The BLM report said its options address “the reality of the situation” when it comes to feral horses.
That reality, it contends, is almost 83,000 head on land that can only support about 27,000 head, and almost 44,000 head in off-range, long-term holding. The BLM quoted the cost of these off-range horses as reaching over $1 billion over the course of their lives. It also claimed the on-range overpopulation costs the West in terms of rangeland health and wildlife wellbeing.
“For example, overgrazing by wild horses and burros has reduced sagebrush and grass cover vital to greater sage-grouse and has resulted in lower survival rates in those areas,” the report noted.
The report, released at the end of April, offers Congress four management options to produce a sustainable Wild Horse and Burro (WHB) Program. They are, in summary:
Option 1: With a goal of reaching the national appropriate management level (AML) of 26,715 horses and drastically reducing off-range holdings by 2026, this option would require “sale without limitation” and euthanasia of excess horses. This would apply to both on- and off-range horses.
Option 2: This option would focus on expanded off-range housing of excess horses and more rigorous use of both temporary contraception of mares and permanent sterilization of mares and stallions. The BLM estimates the cost of the program would “significantly increase over current levels” and could be volatile due to the increased reliance of off-range pasture. Option 2 estimates the national AML would be reached in 2028.
Option 3: The national AML would be reached by 2024 using a combination of “an aggressive removal operation” combined with the permanent sterilization of the roughly 3,000 horses gathered then returned to the range annually. This option also comes with the dependence on expanded off-range holding of horses and the attendant cost concerns from Option 2. This option additionally proposes offering a $1,000 incentive for potential adopters.
Option 4: This option would achieve the national AML by 2030 or 2031 through “an aggressive effort to gather, sterilize, and return wild horses and burros to the range.” This would include capturing roughly 18,000 horses and sterilizing them for re-release back onto the range in the first five years, then scale back the volume as needed. Additionally, Option 4 includes the proposed adoption incentive from Option 3.
Wildly mixed reactions
The report included discussion of the reactions to the four options (and others) as presented at the National Wild Horse and Burro Summit, held in Salt Lake City, UT, in August 2017. It listed options that were well supported and widely rejected by summit participants.
According to the report, options that were well supported (92-99 percent of participants voicing support) included slaughtering horses for use in pet food or to feed zoo animals, allowing euthanasia of excess horses, allowing for “sale without restriction,” and the commercial slaughter of horses for human consumption.
Options that were rejected by summit participants (75-98 percent opposing) included taking no action, increasing the size or number of horse management areas (HMAs), reducing livestock stocking rates or animal unit months on ranges that overlap with HMAs, or the BLM continuing to haul water out to HMAs for the horses.
However, some feral horse advocacy groups voiced stark opposition to both the report and its focus on the Salt Lake summit.
“This report relies on a ‘summit’ organized by livestock interests and many involved in the political push to shrink federal control over public resources to the extent that this report has a distinct authorship signature,” notes a draft response report to Congress by the nonprofit Wild Horse Education.
“Not one national advocacy organization was invited that did not have members of either interest above.”
Other feral horse advocacy groups roundly denounced the report’s proposed options.
“We find those options which would allow for the killing of healthy horses and selling them to slaughter domestically or abroad (either directly or indirectly), to be inhumane, untenable and unacceptable to the American people,” said Return to Freedom, an advocacy group based out of Lompoc, CA, in its official response.
Ginger Kathrens, leader of the Colorado-based Cloud Foundation and who serves on the BLM’s WHB Advisory Board as the humane advocate, told the Salt Lake City Tribune that, “These federally protected animals are being blamed for rangeland health problems caused by welfare ranching on public lands, and are falsely called ‘starving’ and ‘overpopulated’ as an alarmist tactic to remove them from their home ranges.”
Leaders of National Horse and Burro Rangeland Management Coalition—who are familiar names in the cattle industry—voiced support for the report, however.
“The status quo has failed these animals and the lands on which they roam for far too long, and it is encouraging to see the agencies and Congress finally make progress towards solving this problem before more irreversible damage can be done to these sensitive ranges,” said Ethan Lane, chair of the coalition.
Vice Chair Lia Biondo added, “At the end of the day, healthy horses on healthy rangelands is our top priorities and hopefully this document proposes some commonsense solutions to that end.” — Kerry Halladay, WLJ editor
