 |
RE: RE: [RC] [RC] natural horse wormers? - heidiDave, your argument actually underscores my point. The ecosystem is now entirely different--the "shaping predators" as you call them are not there (and are not likely to be there), therefore the horse DOES damage the ecosystem. It takes the entire spectrum of the old ecosystem to make it the "same" or to make horses "native." The whole notion of the "native" wild horses is romantically appealing and makes a great political platform, but basically has no foundation in sound science. On a much shorter scale, my own ancestors came from Scotland and Switzerland. Does that make me a "native" of those countries? Heck, no. Heidi Heidi: I respectfully disagree with your argument that because wild horse populations increase to the point that they damage their habitats is proof they are not native, but "feral". Perhaps you'll consider another explanation. When the horse disappeared from the New World so too did many - the majority?- of other species: camelids, mastodons, giant slots as well as a whole menu of predators. In particular, dire wolves, the saber-tooth cats and the North American lion (similar but larger than the African variety). Every prey species has a "shaping predator", i.e., a predator that "shapes' the numbers as well as the physical and social evolution of the prey species. The mountain lion, for example, "shapes" the behavior and physical evolution of the mule and white-tail deer; the timber wolf shapes the elk, the coyote the rabbit, etc. In the case of the horse, the shaping predator (I believe it was the saber tooth cat) disappeared at the same time as the horse. When the horse returned to its rightful birth place -thanks to the Conquistadors - the shaping predator was long gone. Only the mountain lion remains to predate on the horse - and more than 90 percent of that predation is on foals. The mountain lion simply is not big enough to shape the population of full grown horses. I certainly don't disagree with you that unchecked horse populations can - and do - damage the range lands and other habitats (most live in areas that can't even support cattle). And I agree it is self-evident that the two federal agencies charged with managing them - the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Forest Service - must find ways to keep their numbers down (what those numbers should be, however, is a political football.) These agencies are working on contraception as one alternative, and of course, there is the much celebrated mustang adoption program. I don't know whether this is the ultimate answer or not. But none of this, in my humble opinion, means that horses should be kept out of areas in which they evolved due to them being "feral". About your other points. True, North America - as well as all other continents - has seen significant climatic change over the eons. For example, the polar regions, at one time, were balmy enough to support dinosaurs (we've found their fossils there.) But to say climatic change in the relatively short span of time since the end of the last ice age was the reason for the great die-off of wildlife (including the native horse) suggests a change much more significant than the geologic record supports. Indeed, between each of the major ice ages that held the northern regions of planet enthralled more than a dozen times, there were "interstitial" periods of climate not unlike that which we enjoy today. Indeed, many geologists theorize we simply inhabit the latest interstitial period and that another ice age is overdue. I would go even further and suggest to you that as the great ice sheets that covered the upper tier of the nation retreated back toward the pole, in their wake, grasslands spread across the northern part of the continent - horse habitat. Thus, the one major change in the North American climate caused by the melting of the ice, FAVORED horses. As to your contention that the number of humans who came to the New World following the end of the last Ice Age as being too few to account for the mass extinctions of the North American fauna, I believe is, at least, debatable. First, these Neolithic hunters were the most adapt hunters the human species ever produced. By the time they arrived, the human species had successfully clawed its way to the top of the food chain. Again the record shows that no animal - mammoth or whale - was too big, too ferocious to escape human predation. The spear, the throwing stick and soon, the bow and arrow, were superb killing tools in the hands of these people. And remember, none of the American fauna had ever seen humans before. The Do-Do Bird is just one example of a wild animal that showed no fear of humans until it was rendered extinct. I don't find it that difficult to believe that humans can - and have - caused mass extinction. It was once said that the numbers of passenger pigeons and buffalo were just too numerous ever to worry about their future. One final point is that the geologic record is not yet clear on how long it took to eliminate these animals from the New World. It could have ranged from a few centuries to several millennia. The one geologic point that seems to be clear, is that there was no great climate change that, by itself, would explain why the horse and so many other animals disappeared from the continent. I believe the only explanation is that they were killed by humans. And chief among them was the horse. ________________________________ From: ridecamp-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ridecamp-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of heidi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 9:05 AM To: Eric@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Cc: ridecamp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; rides2far@xxxxxxxx Subject: RE: [RC] [RC] natural horse wormers? Eric, you are correct that free-roaming horses are more accurately described as "feral" than as "wild." The ecosystems in the western US have changed a great deal in the 10.000 years since horses were a native and "wild" species here. Horses adapt very well, and tend to out-compete other rangeland species, as well as damage the land itself, if their numbers are left unchecked. That's another "symptom" of a species that is not native or "in synch" with its environment. Heidi What do you (the collective you) consider a horse's "natural environment"? I know that I have always tended (without really putting much thought into it) to consider the Western states as their natural environment. However, if I remember what I was taught in primary school (back in the days of chalk and slate), the horses that currently inhabit the western states are really ferral horses, and are not native to that area. So, Are there any truly "wild" horses left in the world, and what is their natural environment? Can the ferral horses (or any long term domesticated animal like cats and dogs) ever really be considered "wild/natural" after thousands of years of domestication? =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net, http://www.endurance.net. Information, Policy, Disclaimer: http://www.endurance.net/Ridecamp Subscribe/Unsubscribe http://www.endurance.net/ridecamp/logon.asp Ride Long and Ride Safe!! =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net, http://www.endurance.net. Information, Policy, Disclaimer: http://www.endurance.net/Ridecamp Subscribe/Unsubscribe http://www.endurance.net/ridecamp/logon.asp Ride Long and Ride Safe!! =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
|