icefest wrote:http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/whbprogram/history_and_facts/quick_facts.htmm
But also not real wild horses, just feral domestic ones.
I have forgotten where I saw that, but I believe it is correct.Giddy_up wrote:That number of 40,000 can't be correct?
Well, if you travel in KNP in some areas, you do see horses everywhere. Driving up the Long Plain road, you are likely to see several hundred just beside the road, and most of the horses keep away from the roads and tracks.Giddy_up wrote:40,000 horses with a growth rate of 20% would mean 97,000 horses in 5 years!!!!!!!
Kosciusko NP is 1,600,000 acres or 40km X 40 km roughly. That final figure would mean a horse standing on every 17 acres or so. They would be every where, in the villages on the roads, in the car parks every where. You would visually see mobs of horses numbering in the 1000's whilst you were getting on a chairlift!!!!!
I hope you will say that on the web site. Whatever the number of horses, they are still a problem.Just does not add up sorry, and despite my username, I hate horses with a passion.
Giddy_up wrote:That number of 40,000 can't be correct?
Giddy_up wrote:KNP had 1,700 as estimated by parks in 2005. Even if the horses had triplets they could not now have numbers of 40,000.
davidmorr wrote:According to one of the comments on the site, there is an aerial survey being done now as a part of this process. This will determine the actual numbers of horses once and for all.
Giddy_up wrote:davidmorr wrote:According to one of the comments on the site, there is an aerial survey being done now as a part of this process. This will determine the actual numbers of horses once and for all.
Yes I read that there was a new survey being done. It will be interesting to see what numbers do get put out, but one must assume that all the maths that was applied in the 2008 report must still be applied to the current census. Its will take intervention of the highest order (loaves and fishes) to achieve 40,000 horses in KNP, which is the area in question.
Giddy_up wrote:KNP had 1,700 as estimated by parks in 2005. Even if the horses had triplets they could not now have numbers of 40,000.
How do you know they are wrong? You admit that no-one knows the true numbers.Giddy_up wrote:My point is that numbers have been quoted that at best are misleading, worst.....horses..t.
davidmorr wrote:How do you know they are wrong? You admit that no-one knows the true numbers.Giddy_up wrote:My point is that numbers have been quoted that at best are misleading, worst.....horses..t.
And is this any different from the horse lobby using heritage and the phoney romance of the br*mb* to advance their cause? Just because there were a few in the high country 100 years ago, does that mean we should never, ever remove any?
BTW, are you challenging the horse people in the conversations on their romantic notions as much as you are challenging the numbers here?
icefest wrote:My 40k number is in regards to Mustangs in the USA. I don't think there is a recent estimate for feral horses in the alpine area (1700 in 2005) - nor for Australia-wide numbers (400,000, 2006).
This was my post, directed at another commenter, with my opinion at the end:
From: https://engage.environment.nsw.gov.au/p ... ional-park
Giddy_up wrote:
Not questioning your 40k number icefest, I read that report and understood it for what is was. I do how ever have a problem with the davidmorr number and its application to the 2008 Horse Management Plan for KNP.
walkon wrote:Giddy_up wrote:
Not questioning your 40k number icefest, I read that report and understood it for what is was. I do how ever have a problem with the davidmorr number and its application to the 2008 Horse Management Plan for KNP.
Then what are you really questioning? If you are standing by the horse lobby that wants them to remain just say so and make your intentions clear. Right now all I read is that you are concerned with the number count and with the result of smashing a Walnut with a sledge hammer. I can't see anyone being impassioned with that argument
icefest wrote:The number stated by davidmorr in the opening post.
Giddy_up wrote:walkon wrote:Giddy_up wrote:
Not questioning your 40k number icefest, I read that report and understood it for what is was. I do how ever have a problem with the davidmorr number and its application to the 2008 Horse Management Plan for KNP.
Then what are you really questioning? If you are standing by the horse lobby that wants them to remain just say so and make your intentions clear. Right now all I read is that you are concerned with the number count and with the result of smashing a Walnut with a sledge hammer. I can't see anyone being impassioned with that argument
Go back to the original post walkon and then read all of them.
davidmorr wrote:
What is more important to consider- the estimated population of wild horses or the impact of wild horses on the National Park? .
walkon wrote:Google it, look it up on the nsw parks site, plenty of references there. Sorry if I have put you in the wrong camp but that is the line that they are pushing, it has forced parks into another head count at a cost and stymied the debate, sick of the same old.
Return to Bushwalking Discussion
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests