Editorial

U.S. JUDGE RULED WISELY IN SUIT ON WILD HORSES

This article comes from our electronic archive and has not been reviewed. It may contain glitches.

Without knowing it, wild horses that roam the rugged terrain of Shannon County are even more unbridled these days. Last week, a U.S. District Court judge barred the National Park Service from removing what Missouri Humane Society officials believe are the last wild horses east of the Rocky Mountains. We agree with the judge for reasons that are aesthetic, cultural and bureaucratic. Let the wild horses remain so.

While there are varied accountings, the court proceedings revealed that there are perhaps 20 animals at issue. A long-running legal dispute (a restraining order stalling the removal was issued in February 1991) might seem much ado about so few horses. However, there are some fundamental principles involved in leaving the horses as they are. And there is some common sense that goes along with those principles.

U.S. District Judge Stephen Limbaugh agreed with plaintiffs in the case that the animals are not detrimental to the Ozark National Scenic Riverways and its resources. Park Service officials claimed otherwise, also maintaining the horses are an "exotic species" that warrant removal. Limbaugh used eloquent logic and a dependable calculator to make a compelling point: 20 horses on nearly 70,000 acres of federal property mean there is one horse per 3,500 acres, hardly a scenario that would result in extensive damage to public lands. The Park Service and its contracted horse eradicators would be more intrusive.

So, why was the removal ordered? Given the facts, the Park Service should have known better.

Plaintiffs in the case are residents of the region affected. Other people of that area associated as the Missouri Wild Horses League, which joined in the fight to halt the Park Service action. If people of the Ozarks see no harm coming from gypsy horses, why should an agency based in Washington?

By more carefully reviewing the desires of the region's people and the minimal damage caused by the horses, the Park Service might have realized that inaction was the most cost-efficient path. As it was, riverways administrators contracted with a Van Buren man to round up the horses at $300 a head. For the 20 horses involved, the government would have spent $6,000, admittedly a puny amount in context of the entire Park Service budget (and likewise meager in context of conducting and defending this lawsuit). Still, it is $6,000 spent for no positive or sensible end, and a cost that gives us insight into larger enterprises of misguided federal expenditures. We look at it, even this relatively small amount of money, and wonder, "Is this waste necessary?"

The people of the region, as Limbaugh pointed out, regard the horses as cultural resources, a part of the Ozark heritage. "No one questions that the horses ran wild before the creation of the park," the judge said. As such, it should be the Park Service's course now to no longer plan for the removal of the animals but take suitable action for their protection.

The Park Service's miscalculations in this issue were abundant. There was no reason for the government agency to remove the horses. The federal judge ruled wisely in stopping this undertaking.