Knowing the area, here are a couple of contextual things. I’m still not sure how I feel, but I will form an opinion when I read the article closer.
1. Feral horses probably have not been in this area 500 years. It was settled much later and it is unlikely horses found their way up into this area or were released in this area prior to 1900.
2. The Southwest is in a prolonged drought and certainly 400 horses would put a burden on the ecosystem of the white mountains, especially if they were in the Alpine area. You have a large elk population here as well.
3. If they are tearing up the streams, the wild trout that live in them will suffer from that.
4. There is very little that can outcompete a horse in this area and so they’re population will continue to grow and push out other large species.
That said, I might be for reducing the population and holding it there. I’m just not sure at this time.
“or were released in this area prior to 1900”
Nah, the Apache were there for centuries and they had horses in the 19th century. Whether there were a bunch of them around Hannagan’s meadow or down the Blue is maybe less obvious, but they were definitely around.
Horses came up with the Spanish in the 1640’s, local tribal terrorists had their own within minutes of Spanish arrival.
More than likely the horses came off of the Fort Apache reservation
Fair comment about withholding judgement. I’m ignorant about the subject entirely.
However, WTF is a “feral” horse? Is this what we used to call a “wild horse”? Feral sounds BAD like feral cats are bad. Is there a difference between a wild horse and a feral horse?
(I do know that horses were not native to North America 500 years ago. But neither was the “jumping mouse” as far as we know.)