Wildlife advocates want U.S. to stop rounding up wild horses, say some are put to slaughter
DENVER — Wildlife advocates are calling on the federal government to stop gathering wild horses following an investigation showing some put to slaughter.
ProPublica published an investigation in the Denver Post showing livestock hauler Tom Davis, long a horse-slaughter advocate, had purchased up to 1,700 mustangs since 2009. Davis owns a slaughterhouse and the report said he has maneuvered around state law to take the animals out of Colorado. He denied violating the terms of a no-slaughter contract with the federal Bureau of Land Management, which would be a felony, the newspaper reported.
“Hell, some of the finest meat you will ever eat is a fat yearling colt,” he said. “What is wrong with taking all those BLM horses they got all fat and shiny and setting up a kill plant?”
The American Wild Horse Preservation Campaign, an umbrella group encompassing more than 60 wildlife advocacy agencies, called on the BLM to cease the controversial horse roundups until it can guarantee none of the animals are going to slaughter.
A 1971 federal law declared the horses “living symbols” of American history and a 2004 addendum made it illegal to kill the animals.
Officials at the BLM said the roundups are necessary to protect the herd from overpopulation. Wild horses and burros lack natural predators.
“The BLM says it protects wild horses,” said Laura Leigh, founder of the Nevada-based advocacy group Wild Horse Education, “but when they are selling to a guy like this you have to wonder.”
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.