[Senate Hearing 116-329]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 116-329
LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT OPTIONS FOR
THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT'S
WILD HORSE AND BURRO PROGRAM
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
PUBLIC LANDS, FORESTS, AND MINING
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 16, 2019
__________
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
37-811 WASHINGTON : 2021
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Chairman
JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia
JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho RON WYDEN, Oregon
MIKE LEE, Utah MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
STEVE DAINES, Montana BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan
CORY GARDNER, Colorado MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
CINDY HYDE-SMITH, Mississippi MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
MARTHA McSALLY, Arizona ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada
JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
------
Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining
MIKE LEE, Chairman
JOHN BARRASSO RON WYDEN
JAMES E. RISCH MARIA CANTWELL
STEVE DAINES DEBBIE STABENOW
BILL CASSIDY MARTIN HEINRICH
CORY GARDNER MAZIE K. HIRONO
CINDY HYDE-SMITH ANGUS S. KING, JR.
MARTHA McSALLY CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO
JOHN HOEVEN
Brian Hughes, Staff Director
Kellie Donnelly, Chief Counsel
Lucy Murfitt, Deputy Chief Counsel
Nick Matiella, Professional Staff Member
Sarah Venuto, Democratic Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Democratic Chief Counsel
Elliot Howard, Democratic Professional Staff Member
C O N T E N T S
----------
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
Lee, Hon. Mike, Subcommittee Chairman and a U.S. Senator from
Utah........................................................... 1
WITNESSES
Tryon, Steve, Deputy Assistant Director for Resources and
Planning, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the
Interior....................................................... 3
Thacker, Dr. Eric, Associate Professor, Rangeland Science, Utah
State University............................................... 9
Lane, Ethan L., Chairman, National Horse and Burro Rangeland
Management Coalition........................................... 15
Perry, Nancy, Senior Vice President, Government Relations,
American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
(ASPCA)........................................................ 40
Goicoechea, Hon. Julian J. (J.J.), Chairman, Eureka County
(Nevada) Board of Commissioners................................ 61
ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED
American Mustang Foundation:
Letter for the Record........................................ 108
American Wild Horse Campaign:
Statement for the Record..................................... 112
Letter addressed to the U.S. House and Senate Appropriations
Committee dated 5/21/19.................................... 113
Moving Forward: A Unified Statement on the Humane,
Sustainable, and Cost-Effective On-Range Management of
America's Wild Horses and Burros dated April 2018.......... 116
Animal Protection of New Mexico:
Letter for the Record........................................ 124
Animal Welfare Institute:
Letter for the Record........................................ 126
Congressional Letter Addressed to Secretary David Bernhardt
dated
6/21/19.................................................... 129
U.S. Senate Letter Addressed to Secretary David Bernhardt
dated
7/17/19.................................................... 134
Barrasso, Hon. John:
Written Statement............................................ 74
Beaver County (Utah) Commission:
Letter for the Record........................................ 95
Citizens Against Equine Slaughter:
Affidavit of Dr. Lester Friedlander and Mission Statement.... 137
Goicoechea, Hon. Julian J. (J.J.):
Opening Statement............................................ 61
Written Testimony............................................ 63
Response to Question for the Record.......................... 106
Greaves, Linda:
Statement for the Record..................................... 159
Heart of Phoenix Equine Rescue:
Statement for the Record..................................... 160
Humane Society Legislative Fund and The Humane Society of the
United States:
Statement for the Record..................................... 162
Kennedy, Robin:
Letter for the Record........................................ 171
Lane, Ethan L.:
Opening Statement............................................ 15
Written Testimony............................................ 17
Lee, Hon. Mike:
Opening Statement............................................ 1
Perry, Nancy:
Opening Statement............................................ 40
Written Testimony............................................ 42
Responses to Questions for the Record........................ 105
Rutberg, Dr. Allen T.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 172
Simpson, William E.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 175
Thacker, Dr. Eric:
Opening Statement............................................ 9
Written Testimony............................................ 11
Response to Question for the Record.......................... 104
Tryon, Steve:
Opening Statement............................................ 3
Written Testimony............................................ 5
Responses to Questions for the Record........................ 99
Utah Department of Agriculture and Food:
Letter from Commissioner Gibson to Kathleen Clarke dated 7/
11/19...................................................... 177
Utah Farm Bureau Federation:
Letter for the Record........................................ 93
Wild Horse Observers Association:
Report for the Record........................................ 181
National Plan for Wild Horses on Public Lands................ 190
LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT OPTIONS FOR THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT'S WILD
HORSE AND BURRO PROGRAM
----------
TUESDAY, JULY 16, 2019
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:32 p.m. in
Room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Mike Lee,
presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE LEE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM UTAH
Senator Lee [presiding]. The Subcommittee on Public Lands,
Forests, and Mining will come to order. Today's Subcommittee
hearing is an oversight hearing to examine the long-term
management options for the Bureau of Land Management's Wild
Horse and Burro Program.
Most observers will agree that the program is on a path
that can only be described as unsustainable. Simply put, we
have too many horses on our federal public lands, far more than
was ever contemplated when the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and
Burros Act was signed into law back in 1971.
According to BLM, the current on-range population consists
of roughly 88,000 horses and burros, more than triple the
established appropriate management level, or AML, which has
been set at 27,000 animals. As a result, our public lands are
suffering and, so too, are the horses themselves and the
burros.
In arid environments like those found in Utah and in
Nevada, where half of all wild horses are located,
overpopulation quickly leads to overgrazing and the phrase
``eats like a horse'' is not just a metaphor anymore. At least
it is not a metaphor that is not borne out by something. In
fact, public lands that exceed AML generally have less
vegetative cover from overgrazing and are more susceptible to
invasive plants like cheat grass.
Consistent overgrazing and hoof compaction also expose the
soil to the elements causing the land to become increasingly
barren. This is a process that is sometimes referred to as
desertification. And when forage is diminished and water
sources dry up, many native species have trouble surviving,
including elk, mule deer, pronghorn antelope and sage grouse.
The 1971 Act directs the BLM to remove excess animals from
the range to ``maintain a thriving natural, ecological balance
in a multiple use relationship.''
We are long past any semblance of multiple use management
on the rangeland, however. As horse populations have grown out
of control, the resources for livestock, along with the
wildlife that attracts sportsmen and outdoor enthusiasts to the
West, have become depleted.
Last year, the BLM conducted more horse gathers than ever
before, rounding up ultimately about 11,000 animals. Half of
those were categorized by the BLM as emergency removals, in
some cases, animals that were emaciated, dehydrated or at some
imminent risk of death.
These horses joined the nearly 50,000 others that are
stored in off-range corrals or trucked to pasture somewhere in
the Midwest, leased by the Bureau of Land Management.
But holding facilities alone are not a long-term solution.
They place a huge burden on American taxpayers, especially
considering that wild horse populations grow by about 20
percent every year. And the BLM estimates the cost of caring
for these horses at about $50,000 per animal over its lifetime.
This ballooning expense is why the budget for the BLM Wild
Horse and Burro Program has quadrupled since 2002 and now it
exceeds $85 million per year with costs steadily rising each
year.
Unfortunately, restrictions enacted in annual
appropriations laws actually prohibit the sale of horses for
commercial processing. As a result, the BLM largely relies on
animal adoption programs and on a restricted sale program to
dispose of the excess animals.
As laudable as the adoption program is, it is never going
to outpace on-range foaling rates under the current model. And
for a variety of reasons, the deployment of existing fertility
control drugs has not proven as effective as hoped. Some herds
are too remote to be routinely gathered and treated and
research into other fertility control options, including
sterilization, is often the subject of litigation.
During today's hearing I look forward to hearing testimony
about the current crisis we are facing on the rangeland. I also
welcome the views of the representatives of cattlemen and of
the animal welfare community whose organizations have been
working hard to address it. I am confident that together we can
find solutions to protect our lands and our ecosystem and to
preserve the health of our wild horses.
It is now time to hear from our witnesses. We have five
witnesses joining us today.
The first is Mr. Steve Tryon, the Deputy Assistant Director
for Resources and Planning at the Bureau of Land Management.
Second is Dr. Eric Thacker, a professor of Rangeland Science at
Utah State University. Thank you for joining us. Next we have
Ethan Lane, the Chairman of the National Horse and Burro
Rangeland Management Coalition. We're also joined by Nancy
Perry, the Vice President of Government Relations at the
American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
(ASPCA). And finally, Dr. Goicoechea, the Chairman of the
Eureka County Board of Commissioners in Nevada.
At the end of the witness testimonies members will be able
to ask questions. Your full witness statements will be made
part of the official record. Please keep your statements to
five minutes so that we have time for questions. I look forward
to hearing the testimony from each of you.
Mr. Tryon, we will start with you. Go ahead.
STATEMENT OF STEVE TRYON, DEPUTY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR
RESOURCES AND PLANNING, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Tryon. Good afternoon, Chairman Lee and members of the
Subcommittee. I'm Steve Tryon, the Deputy Assistant Director
for Resources and Planning at the Bureau of Land Management.
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the Bureau of Land
Management's Wild Horse and Burro Program. The BLM manages wild
horse and burro herds on approximately 27 million acres of
public lands located in 10 western states under the authority
of the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971. The Act
directs the BLM to manage these herds as populations of healthy
animals in balance with other uses of the public lands, while
maintaining the health and productive capacity of the range.
This dual statutory mandate presents considerable management
challenges for the BLM. The Bureau takes into account all
natural resources and authorized uses of the public lands
consistent with our multiple use and sustained yield mandate
set out in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the
Wild Horses and Burros Act.
The BLM has determined that the appropriate management
level, or AML, for wild horses and burros on the range west-
wide is approximately 27,000 animals. And as you noted, Mr.
Chairman, the BLM now estimates that as of March of this year,
more than 88,000 wild horses and burros are currently on BLM-
managed public lands.
As herd populations exceed AML, forage and water resources
become depleted threatening the overall health of the public
rangelands and degrading ecosystems. With insufficient forage
and water to support herds, the physical health of animals
declines which leads to starvation, dehydration and eventually,
death. Consequently, this limits forage and water for native
wildlife species and permitting livestock grazing.
Since wild horses have virtually no natural predators and
herds double in size approximately every four years, the BLM's
primary tool to ensure that herd sizes are consistent with the
rangeland's capacity to support them has been to gather excess
wild horses and burros and remove them from the range. In
addition to the animals on-range, as of May of this year the
BLM manages almost 50,000 animals in off-range holding
facilities. That figure is striking.
The original authors of the Wild Horses and Burros Act
could never have contemplated that nearly 50 years after its
enactment, we would be indefinitely caring for nearly twice as
many animals as the law was intended to protect on the range.
After gathers occur, wild horses and burros removed from
the range enter short-term holding facilities where they are
prepped for adoption and sale as well as receiving veterinary
care and this is all prior to being moved to long-term
pastures. Unless these animals are able to be placed with
responsible owners, the BLM will spend more than $1 billion
total to care for and feed them during the remainder of their
lives.
The BLM currently spends over 60 percent of the program's
budget, nearly $50 million in 2018, to care for animals removed
from the range. Given this significant financial commitment,
our ability to remove additional animals from the range is
constrained.
To overcome this challenge, the BLM is pursuing a
comprehensive population growth suppression strategy and is
taking actions to increase placement of horses and burros into
good homes through training and financial incentives. Since
1971, the BLM has placed nearly 250,000 animals into private
care. However, over the past ten years the number of excess
animals gathered has outpaced adoptions.
We have recently initiated a new program this year called
the Adoption Incentive Program that seeks to encourage new
individuals and new organizations to adopt untrained wild
horses and burros by paying a small incentive. Over 1,000
animals have been adopted and placed into good homes during the
first few months of this program.
The BLM is encouraged by recent efforts of interested
parties, including the groups that join me on the witness table
today, to promote sustainable horse and burro populations on
healthy rangelands. The BLM is committed to working with
Congress and stakeholders to develop a sustainable Wild Horse
and Burro Program.
Thank you again for the opportunity to present this
testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tryon follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Lee. Thank you.
Dr. Thacker.
STATEMENT OF DR. ERIC THACKER, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, RANGELAND
SCIENCE, UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY
Dr. Thacker. Thank you, Chairman Lee.
My name is Eric Thacker. I'm an Associate Professor at Utah
State University in Rangeland Science.
We're here today because we are facing a dilemma in the
West with exponential growth of wild horse and burro
populations on fragile rangeland ecosystems.
When managing grazing rangeland, managers carefully control
the number, how many animals, the time, how long the grazing
occurs, the timing, the season of use and the intensity, how
much forage will be removed of livestock to ensure the forage
and water resources are not damaged.
Often controlling the number of animals is the easiest
option. Different grazing management strategies can be
implemented which vary the time, the timing, the intensity, the
number of animals, to meet a variety of management outcomes.
Similarly, wildlife managers manage wildlife populations to
ensure the sustainability, long-term sustainability, of habitat
through using hunting to remove excess animals or hunting
pressure to move animals around the landscape.
It's also been noted that their natural predators help
regulate native wildlife populations which, in turn, helps to
control population growth and protect habitat. Free-roaming
wild horses and burros have no natural predators; therefore,
they lack population regulatory mechanisms to limit population
growth. If left unmanaged, wild horse and burro populations
will grow rapidly until forage resources are diminished and
individual horse fitness declines. As individual horse fitness
declines, the consequences are lower pregnancy rates, lower
foal survival, lower adult survival, thus limiting the
population growth of the horses. However, the problem this
creates is catastrophic.
Horses are quite resilient so by the time that these
negative consequences are felt, the range has been severely
degraded and maybe receive permanent damage. Therefore,
managing wild horse populations is one of the most critical
aspects of wild horse management to maintain a thriving
ecological balance. The reality is that some herd management
areas (HMAs) are already showing signs of degradation due to
excess wild horses.
Research has concluded that too many horses will lead to a
loss of vegetation which leads to more bare ground, soil loss,
loss of forage. This also reduces the quality and quantity of
wildlife habitat.
Excess wild horses and burros can also negatively impact
water resources. Research has shown that the presence of wild
horses reduce the diversity and species richness of native
wildlife species found using bodies of water in Utah. If wild
horse and burro populations continue to grow exponentially,
rangeland and wildlife damage will increase exponentially as
well.
Currently, the BLM has limited options to manage wild horse
and burro populations. The BLM and the Forest Service conduct
limited gathers in an attempt to round up horses and adopt
them. They have explored the use of contraceptives and have
found some limited success; however, the current gather and
adopt management is not working. Some suggest that allocating
more land may be the answer. With the rapid growth of horses
and burros though, that additional land would be used up fairly
quickly.
We are in a triage situation. If we do nothing there could
be 500,000 horses by 2030 at the given, at the current growth
rates. The complexity of the wild horse and burro problem
suggests that removal of excess horses coupled with population
control strategies, contraception and sterilization and
increased adoptions, to maintain adequate population levels may
be the best approach.
We must rely on collaborative solutions that identify
palatable management options from a diverse group of
stakeholders that understand and recognize the reality of the
wild horse and burro problem.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Thacker follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Lee. Thank you, Dr. Thacker.
Mr. Lane.
STATEMENT OF ETHAN L. LANE, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL HORSE AND BURRO
RANGELAND MANAGEMENT COALITION
Mr. Lane. Chairman Lee, members of the Committee, thank you
for inviting me here today to testify.
My name is Ethan Lane. I'm the Executive Director of the
Public Lands Council. I'm the Senior Executive Director for
Federal Lands at the National Cattlemen's Beef Association
where I oversee federal lands, ESA and wildlife policy. And
currently, I'm the Chairman of the National Horse and Burro
Rangeland Management Coalition.
The Horse and Burro Rangeland Management Coalition consists
of a diverse national group of livestock, sportsmen's and
wildlife groups that collectively speak for ten million
Americans. Those Americans seek responsible management of wild
horses and burros on Western rangelands and solutions to
address exploding populations in those environments.
In modern agriculture we talk a lot about the urban-rural
divide, specifically as it relates to average Americans
becoming detached from the farm and unaware of where their food
comes from or how it gets to the grocery store to their plate.
It occurred to me, however, that while preparing this
testimony, perhaps the best example of that urban-rural divide
is this wild horse and burro issue. Suburban voters by and
large are detached from their food supply and rural America, in
general, feel an emotional attachment to these animals and
understandably so. I represent an industry that cares for
animals professionally, and I can say every man and woman in
that industry also cares for these animals. We hear stories
constantly from our members that watch these animals starving
on the Western rangelands and their reaction is every bit as
intense, I can assure you, as any activist sitting behind me or
that engages in this issue on a daily basis. But just like
their lack of understanding of where their food comes from,
often some of these voters also lack an understanding of what
is required to manage a rapidly expanding, non-native species
in an often resource-scarce environment.
Predictably, this emotional connection and lack of
understanding has led to a Congressional response that, quite
frankly, has been anything but helpful. The Wild Free-Roaming
Horses and Burros Act of 1971 provided the BLM with both
responsibilities and resources, tools and options by which to
manage excess populations.
Fifteen years ago, as Chairman Lee mentioned, in response
to those well-intentioned voters, Congress saw fit to undermine
its own Congressional intent by introducing a rider to the
Interior Appropriations bill that removes the most effective of
BLM's management tools, unlimited sale and euthanasia, chief
among them. That rider has remained in every spending bill
since, always appearing in the base bill and never requiring
members to take a tough vote that may alienate voters on either
side of this issue.
The result of this approach has been nothing short of
catastrophic. Thirty-one thousand seven hundred horses were on-
range in 2005 when the rider first appeared. Six years later,
that number was 38,497. As the Chairman indicated earlier, that
number today is 88,000 on-range and climbing at 20 percent a
year with 50,000 in long-term holding. The trajectory of on-
range population is not in dispute and current management will
guarantee an on-range population, as Dr. Thacker indicated, of
500,000 by 2029. That predicament brings us to today.
It's clear that the ten million Americans I speak for today
advocate for the full use of the Wild Horses and Burros Act as
the most effective means of reducing overpopulation. It's
equally clear to those Americans that that is an untenable
political solution for this body. The courage simply does not
exist, and I mean that with all the respect in the world. That
is a tough vote for this body to take. Therefore, we are at a
point where we have to find new solutions to this problem.
As such, we're here today asking Congress to do something
to help us curb this problem. The time to act is now and the
proposal that was submitted with my testimony, I believe with
others as well, is one possible path back to sustainability. It
relies on four key tenants--three, excuse me.
The first of which is gathering sufficient numbers to curb
this population. We will see 18,000 new horses on-range this
year. BLM's upward capacity to manage to gather horses in a
single year is probably about in line with that, as we
understand it. That means next year's 20,000 horses will
outstrip their ability to stay up with current population.
We must also administer population growth suppressant to
every horse that's gathered in one way or another. Last year
they gathered 11,000 horses. They treated 700. That is not
going to address this problem.
And finally, they must identify long-term holding solutions
that are sustainable and effective and cost-effective enough to
allow those horses to remain if we are not going to use those
other methods long enough to curb this growth on-range and get
the population back down to a sustainable level.
I thank the Committee and look forward to any questions
they may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lane follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Lee. Thank you, Mr. Lane.
Ms. Perry.
STATEMENT OF NANCY PERRY, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, GOVERNMENT
RELATIONS, AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO
ANIMALS
Ms. Perry. Good afternoon, Chairman Lee, Senator Cortez
Masto and all the members of the Subcommittee. My name is Nancy
Perry, and I'm Senior Vice President of Government Relations
for the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals. Thank you for inviting me today to testify on the fate
of these precious herds.
Founded in 1866, the ASPCA was the first humane
organization established in the Americas. We have always been
committed to equine welfare. In our early years our focus was
on improving medical care, and we actually invented the first
equine operating table and ambulance. Nowadays, we work to
improve the welfare of horses through rehoming and safety nets
and legal protections.
Our efforts to protect wild horses were initially focused
on documenting and pressing for changes in the field during
roundups and in corrals. We were greatly distressed by problems
we saw with roundups, but that work was simply not getting to
the root of the problem due to BLM's emphasis on removals
rather than on on-range management. In order to truly protect
horses, we need this program to shift away from a reactive
approach to a proactive one. A preventative strategy using
existing fertility control methods would enable the BLM to
phaseout the costly and harmful cycle of large-scale roundups
and removals that has led to imbalance and an unsustainable
situation.
Mr. Chairman, the status quo is broken. It is putting our
horses and burros in jeopardy, and it's costly for taxpayers.
For decades, the scientific community has been urging the
BLM to employ currently available and highly effective
fertility control tools. Our work with the ecologists and
economists reviewing population dynamics confirm that these
tools already offer a real solution, one that will bring relief
for horses and taxpayers alike. To our surprise, many who have
long been opponents on this issue were willing to set aside
their advocacy for lethal methods and endorse the proposal we
have come up with.
We are pressing for a paradigm shift in management using
four basic components. Widespread implementation of fertility
control combined with simultaneous, short-term targeted
removals supported by public-private partnerships that will
create lower cost lifetime pastures for animals off the range,
further augmented by strategies to increase safe adoptions. If
done properly, starting in year four, the removal numbers can
steadily decrease and by the end of year five, no more horses
would go into long-term holding because the number of removals
would come into equilibrium with the number of adoptions. By
the end of year five, also, costs start falling. This can all
be done without killing horses and burros to reduce population
and without selling any horses or burros to slaughter.
For the humane community, that is essential because it is
our responsibility, collectively, to manage these herds and it
would not be right to force them to pay the price of our
failure with their lives. It would also spark the greatest
crisis in public confidence in the BLM and a true political
meltdown.
Our proposal also requires the agency and its contractors
to be held accountable to its own comprehensive animal welfare
program which covers gathers, transport and handling on and off
the range.
The science supporting the use of fertility control is
clear and it has been for some time. Starting in 1990, the GAO
began urging the BLM to implement fertility control as less
expensive than removals. BLM proclaimed fertility control
effective in its 1992-95 report. Fish and Wildlife Service
affirmed its efficacy in the 1998 final rule. BLM repeated its
confidence in this tool in a 2003 report to Congress. A 2006
U.S. House of Representatives report strongly urged BLM to move
forward with fertility control citing a U.S. Geological Survey
study showing a $7.7 million savings. BLM's 2008 report to
Congress confirms the effective use of fertility control and
cites the National Park Service successes. A 2009 BLM
instructional memorandum proclaims the tool effective and a
cost saver. BLM's own EA in 2011 on the McCullough Peaks herd
states the liquid PZP is 95 percent effective.
The tools exist now to make this program work, and we hope
the BLM will take full advantage of this rare opportunity of a
united community of disparate interests and lean into this
effort with all of its might.
We stand ready to help and we hope that Congress will
invest in this solution rather than the antiquated and
expensive status quo. This strategy will enable our free
roaming herds to live into the future in a sustainable way on
the range where they belong.
Thank you for this opportunity to share our thoughts in
this truly pivotal moment for our wild mustangs and burros.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Perry follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Lee. Thank you.
Dr. Goicoechea.
STATEMENT OF HON. JULIAN J. (J.J.) GOICOECHEA, CHAIRMAN, EUREKA
COUNTY (NEVADA) BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Dr. Goicoechea. Thank you, Chairman Lee, members of the
Committee.
My name is Dr. J.J. Goicoechea. I'm a fourth-generation
cattle rancher from Eureka, Nevada. I'm also a licensed
veterinarian and the current County Commission Chairman of the
Board. I'm in my second term as a County Commissioner.
I was in private practice for 17 years before being named a
Nevada State Veterinarian in February 2016. My comments today
are going to reflect my views and those of Eureka County.
The issues surrounding the management of wild horses and
burros in the West are not new. We've had these conversations.
Since the passage of the Wild and Free-Roaming Horses and
Burros Act of 1971, there's been a lot of concern regarding how
the animals and the natural resources they rely on are being
managed. Eureka County understands and recognizes these
concerns, and we express our support for recent recommendations
to better manage wild horses.
The BLM and Congress have lacked the fortitude to accept
and work toward implementation of difficult but necessary
recommendations. While Eureka County has policies supporting
the use of all tools authorized under the Wild and Free-Roaming
Horses and Burros Act of 1971 as amended, that includes the
sale and humane euthanasia of excess horses that are
unadoptable. We have compromised and we have agreed to the non-
lethal management approaches set forth in a recent proposal
entitled, ``The Path Forward for the Management of BLM's Wild
Horses and Burros.''
We've all heard the numbers from March 2019--88,000 horses
on the range in the West. Let me say that Nevada has right at
47,500 horses, 47,500, that's nearly double what AML is in all
of the West. We are ground zero. Nevada's horse population has
reached a level that must be addressed now to avoid exponential
growth in the coming years and that eventual starvation, as Dr.
Thacker alluded to.
An example of some of the challenges we have in Nevada are
Nevada's Triple B HMA. It is over 1.2 million acres in size and
the current population this spring was 1,500 horses. Keep in
mind there was a gather conducted there last summer to keep
horses from starving to death and there is another gather
currently occurring as we speak in that same area. The Pancake
HMA, 850,000 acres. Those two alone are over two million acres
and they are adjacent to each other. The Pancake HMA had an
emergency gather done in August 2018 due to horses, again,
dying and resource damage. And this spring, that HMA was 508
percent of AML. That's after a gather being done last year.
The Fish Creek HMA, right outside Eureka, is a prime
example of an HMA that doesn't even fit the definition of a
natural balance. This HMA has never been at AML since it was
established. From 1994 to 2002 with the exception of one year,
there was no livestock grazing at all in that HMA. And yet,
utilization levels were moderate to severe in the Antelope
Valley portion of that allotment. It is at 358 percent of AML
today.
I mentioned Fish Creek for this reason. In 1997 there was
an EA to use PZP in the Fish Creek HMA to bring that population
within AML in 19 years. It's 22 years later. We are at 358
percent. We must not continue to do the same thing like we have
in the past. The hit and miss application of fertility control
is not working.
In our larger HMAs we need a different approach and this
may include the use of permanent surgical sterilization or
other long-acting methods such as IUDs, intrauterine devices,
currently being tested in domestic horses. The use of surgical
sterilization will require additional handling of animals and
require a longer stay in holding corrals but this is, again,
cheaper than repeated roundups and re-administration of a
product or, God forbid, lack of funding and the products are
not administered.
Advances in surgical techniques and approved methods of
analgesia continue to allow for more rapid recoveries and less
post-operative complications on horses undergoing surgical
procedures.
I applaud the BLM for conducting studies to prove the
safety and efficacy of surgical techniques. I would never
condone unsafe or inappropriate techniques or drugs be used,
but as a scientific professional, I would also not be so
foolish as to not adopt more efficient tools, ones provided
safe and effective.
I tell you these things today not as a lobbyist or a
government employer or an activist. Plain and simple, I'm a
ranch kid that found his way to vet school, and I spent the
rest of my life applying what I learned to care for animals.
I'm tired of seeing horses die, I'm tired of seeing horses
suffer, and I'm tired of watching the rangelands I love and
work so hard to protect be degraded. I'm tired of the status
quo as is Ms. Perry. We can no longer turn a blind eye. We need
Congress' action now.
I thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Goicoechea follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Lee. Thank you very much.
Thanks to all of you for your statements. We will now open
up the process for questions. We will have alternating time
slots between Republicans and Democrats.
I want to start by asking a couple of questions jointly of
Dr. Thacker and Mr. Tryon. Feel free to jump in at either time,
either of you can respond to this.
As far as I have been able to tell, the last time a hearing
was conducted here on this issue was 2002. Can either of you
tell me roughly how large the wild horse and burro population
was on federal lands in 2002?
Mr. Tryon. I don't have that statistic immediately at my--
but it looks like Dr. Thacker may.
Senator Lee. Okay.
Dr. Thacker. I'm trying.
Senator Lee. That's fantastic. It is not essential if you
don't have it. My understanding is that it has increased
substantially since then----
Mr. Tryon. Yes, sir.
Senator Lee. ----so let me know if you come across that.
Under current management practices, if nothing changes, how
many horses do you think there will be two years from now or
five years from now or ten years from now? What does the rate
of increase look like?
Mr. Tryon. So I'll take an initial answer at that, sir.
We expect the recruitment rate for the 88,000 horses that
have been mentioned to be roughly 16,000 animals that will,
over winter--that's how many will be born and will survive
through the winter--which could increase to as many as 20,000
the following year if there are no other interventions, if we
do not scale up contraceptive use or scale up removals of
animals. And I believe you quoted a figure of as many as
500,000 animals if the program goes on in its current glide
path.
Senator Lee. And what time period would that occur or be at
the----
Dr. Thacker. So by 2029, 2030, if nothing, no more horses
are removed, given the apparent growth rate, we'll be at about
500,000 horses, give or take.
Senator Lee. Can you explain to us why wild horse
populations grow at such exponential rates?
Dr. Thacker. As I mentioned in my testimony, part of the
problem is they are a non-native species and there are no
natural predators. So like with other wildlife species, you
have predators that help control those populations or we
actually manage those as humans. Wild horses don't have any
natural predators. So basically, by the time that a foal
reaches a year old, the chance of it living to 15 plus years is
quite high. So there's no other natural, large ungulates or
herbivores that live in our Western landscapes that experience
that kind of growth or survival.
Senator Lee. Right.
In the case of cattle, they are typically being managed by
someone who owns them. In the case of something else, they
might have a natural predator.
Dr. Thacker. Right, well, cattle are not allowed to grow
exponentially because they're managed on public lands,
specifically, they're managed very tightly by the BLM and
Forest Service, again, prescripting time, timing, intensity and
the numbers. And so those animals are usually managed quite
tightly.
Senator Lee. Mr. Tryon, is there any scenario in which
fertility control alone brings an overpopulated herd to AML?
Mr. Tryon. I think there is a scenario. It's going to
require a significant investment.
So fertility control from the BLM's perspective is all-of-
the-above. We will use GonaCon and PZP in two formulations. PZP
has been mentioned by a couple of the witnesses already.
We certainly would be interested in looking at the
effectiveness of IUDs as a research project, and BLM is very
much open to the idea of spay and neuter or sterilization,
particularly for the mares where it's going to be more
effective.
This is not a technique that the $80 million budget that
we're operating at can get us to an appropriate management
level without the additional gather and removals that are going
to have to accompany it.
Senator Lee. Why not go in that direction toward the
sterilization then if that would be effective?
Mr. Tryon. We are intending to do so, Mr. Chairman. In
fact, we've been pursuing a study in Burns, Oregon, for a
couple of years now which we intend to go forward with in the
fall that looks at behavioral characteristics of mares that
have been spayed once they've been reintroduced to the field
which is one of the questions that the public has about
sterilization.
And certainly, we would be open to using spay and neuter
techniques in gathers throughout the West. It is something that
we need to gather additional data on, but we're very much open
to it.
Senator Lee. Are there herds in which overpopulation has
led to starvation?
Mr. Tryon. Yes, and I believe Dr. Thacker has said as much.
But BLM last summer, so in 2018, had to intervene in
roughly half of the gathers of 11,000 animals that you
mentioned, roughly half of those were in some amount of
distress because the Interior West was going through a
substantial drought in 2018.
And so, rather than haul water to water sources over months
and sometimes into years, our direction was instead to gather
the animals, get them down to AML and make sure that the water
that was present there was sufficient for the appropriate
management level.
Senator Lee. Okay.
Senator Cortez Masto.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. I appreciate all of you
being here, thank you so much.
Coming from Nevada, this is an issue that we need to do
something about. Time is of the essence. No more can we delay.
So I appreciate the hearing today.
Ms. Perry, let me start with you.
I recently had the opportunity to meet with advocates in
Northern Nevada to learn about their work darting wild horses
with PZP and it was in the Fish Springs area, right, at the
Pine Nut Herd Management Area.
I know the compromise plan refers to using a variety of
fertility control methods. We heard from the BLM just now that
they think that is a possibility.
But I also know that you have also identified that each
management area or each herd management area is different,
right, not one-size-fits-all.
So can you talk a little bit about not only the efficacy of
the PZP but other methods that have shown promise to
controlling the population?
Ms. Perry. Absolutely, thank you so much, Senator.
There really is quite a history around PZP and the new
generation of PZP-22 which is named after the number of months
it typically lasts for and that's just a median. So it actually
can last for somewhere between two and five years if there's a
booster involved. So it's quite efficacious.
The stacks of research on that have really impressed us and
we really believe that if implemented robustly, it would be
adequate to bring us the kind of results we want, we all
collectively want, to see.
But unfortunately, the spending has not happened around
that. For the last several years the agency has devoted less
than one percent of its overall budget to situations like Fish
Springs and Cedar Mountain and some of the other HMAs where
there have been concerted efforts to implement
immunocontraception.
There are other techniques, GonaCon. There's a SpayVac
vaccine, essentially, that still needs more field testing, but
is showing incredible results. There really is a lot of
research going on right now that reaches into reversible
techniques, some more permanent techniques. It's all, it's
really quite impressive the amount of energy that's going into
looking into this.
But right now, we feel that the tools actually already
exist. And one of the concerns we have is if we're constantly
striving and reaching for some new tool when we have something
effective in our hands, it feels like a very inefficient
program for us to not employ the tools that we already have.
Those were created using taxpayer funds.
Senator Cortez Masto. Right.
Ms. Perry. And we're not really utilizing the tools that
are in our hands right now.
Senator Cortez Masto. So, thank you.
And I guess, let me ask, Mr. Tryon, because you have
mentioned it as well. And I heard Ms. Perry just say this, that
less than one percent of your budget goes to fertility control.
Why?
Mr. Tryon. So, let's use last year as an example, Senator.
In 2018, as has been mentioned, we gathered and removed
about 11,000 animals. That was roughly 5,000 animals less than
the recruitment rate. So as we were managing the program it did
not make a lot of management sense to simply turn those animals
back on to the range when the places we were taking them from
were two, three or four times above the appropriate management
level to start.
So it has generally been the BLM's approach to say, as we
get closer to the AML level, that's when extensive use of
fertility control would make more sense because as we gather
and remove animals from the range, they're segregated by gender
so they have no possibility after the foal that the mare may be
carrying is born, they have no possibility of producing more
horses and burros, but that's----
Senator Cortez Masto. But at the rate you are going you are
never going to get to that AML level. So it just doesn't make
sense to me. Why wouldn't you change your tactics if you know
what you are doing is, quite frankly, swimming upstream? You
are just never going to reach that AML level based on what you
are doing and hearing.
What I have just heard now is by 2020 we are going to have
100,000 horses out there. Why wouldn't we change tactics and
look at fertility control and spending more money there or
asking us here in Congress to appropriate more money, if that
is what there is a long-term plan to address this?
Mr. Tryon. Well, and I'm glad you mentioned that, Senator.
Of course, we spend a lot of time meeting with some of
these coalition representatives and going over the details of
their report. Generally, the BLM is supportive of additional
fertility control and it is something that within the
constraints of our appropriation, we would like to use
additional fertility control and we would like to continue to
increase the amount of removals.
Senator Cortez Masto. So let me ask, and I am running short
on time, but Dr. Goicoechea, it is great to see you, somebody I
have talked to on a regular basis and many of our ranchers and
stakeholders in Nevada.
Based on your experience and knowing that Nevada has most
of the wild horses on our land, your thoughts on whether and
how BLM should be doing more when it comes to control through
fertilization, excuse me, through fertility control methods and
your thoughts, particularly, as a veterinarian.
Dr. Goicoechea. Thank you, Senator.
And Ms. Perry is correct, PZP-22 does show great promise in
those areas where it can be re-administered.
The reason I talked about the acreage in these HMAs is to
paint a picture for you guys of just exactly how large that is.
It must be re-administered. I encourage you to please reach out
to contractors who contract gather for the BLM and they will
tell you the same, we're having difficulty recapturing horses.
The more times you put a horse in the corral and release that
horse, the more difficult they get to capture. We have a lot of
pinyon-juniper woodlands. We have some high elevation peaks. We
can't get those same horses back. If we miss her, the next time
she will have a viable foal and she is in much better health.
We must find something that works better for areas of
Nevada. Nevada is a unique beast, as you well know, and this
will not, the use of PZP every three years, I'm sorry, it won't
work in our large HMAs. We must have something more long-term.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. I appreciate that.
I notice my time is up. Thank you.
Senator Lee. We are going to turn to Senator Barrasso next.
He will have five minutes of questioning. Then we will be
recessing because they have called votes on the Floor, and then
we will reconvene after we return from votes.
Senator Barrasso.
Senator Barrasso. Well, thank you, Mr. Chair.
First, I want to congratulate and tell you how much I
appreciate you and the Committee taking up the animal welfare
and environmental crisis that is the current state of the
Bureau of Land Management's Wild Horse and Burro Program.
I am going to, if it is okay with you, just submit my
statement for the record and go right to questions.
Senator Lee. Without objection.
[Senator Barrasso's statement follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7811.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7811.048
Senator Barrasso. Mr. Tryon, although this issue is often
litigated in the court of public opinion, the wild horse and
burro problem is no stranger to the court of law. One
particular case in Wyoming was brought by the Rock Springs
Grazing Association to require the BLM to gather horses that
had left the herd management area and encroached on association
land. Are you familiar with this? I am sure you are familiar
with a 2013 consent decree, which came as a result of the case.
If implemented, would the approach suggested by the
coalition's proposal change anything about the way the BLM
carries out that consent decree?
Mr. Tryon. Senator, thank you for the question.
I'm generally familiar with the Rock Springs consent
decree, and BLM has full intent to continue to comply with it.
I would say, generally, to be in alignment with the
coalition proposal means greater use of fertility control. In
the case of Rock Springs, it would be no different. That could
be one of the areas that we target through a pilot. It's a
little unusual because of the checkerboard private ownership,
but generally, BLM would like to use additional fertility
control and also to increase its pace of gather and removals
both, including in Rock Springs.
Senator Barrasso. A couple of quick questions to compare
the proposal to the BLM's current approach.
The proposal suggests the agency should prioritize removals
based on heightened concerns due to rangeland degradation and
the direct political conflict with the BLM's multiple use
mandate. Is that different than how the agency prioritizes
gathers now?
Mr. Tryon. I wouldn't say it is. Our priorities generally
involve health and safety of the animals, health and safety of
humans and target species such as sage grouse and rangeland
degradation.
Senator Barrasso. The proposal also suggests that range
restoration treatment should be done immediately following
gathers. So, based on the significant degradation in some of
these areas, would treatments be effective if horses were still
present or would horses need to be removed in terms to allow
for recovery?
Mr. Tryon. It's a little difficult to give a blanket
statement about that. I would say in the event of a fire, we
absolutely will get all of the horses off of there to ensure
the revegetation takes and that could be as long as a couple of
years.
Senator Barrasso. Ms. Perry, I appreciate the ASPCA now
recognizing the need to gather horses on drastically
overstocked Herd Management Areas. Gathers seem to attract
litigation as soon as they are announced. Some of the suits
have been brought even by your own organization.
So as I welcome the engagement and the support for this
proposal from the ASPCA, The Humane Society and others, I know
that any action the BLM takes is likely to be met with
litigation. Will the ASPCA stand with the BLM and other
supporters of this proposal when groups tend to sue to prevent
necessary management?
Ms. Perry. Thank you, Senator.
I am unaware of any litigation that we have engaged in as a
group, but what you say is true that this program in general
has drawn a great deal of ire and concern and skepticism from
many, many different categories of animal welfare and rights
groups. And we expect that that will continue to be the case.
Our role is not to continue to engage in pointing fingers,
because we think that has delayed solutions that are needed for
these animals that we're working so hard to protect. We believe
that if this particular proposal or something very similar to
it were implemented, we would be able to be supportive if it's
implemented faithfully because we believe in it and we believe
it will yield positive results.
There will still be litigation, there will still be
detractors and we appreciate and understand that there's a
certain amount of passion out there and we never eliminate
that.
But the ASPCA certainly will stand for moving forward with
a proposal that we believe is non-lethal and protective and
long-term and will bring lasting change.
Part of the problem has been that we have to worry about
every political wind shift and what may or may not happen for
these horses. We need a sustained approach so that these horses
receive the kind of protection they need over the long haul and
they exist into the future.
Senator Barrasso. Mr. Lane, I can imagine chairing this
diverse Coalition is challenging at times. Understandably, some
of the provisions in the proposal are a bit vague. So, just a
couple quick questions.
The proposal suggests the BLM should more aggressively seek
lower cost, off-range, holding facilities as an alternative to
BLM corrals. There are not many facilities like that that exist
now. Where do you think these facilities are going to emerge
and, if they exist, why haven't they come forward already?
Mr. Lane. You know, I think that's a fair question. And
part of the conversation that took shape, I think, during this
process was an analysis of where you put these horses once you
remove them from rangelands. And one of the concerns that we
had coming into that process is that we don't remove them and
place them into facilities that are adjacent to problematic
areas, partially because of litigation that you referred to
earlier. There's not an issue we deal with in the West in land
management that doesn't come down to litigation, unfortunately,
at some point. So what we tried to prioritize in the proposal
was locating those horses into areas where there are resources
to support them.
Obviously, one of the things we'd be concerned with would
be putting them into areas that are already resource deprived,
where you're starting to impact the hay market, where you're
starting to impact other ranchers that are in the area.
So that RFP process needs to be robust enough that
producers, whether it be ranchers or others with sizable land
areas and forage production, able to support those horses that
want to be in that business, can be attracted to that program
as an option either to hedge in the rest of their operation or
simply because they have the resources and the will to do it.
Senator Barrasso. The final question for you is one of the
biggest struggles for this issue is that all sides have been
tried in the court of public opinion--biology, ecology, law.
How does the Coalition work to educate the public so that they
engage in a way that is actually helpful to the horses, helpful
to the BLM, helpful to the effort?
Mr. Lane. So, and I want to just make a quick distinction.
I'm representing a coalition and then we have this proposal
group and, just to distinguish between the two, I think in the
proposal group we do have a lot of disparate opinions as Nancy
alluded to earlier and it is really the responsibility of
various members of this proposal group to speak to their own
constituencies. I mean, what I say as a lobbyist for the cattle
industry and as the Chairman of this Coalition carries no
weight with members of Nancy's universe and vice versa.
So, you know, I think our responsibility is to craft
something that's realistic and saleable to you here in Congress
and to the BLM and then to go communicate that to our
memberships. I mean, all of us sitting at this table that
engaged in this did so with policy books sitting in front of us
and guidance from our members, and we then need to go back and
communicate what we've done and do it in a way that helps them
to understand the political reality and what's possible and
achievable in this environment.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your
continued leadership on this.
Senator Lee. Thank you, Senator Barrasso.
We stand adjourned. We will reconvene shortly after the
votes occur on the Floor.
[RECESS]
Senator Lee. We will now reconvene.
Senator McSally.
Senator McSally. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thanks to all of you for your testimony on this really
important topic.
Most of the hearing so far has been focused on wild horses,
but I want to remind everybody that in Arizona we have a burro
problem as well, more burros than in any other state. There are
approximately 6,900 burros, mainly in Mohave County and in Yuma
County, with a maximum carrying capacity, determined by BLM, of
just 1,600.
The extreme population has crowded out native wildlife. It
has been damaging fragile ecosystems, impacting ranching
operations and they wander into populated areas causing a lot
of safety issues.
In 2015, the Arizona Department of Transportation responded
to a record number of calls about burros wandering on the
highways with 44 animals being killed across the state. And in
2018, 21 burros were killed by car collisions just in Bullhead
City alone.
I did a 15 county tour in my first 90 days in office, and
when I went out to Mohave County, this was a top issue that
local community brought to my attention.
So far, thank God, drivers have only experienced minor
injuries in these collisions but they could also lead to human
fatalities as well if left unaddressed.
So I want to talk a little bit about the burro population.
Mr. Tryon, I understand BLM is looking at expanding the use
of fertility drugs with the burros, the wild burros, with the
plan that the Agency expects to release in August. Is there a
cost difference between administering the contraceptives to
burros versus horses and can you explain why that may be the
case?
Mr. Tryon. Senator McSally, thanks for the opportunity to
talk about burros and maybe make a small plug for the BLM's
operations in your home state.
As far as fertility control is concerned, there is not a
substantial cost difference because the majority of the cost of
administering contraceptives is actually running a gather
itself. Now, my qualifier on that is burros in Arizona are
largely gathered through what we call bait-trap methods which
is really putting out water which is attractive to burros and
the operation can take several weeks, but it is both low cost
and highly effective.
And so, a small shout out to our BLM operations there. We
adopt 300, 400, 500 animals a year out of Arizona and they go
to various states, including Utah and Wyoming and other places,
because they're quite adoptable and people find them
attractive.
Generally speaking, what we've been talking about with
fertility control is BLM is welcome to using more of it,
including with burro populations and that would mean that
burros are not just gathered and removed, put up for adoption.
Some would be gathered and reintroduced.
Senator McSally. Okay, great.
Just to be clear--you are saying there is no real cost
difference between burro and horse fertility projects but, I
mean, there is. It is easier to gather up the burros, right?
Mr. Tryon. Right. Right.
Senator McSally. And for low cost?
Mr. Tryon. So the gather itself would be cheaper if you're
talking about bait trap.
Senator McSally. Okay.
Mr. Tryon. And so, that would be a cost difference.
Senator McSally. Okay, but that is all part of the pot,
right?
Mr. Tryon. It's inherent to the way the gather is run. And
we do bait trap operations in Nevada and other states as well.
Senator McSally. Okay, thanks.
So, as you guys, as BLM is preparing a report on this
issue, I think, again, it is due in August, could you place an
appropriate emphasis on the unique and separate operations and
needs related to the burro management than the horse management
so we are not just lumping them all in together? Can I get that
commitment from you?
Mr. Tryon. I will commit to doing that.
Senator McSally. Okay, thank you, I appreciate it.
Are there other experts on the panel here today who want to
share their perspectives on best practices related to burro
management? I am open to hearing your ideas.
Ms. Perry. Thank you so much, Senator.
I just wanted to echo what Mr. Tryon said that we find,
whether domestic or wild, burros are one of those species that
enjoys incredible popularity and there are sanctuaries and
rescues that can move thousands of them out to good homes. So
we're pretty impressed with that. And we think there's an
opportunity for expansion of that work that would really
address what you're raising.
Senator McSally. Great, thanks.
I know there is a pilot project, I mean, HSUS----
Ms. Perry. Yes.
Senator McSally. ----that you are not representing but
also----
Ms. Perry. Yes, the Platero Project.
Senator McSally. ----industry, that is happening there, and
that includes private donations as well to support the
operation.
Ms. Perry. Yes. Yes.
Senator McSally. Is there hope in expanding that element of
this because funding, obviously, is an issue that has been
brought up many times today?
Ms. Perry. There is. There are many humane groups who are
part of this larger proposal that we support. And the Humane
Society of the U.S., Humane Society Legislative Fund, Return to
Freedom, are all part of that, and HSUS has been actively
working on the ground with the Platero Project and in Oatman,
Arizona, there are several locations where that has been on the
ground. I believe there is interest in expansion, and it is a
public-private opportunity.
Senator McSally. Great, I appreciate it. Thanks to
everybody.
Anybody else have anything to add related to burros?
[No response.]
Alright, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to talk about this important issue.
Senator Lee. Thank you, Senator McSally.
Dr. Thacker, an estimated 30 percent of the land covered by
the BLM Herd Management Areas contain sage grouse habitat. That
amounts to about seven million acres. As you know, state
governments are investing a lot of money and a lot of other
resources to manage the rangeland for sage grouse and to
deconflict its presence with other land users. How do the
excess populations of horses and burros impact sage grouse and
other wildlife species, other ungulate species, like elk, deer
and antelope?
Dr. Thacker. So, like I mentioned in my testimony, that
there's, kind of, two functions or two pathways that lead to
conflict with wildlife primarily as excess horses are removed,
too much vegetation from the landscape, you lose vegetation
which is often forage for those wildlife species. And so, they
may go without food and/or cover. In the case of sage grouse,
they need sage brush cover, grass cover, et cetera, to hide
their nest, to hide themselves. So that's one possible
conflict. The second is space, which I think we ignore
oftentimes.
And there's some work that's been done in Utah,
specifically out on Dugway Proving Ground by Brigham Young
University, where they looked at water and they found that
there was a very strong correlation with horse presence and the
lack of use by native wildlife, everything from birds to larger
animals like pronghorn, for example. So they can compete both
for forage, space and then also, just the overall quality of
the habitat or the quality of vegetation.
Senator Lee. Do you know about how much sage grouse habitat
might have been affected or degraded by the horse
overpopulation?
Dr. Thacker. So in that part of the state we don't have an
active sage grouse population. You've really got to look to the
states of Wyoming and Nevada. They're, kind of, ground zero for
overlap with sage grouse and wild horse herd management areas.
Utah has a little bit of overlap, but not near as much as the
other two states.
Senator Lee. Once it has been degraded, how long does it
take for habitats like these to recover?
Dr. Thacker. That's a tough question. We're still grappling
with that.
It can take decades for that to recover. A lot of it
depends on how the precipitation falls in a given year. But
it's safe to say that it's extensive, it's expensive and it may
well take several decades if we can recover some of that. Some
of that habitat occurs in fragile enough ecosystems that once
it's lost, we may struggle to get it back.
Senator Lee. Yes.
And back to the water sources. When you have horses near
this, what are the kinds of impacts it has on other species and
their behavior around the water?
Dr. Thacker. So you're referring to the horses' behavior?
Senator Lee. Yes, yes.
Dr. Thacker. So, there's again some work by Dr. Steve
Peterson which suggests that they have documented aggressive
displays toward things like pronghorn to keep them off the
water, bighorn sheep and elk, those have all been documented.
So horses are certain to make their presence known.
I think one of the most critical things that happens is
they show a correlation between temperatures. Temperatures
increase, daily temperatures increase and the horses spend more
and more time on that water during the hottest part of the day
which is the time of day that a lot of the wildlife are in need
of that water. And so, often the wildlife are left to wait
until the horses vacate the area before they're able to access
that water. So it causes additional stress, physiological
stress, to the wildlife species that are being excluded.
Senator Lee. Mr. Tryon, what impact does that have on the
water itself?
Mr. Tryon. Well, it can significantly draw down the water,
Mr. Chairman.
So BLM is familiar, certainly anecdotally, with the fact
that horses are drawn to water. They overcompete other
resources, they are more mobile than most of the game species
that Dr. Thacker was talking about and that they can
essentially make a barrier between the water and themselves.
I'm familiar with some of the literature on this and generally
we're finding that horses, in particular, outcompete the other
animals for water sources.
Senator Lee. Mr. Goicoechea, how many of the herds are
located on land where the only water sources available are on
private land?
Dr. Goicoechea. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
So in Nevada there are very few where the water sources are
only located on private lands. Part of that reason is most of
those areas--when the Act was put in those horses were claimed
by those ranchers.
A lot of areas do have artificial water sources and by
that, I mean, well, that permittees own. So those are a private
property right or pipelines that pipe water off of private
property onto adjacent BLM land.
Senator Lee. In that kind of circumstance what actions can
private citizens take with regard to protecting their private
property where they are surrounded by horses that may be
looking for water if they have a source of water on their land?
Dr. Goicoechea. Sure, so again, Mr. Chairman, J.J.
Goicoechea here for the record.
Fence out--Nevada is a fence out state. That does become a
problem when horses are thirsty enough and resources are
depleted enough. We are continuing to see more and more public
land interactions or, excuse me, private land interactions with
horses. That includes maybe domestic horses that you have on
the inside fighting with those horses.
When it comes to what can you actually do? A lot of times
that ends up in court. The BLM has asked can you please provide
horses with water that you have coming off of your private
property? Some permittees will. Some won't. But that is a
private property right in the State of Nevada, and it is
guarded quite closely, as you can imagine, in that dry state.
Senator Lee. Horse health, as you know, has become a
controversial topic because it can vary significantly from one
herd to another and even between seasons. With your background
as a large mammal veterinarian, can you give a brief overview
of, sort of, the industry standards by which horse health is
measured?
Dr. Goicoechea. Sure, absolutely.
So, as you said, it's become a hot button issue.
This year Mother Nature gave us a break. We had a record
winter so we have a lot of forage. The horses don't look bad
right now in Nevada. There's a lot of them.
I will tell you in recent years, they looked terrific. I
personally have been called upon, I don't know how many times,
to investigate horses that were in severe shape, poor body
condition. A lot of those did succumb to their nutritional
status. Down in Southern Nevada, in particular, I think a lot
of people saw the news and the video that came out of down
there. Let me just say, Mr. Chairman, that if that was a
private individual that had those horses, I do believe there
probably would have been charges brought forward. And that is
something that is very difficult for a lot of us to watch. I do
not care for my animals that way, my clients do not care for
their animals that way, and I beg us to find a way to allow the
BLM to not have to care for theirs or ours in that way.
Senator Lee. I take it from your answer then that you
believe that the size of these herds in some instances has
reached a level that makes it negatively affect the well-being
of the herds.
Dr. Goicoechea. Absolutely. Your older horses and your
younger horses tend to be the first ones that suffer.
Dr. Thacker talks about how these horses get aggressive on
water. When there's not very much water, your older--your
stronger, bigger horses are going to get that drink first. Your
foals, your weanlings, your yearlings, and then your older
mares are going to have it last. And if there is not water,
they're going to continue to deteriorate in health. And that is
what we see happening.
Senator Lee. So how would you advise us then to discuss
what metrics or language or concepts should we be incorporating
into our conversations in Congress about horse health? What
should we be thinking and talking about that we are not
discussing?
Dr. Goicoechea. Appropriate management level.
Those levels are set for a reason. That is what the natural
resource can sustain for those horses. That's why those numbers
were established. They're not arbitrary. They're not random.
That is the number of horses that can be sustained on that land
and we have got to come back to that.
When I give examples of HMAs three, four, five, 1,200
percent over AML, we are having a negative impact on the health
of those horses. If we get them down to AML, we'll have healthy
horses on healthy lands. And then we can start applying
fertility control and everything else we've talked about.
Senator Lee. Have wild horses and burros in your state had
an impact on public safety?
Dr. Goicoechea. Absolutely. In fact, the gather I alluded
to earlier with the Triple B, for example, that is occurring
right now is, in large part, a public safety gather. We are
seeing increased collisions with motor vehicles and wild horses
and, in addition, we're seeing a lot of wildlife being pushed
away from some riparian areas down into farming ground and
ranching ground. And we're so--inadvertently, they are being
struck by vehicles as well because the horses are kind of
occupying our riparian areas in the foothills.
Senator Lee. Do I understand correctly that in some areas
we are talking about a level of 1,000 percent above AML?
Dr. Goicoechea. Yes, sir.
Senator Lee. What kinds of conflicts does this cause with
management and other ways?
Dr. Goicoechea. In most of the areas where horses are that
over AML, the conflicts are predominantly with wildlife, those
that are remaining at this point, sportsmen and recreationist,
the public land grazers are often gone at the point that these
horses get to that high of AML. They can no longer maintain
their ranching operation.
Senator Lee. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Hoeven.
Senator Hoeven. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
How do you pronounce your last name? I know I should be
able to pick that up real quick, but can you help me with it?
Dr. Goicoechea. Very carefully, Goicoechea.
Senator Hoeven. Goicoechea?
Dr. Goicoechea. Yes, sir.
Senator Hoeven. So how do you get to that AML number that
is recommended? What would be your recommendations? How do you
get there and maintain that number?
Dr. Goicoechea. So the proposal that most of us sitting at
this table have come forward with will get us there. It will
take five, six years to get those numbers down there, but it is
robust, targeted grazing to remove animals down to closer, to
appropriate management level now.
It is the use of fertility control, whatever that might be.
In some areas, it's going to be PZP, in some it's going to be
GonaCon, in some it might be IUDs, spay, as those techniques
become available.
We've got to find a place to put horses for the next
decade, decade and a half, off-range. If we remove older horses
and we put them off-range, we need some more off-range holding
to hold those horses through their life.
And we have to increase adoptions. We can increase those
adoptions or put more into good homes once we get AML down. If
we're adopting out 4,000 or 5,000 horses a year, we can manage,
partly, what we're bringing off the range.
But until we get those large gathers done, that might be
15--20,000 a year for a couple of years, we're not going to get
there with the other tools without doing gathers.
Senator Hoeven. If you can train them, as far as adopting
out horses, the training is such, nowadays, you know, there was
a time when everybody knew how to work with horses. That is no
longer the case. So much now with the horses is the training.
To get them adopted, you almost have to get them trained to
broaden who is going to be willing to take those horses. People
don't know how to train them.
Dr. Goicoechea. So, you're exactly right, Senator. And
there are programs in place now where more of that training is
happening. In Nevada, for example, our correctional department
does take a lot of horses in from the BLM and those that are
incarcerated do train those horses, and then those horses are
sold. And they bring good money. They do.
Senator Hoeven. Absolutely.
Dr. Goicoechea. And I know that lawmakers in the state
continue to say if you will bring us more horses, we will build
more capacity in and we will work with you to place more of
these horses into good homes.
Senator Hoeven. Well, you hit the nail on the head. I mean,
that is a big part of the value. You get a horse that is well-
trained and, like you said, that brings a lot more money,
obviously.
Which leads me to think that we should give some thought to
how we get more trained. What should we do to help accomplish
that because I am convinced that is the key?
Ms. Perry. Senator, that's such a good question and a good
point that you're raising.
If I could answer, I think the Mustang Heritage Foundation,
which works hand in glove with the Bureau of Land Management,
has a great deal of capacity to do more. They can take more
horses. They can do more training. They have an incredibly
unique storefront approach where they bring horses to local
communities where those horses will be desirable after they've
received that training.
So there's a tool available to us. And this proposal
contemplates that and really increases and augments
opportunities for training and safe re-homing of those horses.
Senator Hoeven. Do you need legislation to put your
proposal into effect or could that be done?
Ms. Perry. No, we do not. The BLM has the authority it
needs to move forward with this proposal.
Senator Hoeven. Well, there you go, Deputy Director.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Tryon. Senator, if I could elaborate?
Senator Hoeven. Sounds like they have given you a turnkey
solution.
Mr. Tryon. You bet.
Senator Hoeven. Seriously though, talk about the challenges
to putting something like that in place, number one. Number
two, actually my number one concern is have you been out there
talking to the grazers? Are you working with the grazers and
are you making sure that you are working with them to make sure
that the multiple use is fulfilled as part of managing the wild
horse herds? And then two, talk about implementing their
proposal.
Mr. Tryon. So, absolutely.
Range management and livestock grazing is a huge part of
BLM's history. We quite frequently meet with individual
cattlemen and also the associations, and often the conversation
turns to wild horse and burro management.
And, of course, I am aware of instances in BLM's management
where we have voluntary resting of livestock grazing that's
taking place at the request of the permittee. That's not
widespread, but there are instances of that.
I did though, I wanted to go back to your questions about
training because we have had, for years now, very active
programs with the number of prisons and that's in California
and Nevada, and Hutchison, Kansas, and Colorado, Florence,
Arizona, all of these places. We get a lot of benefit because
labor is cheap from the inmates. The inmates get a lot of
benefit out of it in terms of the human-animal interactions,
and we get some very adoptable animals out of that program.
But this year, Senator, first time ever, we have
implemented a financial incentive for untrained horses and it
has shown a lot of promise. We're now paying $1,000 to adopters
in two installments--two $500 installments. And it is looking
very positive for increasing not just the trained animals that
we're adopting but also the untrained ones.
Senator Hoeven. Is there pushback from the horse industry
or is that something they recognize working with you makes
sense?
Mr. Tryon. Not at all. We haven't had that.
I also second Ms. Perry's comments about the Mustang
Heritage Foundation. It's been an excellent working
relationship. They're based out of Georgetown, Texas. They do a
lot of great work together with the BLM, and they adopt a lot
of our animals for us.
Senator Hoeven. I have seen the prison thing. I think that
is just phenomenal.
And I really like the idea of this incentive for the
trainers. I think you create value there. I mean, I think there
is a way to generate revenue from the standpoint you have a
horse now that is valuable if it is well-trained.
Mr. Tryon. We think we're creating markets. It's still a
little bit new to declare victory.
Senator Hoeven. Right.
Mr. Tryon. But it's been positive so far.
Senator Hoeven. Well, it greatly expands the possible pool
of adopters, because they can take a horse that is trained
where they can't do much with one that is not trained. So I
think it is a great idea.
The last question I have is, so you are implementing--maybe
we are just too focused on training. The overall proposal, he
mentioned a number of things. Overall, are you able to
implement that proposal or are there some things that would
hold you back?
Mr. Tryon. We absolutely have the legal authority to do it,
and we have been active in the training area for years now.
Senator Hoeven. But beyond the training. He had about four
or five steps included, fertility control, a number of things.
Are you able, the holistic plan they put forward, is that
something you are doing or are there issues to doing that?
Mr. Tryon. So, generally speaking, the coalition proposal,
that several of the folks that are represented here, we have
the authority to do it. It's a level of intensity question.
So can we increase the use of fertility control and also
increase gather and removal? That's, sort of, the sweet spot.
And with the $80 million appropriation that we're operating
under currently, we would have to scale back some of the other
gathers in order to have the intensity of operations that would
be necessary to have that widespread fertility control. So yes,
we can do it. It's a matter of scale.
Senator Hoeven. Which is a resource issue or----
Mr. Tryon. Yes, sir.
Senator Hoeven. ----other issue? Is it other or is it just
a resource issue?
Mr. Tryon. It's a resource issue.
Senator Hoeven. So you are not getting pushback?
I mean, obviously, in terms of horse management, I know
there are a lot of different people, a lot of different ideas
on how it ought to be done. And without going into all of that,
the main issue, it is a resource issue, not a pushback issue.
Mr. Tryon. Right.
And in terms of the basic premise of everybody gathered
here that additional fertility control and returning those
animals to the range, we are not getting pushback on that.
Senator Hoeven. Okay.
Then from the cattlemen's standpoint, just your sense of
how this is going and priorities and what the BLM needs to be
doing.
Mr. Lane. Well, what I think Mr. Tryon is just, sort of,
not able to probably answer as robustly as maybe some of us on
the panel, this is a financial issue. The program is
constrained at its current budget. They're spending $50 million
of their $80-some odd million on the off-range holding of those
50,000 horses that have been gathered. That leaves them very
few resources to do more gathers, administer fertility control
and really aggressively triage that population.
I think things like, you know, trained horse programs are
fantastic tools when you have a sustainable population, but I
think this proposal contemplates the idea that we really have
two different items that we're looking at. We're triaging a
critically overpopulated range.
Senator Hoeven. Right.
Mr. Lane. And then one of those long-term, sustainable
solutions and that big hit of funding that's needed now, and
there's no other way to describe it, to really give them the
resources and, quite frankly, not to speak for them but, I
mean, I would imagine to plan year over year, out a few years
in order to really get some long-range planning about how you
tackle this and get down to AML, I think, is critically needed
from an outside perspective as a stakeholder. They need those
resources and they need the time to really attack it without
worrying where their funding is coming from next year.
Senator Hoeven. But that is why I asked if it is just a
resource issue, and I would think the Chairman might be
interested in this too, are there other obstacles?
You talked about fertility control and some of these things
that you need to--some of the things you probably are going to
need to do to get ahead of that population that you have, get
it down to the manageable level so you can then implement a
sustainable program that includes all of these features. Is
there pushback beyond just the funding or is it just the
funding?
Mr. Lane. There's always going to be pushback, I think, on
the flanks. And I won't speak for Nancy or the humane advocate
community. I know there's folks on there, on their flank that
are concerned with a lot of these options. Certainly, in my end
of the world, you know, there are folks that look at a proposal
like this and say, gosh, it doesn't go far enough. I think
that's the nature of a compromise, particularly one in an issue
that is as loaded a topic as this one is. Litigation haunts
this issue like it does every issue in the West, and there's no
way around that reality.
But I think what we can do as stakeholders that are
invested in this is try to make some recommendations, try to
work with Congress, try to work with the agencies to find a
path that's reasonable and rational to those middle-ground
users that have to live and work in these environments every
day.
Senator Hoeven. I agree. And I think building the coalition
and coming up with a holistic plan really does make sense, and
I thank you for doing that, as well as your efforts, Director,
to implement it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Lee. Thank you, Senator Hoeven.
Mr. Tryon, what is the annual demand for adoption of wild
horses?
Mr. Tryon. So in 2018, we adopted roughly 4,600 animals.
But we're going to increase that number, if not substantially--
--
Senator Lee. What was that? What was that number you said?
Mr. Tryon. 4,600.
I want to say 10 or 15 years ago we exceeded 10,000 in a
year. And so, adoption demand has gone down, but I'm cautiously
optimistic that the adoption incentive, the financial payment
that I mentioned a moment ago, is causing that number to rise
again.
Senator Lee. Is that the two installment payments of $500
each?
Mr. Tryon. Yes, sir.
Senator Lee. And you do that because it is expensive to
care for a horse and you are trying to offset the difficulty of
that? That is the idea?
Mr. Tryon. So, we spend roughly $2,000 a year to care for
and feed a horse. If we spend $1,000, well, we've already made
money for the taxpayers in the first year.
Senator Lee. Right.
Mr. Tryon. Project that out over 25 years that we hold an
animal in holding. It's a substantial savings.
Senator Lee. Right.
The cost of the program was about $20 million per year, 20
years ago. And then 10 years ago, it popped up to about $40
million. We are now into the, what, $80+ million a year range?
How much could this program cost the taxpayers in another
five or ten years if we don't change something about our
management practices or about the way it is going?
Mr. Tryon. I think you could look at, sort of, a range of
costs and it depends upon your optimism about contraceptives
and how effective they could be and holding costs and whether
we can continue to make progress with competition on driving
down costs which we are still doing. And a lot of that depends
on things like the price of beef and the willingness of
ranchers to enter into the horse market in an up beef market.
So a lot of that is hard to forecast.
But I will tell you, Congress, at the enacted level, has
appropriated $80 million for this program. We are using money
from our Fish and Wildlife Conservation program, from our Range
Management program, from Fire where it's appropriate, to rest
in areas so we can reseed it. And we're essentially running a
$95 million or $96 million program on the $80 million that
Congress appropriated.
Senator Lee. You are having to cannibalize those funds from
other areas within the Department of the Interior, within the
Bureau of Land Management?
Mr. Tryon. I'm happy to say that the program leaders of
those feel that it is an appropriate use of money to get the
horses off of the rangelands where they're overpopulated or to
get them out of sage grouse breeding areas.
Senator Lee. Sure, no, I understand that.
But the point is those programs are then deprived of
something that they would otherwise be able to spend on
something else.
Mr. Tryon. That's fair.
Senator Lee. How has litigation affected BLM's ability,
effectively, to manage the wild horse population?
Mr. Tryon. Mr. Chairman, it's no surprise to you, but this
is a highly litigated subject. I want to say like at one point
last year we were subject to more than 20 active cases of
litigation. I think that number is closer to 10 now. There
would be entire programs of the BLM that had no litigation
presently. And so, I would say it is a substantial effect.
Generally, the target involves our gather operations and how we
run them and what we intend to do with the herd as we manage it
over time.
Senator Lee. Would you be willing to submit to the
Committee a list of the proposed actions over the last ten
years that have been litigated?
Mr. Tryon. Absolutely, we can provide that.
Senator Lee. Thank you.
The 1971 Act gives the BLM the authority to sell excess
animals for commercial production. But over the years that
authority has been blocked by a series of annual appropriations
riders enacted through Fiscal Year 2005 and then between 2005
and 2009 there was a brief period in which those appropriations
riders didn't apply and where BLM had the authority to sell
animals for slaughter without limitation. The agency did not do
so during that period. Is that right?
Mr. Tryon. I would qualify that a little bit, Mr. Chairman.
I would say the agency did sell, but we placed modest
limitations in terms of the buyers having to attest that they
would not resell, that they had no intention to enter the
resale market. So we sold quite a number of animals during
those years but it was with a bill of sale that had a clause in
it.
Senator Lee. Right, for no commercial production.
Mr. Tryon. Yes, sir.
Senator Lee. And why was that? Was that required by law?
Mr. Tryon. It was not explicitly required by the law.
Senator Lee. Is it implicitly required by the law?
Mr. Tryon. Well, I was not in the position that I'm in
today. My understanding of the intent of the managers at the
time was that the public outcry was pretty strongly opposed to
sale for commercial purposes and that we needed to do something
to bar that from happening.
Senator Lee. Mr. Lane and Ms. Perry, while we may not agree
universally on every aspect of your proposed solution, I
applaud you for working to try to solve this problem and to do
so in a way that is humane and that recognizes the suffering
that is taking place, and so I applaud you for your efforts.
How many years does your plan span and can you tell me
anything about that or how many holding facilities are
contemplated or what it would do to the foaling rates?
We will start with you, Ms. Perry.
Ms. Perry. Okay, the proposal is modeled out over a ten-
year time period. And as I mentioned already, between years
five and six we reached that equilibrium where horses that are
removed are funneled into the adoption program and not, no
longer ever need to go into long-term holding. So there's a
savings that is realized at that point.
But you're asking about the capacity of holding facilities
in general and that's one of the interesting aspects of this
proposal. We believe that by having an entirely non-lethal
approach, we can attract a lot of public support to this
program. There's a lot of anxiety out there about what the
agency will or won't do, given the historic patterns.
And so, by moving forward with a more unified approach and
a humane, explicitly non-lethal approach, we may be able to
gain the support of some private entities that would like to be
involved in helping. And they would essentially apply for,
through an RFP process, becoming those facilities.
You're asking how many, and that's a very difficult
question to answer because it would depend on how much each of
those could hold.
But we are aware of at least one organization that's
looking into this, has secured property and is interested in
acquiring as many as 50,000 horses. And we believe there would
be others. It would, obviously, have to go through an RFP
process so we have yet to know exactly what will materialize
but we are optimistic.
Senator Lee. It would take you about ten years to get to
AML under this plan, is that right?
Ms. Perry. Well, actually, we don't really get to AML. We
get to a better balance. We get somewhere near AML with this
ten-year proposal because we didn't want to focus specifically
on AML, we wanted to get to a better sense of balance on the
range. So the ten years would get us to around 33,000. So very
close.
Senator Lee. And then, what kind of management activity
would be needed to take us from ten years into perpetuity?
Ms. Perry. Ongoing management, just as we've advocated for
over the years and that would involve the use of
immunocontraceptives and then we assume technology over that
time period will have advanced to the point where these
vaccines are very long-lasting, some permanent vaccines are
even being looked into. So the same exact technology that we
know is efficacious now for several years, could potentially
become permanent or could be very long-lasting.
So there are all kinds of technologies being developed that
would probably be in play at that point, but it would require
maintenance. We are not contemplating, you know, the cessation
of management of wild horses. This will be an ongoing program.
Senator Lee. Mr. Goicoechea, how common is the use of
sterilization among domestic horses?
Dr. Goicoechea. Sterilization among domestic horses is very
common. I mean, most of our males are, in fact, gelded. In the
mares it's less common, but it is a common practice in some
areas and there's a lot of old cowboys who have told me that
the best gelding they ever rode was a spayed mare. So it is
common practice.
Senator Lee. Is it considered safe from a veterinary
medicine standpoint?
Dr. Goicoechea. Mr. Chairman, any surgical procedure comes
with risks and there are inherent risks with any of them. Yes,
it is safe and it is safe in domestics. Restraint becomes an
issue, obviously. It is easier to handle and restrain and
sedate a domestic mare than it is a wild mare. Now, there are
those that are doing it and they are very efficient and
effective at it.
Senator Lee. Okay, but medically speaking, assuming you can
control that factor----
Dr. Goicoechea. Yes, sir.
Senator Lee. ----the sedation, and once you can get the
horse restrained and sedated, medically there should be no
difference between performing that procedure on a wild mare
versus a domestic mare?
Dr. Goicoechea. The procedure itself, that is correct.
There is no difference. Mares are mares.
Senator Lee. So, why not rely more on that?
Dr. Goicoechea. There is a post-operative effect, I think,
and then there's also an emotional effect that comes into that.
The BLM has not proven the efficacy and the safety of that yet
through a study. They need to. And I applaud them for
continuing to work on that and to try and get that done. But
they are being hamstrung right now because that study has not
been completed and NEPA has not been completed on that.
Senator Lee. Ms. Perry, what are some of the concerns of
your organization about these sterilizations for wild horse
control?
Ms. Perry. Thank you for asking.
We certainly think any tool that would be employed under
this proposal must be safe, effective and humane and we do not
believe that has been shown yet with these sterilization
techniques.
And when we're speaking of mares--a gelding is an entirely
different story--but for mares, comparing, you know, cats and
dogs to wild horses, as has been done in some cases, is not
really appropriate especially, you heard Mr. Goicoechea's
explanation on that.
But in reality, one of the other concerns that rises----
Senator Lee. But what about comparing wild horses to
domestic horses? Is that----
Ms. Perry. Yes, yes, even there, obviously these animals
are much more difficult to contain through the healing process,
not used to being handled. Many of them will have a foal by
their side if they're a fertile mare and that's obviously the
population you would be looking at, more complicating, there's
a very short window in which they're not impregnated. So we
would probably be talking about pregnant mares. And I think we
get into some very serious and sticky humane concerns.
Senator Lee. Let's talk about those. What do you mean?
Ms. Perry. So they would probably already be pregnant at
the point a procedure was undertaken.
Senator Lee. Right.
Ms. Perry. Now it's not impossible that you would find
mares that are not pregnant for this procedure, but that's a
short window. And so, I think there is a great deal of concern
about what the implications of that would be for the unborn
foal. There could be a risk of infection and even abortion that
would occur and that's, obviously, not the kind of program that
we contemplate for these animals, especially----
Senator Lee. So is that one of the concerns is that it
could result in an abortion----
Ms. Perry. A loss, yes.
Senator Lee. ----of an unborn horse?
Ms. Perry. Yes.
There's also a huge scalability issue here. We don't have
many veterinarians who are trained in this nor many willing or
interested in becoming involved in that program as far as we
can tell. And talking about the numbers of procedures that
would have to be done for it to have any effect at all, it just
doesn't seem like a particularly pragmatic thing to chase,
especially, again, considering what a lightning rod this will
be for controversy.
That doesn't mean that it could be----
Senator Lee. And most of that controversy, again, relates
to the unborn horse?
Ms. Perry. The risk to the mare herself. There's certainly
infection rates that have to be worried about. There's a
recovery period. There are concerns about, in particular, the
colpotomy approach which is--all of these methods tend to be
invasive and can cause bleeding and can cause infection and can
cause death. These are concerns that a lot of advocates have.
And again, especially when you juxtapose that, Senator,
with the volumes of material that show the efficacy and
safeness of the vaccinations that are available and how they
are more long-lasting now so we don't even really need to be
looking in this direction.
Senator Lee. Although, it sounds from what I am hearing
today like there is some debate over that, some debate over how
long-lasting these other methods are?
Ms. Perry. I'm not aware of any credible debate about that,
to be honest.
I mean, the BLM itself has been proclaiming efficacy of
this vaccine over the years. I provided, you know, a number of
studies and reports from government agencies--the BLM, U.S.
Geological Survey, National Academy of Sciences--stating that
this is safe, humane, effective, and the PZP-22 is meant to run
for at least a two-year period and can be as effective out five
years with a booster.
So this is, and I know that that is already the current
generation of the drug. So we are not talking about a brand-new
technology. It is currently available. It is scalable to the
portions that we need. So we feel strongly that these tools are
available.
I understand there's debate here among some of us on the
panel about that, but I would welcome a deeper exploration of
the science that is already available on that because I believe
we're on solid ground. And what I would hate to see is for us
to chase something that isn't practical, that is highly
controversial and that will cause great delay because one of
the things we're working against is recruitment every year, new
population growth.
And so, what we need to do is get on the ground with the
tools we have now rather than wait for something to become
tested and effective, if that makes sense.
Senator Lee. Yes. Okay.
I want to thank the witnesses for coming to testify today.
This has been helpful. It has been informative.
I want to submit to the record two letters I have
received--one from the Utah Farm Bureau Federation and one from
the Beaver County Commission in Utah.
Both of those will be introduced into the record without
objection.
[Letters submitted for the record follow:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Lee. We will keep the record open for a period of
two weeks after this concludes, allowing members to submit
additional questions, should they have any.
This has been very informative, indeed. There are issues of
compassion, and I respect the perspective each of you has
brought to the table on this.
There are, unfortunately, no easy solutions on this and
even though some of us in the room may disagree with the other
about what is most compassionate, I think all in the room do
have compassion as the issue that they are focused on.
I also appreciate, Ms. Perry, the attention you drew to the
interest in the unborn horse. Life is significant. The fact
that it has not yet been born, doesn't make it insignificant.
That is something we should take into account.
Thank you very much for being here. We stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:31 p.m. the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED
----------
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]