Aren't there alternative answers and solutions??

Question

The U.S. Bureau of Land Management is seriously considering euthanasia for many of this nations wild mustangs due to their budget. From what I understand, there are only about 30,000 left in the wild. I think that they are a symbol of our National Heritage as well as Freedom and shouldn't be killed. Aren't there alternative solutions besides killing them? I am afraid once they start killing them, it will lead to their extinction through continued "budget" problems. And once they start killing them, wouldn't it eventually be standard procedure in the future? They allow 3 million cattle to graze on the same land...

Answer 1

some of us older people will remember in the 80s a small problem that we had here with elk and deer and the thousands that had to be killed and burned in the fields due to disease.all herds have to be continuously culled to preserve the land so that future generations will survive in their natural habitat.this has nothing to do with the cattle and has everything to do with land management and soil conservation.as herds increase and the weather patterns change the food that supports a finite amount of animals begins to dissapear and is called the evolution of the food chain,from bees to mountain lions.

Answer 2

Would you rather have a future or horses starving to death on the range or being eaten alive by wolves and bears and mountain lions? That is what happens to the sick injured and weak mustangs. Having them humanely euthanized is a far better death they they are likely to have in the wild.

However, the horses that are slated for euthanisa are the ones in the holding facilities that the general public doesn't want to adopt. So if you want to save a horse from euthanisa, go to a BLM holding facility and adopt one or two or three.

And finally, If you look at the total number of mustang registries and numbers of 'mustang" breeders there are in the private sector, the mustang won't go extinct, it will just return to the way they were originally and that is as domesticated horses in the hands of private owners.

Private owners brought the horses to this country. Private owners either lost or turned loose same said horses into the wilds of this country. And they lived and reproduced.

Answer 3

People get so caught up in the idea that the cattle ranchers are the ones that want to kick horses off the range, or that the horses have more right to be there, but neither is true.

The BLM's roots go back as far as the land ordinances established in this country in the 1780's.  It was formally formed in 1946, when combining the General Land Office and the Grazing Service.  Since it's inception, the BLM's mission statement includes that their policy of land management "is based upon the principles of multiple use and sustained yield of our nation's resources within a framework of environmental responsibility and scientific technology." Multiple use means that the land will be used for many different purposes: grazing, horses, wildlife, recreation, archaeological resources, mining, etc. The BLM has never claimed to be a conservation agency and never will. It was set up as a way for people to utilize, and possibly make a living, off public lands. The ranchers have as much of a right to be there as the horses. Trying to kick them off and shut the land down to anything but horses is first of all selfish, but it also does not correspond with the goals and ideals of the BLM.  Everyone has their use they prefer, but the land is, and will be, open to may uses.  The BLM is doing the best it can with the resources provided to it, while still trying to follow its mission.

Wild horse herds increase their population by 20% annually.  That's unsustainable if they are just "left alone."  Some management of the herds has to be done.  Otherwise they will turn the land to dirt and starve to death, which is much more cruel than euthanizing them.

I don't think equine birth control shots are an option as the program already costs tens of millions of dollars annually, and cannot afford to pay for those shots (which only last 2 years) unless people want to have their taxes increased or find a way to pay for it themselves.  That's not to say I don't think there are other options.  I think they could just as easily geld the incoming stallions and turn them back out.  I can't imagine it would be that much more expensive than the cost of euthanizing all those horses and disposing of their carcasses.  The gelding option requires regular gathers to be conducted, but then again so does the euthanization option.  I think it is viable, personally.

It's not a matter of "save the pretty horses."  There is a lot that goes into their management, things that most people don't even think about.  People are so afriad that the government will kill the horse herds off but they have no desire to do so.  There are many good people working for the BLM horse program that love horses as much as you and me, and they would never stand to have the wild horses annhiliated.  But management and annhiliation are two separate creatures.  Just becuase the government has to control horse populations doesn't mean they don't want any horses out there.

Answer 4

Cattle are used for human consumption in the US...horses aren't.  It freaks people out.  That's why cattle are not included.

There are not enough people to 'adopt' wild horses.  And some of the ones who do adopt...shouldn't be allowed to.  They have no concept of how dangerous a wild horse truly is.  

Plus the finances are not there.  Just one domesticated horse can take up to $8000 a year.  If not more.  Do you know anyone personally that will donate that much money EVERY single year to a rescue for wild horses?  I don't.

Another thing...without natural predators keeping the herds in check...they are overpopulating the enviroment they are in.  Food is getting more and more scarce.  Without culling, the herds become sickly.  Without natural predators...because of human involvement...it is left up to 'human involvement' to cull the herds.

It's not pretty or happy...but it is a fact.  Herds have to be managed...just like any other population of animals that cross paths with humans.

Gelding stallions is an option...I guess.  But even one stallion left intact...can breed as many mares as he can find to breed to.  A dominant herd stallion also keeps that from happening...He drives the younger ones away until the fittest and the strongest drives him away.  And I can't even imagine the 'cost' involved in trying to catch a herd stallion, castrate him, care for a week or so, then release.  That is more expensive than most 'budgets' allow for.  But it might slow down the herd growths.

Answer 5

Its really too bad that the government can't do a 'gelding roundup' every few years, and geld a larger number to re-release into the wild to help keep numbers down to a more healthy number.  It is a very controversial subject in all aspects and from all directions.  If the land is 'wild' land, then it should be allowed only for the wildlife that inhabits it, not cattle as well.  But that is a whole other subject, as those cattle are what feeds many mouths around the country/world.  

Just killing off an animal certainly isn't a solution, but it is an easy way out for the government.  I just hope that there are enough of us out here to support keeping these horses alive and wild that the government won't be able to implement such a barbaric solution.

Answer 6

Your right in the fact that there are about 30,000 left in the wild, but the BLM only wants to get rid of the 30,000+ that they have already rounded up that no one is willing to adopt.  There will still be 30,000 left in the wild.

I agree with you that there should be some concern about it becoming common practice for the horses that don't get adopted.

I guess everyone should go out and adopt a Mustang, or come up with a better suggestion.