Trump Budget Sparks Wild Horse Management Controversy
Proposed BLM Budget Lifts Slaughter Restrictions, Cuts Birth Control
The Trump administration's proposed budget for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has sparked significant controversy among wild horse advocates. The proposal aims to lift restrictions on horse slaughter and reduce funding for birth control, favoring non-lethal management methods.
“America is not a horse-eating nation; horses are our partners in work and recreation,” said Suzanne Roy, executive director of the American Wild Horse Conservation (formerly American Wild Horse Campaign).
The BLM and cattle ranching interests argue that the range is overpopulated with horses, and lifting restrictions would alleviate the problem. "We only have so much feed and water out there," said Dave Stix Jr., president of the Nevada Cattlemen's Association. "If being able to sell the horses and they end up going to a protein source overseas, that is better than having them starve to death on the open range."
Amodei Says Bill Will Likely Change
The horse-killing language is included in the 2018 budget justification the BLM submitted to Congress. It asks Congress to “eliminate appropriations language restricting the BLM from using all of the management options authorized in the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act.”
The 1971 act calls for the “protection, management, and control of wild horses and burros” on federal public land. Restrictions added in 1988, 2004, and 2010 prohibited the destruction of healthy animals and the sale of horses to companies that slaughter them for food, the proposal states. Removing the restrictions during the appropriations process would allow for the revival of the practice of selling wild horses for slaughter.
“Congress should reject the BLM’s budget request to lift the ban on selling wild horses for slaughter and destroying healthy wild horses,” Roy said.
The Interior subcommittee of the House Committee on Appropriations is scheduled to mark up the BLM budget proposal on Wednesday. Rep. Mark Amodei, R-Nev., is on the committee and expects what emerges will be “much different” than the administration proposal but didn’t specify how.
Although commonplace in other countries, the slaughter of horses for meat has long been controversial in the United States. Congress has sent mixed messages on the practice with a ban on funding for U.S. Department of Agriculture inspections of horse meat. Without inspections, slaughterhouses can’t produce meat for human consumption. In 2011, Congress removed the ban. Three years later, however, it re-imposed it.
While the ban essentially prevents horse slaughter in the U.S., people who wish to sell horses for meat can still sell to slaughterhouses in Mexico and Canada. Another way Congress has expressed itself on the matter is through appropriations riders that bar the BLM from destroying healthy horses or selling them to people who would sell them for slaughter. These are the restrictions the administration wants Congress to lift during the budget process.
Separately, the BLM has its own policy aimed at ensuring people who adopt wild horses will provide the animals a good home and won’t sell them for slaughter. The budget request contradicts that policy.
Loopholes in Laws Against Horse Slaughter
Advocates against horse slaughter say it’s cruel and violates the will of the majority of American people who oppose it. They prefer to keep wild horses on the range and cite polling that shows widespread, bipartisan support for non-lethal controls. Others say slaughter restrictions contribute to an overpopulation of unwanted horses, domestic and wild, that results in miserable conditions for some animals.
There’s also evidence horse brokers will find ways to circumvent restrictions. As recently as 2015, a Colorado rancher was found to have purchased 1,700 formerly wild horses from the BLM and sold them into slaughter despite restrictions.
When it comes to what to do with the estimated 73,000 wild horses and burros already on public land in 10 states, opinions vary drastically. Ranchers, who benefit by grazing cattle on public rangeland, tend to favor authorizing the BLM to take aggressive measures to remove horses. They say horses compete with livestock for forage.
Removed horses end up in BLM or privately-owned holding areas where they can be sold or adopted. There are not enough non-kill buyers or adoptive families to soak up the supply of captive horses and burros, which currently stands at about 46,000.
Horse advocates tend to favor measures that keep horses alive and on the range, such as programs in which workers administer non-surgical birth control treatments. Although some horse advocates dislike certain forms of birth control, they also accuse the BLM and cattle interests of underestimating the number of horses and burros the range can sustainably support.
Study Shows Birth Control for Wild Horse Populations is Key
In 2013, the National Academy of Sciences conducted one of the most extensive academic reviews of the BLM’s Wild Horse and Burro Management program and found birth control medication to be among the most effective, non-lethal methods the agency could use to manage horse populations. Applying existing birth control adequately, "does give you the opportunity of maintaining a healthy population on the land," said Guy Palmer, a Washington State University veterinarian and chair of the National Academy's horse study committee.
Trump’s proposed BLM budget doesn’t increase wild horse birth control measures. Instead, it states that of the $10 million in proposed savings, $4 million will come through unrestricted horse sales and the remaining $6 million will come from a reduction in horse gathers and birth control. The budget would retain birth control research.
Terri Farley, author of “Wild at Heart: Mustangs and the Young People Fighting to Save Them,” which was recognized by the National Science Teachers Association and American Association for the Advancement of Science, said the contraception programs have been shown to work and should receive more funding support. “What they’re saying is they will save $9 million to $10 million by getting rid of the horses in holding,” said Farley, who is also the wife of RGJ columnist Cory Farley. “If they put that money to contraception, it would be the end of the problem.”
Originally posted by Reno Gazette-Journal