Wild Horses May Be Sold to Slaughter
 

I saw a news story on ABC News recently that disturbed me. A rider to the federal Appropriations Bill (sponsored by Senator Conrad Burns) amends the 1971 Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act, opening the door for wild horses living on public lands to be sold into slaughter.

1. The rider amends the 1971 Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act to allow the sale of wild horses for processing into commercial products.
2. It also exempts horses bought pursuant to a new "horse sale" program from the criminal provisions of the Act that make it a crime to process or permit to be processed into commercial products the remains of a wild horse or burro.
3. The rider adds a new subsection to the Act, creating a "horse sale" requirement that mandates that BLM sell "without limitation, at local sale yards or other convenient livestock selling facilities" all wild horses who are either over 10 years old, or who have been offered for adoption 3 times unsuccessfully. BLM is required to continue to sell horses until all "excess animals" are disposed of and AMLs (appropriate management levels) are reached in all wild horse areas. [Summary source: http://www.savewildhorses.org]

The Bill created the Wild Horse and Burro Authority under the Bureau of Land Management which is charged with selling the wild horses and burros. Luckily the first sale was to a group who wants to protect the horses.

Selling wild horses to slaughter is like selling out our national heritage. They're a symbol of the West. It's not too late to let your feelings be know. Write your Representatives and Senators. Write to the BLM. Contact information can be found at the Wild Horse & Burro Freedom Alliance webpage.

This seems sad and wrong.

Thanks for letting us know, I hope it truly isn't too late!

Well, to be fair, selling wild horses to slaughter is our national heritage and a symbol of the West. It was standard practice for a long time (see, for example, The Misfits for one example).

Personally, as pretty as they are, they're an introduced species and I wouldn't have much problem if they were removed completely, though I doubt that'll happen. A similar issue is being faced by the National Park Service at Point Reyes National Park, where introduced deer species are driving out the endangered tule elk. Per the BLM's web site (perhaps not a disinterested party), there are 37,000 wild horses when the non-impacting population would be 28,000. The size of a herd can double every five years.

BLM has always been tasked with keeping the herds on public lands at non-impact levels but were always hampered by the fact that they couldn't easily remove or dispose of the animals. In addition to the 37,000 truly wild horses, 24,000 are held in holding facilities (medium term/long term at a cost of more than $20 million/year. In addition to that, almost $40 million/year is spent trying to adopt the excess horses out. Under the new law the proceeds from sales will go to enlarging the adoption program.

BLM's census indicated that the new law affects about 8,400 horses and their strong preference is to adopt them to interested parties rather than putting up for sale.

If you want to adopt one of the horses before it goes to sale, there is an adoption auction going now. Information is here and a horse can be adopted for as little as $125 (though you have to pick it up).

But is only because of their symbolic status that the horses and burros are afforded even this much protection. If it were any other introduced species there would be a large lobby advocating their complete removal.

Wow, interesting thread...

It's a shame I don't have much to add, particularly after Alex's well-put response.

Despite all that, it still makes me sad.

:(. Poor horsies :(

Am I the only one who sees a giant contridiction in the term "selling wild"? They're wild animals. Let them be wild. If it was selling lions, tigers or bears [oh my] to slaughter there would be a huge outcry.

Of course I could be way off base (and I'm sure someone will point that out). ;)

...they're delicious to some pets? :eek:

I thought Alex's answer was well put, too.

I can't help but thinking this is another example of politicians helping out big business again.

Bleh.

My all means it is sad. Wild horses and burrors are an American Heritage. I do understand the need for population control. There have been several relocation efforts recently - the Channel Islands sheep and the effort to repopulate the fox on Catalina. Man introduces non-native specis to an area that begins to take over. This happens even more often with plants than animals. But, when something is a "symbol" of an area, era, or National ideal, there has to be a careful way of accomplishing the needed task. Are we going to chop down all eucalyptus trees because they are non-native?

I don't know. I'm rambling while eating soup. Yum. Soup is good food.

But, as Alex notes, we're not talking about an endangered species. Nothing's going to disappear, the wild mustang is thriving quite nicely. Too nicely.


And for the record: I'll volunteer to start the effort to remove all eucalyptus trees. Right after I abolish all palm trees.

Thank goodness. I have one of each in my yard that needs to go. Come over right away.
:D

An interesting article on the history of eucalyptus in California and the fight over their removal.

It has an amusing parallel in that much like the federal law that protected wild horses to the point that they became a detriment on the ecology, Santa Cruz has a law, the Heritage Tree Ordinance, that protects eucalyptus trees as an important symbol, even to the detriment of public safety (they are highly flammable and fall over a lot) and local ecology.

Most land and park management agencies advocate for the complete removal or extensive restriction of eucalyptus trees. I know the East Bay Resional Park System (Alameda and Contra Costa counties) has extensive projects in many of its parks to replace eucalyptus with native species. Eucalyptus is a main reason why there is no redwood second growth in the Oakland hills (which used to have redwood forests just as impressive as on the Mendocino coast).

The horses are being removed because according to the ranchers they are competing with the cattle that are allowed to graze on public lands. To choose one over the other, I choose the horses.

Seeing as I prefer steak to horse-burgers (well, I presume, never having had a horse burger), or cheese from cows milk to horse-cheese, I'm okay with letting the cows win. Let Alpo have a few more cans if it means that cattle farmers have reduced competition for grazing land, I say.

It's an introduced species, you can't just "let nature take its course" 'cause nature's been handed a big wild card. You gotta balance nostalgia with practicality.

I propose we knock down El Capitan and Half Dome because I need a new large fireplace for my ranch in Montana.

Exagerate much? This is, "Should we allow this ferral species to run completely unchecked or should we allow this other species of animal, that's been articifally bred and propogated by humans for human needs the space it needs." Hardly eliminating a geological landmark. The natural course of things has little to do with what's going on here (other than the bigure picture of "if we go against nature, that's part of nature too"). We're so far beyond the "we shouldn't mess with nature" point in this. The whole situation is so totally artificial, so short of mounting meat grinders on the back of pickup trucks and chasing after horses, I have no problem with implementing a program that at least enforces some beneificial balance to the artificial system.

I know I'm being a butthead, but, where do we stop?

It should have stopped before the non-native species was introduced in the first place. But we're just a wee bit late for that. So we have to deal with the situation at hand. There's no need to make more of this than it is. It isn't a matter of irreversible environmental harm. It's a particular situation where someone screwed up a few centuries ago and now we're having to clean up the mess.

Non-native species?
Damn, GD, next you're going to tell me that you have a problem with the cute little Nutria in Louisiana! ;)

Nothin' says adoreable like strip-grazing a habitat, wiping out both plant and animal species :cheers: :p

Ooh, and don't forget the spreading of roundworm! I could just pinch their widdle cheeks.

Thanks for that link! I didn't know, really, either side of the story. I just knew that I didn't like the stinky tree outside of my house. Hehehe...

Seriously. Can you believe people pay for things that smell like that?

I didn't even know you guys had eucalyptus. If it's a problem, maybe we could introduce koalas to eat it! :p I love wild horses. I just went to a wild horse and burro auction a few weeks ago (it was part of a local fair.) I didn't buy any though. But hopefully by the time I own horse property, I'll know enough about horse training to adopt one.

The horse is native to North America. It disappeared due to climate change and human predation, then was reintroduced by the Spanish. Mitochondrial DNA comparisons show that "the modern or caballine horse, E. caballus, is genetically equivalent to E. lambei, a horse, according to fossil records, that represented the most recent Equus species in North America prior to extinction. Not only is E. caballus genetically equivalent to E. lambei, but no evidence exists for the origin of E. caballus anywhere except North America." Ann Forstén, 1992. Mitochondrial-DNA timetable and the evolution of Equus: Comparison of molecular and paleontological evidence. Ann. Zool. Fennici 28: 301-309.

Hmmm, aren't humans non-native to North America? Can we sell off excess population to dog food companies?

only pale faced humans

Land Bridge - we're all expendable

Sweet, I'm sending the neighbors to the alpo factory tomorrow!!

See, killing the horses is part of the heritage.

The case for considering wild horses to be a native species.

The House bill to reinstate the ban on sales of wild horses.

Now, it can't be denied that horses were a native species, and that if you use only a genetic basis the category would still apply. It seems to me, though, that "native" is a 4-dimensional concept, it isn't simply geography that plays a role but also placement in time. If we consider only geography then clams would be a native species of the Himalayas. Horses may have existed in the North American ecosystem as recently as 10,000 years ago, and have changed little since then. But has the ecosystem remained the same?

What were the natural predators of the native horses that no longer exist? Which other native species (if any) have moved into the niche occupied by horses since their disappearance? I don't know the answer to these types of questions, but it seems reasonable to me that there is a point after which you are no longer reintroducing a native species to its native environment, even if you are reintroducing to its native piece of land.

(On a side note, were equus lambei even native to what is now the American southwest? In looking around for information all the references I find are to the fossil records being in the Canadian steppes.)

(On another side note, where does the burro fit into this conversation? Or is it just the horses for which sale to slaughter is a problem?)

Even worse. The symbol of the west is a loser species? Bunch of equine losers they are!

:( :sniff: :(