chris bunting wrote:
It's Europeans who planted the feral horses we have now. Prior to that "native" Americans had no horses.

I have heard somewhere that horses were here long before anyone from Europe. I can not remember why but the horses that were here then were all extinct or otherwise gone for a long long time before the Eropean and Spanish horses that are the ancestors of the Mustangs we have today arrived.

Mike Ferrara wrote:Both........

Gary_Miller in gray

I think if you did your research you would find out that horses were on the American continent why before the Spaniards arrived.

I did the research and I suggest you do the same.

Modern horses (Equus caballus) evolved on the southern steppe of Eurasia in what are now known collectively as the Islamist republics of the former Soviet Union. Several members of genus Equus evolved in the New World and a great deal of fossil evidence supports their existence, but all of them died out about 10,000 years ago. There is no fossil evidence and no oral traditions or pictorial evidence from indigenous humans of that era that suggests the existence of E. caballus in the Americas prior to the Spanish imports, c1513-1517. None. Zip. Nada.

While it's not politically correct to mention this, the horses that exist behind the BLM and FS fences of the American West are feral, not "wild", meaning they are an invader species descended from domestic stock. One can only guess why the terms "feral" and "invader species" are not used by the various "news" sources. Every "news" source from Fox to ABC to NPR offers the public nothing more than slanted, yellow journalism that's just thinly disguised editorial nonsense masquerading as reportage. Has anyone ever heard a "journalist" refer to feral horses and asses as invader species? Has any "journalist" mentioned that feral horses and asses are exactly like kudzu, johnson grass, starlings, Chinese tallow, and English sparrows in that respect? Heaven forfend that a journalist refer to feral horses and asses as "feral" or "invader species", that might upset some starry-eyed city dweller's full, rich, fantasy life!

In reality, the misbegotten "Wild Horse and Burro... Act of 1972" exemplified the stoopidity of legislators seeking votes by pandering to the warm and fuzzy ignorance of folks who have no concept of the necessity of range management or the impact of invader species on the native flora and fauna of the various BLM and Forest Service ecosystems of the West.

Even Willie exposed his profound ignorance of the subject, which should be an object lesson to us all: Celebrity does not imply knowledge!

The argument that domestic livestock are allowed to graze BLM and FS land is specious because their numbers, called "units," are carefully controlled according to the carrying capacity of a given range as determined by wildlife biologists and range management specialists; furthermore, the domestic livestock presence is seasonal, not year round, as is that of feral horses and asses. When feral horses and asses are allowed to multiply beyond the carrying capacity of a given range, the impact on both the range and native species is deleterious and not easily remedied; in fact, it can take eons for a range to return to its former state, if ever!

The idiocy inherent to capturing, transporting and housing feral horses that exist in numbers beyond the carrying capacity of their range is unmitigated fiscal folly. Why not just shoot whatever number of feral horses and asses is beyond the carrying capacity of a range? It'd be a helluva lot cheaper - but unfortunately, it wouldn't pander to the tender feelings of citified voters, too damned stoopid to understand that it's their $60 million being wasted on feral horses and asses or that the money could be better spent on any number of things.

personally, i'd prefer it if only those people that lived within say 100 miles of a wild horse could have a say as to what happens with them,

and just to be fair, i pledge to never one time try to tell anyone that lives in a metropolitan area what they can or can't do with the various vagrant species that haunt the alleys and back srteets of there own "Eden"

why dont the americans eat horsemeat ? .surely hunting these animals and an active meat trade would be a good business
chris

Chris we have really good beef here thats one reason why.

Gary Hill wrote:
No, it's because horses are people too.[/sarcasm]

am i reading this correctly,you have no native wild horses in the states, if so these so called studies of wild horses and natural balance,barefoot etc is actually all baloney .
chris

Chris, there are no wild horses in the State of Michigan, unless you Consider the Detroit Zoo...

chris bunting wrote:
Chris, you are correct. We have no native wild horses. What we do have are herds of feral horses that have been so for about 400 years. But think of all that they have given us: Gene Ovnicek, Pete Ramey, Jaime Jackson, Monty Roberts and many more we never would have heard of if not for the "wild" horses. Can anyone think of a way to cash in on moose? We have lots of those.

:D:D

Regards

Mike Ferrara wrote:
*shrug* the sarcasm may be apt tho . . . Chris, the reason we don't eat horsemeat in the US is kinda twofold.

First, we (the collective "we" here, not we as in this forum) have unconsciously decided that some animals are meat, others pets. When (I'm editorializing here) the horse stopped being an important transportation animal at the turn of the 20th century and faded from view, its revival was as a leisure animal. One people spend amounts of money that make me choke a bit on.

Horses went from too useful to eat, to too cute to eat. (possibly too expensive as well)

Secondly, and this is the trouble with bringing back slaughter in the US, is the way in which many horses wind up at slaughter. Loads of them are older racers, or horses who tipped the scales from "doin ok" to "costs too much to keep" and many are loaded with drugs like Bute. Bute, while harmless to a large percentage of society (see the number of horse people who self medicate with it) shares the same downfall as Vioxx, the recalled arthritis drug, did. For most people, it's fine, but for those with sensitivity it can become fatal rather quickly.

Had we mentioned the US is maybe the most litigious society in the universe? Yeah. Just imagine the CharlieFoxtrot that results when the high end restaurant got a shipment of horsemeat in that turns out to be tainted with bute and someone dies and. . and. . and. . oi.

Long and short of it? We can be a bit. . . mentally deficient here in 'merica sometimes. We got loads of good people, loads of smart people, but we tend to act like mindless sheep when you slap us all together into a single country. Hey ho. *shrug*

Greg,

i think that argument for not eating horses does hold a little water, however there are lots of other uses for horsemeat that do not include human consumption.

Western Hill Forge wrote:The Government, Game and Fish Department, already has it handled.

greg i understand what you are saying but these are "wild" horses with untainted flesh. for a nation that introduced mcdonalds i dont see the problem eating horsemeat.
chris