Results 1 to 10 of 16
-
07-18-2009, 01:21 AM #1
House sides with wild horses, burros
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31968450...s-environment/
Found this interesting. Very tough issue, indeed. Slaughter thousands of healthy animals, or pay for their survival? Let's hear it.
-
-
07-18-2009, 01:27 PM #2
first humans shouldnt of killed all the mountain lions they would of keep their numbers in check but since we did ive heard horse is pretty good to eat
-
07-18-2009, 01:36 PM #3
I don't know if this is feasible, but why can't we domesticate (which they're obviously doing in the holding cells), and export them?
-
-
07-18-2009, 02:50 PM #4
that would work or just let nature handle it seems nature did just fine before humans and will do just fine after,human ego allways amazes me,thinking they can control nature and such
-
07-19-2009, 09:40 AM #5
Federal officials estimate that's about 9,400 more than can exist in balance with other rangeland resources
I wonder where they pulled that number from....
So let me get this straight... there are 36,000 horses not kept on "farms" or whatever you want to call them.. and
Currently, the wild herds roam over about 33 million acres of Western land.
how much room do horses need?
-
-
07-19-2009, 12:15 PM #6
That's what I was wondering. Why do we have to fund it at all? Don't spend the money for the farms, and don't spend the money to kill them. Like the above poster said, just leave them alone.
-
07-19-2009, 01:48 PM #7
I haven't really paid enough attention to this specific issue to have an opinion, but the "just leave them alone" answer I've heard a lot in different issues and it usually doesn't work. People don't want hunters to kill deer so seasons are shortened, restrictions are put on where you can hunt, the number of deer allowed to be killed is lowered...and before you know it the deer population is out of control and crops are being eat, they're causing accidents on highways, etc. Same thing with bears. In the Smokies, they banned hunting bears to let the population increase...now there are more instances than ever of tourists and hikers being attacked by bears. The reason is there are too many of them and they're having to come down into civilization to find food. Also, when a bear is hungry, it is much more likely to confront people. If hunting had been allowed, the population would have remained so the environment could support the number of bears and most of this could have been avoided. Same thing with wolves and coyotes in this area. While hunting is mainly for food or sport, it does not just benefit the hunter, in most cases it benefits the environment as well.
I don't think it's a good idea to organize and spend lots of money on a huge hunt to thin the heard, just ask local hunters to do the hunting...the government doesn't have to pay for it (and actually they could make money by charging for licenses), but they still get the desired results.
-
-
07-20-2009, 02:45 PM #8
"That's what I was wondering. Why do we have to fund it at all? Don't spend the money for the farms, and don't spend the money to kill them. Like the above poster said, just leave them alone. "
Because there are consequences when people react in haste to liberal Hippie Tears of injustice.
"'60s spurred Congress to pass the 1971 Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act, ordering federal agencies to protect them".......... Now you have to pass another law to deal with this law to fix the problem that was never really a problem at all until the government got involved.....Get used to it. there is no telling what the next one will screw up.
-
07-20-2009, 03:03 PM #9
edit: forgot how susceptible I am to infractions.
-
07-20-2009, 03:32 PM #10
Send a hunter to kill them. I wmight try the meat. I heard it is pretty good
-
Originally Posted by Yanksfan396 
