Flaws in the Framework: Managing Alberta's Wild Horses

In 2023, the Alberta Ministry of Forestry and Parks developed the Alberta Feral Horse Management Framework to manage Alberta’s wild horse populations. The Framework seeks to prevent “significant, long-term threats to resource sustainability,” it claims will result from the horses’ over-utilization of rangelands forage.

To that end, the Framework establishes population thresholds and population management strategies for wild horses roaming within each of the province’s six Equine Management Zones (EMZs). Significantly, the thresholds are the sole determinants of when population control measures such as adoption, contraception, and culling, must take place.

Scroll to continue with content

The advisory committee that developed the Framework included wild horse advocacy groups, academics, wildlife advocacy groups, and grazing organizations. The committee used research from the Alberta Chief Scientist and also consulted scientists from the Universities of Alberta, Calgary, and Saskatchewan.

“As part of the consultation process, Forestry and Parks held more meetings with feral horse advocates than any other stakeholder present,” Ministry of Forestry and Parks Press Secretary Alexandru Cioban told HorseSport.com. “Their voice, and the insight and research they provided was well represented in the final Framework.”

The inclusion of wild horse advocacy groups begs the question of why so many advocates disagree with the Framework’s population thresholds and management strategies. Among them is Darrell Glover, founder of Help Alberta Wildies Society (HAWS), a wild horse welfare organization that helped develop the Framework.

“The current committee,” Glover told HorseSport.com, “Is completely stacked with anti-horse special interest groups and fair judgement for the horses is not possible.”

Glover, like many advocates, believes the Framework is biased by the cattle industry’s narrative that claims wild horses are a destructive, invasive species in order to simultaneously control their numbers and use them as a scapegoat for rangeland destruction in the absence of hard evidence.

Glover’s stance is backed by a recent review of the Framework commissioned by the international, Alberta-based wildlife protection charity Zoocheck, which concluded the Framework lacked direct, quantified scientific evidence that the horses are “Responsible for the deterioration of, or are a threat to, rangeland health at past and current population levels.”

In his review, registered professional biologist Wayne McCrory calls into question the Framework’s conclusions about the EMZs’ carrying capacity and population thresholds. Though he does agree with the Framework’s concerns about the deteriorating health of the rangelands, his review provides evidence contrary to the Framework’s “scientific speculation” that horses are the primary cause of the damage.

McCrory believes their removal would, therefore, not prevent the larger and more obvious causes of rangeland degradation the Framework fails to address, such as the effects of cattle, invasive plant species, industrial forestry, oil and gas development, roads, trails, and extensive use of recreational, off-highway vehicles.

The Framework’s Evidence

In January, Alberta Forestry Minister Todd Loewen told the CBC that last year’s government population survey numbers found population thresholds had been exceeded inside two EMZs. If a second survey set to take place this month devises the same results, up to 30 horses could be selected for adoption and up to 90 could be given contraception.

Advocates believe contraception and adoption will be devastating to the already precarious population of 1, 500 wild horses spread out over the rangelands, citing the extreme mortality rate of foals, predation, and the harsh climate as already serving as adequate population control measures.

Additionally, McCrory’s review states the unexplained and unpredictable oscillations of wild horse populations make it difficult to gauge the long-term impact of control measures.

When questioned how the government would respond to claims the Framework provides no direct evidence pertaining to horses’ detrimental effects on rangeland health, Mr. Cioban said, “The committee considered scientific research from dozens of academic, peer-reviewed sources and several experts…The Office of the Chief Scientist also examined over 150 academic, scientific, and related papers and provided these to the committee to support the development of the Framework.”

(Kenneth Shulko Photography)

But this research, McCrory told HorseSport.com, primarily utilizes peer-reviewed information derived from studies of other ecosystems from across the globe, without recognizing the significant differences in ecological variables between those ecosystems and the Alberta rangelands.

“This is the first time in my entire career of preparing numerous management reports for Parks Canada and BC Parks and other clients that I found only peer-reviewed studies count,” McCrory said.

Simultaneously, the Framework leaves out direct evidence pertaining to the health of Alberta’s own EMZs, including, said McCrory, the effect of six times as many cows as wild horses use the government’s Crown land grazing allotments during the active grazing season.

He believes the effects of over 8,000 cattle grazing on the 36 range allotments in the EMZs during the summer months have a much larger detrimental effect than the horses. Yet, McCrory said consideration of the cattle’s “historic overgrazing” on the rangelands are conspicuously absent from the Framework.

In fact, the Framework failed to take into account the government’s own data that prove the horses have no significant effects on the rangelands, said Zoocheck’s Campaign Director Julie Woodyer.

In November of last year, Woodyer said Zoocheck won an eight-year fight with Alberta Forestry and Parks to access the province’s 2015 Rangeland Reports.

A review of the reports recently conducted for Zoocheck by professional agrologist Brian de Kock said the government’s own rangeland evaluations claim less than five per cent of all the observed and assessed sites mentioned horses as the primary factor impacting rangeland health. Instead, the sites were primarily impacted by factors such as clearcut logging, well sites and pipelines, off-road recreation, cattle grazing, and non-native plants.

“It is very clear from reviewing these records, that the government uses to develop all management for the rangeland, that horses are not responsible for damage,” Woodyer told HorseSport.com.

The Framework’s stance that the destruction caused by the horses is the primary reason for population control while ignoring other factors causes advocates like Woodyer to feel as though the Framework is scapegoating the horses for damage caused by human activities and industries.

Woodyer said a ranching association is responsible for collecting the range health information and interpreting it for the government so they can develop management plans like the Framework.

“This is akin to the fox watching the henhouse, since a significant part of the damage is caused by cattle grazing in the growing seasons,” said Woodyer.

Woodyer also said that the province’s decision to allow the cattle to graze on public lands was justified by scientific claims that stated the cattle could replace the historical role bison played in the Foothills. But the bison only grazed in the Foothills during the winter, and used the Prairies for grazing in the growing seasons, meaning the Foothills never accommodated heavy grazing during the growing seasons.

“It is just another example of flawed information being used to justify a harmful practice,” Woodyer said.

Woodyer stressed that, though Zoocheck would like to see the Foothills ecosystem and its species protected, it is not opposed to cattle grazing or other industries that cause damage to the rangelands. “What we oppose is the targeting of wild horses as the culprit causing damage when there is no evidence it is happening.”

Ultimately, said Woodyer, if there is a legitimate interest by the Alberta Government to reduce the damage to the rangeland, “Then the answer has to focus on the activities causing the harm… not to assign blame to a species that is not responsible for the substantial damage.”

It’s All in the Name

Advocates also disagree with the Framework’s classification of the wild horses as “feral” under the province’s Stray Animals Act, which treats the horses as escaped domestic livestock raised in barnyards, similar to cattle, goats, and sheep.

McCrory said changing the Framework or developing a new Framework is pointless until the horses’ classification is changed. He believes the horses must be recognized as a species that has had a harmonious integration into the rangelands ecosystem over generations, and currently occupies a niche that has resulted from a mutually beneficial coexistence with other plants and animals in the ecosystem.

The horses’ current classification is predicated on the idea that the horses are mixed breeds with strong draft bloodlines descended from horses that escaped from. or were released by. First Nations, farmers, ranchers, logging and mining industries, and hunters at the beginning of the 20th century, when the Industrial Revolution saw a decreased need for dependency on horses.

McCrory said the Framework based its conclusions about the horses’ bloodlines on a 0.1 per cent sample of the population within the study area, which was far too small to determine the horses’ true ancestry.

In his review, McCrory provides a genetics study by Dr. G. Cothran, one of the world’s foremost experts in equine genetics, which used a much larger sample size of 15.5 per cent of the population within the study area. Dr. Cothran found that the subpopulation in the study area was primarily Spanish Iberian, a breed that was likely introduced by First Nations in the 1600s, before widespread colonial settlement of the area.

This unique genetic legacy might warrant the development of a breed called the Alberta Mountain Horse, deserving of the protections afforded other Canadian heritage breeds.

Woodyer believes the province is in opposition to changing the “feral” classification because “…It would remove their ability to scapegoat the horses for all of the damage caused by human activities [within the EMZs].” She believes that any attempts to reclassify the wild horses may be met with opposition from lobby groups from the ranching, logging, and oil industries, who have indicated they will stand against any attempts to afford additional protections for the wild horses.

Even with this in mind, HAWS is still calling on Albertans to sign a petition that seeks to change the designation of feral horses to a naturalized species, like the wild horses of Sable Island.

The petition also calls for an independent wild horse committee with a more balanced host of stakeholders, including biologists, agrologists, and rangeland experts.

“Starting a petition now is crucial, because Alberta’s wild horses are running out of time,” HAWS Board of Directors member and wild horse photographer Ken Shulko told HorseSport.com.

Through his photography, Shulko hopes to both raise awareness for HAWS and bring people closer to the horses. “Every image is a reminder of what’s at stake,” he said. “These horses are living symbols of freedom and resilience, deserving of protection, not persecution. If we don’t speak out, we could lose them forever.”

Advocates like Shulko believe losing the horses would be a tremendous loss not just for the rangeland ecosystem, but for Albertans—a sentiment that seems to be widely shared. In November 2024, a Zoocheck survey found that 79 per cent of Albertans “Reject the province’s plan for managing its wild horse population,” while 76 per cent support developing protections for wild horses. Respondents believed wild horses are an important part of Alberta’s culture and history, and have the potential to improve local ecosystems and even tourism in Alberta.

Zoocheck concluded that the majority of Albertans support a hands-off approach for managing wild horses, and also support policies and initiatives that prioritized the protection of the wild horses and their habitat.

For Woodyer, a fairy tale ending and “best possible option,” for the horses would be for them to receive national protection — something she believes makes sense because of their presence in at least four provinces and one territory.

But she fears that currently, amidst other national and international troubles, a guarantee of the horses’ safety is far from assured.