Why Exactly Does The Us Need To Slaughter 9000 Wild Horses?

[Tokis-Phoenix]

Why exactly does the US need to slaughter over 9000 wild horses? U.S. Wild Horse Slaughter Legalization Draws Fire, for many Americans, wild horses are living symbols of the rugged independence of the United States' pioneering past.....

http/news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...wildhorses.html


....Maybe i havn't read the article properly, but only excuse i could find from the article for killing so many horses, "to ensure western rangelands have adequate food and water for the animals to survive, the U.S. government conducts periodic round-ups, removing thousands of horses and donkeys each year."
But as the article also points out millions of mares of stallions used to roam the west in the 1900's, so if the countryside can only sustain 28,000 today then perhaps they are not adressing the main issues here, that we are obviously not looking after out countryside as much as we could be, and that slaughtering thousands of horses will not solve the root of the issue but only delay its effects slightly.
I am not happy about the slaughter, i think things could be very much done differently without killing thousands of intelligent innocent animals...

 

[pica_nuttalli]

well, for starters, horses aren't indigenous to the US and were only introduced following European colonizations. they don't have any predators to speak of and the native grasslands (that first emerged thousands of years ago) probably don't grow the right sorts of plants fast enough to support the horses (who didn't start roaming the west until 300 years ago). its rather like the case of starlings, except 14 hands high.

quite frankly, if we have to choose between wild horses and a reintroduction of the American bison, I vote for the buffalos.

--EDIT--
you also have to remember that in the early 1900s, the free-range grasslands were significantly larger and human settlements in the West much smaller and further apart. there is nowhere near that amount of land currently available in the wild, thus populations of "millions of wild horses" are not sustainable in a wild, nomadic state.

 

[RandomWiktor]

To be completely honest? Because they take up graze for thousands of free-ranging CATTLE that the government allows to graze on our public grasslands. The damage cattle are doing to the open range is absolutely appalling, and there are feral cattle scattered throughout our national parks due to poor containment. They are a much bigger threat to the ecosystem than the horses, who have been ranging feral here for much longer.

I strongly doubt that land the horses are on will be used for reintroducing Bison. If there are cattle around, bison are not allowed, because they "spread brucellosis." In other words, they probably don't at all, but everyone would rather blame them for sick cattle than poor husbandry practices. More often then not, our cattle infect our wildlife. Bison can not even step over the Montana border without being gunner down, because they are a "danger" to ranching.

Don't even get me started on Ranching and wildlife (not talking wild horses here, I'm talking deer, bison, natural predators, etc.). I support our farmers 100%, but maybe all of the money the goverment spends on slaughtering wildlife in thier own FRICKEN habitat could instead be directed towards proper fencing for these poor people, so that we don't have cattle infection our wildlife, ruining our streams, and overgrazing out national parks. Our biodiversity is so damaged right now from over-persecuting our native predators that it is not even funny.

If they do kill them, I wish that they would shoot them all instead of slaughtering them (I couldn't tell from the article if they meant shooting or slaughtering, so forgive me if this doesn't apply). Horses fair very poorly in the overcrowded type of transport we use for horse slaughter; they are not an animal that does well cramped together with unfamiliar animals for hours or days like cattle, who do comparatively well. They are too high strung for slaughter transport, and I'm sure most horse lovers would agree that it would be much kinder to kill them quickly on site than subject them to the fear of transport and slaughter.

 

[rdd1952]

It's a shame that animals have to be destroyed like that but as pica stated, it may be the only alternative. When an animal is introduced into a new area and has no natural predators, it can quickly take over and cause the extinction of other native animals. I think the snakehead fish is a prime example. They have multiplied rapidly since being released in ponds and because they are eating machines are now threatening to make other species extinct.

Obviously these wild horses aren't directly killing other animals like the snakehead but if their numbers are allowed to run rampant, there won't be enough food for them and the native animals so all will begin to die off. It would be a shame to lose a native species to extinction because of the horses.

 

[Angel Lady]

I dont believe in slaughter of any kind of animal myself. I think things should be done differently. I dont know what to make of all of this, I cant even begin to think about those poor horses.

 

[JackDemp528]

Horse slaughter is a terrible and cruel thing. But I suppose they slaughter cattle, swine, goats, and sheep all like that too. Not to mention chickens. There is really something wrong with the world that all of these animals are dying a terrible and cruel death. It really saddens me. I get furious on any type of animal cruelty topics.

I wish people would react to animal slaughter the way they reacted to human slaughter. What's the big difference there, animals think, they have feelings, of happiness, sadness, and all of that. So why must we give them these terrible deaths. They don't deserve it.

I hope for the horses that they would give them a chance and humanely kill them if it is necessary.

 

[rdd1952]

I wish they would slaughter people they way the slaughter animals.

I definitely don't want to start a war on this one but but be careful what you wish for as this has been done before. Remember the Holocaust.

 

[JackDemp528]

I do remember the holocaust. And that has touched me deeply, but I wish people would react to animal slaughter the way the reacted to the holocaust.

 

[RandomWiktor]

This will very rapidly turn into an agressive argument. May I suggest sticking to the main topic - horse slaughter, and why it is being done - instead? I don't want a mod to lock this as it could potentially be a good topic.

 

[boozybears]

Just another thought...

Sometimes, these controlled slaughters are actually more humane than the alternative. If the natural habitat is unable to sustain such a large number of wild horses.. eventually they will begin to starve and die a lengthy, nasty death which in turn can spread diseases around the land.

It doesn't sound nice in a newspaper article.. but you have to hope that the american government is not just going out and killing horses for the fun of it all and not putting some serious thought into the situation.

 

[RandomWiktor]

I do not agree with slaughter and hunting to prevent starvation and disease, but let me explain why:

It has been shown in coyotes and deer that when you kill off large numbers of animals all at once, the remaining animals have a sudden over-abundance of resources. This results in increased breeding, and later, a population explosion. Then you have the same problem all over again.

As mentioned in the article, the numbers are decreasing naturally, probably due to starvation and disease as they lose more and more land to ranches, and the area's biodiversity dies. If nature is taking care of it, why meddle? I personally think that animals starving and dying of diseases is great for the environment, so long as it is a natural occurance. Those dead horses will create valuable food resources for our predators and scavengers, and diseases will thin the herd slowly and naturally without resulting in a sudden over abundance of food, and thus an exponential population growth.

I know no one likes to see a pretty horsie starving, but just remember: when pretty horsie isn't starving, raven, fox, coyote, and vulture ARE.

Now, the horses are a special case because they are not really supposed to be there... but frankly, neither are the sheep and cattle on those lands. If we really wanted to "save the west," we wouldn't have to just get rid of the horses... we'd have to pull out all of the ranchers, re-introduce all of the predators, somehow get bison and pronghorn numbers up where they belong, and essentially completely reverse hundreds of years of "land abuse." That most likely will not happen, so in the mean time, I'd be happier to see the horses left in the niche they've created: providing food for scavengers when they die, and filling in for grazing animals now extinct in the area who will sure not be coming back so long as we are so paranoid about brucellosis. (BTW, there is a vaccine for it, so if people just vaccinated thier damn cattle, we wouldn't have to shoot every bison that steps hoof out of montana. That's another thing we could use money for instead of slaughtering; helping farmers pay for vaccines.)

 

[GuppyDude]

no, its wrong, iv grown up around horses and am a rider myself, there is no excuse for the slaughter of these animals. they are beutiful and intelligent creatures, why should they be killed, its all for economic gain, it makes me sick to be human after reading this BS. there has got to be an alternative, a park, some place that can be set aside for these animals to live, if population gets to be a problem then starte sterilizeing them, killing should nvr been in answer, they were there first, kinda brings back up the indians that were slaughtered so that we could settle here, same basic idea. i can think of about 9000 goverment officials that id like to have shot in the face right now, im thinking we make a trade........

 

[OohFeeshy]

They may not have any predators, but as RandomWiktor pointed out, starving (ie, the weaker) horses make easy prey, so predators that normally can't kill a horse would be able to far more easily. Let nature take its course, the population will eventually stabalise itself at a level that the environment can support.

 

[Ethos]

This will very rapidly turn into an agressive argument. May I suggest sticking to the main topic - horse slaughter, and why it is being done - instead? I don't want a mod to lock this as it could potentially be a good topic.

Way to take control! Points for you!

I believe that an animal who posses a potentually dangeous key to the natuaral environment, should be taken care of.
Horses aren't native to the region, and if it came to horses or buffalo, I'd vote buffalo also.
Did you know there use to be about 40 million buffalo in the great plains, and now their close to extinction.

 

[RandomWiktor]

As has been pointed out, Bison are more than likely not going to be bred and released on these lands, and many wild horses are in close proximity to cattle ranching territory. Because of the brucellosis scares, most bison anywhere near cattle are killed. So it isn't like they're killing the horses to release the bison. Nor were horses responsible for the extinction of bison; mass hunting for sport was.

I don't get where all the bison talk has come up here? Slaughtering the wild horses has nothing to do with thier survival, nor does it suggest the relocation and establisment of bison herds.