|
Wild horses are no more mongrels than most horses that are not purebreds, and the best of the herds have been proven through DNA analysis to be purebred descendents of the Spanish jennet, an important ancestor of many modern breeds. Some of these mustang herds are of high quality and their DNA is worthy of preservation because the Spanish jennet is extinct in Europe. In addition to these purebred Spanish horses, many other wild horses are of good quality because ranchers used to turn quality stallions loose on the range to upgrade their source of stock horses. The military also relied heavily on mustangs during WWI, and hundreds of thousands died in the service of our country, which is yet another reason why they deserve our gratitude and protection.
The domestic horse is a descendent of wild horses that originally inhabited North America until about 10,000 years ago when they disappeared, probably due to a combination of advancing ice diminishing their range and human predation. Cattle on the other hand, were never indiginous to North America and therefore deserve less protection than wild horses. Horses migrated from North America to Eurasia across the Bering Land Bridge and eventually evolved into the breeds we recognize today in Europe, Asia, and Alaska.
Deb Bennett, in her book "Conquerors," says:
"The oldest fossils so far discovered which could possibly belong to Equus caballus [the modern horse] are about 1.4 million years old and come from Nebraska, while the oldest fossils which can definitely be assigned to the species are younger--about one million years old. They come from the mixed forest-grass terrains of east-central Europe." [Having migrated to Eurasia via the Bering Land Bridge].
"Fossil bones [of the species E. caballus] show that though many herds of horses migrated from North America to Eurasia during the Ice Age, up until 10,000 years ago there was never a time during which horses were completely absent from the continent."
When the Spanish arrived in North America some 400 years ago, their horses soon adapted to the same ecological niche their native relatives had once inhabited here. Every trait and characteristic that describes a native wildlife species fits the American wild horse and desert burro. The reason horses proliferated so readily is because they fit into their environment perfectly and were able to survive as a "wild" animal where cattle could not. Several hundred years ago they had multiplied into the millions, and yet the range was in much better condition than it is now, because it wasn't overrun with cattle in those days. It is true that in unusually harsh conditions, such as drought, horses can starve, but so do other wild animals, because that is the way of nature.
The rationale for protecting wild horses is as stated in the introduction to the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act:
"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress finds and declares that wild free-roaming horses and burros are living symbols of the historic and pioneer spirit of the West; that they contribute to the diversity of life forms within the Nation and enrich the lives of the American people; and that these horses and burros are fast disappearing from the American scene."
The only people to benefit from cattle grazing on public lands are Western ranchers, most of whom have large and wealthy ranching corporations which sponge off the government. They pay FAR less for grazing rights than the BLM and Forest Service shell out in subsidies to them. Ranching on pulbic lands is a form of corporate welfare. The cattle on the contested lands constitute only 2.5% of domestic beef production, so cutting back on the number of cattle on public lands would hardly put a dent in the availability of beef or the price.
The REAL reason why there are "too many horses" on the range is because there are too many cattle. There are 100 cows on the range for every horse. It is absurd to blame degradation of the range on horses when you have 4.1 million cattle on the range and only 37,000 horses. A 1990 General Accounting Office Report showed livestock management to be the primary cause of degradation of rangelands and riparian areas, not wild horses and burros.
I have a difficult time envisioning cattle as fitting into a "natural ecological balance" on public lands, whereas horses survive in the dry, sparsely vegetated, rocky lands of Nevada and Utah, and thrive in the grasslands of Montana and California, because they are perfectly adapted to them having once been indiginous to North America, unlike cattle. Yet the BLM calculates the carrying capacity of a particular area, then subtracts permitted use for livestock and finally throws the crumbs to the wild horses. In some areas, wild horses aren't even getting crumbs as they continue to be zeroed out of numerous acres where they should be legally protected.
The wild horse issue is just the tip of an iceburg. The iceburg is welfare ranching on public lands. Any solution to the wild horse "problem" needs to address this issue, because the BLM is in violation of the terms of the WFHBA (Wild Free-roaming Horse and Burro Act) by managing HMAs (Herd Management Areas) principally for cattle instead of principally for horses.
The American public is going to have to decide which they'd rather have on their land, wild horses, or cattle. The cattle are costing taxpayers far more than the horses are, at least $100 million a year in direct subsidies alone, and that's not counting incalcuable indirect subsidies. The rationale for the Burns amendment was the cost of feeding wild horses in government holding pens, said to be $6.8 million a year. The horses themselves - if left alone - would cost the government nothing. And cutting out the rancher welfare program - i.e. the direct and indirect subsidies ranchers get for the use of the land - would put millions of dollars back into the public coffers.
Ann
|