Inconsistent Logic

The anti-Mustang community (and yes, I'm finding that there really is a community of these people), is rather inconsistent in their beliefs towards wildlife, and all animals in general. Anti-Mustang people generally like to pick on popular animals simply because they're popular. Basically, if an animal is well-loved by the general public (such as wolves or horses), anti-Mustang people feel they have to hate it. It's not logical, but nonetheless it's how they act. As the treasurer of the Cloud Foundation once told me: "many of these people are just angry at the world."



INCONSISTENT LOGIC:

Take the gray wolf, for example. Wolves are loved in pop culture, and there is a small group of people known as "wolfaboos" who believe wolves are more important than humans, that wolves never cause problems, etc., and on the far other end of the wolf spectrum, there are the anti-wolf (and generally also anti-Mustang) people who want to hunt wolves for sport. When the issue of whether or not wolves should be protected is brought up, the latter say that it doesn't matter if wolves die off due to human involvement. Take this quote that was taken from an anti-wolf (and also anti-Mustang) individual's blog post:

Statement #10: Wolves were here before humans, they have more of a right to be here than us.
Truth:  A lot of stuff was here before us, does that mean we should all go kill ourselves because of it? Million of species have gone extinct to reach the biological diversity that we have now. Nature didn't stop and say "Stegosaurus was here first, they have more of a right to be here!" No, the dinosaurs died long before man arrived. The weak die, the strong survive.

Okay, the original statement about wolves having more right to the land is a little iffy, I'll admit. What exactly does the person mean? Do they want humans killed off? Seeing as the anti-wolf/anti-Mustang person didn't tell us if it was the original statement or just her personal interpretation of it, we'll never know. However, the original statement is actually beside the point. Let's look at the girl's response.

The anti-wolf/anti-Mustang girl says that it doesn't matter if animals (including native animals such as the gray wolf) go extinct due to human involvement. Gray wolves are not an endangered species, but as you can clearly see from what she wrote, it doesn't matter to her if they were an endangered species. This is what Darwinism boils down to: the weak die, the strong survive. If one species is stronger than another (no matter if it is native to North America or not), she believes that the stronger species has more of a right to survive than the weaker one.

The funny thing is, though, that this girl complains about how successful wild horses are. She calls them "invasive," "useless," etc. She complains about how fast they can reproduce, how much area they can cover, etc. In essence, she openly admits that they are an extremely strong species. Here are some quotes taken from an anti-Mustang stamp of hers:

Horses are out there overgrazing 24/7 all year every year. The feral horses have been well documented for overgrazing as well as riparian destruction in their areas because their population goes unchecked -- the population increases 20% every year and doubles every 4 years.

The small reptiles and mammals that depend on burrows and brush cover to survive and breed are less abundant in horse-occupied sites (except for deer mice, a species known to thrive in disturbed landscapes). Another study found that bighorn sheep, a native ungulate whose populations have been in decline, avoid water sources when horses are using them. In fact, a study found 76% reduction in the number of groups of bighorn sheep using a typically preferred water source when horses were present. Pronghorn will not drink if they are forced to come within 3 meters of feral horses at the water source.

Here she is describing how wild horses have overpopulated some of their HMAs (Herd Management Areas), which is true, but she's erroneously implying that it is the case in ALL HMAs. It's not. Most HMAs are relatively healthy, especially the ones where fertility controls such as PZP are used. Fertility control is not ass effective in all HMAs as it is in some, but it is still much more effective than removals. She also implies that horses are causing mass extinction of small reptiles and mammals (although she neglects to mention that those same small reptiles and mammals are less abundant in deer, elk, bison, and moose-occupied sites as well as horse-occupied sites), and she implies that horses are causing the extinction of bighorn sheep and pronghorn. Okay, first of all, bighorn sheep and pronghorn are not threatened in the least bit. They're listed as "least concern: population stable." Horses aren't causing them any trouble. The sierra bighorn (Ovis canadensis sierrae), which is a subspecies of the bighorn sheep species (Ovis canadensis), is endangered, but due to hunting and habitat loss, not from waiting a few minutes at a watering hole. Unlike cattle, which will stand in a watering hole all day long, wild horses are constantly on the move. They generally do not stay in an open, vulnerable place like a watering hole for longer than half an hour, if that. Most leave after a five-minute drink. And (shockers) horses will also wait for other large herbivores to finish drinking as well. 

In the past, both bighorn sheep and pronghorn were threatened, both due to hunting and human encroachment. Bighorn sheep were victims of hunting, mostly, whereas pronghorn were prevented from reaching their migration routes because of (you guessed it) cattle. Cattle ranches erect barbed wire fences around their land, and pronghorn couldn't get through. But thanks to kindly ranchers making "wildlife-friendly" fences that have a smooth wire along the bottom rather than a barbed one, pronghorn can now slip under and get where they need to go. Things aren't perfect for either of these species, but they're much better off than they were a few years ago, and wild horses had nothing to do with the problems or the solutions.

So it's established that this girl thinks horses are stronger than other species. So does she follow her own logic that stronger species should survive? Let's find out. In a comment on one of her anti-Mustang blogs (where she erroneously claims to be in the middle of the Mustang Spectrum), this is what she said:

The BLM and Forest Service consider taking care of horses a waste of time and resources, and they have very little money and manpower to do what they need to do as it stands. This is not something that is a priority for them as far as good time-management. If I were them, I would be shooting horses - and that's what they should be doing. Unfortunately, the public backlash would be unreal. It is possible that the shooting is going on and we just don't know about it.

I did not edit this comment in any way other than to add the emphasis. It is blatantly obvious how she believes Mustangs should be managed: "Shoot 'em! Shoot 'em all!" The idea of managing Mustangs in any other way than hunting is unthinkable to her. When horses becomes the least bit of a problem, she goes straight for her gun. How is that the middle of the Mustang Spectrum..?

But wait, she thinks horses are strong, doesn't she? She said herself that they are capable of outgrazing, outbreeding, and out...drinking(?) other animals. So how come she wants them dead? Because she personally doesn't like them. It's as simple as that. To anti-Mustang people, their own rules only apply when it suits them.

In essence, the weak die, the strong survive... unless you're a Mustang. Then you should just be shot.




More anti-Mustang "logic"...

Mustangs do have natural predators: the-cynical-unicorn.deviantart…
Is the BLM insane?: the-cynical-unicorn.deviantart…
A taste of anti-Mustang logic: the-cynical-unicorn.deviantart…