RCED-90-110 Rangeland Management: Improvements Needed in Federal Wild Horse Program

GAO

I

Report to the Secretary of the Interior

Au~rlst IWO

RANGELAND

MANAGEMENT

Improvements Needed

in Federal Wild Horse

Program

Illlllllllllla

3

142041

GAO,‘H(:EI’)-W-110

.- --~. .-

(

Resources, Community, and

Economic Development Division

H-240648

August 20,199O

The Honorable Manuel Lujan, Jr.

The Secretary of the Interior

Dear Mr. Secretary:

This report discusses the Bureau of Land Management’s efforts to manage wild horses on the

public rangelands in 10 western states, including the removal and disposition of excess wild

horses under the Adopt-A-Horse program.

This report contains recommendations to you in chapters 2,3, and 4. The head of a federal

agency is required by 31 U.S.C. 720 to submit a written statement on actions taken on our

recommendations to the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs and the House

Committee on Government Operations not later than 60 days after the date of this letter and

to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations with the agency’s first request for

appropriations made more than 60 days after the date of this letter.

We are sending copies of this report to the Director, Bureau of Land Management; Director,

Office of Management and Budget; congressional offices; and other interested parties. If we

can be of further assistance, please contact me at (202) 275-7756. Other major contributors

are listed in appendix II.

Sincerely yours,

James Duffus III

Director, Natural Resources

Management Issues

Executive Summaxy

Purpose

In response to concerns over the widespread abuse and exploitation of

wild horses and the possibility that the remaining population might

eventually be eradicated, the Congress passed the Wild Free-Roaming

Horses and Burros Act in 1971 to grant the animals special protection.

Subsequent population counts indicated that there were many more wild

horses than previously thought and that these horses were contributing

to overgrazing of the federal rangelands. This new information led the

Congress to amend the law in 1978 and establish protection of the range

from wild horse overpopulation as a major program objective. Accord-

ingly, it authorized the agency responsible for administering the pro-

gram-the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management

(BLM)-t0

limit wild horse populations to levels the range can sustain.

This dual mandate of protecting wild horse populations while at the

same time protecting the rangelands they roam from deterioration con-

tinues to govern program operations.

Responding to expressions of congressional concern over

BLM'S

manage-

ment of the wild horse program,

GAO

reviewed

BLM'S

basis for deter-

mining the number of wild horses to be removed from the range; the

treatment of horses disposed of under a special adoption program; and

the cost-effectiveness of other aspects of

BLM'S

wild horse disposal

program.

Background

Since 1980,

BLM

has rounded up, removed, and disposed of more than

80,000 wild horses from federal rangelands. About 60,000 of these

horses have been adopted through

BLM'S

Adopt-A-Horse program which

allows individuals to obtain title to up to four horses a year for $125

each. In an effort to enhance the adoptability of wild horses,

BLM

in

recent years has been sending some horses to state prison facilities to be

“gentled” by inmates who halter train them. However, all the wild

horses removed from the range have not proven to be adoptable because

of age or physical imperfection. Accordingly, from 1984 through Sep-

tember 1988,

BLM

placed about 20,000 wild horses with large-scale

adopters who agreed to take a minimum of 100 horses when

BLM

waived

the normal adoption fee. This program was terminated in response to

widespread congressional and public criticism. Since the summer of

1988,

BLM

has placed unadoptable horses in private sanctuaries.

0

Results in Brief

GAO

found that despite congressional direction,

BLM'S

decisions on how

many wild horses to remove from federal rangelands have not been

based on direct evidence that existing wild populations exceed what the

Page 2 GAO/RCED-90-110 Rangeland Management

Executive Summary

range can support. Moreover, wild horse removals often have not been

accompanied by reductions in authorized livestock grazing levels or

effective range management to increase the land’s capacity. As a result,

range conditions have not demonstrably improved, and the number of

wild horses removed has exceeded the capacity of the Adopt-A-Horse

program. These conditions, in turn, led

BLM

to implement two mass dis-

posal options that have resulted in either inhumane treatment and com-

mercial exploitation of the horses or committed the government to long-

term financial responsibility for the removed horses’ welfare.

BLM'S

halter training and gentling program also has not been as cost-effective

as it could be. Many horses remain at prison training facilities much

longer than necessary resulting in increased program costs and lost

adoption opportunities.

Principal Findings

Wild Horse Removals Are

GAO

found that existing information is insufficient to determine how

Not Linked to Rangeland

many wild horses the range can support, the extent of degradation

Conditions

caused by wild horses, or consequently the number of wild horses that

should appropriately be removed from individual herd areas. For

example, for the five

BLM

areas

GAO

visited (covering 46 wild horse herd

areas),

BLM

had not assessed the land’s carrying capacities in over 20

years in three cases and in over 10 years in another case. The one

resource area with data less than 10 years old did not use it to set target

wild horse population levels and removal objectives. Despite the lack of

data,

BLM

has proceeded with horse removals using targets based on per-

ceived population levels dating back to 197 1 and/or recommendations

from

BLM

advisory groups comprised largely of livestock permittees.

BLM

could not provide

GAO

with any information demonstrating that fed-

eral rangeland conditions have significantly improved because of wild

horse removals. This lack of impact has occurred largely because

BLM

has not reduced authorized grazing by domestic livestock, which

because of their vastly larger numbers consume 20 times more forage

than wild horses, or improved the management of livestock to give the

native vegetation more opportunity to grow. In some areas,

GAO

found

that

BLM

increased authorized livestock grazing levels after it had

removed wild horses, thereby negating any reduction in total forage

consumption and potential for range improvement. According to

BLM

range managers,

BLM

has not acted to reduce authorized grazing levels

Page 3 GAO/RCED-90-110 Rangeland Management

Executive Summary

primarily because it believed it did not have sufficient range condition

data to justify the reductions.

Mass Disposal Led to

By 1986,

BLM

was removing thousands more wild horses yearly from the

Inhumane Treatment and

range than its Adopt-A-Horse program could absorb. Faced with the

Commercial Exploitation

escalating costs of maintaining these excess horses in holding facilities,

BLM

placed about 20,000 wild horses with large-scale adopters.

BLM

did

not always comply with its regulations and internal guidance for

approving and monitoring these adoptions. This noncompliance resulted

in the inhumane treatment and death of hundreds of horses during the

l-year probation period when the horses were still owned by the gov-

ernment. Most adopters sold thousands of wild horses to

slaughterhouses.

BLM

terminated the program in September 1988 after negative publicity

and pressure from the Congress. However, it has not rescinded the regu-

lations authorizing such adoptions.

Disposal Program’

Effectiveness Can

Improved

‘s Cost-

Be

Problems continue to exist in

BLM'S

remaining disposal activities.

GAO

found that many horses remain at the prison facilities much longer than

the 30 to 60 days needed to halter train them. Some horses remained at

the facilities for up to 19 months, thereby substantially increasing pro-

gram costs. In addition,

GAO

found that

BLM

adoption staff have ques-

tioned the quality of the training many horses have received.

BLM

has

taken steps to tighten the management of the halter training program

but to date has not established needed standards for the length of time

the prisons should take to halter train a wild horse or the number and

quality of trained horses the prison facilities should produce.

With respect to the wild horse sanctuaries,

GAO

believes that

BLM

will not

be able to meet its objective of limiting financial support for the sanc-

tuaries to their first 3 years of operation. Accordingly,

GAO

believes that

BLM

will either have to commit to a long-term financial commitment to

the sanctuaries (now approaching $900,000 a year for the first sanc-

tuary alone) or be prepared to have the horses returned to its custody.

Recommendations

To ensure that wild horse removal decisions are made in the context of a

rational range betterment strategy,

GAO

recommends that

BLM

expedi-

tiously develop carrying capacity and range condition data. In locations

where these data indicate that overgrazing is occurring,

BLM

should

Page 4

GAO/RCED-90-110 Rangeland Management

Executive Summary

implement range management techniques designed to give native vege-

tation more opportunity to grow and when necessary remove wild

horses and reduce livestock grazing in proportion to the numbers of

each species on the range.

GAO

also makes several other recommenda-

tions to improve

BLM'S

wild horse removal and disposal efforts. (See pp.

44 and 56.)

Agency Comments

BLM

generally agreed with

GAO'S

recommendations and stated that imple-

menting action to address them either has been taken or is being initi-

ated.

BLM

disagreed, however, with a recommendation in a draft of this

report to reduce overgrazing by removing wild horses and reducing the

levels of authorized domestic livestock grazing in proportion to the

amount of forage each is consuming and the amount of range damage

each is causing.

GAO

revised its recommendation to acknowledge the role

improved livestock management can have in reducing the impact of

domestic livestock grazing on range conditions. Recognizing the diffi-

culty in distinguishing between the impacts of wild horses and domestic

livestock on range deterioration,

GAO

also revised its recommendation to

base any needed reductions in grazing activity on the relative numbers

of wild horses and domestic livestock on the range.

Page 6

GAO/RCED-90-110 Rangeland Management

Contents

Executive Summary

2

Chapter 1

8

Introduction

Exploitation of Wild Horses and Burros Prompted Federal

8

Protection

BLM’s Wild Horse Program

11

Related GAO Products

18

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 18

Chapter 2

21

Wild Horse Removals

BLM Lacks Adequate Data to Make Informed Wild Horse

21

Need to Be Linked to

Removal Decisions

Basis for BLM’s Wild Horse Removals Is Inappropriate

22

Rangeland Conditions

Wild Horse Removals Have Not Significantly Improved

24

Range Conditions

Recent Wild Horse Removal Levels Have Exceeded

26

Disposal Capabilities

Conclusims

26

Recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior

27

Agency Comments and GAO Response

27

Chapter 3

29

Fee-Waiver Adoptions

Increasing the Number of Wild Horses Removed From the

29

Led to Inhumane

Range Led BLM to Authorize Fee-Waiver Program

Many Fee-Waiver Horses Treated Inhumanely

30

Treatment and

Thousands of Horses Sent to Slaughter After Title Passed

31

Commercial

Conclusions

33

Exploitation

Recommendation to the Secretary of the Interior

33

Agency Comments and GAO Response 33

Chapter 4

34

Continuing Problems

Sanctuaries More Costly Than Originally Thought

34

With Wild Horse

Halter Training Program Can Be Made More Cost-

36

Effective

Disposal Activities

Alternative Disposal Options May Need to Be Considered

39

Conclusions

40

Recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior

40

Agency Comments and GAO Response

41

Page 6

GAO/RCED-90-110 Rangeland Management

Contents

Appendixes

Appendix I: Comments From the Department of the

Interior

42

Appendix II: Major Contributors to This Report

68

Figures

Figure 1.1: Wild Horses in Nevada

Figure 1.2: General Areas of Wild Horse and Burro Herds

in the Western States

9

13

Fig. 1.3: Locations Where Wild Horses Are Adopted by

the Public

14

Figure 1.4: Horses Taken From Round-Up Pens on Range

to Preparation Center in Nevada

Figure 1.6: BLM’s Removals of Wild Horses and Burros

and Appropriations, 1983-1990

16

17

Abbreviations

AUM

Animal Unit Month

BLM

Bureau of Land Management

FLPMA

Federal Land Policy and Management Act

GAO

General Accounting Office

IRAM

Institute of Range and the American Mustang

Page 7

GAO/RCED-90-110 Rangeland Management

/’

Introduction

During this century, tens of thousands of wild horses have been either

killed or captured for slaughter on America’s western ranges. Public

concern about the fate of these animals led the Congress to pass the

Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971. Under the act, wild

horses and burros on federal rangelands were granted special protection

from abuse and commercial exploitation. The Department of the Inte-

rior’s Bureau of Land Management

(BLM)

has lead responsibility for

managing these animals as a public lands resource.*

Exploitation of Wild

Wild horses on the western range are descended from horses brought to

Horses and Burros

Prompted Federal

Protection

the North American continent by Spanish explorers in the 16th century

(see fig. 1.1). Over time, stray domestic horses belonging to settlers and

Native Americans bred with the Spanish mustangs and, at the beginning

of the 20th century, an estimated 2 million wild horses roamed

America’s ranges. For many years, as human settlements and livestock

ranching expanded westward, these horses were freely exploited by (1)

ranchers who shot them to make room for cattle and sheep, (2) individ-

uals who captured them for domestic use and breeding, and (3)

profiteers who rounded-up large herds from the public lands for sale to

slaughterhouses.

Documented abuses suffered by wild horses led concerned individuals

and national humane organizations to push for federal protection in the

1950s. In response, the Congress passed legislation in 1969 (18 U.S.C.

47) prohibiting the use of aircraft, motor vehicles, and poisoned water

holes to trap or kill wild horses on federal rangelands. Despite the act,

wild horse exploitation continued and, by 1971, the reported population

of wild horses on federal rangelands declined to about 9,500. Some ques-

tioned whether the population would eventually be eradicated.

‘The act also protects wild horses and burros on national forest lands managed by the U.S. Forest

Service in the Department of Agriculture.

Page 8

GAO/RCED@O-110 Rangeland Management

Chapter 1

Introduction

Figure 1.1: Wild Horme In Nevada

Source: BLM.

To ensure the survival of the wild horse herds, in 1971 the Congress

enacted the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act (16 USC. 1331

et seq.) declaring that

“wild free-roaming horses and burros are living symbols of the historic and pioneer

spirit of the West; that they contribute to the diversity of life forms within the

Nation . . . and that these horses and burros are fast disappearing from the Amer-

ican scene.”

The act directed the Secretary of the Interior (this responsibility was

internally delegated to

BLM)

to protect wild horses and burros from

various types of abuse or death and to consider them in areas they were

found as of 1971 as an integral part of the natural system of the public

lands. Further,

BLM

was directed to manage them to achieve and main-

tain a thriving natural ecological balance on the public lands. The act

precludes managing wild horses and burros to areas outside of where

they were found in 1971.

Page 9

GAO/RCED-9SllO Rangeland Management

Chapter 1

Introduction

Soon after the act’s passage, more thorough

BLM

censuses revealed that

wild horse populations were much higher than the 9,600 previously

thought to exist. In the ensuing years, the focus of program debates

shifted from ensuring the continued survival of wild horses to deter-

mining the number that should remain on the public lands. On the one

hand, livestock permittees (ranchers who pay a fee to graze their live-

stock on public lands) and wildlife conservationists argued that lower

population levels should be maintained because horse populations were

damaging the range and displacing domestic livestock and various wild-

life species also competing for the limited available forage. Horse protec-

tion groups, on the other hand, argued for higher population levels on

the basis of their view that horses were not a major cause of the ongoing

degradation in public range resources.

Responding to deteriorating range conditions, the Congress enacted the

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976

(FLPMA,

43 U.S.C.

1701 et seq.). In

FLPMA,

the Congress directed

BLM

to scientifically

manage the rangelands under the principles of multiple use and sus-

tained yield. The act defined multiple use as the management of public

lands and their various resource values (fish and wildlife, livestock

grazing, mining, recreation, etc,) so that they are used in the combina-

tion that best meets the public’s present and future needs. The term sus-

tained yield means the achievement and maintenance in perpetuity of a

high-level annual or regular periodic output of various renewable

resources. Under

FLPMA,

wild horses and burros are one of the resources

that

BLM

must balance as it manages the range.

FLPMA

also directs

BLM

to conduct multiple-use and sustained- yield man-

agement through a land use planning process. Under the act, land use

plans should be based on scientific knowledge of conditions and result in

a management program that allows a judicious variety of uses while

protecting and even enhancing resources.

Because of continuing concerns over degradation of rangeland resources

and

BLM'S

implementation of the wild horse program, the Congress

amended the Wild Horses and Burros Act as part of the Public Range-

lands Improvement Act in 1978 (P.L. 96-514). These amendments

require

BLM

to maintain a current inventory of wild horses. They further

authorize

BLM

to remove wild horses deemed to be in excess of what the

range can support as documented in (1) land use plans completed under

FLPMA;

(2) court-ordered environmental impact statements for the

Page 10 GAO/RCED-!Wl lO Rangeland Management

Chapter 1

Introduction

grazing program; (3) information from a research program also estab-

lished in the act; or (4) absent any of those, on the basis of all informa-

tion currently available that excess animals need to be removed. Under

the act, removal actions are to be taken to “restore a thriving natural

ecological balance to the range, and protect the range from the deterio-

ration associated with overpopulation.” The amendments in part

defined excess animals as those that must be removed from an area in

order to preserve and maintain a thriving natural ecological balance and

multiple-use relationship in that area. Thus,

BLM'S

management of wild

horse herd levels is to be directly linked to rangeland conditions and

carrying capacity2 for horses and other species, such as wildlife and

domestic livestock.

In 1986, the Congress directed

BLM

to accelerate the removal of wild

horses and burros from public rangelands. It took this action in response

to information from

BLM

that the population of wild horses and burros

exceeded the range’s carrying capacity and was threatening range

resources. Since that time,

BLM

has argued that high wild horse removal

levels are necessary to protect public rangeland resources from further

deterioration.

BLM’s Wild Horse

Program

BLM

manages all programs, including the wild horse program, under a

management philosophy of decentralized control, with as much

authority and responsibility as possible delegated to lower operating

levels.

BLM

is organized with four levels of management, one in the

Washington, D.C., headquarters and three in field operations. The

BLM

Director heads the agency, assisted by the program office-the Division

of Wild Horses and Burros in the Land and Renewable Resources direc-

torate.

BLM

headquarters oversees the program by developing policies,

guidance, procedures, regulations, and budget estimates and organizing

coordination workshops for the field offices.

BLM

field operations consist of state offices, district offices, and resource

area offices.

BLM

has 12 state offices, each managed by a state director.

State offices are responsible for providing statewide program direction,

oversight, and coordination of resource programs for federal lands

under

BLM'S

jurisdiction. Each state office has several district offices,

each managed by a district manager. Most district offices are respon-

sible for two or more resource areas. District offices provide oversight

“Carrying capacity refers to assessmenta that determine the consumption by wildlife, wild horses,

and livestock

that

available forage can support on a sustained-yield basis.

Page 11

GAO/RCED-90-110 Rangeland Management

Chapter 1

Introduction

and support to their resource area offices. Resource area offices, each

managed by an area manager, are the primary field location for program

operations. In fiscal year 1990, the equivalent of 145 full-time

employees were expected to be employed to carry out the wild horse and

burro program in

BLM

headquarters and field offices.

Presently,

BLM

has identified 270 wild horse and burro herd areas in 10

western states, but it does not plan to manage any horses or burros on

68 of the areas.” (See fig. 1.2.) Almost all herd areas overlap areas where

domestic livestock graze under

BLM

permits or leases assigned to

ranchers,

BLM'S

rangeland is divided into 22,000 grazing allotments.4 In

1989,

BLM

reported a wild horse population of 41,774 on

BLM

lands with

74 percent located in Nevada and 10 percent located in Wyoming. The

Forest Service has less than 4 percent of the wild horse population on its

lands.”

Through its land use planning process,

BLM

has determined that about

27,000 wild horses is the most appropriate population level for public

lands that

BLM

manages in the West.” Since it believes that about 42,000

wild horses currently roam the range, it has determined that about

15,000 horses are excess and need to be immediately removed.

Once excess wild horses are rounded up, they are disposed of in various

ways, Although most of these horses are removed from public lands in

Nevada, over two-thirds of those removed are offered for adoption by

BLM’S

Eastern States Office and New Mexico State Office under the

agency’s Adopt-A-Horse program (see fig. 1.3.). Since program inception,

BLM

has removed and disposed of more than 80,000 wild horses from the

federal rangelands.

The Adopt-A-Horse program allows individuals to take up to four horses

per year for $125 each. Since 1973, about 60,000 horses have been

adopted through this program. To improve the adoptability of older

“The 68 herd areas are generally located contiguous with privately owned lands. To avoid the

problem of removing wild horses that stray onto private lands, BLM designated these areas for com-

plete removal.

4Grazing allotments are designated areas of land available to ranchers with BLM permits or leases for

grazing specific numbers and kinds of livestock.

“The Forest Service administers 43 wild horse and burro herd areas. The act does not protect wild

horses found on other federal lands, such as military bases and national parks and refuges.

“Because wild burros populations total only about 11 percent of the wild population and few

problems have been reported with their adoption, this report deals primarily with wild horses.

Page 12 GAO/RCED-90-110 Rangeland Management

Chapter

1

Iutroduction

Figure 1.2: General Areas of Wild Horse and Burro Herd8 in the Western State8

lIIxl

Lands Managed by BLM

,MEXICQ,

*

. . . .

l

Major Wild Home Areas

ooooo Major Wild Burro Areas

Source: BLM.

Page 13

GAO/RCED-W-110 Rangeland Management

Chapter 1

Introduction

Fig. 1.3: Locations Where Wild Horses Are Adopted by the Public

b

A \r/r Arizona

A-

Adopllon Sslellites In New Mexico

and Eastern State8 Oltic63 in FY 1998

‘..

Legend

:

Prison Halter.Tralnlng Centers

Permanent Adoption Centers

(BLM and Contract)

- BLM State Ollice Administrative

Boundaries

New Mexico

State Oll~co

f!&g

Eastern States Ollice

horses,

BLM

has since 1986 sent these horses to various state prisons so

that prison inmates can train and “gentle” them before adoption.

Page 14

GAO/RCED-90-110 Rangeland Management

Chapter 1

Introduction

Because of a growing backlog of wild horses in

BLM

holding facilities,

BLM

initiated the so-called “fee-waiver” adoption program in 1984. This

program allowed individuals, and Native American tribes under power-

of-attorney arrangements, to take, free-of-charge, wild horses deter-

mined by

BLM

to be unadoptable because of age or physical imperfec-

tions. After a l-year waiting period, the fee-waiver adopters obtained

titles on the horses from

BLM.

Under this program,

BLM

disposed of about

20,000 horses, surpassing adoptions under the Adopt-A-Horse program

in 1987, In September 1988,

BLM

terminated the program in response to

intense public and congressional criticism.

Following the termination of the fee-waiver program,

BLM

turned to a

second alternative for disposing of wild horses deemed to be unadopt-

able. This alternative involves placing wild horses in private sanc-

tuaries. Wild horse sanctuaries are designed to provide unadoptable

horses humane, life-long care in a natural setting off the public range-

lands. Unlike the fee-waiver program,

BLM

retains title to the horses in

the sanctuary and shares in the costs of their maintenance.

Excess horses can travel through a complicated “pipeline” before adop-

tion or placement in a private sanctuary. At various stops in the pipe-

line,

BLM

must incur costs for the animals’ care and to assure that they

are humanely treated. For example, after rounding up several hundred

wild horses in Nevada, they are taken by truck to

BLM'S

initial prepara-

tion center near Reno, Nevada, where they are separated by sex into

holding corrals (see fig. 1.4). All horses receive immediate veterinary

examination, vaccinations, and other treatment, are branded with an

identification number, and then are held for a few weeks until they are

strong enough to be shipped out. From here, the horses can be trans-

ported by truck to holding and halter training sites before being sent to

adoption or sanctuary.

Page 15

GAO/RCED-90-110 Rangeland Management

Chapter 1

Introduction

Flgure 1.4: Horres Taken From Round-Up

Pens on Range to Preparation Center in

Nevada

-. -.

Source: BLM.

Page 16 GAO/RCED-90-110 Rangeland Management

Chapter

1

Introduction

In fiscal year 1989, the Congress directed

BLM

to establish an advisory

group to assist

BLM

in its wild horses and burros program.

BLM

plans to

have this advisory group functioning in 1990. The group will gather and

analyze information, make studies, and hear public testimony in order to

offer advice and develop recommendations for the Secretary of the Inte-

rior and

BLM'S

Director to consider.

From 1985 through 1989,

BLM'S

total program costs have averaged

$1,500 for each horse removed from the range. In fiscal years 1985

through 1989,

BLM

was appropriated about $81 million to remove and

dispose of 53,925 wild horses and burros and has budgeted another

$13.4 million to remove and dispose of 8,700 more animals in fiscal year

1990. (See fig. 1.5.)

Figure 1.5: BLM’s Removals of Wild

Horses and Burros and Appropriations,

1983-1990

20000

$(thousands)iHon and burros removed

leoo0

0

1963

1964

1925 1986

1987 1986

1969

lsa0

Fiscal Years

- $Appropriations

-1-1 Horse and Burro Removals

Page 17

GAO/RCED-90-110 Raugeland Management

Chapter 1

introduction

Related GAO Products

In the past,

GAO

has reported that overgrazing is damaging a large por-

tion of the public’s land. Over half of the public rangelands remain in

unsatisfactory condition, and about one out of every five public range-

land grazing allotments is threatened with further deterioration7 The

condition of riparian areas-those ecologically critical zones bordering

rivers, streams, lakes, and bogs-is even worse. Many thousands of

miles of streams have degraded riparian areas needing improvementH

Wild horse and burro populations consume forage on the public range-

lands and consequently contribute to the overgrazing problem. However,

as we have noted in previous testimony,” the primary cause of the deg-

radation in rangeland resources is poorly managed domestic livestock

(primarily cattle and sheep) grazing. When more animals are allowed to

graze in an area than the land can support, forage consumption exceeds

the regenerative capacity of the natural vegetation, resulting in erosion,

watershed damage, and other deterioration. Although recognizing that

overgrazing was occurring,

BLM

range managers reported that no adjust-

ments in the authorized livestock grazing levels were scheduled in 75

percent of the allotments threatened with further damage. These man-

agers cited insufficient data on specific range conditions and resistance

by livestock permittees as the primary reasons why action had not been

taken.

As we further testified,

BLM

has been more concerned with the imme-

diate needs of livestock interests or budget reductions than with

ensuring the long-term health of the range. We further stated that a fun-

damental change in the agency’s management approach and orientation

is necessary if substantive progress is to be made.

Objectives, Scope, and

In response to congressional inquiries reflecting concern over various

Methodology

aspects of

BLM’S

management of its wild horse program, we began a

programwide review in February 1988. Our work evaluated (1)

BLM'S

basis for determining the number of wild horses to remove from the

public range, (2) the treatment of wild horses removed from the range

anagement: More Emphasis Needed on Declining and Overstocked Grazing Allotments

‘Public Rangeland: Some Riparian Areas Restored But Widespread Improvement Will Be Slow (GAO/

- _

8 106, June 30,1988).

‘Change in Approach Needed to Improve the Bureau of Land Management’s Oversight of Public

Lands (GAO/T-Rm-89-23, April 11,1989).

Page 18

GAO/RCED-90-110 Rangeland Management

Chapter 1

Introduction

and adopted in large numbers, and (3) the cost-effectiveness of several

aspects of BLM’S wild horse disposal program.

To determine RIJJ’S basis for removing wild horses from public range-

lands, we focused on Nevada and Wyoming which together have about

84 percent of

BLM'S

wild horse population. We examined

BLM'S

wild horse

and range management in four districts and resource areas in Nevada

and one district and resource area in Wyoming that encompass 46 wild

horse herd areas. We reviewed various documents, such as the legisla-

tive history, regulations, policies, internal guidance, and range manage-

ment plans to determine the basis for both livestock and wild horse

management levels. We interviewed

BLM

officials at various levels about

the range management program.

To evaluate the treatment of wild horses removed from the range and

adopted in large numbers, we focused on

BLM'S

fee-waiver adoption pro-

gram. We did not evaluate the treatment of wild horses and burros

adopted under

BLM'S

full-fee adoption program. We concentrated prima-

rily on

BLM'S

Montana State Office which had placed almost 60 percent

of the fee-waiver adoptions and had given thousands of horses to Native

American tribes, and reviewed selected fee-waiver adoptions in Wyo-

ming and New Mexico. In the

BLM

Montana State Office, we reviewed

relevant documents and interviewed

BLM

officials in the state office, two

district offices, and two resource area offices. To determine if fee-

waivered wild horses were commercially exploited, we obtained records

from and interviewed buyers and managers at horse slaughterhouses

and livestock sales barns in South Dakota, Nebraska, Texas, and

Canada. We also interviewed livestock brand inspectors in Montana,

North Dakota, and South Dakota.

To determine the cost-effectiveness of

BLM'S

halter training program, we

examined

BLM'S

New Mexico and Colorado state offices’ cooperative

agreements with state correctional agencies to train 2,000 wild horses at

4 state prisons. We reviewed documents and interviewed

BLM

officials in

both state offices and two district offices. We also reviewed documents

and interviewed officials with the state correctional agencies. To

observe operations, we visited the prisons in Santa Fe and Los Lunas,

New Mexico and Canon City, Colorado.

To assess the cost-effectiveness of sanctuaries, we reviewed the agree-

ments as well as documents on the sanctuaries and discussed various

matters with RLM officials in Washington, D.C., the Montana State Office,

and the South Dakota resource area. We visited two sanctuary sites to

Page 19 GAO/RCED-99-110 Rangeland Management

Chapter 1

Introduction

view pasture conditions and the facilities to maintain horses, We dis-

cussed concerns about sanctuary lands leased from the Rosebud Sioux

tribe with officials from Interior’s Bureau of Indian Affairs. We inter-

viewed state and other officials about procedures for caring for the

horses, fund-raising, and operating the sanctuary without

BLM

funding.

We obtained official comments on a draft of this report from

BLM.

Its

comments are included as appendix I. We conducted our review between

February 1988 and November 1989 in accordance with generally

accepted government auditing standards.

Page 20

GAO/RCED-90-110

Rangeland

Management

Chapter 2

Wild Horse Removals Need to Be Linked to

Rangeland Conditions

BLM

decisions on how many wild horses to remove from federal range-

lands have been made without benefit of solid information concerning

range carrying capacity or the impact of wild horses on range condi-

tions. Instead, its decisions have reflected either the desire to achieve

perceived historic wild horse population levels or deference to advisory

groups largely comprised of livestock permittees. As a result,

BLM’S

wild

horse removals have not produced appreciable improvements in range

conditions and have exceeded the disposal capacity of

BLM’S

basic adop-

tion program. Future wild horse removal decisions need to be considered

in the context of a broader strategy of range improvements based on

accurate carrying capacity and range condition data.

BLM Lacks Adequate

Establishing levels of forage consumption that do not overtax the land

Data to Make

(carrying capacity) and measuring actual consumption to ensure that

such capacity is not being exceeded are critical steps in prudent range

Informed Wild Horse

management. When more animals (domestic livestock, wildlife, and wild

Removal Decisions

horses) graze the federal range than the land can sustain, degradation is

inevitable. While important to the balanced management of all animals

sharing the range’s resources, the mandates of the wild horse act make

data on carrying capacity and the impact of wild horses on range

resources essential to the management of wild horses. Under the act

horses are to be removed from the range to “restore a thriving ecological

balance” -a condition that cannot be known without these data. Given

this mandate and the substantial costs associated with wild horse

round-up and disposal, accurate up-to-date information on the range’s

ability to sustain wild horse grazing must be available for each herd

area to make rational wild horse removal decisions. Removing more

horses than is necessary wastes federal funds, removing less than is

warranted by range conditions contributes to continued resource deteri-

oration and, depending on horse reproduction rates, can lead to higher

removal costs in the future.

Reasonably current carrying capacity data are, however, frequently not

available within

BLM.

As we reported in our June 1988 report on range

conditions, carrying capacities have not been assessed for 30 percent of

BLM

grazing allotments in over 20 years. Another 11 percent of the car-

rying capacity assessments are between 10 and 20 years old. The value

of information this old is questionable.

The availability of carrying capacity data in the

BLM

resource areas we

visited with large wild horse populations was consistent with the

BLM-

Page 21

GAO/RCJSD-90-110 Rangeland Management

chapter 2

Wild Home Removal@ Need to Be Linked to

Rangeland Conditions

wide picture we reported on earlier. For the 6

BLM

resource areas cov-

ering 46 herd areas we visited, 3 had not assessed carrying capacities

for over 20 years, and 1 had not assessed carrying capacities in over 10

years. The one area where carrying capacity data was only 6 years old

did not use the data to set target wild horse population levels and hence

the number of horses to be removed to achieve those levels.

One difficulty facing

BLM

in determining the impact of wild horses is dis-

tinguishing among forage consumption by species, While existing range-

land monitoring techniques can measure such things as actual grazing

use, percentage consumption of key plant species, and changes in range

conditions over time, existing practices did not distinguish forage con-

sumption among wild horses, domestic livestock, and wildlife species.

BLM

field staff report monitoring techniques are difficult, but not impos-

sible, to practice in many herd areas. Since in many herd areas wild

horses coexist with livestock, this distinction is critical in determining

the appropriate mix of animals on the range as well as the species-spe-

cific actions to be taken in responding to degraded range conditions.

Despite lacking adequate data on the number of wild horses the land can

support,

BLM

has proceeded with removing the horses. For example, on

at least two occasions,

BLM'S

Nevada State Office concluded that avail-

able data were not adequate to justify removing wild horses; however,

in both instances

BLM'S

responsible district and resource area offices

chose not to revise their plans to remove horses in their areas. In con-

trast,

BLM

has frequently used the lack of detailed carrying capacity and

range monitoring data to explain why it has not taken action to reduce

widely recognized overgrazing by domestic livestock.

Basis for BLM’s Wild

Without accurate and reasonably up-to-date carrying capacity data,

BLM

Horse Removals Is

Inappropriate

has based its wild horse removal decisions on either (1) the desire to

achieve perceived historic population levels or (2) recommendations

from

BLM

advisory groups largely comprised of livestock permittees. The

first basis was set aside by the Interior Board of Land Appeals as being

contrary to the requirements of the wild horse act.’ The second basis is,

at a minimum, not consistent with balanced stewardship of range

resources and reinforces the image of undue deference to livestock inter-

ests that we have discussed in previous reports and testimonies.

‘The Interior Board of Land Appeals, part of the Office of Hearings and Appeals, haa quasi-judicial

and appellate responsibilities for the Department of the Interior. The Board of Land Appeals renders

decisions on BLM cases.

Page 2 2

GAO/RCED-S&l 10 Rangeland Management

chapter 2

Wfld Horee Removals Need to Re Linked to

Rangeland Ckmditiona

We found that

BLhI

set the target population levels for wild horses (and

thereby the number of horses that should be removed to achieve those

levels) in 38 of the 43 herd areas in Nevada and 1 of the 3 herd areas in

Wyoming on the basis of herd populations it believed to exist as far back

as 19’7 1. None were based on estimated herd populations more recent

than 1983.

For example, in a 1987 herd management plan,

BLM

set the wild horse

population in six Nevada herd areas at the estimated 1974 population

level of 877 horses, thus reducing the herds by 42 percent from their

estimated 1982 population of 1,506 horses. Similarly, the wild horse

population level for one Wyoming herd area was set to fluctuate

between 90 and 186 horses on the basis of the herd’s estimated size in

1971 of 70 horses.

This basis was rejected by Interior’s Board of Land Appeals. In 1988,

BLM

proposed to reduce the combined wild horse herds in 18 areas in

Nevada from about 10,000 to less than 3,000 horses. An animal protec-

tion group challenged the planned removals claiming that

BLM

lacked

quantitative data linking wild horses to deteriorated range conditions

(the required basis for horse removals established in the wild horse act).

In June 1989, the Board ruled that in the absence of evidence that wild

horse removals would result in a thriving natural ecological balance or

avoid further deterioration of the range, a wild horse level “established

purely for administrative reasons because it was the level of wild horse

use at a particular point in time cannot be justified under the statute.”

BLM

also sometimes deferred its horse removal decisions to advisory

groups comprised primarily of livestock permittees. In Nevada,

BLM

established target wild horse population levels on this basis in eight

herd areas. Since livestock permittees have a vested interest in keeping

wild horse populations low to reduce competition for forage for their

livestock, setting horse removal levels on the basis of their views may

not be appropriate.

The advisory committees’ membership sometimes included wild horse

advocacy groups but these groups typically had little influence on the

committee’s ultimate decisions, according to

BLM

officials and wild horse

advocates. For example, in 1982 two groups advocating wild horse inter-

ests quit the advisory committee working with

BLM

to establish target

wild horse population levels for six Nevada herd areas. According to one

member, she concluded that

BLM

was predisposed to satisfying domestic

Page 23 GAO/RCED-90-110 Rangeland Management

chapter 2

Wild Horse Removals Need to Be Linked to

Rangeland Conditione

livestock interests and that continued service on the committee served

little purpose.

Wild Horse Removals

Despite nearly 2 decades of

BLM

efforts to remove wild horses from fed-

Have Not Significantly

era1 rangelands, we reported in June 1988 that about 60 percent of

BLM

a o

11 t

ments, where conditions were known, were in unsatisfactory condi-

Improved Range

tion. Further, nearly 78 percent of the allotments where trend informa-

Conditions

tion was available were either stable or declining further. With such a

negative picture of overall range conditions, wild horse removals have

not been sufficient to restore federal rangelands as a whole to a thriving

condition. Further,

BLM

could not provide us with data to demonstrate

where horse removals have materially improved the specific areas from

which they have been removed.

Wild horse removals have not demonstrably improved range conditions

for several reasons. First, wild horses are vastly outnumbered on fed-

eral rangelands by domestic livestock. In fiscal year 1988, about 4.1 mil-

lion domestic livestock graze

BLM

allotments compared to an estimated

42,000 wild horses, In total, the domestic livestock consume 20 times

more forage than wild horses. Even substantial reductions in wild horse

populations will, therefore, not substantially reduce total forage

consumption.

Second, wild horse behavior patterns make the horses somewhat less

damaging than cattle to especially vulnerable range areas, Available

horse behavior studies demonstrate that, unlike cattle which concen-

trate in lower elevations, wild horses range widely throughout both

steep, hilly terrain and lower more level areas. Range conditions in the

steeper hillier areas where cattle do not frequent are generally better

than in lower areas. Reducing wild horse populations in these areas has

been shown by experience to have a negligible effect on the resource. In

the lower level areas, especially ecologically important riparian areas

adjoining streams and other water sources, cattle do more damage

because they tend to “camp” in the areas instead of watering and

moving on. As we reported in our June 1988 report on riparian area

management, poorly managed domestic livestock grazing is the primary

cause of damaged riparian areas. In these areas, wild horse removals

can be helpful but without improved domestic livestock management as

well, the overgrazing problem cannot be solved.

Third, wild horse removals have taken place in some locations not being

damaged by widespread overgrazing. For example, in Wyoming, a horse

Page 24

GAO/RCED-90-110 Rangeland Management

Chapter 2

Wild Horse Removals Need to Be Linked to

Rangeland Conditions

protection group wrote

BLM

in 1983 asking why so many wild horses

were being removed from a particular herd area when a

BLM

draft envi-

ronmental impact statement showed that the area was not damaged by

widespread overgrazing.

BLM'S

1983 final environmental impact state-

ment for this area agreed that widespread overgrazing was not a

problem but stated that the herd reduction from an estimated 1,464 to

470 horses was based on a need to alleviate “isolated” overgrazing

around water resources. Other

BLM

documentation, however, attributed

the riparian-area problems in this location to overgrazing by domestic

livestock, not wild horses.

Fourth, in many areas where wild horse removals have taken place,

BLM

authorized livestock grazing levels have either not been reduced or have

been increased thereby largely negating any reduction in forage con-

sumption. For example,

BLM

removed 349 wild horses (or an equivalent

of 4,188

AUMS"

) from one Nevada herd area in 1986 and then approved

a temporary increase of 2,266

AUMS

for livestock in the same area in

1987. Similarly, a state office technical review of a district’s 1988

assessment of another Nevada herd area’s range condition showed

extensive overgrazing. The state office’s technical staff recommended

removing 176 wild horses and in addition reducing livestock grazing by

almost 80 percent. Although

BLM'S

district office plans to remove the

wild horses, it does not plan to make any reduction in the permittee’s

authorized livestock grazing level since its conclusion is that wild horses

caused the resource damage.

.

In another instance,

BLM

removed over 2,800 wild horses from a herd

area over 4 years based, in part, on a Nevada district court’s ruling in

favor of a permittee that wild horses were overgrazing the range thus

depriving him of his allocated forage and other range resources. After

the horses were removed,

BLM

found that the permittee’s authorized

livestock grazing level continued to result in damage to the range and

stated that livestock grazing should be reduced by 18 percent to correct

the problem. However,

BLM

has no current plans to reduce the per-

mittee’s authorized grazing level. Instead more range monitoring data

will be collected and analyzed by

BLM

to strengthen support for negoti-

ating grazing reductions with the permittee sometime in the future.

"AUM

(animal unit month) refers to the amount of forage needed to sustain an adult cow or horse for

one month.

Page 26 GAO/RCED-90-110 Rangeland Management

Chapter2

Wild Horse Removala Need to Be Linked to

Rangeland Conditiona

It is apparent that wild horse removals alone will not generate the wide-

spread range improvement that is so badly needed. More intensive live-

stock management and reductions in authorized livestock grazing levels

must also be pursued if range conditions are to improve significantly.

Moreover, reducing authorized grazing levels would likely be cheaper

than wild horse removals to achieve the same reduction in forage con-

sumption

BLM'S

domestic livestock grazing management program cur-

rently operates at a substantial loss. In 1989, livestock operators paid a

fee of $1.86 per

AUM

(reduced to $1.81 in 1990) compared with

BLM'S

program costs of $3.62 per

AUM.

Reducing the size of the domestic live-

stock grazing program could, if accompanied by proportionate reduc-

tions in management costs, generate significant savings. Further,

livestock reductions made in place of wild horse removals would save

the substantial expense of rounding up and disposing of the horses.

Recent Wild Horse

Between 1973 and 1984,

BLM

removed from the federal range an average

Removal Levels Have

of about 4,300 horses each year. Since this number of horses was rou-

tinely disposed of through

BLM'S

Adopt-A-Horse program, few horses

Exceeded Disposal

remained in holding facilities for extended periods. By 1985, however,

Capabilities

horse removal levels quadrupled to 17,400 horses. The adoption pro-

gram could not handle this many horses and a large backlog of horses in

holding facilities began to build, increasing program costs and gener-

ating the need to develop mass disposal alternatives, such as fee-waiver

adoptions and sanctuaries, that are discussed in subsequent chapters.

In its fiscal year 1991 budget justification,

BLM

has recognized that in

the past it has removed more horses than could be adopted. In 1991,

BLhI

plans to remove only 4,900 adoptable horses from the range, down from

17,400 removed in 1986 and about 8,700 in 1990. It expects 6,100 wild

horses to be adopted during the year, up about 1,775 from actual 1989

levels.

Conclusions

With nearly 60 percent of federal rangelands in unsatisfactory condi-

tion, improvements are needed. In this context, wild horse removals

based on reliable carrying capacity and range condition data make

sense. However, our work during this and several previous reviews dem-

onstrates that reliance on wild horse removals alone to improve range

conditions cannot work. Since domestic livestock substantially out-

number wild horses on federal rangelands and are a primary cause of

range deterioration, any strategy for rangeland improvement must also

include plans for improving the management of livestock to give the

Page 20 GAO/RCED-90-l 10 Rangeland Management

chapter 2

Wild Horse Removal8 Need to Be Linked to

Rangeland Conditions

native vegetation more opportunity to grow and as necessary reducing

authorized livestock grazing levels.

Since wild horse removal and livestock grazing reduction decisions need

to be based on reasonably up to date carrying capacity and range condi-

tion data, efforts to develop these data need to move ahead without

delay. Moreover, once data are developed, we believe

BLM

needs to

pursue the actions suggested by the data, both for wild horses and

domestic livestock. Wild horse removal levels based on these data may

be less than historic levels. To this end, we believe

BLM'S

decision to

manage wild horse removals on the basis of the number that can be

adopted is prudent.

Recommendations to

To place

BLM'S

wild horse removal process in the context of a more

the Secretary of the

Interior

rational strategy of range improvement, we recommend that the Secre-

tary of the Interior direct the Director of

BLM

to take the following

actions.

. Expeditiously develop carrying capacity and range condition data in

wild horse herd areas.

. In locations where these data indicate that grazing-related damage is

occurring,

BLM

should incorporate the requirement for intensive live-

stock management techniques in permit conditions to reduce the impact

of this grazing on the range’s resources. Where necessary and appro-

priate,

BLM

should also remove wild horses and reduce authorized

domestic livestock grazing levels on the basis of the relative numbers of

each species on the range.

l

After initial population adjustments are made, conduct continued moni-

toring to maintain wild horse and domestic livestock population levels

consistent with what the land can support.

Agency Comments and

BLM

agreed with our recommendations to develop range condition data

GAO Response

in wild horse herd areas and conduct continued monitoring.

BLM

dis-

agreed, however, with a recommendation in a draft of this report that

wild horses be removed and the levels of authorized domestic livestock

grazing be reduced in proportion to the amount of forage each is con-

suming and the amount of damage each is causing.

Y

BLM

commented that (1) there are other reasons for removing wild

horses even when overgrazing by them is not indicated and (2) there are

other “less drastic” management techniques that can be applied to

Page 27

GAO/RCED-99-110 Rangeland Management

Chapter 2

Wild Horse Removals

Need to Be Linked to

Rangeland Conditions

domestic livestock (but not wild horses) that can improve resource con-

ditions without reducing authorized grazing levels. Among the tech-

niques

BLM

cited were installation of range improvements, changes in

grazing season, and institution of rest/rotation grazing systems.

We recognize that wild horses may sometimes have to be removed from

the range for reasons other than overgrazing. However, wild horse

removals have historically been justified by

BLM

on the basis of reducing

the horses’ effects on the range. In the areas we examined, removals

were generally done to achieve population targets set at historic levels,

not to alleviate local range problems. Removals for the alternative rea-

sons cited by

BLM

have not been a significant factor.

We also recognize that more intensive livestock management can yield

important improvements in range conditions and have revised our rec-

ommendation to state that more intensive livestock management should

be a part of an overall range management strategy and that

BLM

should

use these range improvement techniques as appropriate. However, as

BLM

staff have noted, many range areas are overstocked; more animals

are consuming range resources than the range can support. In these

instances, the number of animals consuming the forage needs to be

reduced. When wild horses and domestic livestock occupy the same

range areas,

BLM

states that it is often impossible to distinguish between

their impacts. While

BLM

field staff believe that range monitoring tech-

niques can distinguish the different effects of wild horses and livestock

on range conditions, we recognize this is difficult to practice. Accord-

ingly, we have revised our recommendations to state that necessary

reductions in grazing activity should be accomplished in proportion to

total numbers of each species.

Page 28 GAO/RCED-99-110 Rangeland Management

Chapter 3

Fee-Waiver Adoptions Led to Inhumane

Treatment and Commercial Exploitation

By 1986,

BLM

was removing thousands more wild horses yearly from the

range than its adoption program could absorb. Faced with the escalating

costs of maintaining these excess horses in holding facilities, the agency

resorted to placing large numbers with individuals and Native American

tribes under its so-called fee-waiver program. From 1984 through Sep-

tember 1988,

BLM

placed about 20,000 wild horses it deemed unadopt-

able with 79 individuals and 4 Native American tribes each of whom

received from 16 to 2,456 wild horses. We found that hundreds of these

horses died of starvation and dehydration during the l-year probation

period and that many adopters, primarily ranchers and farmers in the

midwestern and Great Plains states, sold thousands more to slaughter

after obtaining title from

BLM.

BLM

terminated the program in September 1988 after negative publicity

and pressure from the Congress. It has not, however, rescinded the regu-

lations authorizing such adoptions.

Increasing the Number

Until about 1982, adoption demand was sufficient to absorb the wild

of Wild Horses

Removed From the

Range Led BLM to

horses annually removed from public rangelands, and animals were not

maintained in holding facilities for long periods of time. However, in

1982

BLM

began increasing the number of wild horses removed from

public rangelands. By the end of fiscal year 1985, almost 10,000

Authorize Fee-Waiver

unadopted wild horses were being maintained in holding facilities after

removing about 17,400 wild horses from the range that year. Because

Program

horses were remaining,

BLM

had to contract for more holding facilities

and had no expectation that the horses would be adopted in the foresee-

able future.

In response to the escalating costs of maintaining excess horses,

BLM

revised its regulations in 19841 to allow

BLM'S

Director to reduce or

waive the normal fee of $125 per animal. To qualify for the fee-waiver

program,

BLM'S

policy was to require fee-waiver adopters to take a min-

imum of 100 horses, with a few exceptions.”

BLM'S

regulations also

allowed individuals to sign powers-of-attorney to enable another indi-

vidual (the agent) to receive delivery of more horses than he or she

would otherwise be entitled.

‘43 C.F.R. 4760.4-2(b) was an emergency rulemaking in 1984. The rulemaking became final in April

1986 when BLM completed revision of its wild horse and burro regulations (43 C.F.R. 4700).

tiThe wild horse act, as amended in 1978, and BLM’s regulations limit adopters to no more than four

horses per year unless BLM expressly determines that an individual is capable of humanely caring

for more. The legislative history indicates that restricting adopters to four animals per year was to

discourage potential commercial exploitation or abuse possible with large groups of horses.

Page 29

GAO/RCED-90-110 Rangeland Management

Chapter 3

Fee-Waiver Adoptions Led to Inhumane

Treatment and Commercial Exploitation

Many Fee-Waiver

Horses Treated

Inhumanely

Under its regulations,

BLM

was to screen fee-waiver applicants to assure

that they were capable of humanely caring for the horses and under-

stood their responsibility for the horses’ welfare.

BLM

was also required

to inspect the applicants’ facilities to assure that they could humanely

support the horses during a l-year probation period. After the horses

were delivered,

BLM

was to periodically inspect actual conditions to

verify that the horses were receiving humane care and that the titles

could appropriately be issued at the end of the l-year probation period.

However,

BLM

did not always comply with its regulations and internal

guidance for approving and monitoring fee-waiver adoptions, resulting

in the inhumane treatment and death of over 360 horses during the l-

year probation period.

For example, as part of its required applicant screening process man-

dated by a 1983 legal settlement,

BLM

is required to conduct telephone

surveys of all individuals signing powers-of-attorney to verify that they

are suitable and explain to them their responsibility for the horses’ wel-

fare.:’ However, according to a Federal Bureau of Investigation report of

a 1987 fee-waiver adoption in Sheyenne, North Dakota,

BLM

did not con-

duct the required telephone survey of Native American tribal members

who signed blank power-of-attorney forms without knowing what they

were signing.

BLM

terminated this fee-waiver adoption only after over

100 of the horses had died of starvation and dehydration.

In another fee-waiver adoption to three individuals based in Fordyce,

Nebraska, 140 to 160 of the wild horses delivered died during the l-year

probation periodq4 Two of the facilities approved by

BLM

were later

found during

BLM

inspections to lack adequate forage, water, and

shelter. Over 30 deaths were reported within 10 weeks after the horses

arrived at the two facilities. A veterinarian hired by

BLM

to autopsy car-

casses at one of the facilities reported that the horses had died of star-

vation and dehydration and that the remaining horses were in

immediate jeopardy. Yet,

BLM

never implemented his recommendation to

supply the horses with supplemental hay. Less than 1 month later, 40

more horses were reported dead, but

BLM

took no action. When the sur-

viving horses were finally gathered so that titles could be issued, about

450 of the original 600 horses remained.

“American Horse Protection Association, v. Watt, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, July

8, 1983. BLM’s Washington Office distributed copies of the settlement’s detailed steps for conducting

large-scale power-of-attorney adoptions to all field offices in July 1983 and revised its program gui-

dance in August 1983 to incorporate these requirements.

4BLM’s fee-waiver agreement was with the business formed by three individuals. One acted as power-

of-attorney for each of the 160 adopters.

Page 30

GAO/RCED-90-110 Rangeland Management

Chapter 3

FeeWaiver Adoptions Led to Inhumane

Treatment and Commercial Exploitation

We asked

BLM

officials why they chose to take no corrective action.

Explanations ranged from a lack of clear guidance from

BLM

manage-

ment, to the expense associated with repossessing the horses, to the

belief that

BLM

had done nothing improper.

Thousands of Horses

By its very design the fee-waiver program was a prescription for com-

Sent to Slaughter

After Title Passed

mercial exploitation of wild horses.

BLM

and US. Attorney officials in

Montana as well as buyers and state regulators of commercial horse

meat business widely agreed that there was no other practical use for

large numbers of fee-waivered wild horses than to sell them as soon as

possible. As was predicted, our work confirmed that thousands of fee-

waivered horses were sent to slaughter soon after title passed.

Four slaughterhouses in Nebraska and Texas provided us 3,75 1 titles

that they obtained when they bought wild horses from fee-waiver

agents. From these, we learned that the fee-waiver agents associated

with these titles sold up to 99 percent of their wild horses, many within

30 days of title issuance. Although not maintaining records as detailed

as the plants we visited, officials and buyers for other plants in the

United States and Canada told us that they had also bought and slaugh-

tered thousands of fee-waivered horses.

In July 1987 a federal District Court ruled that

BLM

could not issue titles

to fee-waiver agents who express an intent to sell wild horses for

slaughter.”

BLM

made efforts to establish the intent of fee-waiver agents

applying for title when it had evidence that the agents intended to sell

the horses. These efforts, however, were not effective in preventing the

subsequent slaughter of the horses. For example, in November 1987, the

son of a Watford City, North Dakota, fee-waiver agent (who kept the

112 wild horses on his ranch) was quoted in North Dakota papers that

he planned to turn at least 72 “. . . into dog food . . . or make steak for

Europeans.” In response,

BLM

initially planned to deny the agent titles,

but after the agent disassociated himself from his son’s statements,

BLM

issued the titles in July 1988. An inspection official and a buyer for a

Canadian slaughterhouse stated that the agent and/or his son sold at

least 82 of the horses for slaughter by the fall of 1988.

In another instance,

BLM

learned through bankruptcy court proceedings

that a fee-waiver agent in Berthold, North Dakota, intended to sell 296

“Animal Protection Institute of America v. Hodel(671 F. Supp. 695 D. Nev., 1987). This ruling was

upheld on appeal from BLM (U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, October 31, 1988).

Page 31 GAO/RCED-30-110 Rangeland Management

Chapter 3

Fee-Waiver Adoptions Led to Inhumane

Treatment and Commercial Exploitation

wild horses. When faced with the possible denial of titles, the agent

wrote

BLM

stating his intent to use the herd for breeding purposes. How-

ever, court records that we obtained from

BLM

files indicate that as late

as December 1987 he intended to sell the horses to slaughter to produce

$150,000 in income during 1988 and 1989. In March 1988,

BLM'S

district

manager concluded that there was no evidence that the agent intended

to sell the horses for slaughter. After the agent obtained the titles in

May 1988, he sold at least 122 of the horses for slaughter during the

subsequent 8 months.

Two other cases involved a fee-waiver agent in Morrison, Oklahoma, and

a Native American tribe in South Dakota. During September through

November 1988, we obtained testimonial evidence corroborated by

copies of titles from slaughterhouses, buyers, and brand inspection offi-

cials that these agents had sold about 678 wild horses for slaughter and

had 394 untitled horses remaining in their custody. We provided this

information to

BLM.

However,

BLM

subsequently issued titles on 385 of

these horses between December 1988 and July 1989. Through April

1989, at least 234 of these horses were sold and slaughtered.

Before issuing titles to the agent in Morrison, Oklahoma, Interior’s Asso-

ciate Solicitor for Energy and Resources wrote him on behalf of

BLM

in

December 1988 asking him to inform

BLM

concerning what he intended

to do with the horses after receiving title. The agent wrote

BLM

in Jan-

uary 1989 that he did “. . . not intend to use or exploit said horses for

commercial purposes,” but would market them for personal or ranch

use. However, 7 days after

BLM

issued the titles on February 17, 1989,

the agent sold about 140 of the horses to a slaughterhouse. An official

from the slaughterhouse contacted us on March 2, 1989, expressing con-

cern over the purchase of these horses (which were at the plant, but still

alive). We notified

BLM

and they conducted a second investigation.

BLM

directed the plant to proceed with the slaughter of the horses on March

13,1989, because, according to

BLM

and Interior officials, the agent did

not criminally intend to misrepresent his plans in his letter.

BLM

decided to issue the titles to the Native American tribe in South

Dakota because the names of tribal members that appeared on the titles

we obtained from the slaughterhouses did not match the names of tribal

members with untitled horses.

BLM

officials also told us that there was

no power-of-attorney relationship between the tribal members with

untitled horses and the tribal government or another tribal member

under contract with

BLM

to perform certain duties relating to the wild

horses (and who had sold them for slaughter). In December 1988,

BLM

Page 32 GAO/RCED-90-110 Rangeland Management

Chapter 3

Fee-Waiver Adoptiona Led to Inhumane

Treatment and fhnmercial Exploitation

issued title to the horses, at least 101 of which were slaughtered within

3 weeks.

Conclusions

The fee-waiver adoption program resulted in the abuse and commercial

exploitation of thousands of wild horses, contrary to

BLM'S

legislative

direction. Recognizing the problems and in the face of considerable criti-

cism from the Congress and the public,

BLM

terminated this program in

1988 without rescinding the regulations. By its very design and con-

firmed in practice, this program could have only led to the results it

experienced. If this program was reinstituted, we do not believe

BLM

could prevent identified abuses from happening in the future.

Recommendation to

the Secretary of the

Interior

To significantly reduce the likelihood that wild horses removed from

public rangeland in the future will experience inhumane treatment and

slaughter, we recommend that the Secretary of the Interior direct the

Director of

BLM

to permanently rescind the regulations authorizing fee-

waiver adoptions.

Agency Comments and

BLM

agrees with the objective of this recommendation, but prefers not to

GAO Response

rescind authority to waive the adoption fee. Instead,

BLM

published a

proposed rulemaking in February 1990 to prohibit the use of power-of-

attorney to adopt wild horses and burros where more than four will be

maintained in one location.

BLhI

notes that the problems with fee-waiver adoptions stemmed less

from the waiver of the fee but from the large numbers of horses con-

trolled by one person. Depending on the market,

BLM

notes that even a

person who paid the full adoption fee could profit after a year of caring

for many wild horses. To significantly reduce the profit motive,

BLM'S

proposed rulemaking should make it extremely difficult, if not impos-

sible, for one person to gain control of a large group of wild horses.

BLM

wants to retain authority to waive the adoption fee in special situations,

such as to place older or unsound wild horses and burros with humane

groups willing to care for them. We believe

BLM'S

proposed approach, if

finalized, would respond substantively to the thrust of our

recommendation.

Page 33 GAO/RCED-90-110 Rangeland Management

Chapter 4

Continuing Problems With Wild Horse

Disposal Activities

Although the troubled fee-waiver adoption program has been termi-

nated, problems with

BLM'S

other disposal approaches remain.

BLM'S

wild

horse sanctuaries are likely to be much more expensive than originally

envisioned and may represent only a temporary solution to the disposal

of unadoptable horses. Further,

BLM’S

prison halter training program has

produced questionable results and needs to be revised to improve its

cost-effectiveness. If horse removals above levels that can be handled by

private adoptions are reinstituted, other disposal options will have to be

considered.

Sanctuaries More

According to

BIN,

about 20 percent of the wild horses removed from the

Costly Than Originally

range are unadoptable due to age or physical imperfections. With the

f

ee-waiver program no longer a viable option for disposing of these

Thought

horses,

BLM

authorized the creation of two private sanctuaries where

these horses could live out their lives in a natural setting off the public

rangelands. While properly run sanctuaries ensure that unadoptable

wild horses are protected and cared for, they are expensive. Further,

BLM

plans to finance sanctuaries for only their first 3 years, after which

they are expected to be financially self-supporting through fund-raising

and/or charitable donations. However, available information shows that

sanctuary operators may never be able to achieve anticipated financial

independence from

BLM,

requiring a long-term commitment of federal

resources.

Sanctuaries Provide

Humane Disposal of

Unadoptable Horses

The alternative of privately funded sanctuaries for maintaining

unadoptable wild horses was first proposed in 1986. With the suspen-

sion of the fee-waiver program, through which many unadoptable

horses were previously disposed,

BLM

became more interested in this

alternative and the first sanctuary was established in western South

Dakota in the summer of 1988. This sanctuary is to serve as a prototype

and is intended to encourage tourism and economic development in the

area as well as public understanding of

BLM'S

wild horse program.

Unlike the fee-waiver program,

BLM

will not issue titles on wild horses

placed on sanctuaries, thus they will never lose their protected status.

Moreover,

BLM

plans to monitor their care for as long as the horses

remain on a sanctuary. These attributes have generated significant con-

gressional interest, and the Congress directed

BLM

to develop guidelines

and establish additional sanctuaries in 1989.’

‘In October 1989 BLM started sending unadoptable wild horses to a second sanctuary in Oklahoma.

Page 34 GAO/RCED90-110 Rangeland Management

Chapter 4

Continuing Problema With Wild Horse

Disposal Activities

BLM’s Costs May Exceed

the Low Rate Now Being

Paid

Under a June 1988 memorandum of understanding,

BLM

agreed to pay

the nonprofit Institute of Range and the American Mustang

(IRAM)

that

runs the South Dakota sanctuary about $1 a day per horse or $602,250

yearly for the 1,650 horses to be maintained on the first sanctuary.” A

closer look, however, shows that this payment does not fully cover the

costs required to operate the sanctuary.

First, the $1 per day per horse was not based on an analysis of sanc-

tuary costs; rather, it was based on an assumption that sanctuary costs

would be less than the cost of maintaining a horse on a contract feed lot.

During the first year of the sanctuary’s operation, this assumption

proved to be conservative, and

IRAM

subsequently requested that the

rate be increased to $1.50 per horse per day, which would bring

BLM'S

yearly payment to over $900,000. During the first year

BLM

also paid for

some additional expenses incurred. For example,

BLM

paid $9,000 for

emergency veterinary treatment to control an internal parasite out-

break, bought a squeeze chute for hoof trimming and worming which

cost $10,860, and paid $4,752 for supplemental feed for horses deliv-

ered in poor health.

IRAM

continued to request rate increases and addi-

tional payments from

BLM

as recently as November 1989. As of

February 1990,

BLM

plans to revise its agreement with

IRAM

to increase

the $1 a day fee to an effective payment of about $1.35, bringing the

annual payment to $883,000.

These additional costs incurred to date may presage even higher costs in

the future. In particular,

BLM

may have to routinely pay for supple-

mental feed for the horses because the land cannot support them. Much

of the land within the sanctuary is leased from the Rosebud Sioux tribe.

Under federal law, Interior’s Bureau of Indian Affairs is responsible for

establishing the land’s carrying capacity, and the agency’s March 1989

assessment concluded that the land could support only 824 horses for 7

months without supplemental feeding. Since

IRAM

has refused to accept

fewer horses, the future cost of providing supplemental feed may

increase substantially.

‘Under the memorandum of understanding, IRAM is designated as an agent for the state of South

Dakota which is identified as the provider of the sanctuary services. As of February 1990, the

capacity of the South Dakota sanctuary system is 1,800 horses.

Page 36

GAO/RCED&O-110 Rangeland Management

Chapter 4

Continuing Problems With Wild Iiorae

DIsposal Actlvitiee

Achieving Financial

Independence From BLM

May Never Be Possible

Although

BLM

expected each sanctuary to be financially self-supporting

in 3 years, this does not appear feasible at least for the prototype sanc-

tuary established in South Dakota. IRAM’S president stated that to be

self-sufficient, IRAM needed to raise $7.5 million. As of April 1989, how-

ever, IRAM had received less than $16,000 in individual donations and

did not have any corporate donors, which the president considered

essential to the sanctuary’s success.

The $16,000 is not enough to cover the principal and interest on a

$194,000 loan

IRAM

obtained to purchase private land within the sanc-

tuary, much less pay for the feeding and care of the horses and leasing

land from the Rosebud Sioux tribe.

IRAM

has also contracted to buy more

land within the sanctuary in 1991 at a cost of $1.4 million. If

IRAM’S

fund

raising is not successful,

BLM

will either have to assess the costs and

benefits to continue financing the sanctuary beyond the 3 years envi-

sioned or take back the horses.

Halter Training

BLM’S

efforts to increase the adoptability of wild horses by gentling them

Program Can Be Made

in several state prisons has also experienced difficulties. Potential

adopters generally prefer horses younger than 5 years of age because of

More Cost-Effective

the difficulty in changing the behavior of older horses. To increase their

adoptability,

BLM

has executed cooperative agreements with the New

Mexico and Colorado state prison agencies to have older horses (gener-

ally ranging in age from 6 to 9 years) gentled by inmates who halter

train them.3 However, because of inefficiencies built into the state pro-

grams, many of these horses remain at the prison facilities far longer

than necessary, increasing costs and resulting in lost adoption

opportunities.

BLM

has not established standards for either the length of time the

prisons should take to halter train a wild horse or for the number of

trained horses the facilities should produce for the adoption program.

Such standards would hold down costs for the program and assure an

orderly supply of horses to facilitate adoption planning. While no con-

tractual standard exists,

BLM'S

New Mexico and Colorado state offices

expect that 26 to 40 horses can be halter trained by each facility in 30 to

60 days. Our review showed that many horses remain at the prison

facilities far beyond 30 to 60 days.

“BLM has similar agreements with Wyoming and California state prison agencies.

Page 36

GAO/RCED-99-110 Rangeland Management

Chapter 4

Continuing Problems With Wild Home

Disposal Activities

For example, as of December 1988, the average length of stay at New

Mexico’s Los Lunas facility was over 5 months, with 13 percent of the

horses there for more than a year. Similarly, our examination of

BLM'S

records for 29 halter trained horses sent for adoption from Colorado’s

facility in February 1989 showed that the average length of stay was

over 9 months and that 10 horses had been at the facility for between 13

and 19 months.

Our review identified a variety of reasons why wild horses remain at

the prison facilities for extended periods of time. For example,

BLM'S

ear-

lier cooperative agreement with the state of New Mexico called for 30

inmates to be available daily to work the horses. However, at the time of

our visit early in 1989, there were only 10 to 12 inmates available to

train up to three horses each. At times there was only one professional

trainer to supervise the halter training by the inmates and to perform

other duties such as supervising the care of the horses at the facility and

construction work by the inmates. Moreover, in 1 year the state prison

agency had fired four employees hired to run the program for various

reasons, disrupting the pace if not the quality, of the training.

In late 1989,

BLM

and the state of New Mexico adopted a revised agree-

ment that stipulates that two horse trainers will be at each facility to

supervise training activities. However,

BLM'S

new agreement has weak-

ened the state’s obligation to supply inmates to actually train the horses.

Instead of the mandatory 30 inmates to work the horses on a daily basis,

the state is now required only to provide “as many inmates as possible”

to train horses. Further, no measurable goal for producing trained

horses is stated; rather the state is required to “attempt to produce the

maximum number of gentled and trained horses as their resources can

support,”

In Colorado, where 30 inmates were available to train the horses, some

horses languished for over a year because

BLM

had no way of tracking

their progress. We brought this problem to

BLM'S

attention, and in

August 1989

BLM'S

Colorado State Director informed us that they had

inventoried all horses at the facility and that each was being individu-

ally tracked for training and care.

Although the reasons varied between the two states, we believe that

provisions in earlier cooperative agreements created an incentive to

keep the horses at the facilities for as long as possible. Although

BLM

eliminated obvious incentives in the revised agreements, the condition

remains that

BLM

will pay each state on a per-day basis for each horse

Page 37

GAO/RCED-90-110 Rangeland Management

Chapter 4

Continuing Problems With Wild Horse

Diepoeal Activities

regardless of how long the horses remain at a facility since the states

are not required to process trained horses in a defined time period. In

Colorado, even after the agreement was revised, the state continued to

press for more horses in order to improve their revenues and provide

opportunities for the inmates.

The inability to halter train the horses in a timely manner has also

apparently resulted in lost adoption opportunities. According to adop-

tion staff in

BLM'S

Eastern States Office, to meet popular demand, many

more halter trained horses are needed each month adoptions are held;

however, they have not been able to obtain enough trained horses from

the prison programs.

In New Mexico, until October 1989

BLM

also guaranteed the state that

the average actual number of horses available to be halter trained would

not fall below 400 in any given month.

BLM

would pay the state $2 a day

or about $60 a month for each vacant slot below the 400 horse min-

imum. For example, if the average actual number of horses for a given

month was 300 or 100 short of the 400 horse minimum,

BLM

would pay

the state about $6,000 ($60 times the 100 horse shortfall).

BLM

sent hun-

dreds of horses younger than 4 years and older than 6 years to be halter

trained.

BLM'S

rule of thumb would indicate that the younger horses

would be adopted without incurring the cost of halter training while the

older horses would be destined for sanctuaries regardless of whether

they have been halter trained. Sending horses to the prison facilities

that were either too young or too old to have their adoptability

increased by such training unnecessarily drove up program costs.

In addition to containing costs,

BLM

must take steps to assure that the

horses are properly trained.

BLM

has not established agencywide criteria

by which a horse can be determined to be halter trained or a strategy for

ensuring compliance, choosing instead to leave both to the individual

BLM

state offices.

New Mexico defines a halter trained horse as one in good condition and,

without resistance, can be approached and haltered, led with a rope,

have its legs lifted for cleaning and hoof trimming, and groomed. Before

a horse is released for adoption, both the trainer and a

BLM

inspector

must certify that it meets this standard. Colorado’s training manual

states only that a completely halter trained horse is one that can be

haltered and led without resistance. While the trainer says that he

assures that horses are adequately trained before being released for

adoption,

BLM'S

Colorado State Office makes no such determination.

Page 38

GAO/RCED-90-110 Rangeland Management

Chapter 4

Continuing problemm With Wild HOIT@

Disposal

Activities

Although difficult to quantify,

BLM

adoption staff in the Eastern states

perceive the quality of halter trained horses from New Mexico to be

better than the quality of horses trained in Colorado.

BLM’S

Eastern

States Office stated that, although showing improved behavior, some

horses from the Colorado facility were not gentle enough to be consid-

ered halter trained.

Inconsistencies in the degree of training and oversight by

BLM

could have

legal ramifications. Although no problems have occurred to date, a

BLM

consultant has noted that improved consistency and oversight could

reduce

BLM’S

vulnerability to liability suits by adopters who are injured

by wild horses presented by

BLM

as being halter trained.

Alternative Disposal

With

BLM’S

fee-waiver program terminated and the long-term financial

Options May Need to

viability of sanctuaries in doubt,

BLM

may have to consider other horse

disposal options in the future if its horse removals exceed the number

Be Considered

that have historically been disposed of through

BLM’S

Adopt-A-Horse

program-about 4,600 horses a year between 1982 and 1989. In this

connection,

BLM

is establishing an advisory board to examine a variety

of issues aimed at enhancing program effectiveness. As this advisory

board deliberates and develops its recommendations, it would be appro-

priate for

BLM

to have it examine the relative merits of several disposal

options not currently in place.

One alternative would be to hold unadoptable wild horses long enough

to sterilize and mark them (with brands or other techniques so they

would not have to be rounded-up in the future) before returning them to

their herd areas. In the past,

BLM

has cited a 1982 report by the National

Academy of Sciences as basis for its conclusion that returning unadopt-

able wild horses to existing herd areas is not consistent with the “min-

imum feasible level” of management called for in the wild horse act4

However, in its fiscal year 1991 budget justification

BLM

states that,

depending on ongoing research outcomes, sterilization may be worth

considering. This alternative may be the most cost-effective alternative

to sanctuaries if existing sanctuaries fail to reach financial self-suffi-

ciency after 3 years. In the near future,

BLM

may have to assess the rela-

tive costs and benefits of continuing to pay the sanctuaries to keep the

horses or sterilizing and returning the horses to the range.

qWild and Free-Roaming Horses and Burros-Final Report of the Committee on Wild and Free-

Roaming Horses and Burros, Board on Agriculture and Renewable Resources, National Research

Council, National Academy Press, 1982.

Page 39 GAO/RCED-90-110 Rangeland Management

Chapter 4

Continuing Problems With Wild Horse

Dleposal Activities

The wild horse act also authorizes euthanasia of healthy wild horses if

necessary to protect the range from overgrazing. This practice has sub-

sequently been banned by annual appropriations language and has

never been used. While currently banned, euthanasia nonetheless consti-

tutes an option that could be reauthorized in the future and, therefore,

should appropriately be examined as a measure of last resort.

Conclusions

Problems with existing horse disposal options need to be addressed.

With respect to

BLM'S

halter training program, controls need to be put in

place to ensure that only horses at trainable ages enter the training

facilities and that horses remain in these facilities no longer than neces-

sary. To do this,

BLM

needs to establish an average length of time

required to halter train a wild horse and adhere to an age range for

horses best suited for halter training. Payments to the states should be

limited to only those horses that meet both these criteria. Adoptable

younger horses should be sent directly to adoption.

BLM

also must take steps to assure that horses offered for adoption are

properly halter trained. To accomplish this, we believe a standard for

determining that a horse has been halter trained as well as an inspection

strategy to ensure that the standard is met would assist

BLM

in ensuring

that a horse is properly trained before it is offered for adoption.

Finally, while private sanctuaries offer humane disposal of unadoptable

horses, rising costs and the probable need for a long-term commitment

of federal resources will require

BLM

to seek alternative disposal options

for unadoptable wild horses removed from public rangeland. In this

respect, several options including those allowed under current law (such

as sterilization) and others

that

would require legislative action

(including euthanasia) have been proposed but previously rejected for

various reasons. As the viability of existing disposal options comes into

question, it would be appropriate for

BLhI

to reconsider the merits of

these alternatives.

Recommendations to

To reduce the costs associated with disposing of wild horses removed

the Secretary of the

Interior

Y

from public rangelands, we recommend that the Secretary of the Interior

direct

the

Director of

BLM

to (1) establish an average length of time

required to halter train a wild horse and an age range for horses best

suited to be halter trained, and limit payment to the states to only those

horses that meet both these criteria; (2) develop a standard for deter-

mining that a horse has been halter trained as well as an inspection

Page 40

GAO/RCED-90-110 Rangeland Management

Chapter 4

Continuing Problems With Wild Horse

Disposal Activities

strategy to ensure that the standard is met before offering a horse for

adoption; (3) send adoptable younger horses directly to adoption instead

of sending them to prison facilities for training; and (4) consider a

variety of disposal options for unadoptable horses not currently being

used and, where necessary, make recommendations for congressional

consideration.

Agency Comments and

HL,M agrees with our recommendations and has taken various actions to

GAO Response

implement them. Regarding the first and third recommendations,

BLM

is

developing bureauwide guidance on prison training facility operations.

The guidance will establish a desired training method for all facilities

and estimate the period of time to train the wild horses.

BLM

also issued

instructions in February 1990 to classify 6- to g-year old horses for

training. Younger horses are to be sent directly for adoption unless tem-

porary holding at prison facilities is cost-effective. The prisons will not

halter-train younger horses and will charge

BLM

only for feed and daily

maintenance. We believe these actions are responsive to our first and

third recommendations.

BLM

also agrees with the second recommendation. Consistent standards

for assuring the quality of halter training were adopted in the fall of

1989 for the Colorado and New Mexico facilities. Once similar standards

are applied to the Wyoming and California facilities, we believe

BLM

will

have fully responded to our recommendation.

Finally,

BLM

agrees with the fourth recommendation and expects to

explore disposal options for unadoptable wild horses when the wild

horse and burro advisory board convenes, as expected, in 1990.

BLM

believes that euthanasia is not an option worth considering in light of

past history and public reaction opposing it. We concur with

BLM'S

deci-

sion pending the board’s recommendations.

Page 41

GAO/RCED-SO-110 Rangeland Management

Appendix I

Comments From the Department of the Interior

Note: GAO comments

supplementing those in the

report text appear at the

end of this appendix.

United States Department of the Interior

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240

MAY 0 3 1990

Mr. James Duffus III

Director,

Natural Resources Management Issues

Resources, Community, and Economic

Development Division

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C.

20540

Dear Mr. Duffus:

Thank you for your letter of March 26.

1990, providing the draft of the

proposed report entitled Rangeland Management:

Improvements Needed in

Federal Wild Horse Program (GAO/RCED-90-110). The Secretary has asked

us to respond.

The enclosed response was prepared by the Bureau of Land

Management (BLM). which is responsible for administration of

the wild horse program. As the response demonstrates, the BLM has

already taken or is initiating steps to remedy most of the problem

areas identified in the draft report.

While agreeing with many of the

report’s recommendations. BLM believes that it also reflects some common

misunderstandings about the program and has provided clarification on

these points under the heading “General Comments.”

The Department of the Interior is committed to administering the

Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act humanely and efficiently.

The

recommendations in this audit will help us to meet that commitment

more effectively in the future. If you have any questions about the

response to the draft audit, please call Mr. John S. Boyles, Chief of

BLM’s Division of Wild Horses and Burros, at 653-9215.

&RUW

siatant

Y

Secretary - IL3 nd and

Minerals Management

Enclosure

Page 42

GAO/RCED-90-110 Rangeland Management

Appendix I

Comments From the Department of

the Interior

Now on p, 27.

Seep 27.

Now on p. 27.

See p, 27.

The Bureau of Land Management's Response to

Rangeland Management: Improvements Needed in Federal Wild Horse Program

(GAO/RCED-90-110)

The General Accounting Office (GAO) recommendations to the Secretary of

the Interior are underlined below.

Each recommendation is followed by the

rasponse of the Bureau of land Management (BLM).

horae. (p.

32)

We agree that the carrying capacity and range condition of herd areas

should be established expeditiously.

A recent ruling by the Interior

Board of Land Appeals (IBLA) confirms animals should be removed whenever

current resource data shows that the present level of animals is

inconsistent with attainment or maintenance of "a thriving natural

ecological balance"

as required by the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro

Act (Act). The BUi recognizes the need to accelerate efforts to collect

current resource data. Where current data show that a thriving natural

ecological balance is being threatened or not being attained, excess

animals will be removed expeditiously.

In locutions

where this

data iW~ates

that OverPrazing

Eve wild horses and we the levels of authorized domestic livestock

rooortion to the wnt of forage each is cons- and the

wunt of t-0 each is caw. (pp. 32-33)

We agree that overall forage usage within a herd area should not

exceed the level of forage production that can be sustained. However,

we disagree with the implication that adjustments depend solely on

carrying capacity data and that they

must

be carried out proportionately.

There are other reasons requiring removal of wild horses or burros

even when carrying capacity information is not available or there is no

overgrazing.

The Act, for example,

requires removal of wild horses and

burros from private lands when the landowner requests it. Because of

several challenges to actions by the BlM over the years, judicial and

administrative decisions have established additional removal criteria.

Reasons for removals not based on a

"thriving natural ecological balance"

include:

(1) Animals expand outside herd area boundaries.

(2) Animals stray onto private lands and removal is requested by

the landowner.

(3) Animals lives are endangered by an emergency, e.g., drought,

disease, etc.

(4) Animals are part of a research program.

(5) Animals must be removed pursuant to a court order.

(6) Animals must be removed because of overriding provisions in

other legislation,

e.g., the Endangered Species Act.

Page 43

GAO/RCED-90-110 Rangeland Management

Appendix I

Canmenta FYom the Department of

the Interior

In the future we expect that factors such as the Endangered Species Act

will require removal of animals even when there is no overgrazing as the

term is normally used.

Removals will continue on a significant number of

herd areas for the reasons listed above irrespective of whether the

carrying capacity has been established.

For purposes of our comments,

removal and adjustment only refer

to situations where the appropriate management level (AML) is to be

changed. We will exclude from consideration removal of wild horses

done solely for the purpose of removing the excess animals due to herd

growth caused by reproduction. While both situations require removal of

animals,

making adjustments in the number of animals to achieve a new ARL

will likely require a revision or amendment of land use plans. Removal

of animals to reduce the population to a previously determined AML

only requires data to show that the number of animals on an area is

inconsistent with maintaining a thriving natural ecological balance.

We also disagree with the recommendation that adjustments in use

be made in proportion to the forage each is consuming and the amount

of damage each is causing. In most herd areas, livestock, wildlife,

and wild horses and burros use the same areas, often during the same

seasons. With a livestock/wild horse diet similarity of over 90 percent,

it is impossible in most areas to determine which animal is overgrazing

or causing the "damage."

Almost always, damage is the result of the

combined effect of all of the grazing species on an area.

If reducing

the grazing use were the only or preferable tool for undoing the damage,

then a proportionate reduction would probably succeed.

Often, however, less drastic tools

may

be employed to accomplish

resource improvement.

In most cases, the BIN attempts to determine what

resource conditions are deficient and what grazing impacts are causing

these conditions.

If the condition is caused by one species, as is

sometimes the case, management actions are developed to correct this

condition. For instance, if on a herd area the primary forage species

are deteriorating due to moderate overgrazing caused mostly by livestock,

installation of range improvements, a change in grazing season, or

installation of a grazing system which provides for periodic rest from

grazing may be sufficient to improve the forage conditions. The same

remedial actions in an area grazed only by horses or wildlife would be

precluded because of statutory and practical problems.

In these areas,

reducing the number of animals allowed to graze may be the only option.

Unfortunately, many of the management options available for

addressing livestock grazing problems are not appropriate or

practical for addressing wildlife and wild horse and burro areas.

As a result, on areaa with both livestock and wild horses, a combination

of the actions involving initiation of grazing systems and range

improvements would be proposed to improve conditions in areas used by

livestock and a reduction in numbers in areas used by wild horses. In

this situation, a proportionate adjustment would not be necessary or

appropriate.

2

Page 44

GAO/RCED90-110EangelandManagement

Appendix I

Chmmenta From the Department of

the Interior

Now on p 27

See p. 27.

Now on p. 33

See p, 33.

3

Because of the variety of situations found on the public lands, we

cannot

support adjustment in levels of use made strictly in proportion to

the amount of forage consumed and the amount of range damage each species

is causing.

However, we are committed to improving

resource

conditions

where needed.

To this end, the BUl will continue to

use

the land use

planning and public input

process

as outlined in the Federal Land Policy

and Management Act of 1976 for apportioning forage and to assure that

subsequent management actions are practical and effective in solving

local resource problems.

We believe that this response is sufficient to close out this

recommendation.

conducf

livestock m

the lend. (p. 33)

The BlM concurs with this recommendation. Where grazing use

by livestock, wildlife, and wild horses and burros is inconsistent

with land use plans or will prevent attainment of “a thriving natural

ecological balance,” the BLM will make changes in grazing use. In

furtherance of this commitment, we intend to place increased emphasis

on resource monitoring and completion of herd management area plans.

Depending on budget levels, this may require a shifting of resources

from other parts

of

the program.

(P. 40)

fee wai - v er a&&&lS.

We agree with the objective of this recommendation, which is to

“significantly reduce the likelihood that wild horses removed from

public rangeland in the future will experience inhumane treatment and

slaughter”;

however, we are taking steps to achieve the objective through

a different approach.

A proposed rulemaking to revise the existing regulation on “Supporting

information and certification for private maintenance of more than 4 wild

horses or burros” was published in the Federal Benistsr on February 6,

1990 (55 FR 3989).

This rulemaking will prohibit the use of power of

attorney to adopt wild horses or burros when the adoption will result

in the maintenance of more than 4 untitled wild horses or burros in one

location. The section of the rules being revised (Section 4750.3-3)

regulates approval of adoption applications where the applicant requests

to adopt more than 4 animals per year or where more than 4 untitled

adopted wild horses or burros are to be maintained in one location.

The purpose of the rulemaking is to prohibit an individual from gaining

control of more than 4 wild horses or burros by using one or

more

powers

of

attorney.

Two comments were received on the proposed rulemaking, both

favorable.

The BUI expects this rulemaking to become final before the

end of Fiscal Year (FY) 1990.

Page 45 GAO/RCED-90-110 Rangeland Management

Appendix I

Comments

From

the Department of

the Interior

Now on

p.

40.

seep.

41.

4

Most of the problems with fee waiver adoptions stemmed not so much

from the waiver of the fee but from the large numbers of animals

controlled by a single individual.

Even at full fee, an individual

gaining control of many wild horses could possibly make a profit after a

year of care, depending on

the

market. By making it extremely difficult,

if not impossible, for one individual to gain control of a large group of

wild horses,

the proposed rulemaking significantly reduces

the

profit

motive for adoption.

The BIM prefers not to rescind the regulation authorizing the

Director to waive the adoption fee.

Even though fee waivers have

bean terminated by BIM and prohibited in the FY 1990 Appropriations Act,

it ia conceivable that at some future date the use of the fee waiver

could be consistent with the objective of placing wild horses and burros

in appropriate private care. For example, there could be situations where

the Government might have a need for adopters for older or unsound wild

horses and a wild horse or humane group might be willing to provide homes

for the animals. Waiving the fee in such circumstances could be

beneficial for the Government and for the animals.

We believe that publication of the final rulemaking will be sufficient to

close out this recommendation.

oriteria. (P. 50)

We agree with this recommendation and are working toward implementing

it.

The BlM’s FY 1990 Annual Work Plan assigned

the

New Mexico State

Office the lead role in developing Bureauwide guidance for operation of

prison training facilities and a training course for prison facility

horse trainers.

The desired training method to be implemented at all

prison facilities will be established and also the estimated period of

time to train the animal.

The BlM’s Washington Office Instruction

Memorandum No. 90-307 dated February 1, 1990, established the policy

for classifying excess wild horses into

three

categories. Horses in the

age group

of

5 through

9 years old are classified for the prison training

program.

Horses on either side of this age spread will be shipped to an

adoption center or to a sanctuary.

However, since the holding facility

in Bloomfield, Nebraska, closed early in FY 1990, we anticipate the need

to hold

some

of these horses temporarily at the prisons. We will only

be charged

for the feed consumed and a daily maintenance cost for each

animal maintained but not trained.

Page 40 GAO/RCED-90-110 Rangeland Management

Appendix I

Canmenta From the Department of

the Interior

Nowon p.40.

See p.41.

Nowon p.41

See p.41.

Y

5

(2)

.LRLweloD a *tandard for deternininn a hm

as e to a that the standard

fore y. (pp. 50-51)

We agree with this recommendation.

This topic was discussed at the BIM

Wild Horse and Burro Workshop in Albuquerque, New Mexico, April 4-7,

1989. As a result, both the

New

Mexico and Colorado State Offices

included similar requirements in amendments

of

the Cooperative Agreements

with both States. In order for the BIM to accept a horse as halter

trained, the following requirements must be met:

(a) The trainer is able to walk up to and halter the horse in a pen,

with the horse remaining calm and offering limited avoidance.

(b) The horse can be led with slack in the lead rope.

(c) The trainer is able to pick up all four feet without significant

resistance. Hooves can be cleaned and trimmed.

(d) The trainer is able to comb and brush the horse on the body, legs,

and neck without significant resistance.

Both a BIM and a State prison employee will sign the training

certification. These requirements are contained in an Amendment with the

New Mexico prison system dated September 26, 1989, and Modification 04

with the Colorado prison dated November 30, 1989. These changes postdate

the information in the last paragraph on page 47 of the draft audit

report. Although we do not yet have a Bureauwide policy in effect,

New

Mexico and Colorado prisons now have consistent training standards

and inspection certification.

J3)

lslendy to adoDtionead of

for m. (p. 51)

We agree with this recommendation. As indicated previously, Instruction

Memorandum No. 90-307, dated February 1, 1990, established policy for

classification of excess wild horses and burros. The age group of

horses to be

sent

directly to adoptions is weaned horses through the age

of 4. Horses age 5-9 go to the prisons for training. The Instruction

Memorandum also gave the preparation facilities the option to send horses

under the age of 5 to the prison to be held until an adoption event, if

space is available and it is cost-effective. The prisons will not halter

train these younger horses;

they will be held and BIM charged for the feed

consumed and for daily maintenance. The New Mexico and Colorado prisons

charge a separate fee for each halter trained horse.

We believe that this response is sufficient to close out this

recommendation.

Page 47

GAO/RCED-90-110 Rangeland Management

Appendix I

Comments From the Department of

the Interior

Nowonp.41.

Seep. 41.

Nowon p.40.

6

(4)

lClPnsider a v- for m

connressional. (P.

51)

We agree with this recommendation. Many alternatives are being

explored for the unadoptable horses--such as selective removals,

fertility control methods,

and use by underdeveloped countries.

In a

selective removal of excess animals, unsound horses and those 10 years

of age and older are released back on the range.

This approach can

also be combined with fertility control treatments to reduce the rate of

population growth of the free-roaming herds, The BLM believes that these

management practices hold promise for reducing or eliminating the number

of unadoptable wild horses removed from the range.

Of course, the E&M

will pay close attention to the effect

of

selective removals and

fertility control on herd structure and population dynamics.

On page 50,

GAO

states that "it would be appropriate for BIN to

reconsider the merits of [sterilization and euthanasia]." Despite the

provision in the Act for humane destruction of excess wild horses and

burros for which there is no adoption demand by qualified individuals, we

believe that past history and public reaction preclude euthanasia as an

alternative worth considering.

The Wild Horse and Burro Advisory Board, which should be reestablished

by the end of this fiscal year,

will undoubtedly explore the subject of

unadoptable horses.

The BIH will wait for the Board's advice before

considering any recommendations for congressional action.

Page 48

GAO/RCED-90-110 Rangeland Management

Appendix I

Commenta From the Department of

the Interior

See p. 2

See comment 1

Now on p, 3.

See comment 2

7

In addition to responding to the CAO'# rpocific rocoarend&tiona, the BU4

believes that some correction8 or clarifications

in

other part8 of the

text would be helpful.

Problem areaa from the text are underlined below,

followed by BLM'# position or ruggested chenges.

1. n

more. (P. 1)

Removals

of

wild horror rinoe

the

boginning

of

the pro&rem total

ebout 100,000.

2. Thit

or w to lonp

.

for

-

,

* (P* 2)

On pago 2 and elmewhero,

the

report refera to “commrcini

exploit&ion"

of

wild

horros

adopted via the fee waiver program.

The meaning

of

the phrero ir quite oleer in the oontext

of

the

report, i.e.,

sale for sleughtor of wild horsor

rftor

title wa#

conveyed to the adopterr by the United

Stetm.

However, the u*o of

this phrrse in this aenre ten be somewhat confueing eince %ommercial

exploitation" h&a A different meaning ee defined in &LM’e wild horeo

regulationa at 43 CFR 4700:

"Cc)

wCommercial oxploitatiotV means using a wild horae or

burro because of it8 characterirticr of wildnera for direct or

indirect financial gain.

Characteri#tica

of

wildness include

the rebellious and feisty neturo of ruch animal8 and their

defiance of man ea exhibited in their undomorticatod and untamed

8tAts.

Use as maddle or pack rtock and other ura4 that require

domestication of

the

animel &to not commercial exploitation of

the animals boceume

of

their cheractorirtica

of

wildnoao."

The regulatory definition of commercial exploitation applioe to

animals considered wild

homer

and burros undor the Wild Free-Roaming

Horse and Burro Act,

not

to titled aninalr, which according to tho

Act 1088 their

l

tetua

AI

wild horres end burroe.

A 1987 court ruling enjoined BIH

from

trenaforring titlo to

adoptod animalr in

ca&e8

where tha adopter haa it any timo oxprersod

an intent to UIO the l niaal

for

commercial purpomen after the paesago

of title.

Elrewhoro in tho

court

decirion, the expression "put to

commerciel use" appears.

Soveral other variatione on there

phrases

are used in the

court

ruling,

including "commercially exploited."

The court doe4 not define what is meant by the phrase "commeroirl

purposee" or my of tho other phreses containing the word

ncommerciel.~

In an adoption hendbook releared in December 1989, BIM definea

commercial purpoeer aa followr:

Page 49

GAO/lUXD-90.110 Rangebnd

Management

Appendix I

Comments F’rom the Department of

the Interior

Now on p. 24.

See comment 3.

Now on p, 8.

See comment 4.

Y

Commercial purposes include slaughtering the animal or selling

it for slaughter and using a wild horse or burro because of its

characteristics of wildness for direct or indirect financial gain.

When the GAO report uses “commercial exploitation,” it is actually

referring to sale of wild horses after titling.

For clarity, the BIH

suggests that the GAO usa the language of the court ruling, that is,

“commercial purposes.”

3. Domestic of about 4.2 mm the 42.004

9.. . ,. (p.2)

While we do not disagree with these figures, their uaage certainly

gives A mis-impression of the actual relationship between the

number of livestock and wild horse and burro numbers on the public

lands.

By law, wild horses are limited to the nreas where they

existed in 1971 (about 34 million acres of BIN-administered land).

The 4.2 million livestock cited are found on 170 million acres of

rangeland.

A more valid comparison between these species would compare forage

consumption only on herd management areas where both types of animals

occur. When considering these nraas, the relative difference in

livestock and wild horse use is not nearly so disproportionate.

For instance,

in Nevada which has almost 75 percent of the wild

horses, an estimated 40 percent of the total forage available for

wild horses and livestock in herd wrens is used by wild horses.

The remaining 60 percent is used by livestock.

(See analysis in

Attachment 1.)

4. w on the western we nre descded frv

Jo the North American by S~anieh in thk

16th (P. 8)

This statement reflects a popular sentiment but one that does not

accord with the conclusions of the scientific community.

See quotes

below:

“Contemporary North American wild horses are variously claimed,

depending on the claimant and the locale, to be the wild-mustang

descendants of domestic horses introduced by the Spaniards in the

sixteenth century, or of miscellaneous cavalry mounts, work

horses, and saddle animala escaped or abandoned

more

recently.”

(National Research Council, m

&Eree-RoaminnHoraesand

1982)

“Dendrograms constructed using pairwise comparisons of

Nel’s

distance measurements (D) for the domestic breeds and

the wild horse populations substantiate anecdotal accounts of the

origins of Great Basin horses from draft horses, saddle horses of

American breed origin and Spanish Barbs.”

(Ann T. Bowling, u

me Paw and

POD-

Gene- Final Research Report to

United States Department of the Interlo;,

Bureau of Land

Management, January 15, 1988, p. 11.)

Page SO

GAO/RCED-90-110 Rangeland Management

Appendix I

Commenti From the Department of

the Interior

Nowonp. 11.

See comment 5

Now on p. 12.

See comment 6

Now on p, 19.

See comment 7.

Now on p, 21.

See comment 8.

9

The BLN suggests rewording the GAO statement along the lines of the

sentences below:

Spanish explorers brought horses to the North American continent

in the 16th century. Early horse herds on the western range were

composed of horses escaped from or released by the Spanish or

Indians who had acquired

horses.

5. -5. the Congress accew the removal of wild

and &ros fm. (p. 12)

The BIM suggests that the word “authorized” be replaced with

“directed.” The President’s budget submitted to Congress for

FY 1985 requested $5.08 million for the wild horse and burro

program and proposed the removal of lass than 6,000 animals.

Congress increased the funding by $11 million and directed BU4

to remove 17,142 excess animals.

6. In 145 full-eimevees wmoved to carry

& the wild horse mburrp orogEgg in BLh headauarters and field

affices. (P. 13)

We suggest rewording as follows:

In FY 1990, 145 full time equivalents were expected to be

available to carry out the wild horse and burro program in

ELM headquarters and Field Offices. A full time equivalent

is one person working for a year. The actual number of employees

working in the program is considerably larger because the

majority of employees in the wild horse and burro program

also work in one or more other program areas.

7.

Toj,rfreatmentes waved from the rau

adootion

DT~.

(p. 22)

The BLM believes that by focusing on the fee-waiver program, GAO only

evaluated the treatment of wild horses adopted under fee waivers. The

treatment of excess horses placed through this segment of the adoption

program is not necessarily indicative of the treatment of all excess

wild horses.

About three-quarters of all wild horses removed from

public lands were placed in private care without fee waivers.

8.

aected eithklL the desire to

achh

This statement reveals a misunderstanding of how BlH arrives at

appropriate management levels (AML’s) and, subsequently, the decision

to remove excess animals. The BLM uses the land

use

planning process

to arrive at AML’s for individual herd management areas. Advisory

groups

“largely comprised of livestock permittees” are certainly among

the many groups consulted as part of the planning process.

Page 51

GAO/RCED-90-110 Rangeland Management

AppendLx I

Chnments From the Department of

the Interior

Now on p. 21.

See comment 9.

Now on p. 22.

See comment 10.

Y

9.

10

However,

to intimate

that

theirs is the only voice heard is to

misrepresent how the process works.

There are numerous opportunities

for public input provided prior to final decisions, and wild horse

interest groups--along with other affected interests--routinely

participate in the planning process. Provisions for public

participation are contained in BLM’s planning regulations

at 43 CFR 1610.2.

The BIM has no desire to achieve perceived historic levels, but is

instead committed to managing appropriate numbers as identified

through the planning process. Nonetheless, there are sound reasons

why the planning process could not be expected to arrive at a number

many

times larger than the population that existed in 1971. The Act

prohibits the BU4 from managing wild horses in areas where they did

not exist in 1971. Wild horses, like most wildlife specier, expand

their ranges when populations increase. Because of this natural

phenomenon and the prohibition on management of the animals outside

their 1971 areas, it is not legally possible to manage a total

population

much

greater than the population that existed in 1971.

The

Act

also requires removal of wild horses from private lands

when the private landowner requests it. Many of the herd areas in

existence in 1971 have private water sources or contain significant

tracts of intermingled private lands. Private landowners have asked

the BIM to removal wild horses

or

burros from many

of

the these

tracts. Under these circumstances, it is not possible to manage

populations of wild horses or burros; accordingly, the land use plans

required removal

of

all of the wild horses or burros from a number of

herd areas.

m. (P. 25)

to cm

The BIN would add that removal

of

“lesr than is warranted by range

conditions”

also increases Federal expenditures because future

removals and management costs will be greater as a result of

increased population and high rates of reproduction.

in -vine m

for

u

is gan\ann bv sneciak. (p.

25)

We

agree

distinguishing among forage consumption by species

(wild horsea, livestock, and wildlife) is difficult, particularly

when all species use the same area and during the same periods of

the year.

Distinguishing use between livestock and wild horses in

most situations is virtually impossible because of similar diets,

dentition, and grazing methods. However, we disagree that this

problem necessarily creates difficulty in establishing a carrying

capacity.

Page 52 GAO/RCEMO-110 Rangeland Management

Appendix I

Comment6 From the Department of

the Interior

Now on p. 24.

See comment 11.

Now on p. 26.

See comment 12.

Now on p. 34.

See comment 13.

11

Over the years,

the BIN has used two different methods to determine

carrying capacity.

Because

of

the limitationa of a one-time survey

in establishing carrying capacitiar,

the BIN awitched several

yearn

ago to a policy of monitoring to establish carrying capacities. The

primary requirement under this approach ia maintenance of a fairly

stable and known level of grazing use.

Under those conditions,

monitoring the level (percent utilization of key forage clpeciee)

of grazing use by all apociem over a period of 3 to 5 years, it in

possible to determine whether

thb

overall level

of

grazing

use is

correct.

This information

can

aloo be used to ertablieh the total

amount

of the needed adjustment in une by all ungulates when use is

excessive or there is a rurplus.

However, those studios cannot be

used to dstermina how much each rpecios’ grazing use should be

adjuotod.

Adjumtmonts of uno on the public lands, particularly when those

uses involve a ro-allocation of resourcea, have a number of legal,

environmental, social, economic, and political impact*. The

evaluation

of

impacts and analyria of alternatives are quite

complicated and should be rubjoct to public scrutiny and comment.

Consequently, the allocation of forage among animal species is more

properly determined through the land use planning process.

11. EVEfhpr. we w not able to identifv

havs. (P. 28)

We queetion the GAO’s underlying assumption hero, that wild horse

removals ehould or must materially improve the areas where removals

occur. Normally wild horoe removala are only made to reestablish a

moderato level of grazing use. When this is the cape, although

the

annual utilization of forage species will be reduced, this reduction

will seldom result in a measurable improvement in range condition.

Measurable changes in range condition normally require 5 to 10 yoara.

12. m to a&g.$ out 6.100 u the w UD &~t 200 frpls

sctual. (P. 31)

Since 19S9 horse adoptions totaled 4,325, the target

of

6,100

for

FY 1990 is

an

increase of 1,775, not 200.

13. AccPrdinn to w 30 osrcent of the whoreseed froln

are mdur (p. 41)

This figure was adjurted downward to about 20 percent recently when

BIM expanded the age category

for

adoptable animals. Currently,

horses sent to

sanctuaries

on the basin of age must be 10 or older.

Page 63

GAO/RCED-90-110 Rangeland Management

Appendix I

Comments From the Department of

the Interior

Analysis of Forage Use by Livestock and Wild Horses

The GAO report indicates that 4.2 million domestic livestock vastly

outnumber the 42,000 wild horses currently on federal rangelandr. This

comparison implies that there is a drastic inbquity between the amount of

forage

and

reaourcas allocated to wild horses and burros ar compared to

livestock. Although these levels are set in land usb plans and arrived at with

considerable public input and analysis of the social, economic, political, and

environmental impacts, we understand that some

intorbatr

do

not agree

with the

allocation produced by this process.

However, the figures presented are an apples vs oranges comparison. The

area occupied by the 4.2 million livestock is many times larger than the area

legally available to WH&S's.

A more valid comparison can be obtained by using

data published in the FY 1989 Public Land Statistics and the lateet

census

data

for Nevada whore most of the wild

horses are

found.

Livestock Forage

Acrbage:

42,256,400 Acres

Livestock Forage Consumption (1989): 1,860,900 AUM's

Livestock Forage Consumption Rata:

Q.256.400 ~SXR~ - 24.3 acres/AUK

1,860,900

AUM’.s

Assuming the Livestock Forage Consumption Rate (24.3 acres/AUM) within herd

areas is the same as the statewide average, the livestock forage consumption

within herd areas can be calculated as follows:

* 14.131.299 - 581,530 AUM's livestock use

24.3 acres/AIR4

Note:

This calculation more than likely considerably overstates the

livestock usage within herd areas.

This

rate

of livestock use combined

with the WH&B usage would result in an average forage utilization of 14.6

acres/AUM within Nevada herd areas.

Wild Horse and Burro Acreage: 14,131,200 Acres

WH6R Forage Consumption (1989): 12 months X 32,067 animals - 384,800 AUM's

Using this data, a more valid comparison betwben livestock and wild horse and

burro use can be made on the areas where both are found.

Total Forage Consumption:

384,800 AlJM's + 581,530

AUM’s

- 966,330 AUM's

966.330 - 60% Livestock forage usage

581,530 livestock AUM's

966.330 total AUM'g - 40% M-l&B forage

usage

384,800 WH6B AUM's

* Acreage of herd areas designated for long-term management of Wti&S's (HMA's).

Attachment 1

Page 54

GAO/RCED-90-110 Rangeland Management

Appendix I

Canmente From the Department

of

the Interior

The following are

GAO'S

comments on the Department of the Interior’s

letter dated May 3, 1990.

GAO Comments

1.

BLM'S

report that 100,000 wild horses have been removed since the

program’s start in 1973 may overcount wild horse removals. In June

1989

BLM

told us that, due to poor recordkeeping in the early years, sep-

arate data on wild horse and burro removals were not available for

those years. Although using these data would add up to 100,000 animals

removed since 1973, an unknown number of wild burros is included for

1973-79. Wild horse removals between 1980 and 1989 total about

80,000. We changed the report to reflect the time period when specific

data exist on wild horse removals.

2. Phrases such as “commercially exploit” are widely used to concisely

describe selling a wild horse for slaughter. Contrary to

BLM'S

suggestion,

the 1987 court ruling frequently refers to commercial exploitation. Fur-

ther,

BLM

even used the phrase in its August 1987 instructions to field

offices regarding the court ruling (for example, “Withhold title in case

of any adopter who has expressed an intent to

BLM

to commercially

exploit the animal(s)“). For conciseness, we use “commercially exploit”

and similar phrases, rather than “commercial purposes.”

3. In citing the total numbers of wild horses and domestic livestock on

federal rangelands, we were not attempting to imply that wild horses

and domestic livestock share range resources throughout the West.

Instead, we cited the data to demonstrate that public lands overgrazing

cannot be fully addressed by concentrating exclusively on wild horses.

We agree that specific comparisons between wild horse and livestock

use can be made. However,

BLM

could not provide us such data specific

to the herd areas we examined. Rather,

BLM

could only provide data on a

resource areawide basis. These data show that wild horses consume

much less than 40 percent of the available forage suggested by

BLM

in its

comments. In the four Nevada resource areas we reviewed, wild horses

consumed 19 percent of the available forage compared with 81 percent

by domestic livestock.

4. The alternative language suggested by

BLM

as well as the quotes from

other reports on the subject are entirely consistent with the presentation

in our report. Accordingly, we have made no changes to reflect

BLM'S

comments.

Page 55

GAO/RCED-90-110 Rangeland Management

Comment4 From the

Dqartment of

the Interior

6. We revised the report to state that the Congress directed

BLM

to accel-

erate the removal of wild horses and burros in 1985.

6. We revised the report to state that 146 full-time equivalent employees

were expected to carry out the program in fiscal year 1990.

7. We revised the report to state that we did not evaluate the treatment

of wild horses and burros adopted under

BLM’S

full-fee adoption

program.

8.

We do not agree with

BLM’s

position that our statement reveals a mis-

understanding about how

BLM

develops its appropriate management

levels, We understand that wild horse levels are prepared as part of the

land use planning process mandated by

FLFNA.

However, we do not

believe that a level can be justified as representing a sound management

decision merely because it is recorded in a land use plan. If a level is

developed without regard to land conditions or wild horse range impact,

its inclusion in the land use plan does not make it more useful or appro-

priate. In this connection,

BLM

provides no evidence to refute our finding

(along with the finding of Interior’s Board of Land Appeals) that wild

horse levels are being established arbitrarily without a sound factual

basis.

With respect to

BLM’S

view that it is not legally possible to maintain wild

horse numbers much greater than those existing in 197 1, we have

revised our report to clarify

that

the act limits wild horse management

to herd areas where they were found at the time the act was enacted in

1971. However, we question

BLM'S

underlying assertion, that removal

decisions can appropriately be driven by the desire to achieve any his-

toric population levels, As Interior’s Bureau of Land Appeals has ruled,

removal decisions must be based on data describing impact on range

conditions. As we have demonstrated, such data does not currently

exist.

We agree that the act requires

BLM

to remove wild horses from private

lands if they have stayed there. However, none of the 46 herd areas we

examined created this predicament. Almost all were isolated from

nonfederal lands and removals were done to reach the appropriate man-

agement level, not because horses were straying

onto

private lands.

9. We revised the report to state that removing less horses than is war-

ranted contributes to continued resource deterioration and potentially

higher removal costs.

Page 56

GAO/RCED-90-110 Rangeland Management

Appendix I

Canmenta Fkom the Department of

the Interior

10. We revised our report to more clearly link the difficulty in distin-

guishing forage consumption among species to determining the impact of

wild horses on range conditions, not determining carrying capacity.

We agree that public scrutiny and comment obtained in

BLM'S

planning

process provide important input in adjusting uses of the public lands.

However, by developing and providing appropriate data on range condi-

tions and where practical the relative impacts of different uses,

BLM

can

help ensure that its final decisions are consistent with what the range

can support.

11. Where wild horses were part of the overgrazing problem, one reason

they have not resulted in apparent range improvements is because the

removals have not been accompanied by needed reductions in domestic

livestock grazing or more intensive livestock management.

12. We corrected the report to reflect that 4,325 wild horses were

adopted in 1989.

13. We revised the report to reflect

BLM'S

expanded age category for

adoptable animals.

Page 57

GAO/RCED-90-110 Rangeland Management

Appendix II

Major Contributors to This Report

Resources,

Community, and

Economic

Development Division,

Washington, D.C.

Charles S. Cotton, Assistant Director-In-Charge

Bob Robinson, Assistant Director

Carolyn Kirby, Evaluator-in-Charge

Dennis Richards, Evaluator

San Francisco

Regional Office

David Moreno, Site Senior

Eddie Uyekawa, Evaluator

Denver Regional

Office

Yvonne Rodriguez,

Site Senior

Pamela Jo Timmerman, Evaluator

Y

(140614)

Page 58

GAO/RCED-90-110 Rangeland Management

_-~. ._ .__* _I_ _. _~- -

First-Class Mail

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. GlOO

“I

j

c

I

!