How A Wild Horse Federal Adoption Program Leads Them To Slaughter

[hanselthecaretaker]

Wild horses adopted under a federal program are going to slaughter

In a lifetime of working with horses, Gary Kidd, 73, had never adopted an untrained wild mustang before. But when the federal government started paying people $1,000 a horse to adopt them, he signed up for as many as he...

www.seattletimes.com

I can understand that their numbers need to be controlled, but can’t help wondering if their numbers are so unsustainable due to human interference with some other part(s) of the natural order of things. As it stands this isn’t a good look.

 

[Eacaraxe]

...due to human interference with some other part(s) of the natural order of things...

There is: the USDA's overly aggressive control of mountain lion populations to limit the threat to humans.

 

[Gergar12]

I am sorry Nick for what I am about to say as it may be not politically correct, or sensitive.

This is precisely why I think PETA is crazy, and yes I about to evoke Godwin's law, among other things. Imagine if instead of saving what remained of the jews in the holocaust after World War 2, we just euthanized them, or the African American slaves in the South, or if Israel did it in mass to Gaza. And yes I know I am equating human life with animal life, but animals deserve rights, not a paternalistic organization that murders them. By the way, I don't think animal rights are equal to human rights, but the logic is the same, I murder you therefore I save you.

IF you want to save animals in the short term, and the long term, just save them. Don't euthanize them for fuck sake. It's these weird loony moonbat groups like Greenpeace, PETA, the Green Party, and also Degrowth in most countries that drive me insane with their bad policies, ad short-sightedness, and adherence to ideology.

PETA murders animals, Greenpeace hates Nuclear power, the Green Party is against Nuclear Power including fucking fusion, and regrowth is against human innovation and economic growth with noncarbon energy.

How about you...

Don't murder animals, use nuclear power as a stopgap to better power, and not hate the thing that powers the sun, and gives your solar panels power. Also how about you grow the economy so that people's quality of life increases in a sustainable way.

 

[Terminal Blue]

IF you want to save animals in the short term, and the long term, just save them. Don't euthanize them for fuck sake. It's these weird loony moonbat groups like Greenpeace, PETA, the Green Party, and also Degrowth in most countries that drive me insane with their bad policies, ad short-sightedness, and adherence to ideology.

While I certainly share your feelings on PETA, I also have to point out that those horses have lived a vastly vastly better life than any of the literally billions of animals who are industrially farmed for the meat and milk industry. Being squeamish about culling a few horses (horses who at least got to see the sun and walk more than a single step in their entire lifetime, and who were never mutilated or forced to give birth over and over or fed the shit and corpses of other members of their species) seems kind of hypocritical for a country that eats the most meat-rich diet on the planet.

PETA are shitheads but they do kind of have a point, at least when it comes to the farming industry. There really are worse fates than death.

 

[Eacaraxe]

...Don't murder animals...

Sorry, they're a prey species. Populations have to be managed somehow, and that means culling them. If there aren't enough mountain lions, wolves, and bears around to do it, then yes, humans have to step in and do the job. It sucks for the individual horses, but it has to be done to preserve the entire population.

More humane ways than slaughter are preferable, absolutely. That's the basis behind the BLM project and people abusing the system damn well ought be dealt with, but at the end of the day those horses still have to go. Not to pick nits here, but the horses in question are not wild; they're feral and they're actually an invasive species considering American ecosystems had 8,000-12,000 years to adapt to their absence. Horses had been extinct in the Americas since the Ice Age, and horses were re-introduced to the continents during European exploration and colonization.

Same thing was what spurred on the bison hunt lottery last month by the NPS. Bison are destructive animals, and the NPS has to thread the needle between preserving a viable bison population, and preserving the ecosystems they inhabit. They exported as many of them as possible, but at the end of the day they're still over-populated for their ranging area and that population has to go down somehow.

 

[09philj]

Horses aren't native to the US. Crack out the paardenrookvlees.

 

[Silvanus]

Sorry, they're a prey species. Populations have to be managed somehow, and that means culling them. If there aren't enough mountain lions, wolves, and bears around to do it, then yes, humans have to step in and do the job.

But there aren't enough mountain lions, wolves, & bears around because of humans. Human action is at the root of the perceived "need" to cull horses.

So, the solution is to address the human action that's causing the problem, not to solve the problem raised by our negligence and cruelty with more cruelty.

And if the overpopulation must be dealt with in the short-term, then the groups that caused the problem can damn well pay for a humane way to deal with it (the establishment of enclosed sanctuaries and mass neutering/spaying, for instance).

 

[Eacaraxe]

But there aren't enough mountain lions, wolves, & bears around because of humans. Human action is at the root of the perceived "need" to cull horses.

You do understand these are animal species -- mountain lions and bears -- that predate humans in the wild, yes? Mountain lions are less likely to do it and the cause will almost certainly be over territory or young protection than starvation, but it can and does happen especially if/when they're habituated to humans. Those populations do have to be controlled -- even though as I said, the USDA is far more aggressive in its mountain lion pop control than it needs to be -- in territory and prey availability, least of all for their own protection and that of the ecosystem they inhabit.

Otherwise you end up with predator populations that are unsustainably high, which puts prey species' populations at risk, or worse drives predators into areas inhabited by people who are then at risk of attack.

...not to solve the problem raised by our negligence and cruelty with more cruelty.

As opposed to what, letting feral and wild animal populations grow to unsustainable numbers and letting their food sources dwindle to nothing so they all starve, or are forced to displace and invade non-natural habitats? That's exactly the problem in the rural United States right now with feral hog populations, and habitat/farmland destruction caused by them -- and that's not a problem that can be fixed without "cruelty".

And if the overpopulation must be dealt with in the short-term, then the groups that caused the problem can damn well pay for a humane way to deal with it (the establishment of enclosed sanctuaries and mass neutering/spaying, for instance).

A. The animals in question are legally protected, and exist in areas that are sanctuaries. That would be why they're managed by BLM and NPS.

B. Mass sterilization was attempted. People like you had a problem with it and managed to get it blocked, because going off half-cocked and half-informed to "protect" an invasive species with better PR than others.

BLM's Controversial Wild Horse Roundup and Sterilization

Discover why the BLM's plan to sterilize wild horses in Utah is facing strong opposition.

americanwildhorsecampaign.org

Proposed Surgery To Sterilize Oregon Wild Horses Raises Hackles

Wild horses walk a fine line between icon and unwanted. The Bureau of Land Management is eyeing an Oregon experiment to spay wild mares as a potential model for the West.

www.opb.org

 

[Silvanus]

You do understand these are animal species -- mountain lions and bears -- that predate humans in the wild, yes? Mountain lions are less likely to do it and the cause will almost certainly be over territory or young protection than starvation, but it can and does happen especially if/when they're habituated to humans. Those populations do have to be controlled -- even though as I said, the USDA is far more aggressive in its mountain lion pop control than it needs to be -- in territory and prey availability, least of all for their own protection and that of the ecosystem they inhabit.

Otherwise you end up with predator populations that are unsustainably high, which puts prey species' populations at risk, or worse drives predators into areas inhabited by people who are then at risk of attack.

Yup, but human destruction of natural habitats and devastation of animal populations goes far, far beyond any such "need".

As opposed to what, letting feral and wild animal populations grow to unsustainable numbers and letting their food sources dwindle to nothing so they all starve, or are forced to displace and invade non-natural habitats? That's exactly the problem in the rural United States right now with feral hog populations, and habitat/farmland destruction caused by them -- and that's not a problem that can be fixed without "cruelty".

No, as opposed to solutions requiring less pain and death, such as sterilisation.

The choice between mass slaughter and utter overrunning of feral populations is a complete false binary, used to justify lazy and cheap solutions.

A. The animals in question are legally protected, and exist in areas that are sanctuaries. That would be why they're managed by BLM and NPS.

B. Mass sterilization was attempted. People like you had a problem with it and managed to get it blocked, because going off half-cocked and half-informed to "protect" an invasive species with better PR than others.

OK. And this constitutes a counter-argument because you assume (based on fuck all) that I would also have opposed neutering/ spaying campaigns...? Is this just lazy stereotyping masquerading as an argument?

 

[Eacaraxe]

Yup, but human destruction of natural habitats and devastation of animal populations goes far, far beyond any such "need".

Then offer a solution beyond vague, utopian iterations of "humans just need to be less human-y" that are entirely bereft of forethought, methodology, consideration of long-term consequences to both habitat and population, past attempts to ameliorate the problem and their successes and failures, practicality, likelihood of future success, long-term sustainability, but beyond all else, almost-certain pushback from "animal rights activists" who don't actually know shit from shinola when it comes to wildlife management.

This is the biggest problem actual conservationists face, most regularly, and far, far beyond the capacity for damage any animal has: dumbfuck animal rights activists who, in unbridled, ignorant hubris, hypocritically demonstrating the selfsame human exceptionalism they decry in others, sabotaging good public policy to protect wild animal populations and mitigate harm because it gives them a sad.

No, as opposed to solutions requiring less pain and death, such as sterilisation.

The choice between mass slaughter and utter overrunning of feral populations is a complete false binary, used to justify lazy and cheap solutions.

And here we run into the "shit from shinola" part of this equation, chiefly because of the following quote:

OK. And this constitutes a counter-argument because you assume (based on fuck all) that I would also have opposed neutering/ spaying campaigns...? Is this just lazy stereotyping masquerading as an argument?

You didn't even know it had been attempted. Don't presume to lecture me on wildlife management when you don't know the history of the subject, and how we ended up in the circumstances we currently are with wildlife management. That's my counter-argument here, not the straw man you're trying to claim I'm building nor the "false binaries" you claim that don't exist: you simply have no idea what you're talking about, you believe you know better because you've deigned yourself possessing of superior ideals and morals, and you never, ever will be arsed to shut up and listen to others who have actual experience with this shit because reality doesn't reflect your ideal.

And because you don't know what you're talking about, all you can do is pop off vague, utopian, but more importantly attempted and failed, policies, largely thanks to pushback from others like you who have no idea what they're talking about.

 

[Agema]

Horses aren't native to the US. Crack out the paardenrookvlees.

Depends how you want to look at it. It could be argued they aren't so much new as reintroduced.

 

[Silvanus]

Then offer a solution beyond vague, utopian iterations of "humans just need to be less human-y" that are entirely bereft of forethought, methodology, consideration of long-term consequences to both habitat and population, past attempts to ameliorate the problem and their successes and failures, practicality, likelihood of future success, long-term sustainability, but beyond all else, almost-certain pushback from "animal rights activists" who don't actually know shit from shinola when it comes to wildlife management.

This is the biggest problem actual conservationists face, most regularly, and far, far beyond the capacity for damage any animal has: dumbfuck animal rights activists who, in unbridled, ignorant hubris, hypocritically demonstrating the selfsame human exceptionalism they decry in others, sabotaging good public policy to protect wild animal populations and mitigate harm because it gives them a sad.

So, I gather some animal rights activists opposed a sterilisation programme, and because I also voiced some concern about animal welfare, you've come to the inane conclusion that that constitutes a valid criticism of my position. Even though it has nothing to do with it.

We can just pass over this bit then, because it's an irrelevant rant about other people you've just projected onto me for some reason.

And here we run into the "shit from shinola" part of this equation, chiefly because of the following quote:


You didn't even know it had been attempted. Don't presume to lecture me on wildlife management when you don't know the history of the subject, and how we ended up in the circumstances we currently are with wildlife management. That's my counter-argument here, not the straw man you're trying to claim I'm building nor the "false binaries" you claim that don't exist: you simply have no idea what you're talking about, you believe you know better because you've deigned yourself possessing of superior ideals and morals, and you never, ever will be arsed to shut up and listen to others who have actual experience with this shit because reality doesn't reflect your ideal.

What a load of condescending drivel.

A sterilisation plan has been tried before. Big whoop. That changes precisely nothing; culls have failed in the past, as well, but I gather that hasn't driven you to abandon it as an approach altogether, eh?

You've accused me of "lecturing" because I took a moral position different to yours, and promoted it. So-the-fuck-what? That's exactly what you've done. You've also taken a stance. You've also lectured me on it (as you're doing above, with the typical rage-filled gusto). Yeah, how dare someone have the chutzpah to disagree with you!?

You opine at great length, and with intense aggression, about stuff you haven't got any personal experience of as well. It's an internet forum; get over yourself.

 

[Eacaraxe]

So, I gather some animal rights activists opposed a sterilisation programme, and because I also voiced some concern about animal welfare, you've come to the inane conclusion that that constitutes a valid criticism of my position. Even though it has nothing to do with it.

Has everything to do with it because you outright suggested it, clearly unaware it had been attempted and blocked by people who -- once again, just like you -- don't actually know what they're talking about, and don't actually think a word of what they say through. Because, well frankly, this:

...That changes precisely nothing; culls have failed in the past, as well, but I gather that hasn't driven you to abandon it as an approach altogether, eh?

Sterilized animals don't stop foraging and migrating, inflicting incidental damage to their habitat; they don't stop eating and competing for food, depriving the breeding population of it and reducing the replenishment of their habitat over time; and they sure as shit don't stop shitting, causing erosion, runoff, soil fertility, and microbiome problems. Not one fucking whit of which you've seemingly thought through, either.

Sterilization is good for controlling a population generationally. It does not solve for problems with current populations, and if current populations are not sustainable then not only are you reducing the size of the current breeding population, you've created a whole swath of non-breeding competitors for the breeding population you left, thereby reducing their likelihood of successful reproduction over time. So congratulations, your well-meaning but idiotic non-solution to reduce "cruelty" causes more of it and endangers population viability in the long term. Because nothing says "animal welfare" like an underfed population of animals you've inadvertently created, because you lack the intellectual or ethical fortitude to make hard decisions.

 

[Silvanus]

Has everything to do with it because you outright suggested it, clearly unaware it had been attempted and blocked by people who -- once again, just like you -- don't actually know what they're talking about, and don't actually think a word of what they say through. Because, well frankly, this:


Sterilized animals don't stop foraging and migrating, inflicting incidental damage to their habitat; they don't stop eating and competing for food, depriving the breeding population of it and reducing the replenishment of their habitat over time; and they sure as shit don't stop shitting, causing erosion, runoff, soil fertility, and microbiome problems. Not one fucking whit of which you've seemingly thought through, either.

Oh, I've thought about that, yes; mostly because it's all bleeding obvious. They have the same ecological impact in the very short term but don't breed. This has been an issue for 50 years, driven almost entirely by the high breeding rate resulting in explosive population growth (~20%+ a year). And since horses begin breeding at 3-4 (or younger) and may continue into the twenties, you'd start to see returns in a very short period.

Sterilization is good for controlling a population generationally. It does not solve for problems with current populations, and if current populations are not sustainable then not only are you reducing the size of the current breeding population, you've created a whole swath of non-breeding competitors for the breeding population you left, thereby reducing their likelihood of successful reproduction over time.

Of course it's a generational solution. What, you believe that after 50 years, suddenly we're now at a point where we absolutely cannot wait 2-3 years (if that) for a solution to work? What makes this year specifically such a massive tipping point?

I've cut the rest because it's mostly typical ranting.