Letter to the Bureau of Land Management
Attn: Wild Horse and Burro Comments (including enclosures)
August 10, 2010
|
Bureau of Land Management Dear BLM: The Public Lands Foundation (PLF) commends Secretary of the Interior Salazar and BLM Director Abbey for their intensified efforts to engage the public and seek solutions to the many issues surrounding management of wild horses and burros. The PLF is a national non-profit, all volunteer membership, conservation organization dedicated to the ecological stability of the public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). It is made up of mostly former BLM employees with many years of experience in natural resource management. Our organization recently prepared a Position Statement (enclosed) on the subject of wild horses and burros. In summary, we believe that major changes need to be made in the Free Wild -roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971 and in the way that wild horses and burros are maintained as an integral part of the public lands. PLF would like to see the wild horse, livestock and wildlife interests work out an acceptable solution to the current dissatisfaction that they share. These interests should seek agreement on the number of wild horses and burros that should be the focus of the federal management requirement in a system of legislatively established Ranges dedicated to wild horses, burros and wildlife with the exclusion of livestock. All wild horses and burros should be removed from public lands outside the newly established Ranges, and Herd Management Areas (HMA’s) outside of the new Ranges should be eliminated.. This position was presented at the recent Wild Horse and Burro Advisory Board meeting in Denver. (Copy of testimony enclosed) We have reviewed the BLM’s strategy document. It does a very good job of summarizing the many well documented positions of the various groups engaged in the issue of how best to manage wild horses and burros. It also lays out the many options that may exist for the BLM, the DOI and the Congress to consider. However, it provides no hint as to which direction the BLM may propose to go. At this stage and with the recent extension of the comment period, the public is still engaged in suggesting to the BLM which direction it should take. We are certain the BLM is being inundated with thousands of contradictory comments and will be left to propose something based on them. We believe the "Treasured Herds" and "Preserves" elements of the BLM’s strategy document provide hints at what might be, if areas of land were managed primarily for horses, burros and wildlife, with the exclusion of livestock. With nearly 200 HMA’s, a need to reduce horse numbers to appropriate management levels (AML) on many of them, and the myriad of conflicts with livestock and wildlife, BLM is saddled with attempting to manage chaos. A system of congressionally designated ranges that would be a fraction of the number of current HMA's holds the potential to focus good range management on horses, burros, wildlife and their habitat in a more likely successful scenario. Combined with greater use of fertility control and fewer gathers, this option would provide for a maximum number of healthy horses on healthy ranges about the same as the current AML, but with fewer conflicts. Considerable information must be developed and the many issues surrounding establishing ranges need to be identified and resolved. This can occur while, on an interim basis, options to reduce the cost of holding horses are employed. In closing, the Public Lands Foundation is asking that the option of managing wild horses, burros and wildlife exclusively on a system of designated ranges be considered as a means by which BLM can minimize conflicts and successfully manage wild horses and burros. In addition to asking that this option be fully developed, we offer the assistance of the PLF in this regard. After the BLM completes its analysis of the comments it is currently receiving, we recommend release of a draft of the proposed plan it intends to provide the Congress and a short opportunity for public comment. If this is done, we will work with other groups representing diverse interests to try to develop a single response to the draft plan. Currently each group is developing its own comments because there is no single plan on which to focus. We do not believe this will be very productive for the BLM. A single response of support, suggestions for improvement or a unified alternative for BLM to consider would be more beneficial. Last winter I met with many groups in Washington, DC who are concerned about the current situation and would be willing to sit down and try to work out a solution. This would provide that opportunity. We are not a wealthy foundation, but we believe this can be done if all the groups we spoke with agree to fund their own expenses, without financial assistance from the BLM. Please give us a chance! Thank
you for providing the opportunity to make our views known.
Sincerely, /S/
Henri Bisson Enclosures (2)
*****************************************************************
Enclosure 1: Public Lands Foundation Statement
Thank you for providing the opportunity to speak today. My name is Jim May. I am here representing the Public Lands Foundation whose members have thousands of years collective experience managing natural resources. Our organization recently completed a position statement regarding the management of wild horses and burros. Copies of that statement have been provided to staff to be available to you. It is also available on our website at www.publicland.org. The Public Lands Foundation supports the Secretary's program and the work of the BLM to implement that program as an interim measure. We believe, however, that significant changes are needed in the way that wild horses and burros are managed. And, that major legislative changes are needed to implement a new approach to managing these animals. It is our belief that our position may hold the hope to bring an end to the current untenable situation. In a nutshell, our position is that a small group of respected, knowledgeable people representing horse advocacy interests, the livestock community and the wildlife community need to get together resolved to work out differences. They need to develop a framework for managing horses and burros that will assure healthy herds living in concert with the land and with wildlife. Key elements of such a framework include: 1. Determining the number of horses and burros that are necessary to meet the intent of the existing law to have wild horses and burros serve as "living symbols of the historic and pioneer spirit of the West". 2. Developing the idea that all managed wild horse and burro herds would reside on a set number of federally designated ranges in the west that are devoted to maintaining healthy herds, on healthy land upon which wildlife could be expected to flourish. 3. Establishing ranges in public land areas by purchase of private land base property from willing sellers. Livestock would be excluded from the ranges. 4 Eliminating Herd Management Areas since all horses and burros not already on HMA's in designated ranges would be relocated to designated ranges. 5. Pursuing development of long term or permanent fertility control in addition to seeking improved means of short term fertility control. Both long and short term control are considered key elements to managing wild horse ranges. 6. Developing improvements on the ranges that are designed to make it possible for wildlife to flourish on a landscape shared with horses or burros. The Public Lands Foundation is in the process of reviewing BLM’s “Wild Horse and Burro Strategy Development Document” and will provide comments during the comment period. The Foundation also stands ready to provide expertise and assistance to help develop the concept described above. Thank you. Copies of my remarks have been made available to staff. \ *****************************************************************
Enclosure 2: Public Lands Foundation Position Statement March 16,
2010 Executive Summary Nearly 40 years after passage of the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971, there continues to be an expensive and contentious struggle to adequately meet the requirements of the Act to the satisfaction of interested parties. The Act has served to assure the presence of wild horses and burros as part of the Western landscape with there being 37,000 animals on the land today, another 36,000 in holding facilities and 225,000 having been adopted. Budgets have increased from less than $1 million to a request for $75.7 million for 2011, the majority of which is to operate facilities to care for animals for which there is no adoption demand. The Public Lands Foundation’s position is that major changes need to be made in the 1971 Act and in the way that wild horses and burros are maintained as an integral part of the public lands. PLF wants the horse, livestock and wildlife interests to work out an acceptable solution to the current dissatisfaction that they share. These interests should seek agreement on the number of wild horses and burros that should be the focus of the federal management requirement in a system of legislatively established Ranges dedicated to wild horses/burros and wildlife. And, all wild horses and burros should be removed from public lands outside the established Ranges. Background The wild horse and burro herds of today are descendants of animals introduced in North America by early European explorers. They also include descendents of the horses and burros lost or abandoned by settlers, miners, the U.S. Cavalry and ranching enterprises. Genetic testing has revealed genetic links to more than 10 domestic breeds, including Appaloosa, Arabian, Morgan, Quarter Horse, and Thoroughbred as well as to those descended from Spanish stock. There are no effective natural predators to limit the growth and expansion of wild horse and burro herds and without man's intervention overpopulation and the resulting resource degradation is inevitable. Prior to 1971, wild horse and burro populations were kept in check by persons who captured them for domestication and use, for slaughter and/or to reduce competition between them and domestic animals or native wildlife. These gathers were without regulation and there were cases of animal abuse and waste. In response to these and other concerns the Wild Free- Roaming Horses and Burros Act (P.L. 92-195) was signed into law in 1971. Wild free roaming horses and burros were declared, in the Act, to be "living symbols of the historic and pioneering spirit of the West" to be "protected from capture, branding, harassment or death" and "to be considered, in the area where presently found, as an integral part of the natural system of the public lands." Most of the animals are on Bureau of Land Management administered land and that agency was given the responsibility of implementing the Act. BLM’s early efforts to initiate wild horse and burro management included establishment of Wild Horse Ranges in Nevada in 1961, in the Pryor Mountains of Montana in 1968 and in the Little Bookcliffs of Colorado in 1980. The first use of the adoption system to dispose of excess animals was in Montana with horses from the Pryor Mt. Wild Horse Range in 1973. In 1982, the Director of the BLM made a decision not to use authority to destroy unadopted excess animals, making adoption the only means of disposing of excess animals. That decision is supported today by the vast majority of the public and the Congress. In the absence of effective natural predators and with no effective way to dispose of animals, horse and burro populations practically exploded in the 70's and 80's. The Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 directed the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to determine appropriate management levels (AML), maintain a current inventory of wild horses and burros, and determine whether and where overpopulation exists. AML on the 199 Herd Management Areas (HMAs) identified by BLM is 26,578 horses and burros. This compares with a fiscal year 2009 estimate of 33,102 horses and 3,838 burros for a total of 36,940 within the HMAs. FY 2009 Wild Horse and Burro Herd Populations and Appropriate Management Level (AML) by State
Budgets for the horse and burro program were less than $1 million in the early years after passage of the Act. Budgets grew as the complexity of attempting to manage the program was better understood. However, budgets were not adequate to manage animal numbers at the AML. In 1985 the Congress tripled the budget for removals and directed the BLM to triple removals. To handle the unadoptable animals removed, wild horse holding facilities were established in Bloomfield, Nebraska; Lovelock, Nevada; and, Muleshoe, Texas. Protests, appeals, law suits and budget limitations hampered efforts to manage the animals. And, while politically palatable solutions were sought and experimented with, numbers increased to 55,000 by 1990. Damage to rangeland resources, including native wildlife habitat, in wild horse herd areas was severe. Native wildlife species such as deer and antelope were almost completely extirpated from certain habitat areas. The condition of the horses declined from intense competition among themselves for both water and forage. Reproductive rates dropped below 15%, as range condition and animal health declined. Wild horses and burros share the public lands with wildlife and domestic livestock. Wildlife populations are kept in balance with land resources through State hunting laws and regulations, and the numbers of domestic livestock are controlled by the BLM and ranchers. There need to be adequate measures for keeping the numbers of wild horses and burros in balance with the land resources and the wildlife and livestock that share these public ranges. A Wild Horse and Burro Advisory Board was authorized in the 1971 Act to provide advice to the BLM. The boards have been populated by scientists, veterinarians and a cross section of individuals with knowledge and experience relevant to issues involving horses, burros and the environment of which they are a part. Over the years the various boards have provided great services, but their recommendations have been frustrated by inadequate budgets, the pace of research, differences in philosophies, constraints of law, litigation, protests and a variety of other factors. BLM has attempted to deal with the rapid increase in numbers of wild horses and burros by fertility control and adoption. Development of effective fertility control agents has been pursued for decades as a means to keep animal numbers in concert with AML and provide for healthy horses on healthy ranges. The most promising agent is a Porcine Zona Pellucida (PZP) vaccine that was developed in the 1990s, but is not commercially available. PZP is used by BLM under an investigational new animal drug exemption issued by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), held by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). The most effective formulation is a 1-year vaccine that must be re-administered annually. However, it is not feasible to gather wild horse herds every year to administer the vaccine and darting is generally not feasible because it is very difficult to approach most wild horses on western rangelands. So, the BLM uses a 22-month pelleted PZP agent that must be administered to mares after they have been captured. Maximum effectiveness is achieved when the mares are treated during a 3 to 4 month window prior to foaling. This also means more mares need to be captured (treated and released) compared with gather operations that do not include the application of fertility control. BLM has historically managed wild horses and burros removed from the range through adoptions to the general public. Adoption has been regarded as the most economical way to provide humane long-term care to animals that have been removed from the range. Between 1971 through 2007, over 267,000 animals have been removed from public lands with 225,000 of them having been adopted over that period. In the 1990s, the number of animals removed from the range was about equal to the number of animals adopted. The average number of animals adopted each year in the 1990s was about 7,500. Since 2000, the number of animals removed has outpaced the number of animals adopted or sold due to an increase in removals and a steady decline in adoption demand and sales. Sale of animals has played a small part in the disposition of gathered animals. Under a 2004 amendment to the 1971 Act, animals that are more than 10 years old and those that have been passed over for adoption at least three times are eligible for sale. When an animal is sold, title of ownership for the animal passes immediately from the Federal government to the buyer. However, buyers are required to sign a statement confirming that they are not obtaining the animal for the purpose of sending it to slaughter. Horses older than 10 years are transported to long-term contracted pasture facilities. Approximately 3,990 animals have been sold since 2004 and there are currently 8,400 eligible for sale. Removal of animals to meet AML and a significant decline in adoptions has brought about the need for more holding facilities to provide for unadoptable and excess animals. Operation of these holding facilities dominates the program’s budget. Holding Facility Data February 2010 Number Type Facility Capacity Number Held 6 Preparation 4,850 4,713 18 Maintenance 11,146 8,898 15 Long Term Grassland 29,731 22,575 39 TOTAL 45,727 36,186 In fiscal year 2009 holding costs were approximately $29 million, or about 70 percent of the total congressionally enacted wild horse and burro program budget of $40.6 million. In fiscal year 2010, holding costs are expected to exceed $34 million out of a total wild horse and burro budget of $63.9 million (plus an additional $2.1 million in 2009 "carryover" funding). The GAO report, GAO-09-77, states that the average cost of animals in short-term holding increased from $3.00 per horse per day in 2001 to $5.08 per horse per day in 2008. It goes on to state that long-term holding costs were, on average, $1.22 per horse per day in 2001 and that they increased to $1.28 per horse per day in 2008. While the increase was only six cents, the number of horses in long-term holding facilities increased significantly. The budget request for FY2011 is $75.7 million. There is an additional request for $42.5 million for land acquisition to acquire property to place excess animals in the Midwest and East. Limits on forage and water in the West due to persistent drought and wildfire have been cited as a reason to designate a new set of wild horse preserves across the nation. The wild horse herds placed in these preserves would be non-reproducing. Discussion The Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act was passed nearly 40 years ago to address two major concerns: one, that wild horses and burros were being harassed and mistreated; and, two, that they may cease to exist as a component of the western landscape. Harassment and mistreatment have largely stopped although some interests believe activities to manage the animals are a form of harassment and mistreatment. Concerns over wild horses and burros ceasing to exist should be allayed by the fact there are 37,000 animals on the range today; thousands more than in 1971. And, the ability of the animals to sustain and expand their numbers has been demonstrated by the fact that 225,000 have been adopted and another 36,000 are currently in holding facilities. Over the years the BLM has undertaken a variety of actions as part its program to manage wild horses and burros. These have included identifying areas where the animals existed in 1971 (Herd Areas), estimating numbers to manage against (AML), and redefining management areas into HMAs to take into account ownership changes, adjustments for limited forage and water, and for other reasons. The BLM’s management objective could be described as an effort to maintain healthy herds consistent with AML and, at the same time, provide for a multiplicity of uses including historical livestock grazing and habitat for wildlife on healthy land. Budget shortfalls, differing philosophies about the role of horses and burros on the landscape, lack of public and congressional support to use euthanasia, litigation, inability to control reproduction and saturation of the adoption market have all worked to prevent the suggested objective from being met on a widespread basis. Unmanaged horses and burros are capable of doubling their numbers every four years until they destroy their habitat and their numbers are then controlled due to starvation and disease. Gathering animals and setting them up for adoption has been the principal means of attempting to manage numbers. Fertility control and creation of non-reproducing herds in holding facilities are other means for control. Fertility control holds promise; however, it is experimental and at present would require considerable handling of horses on most of the 199 widespread HMAs. Since the adoption market seems to be largely saturated and adversely affected by the current economic situation, the number of horses in holding facilities has grown to 36,000. Managing these facilities takes up the majority of the program budget. As well, a need has been expressed to appropriate $42.5 million to acquire property in the Midwest and East to deal with current and projected increases in held horses. Program funding needs have risen to a requested $75.7 million for fiscal year 2011. It is difficult to forecast the end of the growth of holding facilities, the number of animals held in them and their attendant cost. The GAO has been critical of this fact and there is taxpayer complaint about program costs. Management of the wild horse and burro program in its current configuration might be described as one in which no one is happy. Among other things, wild horse advocates are unhappy with the determination of AML and HMAs, are unhappy with most gathering efforts undertaken to bring animals to AML and are unhappy with having horses in holding facilities. Livestock interests are unhappy with what they see as deteriorated range conditions attributable to horses and burros, are unhappy with numbers exceeding AML and are unhappy that horses and burros have expanded or moved out of HMAs onto private land or areas where they did not previously exist. Wildlife interests are unhappy with the effect that horses and burros have had on habitat, including water sources, for deer, wild sheep and other species. The Department of the Interior and BLM cannot be happy with the difficulties of trying to manage the program under current circumstances and limitations. And, there cannot be many people who are happy with the ever escalating costs of the program. At one time or another, all interested parties have litigated or protested the program. Many knowledgeable, well intentioned people have worked hard over the years to try to make the wild horse and burro program one that works to satisfy the requirements of law and ultimately have healthy horses on healthy ranges. Yet, the program remains one replete with frustration and is one that many inside and outside of government describe as “impossible.” None of the litigation or any of the legislative proposals is seen as an answer for the program’s ills. A long-term solution should begin with a grass roots effort to bring all parties together to determine the acceptable number of wild horses and burros that should be maintained in the West and to then discuss the creation of National Wild Horse and Burro Ranges to accommodate the acceptable number of animals. These National Ranges would be managed for the maintenance and protection of wild horses, burros and wildlife. The Ranges could be created from combinations of existing herd management areas and result in increased number of horses on them, in balance with the range resource. Livestock permits and base property, most often highly productive meadows, could be acquired from willing sellers to eliminate significant conflict and provide opportunities for management of animals. Herd management areas that are not a part of a system of Ranges would be eliminated. The best outcome can only be derived from the designation of new horse ranges in the West, where these horses belong. If this can be accomplished, then the issue of what to do with excess animals will still remain. However, we believe that with extensive use of fertility control, the reproductive rate can be reduced to the point where the need for horse removals will be about equal to the level of current adoptions and natural attrition. Ranges with facilities and designs for managing horse populations could have the potential for better implementation of fertility control protocols. PLF Position The Public Lands Foundation believes that major changes need to be made in the 1971 Act and in the way that wild horses and burros are managed as an integral part of the public lands. Our position is: 1. Horse, livestock and wildlife interests should participate in facilitated meetings to shape a framework for significantly revising how wild horses and burros are managed on public lands in the West. 2. These interests should seek agreement on the number of wild horses and burros that should be the focus of the federal management requirement in a system of legislatively established Ranges dedicated to wild horses/burros and wildlife. The number of Ranges envisioned is 10 – 15 with the ultimate number being a function of the availability of land, its carrying capacity and the total number of wild horses and burros that will be managed. 3. Remove all wild horses and burros from public lands outside the established Ranges. 4. Manage resident populations on Ranges to maintain the health and desirable genetic characteristics of the horse and burro herds and the condition of their habitat. 5. Offer excess animals to prospective adopters for a reasonable period and, if not adopted, sell them to the highest bidder with no restrictions on their future use. 6. Optimize efforts to develop effective fertility controls. 7. Eliminate holding facilities as soon as practical keeping only Midwest and Eastern facilities necessary to facilitate adoptions.
References BLM: http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/wild_horse_and_burro.html GAO Report 09-77: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-77; Then click on: Full Report (PDF, 88 pages) WH&B
Advisory Board 9-28-09 Meeting Minutes: http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/Planning_and_Renewable_Resources/wild_horses_and_ |