s Sand Wash Basin and Piceance-East Douglas Herd Management Areas,” Kirk continued.
Pat Craig and lion King.
A success story, but not a miracle
The former Rio Ro Mo cattle ranch “features rolling hills, canyons, native grasses, sagebrush, juniper trees, and water from Lay Creek,” Kirk recited.
The Wild Animal Sanctuary now owns four sanctuaries. As well as the future Wild Horse Refuge, Wild Animal Sanctuary holdings include the 9,752-acre Wild Animal Refuge in southwestern Colorado, near Springfield, opened in 2018; the 1,214-acre headquarters facility in Keenesburg, housing about 750 lions, tigers, bears, and other predators abandoned or impounded from private owners by law enforcement; and the former International Exotic Animal Sanctuary near Fort Worth Texas, acquired in 2020.
Pat Craig, 61, founded the original Wild Animal Sanctuary on his family’s ranch at Lyon, Colorado, near Boulder, in 1980, at age 19.
(Beth Clifton photo)
500 horses
Craig moved the Wild Animal Sanctuary to Keenesburg in 1994, opened it to paying visitors in 2005, survived a near bankruptcy in 2006, and continues to direct the operation, rapidly growing in recent years.
Craig appears to be now the most experienced, most successful, and most ambitious sanctuarian in the world.
“There are plans to provide a home to as many as 500 wild horses,” Kirk gushed.
This will be good news for those horses.
ANIMALS 24-7 in our original posting at this point mentioned that said horses, in keeping with the standard practice of zoos and sanctuaries all over the world that keep both horses and large carnivores, “at the ends of their natural lives will logically be euthanized to help feed the Wild Animal Sanctuary predators.”
This is a positive outcome, which ANIMALS 24-7 has long recommended, echoing the role of natural predation in culling the old, the sick, and the injured; helps to provide captive carnivores with the diet most analogous to their diet in the wild, e.g. lions eat zebras; and, even if a zoo or sanctuary feeds carnivores only renderings from farms and slaughterhouses, somewhat reduces the numbers of lives sacrificed to keep the carnivores alive and healthy.
Craig, however (see comments, below) took exception to this, thereby hinting that the Wild Horse Refuge modus operandi may be as illogical as anyone’s hope that accommodating 500 wild horses might do much toward reducing the U.S. wild horse surplus, or even the Colorado surplus.
(Beth Clifton photo)
64,000 wild horses need homes
The present wild horse population in Bureau of Land Management holding facilities is about 64,000, costing the BLM $93 million to maintain in fiscal 2022 alone.
Indeed the projected Wild Horse Refuge capacity of 500 horses would barely have held a quarter of the 2,000 wild horses removed from Bureau of Land Management property in Colorado in 2021 and 2022, if 141 horses had not died at a BLM stockade in Cañon City from a deadly combination of equine influenza with a bacterial infection.
The afflicted horses came mainly from the West Douglas area, a mountainous region west of the town of Meeker in northwest Colorado, where the wild horse carrying capacity had been steeply diminished by wildfire.
(Beth Clifton collage)
“Prohibit Equine Slaughter for Human Consumption”
The Wild Animal Sanctuary announced creation of the Wild Horse Refuge about a week before the Colorado legislature agriculture committee is on February 16, 2023 to host a hearing on a bill titled “Prohibit Equine Slaughter for Human Consumption.”
The bill was introduced by state senator Sonya Jaquez Lewis and state representative Lorena Garcia, both Democrats, in a state with solid Democratic majorities in both the state senate and house of representatives. This hints that “Prohibit Equine Slaughter for Human Consumption” may have a good chance of passage.
“Prohibit Equine Slaughter for Human Consumption,” promoted by Colorado Voters for Animals, “would criminalize any involvement in a horse becoming food for people. This includes slaughtering or exporting horses for slaughter,” explained Jenny Huh for KKTV on February 1, 2023.
Julie Marshall. (Facebook photo)
Traffic down 90% from peak
“Nationwide, last year 16,592 horses were sent to slaughter,” bill proponent Julie Marshall recounted on a Change.org petition supporting ‘Prohibit Equine Slaughter for Human Consumption.’ Most of these were from the east coast as former race horses,” Marshall said, “and only a sliver of that number came from Colorado, with two known kill buyers who have [both] been cited for violations” of federal law.
The 16,592 horses trucked to slaughterhouses in Mexico and Canada in 2022 was about 10% of the peak of the traffic circa 2012.
Exports of horses to be killed abroad soared in 2007, after the USDA by directive of Congress quit inspecting the last U.S. horse slaughterhouses. Meat not inspected by the USDA may not be sold for human consumption within the U.S., even to foreign markets.
The export of horses for slaughter abroad collapsed in 2014, when the European Union suspended imports of horse meat from Mexico after a series of drug contamination scandals. Exports of U.S. horses for slaughter abroad have fluctuated up and down since then, but in a generally downward direction over any given several years.
(See EU suspends horse meat imports from Mexico.)
(Beth Clifton photo)
Trying to lock the barn door
Now Colorado Voters for Animals is trying, along with horse advocates promoting similar measures in other states, to stop what remains of an undisputedly cruel trade––and to lock the barn door against any chance that the wild horse surplus in Bureau of Land Management custody might eventually go to slaughter, somehow.
Marshall’s petition cites support from the Grand Junction Sentinel editorial board and even the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, which typically supports animal use industries.
Wild horses demonstrate common advocacy position. (Beth Clifton photo)
Walking up from behind
Like the creation of the Wild Horse Refuge, the “Prohibit Equine Slaughter for Human Consumption” bill appears likely to do no harm and may do some good for horses.
At the same time, though, just about anyone who has ever been around horses, wild or domestic, knows enough to not walk up behind a horse and expect a positive outcome.
Similar horse sense, unfortunately, has never prevailed when it comes to preventing horse slaughter and the other unfortunate consequences of not enough homes on the range or anywhere else for the perennial horse surplus.
Horse advocates, 52 years after the passage of the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971 and 15 years after the effective end of horse slaughter for human consumption in the U.S., are still walking up from behind on the biggest and most enduring of all horse issues.
Pregnant wild horse.
(Beth Clifton collage)
Uncontrolled breeding
Too much uncontrolled breeding and too few predators on the Bureau of Land Management property opened to permanent legal occupancy by some wild horses––currently 88,000––continues to fill BLM holding facilities with horses who have been rounded up and removed from stressed habitat shared with cattle and sheep.
Despite much wishful thinking by horse advocates, the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971 was never intended to allow the then relatively small wild horse population to endlessly expand across property leased to ranchers, whose cattle and sheep are protected against predation by the agency then called Animal Damage Control, now called USDA Wildlife Services.
The original idea, as understood by Congress, was simply to ensure tolerance of wild horses on Bureau of Land Management property designated for multiple use.
(Beth Clifton collage)
No “squatter’s rights”
On other federal lands, including National Forests, National Parks, National Wildlife Refuges, Native American reservations, and military bases, wild horses and burros are often tolerated, yet have no legally defined “squatter’s rights,” and are at times purged as alleged “invasive species.”
Likewise wild horses and burros have no “squatter’s rights” on state-owned land or private property.
As of 1971, and for decades afterward, wild horses and burros perceived as surplus were mostly rounded up and sold to slaughter, though the traffic was disguised after 1971 by the Congressional creation of a wild horse “adoption” scheme which never has rehomed more than a fraction of the “surplus” horses removed from the range.
Most wild horses and burros claimed to have been “adopted” out by the Bureau of Land Management were “adopted” by killer-buyers and sold to slaughter until at last, relatively recently, the often exposed sordid practice belatedly brought reform of the “adoption” rules.
(See Is BLM advisory board threat to kill 45,000 mustangs a wild bet?)
(Beth Clifton photo/ collage)
Never sufficient demand
Reality is that even when the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971 was passed, there was never sufficient demand for riding and pleasure horses to keep up with the gathers insisted upon by ranchers to reduce competition from horses and burros for grass and water the ranchers want for livestock––and pay for, albeit at a fraction of free market rates.
Much has changed since then. The original estimated carrying capacity for wild horses and burros on Bureau of Land Management property was set at 27,000, only slightly more than the then-estimated wild horse population, to appease ranchers who mostly preferred to have no horses at all and even then feared runaway wild horse population growth.
The official estimated wild horse and burro carrying capacity is still 27,000, but in reality has more than tripled, and has remained at more than triple the official carrying capacity for more than a decade.
(Beth Clifton photo)
Cattle & sheep down by half
Exactly how many wild horses and burros could potentially survive on Bureau of Land Management property remains unclear, not least because frequent gathers of horses and burros keep the population enough below the maximum carrying capacity that mass deaths from starvation and thirst rarely occur.
The numbers of cattle and sheep on Bureau of Land Management property meanwhile have dropped to less than half of what they were in 1971.
Nonetheless, cattle and sheep still outnumber wild equines by a ratio of about two dozen to one, albeit that the cattle and sheep are usually pastured for only about half of each year, whereas horses and burros are on the range year round.
(Beth Clifton photo)
Fantasy
Horse advocates have long fantasized that they might eventually oblige the Bureau of Land Management to remove cattle and sheep from all BLM property and allow wild horses to reclaim as much of the range as they can, in competition only with bison, elk, deer, and pronghorn, their numbers held in check only by pumas, wolves, and grizzly bears.
Political reality is that this is not going to happen, not any time soon and probably never.
At the same time, ecological reality in a rapidly warming world is that whatever the real-life carrying capacity for wild horses and burros was in 1971, either in combination with cattle and sheep, or if cattle and sheep ranching ceased tomorrow, it is much less today.
Puma at Big Cat Rescue. (Beth Clifton photo)
Predator-free existence
There is less water falling on the 10 designated wild horse and burro range states, and less in the ponds, streams, and rivers. There is less grass growing, and more highly flammable dried-out sage. There are more wildfires, racing over more mountainsides.
There are also more pumas, wolves, and grizzly bears to prey upon wild horses and burros, but ranchers welcome wild predators no more now than ever, and that means that wherever cattle and sheep roam, wild horses and burros sharing the range continue to lead a relatively predator-free existence.
Meanwhile, there are 64,000 wild horses and burros in federal holding facilities, with no realistic prospect of either being adopted or being returned to the range, even if the range could absorb that many additional equines.
William Perry Pendley and wild horse.
(Beth Clifton collage)
15 years & $5 billion?
Selling those horses to slaughter remains politically unviable. Indeed, efforts to revive the horse slaughter industry driven by influential Republicans have repeatedly failed, even when Republicans have held the White House, both houses of Congress, and majorities in the states with the most wild horses.
Former acting Bureau of Land Management director William Perry Pendley on October 23, 2019 told Scott Sonner of Associated Press that returning the U.S. wild horse population to the officially estimated sustainable level of about 27,000, without mass roundups for slaughter, would take 15 years and $5 billion of investment, focused on birth control.
(Beth Clifton photo)
Facing the problem head-on
That may be a horse-sized pill for horse advocates to swallow, many of whom remain adamantly opposed to any attempt to reduce and/or limit the wild horse and burro population.
Reality, though, is that creating 500-horse nonprofit sanctuaries, no matter how idyllic, cannot come close to overtaking wild horse and burro population growth from behind.
The problem, including the over-abundance of horses in Bureau of Land Management stockades, must be faced head-on, and that means birth control, whether through the use of chemosterilants such PZP and Gonacon, or by spaying horses like cats and dogs.
(Beth & Merritt Clifton)
(See Four schemes to save 70,000 wild horses from a BLM Apocalypse, Wild horses on non-BLM land: showdowns in the High Sierras, and Why not spay wild horses? Technique has barely been tested.)
Please donate to support our work:
http://www.animals24-7.org/donate/
Related Posts
Sonoran desert pronghorn: safer on a bombing range than in a refuge
Why Europe will not eat U.S. & Australian wild horses
Wild horse problem needs 15 years, $5 billion, says acting BLM chief
Lions, Tigers & Bears, heroic efforts, & Big Cat Rescue
Bestiality & child porn bust in Bossier City, Louisiana: Terry Yetman deja vu
Direct action heroes for animals: Popeye, Olive Oyl, Betty Boop & Grampy
Sterilization IS the answer. Absolutely. Just as I cringe whenever I see someone protesting spay/abort in cats (or in dogs, which I don’t advocate for), I rage at the failure of those who oppose sterilization of members of any species who are no longer “useful” and “desirable” for/by humans (and that includes our fellow humans, first and foremost)to care about the individual lives they apparently aren’t at all concerned with consigning to misery, abuse, neglect, and other forms of unconcern.
Sharing with gratitude.
The Virginia Range herd as the 3,000+ head herd is owned by the state but is actually managed by volunteer organizations. (My crew handles operations.) Similar activities are taking place on some BLM ranges, however the Virginia Range is the largest model.
The Virginia Range herd ranges on some 283,769 acres, a sizeable portion of which has been developed and includes various cities, townships and the largest industrial park in North America. Each horse has a practical range area of about 80 acres / horse. That’s pushing resource limits. However, a serious program of documenting, monitoring and fertility control undertaken by volunteers has resulted in the annual recruitment rate being less than the annual mortality rate The volunteers have also had some help from the area’s cougars in that regard.
While I’m not opposed to sanctuaries, and such efforts do reduce pressure with respect to the population issue, the most economical horse to support is one that’s on the range. Of course, healthy horse herds require healthy ranges so some population management is necessary for long-term sustainability. Fertility control, such as PZP darting, has proven to help reduce reproduction rates without the need to take large groups of horses out of the gene pool. Simply put, the same diverse numbers of mares simply produce fewer offspring.
My point in all of this is that there are models that work. Unfortunately, there are factions within the wild horse advocacy camp that are so stuck on “wild and free, let ’em be” to the extent that they disrupt efforts to proactively manage herds so that the ranges and the herds themselves can thrive.
Then there is the nonsense that getting rid of cattle operations will somehow solve the horse population problem. In 1952, through the McCarran Amendment, the federal government gave up all sovereignty over water excepting a few interstate waterways. States like Nevada appropriated water rights for beneficial use. Ranchers, mines and other users legally own those water rights and “their” water often supports wild game and wild horse herds. It’s one of the reasons that grazing permit fees are kept pretty low.
Now we have urban centers looking for water wherever they can get it. As one example, the Southern Nevada Water Authority is trying to get ranchers to pull up stakes and sell their water rights to the authority. They have proposed a $250 million pipeline to acquire this water and transport it to Clark County. A UNR analysis basically concluded that such a move would likely turn many rangelands into wastelands. With no water for horses, BLM would be forced to pull entire herds off.
As you know, you can’t fix stupid and a great deal of drama goes into fundraising since tissue issues sell. What I’d like to see is an objective analysis of various management models coupled with the roles that respectable livestock operators play and the water wars that may well appear on the horizon.
Peace out.
Willis
This is a shallow take on the wild horses and burros of America, especially because it perpetuates the hype about exploding wild horse and burro populations and very superficially treats this important issue in America. The article fails to recognize the horses’ and burros’ ability to self-stabilize their numbers in relation to habitat and resources through the development of mature social structures and through allowing for the filling of their respective ecological niches within bounded but viable habitats. PZP and GonaCon are highly invasive and unnatural alterations of the horses and burros that disrupt their natural fitness and ability to survive and unwisely thwart their ability to fulfill their beneficial long-standing roles within the ecosystems they occupy and to which they quickly revert. Horses and burros play a very important role in many facets of the North American Ecosystem from the prairies and plains to the mountains and deserts, etc. They lend a much-needed balance vis-a-vis the overly promoted cloven-hoofed, ruminant-digesting herbivores and actually benefit these precisely because of this balance and when these ruminants are not overly and very unwisely foisted in unnatural and excessive numbers upon the land! Compared to the ruminants, the equids are superior Carbon sequesters and can and do more greatly reduce coarser, drier forage without excessive metabolic energy waste. And the reach remoter, rockier and steeper areas where these fuels build up and where many of these seriously damaging fires begin. When these fuels build up excessively, they provide the requisite tinder for many of the increasing catastrophic wildfires that are often due to mounting Global Warming. And this latter is being to a large degree caused by the real uncontrolled population explosion today — that of us humans along with our rapacious devouring of an excessively large portion of the “resources” that the beautiful world of the free and balanced nature produces. The problem is not with the very underpopulated wild horses and burros but with us people, who are failing to rein in their own monstrous excesses on this planet and have failed to relate to these highly evolved and natural healing gardeners, builders of soils, seeders of plants and restorers of ecosystems — the horses and burros themselves who should be allowed to live in much greater numbers that are truly viable in the long-term and genetically so. Reserve Design and Rewilding is the answer, not a crude and superficial “quick fix” pseudo solution that disrespects and tortures these wonderful animals –to whom we owe so much–and perpetuates humanity’s monstrous stranglehold on our public lands’ ecosystems! And, I might add, violates the true and wise, far-seeing spirit and intent of the unanimously passed Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act, and several other related acts, including the Endangered Species Act and the National Historical Heritage Act.
Craig, you have been saying the same things for all of the 30-odd years we have been acquainted, during which time the U.S. wild horse population has approximately quadrupled from approximately 22,000 to 88,000, showing no more inclination toward self-regulation in absence of predation than does any other species. Meanwhile, though burros do tend to find and even create their own water sources in desert habitat, to the net benefit of many species, horses do not, and it is disingenuous to credit horses with the ecological contributions of jackasses. Horses have reasonably well integrated themselves into the ecology of the U.S., Mexican, and Canadian west, but only to approximately the same extent as feral cats and pigs, who reached North America at about the same time from the same direction, and also require contraceptive birth control, especially in sensitive habitats. Not to be forgotten is that many wild horses run beneath oak and redwood trees which, as individuals, have lived from two to six times longer than the entire time span since horses returned to North America after a 9,000-year absence. In ecological time, even we humans––also here far longer than horses have continuously been here––are relative newcomers.
We must continue to cut down on the consumption of beef and the raising and shipping of cattle overseas. The “overpopulation of horses” isn’t the problem, we are.
“Despite much wishful thinking by horse advocates, the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971 was never intended to allow the then relatively small wild horse population to endlessly expand across property leased to ranchers, whose cattle and sheep are protected against predation by the agency then called Animal Damage Control, now called USDA Wildlife Services.
The original idea, as understood by Congress, was simply to ensure tolerance of wild horses on Bureau of Land Management property designated for multiple use.”
Maybe you’re not familiar with the 1971 law that states HMAs are to be managed principally but not necessarily exclusively for wild horses and burros, not livestock. About 80% of forage allocation on HMAs goes to livestock. Maybe you’re also not aware that according to BLM’s own data, livestock is destroying the range.
Maybe Jen Howe, above, never read the Wild Free-Roaming Horses & Burros Act of 1971, either in original form, which makes no reference whatever to Herd Management Areas, and is accessible here: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-85/pdf/STATUTE-85-Pg649.pdf; or read it in current form, accessible here, which also makes no reference whatever to Herd Management Areas: https://www.blm.gov/sites/default/files/programs_wildhorse_history_doc1.pdf.
The Wild Free-Roaming Horses & Burros Act of 1971, and as amended, makes explicitly clear that wild horses and burros are to be maintained within specified limits, not to be given free access to all land under Bureau of Land Management jurisdiction.
Although I believe everyone could debate the pros and cons of wild horses until they are blue in the face, as well as endlessly debate the issues surrounding whatever might be the best solution to the problem… Yet, I take great offense to Clifton’s statement “This will be good news for those horses, who at the ends of their natural lives will logically be euthanized to help feed the Wild Animal Sanctuary predators.”
The truth is The Wild Animal Sanctuary has never fed horse meat to it’s carnivores, nor has it ever euthanized horses simply because they have grown old and nearing the end of their lives. This statement is both reckless and malicious, and slanders the reputation of our organization.
It was quite unnecessary and should be retracted.
Whoa, Pat! Two sentences after I wrote that, “Craig appears to be now the most experienced, most successful, and most ambitious sanctuarian in the world,” you are alleging that I was “reckless and malicious, and slander[ed] the reputation of our organization” for expecting that your Wild Horse Refuge would follow the several centuries old standard procedure of the vast majority of zoos and sanctuaries that keep, or have kept, both horses and large carnivores?
We at ANIMALS 24-7 have long seen euthanizing horses (and other large captive herbivores suffering from severe conditions of age) and feeding them to captive carnivores as ethically far preferable to either allowing horses (or any animal) to suffer a “natural” death from end of life debilities, and also both ethically and nutritionally preferable to feeding captive carnivores either factory farm or slaughterhouse renderings.
What exactly are you going to do with the Wild Horse Refuge horses at the ends of their natural lives, when in the wild they would be the first targets of large predators? Are you not going to euthanize them, and/or not use their remains as they would be used in nature?
Thank you for your response, Clifton, as I appreciate your explanation very much. It’s true you were kind with your assessment of our organization’s current accomplishments. However, I say our organization’s accomplishments instead of mine since we have an extraordinary group of dedicated staff and volunteers working here that have given generously of themselves to achieve our current success. It was also kind of you to point out my failures as well…
Yet, there are many things that make our organization stand out amongst the other carnivore sanctuaries around the country, and one of those things involves our animal diets. While most other facilities do rely on downed wildlife and/or domestic horses, cows and other farmed animals to survive – we never have. Carnivores in the wild certainly eat other living animals to survive, but that doesn’t mean captive carnivores need to become the virtual garbage disposals for any dead or dying domestic animals – or even the dead wildlife that is scraped off our public roads and highways.
Like any problem, including the wild horses that are the focus of your article, there is no perfect solution to the issue of where all the dead or dying domestic and agricultural animals go. It’s easy for people to not consider that we are regulated by nearly a dozen government and private agencies/institutions. Many of these regulators impose strict dietary requirements and other tight controls on us, so we simply cannot feed dead animals to our charges – nor can we leave carcasses out for extended periods of time so they can be an added food source for local scavengers.
Even if we could, where would we draw the line? Would we also be expected to let the carnivores consume each other’s dead bodies each time one passed away or we had to assist with its end of life relief? Even so, we currently feed 100,000 pounds of food per week, so any attempt to become an in-house butchering plant would quickly end up looking like one of the many giant meat packing plants that everyone loves to see and smell.
Unfortunately, whether anyone likes it or not, the amount of intense regulation we are under, along with the immense cost of commercially processed food, thwarts all of the preconceived notions that we are somehow able to feed downed animals. As such, again, I still take offense to your defaulting to this kind of practice just because it seemed plausible, as well as something you believe is the right thing to do.
My request is not a challenge to your story on horse slaughter or the need for viable solutions to the overpopulation of wild horses. It’s simply a request to remove a sentence that was completely untrue and very misleading. I believe it is very evident to most people that a new private Refuge for a specific number of horses will not resolve all of the issues relating to this topic… nor would it help every wild horse within Colorado. Yet, our organization’s motto aptly states our overall purpose and goal – “Saving one animal will not change the world… but surely, for that one animal… the world will change forever”.
Thank you again for responding and explaining your rational for statements regarding the organization I happened to found and work extremely hard for over the past 43 years. A guy like me doesn’t work seven days a week for decades and not care about statements that could affect the welfare of his organization. It would be no different for you and yours.
I can only hope this dialogue will help readers to see there are real-life complications that almost always go against simple solutions. In our case, it’s impossible to dispose of any deceased animal by simply cutting it up or allowing the Lions or Tigers to consume the carcass as best they can. The world is full of problems that seem simple on the surface, but are not.
As much time and energy you committed toward including nearly every important aspect of the wild horse problem so your readers could be better educated on the subject – I only wish that your statement would have been just as deftly researched and explained before going to print. It is important for people to fully understand the option of disposing of dead horses rather than defaulting to a failed or unattainable practice.
I realize it is just one sentence within a very large and detailed article, but as it pertains to my world, a statement like that could have a very discernable impact.
Pat Craig, above, raises many issues pertaining to feeding large carnivores that were not even mentioned or discussed in Even the giant new Wild Horse Refuge can’t catch up to the mustang surplus, among them whether any sanctuary or zoo keeping large carnivores can ever become, or ever has been, fully food self-sufficient [none in sanctuary and zoo history to the awareness of ANIMALS 24-7], and the practice of feeding captive large carnivores road-killed deer, elk, and moose [practically universal worldwide, as is the practice of feeding road-killed rabbits, beavers, prairie dogs, etc. to captive hawks, owls, and eagles at avian rehabilitation centers].
The relevant regulatory regimes for the Wild Animal Sanctuary facilities in Colorado and Texas would be the same as for any other zoo or sanctuary in either state. In that regard, Colorado, like 48 other states, allows even the collection of roadkill for human consumption, so long as the pickup is reported to the state Department of Wildlife within 48 hours. Texas is currently the only U.S. state which does not allow roadkill pickup for human consumption.
In our experience of more than 50 years of frequently visiting and reporting about zoos and sanctuaries, nearly all that keep large carnivores have on-site butchering and rendering facilities; many, especially those opened before horses and donkeys fell out of common use for work and transportation, have or had on-site equine slaughtering facilities as well. On-site equine slaughter to feed large carnivores may no longer be done in the U.S., but since it is done strictly for animal consumption, it would not be under USDA jurisdiction.
Concerning the specific feeding practices at the Wild Animal Sanctuary and affiliated facilities, the Wild Animal Sanctuary filing of IRS Form 990 for 2021 (most recent available) acknowledges receipt of $8,367,534 in “animal feed” from Walmart. Further discussion of how the Wild Animal Sanctuary feeds the animals it houses appears at https://www.wildanimalsanctuary.org/faq-s?fbclid=IwAR39i6gRn0ihX3RSYMhvLEoES9r7S9aIvdyiOlbYZq-JrggyY-jLlKCgs7A, in several sections beginning with the seventh from the top.
Agree – the best practice to ensure more positive outcomes for our wild horses is contraception/sterilization. Roundups are the worst way to manage populations; and leaving them on their own and still able to reproduce is cruel when we consider climate change and droughts which lead to reduced water and food resources. At least when their numbers are managed, they have more of a chance at the life they know.
Editor’s note: While Jennifer Robin Gallery is entitled to express her opinion, the same as anyone else, her comment here disregards both Pat Craig’s own statements, posted above, and several relevant facts about wild horses, explained below.
In my opinion, the only reason Pat Craig probably even considered the wild horse sanctuary in the first place is so he could have an endless supply of cheap horse meat to feed his growing supply of predators by using federally protected mustangs, which is illegal. He’s got a lot of mouths to feed, 750 tigers alone, and then there is wolves, coyotes, bears, etc.
Not that I don’t realize, predators need to eat something, but the way he is going about it, the end of their actual lives could be very young horses, and no one would be the wiser. By law, 11 years of age is allowed. Will he be taking in only old horses so they can die quicker? Or will take in any age, and it won’t matter the age because the public can’t see what goes on behind closed doors. How many will he be supplied, monthly/yearly. Who will keep track?
This is terrible, and he should not be able to adopt any mustangs if this is his intentional end game.
I was once a supporter of the #TheWildlifeSanctuary, but that will end right now!
Jennifer Robin Gallery’s speculations, above, appear to be the sort of ill-informed reaction that Pat Craig anticipated in his responses to the ANIMALS 24-7 coverage, in which he emphasized having never fed horse meat to the Wild Animal Sanctuary carnivores. ANIMALS 24-7 has pointed out that not feeding large carnivores horse meat is contrary to the modus operandi of most facilities keeping large carnivores, but must further point out that if Craig ever had any intentions such as Gallery alleges, he could have pursued them at any time over the past 42 years, and did not.
Meanwhile, anyone who wants “an endless supply of cheap horse meat” can obtain such a supply––as many zoos, sanctuaries, and private keepers of large carnivores do––from race tracks, horse breeders, and government lands not under Bureau of Land Management control, therefore not subject to the Wild Free Roaming Horse & Burro Act of 1971. Wild horses may be sold to slaughter at any age, without federally imposed restrictions, by the U.S. Forest Service (although the Forest Service voluntarily follows BLM procedures), the National Park Service, the U.S. military, Native American reservations, state land-holding agencies, and private citizens who happen to have wild horses on their property other than those strayed from BLM land.
As large as the inventory of wild horses in Bureau of Land Management corrals is, at 64,000, it is substantially fewer than the numbers of horses from other sources who are rendered for animal consumption each and every year.