The cattle industry must be proud, they exterminated the wolf and now are in the process of the wild horse. Think of the arrogance.

If these horses descend from a native population, they would certainly be worthy of protection. I have never heard this idea before. The horses have been considered to descend from escaped Spanish stock.

Genetic analysis should be able to settle this question quite easily. A native American horse poulation would have distinct genetic markers.

If they are a European introduced species, then they are no more part of the natural ecology than cattle. Of course, homo sapiens have a romantic attachment to equus caballus, making it unlikey that they will ever be thought of as four-legged English ivy.

From the website: Kiger Mustang

.....Since the discovery of these special horses, blood tests done at the University of Kentucky have found genetic markers intact and clearly tying the Kiger to the Spanish horses ridden by early Spanish Explorers (the Andalusian, Sorraia)......

These are very cool horses but not indigenous and should be managed to match the carrying capacity of a multiple use environment.

They would undoubtably be related to the Spanish horses. The relevant question is whether they have genes unknown in Old World horses that are not the result of recent [the past 500 years] mutation. If they do, likely they are related to some indigenous horse.

Thanks for your comments. I didn't mean to imply that the Kigers necessarily survived the Ice Age, but some wild horses may have. At least one group that I know of has a distintive marker. As for mustangs being indigenous, I defer to a pair of Ph.D.s: “...molecular biology, using mitochondrial-DNA analysis, has recently found that the modern or caballine horse, E. caballus, is genetically equivalent to E. lambei, a horse, according to fossil records, that represented the most recent Equus species in North America prior to extinction. Not only is E. caballus genetically equivalent to E. lambei, but no evidence exists for the origin of E. caballus anywhere except North America. .... The key element in describing an animal as a native species is (1) where it originated; and (2) whether or not it co-evolved with its habitat. Clearly, E. caballus did both, here in North America. There might be arguments about ‘breeds,’ but there are no scientific grounds for arguments about ‘species.’” See "Wild Horses as Native North American Wildlife" at http://www.saponline.org/wild_horses_native.html.

But...we talk about preserving endangered species because man endangers them. True, the horse originated here [many old world mammals did], but if it went extinct in the new world because of natural environmental change, it would not be a natural part of the current environment.

While supporting the preservation and even reintroduction of wolves and other endangered species is consistent with minimizing human caused environmental damage, protecting wild horses because their ancestors came from America is more romantic tan scientific.

Also...that all horses are of a single species does not mean that a population that survived in NA would be geneticly identical to old world horses. There would have been mutations built up in the population of NA horses between the time they became isolated from old world horses and the time that old world horses were reintroduced here. Geneticists would be able to determine this with considerable certainty.

I'm guessing there is a cost to having horses adopted, and a profit to be made by selling them to slaughter. Is the difference between the two the reason for what is going on? Are the horses not worth more alive than butchered? Are Oregonians - or Americans - willing to subsidize horse adoption? How much would it cost?

I like horses, but I don't think zoning allows me to keep one here.

Some points to consider: 1. I think people should read the story that was referenced. It says nothing about selling Kiger Mustangs for slaughter. 2. Most of the wild horses in Oregon are not Kiger Mustangs. Most of them are from stock that farmers and ranchers turned loose in the middle of the 20th century as farms were mechanized and/or consolidated. 3. THe BLM did not knowingly sell horses for slaughter, and plenty of BLMers are very angry about the fact that it happened. It has a policy against doing that, and the people who bought the horses (particularly that fellow who bought them claiming they were for his church), were not being straight with the BLM. 4. The BLM has stopped selling horses until it can figure out how to fix it. 5. The legislation might do that, but you can't stop someone from lying about intentions. 6. Ranchers can be put in a hard spot about horses. We have more wild horses in Oregon than are sustainable, and they eat the feed that ranchers pay for when they lease the land. In areas that have suffered from fires, that becomes even more acute, because there is much less feed out there. Often, because of other restrictions on grazing (which are growing), and lack of alternative pasture, ranchers have no place to go. 7. I've spent plenty of time with ranchers in SE Oregon. I've never heard a rancher call for wild horses to be slaughered, but I have heard them express anger about the BLM's difficulties in managing the herds.

Thanks, Wayne, for bringing a fresh perspective to the debate. The fact remains that Congress has repealed the ban on the slaughter of wild horses, so BLM policy will change. But the greater threat to the survival of mustangs is the BLM's own management of remaining stock. For years, herds have hovered at the brink of losing genetic viability. Are these magnificent creatures merely romantic vestiges of the past? I think not. I could cite references until I'm blue in the face, but we need to ask ourselves the basic question: Do we want to save the mustang from extinction. If so, BLM management will have to undergo drastic revision, and Congress will have to restore protections. I don't see either one happening without a public outcry.

<h2>I think Wayne has summarized the issue quite nicely in his comment. I agree that most ranchers in SE Oregon would not want to see the mustangs sent to slaughter, but they wouldn't want their mares bred to the majority of mustang stallions running free on the desert either. My first horse was a mustang mare, purchased for a little over a hundred dollars twenty years ago. Jug-headed, raw-boned, no endurance, she helped raise my four kids and provided much enjoyment to our family for many years. When the last of the kids decided horses weren't their thing she went to a little girl across the valley and spent many happy years at their ranch. Finding homes for wild horses is not an easy task and it seems to me that adoption by families is only one method of controlling the number of horses. The carrying capacity of the winter range is a huge factor in how many horses survive the winter. Is it not better to round them up, cull the ones least likely to survive, or least likely to be adopted than to let them starve to death? Or would you advocate no cattle (many would), deer, elk, etc. on the range to compete for available forage? How about intensive seeding of grasses, clearing of sagebrush, or water improvements. It all comes at a cost to be borne by someone. Are private groups going to step up and fund improvements or is the taxpayer going to be on the hook for it?</h2>