wild horse slaughter bill

i just came across this story today. not sure if anyone's mentioned it, but it's sort of sad that the government would support the mass slaughter of wild horses so that cattle farmers can have more land that's slightly less grazed on.

... and the meat they get from the animals will most likely be sent to starving countries we supply with food (yes, people eat horse meat, it's actually better than beef, lower in fat and cholesterol).... they run adoption programs for these horses, but they're just aren't enough people to take them in, as the are a wild animal, and are most difficult to saddle break.. it's sad that they are going to die, but some good will come of it.

[Edited on Dec 07, 2004 by Destro]

This summer I was in Wyoming for a camping trip and I saw a group of over 30 wild horses graving in a valley. It was absolutely stunning.

Your damn right I'll contact whoever it is who represents me.

The government sanctioned slaughter of wild horses to provide the beef industry with more land for their domesticated cattle to fatten themselves for the slaughter is a perfect analogy for almost everything that's wrong with America today.

Actual freedom always gets in the way of systematic corporate exploitation, so naturally, they have to kill that which is truly free.

.... also keep in mind, the horse is not a native species to this land. it was brought here by the spanish. the wild heards were an accident.
..... and they are talking about horses on PUBLIC land. in most states, it is ILLEGAL to graze cattle on public land, so the only way it could be land the cattle owners want, the goverment would have to privatize, and sell it off.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think cattle are a native species either. And the horses aren't causing any kind of harm to the environment that needs to be alleviated... on the contrary, they are in the way of an industry that is responsible for-- and intends to inflict more-- harm to the environment through their ranching practices.

I'm no vegetarian, but I think we have more than enough cattle ranching going on already around the world. This isn't any sort of noble deer-population-control argument, this is just an industry being greedy. Luckily for them-- and unluckily for those wild horses--we live in a society that is run by organizations sympathetic to, and often complicit with, industrial greed.

if you want to try to save one, find someone to adopt a horse.
they have an auction just a few miles from me every spring and fall.
my uncle has bought one each of the last 3 years,

no, cattle and oxen are not native species,and could not survive on wild plantlife alone. but they are a food source. our culture does not, for the most part, use Equine meat for food. they have no natural predators, as we are the cattle's next step up on the foodchain to keep their population in check. the depletion of plantlife, down to the root, as horses cause when they graze, along with their tracking patterns from their solid hooves cause erosion to a staggering degree.

info on mustang population in western US

[Edited on Dec 07, 2004 by Destro]

My point is, people shouldn't have to "adopt" wild animals to keep them from being killed due to the whims of some rancher's bottom line.

Horses have been running wild in America for hundreds of years, not hurting anything or anyone except the potential profits of the beef industry. There is no good reason to change this situation now by killing herds of wild horses so that certain well-connected rich people can get even richer.

Cattle are our CHOSEN food source. We have plenty to eat, including existing cattle herds, we are not going to run out of cattle to eat (mad-cow aside). We have no need to keep their population "in check," either; we are breeding and ranching and processing cattle to fit our consumption. It's like saying we are keeping SPAM populations in check by consuming SPAM.

All the environmental problems you associate with the actions of wild horses are magnified at least 100x by cattle ranching. Again, wild horses aren't hurting anything, and there's no reason to kill them except to provide ranchers with more ranching space.

not true, when cattle graze, because of the structure of it's mouth.they eat the last 2-3 inces of a plants leaf, leving enough of the vegitation to regrow, like trimming the grass.
an Equine pulls the plant by it's roots as it eats, killing any possiblity to regeneration.i've been around and raised enough different species of domesticated animal to understand this.
i agree, there should be a better way than just executing the animals, i'm just pointing out the resoning they are using, they are viable facts. there is more to it than outright greed.

Before you get all up in arms, you ought to remember that wild horses are an introduced species. Therefore, I see no moral problem with getting rid of them.

and so are the settlers who brought them here.

Umm, humans arrived in N. America a long time before the Spanish did.

Ok, I'll concede the grazing bit, but I still think the combined negative effects of the ranching industry far outweigh the damage done to the environment by herds of wild horses.

I still think those facts are cherry-picked by the ranching industry to justify their financial decisions, not because replacing wild horses with domestic cattle would in any way be substantially beneficial to the environment.

Yes, well I for one was just waiting for you to weigh in with a carefully considered and well elucidated gem.

Still waiting.

aren't there disease issues if the mustang herds get too big?

we did a good job of getting rid of those ones too didn't we? /troll

on the topic of the environmental footprint left by horses versus that of cattle, is grazing really the important point here? it seems to me that farms are generally known for their endless tonnes of shit as well as the amount of grain and water used to fatten the stock up. somehow i can't help but think that wild horses are both romantically and environmentally the better choice.

and as for sending the dead horse meat to feed starving people overseas, here's a wild idea: send them the grain that would have been fed to cows. it's madness, i know... feeding all those people with inexpensive staple foods. it could never work.

I don't know much about this situation or the US gov't plans but, as a rule, meat is not a cost effective product for food aid. Even if this meat was "free", it still must be transported in refrigerated container ships, which are expensive, and stored in refrigerated warehouses, which are rare or non-existent in many developing countries. If the meat is processed (ie. tinned) it becomes very expensive before it even leaves North America. For this reason, wheat or beans are preferred products for food aid.

This sounds like it would just be a very costly and not very useful way of putting a positive spin on an otherwise distasteful story.


[Edited on Dec 08, 2004 by woolworthwarrior]

and the quote was made 34 years ago, when the wild horse population was one third of that of todays numbers.

ok, don't kill them and make use of the carcasses, let them starve to death from overpopulation.

i would be interested to see some evidence that shows they are starving to death from overpopulation.

this seems entirely pointless.

the point being that by your reasoning (or lack thereof), we ought to kill the spanish too. or any immigrants for that matter. just because an animal is foreign to the land doesn't make its life disposable.

[Edited on Dec 08, 2004 by fallenicarus]

that's funny, my family have had cattle, no less then 80 head, on the same 75 acres of land for over one hundred years, and the grass is growing fine. the horses have to be rotated from field to field every 3 months or it turns into a mud pit.
and as far as the waste contaminiating the soil and water.... what do you think every plant grown by a farm is fertilized with? pig, sheep and cow shit.