Free-Living Horses - - They Are Real, Not Relics
They have been called symbols. They have been called icons. If they die, some, say, it wipes out a bit of U.S. history. But the free-living horses struggling to survive in undeveloped pockets across the United States are not icons, any more than you or I are. They are flesh and blood, with parents, with children, with mates. And their lives, freedom, and futures are constantly at risk.
As the cattle industry grows and the government grants public land to ranching uses, free-living horses are increasingly thirsty and hungry. But rather than question the dangers posed to wilderness and free-living animals by the business of ranching, the focus has been on how to move animals without raising a public ruckus. And thus, over the years, countless horses have been snatched from their natural habitat, legally adopted into private ownership, and, not infrequently, sent to slaughter.
And the risk to their lives has just increased. A provision supported last December by Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT), known as the Burns Amendment to the 2005 Appropriations Bill, effectively reversed a 34-year prohibition on slaughter, by permitting older horses to be killed instead of waiting indefinitely to be adopted into ownership.
As a result, 41 wild horses ended up killed in Illinois earlier this year. Public outcry following the deaths prompted a moratorium on roundups. But the break for wild horses didn’t last long.
On June 1, removals continued with a new bill of sale in place pledging harsher penalties for any buyer sending animals to be killed. Despite such measures, by the end of September, more than 12,000 horses will have been be confiscated from New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, California, Nevada, Colorado, Wyoming and Oregon, this year alone.
Removals began in 1973, two years after the Wild and Free-roaming Horses and Burros Act was enacted to protect horses from capture and slaughter. About 200,000 horses have been rounded up for adoption since then. Currently, according to the Bureau of Land Management, 24,000 horses wait in government-run holding pens.
Is adoption the answer?
Some defend roundups that result in adoption into private ownership as a saving grace for horses struggling to survive. But that rationale misses an inherent injustice. Free-living horses should be left free. Not only should they be safe from slaughter; they should be safe from being made into a privatized commodity.
Since the adoption schemes began, many horses have been trained by prison inmates in an initiative designed to tame horse and prisoner in the same rite. The Wyoming Department of Corrections website describes the Wyoming Honor Farm as showing how “through respect and patience even a wild animal will respond positively.” Yet true respect would respect the horses’ inherent interest in living on their own terms.
Moreover, once a horse is collected, the person acquiring that horse might change purposes. In April, Dustin Herbert of Oklahoma, a former rodeo clown, purchased six horses which he said would be used for a church youth program. Those horses were later sent to the Cavel International slaughterhouse in DeKalb, Illinois. A week later, as reported in the 5 May 2005 printing of National Geographic, 35 more horses ended their lives hanging upside down at the same plant after being purchased through the adoption program.
Indeed, sometimes slaughter is the claimed good purpose.
Floyd Schwieger, a retired minister and board member of the Pryor Mountain Wild Mustang Center in Lovell, Wyoming says he supports the government’s efforts to reduce the horse population as long as it’s done without cruelty and uses old, slaughtered horses to feed the starving humans abroad.
“I would like to see the federal government simply have their own slaughterhouse”, he said in an interview with National Geographic earlier this month. (Maryann Mott, Wild Horses Sold by U.S. Agency Sent to Slaughter, National Geographic News, 5 May 2005).
The meat could “be given to the poor and needy people around the world, compliments of the United States government, as a means to help alleviate the suffering in the world.”
Sold for as much as 20 dollars per pound, most meat actually ends up in the mouths of the well-to-do, with Belgium or Italy being typical customers.
A matter of public concern
The Bureau of Land Management’s adoption scheme appears to save horses from ending up on dinner plates, yet it has undergone serious investigation just four times: in 1987 and 2000, after animal advocates claimed mismanagement; in 1997, when Associated Press reporter Martha Mendoza uncovered wild horses being shipped to slaughter, and recently, after the 41 horses - including those bought by the former rodeo clown - were killed in Illinois.
Sensing public concern, Senator Robert C. Byrd (D-WV) introduced S. 576 to prohibit horses slaughter for human consumption. In the House, Rep. John Sweeney (R-NY) introduced a similar bill, prohibiting slaughter altogether. Rep. Nick Rahall (D-WV) and Ed Whitfield (R-KY) also submitted two pieces of legislation: a bill to restore the 1971 Act that outlawed the slaughter of such horses for commercial purposes and an amendment to next year’s budget bill that could stop tax money from going toward horse sales.
In addition, an amendment was introduced to the 2005 Farm Bill, by Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) and John Ensign (R-NV), allocating $5 million for a privately run horse center to centralize and hasten the adoption program in Nevada.
Real power? The power of the consumer
While the proposed legislation shows a good intention to save horses, it won’t halt roundups. Legislators take their direction from their constituents, including influential, wealthy ranchers.
As consumers, we the public must become conscious of our own shopping habits. When speaking out for horses, and pressing for answers, we must acknowledge that the demand for ranchers’ meat products at home is just as significant as the demand for horsemeat in Italy and elsewhere.
“It’s time we acknowledge the connection between horsemeat and hamburgers,” said Priscilla Feral, Friends of Animals president. “For those who respect free-living animals, it’s simply not enough to express outrage at their deaths; we must also stop supporting the profits of ranches.”
Post your comment
Comment Guidelines: We welcome your expressions of opinion on this subject. Please avoid false commentary about individuals or groups. Facts must be verified by the person posting. Off-topic comments, and comments inappropriate for a readership of all ages, may be deleted. E-mail addresses will never be published. Only comments with valid e-mail address will be published.
15 Comments
On June 27, 2005, becky turner wrote:
i think what they are doing is disgusting how could any body kill animals, just for their meat it is wrong! free- living horses, ponies and animals should be left free
On June 27, 2005, Susannah clancy wrote:
I can’t even believe that they judt passed a law saying you could kill horses over 10! It’s disgusting. These horses are wild and should stay that way! They don’t belong in slaughterhouses. They weren’t born for human entertainment.
On June 29, 2005, Bonnie Larson wrote:
I strongly believe it is our responsibility to protect these horses! We need a new idea for them, maybe moving them to another area. I think most people appreciate the beauty and history of wild horses. The article sickend me knowing that some of these animals have been destroyed. Remember what happend to the buffalo.
On June 30, 2005, Laura Powers wrote:
Why is it always the mustangs that are starving to death on the range, and never the cattle, yet they both share the same range, or at least are suppose to. I am sick and tired of the rich getting what they want all the time because they have the money to pay off politicians.
On July 1, 2005, Jennifer Cannon wrote:
Why are cattle ranchers the only people granted grazing permits on Public Land? Why shouldn’t other Americans be able to purchase a grazing permit an the behalf of a sponsored Mustang? Anyone able to look into this PLEASE do so (as I will), Jennifer Cannon.
On July 4, 2005, Lori Smith wrote:
Why should the United States be responsible for people in other country’s, starving or not. Geeze I think we already do to much for that matter we’re already filling the europeon plate’s with our beloved horse’s, When is enough enough? Slaughter need’s to be banned period especially in the United States. We don’t have horse on our menu but yet our government allow’s these foreign owned slaughter house’s to operate here and our government profit’s from this practice to boot. Everyday I look in the eye’s of my adopted mustang and thank god that she was saved from ever having to face fear as thousand’s just like her have had to. She will never have to experience starvation or the fear of knowing she’s next in line at a slaughterhouse after watching the horse ahead of her being bludgeoned to death right before her very eye’s.
Our horse’s given to the needy, I don’t think so!!!! I so do not agree with the comment below…..
“The meat could be given to the poor and needy people around the world, compliments of the United States government, as a means to help alleviate the suffering in the world.”
On July 5, 2005, Laurel Lundstrom, Program Coordinator, Friends of Animals wrote:
In response to Lori Smith’s post from July 4:
Lori Smith wrote:
> ““Why should the United States be responsible for people in other country’s, starving or not. Geeze I think we already do to much for that matter we’re already filling the europeon plate’s with our beloved horse’s, When is
enough enough””
All sentient beings deserve the chance to live life free from abuse, malnourishment and starvation. It only takes a look at history to realize how the United States has come to attain the bulk of the world’s wealth. From the African slave trade to mass immigration into the United States today, it is obvious how those from other countries have helped our country thrive. While the majority of Americans are not suffering from starvation, it remains our responsibility not to horde or strip resources that could potentially feed needy populations abroad. After all, globalization, free trade, immigration and foreign labor have helped the United States prosper, often at the expense of other nations. Therefore, it is not only a responsibility, but a moral obligation not to let others starve.
As stated in the original editorial, “as consumers, we the public must
become conscious of our own shopping habits,” acknowledging the connection between horse meat and hamburgers. As the cattle industry thrives, horses are stripped from the land, water supplies are devastated, arable land is
destroyed and biological diversity is compromised. If 10 percent of us stopped eating meat today, we could free land and resources to grow over twelve million tons of grain annually for human consumption, more than enough to adequately feed every one of the human beings who will starve to
death on the planet annually. (See Robbins, John, “May All Be Fed: Diet For a New Planet,” 1992).
Lori Smith wrote:
> ““Slaughter need’s to be banned period especially in the United States. We don’t have horse on our menu but yet our government allow’s these foreign owned slaughter house’s to operate here and our government profit’s from this practice to boot.
Our menus may be devoid of horse meat, but they are chock full of pig, cow, chicken and turkey meat, etc. - all killed and processed in American slaughterhouses. While many in the United States condemn horse consumption, it is the demand for other types of meat which forces wild horses from public land and threatens the earth’s ability to feed a growing population.
Most Americans do not eat horse meat, but the United States Department of Agriculture both inspects and condones slaughterhouses, including those meant for horses.
Bills now pending in Congress to stop horse slaughter, while intentionally sound, only reflect our society’s social mores. Our willingness to relegate wild horses to icons, valued for their utility to human beings, actually sanctifies their place as commodities, and justifies forced removal and slaughter. Only by realizing our own hypocrisy, condemning one type of slaughter, while condoning another, will wild horses ever have the chance to be truly free. What is beautiful about wild horses is their freedom, their vision of an untrammeled past. Confined as symbols they cease to exist—and at the current rate of capture and slaughter, they will become merely a figment of America’s former beauty.
On July 8, 2005, Lehia McGillen wrote:
I dont see how anyone could ever think to destroy such beautiful animals. They were the building blocks to this country.. We used them for everything they had to give… and now that we dont need them for transportation we just throw them out the door.. I DONT GET IT. I read about our history.. and everytime americans kill something off they say they regret it.. Look at the indians.. gone.. look at the buffalo.. gone.. These animals have roamed those lands for quite some time now.. and since the rancher wants to make a buck we are gonna move them out to replace them with cattle.. are you kidding me? Do these people think at all? We destroy everything we touch. We need to seriously take a step back and realise all the damage we do… why dont the law writers think about that.. yeah you remove the wild horse and see what else we can destroy on the food chain.. It makes me so sick to read how stupid half of america can be… When are we going to wake up?
On July 19, 2005, Pat Olson wrote:
My husband and I just came back from a rockhound trip in Oregon, one of the places we went to was called Stinkingwater. While there we had the unexpected pleasure of seeing an actual Mustang herd. We counted about 10 in the herd including 2 foals and one mare looked like she was soon to foal also. The Stallion was honest now, black with a thick mane and tail, just beautiful. We have 2 horses, one a thoroughbred and one a mustang we adopted in 2002. When we got home I was reading my daughters magazine, ‘Friends of Animals’ In it there was a list of states and areas scheduled for ‘planned removal’ Stinkingwater was on that list. A living legend does not deserve this.
On July 20, 2005, Ashley Chavis wrote:
I don’t think people should use horses as symbols or icons but if they do, make sure no animal gets hurt and make sure they do all for the right reason. I love horses and always have. I grew up around horses and been riding them for years. Horses are such beautiful and unique animals. How can anyone ever hurt them? How can someone destroy them? It’s wrong and it makes me mad for someone to beat or do a horse wrong like that. Horses are my life. As a collector of many things, one thing I do collect is porcelin horses/unicorns. I’ve rode horses for many years and still every chance that I can get, I still ride horses. Let’s protect our horses and keep them safe. Don’t destroy them.
On August 17, 2005, Solveig Ahlgrimm wrote:
Ich finde es ungerecht das was wir menschen den Pferden und berhaupt den tieren angetan haben das haben und werden sie uns ihr leben lang nicht verzeihen .Wenn es wenigstens Menschen geben wrde die,die Mustangs und andere Tiere kaufen wrden Und damit ihre art erhalten knnten dann wre ich und bestimmt auch andere glcklich.
[English translation: I find it unjust what we humans have done to horses and on the whole to other animals and for this they will never forgive us all their lives. If there were at least people who would buy the Mustangs and other animals and thereby save their species then I as well as others would be happy.]
On August 19, 2005, Rebecca Rodriguez wrote:
WHY ARE THEY DOING THIS TO THE HORSES THEY SHOULD BE FREE!THEY SHOULDNT BE IN A SLAUGHTERHOUSE!!!
On September 7, 2005, Jen Ashburn wrote:
Wild horses should be left free. But it is a sad fact that they may not always be that way. Wouldn’t everyone here rather see them adopted than slaughtered? Why disapprove of adoption if its the only way to keep them alive? Please do not blame only the ranchers for the horses and burros demise. Blame the celebrities who HAVE to have a ranch out west too. Blame urban sprawl. Blame the builders putting up more and more subdivisions near the beautiful and desirable mountain view. It takes ALOT of land to sustain one horse where they live right now. Belive it or not, the BLM is trying.
On September 8, 2005, Laurel Lundstrom, Program Coordinator, Friends of Animals wrote:
On 7 Sept. 2005, Jen Ashburn wrote: “Please do not blame only the ranchers for the horses and burros demise.”
Although the government doesn’t keep statistics on how many cattle graze public land, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association estimates that it’s somewhere up to two million, and horse protectionists say the number could be as high as four million. Compare that with the 27,000 horses now left on public land - the scale is enormous.
The Bureau of Land Management claims wild horses will lead a life of starvation and dehydration on the land if they are not removed. Yet, it is livestock production which requires the bulk of water, forage and space from the Western landscape. The government rationalizes round ups by claiming the horses will overpopulate if they are left free, although it is ranchers, again, who have hunted down what once were natural predators to horses. In many places, mountain lions, wolves and grizzly bears are now almost non-existent. In addition, since cattle ranching took off more than a Century ago, more than 1,200 species have become endangered. (Eds. Mollie Matteson and George Wuerthner, “Welfare Ranching,” 2002).
“Blame urban sprawl. Blame the builders putting up more and more subdivisions near the beautiful and desirable mountain view.”
First of all, according to figures from 1997, livestock production including rangelands, pasture and the production of forage crops occupies 65-75 percent of U.S. land. At that time, urban sprawl and development accounted for four percent (USDA 1997). While figures may be higher today, it is not ranching that obstructs sprawl. As long as their is a demand for beef, ranchers will stay in business. And as long as the population continues to rise, sprawl will occur. As George Weuthner points out in his essay, “Cows Versus Condos,” ‘unless laws are passed to forcibly halt newcomers at state and county borders, it will be very difficult to put a lid on demand for real estate in picturesque places.’ As land becomes developed, ranchers will inevitably seek to stay in business by modifying their operations, that is, buying more private land, reducing their herd size and finding outside employment to bolster their income.
“Wild horses should be left free. But it is a sad fact that they may not always be that way. Wouldn’t everyone here rather see them adopted than slaughtered? Why disapprove of adoption if its the only way to keep them alive?”
First of all, right now, some horses taken off the land can legally be slaughtered. Under an amendment added to the Omnibus Appropriations Bill last December, horses which are offered for adoption unsuccessfully three times, or are older than ten may legally be killed. Given that more than 12,000 horses were removed this year, many undoubtedly met the qualifications for slaughter. And even before the measure was passed, many wild horses have, indeed, ended up at slaughter plants. (For reference please read, AP reporter Martha Mendoza’s coverage of the adoption program in 1997).
While the intention of most who adopt wild horses is noble, adoption is not a respectful option for horse that were once free-living. At the adoption site, horses are separated from their families and put into bins according to their sex. Once adopted, horses may spend years in a 20 square foot corral until they are “tame” enough to be given more space. This life of isolation is not the life they deserve.
On September 8, 2007, brittany boone wrote:
I think it is so mean to kill a horse because if you are going to buy a horse why be so mean to it. It’s stupid and it doesn’t make sense. I wish that every one loved animals than none of this would of started. I know that a lot of horses and other animals get left on the street or get sent to the slaughter house every year. It’s so mean and sad to watch an animal die because people don’t take care of there animals. I agree with everyone and I wish that we could do something. It breaks my heart. I’m only twelve and I’ll always love horses and I don’t even have one. If I had one wish I would save all the horses in the world. Ooh I could scream,because I saw a picture on one site and I cried so bad.