Talk:Mustang/Sandbox/Page2

History
(Prehistory and 1493-1600 section moved to main article per near-consensus)

17th and 18th century dispersal
(Section moved to mainspace per consensus)

You pretty much reverted all the changes I made after this was moved-all you kept was moving one paragraph. I didn't make substantial changes, so it would be more collaborative if, instead of just reverting, you change what you don't like and explain with edit summaries. Did you mean to also revert my additions to the "Further Reading" List? Because that seems pretty uncontroversial. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 00:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Basically, where I saw your changes, I realized you were right that there was room for improvement, but I saw a different way to get to the same place - to avoid overdoing endfootnotes if the material can fit into the main article narrative, I moved the Florida bit to the 15th century section, kept your repositioning of the other paragraph, but kept the McKnight 511 bit last, as it was intended to be a transition sentence to the 19th century section.   Montanabw (talk)  07:37, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I see the Florida bit as incidental to "mustang" so think it belongs as an endnote.
 * Well, it's not worth a big spat, and you correctly picked up that it was awk where I originally had it. So, rather than a long random endnote, I moved it into the rather light 16th century section, which fits better.  I suppose we could toss it totally, but given that Bennett's book noted the "mustangs came from Florida horses" bit as one of several myths (along with their descent from Coronado's expedition) that is apparently widespread in some circles, I figure it's a "teach the controversy" which is also why I popped it up there with Coronado...all the Florida-based myths in one place.    Montanabw (talk)  05:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The stuff in the current article under "History in the United States" is ultimately going to be replaced with what we are doing here, so I think it best to not put much work into that section. The stuff on the mesteñoros should be sandboxed here, as the whole concept of the "mustang-runner" runs throughout the entire period.  I'm not a fan of either what's in the article nor the new material added (I don't like to use jargon that is inconsistent with the rest of the article, for one thing) but let's sandbox both chunks into a section here and see what happens. We may need a separate article about these guys.  FWIW, I don't have access to Latta at all, if we don't need it, I'd say don't use it - seems a bit obscure anyway.   Montanabw (talk)  07:37, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The "jargon" is what is used by the source cited, which is a great source. What is currently in there was something someone copied from the cowboy article, which I wasn't really fond of either, but thought was okay in an endnote.


 * We probably need to say something like "people who rounded up feral mustangs were called various names, including mesteñoros, "mustangers", and "mustang runners" and so on... I'm OK with nothing the name, just that it sounds fakey to overuse Spanish beyond its actual use, just like saying "cowpuncher" sounds hokey and unacademic when discussing cowboys. The source appears to use both mesteñoros and mustanger (or mustang-runners), depending on which page you are looking at. Like I say, just write it here, and let's see what develops.  Montanabw (talk)  05:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


 * As for the "further reading" section, take a look at Further reading and WP:ELNO for general guidelines. The "don't put stuff in that could be an article source" rule is a good one; No sense putting in stuff until we are done and feel there is some significant work that can't fit into the article but is still relevant - "inclusion of a Further reading section is optional, and many good articles, and more than half of all featured articles, omit it entirely. This section is present in fewer than 3% of Wikipedia's articles."   If we can't use a work as a source, then we need to think through if there is a compelling reason to list it at all?   Montanabw (talk)  07:37, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Still, reverting it was not necessary. There was already a further reading list, and the two I put in there are works that are used as references in most of the works that are directly referenced.  I would go so far as to say that one or the other, and frequently both, are in ALL reliable sources subsequently published.  You seem to have an unfair bias against Roe, don't know why, you've stated you've never read his book, except indirectly through the sources that did.  Regardless, I am an equal partner in this collaboration.  You have been putting stuff in the article that I am not 100% in agreement with, but I've chosen to focus on what is important instead of quibbling over minor issues-at least until the article is fleshed out well enough that it is easier to see redundancies, conflicts and unclear passages.  I expect the same courtesy.  If, later in the collaboration, it becomes apparent that something needs to be changed again, fine, it's easy enough to do.  Lynn (SLW) (talk) 11:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Before I've moved in anything into the article mainspace, I have asked (I think two or three times in the case of the 17th-18th century bit) if you have objections to material and I try to address what you are raising.  Likewise, I hope to have the same opportunity.  We agree there is a need for the article to be "fleshed out well enough that it is easier to see redundancies, conflicts and unclear passages."  But the more we do here in the sandbox, the better.


 * What I am saying is that the "further reading" section (and similarly, the article lead) is something we can do at the very end if there is stuff that doesn't get used in the article that should be noted. And, I also read wikipedia guidelines to caution us against overdoing it.  Montanabw (talk)  05:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

IMHO, given our past level of conflict, we are collaborating surprisingly well. I'd like to continue doing so. So let's write, but maybe agree that most anything beyond typo fixing in the main article should occur with consensus. Onward! Montanabw (talk) 05:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay, but I'm going to leave this off by saying: In my opinion, reverting good-faith edits without discussion is initiating edit warring.  WP encourages editors to "be bold".  It doesn't hurt for edits to stay in an article for a few days while discussion takes place, and it fosters the environment of true collaboration, where everyone is on equal footing.  Lynn (SLW) (talk) 11:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Let's just get back to writing content, that was working. The relevant policy here is WP:BRD, be bold, revert, discuss. We've done that, so time to move forward   Montanabw (talk)  23:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Etymology/Mesteñoros sandbox
The English word mustang comes from the 16th-century Mexican Spanish word mestengo, defined as "animal that strays". It is derived from the Spanish word mestengo, defined as "wild, stray, ownerless".The Spanish word in turn may possibly originate from the Latin expression mixta, referring to beasts of uncertain ownership, which were distributed by rancher's associations called mestas in Spain in the Middle Ages. However, the adjective "mesteño", or "strayed" is commonly used as the Spanish version of "mustang". [cmt ]

"Mesteñoros" (Spanish or Mexican "wild horse catchers") were called "mustangers" "mustang runners", or "mustang hunters" in the USA. In New Spain and Old Mexico they were usually vaqueros who caught, broke, and drove free-roaming horses to market in the region of what today is Northern Mexico, Texas, New Mexico and California. They caught the horses that roamed the San Joaquin Valley of California and the Texas prairie. They were eventually joined by American mustangers, or "Cow Boys" who later also began capturing the mustangs of the Great Basin.

Since 1971, "free-roaming horses" has come to mean "unbranded and unclaimed horses...on public lands in the United States" subject to the Wild and Free Roaming Horse and Burro Act (W&FRH&BA), and the term is used interchangeably with "mustangs", "wild horses" or "feral horses". However, sources use the term "free-roaming" in a historical sense to describe any horse that was foraging on public rangelands.

It was about this time and place that the "mesteñeros" or mustangers began hunting and capturing the "mesteño" or mustang. [cmt ]

Discussion
I hadn't thought about adding it to the etymology section, but I like it. Added some tags and hidden text. With a wee bit more cleanup and clarification, it is close to ready if we put it there. Wondering if a spinoff article would also be a good idea, or maybe popping this into the cowboy article to replace the section there also. Montanabw (talk) 18:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think there's enough there to warrant a spinoff article. Replacing what is in the cowboy article isn't a bad idea. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 12:44, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

19th and early 20th centuries


Multiple writers concur that "millions" of mustangs once roamed western North America, but estimates and timeframe vary widely. In 1959, geographer Tom L. McKnight stated that the population peaked in the late 1700s or early 1800s, and the "best guesses apparently lie between two and five million". Historian J. Frank Dobie proposed that the population peaked around the end of the Mexican-American War in 1848, but with the caveat, "No scientific estimates of their numbers was made...My own guess is that at no time were there more than a million mustangs in Texas and no more than a million others scattered over the remainder of the West." J. Edward de Steiguer stated that Dobie's lower guess is still "subject to question" as to being too high.

In 1839, the numbers of mustangs in Texas had been augmented by animals abandoned by Mexican settlers who had been ordered to leave the Nueces Strip (also known as the "Wild Horse Desert" or "Mustang Desert" ). When the area was finally ceded to the U.S. in 1848, these horses and others in the surrounding areas were were rounded up and trailed north and east, resulting in the near elimination of mustangs in the Wild Horse Desert by 1860.

In the early 1900s hundreds of thousands of free-roaming horses were rounded up for use in the Boer War and WWI. By 1930, mustangs had been eliminated from Texas. In 1934, Dobie stated that there were just "a few wild [feral] horses in Nevada, Wyoming and other Western states...Only a trace of Spanish blood is left in most of them" remaining. Other sources agree that by that time, only "pockets" of "Spanish" mustangs remained. Even earlier, by 1920, cowboy Bob Brislawn had recognized that the original mustangs were disappearing, and was making an effort to preserve them, ultimately establishing the Spanish Mustang Registry.

At the same time large numbers of mustangs were documented in what was once called the Great American Desert in the early to mid 1800s, their paucity had been noted by early explorers in the largest of the true North American deserts, which is the Great Basin. No sources cited speak of any free-roaming horses documented in the eastern part of the Great Basin desert, however there were a few sightings along the western edge in Nevada. Jedediah Smith, in his 1827 trek across the Great Basin saw "some horse sign" along the West Walker River, but did not mention any actual horse sightings. The first known sighting of a free-roaming horse in the Great Basin was by John Bidwell near the Humboldt Sinks in 1841. Although Fremont noted thousands of horses in California, the only horse sign he spoke of in the Great Basin, which he named, was tracks around  Pyramid Lake, and the natives he encountered there were horseless  In 1861, another party saw seven free-roaming horses near the Stillwater Range.

For the most part, free-roaming horse herds in the interior of Nevada were established in the latter part of the 1800's from escaped settlers' horses (most notably draft horses ) As motorized vehicles and tractors became commonplace, horse populations on the range were no longer being kept in check by the ranchers removing them to sell or use, and they began to be rounded up to be slaughtered for chicken [? animal - dogfood also a use (started with chicken, then dog food)] food. Many herds descend from ranch stock because ranchers let horses to run free on the public domain rangelands to be rounded up as they needed them for sale or use.

1930-1971
By 1930, free-roaming horse populations in the western U.S. were almost completely confined to the remaining General Land Office(GLO) administered public lands and National Forest rangelands in the  11 Western States. The vast majority were found west of Continental Divide, with an estimated population between 50,000-150,000. Whether or not the population had diminished from the same geographic area is unknown since there are no scientific estimates for the earlier time period except for Amaral's assertion that there were 100,000 in Nevada (where half of the mustangs are found today and which features the horses on its State Quarter in commemoration of this) in 1900. However, the populations did go into decline when the federal government got into the act of reducing the free-roaming horse population.

After decades of unregulated cattle, sheep and horse grazing, the GLO-administered rangeland was becoming overgrazed, which had led to the passage of the 1934 Taylor Grazing Act. Its purpose was to “stop injury to the public lands by preventing over-grazing and soil deterioration; to provide for orderly use, improvement and development; to stabilize the livestock industry dependent upon the Public Range and for other purposes.” The U.S. Grazing Service was established to administer the Act. The Grazing Service began establishing grazing fees, and determined that the fee for grazing horses would be double that for cattle and sheep. Ranchers, many of whom had gone broke during the Great Depression, simply left their unpermitted horses on the range, and after the end of World War II, the demand for horsemeat for pet food increased the roundups. In 1946 the Grazing Service and the GLO were combined to create the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the BLM and the United States Forest Service (USFS) began to round up feral horses by the thousands for extermination, even though many ranchers objected to the eradication of "their" horses. By 1958, there were 14,810 to 29,620 mustangs remaining. During culls, abuses linked to some elimination methods (e.g. hunting from airplanes and poisoning water holes) led to the first federal feral horse protection law in 1959. This statute, known as the "Wild Horse Annie Act", prohibited the use of aircraft or motor vehicles for hunting "wild, unbranded" horses or polluting water sources.

Passage of the Wild Horse Annie Act did not alleviate the concerns of mustang advocates, who continued to lobby for federal rather than state control over the disposition of free-roaming horses. Since most horses in the desert regions recently descended from rancher's horses, ownership of the free-roaming herds was contentious, and ranchers continued to use airplanes to gather them Federal agencies also continued to try to eliminate horses from areas where the were perceived to be causing resource damage. In 1962, public pressure lead to the establishment of the Nevada Wild Horse Range, and in 1968, the Pryor Mountains Wild Horse Range was established. In 1969, the National Mustang Association, headquartered in Utah, persuaded Senator Frank Moss to introduce a bill (S-2166) to protect the remaining mustangs of Spanish descent under the Endangered Species Act of 1966. However, since the bill also called for the removal from public lands of all non-Spanish horses, it came under heavy opposition. Federal protection for all free-roaming horses was ultimately accomplished by the Wild and Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971(WFRHBA). The bill specifically stated: "A person claiming ownership of a horse or burro on the public lands shall be entitled to recover it only if recovery is permissible under the branding and estray laws of the State in which the animal is found." which alleviated the problem of horses being rounded up under the auspices of belonging to local ranchers. From that time on, a trespass fee authorized under the Taylor Grazing Act was enforced on ranchers who claimed ownership of horses on public lands if they did not have a permit and paid fees to graze them.

Post-Horse Protection Act
From the passage of the WFRH&BA in 1971 to the present, the BLM oversees the protection and management of mustang herds on lands it administers, while the USFS does so on the National Forests. A few free-ranging horses are also managed by the Fish and Wildlife Service and National Park Service. but for the most part they are not subject to management under the WFRH&BA. There were approximately 17,300 horses (25,300 horses and burros) on the BLM-administered lands and 2,039 on National Forests at the time of passage of the Act. The BLM has determined roughly 26,684 animals (horses and burros) to be the number that should be managed to be in compliance with the WFRHBA.

Geographic distribution
By the 21st century, the vast majority of free-roaming mustangs are found west of the Continental Divide. Roughly half are found in Nevada and most of the rest distributed across the rest of 10 western states in "herd management areas" (HMAs) with the largest of those populations in California, Oregon, Utah and Wyoming.

Characteristics
[cmt] The original mustangs were Colonial Spanish horses, but many other breeds and types of horses contributed to the modern mustang, resulting in varying phenotypes. Mustangs of all body types are described as surefooted and having good endurance. They may be of any coat color. Throughout all the BLM's HMAs, light riding horse type predominates, though a few horses with draft horse characteristics also exist (cite to Colorado and Idaho HMA), mostly kept separate from other mustangs and confined to specific areas.

[cmt] Genetic contributions to today's free-roaming mustang herds include assorted ranch horses that escaped to or were turned out on the public lands, and estray horses used by the United States Cavalry. For example, in Idaho some Herd Management Areas (HMA) contain animals with known descent from Thoroughbred and Quarter Horse stallions turned out with feral herds. The herds located in two HMAs in central Nevada produce Curly Horses. Others, such as certain bands in Wyoming, have characteristics consistent with gaited horse breeds.

[cmt] Several bands have had DNA testing and are verified to have significant Spanish ancestry. These include the Kiger Mustang, the Cerbat Mustang, and the Pryor Mountain Mustang. Horses in several other HMAs retain Spanish horse traits, including dun coloration and primitive markings.(additional sourcing) Other genetic herd studies, such as one done in 2002 on the bands in the Challis, Idaho area, show a very mixed blend of Spanish, North American gaited horse, draft horse and pony influences. A 2010 study of the Pryor herd also showed that those mustangs shared genetic traits with other domestic horse breeds, presenting strong evidence that modern "wild" horses were not descended from a prehistoric subspecies that had survived in North America from prehistoric times.

[cmt] The now-defunct American Mustang Association developed a breed standard for those mustangs that carry morphological traits associated with the early Spanish horses. These include a well-proportioned body with a clean, refined head with wide forehead and small muzzle. The facial profile may be straight or slightly convex. Withers are moderate in height and the shoulder is to be "long and sloping." The standard considers a very short back, deep girth and muscular coupling over the loins as desirable. The croup is rounded, neither too flat nor goose-rumped. The tail is low-set. The legs are to be straight and sound. Hooves are round and dense. Dun color and primitive markings are particularly common amongst horses of Spanish type. Height varies across the west, but most are small, generally, and not taller than , even in herds with draft or Thoroughbred ancestry.[cmt]

Spanish horses
The horses of Spain in the 15th century were known for their high quality. Some mustang herds in American still have Spanish genetics, though those with original genetics intact are rare and isolated. Some Colonial Spanish Horse breeds developed in the Americas are thought to have some ancestry from early Mustangs that came up from Mexico along the Gulf Coast. These include the Choctaw horse and the Chickasaw horse, though horses from Spanish Florida also contributed to those breeds.

The western Mustang herds that have clear phenotype of Spanish type, some verified by DNA testing, are:
 * Pryor Mountain Mustang
 * Kiger Horse
 * Sulphur Springs Mustang
 * Cerbat Mountain Mustang

Breeds with mustang ancestry
[presume this will be expanded to explain sources and links]
 * The Nez Perce people became horse breeders beginning in the early 1700s. They developed the leopard complex-spotted Appaloosa breed, though spotted horses were only about 10% of their original bloodstock.
 * Colonial Spanish Horse (includes horses in several registries, including the Spanish Mustang Registry which is the oldest.)
 * Curly horse
 * American Quarter Horse: Some Quarter Horse bloodlines originate with Thoroughbred stallions turned out with mares gathered from wild herds. Examples include the Steel Dust and King Ranch lines.
 * American Paint Horse, while today a breed that is based on recorded Quarter Horse and Thoroughbred bloodlines, the pinto coloration of the breed originates with the original Colonial Spanish horse.

Discussion
Glad you're liking the map more! I'll play with it more this week, figure out how to make arrows, play with the colors and put on the arrival years.


 * Probably don't need as many dates as Haines used, probably won't fit, but hit the major ones. A hack I use because I don't have photoshop and am just stuck with a basic draw program is to make a teeny-tiny straight line with an arrow (which is the same size no matter the length of line, it's based on line thickness) and pop it over the top of the relevant spot where I want it...  Montanabw (talk)  16:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm using an actual cartographic program, but I'm not an expert in it. I'll figure out how to make it work.Lynn (SLW) (talk) 17:29, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Good luck, then. I actually do think the map is going to be an excellent addition to the article, and I've had enough problems working with computer graphics in general to respect the time and effort it takes to create these.   Montanabw (talk)  18:02, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I rearranged the history section a little bit. There's some overlap in the years because of the different histories of the original Spanish mustangs and the modern ones. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 15:28, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I put foo in the date section headings, as I think that researching the patterns may change how this breaks down, and I also think this will, eventually, get rid of the overlap. I already moved some stuff from one section to the other.  Based in the sources stating that the bloodstock for USA mustangs most likely first originated out of the Santa Fe area, I took 1600 as one cutoff date, based on Oñate showing up there in 1598.  (I also don't care if you want to change 1600 to 1598, round numbers just looked better).   Montanabw (talk)  16:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah but they didn't really start being dispersed from Santa Fe until about 1675-the Pueblo revolt. Then, by 1790, they had made to to Texas, and further out late on.Lynn (SLW) (talk) 17:29, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The Pueblo revolt appears to have given a big boost, yes, but Haines indicates Indian horse culture evidence by 1650 and his map shows horses in the north even earlier. Though I need a better source, this indicates that the Shoshone were a horse culture by 1730, and in the Northern Plains.  Found a new source stating that raiding by the Comanche dates to 1659 and the Pawnee had horses by 1680.  Texas must have been a latecomer to the party.   Frankly, that's another good reason to include the Continental divide on the map, it appears that North-South distribution happened more easily than east-west distribution.   Montanabw (talk)  18:14, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Ooops. I meant that Texas had horses by 1690.  As far as the Shoshone, they probably got horses from two sources.  The Wind River group probably got them from the Comanche, who would have taken them north along the Colorado front range.  The Wind River Shoshone ranged on both side of the Continental Divide, probably making use of South Pass, and had given rise to the Comanche.  The Lemhi Shoshone (the ones Lewis and Clark encountered) were further west, in the Snake River country (they were also known as "Snake" Indians.)  They probably got their horses from their Ute cousins (they both were in the Numic family), then took them west.  Haines map shows the Ute-Shoshone distribution (the Utes ranged in western Colorado and eastern Utah), but not the Comanche-Shoshone.  But yes, the distribution would follow the water.  So, it runs south-north along the mountain ranges to take advantage of the periodic streams coming down, or follows the west-east river corridors east of the Continental Divide, or east-west (Snake, then Columbia) west of it.  Lynn (SLW) (talk) 18:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Sounds reasonable, now all we need to do is properly source it. Um, yes, I'm quite familiar with the Shoshone, I live in Montana, I've been fed stories of Lewis and Clark and Sacajawea (in all three spellings and multiple pronunciations) since forever (grin).  That said, not sure how much the sources will split out the various branches of the Shoshone beyond the split with the Comanche. Or when.  But sources, sources, sources.  Perhaps there is some scholarly works that will help; what do you think of that book on the Comanche I noted above as "new source" - for as far as it goes and with all caveats that more accurate and more recent material can of course supercede it?   Montanabw (talk)  21:00, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Looks like an okay reference to me. University of Oklahoma Press-any academic press publication should be considered reliable, even if older. Most of these dates are educated guesses on the parts of the authors, and more recent ones aren't necessarily better.  Roe is about the same vintage-unfortunately it will be over a week before I have access to my copy again-but it would be interesting to see if he corroborates Hoebel and Wallace, and what he says about the Shoshone.  But this source talks about the Comanche-Shoshone dispersal, which may be "new" information developed after the 1950s.  Which makes me  wonder if the Ute-Shoshone dispersal should now be questioned.  The Utes, once they had horses, used to foray frequently into Santa Fe to trade, and so there may be a mistaken conception that they originally took horses from there to eastern Utah.  It may be that the horse went from the Comanche, to the Wind River Shoshone, to the Lemhi Shoshone to the Utes, who were then able to complete the circle by traveling to Santa Fe to trade.  The northern or Uintah Utes would capture the Great Basin Indians, (who had no horses or guns and were very vulnerable) and take them to Santa Fe to trade as slaves for guns and other goods.  It got to the point the Spanish passed a law against trading guns to the Indians because they were becoming so well armed.


 * Also, the National Mall site talks about the Apache and Navajo having horses, and they definitely did, but probably not so many that escapees could form feral herds to any real extent. Horses are tough to keep in the desert-they have to range so far to get enough to eat.  So, their role in the subject of mustang history would be limited.  Also, the website talks about the Apache and Navajo trading horses to the Utes.  It could be a similar situation to what I suggested for the Shoshone, that the Uncompahgre Utes and the Uintah Utes were getting horses from different sources.  Lynn (SLW) (talk) 01:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

My take on the Smithsonian museum pages is that they are going to be pretty reliable as far as they go, but they don't go very far, but the focus is on the horses. As far as when and where the horses of Native people went, the point is not so much the point at which horses went from tame to feral so much as when they got to a given geographic place, however they got there. It must be noted that the horse itself evolved to be at home in a cold, dry climate, so sparse desert forage, if anything, argues in favor of more horses straying off to find food. I take no position on the Utes, my own knowledge of horse cultures is stronger for the Crow, Shoshone, Nez Perce, and other northern plains people. As we have discussed, depending on location, today's Mustang population includes everything from the near-pure Spanish herd that hid out in the Pryors, to the military remounts that got loose in California, to the half-draft stuff turned loose in Idaho during the 1930s. Nevada is probably in the situation it is in today due to how late it was settled and hence the large amounts of federal land there. On that note, I wonder how the Desert Lands Act impacted Nevada and if it had an impact on feral horse herds? Montanabw (talk) 16:28, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment on the Northern/Southern Plains question: I think we will mostly have to go with what our sources say rather than our own opinions, as even the experts seem to vary: If we look at maps like this and especially the BLM, they include most of Colorado and Kansas as "Southern" plains, even a bit north of the Platte River. This map extends into Nebraska and small parts of Wyoming and South Dakota, and the home page indicates, vaguely, that they view the whole region as "southern plains."  Great_Plains (which, for our purposes is not a RS but if well footnoted, can lead us there) has contradictory definitions, the NOAA puts their "southern plains" designation to cover a very small area, and the USGS appears not to use the designation at all. So again, sources, sources.  meh!   Montanabw (talk)  06:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Consensus?
To avoid freaking out other people who may be watchlisting the article, I'd like to add stuff in small bits, let it sit a few days, then add other small bits as consensus develops. (I realize consensus is developing quite slowly, but I think there is some consensus.) To that end, I would like to add the "Prehistory" and "Return 1493–1600" sections to the "History" section in the article, eliminating only the first paragraph of that section to be replaced with these. I acknowledge other material there remains in dispute, and the History and Ancestry sections will no doubt ultimately wind up being merged and revised into the material we are working on above, but... baby steps. I don't want to make the perfect the enemy of the good, but I know that popping in a wholesale rewrite on a high-controversy article often triggers a lot of discussion. So, are you OK with one of both of those two sections? I feel more research and work is needed on the rest before it's ready to go live. Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 16:35, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with that, except that I think the heading should go to "1650" Lynn (SLW) (talk) 00:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, we can always change that later, it's minor. My thinking is that we have 1598-1600 as a drop dead date for arrival, while dispersal is fuzzy and can be dealt with in the next section; even Haines hedges as to 1630, 1650, etc... and that doesn't address random stray horses that may have become feral before the Indians figured out how to capture/trade/steal them. I'll pop it in, but we can maybe title the next time section something along the lines of "what happened from 1600 to foo" (though shorter and more eloquently than that.   Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  22:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Just uploaded a new map. (It's nice and big). It also shows that Haines didn't document any dispersal until 1659 in Navajo territory.  I followed the lines and dates on his map as religiously as I could decipher them, so maybe you're thinking of a different source?


 * The map is gorgeous (!yay!); go ahead and pop it into the article in some logical place. My 1630/1650 dates come from the text of the other Haines article (both were 1938, one in the January issue, one in June, I mix up which was first) where comments when Native people showed evidence of having horses.  Bottom line is that we probably need additional sources (like that Comanche book)  that address when each tribe got horses and moved north or east or whichever direction they went.  Also, there is "dispersal" and then there is "evidence of a horse culture" which aren't precisely the same thing, but meh.   So frustrating to work with these old sources, I guess we just have to be careful not to go beyond what they say- or, per Bennett and others - what later writers say about them - about all we can do is ignore analysis that is clearly nonsense.  Onward through the fog!    Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  05:29, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Glad you're happy with the map; it could use a little more polishing, so we can still tweak it, if necessary.
 * Commons will let you re-upload new versions of your own uploaded file, overwriting the old one, so long as you are the original and subsequent uploader. (i.e. you can, I could not)  Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  03:16, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I just looked at the earlier Haines article, the one before the map. In it he mentions a source documenting the Apache were still using dogs to pull travois, and at the end he states:  "none of the tribes becoming horse Indians before 1630, and probably not until 1650."  basically, that he was sure that as of 1630. they didn't have horses yet.  Then, in the next article, he documents the "Navajo Apache" raiding Santa Fe for horses in 1659.  So, the 1850 date is a rough estimate of when the tribe first acquired the horses, and a few years after that began raiding to acquire more.  So, I think that 1650 is the date that should be used in the headings.


 * Just spotted your comment about Coronado/DeSoto. If you really want it in an endnote, I can live with that.  But the section is pretty small right now, so my thinking is leave it for the moment not only because of the size, but also because of the "teach the controversy" issue - the major myths about Mustangs should be touched upon; just like we have to figure out a way to address the "two million Mustangs" thing.   Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  22:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Per the above, we can't really use 1650 or 1630 any more than we can use Dobie's two million horses as "drop dead numbers." They are learned estimates based on information available. While Haines is probably in the right ballpark with his estimates, they are for Native people having a horse culture, not dispersal of wild herds; and it's clear from the outset that the Spanish weren't exactly careful about fencing in their animals. I'd say keep the heading general, explain what the various dates mean and why in the article text. we need to do more research. Bennett, at 335-336 (link to book notes Onate losing a bunch of horses circa 1600 and raiding by about 1609. So I think we can use Haines for the  end dates - i.e. horses were definitely at location X by date Y, but not for earliest possible... real important not to play too loose with the sources.  Stick to them, but only as far as they go...   Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  03:16, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Consensus 2?
Any possibility of moving the first part of the "Characteristics" section (the bit before the "Spanish horses" subsection) to mainspace, creating a new section - which we can expand further as we solidify the other material? Or maybe just the first two paragraphs? I know there is a lot more that could be said, but if we have an adequate opening overview, it is a need that other editors did identify and something definitely missing from the article. (Doesn't have to go in right away, maybe we can tweak it for a day or two) On most horse breed/type articles, we put the characteristics first, particularly because the average reader wants to answer the question"what do they look like?" before getting into lots of details. That's not a hard and fast rule, though. But here, given how complicated everything else is going to get, I think a quick overview is best put early on, even before the Etymology section. Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 23:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Double-checking if you have concerns about moving the Characteristics bit into the main article?  Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  07:20, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Southern Great Plains
Dobie didn't compare the northern Great Plains to Spain, it was the southern Great Plains. There, and California, is where the horses really thrived, and there were reports of "thousands" of them. I'm not aware of anywhere else where there were extensive feral herds documented-seems like the reports of large herds elsewhere are in the possession of Native Americans. And, I'm okay with taking out the Ryden endnote, as long as we leave in the other one. There's a lot of confusion over the Shoshone horse culture-most people don't realize that not all the Shoshone had one. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 10:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Basically, whatever we say has to be verified by the source we cite, preferably with a pinpoint cite to the page concerned (if the source has pages, at least). If it's properly verified, then we also have to pay some attention to WP:UNDUE (absent solid population figures prior to 1930, we have to tread carefully as to which areas were more important or where horses "really thrived"; the inland Pacific Northwest, particularly areas like Southeastern Washington and Central Oregon were a very significant horse region, still home to the Horse Heaven Hills, etc. As far as the Shoshone, it's all about sourcing.  (i.e. even stuff "Everyone knows" like how Lewis and Clark got horses to cross the Continental Divide from Sacajawea's band...has to be sourced...)   Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  17:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but I'm not saying they really thrived there in the article. I'm just saying that's why it's justified to put in that Dobie said it.  It's sourced solidly to him.

Lynn (SLW) (talk) 12:26, 20 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't want to get hung up on proving that the southern Great Plains were "better" than the Pacific Northwest, or the Northern Plains, or California, or wherever. I think we need to just follow the documentation where it leads us. (What is kind of interesting is the link between limestone soils and horse distribution, see the "carbonite" soils on the map here compare the bluegrass country of Kentucky to various parts of the west... SYNTH to draw a conclusion, but isn't it interesting?) What's pretty clear is that when the Great Basin tribes got horses, they pretty much got the h*** out of the Great Basin because it was a lousy place to survive! But, for various reasons, we now have a population explosion of mustangs in Nevada, so this article does need to trace how that happened.  FWIW, we also need a better source than that Cabrillo College page, while it looks decent and is probably accurate, it's apparently lecture notes or something from a 2-year community college, author presumably this guy, but it's unsourced.  But we may not need all that info here, anyway, some of it could go into the article on the Shoshone people...   Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  21:41, 20 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, my thoughts are, if we can't use a source from community college professor, then that's gong to put a lot of other sources in jeopardy. I think using the source in an endnote should be fine for now. And, I think you misread the author a bit.  It's confusing because they are lumping all the tribes together as the "Great Basin" culture, even though only about half the geographic area involved is actually within the Great Basin. The different references to the Great Basin are depicted on this map.  I used the actual hydrographic boundary (the purple one) of the GB on the map I made, but really, it's the provincial (black) boundary that is actually more relevant to horse-culture/no horse-culture. I could change that, and we could explain the differences by referencing the NPS map.   So, no, they didn't get horses and leave the "GB proper", as the author is referring to the provincial GB, they were actually in the Snake and Colorado river basins. Anyway, I was just happy to find something that backed up everything I was saying until we can find more solid sources.  As far as the Southern Great Plains being better, it's not a judgement call, it's just what happened.  The Spanish brought over horses adapted to a warm, dry, grassy environment, and they thrived in similar environments here, as documented in many sources.  It's not to say there weren't plenty of other horses in other places, but early 'mustang" (actual feral horses) history is centered in the southern great plains.  And, I checked out the map you linked to, but it went to sinkholes. But, I wouldn't be surprised that a high calcium carbonate (limestone) soil would produce grasses that horses thrive upon.  Seems like grasses do better in a more alkali than acidic environment.Lynn (SLW) (talk) 12:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it was about sinkholes but the "carbonite" soils are limestone soils (I was looking for maps of limestone soils and this was the best I could find; I guess one goes with the other... lol)  Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  03:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * PS. I was navigating around the Cabrillo website a little more and found this TOC. If I was to contact Chuck Smith and ask him to link the lecture to the rest of the content and put his name on it, would you feel better about it?Lynn (SLW) (talk) 14:46, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I do think you make a decent point that college/university sources in general are apt to be reasonably notable, here authorship would help, yes; otherwise it could be some kid's term paper. We don't need peer-reviewed scholarly journals for everything (though where they exist, they can help, sometimes - if they aren't filled with nonsense...sigh ).    Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  03:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

All that said, I'm kind of fuzzy where we are going with all of this; I think it may be time to just start writing/editing content again and see what develops; it seems to work well for us to just write and then critique heavily. Perhaps you should port over your "Great Basin" subsection from the other sandbox and refine it into whatever it is you are wanting to explain. I am guessing (in good faith) that your point is basically "horses didn't originally migrate into the Great Basin proper, but today there are craploads of them because... reasons foo." And I do agree that is worth working on; just shouldn't dominate the article. (FWIW that BLM page I'm working on indicates just under half of all free-roaming Mustangs are in Nevada, but that means that half of them aren't - also there is the holding facility problem that is only lightly touched on here - but saw a stat that currently there are more Mustangs in holding facilities (not counting adopted animals) than are in the wild.)  Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  03:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I think that all the horses in holding are a huge problem. But, we can't solve that here.  I just want to dispel the myth that there were millions of horses where they are now hundreds of years ago, until the ranchers came in and started kicking them off, so all we need to do is kick the cows off and let things go back to the way they were and everything will be fine.  That may have been what happened on the southern Great Plains, but not in the Great Basin.  Whatever your or anyone's feelings are about the cows, their presence or absence has no bearing on the fact that the horse population has to be controlled, and something must be done with the excess animals.  My opinion is that the base population should be decreased so that the adoption demand can absorb the excess-identify the herds that have unique genetics and just zero out the rest, as discussed here figuring out what to do with the excess until they die natural deaths.  Really, putting them on sanctuaries back on the southern Great Plains is going full circle, and those horses are pretty happy munching grass out there instead of starving on the desert.  I wish Madeleine Pickens had invested in ranches there instead of her ill-informed venture in Nevada.  But regardless, we can't come up with reasonable solutions until everyone is working with accurate information.  So, my goal is that, if people are coming to wikipedia to get background information on mustangs, that that information is accurate.  As far as only half of the current free-ranging horses being in Nevada, yes, but the GB desert also extends into western Utah, southern Oregon and southern California.  So, if you include those HMAs, you're looking at about 80% of the horse population.  I'm not as focused on Nevada as you think, but since so many of the horses are there, it just keeps coming up.


 * I was pretty much out of pocket this weekend, but over the next week I should be able to get back into the swing of things. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 11:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * No worries about time, the wiki is never finished. I'm all for accurate, so long it is comprehensive and balanced.  I guess my take on all of this is that we have two different things going on; historic distribution and range of mustangs versus the present-day post-1971 situation.  As for solutions, we can agree that horses were late to the Great Basin — at least Nevada— and yet that's where the population is today. But it all needs to be in context. We also agree that allowing horses to overgraze the range is in no one's interest. But, I will note that there are certain types of "desert" country that is fine for horse habitat — but absent natural predation, we have a problem. I have this book and it has some good info on horse habitat generally, may be useful  in some context in this article.   Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  06:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Section headings and my brain
I'm finding it more useful to keep section headings with dates, as this is the history section. As I work through the sources (thank you for locating page numbers!) I'm seeing a structure come together. We may find that we need to create a second section on geographic distribution later, (though maybe not) so I restored that bit temporarily, even though it's got some redundant material (OK to toss what's already in elsewhere!). This is just how my brain works. Open to ideas for doing it better. (See, e.g. how the WikiProject Equine team did the history section of Arabian horse - we could stay chronological up to a point, but then had to split up and go geographically - just FWIW). Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 01:25, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

17th and 18th century wrapup
What else do we need to add to the 17th and 18th century section before taking it live? Is it ready for prime time with consensus or do we need to change content or add more? Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 20:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I think it's fine. If you put it up for GAR, I think some minor issues may come up, but you might as well leave things for reviewers to find.Lynn (SLW) (talk) 22:28, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Not yet, want the history stuff all done (at a minimum) before I'd be comfortable going there, and that said, given the comprehensiveness of the article, there's an argument to be made to take it straight to FAC. Before that happens (or GA for that matter), I think we need to get the 19th century section in and then a good set of paragraphs on the Taylor Grazing Act, the 1959 legislation and the 1971 Act.  Maybe more stuff on the adopt a horse material, and a finish to the characteristics section  with the discussion of strains and derived breeds.  That said, if you have "minor issues," I'll sit tight for a while and you can go ahead and flag them (hidden text of tags, whichever) and I'll see what I can do.  Trust me, the FAC reviewers will find plenty even if **we** agree that it's perfect!  :-P  (FAC takes about a month)  Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  03:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, like you said, it never really is "done". But, my biggest problem is with the first paragraph.  It doesn't flow right, and it doesn't quite capture what happened. I've made a fix that I think helps.Lynn (SLW) (talk) 12:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I'll tweak it further, we can't exceed the source material, but I do see what you mean and think I can find more source material to clarify the point.  Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  21:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * On Bennett and trade, basically, the ordinary people traded horses to the Indians even if it was illegal - also just saw something, I think in De Stieguer, noting that laws in NM were looser than in Mexico proper. If you look at the source (it's in Google books) Bennett says they traded for women, tobacco, etc... (nothing new under the sun) Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  21:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

19th and 20th century discussion
The section on the 19th century (1800s) is going to be a bugbear, as this will be where we have to wrestle with the "two million horses" thing, I think it's doable, and you actually have a great start on the assessment there, but I'm going to have to drag out my (warped and water-damaged) hardcopy of Dobie and we each will no doubt have to sit on the floor with about five books open (and crash the computer with open browser tabs) to figure out what actually went on versus what people wished was going on... meh. Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 20:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * It's the 1970 version of Ryden that is the most problematic here. I think she got the "two million" number from Dobie but, as she did with the 150,000 number from Wyman and the 33,000 number from McKnight she used only the part of the information that suited her purposes, and ignored the fact that he put the number as a peak (meaning that it would have decreased afterwards) 50 years earlier.  I'm sure her derivation of the decline in population numbers was criticized (rightly so!) after publication, which is why she yanked them from the 1978 version, but by that time the damage was done, and now the "2 million in 1900" is everywhere.  My "guess" is that there were well under a million at the time-about 200,000 west of the Continental Divide and the rest east.  Most of those east of the CD were still in the southern Great Plains, which was pretty much the last area in the nation to be intensely settled.  From about 1910 to 1930 it was homesteaded and the grass that had once been the horses' was torn up for farming, setting the stage for the Dust Bowl.  That being said, the "2 million' number is really only problematic when compared to today's numbers-it's apples and oranges since today mustangs are limited to a public domain that has shrunken substantially since 1900 (and even more significantly since 1850, which was the true context of the two million number), and more importantly, the area that is left today is much less suitable as habitat.  That is why I feel that Amaral's "100,000 in Nevada in 1900" is much more relevant in regards to the decline in numbers to today's numbers.  The amount of public domain in Nevada has not decreased that much since 1900.  The Desert Lands Homesteading Act, although still in effect, was and is used very infrequently to appropriate land since it requires that water be available to irrigate the land, and there is basically no more water.  That, and the fact that the feral and semi-feral horse population in Nevada and elsewhere in the Great Basin would have peaked about 1900, since they hadn't been there as long.  So, if there are about 17,000 wild horses in Nevada today, the numbers have declined 83% from the peak historical numbers, and that number is reasonable for all areas where mustangs are found today. That's a far cry from the 98.35% it would be if Ryden's 2 million number was used with today's overall number of 33,000.  Lynn (SLW) (talk) 14:33, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The BLM site claims they attribute the two million figure to Dobie, and it's pretty clear it did originate with him, so we have to address it, somehow. I am OK with discussing the Great Basin in its own section because of the uniqueness of its development. My feeling is that Ryden can be used where there is nothing else, or where others used her, but I'm not all that inclined to parse and critique multiple versions of her work, she stands for the positions of the leading wild horse preservation advocates, in the shoes of WIld Horse Annie, but that's pretty much her limits (save where she has something most sources agree on that is particularly well-explained). I'm OK with only using the most recent version of Ryden's book, I don't think we want to open the can of worms of the whole political issue overly much, that's a book in itself. By the nature of wiki being an encyclopedia, we have to summarize.  I'd stick real close to what each source says and why, explaining context.  As far as two million to 33K horses, definitely possible over 100+ years, look what happened to the Bison in the same period; tens of millions to several hundred. Likewise, the original two million number is plausible; during the Civil War, cattle numbers in Texas went through the roof after the Confederacy was cut off from Texas, preventing cattle from being herded east to supply the South with meat.   The large numbers post-war gave rise to the whole cattle drive era - and its crash due to overgrazing, weather and all that.  But, all of that is SYNTH on our part, so I say just stick to sources.  Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  21:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, Ryden is the only one that claims 2 million that late in time, it is easily verified that she completely misrepresented the numbers from other sources she used and other, more reliable, sources say the numbers were lower. So, that the decline from 2 million to 33,000 was possible didn't mean it happened and it isn't an excuse for continuing to perpetuate the completely pulled-out-of-one's-butt idea that there were two million wild horses in 1900.  And 1900-2015 wasn't the "same period" as the bison decline, the bison decline was pretty much ended by the mid-1880s, having started only about 30 years earlier, so to correlate the timing of the decline of the two species, there would have WAY less than 2 million mustangs in 1900.  And, since that number (2 million) at that time (1900) is now mantra everywhere, it needs to be portrayed as what it is-a "statistic" that has no basis in reality (lies, damned lies, and statistics). So, no, you can't just use the most recent version of Ryden's book because to do so ignores the source of a myth that needs to be put to bed, which is why the BLM called it out.  Lynn (SLW) (talk) 22:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I think I misunderstood the point you were trying to get across, my apologies. I'm seeing that the "two million in 1900" is a problem and not verifiable, and I am willing to stick with the "X million" versions from Dobie and McKnight (McKnight clearly not a Wild Horse Annie!) angle that the populations may have peaked by 1850 (though I personally suspect there were plenty in the post-Civil War era, I agree with mcKnight's analysis of the impact of the Boer War and WWI), but I want to be super-careful with any other numbers c. 1900 unless we have specific sources. I wasn't making a argument that Bison and horse declined simultaneously, (though there were a lot of mustangers in that period, the horsemeat stuff appears to have cranked up in the 1920s) just that large numbers can be pushed to near-extinction quickly when there is a concerted effort.   Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  23:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

As for Ryden, we (OK, probably you because you have the old books) may have to work up a separate section on her here in the sandbox - I don't think I have any of her books, only the online version (might have an older one in the local library). Your point that we have to explain the evolution of her own writing and research and the BLM documents derived from it is well-taken. So, rather than assorted endfootnotes and scattered asides, maybe put all of it together and then we can figure out what to pop in where? Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 23:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I made it a point to acquire the old books. My first exposure to the book was from my local library, which had the 1970 version, and when I was a able to pick up my own copy (an overstock of the 1999 printing), upon reading through it I realized she had made some pretty significant changes, so I bought used copies of the 1973 (which was the 1970 version with an added postscript since the passage of the W&FRH&BA) and 1978 versions.  It's not that I want to vilify her, but I don't think that many people out there realize the significance of some of those changes, and how they have influenced the perception of the history of the mustang.  I don't think even the BLM does.  It says: "Mr. Dobie's admitted 'guess' of no more than two million mustangs has over the years been transformed into an asserted or assumed 'fact' that two million mustangs actually roamed America in the late 1800s/early 1900s.", but I doubt they realize the transformation occurred upon the 1970 publication of Americas Last Wild Horses, since the assertion was quietly removed in the 1978 version, and not many people now reference the original. But for many years after publication, the 1970/1973 version was the "go to" for people looking for statistics on wild horses, even the GAO and BLM. She also put out the assertion in the 1973 version that the BLM stated that, in 1971, there were less than 10,000 wild horses left.  Maybe they did, since they knew the upcoming legislation would require them to maintain the current number of horses, so they made the number low, but without actually seeing what they said in context, I take her assertions with a grain of salt, since she played so fast and loose with numbers.  But, while in the 1970/1973 version, she complained about the BLM over-estimating the numbers, once she realized that the legislation would limit the number of horses to what was on the public lands at the time of passage of the Act (this interpretation of the Act was overturned by the Interior Board of Land Appeals in 1989), in the 1978 version she pulled all the references to the lower numbers, reversed the complaint, and implied the BLM had been under-estimating. So, it's frustrating to me that she has had so much influence when there are much more accurate and objective sources out there.  Lynn (SLW) (talk) 00:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Some of this will go beyond the scope of the Mustang article, but might as well sandbox it here, may be worth creating a separate article on her. As far as numbers, keep in mind that she isn't a scientist or a statistician, she's a wildlife photographer.  Everyone involved in the issue - cattle and sheeep ranchers, the BLM, the wild horse advocates - had and has a motive to play with statistics or, assuming sincerity, to see only what they want to see.  I'm all for simply using the best sources available; I don't particularly see a need to spend a lot of time dissecting Ryden for this article (it's going to be a looooong one anyway), but maybe it is worth putting somewhere.  Hope Ryden is still a redlink... But back to writing...  Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  06:10, 26 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, exactly my point, a lot of these numbers come from entities that aren't objective, and Ryden definitely wasn't. She fudged numbers to enlist support for passage of the WFRH&BA, by making it look as though the mustang population was continuing to decline after the passage of the Wild Horse Annie Act, when in fact, it probably leveled off at that point, if it didn't actually increase a little between 1959 and 1971.  McKnight estimated in 1958 there were 14,810 to 29,620 horses and in 1975, the time of the first intensive census, there were over 49,000 horses, 14,000 of which had been tentatively claimed as owned by ranchers. (1977 BLM technical note). I'm not sure if a Hope Ryden article is warranted for the purpose of teaching the controversy over wild horse numbers, but it's definitely an eye-opening subject. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 11:19, 26 June 2015 (UTC)


 * On this one, virtually no one is "objective," and even those trying to be objective (such as folks taking a census for the BLM) probably suffered from lack of funding ans spotty methodology (the BLM still seems unable to get a real handle on the count) The stuff you were doing that described the range of numbers is probably the best approach.  I'm not a fan of putting the sources in the article narrative, but we might have to here, where relevant, but in a summary style that doesn't make the average readers' eyeballs bleed.  And sources, sources, sources...  Meh. I am being reminded why this article languished so long, it is so complicated!   Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  18:37, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, from what I'm seeing the more I look into it, it wasn't a matter of the population going straight up to a peak, then down to today's numbers. Like you intimated with the Civil War, historical events caused an ebb and flow, especially after 1870.  And, all the numbers go all over the place, depending on what horses are being included.  "Mustang" and "Indian Pony" are used almost synonymously, so some writers may have been including horses in the possession of Native Americans in their estimates.  Then once you have American settlers on the scene, when do you have a "mustang"?  It is an unbranded horse born in captivity but turned loose on the range to forage?  Is it a free-roaming born semi-feral horse that, if you asked the local rancher, belonged to him?  From what article I just read, it sounds like there was a peak in 1925.  After WWI, all the farmers let their horses go in favor of tractors, and in a few years there were so many of them that processing plants opened up and the horses were rounded up for slaughter.  Then, after the 1929 stock market crash, the farmers couldn't afford fuel for the tractors, so they went back out and caught what was left of the progeny of the horses they had set free 10 years earlier, so that by 1935, there were so few horses left that the processing plants began to shut down.  That's a different story than Sherrets, who said that it was in the 1930s that the farmers went broke and turned the horses loose.  It makes more sense that the farmers wouldn't have turned horses loose, with the processing plants begging for them.  So, maybe the discussion of numbers should include all the variables, basically saying "it depends" and then start with real numbers with Wyman's 1930 range of 50-150k, which is still pretty vague, but at least by that point I think it's safe to say that numbers never again rose above that range, although it sounds as though they spiked up a little during WWII.  Lynn (SLW) (talk) 21:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Yup, more reasons this is so complex. (D'oh!) I think we could backtrack a bit and maybe add to the etymology section as far as what and when "Mustang" was used. I think it was the de Steiguer book that said something about origins of the word. I also found a cool resource called the Dictionary of American Regional English down at my local library and used it a few years ago to resolve a dispute over the origins and pronunciation of chaps. It's a good source. Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 18:37, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Given that we fully agree that mustangs are of feral origins, the ebb and flow of animals into and out of domesticity makes some sense; I don't think we need an unbroken line of never-tamed, never-owned and/or never-returned to feral status in order to argue that all these horses were called "mustangs." I think the "it depends" answer is apt; one part of the country would have been different from another - when I was helping the people who worked on the Banker horse and Chincoteague pony articles, there was a similar pattern; legends of pure Spanish origin, but also evidence of local horses getting kicked out to run loose, then people rounding up the best of these mostly-wild-acting animals from time to time.  Very much landrace-type management.  Saw also in one of the sources (maybe McKnight??) something I'd run across before (maybe in Wyman?) about how horses more than 2-3 years old just couldn't be tamed...they had to catch them at the right age or just give it up entirely.   Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  18:37, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


 * But on the tractor thing, actually the huge increase in mechanization occurred circa WWII - there were some tractors coming on in the 1920s, but the west was suffering drought and was economically depressed even before the Great Depression. The farmers turning horses loose would have been the ones who quit farming, who lost their land to the bank or who sold out.  (think Dust bowl)  A photo of my dad's family with their first tractor was probably late 1920s, judging by the age of my dad in the photo (he was a little kid there) - my grandfather was one of the people who hung on and bought out everyone else who went belly-up. He used horses before that, both for riding and farm work (they had cattle and farm crops both) My dad told stories of how the local horse breeder would round up horses off the range and my grandfather got the heavier horses to break to the plow as farm horses. Sounds like the typical thing of turning loose stallions of various bloodlines to make halfbred customized horses - there apparently were some blooded stock making taller saddle horses in one herd and possibly some draft-bred horses in another, then they'd pick up "Indian ponies" off the nearby reservation for ordinary stuff.  Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  18:37, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

New discussion
I have done a couple things while I've been away from wiki these last few days. First off, I casually grabbed a copy of this month's Archaeology magazine - because it had a story about horses on the cover ;-)  - and it can source the bit on how the horse moved Native Americans to a dog and foot-based culture to a horse culture.  I'll craft up some phrasing, but I'd like to add a bit on that to (most likely) the 17th and 18th century section, and delete the parallel bit that's in there.   Second, I was at the local library and while there grabbed the big copy of the Oxford English Dictionary and photocopied the page on "Mustang," I think we can update the etymology section a bit more with that.  Stay tuned.   Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  03:18, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. I've been keeping busy. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 17:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I've been carrying around the photocopies from the OED in my laptop case for a week now... meh! Summer in the Rockies:  busy time... but short.  Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  06:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)