In the discussion on wild horse management, who do you most agree with and why?

by Catherine Russell, almost 3 years ago
Over the course of the consultation we have heard from a wide range of people on the management of wild horses in the Snowy Mountains including rangers, ecologist, people rehoming brumbies, the RSPCA, local helicopter pilot, documentary maker, a bushwalker, mountain horsemen and women, to acknowledge a few. In this our final forum for the online consultation we ask: Who do you most identify or agree with when it comes to the protection of the park and wild horse management?Watch the full 34 videos on the Protecting the Snowies playlist.

You need to be signed in to add your comment.

comment
Reply notification settings
Submitting your comment
Cancel
C K M Jackson about 3 years ago
Happy for the power at be to "Control"the numbers however a complete removal would be a political statement not nesecerally what the greater majority of people actually want. I have read some real passion from all sides in this debate however all too often opinions are all one way - people want it all their way which is just not the way we should be thinking.I have ridden my horse in this country most of my life, seen countless numbers of Brumby's, yes Brumby's - that is what they are called in Australia!!! and i can say without hesitation i am as Green as the next person. I want this country managed to protect it for the generations to come, My 7yo daughter has been riding with me in this country since she was about 3yo and loves the bush, has a connection to it that most just don't understand', has seen country most people only see in photos and has watched and learnt from the country and Brumby's things that just cant be taught in a school. Control the Brumby's yes, but don't Kill our heritage and a magnificent animal that if you take all the greed, political persuasion, power plays, one sided studies etc. away - can exist in the High / Snowy River Country in a controlled manner. We are also involving people form a text book and excluding those who have spent their entire live living, loving and breathing this country and because they are pro horse are discarded - lets have a really hard think about it!!
gerg1400 about 3 years ago
Yes I also agree with CKM Jackson. I love the country and its environment but it has the capacity to support a number of brumbies
Eloally 17 days ago
I think as part of Australia historical animal horses should stay protected and a way they are. They are part of national park more than humans are and as in every ecosystem they are vital part of it. There is not many places left in the world where wild horses run and as they don’t eat farmers crops or wreck someone’s yard they should be left a way they are. We have already driven a lot of nature back by building cities and extending our human activity as much as we need. I think it’s amazing that horses live up there and no shooting shouldn’t be allowed not areal not ground it’s cruel. We are already killing enough wildlife as it is. I think they should be counted first to see what are actual numbers and if culling is needed then to exploit it on old, weak and unhealthy horses. Some should be rehomed and main numbers should stay there. People who say they cause so much damage for area are wrong they are part of ecosystem as much as any other living organism up there.
Perplexed about 3 years ago
I think there have been some very valid points and issues made from all sides of this complex and controversial issue and it has made me better informed and consider where I sit. I agree with many different facets of individuals contributions, but I do not fully agree with just about any of them, and there are many which I believe are blinded by their passions to the point of not being able to rationally reassess their views.I respect the passion and belief that the horse lovers and animal liberationists have for the horses and their right to exist in the park, but ask them to consider that many others have the same passion and belief to protect our defensless native species and native environment particularly in the areas where it is legally set aside to do so. I respect the sceptics who question the science and evidence but ask them to consider that maybe they should leave it to people who have the expertise and understand the math, and that most scientists are not conspirators. I respect the managers and the bind that they are in trying to please their political masters and everyone in the community who has an opinion on this issue, but ask them to consider that it may not be possible, but openess and involvement of the community goes a long way. I respect the mountain high country heritage proponents calls for a return to traditional management approach, but ask them to consider that theirs is not the only heritage that needs to be considered and many others in the community have as strong if not different tie to this land as well, and maybe society has moved on as to what is acceptable as a traditional practices. I respect the fervent greens and scientists call for strong control or eradication to try and save native species , resources and money, but ask them to consider that there is an important human and community element that needs to be taken into account on this issue as well, and that non science knowledge may have something to offer on this issue as well. There in lies the problem, in that you are probably never likely to get full agreement on this issue so it will require compromise therefore there will always be someone disastisfied, complaining about the outcome and claiming conspiracy or a better way, and the media and those with other political agendas will play to this controversy. Hopefully we can find some balance accept that none of us are going to completely get our ideal outcome here and move on.
gerg1400 about 3 years ago
Peter F about 2 years ago
Great post. It's a very emotionally loaded issue and any action will have tricky politics attached. It seems to me, however, that we already have a compromise: most of the country is farmland where you can keep horses, a small percentage is National Parks where you can't. There are also deer, cats, foxes and pigs in the park which should be dealt with very sternly. We could probably achieve total elimination of deer and horses, make serious inroads on the pigs and thin out the cats and foxes. Imagine how much more alive the Park would be if we did that!
Peter F about 2 years ago
I think we should do our very best to make National Parks places where native animals can thrive. Given that horses are not native, and that they cause a lot of damage, they should be removed entirely. We don't run cattle in the mountains any more, so why do we let horses in there? Same kind of beast. The main objection seems to be that people like horses. Good. Me too. But they should be kept in horse farms, not national parks. Rounding up and re-homing hasn't really worked, so its probably time, unpleasant as it seems, for a very thorough campaign of aerial shooting.
Themba about 3 years ago
I most identify with and agree with the people rehoming the Brumbies. These people are doing all they can to ensure our unique mountain brumbies survive for future generations without any assistance from the government. They have put forward some very strong reasons for why the horses should remain as a presence in the park, why they should be treated humanely (not just relatively humanely) and how these horses provide a positive influence on the park. The parks people and others who assist with the rehoming of the Brumbies should also be recognised and thanked for supporting this non lethal management of Australia's heritage horses.