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!

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?

Three Articles Regarding the Mustang Situation

  1)      “The Horse and Burro as Positively Contributing Returned Natives in North America” by Craig C. Downer:  http://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ajls.20140201.12.pdf

Summary: The prevailing view is that the horse species (Equus caballos) is not native to North America and only appeared on the scene 500 years ago, but this article describes how 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 caballos 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 was brought to othe continents by humans after earmy people visited North Americ, possibly the Chinese. Equus caballos was present in North America approximately 10,000 years ago, which indicates that the horse species originated in North America. The article continues on to describe how horses benefit the North American ecosystem.

    2)      “The Declining Importance of Public Lands Ranching in the West” by Mark N. Salvo:  http://scholarship.law.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1217&context=plrlr

Summary: The article describes the debate over how important public lands ranching is to the U.S. economy. The pro-ranching industry says that raising grazing fees will cost America jobs and cause Americans to go hungry, but is this really the case? The article claims that it isn’t. The article describes how the majority of our beef products do not come from public lands ranching, even though ranchers hold such an enormous number of cattle on those lands (approximately 4,000,000.) Such a massive population of non-native animals is undoubtedly extremely damaging to the environment. On top of that, Americans are moving away from eating beef, which is causing cattle ranching to die a natural death. Grazing fees and wild horses are not causing it, the nation’s diet as a whole is. Americans are discovering that beef is not a sustainable diet. The article describes how every year there are fewer and fewer ranchers, and fewer beef producers in general nationwide. Cattle ranch-related jobs, ranching included, make up only around 5% of jobs in the Western United States. The article even goes so far as to say that completely eliminating the ranching industry in the West would not cause any significant employment impact or loss of food.

    3)      “Using Science to Improve the BLM Wild Horse and Burro Program: A Way Forward” by the National Research Council: http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/materials-based-on-reports/reports-in-brief/wild-horses-report-brief-final.pdf

Summary: The article describes how the Bureau of Land Management’s current method of removals and stockpiling is ineffective and expensive (not to mention inhumane), and will ultimately send the BLM into a financial train wreck. The BLM is not using scientifically sound methods to keep wild horse populations under control, and thus the horses double their populations every 4 – 5 years, many are starving, and there are more horses in BLM captivity than the BLM can afford, thus causing questions of euthanasia and horse slaughter that wouldn’t have to be asked if proper science was used in the first place. The National Research Council (of the National Academy of Sciences) recommends that the BLM use on-the-range management – particularly fertility drugs such as PZP – to prevent the horses from overpopulating without requiring removals and stockpiling. On-the-range management would also not remove genetic material, thus keeping the wild herds small (so as not to cause environmental damage), sustainable, and genetically diverse. PZP is also far less expensive than helicopter roundups; it costs approximately $100 to render a mare infertile for a minimum of 2 years, whereas it costs over $1,000 to remove and process a single wild horse for adoption, and that’s assuming the horse will be adopted (there is always a chance it will not find a home and will live out its life in a BLM corral, sucking up tax dollars in feed and veterinary care). The article mentioned how the wild ponies on Assateague Island have been managed through PZP since 1988 and have been kept at a stable population of 150. PZP is tried and true. Roundups do not work.

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.

Petition to Start Responsible Mustang Management

Please sign this Petition to urge the U.S. government to stop BLM roundups and instead use responsible, more affordable management methods.

Photo:Sandra Leidholdt / Getty Images

"To: White House, U.S. Congress, U.S. Department of Interior

We, the undersigned citizens, call on President Obama, the U.S. Congress, and the U.S. Department of the Interior to halt the Bureau of Land Management wild horse and burro roundup program and instead to

1. Manage our public lands for all Americans and not a small group of ranchers who benefit from taxpayer-subsidized grazing on our public lands

2. Manage wild horses and burros humanely on the range, using proved PZP fertility control when necessary, as recommended by the National Academy of Sciences in 2013

3. Give wild horses and burros a fairer share of resources on the small amount of public land that has been designated as habitat for these cherished animals

4. Return wild horses and burros stockpiled in holding pens (where they cost taxpayers more than $5 a day a horse) to the range. Wild horses and burros have been eliminated from more than 15 million acres of BLM land that was designated for their protection. It’s time to return our national icons to freedom on our public lands.

Sincerely,

[Your name here]"

BLM Plans to Zero-Out Wyoming Mustang Herds

Emergency Motion Denied to Stop 800+ Wild Horse Roundup in Wyoming Checkerboard The BLM plans to completely remove all Mustang herds on Wyoming checkerboard lands. Checkerboard lands are lands that consist of small areas of public land that butt up against small areas of private land. As no one is responsible enough to place fences around their private land, the Mustangs wander onto private lands, thus eating graze that belongs to private ranchers. The BLM's response is to remove all of the horses, not to encourage ranchers to manage their private land properly. Here's what YOU can do: Post your discontented but civil and respectful comments on the Department of Interior's Facebook page, stating your stance on the removal of the Wyoming checkerboard horses. Share this on your Facebook page and with all your friends. Be sure to join the conversation with #justice4mustangs on your postings. Tweet to @SecretaryJewell @Interior: Public lands 4 all Americans: Stop WY wild horse wipeout. #justice4mustangs Write your US Senators and Representatives. Thank you for your support! For more information on the roundup and legal action Click Here. Dear sir or madam of the BLM, As an adult American citizen, I ask you to please reconsider the scheduled removal of the Mustangs herds of the Wyoming checkerboard lands. Congressionally-mandates studies have revealed that there is no scientific reason to remove the Mustangs. They are not overpopulating or causing damage to the rangelands as those studies have shown that even after massive removals (such as this one), the land is not much improved, if it is improved at all. Cattle on public lands number in the millions and cause far more damage than Mustangs ever could have (which number fewer than 40,000 in the wild). By zeroing out the Mustang herds of the checkerboard lands, you will be zeroing them out of public lands, lands which are designated to be shared by cattle and wildlife (Mustangs included.) This is a clear violation of the Wild Horse and Burro Act which states in Section 1: "It is the policy of Congress that wild free-roaming horses and burros shall be protected from capture, branding, harassment, or death; and to accomplish this they are to be considered in the area where presently found, as an integral part of the natural system of the public lands." The removal of Mustangs and not cattle from the Wyoming checkerboard lands also displays an unmistakable partiality to cattle ranchers, something which you claim to be false (according to your "Myths and Facts" page.) If you continue to blatantly lie to us, how do you expect us to trust you? Prove us wrong by cancelling this Mustang removal and instead choose other management methods, such as fertility drugs and the option of fencing off private land in the checkerboard lands. Thank you for your time.