Talk:Mustang

Archives
Archive 1

Improvements to article

Please discuss improvements or changes to this article here other than minor edits. There are active editors and many POV issues surrounding the topic, making a need for consensus and collaboration part of this process. Thanks! Montanabw^(talk) 21:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

"Good bone"

In the caption to the photo. What does that mean? "Good" is not a scientific qualifier, but a subjective evaluation. Is this innuendo? "Good bone." I would change it to something more descriptive, but I have little knowledge on the subject.97.113.110.19 (talk) 19:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Good bone in horse terms means that the lower legs are sturdy and well made, i.e. the "bone is good". This is important because the better the bone, the less likely the horse is to break a leg. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

And hence, a term of art. Montanabw^(talk) 04:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

External links v Referencess

I'm not sure what everyone's problem here is, but as far as I am concerned, it is established procedure to use an inline external link such as this Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act of 1971 when referring to what is in that link at that position in the text, as opposed to providing a general further information resource, which is the true function of an external link section. There is a distinct difference between the purpose of the two.

Using it as an inline reference is not appropriate because it is not a third party source for the claim being made, and is thus a self-reference, which makes using an explicit in line external link type reference even more appropriate. Secondly, to verify the claim you need to read the entire linked document, and be aware of all previous documents, to make the judgement that the protection being referred to has increased. This is not how verification of facts is achieved when presenting facts as in line citations, which more appropriately should link to sections/page numbers, or provide a hook search term.

The redlink argument is completely spurious, and now we have two redlinks for the act in the article. MickMacNee (talk) 14:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The general problem is that, per WP guidelines (which I realize are just guidelines, not firm rules, but still...), you shouldn't be using any external links in the text itself.

Would you look at what I've done now and see what you think? I've added a reliable citation that explains how the act increased protection, then added an external links section with the link to the full text of the act. Also, I've delinked the second mention of the act. At some point, someone will get around to creating a new article for the act, and this whole point will be moot.

Hope this helps. Dana boomer (talk) 15:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine, although possibly better under further reading. I disagree on the inline EL point, I see them everywhere, and in good articles. As long as they are done within the reasoning above, and given a meaningful title, i.e not a [url] or a [n], then I don't see the issue. In fact, think you have confused EL's and references. An inline EL is actually a reference of sorts, as you are referring to its contents within the article. A pure EL is just further reading, and goes in an EL section. Hence if you never saw the section, your understanding is not diminished, only your ability to go further. Per WP:EL - "Links to these source sites are not "external links" for the purposes of this guideline, and should not be placed in an external links section". Inline external linking to referred material is valid. But this is moot now you have a proper inline reference. MickMacNee (talk) 16:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty comfortable with the article where it's sitting now, not that it couldn't benefit from yet more sourcing and such, this last round, in spite of some conflict, did result in clean up some things that needed cleanup. Mick, Dana has been the citation format fixer on several horse articles that have recently gone GA and one that is now FA. The people doing GA reviews are getting a lot more anal-retentive about this stuff, so I'd trust her judgement on this, she knows what she's talking about! (She cleans up my stuff all the time! LOL!) The real bottom line is that citation needs to be as consistent as possible. Thanks for your help, Dana! Montanabw^(talk) 06:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Mustang

I despratly need a picture of a mustang, if you can please find the link copy it and add a reply to this with the link in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.136.48 (talk) 22:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

There are several pictures of mustangs in this article, and there are more pictures to be found in the Commons category, which can be found here. Dana boomer (talk) 23:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like to put in that Mustangs in Northern Arizona were called Broomies. Referance too Stella Hughes book of her husband Mac Hughes, "Hashknife Cowboy" July 19 2011 Ryttar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryttar (talk • contribs) 16:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

My only concerns are that even in N. AZ there were multiple terms used, the source isn't ideal, but more than that, there are a couple dozen other nicknames across the west (broomtail, cayuse, etc.), some regional, and once the laundry list starts, it never ends. I'd prefer to either have a comprehensive list of nicknames worked out here on the talk page, or else just leave it be. Montanabw^(talk) 20:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Mustang is not only the horse

Hey anyone who has posted this, to remind you,

Mustang is a nepali name of a place in Nepal a high altitude place. Please give information about Mustang as a place as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.184.63.104 (talk) 16:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Information on all other uses of the word Mustang can be found at the main Mustang page. This page is for the sole purpose of describing the Mustang horse, therefore the disambiguating word "horse" at the end of the article title. Dana boomer (talk) 16:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Apropos of the name, what is the link between the name for the kingdom Mustang and the horse? This article calls the horse a North American breed, but horses didn't originate in North America -- they were brought here and the Mustangs went feral. Someone applied the name Mustang to these horses, possibly referencing the Nepali / Tibetan kingdom. If I am not mistaken, the Mustang kingdom is known for horsemanship.

I think it's simply a coincidence. The term Mustang as used for the American horse is explained in the article and is derived from a Spanish language word, mesteño, which eventually became Mustang in English. While I cannot speak to how the lingistics evolved from one word to the other, the American Mustang horse originated from Spanish horses that were brought to America and then escaped to the wild. There isn't any evidence I could find for a connection between Tibet and horses in the Americas. The wikipedia article Mustang (kingdom) mentions animal husbandry in passing but nothing on horses in particular. There are some articles on Tibetan horses, see Tibetan pony and other linked articles. Montanabw^(talk) 03:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Wild vs. feral

Mustangs are feral horses, because they have domesticated ancestors. They are not wild horses. Please discuss here if you have a different opinion. Dana boomer (talk) 20:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Dana said: "As far as "mestengo" goes - I don't have the dictionary edition that is listed as the source for this statement, but I trust the editors who have been working on this article in the past, and I trust them not to misrepresent sources. It's a policy called assume good faith. My edition of Webster's, however, says that "mestango" means stray livestock. I don't see a huge problem in assuming that another version of Webster's says "stray or feral". Besides, you cannot use the argument that just because "mestango" meant "wild stock", it means that mustangs are wild - the source of a word does not transfer meaning from the old word to the new word, if that makes sense." Correct, If you are not able to find the source that specifically states "mestengo" means "feral", then you cannot keep stating it. If you have a "good faith policy" then why are you dismissing 30 years of scientific study and evidence provided by two PHD's in the field?) Thank you. Grrace (talk) 16:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The present day wild Mustangs are wild horses. They've never been in captivity. Feral horses are domestic horses that have escaped captivity, as I've already pointed out by WP's own definition of "feral." Once a wild animal that has been "domesticated" returns to the wild, IT RETURNS TO "WILD." The domesticated Spanish horses brought over to the North American continent have long been dead.

As I've also pointed out, just because chimpanzees are serving beers in a bar in Thailand, does that mean chimpanzees are no longer a wild animal?

Please correct your article as soon as possible, removing "feral" from your POV vocabulary. Thank you.uGrrlace (talk) 16:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC) Grrace (talk) 18:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I see that Wikipedia has a way to tag articles that use "weasel" words. Stating that Mestengo means "feral" is a weasel word, and as soon as I figure out how to tag it in your software, I will do so. This word has already been tagged by someone else that there are no reliable sources to back up the claim. Under WP rules, it should be removed, as it has been tagged since 2007. Thank you.Grrace (talk) 17:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Is now sourced. And the tag you need is {{weasel}}. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW, as it is now sourced, please provide alternative sources that indicate that this is wrong, and what the origin of the word actually is.

Your source for mestengo, still does not include the word "feral." Please remove the word "feral." Thank you. Grrace (talk) 23:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. It refers to stray livestock animals, so I indicated that. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 23:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Conversation on Wild vs. Feral

Per your e-mail, talk pages are just as easy to edit as the articles themselves. You aren't able to edit any page (including talk pages) but your own while you are blocked. You just click on the edit button at the top (or to the side of a section) and add your comments to the bottom of the preceeding comments.

As for your source (Ann Forsten, 1992. Mitochondrial-DNA timetable and the evolution of Equus: Comparison of molecular and paleontological evidence. Ann. Zool. Fennici 28: 301-309.). As far as I can see, all this source says is that there were horses present at one time in North America. It does not say that horses survived through to the present day. Horses went extinct in North America many thousand years ago, and the free roaming horses now living in the west (the mustangs) are descendents of domesticated horses brought by Europeans. As the Mustang article currently says:

Primitive horses lived in North America in prehistoric times, but died out at the end of the last ice age around 10-12,000 years ago, possibly due to climate change or the impact of newly-arrived human hunters.[3] Horses returned to the Americas with the Conquistadors, beginning with Columbus, who imported horses from Spain to the West Indies on his second voyage in 1493.[4] Domesticated horses came to the mainland with the arrival of Cortés in 1519.[5]

And this is all sourced by reliable references. Although the source you have is a nice bit of research and writing, it does not say that horses did not become extinct. If there are some groups that claim that the mustangs should be regarded as wild because many thousands of years ago there were horses in N. America that subsequently went extinct, then please provide reliable references and we will probably be able to work something into the article. However, as you can see, not everyone agrees with your POV, so the wording and references needs to be worked out on talk pages (here for now, the Mustang page once your block expires), rather than the article itself. Dana boomer (talk) 13:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Per an article by Deb Baumann, published in The Equestrian News, June 2006, Baumann bases her article on congressional testimony made by Jay F. Kirkpatrick, Ph.D and Patricia M. Fazio, Ph.D. I quote "Equus caballus should be considered North American native wildlife." The article attaches the original congressional statement by Kirkpatrick/Fazio, and I quote it "E. caballus is the genetic equivalent to E. lambei, a horse, according to fossil records, that represented the most recent Equus species in North America prior to extinction." citation is Forsten.

The article further points out the migration patterns of "Equus from North America to Eurasia." citation "Horse Evolution" by Kathleen Hunt. Kirkpatrick/Fazio state "feral" is a human construct that has little biological meaning, except transitory behavior, usually forced on the animal in some manner."

Another key Kirkpatrick/Fazio quote, "The key element in describing an animal as a native species is (1) where it originated; and (2) whether or not it co-evolved with its habitat. Clearly, E. caballus did both, here in North America."

I will list all citations here that are listed in the statement made to congress:

1. "Horse Evolution" by Kathleen Hunt from www.onthenet.com.au~stear/horse_evolution.htm;Bruce J. MacFadden, Fossil Horses:Systematics, Paleobiology, and Evolution of the Family Equidae (New York:Cambridge University Press, 1992),p.205.
2. Patricia Mabee Fazio, "The Fight to Save a Memory:Creation of the Prior Mountain Wild Horse Range (1968)and Evolving Federal Wild Horse Protection through 1971," doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M University, College Station, 1995,p.21.
3. Ann Forsten, 1992. Mitochondrial-DNA timetable and the evolution of Equus:Comparison of molecular and paleontological evidence. Ann.Zool. Fennici 28:301-309.
4. Carles Vila, Jennifer A. Leonard, Anders Gotherstrom, Stefan Marklund, Kaj Sandberg, Kerstin Liden, Robert K. Wayne, Hans Ellegren. 2001. Widespread origins of domestic horse lineages. Science 291:474-477.
5. Hofreiter, Michael; Serre,David; Poinar, Hendrik N.; Kuch, Melanie; Paabo, Svante.2001. Ancient DNA. Nature Reviews Genetics. 2(5),353-359.
6. James Dean Feist and Dale R. McCullough. 1976. Behavior patterns and commication in feral horses. Z. Tierpsychol. 41:367.

If you have not read the Jay F. Kirkpatrick, Ph.D and Patricia M. Fazio, Ph.D. STATEMENT, I urge you to do so. It is my intent that Wikipedia update it's erroneous description of American wild horses as being "feral." Just because Equus was driven from North America, does not mean it went extinct from the world. We reintroduce native species back to their rightful habitats all the time, as was done in Mongolia with E. Przewalski when it went extinct hundreds of years ago. Based on the new science, the American wild horse deserves the same serious consideration. Thank you, Grrace (talk) 18:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

This is another citation regarding E. lambei and Equus available at the link below http://zipcodezoo.com/Key/Animalia/Equus_Genus.asp. 71.116.70.134 (talk) 23:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC) Grrace (talk) 23:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

First, I'm not sure what your point is with the ZipcodeZoo link. As far as I can see, all it says is the E. lambei is a subspecies of Equus, which is not really in dispute. It doesn't really have anything to do with whether mustangs should be regarded as wild or feral.

Second, here is what I am thinking to add to the article. First, let me point out that the most predominate view of mustangs is as "feral", so that is how we must refer to them on WP. However, it is appropriate to "teach the controversy", and so I am considering adding a paragraph, probably under the Etymology and usage section, that says something like:

There is a movement, under the leadership of equine scientists Jay F. Kirkpatrick and Patricia M. Fazio, to change the status of the mustang from "feral" to "wild", at least as it is seen by the US government. The definition of feral allows the mustangs to also be defined as an intrusive, exotic species, and called a threat to true native wildlife. However, Kirkpatrick and Fazio point out that since there were native horses on the North American continent at one point (albiet dying out at the end of the Pleistocene era), horses were once native animals and should still be considered as native animals, and therefore they should be defined as "wild". Kirkpatrick and Fazio claim that since the two main elements for defining a native species are whether or not it coevolved with its habitat and where it originated, the mustang can be considered to have done both, if you look at the ancient horse that went subsequently went extinct. Despite these arguments, the mustang is still regarded as feral and non-native by most government agencies,(Reference:The Surprising History of America's Wild Horses) and an exotic species that draws resources and attention away from true native species.(Reference:Wild Horses)

OK, here are my thoughts. This probably needs to be trimmed a bit, so as to not put too much weight on this viewpoint. As far as I can find, it's mostly these two scientists that are arguing for the definition change, and so WP:UNDUE may apply. I know there are a few other editors interested in this article, so I'd like to hear everyone else's opinions, too. Dana boomer (talk) 14:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I am going in and re-editing the article based on the last "clean" version. The bottom line is simple: Modern mustangs are descended from Spanish and other European imports, hence are feral, end of story. However, due to the very legitimate proof that horses existed in North America 10,000 years ago, there is also a legitimate argument to be made that the Mustang is a reintroduced species, Hence, I have no idea how to get around the fact that the animals are unquestionably feral AND may very well be a once-native species being restored to the ecosystem (in a way cattle are not), but that is the way it is. We cannot change the taxonomy of the horse, the bottom line is that the wild subspecies in the Americas did die out. They have been brought back by humans. Sorry that I have been gone all week and only weighed in now, but we must keep a balanced point of view in this article. (Next week, the cattle ranchers will arrive and accuse me of being a bunny-hugger, it's happened before, sigh...I really AM trying to keep this article balanced. Sigh). Montanabw^(talk) 06:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Erm, not really sure what you meant by the "last clean version". All of Grrace's edits have since been reverted, while we discussed it here. The latest edits by the IP were something completely different, and something I hadn't gotten around to dealing with yet. Thanks for taking care of that. As for the above, I was hoping to tell the other side of the story. Feel free to tweak the proposed wording above if you wish - I thought I had made it clear that mustangs are generally considered feral and it is a small group that is lobbying for that to be changed. It does have reliable sourcing, though, so it should be at least mentioned. At the very least to "teach the controversy" as you always say... :) Dana boomer (talk) 11:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, I answered before I edited, the last version was largely "clean." I think there is some mention already in the article about folks trying to get Mustangs to be considered reintroduced native species, but the last time I went too far in that direction, someone came in and attacked me for being a PETA bunny-hugger. I. Just. Can't. Win. sigh... I'll look over the cites and see if the argument can be expanded rather than subtly snuck in as it is at present. If you have any idea for a really short version and a suggested location, feel free to toss it out for feedback. Montanabw^(talk) 02:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh I get it, WP articles can't be made by "PETA" people, or people who "hug bunnies?" And, those POV's are not valid? And any citations provided by those kinds of writers are dismissed because they are coming in later? Is that WP's position? Even when DNA is revealed...it's "end of story?" Excuse me, who are you to claim "end of story?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grrace (talk • contribs) 17:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Grrace, I'm glad you started commenting on this page. The idea behind WP is that it should be completely neutral, and should follow the lead of the most reliable sources on a given subject. You should really never be able to tell which side of the story an author advocates in their personal life from the way they write on WP. Please see WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. Montanabw has been the lead editor on this article for a while, and she understands the history behind this article. She also understands how sources need to be used and what should be considered in writing an article. I will repeat again, for the upteenth time - there seem to be only a couple of scientists who are arguing to have the mustangs considered as wild. That means that the article cannot be changed completely to say what they believe. The beliefs of just two scientists cannot dictate a large field of research work, government policy, and public opinion. This means that the article cannot simply say that mustangs are wild because that is not the position of the majority of the sources. the DNA of horses and the fact that there were horses on N. America in prehistoric times is not the issue - we have alrady agreed that there were. What is at issue is whether the horses today are considered wild or feral. Please comment on my proposed wording above - Montanabw has requested that it be shortened, and I tend to agree with her, but I would like your comments on it before I start giving it a haircut :) Dana boomer (talk) 21:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Dana, you have still not addressed my questions above, regarding "mestengo" meaning "feral." That seemed to be your whole basis for calling wild American Mustangs "feral." Now, you've changed it to "government agencies" consider them "feral." So, the questions again are, what are you basing your "feral" argument on, and lets go from there. If the WP definition cannot be used, what definition are you relying on?

Additionally, Montanabw, has lumped me in with "There is a movement, under the leadership of equine scientists Jay F. Kirkpatrick and Patricia M. Fazio, to change the status of the mustang from "feral" to "wild", at least as it is seen by the US government." Wow...thanks for the tip...didn't know there was such a "movement."

Therefore, how many scientists do you need? How old does a species need to be, before WP considers them native?

Also, Dana, you state above "I'd like to hear everyone else's opinions," however, I was unaware that this article was based on opinions. Do you not consider facts? Or, should we no longer converse because according to Montanabw, it's "end of story?" Oh yeah, and now I'm reduced to "fringe." Now that's like continuing to argue the world is flat, or Pluto is still a planet, citation:(http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.nl.html?pid=23558)...look the NM legislature decides to delare it a planet anyway! If you are not open to new scientific discoveries, such as Equus originated in North America, citation:(http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/HorseEvolution.htm), then I'm not sure what else will bring y'all up to speed.Grrace (talk) 18:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Grrace, please see the discussion on your talk page for my response on the mestengo issue. I have not changed my argument - I have simply continued to add up arguments as to why mustangs are considered feral, rather than wild. I have, several times, given you the definition of feral - an domestic animal that has escaped captivity, or the descendents of that animal. I am going to say again, Montanabw and I agree with you that horses were present in North America at one time and died out - we have no problem with that statement. The point that is being contested is whether mustangs today are wild or feral - and this is a point that you have not proven. You have proven that two scientists think they should be considered wild. My apologies if you don't like the word "movement", but if there's no movement, and it is simply two scientists that are arguing for a current definition of "wild", then that really falls under WP:UNDUE. WP is not run by opinions, but it is run by consensus, and the consensus of the editors that have worked and are working on this article is that the majority of sources, both research and government based, consider mustangs feral. You have provided sources that say that horses existed in N. America in the past - that is not being contested, and is in fact already present in the article. You have not, however, provided sources that say more two scientists think today's mustangs should be considered wild rather than feral - this is what is being contested. I have already explained all of this to you more than once, so I wish you would either: 1. Give your thoughts, without hyperbole, on the proposed wording above, which is supported by sources, 2. Provide sources that more scientists than these two are arguing for a change in definition, or 3. Drop the subject. Dana boomer (talk) 20:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

What is YOUR source that proves that wild mustangs are "feral?" Thank you.71.116.70.134 (talk) 23:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Grrace, I'm assuming that's you. Please see, among others:

• American Museum of Natural History, which says "mustangs...are actually considered feral".
• National Geographic, which calls them a "feral, exotic species".
• Natural History Magazine, which says "Customarily, such wild horses that survive today are designated "feral" and regarded as intrusive, exotic animals".
• Oklahoma State University, which says "The Mustang is a feral horse"
• The Encyclopedia of Historic and Endangered Livestock and Poultry Breeds, which says "mustang generally refers to all feral horses on rangeland controlled by the BLM"

...would you like me to continue? These were just brought up in a simple less-than-five-minute search. Dana boomer (talk) 00:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Dana, yep, that's me. I read all your sources, did you? 1. American Museum of Natural History..."quick facts." We don't know who wrote the "quick facts" page or when, as it is not signed by the author, there are no citations for the one unscientific sentence referring to wild horses considered "feral" horses. Sounds like it needs to be updated.

2. The scientist you quote in the National Geographic article is Joel Berger, and he is refuted throughout the article, with DNA evidence to the contrary. The article is written by Kirkpatrick! I'm glad you consider National Geographic a reliable source. I've seen another article I'd like to cite, when I find it again I'll post it here.

3. Another Kirkpatrick article, but I don't see who you are quoting to prove the "feral" part. But since you consider LiveScience a credible source, I'll place in my Live Science citation here http://www.livescience.com/animals/060501_extinct_horses.html. This source includes an additional scientist Michael Hofreiter, Department of Evolution genetics. I have emailed author Bjorn Carey as to her bio, but not heard back yet. Your article (source) actually proves my point, instead of yours. I quote your article "they (wild horses) were 'designated' feral, and regarded as intrusive exotic animals..." But why did you stop reading there? It continues "...But as E. cabullus, they are not so alien after all." Your article also continues on to compare Przewalski as equal to E. cabullus, genetically speaking.

4. This source is written by the BLM, not exactly a neutral party. Of course they're going to put out disinformation, wild horses compete with their land leases to ranchers.

5. Encyclopedia of Historic and Endangered Livestock and Poultry Breeds. I cannot find when this was written, the only date I can find is 1975. Author Janet Vorwald Dohner is a librarian. Not a scientist. However she does state (in her Preface) that she welcomes updates as DNA evolves. Addtionally, she also states, I quote her here, "Altough technically the word "feral" describes the animals, to most Americans these are wild horses, acknowledged by Congress with the THE WILD FREE-ROAMING HORSE AND BURRO ACT OF 1971. Therefore, 1975 sounds about right, and of course, we will always be able to find old sources that need to be updated.

So let's back up a moment. You stated that you are not disputing that wild horses were on the North American continent at one time. But are you disputing that American Wild Mustangs are a native North American species? If so, I have another citation loaded with additional scientists...if you need me to type out all their names, I'm happy to do so. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences http://www.pnas.org/search?fulltext=wild+horse+extinction&submit=yes&go.x=11&go.y=13fulltext=wild+horse+extinction&submit=yes&go.x=11&go.y=13

Thank you. Grrace (talk) 02:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Grrace, a feral creature is one DESCENDED from domesticated ancestors. It is extremely well-established that Mustangs are feral. This does not mean that they don't belong in the American West (I personally believe that they DO belong in free-roaming herds and strongly support efforts to protect them), but we have to call them what they are. There WERE truly wild horses living in North America prior to the arrival of human beings. These animals died out at the end of the last Ice Age (see evolution of the horse for more info), possibly in part due to being hunted by newly-arrived humans. The record is clear: there were no horses in North America from about 10,000 BC until 1493 AD. So, to the extent horses exist in North America today, it is because they were reintroduced from Europe. And only domesticated animals were reintroduced. The only true "wild" (as in never domesticated) horse in the world today is the Prezwalski's horse. See also wild horse for more on that. And FYI, the "bunny-hugger" comment was one directed at ME, not you. That was the funny thing! (Yes, at me) Montanabw^(talk) 02:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Why have you removed my last paragraph and citations? Grrace (talk) 03:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)71.116.70.134 (talk) 03:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Montana, Mustangs are not feral. You are using the word "feral" incorrectly. Mustangs are a native species to North America, therefore, cannot be classified as "feral." Thank you. 71.116.70.134 (talk) 16:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, you are incorrect. Mustangs descend from domesticated horses, not wild horses. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, you are incorrect. Mustangs descend from tamed horses as they are the genetic equivelent to the native North American species. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grrace (talk • contribs) 17:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Really? What sources do you have for your claim that they are genetically equivalent to the native North American species. Ah, let me guess, some of the mitochondrial DNA studies, which are nice to show maternal lineages. The Y-chromosomal studies show that there is just one paternal line, and that one differs from the very few wild horses it has been compared to. Microsatellite studies give an all together picture again. So, what sources do you base this claim on? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I have already provided you with the sources, but apparently you have dismissed them. Thank you. Grrace (talk) 17:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I did not dismiss them, but pointed out to you that you are misinterpreting them. So, please explain how your sources support your claim? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Wild versus feral AGAIN

I know, the wild versus feral discussion flares up every once and a while. Yes, the US government uses 'wild' for the feral horses called mustangs. That are policy documents, laws and they are free to use language as they like, but that does not make it proper usage. Equus ferus caballus is a subspecies of the Wild Horse, Equus ferus ferus. This wild species (Equus ferus ferus) roamed North America till about 10,000 years ago. They were never domesticated in North America on their own, and only reintroduced in the domesticated form after Columbus arrived. Some of those domesticated horses (Equus ferus caballus) became free-roaming again, resulting in herds of feral horses. Domestication has changed the wild horse (Equus ferus ferus) in many ways, to the point where scientists consider it a different subspecies (Equus ferus caballus). Domestication takes many generations, and is not lost within a single generation. The free roaming herds of domestic horses are feral horses. The ONLY free-roaming herds of true wild horse can be found in Mongolia, and belong to the third subspecies. Equus ferus prewalskii. Let me know if I need to explain aspects in more detail. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 04:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I suggest that people stop throwing titles etc around about their sources. It makes me feel you actually have no clue where you talk about and try to win the argument by using an appeal to authority. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 04:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, this is an old argument and current DNA analysis shows the evidence. Please read my sources. Additionally, I was told that WP references could not be used, however, all of you keep linking back to the WP "wild horse" article. I'm finished. Thank you Grrace (talk) 15:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I did read Janzen et al, and all the other molecular studies about horse ancestry. And the taxonomic stuff, etc. So, where do your sources disagree with what I was saying, because what I see is a lot of misinterpretation of those sources from your side. So, maybe we can discuss the issues in detail and get the much needed clarity on this subject. :-) -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

You wrote: "Domestication takes many generations, and is not lost within a single generation." A generation in human terms is 35 years. What, in your mind, is it for the wild horse? Where did they get the horses to "domesticate?" Anwser...from the wild. The definition of domestication is "Domesticated animals are not just tamer than their wild ancestors; they are different genetically." So, therefore, the DNA evidence shows that wild horses were more likely tamed, instead of "domesticated" because the modern Mustang is a genetic equivilent to the wild horse that originated in North American. Thank you. 71.116.70.134 (talk) 17:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)Grrace (talk) 17:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

First of all, domestication is a process that result in genetic changes. It is not the same as just taming. Prewalski horses are tamed, but not domesticated. Worse, there is no way you can actually ride a Prewalski, you are lucky if they accapt a halter. Domestication is a process, and it changes the animal. When you talk anbout DNA, it helps to know a bit about how it is transmitted (maternal, paternal, mixed) and the speed with with it changes (Mitochondial versus microsatelite versus Y-chromosoom versus nuclear). Most studies to unravel the ancersty of the domesticated horse use slowly mutating genes for a reason, it makes the study possible. If you used fast mutating DNA sequences like microsatelites, you get a different picture. But there is more; morpholgical and behavioural changes related to domestication are still present in the mustang. The domestication has not yet been lost. But what I really would like to know from you is what sources back you idea up? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Feb 2011 thread

Just one comment here- Przewalskij horse is not an ancestor of the domesticated horse (from Eurasian steppe) - it shares certain characteristics with the ancestor of the domestic horse - i.e., tarpan etc, but that is where it ends :) Furthermore Przewalskij was not domesticated and never used for transport - it was used for food and hide only (like onagers, wild asses etc) - its specific conformation disallows for any use related to ridding. As we have info (sources) from Eastern Europe during the early modern history the steppe and Forrest 'tarpan' horses were used both for food (including hunting for sport by nobles and kings) and domestication (thus transport), both stallions and mares, evidenced in Polish-Belorussian 'konik' horses. Latest genetic research disallows any involvement of Przewalskij horse in the domesticated horse ancestry at time of domestication and after DarioTW (talk) 22:49, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, we know that the Prze is not the ancestor of the domesticated horse. But this conversation was almost two years old, and not a concern in the Mustang article. Montanabw^(talk) 09:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

So what that it is a 2 year old issue when it is material to the topic? Przewalskij versus equus caballus has been resolved through genetic testing but but it is not widely known... Does not it really relate to mustang article? I beg to differ, for there is here an entire paragraph about how Przewalskij is the only wild horse in 'the history of mustang' - well, this Pzewalskij history does not apply at all - this suppose to be a history of mustang, right?. Additionally the good half of the info in this 'history section' has nothing to do with history of mustang and it is but legend and horse lore nonsense (mustang coming form Florida he, he - show me a historical research where you can find this info, Arabs being ancestors to mustangs??? Andalusian (meaning PRE I suppose) ???? How about the Sorraia horse, how about the Marismeno horse, Read the documents form early 16th century related to horse shipping to Caribbean Island from Spain - see what horses were shipped there, even Deb Bennett does not provide this kind of nonsense, besides last 8-6 years new research from Spain has completely changed the whole Andalusian horse history etc. Also got to read old Spanish sources 9ro eg Powell's books on Chichimeca wars and appearance of mestenco horses), Indian history (Idnians ate first horses that they laid their hands on, riding came later, first 'wild' tribes to ride were Chichimeca and laterApache/Navajo/Jumano in the North America) and horse usage (Ewers, Calin Taylor, Goeroge Bent etc), and 17th-19th century sources, as well as genetic testing related to horse in the Americas. The history presented here does not contain recent history, establishment of sanctuaries, involvement of Indian tribes and private entities in protecting mustang herds, failure of adoption program, campaigns on the part of Federal government to eradicate the herds from the BLM lands under Bush jr. and Obama administrations, attempts establish breeds based on Mustang eg Spanish Mustang, mismanagement of herds by BLM. It basically is not a history but a sad example of wikiepdia's editors lack of education the the area of history, law and animal science and application of those to creation of a wikipedia entry -:) eg do read this part from a scientific article from Oxford http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/content/97/2/107.full and do correct this article, please : 'Horses only returned to the American continent (the New World) in 1493, with the navigator Christopher Columbus and during the subsequent Spanish colonization period (Bort 2004; Primo 2004). Those stallions and mares were bought in Seville's province, mainly from the peasant stock bred in the islands and salt marshes of the Guadalquivir River (marsimeño) (Bort 2004). by the way - Spanish mustang breed - from the same article - The Spanish Mustang breed was formed with horses that originated from feral or Native American stock from all over North America. 199.117.182.5 DarioTW (talk) 00:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Dario, you are misreading the article!! The article does NOT say that the Przewalski horse has ANYTHING to do with Mustangs! (In other words, I AGREE WITH YOU ON THIS) What the article is saying is 1) Mustangs are NOT "wild" horses (they are feral horses -- only the Prze can be called a "real" wild horse. 2) It is saying that HORSES (some wild species but NOT the Przewalski) did exist in North America but became extinct. (the horse subspecies that existed in North America does not appear to be related to either the Prze or the modern domestic horse) This sets up both sides of the argument over whether Mustangs are a reintroduced extinct species (broadly referring to genus equus, both donkeys and horses) or an introduced "foreign" species. As for the rest, I happen to agree with you that BLM management of Mustangs completely sucks, but getting all mad and ranting about it isn't going to help. Your historical information may or may not be reliable, the JSTOR source looks good, but what you need to do is provide proper links and sources, slowly, properly integrating them into the article instead of what you did, which was to throwing around names without enough data so other people can verify things. Your stuff on Native people from "17th to 19th century sources" is not going to pass muster because some of the 17th -19th century explorers were incorrect. There is enough modern history, archaeology and anthropology to verify which of those early sources had it right and which ones didn't. (You completely fail to mention the Comanche, for one thing). So step back and work it in slowly Montanabw^(talk) 01:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, then I think Przewalskii versus mustang should have a different entry/sub - eg wild horse versus feral horse sub? well, I fail to mention the Comanches because they do not appear on the 'horse map' - meaning ridding and using horses for transport and war - until 1710s, almost a century after Apaches (1630s) and possibly Jumanos been riding and trading horses across the Great Plains. Besides Comanches for the most of their history got most of their horses from ridding of the estancians and haciendas of the Spanish (in Tejas, Nueva Vizcaya, New Spain) and Mexican herds (one of the leading causes of the Mexican-US War according to this book by DeLAy http://yalepress.yale.edu/book.asp?isbn=9780300119329), but they were fond of eating mustangs and were active in capturing and then trading fresh mustangs to 'ciboleros,' 'comancheros' and Indian tribes. BUT - they did not trade trained mustangs to anyone, as these trained animals became part of the family (eg Pekka Hämäläinen, The Comanche Empire, p190) However Ute and Shoshones played a great part in Spanish horse dissemination , including to Comanches, during the late 17th and 18th centuries Well as per 17-19th century sources they were the observers who wrote down their observations, and in historical research they are given more credence than anything else (nature of this science, I suppose). BLM, Federal Government and laws passed since 1971 Act need to be included as they had terrible effect on the wild horse herds in the West. Lack of these developments simply does not deliver a history of mustangs but lore and legend - perhaps Mustang entry should have another sub on the legend and lore - beautiful and rich of folklore in itself.You are right about the need for sourcing the material presented, I am always behind that...DarioTW (talk) 01:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Dario, please read the related articles and understand the content fully before you go charging in, and while some of the sources you've provided will be useful, you can't just throw around random factoids, some of which are misinterpretations of the source material. Right now, you just sound like some angry person with an agenda, except you are so all over the map with your commentary, it's hard to even figure out what your concerns are. Montanabw^(talk) 06:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

well, aren't we engaged in a ad personam /ad hominem fallacy here? you seem not to understand what definition of 'history' is, strange indeed? - neither Przewalskii paragraph nor lack of post 1971 material in the history section makes this section/sub complete and scientific, absence of historical facts in favor of nonsense about Indians and farmers etc, lack of 19th century folklore, lack of Indian folklore, disregard/disrespect for one of the most important sources for 1830-40s i.e. Josiah Gregg, and disregard for 17th-19th century sources in general?? Lack of Spanish sources?? Disregard for scientific material via genetic testing? It is all in your present sub section know as history of free reaming wild horse aka mustang - :) And do enlighten me where exactly I misinterpret the source material? I know wikipedia is run by good hearted people but noblesse oblige, wouldn't you say. I my not so humble opinion this sub needs sources, editing and more sources, to achieve a more balanced, grounded in history presentation, and not this collage of patchwork opinions and hearsay. It is my understanding that there is no limit on wikipedia entires, is there? Besides, it is the juicy facts or your 'mediaword' straight from TV language known as 'factoid' that make reading these pages interesting, isn't it? So stop reverting the edits and rather make them footnoted or ask for proof(I am for one still green in area of adding footnotes in wikipedia,)So let's stop bickering and get to work on fixing this 'donkey' - what do you say?DarioTW (talk) 16:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Older thread

I am still waiting for you to answer the question, How many generations does it take to "domesticate" a wild horse? Thank you.Grrace (talk) 17:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Impossible to say. It depends on many factors, basically, on the degree of selection that is present. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

And to add to Kim's excellent analysis and explanation, Mustangs today are routinely captured and trained, clearly showing that they retain domesticated traits. There are somewhere around 30,000 captured Mustangs in holding facilities all across the western US, awaiting "adoption" by new owners, many of whom train them to ride. When handled properly, they make excellent and trustworthy riding horses, a claim that most certainly cannot be made of truly "wild" animals such as the Przewalski's horse or the zebra. Montanabw^(talk) 00:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Because wild Mustangs have been captured and trained has not changed them genetically. They are no different than elephants trained to be ridden and balance on a balls in the circus. If the wild Amerian Mustangs were released back to the wild, they would return to "wild." The ease of training and taming does not change the animals genetics that link them to their fossils, it does not diminish a native species origin. Thank you. Grrace (talk) 04:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Grrace, that is true of ANY horse. In fact, during the 20th century, people used to routinely turn out domesticated stallions with wild herds to "improve" them. ("improve" being a relative term). By this argument, all horses are really undomesticated. The characteristics of domestication are clearly defined by science and most horse subspecies meet them. Mustangs are not even a subspecies, they are good old Equus ferus caballus just like the Quarter Horse or whatever. Montanabw^(talk) 17:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed wording (again)

I'm starting this in a new section to not disturb the discussion above. A few days ago, I had proposed wording for a new paragraph to be inserted, dealing with the issue of the people who wish mustangs to be defined as wild. Here was the original proposed wording:

There is a movement, under the leadership of equine scientists Jay F. Kirkpatrick and Patricia M. Fazio, to change the status of the mustang from "feral" to "wild", at least as it is seen by the US government. The definition of feral allows the mustangs to also be defined as an intrusive, exotic species, and called a threat to true native wildlife. However, Kirkpatrick and Fazio point out that since there were native horses on the North American continent at one point (albiet dying out at the end of the Pleistocene era), horses were once native animals and should still be considered as native animals, and therefore they should be defined as "wild". Kirkpatrick and Fazio claim that since the two main elements for defining a native species are whether or not it coevolved with its habitat and where it originated, the mustang can be considered to have done both, if you look at the ancient horse that went subsequently went extinct. Despite these arguments, the mustang is still regarded as feral and non-native by most government agencies,(Reference:The Surprising History of America's Wild Horses) and an exotic species that draws resources and attention away from true native species.(Reference:Wild Horses)

Montanabw asked me to shorten it up a bit, and I agree with her, so here is a secondary proposition:

Two equine scientists, to change the definition of the mustang from "feral" to "wild". Proponents point out that since there were wild horses on the North American continent before they went extinct, horses were once native animals and should still be considered as native, and therefore wild, animals. Two main elements for defining a native species are whether it coevolved with its habitat and where it originated. The North American mustang fulfills both these requirements, if you look at the ancient extinct horse. Despite these arguments, the mustang is still regarded as feral and non-native by most government agencies,(Reference:The Surprising History of America's Wild Horses) and as an exotic species that draws resources and attention away from true native species.(Reference:Wild Horses)

Kim, Ggrace, and Montanabw, what do you think of these two wordings? Dana boomer (talk) 18:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it still gives undue weight to a fringe theory and isn't yet neutral in tone. Let me take a crack at shortening it a bit more and trying to state everything neutrallly (I hope) Montanabw^(talk) 17:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)  :

Two researchers have advanced an argument that Mustangs should be legally classified as "wild" rather than "feral." They suggest that, due to the presence of Equus ferus ferus on the North American continent at the end of the Pleistocene era, horses were once native animals and should still be considered as native animals, and therefore defined as "wild" (Reference:The Surprising History of America's Wild Horses) and not viewed as an exotic species that draws resources and attention away from true native species.(Reference:Wild Horses)

Wild horse species are Equus ferus ferus and the stilt-legged horse. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The issue of the last living pleistocene horse species in North American prior to extinction confuses me. Do we just say Equus ferus ferus, or were there several subspecies? (This seems to be a debate in the evolution article too, and I confess that it's all a bit confusing to me)? Montanabw^(talk) 18:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You only have Equus ferus ferus. I have to check the literature for the stil legged horse, what the datings are on thise boned that they used to extract ancient DNA from. Equus feus caballus is the domestic horse, and was not present in North America before the Spanish arrived (Maybe the Vikings had horses with them, but that is not substantiated by archeological finds). -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

EFF works well enough for here. Note the minor change I made above. Montanabw^(talk) 21:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It's looking good to me. Just as a note, one of the people is a reproductive physiologist who specializes in mustang fertility control, the other is an environmental historial who specializes in reproductive physiology, the monitoring of mustang ranges and the evolution of equids. Not sure how/if we want to work this in... Dana boomer (talk) 21:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Not, if their argument does not stand on itself, it would become an argument of authority, and those are invalid. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 22:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

How does the above work? I did another bit of rewording to mine. Montanabw^(talk) 22:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Here is my slightly modified version:

Two researchers have advanced an argument that Mustangs should be legally classified as "wild" rather than "feral." They argue that, due to the presence of Equus ferus ferus on the North American continent till the end of the Pleistocene era, horses were once native animals and should still be considered as native animals, and therefore defined as "wild" (Reference:The Surprising History of America's Wild Horses) and not viewed as an exotic species that draws resources and attention away from true native species.(Reference:Wild Horses)

-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 22:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. I'll find it a home and pop it in. Let me know if my placement and other tweaks work. Montanabw^(talk) 03:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Mustang: feral or not...

There have been several calls for ubiased opinion, so as someone who happened on the page by pure accident, and who knows absolutely nothing whatsoever about horses (applied linguistics is my branch of research), having read the article and all the monotonous talk pages, here's my two cents:

mustang |ˈməsˌta ng | noun an American feral horse, typically small and lightly built.
(Oxford American Dictionary
___
mustang Pronunciation: ‚m„s-ƒtaŠ Function: noun Etymology: Mexican Spanish mestengo, from Spanish, stray, from mesteño strayed, from mesta annual roundup of cattle that disposed of strays, from Medieval Latin (animalia) mixta mixed animals Date: 1808
(Webster's Dictionary)

1 : the small hardy naturalized horse of the western plains directly descended from horses brought in by the Spaniards; also : bronco
___
feral Pronunciation: ‚fir-„l, ‚fer- Function: adjective Etymology: Medieval Latin feralis, from Latin fera wild animal, from feminine of ferus wild— more at fierce Date: 1604

1 : of, relating to, or suggestive of a wild beast 2 a : not domesticated or cultivated : wild b : having escaped from domestication and become wild
Webster's Dictionary) __

Oxford and Websters are superior sources to WP, so it would be a waste of time to continue on a new tack and discuss here whether those revered lexical resources are right or wrong. The article as it currently stands is well written, has provided me (as a visitor) with sufficient encyclopedic info about Mustangs, and it has my vote. As a Wikpedia copyeditor, for the structure, the prose, and the placement of 'mustang' and 'feral' in the rest of the text, it has my vote. The correctly referenced and verifiable article by Drs Kirkpatrick and Fazio does what it is supposed to: provide the WP reader with further information. Their article posits arguments on the genetics of ferality vs. wildness & domesticity, and still leaves the conclusion open to further research and debate (around the dictionary definitions) above, and are not the concern of Wikipedia talk pages. What do not get my votes are pedantic, prescriptive POV, and the use of the Wickpedia as an Internet forum for violent general discussion; the mission of an encyclopedia is to report, not to contend, and debate on the content of third party research is therefore generally disallowed. The Wiki editors have nicely phrased their reporting of the LiveScience.com article, thus on the actual semantics, Grrace will just have to hold her horses...--Kudpung (talk) 22:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Kudpung. I think the issue has been settled, but if it picks up again, your source material here will be quite useful. Of course, the Mustang isn't actually interchangeable with "bronco," which is simply a bucking horse (few broncos are Mustangs and nowhere close to all Mustangs are broncos! LOL!) so even dictionaries aren't perfect (grin), but it's good for the feral/wild question and the etymology bit, which has also been a source of spatting at times. Your help is much appreciated! As for the rest, ah a wiki-world absent "violent general discussion." Sigh... would we even recognize the place without it??? LOL!!! Montanabw^(talk) 01:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

mention car

why is there no mention of the ford mustang????? wtf?? at least a quick and short snip about the horses's legacy or use in popular culture today —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiffyguy (talk • contribs) 09:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

You will notice that at the top of the article there is a link to the Mustang (disambiguation), and on that page there is a link to the Ford Mustang, which is an entire article about the car. There is some discussion of the Mustang horse today in the "Mustangs today" section of this article, and there are quite a few different uses of the term Mustang (most of which can be found on the disambig page) , so it wouldn't be practical to discuss in this article which of those the horse influenced and which it didn't (not to mention finding sources for all of those claims!). Hope this helps. Dana boomer (talk) 13:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Photo too "formal"

Should the photo of a feral/wild (I'm not trying to get involved in that debate just yet) be so...formal? The photo for the Brumby shows the animal in the wild. Shouldn't the photo of the Mustang do the same? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.252.78.82 (talk) 16:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

We used to have a photo of a wild herd and just switched it out for this one, which is a more representative example of what the horse type actually looks like. (I guess it's a no-win debate) We have lots of free-roaming photos in the body of the article. Arguably, we should put a more representative posed photo to the top in Brumby too. The debate is probably due to the fact that photos of the horses in their feral state are often either of poor quality or taken at odd angles that don't show the horses in a favorable light. Montanabw^(talk) 19:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

History

early history - -horse returned to the Americas in 1509 with Alonso de Ojeda whose entrada landed in the delta of Rio Atrato with 40 head horse herd (some were eaten for lack of food in the jungle or other sunk in the ship disaster off Darien), and the first breeding and horse herding on the continent took place in Panama in 1514 - shipment and horse increase certified by padre Gomara and Vasco Nuñez de Balboa. Several months before Corts landing in Vera Cruz, another Spanish entrada took place in Nicaragua and Honduras starting in September 1519 (source eg Bennet, Conquistadors, p 181-183, 184-85) Gonzalo Fernandez de Oviedo y Valdes (in 1570s) writing history of the Conquest and Spanish colonies stated that during la conquista horses were bred in the islands of Cuba, Jamaica and Hispaiola, where they multiplied rapidly. Conquistadors demanded these Caribean bred horses because they could withstand the climate and campaign hardships better than European bred horses imported from Spain and Portugal. Thus de Soto took horses from Cuba to decend onto Florida and American Southeast, Garay from Jamaica, Heredia from Hispaniola, Cortes from Hispaniola and Cuba etc . First 'wild' Indians to ride horses were members of Chichimeca central and Northern Mexico tribes who had fought the Spanish and their Indian allies for almost 50 years in the 16th century, causing lots of livestock to go stray and become wild. Also that war led to 'reducidos' Mexican Indians being able to ride horses without punishment of law, first native vaqueros or cowboys appear about that time in Mexico. First mustangs appeared in Mexico in 1570s in Central Mexico, along with strayed cattle. DarioTW (talk) 00:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC) More recent history incomplete or missing from this history - (under president Kennedy )Wild Horse Protection Act of 1959 Public Law 86-234- prohibited the use of a motor vehicle and airplane to carry on the mustanging' or capture of wild horses. Next protection of wild horses signed by President Nixon into law: Public Law 92-195 in 1971 known as Wild Free-Roaming Horse & Burro Act, was amended in 1976 (under president Ford) to allow helicopters for roundups etc - Sec. 9. In administering this Act, the Secretary may use or contract for the use of helicopters or, for the purpose of transporting captured animals, motor vehicles. Such use shall be undertaken only after a public hearing and under the direct supervision of the Secretary or of a duly authorized official or employee of the Department. The provisions of subsection (a) of the Act of September 8, 1959 (73 Stat. 470; 18 U.S.C. 47(a)) shall not be applicable to such use. Such use shall be in accordance with humane procedures prescribed by the Secretary. then came The Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 -(Public Law 95-514) passed under Bible preaching and peanut farmer president Jimmy Carter - stating that (4) continue the policy of protecting wild free-roaming horses

     and burros from capture, branding, harassment, or death, while at
     the same time facilitating the removal and disposal of excess
     wild free-roaming horses and burros which pose a threat to
     themselves and their habitat and to other rangeland values;

Then a Great case came ; Kleppe v. New Mexico ruled in favor of wild horses by our then fine Supreme Court - can be read here http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5533598699102508441&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr On May 19, 2005 by a vote of 259 to 149, the US House of Representatives passes an amendment to the 2006 Interior Appropriations bill that prohibits taxpayer funds from being used to commercially sell or slaughter federally protected wild horses and burros for one fiscal year. In addition, a bill (H.R. 297) was introduced by Representative Nick Rahall (D-WV) to permanently restore the protections removed from the 1971 Wild Free Roaming Horses and Burros Act. Both actions are taken to undo a rider to the 2004 Omnibus Appropriations bill by Senator Conrad Burns (R-MT) that removed a prohibition on the commercial exploitation of wild horses and burros (see 2006 and 2007 for further actions). On October 26, 2005 the US Congress passes an amendment to the 2006 Agriculture Appropriations bill to stop the use of taxpayer dollars to fund horse slaughterhouse inspections as required by law, effectively banning horse slaughter for one fiscal year. President George W. Bush jr signed this bill into law on November 11, 2005.On May 18, 2006 the US House of Representatives passes by unanimous consent an amendment to the 2007 Interior Appropriations bill that prohibits taxpayer funds from being used to sell or slaughter America’s wild horses. Legislation by Representative Rahall to permanently restore protections to the Wild Free Roaming Horses and Burros Act dies when Congress adjourns without acting. On September 7, the US House of Representatives passes H.R. 503, the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act, by a margin of 263 to 146. The US Senate fails to act on the measure before the end of the 110th US Congress. Rider to this 2005 appropriations bill, permitted the BLM to sell horses it has rounded up that are over 10 or haven't been adopted by the third try through its own program to be sold to the lowest bidder (slaughter). On April 25,2007 the US Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee holds a mark-up for S. 311, the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act, voting 15 to 7 in favor of sending the bill to be considered before the full US Senate. On April 26, the US House of Representatives votes 277 to 137 in support of H.R. 249, legislation to permanently restore protections to the 1971 Wild Free Roaming Horses and Burros Act (see 2005). On July 27, the US House of Representatives passes the 2007 FARM Bill (H.R. 6124), which includes language sponsored by Representatives Steve Israel (D-NY) and Michael Doyle (D-PA) to prevent Class B dealers and unlicensed individuals from selling dogs and cats to laboratories, as well as the sale of stray animals for this purpose. The US Senate version includes ambiguous language not supported by AWI; the final version of the FARM Bill passed by the US Congress removes the Pet Safety and Protection Act and inserts language calling for a “study” of the issue. On August 22, 2007 the US Congress again passes an amendment to the 2008 Agriculture Appropriations bill to stop the use of taxpayer dollars to fund horse slaughterhouse inspection, effectively banning horse slaughter for one fiscal year. http://www.awionline.org/ht/d/sp/i/11676/pid/11676 2008 and Barrack Hussein Obama's secretary of Interior Ken Salazar plans to sterilize wild horses and burros and remove them from the West http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/08/ken-salazar-plans-to-tran_n_314023.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/07/AR2009100703237.html , plans go further http://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/article_0407911c-0f0a-5bbd-bece-8d105ff3ffe4.html Cloud foundation link to pdf responding to BLM and Salazar plan to obliterate wild horses http://www.thecloudfoundation.org/index.php/news-events-a-media/news/resources/556-report BLM works hard to crush Ms Madeleine Pickens efforts to save the removed wild horses http://www.madeleinepickens.com/news/care2-blm-crushes-pickens-plans-for-wild-horse-sanctuary/ Tribal sanctuaries http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2005/Mar-23-Wed-2005/news/26135268.html most famous wild horse sanctuary http://www.gwtc.net/~iram/ DarioTW (talk) 07:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Dario, you have some nice sources, but others are not so good. (personal web sites don't meet the verifiability standard) And claiming that 1959 was under "President Kennedy" is precisely the problem I'm talking about with you playing fast and loose with facts (Kennedy was elected in 1960 and inaugurated in 1961). Also, calling this article a "donkey" or referring to the President as "Barrack Hussein Obama" is not making you any friends. And some of the above material you claim is "missing" from the article is not in fact "missing" at all -- you just haven't read the whole article, because the 1971 act is mentioned, so is some of the more recent legislation. I suggest that you go ahead and add the sources you find here on the talk page, but with enough info that others can go look at them. It will take some time to get around to this article, as we have a few other articles in the queue, but I happen to partially agree with you that the article needs some improvement, but I also know that it's not in as bad of shape as you claim it is. Montanabw^(talk) 21:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

oy vey, we are at war or something :), well, let us bury the swords and get to some work here; you're right that Eisenhower singed the 1959 Act ( I forgot to check before posting), but Kennedy became a president on Januay 20, 1961 :) . Obama's middle name is Hussein and I happen to like that name (and also it listed as such in wikipedia), so what is the 'offending wrong' here? I call it 'donkey' for the history part is a 'donkey,' not a full bloodied mustang yet -;) Ok, so we agreed it needs improvement and after this 'war' is over and if time is right, I am willing to collaborate and improve as this subject - wild free roaming horse of America - is dear to me (did a bit of writing and legal research on in in law school), but i think i will tackle the 1971 Act and amendments first (it needs a creation of a proper page). Au revoir for now !DarioTW (talk) 06:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

No, not at "war," just irritated for all the reasons I've already noted. But write an article on the 1971 Act and I may become less irritated. That's an article that needs to happen. If you can do it, you'll be part of the solution. Montanabw^(talk) 06:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Article discussion

Moved this discussion here from my talk page. Montanabw^(talk) 15:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Editing Mustang Article and Mustang entry this disambiguation page.

Hello, I writing in the hopes that we can find my common ground and some compromise. I have read and thoroughly studied the article on Mustangs. As you know, the word "feral" is contentious with some people being in favor of it use an others being adamantly opposed; instead preferring the term "wild." I propose that we remove the word from this disambiguation page as it is not relevant there. Does it help people find the article on mustang the horse rather than mustang the airplane? No. Also I propose, having one section within the article that deals straight forwardly with controversy and neutrally while removing the word feral from the article as an adjective. I have a several reliable peer-reviewed articles showing that "feral" is not an appropriate description for these horses. I also can show that the dictionary definitions list opposite meanings for the word including "wild, undomesticated" to "formerly domesticated". Therefore, the word itself is ambiguous and not a service to the reader who may completely unaccustomed to the word as used by in the content that I think you mean. I plan to begin editing the mustang article. And in good faith and in the hopes that we can achieve a compromise, I make the above propositions. Please respond and let me know what you think. Sincerely Catty Wampy (talk) 14:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)Catty Wampus

Well, removing both "wild" and "feral" on the disambiguation page would probably solve that problem. However, the wild/feral thing on the topic is unquestionably an issue. The horses there now are, beyond question (backed by peer-reviewed literature), descended from previously domesticated ancestors, which makes them feral by the standard definition. However, as the species equus was once native to the Americas, there is an argument to be made that horses in general are a reintroduced native species, hence "wild" in that sense. And politics is wrapped up in all of this, so, like climate change and other hot topics, the science is really a sideline in the battle between various special interests. Montanabw^(talk) 16:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Montanabw, I appreciate your willingness to discuss this issue and hope that we can find enough common ground so that I can help make the Mustang article even stronger. First, I do think that we should remove the word feral from the disambiguation page. All that page really needs to say is "Horse". Neither the word "feral" nor "wild" need to be included. There are certainly many Mustangs that are neither.

Second, yes, I absolutely understand how contentious the issue of feral vs. wild is. I do know what you mean by the standard definition of feral but let me point out a couple of things. I'm quoting from the Webster's Third New International Dictionary, please bear with me here. "Feral: 1 a : suggestive of a beast of prey; specif: characterized by inhuman ferocity. b: being, characteristic of, or suggesting an animal in a state of nature c: lacking in a human personality due to being reared in isolation from all or nearly all human personality due or nearly all human contacts: not socialized. 2 a : existing in a state of nature: not domesticated or cultivated b: having escaped from domestication and become wild.

Do you see that the definition that you use is that last and that the definition preceding it is the opposite of the definition you use?

I agree that some of the animals leaving free on the range are, in fact, feral: those horses who truly escaped or were dumped onto the ranges/mountains by their owners. About other the horses, however, could you call a horse that has descended over hundreds of years feral even by definition 2 b? My answer to this question is that only the horse who escaped is "feral" by def. 2b. Remember the horse evolved in North America over 160 million years. If you removed a zebra from the African savannah and then re-introduced its off-spring a hundred years later would the off-spring's off-spring be feral?

Do you see my point? If the animal didn't "escape from domestication" but instead was sired by stallions and mares that have lived free and undomesticated over hundreds of years they aren't feral by definition 2b.

However, the most important point to make is that the reader is not going to know what you mean by feral. Do an experiment and ask a collection of people what it means, you will get very different answers.

You reference J. Edward De Steiguer's book "Wild Horses of the West". In that book, he states "The antihorse faction, however, continued to call the free-roaming animals "feral", a term used more in derision than in the spirit of scientific correctness." Further, he rephrases environmental historian Patrica M. Fazio who states that the "designation "feral" is entirely a human construct and has little to do with biology or the horse".

My goal with this long message is not to convince you but to demonstrate a) the ambiguity of the term "feral" and b) to ask you to reconsider its appropriateness in the mustang article.

If you have scientific, peer reviewed articles showing that feral is an appropriate term for these horses than I would love to see them. From everything I've seen, I see people using the term but not taking the time to a) define it and then b) cite their definition.

Thank you for your time. I sincerely hope that we can reach a friendly compromise. Taking the word "wild" out of the article would not be correct. The horses that are living free and are roaming BLM land are truly wild.

Please note that in an effort to establish my good intentions with you, I have not edited the Mustang article yet.

Please respond at you earliest convenience. I would like to edit the mustang article immediately but want to reach a friendly solution with you first. Catty Wampy (talk) 21:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)Catty Wampus

• Catty, check the disambig page, I think my changes today will work. I appreciate your willingness to work in good faith. The rest of this we need to move to the Mustang page and discuss it there. Before we go further, I'd also encourage you to review WP:V for the general hierarchy of reliable versus perfect, versus adequate-for-now sourcing. The Mustang article is an old one that has had many hands on it over the years and needs careful work to not throw out the good with the bad. But just so you know, the definition of feral animals in general is a longstanding topic over at the feral article also, so to the extent we argue the general definition, I'd prefer to just avoid that general drama and focus on horses.-- Mustangs can be fully re-domesticated, not merely "tamed," so unlike a zebra or the Przewalski's horse, Mustangs have not lost their domesticated traits. To me, that meets the definition of "feral" and other than when there is a political agenda at work, no one else really argues otherwise. We have also had this argument at Brumby, at Sorraia, and at almost every other article about the free-ranging landrace breeds. Mustangs fit the same model as the others -- their DNA clearly traces to domesticated ancestors. Now, that said, politically you need to know that personally I favor strong protection of "wild" horses in the west and am very frustrated with the pro-cattle views of the BLM. I also was amongst those who booted Conrad Burns from the Senate! But I'm not going to let my own views or emotions get in the way of hard science. Montanabw^(talk) 22:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Good morning, Montanabw. I hope your weekend will be a good one. I have reviewed WP:V. Thanks for the tip. I understand the concept of perfect vs. adequate.

I suggest we take out the word adjective feral when not necessary and move it to a section that deals defines it and then makes the case for its use vs. the use of wild. Where feral is necessary for the point of the sentence then I suggest we direct the reader to the section that discusses the contention. Reasonable, intelligent people on both sides have good reasons for their choice of feral vs. wild.

I have to insist that we define the terms. Where does your definition of feral come from? We need a citation. I am happy to put it in but I can't find your definition. Also, have you read this article? http://www.awionline.org/ht/d/sp/i/18457/pid/18457 I also propose removing "Equus ferus caballus" from the article because the references used to support it are wrong. I followed the link and searched the article but did not find support to call the horses that we are writing about "Equus ferus caballus". (If you are the person who put that in and you have the reference please send it to me, I will be happy to fix it.) I have many articles supporting the scientific name "Equus caballus". Please read the article above, it is not long but represents, I believe, the latest DNA research on the topic. I agree about "not throwing the baby out with the bathwater." The article has many strengths. Obviously, much work has gone into it. I have privileges at the UC Berkeley library (my alma mater) so I will be doing more research after work next week. Thanks for your compromise on the disambiguation page. Let me know your thoughts about my suggestions above. Hope you have some fun this weekend. To me, Montana sounds like fun. But the Bay Area is pretty nice too. Catty Catty Wampy (talk) 00:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)Catty Wampus

Catty, the equus ferus caballus issue is a non-starter. We have a professional taxonomist who advocated for this across ALL our horse articles, and it is correct terminology (though like all things, taxomists have some debates over the issue). We may need to tweak the references, perhaps. I can see the value of putting in a more detailed "wild vs. feral" discussion here and perhaps using the term "free-roaming" where it fits would be suitable, but the REAL issue not "wild" versus "feral," it is "native" versus "introduced". This is the intense political debate-- IS modern horse is a reintroduced native species or an invasive species? I do agree that a good analysis of that issue would be a useful addition here. There is NO question that all horses DID become extinct in the Americas after the last Ice Age and that ALL horses here today descended from European imports. To say otherwise is junk science that violates wikipedia's policies at WP:FRINGE, though that belief could be discussed in the article as one viewpoint. Animal Welfare Institute is one source, but with a bias, and thus has to be balanced by the views of people like, for example, these folks (see "Myth #11). We have to take a balanced approach here per WP:NPOV. For example, this writer and this writer are both trying to outline the dilemma. Montanabw^(talk) 15:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

do mustang horses depend each other for food, safety, and companionship? if so, how?