I e-mailed, thanks for posting.
I think it is a horrible idea. Spay surgeries are rarely done in horses for a very good reason.
Spaying is too expensive to be useful in population control. No one is going to spend thousands of dollars to spay 20,000 wild horses. Not going to happen.
If it is not going to be useful, why bother doing the research? Tame horses are ideal for this research because you can medicate them, you can perform the surgery in a sterile environment, and you can manage their post surgical care.
Using wild horses for this research is idiotic unless you want high fatality rates. Of course maybe they want to use wild horses because they are expendable.
For population control, vaccines are the only economical option.
First of all, you need to know more about what you are running your mouth about.If horses are destroying the range land, then we better get rid of the cows too. Personally, I would much rather see the horses than the cows out there.
Northern Arizona wild horses are fat and happy. They actually look better than a lot of domestic horses.
I don't know what the answer is. But here in Arizona, a lot of the range is run by both cows AND horses. And since it's public land, I say the horses should have priority over cattle since the horses are owned by the public and cattle are a money making venture owned by private businesses.
Yes, horse populations need to be controlled, but I would suggest the cattle are far more destructive. And the horses can't move around as much as they normally would because of all the barbed wire fences put up by the cattlemen.
There is probably room for both. But when I hear about how awful horses are on the range land, well, what about all the cattle? What makes one man's private business more important than the wild horses that an awful lot of the public enjoy seeing out there?
1 - Cattle ARE regulated. They are controlled. Each year, the government decides how many cattle the land can sustain. They often cut numbers well below that number.If horses are destroying the range land, then we better get rid of the cows too. Personally, I would much rather see the horses than the cows out there...
...And since it's public land, I say the horses should have priority over cattle since the horses are owned by the public and cattle are a money making venture owned by private businesses.
Yes, horse populations need to be controlled, but I would suggest the cattle are far more destructive....
And because many see horses, all horses, as pets rather than livestock or wildlife, those people push for policies that favor the horses over all other wildlife.
I can tell you that it is fenced out here......all over the place. The Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest is fenced in sections with barbed wire for cattle. I ride it all the time. You can't hardly go a mile without looking for a gate. The ranchers who own the leases repair and replace the fences. The boundary between our neighborhood and the national forest was re-fenced several years ago by the rancher that runs the cattle. So I don't know how it's done in Colorado, but I do know what's going on right in my backyard.Next, none of the permits are fenced. If there are any fences at all, they are between the ranches and the adjoining Federal land so cattle could be kept in on the ranch the rest of the year.
Especially when everyone else wants to shoot them and such. :x
More horses for you to shoot: