Wild Horse Cull

[sunsetrider2011]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

I think the key phrase was eastern slopes...it took horses a long time to get to Alberta. No doubt some came in the 19th century but the vast majority of horses in the eastern slopes now can be traced back to the early and mid 1900s. They were released because people couldn't afford to feed them or no longer needed them with the advent of more modern gas powered machinery. There's nothing majestic about them nor are them some special breed of mustang...they are just the remanants of feral livestock that had served its useful purpose.

It's not like the were reintroduced 500+ years ago in North America either....domestic horses were brought over to serve man. Some went feral no doubt but there was no reintroduction.

That could very well be,, however there were still wildies present before that happened. If any of the older generations that roamed the mountains,Natives or explorers ect, spoke of the wild horse bands.This I remember from when i was young, they talked of the wildies running free long before the first vehicle or major settlment showed up on the map. I remember them speaking about the wild bands trying to steal the tame and domesticated horses as well. and these folks were well into their 80's and 90's at that time, so they were born befoe the turn of the century, and they recalled stories from their predicessors.

So are we to say our previous generations were full of Crap? I remember them telling stories of them having to shoot wildies that were a nuisance in the olden days, some of the older ranchers in the bc interior, still speak of this. My first place I owned was in the heart of the itchy and ilgatcha mountains at the head waters of the black water river, the old fellow I bought it from spoke volumes about the wildies in his time even then. Are you saying his experiences were crap?
There is way to much history putting them in the wild before some bureaucrat Deemed them a Nusiance and called them feral.
Some horses were turned loose in the 30's however because people could no longer feed them and didnt have the heart to eat them. however After 5 or 10 years any offspring of such would be considered wild as they wouldnt know what domestication is.
Too many people have Ideals of what should and shouldnt be with in the wilds of Alberta,, and the government wouldnt have the slightest clue in how to deal with them,, so they just blanket a cull. just like the bufflao the allowed to decimate across the plains, and that wasnt very long ago that happend. That is a perfect example of what happens when governments interfere proper wildlife managements. They were here long before the whiteman got here,, yet the whiteman decided they needed to go. No difference than with the wild horses. There isnt a significant number of wildies to have much impact at all with in the eastern slopes of Alberta, It is just some ones brainwave or ideal that hey they dont belong.

[pickrel pat]

What does feral mean? The answer to this debate should be in the meaning...

[sunsetrider2011]

Originally Posted by Knotter

Allow me to cite your source:

http://www.nebraskastudies.org/0200/...0201_0105.html.

didn't sound like you.

Although similar - the horses here now are different in origin. That gap of 9,500 (10,000 minus 500) years is interesting. That's a big hole in the theory that horses are native (meaning they have continuity dating back to that time). Can you show us that they were here in that time?.. I mean between 8000 b.c. and 1492?

Yup already posted the link last night if you had read entire thread,, Also can you prove they did not exist in the time frame. as it stats in the article a small majority of them passed over the bearing straight when it wasnt suitable for them here in that time frame. they were not extermintaed or became extinct,, they migrated. simple,, just like elk n cariboo do they migrate

Originally Posted by sunsetrider2011

So are we to say our previous generations were full of Crap? .

Please do me the courtesy of reading what I actually wrote. I enjoy a well informed discussion with intelligent people like you but when you can't take the time to actually read what I've taken the time to write, it kind of becomes incoherant rambling. Something I have zero interest in.

[Sooner]

Do you actually know how a stallion marks his territory?[/QUOTE]



Not a horse guy but have been told thats why the piles are so big.

[sunsetrider2011]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Please do me the courtesy of reading what I actually wrote. I enjoy a well informed discussion with intelligent people like you but when you can't take the time to actually read what I've taken the time to write, it kind of becomes incoherant rambling. Something I have zero interest in.

I did read it Sheep , and I agree with you some of the points, Like i said last night we may have to agree to disagree on the others.

[sunsetrider2011]

Originally Posted by Sooner

Do you actually know how a stallion marks his territory?

Not a horse guy but have been told thats why the piles are so big.[/QUOTE]

Yes a stallion marks his territory in piles ,,and uses the pile each and every time he marks it, i have run 2 remudas of horses,, no fences to seperate the stallions,, the only thing seperating them from each other were the stallion piles, no fights no arguments the respected each others boundries ,,it is the same way in the wild, however with too many stallions dominace battles exist.

Originally Posted by sunsetrider2011

I did read it Sheep , and I agree with you some of the points, Like i said last night we may have to agree to disagree on the others.

Apparently you didn't....I conceeded that horses were in Alberta in the 19th century and that some undoubtedly went feral but in the next breath you are insinuating that my coments bring doubt upon the old timers tales of wildies. How so? Unless the old timers you were talking to were born in the 1700s, it's quite possible, bearing my comments in mind that they did see and have issues with wildies. I don't doubt it. There's nothing to agree to disagree about here. The dates of horses arriving in Alberta are pretty well documented as are the origins of the majority of today's wildies. Unfortunately, I feel your passion is clouding your ability to reason.

We can agree to disagree on a lot of things regarding this issue but not the timeline of horses in North America and more specifically Alberta so please don't tell me what I'm saying but rather read what I'm saying.

[Knotter]

Originally Posted by sunsetrider2011

Yup already posted the link last night if you had read entire thread,, Also can you prove they did not exist in the time frame. as it stats in the article a small majority of them passed over the bearing straight when it wasnt suitable for them here in that time frame. they were not extermintaed or became extinct,, they migrated. simple,, just like elk n cariboo do they migrate

So you can't show us they did exist in that time frame (8000 b.c. to 1492) in north america? We don't have that same issue with all the other species we know to be native here. So... then what is the explanation for the mysterious disappearance of the evidence of horses post Pleistocene?

By the way - by the time Europeans arrived in these parts of north america (Alberta) horses would had been on this continent for 200+ years.

[sunsetrider2011]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Apparently you didn't....I conceeded that horses were in Alberta in the 19th century and that some undoubtedly went feral but in the next breath you are insinuating that my coments bring doubt upon the old timers tales of wildies. How so? Unless the old timers you were talking to were born in the 1700s, it's quite possible, bearing my comments in mind that they did see and have issues with wildies. I don't doubt it. There's nothing to agree to disagree about here. The dates of horses arriving in Alberta are pretty well documented as are the origins of the majority of today's wildies. Unfortunately, I feel your passion is clouding your ability to reason.

We can agree to disagree on a lot of things regarding this issue but not the timeline of horses in North America and more specifically Alberta so please don't tell me what I'm saying but rather read what I'm saying.

Easy Sheep Easy, hahahaha Breathe Obviously there are points you still feel strongly on and points i feel stronly on that we will not agree on. I my opinion they were here long before,,in yours they were not. we have to agree to disagree. there really isnt anything to gain over arguing the were's and wern't's.
each has their own mindset. My point is it serves no use iraticatiing a specieces to suit someones agenda, it didnt work out in the past and it will not work out in the future.

Originally Posted by sunsetrider2011

Easy Sheep Easy, hahahaha Breathe Obviously there are points you still feel strongly on and points i feel stronly on that we will not agree on. I my opinion they were here long before,,in yours they were not. we have to agree to disagree. there really isnt anything to gain over arguing the were's and wern't's.
each has their own mindset. My point is it serves no use iraticatiing a specieces to suit someones agenda, it didnt work out in the past and it will not work out in the future.

No you twisted my words to try and make your point....with the emotional old-timer card. So how do we disagree on when horses were in Alberta. What say you that's so different from me?

I agree that an ancestor existed pre roughly 8,000BC, I agree that the Spaniards brought them to North America in the 1400s and I agree they were in Alberta in the 1800s. What is it we are agreeing to disagree on?

[sunsetrider2011]

.[/QUOTE]By the way - by the time Europeans arrived in these parts of north america (Alberta) horses would had been on this continent for 200+ years.[/QUOTE]

Isnt this what you just said? I rest my case on they were her before settlers showed up. I personally dont have a direct line on to the where abouts of horses were at that time,, however they did not become extinct, so obviosly they had to migrate to another location to survive right?

=sunsetrider2011;1678530Isnt this what you just said? I rest my case on they were her before settlers showed up. I personally dont have a direct line on to the where abouts of horses were at that time,, however they did not become extinct, so obviosly they had to migrate to another location to survive right?

The Indians brought them north....that's pretty well documented.

[sunsetrider2011]

Originally Posted by Knotter

So you can't show us they did exist in that time frame (8000 b.c. to 1492) in north america? We don't have that same issue with all the other species we know to be native here. So... then what is the explanation for the mysterious disappearance of the evidence of horses post Pleistocene?

By the way - by the time Europeans arrived in these parts of north america (Alberta) horses would had been on this continent for 200+ years.

Originally Posted by sheephunter

No you twisted my words to try and make your point....with the emotional old-timer card. So how do we disagree on when horses were in Alberta. What say you that's so different from me?

I agree that an ancestor existed pre roughly 8,000BC, I agree that the Spaniards brought them to North America in the 1400s and I agree they were in Alberta in the 1800s. What is it we are agreeing to disagree on?

You and I agree on alot of points,,Myself, I believe they were here in Alberta before the 1800's I believe the natives were riding them long before that. But that is my opinion.

Originally Posted by sunsetrider2011

You and I agree on alot of points,,Myself, I believe they were here in Alberta before the 1800's I believe the natives were riding them long before that. But that is my opinion.

Well they could have been...it still doesn't change anything even if they arrived in the 1700s or 1400s for that matter.

[sunsetrider2011]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

The Indians brought them north....that's pretty well documented.

In the documented circumstances yes, but prior to the 1800's i beleive and also believe there were other bands as well,, not just what the natives had brought north in their travels.

the spaniards lost the battle with the natives, and the horses were left behind. thast my opinion

Originally Posted by sunsetrider2011

In the documented circumstances yes, but prior to the 1800's i beleive and also believe there were other bands as well,, not just what the natives had brought north in their travels.

Where did they come from? Are you saying that there were modern horses here before the Spaniards brought them?

[sunsetrider2011]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Well they could have been...it still doesn't change anything even if they arrived in the 1700s or 1400s for that matter.

Explain what doesnt change? i puts them here bfore the first settlers come,, this is what I am getting at.

[Donkey Oatey]

Who gives a crap, they came as livestock and as livestock should be behind a fence, not propagating without limits or controls on them as feral animals.

You love horses, everyone gets that. Horses built this country, everyone gets that.

What everyone doesn't get is why these feral livestock animals have anymore rights than native, wild species that were not introduced by humans (not just Europeans, but humans.)

Get them out of the west country. Put em on farms, take them to slaughter, what ever. Do the same thing to those horses as was done to Suffield, horses. Put em behind fences.

Originally Posted by sunsetrider2011

Explain what doesnt change? i puts them here bfore the first settlers come,, this is what I am getting at.

I have no doubt they were here (here being Alberta) before the first settlers either...nothing to disagree on there. The Indians brought them north. They were remanants from the horses the Spaniards brought over.

[sunsetrider2011]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Where did they come from? Are you saying that there were modern horses here before the Spaniards brought them?

I didnt say that at all,i am saying that the spanish barb had to come from the original north american horse,, that traveled across the ice during the time of the gap in the existence of horses in north america. All horses in europe stem from asian decent ,which showed up across the ice, the barb,, the arabian, ect, they even made it as far as south africa.

[sunsetrider2011]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

I have no doubt they were here (here being Alberta) before the first settlers either...nothing to disagree on there. The Indians brought them north. They were remanants from the horses the Spaniards brought over.

Thats what I said

[Prdtrgttr]

Originally Posted by Donkey Oatey

Who gives a crap, they came as livestock and as livestock should be behind a fence, not propagating without limits or controls on them as feral animals.

You love horses, everyone gets that. Horses built this country, everyone gets that.

What everyone doesn't get is why these feral livestock animals have anymore rights than native, wild species that were not introduced by humans (not just Europeans, but humans.)

Get them out of the west country. Put em on farms, take them to slaughter, what ever. Do the same thing to those horses as was done to Suffield, horses. Put em behind fences.

Yup! This sums it up nicely.

[sunsetrider2011]

Originally Posted by Donkey Oatey

Who gives a crap, they came as livestock and as livestock should be behind a fence, not propagating without limits or controls on them as feral animals.

You love horses, everyone gets that. Horses built this country, everyone gets that.

What everyone doesn't get is why these feral livestock animals have anymore rights than native, wild species that were not introduced by humans (not just Europeans, but humans.)

Get them out of the west country. Put em on farms, take them to slaughter, what ever. Do the same thing to those horses as was done to Suffield, horses. Put em behind fences.

Really? have you read any of the thread?

Originally Posted by sunsetrider2011

I didnt say that at all,i am saying that the spanish barb had to come from the original north american horse,, that traveled across the ice during the time of the gap in the existence of horses in north america. All horses in europe stem from asian decent ,which showed up across the ice, the barb,, the arabian, ect, they even made it as far as south africa.

There is fossil evidence of early equine type animals in Europe and Asia long before 8,000BC. It's not like they suddely showed up in Europe 10-12k years ago. There's no way you can say that the Spanish horses' roots can be traced back to North America ancestors.

[sunsetrider2011]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

There is fossil evidence of early equine type animals in Europe and Asia long before 8,000BC. It's not like they suddely showed up in Europe 10-12k years ago. There's way you can say that the Spanish horses' roots can be traced back to North America ancestors.

The were present in many parts of the globe I do believe,,however i am sure it wasnt just a one way trip across the ice right? This is pure speculation, on my part as well,, has I myslef havent phisically found evidence of such,,however as you say fossils have been found to prove existence.

[Rocky7]

Originally Posted by Sooner

We meet friends up there every year to camp and quad ride. The trails and shat they leave behind are everywhere. Same goes back behind Ram Falls where we hunted elk.

It crumbles to nothing in no time and it does not splatter on my windshield as when I hit a puddle of cow liquid on the FTR.

It's easy to avoid.

Originally Posted by sunsetrider2011

The were present in many parts of the globe I do believe,,however i am sure it wasnt just a one way trip across the ice right? This is pure speculation, on my part as well,, has I myslef havent phisically found evidence of such,,however as you say fossils have been found to prove existence.

It was actually a land bridge that connected North America to Europe and no, I suspect it was not a one way trip but the fossil evidence does indicate that equine type animals lived on both sides of it prior to its formation. The key point is that they continued to develop in Europe and Asia whereas they disappeared in North America for nearly 10,000 years. Just like elephants, rhinos and tigers....none of which are considered native to North America either.

[sunsetrider2011]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

It was actually a land bridge that connected North America to Europe and no, I suspect it was not a one way trip but the fossil evidence does indicate that equine type animals lived on both sides of it prior to its formation. The key point is that they continued to develop in Europe and Asia whereas they disappeared in North America for nearly 10,000 years. Just like elephants, rhinos and tigers....none of which are considered native to North America either.

I believe this was because of climate change and the availability of forage.

Originally Posted by sunsetrider2011

I believe this was because of climate change and the availability of forage.

No doubt.