Kaimanawa horse muster 2009

Kaimanawa Wild Horses - Some facts to help with the fiction!
Nigel Coddington

In 1844, a horse was presented to the son of Te Heu Heu Tukino - since then, horses began arriving in the central North Island.

The Kaimanawa Wild Horses (KWH) have inhabited the North Island since the 1870s, when Sir Donald McLean released a stallion and some mares of his "Comet" breed onto the Kaiangaroa Plains. This nucleus was added to in small numbers over the following years, with major additions coming from the advent of tractors replacing forestry horses, and an outbreak of strangles in military cavalry horses in 1941 resulting in the release of these horses to the central North Island area.

In 1978, the Kaimanawa Wild Horses Committee was formed under the NZ Forest Service.  By 1979, only approximately 174 wild horses remained in the Southern Kaimanawa region - none in the northern (Kaiangaroa Plains) region. 

In 1981, a protected area was established for the Kaimanawa Wild Horses - this encompassed basically the Waiouru Military area, plus some smaller privately owned blocks that bordered the army area. 

Surveys since 1979 using ground and aerial surveys revealed the following figures:

*Band = a family group or harem. Many bands make up a herd. 

Why cull?      

After all, these are magnificent creatures, free to roam the hills behind Waiouru Military Camp. They look wonderful. Anyone with these thoughts and statements has never been to see them in their environment.

These animals were released into an area to fend for themselves - and there were no natural balancing mechanisms in place to control their population. Where horses are indigenous to a country, Mother Nature has also placed a balancing mechanism - in the horse's case, predators. In NZ, there is no such beast. The result is inevitable - they will breed up in numbers until they are competing with each other, to the detriment of each other, for food and range.

The result is animals dying in unacceptable numbers from both under- and mal-nutrition (starvation and being pushed into areas of poor quality feed), gross developmental deformities (jaw and limb deformities) and disease (laminitis and parasitism) - i.e. an animal welfare problem. This animal welfare problem was created by humans, and it is the responsibility of humans to solve the problem - it was totally unacceptable to leave the horses to the situation they were in.  There were other reasons for the cull apart from animal welfare. These included rare plant protection and population control.

Demographics          

From data collected at the early musters (up until 1997, and including that major muster), the following ratios were consistent:

• Very young average age (6.2 years old)
• 80% of mares were in-foal - ie 4 out of 5 mares were in-foal
• 43% of mares had a foal at foot - ie there was 1 foal to 2.3 mares
• 12.5% of mares had a yearling - ie there was 1 yearling to 8 mares

So 50% of pregnant mares either aborted or their offspring died before they were weanable; and 60 - 70% of foals died before they reached 18 months of age.

Since the major muster (1997), the following ratios are consistent:

• Not aged
• Not pregnancy tested - visually, at least 80% in foal
• 55% to 66% of mares have foals at foot
• 19% of mares have a yearling representative

So, it appears that the survival rate of the young horses (juveniles) has improved.

Condition of horses today versus pre-1997

The very first musters (pre-1997) only involved horses from the Argo Basin area - where the quantity and quality of fodder is best. These horses were, in the main, in good average condition (based on the Carroll and Huntington method - 2 to 3) with a few in poor condition that was explainable (CS 1) - eg old, poor teeth, blind in one eye, old broken jaw.

The 1997 muster revealed a very different story. Horses mustered from the Three Kings and beyond that area were in very poor condition ( CS 0.5 to 3), with obvious developmental deformities and disease (thickened upper and lower jaws, pronounced ringbone, contracted tendons, severe laminitis, etc). Horses from the other three sites were in better condition (CS 1.5 to 3.5).

Since that time, the condition scores of the horses mustered have improved - the last 8 years none below CS 2.0, some as high as 4.0 (stallions), with the exception of one 6yo mare in 2001 that had a foal at foot plus a yearling still feeding off her and she was back in foal!; and a 10yo mare in 2009 (CS 0 - no external reasons visible).

The other major improvement has been in hoof condition - less external evidence of laminitis is seen in the horses mustered each year since 1998 - this is a vast improvement over the 1997 muster (where most of the Three Kings area horses had laminitis, some to a very advanced degree requiring euthanasia).

Not surprisingly, there is little difference in worm burdens, as measured by faecal egg counts, over the years. 

The counts performed on faecal samples taken in 1997 revealed:

The counts performed on faecal samples taken in 2000 revealed:

The other noticeable factor with the horses mustered the last 3 years was that they were more robust in attitude - more lively. This was good to see.

Future of the horses 

Nigel with some of the horses in the mustering pens

The following is my opinion, and it will be only one of several when the Kaimanawa Wild Horse Management Advisory Committee meets.

I will preface my remarks with the following observations, plus those already made.

When a farmer takes over management of a property, the good manager measures and quantifies the resource they have (area, topography, soil fertility, pasture quality, annual rainfall, finance, and labour). From this information is calculated what species/enterprise will be best suited to these resources. Once this decision is taken, then the number of animals is decided on, using the above data.

Stock numbers on the property are then adjusted throughout the year, depending on the prevailing conditions (seasonal pasture growth, drought, etc). If the farmer did not make these adjustments, the profitability of the farm would diminish - why? - through poor animal performance. In the extreme, this would show as an animal welfare issue. I believe we had an animal welfare situation with the Kaimanawa Wild Horses in 1997, and prior to this.

I am comfortable that the herd is in reasonable health, and can maintain that health, with around 500 horses in this area. I also believe they would be in better health if there were less horses - around 300. However, as I said, at 500, they are in acceptable health.

There are a few threats on the horizon. Hieracium is invading the Argo Basin area, leaving large plant-denuded areas. Some kindly soul thought that heather would look good in that area - it is a voracious invader with no balancer, and is choking out the native flora in areas near SH1 - not an area that horses are allowed in. However, if it continues to spread, it will soon be in the areas where the KW horses do graze. Hares compete for the same food. Pinus contorta is an ongoing threat. Scrub is re-establishing throughout the area. All of these will impact on the number of horses that the area can sustain in acceptable health.

Similarly, hopefully the number of 500 is sustainable with the regeneration of the native species - this will take tens of years to occur. But, as it does occur, will this be compatible with 500 horses?