Talk:Wild and Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

2 million number

I tracked down the source of the "2 million number at the turn of the century" The BLM is mistaken when it attributes it to Dobie's work, that CLEARLY states it is not applicable to 1900. It was Hope Ryden, who in 1970, seemingly pulled that statistic out of thin air. On page 311 of the 1970 version of America's Last Wild Horse Ryden put a graph showing the decline of horse numbers. The Y axis is numbers, the x year. So, at the top of the graph is the 2 million mark at 1900. Ryden abandoned the graph in later versions of the book, probably because she realized she made the mistake many people do, of not taking into consideration the reproductive rate of horses when trying to do backwards calculations of population numbers. But, in 1990 the GAO used the 1970 version and now the figure and year quoted in the article, are widely quoted. But, in 2008, the GAO also backed off the assertion that there were "as many as two million feral horses may have roamed the American West." and so, continuing to perpetuate that number in the article jeopardizes its "good article" status. 00:59, 22 May 2015 (UTC) Lynn (SLW) (talk) 01:05, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I suggest we change this:

At the beginning of the 20th century as many as two million feral horses may have roamed the American West. However, no comprehensive estimate of feral horse numbers had been performed in the 19th or early 20th centuries, and thus the two million figure has no basis.

to something like this:

Any estimates of the peak number of horses that once roamed wild in the United States are speculative. J. Frank Dobie stated that the numbers peaked at the end of the Mexican American war, but that: "No scientific estimates of their numbers was made...My own guess is that at no time were there more than a million mustangs in Texas and no more than a million others scattered over the remainder of the West." Lynn (SLW) (talk) 11:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, here's the deal. I do agree that even Dobie said the 2 million number was pulled out of a hat. But you have to SOURCE what you are saying properly, and the BLM "myths" article doesn't say there is "no basis." We also can't say the Nevada number was "credible" unless someone else describes it as such. (I know you hate CAPS, but please see WP:SYNTH. It's a rule, I didn't make it up) And it's an inaccurate statement - you can't prove a negative (there IS a basis for the number - Dobie's guess - just not a scientific one). We could teach the controversy by just using the Dobie quote, but we need to put it all in context because the two million number, for better or for worse, is out there. You know I really dislike relying on long quotes, but if using Dobie verbatim settles this, I can compromise on that point. Montanabw^(talk) 17:52, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I would like to put a footnote stating about what I did above, stating that the two million number at the beginning of 1900's can be traced to Ryden and was picked up by the GAO, but that both sources later backed off the statistic. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 19:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Maybe, incorporating your comments into what's there, let's just play with the paragraph. I'll start with the mostly stable version here and make the first round of changes - instead of copying 10 different versions, let's just sandbox here. Here's a start, incorporating Dobie. Montanabw^(talk) 18:11, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Sandboxing only

Any estimates of the peak number of horses that once roamed wild in the United States are speculative.(cite BLM Myths) J. Frank Dobie believed the numbers peaked at the end of the Mexican American War,(cite to specific page in Dobie) but that: "No scientific estimates of their numbers was made...My own guess is that at no time were there more than a million mustangs in Texas and no more than a million others scattered over the remainder of the West." (cite to specific page in Dobie). However, horse numbers declined as domestic cattle and sheep competed with them for resources.[9](Lynghaug 104)(or the GAO report, which may be better) 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] The first estimates by the US government of free-roaming horse populations occurred in the timeframe of the 1934 Taylor Grazing Act. (I think this is true...? Open to tweak if it's not) At that time, 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](this cites the preceding three sentences) 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](this cite is to Ryden.)

---

The Nevada number wasn't a census, but an estimate by knowledgeable source at the time. Anthony Amaral used that estimate to make his own projection that there were 100,000 wild horses in Nevada in 1900.Lynn (SLW) (talk) 19:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, so tossed that bit. Fair enough to say that the Government probably didn't have any previous estimates? Montanabw^(talk) 17:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Rahall "Amendment"

This did not repeal the Burns amendment. It is only a yearly addition to the appropriations bill, that forbids federal money be used to implement the Burns amendment.Lynn (SLW) (talk) 01:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Same result. Source says "repeal," but I can refine the language. Montanabw^(talk) 03:58, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

GA-Class article

Do not make massive undiscussed changes to a GA class article without discussing why these changes are needed at the talk page, please. Montanabw^(talk) 00:36, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

You have no business demanding that changes in ANY articles must be discussed prior to making them. You must have good reasons to revert, not that you don't want it changed without discussion. The changes improved the article. It no longer deserved GA classification, if it ever did. I have reverted back, If you have specific issues with what I did, we can work from there.Lynn (SLW) (talk) 01:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

You have been warned about your OR and SYNTH in the past. This is a GA-class article, which means that new material needs to be subject to WP:BURDEN, which means you need to justify your additions. I suggest you propose the suggested changes you want. I agree we have had issues with the "two million" figure in the past and that bit should be adjusted. Other than that, one step at a time, please. We may agree on some matters, we have in the past. Montanabw^(talk) 03:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

You need to go back and read WP:BURDEN, Says nothing of the sort. Oh, and, really nice message here too. Oh, and thanks for the warning on my talk page Classy. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 11:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Specifically, the problems with your edits include:

1. Changes to the lead not backed up by material in the article body. See WP:LEDE
2. Statements of opinion phrased as fact, and thus not appropriate for an encyclopedic tone.
3. Information totally irrelevant to the article topic, which is the 1971 act, not vague mentions of Mexican history in 1826. That is WP:UNDUE.
4. Similarly, we also don't need a complete analysis of the Taylor Grazing Act here, that material is better placed in the article on that act.
5. You removed sourced material without explanation.
6. The references to the current problem of horses held off the range needs to focus on the legislative aspects. The question of sustainability is probably worth including in the article, though.
7. The Fischman article might have some useful material, but you cited it improperly for the citation style used in this article.

And so on. I am glad to discuss ways to improve the article, but making massive, undiscussed changes is, as you already know, not appropriate. Montanabw^(talk) 04:17, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

"Changes to the lead not backed up by material in the article body. See WP:LEDE" Need to be more specific

"Statements of opinion phrased as fact, and thus not appropriate for an encyclopedic tone." Need to be more specific

"Information totally irrelevant to the article topic, which is the 1971 act, not vague mentions of Mexican history in 1826. That is WP:UNDUE." Bull. It's the HISTORY section, some history is warranted.

"Similarly, we also don't need a complete analysis of the Taylor Grazing Act here, that material is better placed in the article on that act." I don't believe I changed that section much.

"You removed sourced material without explanation." I explained it. It was either inaccurate, poorly sourced, or non-NPOV

"The references to the current problem of horses held off the range needs to focus on the legislative aspects. The question of sustainability is probably worth including in the article, though." That was already like that.

"The Fischman article might have some useful material, but you cited it improperly for the citation style used in this article." Minor problem, Should just have been fixed rather than a mass revert.

So, I'm reverting it back. We can start dealing with your issues from that point.Lynn (SLW) (talk) 11:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Please re-read WP:BRD and WP:BURDEN, you have the burden of proof to make the case for your edits. Until then, the status quo remains. Now please discuss constructive suggestions. Montanabw^(talk) 19:50, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Read them. Just don't buy your interpretation of them. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 20:24, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• Focusing on the content, I suggest we use the compromise language we worked out in other articles on the "two million" issue. We compromised on language at Mustang, I propose that language precisely:

No more than two million feral horses may have once roamed the [[American west]] according to what historian [[J. Frank Dobie]] called a "guess."<ref name="Dobie108">Dobie, ''The Mustangs'' pp. 108-109</ref> However, no comprehensive census of feral horse numbers had ever been performed until the time of the [[Wild and Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971]] and any earlier estimates are speculative.<ref name=Myths>{{cite web|last1=Gorey|first1=Tom|title=Myths and Facts |url=http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/whbprogram/history_and_facts/myths_and_facts.html|website=Bureau of Land Management|accessdate=February 6, 2015|date=August 15, 2014}}</ref> By the 1950s mustang population dropped drastically. Mustangs were rounded up in large numbers and the abuses linked to certain capture methods, including hunting from airplanes and poisoning, led to the first federal wild free-roaming horse protection law in 1959.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://wildhorsepreservation.org/wild-horse-annie-act |title=Wild Horse Annie Act |publisher=Wildhorsepreservation.org |accessdate=2014-07-23}}</ref> This statute, known as the "Wild Horse Annie Act", prohibited the use of motor vehicles for hunting wild horses and burros.<ref name=Mangum77>Mangum, ''The Mustang Dilemma'', p. 77</ref>

• On some of the other history, I see little need to repeat what has already been said at Mustang, Free-roaming horse management in North America, and Horses in the United States, but if we need minor expansion to put the legislative history into context (mostly other legislation, Taylor Grazing Act, Wild Hors Annie Act), again, we should probably work with the existing language in one of those articles; "your" management article has some content that might be a good, if improvable, place to start. Frankly, other than perhaps a bit on the Rahall amendment and the holding facilities problem (and we agree it's a problem), I don't see much more than this. Montanabw^(talk) 21:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Don't agree. Mustang has a different context. Let's start with my language:

As early as 1826, there is documentation the Mexicans were using inhumane means to control the numbers of horses brought to the New World by the Spanish 300 years earlier, which had exploded in numbers and were roaming in what was then Mexican territory in the western United States, mainly in California.[8] and the southern Great Plains. After acquiring the territory in the Mexican-American War in 1848, American settlers began rounding up and domesticating or otherwise eliminating most of those early populations of horses,[9] but their own horses began to go feral on the unclaimed lands in the western deserts.

Upon the invention of motorized farm implements, there were so many horses allowed to go feral in the farming regions of Montana[10] and rest of the northwest that in the 1920's slaughterhouses were opened to process them into chicken, pet and even human food.[11] By 1930, there was an estimated population of between 50,000-150,000 free-roaming horses.[12] Many of these were gathered up when the Great Depression lowered grain prices to the point that farmers could not afford fuel, and so returned to "horse power".[11]

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.[13] It's not clear if there were too many horses, or that the land was incurring damage due to the presence of the horses,[14] 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.[15] The United States Forest Service periodically gave ranchers notice to round up their strays and thereafter shot any remaining horses.[16] After World War II, the BLM was formed by combining the General Land Office and the Grazing Service.[17] 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,[6] 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.[18]

Advocates for free-ranging horses were unhappy with the 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.[16] 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.[19] Lynn (SLW) (talk) 22:26, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Please don't split my posts. I fixed that. But, to the point, your proposal is jut the tl;dr stuff I reverted, but there is some useful info in there. We have room to compromise. My thoughts:

1. Anything prior to 1900 other than the rough population estimates is not really relevant here (and the 1826 stuff is SYNTH anyway; definitely not relevant to the legislative history here) Material not relevant to legislative history is stuff for "your" management article, or the Taylor Grazing Act article.
2. Some of stuff about the reasons for the Taylor Grazing act could be added to the existing section, perhaps, but clarify what is different from what's in there... i.e. what is lacking that is relevant to the need for the 1971 Act??
3. I need to look at the sourcing on the slaughterhouses in the 20s issue, as the feral horse problem was one that was more connected to the Great Depression, according to the history published at the various BLM HMA pages (of which I've now reviewed dozens for that list) If we add the rise of slaughter material, we need to tie it more clearly to why it is relevant to this act. Slaughterhouses for horses made obsolete by mechanized farm equipment sprung up worldwide without being linked to feral horse problems (draught horses by the millions went to slaughter in Europe, particularly post-WWII) and I am not convinced this is linked to the wild horse issue beyond the issues noted by the Wild Horse Annie act.
4. There's an argument to be made that there should be a separate article on the Wild Horse Annie act, or more on the act in her biography. but what you have here is too long and too opinionated... "argued" "terrorized" "cruel" -- we can have quotations with loaded words but they are best avoided in the narrative, and stuff like "secretary of an insurance firm in Reno" sounds snarky and is more appropriate for the Velma Bronn Johnston article anyway. The tone sounds contemptuous about these people, and that is unencyclopedic. Montanabw^(talk) 23:35, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

So, take my language and change it, and I'll tell you what I think is wrong with it. A lot of what you are objecting to "but what you have here is too long and too opinionated... 'argued' 'terrorized' 'cruel'" is what I LEFT in and what was in there when the article went through the GA process. So get off the GA thing, because that's only the tip of the iceberg of what I was trying to fix. I don't know how the article made it through GA, but it shouldn't have. The 1900 number is not a 1900 number, it's an 1850 number remember? You've taken it out of context. So if you want to take out the early stuff, it goes too. You can't just slip that number in without the context of the early history. It's misleading. I'd be happy to start with the 1930 Wynam number though. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 23:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

We appeared to have a compromise on the Dobie language that I put in above. But try this. Montanabw^(talk) 23:25, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

No more than two million feral horses may have once roamed the [[American west]] according to what historian [[J. Frank Dobie]] called a "guess."<ref name="Dobie108">Dobie, ''The Mustangs'' pp. 108-109</ref> By 1930, there was an estimated population of between 50,000-150,000 free-roaming horses.[12] <full cite please> However, no comprehensive census of feral horse numbers had ever been performed until after the Act was passed and any earlier estimates are speculative.<ref name=Myths>{{cite web|last1=Gorey|first1=Tom|title=Myths and Facts |url=http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/whbprogram/history_and_facts/myths_and_facts.html|website=Bureau of Land Management|accessdate=February 6, 2015|date=August 15, 2014}}</ref> By the 1950s, Mustangs were rounded up in large numbers and the abuses linked to certain capture methods, including hunting from airplanes and poisoning, led to the first federal wild free-roaming horse protection law in 1959.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://wildhorsepreservation.org/wild-horse-annie-act |title=Wild Horse Annie Act |publisher=Wildhorsepreservation.org |accessdate=2014-07-23}}</ref> This statute, known as the "Wild Horse Annie Act", prohibited the use of motor vehicles for hunting wild horses and burros.<ref name=Mangum77>Mangum, ''The Mustang Dilemma'', p. 77</ref>

No, I never agreed to the two million number unless it was clear that Dobie specified that number to 1850. Could you please explain why you want to use an 1850 estimate, but none of the other information giving it context? That seems to contradict the idea of justifying keeping the GA classification for the article. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 23:38, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

We can look at what Dobie said, if he said 1850, fine, but I thought he said "after the Mexican-American War" or something... we can just check the source. We have previously discussed the need to "teach the controversy" on the "two million wild horses" thing because it is so widespread; you yourself pointed out that the statistic has been misused. If it weren't already out there in so many places, I might agree with you to start with the 1930 numbers. But if one goal is to fix misinformation, then we have to acknowledge it's out there, if quietly. Montanabw^(talk) 01:15, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Dobie said "around" the Mexican-American war, which was in 1847. It depends on how in-depth the article is going to go. If you want to teach the controversy, you have to put in the earlier history and put the number in the context of the geography and level of settlement. And the fact that there wasn't a linear decline in numbers. Feral horse numbers dropped from 1850 on due to settlers moving onto the Great Plains, Texas and California, and turning their habitat into farms and ranches. They then spiked back up in the 1920's when all the ranchers and farmers turned their workhorses free on the public range because they were no longer needed, then dropped because the slaughterhouses opened up and they were rounded up to processed, dropped some more when the depression hit and the farmers needed them again, then spiked back up slightly when ranchers (who were already running their horses on the public range) stopped branding them so they wouldn't have to pay grazing fees. So, the government started removing all the unbranded horses. After WWII, the use of motorized vehicles made rounding them up so much more efficient that their numbers were most certainly decreasing, but you have to take into account they were reproducing at the same time, so it's hard to say at what rate they were decreasing. It's misleading to say they were rounded up in "large numbers" because it probably wasn't in any larger numbers than they had ever been. They were simply being rounded up at a rate that they couldn't sustain the population. That, and the people doing so were brutal. So, explaining the 2 million number requires a lot of context. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 01:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, so if I'm understanding you accurately, we do have consensus that the roundups appear to have been brutal and that horses were being removed from the range at a rate that created sustainability problems. We probably need to look at the 1959 Wild Horse Annie Act a bit (and maybe consider a new article on that legislation also). Here's where we are still working things out:

• All that is relevant pre-1900 is the origin of the "two million" number that's all over the place, and the origin is Dobie. If saying "around" the time of the Mexican War works for you, I can fiddle with the phrasing and proper attribution if you really think it's needed. The reason I prefer the short phrasing I propose is because it doesn't put WP:UNDUE weight on old numbers and acknowledges that pretty much everything was a pretty wild guess. All that is relevant to this article is the context leading up to the legislation; the rest can go into the Management article you are working on or into Mustang (where we are still working through the history and the 19th century is going to be a bear to figure out.)
• The stuff on the Taylor Grazing Act is somewhat relevant, both for the population estimates and the political issues that you note above, though I think it is better to put most of that into the article on that legislation with a summary here and a link. That Act was more in response to overgrazing by all the other free-range livestock, particularly animals owned by small landowners that competed with the big ranches for grazing land. (The big ranchers were the winners on that one) The grazing fees for horses were incidental to the Act, but here, significant for the problem of increased numbers of unmarked animals. We can work on that.
• I do not agree that we can affirmatively say that horse numbers when down during the Depression, the BLM HMA articles I've been looking at keep noting that farmers and ranchers abandoned horses on the range during the Depression. Truth is, if you look at the history of the northwest, [1] the "Depression" there really started in the 20s, with the post-WWI declines in prices for farm commodities and drought. Not many people had tractors yet, and there was more ranching than farming.

So that's my take. Montanabw^(talk) 19:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

You know, a lot of the stuff you are criticizing is what you put in and I left in. And if you would stop with the dismissive and uncollaborative tldr BS, you would see that what I had in there was well cited. So, why don't you just do what I suggested earlier and and take the language that your friend Gerta reverted, and specifically indicate what you think needs changing?

See below. I have already explained my concerns. I am willing to see improvements that could bring this article to featured article quality. SYNTH and poor sourcing will not. Please focus your comments on content, not contributors. Montanabw^(talk) 02:18, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposal

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]

Be replaced with this:

As early as 1826, there is documentation the Mexicans were using inhumane means to control the numbers of horses brought to the New World by the Spanish 300 years earlier, which had exploded in numbers and were roaming in what was then Mexican territory in the western United States, mainly in California. and the southern Great Plains. After acquiring the territory in the Mexican-American War in 1848, American settlers began rounding up and domesticating or otherwise eliminating most of those early populations of horses, but their own horses began to go feral on the unclaimed lands in the western deserts.

Upon the invention of motorized farm implements, there were so many horses allowed to go feral in the farming regions of Montana and rest of the northwest that in the 1920's slaughterhouses were opened to process them into chicken, pet and even human food. By 1930, there was an estimated population of between 50,000-150,000 free-roaming horses. Many of these were gathered up when the Great Depression lowered grain prices to the point that farmers could not afford fuel, and so returned to "horse power".

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.

Advocates for free-ranging horses were unhappy with the 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. 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.

Due to the unclear ownership of the feral horses, ranchers continued to use airplanes and motorized vehicles to round them up. Johnston and her group began working to pass federal legislation to clarify ownership and protect unclaimed horses on public lands. 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.

References

I am going to have to spend a lot of time looking this over, so be patient. But the bottom line is that the first two paragraphs you propose don't fit into this article at all, so no to them. (I also have issues with the sources, but that's a debate if you decide to include them elsewhere). Some of the Taylor Grazing Act stuff might be able to be incorporated into what's there, or even replace it, but I have to look it over carefully. Ditto the stuff up thereafter. In short, while a wholesale replacement is a no-go, the material from the Taylor Grazing Act and the Wild Horse Annie Act is relevant and at least some of it probably will work to add. Montanabw^(talk) 22:24, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay, but the first two paragraphs are, in my mind, paramount for the 2 million number, and I don't think that your statement "But the bottom line is that the first two paragraphs you propose don't fit into this article at all, so no to them" is collaborative. You are not the editor-in-chief here, your opinions are not unquestionable facts. If the two million number has to be explained, it can't be with just an off-handed, "In 1850 Dobie guessed there was once two million wild horses in the western U.S." WHERE those horses were, as opposed to where the feral horses are today, is HIGHLY relevant. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 22:30, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Except that the bit about 1826 is pure SYNTH. The bit about population numbers in Montana is also pretty irrelevant, as one state here or there doesn't make a trend. I'm not really certain that you yet understand WP:SYNTH. This is an article about the 1971 Act, not an overview of wild horse management (we have that other article for that, and you are mostly the lead editor there), and your analysis, to the extent it fits WP:NOR, belongs there, not here. If you must note geography, I'm OK with Dobie's "half in Texas and half everywhere else" comment, but by 1971, that was pretty irrelevant because all the drama was in Nevada. And frankly, all the stuff on Wild Horse Annie might be better in a separate article too, though perhaps for now we could create a separate subsection for that Act and go from there. But the snarky and dismissive "she's just a secretary" stuff about her background ("secretary for an insurance firm") belongs -- neutrally phrased -- in her biography article, not here. Many women in her time were brilliant and talented, with only secretarial work available to them due to sexism. Also, please focus on content, not contributors; I'm simply telling you what the guidelines are for a solid wikipedia article. Montanabw^(talk) 02:05, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

"Except that the bit about 1826 is pure SYNTH." I presume you read the reference and aren't making that statement out of ignorance? And again, much of what you are criticizing, such as the statement about Wild Horse Annie being a secretary, is the language you are protecting by obstructing editing of the article. And, no, you are not telling me "guidelines are for a solid wikipedia article", you are telling me your opinion, and I am justified on calling you on your trying to portray your opinion as facts and policy. So, now, why don't you take what I wrote and make the edits you think need to be made, and I'll "counter-edit". We're never going to get anywhere just discussing.

Now, if you want, we can take the first four paragraphs and use them for "seed" for an article on the "Wild Horse Annie" act, and just start the history of this article at the last paragraph. There's the McKnight population number (14,810 to 29,620) that can be used to compare to the numbers in 1971. The first paragraph would still have to be expanded to give context to "Due to the unclear ownership of the feral horses, ranchers continued to use airplanes and motorized vehicles to round them up," which goes back to the Taylor Grazing Act.

We could start with this:

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 horses in the desert regions recently descended from rancher's horses, ownership of the free-roaming herds was contentious, and ranchers continued to use airplanes to gather them [47] 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, [48] and in 1968, the Pryor Mountains Wild Horse Range was established. In 1969, the National Mustang Association, headquartered in Utah,[49] 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.[50] Federal protection for all free-roaming horses was ultimately accomplished by the Wild and Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971(WFRHBA).[51] The bill specifically stated: "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."[52] 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) 14:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

On the right track though as an addition, not a full replacement. You are stretching it with commentary and synth, but if you make it more encyclopedic, there IS some good material to add (but problems include "...lobby for federal rather than state control..." um, that sounds right-wing; the BLM lands are all federal, I presume you know that) ("Since most horses in the desert regions recently descended from rancher's horses..." "most" and "recently" are completely unprovable, we can't say that, we only can argue for current bloodline mix post-1971). Because this article IS about the WFRHBA, we can just say "the Act" -- or something similar. The direct quote language could be included, but probably not in the history section. Not sure about including the trespass fee, as that isn't part of the 1971 act... I'm thinking a lot of work should be done on the Taylor Act article too... In short, chop it a bit, and add the full cites, I think it's quite close to being something we can add. It's a good bridge between 1959 and 1971 Montanabw^(talk) 03:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, if you used only this for the 1826 bit, you are definitely over-extending the source; let me explain why. Broadly put, it's hearsay within hearsay, third-hand information and far too much "extrapolation." You'd need at least three different refs to support that sentence, one for "brought by the Spanish 300 years earlier," one for "exploding in California" population (plentiful is pretty easy to verify, "exploding" implies ecological disaster -- and needs a source either way-- and that existing source can only be used to say that there were rumors. I'm not saying this to be mean and argumentative, I'm using it as a really good example of what we mean by OR and SYNTH... if you wrote a book that made these claims, it could be a RS; until then, it's not. Also, you will need two pages, as the 1826 date wasn't on the page I linked above (weird, but the google books version is not paginated...) Montanabw^(talk) 04:03, 18 January 201

I've asked this several times now, and the fact that you keep dodging is causing me to start thinking that you are not collaborating in good faith but acting as an editor-in-chief who is condescendingly trying to assert your authority (i.e. ownership). Why don't you, instead of continually picking apart my suggestions, provide counter suggestions? If things keep going like this, I'm just going to go back to editing the article. As far as the "...lobby for federal rather than state control..." that's what Klepp vs. New Mexico was about.

Please Focus on content, not my motives. I've explained to you over and over and over again about SYNTH and OR. I shall address other items below. Montanabw^(talk) 18:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)