This page lists and answers many commonly-asked questions about Mustangs. If you'd like to have a question added to this page, feel free to ask!
 |
| Photo copyright the Cloud Foundation |
Are Mustangs native to North America?
That is under debate, actually. Mustangs are descended from horses brought to North America by Spanish explorers. The Mustang breed originated in North America, as Mustangs do not exist "wild" anywhere else in the world, but there is debate over whether or not the horse species (Equus caballos) originated in North America. More information here: http://savethemustanghorses.blogspot.com/2016/02/are-mustangs-returned-natives.html
Are Mustangs truly wild horses?
By the true definition of "wild," no, they are not. A wild horse is a horse whose ancestors have never been domesticated. As Mustangs are descended from Spanish horses, the breed is feral, not wild. As a Mustang today is descended from horses born and bred in the wild for centuries, Mustangs are most accurately called "free-roaming."
There is only one breed of truly wild horse left, the Przewalski's Horse, and that's debatable, considering that the majority of them live in zoos and were at one point completely removed from their natural habitat.
Does the BLM slaughter Mustangs?
Currently, no. The BLM often euthanizes Mustangs, but they do not slaughter them. Although horse slaughter is legal in the United States, it is currently illegal to slaughter Mustangs in the U.S. A Mustang's white neck brand makes them easily distinguishable from other breeds of horses.
However, the BLM does little to prevent Mustangs from being bought by kill buyers. The market for Mustangs – even saddle-broken ones – is rock-bottom, and the BLM is running out of room to house them. As they keep bringing in more, they're forced to sell them off to anyone who will buy them. Mustangs that go through their adoption program are fortunate to have a legal tie to the BLM until the BLM releases it. The owner can't sell the Mustang, he must meet certain regulations, and the BLM has the right to check up on the Mustang. This tends to rule out most bad owners.
Mustangs that go through the sales program, though, get none of these advantages. The horses are given to the highest bidder, and many go for dirt cheap, which makes them hot targets for the meat market. The owner only has to sign a contract promising that he won't sell the Mustang to slaughter. Promises are only as good as the person who makes them. 70% of all the Mustangs that go through the sales program are bought by one man, Tom Davis. He wants more because the BLM is only selling him "mere hundreds at a time." So far Tom Davis has refused to reveal where he sells all his horses to. When asked, he replies "it's none of your **** business."
The first Mustang costs $125 to adopt. After that they only cost $25. If you spent $25 to get the horse, you get a dollar for each pound of meat from the horse, and the horse weighs 600 –1,000 lbs., you have a considerable profit.
Recently the BLM has started a policy where one person cannot buy or adopt more than four Mustangs within a six-month period. It will be interesting to see how long and which facilities hold to this new policy. The down side of this policy is that the BLM still brings in as many horses as before, but now they can’t get rid of them as quickly. Where will these extra horses go? Many people suspect that the BLM will gain the right to slaughter them within the U.S., or will instead euthanize them and completely waste the meat.
Why is the market for BLM Mustangs so low?
People don't want to tame a horse. People want horses that they can train, ride, and/or compete with. Mustangs taken off the range are usually not the easiest to handle, especially at first. They must first be gentled or "broken" before they can even begin training. Many Mustangs taken off the range are never capable of complex competition until very late in life. On top of that, Mustangs are smaller breed of horse, often no bigger than ponies. While small horses are appealing to young people and children especially, wild horses are unsafe for inexperienced individuals and children to ride.
However, this is clearly not the case with all Mustangs. Many, such as the famous Padre, Lindsay's Faith, and Mustang Lady, have won advanced-level competitions and some are even worldwide champions. Mustangs can also make incredibly loyal companions. A Mustang's unusually strong herd mentality can cause it to bond with a human trainer or caretaker in a way that no other breed of horse is known to do. It's largely propaganda and social norms that have caused people to dislike Mustangs as riding horses.
It's also worth noting that Mustangs bred in captivity are wildly popular. They have all the toughness, spirit, and intelligence of their parents, but not the difficult behavior. Unfortunately, because people get their Mustang supply from breeders, many of the ones brought off the range have no homes.
Why does the BLM remove Mustangs from the wild?
The BLM's answer is "to manage Mustangs." The BLM claims that Mustangs are overpopulated, are starving, are destroying natural habitats, and are taking away graze from domestic cattle.
Are Mustangs an invasive species/are they destroying natural habitats?
Wild horses should not be used as scapegoats for range degradation that is in fact primarily caused by private livestock: for instance, environmentalists have determined that in Nevada, home of the vast majority of America's remaining wild horses, the herds have little impact on the ecosystem compared with the hundreds of thousands of cattle that also roam the Nevada range. The Western Watersheds Project acknowledges that "the main cause of degradation of public lands in the arid west is livestock use and not wild horses."
In order to remove Mustangs from public lands to make way for cattle and oil drilling, and to fund the few families who are contracted millions to round up the horses, the BLM has made claims that wild horses are destroying natural habitats, competing for grazing lands, and overpopulating. But reports by the General Accounting Office and the National Academy of Sciences dispute such claims: BLM has never presented any evidence that horses destroy habitat, and the NAS in particular delivered a scathing critique of the BLM's outdated methods of determining wild horse populations. In fact, reducing horse populations in a given area has had negligible effect on range conditions: after massive wild horse roundups, herd areas show little or no improvement, especially in instances when cattle numbers remain the same (or increase). This means that wild horses are not the cause of habitat damage.
In stark contrast with BLM’s assertions, scientific studies have shown that Mustangs actually benefit the North American environment in numerous ways; vegetation seems to thrive in some areas inhabited by horses, which may be one reason the Great Plains were once a "sea of grass." Since that time, Mustangs have had their population reduced by about 98%. Generally, range conditions in steep hilly areas favored by horses are much better than in lower areas frequented by cattle. In addition, the horse’s digestive system does not thoroughly degrade the vegetation it eats. As a result, it tends to “replant” its own forage with the diverse seeds that pass through its system. This unique digestive system greatly aids in the building up of the absorptive, nutrient-rich humus component of soils. This, in turn, helps the soil absorb and retain water upon which many diverse plants and animals depend. In this way, Mustangs are also of great value in reducing dry inflammable vegetation in fire-prone areas, such as the invasive plant species cheatgrass. Back in the 1950s, it was primarily out of concern over brush fires that Storey County, Nevada, passed the first wild horse protection law in the nation.
Horses have proven useful to other species they share the range with. In winter months, they break through even deep crusted snow where the grass cannot be seen. They also open up frozen springs and ponds, making it possible for smaller animals to drink. During the historic blizzard of 1886, hundreds of thousands of cattle were lost on the Plains. Those that survived followed herds of mustangs and grazed in the areas they opened up.
Another positive effect of wild horses on biodiversity was documented in the case of the Coyote Canyon horses in the Anza Borrega National Park (California). After wild horses were all removed from the park to increase bighorn sheep population, bighorn sheep mortality actuality skyrocketed: mountain lions, formerly wild horse predators, compensated the loss of one of their prey species by increasing their predation on the other available species: bighorn. Ironically, anti-Mustang groups claim that Mustangs are causing a drop in bighorn and pronghorn populations, due to the fact that both bighorns and pronghorns have been observed waiting for horses to finish drinking before they drink. The problem with the “drinking hole wild horses causing mass sheep and antelope extinction” argument is that, 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. Also, waiting a few minutes for a herd of horses to finish drinking is not causing any sort of die-off among bighorn and pronghorn. 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. It's also well-known that horses will wait for other large herbivores to finish drinking as well. That's how wild animals interact.
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.
The main cause of habitat degradation to North America 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. Cows have no upper front teeth, only a thick pad: they graze by wrapping their long tongues around grass and pulling on it. If the ground is wet or loose (such as if they have been walking over it for days), they will pull out the grass by the roots, preventing it from growing back. Horses have both upper and lower incisors and graze by "clipping the grass," similar to a lawn mower, allowing the grass to easily grow back. Horses and burros 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.
The fact that horses wander much farther from water sources than many ruminant grazers adds to their efficacy as a fire preventer. Their tendency to range widely throughout both steep, hilly terrain and lower, more level areas, while cattle concentrate solely on lower elevations, also explains why horses have a lesser impact on their environment than livestock: when one looks at a boundary fence where horses range on one side and cattle range on the other, the horses’ side typically reveals about 30% more native grasses. Their nomadic grazing habits cause horses to nibble and then move to the next bunch of grass, so as to not overgraze. This is why horse range is seldom sparse unless the horses' natural grazing patterns are disrupted by human interference, mostly in the form of fencing.
In 2001, a team of Russian scientists, part of a cooperative venture with the United States, came to study the effects of grazing animals on riparian areas in Nevada. They tested streams for nutrients and examined the desert and Sierra to learn techniques to improve the environment of their homeland. The scientists found that cows, which tend to camp around water sources, cause more damage to the stream banks than wild horses, which tend to drink and move on: "When we saw horses drinking from creeks, we didn't see much impact except for hoof prints. The water looked clean, had good overhanging branches and there was no sign of erosion on the banks. There was an abundance of insects and animals, including frogs and dragonflies and water-striders." Areas extensively used by cattle had fewer nutrients in the water and showed signs of bank erosion and other damage, their study concluded.
The fact that horses wander much farther from water sources than many ruminant grazers adds to their efficacy as a fire preventer. Their tendency to range widely throughout both steep, hilly terrain and lower, more level areas, while cattle concentrate solely on lower elevations, also explains why horses have a lesser impact on their environment than livestock: when one looks at a boundary fence where horses range on one side and cattle range on the other, the horses’ side typically reveals about 30% more native grasses. Their nomadic grazing habits cause horses to nibble and then move to the next bunch of grass, so as to not overgraze. This is why horse range is seldom sparse unless the horses' natural grazing patterns are disrupted by human interference, mostly in the form of fencing.
Are Mustangs overpopulated?
Technically, no. However, this runs along the lines of whether or not Mustangs are an invasive species. Back in the very early 1850s - 1900s, Mustang populations numbered around 1 million, possibly 2 million. Bison and other native wildlife lived comfortably alongside Mustangs. At that time, they were not overpopulated. Since then, Mustang populations have been reduced by at least 70%, possibly 98%, to fewer than 30,000 in the wild. To say that Mustangs are overpopulated now, numbering far less than they ever used to, is illogical.
The BLM over-estimates the horse population as having no natural predator(s), and that the horses double every 4 years. If this were the case, then there would be more horses then there are of the total human population on planet earth. Let's just take 12 horses alone and start from let's say 500 years ago (sometime after Columbus died.) Double those horses 125 times and the number will get extremely large. Even half that (doubled 62.5 times; 250 years,) is still too high for most hand-held calculators to show. The BLM's numbers do not hold up to simple arithmetic.
However, domestic cattle and human development have displaced Mustangs, causing them to live in areas they didn't inhabit before, and eat plants that they didn't eat before. This displacement has caused Mustangs to begin degrading natural habitats. Anti-Mustang groups focus on Mustangs' current actions, claiming that because Mustangs are causing some habitat degradation, they are overpopulated and must be removed. Such ideas do not take into account why Mustangs are behaving the way they do. Removing Mustangs would be a "quick fix," but in the long run, with domestic cattle taking up more and more land, it would not solve the problem. On top of that, the ecology of North America has evolved around Mustangs, and to simply remove them from the equation could have very bad effects on the land and animals.
Are Mustangs starving?
Generally, no. 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 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. 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.
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 an emergency gather needs to take place, but that’s relatively rare.
Are Mustangs taking away graze from domestic cattle?
All free-roaming, wild, and feral herbivores, including native ones, eat the same grass that domestic cattle do, so yes, Mustangs do eat what domestic cattle do. To say that they are "taking graze away from domestic cattle," however, implies that domestic cattle had the graze first, which is not the case. Mustangs were thriving in the wild for around 200 years before white Americans arrived in North America, and for another hundred years before cattle ranching began in seriousness in the Western states (at that point referred to as territories.) All in all, Mustangs had been in the land for well over 300 years before cattle showed up.
Are Mustangs causing domestic cattle to starve?
No. There is no evidence of domestic cattle starving, and in contrast, cattle are usually quite fat. If a rancher's cattle are starving, it is because the rancher foolishly has too many cattle than he can care for, not because of Mustangs. There are 4 million domestic cattle on public lands (around 3 million cattle and 1 million sheep), and fewer than 30,000 Mustangs on all wild lands combined. Some wildlife biologists have estimated that only 16,000 Mustangs still run free, but that number is generally considered too low. Domestic cattle outnumber Mustangs 50 to 1 in most states, and 200 to 1 in others. All in all, domestic cattle herds are 160% greater than Mustang herds. When the amount of graze is in question, Mustangs are an afterthought.
Which eats more, a horse or a cow?
In general, a horse eats more than a cow, but only by a very small amount. Cattle utilize more of what they eat than horses do because they have multiple stomachs. However, horses eat a wider variety of plants than cattle do and horses are more likely to graze over a larger area, so a horse's overall impact is smaller than a cow's.
Why are Mustangs targeted by cattle ranchers for eating their graze, when other wildlife eat the same graze?
Mustangs are non-native, so they are easy targets. Also, as other competitive herbivores all have hunting seasons, ranchers are free to take their vengeance out on them. Mustangs do not have a hunting season, so the only effect that ranchers can legally have on Mustangs is to complain.
How many Mustangs live in the wild today?
Wildlife biologists estimate between 16,000 and 25,000, but no higher than 30,000. The BLM overestimates at around 38,000 to 45,000.
How long have Mustangs been in North America?
Around 500 to 700 years. Mustangs are descended from horses brought over by Spanish explorers, who arrived in North America during the 1500s. White Americans did not arrive in the West until around 1800. Thus, Mustangs have lived in North America for a total of 500 years, with around 200 of those years without white men.
Are Mustangs a breed of horse?
Yes. They have been officially recognized by the international stud books, breed registries and directories. They also have their own distinct DNA. The BLM actually hires veterinarians to test the horses they bring in to verify that they are Mustangs rather than horses escaped or set loose from neighboring ranches.
Are Mustangs the same as Brumbies?
No. Mustangs live in North America and Brumbies live in Australia. The word Brumby is often used synonymously with Mustang, but such usage of the names is incorrect, as their breeds, continents, countries, ecosystems, and situations are entirely different. Brumbies are not relevant to the Mustang debate as Australia has more free-roaming horses than any other country on Earth. On top of that, Mustangs are not the United States' only breed of free-roaming horse. Thus, Mustangs' and Brumbies situations are not the same. To claim that because Brumbies are causing environmental damage to Australia than Mustangs must also be causing damage to North America is illogical.
I once came across a young woman who said this: "To put it simply, any old horse wrangled from the wild in the west can be branded a mustang even if it was a horse that escaped from a neighboring farm." This is simply not true. That horse may be branded a Mustang, but that does not mean it is a Mustang. It is still whatever breed it was when it escaped. Its DNA and/or heritage did not change. The same young woman went on to say this: "I even browsed a coffee table book about horses while at the doctor's office and it had this to say about mustangs: 'Today, most Mustangs are small, hardy little horses with little to no breed standard.' This would seem common sense, but unfortunately some horse activists are too stubborn to accept this known fact." Now, as coincidence would have it, I happen to know what book this member is referring to. I happen to own it. It's titled Spirit of the Horse and is written by Bob Langrish and Nicola Jane Swinney. I notice the young woman conveniently left out the title and the authors of the book, probably because she's aware that the quote she took from it was taken completely out of context and the very same sentence she quoted disproves her point. Her point is that Mustangs are not a breed because no two Mustangs are the same in any way other than being of the same species (a breed standard defines what similarities a breed of animal must have). This is the quotation in full (it is a caption for a photograph of Mustangs in a corral): "The wild Mustang of the United States is a real "melting pot," with little to no breed standard - they can be any color but are all hardy, with hard feet and a tough constitution." You'll notice that the member left out any part that praises Mustangs, as well as the part that defines the breed standard. The book also has this to say later on in the section on Mustangs: "At the beginning of the twentieth century, numbers of wild horses in the USA varied from an estimated one million to two million." The book repeats this two pages on in another photograph caption: "At one time, there were thought to be anything between one and two million Mustang, but their numbers decreased to an estimated twenty thousand left in the wild." The young woman in question vehemently opposes the idea that there have ever been 1 million or more Mustangs in the wild, so why does she quote a book that contains what she believes to be false information? Either she did not read the book and is therefore talking about something she doesn't know about, or she doesn't care about the validity of what she's saying, and will post whatever quote appears to fit her agenda. This type of behavior is very typical among anti-Mustang individuals.
Anti-Mustang groups openly claim that Mustangs, Brumbies, Chincoteague Ponies, Sable Island Ponies, etc. are all one breed of horse and that their ecological impacts are identical. They make this claim based several things: first on the roots of the name "Mustang." Mustang comes from the Spanish word mesteño, which meant "stray" or "wild." Anti-Mustang groups claim that because "Mustang" means "wild," then any horse or pony that lives in the wild is a Mustang. According to that logic, any horse that runs fastest for a quarter or a mile is a Quarter Horse, any horse that was born in Arabia is an Arabian, any horse that lives in a village is a Shire horse, any horse bred by a person named Morgan is a Morgan horse, any horse born near the Caspian sea is a Caspian pony, any horse bred by a Native American is an Appaloosa, any horse that comes from Tennessee and can walk is a Tennessee Walker, any horse bred to be ridden with a saddle is a Saddlebred, any "standard" horse is a Standardbred, etc. This is not logical. The meaning of a horse breed’s name does not define everything about the horses listed under it.
Anti-Mustang groups openly claim that Mustangs, Brumbies, Chincoteague Ponies, Sable Island Ponies, etc. are all one breed of horse and that their ecological impacts are identical. They make this claim based several things: first on the roots of the name "Mustang." Mustang comes from the Spanish word mesteño, which meant "stray" or "wild." Anti-Mustang groups claim that because "Mustang" means "wild," then any horse or pony that lives in the wild is a Mustang. According to that logic, any horse that runs fastest for a quarter or a mile is a Quarter Horse, any horse that was born in Arabia is an Arabian, any horse that lives in a village is a Shire horse, any horse bred by a person named Morgan is a Morgan horse, any horse born near the Caspian sea is a Caspian pony, any horse bred by a Native American is an Appaloosa, any horse that comes from Tennessee and can walk is a Tennessee Walker, any horse bred to be ridden with a saddle is a Saddlebred, any "standard" horse is a Standardbred, etc. This is not logical. The meaning of a horse breed’s name does not define everything about the horses listed under it.
Anti-Mustang groups’ second basis for their claim that Mustangs are not a breed is based on the fact that Mustangs have a very mixed heritage. However, many American horse breeds, such as the Quarter Horse, the Appaloosa, and the Paint Horse, are some of the most recognized breeds of horses in the world, and are all direct descendants of Mustangs. If Mustangs are too mixed to be a breed, then therefore so are Quarter Horses, Appaloosas, and Paint Horses. Quarter Horses were created by "crossing English horses with Native horses." That's what the original documents say. We know the "native" horses must have been Mustangs (since Mustangs were the only horses that would have appeared to be native to the U.S. at the time), and we've assumed the "English horses" were Thoroughbreds, although we don't know for certain. Appendix Quarter Horses are modern Quarter Horses crossed with modern Thoroughbreds. Appaloosas are descendants of spotted Mustangs bred by Native Americans near the Palouse River (hence their name.) Paint Horses were developed from a base of spotted horses with Quarter Horse and Thoroughbred bloodlines. All these breeds have the same mixed heritage as Mustangs, and are some of the most recognized breeds in the world. For anti-Mustang individuals to say that Mustangs are not a breed, they must also make the claim that Quarter Horses, Paint Horses, and Appaloosas are not breeds. Not all horses on the range are "pure" Mustangs, though, because every now and then a horse from a nearby ranch escapes and intermingles with the herds. Probably the only pure Mustangs are Kiger Mustangs, Cerat Mustangs, and the like.
While I have not studied the stud books of all nations regarding Brumbies, Chincoteagues, Sable Islands, and others, I have studied Mustangs extensively and they are most certainly their own distinct breed, having been officially recognized worldwide as "Mustangs," and sometimes "Horses of the Americas," with various breeds such as "Nokotas" as sub-breeds. C'est la vie. The truth is that there is no agreed-upon definition of what a breed of horse is. Merriam-Webster dictionary has this for a definition of a breed: "a group of usually domesticated animals or plants presumably related by descent from common ancestors and visibly similar in most characters." (www.merriam-webster.com/dictio…) Mustangs fit that description. They are descended largely from domesticated Spanish horses brought to the Americas and also from horses owned by American settlers. They were bred by Native Americans and American settlers to have the characteristics they have today. And yes, they do have characteristics, as much as anti-Mustang groups try to fight it. Most Mustangs are of a light horse or Warmblood type. Feral horses that exhibit draft horse characteristics are kept on separate ranges. They are small, rarely reaching over 14hh, with thick, soft coats, thick manes and tails, they generally have short bodies and legs with wide, tough hooves. They are also extremely fast and have a lot of stamina for their small size. Many exhibit traits from their Spanish ancestry, such as Roman noses. DNA blood testing has revealed that in several herds, such as the Cerat and Kiger herds, the Spanish blood was not much diluted with blood from American settlers' horses. Many have blue eyes. So yes, if we are to go by the dictionary definition of a breed, Mustangs fit the definition. A breed of horse is just eventually accepted by breeders, or it is not. Breeders have accepted Mustangs. (www.livescience.com/27686-must… , www.horseoftheamericas.com/ , www.ansi.okstate.edu/breeds/ho… , horsebreedslist.com/horse-bree… , www.equinenow.com/mustangbreed….) Mustangs are generally listed as "Spanish Mustangs" or "Horses of the Americas" in directories, registries, and stud books, so if you are looking for strictly the word "Mustang," chances are you won't find it. Anti-Mustang groups are thus appealing to their audience's ignorance by claiming that Mustangs are not a breed. Also, Americans use the word "Mustang" very loosely. To most Americans, any horse that gets loose in the Western U.S. is considered a Mustang. However, that's not scientifically true. That horse is still whatever breed it was when it got loose.
However, the lunacy in the argument that all feral horses and ponies are the same stems largely from the claim that all of their ecological impacts are the same. Anti-Mustang groups will, no joke, tell you exactly that. The vast majority of their "sources" are articles and studies done on Brumbies and Chincoteague Ponies and they expect that to somehow be satisfactory proof that Mustangs are just as damaging. Anyone with a lick of sense ought to understand the fundamental flaw in their reasoning. Mustangs are a completely different breed of horse that lives in a completely different environment under a completely different set of circumstances. Even more so, Mustangs live on a completely different continent than any of those breeds, and in a completely different country than at least two of them! Sable Island Ponies live under Canadian jurisdiction and Brumbies live in Australia. Sable Island Ponies and Chincoteague Ponies live on small islands in the Barrier Islands chain along the coast of North America, not a large, continental grassland/desert region. Brumbies do live in a landscape somewhat similar to the Western United States, but the ecology of the lands is very different. Australian wildlife and plants are vastly different from North American wildlife and plants. What's more, there are far, far fewer Mustangs than there are Brumbies. Australia holds the largest population of feral horses than any country on the planet. Mustangs are only one of several breeds and/or types of feral horses living in the United States. (North America is not home to any native free-roaming horses, but free-roaming horses in the U.S. that descend from feral horses include Mustangs (western U.S.), Chincoteague ponies (Assateague Island, Maryland), Cumberland Island horses (Cumberland Island, Georgia), Shackleford Banks horses (Shackleford Banks, North Carolina), Banker horses, (Outer Banks, North Carolina), and possibly a few others which are currently gaining the public spotlight.) The claim that there is no difference between Mustangs and any breed and or type or feral horse is thoroughly ignorant and illogical.
While I have not studied the stud books of all nations regarding Brumbies, Chincoteagues, Sable Islands, and others, I have studied Mustangs extensively and they are most certainly their own distinct breed, having been officially recognized worldwide as "Mustangs," and sometimes "Horses of the Americas," with various breeds such as "Nokotas" as sub-breeds. C'est la vie. The truth is that there is no agreed-upon definition of what a breed of horse is. Merriam-Webster dictionary has this for a definition of a breed: "a group of usually domesticated animals or plants presumably related by descent from common ancestors and visibly similar in most characters." (www.merriam-webster.com/dictio…) Mustangs fit that description. They are descended largely from domesticated Spanish horses brought to the Americas and also from horses owned by American settlers. They were bred by Native Americans and American settlers to have the characteristics they have today. And yes, they do have characteristics, as much as anti-Mustang groups try to fight it. Most Mustangs are of a light horse or Warmblood type. Feral horses that exhibit draft horse characteristics are kept on separate ranges. They are small, rarely reaching over 14hh, with thick, soft coats, thick manes and tails, they generally have short bodies and legs with wide, tough hooves. They are also extremely fast and have a lot of stamina for their small size. Many exhibit traits from their Spanish ancestry, such as Roman noses. DNA blood testing has revealed that in several herds, such as the Cerat and Kiger herds, the Spanish blood was not much diluted with blood from American settlers' horses. Many have blue eyes. So yes, if we are to go by the dictionary definition of a breed, Mustangs fit the definition. A breed of horse is just eventually accepted by breeders, or it is not. Breeders have accepted Mustangs. (www.livescience.com/27686-must… , www.horseoftheamericas.com/ , www.ansi.okstate.edu/breeds/ho… , horsebreedslist.com/horse-bree… , www.equinenow.com/mustangbreed….) Mustangs are generally listed as "Spanish Mustangs" or "Horses of the Americas" in directories, registries, and stud books, so if you are looking for strictly the word "Mustang," chances are you won't find it. Anti-Mustang groups are thus appealing to their audience's ignorance by claiming that Mustangs are not a breed. Also, Americans use the word "Mustang" very loosely. To most Americans, any horse that gets loose in the Western U.S. is considered a Mustang. However, that's not scientifically true. That horse is still whatever breed it was when it got loose.
However, the lunacy in the argument that all feral horses and ponies are the same stems largely from the claim that all of their ecological impacts are the same. Anti-Mustang groups will, no joke, tell you exactly that. The vast majority of their "sources" are articles and studies done on Brumbies and Chincoteague Ponies and they expect that to somehow be satisfactory proof that Mustangs are just as damaging. Anyone with a lick of sense ought to understand the fundamental flaw in their reasoning. Mustangs are a completely different breed of horse that lives in a completely different environment under a completely different set of circumstances. Even more so, Mustangs live on a completely different continent than any of those breeds, and in a completely different country than at least two of them! Sable Island Ponies live under Canadian jurisdiction and Brumbies live in Australia. Sable Island Ponies and Chincoteague Ponies live on small islands in the Barrier Islands chain along the coast of North America, not a large, continental grassland/desert region. Brumbies do live in a landscape somewhat similar to the Western United States, but the ecology of the lands is very different. Australian wildlife and plants are vastly different from North American wildlife and plants. What's more, there are far, far fewer Mustangs than there are Brumbies. Australia holds the largest population of feral horses than any country on the planet. Mustangs are only one of several breeds and/or types of feral horses living in the United States. (North America is not home to any native free-roaming horses, but free-roaming horses in the U.S. that descend from feral horses include Mustangs (western U.S.), Chincoteague ponies (Assateague Island, Maryland), Cumberland Island horses (Cumberland Island, Georgia), Shackleford Banks horses (Shackleford Banks, North Carolina), Banker horses, (Outer Banks, North Carolina), and possibly a few others which are currently gaining the public spotlight.) The claim that there is no difference between Mustangs and any breed and or type or feral horse is thoroughly ignorant and illogical.
What other free-roaming horses live in the United States?
North America is not home to any native free-roaming horses, but free-roaming horses in the U.S. that descend from feral horses include Mustangs (western U.S.), Chincoteague ponies (Assateague Island, Maryland), Cumberland Island horses (Cumberland Island, Georgia), Shackleford Banks horses (Shackleford Banks, North Carolina), Banker horses, (Outer Banks, North Carolina), and possibly a few others which are currently gaining the public spotlight.
Where do Mustangs live?
Mustangs live in the Western areas of North America, particularly in the northwest regions.
Which U.S. state has the biggest population of free-roaming Mustangs?
Nevada currently has the largest free-roaming Mustang population, which is why the Nevada quarter has featured a herd of wild horses.
What natural predators do Mustangs have?
Mustangs' natural predators consist of any large carnivore, but particularly cougars (also known as pumas and mountain lions), wolves, and bears. Large packs of coyotes have been known to hunt young and/or weak Mustangs.
Are natural predators bad for Mustangs?
No. Natural predators are good. They are Nature's way of keeping Mustangs' populations in check. 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.
I've heard that the only thing Mustangs are good for is dog food. Is this true?
The idea that Mustangs are only good for being dog food is merely an opinion and therefore cannot be effectively argued for or against.
In defense of the opinion, Mustangs are a smaller breed of horse, not typically as beautiful as other breeds as they are bred for a climate and not a sport, and can be hard to tame when brought off the range. Also, the USDA has made it illegal for people to eat horse meat within the U.S., so if a Mustang is slaughtered, the only thing its meat can be used for is animal food.
Against the opinion, many people love Mustangs. Famous Mustang champions such as Padre, Lindsay's Faith, or Mustang Lady, for example, would be considered too valuable to turn into dog food. Mustangs can be as valuable as any other breed of horse. Today, most Mustangs are small, hardy little horses with thick coats and they come in a wide variety of colors. Because their hooves and bones are so strong, most Mustangs today don’t need to be shod! While Mustangs are fast for their size, they’re obviously not as fast as more selectively-bred, larger horses. They do, however, have a lot of endurance and can withstand much more drastic climate changes than most domestic breeds can. Many breeders have recognized this and mix Mustang blood into domestic breeds to create elegant but tough strains of horses. Mustangs also have a stronger herd instinct than most domestic breeds do, and because of that, Mustangs can bond much more strongly to a human caretaker or trainer, resulting in an extremely loyal companion or even the classic "one man horse" shown in old Western movies.
I've heard that many people want to start a hunting season for Mustangs. Is this a good idea?
That would depend on how the hunting is performed and managed. Currently, Mustangs are one of the few species of non-endangered animal that does not have a hunting season. Because of this, and because Mustangs' natural predators are hunted, the U.S. government must manage the horses. The BLM, which is given responsibility of managing Mustangs, is actually encouraging population growth through the roundups. The BLM also uses helicopters to round up and remove the horses, which results in incredibly inhumane conditions and treatment. It would actually be more humane to hunt Mustangs than to round them up. If they were hunted, Mustangs would simply be shot out of their habitats instead of brutally removed, held in confined spaces until they either die of old age or sickness, are euthanized, or may even be slaughtered. If they were hunted, Mustangs could be put to a good use instead of sucking up our tax dollars in government holding pens.
However, most people would find the idea of hunting wild horses to be very sad, and few Americans would want to eat horse meat anyway. It is also illegal to eat horse meat in the U.S. Also, if hunting were to completely replace removals, there would be no Mustangs to adopt. On top of that, hunters are known to act like sharks in a feeding frenzy, killing more animals than they can use. As the only people who would want to shoot horses would be people who hate them, that would be putting Mustangs' long term sustainability in jeopardy. Such behavior would prove detrimental to Mustang populations, and could eventually encourage population growth in the same way as roundups are doing now.
How are BLM roundups causing population growth?
The National Academy of Sciences has given us proof of this. Thanks to hunting of natural predators, Mustangs' only major natural population control is their food supply. If left to their own devices, Mustangs would only ever drop in population when they begin to starve. In order to prevent starvation and habitat degradation, the BLM keeps Mustang populations very low, much lower than the natural carrying limit of the lands. Mustangs have more food than they need. Thus, Mustangs have no natural need to limit their own populations. They breed quickly, resulting in a population bloom. Because of the population bloom caused by a previous roundup, the BLM is forced to remove a greater number of horses. By removing more horses, the BLM causes more population growth. The Mustangs spring back as they would after a natural disaster or plague. The National Academy of Sciences estimates an annual 10% - 15% population increase rate. Thus, if the BLM continues its current removal policy, they will be forced to remove more and more horses each year.
If the BLM continues roundups as the main form of management, where will the increasing amount of Mustangs be housed after they are removed?
To make room for new horses, Mustangs already held in BLM pens (but not adopted) will have to be euthanized or slaughtered.
Where does the BLM get the money to fund roundups and care for captive Mustangs?
American tax-dollars.
Why does the BLM use helicopters to remove Mustangs?
Many reasons. Helicopters give the roundup team a bird's-eye view of the herds, the land, and other wildlife. A helicopter can move quickly and swoop down to prevent accidents, can keep up with galloping horses, etc. The BLM also uses helicopters because the land that Mustangs are being driven over is deemed too rough for vehicles.
Before the Wild Horse and Burro Act came into effect, Mustangs were rounded up using airplanes. The Wild Horse and Burro Act identified airplanes as inhumane and therefore banned them. Since then, helicopters have been invented, and, even though their concept is the same as an airplane's and they are just as inhumane as airplanes, the BLM still uses them. Since they can't use airplanes, they use helicopters. The BLM does not keep with the spirit of the law.
If the land is too rough for vehicles, is it safe to gallop horses over it?
No. Nonetheless, the BLM drives entire herds, including pregnant mares and newborn foals, at the speed of a flying helicopter over such lands.
Is it true that BLM roundups are inhumane?
Yes. BLM roundups are very inhumane. Trauma, injuries, abortions, and death are common results of BLM Mustang and burro roundups (or “gathers,” as the BLM calls them). I see nothing humane about driving entire herds (including newborn foals) at the speed of a flying helicopter over land deemed too rough for vehicles. Read Wild Horses the Stress of Captivity, a report by Dr. Bruce Nock. Reports of animals that later have to be euthanized due to injuries sustained during capture are common. According to a Capture Status Report obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request, 12% of the Golde Butte burros rounded up in March of 2007 were dead within six months of their capture. Just over two months after the Calico roundup in Nevada ended in early 2010, 86 of the 1,922 horses captured had died, and an additional 40 heavily pregnant mares had spontaneously aborted. The lie is that the horses are always herded slowly and gently, but the truth is that the BLM only allows the public to view a few roundups (roundups which are carefully staged). The BLM often restricts or denies the press and public access to roundups. Luckily, a few people (many of whom are undercover BLM employees) are able to record and photograph most of these “unobserved” roundups and their aftermath.
"I'm assured repeatedly [by BLM veterinarians] that these horses are cared for," said wild horse advocate Elyse Gardner. "So why does it seem that it is the public observers that continually need to bring so many overlooked injuries, illness or orphaned foals to the attention of the BLM?"
The roundup teams use cattle prods to terrify already terrified horses and burros to go into small spaces that their instinct tell them to stay out of. Helicopter pilots sometimes swoop down low to nudge and/or hit animals that they feel aren't moving fast enough. Usually those animals are the old, sick, weak, or the very young of a herd. Because a helicopter's rotating blades pick up so much static electricity from the friction in the air, to touch a helicopter before it has been grounded will give you a huge shock. It can be so strong that it may feel like a lightning strike. “I’ve seen broken legs,” says wild horse observer Laura Leigh, standing outside a BLM holding facility in northern Nevada. “I’ve seen legs ripped up by barbed wire. I’ve seen horses kicked in the head. I’ve seen animals dragged by the neck with a rope. I’ve seen a helicopter hit horses.”
During the Swasey Mountain (in Utah) roundup that started on February 11, 2013, the BLM began preparations for a roundup despite 16 inches of dense snow. On February 12, the temperature hovered just above zero degrees Fahrenheit. Later that day the wind picked up. Horses should never be worked hard in cold weather, as they can catch chills and suffer complications later. If things go wrong during a cold weather workout, your horse could very well end up dying. Still, even with the peak of the foaling season only two months away, the BLM insisted on running a roundup. The BLM barred the public and press access to the actual roundup the next day, February 13. The BLM told the public that the temperature was thirty-two degrees. Weather stations and channels broadcasted that the temperature was between fourteen and sixteen degrees. Thermometers read sixteen degrees in the roundup area. The BLM employees’ water bottles froze solid in their backpacks. Still, the BLM insisted that the temperature was thirty-two degrees or higher. Photographers were able to capture a few photographs of the horses after they were brought into the holding pens. The pens looked like they were on fire from the huge amounts of steam rising from the exhausted, sweaty horses. One cameraman said he thought his lens had fogged up before he realized it was steam from the horses. The BLM told the public that the steam rising from the Mustangs in the capture corral did not relate to the amount they were sweating, but if it wasn’t the Mustangs, where was the water vapor coming from? On February 14, the wild horse herds had to cut their way through deep snow and ice (sometimes chest-deep or deeper) to flee the helicopter that ran them at a steady gallop. Thousands of horses were removed during the Swasey Mountain roundup, and almost none have any chance of being adopted. Their future is dim.
If BLM roundups are so inhumane, how is it that the BLM only has a 0.5% mortality rate?
The BLM attributes most injuries sustained during roundups to natural causes. For instance, when a palomino Mustang mare, Old Gold, was slammed into the fence of the capture chute, knocked down, and trampled, the BLM claimed that she died due to injuries sustained out in the wild. Another time, two elderly (but healthy) horses were run so hard that their legs were damaged and they could no longer move, and the BLM claimed that their legs were hurt long before the roundup. However, it is simply not possible for horses, particularly old ones, to survive out in the wild with crippled legs, and as the horses had been perfectly healthy when brought in, they had clearly not been crippled for long, and it's also worth noting that they had galloped, not hobbled, from the roundup helicopter. They had not been crippled before the roundup. Such stories are not uncommon. Also, foals born in the corrals are not counted in BLM records. So, if foals die or are aborted, the BLM doesn't record it. The BLM may record “Gather-related deaths: 0”, when in fact, many horses could have died, they were just foals or the circumstances of their deaths were omitted.
I have heard that the BLM has the right to completely remove and kill all Mustangs because the Wild Horse and Burro Act was written only for wild horses, not feral ones. Is this true?
This is not true. There were no truly wild horses in North America at the time the Wild Horse and Burro Act was put in place, so therefore it was put in place for Mustangs. Anti-Mustang groups are grasping at straws and splitting hairs in their attempt to discredit it.
I have heard that the BLM blocks public and press access to their roundups. Is this true?
Yes. In the increasing majority of roundups, the BLM simply denies the public the right to observe roundups, placing heavy police forces to keep the public at bay. The BLM only allows the public to view carefully-staged roundups. The BLM often places roundups on private lands and claims that the owner has denied public access.
Isn't that unconstitutional?
Many, including myself, emphatically say yes.
Where does the Constitution say that?
Freedom of speech and freedom of the press are outlined in the First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and
to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." (http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment1.html#sthash.HVZ18Uf0.dpuf)
What are "secret roundups?"
Secret roundups are roundups which are performed with little to no warning. The BLM releases a roundup schedule for the year, and secret roundups are those that do not appear on the schedule.
Is it possible to use options other than helicopter roundups to manage Mustangs?
Yes. Other options include, but are not limited to, fertility drugs, fencing, bait-trapping, increasing natural predators in the wild, performing roundups on horseback, giving helicopter pilots a set salary and deducting from said salary and/or firing employees when horses are injured during roundups, and opening a controlled hunting season for Mustangs.
Don't the horses need to be rounded up to administer fertility drugs?
No. Mustangs can be darted from afar. Darting is not deadly and is essentially like giving the horse a medical injection, like a shot, only it can be done without close contact between the gunman and the horse. Darting is often used with other types of wildlife to administer sedatives prior to tagging and other activities, so it is entirely possible to dart animals, horses included, from afar.
Without rounding up the horses, how would you know if you're darting the right horses, and which horses have already been darted?
After observing feral horses for some time, it becomes apparent which horses are mares and which are stallions. Thus, you would only dart the mares. Determining which horses have already been darted would no doubt be a challenge, but the darters could photograph the darted mares and record them in record books. Seeing as freelance wildlife biologists can identify specific horses out of the horse herds as a whole, an official government organization run by professionals ought to be able to do the same.
Wouldn't fencing be flimsy and ineffective for containing Mustangs?
Not if it is checked up on frequently and cared for. Fencing has already been proven to work for Mustang sanctuaries such as Black Hills in North Dakota. Yes, fences must be kept up, but hiring a rider or someone with a truck to ride the perimeter is far less expensive than hiring a helicopter and pilot, and then paying him for each horse he brings in.
Doesn't the BLM give helicopter pilots a set salary?
No. Roundup teams are paid $350 for each horse they bring in, dead or alive. Employees are often seen dragging in listless and/or helpless horses in order to receive their pay. This is the #1 reason why roundups are so inhumane.
Are Mustangs harder to tame than other breeds of free-roaming horses?
No. Mustangs are smart and as such, they are no more difficult to tame than any other type of horse brought out of the wild. As with all free-roaming horses, Mustangs are easier to tame the younger they are. Most Mustangs, if properly tamed, make wonderful riding and/or companion animals, such as this gentle Mustang mare named Cinnamon which was taken off the range (as can be seen from the freeze brand on her neck): http://love.theanimalrescuesite.com/meet-the-cutest-cowgirl-in-the-world/
Has the Wild Horse and Burro Act of 1971 inflated and/or displaced Mustang populations?
No. Such an accusation stems from individuals who know that something has upset the natural balance of Nature, but refuse to accept cattle and/or man as the cause. While Mustangs' population growth rate is on the rise and they have been displaced, it was not the Act that did so.
The Act has not inflated populations: When the Wild Horse and Burro Act was signed, there were around 50,000 to 100,000 Mustangs in the wild. Since then, that number has been slashed by about half, to fewer than 30,000 animals.
The Act has not displaced Mustangs: In its opening statement, the Wild Horse and Burro Act states that Mustangs and burros "are to be considered in the area where presently found."
What is a freeze brand?
A freeze brand is a branding iron chilled in liquid nitrogen. When pressed onto skin, it permanently causes a small amount of damage and causes the hair to grow back white. The BLM freeze brands Mustangs brought off the range so that they can be documented, distinguished from other breeds, and distinguished from free-roaming Mustangs in the event that it were to escape. Mustangs are freeze branded on their necks.
Is freeze branding more humane than hot branding?
Only someone, or something, that has been branded by both could make that determination. Animals that are freeze branded do not react more strongly against it than animals that are hot branded. Freeze branding allows hair to grow back and protect the branded area, however, whereas hot branding forces the skin to be exposed to the elements.
While I have never been freeze-branded like a Mustang, I have had skin frozen off of me by doctors, and I can say that it is not as painful as a burn. It stings, but the nerves are quickly numbed. That is the closest example I can offer.
How many Mustangs can a single person adopt/buy from the BLM?
Recently the BLM has started a policy where one person cannot buy or adopt more than four Mustangs within a six-month period.
How accurate is the film, Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron?
While an enjoyable film with beautiful animation, Spirit is a cartoon and is completely fictional. Among other issues, it portrays Mustang herds as being hereditary (Spirit inherited his herd from his father, whereas in reality, young stallions are thrown out of a herd by their father), romanticizes Mustangs as wanting to "run free" (not just survive, as wild animals do), save their homeland, etc., the two foals in the film would have been yearlings, at least, by the end of the film, and horses are also not physically capable of jumping canyons the size that Spirit jumped. It does hit on a few true points, though, such as cougars being one of Mustangs' main predators, the stallion as the herd's protector, various types of wildlife and land formations in the West, etc. All in all, it's a fun action movie for kids with beautiful animation, but it should not be taken too seriously.
How accurate is the film, Flicka?
Flicka, although enjoyable, is extremely inaccurate as the entire basis of the story revolves around freelance people removing Mustangs from the range, which is illegal. Also, the chances of finding a lone, healthy, strong, Mustang mare roaming free all by herself are extremely slim, seeing as horses will strive to find a herd, and mares are highly sought-after by stallions. Also, perhaps the book is better, but the movie portrayed the leading female character as a girl of little brains, and such a girl and a wild horse would most likely not be a good combination. However, the film did hit on a few good points, such as wild horses being sometimes difficult to train, not all horses being the same, and cougars as preying upon Mustangs. All in all, it is an enjoyable movie that will pluck a horse lover's heartstrings, but it should be accepted as fiction.
How accurate is the film, Hidalgo?
Hidalgo is based on the legend of Frank Hopkins and his Mustang stallion, Hidalgo. Historians have debated long and hard over many details of Hopkins' life, including his affiliation with Buffalo Bill's Wild West Show and his participation in a 3,000-mile endurance race in the Middle East. However, even if the story is merely a legend, it is entirely possible.
No comments:
Post a Comment