Eyewitness Report: First Meeting of NAS Wild Horse and Burro Program Review Committee

January 14, 2016

AWHC Contributor

The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) provisional committee, appointed to review the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) wild horse and burro program, held its first meeting in Reno, Nevada, on October 27, 2011. This meeting gathered key stakeholders, including AWHC coalition founder and CEO of Return to Freedom, Neda DeMayo, and wild horse advocate Ellie Phipps Price, alongside numerous Americans advocating for wild horses and burros.

The meeting began with a closed session addressing public concerns about conflicts of interest and bias. The public session featured a presentation by Dean Bolstad, deputy chief of the BLM wild horse and burro program. Three experts presented to the panel:

Dr. Gus Cothran, a clinical professor of veterinary medicine at Texas A&M University, provided an overview of "Genetics of Wild Horses and Burros." View Part I and Part II of his presentation.
Dr. Steve Jenkins, Emeritus Professor of Biology at the University of Nevada, Reno, discussed the "WinEquus Model," software used by the BLM to estimate mustang and burro populations.
Dr. Charles de Seve of the American Economics Foundation presented the "Humane Society of the United States Model" for mustang and burro management.

Particularly noteworthy were Dr. Cothran's genetic testing insights and Dr. DeSeve's economic model, which suggests potential cost savings of nearly $200 million if the BLM manages wild herds on-the-range using PZP fertility control and minimizing removals.

During the public comment period, approximately 30 individuals, primarily wild horse advocates, voiced their opinions. AWHC and coalition partner ASPCA jointly expressed concerns about the NAS panel's lack of balance and the study's scope, which could hinder addressing core issues in the wild horse controversy. For more details, read AWHC's statement and the news release regarding these concerns.

RTF's Neda DeMayo addressed the committee about its failure to recognize the wild horse as a native North American species and the lack of panel balance regarding immunocontraception options. DeMayo raised serious concerns about SpayVac, advocated by several panel members, while no advocates for PZP, with a 20-year history of safe use, were included. DeMayo's statement is available here.

The committee's response to concerns about bias and balance remains to be seen. AWHC will continue to monitor the situation and provide information as the committee holds additional public meetings and conducts its two-year review of the BLM wild horse program.

For more information, including panelist biographies, the meeting agenda, and the study's current scope, visit the NAS website. Highlights from the NAS 1982 report on the wild horse and burro program are available here.