Blog

History is a cyclic poem written by Time upon the memories of man. ~ Percy Bysshe Shelley

In this article we develop a consensus toward establishing Wild Horses’ as indigenous in America. The truth is that science and good investigative research gives us this factual, and often overlooked information already. Oddly, it is developed from attritional information at archeological dig-sites. It is found within research papers and technical reports, in this case, from woolly mammoth dig-sites up and down the Pacific Coast and somewhat inland.
__________________
“However, not all mammoths were woolly tundra-dwellers; in North America, mammoth remains have been found at elevations ranging from sea level to the mountains of the Colorado Plateau, and from Canada to central Mexico. The largest of these, the Columbian mammoth, dwelled in savannas and grasslands like African elephants today, and the smallest—Pygmy Mammoths—lived on the isolated Channel Islands off the California coast.” Gill, Jacquelyn, Scientific America
___________________

Found commonly at these archeological dig-sites are wild horse bones, and found in abundance and in accord with many technical reports on this subject matter (inclusive). This is due in part to their similar eating and grazing habits during those times. The problem is the woolly mammoth story is much more interesting and publishable, especially within the pecking-order world of research and archeological discoveries; therefore, the highlights are directly on the woolly mammoth, wild horse bones overlooked in total.

The positive attribute here is the fact we can easily place time-factors on horse bones found at many dig-sites of other mammals as well – and within the documentation of the attritional artifacts. So we can develop an even more accurate time line, by going from one extinct animal to another, then find more information when carbon-dating bones of currently existent animals, with the overlooked horse bones beside them.

Not just animal dig-sites but archeological digs of ancient buildings or townships become of interest to us for the same goal. And as above, these factors when combined, establish a definite wild horse presence in America throughout history, and the more interesting aspect, continuously.

A Walk into the Past

There exist variables, through reasonable explanation, essential evidence to the indigenous nature of wild horses in America. Unfortunately, many articles involved in explaining wild horse history, especially time-line factors, simply repeat the narrow scope of rhetoric presumed as the only historical facts available.

Often these articles attest to research, but indeed are not researched what so ever, simply plagiarized material, and as a safety-net for many writers would have it – repeated information only. Most writer’s simply repeat the somewhat snobbish appeal of the European influence on Archeological finds, specifically about horses, existing nowhere else on our planet but within their European landscape – which, according to them, provided the availability of the wild horse in the America’s (i.e. other rhetorical reasons exist as well, but not mentioned here).

But what we find when perusing scientific research, the facts become overwhelming — evidence that directly opposes the European-only origination of the wild horse. These facts, by this writer’s perspective, creates many questions left unanswered to this day, regarding the matter of the real history of the wild horse and its indigenous nature on the American Continent (this article does not delve into American Indian petroglyphs, carvings, etc…).

Something not to be overlooked, ever — When there become more questions than available answers, that tells us, definably, there exists many things that have been overlooked or neglected within the specific subject and reference materials.

So we can explore such animals as the woolly mammoths, which lived in opened grassland biomes similar to the horse. Bones of wild horses also found within many archeological sites and right beside the woolly mammoth.

Not so ironic the above facts remain a controversy to this day. And yet the controversy not of the horse bones, rather it surrounds the fact of extinction of the woolly mammoth – ironically, no one mentions how the horse survived on this continent for centuries, even though horse bones appear at so many archeological dig-sites, abundantly so – remains one of many more questionable aspect of archeology and subjects to be debated within the science community in the future.

The Question Is?

Yes, controversy in regard to archeological digs, theories, and subject matter are not headline news. So when we see an article, in this case on wild horses and their indigenous nature questioned or stated firmly non-existent, but does not mention the controversy within the science community on the subject (e.g. many archeologist’ believe the indigenous nature of wild horses does exist quite readily in America), then we can assume a grave error committed in fact-collection and research – simply by “things overlooked in their research on the subject” – and then we, as the general public, become victims once again, of incompetence and misleading information.

As outlined within this article, “Wooly mammoth mass accumulation next to the Paleolithic Yana RHS site, Arctic Siberia: its geology, age, and relation to past human activity — Abstract — In 2001, the Yana RHS archaeological site was discovered in the lower Yana river valley, Arctic Siberia. Its radiocarbon age is about 28 000 BP. While enormous amount of Pleistocene mammal bones was excavated from the site, the mammoth bones occurred at an unexpectedly low frequency . . . That was interpreted as an indication of the limited role of mammoths in the subsistence economy of the Pleistocene Yana people. In 2008, next to the excavation local ivory miners opened a mass accumulation of mammoth accompanied by the artifacts. About one thousand mammoth bones from at least 26 individuals, and few wooly rhinoceros, bison, horse, reindeer, and bear bones have been unearthed there. Stratigraphy and radiocarbon dating provide evidence for cultural layer of Yana RHS and the mass accumulation of mammoth to be coeval.”

The truism often overlooked, that at these sites where they discover woolly mammoth bones, they also find horse bones, as stated by many archeologist’s, almost always . . . note how it was simply glossed-over as an insignificant yet attritional development that substantiates the woolly mammoth presence, and the other animals simply incremental details.

This occasion is consistent among many scientific and technical reports and journals. Many times the horse bones, as well as other animal bones and as mentioned previously, are in truth set aside information, although mentioned in the report on the mammoth; and just as often only mentioned in reference of proximity only – this, ironically, often overlooked by those who research the history of the horse, and disregard the timeline that the situation can and does establish, and very well I might add.

But this also establishes the fact of horses coming over the Land Bridge into the America’s, way back when. Then we go to the West Coast of the America’s, the Channel Islands off of the California Coast, and we find further information associated with woolly mammoth digs.

In the West we find bones of the pygmy woolly mammoth – “Summarizing the available radiocarbon chronology of the Channel Island Mammoths, it appears they have been on the islands, in pygmy form, essentially unchanged, for more than 47,000 years (beyond the limits of radiocarbon chronology). It also appears that they may have survived until the early Holocene colonization of the islands by the ancestors of the ancient Chumash people, first recorded between 10,800 and 11,300 years ago,” (i.e. Channel Islands (USA) pygmy mammoths (Mammuthus exilis) compared and contrasted with M. columbi, their continental ancestral stock).

The Woolly Mammoth and the Wild Horse

Whether the general mammoth population died out for climatic reasons or due to overhunting by humans is controversial (controversy discussed in “DNA Shifts Timeline For Mammoths’ Exit” and other science reports).

The fact is the wild horse and the mammoth had similar appetites’, grasses, et al. . . A small population survived on St. Paul Island, Alaska, up until 3750 BC, and the small mammoths of Wrangle Island survived until 1650 BC. Recent research of sediments in Alaska indicates wooly mammoths (i.e. wild horse bones found there as well) survived on the American mainland, but the dates remain controversial – the fact wild horse bones found at these sites simply ignored, as once again the abrupt arrogance of subject matter, more plausible and certain to be published in science journals when highlighting the wooly mammoth rather than the wild horse bones . . .

“Causes of late Quaternary extinctions of large mammals (“megafauna”) continue to be debated, especially for continental losses, because spatial and temporal patterns of extinction are poorly known. Accurate latest appearance dates (LADs) for such taxa are critical for interpreting the process of extinction. The extinction of woolly mammoth and horse in northwestern North America is currently placed at 15,000–13,000 calendar years before present (yr BP), based on LADs from dating surveys of macrofossils (bones and teeth). . . “ (i.e. “Ancient DNA reveals late survival of mammoth and horse in interior Alaska” ).”

Conclusion or The Beginning

So once again the definitive-history is not that at all, but remains controversial. Perhaps the point of this article, when perusing these facts as well, and on your own, you will find several “theories” in regard to the history of the wild horse.

“Theory” remains the key word here, because within the science community, new discoveries and better methodology in establishing time-frames and establishing historical elements of our past develop new perspectives of our past quite often. Only then are new theories developed, then perhaps accepted or not. . . what an odd way to develop history . . .

The history of America’s wild horses’ fall quite nicely within this categorical demise of the old rhetoric, in order to replace the misinformation with the not so much new information at all — but with perseverance to actually study the overall consistent information that already exists within technical and archeological reports, but oh so often overlooked – after all, nobody wants to make waves within our society of today – OR DO WE? It’s past time to do so!

______________________________
REFERENCES

Agenbroad, L.D. 1994. Taxonomy of North American Mammuthus columbi and biometrics of the Hot Springs mammoths. In Agenbroad, L. D. and J. I. Mead (eds.), The Hot Springs Mammoth Site: a decade of field and laboratory research in paleontology, geology, and paleontology: 158-207. The Mammoth Site of Hot Springs, South Dakota, Inc. Hot Springs.

Agenbroad, L.D. 1998. New pygmy mammoth (Mammuthus exilis) localities and radiocarbon dates from San Miguel, Santa Rosa, and Santa Cruz Islands, California. In Weigand, P. (ed.), Contributions to the geology of the Northern Channel Islands, Southern California: 169-175. Bakersfield: Pacific Section of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists.

Agenbroad, L.D., Morris, D. & Roth., V.L. 1999. Pygmy mammoths (M. exilis) from Santa Rosa Island, Channel Islands National Park, California, USA. In Haynes, G., J. Klimowicz and W.F. Reumer (eds.), Mammoths and the Mammoth Fauna: studies of an extinct ecosystem. Proceedings of the First International Mammoth Conference. Deinsea 6: 89-102. St. Petersburg, Russia.

Arslanov, K., Cook, G.T. , Gulliksen, S., Harkness, D.D., Kankainen, T., Scott, E.M., Vartanyan, S., and Zaitseva, G.I. (1998). “Consensus Dating of Remains from Wrangel Island”. Radiocarbon 40 (1): 289–294. Retrieved 2012-03-07.

Vartanyan, S.L.; Kh. A. Arslanov; T. V. Tertychnaya; S. B. Chernov (1995). “Radiocarbon Dating Evidence for Mammoths on Wrangel Island, Arctic Ocean, until 2000 BC”. Radiocarbon (Department of Geosciences, The University of Arizona) 37 (1): pp 1–6. Retrieved 2008-01-10.

Cushing, J.E., Wenner, A.M., Noble, E. & Daly, M. 1986. A groundwater hypothesis for the origin of ‘fire areas’ on the Northern Channel Islands, California. Quaternary Research 26: 207-217.

Haile J, Froese DG, Macphee RD, et al. (December 2009). “Ancient DNA reveals late survival of mammoth and horse in interior Alaska”. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 106 (52): 22352–7. Bibcode:2009PNAS..10622352H. doi:10.1073/pnas.0912510106. PMC 2795395. PMID 20018740. Retrieved 2012-03-07.

Foster, J.B. 1964. Evolution of mammals on islands. Nature 202: 234-235. Mol, D. 1995. Over dwergolifanten endwergmammoeten. Cranium 12: 38-40. Orr, P. 1956. Dwarf mammoths and man on Santa Rosa Island. University of Utah Anthropological Papers 26: 75-81.

Fountain, Henry (22 December 2009). “DNA Shifts Timeline For Mammoths’ Exit”. The New York Times. p. 3. Retrieved 8 August 2010.

Orr, P. 1968. Prehistory of Santa Rosa Island. Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History.
Roth, V.L. 1982. Dwarf mammoth from the Santa Barbara, California Channel Islands: size, shape, development, and evolution. Ph.D. dissertation. New Haven:Yale University.

Roth, V.L. 1996. Pleistocene dwarf elephants from the California Islands. In Shoshani, J. H. and P. Tassy (eds.), The Proboscidea: 249-253. Oxford: University of Oxford Press.

Sondaar, P.Y. 1977. Insularity and its effect on mammal evolution. In Hecht, M.K., P.C. Goody and B.M. Hecht (eds.), Major patterns in vertebrate evolution. NATO Advanced Studies Institute Series 14: 671-707. Stearns, R.E.C. 1973. (brief note) Proceedings of the California Academy of Sciences 5: 152.

Stock, C. & Furlong, E.L. 1928. The Pleistocene elephants of Santa Rosa Island, California. Science LXVIII: 140-141.

Tikhonov, A. 1997. (brief note) Zoological Institute Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg, Russia. Department of History of Fauna. Euromam Newsletter 4: 14-15. Wenner, A.M., Cushing, J., Noble, E. & Daly, M. 1991.
Mammoth radiocarbon dates from the northern Channel Islands, California. Proceedings of the Society for California Archaeology 4: 1-6.

“The Endangered Species Act is the strongest and most effective tool we have to repair the environmental harm that is causing a species to decline.” Unknown

There is a lot going on in the Wild Horse world of today. Keep in mind one person or one organization cannot, and should not have the ability to develop regulatory systems of management. Many debates exist today on how to legitimately control horse populations on Public Lands – and these many ideas overlook the most significant – Natural Progression.

Often many people and organizations, in order to present their awkward at best agenda, promote a “Styled” population control methodology, that in reality and over the years gave cause to the current mess that exists. A natural habitat, as science finds over and over again, creates population control within a natural circumstance.
But the question remains, how can we protect the Wild Horses in America and on our Public Lands? It is a process, since we as human’s require a process for just about everything we do, which most often stifle’s nature’s natural ability to manage things on its own. We humans have the ability to simply scoff at nature, and not so ironic pretend that we know how to manage nature better than nature does.

We see the results of this particular mind-set daily. Engineers and Accountants slap each other on the back with congratulations at their dynamic designs – which often do nothing more than destroy many natural environments (for profit – e.g. Fracking or oil platforms both terrestrial and marine good examples, but the list is vast).

So onward we go, and when the mention of allowing Wild Horses within a natural habitat to prosper within a natural progression and biosphere, it is shunned ignorantly at best. And yet, within America’s Public Lands it is Grazing Permits of cattle that have shoved Wild Horses into smaller biosphere’s, combined with a government’s lack of knowledge of Wild Horse Herd Management, that have indeed destroyed the natural progression of our Wild Horse populations; which in turn have created Wild Horse Herd overpopulation – but the reality – there exists very few left on our Public Lands.

But the numbers of Wild Horses taken from Public Lands overwhelmingly show beyond doubt, that if continued – in a short time period there will not be any Wild Horse’s left on America’s Public Lands. America’s Heritage Wiped-Out due to Stupidity and an overwhelming Know-It-All-Attitude; that has only created a worse situation, ten times more costly to taxpayer’s as well, that would NOT have happened if the Wild Horse Herds were simply left alone, or to nature’s own means of methodology.

The fact is this – Everything on this planet of our does not have to be managed. Humans have screwed up just about everything we have attempted to manage! The reality is human greed and self-importance has corrupted our natural environment, and is currently destroying it as well.

Endangered Species Act

“If education really educates, there will, in time, be more and more citizens who understand that relics of the old West add meaning and value to the new. Youth yet unborn will pole up the Missouri with Lewis and Clark, or climb the Sierras with James Capen Adams, and each generation in turn will ask: Where is the big white bear? It will be a sorry answer to say he went under while conservationists weren’t looking.” Aldo Leopold, Sand County Almanac

America has the Endangered Species Act. This is a situation that essentially defines whether or not we have managed a species correctly, or handled the situation within an incompetent manner – yes, disregarding the jurisprudence of legal fact, what is left to us is the reality – We as human’s have mismanaged wildlife due to our overwhelming ignorance and often even hatred or apathy toward many select species – the Wild Horse Herds on America’s Public Lands no different — thereby the ESA put into place to clean up our mess of our own creation!

Right now it is Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act that needs our attention. It outlines the requirements for a species to become listed, and according to Law – Protected.

SEC. 4. (a) GENERAL.—

The Secretary shall by regulation promulgated in accordance with subsection (b) determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened species because of any of the following factors:

(A) the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
(C) disease or predation;
(D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.

With respect to any species over which program responsibilities have been vested in the Secretary of Commerce pursuant to Reorganization Plan Numbered 4 of 1970—

(A) in any case in which the Secretary of Commerce determines that such species should—
(i) be listed as an endangered species or a threatened species, or
(ii) be changed in status from a threatened species to an endangered species,
he shall so inform the Secretary of the Interior, who shall list such species in accordance with this section –

ESA Process In Review (Summation of Government Documentation)

Section 4 is the most extensive part of the Endangered Species Act. It spans a spectrum of activities beginning with how we identify species in need of the ESA’s protection, to their removal from the lists of endangered and threatened species, once recovery goals are achieved.

Whether initiated by the Service, or by concerned citizens, listing a species is not an arbitrary process. In order to evaluate whether a plant or animal should be listed as endangered or threatened, five factors are considered using the best scientific and commercial information available.

The process of listing a species is initiated in two ways. In the first process by which species may receive protection under the Endangered Species Act, the Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service identify species for listing through internal assessment of their status.

These assessments routinely incorporate information from scientific literature, Federal and State natural resource agencies, universities, and commercial sources.

If the assessment concludes that there is sufficient information on a species’ biological vulnerability and level of exposure to threats to justify listing, a proposed rule to list the species will be developed.

However, if the development of a proposed rule is precluded by other higher priority listing activities, the species becomes a candidate for listing until such time as a proposed rule can be prepared.

Candidate species are identified in a document called the Candidate Notice of Review, published annually in the Federal Register.

Identification of candidate species and the threats affecting them assists environmental planning efforts in the following ways:

• by providing advance notice of potential listings;
• prompting landowners and resource managers to alleviate threats; and
• possibly conserving these species so that listing is unnecessary.

Candidate species do not receive any protection under the ESA, but are nevertheless a high conservation priority for the Service.

If a candidate species is subsequently listed, the information provided in the Candidate Notice of Review will have identified threats and can help guide specific actions for the species’ recovery.

The other way that plants and animals may receive the protections of the Endangered Species Act is by a request from a private citizen or organization that petitions the Fish and Wildlife Service, or the National Marine Fisheries Service to list a species.

The petition must provide appropriate documentation of the reasons a plant or animal needs the ESA’s protection.

To the maximum extent practical, within 90 days of receiving the petition, the Services make an initial response or finding and publish it in the Federal Register.

This 90-day finding has two possible outcomes:

If the Service determines that the petition does not present substantial information indicating that the petitioned actions may be warranted, the listing process stops;

The 90-day finding may conclude that the petition presents substantial information indicating that a listing action may be warranted.

In this second scenario, the Service proceeds with the listing process by collecting and evaluating additional information about the species for a 12-month petition finding.

In developing the 12-month finding, the Service conducts a status review that includes seeking additional information about the species from other Federal agencies, States, Tribes, natural resource organizations, universities, commercial sources, and the public.

The objective is to compile as much information about the species and its status as possible, and make a determination whether the species meets the definition of threatened or endangered.

The 12-month finding has three possible outcomes:

If the Service determines listing is not warranted, the process stops;
If the Service determines that listing is warranted, the next step is the preparation of a proposed rule to list the species;
When the proposed rule is published in the Federal Register, the general public is invited to provide comments, and peer review is conducted.

If it is determined that a species needs protection under the ESA, a final rule is published in the Federal Register within the next year.

It is the publication of a final rule that places a species on the lists of endangered and threatened animals and plants.

Sometimes there are not enough budgetary or staff resources to proceed further in the listing process than the 12-month finding, in light of other species that have greater conservation needs and take higher priority for listing.

In these instances, the 12-month finding may conclude that a listing is warranted but precluded by higher listing priorities.

In these situations, a species is considered a candidate for listing.

Thus, whether originating by internal agency status reviews or the petition process, species of plants or animals that warrant listing but are precluded from completing that process due to higher priority listing actions are referred to by the Services as candidate species.

And again, while these candidate species receive no protection under the ESA, a key goal of the Services’ candidate conservation efforts is to encourage actions that will preclude the need to list these species.

To assist this effort, both the Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service have developed programs to begin conserving these species while they are waiting to be listed.

Removing or reducing threats to candidate plants and animals is accomplished through specific conservation actions.
Often, these actions are identified in conservation agreements.

Our partners for these agreements are usually other Federal agencies, States, or individual landowners who have an appreciation of our nation’s biological heritage and a desire to be part of the solution to a species’ problems.

Restoring candidate species to ecological health also has the advantage of not being regulatory in approach and generally is less expensive than recovering species and their habitats, once listed.

Though we have discussed the petition process as it applies to listing a species, under the ESA the Services may also be petitioned to delist or reclassify threatened and endangered species, and to revise critical habitat.

Conclusion

As exemplified above, once again we run across the not so complimentary “Process” that simply conducts on odd strain of chaos toward “Humankind versus Nature” syndrome. Whether or not the Wild Horse Herds fit within this context of meandering special interest situations (or those in opposition) as outlined within this process, it will remain a due-diligence matter of concern.

In this journalists’ mind it is an odd situation for several reasons, but first and foremost remains the “reality” — the numbers of Wild Horses are diminishing rapidly. Due to present numbers, it is quite obvious something has to be done; whether within our “human” process of articulating the matter into being significant — or following a process of priority within a cold and arbitrary reasoning methodology toward listing them as Endangered.

But no matter the ideology, America’s Heritage, the Wild Horses on our Public Lands are endangered – and this writer needs no prescribed process to acknowledge this critical situation.

Frankly, many American’s have had enough of those who manage our Public Land and America’s wildlife by those who either have no idea on how to manage either situation, or profoundly conduct their decision making arbitrarily toward lobby groups or political agenda.

The time is NOW, for American’s to Stand and make those responsible for managing America’s Lands’ just that, making them America’s Lands’ rather than corporate land!