Help keep One Green Planet free and independent! Together we can ensure our platform remains a hub for empowering ideas committed to fighting for a sustainable, healthy, and compassionate world. Please support us in keeping our mission strong.
In 1971, the population of wild horses living on public lands in the Western U.S. was critically low, largely as a result of human activity in the region. When citizens spoke out against what was happening to these majestic creatures, Congress passed legislation designed to protect them: the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act.
In theory, under this act, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is supposed to responsibly “manage” our nation’s wild horses and burros in a way that offers the animals long-term protection. Unfortunately, this government agency is doing quite the opposite in reality.
Over the years, the BLM has made several concerning proposals which have involved rounding up our nation’s wild horses and permanently sterilizing both pregnant and non-pregnant mares using experimental surgeries that subject the animals to extreme pain and potential health consequences.
In an attempt to justify the use of such disturbing procedures, the BLM has cited an alleged need to “control” the wild horse population “in order to restore and maintain a thriving natural ecological balance and multiple-use relationship on the public lands.”
Yet conveniently enough, the BLM has not provided any concrete evidence to Support its claim that wild horses are in any way disturbing the “balance” of the prairie ecosystems where they roam. Probably because that’s a bold-faced lie designed to cover up the agency’s real motivation for reducing the wild horse population of the West: to satisfy the special interests who are pushing for wild horses to go so that there’s more space for livestock, a.k.a. Big Meat and Dairy.
In its latest attempt to decimate the numbers of our country’s precious wild horses, the BLM recently proposed a plan which spells out its intent to capture around 800 horses in Oregon and perform a risky surgical procedure called ovariectomy on 100 of the mares in order to sterilize them.
Contrary to what the BLM wants us to believe, wild horses and burros play a crucial role in maintaining balance in the prairie ecosystems where they live. So, if the BLM goes ahead with this plan, it will not only take away the beauty that these creatures add to our nation’s public lands but also greatly disturb the ecosystems they call home.
Fortunately, public citizens and animal advocacy groups are taking a stand against the BLM’s senseless plan, just as they have in the past when the agency has announced similar ridiculous “research proposals.” At the forefront of the resistance is the Front Range Equine Rescue (FRER), a national non-profit which recently released formal comments on why it emphatically opposes the BLM’s planned experimental sterilization of wild horses.
As FRER President Hilary Wood stated in a press release, “Reputable equine veterinarians with wild horse experience object to this cruel and dangerous procedure, performed unvisualized while mares are fully conscious, because of the many serious risks during surgery or after due to complications. There are added dangers if sterilized mares have complications after they are back in the wild. We urge the BLM to use the many available humane alternatives instead of this radical method of population control.” If the BLM fails to take the FRER’s well-reasoned suggestions into consideration and rethink its proposal, the organization warned that it plans to file a lawsuit against the agency in federal court.
To give this amazing animal advocacy organization a fighting chance at protecting our country’s beautiful wild horses, the FRER needs all the help it can get. If you’d like to aid in the fight to preserve the horses and burros of the American West, please consider donating whatever you can to the FRER to help fund its animal-saving efforts. And don’t forget to share what you’ve learned here with everyone in your network. We need all hands on deck to make sure our nation’s great symbol of freedom in the Wild West isn’t allowed to be degraded by barbaric procedures!
Image Source: Pixabay
I certainly don\’t want to see the horses mistreated or misused in any way. But it\’s a little misleading to call them \’wild\’. Strictly speaking they are feral horses. They are not native wildlife but were introduced by the Spanish and subsequent waves of settlers/invaders. That said, I think the land should be able to support reasonable populations of horses as they are so emblematic of the nation\’s history. I agree with Stewart below that smaller population of horses and cattle would be better for the land, AND the animals. Some of the feral horses I\’ve seen in the western deserts are in very poor shape. We can either keep numbers under control via sterilization or allow more predation from wolves, mountain lion etc. And we know how the ranchers would love more wolves and mountain lions… But there is never any excuse for maltreatment and cruelty.
Respectfully ask that you change the headline to include the full name of Bureau of Land Management. At first blush, #BLM is assumed to mean Black Lives Matter, and this is both confusing and harmful.
The Bureau of Land Management is the largest public land management agency in the US and has existed since 1946. For westerners, it has always been known as the "BLM" It is unfortunate that the Black Lives Matter movement recently chose the same three letters. Let us hope that an informed citizenry will understand the difference from the context in which they are used. Or the hashtag.
We are approaching the point where ANY action to manage the herds is acceptable from an environmental standpoint. Horses are large, mobile animals and easily outcompete native wildlife species for both food and water. In addition they spread invasive weeds such as thistle and cheat that displace native plants. The Wild and Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971 that provides limited protection to horses recognizes the threat they pose when not properly controlled and specifies only two outcomes for excess hoses–adoption or destruction "in a humane and cost-effective manner." Neither is happening. Rather than deal with the situation we have created with the reintroduction of horses, we have simply walked away. Advocates refuse any sort of management and politicians are content to take the path of least resistance. Surgery is certainly not our best option, but the time to exercise our "best" option was before horses so thoroughly degraded the ecosystems that native mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians of every sort were pushed to the brink.
It is time to stop using the damager inflicted by cattle as the excuse to allow more of the same by horses. The damage inflicted by these animals is denied only by the special interests who profit from them. Americans should not allow themselves to be forced to choose between more horses or more cattle when the third option–fewer of both–is our best choice environmentally speaking.
To illustrate the benefits of the presence of the wild horse, let’s look at comparison to how horses affect their ecosystem versus cattle.
1. Maintaining Grass
While cattle do not have upper teeth and use their tongues to wrap around grass to pull it from the roots, horses only graze the tops of grass blades, allowing grasses to regrow in a healthier state.
2. Improving Soil Quality
Unlike cattle, horses are not ruminants and therefore, do not have four sections of their stomach. This means that their waste contains more nutrients. When horses defecate, they give back to the land through enhancing soil quality. Cattle operations often cause water pollution due to waste containing hormones, antibiotics, heavy metals, ammonia, and pathogens. Many animals depend on horse manure to help maintain soil moisture to prevent brush fires.
3. Use of Water Resources
While cattle enjoy chilling out by water sources, horses are respectful of their ecosystem. Instead of causing erosion and scaring away species diversity (like cattle do), horses tend to drink and move on, leaving minimal impact on stream habitats.
4. Grazing Habits
Since horses are travelers and cattle prefer to just hang out, horses do not exhaust grazing areas like cattle do. Horses are also picky about what they eat and avoid consuming pretty flowers, allowing wild flowers to survive. If a horse consumes seeds, they can still germinate after being passed and thus, horses act as important sources of dispersal for plant species.
5. Lending a Hand to Other Species
In cold climates, many animals will follow the path of horses in order to find access to food and water. The powerful hooves of a horse have the ability to break through ice, making streams once again potable for other animals. Furthermore, horses can make their way to grasses through deep snow, allowing other animals to also graze where horses have been.
Grazing cattle, on the other hand, pose a threat to 14 percent of endangered animal species and 33 percent of plant species as they encroach further into their territory.
"Environmentally speaking" isn\’t the whole issue. These horses are sentient individuals with emotional and social bonds among themselves, who have adapted to the land they roam. That said, the "solutions" you seem to propose can best be explained like this:
"Perhaps the notion of humans attempting to manage the natural world reveals more than anything else the complete insanity of human supremacism, and this supremacism’s near-absolute invulnerability to counter-evidence. This culture has critically harmed or destroyed very single biome it has managed, and yet the managerial ethos gets stronger every day. Forests are managed to death. Yet still the managers claim to know what is best for forests. Wetlands managed to death. Yet still the managers claim to know what is best for wetlands. Rivers: managed to death. Yet still the managers claim to know what is best for rivers. Oceans: managed to death. Yet still the manages claim to know what is best for oceans."
And, of course, wild horses and other wildlife don\’t know what\’s best for them, so they have to be "properly controlled" (managed to death, "culled") by "managers"– as were Native Americans when the white man descended upon them to steal their land by force, bloodshed, and false promises.
White humans (BLM wranglers, cowboys, ranchers, farmers) are not part of ANY natural ecosystem. White humans are an aggressive, invasive species up to no good everywhere they invade. They always outcompete every other species because, as self-proclaimed "managers" of the natural world, they themselves are out-of-control but can\’t recognize their own reflection in the mirror. They cannot recognize themselves as the threat they pose to every other species. White humans do far more damage to the planet–climate change, human overpopulation, dumping plastic in the oceans, deforestation to make way for cattle grazing–need I continue? LET THE SPECIES THAT IS WITHOUT SIN CAST STONES AT OTHER SPECIES!
With respect, Carol, the decision NOT to address the problem we have created with feral horses is also a management decision. You are correct in asserting that humans have damaged the environment wherever they live (not unique to whites), and one of their most destructive habits has been to move exotic species into places they do not belong. Consider the impact of rats on the birds of the Hawaiian Islands, pigs on sea turtle populations, pythons in the Everglades, cats on island sea bird rookeries and, of course, horses on Australia and the American West.
I do understand that this issue involves more than environment–that horses are, to some, an iconic species with a strong emotional appeal. But this does nothing to ameliorate their impact. The US Postal Service once commissioned stamps depicting both longhorn and Hereford cattle in recognition of their historic role in building this nation. These, too, are an iconic species to many. But, as with horses, this fact is separate and secondary to the concerns of those posting on a site dedicated to "green" issues.
Over the past few years I have grown alarmed by the regularity with which horse advocates post on One Green Planet and the reluctance of OGP members to challenge their position. Part of this stems from the "facts" that are presented as well as the mentality that this problem boils down only to a choice between more horses or more cattle. I have already pointed out that we do have the third option of fewer of both, but would now like to turn my attention to the "factual" basis of the argument posed by horse advocates.
You mention that horses graze differently than cattle and so improve grasslands. It is important to note that bison graze in the same manner as cattle and no one has ever found fault with these. Horse advocacy groups are grasping at straws in the attempt to justify their own pet species over the preferences of cattlemen. The reality is that both are highly destructive and those sharing environmental concerns should not allow themselves to become distracted by insignificant differences.
As further examples of this concerted effort, let\’s consider claims regarding soil, water and vegetation. Both horses and cattle fertilize soil and there is no real difference in the manner in which nutrients pass through their bodies–whatever goes in, comes out. Provided they both consume the same diet, they both pass on the same wastes, and those nutrients that fail to digest completely within the animal will decay once deposited into the soil. There is little point in comparing cattle in food lots to horses on the range. One would find that horses create exactly the same problems with regard to ammonia, metals, etc. if raised in similar conditions, so this point of comparison is a red herring.
Advocates also laud the ability of horses to spread seeds–often describing differences in the digestive systems of horses and cattle to explain why horses are more effective in this regard. But is this a good thing? Native plants have always done just fine spreading their own seed. In fact, it was not until the introduction of horses and cattle that we began to see the invasion of cheat grass and thistle across our western states. It is no wonder that the National Park Service requires palletized, weed-free horse feed–the last thing we need is horses spreading seed through otherwise healthy landscapes.
As for soil quality, both horses and cattle have the same impact. Under certain conditions they compact soil; under others they loosen it. Since loosened soil frequently improves seed coverage, this is sometimes described as a good thing–but, of course, this would depend on the types of seeds being covered. Unfortunately, in places frequented by horses and cattle, these are typically undesirable species. The inescapable consequence of horses and cattle on arid landscapes is increased erosion and sedimentation, degrading conditions for the rare fish and amphibian species inhabiting such landscapes.
The claim that horses make water accessible to smaller species during the winter ignores the fact that these native species have always done just fine without horses and do not need their "help"–most simply nibble ice or snow. Water only becomes a concern during the hot summer months–and then horses consume huge quantities. In addition, horses are anything but "respectful" in this regard. They do, indeed, occupy water holes and actively drive away other thirsty animals that approach–even those as large as elk, for which there is documented photographic evidence (Mesa Verde National Park). To compound the problem, horses frequent not only the lowland waterholes shared by cattle, but also travel the mountain slopes in search of food, and there consume water from the smallest springs that serve as the only sources available to less mobile species dependent upon them.
In the end, horses may be less destructive than cattle on account of their much smaller numbers, but the damage they inflict is just as real. To attempt a pro-environment argument for cattle on public lands is absurd, and it is equally ridiculous to make such an argument for horses. Considering the destruction wrought by horses upon native species, it is difficult to conceive any ethical argument whatsoever for their presence, and I hope that OGP readers will resist seeing this site used as a propaganda tool.