Thoughts on the Wild and Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971? Are y'all in the "horses are a successful reintroduction" or "horses are an invasive species" camp?
Hi! I apologize in advance. This was a better question for me rather than Jo given my background in natural resource management and wildlife biology, and I haven’t been feeling my best over the last few days.
To put it bluntly, I think the act is awful and places the lives of domesticated, feral livestock above the innerworkings of an already degrading and disappearing ecosystem. While it is true that horses were in North America during the Ice Age, the horses we have "introduced" through colonialism are not a wild species. Equus caballus is domesticated, like feral cats. In the wild, they face hardships like disease and starvation that drastically lowers their quality of life. Long winters or extended droughts mean these horses take up resources that our native ungulates need to survive.
The act itself is what we unaffectionately call a "bleeding heart" act. There is all social and political bias in it, but no science at all.
Horses are charismatic creatures. The public doesn't want to see them killed. However, there is a huge double standard in most regulation regarding horse management. This act protects wild horses and burros from being hunted. It is also illegal to slaughter horses for meat in the USA. As a result, there is a market for people to buy horses for cheap and ship them to Mexico for slaughter. As a result, these animals are paraded around the states for a few weeks, many of which should be put down due to medical issues. It is simply cruel, and frankly it is a bit aggravating to say that our government cares about horses when kill pens exist right under their nose. They only care about their image (ie: "we don't kill the cute horses!"), not the animals themselves or the ecosystems they may damage.