[House Hearing, 105 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
RANGE ISSUES AND PROBLEMS WITH THE WILD HORSE AND BURRO ACT AND ITS
IMPLEMENTATION
=======================================================================
FIELD HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIC LANDS
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JULY 13, 1998, RENO, NEVADA
__________
Serial No. 105-105
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house
or
Committee address: http://www.house.gov/resources
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
50-579 CC WASHINGTON : 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana GEORGE MILLER, California
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
ELTON GALLEGLY, California BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland Samoa
KEN CALVERT, California NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
RICHARD W. POMBO, California SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
LINDA SMITH, Washington CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Rico
Carolina MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona SAM FARR, California
JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon ADAM SMITH, Washington
CHRIS CANNON, Utah WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
KEVIN BRADY, Texas CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin
RICK HILL, Montana Islands
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado RON KIND, Wisconsin
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
Lloyd A. Jones, Chief of Staff
Elizabeth Megginson, Chief Counsel
Christine Kennedy, Chief Clerk/Administrator
John Lawrence, Democratic Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman
ELTON, GALLEGLY, California ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee Samoa
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
RICHARD W. POMBO, California BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
LINDA SMITH, Washington FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Rico
Carolina MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
RICK HILL, Montana DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada Islands
RON KIND, Wisconsin
LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
Allen Freemyer, Counsel
Todd Hull, Professional Staff
Liz Birnbaum, Democratic Counsel
Gary Griffith, Professional Staff
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held July 13, 1998....................................... 1
Statements of Members:
Ensign, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Nevada............................................ 7
Prepared statement of.................................... 7
Faleomavaega, Hon. Eni, a Delegate in Congress from the
Territory of American Samoa................................ 3
Gibbons, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Utah.............................................. 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 6
Hansen, Hon. James V., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Utah.............................................. 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Statements of witnesses:
Abbey, Robert V., Nevada State Director, BLM................. 8
Prepared statement of.................................... 48
Additional material submitted by......................... 52
Balliette, John, Eureka County Natural Resources Manager..... 29
Prepared statement of.................................... 61
Barcomb, Cathy, Executive Director, Commission for the
Preservation of Wild Horses................................ 41
Prepared statement of.................................... 67
Carpenter, Assemblyman John, Nevada Assemblyman.............. 15
Dahl, Demar, Rancher......................................... 40
Prepared statement of.................................... 66
Additional material submitted by......................... 105
Flake, Rey, Lincoln County Commissioner...................... 28
Prepared statement of.................................... 149
Lesperance, Anthony, Ph.D., Elko County Commissioner......... 26
Prepared statement of.................................... 129
Rhoads, Senator Dean, Chairman of the Senate Natural
Resources Committee, Nevada Legislature.................... 13
Prepared statement of.................................... 106
Rodriguez, Sheila Hughes, Counsel, Animal Protection
Institute.................................................. 35
Prepared statement of.................................... 154
Shroufe, Duane L., Director, Arizona Game & Fish Department.. 10
Prepared statement of.................................... 83
Tattam, David C.J., Field Director, National Wild Horse
Association................................................ 37
Prepared statement of.................................... 162
Additional material supplied:
BLM Management Plan.......................................... 72
Sussman, Karen A., President, International Society for the
Protection of Mustangs and Burros, prepared statement of... 167
Communications submitted:
Fugate, Jon, Chairman, Legislative Affairs, Yuma Valley Rod &
Gun Club, Inc., Yuma, Arizona, prepared statement of....... 68
Hazard, Holly E., Executive Director, Doris Day Animal
League, prepared statement of.............................. 71
Schutte, Larry L., Big Springs Ranch, Wells, Nevada, prepared
statement of............................................... 67
The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), prepared
statement of............................................... 70
FIELD HEARING ON RANGE ISSUES AND PROBLEMS WITH THE WILD HORSE AND
BURRO ACT AND ITS IMPLEMENTATION
----------
MONDAY, JULY 13, 1998
House of Representatives, Subcommittee on National
Parks & Public Lands, Committee on Resources,
Reno, Nevada.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9 a.m., in the
Washoe County Commission Chambers, Building A, Reno, Nevada,
Hon. James Hansen (chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Hansen, Faleomavaega,
Pombo, Chenoweth, Ensign and Gibbons.
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES HANSEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. Hansen. The Committee will come to order. The
Subcommittee on National Parks & Public Lands convenes for a
field hearing on range issues with wild horses and burros and
implementation of the 1971 Wild Horse and Burro Act.
When the Spaniards first came to America, they brought
horses. Conquistadors like Cortez and Coronado lost a few
horses during their campaigns and these horses migrated north
and formed the foundation stock of numerous herds of feral
animals in the wilderness of North America.
These herds of feral horses became an important source of
riding animals for the plains indians and later the American
pioneers. The herds were, and continue to be, supplemented by
escaped farm and ranch stock. However, the feral burros are
mostly descendants of 19th and 20th century escaped or released
pack animals.
As a note of clarification, I think it is important to
mention that these horses and burros are not truly wild animals
in the sense that bighorn sheep, mountain lions and bears are
wild animals. These are domesticated animals that have gone
feral. They are only wild in the sense that the alley cat down
the street is wild.
As more of the West was settled and better riding stock was
imported, feral herds became less important. In fact, they were
quickly becoming a liability to ranchers and farmers who needed
the land for domestic stock. Thousands of these horses were
slaughtered to remove competition with domestic stock, to
obtain meat for animal feed or for other purposes. Fortunately,
these horses had some pretty good PR people working for them,
and the American people mobilized in the late 1960's pushing
for some sort of protection for these animals.
In 1971, Congress, finding that wild free-roaming horses
and burros were quote, ``living symbols of the historic and
pioneer spirit of the West,'' passed the Wild Horse and Burro
Protection Act. The Act directed the Secretaries of Agriculture
and Interior to protect these animals from destruction, to set
aside range for them and to set up an adoption program for
excess animals.
The intentions behind the Act were quite laudable.
Unfortunately, things have not worked out quite as well as
Congress anticipated. The range is becoming degraded, riparian
areas are being destroyed, adoptions are lagging and cost
millions of dollars a year to administer. The health of the
animals on the range is deteriorating, disease is becoming a
problem in many areas and the animals are competing with and
driving out wildlife.
It costs $18 million a year to administer the wild horse
and burro program. Last year, 8,692 animals were adopted. This
works out to over $2,000 per animal, and yet, these horses sell
for $200 per animal. Two thousand to sell a $200 horse. If any
public land program could be called a subsidy, this would be
it.
But we are not here today to talk about adoptions, because
there are even bigger problems on the range. Some of the
problems stem from the way the Act is implemented, others stem
from the Act itself.
As our friend Pat Shea, Director of BLM, has noted, these
animals are livestock, and we need to give the BLM the
authority to start managing them as livestock. The BLM faces a
lot of challenges as it tries to manage its feral animals on
the public lands. We have given them laws and mandates to live
by that are often contradictory, and generally they try to do
the best they can to make sense of the whole mess. I hope we
can figure out a way to make their job a little easier.
This hearing was scheduled in order to give
environmentalists, Federal, state and local government
officials and concerned citizens an opportunity to discuss some
of the problems with implementation of the Wild Horse and Burro
Act and to give people an opportunity to present ideas on how
to improve management of wild horses and burros. I would like
to welcome our witnesses and thank them for joining us today. I
hope this can be a productive dialogue.
I will now turn to the gentleman from American Samoa, Mr.
Faleomavaega, for any opening statement that he may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hansen follows:]
Statement of Hon. James V. Hansen, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Utah
The Committee will come to order. The Subcommittee on
National Parks and Public Lands convenes for a field hearing on
range issues with wild horses and burros and implementation of
the 1971 Wild Horse and Burro Act.
When the Spaniards first came to the Americas they brought
horses. Conquistadors like Cortez and Coronado lost a few
horses during their campaigns and these horses migrated north
and formed the foundation stock of numerous herds of feral
animals in the wilderness of North America.
These herds of feral horses became an important source of
riding animals for the Plains Indians and later the American
Pioneers. The herds were and continue to be supplemented by
escaped farm and ranch stock. However, the feral burros are
mostly descendants of 19th and 20th century escaped or released
pack animals.
As a note of clarification, I think it is important to
mention that these horses and burros are not truly wild animals
in the sense that Bighorn Sheep, Mountain Lions and Bears are
wild animals. These are domesticated animals that have gone
feral. They are only ``wild'' in the sense that the alley cat
down the street is ``wild.''
As more of the West was settled, and better riding stock
was imported, feral herds became less important. In fact, they
were quickly becoming a liability to ranchers and farmers who
needed the land for domestic stock. Thousands of these horses
were slaughtered to remove competition with domestic stock, to
obtain meat for animal feed, or for other purposes.
Fortunately, these horses had some pretty good PR people
working for them, and the American people mobilized in the late
1960's, pushing for some sort of protection for these animals.
In 1971 Congress, finding that wild free-roaming horses and
burros were ``living symbols of the historic and pioneer spirit
of the West,'' passed the Wild Horses and Burros Protection
Act. The Act directed the Secretaries of Agriculture and
Interior to protect these animals from destruction, to set
aside range for them, and to set up an adoption program for
excess animals.
The intentions behind the Act were quite laudable.
Unfortunately, things haven't worked out quite as well as
Congress anticipated. The range is becoming degraded, riparian
areas are being destroyed, adoptions are lagging and cost
millions of dollars a year to administer, the health of the
animals on the range is deteriorating, disease is becoming a
problem in many areas, and the animals are competing with and
driving out wildlife.
It costs $18 million a year to administer the wild horse
and burro program. Last year 8,692 animals were adopted. That
works out to over $2,000 per animal. And yet these animals sell
for about $200. $2,000 to sell a $200 horse--If any public
lands program could be called a subsidy, this would be it.
But we are not here today to talk about adoptions, because
there are even bigger problems on the range. Some of these
problems stem from the way the Act is implemented, others may
stem from the Act itself.
As our friend Mr. Pat Shea has noted, these animals are
livestock, and we need to give the BLM the authority to start
managing them as livestock. The BLM faces a lot of challenges
as it tries to manage feral animals on the public lands. We
have given them laws and mandates to live by that are often
contradictory, and generally they try to do the best they can
to make sense out of the whole mess. I hope we can figure out a
few ways to make that job a little easier.
This hearing was scheduled in order to give
environmentalists, Federal, state and local government
officials, and concerned citizens an opportunity to discuss
some of the problems with implementation of the Wild Horse and
Burro Act and to give people an opportunity to present ideas on
how to improve management of feral horses and burros. I would
like to welcome our witnesses and thank them for joining us
today. I hope this can be a productive dialogue.
I will now turn the time over to the Gentleman from
American Samoa for any opening statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. ENI FALEOMAVAEGA, A DELEGATE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE TERRITORY OF AMERICAN SAMOA
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this
hearing this morning. I do want to also express my appreciation
to the gentleman from Nevada, the host of our hearing this
morning here in Reno. I want to also express my appreciation to
all the witnesses who are scheduled for having their testimony
before the Committee here this morning.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be here today to participate
in the Subcommittee's oversight hearing on wild horses and
burros. To some, these animals are a beloved symbol of the
west; to others, they are considered a nuisance. Either way,
they are an important aspect of public lands management.
Legislative policy on this important issue was established more
than a quarter of a century ago with the passage of the Wild
Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act of 1971 that declares that
wild free-roaming horses and burros are living symbols of the
historic and pioneer spirit of the west, that they contribute
to the diversity of life forms within the Nation and enrich the
lives of the American people. Although the Act has been in
existence for nearly 27 years, it has been only in the last 2
years that the wild horses and burro program has come under
significant public scrutiny.
Some months ago, an Associated Press report stated that
despite the existence of current Federal law which is aimed at
protecting these wild horses and burros, and with the
implementation of a Federal adoption program for these wild
animals, through individuals who qualified to adopt these
animals, along with the pledges not to slaughter such animals,
there are allegations that thousands of horses are being
slaughtered and there are further allegations that BLM could
not even account for some 32,000 adopted animals, and that even
BLM employees may have been participants and may even have
profited in the slaughter of thousands of wild horses.
Then there is also the question of title and ownership of
these wild animals by their individual adopters. And if title
is given to owners of these animals, can they transfer such
ownership or title for purposes of selling the animal to a
slaughter house company that makes dog and cat food items,
which today is a multi-billion dollar industry.
Mr. Chairman, I am aware that a number of concerns have
been raised about the BLM's management of wild horses and
burros, particularly its adoption procedures. I also know that
the BLM has undertaken a number of reforms in the programs in
the past 18 months. I am here today to listen and learn how
these reforms are working, as well as whether the overall
program is achieving the intended purposes of the Wild Free-
Roaming Horse and Burro Act.
I appreciate the presence of your witnesses again, and I
look forward to their testimony. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. Thank the gentleman for his comments.
Our host is Mr. Jim Gibbons, our Congressman from this
area. I turn to the representative from this area, Mr. Gibbons.
STATEMENT OF HON. JIM GIBBONS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And to you,
as the Chairman of the Committee, and the Ranking Member, Mr.
Faleomavaega of American Samoa, I want to welcome my colleagues
and all of you here today to Reno for this hearing. And on
behalf of the people of the state of Nevada, I want to say
thank you for your concern about the wild horse and burro
issue, and especially for conducting a hearing today, in which
bringing Congress to Nevada brings our representation to the
people, which I think is an important part. So I applaud you on
your leadership of this issue and again welcome you here to
Nevada.
Mr. Chairman, as you have eloquently stated in your
remarks, the wild horses in Nevada, as well as the rest of the
United States, have roamed the ranges here since the late
1500's when Spanish conquistadors explored north into North
America from Mexico. These animals are not native to the west,
they are feral. The horses and burros were released either--or
lost by the Spanish, which grew wild on the fenceless ranges
here in the west, and today, nearly 500 years later, their
legacy lives on. Nowhere is this more prevalent than here in
Nevada, home to about 60 percent of the wild horses, 60 percent
of the 43,000 that roam the public lands of the west.
Unfortunately many problems of the management of today's
wild horses and burros have met with public scrutiny. The
current over-population, both on and off range, threatens the
wellbeing of the environment, strains the resources of the BLM
to sustain excess animals that have been removed from the
range.
Another concern is, the gene pool of these wild herds is
degenerating as healthier, stronger animals, those more
suitable for adoption are selected and removed from the range.
Now this Committee, I am sure, with the help of the public
and the BLM can resolve many of these issues. That is why I
have asked you to bring this hearing here today to Nevada so
that we can hear more about this very important issue.
1971 public concern for the humane treatment of wild horses
and burros persuaded Congress to pass the Free-Roaming Horse
and Burro Act. This Act referred to the wild equines as living
symbols of the historic and pioneer spirit of the west and
declared them an integral part of the natural system of public
lands. The Act granted authority to the Secretary of Interior
to oversee and manage wild horses and burros. The herds are to
be managed at a minimum level, allowing them to truly be free
roaming and wild. However, strict language in the Act requires
their numbers to be restrained to prevent damage to the range
and other species.
Each year the BLM helicopters and riders round up excess
horses and burros which are offered for adoption to the public
and a nationwide adoption program. Unfortunately though the BLM
is presently sheltering more than 6,000 unadopted wild horses
and burros, these animals are costing the taxpayers about
$50,000 a week. Many have become unadoptable, and in many
instances, due to old age and the present spread of disease,
have precluded their successful adoption. Also, these
unadoptable animals are being held contrary to the resolution
set forth in the Act of 1971, and done so at a great expense to
taxpayers as well as we mentioned previously. Unfortunately
many of these animals are destined to live out their days as
Federal welfare cases as facilities across the United States
are filled beyond capacity. Without adoption or commercial
demand the horses and burros are consigned to death in
captivity. A situation which is ironic at best considering the
attempt of the statue to preserve them.
The Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act mandates unadopted
animals to--and I quote--``be destroyed in the most humane and
cost efficient manner possible.'' That same fate is designated
for old, sick or lame animals. However, the BLM is not
fulfilling this unpleasant but probably necessary
responsibility. The BLM has resolved to reduce the total
population to a little more than 27,000 equines; however,
neither a time table nor the resources are adequate as proposed
to accomplish this goal.
Mr. Chairman, I will submit for the remainder of the time
this morning my written comments. I look forward to the
witnesses, and I would also like to ask that for purposes of
submission for the record that I be allowed to enter into the
record a copy of the Nevada wild horse management plan for
Federal lands, which has several recommendations within that,
for the record for the Committee to review on this issue.
Again, I want to thank you for having this hearing hear
today. I look forward to the testimony that we are about to
receive from these panels of well known and educated
individuals on this issue. Certainly it is time that Congress
take a look at this very expensive case and have a look at the
total cost of where we are going, how we are getting there and
how the management of these animals is predicted and taking
place for the future. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, again for having
this hearing.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Mr. Gibbons. Without objection, your
entire testimony and the testimony on the BLM management plan
will be included in the record.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gibbons follows:]
Statement of Hon. Jim Gibbons, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Nevada
Mr. Chairman:
On behalf of the people of Nevada and all states concerned
with wild horses and burros, I would like to thank you for
conducting this hearing today in Reno.
As you may know, wild horses and burros have roamed the
ranges of Nevada since the late 1500s when Spanish
conquistadores explored north from Mexico.
The horses and burros left, or rather lost, by the Spanish
grew wild on the fenceless range. Today, nearly 500 years later
their legacy lives on.
Nowhere is this more prevalent than here in Nevada, home to
over half of the 43,000 wild horses and burros that roam public
lands in the west.
Unfortunately, many problems challenge the management of
today's wild horses and burros.
The current overpopulation--both on and off the range--
threatens the well-being of the environment and strains the
resources of the BLM to sustain excess animals that have been
removed from the range.
Another concern is that the gene pool of the wild herds is
degenerating as healthier, stronger animals--those more
suitable for adoption--are selectively removed from the range.
I feel this Committee, with the help of the BLM, can
resolve this situation. That is why I asked the Chairman to
hold this hearing today.
In 1971, public concern for the humane treatment of the
wild horses and burros persuaded Congress to pass the Free
Roaming Horse and Burro Act.
This Act referred to the wild equines as ``living symbols
of the historic and pioneer spirit of the West,'' and declared
them ``an integral part of the natural system of the public
lands.''
The Act granted authority to the Secretary of the Interior
to oversee and manage wild horses and burros.
The herds are to be managed at a minimum level--allowing
them to truly be free-roaming and wild. However, strict
language in the Act requires their numbers to be restrained to
prevent damage to the range and other species.
Each year the BLM helicopters and riders round up excess
horses and burros, which are offered for adoption to the public
in a nationwide adoption program.
Unfortunately, though, the BLM is presently sheltering more
than 6,000 unadopted wild horses and burros. These animals,
which are costing taxpayers $50,000 dollars a week, have become
unadoptable in many instances due to old age and the spread of
disease.
These unadopted animals are being held contrary to the
resolutions set forth in the Act of 1971--and done so at a
great expense to taxpayers. Unfortunately, many of these
animals are destined to live out their days as Federal welfare
cases, as facilities across the U.S. are filled beyond
capacity.
Without adoption or commercial demand, the horses and
burros are consigned to death in captivity--a situation which
is ironic at best.
The Free Roaming Horse and Burro Act mandates unadopted
animals to ``be destroyed in the most humane and cost efficient
manner possible.''
The same fate is designated for ``old, sick, or lame
animals.'' However, the BLM is not fulfilling this unpleasant,
but necessary responsibility.
The BLM has resolved to reduce the total population to
28,000 equines, however, neither a timetable nor the resources
have been proposed to accomplish this goal.
Many times I have heard the BLM claim that they do not have
the necessary tools to properly manage the wild horses and
burros program. Therefore, I call on the BLM to recommend
legislative solutions, after taking careful consideration of
today's testimony, to ensure proper management of wild horses
and burros.
It is important to remember that the success of feral horse
management will depend upon accurate scientific information and
collaborative participation by all groups potentially affected
by horse management.
My desire is to develop a realistic management strategy so
that a healthy band of wild horses and burros freely roam our
public lands for generations to come. The future of our
rangelands demand no less!
Again, Mr. Chairman I would like to thank you for allowing
us to have this hearing today, and I look forward to the
testimony from our distinguished panels.
Mr. Hansen. Our other Nevada host is Congressman John
Ensign. We will turn to Congressman Ensign for an opening
statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN ENSIGN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA
Mr. Ensign. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will just make a few
brief remarks and ask unanimous consent that my entire
statement be made part of the record.
Mr. Hansen. Without objection.
Mr. Ensign. As a veterinarian, this is an issue that I have
followed over the years, and having dealt with a lot of
different animal issues over the years, I find that--and one of
the reasons I went into veterinary medicine was partly
because--and mostly because the emotions that you have for
animals. I think the reason that a lot of people are involved
with animals is because of the emotional attachment that
becomes part of that. But I also learned as a veterinarian
working with various groups over the years that that emotional
attachment sometimes can be more damaging to the animals that
you are trying to help than pure science and objectivity would
bring us in the end. So that is one of the things that I am
interested in listening to today.
I will not be able to stay for the whole hearing, but I
will be interested in reading some of the testimony and some of
the questions and answers later. How much of the policy is
actually being directed based on pure emotionalism? How much of
the policy is being directed on what is truly best for the
environment, best for the animals in the long-run for the
overall part of the population, and truly how are we getting to
where we are going and the thought processes along those lines.
So, Mr. Chairman, I thank you and I welcome you here to our
great state of Nevada. We always say as Nevadans that it is the
greatest state in the country and now you are here to
experience why we believe that, so welcome.
Mr. Hansen. Well thank you, Mr. Ensign. We appreciate your
comments.
The gentleman from California, Mr. Pombo.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ensign follows:]
Statement of Hon. John Ensign, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Nevada
Good morning, it is a pleasure to be here today in Reno,
discussing an issue that is important to the people of Nevada.
I am grateful to Chairman Jim Hansen, and the Subcommittee on
National Parks and Public Lands for scheduling this hearing. I
would also like to extend my appreciation to all our witnesses
that have gathered today and taken time out of their busy
schedules to provide their perspectives and possible solutions
to our wild horse management dilemma.
This hearing will provide an excellent opportunity to
listen to the views of state and local officials, officials
from the Bureau of Land Management, and concerned citizens.
Participating in an open dialogue is the first step in finding
solutions to the problems facing the BLM as they continue the
ongoing management of wild horses.
In 1971, Congress declared that wild horses and burros were
``living symbols of the historic and pioneer spirit of the
West'' and passed the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act.
The Act provided for the protection, management control, and
control of wild horses and burros on the public lands, and
directed the Department of Interior, specifically, to manage
the wild horses and burros.
It is unfortunate that the current situation isn't what
Congress had anticipated. Both Federal protection and the
absence of natural predators have contributed to the growing
populations of these animals.
Currently, there are an estimated 43,000 wild horses and
burros found in the West and more than half of them are found
right here in Nevada. As we look closer at the situation, we
find the range land is deteriorating, with many of the riparian
areas destroyed, and other natural wildlife suffering from a
decreased availability of food and water.
There have also been many recent reports questioning tbe
health and stability of many of the wild horses roaming our
range. These factors obviously impact the Bureau's ability to
manage and successfully adopt these horses.
It is my hope that through the medium of this hearing, we
will be able to examine some possible solutions to this
problem, for the benefit of the horses, and the benefit of the
public. I am anxious to hear the points of view from our
panelists. I am confident that we can examine possible
alternatives that would provide for the adequate management of
healthy wild horse herds, while still maintaining a healthy and
diverse ecosystem.
Mr. Pombo. I have nothing, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. The gentlelady from Idaho, Mrs. Chenoweth.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I have nothing, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. With that, we will turn to our first panel. Our
first panel is Robert Abbey, Nevada State Director of BLM. If
you gentlemen would like to come up. Mr. Dean Shroufe--Duane
Shroufe, excuse me, Director of Arizona Game & Fish Department;
Senator Dean Rhoads, Chairman of the Senate Natural Resources
Committee of the Nevada Legislature and Mr. John Carpenter,
Assemblyman in Nevada. If you folks could all come up, we
appreciate you being here. As you probably are aware, we
normally in this Committee limit the statements to 5 minutes.
If you go over a tad, I can understand. We want to hear this
testimony, this is very important for us. But if you can kind
of keep it in that area, and keep in mind that all of your
entire statements will be included in the record. So if you
want to abbreviate those, at your wish, that would be fine.
Mr. Abbey, we will start with you. Pull that mike up. How
this light system works is just like a traffic light. You go at
green, at yellow you start winding it up and at red, we will
not give you a ticket. Depending on how good your testimony is,
we might let you go on. I am just kidding, of course. You just
go right ahead.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT V. ABBEY, NEVADA STATE DIRECTOR, BLM
Mr. Abbey. Thank you. I am Bob Abbey, State Director for
the BLM here in Nevada, and like our distinguished Congressmen
from Nevada, I too would like to welcome you to Reno. This is a
great state.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate
the opportunity to participate in this morning's hearing. Due
to our time constraint, I will provide the Subcommittee with a
quick overview of the Bureau of Land Management's wild horse
and burro program, highlighting those actions that are
presently being taken to address the many issues associated
with this program. However, I do ask that my prepared
statement--copies which have been made available to you--be
entered into the record since it provides additional
information which might be of interest to the members of this
Subcommittee.
As already communicated, since the passage of the Wild and
Free-Roaming Horse and Burro, Act wild horse herds have
flourished and these animals are in no danger of extinction. In
1971, it was estimated that between 10,000 and 17,000 wild
horses and burros roamed the west. Today there are
approximately 43,000 wild horses and burros on the public land,
including an estimated 22,000 in Nevada.
In this state, the BLM manages 99 herd management areas
encompassing over 16 million acres of public land. We are
establishing appropriate management levels--or AMLs, as we
commonly refer to it--through our multiple use decision
process, which involves interdisciplinary monitoring of
resources and evaluations to determine if multiple use and
rangeland standard objectives are being met.
At the end of fiscal year 1997, AMLs had been established
on over half of Nevada's herd management areas and our goal is
to have those numbers established on all herd management areas
by fiscal year 2000. We have been removing excess animals at a
rate allowed by funding and facility space, and we have
successfully achieved AML in many areas.
In herd management areas where we have achieved and are
maintaining AML and working cooperatively with the permittees
to develop better livestock management practices, we have seen
a steady improvement in rangeland conditions. We have therefore
demonstrated that wild horses and burros can be managed within
a thriving ecological balance with other rangeland uses.
The BLM has focused its efforts on reaching AMLs by
addressing population increases in herds through gathering
excess animals, removing them from the rangelands and placing
them with qualified adopters. Although the Act itself permits
the humane destruction of animals, Congress has prohibited the
destruction of excess healthy animals since 1988. The Adopt-A-
Horse-and-Burro program is, therefore, the only tool the BLM
currently possesses to manage the excess wild horses and burros
removed from the range. So far in fiscal year 1998, we have
gathered almost 4,000 animals in the western states and adopted
almost 6,000, with most of these adoptions occurring in the
east. We currently have 3,400 animals in our holding
facilities.
The BLM has undertaken a number of initiatives geared to
increase adoption demand and ensure the humane treatment of
animals placed with qualified adopters. We have scheduled an
additional 10 adoption events in the six western states that
administer the wild horse and burro program to address adoption
interests in these states.
Nevada historically does not have a large adoption demand,
but at the three adoptions that we have sponsored in this state
this year, we have adopted 65 animals. An additional 111
animals have been adopted directly from our holding facility in
Palomino Valley this year.
The BLM has begun a pilot project using the Internet to
increase public awareness of the adoption program and to accept
adoption applications. So far, 15 of the 25 animals featured on
the Internet have gone to new homes.
In conclusion, the BLM is making every effort to maximize
adoptions while maintaining our emphasis on finding good homes
for all adopted animals. We are moving ahead with research on
fertility control through the use of contraception. We are
looking forward to receiving additional recommendations from
the National Wild Horse and Burro Advisory Board, which was
reinstituted this year to address public criticism and
perceived deficiencies within the program. All recommendations
from the advisory board will be acted upon in a timely manner
to take full advantage of new ideas which might increase
efficiencies within the program and improve the health of our
public lands.
Mr. Chairman, the BLM-managed wild horse and burro program
is one of the most scrutinized programs I have ever dealt with.
Everyone has opinions on how best to manage this program, and
you will hear several people offer their insights to you this
morning. The one principle I believe we all agree on in dealing
with the challenges associated with wild horses and burros on
the public land is the need to maintain a consistent population
level that the resources can support. I think we can best
accomplish this by:
(1) establishing appropriate management levels in all
herd management areas based upon the best range science
and monitoring information currently available.
(2) controlling the reproduction rates of horses and
burros on the range through contraception.
(3) making available sufficient financial resources
to gather and adopt the numbers necessary to keep a
consistent population on the range.
And finally, humanely destroying those animals that
are too old, sick or disabled to survive independently.
There may be other ideas from panel members which I would
be interested in hearing, as I am sure you are, so I will
conclude my statement at this time. I do however plan to stay
for the entire hearing, so I will be available to respond to
any questions that you might have now or later. Again, thank
you for the opportunity to participate in today's hearing.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Mr. Abbey. Mr. Shroufe.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Abbey may be found at end of
hearing.]
STATEMENT OF DUANE L. SHROUFE, DIRECTOR, ARIZONA GAME & FISH
DEPARTMENT
Mr. Shroufe. Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee,
my name is Duane Shroufe and I am Director of the Arizona Game
and Fish Department.
On behalf of the Arizona Game and Fish Commission and
Department, I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to
provide comments on the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act
and its implementation in Arizona. I would respectfully ask
that my written statement in its entirety be submitted and on
the record.
Mr. Hansen. Without objection.
Mr. Shroufe. I look forward to presenting information
regarding the Act and its implementation in Arizona and to
discuss ideas on how to improve management of feral horses and
burros in order to protect our public lands.
In Arizona, wild horse and burro management is primarily
associated with burro management on public lands administered
by the Bureau of Land Management. However, burro management
issues on lands not administered by the BLM are of increasing
importance in our state, due to the lack of management,
increasing numbers of burros and resource damage by burros on
these lands. These lands include National Wildlife Refuges,
state parks and lands managed in accordance with the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act. We have a special area, the Arizona
Game and Fish Department's Alamo Lake wildlife area. This area
is dedicated to the management of the fish and wildlife
resources and to fish and wildlife related recreation. The
Arizona Game and Fish Department realizes that the BLM faces
numerous challenges in order to manage feral burros on public
lands in the state of Arizona. From the Arizona Game and Fish
Department's perspective, the most significant of these
challenges include:
(1) eliminating or minimizing adverse impacts to the
wildlife habitat. These habitats include native wetland
and riparian habitat and sensitive wildlife species
habitat;
(2) completing burro population inventories,
estimating population densities and maintaining
existing appropriate management levels;
(3) collecting data to determine the level of impacts
to wildlife habitats associated with burro use and
overpopulation;
(4) dealing with burro overpopulation and expansion
outside of established herd areas or herd management
areas; and
(5) obtaining funds and manpower to remove burros
from areas where there is overpopulation, expansion
beyond herd area boundaries, or resource damage.
From the early 1980's to present, we have focused our
efforts on working cooperatively with the BLM and other
agencies to collect data in order to document this resource
damage. Also, the Arizona Game and Fish Department has
collected data on burro habitat use, resource damage to
wildlife habitats and burro numbers and distribution during our
ground and aerial wildlife survey efforts. Adverse impacts by
burros on native riparian, wetland and upland habitats in
Arizona have been documented in BLM land management planning
documents, in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service evaluations and by
the Arizona Game and Fish Department's observations and
studies.
Although some burro removal efforts have occurred in
Arizona since the Act was passed, current burro numbers in many
Arizona herd management areas are estimated by the BLM, the
Arizona Game and Fish Department and other agencies to be much
higher than the existing appropriate management levels. And
many of these areas are not in a thriving natural ecological
balance.
For example, the Black Mountain herd management area has an
appropriate management level of 478 burros, but the population
is estimated to be over 700 burros. The Big Sandy herd
management area's estimated burro population is around 300
while the appropriate management level is set at 139. The Alamo
herd management area has an estimated appropriate management
level of 200 burros, but the population is estimated to be
between 500 and 600 animals.
In Arizona, BLM suspended most, if not all, significant
burro removal efforts as a result of the 1989 IBLA decision
regarding removal of excess free roaming horses in Nevada.
Arizona BLM through land management planning efforts is
proposing to manage burros in all Arizona herd areas. In other
words, the BLM is planning to designate all herd areas as herd
management areas in the state.
At the time the Act was passed or soon thereafter, some
areas of distribution or herd areas, as they are called, were
prescribed for zero burro numbers due to one or several
manageability concerns, such as land status and threatened and
endangered species issues. However, Arizona BLM is now
proposing to manage burros in all herd areas for a thriving
natural ecological balance even though the same manageability
concerns exist today.
In Arizona, burros are expanding into areas where they have
not been documented before and have clearly expanded outside
the boundaries of the established herd areas and herd
management areas. These problems are due to the lack of
significant burro removals in Arizona. In the last few years,
Arizona BLM has indicated to the Department and other agencies
there are limited funds available for burro management,
including removals in the state.
To improve management of feral burros and in order to
protect our public lands in Arizona, burro management must be
given a higher priority and funds must be available to manage
burro populations in accordance with the Act.
We have several suggestions if I may just take the time to
make those recommendations:
The Act itself may not be the problem. Rather, the problem
appears to be the lack of compliance with the Act. This is
likely due to different agency priorities, the lack of
sufficient funding and opposition to responsible and proactive
horse and burro management pursuant to the Act.
We need to improve the information and education regarding
burro numbers in Arizona and the associated damage to the
resources.
We need to improve inter-agency planning and management
efforts to address the burro issues in our state.
We need to evaluate all available methods for reducing
horse and burro populations provided for in the Act.
We need to exclude horses or burros from sensitive wildlife
habitats such as riparian zones through fencing projects.
And most importantly, increase funding for burro management
in the state.
The department looks forward to working cooperatively with
the BLM and other agencies to address this issue in Arizona.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. Senator Rhoads.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Shroufe may be found at end
of hearing.]
STATEMENT OF SENATOR DEAN RHOADS, CHAIRMAN OF THE SENATE
NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE, NEVADA LEGISLATURE
Senator Rhoads. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Dean Rhoads
from Tuscarora, Nevada. I am a rancher, I raise and sell both
cattle and horses and I am also a Nevada State Senator. I
wanted to thank all of you for coming to Nevada and coming and
revisiting this issue that has been around for a long time.
It is quite interesting to note as I was flying down here
today, I recall one of my first trips to Washington, DC, I was
in Walter Baring's office, Mr. Hansen might recall. At that
time there was 51 bill drafts in there on wild horses and he
thought he had selected the one that was most reasonable, and I
am sure if he was around today, he would be astounded as to
what has happened.
Also, about 25 years ago today--not today, but I was
invited to my first Congressional hearing to testify up in
Billings, Montana on the Wild Horse Act. And me and Velma
Johnston, who was Wild Horse Annie and others testified. At
that time, John Melcher, another veterinarian, was the
Chairman, and I questioned the way the Act was being
administered then and I really question the way it is being
managed today.
This Act, 1972 was the first year it began, cost $400,000.
Last year, it cost $18 million to manage the wild horses. So
far, it has cost the taxpayers a quarter of a billion dollars
over 27 years. The horse herd now, as you have heard many
times, is 43,650. It costs $369 to feed one of those horses out
there. As a person who receives part of my income from horse
sales, I cannot survive with a cost of $369 per year.
Nevada, of course, has the largest share, 22,835, while the
appropriate management level is 14,430. It is interesting to
note that the appropriate management level, both nationally and
in Nevada has never been met since the inception of the Act, in
27 years.
As a cattle rancher, I take great interest in the condition
of the range. Fortunately, I do not have wild horses in my
allotment. We have three stud bunches, probably 60 head of
horses out on my range where my livestock run. I have toured
various ranges where wild horses graze and it is a sad sight.
The range condition is down to nothing, as bare as this table
top in many places in the past few years.
Some major changes must be made to the Wild Horse Act of
1971. While as I understand it, the Wild Horse Act of 1971 gave
the BLM the authority to destroy unadoptable excess animals,
the Director of the BLM and the Chief of the United States
Forest Service made a decision in 1982 not to use this
authority. However, I just recalled Director Abbey stated the
1988 Congress also made that same change. I was not aware of
that.
The Act should be amended that would give the BLM the
authority to sell to the highest bidder the excess horses. We
in our operation send to the sale horses that have been
injured, crooked feet or just simply we cannot sell. We just
sent a couple of loads, one load 2 weeks ago. Why can't the
government be allowed to do the same thing?
I think there are other proposals, some have been tried
previously and not worked, but I think you should take a good
look at them again:
The gatherings could be conducted annually by private
parties or permittees under contract with the U.S. Government.
I think we could save the government a lot of money.
Provide for more wild horse preserves like the one in Pryor
Mountain in Montana in the west on a combination private and
public lands with management of these preserves being by
private parties under supervision of the government. The
private sector can definitely do it cheaper.
Then you could remove all the other horses from the west on
much of our grazing lands.
We manage all activities on our public lands by controlling
numbers, except wild horses. Ranchers, through the Taylor
Grazing Act and so forth, they tell us when, how many and under
certain conditions that we have out there. Wildlife, if numbers
get too big, the Department of Wildlife increases the tags. The
present program of gathering horses and releasing the sick,
lame, old and unadoptables is about the most poor management
practices as we in the ranching business could adopt. If we in
the ranching business adopted such practices, I am sure we
would be broke in 3 years.
Another problem I have with the adoption program is it is
in competition with the private sector that sells horses. It
costs the Federal Government $369 per year to keep a horse. Say
they adopted that horse at 3 years old, that is $1,107, and
then add the gathering costs of $1,100 per horse, you have over
$2,200 into that horse. Then the BLM sells it for $125. The
taxpayer picks up the tab for $2,075 for each horse.
I recently was contacted by a large ranch in Elko County
that wanted to buy two horses. We spent part of a day working
out several horses to pick from and had them priced from $1,200
to $2,000, the going price, only to be informed days later that
they had bought two head at the BLM sale for $125 each. There
were 5,937 horses that was put out for adoption in 1997 by the
BLM for $125. We cannot compete.
Ladies and gentlemen, you have a difficult task and will
have to make some tough and unpopular decisions. The most
important decision you can make in my mind is to give the
authority to the government agencies to sell the excess horses
to the highest bidder. Give them sales authority and the major
problem with management of the wild horses will be solved.
Good luck and I offer my assistance at any time.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Senator.
Would you hand the mike down to Assemblyman Carpenter, who
will be our next speaker. Mr. Carpenter.
[The prepared statement of Senator Rhoads may be found at
end of hearing.]
STATEMENT OF ASSEMBLYMAN JOHN CARPENTER, NEVADA ASSEMBLYMAN
Mr. Carpenter. Thank you. For the record, John Carpenter,
Assemblyman, District 33, representing Elko County, and I want
to thank the Committee for being here and listening to this
testimony.
I think that after 27 years, maybe finally we are starting
to turn the corner on what has been a very serious problem,
especially in the state of Nevada. Last session of the
legislature, we passed legislation that requires our Wild Horse
and Burro Commission to come up with a Nevada plan, to put the
Nevada brand on a plan for the management of wild horses.
I would just like to take a couple of seconds and say that
I have had a lot of experience in wild horses. When I was
growing up as a young fellow down in Ely, where my uncles had
an allotment. We had two or three bands of wild horses on
there, but we managed them, we kept the numbers down. Our
neighbor, he had 1,000 wild horses and never did sell any of
them. You can imagine what the range looked like. So at a young
age, I learned that you have to manage the horses. We love the
horses, we want them out there, but they need to be managed so
that they do not destroy our range. I believe I was the first
person that ever used a helicopter to gather wild horses. So I
think that I have had experience through my lifetime to be,
hopefully, a so-called expert on it.
I believe that the Wild Horse Act has been gutted through
misdirected regulations, through judges who did not understand
the west, did not understand the wild horses, we have
practically rewritten the law. As Dean Rhoads said, I think
that Congressman Baring would turn over in his grave if he knew
what had happened to his Wild Horse Act. It was not too bad of
an Act as originally written, but we have gotten completely
away from it.
I think that we have to get the numbers established on
these wild horse areas. The Bureau has established some of
these numbers on some areas, but they do not have them all. And
I heard Mr. Abbey say, you know, maybe in 2001 or 2002, I think
we need to put a priority on this and get it done within a
year. If we can get the numbers set, then we need to gather the
horses down to that number. What is happening now, they go out
and they gather the horses but because they say that anything
over 9 years of age is unadoptable, they turn them back out.
And so in some areas, there is darn near as many left after
they gather as there was before. This does not make any sense.
We need to gather them down to the appropriate management
level. I do not think anybody has a problem if we would gather
them down to that level.
And the horses that are left there should be from the same
bands--horses have great family instincts. If you gather a
bunch of horses into a corral and there is room enough, in just
a little while, they will all be there within their family
units. We need to leave these family units out on the range. It
does not make any sense to bring all these horses in and to
start picking them out and start to destroying these families.
That is what is happening to our country now, we are destroying
families, and we are doing the same thing with the wild horses.
We need to leave the best families out there, the ones that are
able to make the best living, the ones that look the best, we
need to leave them.
And then after we have done that, after we get the horses
down to a reasonable level, then we need to, I believe, start
using some cooperative agreements. I believe that there are a
lot of groups out there that if you had the horses in a certain
area down to appropriate levels, there are a lot of groups out
there that could keep the numbers down--wild horse groups,
wildlife people, ranchers, horsemen's organizations, even some
counties would be glad to help on this situation. I think this
is the only way we are going to be able to cut these costs, and
that is to get everybody involved. Like if you are supposed to
have say 50 or 75 head out on a certain area, it does not take
too much to go out there every year or so and take 10 or 15
percent of them. You do not have to do it with a helicopter all
the time. You know, some guys still like to play cowboy and go
out and rope one or two. Or you can water trap them. And it is
not a big deal. But what happens when the Bureau lets them
buildup to 600 or 700 or 800 head and there is only supposed to
be 75 there, we know what is happening to the range. And then
they go out and they gather and maybe they are going to gather
them down to the 75 head, well they gather them all and then
they turn 500 more out because they will not be adoptable,
according to their standards. This is wrong.
And then those animals that are unadoptable and after they
have been in the holding facilities for a certain length of
time, we have to put these animals to sleep humanely. I believe
that we are doing that with the other animal populations in
this country. If we did not, we would be absolutely overrun
with dogs and cats. We need to apply the same thing to the
horses. And it is going to be a tough deal. There is nothing
worse that I have had to do in my life than to destroy a horse,
but sometimes you have got to do it if we are going to be able
to get this program where it is manageable. After we get it
down to where the numbers are where they should be, there are
going to be plenty of people to adopt them, but we need to make
those first critical, hard decisions.
Thank you people for being here. I do appreciate it. Thank
you.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Mr. Carpenter.
I will recognize members of the Committee for questions of
this panel for 5 minutes each. The gentleman from American
Samoa, Mr. Faleomavaega.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a couple
of questions. Mr. Abbey first, I do not know if you will be
able to help me, but you seemed to be the expert just for the
state of Nevada but not for the whole regional area on BLM. But
I will give it a shot and I will understand if you are not able
to respond.
Hearing from our other witnesses, Mr. Abbey, I get the
impression with an $80 million program, we cannot even account
for how many horses and burros we have out there. Is this just
by some estimates or do we have an accurate accounting on this?
Not just for the state of Nevada but for the whole region or
the states that do participate.
Mr. Abbey. The numbers of horses and burros that we have on
public lands are estimates. In most states we have 3-year
cycles where we go out and do census within the herd management
areas to ascertain to the best of our ability how many horses
or burros are currently living within the herd management
areas. But in response to your question, they are estimates.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Are there any--I think maybe one of the
things that we ought to also explore is to find out exactly the
origin, how this whole thing came about. It was not because it
was the will of our policymakers, this came about because of
the grassroot support from children all over the country. And
for some reason and perhaps because of the allegations made
about the slaughtering of these wild horses. And so Congress
turned around in 1971 and we enacted this legislation to
protect them. Some 27 years later now, have we basically
protected the wild horse? I mean they are not ending up in
slaughterhouses now, are they, Mr. Abbey?
Mr. Abbey. Well, I certainly cannot sit here and say that
there are not wild horses that may wind up in slaughterhouses,
but in response again to your question, the wild horse is not
in danger of being extinct. The populations have increased
substantially since the estimates were devised in the early
1970's. We estimate that there are approximately 43,000 wild
horses on the public lands, which is a substantial increase
since the passage of the Act.
Mr. Faleomavaega. On the basis that we have enacted this
law since 1971, what do you honestly believe that we ought to
do statutorily and how to go about doing this, or do you think
that under the implementation of the Act, you can still
promulgate regulations to provide for this control, because
that seems to be the problem we have here? We have got the
enacting legislation since 1971, but by way of regulations, we
seem to get fuzzy on this. And is it true that some 32,000
horses cannot be accounted for since we implemented this
program?
Mr. Abbey. I think to a large degree that figure is a
result of the system that we had in place for tracking horses
once they were adopted. That system has been greatly improved
over the last 5 years and I can guarantee you we can pretty
much track every horse that has been adopted through the Bureau
of Land Management's adoption program certainly in the last 4
or 5 years.
The Act itself, which was passed in 1971, is sufficient to
address the many issues associated with the wild horse and
burro program. And therefore, I am not going to recommend that
there be revisions made to the 1971 Act.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I would like to ask Senator Rhoads to
help me on this. You suggested selling excess horses to the
highest bidder. What do you intend to do with these excess
horses if it was put out in the private sector?
Senator Rhoads. Thank you. Well, I would think--when I send
horses to the sale, I sell probably 90 percent of my horses on
the ranch, on private treaty, but there is occasions that
either the horses are not that--confirmation-wise--as well as
they should be, they are lame or might have been born with
crooked feet, I send them to the sales yard. And I usually do
not go to the sales yard so I have no idea who buys them, but I
assume that some of them are bought by people that take them
home and break them. Others are probably bought that ends up in
the slaughterhouse. But that is just the thing that we have
been doing for centuries. And we do have a soft spot in our
heart, the horses that we ride and retire and they do a good
job, we just let them die on the ranch. But we do sell a number
of horses. In fact, my neighbor this week, today, is coming
down to buy some of my horses because they are shipping a whole
semi load to the sale because they are old and crippled.
Mr. Faleomavaega. One more question, Mr. Chairman, to Mr.
Abbey. What is the BLM policy about these lame and crippled
horses? Are they to be put to sleep or are they then sent to
the slaughterhouse?
Mr. Abbey. No, we do not send any horses to the slaughter
house. We have the draft, which I would be happy to share with
the Subcommittee here, policy that was approved by the National
Wild Horse and Burro Advisory Board this past week when they
met, addressing humane destruction of wild horses and burros.
If I could, I will read from this, it says, ``Bureau of Land
Management authorized officer may authorize the humane
destruction of a wild horse or burro with any of the following
conditions: Displays a hopeless prognosis for life; suffers
from a chronic or incurable disease or serious congenital
defect; requires continuous treatment for the relief of pain
and suffering; is incapable of maintaining a body score greater
than 1 in a normal rangeland environment.'' And it goes on. I
would be happy to make this available to the Subcommittee if
you would like. Again, it is a draft policy that was presented
to the National Advisory Board last week. It was approved by
the National Advisory Board and so I would expect that this
would come out in final very shortly.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Abbey, I would like for the record,
Mr. Chairman, if the BLM would submit as much as possible how
many horses exactly were sent to the slaughterhouse that was
supposed to be under the auspices of the BLM's supervision.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. The gentleman from Nevada, Mr.
Ensign.
Mr. Ensign. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a couple of
questions.
First of all, at least in an article, Pat Shea had said and
Bob, you had talked about that the estimate on the horses, you
were not really exactly sure and he said at least in this
article that the estimate could be much higher, not just a
little bit higher, but much higher. Do you have any feel for
how high the number may be?
Mr. Abbey. Well again, we are fairly comfortable or
confident in the estimates that we have come up with for the
herd management areas in Nevada. I will say this, that based
upon our estimates we are projecting that the populations in
Nevada are increasing approximately 24 percent per year. Now
given that, it would not take but 3 or 4 years before that
population would double in size. So it is very important that
we maintain significant gathers to remove excess horses off the
herd management areas. We have estimated that there are
approximately 22,000 horses and burros on herd management areas
in Nevada. We are also presently working with the Air Force
through technology that they have, to try to see if there is
additional information that they can share with us from some of
the work that they are doing to validate the number of wild
horses on our herd management areas. We should have some pretty
good information from the Air Force within the next, I would
say, 2 to 6 months.
Mr. Ensign. You said earlier that the 1971 Act is adequate.
Given the current situation with the way it is being managed,
you said that the population can double. Can you just comment
on what is going to happen when the doubling does take effect
if indeed the current situation stays the same, it doubles--
what is going to happen to some of these riparian areas, what
is going to happen--you know, basically across the board
ecologically, but also what is going to happen to the animals,
especially if we run into some drought years like we had. I
have never seen this state so green as it is this year, but
this is an unusual year. What is going to happen in normal
years?
Mr. Abbey. The moisture certainly makes us all look good in
land management. The accurate response to your question is that
there would be severe suffering on the part of the animals if
there continues to be overpopulation of the horses. As a
result, you would also see significant degradation of the
natural resources including riparian areas. The horse, just
like any other animal, is going to search for food and they
will eat what is available to them at any place on the range.
And therefore, unless there are continuing efforts to reduce
the population of the horses and bring the numbers down to
appropriate management levels, I think you would see some
suffering on the part of the animals themselves and certainly
degradation to the natural resources.
Mr. Ensign. I would like you to also comment, there has
been brought up about, you know, I guess when Darwin wrote his
theory of natural selection and survival of the fittest, what
we seem to have here is an unnatural selection and survival of
the unfittest, because the fittest are being adopted out and
now we have the unfittest left on our public lands. Can you
just comment on the BLM and what your experts are telling you
what is happening to the gene pool?
Mr. Abbey. We are trying to use our best judgment at these
gather sites so that we can leave fit horses out on the range
to continue a viable healthy population of horses within the
ability of that resource to sustain that herd. We do have a
policy in place that prevents us from removing excess horses
that are 9 years or older to put into the adoption program. So
horses that we are gathering out on the range that fall within
that category, that are 9 years or older, we are leaving out on
the range and we are taking the younger horses for the adoption
program.
Mr. Ensign. But what is going to happen long term to the
gene pool?
Mr. Abbey. Again, what we are trying to do is to ensure a
viable healthy population of horses by leaving sufficient stock
and quality of stock out on the range so that we do not end up
with just a bunch of older horses out there that would
basically create deficient----
Mr. Ensign. The reason for my question was that is not the
reports that I am hearing back. The reports that I am hearing
back are that these animals are not the fittest, you know, that
there are not enough of them and the gene pool is deteriorating
dramatically.
Mr. Abbey. Well, I do not think it is deteriorating
dramatically, I think that is an overstatement. Again, I think
that we are doing our best to make sure that there is a viable
population of good stock of wild horses left on the range.
Mr. Ensign. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. Mr. Pombo.
Mr. Pombo. No questions.
Mr. Hansen. Mrs. Chenoweth.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Chairman, I do have a couple of
questions. I wanted to ask Mr. Abbey, you said, or I understand
that most of the gathers are done by helicopter?
Mr. Abbey. Yes, ma'am.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Has the BLM really given much thought to
having some sort of a private gathering because as I understand
it, helicopter, the rotor really upsets the horses.
Mr. Abbey. It certainly adds to their stress level.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Have you thought about having some sort of
a partnership with private ranchers on the gathers?
Mr. Abbey. We are certainly interested in any proposal that
we get from ranchers or anyone for that matter regarding
reducing stress on the horses during a gather. I was certainly
interested in Mr. Carpenter's statement and I certainly support
what he stated, that there are opportunities for us to work
very closely with counties, ranchers and many other entities
within the state, not only this state but in every state, to
gather horses and to do so in a more cost-effective manner. It
is certainly something that we would be interested in working
with our Resource Advisory Councils regarding those
recommendations and we would entertain any proposal from anyone
in this state that would be interested in working with us to
help us gather excess animals.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I was interested in Mr. Shroufe's testimony
about the increase and I saw in Mr. Rhoads' testimony, one of
the enclosures, was a graph that showed down here the AMLs, but
up here actual levels of wild horses and in some years it has
tripled the AMLs and so with that in mind--and I assume this
comes from the BLM.
Mr. Abbey. If that is not our chart, we have one very
similar to it.
Mrs. Chenoweth. All right. We have an endangered species
that is listed here, the tortoise, some tortoise that is listed
down here in Nevada. How does the increase in the wild horses
affect those endangered species? There are also some other
endangered species that cattle and the AUMs have been managed
according to the endangered species? How does an increase like
this, sometimes tripling the level, affect the endangered
species?
Mr. Abbey. If there is a significant increase in the number
of horses or livestock for that matter, within those desert
tortoise habitats, there certainly is cause for concern. In the
case of the desert tortoise, we have prioritized those areas,
those habitats, and have achieved or at least established
appropriate management lev-
els within all of the desert tortoise habitat and we are--if we
have not achieved AML in each of these desert tortoise
habitats, we are rapidly working toward achieving AML within
those with endangered species--so that we can protect the
endangered species.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Based on this graph, one would assume that
if there are units that we have not achieve the AMLs, they
would not be large in number, would they? Because this graph
indicates right now a population of two to three times the
amount of the carrying capacity.
Mr. Abbey. We have achieved AML in many of the herd
management areas to date.
Mrs. Chenoweth. OK. And just one final question. In your
determination with regards to how you manage certain units, the
AMLs and how you make that determination, do you make a
conscious decision to reduce the AUMs based on the AMLs?
Mr. Abbey. The multiple use decision process that we use to
establish AML--we also use that process to establish the
carrying capacity of that range to support livestock and also
to provide estimates of what the range could support to the
Division of Wildlife for their use in setting numbers for
wildlife. The total number of Nevada animal months authorized
presently is 1,566,266 and this includes cattle, horses and
sheep. There has been, at least in 1998, there has been a
reduction of approximately 22,500 AUMs based on the carrying
capacity of the range, but not all the reductions are the
result of establishing AML. Some of those reductions--in fact,
there is a proposed reduction in the Elko District Office of
the Bureau of Land Management as a result of a proposed land
exchange. Allotment evaluations also result in increases in
AUMs. For instance, the number of AUMs authorized in 1997 was
an increase of 50,600 over the previous year. So we do
fluctuate in the number of AUMs that are authorized.
Mrs. Chenoweth. So when the herd rises two to three times
above the AMLs, then you are still reducing AUMs based on the
numbers in the herds, right?
Mr. Abbey. Yes, ma'am, there could be a reduction in the
number of AUMs on that particular allotment based on
overgrazing by not only livestock but overgrazing by--or at
least--I will not use the term overgrazing, but grazing over
and above the proficiency of the range to support that grazing.
And we would also hopefully go in and reduce the number of
horses on that same allotment. That has not always been the
case.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I would hope you would too, sir. Thank you.
Mr. Hansen. Mr. Gibbons.
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Abbey,
does the BLM have a written policy on the selection gathers?
Mr. Abbey. Yes, sir, we do and I could certainly make that
available to you.
Mr. Gibbons. Would you make it available this week to us?
Mr. Abbey. We sure can.
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you. Mr. Abbey, you also heard Senator
Rhoads talk about a private cooperative management with BLM
oversight, which could effectively reduce the cost to the
taxpayers for much of the management and gathering of these
wild horses. What is your position on his proposal?
Mr. Abbey. Well actually right now, Mr. Gibbons, we are
looking at a proposal that has been brought to our attention
from a ranch in Arizona to use those ranch lands for placing
horses after being processed at the Palomino Valley corrals
here in Nevada. We would ship those horses to this ranch in
Arizona where they would be placed until the adoption cycle can
pick up so that people can begin adopting those horses.
Mr. Gibbons. Well, that is the adoption cycle and I
understand that very well, but I was thinking more of the
habitat management, range management with wild horses using
private entities to ensure that there is proper management with
just BLM oversight of that proposal is I believe what Senator
Rhoads has indicated earlier, not the adoption process and the
distribution that he talked about as well, but the management
of the wild horse habitats and the management of the horses
themselves being run by the private sector.
Mr. Abbey. Given the significance of the issues that we are
facing in this program, we would certainly entertain any
proposal that Senator Rhoads or others would present to us
regarding such partnerships. We would weigh those proposals
based upon the provisions of the Act itself, what we are
allowed to do either by the Act or by policy and then we would
certainly weigh the cost benefit associated with the proposal
to see if it makes sense.
Mr. Gibbons. Mr. Abbey, you mentioned also and submitted a
copy of a draft policy on wild horse management practices. Are
you going to open that policy up for public comment as well?
Mr. Abbey. Well, the--you are talking about the one that I
just passed up there?
Mr. Gibbons. Yes, sir.
Mr. Abbey. Quite honestly, Mr. Gibbons, I do not know what
the intent is. It is out in draft, it was presented to the
Advisory Board, the Advisory Board reviewed it and they made
recommendations to the Director that it should be adopted.
Given that, I am not aware of any plans to go out for public
comment regarding that policy. I would say this, that the
policy itself is consistent with the 1971 Act.
Mr. Gibbons. I have also heard you talk earlier about your
support for the status quo of the 1971 Act without any
amendments or changes, even though we have seen in testimony
either through you or the other gentlemen here that there are a
number of problems both in the management, herd size, habitat
management, expense of managing all these horses. I am
perplexed why the administration either through the BLM or
Department of Interior has not proposed changes up to this
point that would remediate those concerns and wonder exactly
why you want to hold the line to the status quo rather than
moving forward with sound innovative science and solutions to
these problems that could be effected through legislation.
Mr. Abbey. Well, not knowing what may be proposed through
legislation, it is hard for me to address what might be. But
I----
Mr. Gibbons. Well this begs the question, why do you not
propose the legislation.
Mr. Abbey. I think that there are sufficient flexibilities
within the 1971 Act that would allow us to address the many
issues asso-
ciated with wild horses and burros on public land. The actions
that we take on the public lands have come about through an
awful lot of public involvement and certainly public input
regarding the policies that we are adhering to relative to
management of public lands--excuse me, wild horses on the
public lands.
So we believe that staying the course and given the
sufficient funding to gather the number of excess horses--as
Mr. Carpenter pointed out, once we achieve AML on public lands,
I think that would be the biggest hurdle that we have facing us
regarding this horse issue. And once we achieve AML--based on
the estimate that I have been given for Nevada--all we would
need to stay consistent with the AML is gather around 3,000 to
3,500 horses per year.
Mr. Gibbons. Mr. Chairman, let me say, as my time has
expired here, that reaching a 27,000 AML over 27 years seems to
be an elusive goal that has not yet been met by the Bureau even
though a quarter of billion dollars has been spent in that
effort. I am not sure how long, how far and how much we are
going to have to go to reach that appropriate management level,
but we certainly need to do something in order to achieve that
goal. And thank you for the time.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you.
Mr. Shroufe, you pointed out that you are Director of Fish
and Wildlife in the state of Arizona. That means, as I
understand it, that you have complete care, custody and control
of all of the animals within the state, is that right?
Mr. Shroufe. Mr. Chairman, that is correct, the wildlife
animals.
Mr. Hansen. Wildlife.
Mr. Shroufe. Wildlife, that is correct.
Mr. Hansen. Now these are wild and free-running burros that
you have got down there and I assume some horses, but you do
not have any control there?
Mr. Shroufe. We do not have any control over those, those
are all governed by the 1971 Act.
Mr. Hansen. So what do you do as Director when they----
Mr. Shroufe. Well, we depend on cooperatively working with
the BLM and trying to ensure that those populations first are
in line with the goals that we set and second that they are not
harming the habitat.
Mr. Hansen. In effect, if they somewhat ruin habitat for
other types of wildlife, what do you do?
Mr. Shroufe. The only success we have had so far has to do
with when we get a biological opinion on an endangered species,
then the BLM is more apt to prioritize that and take some
action against that. But when it comes to degradation of the
habitat for mule deer or just other general wildlife species
where there is not a Federal hammer hanging over their head, it
seems like it is not a priority, and I say that probably in a
lot of unfairness because they are strapped by funding. We just
need more funding to help us out of this management hole that
we are in. And I also testified that I guess I felt that the
Act is not broken, we just need to administer the Act and we
have not nearly administered the Act in Arizona to the degree
that BLM has tried to administer it here in Nevada with wild
horses, we have not got to first base on that.
Mr. Hansen. It has almost been sacrosanct through the years
that the local state manages the wildlife within the state.
Mr. Shroufe. That is correct.
Mr. Hansen. Fish, game, the whole nine yards.
Mr. Shroufe. That is correct.
Mr. Hansen. And now here we have made an exception, just
like BLM now has an exception that they are managing a
monument, the first one in the history of the nation, it's
called the Grand Staircase Escalante, which is a rather sore
point with me, but I will not get into it.
Anyway, carrying that on, I think the comment of our two
elected officials here is interesting. You know, Senator Rhoads
points out that possibly the unadoptables should be put on the
market and say all right--and at that point the market, whoever
buys them, does whatever they want to do with them, just like
they do with cattle or sheep or chickens or whatever. What
would you think--if I asked the two legislators here, what
would you think if the Congress gave to the state the right to
manage wild horse and burros with very limited parameters, what
would you think you would do?
Senator Rhoads. I think that No. 1, we would ask for sales
permission. You know, contrary to public opinion, there is a
lot of wild horses out there today that are actually being
ridden for saddle horses, and some of them are even showing
some wild horses. So 100 percent of your wild horses that goes
through the process of sales authority would not end up being
slaughtered, I am sure. We would manage down the numbers. I
have never talked to one rancher that wants to see 100 percent
of the wild horses taken off of the map, it is the prettiest
thing you can see, a bunch of wild horses or my stud bunch up
there on the skyline with the sun setting and so forth. So we
would manage them down to the appropriate level but we would
have to have sales authority to do it, I am sure, and we would
probably put up some vistas and interpretive centers and so
forth. But we would like the numbers down to where it is
manageable.
Mr. Hansen. Senator, I think the key words that you are
bringing up is you said you would manage them to an appropriate
level. In other words, you are telling us there would be a cost
benefit in here, there would be a range benefit in here, there
would be a benefit for the public to see these horses, type of
thing. Rather than just say whatever it is we are going to pay
it.
Senator Rhoads. Yes.
Mr. Hansen. And by that, I would also assume that you would
cull the herd if old and sick ones were there and that you
would reduce it to the amount that you could manage on a
certain range area and that they would probably have
veterinarians look at them and take care of them and all that
type of thing. Would that be a correct statement?
Senator Rhoads. Oh, very definitely. We would manage them
just like we manage our cow herds today.
Mr. Hansen. Mr. Carpenter, did you want to respond to that?
Mr. Carpenter. I certainly basically agree with what
Senator Rhoads has said. I just think that the state could do a
much better job of managing the horses than the BLM has or the
Forest Serv-
ice, and I think cooperatively with all of the entities in
Nevada working together that we could get a handle on this in a
short period of time. We either have to have the right to sell
the horses or we have to have the right to, like I said before,
to put the unadoptables to sleep. But I think that we could do
it and I think that we could probably do it with much less cost
than the BLM is doing it. Another thing Senator Rhoads
mentioned is interpretive centers or whatever, I think that is
very important to have that. The way it is now, people that are
interested in wild horses, they do not know where to go to view
these animals. They are riding down the road and most of the
time, you know, when they have got enough job to keep the kids
quiet and keep the car on the road, let along to look for some
horses. But if they knew where to go and these horses were
managed properly within these centers, I think it would be a
great thing for the people that really appreciate those horses.
Mr. Hansen. How do you think the Senate and the General
Assembly would respond?
Mr. Carpenter. I believe that we would respond very
favorably because like I said before, we had a bill adopted to
come up with a Nevada plan and I think it passed unanimously,
and I think it is a problem we have here in Nevada and I think
that Nevadans are used to taking care of their own problems.
Mr. Hansen. Mr. Abbey, it is kind of sacrosanct in this
country if I read the Constitution right, the private property.
What do you do if you get wild horses on private property that
you folks, Federal Government, BLM, is responsible?
Mr. Abbey. If the private landowner has such horses that
have crossed from public lands onto private lands, all he has
to do is give one of our closest offices a phone call and we
will go gather that horse or the horses.
Mr. Hansen. And if there are horses on his property, say he
has a very large ranch, you will go out on that ranch with his
permission and remove those horses, is that right?
Mr. Abbey. That is our standard policy.
Mr. Hansen. Have you ever done a cost/benefit analysis on
what this wild horse thing costs us per horse?
Mr. Abbey. I have not done one personally but I can tell
you that it is not cost beneficial. There is quite a bit of
subsidy associated with this program. We have never tried to
hide that fact. Again, what we are doing is following the law
and the policies that have been enacted by the Bureau of Land
Management as a result of public input.
Mr. Hansen. Cannot argue with that, I think you are right,
but there is no cost benefit and there is a huge subsidy here.
Mr. Abbey. There is a huge subsidy.
Mr. Hansen. Sometime Congress is going to have to come to
grips with the Endangered Species Act, the Horse Act, things
such as that. When you are going to put out $200,000 per desert
tortoise in an area, that gets awfully expensive. But anyway,
that is just my own humble opinion, it does not matter here.
Thank you. We thank the panel for your very interesting
comments and we will look forward to your written statement.
One thing as I read your draft here that you just submitted, it
does not say a thing about adoptables, which worries me a
little bit. Was that brought up when you discussed it?
Mr. Abbey. I was not at the meeting, but I can tell you
that the older unadoptable horse is the biggest challenge that
we have in this program--what do you do with those older
unadoptable horses.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you so much for your testimony, we
appreciate it and we will excuse this panel and call our next
panel.
Our next panel is Anthony Lesperance, Ph.D., Elko County
Commissioner; Rey Flake, Lincoln County Commissioner and John
Balliette, Eureka County Natural Resources Manager. Have I got
that all right? I hope I did.
Commissioner, we will start with you, sir.
STATEMENT OF ANTHONY LESPERANCE, Ph.D., ELKO COUNTY
COMMISSIONER
Mr. Lesperance. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members. My name
is Tony Lesperance, Commissioner, Elko County.
I would like to take a little different tack in this. This
statement presents factual data obtained entirely from the BLM
sources, be it the web page or FOIA requests.
Initially, Congressional funding for this program remained
low, first exceeding one million dollars in 1975. Funding
remained below $6 million annually until 1985, when it jumped
to over $17 million and it has remained in the $15 million to
$17 million range ever since. To date, Congress has spent $246
million on this program. I guess one could logically ask has
the expenditure of nearly one quarter of a billion dollars of
taxpayers' money resolved the horse problem by achieving the
stated BLM goal of obtaining the appropriate management level
or what is known as the AML, which means a stable population of
27,000 animals.
The first year of agency reported numbers was 1976 when the
population was estimated at 60,100 head. That number remained
nearly constant through 1984. A significant increase in the
appropriation occurred in 1985, which resulted in a decrease in
numbers. However, since 1987, the decrease has been minimal.
Data from the estimated year end horse and burro population
is presented in what you have before you in table 2. In an
attempt to understand the significance of data in table 2, four
mathematical representations of the set of data were
considered. The best overall fit of a mathematical expression
of the data was obtained using logarithmic equation. What this
indicates is that as the population approaches the AML, the
more difficult it will become to obtain the AML. The 1976
determined level of horses and burros was 60,100 head. The
stated AML was 27,000 head. The 1996 estimated year end
population was 42,138 head. Thus, after 21 years, some 54
percent of the goal has been obtained. If these data were
indicative of a straight line regression equation we could
assume in about another 20 years of reduction at the present
rate of budget allocation, the AML goal would be attained.
However, the data indicate that this is not a straight line
relationship, that in fact every year the goal becomes more
difficult to attain. The above equation is telling us plain and
simple the stated AML goal, given the present parameters will
never be attained.
Between 1976 and 1996, some 164,581 animals have been
removed for an average annual removal of 7,837 head. Initially,
this level of gather seemed to bring the population down, but
as the data in table 2 clearly indicates, its effect is
becoming less and less with each passing year. Congress tripled
appropriation for the program in 1984, going from $5.8 million
to $17 million. During the following 3 year period, some 40,606
head were removed, yet the year end population decreased only
17,000 head. It is common knowledge that when numbers of any
population are reduced, there is a tendency for that population
to increase its reproductive rate. Sometimes the remaining
population will simply be younger, more dynamic, resulting in a
better rate of reproduction. Sometimes it is a built in
function of the population being more in balance with its
ecosystem. Regardless, it would be very predictable that the
free roaming horse and burro population of the western states
would significantly increase its reproduction rate after some
67 percent of the population was removed over a 3-year period,
and apparently that is precisely what happened.
If numbers are to come down to the AML, the projected
numbers for removal will have to be increased if the goal is
ever to be attained. Practically, can this be accomplished with
the bureaucracy associated with a Federal organization such as
the BLM? An examination of the budget for the program for the
period of 1990 to 1994 suggests why this will be difficult to
accomplish, which appears in your table 4. In 1990, some 20
percent of the budget for the program was spent on overhead,
but by 1994, this had increased to 33 percent of the budget. It
is predicable that the bureaucratic cost of operating the
program will escalate to the point that annual gathers will
decrease in numbers so that year end populations will likely
start increasing. It is obvious that the Wild Horse and Burro
Act will never be able to accomplish the AML goal of 27,000
head without significantly increasing Congressional funding.
Further, it is also obvious that maintenance of an AML will not
be accomplished, if ever attained, without significant
longstanding financial support.
The cost of removal of a single horse since the inception
of the program is now nearly $1,400 per head, which will only
continue to escalate. At some point, the patience of the
average American taxpayer must be considered. As a taxpayer as
well as a county commissioner, I must strongly urge you to
realistically consider alternative concepts such as privatizing
the gather and simply using the BLM for licensing and
overseeing. Provisions could really be made for a dual program
of adoption and humane disposal to cover the cost of operation.
The Congressional management of the wild horse and burro
program is typical of the many resource problems faced in the
west today. It represents an attempt by Congress to micro-
manage a few million dollar problem that could be managed far
more effectively at the local or state level.
A very effective argument can and has been made over the
very ownership of these animals and that argument does not
support Federal ownership. They are wildlife within the state
and in Nevada, wildlife is the property of the state. Perhaps
the real question for Congress to resolve is not the management
or the cost of the management of these animals, but in fact to
determine what truly constitutes a Federal feral horse or
burro. Correctly resolving that issue will go a long way to
removing the frustration this program has caused for Congress
to date.
Thank you.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you, sir, appreciate it. Commissioner
Flake.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lesperance may be found at
end of hearing.]
STATEMENT OF REY FLAKE, LINCOLN COUNTY COMMISSIONER
Mr. Flake. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Rey Flake, I
am a Commissioner in Lincoln County and I thank you for the
opportunity to address this Committee and I thank you for your
interest in the public lands and for making this attempt to
come to the west to have this hearing.
I am a fifth generation rancher--at least five generations
that I know of, of my ancestors have made their living off the
land. They have passed a great legacy on to me and a great
legend that we have talked about. I know that there is no way
to have a viable ranching operation without healthy lands.
Lincoln County is 98.2 percent public lands. Public land
management has a great impact on Lincoln County and our ability
to provide services to the people that reside within our
boundaries. I have at least two generations following behind me
in the ranching business.
The other day, I went to a branding with my sons and we
took a break. I noticed that there was seven boys there from 10
down to one and a half, that was involved in what we were
doing. The realization came to me that among these young boys
not only the future of the livestock industry but the future of
healthy viable resource management was there. If we do not
bring them up with a love for the land and teach them how to
manage well, then our nation and our resources are going to be
the great loser.
I have a great concern for the direction that is being
taken on public lands, a little AUM cut here and there that
amounts up to a lot over the aggregate, over the total period.
It amounts to our ability to be economically independent. I am
able to perform services in my operation because I have the
economic ability to be there.
Wild horses and burros, it is amazing to me that since the
Wild Horse and Burro Act of 1971, all of the players that seem
to know how to manage wild horses and burros were immediately
set aside and forgotten and a new team came in and tried to
manage the horses and burros. We have not even identified how
many the resource can handle--21 years and we do not even know
what the appropriate AML is. The adoption program is slow and
inefficient at best. It was reported to our Resource Advisory
Council in March that over 6,000 head were in the adoption
pipeline at a cost of nearly half a million dollars a month.
Today, there are still over 4,000 in there with a great cost.
Correct science will show that there is a limit to what the
resource can handle. The adoption program states that if we
cannot adopt the horses, we turn them back on the range. We are
letting the adoption run the whole program and not the
resource. If I had a pasture that would run 40 cows and I put
80 cows in that pasture, I know that in a short time I am going
to use up all the avail-
able feed. Then I will not be able to go back to the 40 cows, I
will have to completely remove the cows until new feed is grown
and so I can go back on there with an operation. We should
understand that our whole horse program is in jeopardy if we
cannot control them to manage and take care of the resource. We
must check the direction of the whole wild horse and burro
program. If you are trying to find a point with a compass, if
you are two degrees off when you start, when you get out there
100 miles there is a wide gulf between where you were trying to
go and where you end up. We must continually recorrect the
course and redirect our area, and this has to be done through
help from local people.
What are we trying to accomplish with the wild horse and
burro program? Is this truly to be a legacy of the old west? I
find it offensive that people think that my ancestors did not
manage better than what is being managed in the wild horse and
burro program, that we just turn them loose and let them run
wild and do not take care of them. We have created a bureau
that has accountability without--that has authority without
accountability or responsibility, the fact is a whole
department. Nowhere is that more apparent than in the wild
horse and burro program.
This program has to be a resource driven program and not an
adoption driven program. The BLM needs to have sale authority
if only on a one time basis to achieve appropriate management
levels. It is estimated that in the Ely District there are
presently about 2,000 head over AML and about 13,000 head over
in the state. We must control the numbers. We have got to
manage, we must have a quality program and not a quantity
program. We should involve local government and local
permittees. I believe we should allow the permittees in some
areas to control the horse numbers under the direction of the
BLM. This could be done on a trial basis with a few ranchers at
a great savings to the taxpayers of this nation.
We need to consider the idea of having one or two herds of
horses in each state. These could include, as has been said,
interpretive centers, a place where people could park their RVs
and come to center their vacation around and learn about horses
and be involved in horses and gain more enjoyment from their
horses and then we would truly begin to develop a legacy of the
west.
Ranching on public lands is also a legacy of the west. Let
us consider the preservation of this legacy. I want my children
and grandchildren to enjoy the same blessings that I have
enjoyed from living close to the land. It is going to take us
all working together to accomplish this. I hope that we can.
Thank you.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Commissioner. Mr. Balliette.
The prepared statement of Mr. Flake may be found at end of
hearing.]
STATEMENT OF JOHN BALLIETTE, EUREKA COUNTY NATURAL RESOURCES
MANAGER
Mr. Balliette. I brought some photographs. These are copies
and if your Committee would like to have them for future
reference, I would be happy to leave these with you. A
photograph says a thousand words. Ray touched on it a little
bit, I would like to talk about accountability also.
In the winter of 1993-1994, we had an extensive snow
followed by a lengthy cold period. This animal died standing up
trying to punch his way through a snowdrift. This is an animal
that died right alongside the Railroad Pass, the road that
connects Jiggs, Nevada with Diamond Valley, this animal was
very weak. Notice the damaged sagebrush up here, they had
tramped it and eaten it. Sagebrush is not a nutritious nor
palatable forage plant. This animal, weakened by starvation
could not make it over a berm left by a snow plow, died right
next to the road. Here is another one, a mare and her colt,
this is the south facing aspect with the rocks there. The snow
would melt a lot faster here than in the adjacent areas. The
mare undoubtedly drawn down by starvation and then she had the
added effect of nursing a colt. Well, the mare died first and
you can see where the colt had tried to suckle the dead mare
before he finally died.
In terms of accountability, if I owned those animals, my
accountability would be I would probably have animal violations
charged--filed against me, you know, and rightly so. I am not
suggesting that we should start filing charges against BLM
folks, but I really feel strongly that when we have these die
offs like have occurred twice in the last 5 years, Railroad
Pass, Long Valley, several other places in central Nevada, 2
years ago at the Nellis Air Force range. When these die offs
happen, we should take a review of this and say hey, was there
some information we could have collected that would have, you
know, predicted that this was going to happen, could this have
been avoided? Are people collecting all the information
necessary to make management decisions? And if they find some
folks that are not--that may be in some way responsible for
this, perhaps their talents should be used elsewhere besides
the horse program.
In my written testimony I talked about Fish Creek allotment
and what happened there when BLM does not stand up to their end
of the bargain for multiple use decision. This is winter fat,
this is the plant I told you about in my testimony. Winter fat
is this gray-green shrub here, and it is probably--I will defer
to the nutritionists, but it is probably the most nutritious
and palatable range plant that we have as far as a native plant
in central Nevada. It is also highly desired by livestock,
horses, wildlife. This photograph was taken in August and this
is about the time the winter fat has the majority of its growth
and it is also previous to use by horses. When we went back in
in February, there is a close up and this is a general view,
and you can see that there is virtually nothing left. This is
solely due to horses. The horse appropriate management level is
75 head. When they flew this in January of this year, I believe
the number was 230. There is still approximately 500 head of
horses on the entire HMA.
The accountability part that really bugs me about this is
that the livestock industry, it has been pounded into them, you
cannot treat Federal lands like this. If you do, you will be
decisioned, your numbers will be reduced, your season of use
will be changed. This is solely due to horses, there have not
been livestock since the decision was issued in 1994.
Basically, you know, the way I look at things is that we as
citizens are being held to a higher level of ac-
countability to agency decisions than the agency that issued
the decision.
When you look at this, the problem is simple, it is too
many horses. This is not rocket science here, you know. The
solutions that we have presently are not working. We have an
adoption program that seems to be the tail wagging the dog
here, and it cannot handle the excess numbers that we are
generating as far as horses. I heard mentioned recently--
earlier--of fertility control. On this particular allotment
when the Bureau did their analysis for a fertility program,
they estimated it will take 9 to 13 years to reach AML with the
implementation of fertility control. The problem is this
degradation is continuing, it is continuing as we speak.
Just to give you an idea, these are utilization cages. A
utilization cage is used supposedly to protect vegetation. You
can see here where the horses have tramped down the cage and
then the uneven level of vegetation. Well that is what lengths
they went to get something to eat there. And it is still pretty
bad. The biologist in me, this is what scares me the most and
this is a winter fat site that is now a collection of Eurasian
annuals such as halogeton and clasping pepper weed and various
mustards. We have converted a very productive site to a patch
of weeds that are not very productive.
One of the solutions I hope you would consider is sale
authority. I envision a different type of sale authority,
limited sale authority where when we have vast--well, when we
have population numbers that greatly exceed AML where we are
doing damage to the range resource, that is an emergency and it
requires emergency action and perhaps to go back in and sell
some of the excess numbers right there once you reach AML, then
sunshine sale authority.
I see I am out of time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Balliette may be found at
end of hearing.]
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. I recognize the Committee for 5
minutes each. Mr. Faleomavaega.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As I listened intently to the testimonies that were given
previously as well as our friends now before the panel, I think
we are beginning to lose what really was the essence as to why
this Act, how it all came about with Wild Horse Annie and the
thousands of children across the country, because of the
indiscriminate slaughtering of horses that ended up in the
slaughterhouses and became a major aspect of the pet industry.
And I think this is really the essence. You know when we talk
about Gene Autry and Hopalong Cassidy and Roy Rogers, bless his
heart, who just passed away, and John Wayne--we all romanticize
the idea that horses are pets, they are not like cattle that we
eat and consume. And so we come to this--now look at this
situation, we could not have asked for a worse agency to manage
horses because they are not experts in managing horses. And I
am talking about the Bureau of Land Management, with all due
respect. It just happens to be that horses were incidental to
the public lands which is owned by the Federal Government,
administered by the Bureau of Land Management, so they had to
come up with some kind of a program. And now we end up with a
$247 million expenditure in the 27 year pe-
riod that we have not even accomplished doing that which we
were trying to do, to protect wild horses and burros and to
continue the pioneer spirit that horses were a beast of burden,
they were really a help to man. And I do not know if my
colleagues are aware, I am sure they may be, and members of the
public here, horse meat is found in the most expensive
restaurants in France and New York and Paris. When we talk
about consuming horse meat, you do not want to hear that in
America. And I think this is really the bottom line. We talk
about slaughtering horses and we put them to sleep, because we
treat them almost like fellow human beings, or are they to be
used for economic reasons. I am very curious what percentage of
horse meat goes into the pet industry, the pet food industry--
what it was 27 years ago and what it is now. So I think this is
really the bottom line issue that I would like to pursue.
And gentlemen, do not get me wrong, I really, really
appreciate your testimony. Mr. Balliette, I think you hit it
right on the nail. You have reaffirmed the fact that we just
have done a very poor job in managing what millions of
children, hundreds of thousands of children throughout America
just did not like the idea of indiscriminate slaughtering of
horses, as a sentimental value--and I for one look at horses
almost as a fellow human being, and this is really the crux.
Now it has been suggested that we ought to give it to
states to manage our wild horses. It just happens that these
horses are not on state lands, these are on Federal lands. So I
raise that question, Mr. Chairman. I do not have any questions
of our witnesses, but I would like to add I want to thank you
for your testimony.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. The gentleman from California, Mr.
Pombo.
Mr. Pombo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Flake, you are a cattleman and we looked at figures of
as much as $1,400 per head on management of these animals for
every one that is removed. That seems way out of line to me in
terms of management of livestock. Can you give the Committee an
idea of what the annual cost is of an animal say on your ranch?
Mr. Flake. Our cost of operation is just a little over $250
a head on the ranch.
Mr. Pombo. So you would consider this figure high?
Mr. Flake. Absolutely, unreal.
Mr. Pombo. And am I to understand that you run cattle on
public lands?
Mr. Flake. Yes, sir.
Mr. Pombo. What would happen if you managed your allotment
to the degree of these photos that we have seen?
Mr. Flake. I would be out of business, both from regulation
and also out of business because there is no way to handle a
livestock operation without available forage, without available
feed--it cannot be done.
Mr. Pombo. I would like you to explain the first part. You
said you would be out of business because of regulation. What
do you mean by that?
Mr. Flake. I mean that if I could not do any better job on
the public lands than that, the Bureau would pull my permit and
I would be gone.
Mr. Pombo. Because you overgrazed it?
Mr. Flake. Because I overgrazed and I overused the
resource.
Mr. Pombo. So if you did manage that way and say BLM
allowed you to continue to manage in that way, what would
happen to your livestock herd?
Mr. Flake. It would be non-existent. They would die off. If
I do not put some correct management to my herd, why I cannot
stay in business, I cannot be economically feasible, I cannot
finance myself there on the land any more.
Mr. Pombo. You say that the animals would die off, they
would die off because of starvation?
Mr. Flake. Absolutely.
Mr. Pombo. Do you have any idea how long it would take an
animal to get to the condition that--Mr. Balliette had pictures
of animals that he claims starved to death. How long of a
period of time are we talking about here that an animal does
not have enough feed to get to that kind of condition?
Mr. Flake. To have them get to that kind of condition would
take 3 or 4 months of absolutely no feed.
Mr. Pombo. Three or 4 months?
Mr. Flake. Well, it depends on the condition they were when
they began to be stressed. If they were in fat condition, they
could probably live off their back fat for 2 or 3 months before
they went down. If they were thin and already stressed, then it
is a matter of a couple of weeks before they are to that point.
Mr. Pombo. Obviously the public has a concern about wild
horses, that is why the Act was passed to begin with. Do you
consider that humane, to manage in that way?
Mr. Flake. I certainly do not and that is why I feel
affronted when they talk about leaving wild horses out there in
uncontrolled numbers and degrading the range and suffering
theirselves as a legacy of the west. That is not the legacy
that was passed on to me. My ancestors managed their land and
they managed their livestock and they would never allow
anything like that to happen.
Mr. Pombo. One final question for you. What would you do if
you did not have enough feed to feed the horses and cattle on
your ranch?
Mr. Flake. I would sell them. I might, for a short time,
step out and try to buy feed to hold on, but usually that is
futile, you are better to sell and get out and send them to
slaughter or to somewhere where they can be properly taken care
of. You do not just stay there and beat out the resource
because then it is not going to come back and then you are not
going to ever get back in business. You have got to make some
moves to take care of the resource that you are living on.
Mr. Pombo. Thank you.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. The gentlelady from Idaho, Mrs.
Chenoweth.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Mr. Chairman, I have no questions. I just
wanted to compliment the members of this panel for the quality
of their testimony and for the addendums that you added to your
testimony. It is very, very helpful, and the photographs were
startling. Thank you very much.
Mr. Hansen. The gentleman from Nevada, Mr. Gibbons.
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to start with Commissioner Lesperance if I
may. Commissioner, we have heard testimony from the BLM, we
have heard also testimony from you about the amount of money
over the years that has been spent on herd gathers, herd
management, the amount of money per year going from $5 million
to $15 million or somewhere in that approximate figure. Is it
your opinion that more money is the answer to this problem?
Mr. Lesperance. Well, it certainly is not my opinion that
money is the problem. You folks can throw a lot of money at a
problem, I have seen that on several other occasions, and you
can sure throw a lot of money at this problem and you are going
to have to throw a lot of money at this problem if you continue
to operate under the same set of circumstances because $15 or
$17 or $18 million is losing ground. I would suggest you are
probably going to have to about double that, but I again remind
you to look very carefully at the data in the back of my--the
last table, table 4 in my presentation because it shows you the
very problem and that is the bureaucracy of the BLM. The
overhead management of this program is escalating
logarithmically and will continue to do so. That is just common
knowledge of how the bureaucracy operates, the more money you
put in, the bigger the overhead becomes and you are creating a
monster. And let me assure you if you ever get these numbers
down to 27,000 head and you are going to manage them at 27,000
head using the Federal bureaucracy to do it, you folks better
be prepared to cough up a lot of money for a lot years because
that is what it is going to take.
Mr. Gibbons. Dr. Lesperance, in your number of years that
you have been either a professor at a university or a rancher
or directly involved in business or in your role as a county
commissioner, do you have any suggestions for this Committee on
how to better improve the management and the cost effectiveness
of that management for these herds of horses?
Mr. Lesperance. I think you have got to bite the bullet and
you have got to go back to the local level. I think the only
people that can manage this exist at the local level, and I
believe strong county government can take a big step in this
direction. I also believe the state can. And I view these as
wildlife and I would also suggest you look very closely at the
attachment to this under Exhibit A, and that is a legal opinion
rendered by Zane Miles, Deputy District Attorney for Eureka
County for a recent case which was just ruled in favor of the
State of Nevada versus the United States in Douglas County. And
that statement clearly indicates these are wildlife and they
should be managed by the state and he goes through a number of
very legitimate legal arguments in this--on this behalf. And I
think we have to look at this very seriously and bring this
back to the local level and I think we can do this.
These animals were managed rather humanely for a long
period of time by local people. I am a product of that, raised
a product of that. These animals were not hurt. The healthiest
animals from a horse standpoint I ever saw on the public lands
of the west were those that were managed humanely before this
Act occurred.
Mr. Gibbons. Dr. Lesperance, one more question. I heard my
colleague from American Samoa talk about the fact that these
are wild animals on public Federal land out there in Nevada. Do
we also manage other wild animals that range over public lands
on a state level?
Mr. Lesperance. Do you mean you the Federal Government?
Mr. Gibbons. No, the State of Nevada.
Mr. Lesperance. Oh, the State of Nevada owns the wildlife
and manages the wildlife.
Mr. Gibbons. On Federal lands.
Mr. Lesperance. Yes. And I might add that due to the recent
court decision in Douglas County, we also own the water. And
that may become a very critical issue in this argument as it
unfolds.
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you. Mr. Balliette, in the remaining
time I have left, I think your point is that it is not total
elimination of these horses that we are after, it is not cows
versus horses, but rather it is proper and appropriate herd
management levels, it is herd health and it is habitat health.
Did that summarize your testimony?
Mr. Balliette. Yes, it did.
Mr. Gibbons. Do you have any suggestions for this Committee
as far as achieving these goals?
Mr. Balliette. One thing that--well, it goes back to the
issues I brought up about accountability, when the Bureau fails
to take an action to reduce horses to AML, their inaction is
really an action and that inaction is causing environmental
degradation and I believe that should be out for public review,
either in addition to the record of decision or something along
those lines. Let us put it past the citizens and see if they
really agree with what is happening and their failure to reach
appropriate management levels.
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I see my time has
expired, but I think from the testimony we have heard here
today, it is clear that the Federal Government needs to be held
to the same standards that it holds the American citizens and
the American public to. I think that would be fair to say.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. I thank the panel for their excellent testimony
and we will excuse you and move to the last panel.
The last panel is Sheila Hughes Rodriguez, Counsel, Animal
Protection Institute; David and C.J. Tattam, Field Directors,
National Wild Horse Association; Demar Dahl, rancher; and Cathy
Barcomb, Commission for the Preservation of Wild Horses. I
think I got all those in. You all understand the rules, but we
are pretty lenient this morning, so whatever works. We will
start with Sheila Hughes Rodriguez. The floor is yours, as we
say in our business.
STATEMENT OF SHEILA HUGHES RODRIGUEZ, COUNSEL, ANIMAL
PROTECTION INSTITUTE
Ms. Rodriguez. Thank you for inviting me to testify before
the Subcommittee this morning. My name is Sheila Hughes
Rodriguez, I represent the Animal Protection Institute. API is
a non-profit animal advocacy organization with over 80,000
members nationwide. For more than 20 years, API has worked to
preserve and protect wild and free-roaming horses and burros on
their habitat.
This hearing focuses on range issues and problems with the
Wild Horses and Burros Act. Indeed I believe there are several
problems with the Act and how the BLM interprets and
administers it. I will concentrate, however, on API's most
critical concern.
The BLM's current policy on roundups is extinguishing
populations of wild horses and burros throughout the country.
While I may criticize the BLM today, I am not here to deliver a
jeremiad on animal rights. Yes, I believe animals are entitled
to fundamental rights. But I also know that we inhabit a legal
universe that is hardly sympathetic to animals, much less to
the notion of animal rights. Yet, we have a long history in
this country of using the law to protect wild horses and
burros.
In 1959, at the behest of the late Velma Johnston of Reno,
Nevada, Congress passed the first law intended to protect wild
horses and burros. I am told that Ms. Johnston adopted the name
Wild Horse Annie after she overheard someone call her that at a
Congressional hearing in Washington. Perhaps it was this sense
of humor that helped Ms. Johnston through the following decades
in her quest to protect these animals.
In the late 1960's, Wild Horse Annie's efforts led
thousands of school children across the country to write to
Members of Congress urging them to protect these animals.
Nicknames notwithstanding, by the early 1970's, Wild Horse
Annie had rallied the support of both humane associations and
horse protection groups, culminating in the passage of the Wild
Horse and Burros Act in 1971.
If we look at the legislative history of the Act, we see
that Congress unequivocally intended these animals to be
protected and preserved. Quoting from the Senate report, ``The
wild free-roaming horses and burros presently inhabiting the
public lands of the United States are living symbols of the
historic pioneer spirit of the west and as such are considered
a national esthetic resource.''
As I said earlier, I am not here to lament the state of
animal rights. I am here to discuss the state of the law and
what we might do to save these living symbols of our own rugged
independence and pioneer heritage.
When Congress passed the Act, it declared ``. . . wild
free-roaming horses and burros shall be protected from capture,
branding, harassment or death; and to accomplish this they are
to be considered in the areas where presently found, as an
integral part of the natural system of the public lands.''
The regulations implementing the Act amplify this
protection, ``(a) Wild horses and burros shall be managed as
self-sustaining populations of healthy animals in balance with
other uses and the productive capacity of their habitat.''
Today, however, the BLM is failing to manage herd areas as
self-sustaining populations of healthy animals. The BLM's 1995
report to Congress describes numerous herd areas with AMLs of
zero and many areas with AMLs that will not sustain healthy
populations.
In Nevada, the agency plans to extinguish 10 herd areas. A
1975 Nevada District Court case, discussed more fully in API's
written statement, strongly suggests that the BLM is not
authorized to extinguish wild horse populations. That case was
American Horse Protection Association v. Frizzell.
The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, or
FLPMA, provides that the Secretary of Interior ``shall use and
observe the principles of multiple use and sustained yield''.
Under FLPMA's multiple use mandates, BLM cannot give
livestock grazing any priority of use. One case vindicating
this principle is National Wildlife Federation v. Bureau of
Land Management, decided just last year.
In conclusion, the BLM is actively extinguishing wild horse
and burro populations in violation of the Act. It remains to be
seen whether in carrying out this policy, the BLM is complying
with other applicable laws.
If the BLM would seriously weigh the effects of livestock
grazing in its land use decisions, it would be free of the
ongoing burden of endless wild horse roundups. With public
lands producing so little of the feed consumed by beef cattle,
is such a shift in policy so politically impossible?
For all of these reasons, API recommends the following:
1. Wild horse removals must not eliminate individual
herd areas or lower the number of animals to a level
that threatens the long-term survival of the herd.
2. The BLM must take into account the adoptability of
the wild horses removed, as well as the impact of the
removals on the remaining family and bachelor bands.
3. The BLM must not schedule roundups during periods
when gathering would place undue stress on foals and
pregnant mares.
4. The BLM must consider decreases in wild horse
populations as part of a comprehensive plan to improve
range management and it must be accompanied by an
equivalent reduction in the number of grazing
livestock.
If I may continue, I just have one paragraph. If, as API
believes, the Wild Horses and Burros Act protects these animals
from extinction, API is willing to work with BLM to achieve
this goal. If the Act does not protect these animals, then
Congress must amend it or propose new laws that will save these
living symbols of the historic and pioneer spirit of the west.
Thank you.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. Mr. Tattam.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Rodriguez may be found at
end of hearing.]
STATEMENT OF DAVID C.J. TATTAM, FIELD DIRECTOR, NATIONAL WILD
HORSE ASSOCIATION
Mr. Tattam. I would like to take this opportunity to thank
you all for coming here today and exploring this issue. My name
is David Tattam, I am the Field Director of the National Wild
Horse Association. I have 27 years experience in the horse
industry. For the last 14 years, I have served as a volunteer
to the National Wild Horse Association, working with the BLM,
National Park Service and the U.S. Forest Service. In that
time, I have had on-the-ground experience in over 40 herd
management areas in four states. It has been interesting as
well as very enlightening.
There seems to be an enormous difference between the
public's perception and the reality of how horses are handled
by the BLM, the number of animals that are on the range, what
horses need to thrive and the eventual outcome if horses and
burros are not managed.
The National Wild Horse Association is headquartered in Las
Vegas, Nevada, it was founded in 1971 by people concerned with
the survival of wild horses and burros in the west. Our
association is made up entirely of volunteers with no paid
positions. Over the last 27 years, we have worked with the
National Park Service, the U.S. Forest Service, the BLM to
improve the range and secure a future for wild horses and
burros. We have worked on range projects, gathers and
adoptions. Over the last 7 years, we have hand raised over 500
foals for the BLM. We have also assisted in putting on training
clinics, conducting pre- and post-adoption compliance checks,
helped to monitor and care for animals involved in neglect or
abuse cases and provided medical care for injured animals
brought in from the range.
Most currently, we have had members assisting at the gather
near Vernal, Utah of suspected EIA horses. We were there to
observe and assist in the gather and to implement a care and
feeding program for infected foals.
In the last 7 years, our association has logged over 70,000
volunteer hours. This is one reason why the Las Vegas District
has had few problems with the adoption program and why the
number of wild horses and burros in southern Nevada is closer
to AML now than at any time since 1971.
However, across the nation, the adoption program is falling
short with a devastating effect on the resources of the west.
In many parts of the country, there is a large demand for wild
horses and burros, yet there seems to be a breakdown in the
system. Adoptions are a lot of work and in many cases the
people responsible do not seem to be putting forward the effort
to inform and qualify potential adopters. Some suggestions
would be a greater accountability to BLM personnel, better
marketing and a greater use of volunteers in the adoption
program. For example, develop regional adoption teams
consisting of BLM personnel and volunteers to facilitate more
successful adoptions, post-adoption compliance checks, et
cetera.
Another problem with the program is that many older,
unadoptable horses are being gathered repeatedly with the
government paying out again and again only to be re-released
because there is no outlet for them. Because of the
government's inability to dispose of these animals, they are
allowed to remain in often overgrazed HMAs. This is a true
threat to the wild horses and burros of the west.
There must be a way of dealing with large numbers of
unadoptable horses that are currently being allowed to
overgraze the ranges in many of our HMAs. In many areas, by
allowing these horses to remain on the range today, we are
destroying the chance of a future for the wild horses and
burros. One suggestion would be to give BLM a limited sale
authority to dispose of unadoptable animals. This window would
be a limited time, for example three to 5 years, and give the
BLM time to go through all HMAs and obtain appropriate AML,
according to range conditions, with room for herd enlargement
once range conditions are improved. This would turn future
management into a planned maintenance rather than the current
management by crisis which we are so often forced to deal with
when starvation from overgrazing and drought have their
effects, as we see here in Nevada.
The management system must be changed from a demand system
in which horses are gathered only to the availability of space
in the adoption program, to a resource driven program in which
decisions are based on what is good for the resource.
Implementation of the Wild Horse and Burro Act is virtually
impossible without either sale or euthanasia authority or
massive funding for the sanctuary program. To reach any
reasonable management goal without one or all of the above,
ensures adverse impacts to the range.
It often appears BLM in Washington has little confidence in
its people in the field. This affects the wild horses and
burros in many ways. One recent example is the last two gathers
on the Nevada Wild Horse Range. In January 1997, a gather was
stopped due to the number of old and sick animals which were
being euthanized even though this is and--was and is consistent
with Bureau policy. Later that year, the BLM conducted another
gather of the same horses and moved the old horses to
sanctuary. The following winter there was concern from
Washington due to the high death rate amongst these horses,
most of which should have been euthanized at the time of their
first capture. The estimated cost of the second gather was half
a million dollars. Sanctuary cost is unknown. All this money
could have been saved by letting the experts in the field do
their jobs. If those people cannot be trusted to do the right
thing, then the Bureau needs to get people who can be.
It seems that many problems start in Washington with the
appointment of each new Director. By the time he appoints
committees to study the problems and report back to him, he is
gone and a new person has taken his place and the cycle starts
over again with new studies and committees. A workable plan is
never implemented. The only way any resource management agency
can work is to eliminate political appointees and require that
the director have a strong resource background. Only then will
the professional in the field be trusted and decisions be made
using science rather than the knee-jerk political perceptions.
Washington responds to input from a few select groups, most of
which have little hands-on experience, but rarely solicits
opinions or backing from groups that understand the tough
decisions that must be made with science for the good of the
horses.
To ensure the future of wild horses and burros, the public
must be made to understand that the ranges will be destroyed if
the resources are not managed properly. Without the ranges, we
will have no wild horses or burros, no wildlife, no livestock
grazing, just barren land where nothing can survive. The public
and all involved government agencies must work together to make
sure this does not happen. The BLM must do its part by setting
appropriate management levels in each herd management area,
reducing the number of animals to at or below those levels,
depending on current range conditions, and managing these areas
in a responsible and consistent manner.
Thank you.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. Mr. Dahl.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tattam may be found at end
of hearing.]
STATEMENT OF DEMAR DAHL, RANCHER
Mr. Dahl. A lot of the information that I was going to
present I think has already been presented, so I would like to
just take a few minutes and talk about one issue that has not
been covered, and that is removing wild horses from private
land.
When Mr. Abbey was asked what the BLM does when they are
requested to remove horses from private lands, he said they
just go out and remove them. And I want you to know that is not
the case in all of the--not all of the instances, but most of
the instances that I am aware of.
I have had wild horses on my private land and tried in vain
for years to have them removed and the BLM has not been able to
do that. So that is a problem that--in fact, in desperation, I
issued a trespass notice to the BLM and trespassed them for
having horses on my private land and have kept track of that.
In the meantime, I have sold that ranch, but the man that has
it now has kept track and we know how much the BLM owes, or the
U.S. Government owes us for the use of private lands by those
wild horses, which they of course say they do not have to pay.
But it is a burden, it is not a big problem because it does not
affect a lot of people but those who it does affect, it is a
problem.
I think that it would be a step in the right direction if
we could have a national recognition that even though the wild
horse is a symbol of the pioneer spirit of the west, there are
people out there working the land and running livestock and
providing food and fiber for this nation that still embody
within themselves the true pioneer spirit of the west. And
those horses who are the symbol of the pioneer spirit of the
west are making it very difficult for some of those to stay in
business and to survive.
For instance, I have a friend, in fact the one who is on
the ranch who has been trying to get the BLM to gather the
horses from his private lands, has on his winter range right
now, today, over 300 head of wild horses that will stay there
all through the summer. Now he has moved his cattle off of that
winter range to let it regrow and then plans to move back there
in the fall, that is where he is going to winter his cattle.
Now because this has been such an exceptional year, he is
probably going to get by, but on an average year, there is very
little left for his livestock to go back to. And we do it to
protect the range. And if you just leave the horses on that
resource year round, it is very hard on the range.
We need I think to recognize that the horse is a resource.
All of us love Bambi and all of us love deer, we all recognize
that a deer herd has to be managed and we manage them and we
control their numbers. And how do we do it? We eat them. The
horse is a resource, there are horses that are good for
companionship, good for pleasure riding, good for working
cattle, good for jumping. There are some horses that I can tell
you, and I have known horses all my life and I love good
horses, but there are a lot of horses that are just to be eaten
and that is their best use. And there are plenty of people and
plenty of pets in this world that are willing to utilize that
resource. And I think that common sense should dictate that we
give the BLM sale authority and allow that to happen.
I would like to throw out what I think are three solutions
to the problem, and these have been talked about already today:
1. I think that if the state were to be given
management authority, that that would be definitely a
step in the right direction. We already manage the
wildlife on Federal lands.
2. I think that if we were to remove all of the wild
horses from the ranges but establish horse reserves
where people, as John Carpenter talked about, could
come and visit and see the horses, but keep all of the
horses off of the other areas, I think that would be a
step in the right direction.
3. And I definitely think that if we are not able to
do those things or maybe in conjunction with those
other things, we should give the BLM sale authority and
the money derived from the sale of those horses should
stay in the wild horse program so that the taxpayer
does not have to subsidize this program.
And I can tell you right now, there are a lot of wild
horses, BLM--horses with a BLM freeze iron under the brand,
that go through the sales to the killer plants today. And any
horse sales that you want to go to where they put killer horses
through, you will find a number of wild horses that people have
adopted and then they find out they have just a mustang and
this is not really what they wanted, they keep it a year, they
get title to the horse and they sell it and the horse goes for
slaughter. So it is happening already, we just need to
recognize it.
Somebody is going to have to get tough enough to bite the
bullet on this. Thank you very much.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Mr. Dahl. Cathy Barcomb, Commission
for the Preservation of Wild Horses.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dahl may be found at end of
hearing.]
STATEMENT OF CATHY BARCOMB, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COMMISSION FOR
THE PRESERVATION OF WILD HORSES
Ms. Barcomb. Thank you for coming to Nevada. My name is
Cathy Barcomb, I am the Administrator of the State of Nevada
Wild Horse Commission. We are a state agency, established by
the 1985 legislature, for the preservation and protection of
wild horses on Nevada's public lands.
My purpose today is to make this introduction and give you
some idea of what our Commission is doing on a state level. Our
Commission is made up of members much like yourself in that we
have representatives of horse organizations, veterinarian,
humane society representative, a rancher and even an attorney.
The Nevada Commission was established by the legislature.
Our mission from the last session of the legislature was to
prepare a plan for the management of wild horses in Nevada.
This will be year-long project and our final plan will be
completed at the end of this calendar year, for presentation to
the next session.
The Commission--we are presently conducting a number of
scoping sessions around the state of Nevada throughout all the
rural areas and major city areas. We are traveling to every
part of this state taking testimony and discussing issues and
problems with the people affected in those areas. When our
scoping sessions are complete, we will have field hearings in
every part of the state from Las Vegas to Elko and everywhere
in between, on the plan that we are preparing.
You can imagine the testimony we have received is mostly
from the people in the field, but this is from the people that
mostly deal with the horse issues on a daily basis. This
includes not only the ranchers, environmentalists, local
representatives, but the BLM personnel as well. Let me add that
the BLM personnel that have been with us in the various
locations have been extremely cooperative and more importantly,
have provided vital information for our investigation into
this. We fully plan on continuing to work with the BLM field
personnel, the local representatives, the ranchers and
environmentalists, and involving them in every stage in the
process of this Nevada plan as it comes together.
As I stated, my appearance today was intended only as an
introduction as to what we are doing on a state level, but let
me leave you with a few thoughts. Whatever comes of our work
and your work as well, the final acid test in our view is
whether it works in the field. An effective wild horse
management plan must meet the objectives of (1) the horses
themselves, to the end that we have a healthy herd of horses
and able to stay in balance with their habitat; (2) the plan
must remember the interests of those directly affected by the
horses, such as those seeking to preserve the horses in their
environment or seeking adoption, but not forgetting the other
multiple uses of the range; (3) and finally, the plan must work
for those in the field who are on the front lines, charged with
the responsibility for the management of the program. It must
be a workable program for all.
The only conclusion that we have come to, speaking only as
one representative, but a view shared by others, is that an
effective program will require more cooperation between the
states, the affected interests and the Federal Government. Our
Commission will be addressing this issue on state and Federal
cooperation and hopefully coming up with ideas on how the
states can contribute to constructive ways to assist in the
wild horse management program. Along those lines, we will be
utilizing all the information that comes out of your
deliberations and we hope that you will be taking into
consideration some of our views once they are adopted.
Our draft plan is scheduled to be on the street the first
week of August with the final out by December.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Barcombe may be found at the
end of the hearing.]
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. Questions for this panel? Mr.
Faleomavaega.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It seems to me,
Mr. Chairman, after listening to our panel of witnesses, I want
to commend the State of Nevada for really making a better
effort than the BLM for taking care of wild horses with all the
different commissions and the presence of the different groups
and associations that really do have a real feel for the care
of these wild animals.
I want to thank Mr. Dahl for his candor, exactly the bottom
line it seems of the problems that we deal with with wild
horses.
I would like to ask Mr. Tattam, has your National Wild
Horse Association been in existence before the enactment of the
1971 law?
Mr. Tattam. No, it came in at about the same time. People
saw that with the horses not being allowed to be gathered or
managed by the ranchers, that there was going to be a need for
people to step in and help.
Mr. Faleomavaega. So it is obvious that BLM over the years
has fallen far short of its given responsibilities, and I
suspect even under the provisions of the law, while they may
have stipulated the protection of these wild animals, they
never really got into the economics. When you put them out
there in the fields, out our there in the barren lands, they
cannot exist and maybe this is an area that the BLM has not
taken its responsibilities in providing for the needs for these
wild animals.
So again, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and the members
of our Subcommittee for coming to Reno, Nevada, the birthplace,
if I might add, of the Wild Horse and Burro Act, thank the
gentleman, my good friend from Nevada, Mr. Gibbons, for
allowing us this opportunity to have a hearing here and
hopefully as a result of this hearing, we will come out with
some real serious considerations, either by way of
strengthening the regulations or maybe we may have to amend the
1971 law to put some more teeth into exactly how we should go
about protecting these wild animals. Protection and economics
are the two basic questions. Having a sense of humanity, and as
I said earlier about Hopalong Cassidy or Gene Autry and all the
historical aspects that most of us have shared the experience
of looking at horses truly as pets and friends and not like we
look at cattle.
So with that, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for
allowing us to be here this morning, and thank the members of
the panel.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. The gentleman from California, Mr.
Pombo.
Mr. Pombo. No questions at this time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. The gentlelady from Idaho, Ms. Chenoweth.
Mrs. Chenoweth. I have some questions for Ms. Rodriguez.
Ms. Rodriguez, you cited the National Wildlife Federation v.
BLM, a 1997 decision.
Ms. Rodriguez. That is correct.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Was that not a BLM hearing----
Ms. Rodriguez. That was a decision that was affirmed by the
Interior Board of Land Appeals, it is an administrative law
decision.
Mrs. Chenoweth. So it was--it never did make it to the
district court?
Ms. Rodriguez. No, it did not, but I also cited the other
case, American Horse Protection Association v. Frizzell, which
is a district court case.
Mrs. Chenoweth. And that had to do with NEPA, did it not?
Ms. Rodriguez. That and several other statutes, including
the Wild Horses and Burros Act.
Mrs. Chenoweth. In the Frizzell case, the court ruled that
you must do a NEPA statement before putting out horses for
adoption, right?
Ms. Rodriguez. Well, I think the gist of the Frizzell
decision is that there were 600 horses remaining after the BLM
gather and so the judge in that case said it may very well have
been a very different case if there had been no horses left
after the removal.
Mrs. Chenoweth. In the Frizzell case, did the judge not say
that this does not give the BLM a blank check to remove horses
without an environmental impact statement?
Ms. Rodriguez. I believe that was the case where he said
that, yes.
Mrs. Chenoweth. OK. Now is it not--I think some of my
colleagues sometimes wonder why I do not just go along with a
lot of pieces of legislation when they say you are not
conferring any authority to any agencies with this Act, you are
only making a finding, the Congress finds that--and that is
exactly, Mr. Chairman, what the Wild Horse and Burros Act is,
it is a simple finding by the Congress. It reads, ``The
Congress finds and declares that wild free-roaming horses and
burros are living symbols of the historic and pioneer spirit of
the west, and that they contribute to the diversity of life
forms within the Nation and enrich the lives of the American
people.'' That is the Wild Horse and Burros Act. And I do not
find in here, Mr. Chairman, that there is any authority
delegated to the BLM or any other Federal agency to give a
preference to the management of the wild horse and burros above
cattle, the tortoise or anything else.
I think we have really allowed an agency to stretch its
authority beyond the finding. And because I live in the west, I
agree with the Congressional finding.
I want to thank you for holding these hearings because I
think it is time that we bring back the management of the wild
horse and burros to actually what the Congressional finding
was, and specify what authority has been conferred by the
Congress to the BLM for the management of the wild horse and
burros. And I do not believe, Mr. Chairman, that FLPMA mandates
that the BLM must manage the horses above the grazing rights.
And in fact, for the record, a recent decision, the Bremer
decision out of Wyoming, in fact said just the opposite, that
there is a preference right given to the cattlemen for their
grazing allotments. And of course, multiple use as defined by
FLPMA says that all uses should be balanced. And so I want to
thank you for bringing your Committee out here and I want to
thank the panelists for all of their good testimony. I have
learned an awful lot. Thank you.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. The gentleman from Nevada, Mr.
Gibbons.
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I have very few questions for this panel, but I did want to
address just a couple to kind of summarize what we have heard
today. Ms. Hughes Rodriguez, you have expressed a number of
legal concerns which are going on and the problems that your
organization sees with the BLM and its management of this herd.
What specific actions can the BLM do within the existing
framework that your organization is recommending they do,
besides the few things like changing the time of year which
they are going to do these roundups to avoid the foaling
seasons or to stress--are you suggesting that the BLM stop
using helicopters or mechanical means of roundup? How do you
get to some specific recommendations from what you have seen?
Ms. Rodriguez. I gave specific recommendations in my oral
testimony. API's true position is that it would like to see a
moratorium on all wild horse roundups until the BLM administers
and interprets the law it is charged with administering,
correctly. I am deliberately leaving wild burros out of the
equation, for reasons that I think are beyond the scope of this
hearing, but API's firm position is a moratorium on wild horse
roundups.
Mr. Gibbons. Mr. Tattam, in your work around the various
states that you have worked in, in your position with the
National Wild Horse Association, do you have a general
assessment of horse herds, wild horse herds, the health of
these wild horse herds that you have seen in your work in your
position?
Mr. Tattam. Yes, and they vary from state to state and from
HMA to HMA. You have a lot more overpopulation in northern
Nevada, central and northern Nevada, than we have in southern
Nevada. I was up in Vernal a few weeks ago--last week as a
matter of fact, in Vernal, Utah. They have got--their horses
are in excellent condition. They have got a gather going on
there now for some health reasons, but the horses are in pretty
good shape.
Mr. Gibbons. What is the health reason they have got the
gather going?
Mr. Tattam. They have an outbreak of EIA, equine infectious
anemia, which is incurable and is very easily spread from horse
to horse.
Mr. Gibbons. Contagious?
Mr. Tattam. Very contagious.
Mr. Gibbons. Mr. Dahl, you mentioned that wild horses are
oftentimes found on private property. Have you ever had wild
horses mix with the domesticated herds to where if there is an
EIA disease that there is a possibility of spreading that
disease?
Mr. Dahl. No, I have not. Before the Act was passed, we
would manage a small herd of wild horses on the range just to
have them there and we would gather them periodically and cull
the studs and put a better stud with them and so on, but now we
do not--in fact I think in most districts wherever there are
wild horses, the BLM does not grant a domestic horse permit.
Mr. Gibbons. Ms. Barcomb, thank you for being here and I
appreciate the work you have done on the Nevada Commission on
the Preservation of Wild Horses as well. Your scoping hearings
around the state have provided a great deal of invaluable
information I am sure. You have also indicated that your
Commission's conclusion will be out in about 2 weeks, the first
part of August. Is there any way you can share some of your
conclusions at this point in time with the Committee; and then
the second part of my question, since the time is elapsing,
does your plan and its objectives vary from the BLM's
management plan for wild horses in Nevada?
Ms. Barcomb. Thank you. I think it may be a little
premature to talk on the conclusions we have drawn because the
initial report that we are putting out is a compilation of all
the testimonies we received, what we found to be problems and
we had two forums, in April and May, that invited all the
interests to come to help us write the plan.
Mr. Gibbons. Would you be willing as soon as that plan is
available to providing this Committee with a copy of it so that
we have it for our work as well?
Ms. Barcomb. Yes, sir, immediately.
Mr. Gibbons. Is there a difference between the objectives,
or is that objective also included in your plan?
Ms. Barcomb. I believe in the last few years the BLM has
initiated what was called the Pearson report and the Culp
report. Those were their own investigations into the program. I
think we are using a lot of their work that they have already
done, instead of trying to recreate the wheel. We have looked
at what they have taken in testimonies and then we have gone
throughout Nevada and like I said, in forums, we have invited
the public to come in and write the plan with us. I believe
representatives of your organization and a lot of people that
are in this room helped us write the plan and I think it is a
good compilation from Nevada.
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you.
And Mr. Chairman, if I may, one final comment here. I have
heard a lot of comments from people referring to wild horses as
the symbol of the pioneer spirit of the west. Yes, they are a
symbol of that spirit. But I would also like to say that so are
ranchers like Mr. Dahl sitting here before us. And I think if
we can take care of our horses, we should be able to take care
of our ranchers in the same spirit. They deserve protection as
well.
And I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for bringing this
hearing to Reno, it has been a very enlightening and a very
important hearing. It also has allowed the public from Nevada
rather than having to go all the way to Washington, DC to
submit their concerns or to submit their solutions, to have a
venue, you have provided that and I want to thank you for your
leadership again on holding this hearing.
Mr. Hansen. Well, thank you, Mr. Gibbons. And of course,
Jim Gibbons is the reason we are here, he asked us to come on a
problem that he could see and now I think we see this all over
America and especially in the west. Like many of you folks, I
have a soft spot in my heart for horses, I grew up with horses
and I think every ache and pain I have got in my body now is a
result of a horse, but anyway, you do love those animals, but I
think we do have a real problem here. And I think it is the
intent of this Committee to move ahead with something. I intend
to work with the Departments of Interior and Agriculture and I
hope to work with my colleagues on the Committee because I feel
we have a substantial problem that is out of control.
I think if I have learned anything here--and no disrespect
to any entity of the government--but if we are going to treat
private citizens a certain way--I know when they have a problem
on AUMs or overgrazing, it does not take long for the
Department of Interior or the Department of Agriculture to be
talking to them--if we are going to play it right with those
folks, we are going to play it right with the other side. I
mean if we are going to have an overgrazing of horses, then I
think we have got to do something about that.
There is no easy solution to anything we get involved in.
Congress is not a place of easy solutions, believe me. We argue
over the most mundane--you think something would be simple. I
re-
member once we were going to give a gold medal to Queen
Beatrice of the Netherlands, and we argued over that. It would
seem we could have just given it to her. We argued over giving
Louis L'Amour a medal of some kind prior to him passing on. So
this will be kind of difficult but I commend my colleague from
Nevada and the members of the Committee for being here and I
want to thank this panel, and we will digest all of your
information and we would hope that we would have the right to
ask additional questions from all of the panelists who have
been before this Committee.
Thank you so much and this Committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:26 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
Statement of Bob Abbey, State Director, Nevada State Office, Bureau of
Land Management
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate
the opportunity to participate in this hearing on resource
issues associated with implementation of the Wild and Free
Roaming Horse and Burro Act (Act). Over the past two years, the
BLM's management of the wild horse and burro program has come
under intense scrutiny, prompting multiple reviews of all
facets of the program.
Acting upon the results of those reviews, BLM Director Pat
Shea has instituted a number of improvements in the management
and operation of the wild horse and burro program that I will
describe to you today. These improvements will help us meet the
long-term objectives for the program including: perpetuating
and protecting viable wild horse and burro populations and
their habitat in accordance with the principles of multiple-use
management; ensuring humane care and treatment of excess wild
horses and burros; establishing and maintaining partnerships
and cooperative relationships to benefit wild horses and
burros; integrating and incorporating research, science, and
technical development into the overall wild horse and burro
program; and increasing and maintaining professional
capability, leadership, and service to the public concerning
wild horse and burro management.
In the Act, Congress directed the BLM to ``. . . manage
wild free-roaming horses and burros in a manner that is
designed to achieve and maintain a thriving natural ecological
balance on the public lands.'' Under Federal protection, wild
horse herds have flourished, and these animals are in no danger
of extinction. In 1971, it was estimated that between 10,000
and 17,000 wild horses and burros roamed the West. Today there
are about 43,000 wild horses and burros on the public lands,
including some 22,000 in Nevada.
Competition for water and forage on the public lands
between wild horses and burros, other wildlife species, and
domestic livestock is inevitable in areas where they graze the
open range together. Rangeland condition improves when the
number of animals is appropriate to range conditions and
carrying capacity. Establishing and maintaining appropriate
management levels (AML) is essential to preserve a thriving
natural ecological balance while protecting, managing and
controlling wild horses and burros on the public land.
In Nevada, the BLM manages 99 Herd Management Areas
encompassing over 16,000,000 acres of public land and involving
113 grazing allotments. We establish AMLs through our Multiple
Use Decision process which involves interdisciplinary
monitoring of resources and evaluations to determine if
multiple use and rangeland standard objectives are being met.
The results of the assessment are then used to set the terms
and conditions for livestock permits, including livestock
carrying capacities, the AML for wild horses and burros, and
develop recommendations regarding wildlife populations.
At the end of fiscal year 1997, AMLs had been established
on over half of Nevada's herd management areas (HMA) and our
goal is to have those numbers established on all HMAs by fiscal
year 2000. We have been removing excess animals at a rate
allowed by funding and facility space, and have achieved the
AMLs in many areas where AML numbers have been established.
In herd management areas where we have achieved and are
maintaining AML and working cooperatively with the permitters
to develop better livestock management practices, we have seen
a steady improvement in rangeland conditions. These
improvements are fostered by healthier vegetative communities
derived from increased forage production and decreased
utilization. The result is an ecological balance providing for
recovering riparian areas, improved wildlife habitat and
achievement of the Bureau's multiple use mandate. In addition,
it results in healthy, viable populations of wild horses and
burros on the public lands, which the public demands and the
Wild Horse and Burro Act requires. We have shown that wild
horses and burros can be managed within a thriving ecological
balance with other rangeland uses when their populations are
maintained within AML.
The BLM has focused its efforts on reaching AML by
addressing population increases in wild horse herds through
gathering excess animals, removing them from the rangelands,
and placing them with qualified adopters. Although the Act
permits
the humane destruction of animals\1\, Congress has prohibited
the destruction of excess healthy animals since 1988.\2\ The
Adopt-A-Horse-and-Burro Program is, therefore, the only tool
the BLM currently possesses to manage the excess wild horses
and burros removed from the range. Most of our recent efforts
have focused on improving the adoption program and allowing us
to achieve AML.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Act authorizes the BLM to take the following actions to
``remove excess animals from the range so as to achieve AML:
``(A) old, sick or lame animals to be destroyed in the most
humane manner possible;
``(B) removed for private maintenance and care for which an
adoption demand exists by qualified individuals; and
``(C) additional excess wild free-roaming wild horses and burros
for which an adoption demand by qualified individuals does not exist to
be destroyed in the most humane and cost efficient manner possible.''
\2\ ``Provided, that appropriations herein made shall not be
available for the destruction of healthy, unadopted, wild horses and
burros in the care of the Bureau or its contractors.'' [Department of
the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In fiscal year 1997 and the first part of fiscal year 1998,
adoption demand declined. Possible causes for the decline
include negative news articles, increased adoption fees,
increased compliance checks, initial reaction to the new
competitive bid process, and the higher costs of feed in
winter. The past month has seen a renewal of public interest
with adoptions returning to normal levels. Of the 10,443 horses
and burros gathered in fiscal year 1997, a total of 6,993
horses and 1,699 burros (total of 8,692) were adopted. We are
moving animals out of our holding facilities more slowly than
planned and we are holding animals longer than expected.
As of June 1 in fiscal year 1998, we have gathered 3,861
animals, and 5,023 horses and burros have been adopted. As of
June 1, we had 3,889 animals in our holding facilities. Lacking
the ability to adopt out a larger number of animals, we expect
that numbers of animals in our facilities will remain higher
than is normal for this time of year. We are reviewing our
gather schedule to ensure that we can balance the room we have
in our holding facilities with the number of animals proposed
to be gathered and with anticipated adoptions.
As adoption demand was declining in fiscal year 1997, the
wild horse and burro herds were reproducing at a rate of about
24 percent--a rate at which a herd will double in size in three
years. We expect about 9,000 foals will be born this year. To
improve management of this situation, the BLM has undertaken
the following actions:
Re-establishment of the Wild Horse and Burro Advisory
Board: Director Shea rechartered the National Advisory Board in
January 1998 to advise the Departments of the Interior and
Agriculture on the management and protection of wild horses and
burros on the public lands. Nominations for the nine-member
Board were solicited from the research community, advocacy
groups, humane organizations, natural resource and wildlife
management groups, and the public at large. To date, the Board
has held three public meetings: February 9, 1998, in Reno,
Nevada, April 24, 1998, in Arlington, Virginia, and last week
(July 9) in St. Louis, Missouri.
Following these meetings, the Board established working
groups to focus on four key areas of concern: (1) horses on the
range; (2) horses off the range; (3) science; and (4) burros.
These groups have just begun their work; we expect the groups
to present solid recommendations to the Director after they
have reached consensus on specific issues. The Director has
reaffirmed his pledge that the BLM will listen to the Board and
seriously evaluate its recommendations.
In a break with past practice, the BLM will not postpone
acting on Board recommendations until after the Advisory Board
has completed its work and issued a report. Director Shea has
committed the BLM to consider this Board's recommendations as
soon as they are made, and decide on them as soon as possible.
For example, at the April 24th Advisory Board meeting in
Arlington, Virginia, the Board recommended that BLM adopt a
revised policy on humane destruction of animals, proceed with a
pilot program training wild horses, examine the structure of
the leadership of the program, and proceed with a marketing
study to look at new ways to increase our adoptions. We are
implementing each of these recommendations.
Fertility Control/Research: the BLM is supporting research
aimed at controlling the reproduction rate of wild horses wile
maintaining the integrity of the herd. A pilot study of immuno-
contraceptive vaccine that prevents pregnancy in mares was
implemented in northeast Nevada in December 1992. The results
of this pilot study to date have shown immuno-contraception
could be a viable, economically feasible, and humane tool for
reducing wild horse reproduction.
Researchers now have developed a single-injection vaccine
that does not require a booster shot and will last for
approximately one year. A second pilot project with a
redesigned vaccine potentially lasting for more than one year
was initiated on the Nevada Wild Horse Range/Nellis Bombing and
Gunnery Range in January 1996. The results of the immuno-
contraceptive test from the Nevada Wild Horse Range animals
have been favorable.
Field application of the single-injection, 1-year vaccine
is continuing with new field trials begun in Nevada in January
and February 1998. The one-shot application of the immuno-
contraceptive vaccine has been shown to be effective on almost
100 percent of the mares treated. Application of the vaccine
will be expanded and additional herds will be treated in
subsequent years. The two-shot protocol was 100 percent
effective, but required a 30-day holding period between the
initial injection and the booster, making it impractical for
wild horses and burros. Research continues on a multi-year time
release vaccine.
About $200,000 is planned for wild horse and burro immuno-
contraception research in fiscal year 1999. This research is
funded through the Biological Research Division of the U.S.
Geological Survey.
The population model developed for wild horses and burros
by the University of Nevada at Reno continues to be refined. A
study on the impacts of the selective removal policy on herd
health and viability was initiated in 1997 and will be
incorporated into the model.
Enhanced Adoption Efforts: the BLM has undertaken a number
of initiatives geared to increase adoption demand and ensure
the humane treatment of animals placed with qualified adopters.
Competitive bids--The BLM changed its regulations on
March 8, 1997, to allow the BLM to offer wild horses and burros
for adoption using the competitive bid process authorized by
Congress. This is to provide consistency to the customer and
alleviate some of the internal concerns about changes in
adoption procedures. Several BLM Field Offices have tested the
competitive bid process and found most potential adopters
receptive to this approach.
Western states adoption--In December 1997, BLM's
Washington Office asked the BLM State Offices to add more
adoptions to their existing schedule. The 6 Western States
which administer Wild Horse and Burro Programs have added an
additional 10 adoption events (both at holding facilities and
satellite adoptions) to bring the adoption goal for the 6
Western States up to 2,430 animals for fiscal year 1998 from
2,296 in fiscal year 1997.
Nevada does not have a large adoption demand, but we
have participated in this effort by increasing our planned
adoption events from three to four. On May 23, we conducted an
adoption event in Elko where we placed 26 animals with
qualified adopters and on May 30, an event was held in
Winnemucca where 23 animals were adopted. At the June 13-14
adoption, held in conjunction with the National Wild Horse and
Burro Show in Reno, 13 animals were adopted. The horse that
trainer Brian Newbert worked with brought $425 in the
competitive bidding. More importantly, BLM-Nevada committed to
provide assistance to other state offices to help accomplish
their goals. We have sent BLM-Nevada employees to other states
on six occasions to help meet the commitments of adopting
larger numbers of animals.Internet--The BLM is doing a pilot
project using the Internet to increase public awareness of the
adoption program. The first Internet Wild Horse and Burro
Adoption was announced on April 15, 1998; the web site is:
http://www.adoptahorse.blm.gov/. The public can view on the
Internet photos and brief descriptions of the 25 animals up for
adoption. Electronic applications were accepted from May 8-22.
Fifty-three (53) applications were submitted, and 18 were
approved to participate in the bidding. Since this was a pilot
in test mode, BLM employees could not participate in bidding or
adoptions at this time. The bidding for adoption privileges
took place from May 15-29. Fifteen (15) animals were adopted.
Pre-adoption horse training--The BLM is also studying
the idea of working with wild horses to gentle them before
putting them up for adoption, with the goal of making the
horses more attractive to prospective qualified adopters.
Other Actions to Improve Management of the Program: BLM Director
Shea also appointed a fact-finder team, composed of professionals from
the private sector, to report on three issues relating to BLM
practices:
the media--The report's findings included the need for
media training for employees involved with the Wild Horse and
Burro Program.
accounting methods--The report recommended measures
for improved tracking of excess animals gathered from public
land to issuance of title for the animal to an adopter.
the horse perspective--The report recognized the
biological, ethical and ecological considerations of wild horse
management.
The BLM has implemented three recommendations from these reports
respectively; including media training in wild horse and burro training
courses; verifying data in the wild horse and burro information system;
and, initiating development of a policy on humane destruction of
unhealthy animals.
In conclusion, the BLM is making every effort to maximize
adoptions, including a concerted effort to identify new markets and to
enhance adoptability through gentling the animal prior to adoption as
we continue striving to reach AML. We are moving ahead with research on
fertility control through the use of contraception. We look forward to
receiving the recommendations of the National Wild Hose and Burro
Advisory Board.
Mr. Chairman, I welcome the Subcommittee's continued interest in
the BLM's management of the wild hose and burro program, and I
appreciate this opportunity to discuss the direction we are taking in
the program. I will be glad to respond to any questions you may have.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.009
Statement of John Balliette, Contractual Natural Resource Manager,
Eureka County, Nevada
Chairman and Members of the Committee:
Thank you for the invitation to testify before your
Committee on an issue that is very important to rural Nevada.
My testimony will include a summary of my background and
qualifications, an overview of some major problems we have
encountered and some suggestions on how the wild horse and
burro program can be improved.
My education in natural resource management includes a
bachelors degree from the University of Nevada-Reno and a
masters degree from New Mexico State University. I have worked
on ranches and for both the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and
the U.S. Forest Service. I also spent 10 years working for the
University of Nevada-Reno as an agricultural extension agent.
For the last three years, I have represented Eureka County,
Nevada as a contractual natural resource manager on a wide
range of issues including wild horses.
Problems in the wild horse program do have an affect on
rural communities. An increasing horse population, in
combination with other factors, have resulted in significant
reductions in livestock AUM's (Attachment 1). Recent AUM
suspensions, that are partially attributable to increased horse
numbers, represent a loss of about 20 percent of the permitted
livestock use in Eureka County. Similarly, cattle numbers have
fallen in Eureka County from 41,000 in 1982 to 15,000 in 1997
(Nevada Agricultural Statistics Bulletins, USDA National
Agricultural Statistics Service). These losses are felt not
only in the agricultural industry but also by local
governments. The long term sustainable economic sector and tax
base in Eureka County has traditionally been agriculture.
Several problems in the horse program in Nevada have a lot
to do with accountability. In the winter of 1993-94, Railroad
Pass in Central Nevada experienced a significant horse kill. A
deep snow followed by a lengthy cold period resulted in
starving horses.
Similarly, there was a major die-off of horses on the
Nellis Range several years ago after a prolonged drought. In
both cases, I will argue that the magnitude of these disasters
could have been lessened if horse numbers were at an
appropriate level in relation to the range resource.
Furthermore, if those horses were in private hands, the owners
would likely have faced serious charges. I am not suggesting
that serious charges should be brought against agency employees
but I feel strongly that such instances should be thoroughly
reviewed and individuals who are in some way responsible,
should at a minimum, be assigned to activities for which they
are better qualified.
Another area where accountability is lacking is in the
Multiple Use Decision (MUD) process. A MUD is typically the
document that sets appropriate management level (AML) for
horses, stocking rates for livestock and a forage allocation
for wildlife. Often a MUD will also prescribe changes in
management for livestock such as season of use or
implementation of a grazing system. Livestock producers are
expected to comply immediately with a MUD and can face
consequences such as trespass or livestock impoundment for non-
compliance. Unfortunately when it comes to mustangs, we have
witnessed a trend in which BLM apparently does not feel
compelled to comply with their own decisions. Because,
livestock producers can not use excuses for failing to comply
with MUDs, we as citizens are held to higher level of
accountability to BLM decisions than the agency itself.
The Fish Creek grazing allotment and the Fish Creek Herd
Management Area (HMA) is an example of BLM failing to comply
with their own decisions. In 1994, BLM reduced the number of
livestock by 75 percent on the Fish Creek Allotment and an AML
of 75 horses was established for that portion of Fish Creek HMA
that lies within Fish Creek Allotment (62 percent of Fish Creek
HMA lies within the Fish Creek grazing allotment). Despite two
horse gathers over the past several years, a March 1998 census
by BLM showed 263 horses were in the Fish Creek Allotment. This
is much higher than the 75 head called for in the MUD. We have
heard excuses from the BLM such as not enough time, money or
manpower as well as a lack of space in adoption facilities as
reasons for not reaching AML. These reasons are not acceptable
and I believe the agency must reconsider it's priorities. I
also believe removing perennial language from Interior
Appropriations language that restricts the Secretary from
selling surplus horse should also be considered.
The second problem area with the horse program is when BLM
fails to comply with the criteria of a MUD, the result can be
very detrimental to the resource base. In the Fish Creek
Allotment, failure to bring horses to AML has resulted in
continued heavy to severe grazing of white sage (a very
palatable shrub). This over utilization is due solely to horses
because no livestock have used the allotment for over three
years. Similarly, horses in Railroad Pass consistently over
utilized a revegetated area to such an extent that ranchers
could not use the allotment. Also, at last count, there are
over 400 head of horses above AML in the Grass Valley Allotment
which contributes to overgrazing. Again, the over grazing in
these three allotments can be directly attributed to BLM's
failure to maintain horses at AML. I have lengthy documentation
of over utilization by horses on both the Fish Creek and
Railroad Pass Allotments and will duplicate this documentation
for your Subcommittee at your request. The point I am trying to
make is that BLM has issued MUD's on numerous allotments that
have resulted in livestock reductions, more intensive
management, losses of personal income and a loss of tax base.
These MUD's have also called for the reduction of horses yet
BLM has not complied with this requirement. When BLM fails to
bring horse numbers to AML, these impacts are compounded by the
continued degradation of the resource base.
Excessive numbers are also challenging the viability of the
present horse herds. BLM has a policy of only removing animals
under nine years of age. As a result, herds that have been
gathered several times consist of the very old and the very
young. Along with increased age, many herds are dominated by
studs, because older studs are not as adoptable as older mares.
Biologically, a healthy population consists of evenly
distributed age classes and severe events (drought, cold,
hunger etc.) have a more severe impact on the youngest and
oldest age classes. We may be setting the stage for disaster,
given the present composition of horse herds.
The first solution that must be implemented is decisions
regarding horses must be made on the basis of sound range
management and the needs of other multiple uses. Presently,
decisions regarding the horse program appear to be based on the
adoption system. Because the adoption system can not handle the
present excess, especially the old and undesirable, the outlet
for excess animals must be expanded.
The current tools for controlling horse populations are
limited to the adoption program and fertility control. The
adoption program was backed up with 5,000-6,000 head of horses
earlier this year. Also at present, the national horse
population exceeds AML by over 15,000 head (1996 BLM estimates,
National Wild Horse and Burro Program). If Congress expanded
funding to gather all excess horses, the existing adoption
program would likely be inadequate.
Many of us view the fertility control program with
skepticism, especially for HMA's that greatly exceed AML.
Fertility control, to me, seems best suited for populations at
or near AML. Using Fish Creek as an example once more, BLM
recognized in their Environmental Assessment for fertility
control (EA# NV-062-EA98-005) that ``. . ., it can be projected
that AML can be achieved in 9 to 13 years with the
implementation of fertility control.'' This strongly indicates
that large reductions in a horse population will take a
significant length of time using fertility control. I contend
the length of time required to reduce population with fertility
control may actually prove detrimental to the range resource
base as I can document in the Fish Creek and Railroad Pass
Allotments.
At any rate, the current tools for dealing with excess
horses are inadequate. There are several ways to expand the
outlet for excess horses. Perhaps the most controversial and
effective is sale authority. However, sale authority must be
debated.
Some real double standards exist when it comes to sale
authority. Each year our country sells thousands of privately
owned horses for slaughter. But the mere mention of sale
authority of ``wild'' horses with the possibility of slaughter
is offensive to some. Horses are the only large ungulate on
Federal lands that are not harvested for consumptive purposes.
If harvesting one large ungulate is acceptable, why is
harvesting horses unacceptable? Horses must be viewed as are
other large ungulates on Federal lands, a renewable resource
that can be effectively managed by harvesting excess numbers.
Perhaps a more acceptable solution would be limited sale
authority. The model I envision would allow sale authority for
herd management areas that greatly exceed carrying capacity or
AML. Rather than removing only young adoptable animals and
leaving only old unadoptable animals, remaining herds should
consist of evenly distributed age classes. By using sale
authority, BLM could base management and actual horse numbers
on the health and viability of the range resource and the
health and viability of the horse herds rather than basing such
decisions on the adoption program. Once AML is reached, sale
authority would then be sunsetted and politically correct
methods of population control such as adoption and fertility
control may have a better success rate.
I also urge you to be cautious with euthanasia, especially
for large reductions. Personally, I would view putting
thousands of horses down as a terrible waste of a resource. I
also believe the first time several hundred horses are
euthanized in one spot, a political firestorm will follow.
Also as a solution, I would recommend that cooperative
agreements with non-Federal entities as an alternative to
federally operated adoption programs. There are numerous groups
that claim to have an interest in the well being of horses.
Since the inception of the horse program, our government has
spent over $240 million for the benefit of a small number of
horse advocates. Turning over the adoption program to horse
advocacy groups would not only put the responsibility of the
care of horses in the hands of the people who claim that
interest, but, I also believe these folks could do a more
efficient job. In my experience, working for the bureaucracies
does not reward innovation. However, dealing with the present
excess of horses will require innovation not bureaucratic
restraints. I believe horse advocacy groups have greatly
benefited and it is now time for them to invest time and money
to help solve a problem.
Finally, I would like to say a few words about the National
Wild Horse and Burro Advisory Board. I know several folks on
that Board and do not wish to discredit their efforts. However,
giving this Board two years to make recommendations seems a
little excessive. Especially when it will take BLM another year
or more to take action based on the Board's recommendations.
Simply put, the problem with the horse program is excess
numbers and the solution to this problem is controlling
population growth. I would recommend that your Committee seek
legislation which would require the Board to submit findings to
Congress no later than January 15, 1999. Language in the
Interior Appropriations Conference Committee report might
accomplish this.
In summary, wild horses are capable of damaging the range
resource and this is occurring as I speak. Decisions issued by
BLM are often not followed by BLM and as a result, damage to
the rangelands has and will occur as a result of their non
compliance. The present methods of adoption and fertility
control are not capable of controlling excess horse numbers.
New outlets for excess animals are needed and include limited
sale authority and allowing private participation in operating
the adoption program.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.011
Statement of Demar Dahl, Starr Valley, Death, Nevada
My name is Demar Dahl and I have been a cattle rancher in
Nevada since 1969. Most of that time was spent on ranches where
there were mustangs on my range.
With the passing of the Wild Horse Act in 1971, I could see
the potential for problems caused by competition between horses
and livestock. To establish what the numbers of horses on my
range were I appealed a decision of the Battle Mountain
District Manager concerning domestic horse permits. With
documentation acquired at that appeal hearing, I was able to
establish that there were only thirty-one head of wild horses
on my ranch at the time the Wild Horse Act was passed.
In the early 80's I filed suite in Federal District Court,
asking the court to require the BLM to remove enough horses
from my range so as to return horse numbers to the 1971 level.
Our reasoning in the suite was that, even though the Act did
not specify that horse numbers had to stay the same as in 1971,
it dictated that horses were not to be in areas they did not
occupy in 1971. We reasoned with the Federal District Judge
that the only way to keep horses only in areas they did occupy
in 1971, since the Act also prohibited fencing to control horse
movement, was to keep the horse numbers at what they were in
1971. We established for the court, that where on my range
there were 31 head of horses in 1971, about ten years later, at
the time of the trail, there were in excess of seven hundred.
Part of the increase was of course from procreation and part
from horses moving into the area from adjacent ranges. For me
that was a very expensive case and I lost it on a technicality.
I had to sell that ranch at a considerable loss because I
could not survive with the horses almost outnumbering my
cattle.
Later in 1980's I had the Big Springs Ranch in Elko County
which had many wild horses but also much deeded land. The wild
horses ran on both the BLM and private land and I had requested
that BLM remove the wild horses from the private land. On one
occasion we had gathered cattle from a large piece of county in
order to be off by the time the BLM permit dictated but we had
to turn five cows back to find their calves that had gotten
lost in the gather. The next day a BLM employee spotted the
cows which were looking for their calves and sent me a trespass
notice. The notice said in part, ``You are hereby notified that
the Bureau of Land Management has made an investigation and
evidence tends to show that you are making unauthorized use of
the public lands. We allege that you are violating the law(s)
specified below . . .'' ``Failure to comply with this notice
will result in further action to protect the interest of the
United States.''
I was struck by the irony that I was being held accountable
to the law governing trespass while the BLM, in spite of my
requests, refused to remove the wild horses from my deeded
land. The Wild Horse Act requires the BLM to remove wild horses
from private property when retested to do so by the land owner.
My response was to send the BLM a trespass notice, quoting
the law that required them to remove the horses upon my
request. I also sent them a bill using their trespass rates of
$8.49 per AUM and then after a five day period raised the
charge to equal the BLM intentional trespass fee which is
considerably higher. I received a weak response from the
district manager which in effect said, ``I'm sorry but I can't
do anything about the horses.'' If I had responded to the BLM
trespass notice in that way, I would have received a notice
telling me of my sin against the United States, and I would
have been fined and my cattle impounded. I have kept track of
the BLM's trespass over the years and the many thousands of
dollars it would cost them if required to pay. If you would
like to see this documentation, which includes trespass notices
and fee calculation, etc., please contact me.
It has been heartbreaking over the years to see so much
damage done to the range by an over population of wild horses.
I have taken pride in my range and always used grazing
techniques that maximize the health of the range. To remove
cattle from a piece of county so as to let it rest but watch as
many horses stay as there are cattle removed is hard to take.
Horses usually stay in the same area year round and often tromp
in the springs and decimate new spring growth.
It was many years before anyone in Congress was courageous
enough to speak out about the parts of the Endangered Species
Act that just did not make sense. The fact that the Endangered
Species Act is no longer considered a sacred document that can
not be changed gives me hope that we may soon apply some common
sense to the Wild Horse Act.
------
Statement of Cathy Barcomb, Executive Director, Commission for the
Preservation of Wild Horses
Mr. Chairman and members of this Committee . . . welcome to
Nevada and thank you for the opportunity to address you today.
My name is Cathy Barcomb, I am the Administrator of the State
of Nevada Commission for the Preservation of Wild Horses. My
purpose today is to make this introduction and to give you some
idea of what our Commission is doing on a State level.
Our Commission is made up of members much like yours in
that we have representatives of horse organizations,
veterinarian, a humane society representative, a rancher, and
even an attorney.
The Nevada Commission was established by the 1985 Nevada
Legislature. Our mission statement from the legislature is to
prepare a plan for the management of the wild horses in Nevada.
This will be a year long project, and our final plan will be
completed at the end of this calendar year and then presented
to the next session of the Nevada legislature.
We are presently conducting a number of scoping sessions
throughout Nevada. We are traveling to every part of this state
taking testimony and discussing issues and problems with the
people affected in those areas. When our scoping sessions are
complete we will have field hearings in every part of this
state, from Las Vegas to Elko and everywhere in between.
As you can imagine, the testimony we received was mostly
from the people in the field . . . from the people that most
deal with wild horse issues on a daily basis. This includes not
only the ranchers, environmentalists, local representatives,
but also the local BLM personnel as well.
Let me add that the BLM personnel that have been with us in
the various locations have been extremely cooperative, and more
importantly, have provided vital information. We fully plan on
continuing to work with the BLM personnel and involving them at
every stage of the process as this as this Nevada plan comes
together.
As I stated, my appearance was intended only as an
introduction as to what we are doing on a state level, but let
me leave you with a few thoughts:
Whatever comes of our work, and your work as well, the
final acid test, in my view is whether it works in the field.
An effective wild horse management plan must meet the
objectives of:
(1) First, the horses themselves, to that end that we have a
healthy herd of horses, and able to stay in balance with their
habitat,
(2) Second, the plan must remember the interests of those
directly affected by the horses, such as those seeking to
preserve the horses in their environment or seeking adoption,
but not forgetting the multiple uses of the range.
(3) and finally, the plan must work for those in the field
who are on the front lines charged with the responsibility for
managing the program, it must work for all.
The only conclusion I have come to, speaking as only one
representative, but a view shared by others, is that an
effective program will require more cooperation between the
states, the affected interests, and the Federal Government. Our
Commission will be addressing this issue of state and Federal
cooperation, and hopefully coming up with ideas on how the
states can contribute in constructive ways to assist in wild
horse management.
Along those lines, we will be utilizing all the information
that comes out of your deliberations, and we hope you will be
taking into consideration some of our views once they are
adopted. We anticipate the draft plan being distributed to the
public the first week of August and the final being presented
by December for presentation to the next session of the Nevada
Legislature.
Thank you for this opportunity to address you today.
------
Statement of Larry L. Schutte, Big Springs Ranch, Wells, Nevada
I am the current lessee, permittee of Big Springs Ranch
located in northeastern Nevada, between Wells and Wendover,
Nevada.
The Big Springs winter range is the Shafter Pasture
situated on the west side of the Goshute Mountains. In the
1930's and 40's, the UTAH Construction Company used the ranges
from Idaho, south to Pioche, for cattle and horses, however,
the world war demanded both horses and men, causing the UC to
sell off portions of the ranch. Only certain types of horses
were accepted for army use and the balance of mares, colts and
cull horses were left turned out due to poor prices.
The 1972 Wild Horse Act allowed for a claiming period where
permitters could gather and personally claim the horses within
their own allotment. The Big Springs Ranch, managed by Howard
Robinson in 1978, gathered the Goshute county, missing 28 head.
The BLM was to take census at that time, however they were
delinquent for 6 months. This allowed horses from Antelope
Valley, from the south, to move north and inhabit the Goshute
Valley. The BLM census was 160 head which in turn established
an approximate allotment management level (AML) for the Goshute
Herd Area.
The BLM standards for census taking in a county full of
canyons, pinion and mountains has been, to me, both a humorous
experience and a low blow. My personal counts of horses made by
living in the country, by vehicle and horseback are continually
higher than the BLM census. Horses should be counted at a
slower pace and encompass four times the area than prescribed
by BLM standards. Different management should include people
with common sense and hands on experience or be returned to the
rancher.
My winter range is used between November 1 and April 1. We
move the cattle off the winter range before April so that the
feed can grow all during the growing season and be available
for the next winter. Good management dictates that all
livestock be removed from this winter range during the primary
growing season. The cattle are removed but of course the horses
stay. The BLM census claims approximately 69 horses in the
area. There are actually over 300 head and this is a number
that is easily proved. The forage these three hundred horses
consume is paid for by me as there has never been forage
allocated for the horses which were considered trespass animals
when the forage adjudication was made. More importantly, it is
forage I depend on having for my livestock for the following
winter that is not there because the horses have eaten it
during the summer.
------
Statement of Jon Fugate, Chairman, Legislative Affairs, Yuma Valley Rod
& Gun Club, Inc., Yuma, Arizona
Dear Chairman Hansen,
My name is Jon Fugate. I am chairman of the Legislative
Affairs Committee of the Yuma Valley Rod and Gun Club (YVRGC).
We appreciate the opportunity to provide written comment to
range issues and problems with the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and
Burros Act of 1971 (As amended; Act).
Although our written testimony is addressed to Director Pat
Shea of the Bureau of Land Management you will see that we have
been and are continuing to be very involved with trying to
resolve adverse impacts caused by over populations of feral
burros in Arizona. If BLM had merely controlled populations of
burros in Arizona that were achieved prior to the IBLA decision
(1989) and managed those populations to date, this oversight
hearing would not be necessary.
If those reduced burro populations achieved by 1989, would
have been maintained to date, BLM would not be faced with non-
compliance of the Act, overpopulation, habitat destruction,
degradation of riparian areas, competition with livestock or
feral burros competing with wildlife as they are today. Now in
Arizona, the main issue at hand is BLM not being allocated
adequate funding for removal of excess burros to fulfill their
responsibility to maintain a thriving natural ecological
balance between wildlife, burros, and livestock as mandated by
the Act.
Thank you in advance for your immediate attention to this
matter.
Letter to Mr. Pat Shea, Director, BLM from the Yuma Valley Rod & Gun
Club, Inc.
Dear Director Shea,
On behalf of the Yuma Valley Rod and Gun Club (YVRGC), I
would like to take this opportunity to thank you for being
sincere and honest about dilemmas BLM is facing in regard to
responsibilities for the management of wild horses and burros
on public lands. I refer to an article in the Arizona Republic
newspaper where you were quoted as saying ``The people I have
met in the program are very, very dedicated public servants'' .
. ``But faced with an impossible job they have shown a
tendency to cover up their mistakes and problems rather than
try to resolve them.'' In regard to burro management, it is the
feeling of our organization, BLM in Arizona could be some of
these dedicated public servants, who have always wanted to make
the right decisions, but could not, simply because adequate
funding has not been available to provide the services
necessary to comply with the Wild Free Roaming Horses and
Burros Act of 1971 (as amended; Horse and Burro Act).
With regard to burro management, BLM in Arizona, working
collaboratively with the Arizona Game and Fish Department
(AGFD) and United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS),
within the Cibola/Trigo Herd Management Area (CTHMA), have
agreed to work towards managing for the existing appropriate
management level (AML), which is 165 burros, consistent with
the CTHMA plan and the Horse and Burro Act. In September of
1997 an emergency burro removal by BLM occurred because of
adverse impacts caused by burros. At this time, there are still
too many burros to maintain a thriving natural ecological
balance within the CTHMA. We further understand that BLM,
working collaboratively with AGFD and FWS, will determine the
process for future monitoring and gathering of data to
substantiate the AML. It is the feeling of the YVRGC this
approach for burro management in Arizona is correct and will
allow for the completion of the Cibola/Trigo Comprehensive
Wilderness Management Plan in a timely manner.
In regard to future burro removals and adequate funding for
necessary burro management in Arizona, the YVRGC is concerned
that according to the national BLM program objectives and
budget request for 1998, that little will be done in Arizona.
BLM being responsible for reaching AML's within herd management
areas (HMA) across our state will not be possible, because
there is no money. Since 1989, BLM has performed poorly in
regards to responsible burro management in Arizona, because
responsible burro management has not been a BLM priority, most
likely because, adequate funding was not available. If funding
to manage burros is not adequately provided, you as Director of
BLM can not provide, nor even think about maintaining a
thriving natural ecological balance in Arizona as outlined in
the Strategic Plan for Management of Wild Horses and Burros on
Public Land (June 1992).
One approach that the YVRGC would like to suggest that you
might consider, is go back to Congress for additional funding,
and direct their attention to the Horse and Burro Act and under
section 1331 Congressional Findings and Declaration of Policy
indicate that ``Congress found and declared that wild free
roaming horses and burros . . . are fast disappearing from the
American Scene.'' With this, you should advocate this is not
the case any more, and BLM responsibility has changed from
primarily protecting wild free roaming horses and burros, to
trying to protect our public lands from being destroyed from
over populations. In the case of Arizona, you should also
advocate that burros, not horses are the primary target for
removal.
A second approach that the YVRGC would like to suggest, is
that you advocate to Congress, even though the Strategic Plan
for Management of Wild Horses and Burros on Public Land (June
1992) indicates BLM direction to the end of the century, BLM
has not even come close to fulfilling goals and objectives of
the plan because of over-population. This has occurred not
because BLM was not doing their job after 1989, but because of
one judge, not understanding the long term effects that his
decision, for the state of Nevada, has caused BLM in Arizona,
to shy from their HMAP's, as they have been labeled
``arbitrarily derived.'' I refer to page 11 of the Final Black
Mountain Ecosystem Plan (BMEP) in Arizona (April 1996) where it
states: ``The Black Mountain Wild Burro Herd Management Area
(Map 4) was designated, and a herd management plan was
completed in 1981. This plan established vegetation monitoring
studies, and also prescribed an appropriate management level of
400 burros. This number is no longer legally applicable because
it was rather arbitrarily derived.'' The next sentence on page
11 briefly explains the IBLA decision. The BMEP completed in
April 1996 took approximately three hard long years to complete
and the appropriate management level decided upon was 478
burros (refer to page 33). To the YVRGC, since a plan legally
prepared by BLM in 1981 is within 78 animals, it is our opinion
that not only did BLM waste taxpayers dollars because of a
decision from a judge in another state in regards to a plan
which had nothing to do with the BMEP, your BLM employees, some
seventeen years ago, have indicated the original plan was
correct, and BLM and the other responsible agencies obviously
knew what they were doing in 1981, regardless of how it was
derived. The YVRGC has not reviewed one HMAP that did not
identify resource damage caused by burros and a need to manage
for a specific AML. Because few significant burro removals have
taken place in southwestern Arizona since 1989, the resource
damage which was documented in the early 1980's has worsened.
With this, our organization questions why BLM is fighting so
hard to throw out existing HMAP's in order to manage for some
undefined natural ecological balance.
Another approach, which would not have to be presented to
Congress, is that you direct (already appropriated) funds for
wilderness management and/or fire protection management to be
moved and allocated to the management of burros. It makes
little sense to spend taxpayers dollars for the purpose of
these types of management, when everyday in the arid deserts of
Arizona, burros are adversely impacting wilderness and non-
wilderness land and vegetation to a point where a rangeland
fire would be insignificant. These adverse impacts include
degradation of native riparian habitat important to many
wildlife species, including the Endangered southwestern willow
flycatcher.
However, before the completion of the BMEP and prior to the
decision of an initial AML for the CTHMA, BLM in Arizona chose
to manage burros at levels many many times that of their
respective AML's since the IBLA decision in 1989. In our
opinion, prior to the IBLA decision of 1989, BLM in Arizona had
reduced populations of burros in accordance to plans developed
in the early 1980's, and had BLM continued, merely to control
populations achieved at that time, and managed those
populations to date, BLM would not be in the dilemma you are
having to face today.
BLM did not, for what ever reason, (whether it be the
threat of another law suit or not) continue to do the right
thing which was to follow the mandates authorized to the BLM,
through the Horse and Burro Act. BLM in Arizona has not been
able to provide the services necessary to maintain a thriving
natural ecological balance between wild free roaming burros and
wildlife resources.
This issue is of great importance to the YVRGC and your
immediate attention to this matter will be greatly appreciated.
Thanks, in advance for your consideration of the comments
provided in this letter. If you have any questions regarding
this letter, please contact me at the following telephone
numbers or address below.
------
Statement of The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS)
On behalf of The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS)
and our 6.2 million members and constituents, I thank you for
the opportunity to submit a statement for the record for the
Wild Horse and Burro Program field oversight hearing of the
House Resources Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands
on July 13, 1998, in Reno, Nevada.
The HSUS, which is the nation's largest animal protection
organization, has been working to promote the health and
welfare of America's wild horse and burro herds for over three
decades. Our goals have been threefold: to assure the existence
of healthy wild horse and burro herds on the range; to assure
equitable distribution of forage among wild horses, livestock
and wildlife; and to assure humane treatment of wild horses and
burros after their removal from the range, including the
securing of humane lifelong care in good homes for animals
passing through the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Adopt-a-
Horse program.
In our experience, wild horses and burros exercise an
extraordinary hold on the American imagination, and the
sustained level of interest and concern for these animals among
the public should not be underestimated by Congress. The
firestorm of public outrage that greeted last year's press
reports concerning the fate of wild horses in the BLM Adopt-a-
Horse Program did not arise in response to abstract concerns
about poor record keeping or bureaucratic mismanagement.
Rather, the public was furious that, in spite of the clear
mandates of the Wild Free-Roaming Horse & Burro Act, the
American government was allowing American wild horses to come
to harm. The public supports wild horse protection, the public
supports the Act, and the public wants to see the Act
implemented.
The BLM Wild Horse & Burro Program remains an imperfect
tool for managing wild horses and burros on the public lands in
a manner consistent with the mandates of the Act and the will
of the American public. Nevertheless, the HSUS is working
closely with the BLM to improve all aspects of the program,
including management of rangelands, management of horses and
burros on the range, handling of horses and burros in BLM
facilities, and the Adopt-a-Horse program.
These are the some of the changes in management and policy
that we believe are most important:
The BLM must shift emphasis and resources from the adoption
program to on-the-range management of horses, wildlife, and
livestock, with improvements in the accuracy of animal census
data, consistency and clarity of range monitoring data
collection, and increased efforts at range restoration.
The BLM must increase responsible use of immunocontraception
on wild horse populations, with the goal of reducing
reproduction on the range to the extent necessary to preserve a
thriving ecological balance. Such a reduction in reproduction
on the range would reduce the number of gathers conducted and
reduce the number of horses entering the adoption program. This
would in turn reduce stress on horses, improve the quality of
adoptions, and save tax dollars.
The BLM must end the arbitrary elimination of wild horse and
burro populations from herd areas, and ensure that all existing
wild horse and burro herds are managed to assure long-term
health and viability. We will actively oppose any further
reduction in the number of herd management areas.
The BLM must improve the marketing of horses in the Adopt-a-
Horse program to recruit additional qualified adopters and to
better match horses to adopters. In particular, we encourage
the BLM to continue to explore avenues for humanely gentling
and training horses prior to adoption; we believe such training
will improve the animals' attractiveness to adopters and
provide better quality adoption experiences for adopters and
horses alike.
The BLM must screen potential adopters more rigorously,
improve adopters' access to information and assistance before
and after adoption, and increase follow-up contacts with
adopters from BLM personnel and volunteer mentors.
We adamantly oppose any change in the law that would provide the
BLM with sale authority for the wild horses and burros removed from the
range. Inevitably, most of these animals would go to slaughter. Neither
the HSUS nor, thirty years of experience tell us, the American public
will tolerate such cruelty.
We also adamantly oppose turning over the management of wild horses
or burros on public lands to ranchers or other private interests. Wild
horses are not livestock, and their wild-free roaming character will be
lost if they are managed as such.
The HSUS believes that wild horses, burros, wildlife, and livestock
can be maintained on public lands in a thriving ecological balance, as
the Act mandates. We also believe that, at the present time, the BLM is
moving in the right direction. The HSUS is committed to keeping the
agency moving in that direction, and to assuring that wild horses and
burros, these ``living symbols of the pioneer spirit of the West,''
thrive on public lands forever.
______
Statement of Holly E. Hazard, Executive Director, Doris Day Animal
League
Dear Representative Hansen:
On behalf of our 280,000 members and supporters nationwide,
I am writing to express our concern about proposals made during
the oversight hearing held on July 13 in Reno, Nevada.
During the discussions with the first panel, Nevada State
Senator Dean Rhoads underscored his frustration with the Wild
Horse and Burro Program's administrative costs. He proposed
that the Bureau of Land Management be given sale authority to
offer ``excess'' horses for sale to the highest bidder. As you
know, horses and burros who are removed from their home range
are now placed in the Wild Horse and Burro Adoption Program.
Although we have yet to see sufficientt information to support
the removal of these animals due to overpopulation (as the Wild
Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act requires), placing the animals
in adoptive homes is the only acceptable alternative to leaving
them on the range.
We strongly oppose any efforts to amend the Wild Free-
Roaming Horse and Burro Act that would further endanger these
animals, which Congress has the duty to protect as part of our
natural heritage. We are grateful that Representative Eni F.H.
Faleomavaega was present to reinforce the original intent of
the 1971 Act, passed to protect these animals from slaughter.
I hope you will consider the immense public support for the
survival of these magnificent animals and re-evaluate any
attempts to amend the Wild Horse and Burro Act. With the
Subcommittee's oversight authority of the Wild Horse and Burro
Act and the overwhelming support for maintaining this strong
American heritage, perhaps the questions raised should include:
why are outdated Environmental Assessments being used
to justify wild horse round-ups?
how can a sheep rancher permittee be allowed to keep
all of his herd on public lands while horses are removed?
Thank you for your consideration.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0579.118