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…

BLM wants to remove ALL mustangs from 3 HMAs

Comments to the BLM are due by April 22, 2016!

The Bureau of Land Management's (BLM's) illegal Wyoming wild horse wipeout continues. The agency is now accepting public comments for another roundup that they plan for Wyoming Checkerboard lands within and outside of the Great Divide Basin, Salt Wells Creek, and Adobe Town Herd Management Areas (HMAs). The BLM is currently proposing to permanently remove ALL free-roaming Mustangs from those three HMAs (Herd Management Areas.)

The BLM's proposal is a response to the Rock Springs Grazing Association to remove horses from private lands. The BLM is using the RSGA's request as an excuse to remove horses from all lands, both public and private (some of my more attentive readers will recognize this as a frequent BLM tactic: ranchers ask for help with a problem herd, and BLM uses that request as an excuse to perform massive roundups on herds miles away.) The new proposed removal comes less than two years after the massive Wyoming Checkerboard roundup, in which 1,263 federally protected wild horses were captured and permanently removed from over 2.4 million acres of public and private lands (71% of which is public) in the southern part of the state. At least 100 horses were killed during the roundup itself or in the months following their capture in the BLM’s holding pens.

The BLM Checkerboard roundups have set a very dangerous legal precedent that we continue to challenge in federal court. If allowed to stand, the agency's actions put the fate of wild horses living on public lands throughout the West in the hands of private landowners (ranchers) who want them all removed from our public lands. According to the Wild Horse and Burro Act of 1971, public lands are designated to be used for both wildlife (which includes free-roaming horses and burros) and cattle grazing. It is illegal to permanently remove wild horses from public lands, unless the horses are literally starving, which these Wyoming Mustangs are not.

Please weigh in today against yet another illegal BLM roundup of federally protected wild horses living on Wyoming public lands! A Herd Management Area is not a Herd Management Area anymore if it has no herds to manage. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that.

Comments to the BLM are due by April 22, 2016!

Anti-Mustang Logic 01

I actually had this conversation with someone the other day. When asked how they would manage Mustangs, they said they wanted to eradicate them, and then turned around and said I was twisting their words and that everything was just hypothetical. Uh-huh. Sure.

This is what happens when anti-Mustang folks try to use logic.

Are Mustangs Exotic, Native, or Neither?

Photo credit: http://vancouverscape.com/yukon-beringia-interpretive-centre/

Before I begin, there are a few things you must understand. First, the modern horse Equus caballos is one of several species under the genus Equus. Equus covers horses, asses (donkeys), and zebras. All three are separate species. Of horses, there are two surviving subspecies: Equus caballos and Equus ferus. The two subspecies are genetically and visibly different from each other, although they can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Most scientists (and myself) agree that Equus caballos was created through domestication. However, there is also an extinct third subspecies of horse: Equus lambei. Preserved remains of Equus lambei have been discovered and there is no visible difference between it and Equus caballos. Genetic testing has revealed that this horse - which is estimated to have gone extinct 10,000 - 6,000 years ago - is the most recent ancestor of our modern Equus caballos. Where did Equus lambei originate? North America.

In this journal I will discuss the evidence of pre-Columbian equine presence in North America. I will provide a variety and large number of sources for you to explore. There are two prevailing theories: The first is that single-toed horses (caballoid-type horses) never existed in North America at any point in history. The second theory is that Equus caballos appeared on its own and was present in North America until the point when Christopher Columbus sailed in 1492. As you will see, neither theory is correct.

 “The Horse and Burro as Positively Contributing Returned Natives in North America” by Craig C. Downer: article.sciencepublishinggroup…

 Craig C. Downer. The Horse and Burro as Positively Contributing Returned Natives in North America. American Journal of Life Sciences. Vol. 2, No. 1, 2014, pp. 5-23. doi: 10.11648/j.ajls.20140201.12

Single-toed horses originated in North America and went extinct around the end of the last Ice Age. Theories of the cause of the extinction include drought, disease, or a result of hunting by humans (early Native Americans). As you will see, the modern horse (Equus caballos) is most likely not native to North America, but evidence suggests that it is not an exotic species. Thus, perhaps the most accurate way to describe E. caballos' relation to North America is "familiar."

Summary of above paper: A common view is that the modern horse species (Equus caballos) is not native to North America and only appeared on the scene 500 years ago, but this article describes how caballoid-type horses are most likely native to North America, and were killed off by humans before being later reintroduced by the Spanish about 500 years ago. The article is written from an evolutionary point of view, but describes various fossils of equines that originated in North America. While the “millions of years” is debatable, the fossils are not. The evidence, including fossils, DNA, an actual frozen Equus lambei dating back 10,000 years, pre-Columbian cave paintings of horses, as well as Chinese writings from over 3,000 years ago describing horses resembling modern Appaloosas, indicates that the equine animal family originated in North America and spread outward, perhaps on ice bridges during the Ice Age (after the Flood, according to a Creationist perspective), or perhaps they were brought to other continents by humans. The Yukon Horse, as Equus lambei became known as, was outwardly identical to Equus caballos (and as ancient writing indicate, behaved identically to Equus caballos) was present in North America approximately 10,000 years ago, which indicates that the horse species originated in North America. The article ends by describing various ways that horses benefit the North American ecosystems.

For those who don't know, Equus lambei is an extinct subspecies of horse that is virtually identical to the modern Equus cabllos, and most biologists agree that Equus caballosis a direct descendant of Equus lambei. As such, the only difference between the modern wild horses living in North America and the ones that died out around 7,500 years ago is a minute DNA discrepancy. In the end, fossils of E. caballos have not yet been discovered in North America, but seeing as they are nearly identical to E. lambei, which is native to North America, then modern horses are actually very familiar to the North American landscape. While not a native subspecies of horse, Equus caballos is not exotic, either.

During the mid-1990s, horse remains were discovered by placer miners in the Yukon. They were well preserved in the permafrost and seemed to have died recently, yet proved to be approximately twenty-five thousand years old. Their rufous color, flaxen mane and solid hooves had the aspect of a typical, small and wiry mustang of the West. Based on external morphology, the specimen was identified as a “Yukon horse,” whose Latin name is Equus lambei. Intrigued, paleontologists conducted a genetic analysis of this specimen, which showed it to be one and the same as the modern horse: Equus caballus. Further independent analysis conclusively proved this. With this substantiation came a more widespread recognition of wild horses as returned native species in North America, since E. lambei was seen to be identical to E. caballus.

Here I came upon some fascinating petroglyphs dating from modern times to a few thousand years ago (Bureau of Land Management, Bishop California office, archeologist, pers. comm.). These artful designs had been painstakingly chiseled with hard tools on granite to form hypnotizing spirals, geometrical checkerboards, arrowheads, lances, strange anthrozooic (man-animal) figures, eagles, bighorn sheep with large, curved horns, and then, much to my amazement, a definite horse figure, without apparent rider, bridle, rope or saddle, rendered in simple rectilinear fashion – but with proportions unmistakably those of a horse. Judging from the brownish oxidation on the chiseling, this horse was not a recent addition to the ancient petroglyphs here. Scientific analysis of the patina of some of these petroglyphs has revealed ages up to 3,000 years. By visually comparing patina hues, I estimated this horse could be well over 1,000 years old.

An intriguing line of evidence that horses were present in America over 3,000 years before Columbus's arrival comes from Chinese writings. One manuscript dating from 2,200 B.C. indicates that the Chinese came to North America by sea at very early dates and described several animals occurring in Fu Sang, or the “Land to the East" [which refers to North America, according to modern cartographers]. Their descriptions match certain North American animals, including bighorn sheep and horses resembling the appaloosa.

While there is still debate over where horses originated, this paper certainly raises interesting questions. I'm curious: what did you think after reading it?

Craige C. Downer is a wildlife ecologist who specializes on Perissodactyl mammals: www.coasttocoastam.com/guest/d…, andeantapirfund.com/CraigCDown…, and is clearly qualified to write scientific articles: equinewelfarealliance.org/uplo…, academic.research.microsoft.co…

UPDATE #1: It has been brought to my attention that one of my incessant stalkers on here has been making Ad Hominem claims against Science Publishing Group in an attempt to discredit this article. Aside from the fact that the article was written by Craige C. Downer for the American Journal of Life Sciences (more information above) and not by or for Science Publishing Group, Ad Hominem attacks are a logical fallacy and therefore suggest that this individual is desperate. On top of that, this person's claims against Science Publishing Group (SPG) are baseless. I have looked into SPG myself, and they are merely an outlet for scientists of all fields to publish papers. They have no overarching worldview or agenda, other than to let scientists speak up. There are no scams or viruses on their homepage, as my stalker claims there are: www.sciencepublishinggroup.com… . They answer their phone. They answer their e-mail. Everything you need to contact them is literally at the bottom of their homepage, where one would expect it to be. Their unsubscribe button works. It leads to this page right here: www.sciencepub123.com/unsubscr…. She even went so far as to say that SPG is predatory. Either my stalker is mistaking Science Publishing Group for a different organization, or she is deliberately deceiving her audience. What's perhaps the most obvious, however, is how she claimed that mitochondrial DNA testing is not reliable, even though she has used it many times to make points about how wolves should be eradicated from various parts of North and South America. Convenient how she'll rely on mitochondrial DNA testing when it agrees with her points, but suddenly turns her back on it when it implies that she's wrong. She also mistakenly assumed that the paper was written by Jay F. Kirkpatrick, which implies that she didn't even read it. Even more so, she says my sources are unavailable, even though they are...right here on this page. She finishes off by describing all of the worst-case problems that wild horses have supposedly caused, even though those problems were actually caused cases of extreme mismanagement of wild horses but principally by cattle. (She's under the impression that cattle are not allowed on HMAs, but that's not true; check out the last two questions and answers on this page: www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/prog/wh_b…). While it's undeniable that overpopulated horses cause environmental damage, horses in healthy populations actually benefit the land in many ways, as Craige C. Downer described. They're like any animal: when in unnatural populations, they're damaging, but not when they're in healthy populations.  All of these Ad Hominem attacks, convenient changes of mind, and baseless/nonsensical accusations, all just go to show how far anti-Mustang people will go to justify their hatred and and personal vendettas against mere animals.

UPDATE #2: My stalker has once again used more Ad Hominem attacks and irrelevant information to attempt to explain away Equus lambei's presence in North America. She says the article I linked to is not from a scientific journal. Not only is that Ad Hominem and a logical fallacy, but it's also false. It's from the American Journal of Life Sciences. She conveniently ignores this and focuses on the online publication source, which is irrelevant. She also seems to have difficulty following citations, because the paper's sources are quite easy to find. She is also free to contact Craige C. Downer himself for direct access to his sources (his contact information is at the beginning of his paper.) But I have a feeling she'd rather write rants on DeviantART rather than actually talk to an expert. She continued on to pick fun at cave paintings of animals that resemble horses, saying that they're "obviously" mountain lions (ancient mountain lions must have had really long necks...) What's ironic, though, is how she herself admits that cave painting interpretations are subjective. We both agree that the real evidence lies in the fossils and preserved remains of E. lambei, which she tries to explain away by erroneously comparing E. lambei and E. caballos to dogs and wolves (more about that further on). She also seems to have missed the entire point of the paper I linked to as well as my point: we don't know for sure where Equus caballos (modern horse) originated, but we know that Equus lambei originated in North America, and since DNA testing has revealed that E. caballos is nearly identical to E. lambei, it stands to reason that the two are closely linked. This would mean that caballoid-type horses (single-toed, long-maned, long-tailed horses) were present in North America as late as 7,600 years ago. To deny this is to remain willfully ignorant, as the skeleton and pelt of the animal in question is documented and one specimen is on display in Canadian museums. You can see it with your own eyes. I won't even bother to address her ridiculous claim that the Yukon horse is fabrication. I don't have time for such nonsense. The question is now this: how related is E. lambei to E. caballos? According to mitochondrial DNA testing, they are virtually identical. Unlike dogs and wolves, there is almost no difference genetically or visibly. They are more like Siberian tigers vs. Bengal tigers than dogs vs. wolves (Siberian tigers and Bengal tigers are both subspecies of the Tigris genus, just like how Equus caballos and Equus lambei are both subspecies of the Equus genus.) My stalker attempts to explain this away by claiming that mtDNA testing is unreliable. However, as I mentioned above, she relies on mtDNA testing frequently to make claims about how various species of wolves are not the original native subspecies of various areas of North and South America. If she believes mtDNA testing is reliable when it supports her beliefs, how come it's suddenly not reliable when it contradicts her? This kind of selective logic is extremely unscientific.

In the end, she's once again letting hatred and emotion get in the way of scientific reason. She's making strawmen out of my arguments: I am not saying that Mustangs are a native species or that they should go un-managed. Unlike her, I'm open to the fact that there is debate in the scientific community about the native status of E. caballos to North America. We both agree that the Yukon Horse (E. lambei) is not an E. caballos (Mustang). We  both agree that Mustangs should be managed. Where we disagree is how they should be managed. She believes that single-toed horses are an "exotic" species to North America (therefore ignoring the fossil evidence) and thus should be completely eradicated, even though that would not solve the habitat degradation problem. I believe that single-toed horses existed in North America as recently as 7,600 years ago (seeing as we have fossils of them), and while those horses were not E. caballos, they are the ancestor of E. caballos, and thus modern horses are not as "exotic" as one would think. However, seeing as humans hunt horses' natural predators and use the land for cattle grazing (blaming the environmental damage caused by their cattle on the horses), the horses need to be managed. We can't expect people to go hungry for the sake of animals. Mustangs don't need to be eradicated, but they do need to be managed. In the end, I don't believe Equus caballos is native to North America, there is no denying that it is familiar. It's not a native subspecies to North America and I never claimed that it was, but it is not the exotic animal that this hater makes it out to be.

I will not be responding to any further of her strawman "responses," threats, or immature jabs at my intelligence because A) they're not worth my time, and B) she's a stalker.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

More information about the possibility of equines being familiar to the North American landscape:

www.thecloudfoundation.org/ima… 

I phoned Dr. Gotthardt, and she explained how she had immediately flown north to Dawson City to investigate the land. As she hiked into Last Chance Creek canyon, the stench of rotting flesh greeted her long before she saw the partial body of a horse jutting out of the canyon wall above. Initially she believed the miners had unearthed a contemporary horse. Beyond the smell, it had all the characteristics of a contemporary horse - solid hooves and a brown coat with a flop-over, blondish mane. But, when the carcass was radiocarbon dated, it turned out to be 26,000 years old!

Equus lambei is the link between our contemporary wild horse (currently roaming in remnant herds across 10 western states), and the horses that died out as recently as 7,600 years ago. Both are caballoid-type horses - Equus Caballus, the modern horse. The Yukon Horse confirms that the horses that died out on this continent arevirtually the same as the ones that returned with the Spanish Conquistadors in the early 1500s and eventually escaped to reclaim their freedom.

A growing number of scientists are acknowledging the mustang as a returned native species, not the least of whom is the Curator of the Division of Vertebrate Zoology at the American Museum of Natural History, Ross MacPhee, PhD. He states, "The contemporary wild horse in the United States is recently derived from lines domesticated in Europe and Asia. But those lines themselves go much further back in time, and converge on populations that lived in North America during the latter part of the Pleistocene (2.5M to 10k years ago)." Dr. MacPhee refers to this re-introduction as, biologically speaking, Aa non-event: horses were merely returned to part of their former native range, where they have since prospered because ecologically they never left.

protectmustangs.org/?page_id=5… (Contains links to several papers)

"Scientists know from fossil remains that the horse originated and evolved in North America, and that these small 12 to 13 hand horses or ponys (sic) migrated to Asia across the Bering Strait, then spread throughout Asia and finally reached Europe. The drawings in the French Laseaux caves, dating about 10,000 B.C., are a testimony to their long westward migration. Scientists contend, however, that the aboriginal horse became extinct in North America during what is (known) as the “Pleistocene kill,” in other words, that they disappeared at the same time as the mammoth, the ground sloth, and other Ice Age mammals."  -PRESENTED BY Claire Henderson, Laval University, Quebec, Canada. 2-1-91. IN SUPPORT OF SENATE BILL 2278 (North Dakota)
STATEMENT OF CLAIRE HENDERSON
HISTORY DEPARTMENT
BATIMENT DE KONINCK
LAVAL UNIVERSITY
QUEBEC CITY, QUEBEC CANADA
236 Rve Lavergne Quebec, Quebec, G1K-2k2 Canada
418-647-1032

It’s generally accepted that [the] horse species evolved on the North American continent. The fossil record for equine-like species goes back nearly 4 million years. Modern horses evolved in North America about 1.7 million years ago, according to researchers at Uppsala University, who studied equine DNA. Scientists say North American horses died out between 13,000 and 10,000 years ago, at the end of the Pleistocene Epoch, after the species had spread to Asia, Europe, and Africa.
Horses were reintroduced by the Spanish explorers in the 16th century. Animals that subsequently escaped or were let loose from human captivity are the ancestors of the wild herds that roam public lands today.

The submergence of the Bering land bridge prevented any return migration from Asia [which is why horses did not reappear until the Spanish brought them over.] There’s no proof any horses escaped extinction in the Americas. If horses survived in the New World up to the 15th century, then no one has ever been able to find the physical evidence to prove the theory.

Many scientists once thought horses died out on the continent before the arrival of the ancestors of the American Indians, but archeologists have found equine and human bones together at sites dating back to more than 10,000 years ago. The horse bones had butchering marks, indicating the animals were eaten by people, according to “Horses and Humans: The Evolution of Human-Equine Relationships,” edited by Sandra L. Olsen.

The horses were “reintroduced” to the continent [North America], unlike the Asian clams in Tahoe or the rabbits of Australia, which were inserted into regions where Nature never put them and where they could disrupt the ecological balance.

www.thecloudfoundation.org/edu…

The evidence thus favors the view that this species is "native" to North America, given any rational understanding of the term "native". By contrast, there are no paleontological or genetic grounds for concluding that it is native to any other continent.

 -Ross MacPhee, PhD





www.horsetalk.co.nz/news/2009/… and www.thecloudfoundation.org/edu…

Researchers who removed ancient DNA of horses and mammoths from permanently frozen soil in central Alaskan permafrost dated the material at between 7600 and 10,500 years old.

Some large species such as the horse became extinct in North America but persisted in small populations elsewhere, having crossed a land bridge into Asia.

But one core, deposited between 7,600 and 10,500 years ago, confirmed the presence of both mammoth and horse DNA. To make certain that the integrity of this sample had not been compromised by geologic processes (for example, that ancient DNA had not blown into the surface soils), the team did extensive surface sampling in the vicinity of Stevens Village. No DNA evidence of mammoth, horse, or other extinct species was found in modern samples, a result that supports previous studies which have shown that DNA degrades rapidly when exposed to sunlight and various chemical reactions.

www.horsetalk.co.nz/news/2009/…

Miners Sam and Lee Olynyk, and Ron Toews, who were working a claim in the Klondike, found the remains in September 1993. It has since been identified as a horsewhich once roamed the plains of the area and has been radiocarbon dated at 26,000 years old.

www.horsetalk.co.nz/features/n… , www.thecloudfoundation.org/edu…
byJay F. Kirkpatrick, Ph.D. andPatricia M. Fazio, Ph.D. Also available here: ispmb.org/WildHorsesInAmerica.…

The precise date of origin for the genus Equus is unknown, but evidence documents the dispersal of Equus from North America to Eurasia approximately 2-3 million years ago and a possible origin at about 3.4-3.9 million years ago. Following this original emigration, several extinctions occurred in North America, with additional migrations to Asia (presumably across the Bering Land Bridge), and return migrations back to North America, over time. The last North American extinction probably occurred between 13,000 and 11,000 years ago (Fazio 1995), although more recent extinctions for horses have been suggested. Dr. Ross MacPhee, Curator of Mammalogy at the American Museum of Natural History, and colleagues, have dated the existence of woolly mammoths and horses in North America to as recent as 7,600 years ago. Had it not been for previous westward migration, over the 2 Bering Land Bridge, into northwestern Russia (Siberia) and Asia, the horse would have faced complete extinction. However, Equus survived and spread to all continents of the globe, except Australia and Antarctica.

Thus, based on a great deal of paleontological data, the origin of E. caballus is thought to be about two million years ago, and it originated in North America.

Not only is E. caballus genetically equivalent to E. lambei, but no evidence exists for the origin of E. caballus anywhere except North America (Forstén 1992).

The issue of feralization and the use of the word "feral" is a human construct that has little biological meaning except in transitory behavior, usually forced on the animal in some manner. Consider this parallel: E. Przewalskii (Mongolian wild horse) disappeared from Mongolia a hundred years ago. It has survived since then in zoos. That is not domestication in the classic sense, but it is captivity, with keepers providing food and veterinarians providing health care. Then they were released during the 1990s and now repopulate their native range in Mongolia. Are they a reintroduced native species or not? And what is the difference between them [E. Przewalskii] and E. caballus in North America, except for the time frame and degree of captivity?

BLM Wants to Use Barbaric Sterilization Methods

This is it - the BLM has gone too far. Now the agency wants to perform crude, inhumane and archaic abortion/sterilization experiments on our treasured wild horses that are being kept in an Oregon holding facility.

Once wild and free, the mares will be subjected to an invasive and painful procedure called "ovariectomy via colpotomy," in which a veterinarian places his arm into a mare's vaginal cavity, manually locates the ovaries and rips them out using a rod-like device with a chain on the end. (See picture at top.) The procedure will cause mares in the early and possibly mid-stages of pregnancy to abort their fetuses, and carries a significant risk of pain, hemorrhage, and evisceration (intestines coming through the incision). After the surgery, the BLM intends to turn the mares back out into their corrals, with open incisions and none of the post-operative care that is required for any domestic mares who undergo this painful, surgically-risky and potentially life-threatening procedure.

 Please help us demonstrate overwhelming public opposition to this grotesque plan by taking action below!

Oppose Barbaric BLM Sterilization "Experiment" on Wild Mares.

 

BLM Plans to Destroy A Wyoming Mustang Herd

(left to right) Fuego (challenger), Fermat (band stallion), Lovely, Mac, Taylor (Mac's mother), and Hypathia (rare Curly mare) Photo: Ginger Kathrens and Lisa Friday

Help Save the White Mountain and Little Colorado Wild Horse Herds!

Comment on BLM’s Plan to Sterilize Mares! Deadline: Thursday, January 14th

Dear Friends of our Wyoming Wild Horses;

BLM is planning to sterilize the mares in the White Mountain Herd Management Area. . .unless we can stop them. White Mountain is the most visible, most photographed, most approachable wild horse herd in Southern Wyoming with a driving loop and signage to facilitate the viewing experience. The White Mountain Herd is the biggest tourist attraction in the immediate Rock Springs area, the horses are healthy and well-fed (as can be seen from the photos), and the herd is also within the BLM’s Appropriate Management Level of 205-300 horses. 

Despite all these facts, the BLM to use the White Mountain mustangs in a “mare spaying research experiment” to be conducted with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). The adjacent Little Colorado Herd would serve as the control group. 

BLM proposes to conduct helicopter round ups, removing all wild horses over the “Appropriate Management Level” (even though the the White Mountain herd is within the BLM’s stated AML) on over 1 million acres of mostly public lands. Currently, BLM estimates 268 wild horses in White Mountain. Little Colorado numbers are estimated to be 330 with an AML of only 69-100 on over 600,000 acres of Federally-owned land. If the BLM needs to reduce the population of either of the herds, the Little Colorado herd should be treated with fertility drugs, not White Mountain.

Once rounded up, approximately 300 horses would be permanently removed. This is more than the entire herd population of White Mountain. In White Mountain 30-50 mares would be fitted with radio collars and stallions would have tracker tags placed in their tails. One year later, the horses would again be rounded up with helicopters and mares would be spayed using surgical techniques as yet unspecified and then tracked to determine changes in behavior/band fidelity/mortality in comparison to the control group in Little Colorado. 

The bands would be destroyed in both herds as the stallions will be separated from the mares after capture so the band fidelity and behavior data will be useless. We don’t want to think about the mortality rate as we know horses will be killed during and after the helicopter stampedes and may die as a result of the collaring and subsequent operations. 

   

1. Conduct field research to determine the habits and natural behaviors of the White Mountain-Little Colorado using non-invasive techniques (i.e. ground observations/photographs/GPS recorded locations, etc.)
2. Conduct behavioral research while field darting with the reversible vaccine PZP. Over 50 mares in these HMAs received PZP-22 in 2011 and will only require a booster shot to render them infertile for 1 to 2 years. 
3. Conduct any removals in the late winter/spring months using bait or water trapping. Do not chase them with helicopters! Keep traps in place for several weeks to recapture for boostering young mares that did not receive PZP-22 and are not dartable (most, if not all mares in White Mountain, can be field darted). Mares in a trap can be darted without touching them. 
4. Do not put collars on mares or tail tracker tags on stallions. This is not necessary in the White Mountain HMA. It will require capture and will result in the shattering of the bands just to put on the collars and tail tags.
5. Do not operate on the mares. Once sterilized, there is no going back. Those horses would be unable to pass on their genes, and the gene pool would shrink, resulting in inbreeding and/or eventual eradication of the entire herd.
6. Raise the AML of 79-100 in Little Colorado to a genetically viable number of 150-200 adult animals. Reduce livestock grazing. There are 6,000 cows with potentially 6,000 calves or 30,000 head of sheep in the two legally designated wild horse herd management areas. 
7. Collaborate with interested organizations and individuals to conduct the above field darting and record-keeping. (Data sheets are already compiled for over 200 of the White Mountain wild horses!)
8. Save millions of taxpayer dollars and manage the herds on the range, living in freedom with their families. 

What can you do?

Send your comments to:
Wild Horse and Burro Specialist
BLM Rock Springs Field Office
280 Highway 191 North
Rock Springs, Wyoming 82901

Fax: (307) 352-0329

Electronic comments must be sent to the following email address to be considered: Rock_Springs_WYMail@blm.gov
(Include "White Mountain & Little Colorado EA Comments" in the subject line.) 

Here are the links to the BLM Scoping Letter and Documents. www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm…

www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/info/news…

Please do what you can! This is nothing more than a wild horse extermination plan dressed up as a research project. Time is short, send your comments by days end Thursday, January 14. Thanks!

Happy Trails!

Ginger

(Lovely with her stallion, Fermat) Photo: Ginger Kathrens and Lisa Friday

 (Mac, Hypathia, Taylor) Photo: Ginger Kathrens and Lisa Friday

BLM Plans to Eliminate Idaho Mustang Herd

The BLM (Bureau of Land Management) is planning to sterilize every single mare and stallion in the Saylor Creek Mustang HMA (Herd Management Area) in Idaho. While this will not directly hurt the horses immediately, it will ensure their eventual elimination. If none of the horses are capable of reproducing, then they will inevitably die off.  If implemented, the BLM's policy would set a dangerous precedent for destroying healthy, sustainable wild horse populations into sterilized groups of horses that will die off.

The Saylor Creek Mustangs have undergone a rocky history. At one point they were completely removed by the BLM to save them from a devastating wildfire, and in 2011, the BLM returned 30 Mustangs to the HMA. This was a wonderful act of helping and managing the horses, but now the BLM plans to turn their heroic actions completely around by eliminating the entire herd.

There is no need for a complete elimination. The horses are not starving, as photographs will show (even if they were starving, eliminating them slowly would not help; they would need an emergency gather). The horses are also not causing environmental havoc. There are numerous native species of wildlife in the HMA. 94,992 acres of public land is perfectly capable of sustaining 30 wild horses. If the BLM wants to reduce their numbers back to 30, a better way to do it would be to use fertility drugs or bait trapping.



Help prevent the elimination of this herd: thecloudfoundation.org/donate/… , act.wildhorsepreservation.org/…
Learn more about the Saylor Creek HMA: www.blm.gov/id/st/en/prog/wild…

Starving Mustangs?

The idea that all Mustangs are starving is a well-believed lie propagated by the BLM to rally people to their cause. The truth is that the majority of Mustangs are not starving and many are fat. Despite federal protection, free-roaming horses have been relegated to the most inhospitable areas of the range, which is why a few herds are starving. Still, they have adapted and survived. Wildlife biologists in Mustang areas frequently photograph and watch Mustangs. They say that the majority are in good condition (they are not starving) and there are always fresh horse hoof prints around the waterholes (they are not dying of thirst.)

The few Mustangs that are starving are starving because their food and water has been fenced off for cattle. Many HMAs and other wildlife reserves are placed on inhospitable and infertile land, often with little to no water, and the rich, healthy land is given to cattle. With few to no natural predators (due to hunting by humans,) Mustangs in such places are known to overpopulate easily, just like deer and various native wildlife. As such, those particular herds need more management than herds on suitable HMAs.

The BLM, ranchers, and anti-Mustang groups use these select starving herds as "proof" that all Mustangs in the wild are starving to death, and they claim that wild horse advocates are ignoring the fact that these herds are starving. This, of course, is ludicrous. The fact that a few herds are starving does not mean that all herds are starving. There are starving people in the United States. Does that mean everyone in the United States is starving? Of course not. Wild horse advocates are completely aware of these herds, and we have nothing against removing and/or relocating them in order to help them. We just want it to be done humanely. In order to effectively manage wild horse populations, the BLM must manage herds individually, not nation-wide. When a herd needs help, help them, not a herd in another state. Removing herds that don't need help only damages the gene pool. Healthy herds would be better helped through preventative measures, such as fertility drugs and by being kept in check by predators (cougars, bear, wolves, coyotes, etc.)

There is more than enough public land to comfortably house all the Mustangs and an appropriate number of cattle. At the time being cattle outnumber Mustangs 50 to 1. There are currently more than 3,000,000 beef cattle on public grazing lands, around 1,000,000 sheep on publics grazing lands, and fewer than 25,000 Mustangs on all American wild lands combined. Grazing on public lands is a privilege, not a right, and can be taken away. But while Mustangs are being squeezed out of their legal lands and managed to extinction, no one is managing the ranchers. Cattle are rotated, but the land is so run down that wildlife rarely ever return to it during its vacant periods, if wildlife return at all. On top of that, cattle that share land with Mustangs provide only 3% of the beef that America uses.

Occasionally large-scale natural disasters such as droughts and floods will take away graze or water from healthy herds, and in those cases, the only kind thing to do is remove them for temporary holding. After the drought has cleared, then they can either be released or adopted out.

PTH's "Horses in Crisis" video EXPOSED!

The organization Protect the Harvest (PTH) is a Big Agriculture organization that advocates removing free-roaming horses to slaughter them in order to make room for cattle. They do so by presenting the age-old myth that free-roaming horses are “starving.” Protect the Harvest has made a video (Horses in Crisis) filled with untruths, skewed statistics, and an old dying wild horse allegedly starving (while at the same time surrounded by grass; notice the healthy, happy horse grazing on the hilltop in the background) — to push for slaughtering free-roaming horses in the U.S.

Cattle activists are featured prominently in the video as if they have complete knowledge of the situation. Ironically, not a single wild horse advocate is interviewed, even though they are talked about extensively. By only interviewing one side of the issue, the video deliberately hides the entire other half of the story. Protect the Harvest is actively and intentionally attempting to deceive its audience.

The video does have one accurate point, though: the BLM has too many horses in captivity to take care of them all, and caring for them is already incredibly expensive. However, instead of looking for alternatives to removals (such as on-the-range management), the video says the only answer is to kill the horses. It doesn't even mention on-the-range management. It pretends it doesn't exist.

I generally don't devote an entire journal to critiquing a single video, but there is an anti-Mustang subculture on DeviantART that gets its information from this video. Indeed, they quote it frequently. As such, it needs to be addressed.

Unlike Protect the Harvest, I will allow you to see both sides of the story. Feel free to watch the entire video below:

 

Horses In Crisis video critique:

The video opens by saying that the Wild Horse and Burro Act of 1971 “isn’t working.” That’s easy to say when the government branch put in charge of implementing it doesn’t actually follow it (www.elynews.com/2014/01/31/blm… , www.doioig.gov/sites/doioig.go… , www.wildhorsepreservation.org/… , www.wildhorsepreservation.org/… , www.ispmb.org/History.html , wildhorseeducation.org/essenti… , wildhorseeducation.org/burns-a… , etc.) The Bureau of Land Management has revised the Act so many times (www.wildhorsepreservation.org/…) that the original Act is largely ignored. Even more so, the BLM flat-out ignores the entire Act and even its own revisions when they “feel” they must. Organizations like Protect the Harvest have been bullying the BLM to ignore the Act (www.wildhorsepreservation.org/…). No wonder it’s not working.

 The video also mentions the “emotional connection to these animals,” in order to push the agenda that horse lovers are illogical. Notice how almost immediately after that sentence, the narrator describes horse lovers as trying to “complicate” the issue.

 Note the use of the word “feral,” not “wild” or “free-roaming” throughout the entire video. Anti-Mustang groups use the term “feral” as a loaded term. It sounds unappealing, like how the pro-choice community uses the term “fetus” to dehumanize the unborn. While both the terms feral and fetus are scientifically correct, the reason they are used in these contexts is obvious.

 “Laws, not warm fuzzy feelings,” says the rancher. What if the laws he speaks of were to threaten his ranch? How would he feel then?

 During his speech about “horses starvin’ to death,” the video shows a photo of a starving foal in a BLM corral. Oddly enough, I happen to know the story behind that foal. The foal was purposefully separated from his mother by BLM employees. He was clearly too young to be away from her and as such, he was left to starve. By the time BLM employees noticed and put him back with his mother, she had lost almost all of her milk. He was euthanized the Sunday that public observers brought him to the attention of the BLM, hoping that the BLM would feed him. (www.elainenash.com/2010/10/blm… , artandhorseslauraleigh.wordpre… , 

The second rancher interviewed obviously hasn’t read any of this:

www8.nationalacademies.org/onp…?
RecordID=13511&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+nationalacademies%2Fna+%28News+from+the+National+Academies%29
RecordID=13511&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+nationalacademies%2Fna+%28News+from+the+National+Academies%29
www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307…
www.thepetitionsite.com/takeac…
scholarship.law.umt.edu/cgi/vi…
www.publiclandsranching.org/ht…
static1.squarespace.com/static…
www.mikehudak.com/Articles/Che…
lshs.tamu.edu/docs/lshs/end-no…
www.biologicaldiversity.org/pu…
www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_rm/rm_gt…
www.publiclandsranching.org/ht…
www.thewildlifenews.com/2012/1…
www.gazettetimes.com/news/loca…
www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307…
vegetarian.procon.org/sourcefi…
www.publiclandsranching.org/ht…
www.mikehudak.com/Articles/CTN…
www.livestrong.com/article/372…
www.livestrong.com/article/507…
www.beechhillbison.com/buffalo…
www.komonews.com/news/consumer…
www.consumerreports.org/cro/vi…
www.merriam-webster.com/dictio…
www.horseoftheamericas.com/
www.ansi.okstate.edu/breeds/ho…
horsebreedslist.com/horse-bree…
www.equinenow.com/mustangbreed…
www.livescience.com/27686-must…
www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/graz…

 Once again, we see the subject of “emotion” brought up. Wild horse advocates are painted as illogical emotional people who don’t understand the issue. Naturally, not a single wild horse advocate has been interviewed.

 Continuing on, we see an extremely closed-minded and ignorant view of wild horse management tactics. “We only have two good options.”  Friends, this is a lie. Removals for adoption or euthanasia are not the only two options. Other options include, but are not limited to:

- Remotely-delivered fertility drugs – This is possibly the best solution, and could survive on its own if used correctly. Mustangs would not reproduce as quickly. Drugs such as Porcine Zona Pellucida (PZP) can be delivered remotely to mares in the form of a dart. The horses mustn't be rounded up or removed. PZP is also morally acceptable to all in that it simply prevents a mare from becoming pregnant instead of killing an unborn foal. Its effects also wear off over time, allowing a once-darted mare to become fertile again. This "reversibility" is very beneficial for the gene pool because all mares could potentially have foals, just not as many as they would naturally.
Since 1988, the wild horse population of Maryland’s Assateague Island has been successfully managed at 150 animals using the contraceptive vaccine PZP developed with the help of the Humane Society of the United States. Dr. Jay Kirkpatrick is assisting the BLM in implementing this non-intrusive contraceptive method across a growing number of herd management areas.
The method has proven very successful, is easy to administer (via remote darting of the mares) and does not disrupt the complex social structure of wild herds. Fertility drugs are also far less expensive than roundups. It costs roughly $300 - $500 to process a single wild horse for adoption, whereas it costs a maximum of around only $100 to render a mare infertile for at least two years. A March 2004 USGS study found that $7.7 million could be saved annually through the use of contraceptive measures alone. Unfortunately, the BLM only allots 6% of its budget to fertility drugs and other forms of on-the-range management.
ECONOMICAL BONUS: Fertility drugs are far, far less expensive to create, obtain, and distribute than the costly roundup operation currently in progress. Also, it could help to generate jobs that many people can perform, seeing as the darter mustn't pay for years of flight training prior to being hired.
- Rounding up Mustangs on horseback – If the fertility drug campaign must be supplemented by removals, similar to the horses on Assateague, running small-scale roundups of Mustangs on horseback (also like Assateague) would be an appropriate measure. Obviously, horseback roundups could never be a complete replacement for helicopter roundups due to the risks of injury to riders and domestic horses, but if done on a small scale and only as a supplement to fertility drugs, they would be much more humane. Mustangs would only be driven as fast as the saddle-horses can run. If the saddle horses can't take it, neither can the Mustangs. Obviously, this refers to galloping after a herd on horseback to gather them toward the capture corral, not using lassos to drag home each individual Mustang. No, it's not a perfect solution, but coupled with others, it can be part of one (notice I listed many options). One con to this solution is that the land must be mapped out previously, but seeing as the BLM has access to helicopters that shouldn't be a problem. Another downside is that it poses a risk of injury to saddle horse and rider. But look at it this way: people have been rounding up wild horses on horseback for thousands of years. Wild horses typically respond well to other horses with a herd instinct instead of with the terror that a helicopter induces.
- Ending/restricting human hunting of predators or possibly releasing existing predators into the wild – Predators would help to naturally manage the Mustang population, therefore giving less need for roundups. Unfortunately, Mustangs' natural predators are hunted by trophy hunters and by ranchers to protect their livestock, and thus they are less effective at controlling Mustang populations than they could be. While trophy hunting is pure selfishness (killing for pleasure), hunting to protect livestock at least has a purpose. However, there are other, non-lethal methods of protecting livestock from large predators. In Namibia, large dogs are trained to live with and protect sheep and cattle from cheetahs.
Mustangs and native wildlife were thriving before humans came and hunted their predators. By killing herbivores' natural predators, humans have hurt the ecosystems, causing wildlife, including Mustangs, to move into places where they didn't live before and/or to overpopulate.
One con for this is that the predators are dangerous to domestic animals such as cattle, sheep, domestic horses, and dogs. Hunting laws about predators make it legal to shoot a lion that gets on your property. If for some reason you can't shoot the lion, you can get help from the government. If someone’s going to plant himself in lion country, he’s going to have to deal with it. Killing off the native predators is not the answer.
ECONOMICAL BONUS: Hiring rangers to inspect wildlife would be much less costly than the expensive roundup operation currently underway.
- Giving helicopter pilots a set salary – Instead of paying pilots for each horse they bring in, by paying them a set salary, pilots would be less apt to drive Mustangs beyond their limits and BLM could save money. ECONOMICAL BONUS: Instead of paying each pilot $350 for each horse, the general amount of money poured into roundups could very well be greatly reduced. All in all, the U.S. would save a bit of cash.
- Deducting from pilots/roundup employees’ salaries or firing employees if animals are injured during a gather – Mustangs would be treated with greater care and respect.
- Bait-trapping – This could be a supplement to fertility drugs alongside horseback removals. Mustangs are lured by tasty treats such as alfalfa cubes (and with food and water in other areas) and therefore enter the corral at their own will. A con with bait-trapping is that predators such as wildcats like to prey on the captured horses, but a proper watch will prevent wildcat attacks. Currently, the BLM sets only one employee to guard the corral. It would be wiser to post two or more guards. That way, one can watch while the others sleep so he can frighten off at or kill any predator that gets too close. ECONOMICAL BONUS: Bait-trapping would reduce the need for helicopter roundups, which are incredibly expensive. It would also help to generate jobs for individuals who are willing to learn the ropes (no pun intended), instead of pouring huge amounts of money into a single man who already had enough money to afford helicopter flight training.
- More uses of Judas-horses during roundups – Mustangs follow the domestic horse instinctively and are less traumatized. Fortunately, the BLM already uses Judas horses quite often.
- Placing fencing or some kind of deterrent around the perimeters of HMAs (Herd Management Areas) / creating a large sanctuary for the horses --
While this would take a lot of effort and work to start up and a significant amount of work to maintain, it will help prevent wild Mustangs from roaming out of their designated lands and therefore reduce the need for roundups in general. In the long run it would most likely pay itself off. It would be extremely beneficial for "checkerboard" lands (lands that contain one square mile of HMA next to one square mile of cattle graze, back and forth, and so on). Instead of forcibly removing entire herds and thinning the gene pool, Mustangs could be managed within their HMAs through remotely-delivered fertility drugs and/or the other alternatives I have described. At least one water source would have to be provided within each fenced HMA. ECONOMICAL BONUS: Creating and maintaining the fencing would also help to generate jobs that the average laymen could perform, and by providing jobs may help reduce the dependency on government welfare and therefore take a piece of the load off the economy.
- Managing cattle and sheep ranchers as well as Mustangs – by returning to the Wild Horse and Burro Act, all the animals on public rangelands would be safer and more comfortable.

 The next interviewee describes how horses are the cause of habitat degradation and loss of plant life, but completely ignores cattle grazing as a possible contributor. This is illogical. Cattle grazing has decreased from 49% (1950s) to only 7% (today). In other words, there used to be over 50% more cattle on the land than there are today. There are currently over 4,000,000 cattle on public lands alone. 50% of 4,000,000 is 2,000,000. Add 2,000,000 to 4,000,000 and you get 6,000,000. That's a lot of cows. And the ranchers try to scapegoat horses? The BLM and anti-Mustang propagandists use documented evidence of feral horses causing damage in other countries, such as Australia, and use that evidence to claim that Mustangs in North America are causing damage. To put it simply, anti-Mustang propagandists are not even talking about Mustangs when they provide "evidence" of Mustangs causing damage to North American habitats! To claim that Australian feral horses (Brumbies) and Mustangs cause the same types and amounts of damage is absurd, and it doesn't take long to realize why. There are three main reasons: First, Australia houses more feral horses than all countries on planet Earth combined. That's a lot of horses. Mustangs are only one of multiple breeds/types of feral horses in North America. Second, Brumbies have few to no natural predators in Australia, whereas Mustangs have numerous natural predators (cougars, wolves, coyotes, bears, etc.) Third, Brumbies are possibly the only large herbivore in the Australian wild, whereas Mustangs are only one of many, many species of large, hooved herbivores, and they are by far not the biggest or the smallest. Essentially, Mustangs blend right into the North American ecosystem. Because we hunt their natural predators, Mustangs do need to be managed, just like deer, elk, and moose, but to say that they are invasive is a bit of a stretch.

There is no doubt that Mustangs are eating endangered plants and in many areas, larger herds are trampling delicate habitats. However, other, native wildlife, such as elk, deer, and rabbits eat those same plants and trample those same areas. Mustang advocates are astounded at the apparent narrow-mindedness of many anti-Mustang groups: all herbivores are eating the plants and living in the same areas, but only Mustangs are targeted as invasive. Mustangs, being non-native, are easy targets. It's easy to look at damaged habitats, see a non-native animal, and dismissively blame it without looking more closely. Thus the question arises: we know that Mustangs existed in populations much, much larger than they do now, and that native wildlife lived comfortably alongside them, including plants and animals that are now endangered, so what has changed? What has caused horses and wildlife to move into and graze in areas that they didn't inhabit before?

Fortunately, the answer is clear as to what has changed: cattle. By the time cattle ranching appeared on the American scene, free-roaming horses had been in the wild for over 300 years. Domestic cattle and sheep currently number around 4 million on public lands, and have numbered over 6 million in the past. They outnumber Mustangs 50 to 1 in most states, and 200 to 1 in others. That's 3 million more than there ever were of Mustangs on those same lands, and 160% more than the modern Mustang population. The huge cattle and sheep populations have pushed out native wildlife and Mustangs, displacing wildlife and causing them to live in and eat plants that are unnatural for them to eat. Although cattle are rotated seasonally, there are still millions on the land at any given time. Even when a space of land is evacuated, it is typically so run-down that wildlife do not move back into it. Thus, cattle move back and keep the land as their own. Even though it's clear that cattle greatly outnumber Mustangs and are also forcing Mustangs and other wildlife into unnatural and often inhospitable areas, anti-Mustang groups continue to argue that Mustangs, not cattle, are the true invasive animal. They say that because Mustangs are non-native, that they are automatically invasive. However, they completely ignore an enormous factor in the equation: cattle and sheep, the other non-native species. It's not logical to ignore the more abundant, newer, non-native animal and choose to accuse the rarer non-native animal that has lived in North America for hundreds of years longer, and also lives in populations much, much smaller than it used to, back when the ecology of the land was relatively harmonious. Since Mustang populations are lower than they ever have been, it's not logical to pin all the blame on them. The main cause of degradation to public lands is cattle and sheep, not Mustangs. Cows graze within a mile of water, often standing in it until the water is so soiled it’s unusable for some time, while wild horses are highly mobile, grazing from five to ten miles from water, at higher elevations, on steeper slopes, and in more rugged terrain. Horses and donkeys also have solid hooves which don’t tear apart the earth nearly as much as a cow’s cloven hoof. A congressionally-mandated study by the National Academy of Sciences found that wild horse forage use remains a small fraction of cattle forage use on public ranges. Private livestock outnumber wild horses at least 50 to 1 on public lands. (4 million cattle and sheep > 25,000 Mustangs.)

The video then goes on to describe how “history tells us that these horses will starve to death and have a catastrophic die-off.” Of course, he doesn’t give us an example of this happening in history. He just expects us to believe him. The video also completely ignores the fact that Mustangs have been in North America for over 500 years and are not having a catastrophic die-off, except in BLM corrals.

The next interviewee describes how one particular herd of horses can’t find water. I agree. This is bad. However, this is one particular herd of horses. To say that all Mustangs are without food and water is what’s known as a Hasty Generalization logical fallacy. Some people go hungry in the United States. Does this mean that everyone in the United States is starving? Of course not. We must look at each individual herd of horses in order to determine if the land is suitable to sustain them. If one herd is starving, I have absolutely nothing against performing emergency gathers to remove or relocate them. However, we shouldn't damage genetic viability in all herds because one herd is going through a hard time. The video is ignorant of this.

The video then describes how Mustangs are “starving.” The idea that Mustangs are starving is a well-believed lie propagated by the BLM to rally people to their cause.The truth is that Mustangs are not starving and many are fat. Despite federal protection, wild horses have been relegated to the most inhospitable areas of the range. Still, they have adapted and survived. Wildlife biologists in Mustang areas frequently photograph and watch Mustangs. They say that the majority are in good condition and there are always fresh horse hoof prints around the waterholes.

The few Mustangs that are starving are starving because their food and water has been fenced off for cattle. HMAs and wildlife reserves are typically placed in extremely inhospitable areas and are unable to sustain even native wildlife. There is more than enough public land to comfortably house all the Mustangs and an appropriate number of cattle. At the time being cattle outnumber Mustangs 50 to 1. There are currently more than 3,000,000 beef cattle on public grazing lands, around 1,000,000 sheep on public grazing lands, and fewer than 25,000 Mustangs on all American wild lands combined. Grazing on public lands is a privilege, not a right, and can be taken away. But while Mustangs are being squeezed out of their legal lands and managed to extinction, no one is managing the ranchers. Cattle are rotated, but the land is so run down that wildlife rarely ever return to it during its vacant periods, if wildlife return at all. On top of that, cattle that share land with Mustangs provide only 3% of the beef that America uses.

Occasionally natural disasters such as droughts and floods will take away graze or water and the only kind response is to try to take special action, but that’s relatively rare.

The video also gets the number of horses on public lands wrong. It says there are 52,000 to 100,000, when the BLM currently estimates around 38,000, and local wildlife biologists estimate fewer than 25,000 (www.livescience.com/27686-must… , www.twogoatsinc.com/science-he…). Perhaps the video is old and out-of-date. I’ll admit I didn’t bother to check the date. If that’s the case, why do anti-Mustang groups quote an outdated video? The video’s number of horses in holding facilities is wrong as well: the BLM currently openly admits to having over 50,000 horses in their holding facilities, which is roughly double than what there are in the wild. It seems that the answer is to stop bringing in more horses and find a way to manage the horses still on the range. This is what’s known as on-the-range management. Unfortunately, the BLM only allots 6% to 7% of its budget to on-the-range management. The rest goes to roundups and stockpiling.

The video makes the assertion that wild horse advocates “have never seen the Mustangs in the corrals.” This is a lie. Yes, we have seen them. That’s how we get photographs of them. That’s how organizations like the Cloud Foundation and Wild Horse Education can adopt some of them to rescue them from slaughter. Here is a website that documents a few stories (not all that come its way) of eyewitness accounts from wild horse advocates watching roundups: www.wildhorsepreservation.org/…

The next little segment is about ranchers going out of business. Note the extreme (and I mean extreme!) use of emotional language here. “Heart-wrenching,” “tears your guts out,” “the same feeling I had when my father died…” etc. The video criticizes wild horse advocates for having emotions, but it proudly displays rancher’s emotions.This is what’s known as hypocrisy.
I just have to mention one thing that stood out to me here: one of the ranchers interviewed describes his cattle as being like members of his family. I found this alagory confusing and a little disturbing. Is he saying that he raised his cattle to be his pets? If not, it means he was raising them for meat, which is what the majority of ranchers raise cattle for. Does this mean that he views his family members as meat..?

The video also implies that the lack of business for ranchers is somehow Mustangs’ fault. However, ranchers are the victims of changing public tastes, not horses. American beef consumption has been in decline for the past 10 years.

“$1,000 for a bushel of lettuce”? Last time I checked, cattle ranchers raised beef, not lettuce.

Ah, the “hungry Americans” card. More emotional language. The fact that some Americans like beef is irrelevant to the Mustang debate considering that America throws away tons (using the actual measurement of weight) of beef every year. In addition, cattle on public lands shared with Mustangs contribute an estimated 3% of America's beef consumption. Wildlife and cattle are killed for nothing but rancher and government greed. Instead of pouring more money and land into the beef industry, the economic response would be to find an alternative outlet for ranchers seeking more profit.

“Ranchers care more about animals than any of those people do.” Excuse me? Does this man claim to have some kind of telepathic power that encompasses the entire human population? How does he know this, exactly? Even more so, we see yet another attempt to paint wild horse advocates as ignorant crazies who run around in furry horse costumes. I don't know about you, but I have never once donned a furry horse suit ever in my life. The video's agenda against wild horse advocates is blatantly obvious.

“Wild horses and burros have virtually no natural predators.” This is also a lie. Mustangs do indeed have natural predators. These predators include, but are not limited to, cougars/mountain lions/pumas, bears, wolves, and coyotes. Cougars alone kill over half of Mustang foals born every year, even though they are heavily hunted by humans. Imagine what the full menagerie of predators could do if left unchecked by humans. It's possible that we wouldn't need removals of any kind, and there's a slim possibility that we might not even need much in the way of fertility drugs, either. The myth that Mustangs have no natural predators stems largely from the fact that many feral horses on the Barrier Islands (such as Chincoteague ponies) have no natural predators. Mustangs are often confused with Chincoteague ponies and thus many people assume that their situations are identical. This, however, is purely ignorant, as Mustangs live on the mainland's desert and mountain regions whereas Chincoteagues live on Assateague Island, a small island in the Barrier Islands chain.

Unfortunately, Mustangs' natural predators are hunted by trophy hunters and by ranchers to protect their livestock, and thus they are less effective at controlling Mustang populations than they could be. While trophy hunting is pure selfishness (killing for pleasure), hunting to protect livestock at least has a purpose. However, there are other, non-lethal methods of protecting livestock from large predators. In Namibia, large dogs are trained to live with and protect sheep and cattle from cheetahs.

The video gets population rates wrong. The National Academy of Sciences estimates a population growth rate of a maximum of 15% with the herd sizes doubling every 5 years, not 4 years. That’s still a lot of horses either way, but population growth rates would be better controlled by fertility drugs, not removals.

It’s not against the law to euthanize a suffering horse or to slaughter horses in the United States. I have no idea where this rancher got his "information" from. If it was ever true, it’s certainly not true anymore. Why is the video showing such outdated information, and why do anti-Mustang people fall for it?

The next section is about using excess animals to "feed starving people in other nations." I’m personally not against horse slaughter as long as it’s done humanely (horses are animals, after all), and I know horse lovers will probably hate me for saying that. However, BLM roundups are in no way humane. On top of that, why must we gather animals only to kill them when we could manage them on the range for much less money, and when we’re already throwing away tons (using the actual unit of weight) of meat every year? Why not use that extra beef that already exists to feed starving people in other nations instead of throwing it away? If we run out of meat from our farms, then we should branch out. There’s no point in spending millions of dollars every year to round up horses. That's some exspensive meat right there. Do those ranchers want to pay for that? I sure don't. It’s much cheaper to just raise animals for meat then to round them up with helicopters. Of course, it must be done humanely whatever we choose, but using roundups to feed people in other nations is very expensive. There are less expensive methods out there, if Protect the Harvest is actually worried about starving nations. Somehow I think they’re merely using this as more emotional manipulation.