New York Times' Misguided Coverage of Wild Horses

The New York Times recently published an article that fails to delve into the complexities of the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) claims regarding wild horse overpopulation. This piece overlooks the agency's long-standing mismanagement and the viable solutions available to address these issues.

Wild horses are a national treasure, yet they are losing their rightful place on the range due to the BLM's refusal to implement humane management practices, such as PZP fertility control, which has been available for nearly three decades. In 2013, the National Academy of Sciences provided a roadmap for reform, but the BLM continues to ignore these recommendations.

The New York Times should critically examine the basis for the BLM's claims of overpopulation and the so-called "Appropriate" Management Levels (AMLs). The National Academy of Sciences found no science-based rationale for these limits, stating, "How Appropriate Management Levels (AMLs) are established, monitored, and adjusted is not transparent to stakeholders, supported by scientific information, or amenable to adaptation with new information and environmental and social change."

Furthermore, the NAS concluded that "Removals are likely to keep the population at a size that maximizes population growth rate," which perpetuates the cycle of roundups and removals. The New York Times should investigate the cultural and bureaucratic factors contributing to policy paralysis within the BLM.

Additionally, the article should address the unfounded claims that wild horses are damaging rangelands, where they are vastly outnumbered by livestock. Investigative journalism should include obtaining data on livestock grazing permits in wild horse habitats over the past five years to provide a comprehensive view of the situation.

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility has highlighted how the BLM scapegoats wild horses for range damage caused by livestock, noting that the BLM's assessment methods are biased. This critical information is missing from the New York Times coverage.

Finally, the article should focus on socially acceptable solutions, such as fertility control and compensating ranchers for reduced grazing in wild horse areas, rather than sensational suggestions like mass killings. These solutions deserve a fair examination by the nation's leading newspaper.

While it may be challenging for the current reporter to shift perspectives, perhaps the New York Times could assign another journalist to explore these issues more deeply.