|
    Check it Out!    
|
|
RideCamp@endurance.net
Wild horses
Title: Re: Darolyn & Barefootin'
The Wild Horse Controversy, Heather Thomas, Is one
of the best, most complete, and accurate,
books about the "wild" horses in the Western US. Very
readable.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 10:07 AM
Subject: RC: Was barefoot, now mustangs
I won't belittle you for posting, but I will
suggest that you check your history. I'd recommend the book THE WILD HORSE
CONTROVERSY and suggest that you delve into its fairly lengthy and comprehensive
bibliography. The fact that there were no free-roaming horses in this
hemisphere until horses escaped from the Spaniards in the late 1600's is not my
opinion--it is a well-documented fact. The entire Native American
population was afoot until that time, which can also be well-documented.
Their travois were pulled by dogs. So while it may be true that the feral
horses are not just the result of cowboys turning horses loose, they are still
nonetheless the result of European horses having gotten loose from explorers or
settlers. (Although in recent years, many are a result of actual breeding
programs by western ranchers, who turned out Remount stallions of various
breeds.)
Also, I get a bit wigged at the political
implications that the free-roaming horses were not owned. The Indians
clearly thought they owned them, unlike the truly wild animals, even though
their culture did not utilize fences and brand books to denote ownership.
I find it odd that on one hand we are expected to accept our Native American
counterparts as equals, but on the other hand, are expected to completely ignore
how their culture worked and how they defined property. I maintain that
the Native Americans were human beings with a unique culture, and it is clear
that they felt they could dip into "their" herds to count out horses to pay
debts and to give gifts--they honored future in-laws with gifts of horses, they
recognized that horses of another tribe were property to the point that stealing
them back and forth was a recognized activity, etc. Horses were not only
owned, they were the currency with which the western tribes did business.
Nowhere have I ever seen it mentioned that they paid their debts with live deer,
or elk, or bear, or any other truly wild animal. Nope, the horses were
considered to be property, and as such, different than wild animals, even by the
Native Americans. To consider them otherwise is quite disrespectful
of Native American culture. Some tribes (the Nez Perce come to mind) even
practiced gelding and selective breeding to some extent.
Also, the genetic typing of these horses is greatly
misunderstood by many--there is no way to prove that a horse is or is not of a
specific "breed" by DNA testing. What CAN be done is demonstrate
relationships or lack of relationships via genetic markers, and follow dam lines
with mitochondrial DNA. Many breed share genetic markers, because many
breeds are interrelated. LIkewise, mitochondrial DNA types can be
common to multiple breeds, since they often descend from the same horses.
I'd suggest that you contact a geneticist such as Michael Bowling for references
to better understand this process.
As to the feet of burros--burros are not horses,
even though they are related. They have a rather different structure and
growth pattern to their feet, and actually are far better adapted to rocky
conditions unshod than are horses.
My reference to being off-topic was only because we
were talking about the relevance of shoes on horses--I've changed the subject
line here, since the topic has clearly changed.
Heidi
|
    Check it Out!    
|
|
Home
Events
Groups
Rider Directory
Market
RideCamp
Stuff
Back to TOC