# Shooting a wild horse



## Bridgertrot (Dec 2, 2011)

I particularly like the person in the comments that said " If this horse is NOT a branded blm mustang and it was on his land, he has every right to shoot it."


Apparently they don't know how the BLM works. Mustangs aren't branded and released again. :-| Very sad.


----------



## Country Woman (Dec 14, 2011)

I have no idea why people shoot mustangs
so sad


----------



## ggriffin924 (Feb 13, 2012)

Country Woman said:


> I have no idea why people shoot mustangs
> so sad


I don't believe this horse was in the US. But still sad to see.


----------



## Cat (Jul 26, 2008)

ggriffin924 said:


> I don't believe this horse was in the US. But still sad to see.


Yeah - I just saw that someone posted that in the comments. I guess he pulled that off an Australian site? Yes, it is still sad to see and it seems to indicate he wants open hunting on the mustangs.


----------



## crimsonsky (Feb 18, 2011)

mustangs that are on Indian or private land are not considered BLM mustangs and do not have the same "rights", so to speak. NOT that i think what he did was okay - just saying.


----------



## Cat (Jul 26, 2008)

Actually under the Free-roaming act of 1971 - just because they are not on public land it is still illegal to harass or kill them. Common misconception it seems. Now the private land owner can call the federal marshal and have the horses removed but they can not shoot them.


----------



## COWCHICK77 (Jun 21, 2010)

My husband just told me about this. It has been going around on FB as well.
His friends told hubby if you blow up the picture the horse has no whiskers, like as if he has been clipped.

Staged photo to stir ****.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Cat (Jul 26, 2008)

Actually its from this website:

Not Your Typical Tolley

And considering everything else he has shot I really doubt it was stages, but it was in Australia. Not sure with that picture quality - even zooming in - how you would be able to tell if it had whiskers or not.


----------



## wyominggrandma (Nov 4, 2009)

I was going to post the same thing. Wild Brumbie, I will assume they are shot all the time, I think some think of them as pests...


----------



## Cat (Jul 26, 2008)

*staged - not stages. Sometimes my fingers move faster than my brain. LOL.


----------



## crimsonsky (Feb 18, 2011)

free roaming horses that are on public lands, meaning BLM or forest service, are protected under that act of 1971. horses on private, local or tribal lands are NOT afforded the same protection. they are solely considered feral and are dealt with in that way.


----------



## Lakotababii (Nov 28, 2010)

Honestly my opinion on this subject seems different than everyone else's. Well maybe.

I think it all depends on circumstances. I personally don't know if the mustang controversy is a problem or not. I have read articles saying mustangs are over-populated, and I have read some that say that they are just fine. 

So here is my opinion. If they are not doing any damage, leave them be. They are beautiful creatures and an old American icon of the West.

However, if they really are a big problem, why not shoot them? They are wild animals, just like deer, pigs, and turkeys, which are all hunted and controlled by the DNR.

Right now, the BLM is taking care of it, so hopefully no need to shoot them, but where are all of these rounded up critters going? I'm assuming they are put up for adoption? Or maybe they just sit in holding pens with a very bleak future? Sometimes I just wonder if it is more humane just to shoot them.


----------



## wyominggrandma (Nov 4, 2009)

Again, this happened in australia... Not in USA, so BLM has nothing to do with this story.....


----------



## mildot (Oct 18, 2011)

Did he violate any laws?

If no, then I don't care.


----------



## Rascaholic (Oct 4, 2010)

How many folks remember that the BLM herds used to be culled by rifle? It's always been a expedient way to reduce the numbers quickly and efficiently. It really wasn't that long ago....


----------



## iridehorses (Oct 22, 2007)

If you look at the larger picture in the link, you can just make out the blood on the mare's flank.


----------



## Tennessee (Dec 7, 2008)

I guess I don't get the big deal. The animal was wild. In my opinion, it's no different than shooting a coyote, deer, etc.


----------



## Cat (Jul 26, 2008)

crimsonsky said:


> free roaming horses that are on public lands, meaning BLM or forest service, are protected under that act of 1971. horses on private, local or tribal lands are NOT afforded the same protection. they are solely considered feral and are dealt with in that way.


I'm curious on your information on that? I'm honestly not sure on the tribal lands - they tend to have different laws. However, on private lands the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burro Act of 1971 specifically states:

“If wild free-roaming horses or burros stray from public lands onto privately owned land, the owners of such land may inform the nearest Federal marshal or agent of the Secretary, who shall arrange to have the animals removed. In no event shall such wild free-roaming horses and burros be destroyed except by the agents of the Secretary.”


----------



## Bridgertrot (Dec 2, 2011)

iridehorses said:


> If you look at the larger picture in the link, you can just make out the blood on the mare's flank.


The horses flank isn't visible in the photo. I however do see blood on her shoulder in the sun.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## crimsonsky (Feb 18, 2011)

according to the BLM management office, horses that are on private lands are covered by the USDA, or by the tribe if on indian land (or land that borders indian land - tribes can claim the horses if called about them) and are managed as "feral" - typically animal control will be called if they are considered a nuisance. as the horses aren't branded while they are free-range there is no way to accurately say that a horse is a blm horse, a usda horse, a tribal horse or just plain abandoned except by the land that they are currently on.


----------



## iridehorses (Oct 22, 2007)

I stand corrected!


----------



## Cat (Jul 26, 2008)

crimsonsky said:


> according to the BLM management office, horses that are on private lands are covered by the USDA, or by the tribe if on indian land (or land that borders indian land - tribes can claim the horses if called about them) and are managed as "feral" - typically animal control will be called if they are considered a nuisance. as the horses aren't branded while they are free-range there is no way to accurately say that a horse is a blm horse, a usda horse, a tribal horse or just plain abandoned expect by the land that they are currently on.



Interesting considering what the law states and the fact that my first BLM mustang I adopted was collected from private lands in Wyoming.


----------



## arrowsaway (Aug 31, 2011)

This is sad.
However. if I may speculate a bit about why it upsets folks so much.
Most folks aren't used to thinking of horses as wild animals, or animals to be used for consumption. They are both -- just like a deer, wild boar, bears, foxes, coyotes, etc. All are equally majestic, and it's just as sad every time one is shot... But, they are animals. And we are top predators. As long as he didn't torture the mare before her death, then it's just the food chain at work, in my opinion.

That, and provided he didn't violate any laws, then he is within his rights to shoot an animal. I don't like senseless killing - that is, I prefer animals to be shot only for their meat and almost every part of it used, but that is an ideal that does not exist.

Also, as another poster previously mentioned, brumbies in australia are actually a foreign species introduced way-back-when by settlers. They compete with native species, and wreak havoc on the landscape with their hooves. Not saying this makes them deserving of a bullet, just giving ya'll the other side of the coin.:wink:


----------



## cakemom (Jul 4, 2010)

Horses are animals. If a wolf was coming in and killing your foals or calves you'd shoot it, well to me, all animals fall under the same rules. If it was a nuisance animal and had become
Dangerous the right thing was done. If it was done in sport, he did wrong.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Kayty (Sep 8, 2009)

Ok folks, in Australia, brumbies are an absolute pain in the backside. The Australian landscape is a very delicate one, and our native animals extremely sensitive. Brumbies running in huge numbers in extremely senstive areas of land in Australia (particularly the Alpine regions) has been creating immense damage. Many native marsupial species are now endangered due to the brumbies presence in these national parks. Brumbies trample the topsoil, creating severe erosion, thus making is extremely difficult for vegetation to regrow in those areas. 
Left unchecked, with no predators (we don't have any of your mountain lions, bears etc.) to help keeps numbers down, the brumby population will grow rapidly, causing immense damage to the Australian fauna and flora. 

These horses aren't pets. Some can be re-homed, but not tens of thousands of them, not when it's hard to sell a well bred, domestic horse at the moment let alone an older feral with limited handling. Culling is required, hate it or love it, it needs to be done. 

Killing for fun, well I don't like it. But if it's a clean shot and the animal dies quickly, who am I to complain. So long as it's not an endangered species.


----------



## Chiilaa (Aug 12, 2010)

Seconded what Kayty said. Brumbies are pests. There is no "some people consider them" about it. The government here culls thousands each year. It's not nice to think that horses are being culled, but we do the same with kangaroos. We have no big predators left in Australia except man. Our ecosystem has evolved with no hard hooved animals, and their introduction has wreaked devastation.


----------



## Jessabel (Mar 19, 2009)

Chiilaa said:


> Seconded what Kayty said. Brumbies are pests. There is no "some people consider them" about it. The government here culls thousands each year. It's not nice to think that horses are being culled, but we do the same with kangaroos. We have no big predators left in Australia except man. Our ecosystem has evolved with no hard hooved animals, and their introduction has wreaked devastation.


Are those large predators completely extinct, or is there a possibility of reintroducing some of them? I don't know much about Australian wildlife. The biggest ones I can think of are dingos. 

I can see why Brumbies are culled, even if I don't like it. Do they use the meat or hides of those animals? You'd think they could at least use the meat for zoo animals. It seems wrong to let it go to waste when they shoot thousands every year.


----------



## Chiilaa (Aug 12, 2010)

Unfortunately, the location of the brumbies mean that retrieving the corpses is very difficult. Most culls are done with a helicopter and a shooter out the side. Collecting the corpse would waste more resources than it would save :-(

As for predators, the only large one we have is the dingo, and they are the size of a medium sized dog. While they occaisionally form packs, they are more usually found in pairs or alone, so not really able to bring down a horse. Even our one large predator that is now extinct, the Thylacine, was not big enough to bring down a horse. The last Thylacine died in 1936 in captivity. There are rumours always circulating about sightings, but I am not convinced there are any left. (Tasmanian Tiger was another name for the Thylacine).


----------



## Kayty (Sep 8, 2009)

Unfortunately the last 'large' predators we had were back with the dinosaurs! Nothing big enough to take down a horse. Australian wildlife is all quite small and with soft, padded feet. Kangaroos are about the biggest native land animal in Australia. We used to have the 'Tasmanian Tiger', but these were extint years back in the 30's I believe, and they again, were not big enough to take down a horse. 

And to be honest, if I was a horse, I'd rather be shot than torn to shreads over a period of time by a predator  

ETA: posted at the same time as Chiillaa


----------



## Saskia (Aug 26, 2009)

I don't like Brumbies being killed and I do think that there are better ways to manage the problem, because there definitely is a problem, just no one is willing to foot the bill. 

Although, I am pretty as sad to see a kangaroo or any other animal die as I am to see a Brumby. They're just another animal, I don't think we should treat them any different to other ones. But I don't like any animal killed. 

If he had killed it quickly I am somewhat glad, I think the aerial culling is completely awful.


----------



## Chiilaa (Aug 12, 2010)

The aerial culling, while it isn't always clean, is the only effective way to manage the brumbies. They are spread so far, over such rough country, that it really is impossible to effectively control them any other way. To muster them up to cull would only cause them more pain and suffering - think of the terror of being chased, over ground that is less than ideal for running. Then you are caught, trapped in a holding yard, while hundreds more strange horses are pressed into the yards too. Then the horses have to be transported for culling - I am fairly sure that in Australia it is not on to cull horses in a holding yard. I know that horses that are being dogged MUST be PTS in a room separate and visually away from any other horse, and I am fairly sure this would apply to mustered brumbies being culled.

In the end, while the aerial culls don't look pretty, and sometimes are not clean kills, they are still the most humane and viable option we have.


----------



## Kayty (Sep 8, 2009)

Saskia, money is ALWAYS the problem. What would you propose we do, other than culling? It would be lovely to see them all round up and living out their lives in big grassy paddocks being looked after, then leaving a small 'novelty' herd out in the snowies for the tourists. But is that realistic?
Money, space, people power... it just wouldn't happen. There's just not enough money or homes, for tens of thousands of feral horses - look at how many thoroughbred and standardbred wastage there is each year already. You can get yourself a young trialed racer for less than a brumby adoption, when the brumby needs a huge amount of work done vs the racer. 

CUlling unfortunately is the only realistic solution. Same for kangaroos, its sad to be killing an Australian icon, but otherwise they end up eating themselves out of house and home. Leaving their population unchecked would be disasterous.


----------



## Saskia (Aug 26, 2009)

I know there isn't enough homes and that, already, many horses are killed. And to be honest, while it makes me sad, it's no sadder than any other animals that are killed. 

I know there are hardly any practical solutions, but I think the idea of shooting them from the air and leaving them to die, slowly, is awful to the extent that is shouldn't be an option. Surely, they could get riders/people on bikes, to go down there and clean up the kills. Yes, it would cost them, but I think it's worth it. I, for one, wouldn't mind paying increased taxes to cover things such as this. They could offer some financial incentives for trainers/stock people to herd them up, train them a little and sell them on. There are plenty government scholarships and grants to a range of people in a range of things, such as art, music, academics, sports etc, I don't see why there would be a problem getting something like that. Perhaps sterilisation programs. 

I know the racing industry is already wasteful, that is another problem, I feel, but not one we are addressing here.

I'm not naive, and I know it's a complex issue, but I don't think killing any animal in a way that causes them prolonged suffering should ever be an option.


----------



## Chiilaa (Aug 12, 2010)

The majority of aerial kill shots are clean. It's the minority that make it onto Today Tonight, and while it's horrible that it's not quick and painless 100% of the time, it's just so huge a job :-(


----------



## natisha (Jan 11, 2011)

Chiilaa said:


> The aerial culling, while it isn't always clean, is the only effective way to manage the brumbies. They are spread so far, over such rough country, that it really is impossible to effectively control them any other way. To muster them up to cull would only cause them more pain and suffering - think of the terror of being chased, over ground that is less than ideal for running. Then you are caught, trapped in a holding yard, while hundreds more strange horses are pressed into the yards too. Then the horses have to be transported for culling - I am fairly sure that in Australia it is not on to cull horses in a holding yard. I know that horses that are being dogged MUST be PTS in a room separate and visually away from any other horse, and I am fairly sure this would apply to mustered brumbies being culled.
> 
> In the end, while the aerial culls don't look pretty, and sometimes are not clean kills, they are still the most humane and viable option we have.


Good for Australia, you are doing it right including the slaughter in a separate room. We (USA) should follow your example.


----------



## wetrain17 (May 25, 2011)

Shooting an animal is the quickest and cheapest way to control the population. Its no different then deer hunting in the states; heck the government doesnt even have to worry about spending money for it, there are plenty of people who go out each fall to hunt. Actually, the states make money off of it by selling permits and licenses.


----------



## Lakotababii (Nov 28, 2010)

wyominggrandma said:


> Again, this happened in australia... Not in USA, so BLM has nothing to do with this story.....


I must have missed that important detail. 

But regardless, after reading the thread, and the posts from Kayty and the others who live in Australia, I think I was right on track with saying it is okay to shoot them if they are a nuisance or causing damage, no matter what country they are in.


----------



## greenbryerfarms (Apr 9, 2012)

years ago.. quarter horse breeders would kill them because they thought of them as savages, un pure and didnt want a foal coming out that way, i hate it.... and i dont adopt mustangs because of what the gov, do to them... trust me at least this guy shot and killed her... do you know the government rounds them up using helocopters foals and horses alike get there hooves ran off them and drop dead? i hate all of it!


----------



## crimsonsky (Feb 18, 2011)

greenbryerfarms said:


> years ago.. quarter horse breeders would kill them because they thought of them as savages, un pure and didnt want a foal coming out that way, i hate it.... and i dont adopt mustangs because of what the gov, do to them... trust me at least this guy shot and killed her... do you know the government rounds them up using helocopters foals and horses alike get there hooves ran off them and drop dead? i hate all of it!


*sigh* please educate yourself with information from reputable sources and then take EVERYTHING with a grain of salt before forming an opinion.


----------



## greenbryerfarms (Apr 9, 2012)

crimsonsky said:


> *sigh* please educate yourself with information from reputable sources and then take EVERYTHING with a grain of salt before forming an opinion.


Well ill site my sorces next time I'm on the computer I did a lotof pappers inschool on wild mustangs there's an orginization about a horse named cloud that's against round up for these reasons, however I don't have time to argue with it your opinion is yours mine is mine
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Joe4d (Sep 1, 2011)

There are no wild mustangs. The only wild horses in the world are in Mongolia. 
What we have roaming around the US, and apparently Australia are *feral *horses.
No different than stray cats or dogs.


----------



## kevinshorses (Aug 15, 2009)

Bridgertrot said:


> I particularly like the person in the comments that said " If this horse is NOT a branded blm mustang and it was on his land, he has every right to shoot it."
> 
> 
> Apparently they don't know how the BLM works. Mustangs aren't branded and released again. :-| Very sad.


Apparently YOU don't know how the BLM works. Mustangs are branded and released.


----------



## natisha (Jan 11, 2011)

kevinshorses said:


> Apparently YOU don't know how the BLM works. Mustangs are branded and released.


They are? Since when? What would be the point in doing that?
Yes, they are branded but not released again.
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/death-considered-option-to-control-mustang-herds/
*Thousands penned in*
About another 30,000 horses are in holding facilities, where most are made available for adoption. But those deemed too old or otherwise unadoptable are sent to long-term holding facilities to live out their lives — some for 15 to 20 years.
The board will consider the alternatives at its next meeting in September.
Last year about $22 million of the entire horse program's $39 million budget was spent on holding horses in agency pens. Next year the costs are projected to grow to $26 million with an overall budget that is being trimmed to $37 million, Bisson said.
"We have a responsibility to balance the budget, so we are going to have to make some tough choices," Bisson said.
Bonnie Matton, president of the Wild Horse Preservation League, said she wasn't surprised by the agency's


----------



## crimsonsky (Feb 18, 2011)

kevinshorses said:


> Apparently YOU don't know how the BLM works. Mustangs are branded and released.


where do they brand and release mustangs in this country?


----------



## greenbryerfarms (Apr 9, 2012)

Pawaski (sp) horses are only found in z00s and wild
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## greenbryerfarms (Apr 9, 2012)

I know they do release certain mustangs back out tothe wild ibeleive there taged or branded but I'm not for sure very few get relesed again
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## crimsonsky (Feb 18, 2011)

they do release some of the "better quality" stock for enhancing the genetics of the herds however i don't believe they are branded before being released back. i've never seen a mustang on the range with a brand... i'll have to ask about that because, to my knowledge, they don't "tag and release" mustangs.


----------



## greenbryerfarms (Apr 9, 2012)

crimsonsky said:


> they do release some of the "better quality" stock for enhancing the genetics of the herds however i don't believe they are branded before being released back. i've never seen a mustang on the range with a brand... i'll have to ask about that because, to my knowledge, they don't "tag and release" mustangs.


Yeah I'm not for sure! Please let me know
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Corporal (Jul 29, 2010)

Ken McNabb had a great program about American Mustangs last year, where he explained how the Mustangs live in small pockets of land, NOT in ranges from Mexico to Canada, like most people believe, with little fodder and often, no water. They exist many times bc of the kindness of ranchers who provide a water source and even throw out hay for them. Their lives are limited and often pitiful.
I've suggested this before, on other sites, but I'll say it again, and see if this solution might spark an interest in discussion and evolving it.
MY solution is to license "Mustang Breeders." These horse breeders would be responsible for small herds kept on their land. They would brand them, and register them. If you wanted a "mustang" you would purchase through them. We could start pulling stock off of the places where they live--unless a breeder already has them on their land--and perhaps leave them in small, managed populations in State and National Parks that have livestock like bison and pronghorns.


----------



## crimsonsky (Feb 18, 2011)

define "small pockets of land" in this instance please.


----------



## Cat (Jul 26, 2008)

I guess "small" is a relative term. I know my mustang was gathered from Black Rock West. They can freely range from Black Rock West and East giving them 196,000 acres of land and its deemed to be able to maintain 112-186 head. 

BTW - if you don't believe they are out there you can go yourself and go see them.


----------



## crimsonsky (Feb 18, 2011)

Cat said:


> I guess "small" is a relative term. I know my mustang was gathered from Black Rock West. They can freely range from Black Rock West and East giving them 196,000 acres of land and its deemed to be able to maintain 112-186 head.
> 
> BTW - if you don't believe they are out there you can go yourself and go see them.


are you referring to branded mustangs or ...? sorry, i'm a bit confused on that last sentence.

i see mustangs every day, multiple times a day - both in the pens at the BLM holding facility as well as off the deck of the house as they mosey on through the property and say hello to our horses. the only ones i've ever seen branded are the ones that were gathered and brought in for adoption. *shrug*


----------



## Cat (Jul 26, 2008)

Sorry - that was in reference to Corporal's comment that mustangs weren't on the ranges. People can actually go out there and look for themselves.

As for branding - the only time I can think a branded one might be on the range is if they had brought in a nice stallion and had branded it and decided to release it back. I have heard they release nice stallion back out - usually in a different area to increase genetic diversity - but I really don't know if they have brands on them or not.


----------



## crimsonsky (Feb 18, 2011)

i'm pretty sure they don't brand the ones they decide to turn back out. i can't say that with 100% certainty but i'm 90% sure they don't. :wink: you are correct though - the horses are most definitely out on "the range".


----------

