I hope this technology move forward. It's so sad to think that these beautiful horses are being killed because there is no room for them. The "horse trap" sounds promising because it won't hurt the horses, only make it possible to transport them.

Although Mustangs won't fit in a museum and don't belong in a zoo, they are important to preserve – and deserve to have a home in the U.S. just as much as any citizen.

Agreed 100%.

If all the Mustangs (aka 'wild' horses) are killed, how will I fulfill my lifelong dream of breaking in an untamed horse with my bare hands?!

Where ever did you get this stunningly biased and inaccurate article? It is self-contradictory, as well inaccurate.

Typically, the wild horses of North America are referred to as Mustangs. These animals are actually feral horses as opposed to being truly wild because they are the descendants of horses brought to America by Spanish explorers hundreds of years ago.

Actually, of the thousands of head of horses running in the wild, only two herds are actually even descendants of the Spanish herds. The rest are just modern horses, loose.

offered up for adoption to the public and make excellent riding horses and companions.

Not to be a drag, but most of the truly adoptable (tractable, healthy, etc.) have been adopted. The BLM is currently spending 2/3 of their annual budget to board the rest, who are neither adoptable, nor releasable; and so show no signs of getting off the BLMs budget.

Mustangs need protection from ranchers who want to keep them off their land, or who would slaughter the horses in order make an easy dollar.

Most of the horses you refer to are not a threat to ranchers, but a threat to the grass on public lands. While there is contention over whether the rancher should be able to use this resource (for a fee) or these horses; the underlying problem is too many head for the grass available as pointed out in the next paragraph.

Because there are over 425 horses in an area that can safely support 50 to 105, it's important to act quickly to relocate a significant portion of the herd - either to a remote location or via adoption.

You are currently spending 20 million a year to house the un-adoptable because the legislation that protected the herds did not allow for anything but adoption. So the patently unhealthy, the culls that nature would have taken out with predators that no longer exist, all boarded with fees paid to ranchers.

And it is about to get a lot worse:

Hard Times Lead Owners to Abandon Horses

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91142984

So basically we are saddled (heh) with rising costs on a problem created by people living in cities voting on issues that have no direct impact on them, at the direction of a bunch of organizations who profit from finding issues like these and stirring emotional support for legislation that is poorly thought out and for which the pot-stirrers will pass the consequences on to the taxpayer.

Rescind the legislation, re-open the slaughter houses (cause they wouldn't have been there without filling a need) and let the BLM choose what is adoptable and send the surplus to slaughter.

OR, get out your wallet; cause they are still breeding.

In 400 words or less, it can be challenging to convey a play-by-play of a history that could fill a book. I tried to keep it concise. My references are listed at the bottom of the entry for those who wish to check it out and do further reading.

I feel like more of the horses could be adopted to experienced horse people, or even trained and sold by them for a similar price that is being paid to board them. But that's not the point here.

If the horses are a threat on public lands, they should be moved as the technology in this entry suggests. It is one idea for population control. Birth control is another. These techniques, combined with adoption, can help control the wild horse herd population.

I'm sorry, I just don't agree with that article. Most people who can no longer afford the family horse do not "sell the animal for meat". They either place a for sale ad, put it for sale in a sale barn, or at worst, take it to auction - where yes, it may wind up slaughter-bound, but they do not drop it off at the slaughter house door as the article indicates.

In these tough economic times, when people are as likely to lose their house as they are a pet, more animals are in need of someone to take care of them. Hopefully people will be smart enough to take their animal to a rescue operation if they can't sell or find an appropriate home. Of course, these places take money to run. Volunteers keep them going too.

Edignan is talking sense. There are thousands of domestic horses hitting the market, unwanted, who is going to take a mustang in these circumstances. And you say

Although Mustangs won't fit in a museum and don't belong in a zoo, they are important to preserve – and deserve to have a home in the U.S. just as much as any citizen.

Why can mustangs be rehomed by private individuals but not by zoos used to working with wild animal populations. I would have thought involving the zoos would do more to protect the "species" than adoptions.

I feel deeply sorry for the horses that are suffering, just as I do for the excess horses generated by the racing industry and foisted on sympathetic horse lovers. Rather than vilify ranchers who are trying to make a living, how about racehorse owners, not the poorest individuals, using charity to cut the costs of their sport.

Simon

Mustangs make great riding horses - I know of several people who have adopted Mustangs and turned them into successful riding horses and companions. I am currently riding a 3/4 Mustang 1/4 Fresian cross - he's great.

What about specific land areas for horses? I visited Yellowstone this summer and it's a great area for buffalo, pronghorn, bighorn, grizzlies, and other animals to roam over naturally. Yes, they do have natural predators to keep the population in check, which one could argue horses may not have so much of in the wild. But they are trying to introduce birth control methods for them now. Between that and adoption, herd rates should be kept under control.

Yes, "excess" racehorses are a problem. With all of the recent breakdowns in the sport there have been more examinations about quantity over quality (over 37,000 Thoroughbred foals are registered in the U.S. each year). Hopefully breeders, owners, and trainers will begin to take this into closer consideration and start breeding out the bad traits and make the Thoroughbred a stronger breed - without creating such a surplus. The economy could play a role, too. Smaller tracks are closing, lessening the demand for "lower quality" horses. While this will create a problem of what to do with them in the short term, hopefully breeders will realize there will be nowhere for them to go in the long term - and stop breeding them.

I agree Mustangs make great animals, mostly because their breeding hasn't been controlled by people who are obsessed with bloodlines.

With all of the recent breakdowns in the sport there have been more examinations about quantity over quality (over 37,000 Thoroughbred foals are registered in the U.S. each year). Hopefully breeders, owners, and trainers will begin to take this into closer consideration and start breeding out the bad traits and make the Thoroughbred a stronger breed - without creating such a surplus.

I don't know why you think an industry like the Thoroughbred industry that has caused massive genetic problems, is suddenly going to behave responsibly when the money dries up. While they were making millions they continued to damage the breed, I will be very surprised if they invest anything to undo the damage now they are short of cash.

I know that they were taking a more serious look this past spring in light of the recent string of high profile breakdowns.

I'm not saying they all will "behave responsibly" because the money has dried up - and that's not the case either - there are plenty of Arab sheiks and the like with money to buy in quantity so they will be sure to have winners. I was thinking a poor economy might keep some "backyard" breeders out of the game, although you can argue horses like Big Brown shouldn't be in the gene pool, and he certainly isn't backyard priced...

Where is the evidence that backyard breeders are the cause of the genetic problems. Surely the market is driven from the top. So you will drive a few of the poor out of business and the rich will carry on as before. I don't see why you consider this holds out any extra hope to the poor animals that have been forced against nature into incestuous and damaging breeding practices. This quote is from http://www3.vet.upenn.edu/labs/equinebehavior//hvnwkshp/hv02/feh.htm

"In horses, it was clearly shown that the causes for female dispersal were incest avoidance and not intra-specific competition (Monard, 1996)."

I wish I believed the humans might behave decently. You might look at my blog for further evidence of what is done to horses in the name of "breeding" and purity of bloodlines. http://saddlechariot.blogspot.com/2008/10/dog-breeders-bad-horse-breeders-good.html

Simon

You misinterpreted me. In terms of horses in general, not just race horses, we do not need more horses for the sake of more horses. People breed horses just because they think it's fun to raise a foal, then realize when it's too late that they have no experience, and the foal winds up "untrainable" and only usable by a small percentage of people. These are often ones that wind up "homeless" first and that we shouldn't have any more of.

Inbreeding is very common in the Thoroughbred industry. How many times do you see Northern Dancer, Native Dancer, Mr. Prospector or the like in an American Thoroughbred's pedigree? Several. It's disgusting. Yes, these are issues that should be addressed and perhaps penalized going forward (although it will be difficult - and will probably need to be phased out gradually). It's up to those directly involved in the industry to decide. I'm just stating my opinion here. Just as you're entitled to yours.

You have both nailed some serious issues, but perhaps I can add something to the causes.

The biggest issue I see with true backyard breeding is the likelihood of starting with bad stock. It isn't a breeding program, it is just as casual as cited - I have a horse and a colt would be fun. Where can I find a stud? In shopping around my area for horse property I toured a great many 1 and 2 acre places swallowed by development - and the horse stock was invariably very poor quality to begin with. May be a problem just here. But I doubt it.

Breakdowns in racing - Even the thoroughbred association is concerned. But I strongly suspect the recent breakdowns we have seen have more to do with racing two year-olds than inbreeding. Recent changes in the industry include genetic analysis of both sides for weakness. Something that had been done fairly well with anecdotal information in the past. But you cannot make a horse grow faster. You can make them stronger and larger, but the development they need in soft tissue as well as bone density just takes time. I'd like to see them shift to three year-olds, but the costs involved in campaigning a horse make this unlikely.

Some good points here. However, horses used to race many more times (successfully, too) at two than they do now. Lots of two-year-olds today race just two to five times at two. Yes, it's true that the winner of the Breeder's Cup Juvenile often breaks down before making it to the Derby (and only one has ever won it).

But horses like Northern Dancer (nine times), Secretariat (nine times), and Forego (18 times), raced a lot more as two-year-olds. Thoroughbreds today are bred to be quicker and bigger at two (or younger) so that they can bring in big bucks at the two-year-old in training sales that did not exist "back in the day".

That will teach me to comment when I am out of my field!

Everyone's entitled to an opinion! And you were coming from the right idea - faster two-year-olds earlier is not the best option.