Are mustangs merely horses?

Image via Wikipedia

I just finished this month's issue of National Geographic Magazine and find, among other interesting or informative articles, a [story](http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2009/02/wild-horses/fuller-text/1) about mustangs in America's Old West especially thought-provoking. The article mourns about the shrinking habitat for mustangs ("wild horses" or feral horses) and possible loss of a valuable animal (I would reserve in saying it unique) and the spirit behind it.

The preservation of mustangs in my opinion has a larger symbolic purpose rather than a biological or ecological one. As pointed out in the NG article, the mustangs may very likely be the descendant of horses brought by Spanish *conquista* c. 1519. Genetically they may have little or none difference from the original Iberian species or other domestic species produced in the U.S. later. Preserve mustangs therefore is saving meme instead of saving gene, which is rare practice in animal conservation. Considering the huge investment in the conservation of mustangs, I think I have the right to ask as a by-stander: why don't the U.S. put the money to some better conservation use?

The difficulty in conservation lies in mustang's impressive ability to reproduce and extremely limited "wild" habitats nowadays. The authorization did what they can to control the total number of mustangs in the wild so as to make sure they do not graze the grassland into deserts and themselves to death. But this is criticized by people for reducing viability of the wild population. Some other people say that the population should be taken care of by Nature, to live the way they are supposed to be. However, such romantic imagination of Nature may not work in reality, as the habitat is so small and fragmented. All these creates a typical dilemma if you insist that mustangs are indeed a distinctive species that needs protection. Defeatist as it may sound like, I think feral horses should be left by themselves like feral dogs, and [euthanized](http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/AmazingAnimals/wireStory?id=6261967) in a controlled manner if necessary.

Image via Wikipedia

All this talk because mustangs are not genetically distinctive to be called as a species. On the other hand, it may sound tyrannical, even unethical, to judge an animal's conservation value merely by their genes. As a population, mustangs do have their culture values that cannot be replaced by purely domestic horses, despite their identical genes. This is just like the value of most human populations is not their genetic uniqueness, but their culture. But to extend the analogy a bit further, we can easily find that the unsuccessful strategy used to conserve mustangs is deemed to be a failure just like such a strategy used to protect a culture. You cannot protect a human population by taking samples from them regularly and put them in a so-called reserved area. The only way for a mustang or human population to be viable is to guarantee them the way of life they are used to and deserve. Different from protecting a human population, it is ethical and necessary to cull existing mustang population and re-introduce their predators into the wildness of the west. As it was mankind who broke the coyote/wolf-horse equilibrium out of balance, now mankind also have the duty to re-introduce the equilibrium, or at least create a human-horse equilibrium, i.e. artificially control mustang population. Failing to do that, all efforts to preserve mustang population and culture would be self-defeating.

To make the equilibrium happen, and to serve other many important ends, it is of paramount importance to conserve a valid wildness. It may not be free from human interference, but should be able to support a viable wild horse population and the ecosystem they are in. Indeed, the need to preserve mustang culture can be itself an emotionally powerful driver for advocating conservation of habitats. But if local stakeholders finds the idea of saving mustangs not so appealing, maybe the authorization can a) find another proxy wildlife to achieve the same goal, or b) persuade local people to accept mustangs as a healthy symbol and a worthy backup gene bank that can be used to strengthen their own livestock. Option (b) seems to be an easier way, and the NG article no doubt does it good.

Now I can't help thinking, if we Chinese linked Chinese sturgeon *Acipenser sinensis* with something more meaningful rather than saying in our dictionaries that it is edible, perhaps Yangtze River as an important habitat would be better protected.