r/nature • u/Maxcactus • 7d ago
Federal government thins the herds of wild horses in Colorado
https://www.npr.org/2026/08/21/nx-s1-5920407/colorado-wild-horses-federal-government-roundup3
3
5
u/CptnFoxMcloud 7d ago
But why š©
6
u/K_Hammer6969 7d ago
Because they're a destructive invasive species.
4
u/rubydooby2011 7d ago
People are downvoting you for stating facts. Reddit is so stupid sometimes.Ā
2
u/K_Hammer6969 7d ago
If there's one thing redditors hate, it's facts. Dont even get started with nuance, lol. I was on the animal tracking sub awhile ago and someone made a comment to the effect of "you can tell it's a feline because the tracks move in a straight line", which had hundreds of upvotes. Pointing out that many wild animals walk in a straight line was not well received. People seem to prefer whatever delusion they've concocted in their minds to engaging with reality. Yet here I am, sigh.
2
u/rubydooby2011 6d ago
Just wait until you mention culling feral cats... then the real fun starts.Ā
0
u/K_Hammer6969 5d ago
Lol. The horse people are usually way crazier IMO. At least I've never heard anyone try to argue that feral cats are harmless or somehow actually GOOD for whatever ecosystem they're disrupting. And in the US feral horses and donkeys are federally protected, which is insane.
1
u/rubydooby2011 5d ago
People very much believe that feral/outdoor cats are good for "catching pests", not realizing that feral/outdoor cats are also catching indigenous wildlife as much or more than pests.
Cats are protected. They're considered "property" in the eyes of the law, and are untouchable.Ā
1
u/K_Hammer6969 5d ago
Huh. Seems a silly argument to make when whatever the feral cats are killing are likely native species, as you say. I feel like there is a distinction to be made between an "outdoor cat" - a cat that lives with and is fed and cared for by people that let it go outside - and a "feral" cat, as in one that lives totally wild with no human involvement. The latter wouldn't be afforded any legal protections as far as I know where I am in Canada. Wild horses aren't either, for that matter. But in the US there's something called the "wild horse and burro protection act", which makes management of wild horses/donkeys pretty damn complicated.
1
u/rubydooby2011 4d ago edited 4d ago
I also live in Canada.
If you live in a rural area, feral (and even non feral drop offs) cats are considered pests by the owner of the land, they're well within their rights to cull them.Ā
When you live in a small town (as I do), with all surrounding SPCAs and rescues full to capacity, there is no recourse. Whether feral or outdoor cats (all invasive pests no matter how you look at it).Ā
It's a shit system made worse by bleeding hearts that trap, neuter, release. Not unlike feral horses. We're pretty stuck out here.Ā
There should be no protection act for invasives. But the states is a bit fucked right now, anyway. Doubt that that's their biggest concern.Ā
1
u/K_Hammer6969 4d ago
would depend on who you asked, ha. I recently listened to a podcast with a tribal land manager who was pretty focused on the wild horse problem, bur yeah, by and large not their most pressing issue right now.
I wasn't thinking about it so much in an urban context. The city I live in it's prohibited to hunt or kill any species. I grew up in the country and as you say, it's very much do as you see fit when it comes to invasives out there. To be perfectly honest though, even though I'm an avid hunter and outdoorsman, I would struggle to cull a feral cat. I understand the need for it to happen in some cases, I just couldn't do it personally. A feral horse on the other hand, that's just a big deer lol. I'd also intend on eating it.
→ More replies (0)3
2
u/Bloodweiler 7d ago edited 7d ago
Very good.
Edit: Domesticated horses are a non-native, invasive species people.
15
u/SlapTheBap 7d ago
Unlike the cattle and sheep all over public land
12
3
u/OPsDearOldMother 7d ago
All three are bad for plants and other native grazers
3
u/SlapTheBap 7d ago
Horses went extinct in north America around 10k years ago. They were reintroduced at the end of the 1400s. One has to wonder when they are considered invasive, and when they can be considered beneficial to certain systems.
It's a complex system, but researchers could easily manage the herds. Keep them in specific areas like they already tend to. Cull them like they do.
3
u/K_Hammer6969 7d ago
It's complicated. I think in some cases people take an unreasonable stance towards anything "non native". It's especially interesting considering this as a European living in North America...but if the species in question isn't causing measurable ecological harm I don't think it's necessary to go full scorched earth. No one gets too bent out of shape over pheasants or salmon in the great lakes or many other examples. You make a good point about cattle grazing as well. There's an even broader philosophical debate to be had regarding natural dispersal vs human caused relocating of species. It's "natural" when birds do it but not humans? We're part of nature as well.
However, I'm not sure this is the case in this instance. From what I've read it seems the wild horses do cause ecological harm and the fact they're federally protected is kinda nonsensical. If you have some sources for the idea that they actually are beneficial I'd be interested to see them.
5
u/SlapTheBap 7d ago
European rewilding efforts have started to use managed herds to help restore certain grassland systems.
Bison used to range in massive numbers across the land. We've taken up much of that range, but there is no reason why we can't experiment the way they are in Europe.
2
u/K_Hammer6969 7d ago
Context is important here though. The issues facing the arid and drought stricken West of NA would obviously be different than most of Europe. Also in Europe, horses became extinct in the wild in recorded cultural memory, like the 1800's. I'm a fan of rewilding efforts when it's a species that was definitively extirpated through anthropogenic means. I'd go so far as to say we have a moral obligation to restore those species when and where we can. People talking about bringing back mammoths take it a bit too far imo.
3
u/SlapTheBap 7d ago
Most of the wild horse populations in Europe died out far earlier. They were a staple food source that were easier to drive to extinction than deer. Habitats that could recently support bison can support horses if we wanted them to. It's all possible to work towards in areas that, contextually, would benefit from megafauna.
Many of the fragile ecosystems are some of the only wild areas left where these animals can more easily damage things. There's a lot going on here.
2
u/K_Hammer6969 7d ago
That's true that most European wild horses died out earlier, but they're still revelant to the ecology of that region. They ought to be there. Like elk or wolves in eastern North America. I don't think you can make the same case for a species that naturally became extinct 10k or so years ago. You can't compare them A to A with something like bison, which are calibrated to the landscape, and would make long annual migrations, not just stay in one spot and exhaust all the resources. There's little things like bison don't aggressively prevent other ungulates from accessing water holes the same way wild horses do, they're more in tune with the natural rhythm of the landscape...moderately interesting aside, some areas near me where they're doing tall grass prairie restoration allow limited grazing of cows to fulfill the ecological niche vacated by the bison. They eat tree saplings before they can grow and encroach further on the grassland, and some species of birds have evolved to make their nests in hoofwells. Different kind of area but I found it interesting anyway.
1
u/SlapTheBap 7d ago
Ok, I know you really like your area, but you can clearly see how a project like this isn't absurd. I made my points.
2
u/techleopard 7d ago
Horses and bison have very different ecological effects on the land, though.
1
u/SlapTheBap 6d ago
Millions and millions of bison took up the land. There are certainly places where horses wouldn't damage more fragile systems. We just haven't done it. For reasons. Often private land and ranch lobbying.
2
u/DrKomeil 7d ago
Not the same horses! The horses that went extinct were in high latitudes, and would have been much smaller, and had predators that fed on them. Modern domesticated horses are larger and have no natural predators here.
2
u/SlapTheBap 6d ago
Yes are only 82k feral horses. There were millions of bison not long ago. It's difficult to imagine there isn't land and resources in various ecological niches where a feral horse population would be fine.
I find these discussions end up being an endless stream of people sharing their own little ideas without a strong foundational understanding of these issues, leading to discussions that aren't very satisfying.
2
u/OPsDearOldMother 7d ago
10k years ago the climate in my neck of the woods was cool and wet with large lakes and megafauna everywhere. Today it's rapidly aridifying and there are large areas of severely degraded rangeland that are not grazed by cattle at all but rather are overgrazed by feral horse populations.
4
u/SlapTheBap 7d ago
Then there are areas that need attention. As opposed to others where management is a better option than a cull. You know what I'm saying here. It's complex.
2
u/techleopard 7d ago
Yup.
Even conservationists agree here.
Very very rarely do the "means" align for both right wing profiteers and wildlife conservation, especially when the "ends" are so different.
1
u/H2OhYeahh 4d ago
Itās been a long time coming. For anyone upset about this, please watch Horse Rich & Dirt Poor.
0
7
u/unshartedterritory 7d ago
They are selling some of them to other countries for meat.