wild horses in danger

Discussion in 'Homesteading Questions' started by lexi green, Dec 31, 2004.

  1. lexi green

    lexi green Member

    Messages:
    20
    Joined:
    May 29, 2002
    Not sure where to post this but am worried enough to put it on line. On last night news, the Senator from montana, without any hearings is going to have the wild hores removed from goverment property, so that the Big Cattlemen can run their cattle. I run cattle myself but this is not right. They have the money, let them buy their own land to run their cattle,I have and I am far from rich. These animals will be sent to slaughter houses and some adoption,altho the adoption part was not clear as he felt they were not being treated right by the adopty's and thought it was much better to elimenate them all together. Does anyone know how to stop this? I will do what ever I can to see thhis through. The goverment land belongs to the people contray to what our goverment wants us to believe so if anyone has any ideas before he impliments this action please let me know. I believe they are a valued part of our hertiage and we need to preserve them. There has been enough damage done to the wild horses in the past. PLEASE HELP, Thanks for letting me get this off my chest also. lexi
     
  2. moonwolf

    moonwolf Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    7,576
    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2004
    Location:
    Canada
    I don't know about horses or leases on your government land, but activities such as timber harvest is done on crown land in Canada, which is not owned by the ones who harvest there, but they have to pay stumpage and use fees. Hunters harvest moose, deer, and game if they qualify in a draw to purchase a license, thus they 'take' the game off the land they don't own. Anglers fish in lakes that aren't owned by individuals that are on government land such as national parks. The list goes on, if that's any comparison. I'm sure the ranchers need to arrange leases for that land which they don't own. What's somewhat bothersome is how some would be terrible stewards of the land that isn't owned by them and possibly abuse it against the benefit of the citizens who should have access to the land for use also. I've heard that there is overpopulation of wild horses and that removing them is a net benefit, though I wouldn't be that informed on the issue.
     

  3. Explorer

    Explorer Well-Known Member Supporter

    Messages:
    2,644
    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2003
    Location:
    Far West in the White Mountains, Arizona
    Ranchers lease gov't land in this country also for the purpose of grazing their cattle.
     
  4. big rockpile

    big rockpile If I need a Shelter

    Messages:
    19,469
    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2003
    I don't know if this helps but around here Wild Horses are Federally Protected.So if they need thinning out its up to them,so every so often they put some up for adoption.

    Now as far as Cattle on some BLM Land in the West what I've seen I don't know how a cow could live on it.I know when I lived in Colorado they run Cattle by me,there just wasn't that much there.

    big rockpile
     
  5. Bob_W_in_NM

    Bob_W_in_NM Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    199
    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2003
    Location:
    New Mexico
    Well, contrary to what most people believe, in most cases the ranchers do have a fee interest in the "federal" lands, as the Forest Service and The BLM have recently discovered in Hage V. United States. They (ranchers) own the water rights, the improvements AND the grazing rights. When the other "fee holder", the government, allows wild animals on the range to eat the grass, they are "taking" property from the owner. The government either needs to get rid of the offending animals or compensate the owner of the grazing rights.
     
  6. TedH71

    TedH71 Well-Known Member Supporter

    Messages:
    3,681
    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Location:
    Bel Aire, KS
    Wild horses are not needed at present time. All they do is eat and ruin the land for other animals..any wild or domestic animals. They breed like rabbits and are hard to tame which is why they need to go. That's the main problem with them...there's not enough people able to take them in. We are crowding out every wild animal there so the domestic ones that went wild are first to go..very logical. Nobody rides horses that much even in Texas where I'm at and from.

    I hunt feral hogs because ranchers and farmers have problems with them eating everything in sight from corn to newly born critters...have seen the evidence myself so I consider wild horses nusiance critters.

    Ted
     
  7. rio002

    rio002 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    459
    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2002
    Location:
    WA
    Sounds like an old timer from here in WA must have passed away, you see he and about 5 other old timers had an arrangement with the state of Montana, that they would supply safe simple care of the wild horses and keep them out of the way for a $1 a head. The old guys would head down several times a year for campout on the range, check everything over etc. and wouls stay weeks at a time. Apparently somebody dropped the ball........be sad to lose one more wild part of MT, they're trying to make it more profitable at the expense of of the states' nature. If you've never seen a wild herd of 'em run past, you just don't know what you're missing. Let me know how to oppose this and if I can being a current resident of WA state. :)
     
  8. idahocurs

    idahocurs Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    65
    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2004
    Location:
    SE Idaho
    "Wild " horses are no more than domesticated horses that were turned out over time and have become "WILD" they are over populated in most of the herds and that is why they are removed. This and other issues like this are what devides Easterners and those that live here in the West as we have differing views of how land should be managed. The land is leased to the ranchers and they have every right to turn cows out as do timber companys to harvest timber and all the other land users be it mineral or oil ect.
     
  9. Ed Norman

    Ed Norman Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,332
    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2002
    Location:
    Idaho
    The precious local herd of wild horses here actually originated from a rodeo company that went broke in the 1950s. He turned the string loose and now they are wild horses. They add nothing to the environment. I wouldn't miss them, but they also don't bother me.
     
  10. Quint

    Quint Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,510
    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2004
    The people that I know that actually have to deal with wild horses HATE the things with a passion. They sure aren't native wildlife and as I understand it more than one landowner in west uses the SSS or round them up and sell them to the slaughterhouse methods. They could kill all of the destructive horse vermin on public lands and I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. Of course mention horses and all sound biological stewardship or logic in general seems to fly out the window like a fart in a crosswind.
     
  11. norris

    norris Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    101
    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2004
    There really is no such thing as "wild horses". All those horses descended from stock which has long been domesticated. The horses you are referring to are "feral horses".
    Here in Texas, we have a population explosion of feral hogs. They are of the same stock (with minor exceptions) as domestic swine and adapt to their freedom rather well. Too well. Fortunately feral hogs do not generate much sympathy from animal lovers as horses do.

    Although it seems unfair that feral horses should be shoved aside to make room for cattle, my guess is that there is more wisdom behind this descision than what may appear at the surface.

    I'm not an expert on livestock by any stretch of the imagination, but my understanding is that horses are much harder on pasture than the same number of cattle.
    Also, the USFS understands that grazing is a fire protection method in certain cases and as such it would seem that animals such as cattle or sheep would be good tools to graze targeted areas that have excess grasses that pose a fire hazard. Feral horses on the other hand graze where they please and thus could not be used as a fire management tool.
    I think it would be best if these horses were rounded up and sold to the public (not glue factories, of course) so they could return to their role of domesticated animals.
     
  12. idahocurs

    idahocurs Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    65
    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2004
    Location:
    SE Idaho
    I have been around lots of wild horses (mustangs) and though they have many great attributes as saddle stock and make great pets I wouldn't trust a dead broke mustang today to be the same horse tommorrow and I know I will probably catch H#$% for stay that.
     
  13. rio002

    rio002 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    459
    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2002
    Location:
    WA
    I know, people tend to romantisize the wild horse idea, however if they were discussing doing this to wild puppies, or even when the topic here in Wenatchee was the canada goose population, someone will always be against it, and in this instance I am. It seems backwards to lease open range from anyone and expect not to have some form of wild animal come on it, however I did agree that I wouldn't trust a "broke wild horse" from one day to the next same as we wouldn't invite a raccoon or coyote into the house for fun. I say they buck up, pull theirs chins outta their boots and go about business as it has been done there since dirt was discovered.
     
  14. lexi green

    lexi green Member

    Messages:
    20
    Joined:
    May 29, 2002
    I have read with interest all of the post. As a people we will all have a varied opinion of different issues. Nothing to curse or get angry about. The goverment has a habit of turning out animals to return to the wild and propogate,such as bear, coyoty,and wolves to name a few. These animals are a danager also, but we live with them as best as we can. I sure the horse is a danger to someone but I hardly think that they have the same potential to do the harm that the animals turned out here in the east do. Some how we manage to live with these threats and survive. As for leasing the land to run cattle, I am not againest this but believe that they could share as the horse was first before cattle. Some of the first were brought here from spain, so if it was who was here first that would make them second. If we lose a animal due to extention of a species because it is in our way, does this speak well of us as a people. I believe it would be money not the condition of the land as stated, for it is the horse who is eating the cattle's grass. Some time ago the westerner's had a problem with sheep owners also, a few of you might remember this. Many people lost their lives and animals, they were in the way also. My thought is that there is room for all of God' creatures not just what is a profit to some of our more influential big ranchers. Also to address about the federal gov. protection ,it is being removed from the wild horse, this was also on the news program.The program they have now for the adoption of wild horses if not working could be inproved. but the Senator has his sight set on the entire herd being slaughtered for meat,[no adoption, refer to first post] which I do not believe should happen. All animals have the potentual to harm,as anyone who works with animals know. There are success stories with wild animals, our domesticated horse began as a wild horse, so each situation can look different to each person. Remember, once it is gone there is no returning.Thanks for listening Lexi
     
  15. caballoviejo

    caballoviejo Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    442
    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2004

    Lexi, not all animals are equal in a given place and time. Before there was environmentalism there was a scientific discipline called ecology (a term coined by Haeckel in the 1800's, ecos = houses, ology = study of, or more modernly, the study of the interrelationships among organisms and their abiotic environment). It was a beautiful area of study until it was swamped by enviornmentalism - a political endeavor.

    Anyway, horses are not "natural" to the modern North American continent. They are like introduced weeds - we now have tremendous regulations (bureaucratically excessive, of course) to hinder the introduction and establishment (by man) of introduced species. Horses, like introduced plants and other organisms, can negatively (or at least profoundly, since negativity is a perception) alter the environment. The horses' method or tendencies in eating can affect regional ecology by diminishing certain grasses, favoring unplatable (to them) plants, and denuding the plant cover which protects against erosion. The feral horse populations have insufficient predator and other pressure to maintain their populations at low densities. On top of this is the necessary consideration of historical and appropriate use of public lands (although its perhaps wrong for governments to own much land anyway - poor Arizona). One of the long accepted missions of public lands (include Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management grazing lands) is to use these lands for overall public good.
    The overpopulation on the western lands by an introduced, now feral species makes no sense ecologically, harms the environment, and wont fit for long with "enviornmentalism." Some day, like the recognition that fire in forests and brush is natural and ecologically necessary, may be matched by the recognition that generally, the lands of the West would be better of if the weedy horse populations were controlled.
     
  16. rio002

    rio002 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    459
    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2002
    Location:
    WA
    It also has to be recognized though, if we went on the fact of the animals that are native to North America have the first and best rights of protection, then we could eliminate cats, domestic dogs, many types of birds, and when was the last time any of us saw a herd of "wild cattle"--they are also not native nor existent in open prairies. I think there is a about a dozen different ways to look at this topic and am enjoying hearing them all.
     
  17. reluctantpatriot

    reluctantpatriot I am good without god.

    Messages:
    858
    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2003
    Location:
    Terra Planet, Sol System, Milky Way Galaxy
    Which is more important to the environment: a wild animal, a landrace animal, a feral animal or a domesticated animal? The response will vary with the person, but I think we would be rather hasty if we as a country feel that the extermination of any one species is the best solution to a problem.

    If we want to go totaly pro-agriculture/rancher, lets exterminate all deer, elk, moose, bear, coyote, fox, wolf, wolverine, racoon, opossum, squirrel, hawk, heron, eagle, woodchuck, prairie dog, skunk and snake species. All of these wild species are detrimental to our modern agriculture and ranching lifestyles along with the wild horses.

    If we want to go totally pro-wildlife, we should start with all the problem domesticated species we have tamed, but first off we need to reduce the population of humans first as they are the most destructive species on the planet.

    However, there is a compromise in which we figure out how to balance the needs of as many species as we can so that a harmony can be found. It also seems to me that ranchers who depend on the government grace to graze animals have control over the public lands that the rest of us don't, but then again, I guess if the rest of us could pay more to lease the land just to be left alone, then that would be fine too. As no one is leasing the land for the wild horses to graze as they have been for decades if not centuries, then I guess whoever is the highest bidder for a lease gets to say what can be done with the land up to a certain point.

    I have a small number of livestock animals myself, but I also understand that I cannot destroy all the wildlife for the sake of my animals. Those that cause me problems, I deal with, but the rest are free to roam the rest of my land in peace.

    Too many of any species is a problem, even domesticated livestock like cattle, sheep, goats and horses...even chickens and turkeys and pigs.

    I am trying to find a reasonable balance here rather than going to the extreme of either side of this situation. The other thing I am still trying to figure out is how some ranchers can graze BLM lands, but others have their cattle confiscated and sold if even one blade of grass on BLM land is grazed by an escaped cow.

    Secondly, I am trying to figure out how some ranchers have water rights to public lands, yet many farmers in the southwest fight to keep enough water rights on their land to grow crops.

    The feeling I get is that loggers and ranchers have the corner on the public lands usage market. It comes across as such to me, but perhaps I am not reading clearly what is being said.

    Perhaps it really is best to exterminate all wildlife as it gets in the way of the needs of farmers and ranchers. Then they can use the land as they see fit without worry of any non-domesticated lifeform putting a hurt on their vocation.

    The funny thing is, I thought that we as humans are better off trying to find a balance in things. Perhaps I am wrong in this view, but it has served me well so far.
     
  18. Oilpatch197

    Oilpatch197 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    700
    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2004
    Location:
    SouthEastern Illinois
    so reluctantpatriot to me, wild coyotes are woth more than wild horses, but I feel BOTH should be reduced in numbers.

    How about Parie dogs? should we protect them with the dangerous Monkey Pox they carry?
     
  19. wr

    wr Moderator Staff Member Supporter

    Messages:
    16,486
    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2003
    Location:
    Alberta, Canada
    I think a person has to look at the wild horses as being in one of two categories. There are feral domestic horses that really don't have any value at all and there's no shortage of them. The second is the ancestors of the spanish mustangs that still carry a genetic relationship and they are significant but they are limited and and nature seems to control their numbers so I guess there's a need to distinguish the difference between a pest or problem and and the real thing. There was a public outcry in Alberta several years ago because one of our military areas was to depopulate thousands of romanticized wild horses so they ended up adopting them out. DNA testing proved what most of us knew, they were just feral horses left behind when settlers found the area was not suited to farming. We do have pockets of true wild horses but their numbers seem to remain stable with no intervention from man, over 10 years, their numbers stay remarkably unchanged.
     
  20. idahocurs

    idahocurs Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    65
    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2004
    Location:
    SE Idaho
    I have sat back and just read the posts and did not plan to post again but I can no longer hold myself back. How many people are concerned with the attempted eratication of Leafy Spurge, Knapweed, and Yellow Starthistle all of which are noxious weeds here in Idaho that are foreign to this area? There is not much difference with the "wild horses" all are foreign but one just happens to to be an animal most people love to see but none are of benefit to man...
    There is a solution and we can get rid of the ranchers on all public land and get rid of the millions of cows raised here in the west and all of us can pay hundreds of dollars a pound for Beef. Now dont say well I raise my own beef so it will not effect me because it will and I know I am talking it to extremes but that is what some would like. I will say that the reason I feel so close to this matter is Mr Clinton put many ranchers including my BIL out of business in my home state of Utah by creating to Escalante National Monument and most of the people that are so for it live in states that are smaller than the area "protected" by the legislation and will never see it and even if they do cows or no cow they will not see any effect nor if there were loging but people back east and in California pushed for it and got there way and now the people that are effected by it have to deal with others decision. Please let the locals take care of what effects them and leave well enough alone and we will not tell you how to run your local ecology. With love Brad