Post
by theCryptofishist » Tue Dec 29, 2009 8:23 pm
I think that it's a terrible decision to have to make. It's classic Malthus. Even if horses were killed, I think it's an easier death than starvation or thirst. Shipping them off to France to become dinner does seem like a far way from the local foodshed. The proper thing to do is eat them ourselves or else bring back wolves. Now that's a stink waiting to be raised.
One environmental advantage of bringing wolves back to Yellowstone has been an increase in plant diversity. Apparently, moose--or maybe it was elk--does would hang out by the streams and eat up the willow and other tender young trees. Now that the wolves are back, the moose just can't hang out and snack there, because that's a place where wolves can easily grab the fawns. (Calves?) Of course, if the BLM is going to have grazing out there, then they don't want wolves out there, too.
I do know that they are feral, but the truth is that the horse evolved on this continent and their absence has changed the ecology. Okay, we can't reconstruct the ecosystems that were here 15, 20 thousand years ago. But I find the whole idea of re-wilding to be very intriguing.
The reason we don't eat horses is because eating horse--perhaps specifically the liver--was a sacrament in nordic culture, so the church outlawed it. It is possible that for those of us who eat red meat that the whole "oh, we can't eat poor Dobbin!" aspect of these horse round-ups might not be at play if history had played out differently.
And I don't know why England retained the horsemeat taboo when France, and apparently Scandinavia, didn't.
The Lady with a Lamprey
"The powerful are exploiting people, art and ideas, and this leads to us plebes debating how to best ration ice.
Man, no wonder they always win....." Lonesomebri