HOME | DD

Description
To blame damage caused by over 4,000,000 animals on fewer than 40,000 animals defies all logic.

Public lands refers to lands owned by the U.S. government to be utilized by wildlife and ranchers.
Private lands refers to lands owned by private individuals or corporations and is not under any major jurisdiction by the U.S. government.
Checkerboard lands refers to lands that consist of one square mile of private land that butts up against one square mile of public land, one square mile of private land that butts up against one square mile of public land, and so on, creating a "checkerboard" of private and public lands. Such lands rarely fence off the private land from the public land.
Cattle ranchers refers to any individual or organization who raises cattle for profit. In this instance, I will be referring specifically to cattle ranchers in the Western United States.
Mustang advocates refers to any individual or organization that supports keeping and managing Mustang horses in the wild.
Horseaboos refers to people who believe that wild Mustangs are like Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron.
Anti-Mustang refers to any individual, group, or organization that greatly dislikes Mustangs and may be "out to get them." Please note that just because you aren't a fan of Mustangs doesn't mean you're anti-Mustang. Anti-Mustang people have a personal vendetta against Mustangs. Many speak of eradication and violence towards the animals.
Beef products refers to any usable product that comes from cattle, be it beef, leather, milk, bones, fur, etc.
BLM refers to the Bureau of Land Management, a branch of the U.S. government that is given charge over managing public lands as one of its duties.
Feral refers to a free-roaming animal that was once domestic or whose ancestors were domestic.

Cattle grazing has gone down from 49% (1950s) to only 7.9% (today): www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/graz… . That means that the 4 million cattle and sheep on public lands today are merely 7.9% of what they used to be. That means that in the 1950s, around 316 million (316,000,000) cattle and sheep once grazed on public lands. That undoubtedly caused an incredible amount of environmental damage. And Mustangs are blamed for that damage, when they once numbered an absolute maximum ever of only 2 million (most likely only 1 million). That is simply illogical. And to drive the point home, if anti-Mustang groups are correct in that Mustangs never existed in a population of at least 1 million (their proposed estimate never exceeds 40,000), it makes their argument that Mustangs cause more damage than cattle even more hypocritical and illogical. Their own arguments are self-destructive!

Mustang advocates have been pressuring the BLM to take firmer measures against the expanse of cattle ranchers. Anti-Mustang groups claim that all Mustang advocates are "horseaboos" (which is name-calling, a big signal that an individual in a debate has nothing useful left to say) and since Mustang advocates like myself want cattle ranchers to find alternatives for income, then it means we want America to starve and that we hold the horses' lives above human lives. Not only does this argument make a mountain out of a molehill (we don't want cattle ranchers to disappear, we just want them to stop expanding,) it also ignores a massive variable in the equation: "Public lands cattle provide only 3% of the beef products that America needs." (www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307 …) The fact is simple enough in and of itself. If all those cattle ranchers were to quit ranching and find jobs elsewhere, there would be little to no effect on the U.S. economy be it within the nation or through exported goods. Public lands cattle are simply insignificant to our lives. The fact that Americans like beef is irrelevant to the Mustang debate considering that America throws away tons (using the actual measurement of weight) of beef every year. Wildlife and cattle are killed for nothing but rancher and government greed. Instead of pouring more money and land into the beef industry, the economic response would be to find an alternative outlet for ranchers seeking more profit.

There are a few things that anti-Mustang groups must answer.

1) Anti-Mustang people believe that Mustangs are causing environmental damage, even though they once existed in numbers far greater than they currently do.
Anti-Mustang groups dodge this question by denying that Mustangs have ever existed in larger populations. Why is this an issue, you may be asking? Why do we care that Mustangs once existed in larger populations? The importance lies in the fact that Mustangs now exist in a much smaller population and are only now causing trouble. Wild horses should not be used as scapegoats for range degradation that is in fact primarily caused by private livestock: for instance, environmentalists have determined that in Nevada, home of the vast majority of America's remaining wild horses, the herds havelittle impact on the ecosystem compared with the hundreds of thousands of cattle that also roam the Nevada range. The Western Watersheds Project acknowledges that "the main cause of degradation of public lands in the arid west is livestock use and not wild horses."

The Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act recognizes free-roaming Mustangs as an "integral component of the natural system." It means that horses can only be removed from public lands if it is proven that they are overpopulating or are causing habitat destruction. The Act further mandates that the government "maintain specific ranges on public lands as sanctuaries for their protection and preservation."

In order to remove Mustangs from public lands to make way for cattle and oil drilling, and to fund the few families who are contracted millions to round up the horses, the BLM has made claims that wild horses are destroying natural habitats, competing for grazing lands, and overpopulating. But reports by the General Accounting Office and the National Academy of Sciences dispute such claims: BLM has never presented any evidence that horses destroy habitat, and the NAS in particular delivered a scathing critique of the BLM's outdated methods of determining wild horse populations. In fact, reducing horse populations in a given area has had negligible effect on range conditions: after massive wild horse roundups, herd areas show little or no improvement, especially in instances when cattle numbers remain the same (or increase). This means that wild horses are not the cause of habitat damage.

In stark contrast with BLM’s assertions, scientific studies have shown that Mustangs actually benefit the North American environment in numerous ways. Arguably the most important way that free-roaming horses help protect their environment is by combating cheatgrass, an invasive species of plant: www.usu.edu/weeds/plant_specie… . Cheatgrass is native to North Africa, which is also where the horse species Equus caballos is thought to have originated. One could say that horses are cheatgrass's natural predator. It came to North America during the mid to late 1800's amid grain and straw packing materials. It arrived several centuries after Mustangs arrived, so its presence in North America cannot be blamed on Mustangs, as anti-Mustang people often claim. Fortunately for North America, horses enjoy eating cheatgrass, especially during early spring when the blades are tender, and (most importantly) before it's had a chance to develop seeds. Mustangs destroy the plants before they create seeds, thus preventing them from propagating. Vegetation also seems to thrive in some areas inhabited by horses (perhaps because horses combat an invasive species of plant?), which may be one reason the Great Plains were once a "sea of grass." Since that time, Mustangs have had their population reduced by about 98%.  Generally, range conditions in steep hilly areas favored by horses are much better than in lower areas frequented by cattle. In addition, the horse’s digestive system does not thoroughly degrade the vegetation it eats. As a result, it tends to “replant” its own forage with the diverse seeds that pass through its system. This unique digestive system greatly aids in the building up of the absorptive, nutrient-rich humus component of soils. This, in turn, helps the soil absorb and retain water upon which many diverse plants and animals depend. In this way, Mustangs are also of great value in reducing dry inflammable vegetation in fire-prone areas, such as the invasive plant species cheatgrass. Back in the 1950s, it was primarily out of concern over brush fires that Storey County, Nevada, passed the first wild horse protection law in the nation.

Horses have proven useful to other species they share the range with. In winter months, they break through even deep crusted snow where the grass cannot be seen. They also open up frozen springs and ponds, making it possible for smaller animals to drink. During the historic blizzard of 1886, hundreds of thousands of cattle were lost on the Plains. Those that survived followed herds of Mustangs and grazed in the areas they opened up.

Another positive effect of wild horses on biodiversity was documented in the case of the Coyote Canyon horses in the Anza Borrega National Park (California). After wild horses were all removed from the park to increase bighorn sheep population, bighorn sheep mortality actuality skyrocketed: mountain lions, formerly wild horse predators, compensated the loss of one of their prey species by increasing their predation on the other available species: bighorn. Ironically, anti-Mustang groups claim that Mustangs are causing a drop in bighorn and pronghorn populations, due to the fact that both bighorns and pronghorns have been observed waiting for horses to finish drinking before they drink. The problem with the “drinking hole wild horses causing mass sheep and antelope extinction” argument is that, first of all, bighorn sheep and pronghorn are not threatened in the least bit. They're listed as "least concern: population stable." Horses aren't causing them any trouble. The sierra bighorn (Ovis canadensis sierrae), which is a subspecies of the bighorn sheep species (Ovis canadensis), is endangered, yes, but due to hunting and habitat loss, not from waiting a few minutes at a watering hole. Waiting a few minutes for a herd of horses to finish drinking is not causing any sort of die-off among bighorn and pronghorn. Unlike cattle, which will stand in a watering hole all day long, wild horses are constantly on the move. They generally do not stay in an open, vulnerable place like a watering hole for longer than half an hour, if that. Most leave after a five-minute drink. It's also well-known that horses will wait for other large herbivores to finish drinking as well. That's simply how wild animals interact.

In the past, both bighorn sheep and pronghorn were threatened, both due to hunting and human encroachment. Bighorn sheep were victims of hunting, mostly, whereas pronghorn were prevented from reaching their migration routes because of (you guessed it) cattle. Cattle ranches erect barbed wire fences around their land, and pronghorn couldn't get through. But thanks to kindly ranchers making "wildlife-friendly" fences that have a smooth wire along the bottom rather than a barbed one, pronghorn can now slip under and get where they need to go. Things aren't perfect for either of these species, but they're much better off than they were a few years ago, and wild horses had nothing to do with the problems or the solutions.

The main cause of habitat degradation to North America is cattle and sheep, not Mustangs. Cows graze within a mile of water, often standing in it until the water is so soiled it’s unusable for some time, while wild horses are highly mobile, grazing from five to ten miles from water, at higher elevations, on steeper slopes, and in more rugged terrain. Cows have no upper front teeth, only a thick pad: they graze by wrapping their long tongues around grass and pulling on it. If the ground is wet or loose (such as if they have been walking over it for days), they will pull out the grass by the roots, preventing it from growing back. Horses have both upper and lower incisors and graze by "clipping the grass," similar to a lawn mower, allowing the grass to easily grow back. Horses and burros also have solid hooves which don’t tear apart the earth nearly as much as a cow’s cloven hoof. A congressionally-mandated study by the National Academy of Sciences found that wild horse forage use remains a small fraction of cattle forage use on public ranges. Domestic cattle and sheep number around 4 million on public lands. They outnumber Mustangs 50 to 1 in most states, and 200 to 1 in others. That's 3 million more than there ever were of Mustangs on those same lands, and 160% more than the modern Mustang population. The huge cattle and sheep populations have pushed out native wildlife and Mustangs, displacing wildlife and causing them to live in and eat plants that are unnatural for them to eat. Although cattle are rotated seasonally, there are still millions on the land at any given time. Even when a space of land is evacuated, it is typically so run-down that wildlife do not move back into it. Thus, cattle move back and keep the land as their own. It's not logical to ignore the more abundant, newer, non-native animal and choose to accuse the rarer non-native animal that has lived in North America for hundreds of years longer, and also lives in populations much, much smaller than it used to, back when the ecology of the land was relatively harmonious. Since Mustang populations are lower than they ever have been, it's not logical to pin the blame on them.

In 2001, a team of Russian scientists, part of a cooperative venture with the United States, came to study the effects of grazing animals on riparian areas in Nevada. They tested streams for nutrients and examined the desert and Sierra to learn techniques to improve the environment of their homeland. The scientists found that cows, which tend to camp around water sources, cause more damage to the stream banks than wild horses, which tend to drink and move on: "When we saw horses drinking from creeks, we didn't see much impact except for hoof prints. The water looked clean, had good overhanging branches and there was no sign of erosion on the banks. There was an abundance of insects and animals, including frogs and dragonflies and water-striders." Areas extensively used by cattle had fewer nutrients in the water and showed signs of bank erosion and other damage, their study concluded.

The fact that horses wander much farther from water sources than many ruminant grazers adds to their efficacy as a fire preventer. Their tendency to range widely throughout both steep, hilly terrain and lower, more level areas, while cattle concentrate solely on lower elevations, also explains why horses have a lesser impact on their environment than livestock: when one looks at a boundary fence where horses range on one side and cattle range on the other, the horses’ side typically reveals about 30% more native grasses. Their nomadic grazing habits cause horses to nibble and then move to the next bunch of grass, so as to not overgraze. This is why horse range is seldom sparse unless the horses' natural grazing patterns are disrupted by human interference, mostly in the form of fencing.

In the words of Eric Scott, Associate Curator for Paleontology at the Dr. John D. Cooper Archaeological and Paleontological Center; adjunct instructor in Natural Sciences (Biology) at California State University, San Bernardino. He is stated to be the world expert on Equus fossils: "I hesitate to respond because my own perspective on this has proven somewhat unpopular with horse advocates. But simply put, whether horses are “native” or not is actually a non-issue in this respect. The fact is, horses evolved in North America over tens of millions of years as living components of communities and ecosystems. Those communities and ecosystems no longer exist. The other megafauna with which Pleistocene Equus partitioned the environment, the predators who preyed upon those horses, the unrestricted expanses where they could roam free – all of these are gone. And the current living ecosystems have been fairly dramatically changed, both by the intervening 10,000+ years since horses went extinct, and by the enormous impact humans have had on the west – roads, fences, diverted water, and cattle, to name just a few. Reintroducing horses to that environment is fraught with difficulties. I’m not saying it shouldn’t happen – in fact, I’d much rather have horses out there than cattle. But the horses’ well-being requires that we address the situation as it is, not as it was thousands of years ago. And whether horses are native or not affects those determinations not at all."

2) Anti-Mustang people ignore human and livestock causes of habitat degradation, preferring to shift the blame on Mustangs.
We have established that Mustangs do cause minor damage. No educated Mustang advocate will deny that. However, we have also established that the reason they cause damage is because they have been displaced by cattle. Now, that put aside, which causes more damage in total: cattle or Mustangs?

Livestock permits are issued at a fraction of the cost of livestock grazed on private property or feedlots. The fees paid by permittees are often not even enough to pay for the process of issuing the permit. This process has become known as “welfare ranching,” and exists on the back of the American taxpayer. Of note is that less than 4% of cattle utilized in industry comes from public land.

Currently more than 66% of public land is open to livestock grazing and only about 10% of BLM land is legal for use by wild horses and burros. Within the areas legal for horses, the available forage for grazing animals can be allotted with 80% going for private livestock with the rest being given to wildlife and wild horses (wild horses are allotted less than grazing game species). Mustangs and burros are given less than 10% of available forage on 10% of public land. All in all, it makes no sense to claim that Mustangs are the sole cause of damage to rangelands when there are over 4,000,000 cattle and sheep on public lands alone.

Even the world expert on horse fossils in North America has agreed that cattle are more dangerous than horses: "The current living ecosystems have been fairly dramatically changed, both by the intervening 10,000+ years since horses went extinct, and by the enormous impact humans have had on the west – roads, fences, diverted water, and cattle, to name just a few. Reintroducing horses to that environment is fraught with difficulties. I’m not saying it shouldn’t happen – in fact, I’d much rather have horses out there than cattle. But the horses’ well-being requires that we address the situation as it is, not as it was thousands of years ago. And whether horses are native or not affects those determinations not at all."- Eric Scott, Associate Curator for Paleontology at the Dr. John D. Cooper Archaeological and Paleontological Center; adjunct instructor in Natural Sciences (Biology) at California State University, San Bernardino. He is stated to be the world expert on Equus fossils. You can find his information here:
www.facebook.com/CaptainFossil
fullerton.academia.edu/EricSco …
www.linkedin.com/in/eric-scott …

3) Anti-Mustang people ignore hunting as a possible explanation for loss of native wildlife.
Anti-Mustang groups often complain that native species such as bighorn sheep are endangered and their numbers are dropping due to Mustangs' presence on the ranges. There are a number of faults with this claim. First is that, the last time I checked, bighorn sheep were not an endangered species. I could be wrong, but everywhere I look, they're listed as "least concern." The subspecies called the Sierra Nevada Bighorn is endangered in California. It's a gross generalization to say that all bighorn sheep are endangered. However, let's play devil's advocate and assume bighorns are on the brink of extinction. If Mustangs are the cause of their endangerment, how come they didn't go extinct when they both lived in much greater populations and in different places (before cattle displaced them)? And how exactly could removing all of the Mustangs bring bighorns back? It just doesn't make sense.

It's much more obvious that over-hunting would the the most likely culprit. Bighorn sheep's large, curved horns are one of the most prized trophies in North America. (endangeredspeciesearth.com/big …, www.montanaoutwest.com/sheep.h … ,
wyomingwilderness.com/html/hun … , www.trophymountainoutfitters.c … , www.biggamehunt.net/sections/B … , www.arizonahunting.net/bighorn … , bearpawoutfitters.com/sheep_hu … , www.bighornoutfitter.com/ , www.coloradobiggameoutfitter.c …)

4) Anti-Mustang people trumpet the Wildlife Services "findings" that Mustangs are "pests."
Talk to any anti-Mustang individual, ask them for their source(s), and they'll inevitably give you at least one link to a "study" run by the Wildlife Services.

The Wildlife Services, a branch of the USDA, ran several questionable studies on horses and claims to have discovered that Mustangs are an invasive species that must be removed. These studies are questionable because first, there is no place anywhere that Mustangs currently roam that has not been heavily grazed by cattle (thus damage from cattle is blamed on Mustangs), and second, the Wildlife Services is one of only a very small few of organizations that labels Mustangs as pests. With so few studies on their side and so many on ours, it's incredible that anti-Mustang people expect us to take them seriously.

Even worse, the Wildlife Services is known for mass-killings of native wildlife (calling them "pests," just like they call Mustangs) to benefit special interest groups such as cattle ranchers and oil drilling (www.thedodo.com/wildlife-servi …). Is it any wonder that anti-Mustang groups would support them? 2014 was a very bad year for wildlife. According to an analysis by the Center for Biological Diversity, hundreds of gray wolves, tens of thousands of coyotes, over 500 black bears, nearly 3,000 foxes, and millions of other wild animals were slaughtered by the Wildlife Services. The USDA's horribly-named "Wildlife Services" program racked up an enormous body count, killing around 2.7 million wild animals, including wolves, otters, eagles, bears and foxes. These truly wild animals, which also play key ecological functions, were killed by snipers from helicopters, deadly poisons, snares, and traps. This death toll was due to the fact that livestock, agriculture, airports and other special interest groups consider the animals pests. The USDA simply kills them, no questions asked, no alternatives explored. Congressman Peter DeFazio has called for more transparency and accountability for U.S. taxpayers, and has described the USDA's Wildlife Services program as "one of the most opaque and obstinate departments I've dealt with." Even worse, this agency is supported by your tax dollars! And this is the agency anti-Mustang groups want us to trust? An agency that kills native wild animals by the millions with no questions asked? www.thedodo.com/wildlife-servi … ,  www.thepetitionsite.com/105/81 …

5) Anti-Mustang do not differentiate between Mustangs and any other type of wild or feral horse. If one causes trouble, then they all must go.
Anti-Mustang groups openly claim that Mustangs, Brumbies, Chincoteague Ponies, Sable Island Ponies, etc. are all one breed of horse and that their ecological impacts are identical. However, Mustangs have their own distinct, testable DNA. In fact, the BLM hires veterinarians to perform DNA blood tests on almost all the horses they bring in in order to verify that they are Mustangs as opposed to horses that escaped from neighboring ranches. Mustangs, Brumbies, and Chincoteague Ponies can actually be separated out by their DNA, and are therefore not the same breed. This is because their ancestries are different. Mustangs are descended from Andalusian, Lusistano, and other Spanish breeds brought over by Spanish explorers. Brumbies are descended from English breeds such as Thoroughbreds. Chincoteague Ponies are most likely descended from a few stray farm horses turned loose by English settlers (the wrecked Spanish galleon tale, although enjoyable, is most likely false), which were later enhanced with Arabian blood when the public took an interest in the ponies. All three have different ancestries and distinct DNA. They are not the same.

Anti-Mustang people make the claim that Mustangs are not a breed of horse based several things: first on the roots of the name "Mustang." Mustang comes from the Spanish word mesteño, which meant "stray" or "wild." Anti-Mustang groups claim that because "Mustang" means "wild," then any horse or pony that lives in the wild is a Mustang. According to that logic, any horse that runs fastest for a quarter or a mile is a Quarter Horse, any horse that was born in Arabia is an Arabian, any horse that lives in a village is a Shire horse, any horse bred by a person named Morgan is a Morgan horse, any horse born near the Caspian sea is a Caspian pony, any horse bred by a Native American is an Appaloosa, any horse that comes from Tennessee and can walk is a Tennessee Walker, any horse bred to be ridden with a saddle is a Saddlebred, any "standard" horse is a Standardbred, etc. This is not logical. The origin of a horse breed’s name does not define everything about the current horses listed under it.

Anti-Mustang groups’ second basis for their claim that Mustangs are not a breed is based on the fact that Mustangs have a very mixed heritage. However, many American horse breeds, such as the Quarter Horse, the Appaloosa, and the Paint Horse, are some of the most recognized breeds of horses in the world, and are all direct descendants of Mustangs. If Mustangs are too mixed to be a breed, then therefore so are Quarter Horses, Appaloosas, and Paint Horses. Quarter Horses were created by "crossing English horses with Native horses." That's what the original documents say. We know the "native" horses must have been Mustangs (since Mustangs were the only horses that would have appeared to be native to the U.S. at the time), and we've assumed the "English horses" were Thoroughbreds, although we don't know for certain. Appendix Quarter Horses are modern Quarter Horses crossed with modern Thoroughbreds. Appaloosas are descendants of spotted Mustangs bred by Native Americans near the Palouse River (hence their name.) Paint Horses were developed from a base of spotted horses with Quarter Horse and Thoroughbred bloodlines. All these breeds have the same mixed heritage as Mustangs, and are some of the most recognized breeds in the world. For anti-Mustang individuals to say that Mustangs are not a breed, they must also make the claim that Quarter Horses, Paint Horses, and Appaloosas are not breeds. Not all horses on the range are "pure" Mustangs, though, because every now and then a horse from a nearby ranch escapes and intermingles with the herds. Probably the only pure Mustangs are Kiger Mustangs, Cerat Mustangs, and the like.

While I have not studied the stud books of all nations regarding Brumbies, Chincoteagues, Sable Islands, and others, I have studied Mustangs extensively and they are most certainly their own distinct breed, having been officially recognized worldwide as "Mustangs," and sometimes "Horses of the Americas," with various breeds such as "Nokotas" and "Kigers" as sub-breeds. They are a breed. The truth is that there is no agreed-upon definition of what a breed of horse is. Merriam-Webster dictionary has this for a definition of a breed: "a group of usually domesticated animals or plants presumably related by descent from common ancestors and visibly similar in most characters." (www.merriam-webster.com/dictio …) Mustangs fit that description. They are descended largely from domesticated Spanish horses brought to the Americas and also from horses owned by American settlers. They were bred by Native Americans and American settlers to have the characteristics they have today. And yes, they do have characteristics, as much as anti-Mustang groups try to fight that fact. Most Mustangs are of a light horse/Warmblood type. Feral horses that exhibit draft horse characteristics are kept on separate ranges. They are small, rarely reaching over 14hh, with thick, soft coats, thick manes and tails, they generally have short bodies and legs with wide, tough hooves. They are also extremely fast and have a lot of stamina for their small size. Many exhibit traits from their Spanish ancestry, such as Roman noses. DNA blood testing has revealed that in several herds, such as the Cerat and Kiger herds, the Spanish blood was not much diluted with blood from American settlers' horses. Many have blue eyes. So yes, if we are to go by the dictionary definition of a breed, Mustangs fit the definition. A breed of horse is just eventually accepted by breeders, or it is not. Breeders have accepted Mustangs. (www.livescience.com/27686-must … , www.horseoftheamericas.com/ , www.ansi.okstate.edu/breeds/ho … , horsebreedslist.com/horse-bree … , www.equinenow.com/mustangbreed ….) Mustangs are generally listed as "Spanish Mustangs" or "Horses of the Americas" in directories, registries, and stud books, so if you are looking for strictly the word "Mustang," chances are you won't find it. Anti-Mustang groups are thus appealing to their audience's ignorance by claiming that Mustangs are not a breed. Also, Americans use the word "Mustang" very loosely. To most Americans, any horse that gets loose in the Western U.S. is considered a Mustang. However, that's not scientifically true. That horse is still whatever breed it was when it got loose.

I once came across a young woman who said this: "To put it simply, any old horse wrangled from the wild in the west can be branded a mustang even if it was a horse that escaped from a neighboring farm." This is simply not true. That horse may be branded a Mustang, but that does not mean it is a Mustang. Remember: The BLM actually performs DNA tests to avoid that exact problem. That horse is still whatever breed it was when it escaped. Its DNA and/or heritage did not change. The same young woman went on to say this: "I even browsed a coffee table book about horses while at the doctor's office and it had this to say about mustangs: 'Today, most Mustangs are small, hardy little horses with little to no breed standard.' This would seem common sense, but unfortunately some horse activists are too stubborn to accept this known fact." Now, as coincidence would have it, I happen to know what book this member is referring to. I happen to own it. It's titled Spirit of the Horse and is written by Bob Langrish and Nicola Jane Swinney. I notice the young woman conveniently left out the title and the authors of the book, probably because she's aware that the quote she took from it was taken completely out of context and the very same sentence she quoted disproves her point. Her point is that Mustangs are not a breed because no two Mustangs are the same in any way other than being of the same species (a breed standard defines what similarities a breed of animal must have). This is the quotation in full (it is a caption for a photograph of Mustangs in a corral): "The wild Mustang of the United States is a real "melting pot," with little to no breed standard - they can be any color but are all hardy, with hard feet and a tough constitution." You'll notice that she left out any part that praises Mustangs, as well as the part that defines the breed standard. The book also has this to say later on in the section on Mustangs: "At the beginning of the twentieth century, numbers of wild horses in the USA varied from an estimated one million to two million." The book repeats this two pages on in another photograph caption: "At one time, there were thought to be anything between one and two million Mustang, but their numbers decreased to an estimated twenty thousand left in the wild." The young woman in question vehemently opposes the idea that there have ever been 1 million or more Mustangs in the wild, so why does she quote a book that contains what she believes to be false information? Either she did not read the book and is therefore talking about something she doesn't know about, or she doesn't care about the validity of what she's saying, and will post whatever quote appears to fit her agenda. This type of illogical behavior is very typical among anti-Mustang individuals.

However, the lunacy in the argument that all feral and/or wild horses and ponies are the same stems largely from the claim that all of their ecological impacts are supposedly the same. Anti-Mustang groups will, no joke, tell you exactly that. The vast majority of their "sources" are articles and studies done on Brumbies and Chincoteague Ponies and they expect that to somehow be satisfactory proof that Mustangs are just as damaging. Anyone with a lick of sense ought to understand the fundamental flaw in their reasoning. Mustangs are a completely different breed of horse that lives in a completely different environment under a completely different set of circumstances. Even more so, Mustangs live on a completely different continent than any of those breeds, and in a completely different country than at least two of them! Sable Island Ponies live under Canadian jurisdiction and Brumbies live in Australia. Sable Island Ponies and Chincoteague Ponies live on small islands in the Barrier Islands chain along the coast of North America, not a large, continental grassland/desert region. Brumbies do live in a landscape somewhat similar to the Western United States, but the ecology of the lands is very different. Australian wildlife and plants are vastly different from North American wildlife and plants. Brumbies have no natural predators and are one of only a very few number of large herbivores. Mustangs have many natural predators and are only one of many species of large herbivores. What's more, there are far, far fewer Mustangs than there are Brumbies. Australia holds the largest population of feral or wild horses than any country on the planet. Mustangs are only one of several breeds and/or types of feral horses living in the United States. (North America is not home to any native free-roaming horses, but free-roaming horses in the U.S. that descend from feral horses include Mustangs (western U.S.), Chincoteague ponies (Assateague Island, Maryland), Cumberland Island horses (Cumberland Island, Georgia), Shackleford Banks horses (Shackleford Banks, North Carolina), Banker horses, (Outer Banks, North Carolina), and possibly a few others which are currently gaining the public spotlight.) The claim that there is no difference between Mustangs and any breed and or type or feral horse is thoroughly ignorant and illogical.

So here you have it: Mustangs have their own distinct, testable DNA, their own breed registry, they have been bred by humans for centuries, they have their own set of visible characteristics, they are accepted by the stud books as a breed, they are descended from carefully-bred horses, they are the origin of multiple world-famous American horses breeds... what more do you want? Mustangs are a breed.

6) Anti-Mustang people do not believe that Mustang populations have ever exceeded 40,000 individuals.
Mustang populations numbered roughly 1 million (there was no exact count, but that's the commonly accepted number) in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Some historians believe there were over 2 million Mustangs in 1900, but that's doubtful. Most hold to the 1 million figure. Anti-Mustang groups will tell you that Mustang herds have remained stable at 40,000 for over 500 years (which, if that were true, how come those same people feel the need to "manage" current Mustang populations to keep them from "overpopulating"?). To keep a population steady for several centuries would require the capability to limit its own population, an idea which anti-Mustang groups vehemently oppose. This is what's known as a contradiction, or a self-destructive claim.

The argument that Mustangs have not exceeded 40,000 animals directly contradicts the scientific fact that Mustangs' population growth rate is roughly 15% - 20% (www8.nationalacademies.org/onp …). This means that the Mustangs' population will double in around four to five years if not managed. Now, it's worth noting that the National Academy of Sciences found that the BLM is actually causing this enormous population growth rate by removing so many horses during their helicopter roundups (see previous link). The horses thus spring back as they would after a natural disaster or a plague. (Wild horse advocates thus believe that Mustangs must be managed, just not by helicopter. Fertility drugs are a very viable solution, but the BLM only allots 6% of its budget to on-the-range management.) Now, anti-Mustang groups do not believe the National Academy of Sciences when they say that the growth rate is caused by roundups, although they do believe the NAS's proposed growth rate (selective belief much?) Anti-Mustang people believe that the 20% population growth rate has always been in place. This would would mean that Mustangs have been increasing their population by 20% for the past 400 to 500 years. Even if we start with just two horses (which we know Mustangs didn't,) that's still a lot of horses. Thus, one would think that anti-Mustang groups would be the first to embrace the late 1800s/early 1900s 1 million population number, possibly wanting to jack it up by several million, but no, they believe Mustangs have never topped 40,000. Anti-Mustang groups are thus contradicting themselves.

The BLM over-estimates the horse population as having no natural predator(s), and that the horses double every 4 years. If this were the case, then there would be more horses then there are of the total human population on planet earth. Let's just take 12 horses alone and start from let's say 500 years ago (sometime after Columbus died.) Double those horses 125 times and the number will get extremely large. Even half that (doubled 62.5 times; 250 years,) is still too high for most hand-held calculators to show. The BLM's numbers do not hold up to simple arithmetic.

In an anti-Mustang attempt to discredit the possibility that there were 2 million Mustangs in the wild in 1900, the BLM quotes Frank J. Dobie, an historian, from his book The Mustangs (1952). This is what Dobie has to say: "All guessed numbers are mournful to history. My own guess is that at no time were there more than a million mustangs in Texas and no more than a million others scattered over the remainder of the West." Personally, I fail to see the logic in the BLM's posting of this quotation. In his own words, Dobie says that there were no more than 1 million Mustangs in Texas alone and no more than 1 million Mustangs in the surrounding states. No more than 1 million + no more than 1 million = no more than roughly 2 million. 1 + 1 = 2. This isn't rocket science. If this is the best evidence that anti-Mustang groups can cough up to support their claim, science and history are obviously not on their side. In the end, no matter what angle you look at Dobie's writings, there can be no fewer than 1 million Mustangs roaming the United States in the late 1800s/early 1900s. (www.horse-breeds.net/mustangs .… , academickids.com/encyclopedia/ … , www.masterliness.com/a/Mustang …)

Now, this may be a bit of a rabbit-trail, but I need to mention that the BLM said this about Mustang population growth rates and "overpopulation": "When Congress assigned the BLM (and the U.S. Forest Service) to manage wild horses and burros in 1971 -- through passage of the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act -- the BLM's population survey methods indicated a total population of 17,300 wild horses and 8,045 burros, as compared to the 2014 estimated population of 40,815 horses and 8,394 burros." Once again, we see the BLM taking the population of Mustangs at the point of the signage of the Wild Horse and Burro Act, when Mustang populations were so low that they needed an official governmental act to save them, and declaring it to be an appropriate population maximum. The BLM and anti-Mustang groups believe that Mustang populations should be kept at crisis level, essentially, barely able to sustain themselves. And somehow, that crisis level is responsible for all of the damage caused to rangelands.

7) Anti-Mustang people are against bison ranching.
Cattle ranchers claim America needs red meat (which isn't true, but that's another discussion), but they reject bison for no apparent reason. Bison ranching is a relatively recent idea that proposes that cattle ranchers raise bison instead of cattle. Bison ranching would help give bison a desperately-needed population boost. Bison burgers (sometimes called "buffalo burgers") are already extremely popular and is actually a healthier, lower-fat alternative to beef. Bison meat tastes almost identical to beef, and most taste-testers cannot tell the difference until they try both side-by-side, and they all say that the only noticeable difference is that bison is more flavorful than beef. The only turn-off for people is the high price that bison meat sells for, which can be roughly double that of beef due to the fact that bison are not commonly raised by humans. Anti-Mustang groups' biggest argument against bison ranching is that bison are susceptible to Blue Tongue disease. However, they completely ignore that Blue Tongue is actually a very low risk. It's most often seen in sheep, which, oddly enough, number around 1 million on public lands. Blue tongue is transmitted by insects. It's a parasite that can be easily cooked out of the meat if it is present, just like parasites found in almost all pork products (bacon included.) How many people get sick from pork parasites? Almost none. Bison would be no different. On top of that, Blue Tongue also relatively easy to avoid with proper care. The Culicoides midges that carry the virus usually breed on animal dung and moist soils, either bare or covered in short grass. Identifying breeding grounds and breaking the breeding cycle will significantly reduce the local midge population. Turning off taps, mending leaks and filling in or draining damp areas will also help dry up breeding sites. All in all, there is virtually no reason not to ranch bison, except that cattle ranchers don't want to change and anti-Mustang groups don't want anything that may promote Mustangs in any way. So not only are cattle ranchers and anti-Mustang groups attacking an animal that is not the main cause of habitat degradation, and not only are they promoting an invasive, destructive animal, but they are also actively opposed to an idea that could help an endangered native species make a comeback. Cattle ranchers and anti-Mustang groups are ecologically dangerous on multiple levels.

8) Anti-Mustang people believe that removals are the best way to manage wild horses.BLM helicopter roundups are inhumane, inefficient, and financially irresponsible. Scientific evidence has conclusively shown on numerous occasions that non-sterilizing fertility control - such as PZP - would be the most humane, effective, and inexpensive option available. Learn more about PZP here:

The BLM pays its roundup teams $350 for each horse they capture, dead or alive. Thus, the teams go to drastic measure to bring as many horses as they can with little to no concern for the animals’ well-being. The BLM only allows the public to view carefully-staged roundups where a few horses are trotted into a pen. The other roundups are often photographed and documented by undercover or fortunate individuals, and they can be shocking to behold. Horses are frequently killed during roundups. Entire herds (including pregnant mares and newborn foals) are driven at the speed of flying helicopters over land deemed too rough for vehicles. In order to explain away the enormous number of deaths that occur because of roundups and to substantiate their ridiculous claim of a 0.5% mortality rate, the BLM attributes most of its injuries and deaths to complications suffered out in the wild, not during roundups. However, such claims are erroneous. Horses are found with legs completely fractured (after they galloped into the capture corrals at full speed without breaking stride), horses a found with necks broken (after they galloped into the pens in good condition and many of the neck-breaking accidents were even documented), and old horses and foals trampled in squeeze chutes: such injuries, which are clearly the results of the roundups, are recorded by the BLM as injuries sustained in the wild.

    As there may be young and/or sensitive readers, I will not write more on the violence of BLM helicopter roundups here, but if you would like to learn more you could visit my Mustang website (savethemustanghorses.blogspot.com ) or you could Google "BLM Mustang roundup results." Not all the information on Google will be accurate, but you will find that much of it is congruent.

As helicopter roundups permanently remove horses from the range, they thus remove vast amounts of genetic material with each gather. Roundups force Mustangs in the wild to inbreed. If the BLM truly cared about Mustangs like they say they do, they would allot more of their budget to on-the-range management, such as fertility drugs (PZP.) PZP can be remotely delivered to a mare through a dart. It prevents the mare from becoming pregnant. It wears off after several months, however, so the mare can have foals and can thus pass on her genes, she just won't have as many foals as she would if she were un-darted. Fertility drugs would help keep Mustangs from overpopulating without damaging the gene pool, but the BLM only allots 6% of its Wild Horse Program budget to on-the-range management, and less than 1% to fertility control.

Because the BLM manages Mustangs to such low populations, much lower than the natural carrying limit of the lands, Mustangs work to rebuild their numbers after each roundup. The horses spring back as they would after a natural disaster or plague. In essence, the BLM is triggering an endless population bloom. As the BLM wants to reduce the number Mustangs on the range, they perform more and more roundups, which in turn cause greater and greater population growth. The National Academy of Sciences estimates a population growth of 15% - 20% each year. With more and more horses being removed each year, the cost of helicopter roundups and caring for the captive Mustangs is skyrocketing. The BLM pays its teams $350 for each horse they bring in, dead or alive. It costs around $100,000 every day to feed the captive Mustangs. It's estimated that it will cost around $80,000,000 by the end of this year to continue rounding up Mustangs. Where does this money come from? Your tax dollars. The BLM is headed for a financial train wreck and you will be the one to pay for it.
To learn more about the problems surrounding roundups and a possible solution to the problem, read my stamp here:

9) Anti-Mustang people believe that management techniques are "irrelevant" to how many horses the BLM has in holding.The BLM has around 50,000 horses in holding that they brought off the range. As has been stated, the BLM removes wild horses to keep them from overpopulating. However, removals actually encourage population growth, thus forcing the BLM to remove more and more horses every year. The BLM already spends 68% of its budget on caring for the horses in holding, and that number will increase every year if the BLM continues its "business as usual" attitude toward wild horse management.

Both wild horse advocates and anti-Mustang folks agree that roundups aren't working. However, when asked if they have a better idea than removals, anti-Mustang people turn around and say "it's irrelevant," claiming that the horses in holding are the real issue. While they have a point that the BLM spends more to care for the horses than to remove them, anti-Mustang people are forgetting that the BLM brings in more and more horses every year. Maybe I missed something, but every single horse in BLM holding came from out on the range. Anti-Mustang people complain about the cost of captive horse care, but then refuse to offer any solutions to the real problem: where the horses are coming from. In essence, they are pruning the leaves of the weed without addressing the roots.

The obvious solution is on-the-range management, such as fertility control drugs. While some forms of these drugs still require gathers, gathers can be done humanely, and the horses treated with the drugs would not reproduce for several years, thus curbing the population growth and reducing (if not completely ending) the need for removals. However, anti-Mustang people refuse to consider on-the-range management. To them, removals are the only way... even though they don't work.

10) Native elk are... invasive?
To drive the point home about how narrow-minded anti-Mustang groups are, consider this: Cattle ranchers and anti-Mustang groups are pressuring the Nation Park Service to contain and/or remove elk in order to make room for their cattle. Now, elk are a native species to North America. Cattle ranchers and anti-Mustang groups are labeling the native elk species as invasive. (www.thepetitionsite.com/takeac …) Anti-Mustang groups believe that a native species can be invasive. If that doesn't say something about these people, nothing does.

Sources:
www8.nationalacademies.org/onp…?
RecordID=13511&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+nationalacademies%2Fna+%28News+from+the+National+Academies%29
RecordID=13511&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+nationalacademies%2Fna+%28News+from+the+National+Academies%29
www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307 …
www.thepetitionsite.com/takeac …
scholarship.law.umt.edu/cgi/vi …
www.publiclandsranching.org/ht …
static1.squarespace.com/static …
www.mikehudak.com/Articles/Che …
lshs.tamu.edu/docs/lshs/end-no …
www.biologicaldiversity.org/pu …
www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_rm/rm_gt …
www.publiclandsranching.org/ht …
www.peer.org/news/news-release …
www.thewildlifenews.com/2012/1 …
www.gazettetimes.com/news/loca …
www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307 …
vegetarian.procon.org/sourcefi …
www.publiclandsranching.org/ht …
www.mikehudak.com/Articles/CTN …
www.livestrong.com/article/372 …
www.livestrong.com/article/507 …
www.beechhillbison.com/buffalo …
www.komonews.com/news/consumer …
www.consumerreports.org/cro/vi …
www.merriam-webster.com/dictio …
www.horseoftheamericas.com/
www.ansi.okstate.edu/breeds/ho …
horsebreedslist.com/horse-bree …
www.equinenow.com/mustangbreed …
www.livescience.com/27686-must …
www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/graz …

Description
To blame damage caused by over 4,000,000 animals on fewer than 40,000 animals defies all logic.

Public lands refers to lands owned by the U.S. government to be utilized by wildlife and ranchers.
Private lands refers to lands owned by private individuals or corporations and is not under any major jurisdiction by the U.S. government.
Checkerboard lands refers to lands that consist of one square mile of private land that butts up against one square mile of public land, one square mile of private land that butts up against one square mile of public land, and so on, creating a "checkerboard" of private and public lands. Such lands rarely fence off the private land from the public land.
Cattle ranchers refers to any individual or organization who raises cattle for profit. In this instance, I will be referring specifically to cattle ranchers in the Western United States.
Mustang advocates refers to any individual or organization that supports keeping and managing Mustang horses in the wild.
Horseaboos refers to people who believe that wild Mustangs are like Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron.
Anti-Mustang refers to any individual, group, or organization that greatly dislikes Mustangs and may be "out to get them." Please note that just because you aren't a fan of Mustangs doesn't mean you're anti-Mustang. Anti-Mustang people have a personal vendetta against Mustangs. Many speak of eradication and violence towards the animals.
Beef products refers to any usable product that comes from cattle, be it beef, leather, milk, bones, fur, etc.
BLM refers to the Bureau of Land Management, a branch of the U.S. government that is given charge over managing public lands as one of its duties.
Feral refers to a free-roaming animal that was once domestic or whose ancestors were domestic.

Cattle grazing has gone down from 49% (1950s) to only 7.9% (today): www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/graz… . That means that the 4 million cattle and sheep on public lands today are merely 7.9% of what they used to be. That means that in the 1950s, around 316 million (316,000,000) cattle and sheep once grazed on public lands. That undoubtedly caused an incredible amount of environmental damage. And Mustangs are blamed for that damage, when they once numbered an absolute maximum ever of only 2 million (most likely only 1 million). That is simply illogical. And to drive the point home, if anti-Mustang groups are correct in that Mustangs never existed in a population of at least 1 million (their proposed estimate never exceeds 40,000), it makes their argument that Mustangs cause more damage than cattle even more hypocritical and illogical. Their own arguments are self-destructive!

Mustang advocates have been pressuring the BLM to take firmer measures against the expanse of cattle ranchers. Anti-Mustang groups claim that all Mustang advocates are "horseaboos" (which is name-calling, a big signal that an individual in a debate has nothing useful left to say) and since Mustang advocates like myself want cattle ranchers to find alternatives for income, then it means we want America to starve and that we hold the horses' lives above human lives. Not only does this argument make a mountain out of a molehill (we don't want cattle ranchers to disappear, we just want them to stop expanding,) it also ignores a massive variable in the equation: "Public lands cattle provide only 3% of the beef products that America needs." (www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307 …) The fact is simple enough in and of itself. If all those cattle ranchers were to quit ranching and find jobs elsewhere, there would be little to no effect on the U.S. economy be it within the nation or through exported goods. Public lands cattle are simply insignificant to our lives. The fact that Americans like beef is irrelevant to the Mustang debate considering that America throws away tons (using the actual measurement of weight) of beef every year. Wildlife and cattle are killed for nothing but rancher and government greed. Instead of pouring more money and land into the beef industry, the economic response would be to find an alternative outlet for ranchers seeking more profit.

There are a few things that anti-Mustang groups must answer.

1) Anti-Mustang people believe that Mustangs are causing environmental damage, even though they once existed in numbers far greater than they currently do.
Anti-Mustang groups dodge this question by denying that Mustangs have ever existed in larger populations. Why is this an issue, you may be asking? Why do we care that Mustangs once existed in larger populations? The importance lies in the fact that Mustangs now exist in a much smaller population and are only now causing trouble. Wild horses should not be used as scapegoats for range degradation that is in fact primarily caused by private livestock: for instance, environmentalists have determined that in Nevada, home of the vast majority of America's remaining wild horses, the herds havelittle impact on the ecosystem compared with the hundreds of thousands of cattle that also roam the Nevada range. The Western Watersheds Project acknowledges that "the main cause of degradation of public lands in the arid west is livestock use and not wild horses."

The Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act recognizes free-roaming Mustangs as an "integral component of the natural system." It means that horses can only be removed from public lands if it is proven that they are overpopulating or are causing habitat destruction. The Act further mandates that the government "maintain specific ranges on public lands as sanctuaries for their protection and preservation."

In order to remove Mustangs from public lands to make way for cattle and oil drilling, and to fund the few families who are contracted millions to round up the horses, the BLM has made claims that wild horses are destroying natural habitats, competing for grazing lands, and overpopulating. But reports by the General Accounting Office and the National Academy of Sciences dispute such claims: BLM has never presented any evidence that horses destroy habitat, and the NAS in particular delivered a scathing critique of the BLM's outdated methods of determining wild horse populations. In fact, reducing horse populations in a given area has had negligible effect on range conditions: after massive wild horse roundups, herd areas show little or no improvement, especially in instances when cattle numbers remain the same (or increase). This means that wild horses are not the cause of habitat damage.

In stark contrast with BLM’s assertions, scientific studies have shown that Mustangs actually benefit the North American environment in numerous ways. Arguably the most important way that free-roaming horses help protect their environment is by combating cheatgrass, an invasive species of plant: www.usu.edu/weeds/plant_specie… . Cheatgrass is native to North Africa, which is also where the horse species Equus caballos is thought to have originated. One could say that horses are cheatgrass's natural predator. It came to North America during the mid to late 1800's amid grain and straw packing materials. It arrived several centuries after Mustangs arrived, so its presence in North America cannot be blamed on Mustangs, as anti-Mustang people often claim. Fortunately for North America, horses enjoy eating cheatgrass, especially during early spring when the blades are tender, and (most importantly) before it's had a chance to develop seeds. Mustangs destroy the plants before they create seeds, thus preventing them from propagating. Vegetation also seems to thrive in some areas inhabited by horses (perhaps because horses combat an invasive species of plant?), which may be one reason the Great Plains were once a "sea of grass." Since that time, Mustangs have had their population reduced by about 98%.  Generally, range conditions in steep hilly areas favored by horses are much better than in lower areas frequented by cattle. In addition, the horse’s digestive system does not thoroughly degrade the vegetation it eats. As a result, it tends to “replant” its own forage with the diverse seeds that pass through its system. This unique digestive system greatly aids in the building up of the absorptive, nutrient-rich humus component of soils. This, in turn, helps the soil absorb and retain water upon which many diverse plants and animals depend. In this way, Mustangs are also of great value in reducing dry inflammable vegetation in fire-prone areas, such as the invasive plant species cheatgrass. Back in the 1950s, it was primarily out of concern over brush fires that Storey County, Nevada, passed the first wild horse protection law in the nation.

Horses have proven useful to other species they share the range with. In winter months, they break through even deep crusted snow where the grass cannot be seen. They also open up frozen springs and ponds, making it possible for smaller animals to drink. During the historic blizzard of 1886, hundreds of thousands of cattle were lost on the Plains. Those that survived followed herds of Mustangs and grazed in the areas they opened up.

Another positive effect of wild horses on biodiversity was documented in the case of the Coyote Canyon horses in the Anza Borrega National Park (California). After wild horses were all removed from the park to increase bighorn sheep population, bighorn sheep mortality actuality skyrocketed: mountain lions, formerly wild horse predators, compensated the loss of one of their prey species by increasing their predation on the other available species: bighorn. Ironically, anti-Mustang groups claim that Mustangs are causing a drop in bighorn and pronghorn populations, due to the fact that both bighorns and pronghorns have been observed waiting for horses to finish drinking before they drink. The problem with the “drinking hole wild horses causing mass sheep and antelope extinction” argument is that, first of all, bighorn sheep and pronghorn are not threatened in the least bit. They're listed as "least concern: population stable." Horses aren't causing them any trouble. The sierra bighorn (Ovis canadensis sierrae), which is a subspecies of the bighorn sheep species (Ovis canadensis), is endangered, yes, but due to hunting and habitat loss, not from waiting a few minutes at a watering hole. Waiting a few minutes for a herd of horses to finish drinking is not causing any sort of die-off among bighorn and pronghorn. Unlike cattle, which will stand in a watering hole all day long, wild horses are constantly on the move. They generally do not stay in an open, vulnerable place like a watering hole for longer than half an hour, if that. Most leave after a five-minute drink. It's also well-known that horses will wait for other large herbivores to finish drinking as well. That's simply how wild animals interact.

In the past, both bighorn sheep and pronghorn were threatened, both due to hunting and human encroachment. Bighorn sheep were victims of hunting, mostly, whereas pronghorn were prevented from reaching their migration routes because of (you guessed it) cattle. Cattle ranches erect barbed wire fences around their land, and pronghorn couldn't get through. But thanks to kindly ranchers making "wildlife-friendly" fences that have a smooth wire along the bottom rather than a barbed one, pronghorn can now slip under and get where they need to go. Things aren't perfect for either of these species, but they're much better off than they were a few years ago, and wild horses had nothing to do with the problems or the solutions.

The main cause of habitat degradation to North America is cattle and sheep, not Mustangs. Cows graze within a mile of water, often standing in it until the water is so soiled it’s unusable for some time, while wild horses are highly mobile, grazing from five to ten miles from water, at higher elevations, on steeper slopes, and in more rugged terrain. Cows have no upper front teeth, only a thick pad: they graze by wrapping their long tongues around grass and pulling on it. If the ground is wet or loose (such as if they have been walking over it for days), they will pull out the grass by the roots, preventing it from growing back. Horses have both upper and lower incisors and graze by "clipping the grass," similar to a lawn mower, allowing the grass to easily grow back. Horses and burros also have solid hooves which don’t tear apart the earth nearly as much as a cow’s cloven hoof. A congressionally-mandated study by the National Academy of Sciences found that wild horse forage use remains a small fraction of cattle forage use on public ranges. Domestic cattle and sheep number around 4 million on public lands. They outnumber Mustangs 50 to 1 in most states, and 200 to 1 in others. That's 3 million more than there ever were of Mustangs on those same lands, and 160% more than the modern Mustang population. The huge cattle and sheep populations have pushed out native wildlife and Mustangs, displacing wildlife and causing them to live in and eat plants that are unnatural for them to eat. Although cattle are rotated seasonally, there are still millions on the land at any given time. Even when a space of land is evacuated, it is typically so run-down that wildlife do not move back into it. Thus, cattle move back and keep the land as their own. It's not logical to ignore the more abundant, newer, non-native animal and choose to accuse the rarer non-native animal that has lived in North America for hundreds of years longer, and also lives in populations much, much smaller than it used to, back when the ecology of the land was relatively harmonious. Since Mustang populations are lower than they ever have been, it's not logical to pin the blame on them.

In 2001, a team of Russian scientists, part of a cooperative venture with the United States, came to study the effects of grazing animals on riparian areas in Nevada. They tested streams for nutrients and examined the desert and Sierra to learn techniques to improve the environment of their homeland. The scientists found that cows, which tend to camp around water sources, cause more damage to the stream banks than wild horses, which tend to drink and move on: "When we saw horses drinking from creeks, we didn't see much impact except for hoof prints. The water looked clean, had good overhanging branches and there was no sign of erosion on the banks. There was an abundance of insects and animals, including frogs and dragonflies and water-striders." Areas extensively used by cattle had fewer nutrients in the water and showed signs of bank erosion and other damage, their study concluded.

The fact that horses wander much farther from water sources than many ruminant grazers adds to their efficacy as a fire preventer. Their tendency to range widely throughout both steep, hilly terrain and lower, more level areas, while cattle concentrate solely on lower elevations, also explains why horses have a lesser impact on their environment than livestock: when one looks at a boundary fence where horses range on one side and cattle range on the other, the horses’ side typically reveals about 30% more native grasses. Their nomadic grazing habits cause horses to nibble and then move to the next bunch of grass, so as to not overgraze. This is why horse range is seldom sparse unless the horses' natural grazing patterns are disrupted by human interference, mostly in the form of fencing.

In the words of Eric Scott, Associate Curator for Paleontology at the Dr. John D. Cooper Archaeological and Paleontological Center; adjunct instructor in Natural Sciences (Biology) at California State University, San Bernardino. He is stated to be the world expert on Equus fossils: "I hesitate to respond because my own perspective on this has proven somewhat unpopular with horse advocates. But simply put, whether horses are “native” or not is actually a non-issue in this respect. The fact is, horses evolved in North America over tens of millions of years as living components of communities and ecosystems. Those communities and ecosystems no longer exist. The other megafauna with which Pleistocene Equus partitioned the environment, the predators who preyed upon those horses, the unrestricted expanses where they could roam free – all of these are gone. And the current living ecosystems have been fairly dramatically changed, both by the intervening 10,000+ years since horses went extinct, and by the enormous impact humans have had on the west – roads, fences, diverted water, and cattle, to name just a few. Reintroducing horses to that environment is fraught with difficulties. I’m not saying it shouldn’t happen – in fact, I’d much rather have horses out there than cattle. But the horses’ well-being requires that we address the situation as it is, not as it was thousands of years ago. And whether horses are native or not affects those determinations not at all."

2) Anti-Mustang people ignore human and livestock causes of habitat degradation, preferring to shift the blame on Mustangs.
We have established that Mustangs do cause minor damage. No educated Mustang advocate will deny that. However, we have also established that the reason they cause damage is because they have been displaced by cattle. Now, that put aside, which causes more damage in total: cattle or Mustangs?

Livestock permits are issued at a fraction of the cost of livestock grazed on private property or feedlots. The fees paid by permittees are often not even enough to pay for the process of issuing the permit. This process has become known as “welfare ranching,” and exists on the back of the American taxpayer. Of note is that less than 4% of cattle utilized in industry comes from public land.

Currently more than 66% of public land is open to livestock grazing and only about 10% of BLM land is legal for use by wild horses and burros. Within the areas legal for horses, the available forage for grazing animals can be allotted with 80% going for private livestock with the rest being given to wildlife and wild horses (wild horses are allotted less than grazing game species). Mustangs and burros are given less than 10% of available forage on 10% of public land. All in all, it makes no sense to claim that Mustangs are the sole cause of damage to rangelands when there are over 4,000,000 cattle and sheep on public lands alone.

Even the world expert on horse fossils in North America has agreed that cattle are more dangerous than horses: "The current living ecosystems have been fairly dramatically changed, both by the intervening 10,000+ years since horses went extinct, and by the enormous impact humans have had on the west – roads, fences, diverted water, and cattle, to name just a few. Reintroducing horses to that environment is fraught with difficulties. I’m not saying it shouldn’t happen – in fact, I’d much rather have horses out there than cattle. But the horses’ well-being requires that we address the situation as it is, not as it was thousands of years ago. And whether horses are native or not affects those determinations not at all."- Eric Scott, Associate Curator for Paleontology at the Dr. John D. Cooper Archaeological and Paleontological Center; adjunct instructor in Natural Sciences (Biology) at California State University, San Bernardino. He is stated to be the world expert on Equus fossils. You can find his information here:
www.facebook.com/CaptainFossil
fullerton.academia.edu/EricSco …
www.linkedin.com/in/eric-scott …

3) Anti-Mustang people ignore hunting as a possible explanation for loss of native wildlife.
Anti-Mustang groups often complain that native species such as bighorn sheep are endangered and their numbers are dropping due to Mustangs' presence on the ranges. There are a number of faults with this claim. First is that, the last time I checked, bighorn sheep were not an endangered species. I could be wrong, but everywhere I look, they're listed as "least concern." The subspecies called the Sierra Nevada Bighorn is endangered in California. It's a gross generalization to say that all bighorn sheep are endangered. However, let's play devil's advocate and assume bighorns are on the brink of extinction. If Mustangs are the cause of their endangerment, how come they didn't go extinct when they both lived in much greater populations and in different places (before cattle displaced them)? And how exactly could removing all of the Mustangs bring bighorns back? It just doesn't make sense.

It's much more obvious that over-hunting would the the most likely culprit. Bighorn sheep's large, curved horns are one of the most prized trophies in North America. (endangeredspeciesearth.com/big …, www.montanaoutwest.com/sheep.h … ,
wyomingwilderness.com/html/hun … , www.trophymountainoutfitters.c … , www.biggamehunt.net/sections/B … , www.arizonahunting.net/bighorn … , bearpawoutfitters.com/sheep_hu … , www.bighornoutfitter.com/ , www.coloradobiggameoutfitter.c …)

4) Anti-Mustang people trumpet the Wildlife Services "findings" that Mustangs are "pests."
Talk to any anti-Mustang individual, ask them for their source(s), and they'll inevitably give you at least one link to a "study" run by the Wildlife Services.

The Wildlife Services, a branch of the USDA, ran several questionable studies on horses and claims to have discovered that Mustangs are an invasive species that must be removed. These studies are questionable because first, there is no place anywhere that Mustangs currently roam that has not been heavily grazed by cattle (thus damage from cattle is blamed on Mustangs), and second, the Wildlife Services is one of only a very small few of organizations that labels Mustangs as pests. With so few studies on their side and so many on ours, it's incredible that anti-Mustang people expect us to take them seriously.

Even worse, the Wildlife Services is known for mass-killings of native wildlife (calling them "pests," just like they call Mustangs) to benefit special interest groups such as cattle ranchers and oil drilling (www.thedodo.com/wildlife-servi …). Is it any wonder that anti-Mustang groups would support them? 2014 was a very bad year for wildlife. According to an analysis by the Center for Biological Diversity, hundreds of gray wolves, tens of thousands of coyotes, over 500 black bears, nearly 3,000 foxes, and millions of other wild animals were slaughtered by the Wildlife Services. The USDA's horribly-named "Wildlife Services" program racked up an enormous body count, killing around 2.7 million wild animals, including wolves, otters, eagles, bears and foxes. These truly wild animals, which also play key ecological functions, were killed by snipers from helicopters, deadly poisons, snares, and traps. This death toll was due to the fact that livestock, agriculture, airports and other special interest groups consider the animals pests. The USDA simply kills them, no questions asked, no alternatives explored. Congressman Peter DeFazio has called for more transparency and accountability for U.S. taxpayers, and has described the USDA's Wildlife Services program as "one of the most opaque and obstinate departments I've dealt with." Even worse, this agency is supported by your tax dollars! And this is the agency anti-Mustang groups want us to trust? An agency that kills native wild animals by the millions with no questions asked? www.thedodo.com/wildlife-servi … ,  www.thepetitionsite.com/105/81 …

5) Anti-Mustang do not differentiate between Mustangs and any other type of wild or feral horse. If one causes trouble, then they all must go.
Anti-Mustang groups openly claim that Mustangs, Brumbies, Chincoteague Ponies, Sable Island Ponies, etc. are all one breed of horse and that their ecological impacts are identical. However, Mustangs have their own distinct, testable DNA. In fact, the BLM hires veterinarians to perform DNA blood tests on almost all the horses they bring in in order to verify that they are Mustangs as opposed to horses that escaped from neighboring ranches. Mustangs, Brumbies, and Chincoteague Ponies can actually be separated out by their DNA, and are therefore not the same breed. This is because their ancestries are different. Mustangs are descended from Andalusian, Lusistano, and other Spanish breeds brought over by Spanish explorers. Brumbies are descended from English breeds such as Thoroughbreds. Chincoteague Ponies are most likely descended from a few stray farm horses turned loose by English settlers (the wrecked Spanish galleon tale, although enjoyable, is most likely false), which were later enhanced with Arabian blood when the public took an interest in the ponies. All three have different ancestries and distinct DNA. They are not the same.

Anti-Mustang people make the claim that Mustangs are not a breed of horse based several things: first on the roots of the name "Mustang." Mustang comes from the Spanish word mesteño, which meant "stray" or "wild." Anti-Mustang groups claim that because "Mustang" means "wild," then any horse or pony that lives in the wild is a Mustang. According to that logic, any horse that runs fastest for a quarter or a mile is a Quarter Horse, any horse that was born in Arabia is an Arabian, any horse that lives in a village is a Shire horse, any horse bred by a person named Morgan is a Morgan horse, any horse born near the Caspian sea is a Caspian pony, any horse bred by a Native American is an Appaloosa, any horse that comes from Tennessee and can walk is a Tennessee Walker, any horse bred to be ridden with a saddle is a Saddlebred, any "standard" horse is a Standardbred, etc. This is not logical. The origin of a horse breed’s name does not define everything about the current horses listed under it.

Anti-Mustang groups’ second basis for their claim that Mustangs are not a breed is based on the fact that Mustangs have a very mixed heritage. However, many American horse breeds, such as the Quarter Horse, the Appaloosa, and the Paint Horse, are some of the most recognized breeds of horses in the world, and are all direct descendants of Mustangs. If Mustangs are too mixed to be a breed, then therefore so are Quarter Horses, Appaloosas, and Paint Horses. Quarter Horses were created by "crossing English horses with Native horses." That's what the original documents say. We know the "native" horses must have been Mustangs (since Mustangs were the only horses that would have appeared to be native to the U.S. at the time), and we've assumed the "English horses" were Thoroughbreds, although we don't know for certain. Appendix Quarter Horses are modern Quarter Horses crossed with modern Thoroughbreds. Appaloosas are descendants of spotted Mustangs bred by Native Americans near the Palouse River (hence their name.) Paint Horses were developed from a base of spotted horses with Quarter Horse and Thoroughbred bloodlines. All these breeds have the same mixed heritage as Mustangs, and are some of the most recognized breeds in the world. For anti-Mustang individuals to say that Mustangs are not a breed, they must also make the claim that Quarter Horses, Paint Horses, and Appaloosas are not breeds. Not all horses on the range are "pure" Mustangs, though, because every now and then a horse from a nearby ranch escapes and intermingles with the herds. Probably the only pure Mustangs are Kiger Mustangs, Cerat Mustangs, and the like.

While I have not studied the stud books of all nations regarding Brumbies, Chincoteagues, Sable Islands, and others, I have studied Mustangs extensively and they are most certainly their own distinct breed, having been officially recognized worldwide as "Mustangs," and sometimes "Horses of the Americas," with various breeds such as "Nokotas" and "Kigers" as sub-breeds. They are a breed. The truth is that there is no agreed-upon definition of what a breed of horse is. Merriam-Webster dictionary has this for a definition of a breed: "a group of usually domesticated animals or plants presumably related by descent from common ancestors and visibly similar in most characters." (www.merriam-webster.com/dictio …) Mustangs fit that description. They are descended largely from domesticated Spanish horses brought to the Americas and also from horses owned by American settlers. They were bred by Native Americans and American settlers to have the characteristics they have today. And yes, they do have characteristics, as much as anti-Mustang groups try to fight that fact. Most Mustangs are of a light horse/Warmblood type. Feral horses that exhibit draft horse characteristics are kept on separate ranges. They are small, rarely reaching over 14hh, with thick, soft coats, thick manes and tails, they generally have short bodies and legs with wide, tough hooves. They are also extremely fast and have a lot of stamina for their small size. Many exhibit traits from their Spanish ancestry, such as Roman noses. DNA blood testing has revealed that in several herds, such as the Cerat and Kiger herds, the Spanish blood was not much diluted with blood from American settlers' horses. Many have blue eyes. So yes, if we are to go by the dictionary definition of a breed, Mustangs fit the definition. A breed of horse is just eventually accepted by breeders, or it is not. Breeders have accepted Mustangs. (www.livescience.com/27686-must … , www.horseoftheamericas.com/ , www.ansi.okstate.edu/breeds/ho … , horsebreedslist.com/horse-bree … , www.equinenow.com/mustangbreed ….) Mustangs are generally listed as "Spanish Mustangs" or "Horses of the Americas" in directories, registries, and stud books, so if you are looking for strictly the word "Mustang," chances are you won't find it. Anti-Mustang groups are thus appealing to their audience's ignorance by claiming that Mustangs are not a breed. Also, Americans use the word "Mustang" very loosely. To most Americans, any horse that gets loose in the Western U.S. is considered a Mustang. However, that's not scientifically true. That horse is still whatever breed it was when it got loose.

I once came across a young woman who said this: "To put it simply, any old horse wrangled from the wild in the west can be branded a mustang even if it was a horse that escaped from a neighboring farm." This is simply not true. That horse may be branded a Mustang, but that does not mean it is a Mustang. Remember: The BLM actually performs DNA tests to avoid that exact problem. That horse is still whatever breed it was when it escaped. Its DNA and/or heritage did not change. The same young woman went on to say this: "I even browsed a coffee table book about horses while at the doctor's office and it had this to say about mustangs: 'Today, most Mustangs are small, hardy little horses with little to no breed standard.' This would seem common sense, but unfortunately some horse activists are too stubborn to accept this known fact." Now, as coincidence would have it, I happen to know what book this member is referring to. I happen to own it. It's titled Spirit of the Horse and is written by Bob Langrish and Nicola Jane Swinney. I notice the young woman conveniently left out the title and the authors of the book, probably because she's aware that the quote she took from it was taken completely out of context and the very same sentence she quoted disproves her point. Her point is that Mustangs are not a breed because no two Mustangs are the same in any way other than being of the same species (a breed standard defines what similarities a breed of animal must have). This is the quotation in full (it is a caption for a photograph of Mustangs in a corral): "The wild Mustang of the United States is a real "melting pot," with little to no breed standard - they can be any color but are all hardy, with hard feet and a tough constitution." You'll notice that she left out any part that praises Mustangs, as well as the part that defines the breed standard. The book also has this to say later on in the section on Mustangs: "At the beginning of the twentieth century, numbers of wild horses in the USA varied from an estimated one million to two million." The book repeats this two pages on in another photograph caption: "At one time, there were thought to be anything between one and two million Mustang, but their numbers decreased to an estimated twenty thousand left in the wild." The young woman in question vehemently opposes the idea that there have ever been 1 million or more Mustangs in the wild, so why does she quote a book that contains what she believes to be false information? Either she did not read the book and is therefore talking about something she doesn't know about, or she doesn't care about the validity of what she's saying, and will post whatever quote appears to fit her agenda. This type of illogical behavior is very typical among anti-Mustang individuals.

However, the lunacy in the argument that all feral and/or wild horses and ponies are the same stems largely from the claim that all of their ecological impacts are supposedly the same. Anti-Mustang groups will, no joke, tell you exactly that. The vast majority of their "sources" are articles and studies done on Brumbies and Chincoteague Ponies and they expect that to somehow be satisfactory proof that Mustangs are just as damaging. Anyone with a lick of sense ought to understand the fundamental flaw in their reasoning. Mustangs are a completely different breed of horse that lives in a completely different environment under a completely different set of circumstances. Even more so, Mustangs live on a completely different continent than any of those breeds, and in a completely different country than at least two of them! Sable Island Ponies live under Canadian jurisdiction and Brumbies live in Australia. Sable Island Ponies and Chincoteague Ponies live on small islands in the Barrier Islands chain along the coast of North America, not a large, continental grassland/desert region. Brumbies do live in a landscape somewhat similar to the Western United States, but the ecology of the lands is very different. Australian wildlife and plants are vastly different from North American wildlife and plants. Brumbies have no natural predators and are one of only a very few number of large herbivores. Mustangs have many natural predators and are only one of many species of large herbivores. What's more, there are far, far fewer Mustangs than there are Brumbies. Australia holds the largest population of feral or wild horses than any country on the planet. Mustangs are only one of several breeds and/or types of feral horses living in the United States. (North America is not home to any native free-roaming horses, but free-roaming horses in the U.S. that descend from feral horses include Mustangs (western U.S.), Chincoteague ponies (Assateague Island, Maryland), Cumberland Island horses (Cumberland Island, Georgia), Shackleford Banks horses (Shackleford Banks, North Carolina), Banker horses, (Outer Banks, North Carolina), and possibly a few others which are currently gaining the public spotlight.) The claim that there is no difference between Mustangs and any breed and or type or feral horse is thoroughly ignorant and illogical.

So here you have it: Mustangs have their own distinct, testable DNA, their own breed registry, they have been bred by humans for centuries, they have their own set of visible characteristics, they are accepted by the stud books as a breed, they are descended from carefully-bred horses, they are the origin of multiple world-famous American horses breeds... what more do you want? Mustangs are a breed.

6) Anti-Mustang people do not believe that Mustang populations have ever exceeded 40,000 individuals.
Mustang populations numbered roughly 1 million (there was no exact count, but that's the commonly accepted number) in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Some historians believe there were over 2 million Mustangs in 1900, but that's doubtful. Most hold to the 1 million figure. Anti-Mustang groups will tell you that Mustang herds have remained stable at 40,000 for over 500 years (which, if that were true, how come those same people feel the need to "manage" current Mustang populations to keep them from "overpopulating"?). To keep a population steady for several centuries would require the capability to limit its own population, an idea which anti-Mustang groups vehemently oppose. This is what's known as a contradiction, or a self-destructive claim.

The argument that Mustangs have not exceeded 40,000 animals directly contradicts the scientific fact that Mustangs' population growth rate is roughly 15% - 20% (www8.nationalacademies.org/onp …). This means that the Mustangs' population will double in around four to five years if not managed. Now, it's worth noting that the National Academy of Sciences found that the BLM is actually causing this enormous population growth rate by removing so many horses during their helicopter roundups (see previous link). The horses thus spring back as they would after a natural disaster or a plague. (Wild horse advocates thus believe that Mustangs must be managed, just not by helicopter. Fertility drugs are a very viable solution, but the BLM only allots 6% of its budget to on-the-range management.) Now, anti-Mustang groups do not believe the National Academy of Sciences when they say that the growth rate is caused by roundups, although they do believe the NAS's proposed growth rate (selective belief much?) Anti-Mustang people believe that the 20% population growth rate has always been in place. This would would mean that Mustangs have been increasing their population by 20% for the past 400 to 500 years. Even if we start with just two horses (which we know Mustangs didn't,) that's still a lot of horses. Thus, one would think that anti-Mustang groups would be the first to embrace the late 1800s/early 1900s 1 million population number, possibly wanting to jack it up by several million, but no, they believe Mustangs have never topped 40,000. Anti-Mustang groups are thus contradicting themselves.

The BLM over-estimates the horse population as having no natural predator(s), and that the horses double every 4 years. If this were the case, then there would be more horses then there are of the total human population on planet earth. Let's just take 12 horses alone and start from let's say 500 years ago (sometime after Columbus died.) Double those horses 125 times and the number will get extremely large. Even half that (doubled 62.5 times; 250 years,) is still too high for most hand-held calculators to show. The BLM's numbers do not hold up to simple arithmetic.

In an anti-Mustang attempt to discredit the possibility that there were 2 million Mustangs in the wild in 1900, the BLM quotes Frank J. Dobie, an historian, from his book The Mustangs (1952). This is what Dobie has to say: "All guessed numbers are mournful to history. My own guess is that at no time were there more than a million mustangs in Texas and no more than a million others scattered over the remainder of the West." Personally, I fail to see the logic in the BLM's posting of this quotation. In his own words, Dobie says that there were no more than 1 million Mustangs in Texas alone and no more than 1 million Mustangs in the surrounding states. No more than 1 million + no more than 1 million = no more than roughly 2 million. 1 + 1 = 2. This isn't rocket science. If this is the best evidence that anti-Mustang groups can cough up to support their claim, science and history are obviously not on their side. In the end, no matter what angle you look at Dobie's writings, there can be no fewer than 1 million Mustangs roaming the United States in the late 1800s/early 1900s. (www.horse-breeds.net/mustangs .… , academickids.com/encyclopedia/ … , www.masterliness.com/a/Mustang …)

Now, this may be a bit of a rabbit-trail, but I need to mention that the BLM said this about Mustang population growth rates and "overpopulation": "When Congress assigned the BLM (and the U.S. Forest Service) to manage wild horses and burros in 1971 -- through passage of the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act -- the BLM's population survey methods indicated a total population of 17,300 wild horses and 8,045 burros, as compared to the 2014 estimated population of 40,815 horses and 8,394 burros." Once again, we see the BLM taking the population of Mustangs at the point of the signage of the Wild Horse and Burro Act, when Mustang populations were so low that they needed an official governmental act to save them, and declaring it to be an appropriate population maximum. The BLM and anti-Mustang groups believe that Mustang populations should be kept at crisis level, essentially, barely able to sustain themselves. And somehow, that crisis level is responsible for all of the damage caused to rangelands.

7) Anti-Mustang people are against bison ranching.
Cattle ranchers claim America needs red meat (which isn't true, but that's another discussion), but they reject bison for no apparent reason. Bison ranching is a relatively recent idea that proposes that cattle ranchers raise bison instead of cattle. Bison ranching would help give bison a desperately-needed population boost. Bison burgers (sometimes called "buffalo burgers") are already extremely popular and is actually a healthier, lower-fat alternative to beef. Bison meat tastes almost identical to beef, and most taste-testers cannot tell the difference until they try both side-by-side, and they all say that the only noticeable difference is that bison is more flavorful than beef. The only turn-off for people is the high price that bison meat sells for, which can be roughly double that of beef due to the fact that bison are not commonly raised by humans. Anti-Mustang groups' biggest argument against bison ranching is that bison are susceptible to Blue Tongue disease. However, they completely ignore that Blue Tongue is actually a very low risk. It's most often seen in sheep, which, oddly enough, number around 1 million on public lands. Blue tongue is transmitted by insects. It's a parasite that can be easily cooked out of the meat if it is present, just like parasites found in almost all pork products (bacon included.) How many people get sick from pork parasites? Almost none. Bison would be no different. On top of that, Blue Tongue also relatively easy to avoid with proper care. The Culicoides midges that carry the virus usually breed on animal dung and moist soils, either bare or covered in short grass. Identifying breeding grounds and breaking the breeding cycle will significantly reduce the local midge population. Turning off taps, mending leaks and filling in or draining damp areas will also help dry up breeding sites. All in all, there is virtually no reason not to ranch bison, except that cattle ranchers don't want to change and anti-Mustang groups don't want anything that may promote Mustangs in any way. So not only are cattle ranchers and anti-Mustang groups attacking an animal that is not the main cause of habitat degradation, and not only are they promoting an invasive, destructive animal, but they are also actively opposed to an idea that could help an endangered native species make a comeback. Cattle ranchers and anti-Mustang groups are ecologically dangerous on multiple levels.

8) Anti-Mustang people believe that removals are the best way to manage wild horses.BLM helicopter roundups are inhumane, inefficient, and financially irresponsible. Scientific evidence has conclusively shown on numerous occasions that non-sterilizing fertility control - such as PZP - would be the most humane, effective, and inexpensive option available. Learn more about PZP here:

The BLM pays its roundup teams $350 for each horse they capture, dead or alive. Thus, the teams go to drastic measure to bring as many horses as they can with little to no concern for the animals’ well-being. The BLM only allows the public to view carefully-staged roundups where a few horses are trotted into a pen. The other roundups are often photographed and documented by undercover or fortunate individuals, and they can be shocking to behold. Horses are frequently killed during roundups. Entire herds (including pregnant mares and newborn foals) are driven at the speed of flying helicopters over land deemed too rough for vehicles. In order to explain away the enormous number of deaths that occur because of roundups and to substantiate their ridiculous claim of a 0.5% mortality rate, the BLM attributes most of its injuries and deaths to complications suffered out in the wild, not during roundups. However, such claims are erroneous. Horses are found with legs completely fractured (after they galloped into the capture corrals at full speed without breaking stride), horses a found with necks broken (after they galloped into the pens in good condition and many of the neck-breaking accidents were even documented), and old horses and foals trampled in squeeze chutes: such injuries, which are clearly the results of the roundups, are recorded by the BLM as injuries sustained in the wild.

    As there may be young and/or sensitive readers, I will not write more on the violence of BLM helicopter roundups here, but if you would like to learn more you could visit my Mustang website (savethemustanghorses.blogspot.com ) or you could Google "BLM Mustang roundup results." Not all the information on Google will be accurate, but you will find that much of it is congruent.

As helicopter roundups permanently remove horses from the range, they thus remove vast amounts of genetic material with each gather. Roundups force Mustangs in the wild to inbreed. If the BLM truly cared about Mustangs like they say they do, they would allot more of their budget to on-the-range management, such as fertility drugs (PZP.) PZP can be remotely delivered to a mare through a dart. It prevents the mare from becoming pregnant. It wears off after several months, however, so the mare can have foals and can thus pass on her genes, she just won't have as many foals as she would if she were un-darted. Fertility drugs would help keep Mustangs from overpopulating without damaging the gene pool, but the BLM only allots 6% of its Wild Horse Program budget to on-the-range management, and less than 1% to fertility control.

Because the BLM manages Mustangs to such low populations, much lower than the natural carrying limit of the lands, Mustangs work to rebuild their numbers after each roundup. The horses spring back as they would after a natural disaster or plague. In essence, the BLM is triggering an endless population bloom. As the BLM wants to reduce the number Mustangs on the range, they perform more and more roundups, which in turn cause greater and greater population growth. The National Academy of Sciences estimates a population growth of 15% - 20% each year. With more and more horses being removed each year, the cost of helicopter roundups and caring for the captive Mustangs is skyrocketing. The BLM pays its teams $350 for each horse they bring in, dead or alive. It costs around $100,000 every day to feed the captive Mustangs. It's estimated that it will cost around $80,000,000 by the end of this year to continue rounding up Mustangs. Where does this money come from? Your tax dollars. The BLM is headed for a financial train wreck and you will be the one to pay for it.
To learn more about the problems surrounding roundups and a possible solution to the problem, read my stamp here:

9) Anti-Mustang people believe that management techniques are "irrelevant" to how many horses the BLM has in holding.The BLM has around 50,000 horses in holding that they brought off the range. As has been stated, the BLM removes wild horses to keep them from overpopulating. However, removals actually encourage population growth, thus forcing the BLM to remove more and more horses every year. The BLM already spends 68% of its budget on caring for the horses in holding, and that number will increase every year if the BLM continues its "business as usual" attitude toward wild horse management.

Both wild horse advocates and anti-Mustang folks agree that roundups aren't working. However, when asked if they have a better idea than removals, anti-Mustang people turn around and say "it's irrelevant," claiming that the horses in holding are the real issue. While they have a point that the BLM spends more to care for the horses than to remove them, anti-Mustang people are forgetting that the BLM brings in more and more horses every year. Maybe I missed something, but every single horse in BLM holding came from out on the range. Anti-Mustang people complain about the cost of captive horse care, but then refuse to offer any solutions to the real problem: where the horses are coming from. In essence, they are pruning the leaves of the weed without addressing the roots.

The obvious solution is on-the-range management, such as fertility control drugs. While some forms of these drugs still require gathers, gathers can be done humanely, and the horses treated with the drugs would not reproduce for several years, thus curbing the population growth and reducing (if not completely ending) the need for removals. However, anti-Mustang people refuse to consider on-the-range management. To them, removals are the only way... even though they don't work.

10) Native elk are... invasive?
To drive the point home about how narrow-minded anti-Mustang groups are, consider this: Cattle ranchers and anti-Mustang groups are pressuring the Nation Park Service to contain and/or remove elk in order to make room for their cattle. Now, elk are a native species to North America. Cattle ranchers and anti-Mustang groups are labeling the native elk species as invasive. (www.thepetitionsite.com/takeac …) Anti-Mustang groups believe that a native species can be invasive. If that doesn't say something about these people, nothing does.

Sources:
www8.nationalacademies.org/onp…?
RecordID=13511&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+nationalacademies%2Fna+%28News+from+the+National+Academies%29
RecordID=13511&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+nationalacademies%2Fna+%28News+from+the+National+Academies%29
www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307 …
www.thepetitionsite.com/takeac …
scholarship.law.umt.edu/cgi/vi …
www.publiclandsranching.org/ht …
static1.squarespace.com/static …
www.mikehudak.com/Articles/Che …
lshs.tamu.edu/docs/lshs/end-no …
www.biologicaldiversity.org/pu …
www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_rm/rm_gt …
www.publiclandsranching.org/ht …
www.peer.org/news/news-release …
www.thewildlifenews.com/2012/1 …
www.gazettetimes.com/news/loca …
www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307 …
vegetarian.procon.org/sourcefi …
www.publiclandsranching.org/ht …
www.mikehudak.com/Articles/CTN …
www.livestrong.com/article/372 …
www.livestrong.com/article/507 …
www.beechhillbison.com/buffalo …
www.komonews.com/news/consumer …
www.consumerreports.org/cro/vi …
www.merriam-webster.com/dictio …
www.horseoftheamericas.com/
www.ansi.okstate.edu/breeds/ho …
horsebreedslist.com/horse-bree …
www.equinenow.com/mustangbreed …
www.livescience.com/27686-must …
www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/graz …