Quote:
Originally Posted by sheepguide
Ive watched multiple generations of horses out there born in the wild. They have be that way for for more years than ive been out there and ive travelled that country one way or another since i was born in 1974 so yes many to me are wild as they have never know nor has 20+ generations that I know of prior to thatknow any hand of man or seen the inside of a fence!!
There is in most of the foothills and eastern slopes more actual grass lands than there has been for a hundred years or better so until I see proof that the horses are actually depriving any other animals from feed I dont believe they are hurting the other wildlife populations. I still feel they need to be controlled but just because they dont need to grow in populations and need to be stabilized
I dont feel it would cause enough of a change in feelings. People have thoughts on horses no matter where they come from. And that wont change if you tell them anything. Peoples perspective on horses isnt based on how they got where they are.
You dont feel Brown Trout take away from native fishes? And to you they serve no purpose but to many they are part of the west country, part of many generations of their families childhoods seeing these animals out there. So because you as a human cant hunt something it serves no purpose?
|
I read your responses above, and I am a little disapointed.
I'll start from the top and work down.
It is obvious you have a romantic sympathetic view towards he horses, that serve no other purpose but to provide eye candy for an interested few.
The fact that some of these horses have never seen the hand of man does not make them wild. It doesn't matter how many generations they have been out there, they are still decendants of domesticated animals. This still makes them feral, not wild.
I am not sure what proof you need that the horses are not impacting habitat. By the sheer fact that they are there, and are not supposed to be, they are negatively impacting the enviroment. Again, every blade of grass that a horse eats, could be eaten by an animal that is native to that habitat.
You say you feel the need for control, but still want protection? How is all of this to be paid for?
I have another very simple question. If you had only one dollar to spend on wildlife management, would you spend that dollar on elk, moose, and deer, or would you spend it on the horses?
People are funny. They form opinions based on what they know, and on what they are told. If you keep calling them "wild" people believe it. Start calling them feral, and then educate based on that one word, I strongly feel opinions would change. We still have a seal hunt in this country, and still mine asbestos. Life will go on.
Finally, if brown trout are not a native species, then my opinion is they shouldn't be there.
So, because these horses are nice to look at, by people in a small area, my tax dollars are being spent to protect them? No thanks.
In summary, this is the deal. It is the truth. If I am wrong anywhere in my summary, please point it out.
These horses are decendants from escaped or freed domesticated animals. That makes them, by definition, feral. They happen to live in an enviroment that has allowed them to survive. Just because they can, certainly doesn't mean they should. You have said yourself that there is no way to eradicate these animals, and I agree.
You say that there is no proof that they are affecting other wildlife. Again, I say by the simple fact that they are there, and are not supposed to be, they have an affect. This is very simple logic, and if you can refute it, please try. It is not a question of how much grass and habitat there is.
As with most things in this world, these horses cost money. That money is generated by taxes that we all pay. I'm also sure that donations are made. This is another matter, so I'll just stick with the taxes. There is only so much money available for wildlife management. The fact that some if this money is being spent on aniamls that don't belong, is a travesty. That money should be spent on actual wildlife. See my question about the dollar above.
Opinion time: I see absolutly no difference in rounding up feral horses and taking them to slaughter and issuing tags (revenue generation) for hunters to shoot and eat them, except the hunter is actual showing more respect for the animal. Use the existing laws to manage horses, just like we do for everything else in this province. Hell, we can go and shoot a bison, but not feral horses? How does that even make sense?
Your proposed control and protection plan will cost money, and plenty of it. Where do you expect this money to come from?
In closing, bottom line, these are feral animals and don't belong on the landcape. They have a negative impact from the fact that they are there. Eradication is not rellay a realistic option, but I don't see why they can't be rounded up, shot, re-domesticated, or whatever. Numbers will be reduced, and the survivors will go further into tougher to reach places, where you can still take all of the pictures of them you want.
R.