# Alberta's Wild Horses



## WesternBella (Jan 7, 2012)

I really hope this doesn't happen where I live..
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Gremmy (Feb 17, 2009)

Always two sides to every story, and I am on the other side of this one. Wild horses are subject to population control just like any other species - perhaps even moreso since no matter how you slice it, they are _not_ a native species. I've lived in the AB foothills and the horses can really do a number on that environment. The foothills are not meant to support wild horses - it's not at all like the prairies, the land is soft and their hooves tear up creek beds and kill off native fish and plants, and they do hinder the efforts made by logging companies to maintain our forests. 

Since I have family working for one of those perceived "evil" logging companies, I've grown up on the other side of the pond and these attacks on using an extremely renewable resource and making efforts to sustain it really hit a nerve with me. From a business perspective, it is in their best interests to preserve the forests and keep replanting. If they clear-cut everything without making restoration efforts they would go out of business. Are they claiming that there is scientific evidence that wild horses are not damaging these efforts? (where is this evidence?) or at they claiming that no efforts are being made at all? Because I assure you that is pure BS - I've spent plenty of time crawling around the foothills planting those saplings myself.

But I digress, and don't want this to turn into a debate as to whether Canada should stop harvesting any natural resources (even the renewable ones) and just tank its economy. I fully support managing the wild horse populations both here in BC and Alberta (and anywhere really). IMO if you want to make a difference, adopt one, or suggest better methods for roundups - better yet get involved with them.


----------



## xiamsvetlanax (Aug 8, 2011)

Gremmy said:


> Always two sides to every story, and I am on the other side of this one. Wild horses are subject to population control just like any other species - perhaps even moreso since no matter how you slice it, they are _not_ a native species. I've lived in the AB foothills and the horses can really do a number on that environment. The foothills are not meant to support wild horses - it's not at all like the prairies, the land is soft and their hooves tear up creek beds and kill off native fish and plants, and they do hinder the efforts made by logging companies to maintain our forests.
> 
> Since I have family working for one of those perceived "evil" logging companies, I've grown up on the other side of the pond and these attacks on using an extremely renewable resource and making efforts to sustain it really hit a nerve with me. From a business perspective, it is in their best interests to preserve the forests and keep replanting. If they clear-cut everything without making restoration efforts they would go out of business. Are they claiming that there is scientific evidence that wild horses are not damaging these efforts? (where is this evidence?) or at they claiming that no efforts are being made at all? Because I assure you that is pure BS - I've spent plenty of time crawling around the foothills planting those saplings myself.
> 
> But I digress, and don't want this to turn into a debate as to whether Canada should stop harvesting any natural resources (even the renewable ones) and just tank its economy. I fully support managing the wild horse populations both here in BC and Alberta (and anywhere really). IMO if you want to make a difference, adopt one, or suggest better methods for roundups - better yet get involved with them.


I understand you come from 1 side of the pond, but I come from the other, and so would most people on this forum (here's hoping ha!). If you subject 1 species to this kind of treatment, why not do this to other over populated animals in places like Canada, in places like the US, you can't because over time, the more and more you throw these animals away, they will forever go extinct. In fact, why can't we do it for deer? Or rabbits? Or moose? -__-
Horses are not bears, they do not kill people, they do not eat your bird seed. They are not moose, they do not kill people in cars when you hit them on the road. They are not cougars, they are not polar bears. You cannot and SHOULD NOT hung a PREY animal.. Are you REALLY serious in saying "they mess up the woods, and creeks" ... Really??? It is one of the most (not the most) majestic, carefree animals on the planet that is considered PREY, and you're willing to "due to over population in a few RURAL parts of Canada and "any where else you see fit" to just throw them in a pen, and made into meat...
"Silently the government of Alberta has changed the horse capture regulations to a point that they reflect the determination of the SRD to rid the province of what they believe are nuisance animals."
You REALLY agree with this statement, JUST because you've been in the logging business..and you want to "save the resources"..I got news for you honey, this world is coming to an end whether you like it or not, & it ain't b/c of too many horses in Canada.. I don't understand HOW you whether you've been on 1 side of the pond or not, actually are IN Canada or not, (like myself) can think that "population control" for horses... is ok.


----------



## Evansk (Dec 22, 2011)

xiamsvetlanax said:


> I understand you come from 1 side of the pond, but I come from the other, and so would most people on this forum (here's hoping ha!). If you subject 1 species to this kind of treatment, why not do this to other over populated animals in places like Canada, in places like the US, you can't because over time, the more and more you throw these animals away, they will forever go extinct. In fact, why can't we do it for deer? Or rabbits? Or moose? -__-
> Horses are not bears, they do not kill people, they do not eat your bird seed. They are not moose, they do not kill people in cars when you hit them on the road. They are not cougars, they are not polar bears. You cannot and SHOULD NOT hung a PREY animal.. Are you REALLY serious in saying "they mess up the woods, and creeks" ... Really??? It is one of the most (not the most) majestic, carefree animals on the planet that is considered PREY, and you're willing to "due to over population in a few RURAL parts of Canada and "any where else you see fit" to just throw them in a pen, and made into meat...
> "Silently the government of Alberta has changed the horse capture regulations to a point that they reflect the determination of the SRD to rid the province of what they believe are nuisance animals."
> You REALLY agree with this statement, JUST because you've been in the logging business..and you want to "save the resources"..I got news for you honey, this world is coming to an end whether you like it or not, & it ain't b/c of too many horses in Canada.. I don't understand HOW you whether you've been on 1 side of the pond or not, actually are IN Canada or not, (like myself) can think that "population control" for horses... is ok.



I agree with you xiamsvetlanax for the previous poster, I dont see how the Feral horses are causing damage to their environment? Don't loggers use big heavy machines with tracks or tires that rip up and damage the ground? And I dont see how horse hooves wreck creeks and kill the fish, when the logging machines can leak Oil, Hydraulic Fluids and other things like that into the ground and water ways? Don't chainsaws run on Oil and gas mixes? That can leak and get into the wood chips left behind?


----------



## DieselPony (Jul 26, 2010)

xiamsvetlanax said:


> They are not moose, they do not kill people in cars when you hit them on the road.


I just want to point this part out. Yes. Yes they do.

Edit: And I'd like to add that I do believe in population control. Which is done in Alberta for deer, moose, bear, cougars, rabbit, sheep.... And these are NATIVE animals to this area. Horses are not.


----------



## bubba13 (Jan 6, 2007)

*The winters of 2010 and 2011 were extremely hard on the wild horses. A large number of foals died and many of the mares aborted in order to survive. Therefore the number of horses due to nature was naturally down. *

But capturing and slaughtering is cruel....???


----------



## xiamsvetlanax (Aug 8, 2011)

DieselPony said:


> I just want to point this part out. Yes. Yes they do.


When was the last time a horse killed a person in a car.. I know moose kill people Diesel =P That wasn't what I meant.




bubba13 said:


> *The winters of 2010 and 2011 were extremely hard on the wild horses. A large number of foals died and many of the mares aborted in order to survive. Therefore the number of horses due to nature was naturally down. *
> 
> But capturing and slaughtering is cruel....???


We can't expect, as humans, to care for EVERY animal this happens to. We just can't, the animals in this world over populate the planet, not just Canada. But they as animals need to either live or die in THEIR OWN WAY, not by the way of HUMANS. If they can't survive the winters, they at least die with nature.. (sorry if I took what you said differently than what you meant.


----------



## DieselPony (Jul 26, 2010)

xiamsvetlanax said:


> When was the last time a horse killed a person in a car.. I know moose kill people Diesel =P That wasn't what I meant.


I don't have any news articles right now, but 6 years ago a girl died not far from where I was living when her car struck a horse.

Also 3 months ago a girl hit a horse in her car and was put in the ER room in critical condition. The horse bled to death on the road. I know for a fact as it was a loved, prized family member's horse.

And that is just what I know off the top of my head.


----------



## WSArabians (Apr 14, 2008)

xiamsvetlanax said:


> they do not eat your bird seed.


That's the first place mine go when they're out in the yard. Drives my mom livid.


----------



## bubba13 (Jan 6, 2007)

xiamsvetlanax said:


> When was the last time a horse killed a person in a car.. I know moose kill people Diesel =P That wasn't what I meant.


Is two days ago recent enough?
Car-horse crash injures Hessmer woman in Avoyelles Parish | The Town Talk | thetowntalk.com
This woman is not dead, but it sounds like she is very badly injured.





> We can't expect, as humans, to care for EVERY animal this happens to. We just can't, the animals in this world over populate the planet, not just Canada. But they as animals need to either live or die in THEIR OWN WAY, not by the way of HUMANS. If they can't survive the winters, they at least die with nature.. (sorry if I took what you said differently than what you meant.


This is totally illogical. Do you think the horse knows or cares whether it's dying in "nature" or by "human hands?" Would you pick a long and lingering death due to starvation and cold, which could take months of pain and suffering....or capture, the chance of finding a good home, or the alternative of, yes, some stressful handling, but at least a relatively quick and painless death?

Hint: HUMANS introduced these "wild" horses. They're non-native, feral. Do you take the same stance with wild packs of dangerous feral dogs? Live and let live for them, too?

And besides, don't we have an obligation to end animal suffering wherever we can (which means stepping in to alleviate starvation when possible)? If horses are dying of hunger, then obviously the environment cannot support them and they should be removed or reduced to sustainable levels, anyway.


----------



## Gremmy (Feb 17, 2009)

xiamsvetlanax said:


> I understand you come from 1 side of the pond, but I come from the other, and so would most people on this forum (here's hoping ha!). If you subject 1 species to this kind of treatment, why not do this to other over populated animals in places like Canada, in places like the US, you can't because over time, the more and more you throw these animals away, they will forever go extinct. In fact, why can't we do it for deer? Or rabbits? Or moose? -__-
> _Um, we do. Deer, moose, and rabbits are all hunted as a means of controlling the population. Thanks to our forefathers, there are not enough predators to naturally keep the populations in check, so we have to do it. If we "left them alone" they would continue to reproduce, deplete their sources of food, and ultimately succumb to starvation, disease, even more collisions on the roads, etc. Let's keep in mind that because of public demand, mustangs are not killed outright like deer and moose. This does not push them to extinction, it is preserving both the species and the environment they live in. Why do you think so many funds are invested in tagging wildlife, tracking their habits, monitoring their populations and making efforts to help predators like wolves regain numbers in the wild?_
> Horses are not bears, they do not kill people, they do not eat your bird seed. They are not moose, they do not kill people in cars when you hit them on the road. They are not cougars, they are not polar bears. You cannot and SHOULD NOT hung a PREY animal.. Are you REALLY serious in saying "they mess up the woods, and creeks" ... Really??? It is one of the most (not the most) majestic, carefree animals on the planet that is considered PREY, and you're willing to "due to over population in a few RURAL parts of Canada and "any where else you see fit" to just throw them in a pen, and made into meat...
> _Are you REALLY serious in saying we should only hunt animals that can harm us? Do you not realize that this is the kind of mindset that makes animals extinct? We can and do hunt prey animals, and have been doing so for as long as we've been walking on two feet. If you're going to make a statement like that, I would at least hope that you are a vegan.
> ...


See above in red.

Evansk, your impression of the logging industry is flawed/outdated. It most certainly is not spewing oil/gas all over the place, and a substantial amount of money is put towards ensuring that there is as little environmental damage as possible. What you describe sounds more relevant to mining operations and oil sands - I'm not condemning either of those operations however they do tend to tear up the land beyond recognition, and what they take out does not get put back. Trees can and are planted again - minerals and oil cannot be.

Anybody who's lived in the foothills knows the kind of environment it is and what feral horses can do to it. This is where the melted snow comes down from the rockies, the soil is soft and marshy (we call it muskeg), it is very hilly and not flat like the prairies and very prone to erosion (a very big issue the logging industry faces, with massive funds being put towards preventing it as much as possible and researching ways to further prevent it) and the ecosystem has evolved around it. It evolved around even toed ungulates like deer and moose - whose feet are small and capable of picking through the marshes while causing minimal disturbance to the creatures that live in them. Horses are odd toed ungulates, who leave a larger footprint and a greater impact in their tracks. They do tear up the sensitive foothills, and that is no good for the creatures who have evolved there. It's all a delicate balance, and while you might not care much about frogs and fish, losing them would have a ripple effect through the ecosystem and would ultimately effect everything living there. This is why introduced species are a problem - Australia is an excellent example of the extent of the impact introduced species can have and there are many documentaries that talk about it - check out your local library.


----------



## kevinshorses (Aug 15, 2009)

xiamsvetlanax said:


> I understand you come from 1 side of the pond, but I come from the other, and so would most people on this forum (here's hoping ha!). If you subject 1 species to this kind of treatment, why not do this to other over populated animals in places like Canada, in places like the US, you can't because over time, the more and more you throw these animals away, they will forever go extinct. In fact, why can't we do it for deer? Or rabbits? Or moose? -__-
> Horses are not bears, they do not kill people, they do not eat your bird seed. They are not moose, they do not kill people in cars when you hit them on the road. They are not cougars, they are not polar bears. You cannot and SHOULD NOT hung a PREY animal.. Are you REALLY serious in saying "they mess up the woods, and creeks" ... Really??? It is one of the most (not the most) majestic, carefree animals on the planet that is considered PREY, and you're willing to "due to over population in a few RURAL parts of Canada and "any where else you see fit" to just throw them in a pen, and made into meat...
> "Silently the government of Alberta has changed the horse capture regulations to a point that they reflect the determination of the SRD to rid the province of what they believe are nuisance animals."
> You REALLY agree with this statement, JUST because you've been in the logging business..and you want to "save the resources"..I got news for you honey, this world is coming to an end whether you like it or not, & it ain't b/c of too many horses in Canada.. I don't understand HOW you whether you've been on 1 side of the pond or not, actually are IN Canada or not, (like myself) can think that "population control" for horses... is ok.


First, I think you underestimate the intelligence of the people on this forum. Most of us use our heads to analyze facts in order to form an opinion. You seem to be using emotions alone to form your opinion. I hope you're young because that means you have time to mature and learn how to think rationally. If your already an adult I'm afraid you are beyond hope. 

Horses have teeth on the top and bottom of thier mouth and can crop the grass much shorter than ungulates like deer and moose that only have teeth on the bottom in the front of thier jaw. When horses overpopulate an area they can do damage that can take several years to recover. When horses are allowed to overgaze an area then all the wildlife suffers because there is no feed for any of them. Horses are about the worst thing you can hit in a car because they are quite a bit heavier than most moose but also have the long legs that tend to send them through the windshield when hit by a passenger car. There are many other reasons to control the population of animals of all kinds. 

Hopefully in few years you will look back on your comments here and your beliefs in general and realize how foolish you were.


----------



## sandy2u1 (May 7, 2008)

You are right about one thing, there are plenty of animals that make themselves problems. It isn't just horses that are being controlled. A lot of animals, when they become a problem in areas are killed. A lot of places just disguise it as hunting season. Explain to me how it is any different to allow people to kill deer in order to control the population and not ok to kill horses for the same reason? There is a very real need to control overpopulation of animals....it isn't just about us, it is for their benefit as well. 

The only species that can get away with destroying everything and overpopulating are humans.


----------



## Evansk (Dec 22, 2011)

Views are OUTDATED?! Bullock Brothers - Logging Equipment <-- Are those NOT BIG HEAVY equipment with tracks and tires that are used for logging??! Im not outdated or flawed in MY views of logging, and i didn't not say that their always spewing oil I said that they CAN. And dont judge my views on Frogs and fish or other animals, you dont know my views. And the horses don't take minerals and OILS from humans, its the HUMANS taking it for themselves. 

All BIG ANIMALS cause accidents. Moose, Horse anything.

I didn't want to turn into a debate, everyone has their opinion. I think population control is fine. I just think they should find a better way of doing it, and instead of offering the horses to slaughterpout d own that the people should be allowed to adopt a "wildie" just like they do down in the states.


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

Evansk said:


> I didn't want to turn into a debate, everyone has their opinion. I think population control is fine. I just think they should find a better way of doing it, and instead of offering the horses to slaughterpout d own that the people should be allowed to adopt a "wildie" just like they do down in the states.


Because adopting a wildie is a brilliant idea, because then we have Ms Average horse rider adopting a WILD animal, and giving it a home, meanwhile the born in captivity already trained horse next door is sent to slaughter because the owner has lost her job and can't afford to keep it anymore.

Poor old broke to death go anywhere do anything horse ends up on the one way trip to the cannery because he was boring and brown and fit and healthy.

Sorry, there is something skewed in this life when so much time and money is poured into 'rescuing' the wild, old, broken, etc, and perfectly nice horses are getting slaughtered.


----------



## kevinshorses (Aug 15, 2009)

I couldn't agree more with you!!


----------



## kevinshorses (Aug 15, 2009)

Evansk said:


> Views are OUTDATED?!.


I don't think your views are outdated. I think they're ignorant.


----------



## Evansk (Dec 22, 2011)

> I don't think your views are outdated. I think they're ignorant.


 
Im not trying to be or sound Ignorant. Logging can cause damage just like anything else. I know people are trying to make a difference in the logging industry. I just don't understand how the views are out dated when they are using big machines for logging, that can leak fluids. I'm not saying their doing it all the time but things do happen. 

I don't want to argue or push views on someone else, everyone has a right to their opinions, whether people agree or not. Thats why its your opinion right?

AND .. I just wanna say, that I apologize to anyone on this thread that may have gotten the wrong impression of myself or my views on anything stated in this thread. 

And the bird seed comment - My horses love bird seed probably more than the squirrels do.


----------



## xiamsvetlanax (Aug 8, 2011)

I agree with Evansk, everyone is entitled to their opinions, sorry if everyone thought I was trying to change yours.. That's not what this was for.. I just stated how I feel about the wild horses being captured and killed as part of population control. Btw, I'm 24. Not young, but I'm not 15 or 20 years into the horse world like the rest. 
All done posting here. 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## mystykat (Dec 4, 2011)

Animals in the wild suffer all the time, starvation, they often injure each other, or a prey animal takes it down. If a horse in the wild suffers and dies by the elements, this is natural. If one gets picked off by a wolf pack, this is natural. Survival of the fittest, and that is fair.

The population of wild horses in Alberta versus deer, moose, rabbits is much, much lower. It's literally incomparable. Also people don't generally drive 'cars' where the majority of wild horses of Alberta are. 

It's fine and dandy to hand out a few tags for each animal to hunters and have them go out and try to spot an evasive bear, cougar, wolf. Or bunker down and wait for a deer to come along and aim true. It's a completely different thing to mechanically round up a bunch of horses. There are thousands of deer wreaking havoc on farmers fields, we've pushed wolf populations away from where these deer are. So we hunt the deer. Remember thousands of deer out there.. 300 wild horses. 
Even population management for other species in Alberta that are low in numbers - hunters are put in for a draw. 

Natural selection is doing it's job in keeping wild horse populations way down. There is little need for human interference. Consider the damage of 300 horses roaming in small herds, to one logging run taking out the side of a mountain. The damage in not comparable. And yet, I don't say ban logging, we need this resource. At the same time we need the logging, we DON'T NEED the horses. However, logging companies push the wildlife out - so why round up the horses? Push them out. Wild horses move so much in one day you won't see them where you're cutting tomorrow. 

I personally love the fact that these non-native horses are in our mountains. They're not out to hurt people, they are not prey animals who pose a ligetimate danger to humans. I'm not talking about hitting a horse with a car, that can happen anywhere whether it be a domesticated horse or wild horse in the Rockies. It can also happen ANYWHERE not just with horses but also with domesticated dogs, cyotes, deer, cow, moose, and hell I sure hear about a lot of people getting hit. 

I'm not saying population management of the horses is wrong, but the way it's being done is certainly not right. I don't necessarily agree with the views that WHOAS put forward. Although not a native species, I do think they have just as much right to the land than other wildlife. I believe if population management is to be applied to the horses it should be in ratio to their population and reproduction rates. Just like any other species of animal taken out of the wild.


If anyone actually took the time to read all the way through to the end, thanks! This is just my opinion as we all have our own. I'm pretty proud of the horses in our Rockies and I think I'd be a shame if they were completely removed in time.


----------



## mystykat (Dec 4, 2011)

And might I add, we could all state our opinions all day long - buuuut it's not likely to change a thing. And WHOAS probably isn't making too much of an impact either.


----------



## Gremmy (Feb 17, 2009)

Evansk, you do have a point about the impact of any vehicle entering the forest, and I will acknowledge that. However I stand by my statement regarding the massive efforts these companies put in to minimizing their impact and restoring patches after they move on - soil tests, studies, and constant work to make sure trees are replanted and supported are all done, and the particular issue here seems to lie with an excess in the wild horse population beginning to interfere with these efforts on top of putting a strain on an already sensitive environment.

Mystykat, where are you getting that 300 figure? A quick google search is bringing up for me numbers ranging from 250 - 1000 (in the foothills alone). Without a solid number from the people actually studying the population, I don't think we can really know for sure how many they're dealing with. If the number is high enough for them to be hindering restoration efforts, depleting food sources and starving to death in high numbers, then it's probably too high.



> There are thousands of deer wreaking havoc on farmers fields, we've pushed wolf populations away from where these deer are. So we hunt the deer.


I do disagree there - the attempt to bring wolf populations back to where they once were has been a work in progress for decades now all over North America. We've done the wolves and as a result the deer a huge disservice, and attempts to rectify it and bring the wolves back has proven to be difficult, but is being done. In the meantime we have a booming deer population and until we reach our end goal of having healthy wolf numbers in the wild to balance out the deer, something has to give. Fish and Game don't arbitrarily hand out licenses either, the surplus figures are determined by those who monitor the populations in accordance to the current population, growth rates and predicted changes. I don't believe it is possible to be licensed to hunt Grizzlies in AB right now, and other vulnerable predators are very limited - as are endangered prey animals like bison and pronghorns. In contrast pretty much everybody and their grandpa can go and get a deer hunting license (depending on the species, and I know in BC you can practically go to town on the bucks but does are limited)

It's worth noting - since WHOAS article just goes to town on a bad assumption - that the logging companies do not send their own employees out to collect data on environmental impact, etc... they contract this out to seperate, largely government funded research facilities whose purpose is to monitor the local wildlife populations, analyse any variances and report their findings to both the government and the industries responsible for the impacts - they are the neutral body who ensures that the industry is doing its part to minimize its impact. The issue isn't with wild horses getting in the way while they're logging, but rather that they are coming in after the loggers have moved on and ripping up the saplings they've planted to try to minimize their own impact. Pushing wildlife out is a huge issue within the logging industry - as a negative consequence of their practices and something they are under immense pressure to prevent. The above research facilities monitor this as well, the goal for all parties being to make sure that wildlife are disturbed as little as possible and that they come back to the site afterwards. We used to get to see the photos taken by nightcams posted in restored logging sites, of bears, deer, cougars, you name it. Very interesting.

It may be worth noting that the town I grew up in had the mill and the logging activities, and also a research facility. The mill is what built the town and keeps it alive, and it employs most of the population. In contrast to what many might assume growing up in a town loyal to the lumber industry may have been like, in the classroom we were educated in great detail about the environment, the kinds of trees and animals in our local habitat and the importance of preserving it. Having spent the second half of my school days here in Vancouver (where environmentalism is HUGE), I can say that I feel I was better educated in such things back in AB. In that town it is very important to them, because to keep the mill and the logging industry there it has to be sustainable, and they take pride in the forests and wildlife around them. Without restoration efforts the loggers would leave and the mill would suffer, and the town would die out. The research facility plays a huge part in educating the public and the decision makers at the mill and lumberyards, and it is critical for them to keep an eye on the forests and keep everything in balance. For that town and all the others who rely on the logging industry, they support it and are among those most passionate about preserving their environment. It's their livelihood.



> I believe if population management is to be applied to the horses it should be in ratio to their population and reproduction rates.


and I have no reason to believe that this isn't already being done. Unfortunately nonbiased news seems to be a thing of the past, it's **** near impossible to find the actual research data collected (even though AFAIK it is public information) because it is buried deep underneath piles of hype like the WHOAS article - but these populations are monitored - or sure as heck should be, there are entire professions dedicated to it. The media has not yet provided a consistent number for the total population, and so the numbers of horses being rounded up are meaningless.

Opinions are opinions, but when opinions are included with the name and phone number of government officials, I like to do my part to make sure that people educate themselves before forming one


----------



## Saddlebag (Jan 17, 2011)

I've often wondered if genetically these horses are related to the mustangs or are the offspring of horses that were turned loose during the dirty 30's when a huge chunk of the country dried up. Also during this time there was a winter storm that raged for days pushing livestock ahead of the storm. Cowboys found cattle and horses as far away as 600 miles from their homes.


----------



## kevinshorses (Aug 15, 2009)

I imagine the same thing happened in Canada that happened in the US. Ranchers and farmers used to turn out all the stock they didn't use during the winter. As tractors and automobiles replaced horses, fewer horses were gathered in the spring and pretty soon there were bands of feral horses roaming around with no brands and no purpose. Then a bunch of bleeding hearts with no dog in the fight decided the government needed to get involved and now millions of dollars are spent in the US to house and feed these FERAL horses.


----------



## Gremmy (Feb 17, 2009)

Yes, that was done up here as well.

I was chatting with my Dad last night about this and he clarified some things for me - in regards to logging vehicles chewing up the ground, they are _required_ to disturb the ground as little as possible and have to restore what is disturbed. Soil is tested as well so if the soil is contaminated, they have to go back in and clean it up.


----------



## natisha (Jan 11, 2011)

xiamsvetlanax said:


> I got news for you honey, this world is coming to an end whether you like it or not, & it ain't b/c of too many horses in Canada...


Oh my, the World is coming to an end-again. Time for me to max out some credit cards & have some fun.


----------



## sandy2u1 (May 7, 2008)

I think that we can all agree that to many wild horses running in the same area will mean starvation for them all. So I have to ask, what should we do about it? There are many domestic horses that are starving to death or good horses being sold to slaughter because there is simply not enough homes for all these unwanted horses. Rescues are full. The horse market is in the dumps. People are finding it more and more difficult to turn a profit on horses. How could it possibly be profitable or even a break even deal to train and pay for the expenses of a wild horse while it is in the training process?

Is it really the answer to sit on our hands and do nothing because it is 'mean' if we do, meanwhile letting the whole herd starve? I think not. 

I think it is great when people care about animals and want to help. However, if you really want to help, then you have to think the whole thing through and be willing to do more than post on a forum. If you really think it out and come up with a solution, or offer money or a home for these horses in this problem, then that is great and you very well could make a difference. 

I find it very hard to care about a cause where some animals are being eliminated in an effort to save herds. They are doing it for the good of the whole. 

I also find it difficult to care about these wild horses when there are so many domesticated animals that are in need of help. Humans have made great efforts to domesticate certain animals. Those same animals are now unloved, uncared about, are starving, in kill pens, in rescues or kill shelters and their days are numbered. 

Charity starts at home. Go to your local horse rescue or kill shelter. There you will not only find animals in desperate need of help, but you will also find it a place where you can make a real difference. I think you will also find that we don't even have a solution for pets, much less wild animals.


----------



## masatisan (Jan 12, 2009)

Saddlebag said:


> I've often wondered if genetically these horses are related to the mustangs or are the offspring of horses that were turned loose during the dirty 30's when a huge chunk of the country dried up. Also during this time there was a winter storm that raged for days pushing livestock ahead of the storm. Cowboys found cattle and horses as far away as 600 miles from their homes.


The sad thing is no one has even TESTED them. The government doesn't want to spend money on "pests." I think many people would like to know the history of the Ghost Forest horses, as they are a mystery. No one knows exactly how long they've been there. What if they somehow ARE related to Spanish horses? In that case they would be a historical treasure. No one has tested, no one knows.

You can't legally own one, but it's A-OK to kill one. I really don't understand the logic in that. The protected wild/feral horses in Canada are the Sable Island Ponies and a a small number of Newfoundland ponies. Sable Island Ponies are highly managed and also extremely protected. They live on what is essentially a sand-bar. Their habitat is extremely delicate and vulnerable, but because we know they have been there since the 1700s, they can stay. They are actually considered a treasure and are "Nova Scotia's provincial horse." They were put there by people, same as the Ghost Forest horses, they both live in a delicate environment, they both have a population of approximately 300 (though the sable island ponies live on an island that is just under 35km2). So why is one a treasure and the other scorned? If they actually put the effort in to test the Ghost Forest horses maybe we could find a new treasure.


----------



## Gremmy (Feb 17, 2009)

Can you confirm that they haven't been tested/aren't being studied? These are certainly things to consider, however how much is the government expected to handle? Throwing my opinion out here and feel free to disagree, but I can think of many more things I'd prefer my tax dollars to go towards, especially with the numerous mustang strains already protected (and in many cases considered a breed, domesticated and bred) - IMO protecting every single mustang band for the sake of preserving old spanish horse blood is beginning to sound like an episode of "Hoarders" - where do we draw the line?

And why does this warrant stopping any wild horse interference whatsoever? Seems to me that resources could be better spent funding more research (perhaps privately) or lobbying the government to allow captured wild horses to be adopted in Alberta?

Good point about the sable island ponies, there's no doubt that their habitat is very sensitive just like most others, but it's very different than Alberta's foothills - is it better suited to a large number of horses? Do they implement any population control measures and if so, what?

Now I'm curious, off to google I go


----------



## masatisan (Jan 12, 2009)

There are no protected mustangs in canada.There are 40,000 protected mustangs in the united states but none here. The program I watched (canadian geographic) said they had not been tested, it might be out of date as i'm not sure when it was produced.

I also said the Sable Island ponies are heavily managed. As far as I know by natural causes and by shots which prevent mares going into heat. There is also a famous scientist who lives there and moniters them continually.


----------



## farley (May 23, 2010)

Hell, they can have some of ours!! We have too many and its causing WAY too many issues!! And I agree that if you are going to "protect" something that includes managing its numbers. Horses are not in danger of being extinct there fore they should not be protected as so.


----------



## lilbit11011 (Apr 15, 2010)

xiamsvetlanax said:


> When was the last time a horse killed a person in a car.. I know moose kill people Diesel =P That wasn't what I meant.
> 
> Actually about 3 wks ago here. Horse was running loose in the road and a guy accidently hit the horse and a telephone pole trying to avoid the horse.
> 
> ...




So, it's better to let them suffer and die slowly and painfully rather than a quick death?????


----------



## Cruiser (Aug 28, 2011)

Just want to point out Sable Island ponies are not managed at all by people, at this time you have to have permission from the government to even going onto the island. It is part of Nova Scotia, they are trying to have it made into a national park or reserve of something, I sure hope they don't because that would allow people from all over to visit all over. Only around 300 ponies can and do survive on the island nature takes can of the rest. I don't even know if any one watches them full time now, I thought the housing was closed. Yes people go there though to count population and health for science but they aren't allow to interact with them. 

And Newfoundland ponies are not wild at all.


----------

