Feral Horses, The Environment, Taxes, and the Poor.

Feral horses (aka Mustangs) are unbranded, wild, and non-indigenous horses that live in Western states (for a listing click States). They are the decedents of the horses brought to the New World by the Spanish and other Europeans. Feral horses have recently hit the news (particularly CNN) because of the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) activity to remove excess horses from the open range.

Feral horses have significant impacts on the fragile dry-lands of the West. Their hoofs compact the soil making it more difficult for plants to grow and their foraging removes plant resources from other native species and for cattle that also graze the land.

Of course, the animal rights protest industry groups allege the cruelty of such round-ups, saying the round ups stress the horses and cause some of them to die. The BLM, according to CNN reports, says that less than 1% of the horses rounded up die in the process. Of course, the facts don't matter. To animal rights protest industry activists (ARPIA), every horse is sacred.

Feral Horses and the Environment

Here are some fact that should trouble readers who care about the environment (for details on the environmental impacts of feral horses click Wildlife Society), the poor, and the out of control Federal budget.  First, ever since the passage of THE WILD FREE-ROAMING HORSES AND BURROS ACT OF 1971(PUBLIC LAW 92-195),  the hunting of horses has been banned. Therefore, what used to be a way for individuals to harvest and utilize horse resources, has now become a financial liability. Feral horse numbers have exploded and adoptions are not keeping pace with reproduction. Of course, the ARPIAs want to require feral horse birth control to management the reproductive rate, a tool that is very expensive. No surprise ARPIAs don't care because they aren't spending their money to handle this problem, they want to take your money as tax payers to pay for it.

Feral Horses and the Poor

How much money does the ARPIAs "compassion" cost you the tax payer? According to the BLM GAO report, "Total program costs were $36.7 million in 2004 and $66.1 million in 2010 (p. 7)." The costs are actually higher in that the horses could have brought revenue to these rural areas if hunting and harvesting was allowed. My point is simply this. Spending 66.1 million dollars on horses when money could be spent on unemployment, employment re-training or even paying down the deficit is immoral.

I strongly recommend that Congress consider overturning this act as a simple and no-brainer way to reduce Federal expenditures. Certainly Congressional leaders should prepare themselves for the emotional tirades of the ARPIAs. But the truth is offensive. You can't legislate to satisfy the extremist anti-environmentalists fringe.

Stephen M. Vantassel is a lecturer of theology at King's Evangelical Divinity School who specializes in environmental ethics. His latest book is Dominion over Wildlife? An Environmental-Theology of Human-Wildlife Relations (Wipf and Stock, 2009). 

Horse Slaughter Protection Act

Animal rights protest industry advocates (ARPIA) regularly submit bills to governing bodies in the hopes of enacting legislation designed to end what they consider to be immoral activities regarding human use of animals. The slaughter of horses for human consumption is purportedly one of these activities that violates the cultural morals of America if not humanity (according to Wayne Pacelle of the Humane Society of the U.S. as quoted by http://www.americansagainsthorseslaughter.com/).

It is critical to recognize that the topic of horse slaughter is not about the humane killing of horses. Advocates of keeping horse slaughter legal are not defending methods of horse killing that cause horses undue pain and suffering. They simply want horse owners to keep their right to slaughter horses and sell their meat for food. ARPIAs, on the other hand, think that it is wrong to kill animals for any reason, except to protect human life that is in immediate danger (and for some ARPIAs that may be debatable). Since ARPIAs know that such an idea appears stupid to most people (at this time), they must pick their legislative battles carefully. They know that humans think some animals are more “valuable” than others, so ARPIAs lobby to “protect” animals that are cute and have had long histories with humans. Note, they wisely don’t start protesting the killing of rats and mice because they are still despised by humans.

Christians, however, must follow a higher standard, namely God’s principles. First, Christ declared all foods clean (Mk 7:19) so there is no moral problem (as far as God is concerned) to eat a horse. If you think there is a problem with that, then you should take up your problem with Jesus or perhaps evaluate the integrity of your Christianity. Remember, what we eat is determined by culture. So if you think that eating a horse is wrong (in the moral sense), then you might just be suffering from bigotry. Christ wants us to avoid cultural bigotry when it comes to diet.

Second, Christ says that theft is wrong. When we enact legislation that unduly restricts the rights of property owners to use their property then I contend we are participating in a form of theft. If you doubt the financial and social impact of enacting bans on horse slaughter than I suggest you read the excellent report “The Unintended Consequences of a Ban on the Humane Slaughter (Processing) of Horses in the United States available at http://www.extension.org/mediawiki/files/6/68/AWC_UnintendedConsequences_5-1-.16.06.pdf. The authors carefully explain the financial impact of such a law. If preventing other people from utilizing their resources is not sufficient to incur your moral wrath, then read their comments on how enacting the ban will lead to increased equine suffering.

Stephen M. Vantassel is a tutor of theology at King's Evangelical Divinity School who specializes in environmental ethics and human-wildlife relations.  His latest book is Dominion over Wildlife? An Environmental-Theology of Human-Wildlife Relations (2009).