By Dr. Robert Thorson
Looking for a stunning example of ludicrous government policy? Consider what the U.S. Bureau of Land Management does with its so-called wild horses, as reported by a Policy Forum in the August Science magazine.
It turns out that the bureau boards out more “wild” horses to Midwestern farmers than they allow to run free on the western range. As a result, taxpayers are renting private pastures for tens of thousands of unnamed horses until they die unnatural deaths. Astonishingly, “captive wild horses will cost the United States over $1 billion by 2030 unless management approaches change,” according to the forum piece.
Wild horses are less wild than feral cats. Originally beasts of burden and war machines for the Spanish conquistadors, they were introduced into North America during the 15th and 16th centuries. Ever since then, they’ve been escaping captivity as an invasive species. Despite wishful thinking by horse romantics, they can’t be considered wild because human management has replaced the checks and balances of ecology.
Indeed, the “Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act” of 1971 requires that so-called wild horses be managed as “an integral part of the natural system of the public lands.” Historically, their natural predators — wolves and mountain lions — have been largely killed off. Using aircraft surveillance, natural territorial competition has been replaced by 179 designated Herd Management Areas. This involves monitoring herd size, establishing sustainable target populations that “preserve and maintain a thriving natural ecological balance,” and “removing” excess animals.
As of 2012, the bureau had removed more than 195,000 horses from public lands at public expense. This far exceeds the demand for horse sales and adoptions. Nevertheless, political “pressure from horse advocates, administrative directives, and congressional appropriation bills prohibit killing healthy horses.” So what does the bureau do with its removed horses? As with a criminal judge, they hand down life sentences and hold them captive until they die.
As a first step, surplus horses are put into temporary feedlots like those in which much of our meat is raised. From there, their long-term care is contracted out to farmers, usually in the Midwest. Presently, there are about 45,000 horses in long-term captivity, which far exceeds the estimated sustainable population of 33,000 horses allowed to run free in the herd management areas, also at our expense.
Ironically, the bulk of the 2012 budget for the “Wild Free-Roaming Horses” act was spent to feed and care for captive animals. In an even deeper irony, the bulk of those captives are being cared for in places near where cattle, hogs, sheep, and poultry are being raised for slaughter. This juxtaposition leads logically to the weighty question of why eating these animals is OK, but eating horses is not.
From the perspective of animal ethics, there little distinction. From the perspective of cultural taboos, however, the distinction is as enormous as it is arbitrary.
Along with reindeer, bison, rhinos and mammoth, the Magdalenian culture of late Paleolithic Europe worshiped wild horses as magnificent game animals in their cave paintings and carvings. Pagans of the Middle Ages feasted on horse, especially during religious ceremonies, until invading Christian armies forced the practice to end. And in many countries today, horseflesh is just another kind of beef. In France, it’s a delicacy.
I’m not advocating that the bureau slaughter its surplus horses. I’m merely raising the question to stimulate debate that might end their wildly expensive “wild” horse policy.