Controversy Surrounds Government Plan for Wild Horse Management
August 29, 2019 - The management of wild horses in the western United States remains a contentious issue, with differing views on the 'wildness' of horses in North America. While some see the European horses released in the western US as a return of a once-eradicated wild animal, others view them as feral interlopers harmful to the fragile ecology of the arid west.
No matter how one perceives wild horses, it is evident that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has mismanaged them for years, costing taxpayers millions. The BLM faces the challenging task of managing vast numbers of horses across a politically charged landscape. In 2009, there were an estimated 37,000 wild horses and burros on land that should support only 27,000, with 31,500 more in government holding pens.
As of March 1, 2019, the on-range population estimate for wild horses and burros was 88,090 across all states, while the appropriate management level is estimated to be 26,690. Managing this number of horses is incredibly expensive. The BLM spent $81.226 million on managing wild horses for fiscal year 2018, with most being removed from rangeland and placed in holding pens. Although available for adoption, significantly more horses and burros are captured annually than adopted.
Horse populations continue to rise unchecked, and plans to sterilize horses were previously dropped by the BLM. Research indicates that the BLM's removal of many horses and burros likely increases their population growth rates. Now, there is a serious conflict of interest involved in BLM’s wild horse management.
The House of Representatives passed the 2020 appropriations bill HR 3055 on June 25, approving a plan to manage wild horses created by various stakeholders, including the Humane Society of the US (HSUS), the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA), the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA), and the American Mustang Foundation.
The plan, titled '10 years to AML: A Proposal for BLM’s Wild Horse and Burro Program,' suggests removing more horses from rangeland to cost-effective pasture facilities and implementing fertility control for up to 90% of free-range mares. These methods are promoted as alternatives to lethal population control methods, but the plan has harsh critics.
Marty Irby of Animal Wellness Action called the plan “terrible,” stating, “America was built on the backs of horses, and to remove these majestic steeds from federal lands goes against the very core of equine protection…Animal groups should know better, and we’re appalled by their proposition…”
The American Wild Horse Conservation (formerly American Wild Horse Campaign) criticized the plan as “an irresponsible sellout of America’s wild horses and the 80 percent of Americans who want them protected in the wild.”
The plan is a compromise between parties with different goals. It disallows selling animals for slaughter, relying instead on broader marketing to increase adoption rates. However, it could potentially reduce wild horse populations to small remnants.
All together, the plan seems like a humane way to remove the competition wild horses and burros represent to ranchers grazing livestock on public lands as well as native wildlife. Some wild horse advocates see this as an unacceptable compromise.
The future of the bill and the management of wild horses and burros now lies with the Senate. Advocates requested $50 million to implement the wild horse plan, but the House appropriated $6 million for the Department of the Interior to begin implementation. The Senate appropriations panel overseeing funding for the Department of the Interior is chaired by Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, with Emy Lesofski, married to Drew Lesofski of the American Mustang Foundation, as chief clerk.
Drew Lesofski, a lobbyist and former aide to Nevada Governor Jim Gibbons, could see the Mustang Foundation benefit from the plan to relocate horses to private holding facilities, costing taxpayers millions. Critics argue this sets the stage for a conflict of interest.
Critics call for an on-range management plan, considering wild horses as part of the western American ecosystem. The key to success is not just removing and adopting horses, but effective fertility control.
According to the National Academy of Sciences, removing wild horses only accelerates population growth. The question remains: why remove horses at all when they cost taxpayers millions to maintain? The new plan claims marketing to East Coast horse owners will increase adoption rates, but significant growth is uncertain. Meanwhile, horses remain in captivity, costing resources but no longer competing with livestock for grazing land.
Originally posted by Earth.com