Needing a Wild Life: Policy Issues and Recommendations for Wild Horses and Burros

Administrator
Staff member
Messages
433
Reaction score
0
Points
16

Needing a Wild Life: Policy Issues and Recommendations for Wild Horses and Burros

By: Tiffany Kumar​

Introduction


Bears, wolves, whales, mountain lions, eagles: these animals qualify as wildlife in the minds of most people. But what about horses and burros? Wild, free-roaming horses and burros live on 26.9 million acres of federal, public lands. Just like other wildlife, wild horses and burros face multiple issues caused by humans. Yet, many animal-oriented organizations have not identified the issues or have not pursued them as strongly as other wildlife issues. This has left wild horses and burros subject to unfair and harmful federal government actions.

Under the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971, the U.S Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Secretary of the Interior have authority over the wild horses and burros on federal lands (§§1332–1333). The U.S Forest Service (USFS) and Secretary of Agriculture have authority as well (§§1332–1333). The authority is “for the purpose of management and protection” of wild horses and burros (§1333). So far, however, most efforts by the authorities have focused on management, rather than protection. In fact, the federal places where horse and burro policy is centered around are called Herd Management Areas (HMAs). The BLM determines Appropriate Management Levels (AMLs), “the point at which wild horse and burro populations are consistent with the land’s capacity to support them and other mandated uses of those lands.” When the BLM determines a population needs to be decreased, it rounds up wild horses and burros and auctions/sells them off. While this may sound harmlessly administrative, it is not. For instance, round-ups can include inhumane means such as helicopters. Several issues inherent in and resulting from government practices need more attention and could be solved with effective recommendations.

Issues and Recommendations


Fire-Related

In 2015, the Idaho Soda Fire affected 285,000 acres, “including 100% of the Sands Basin and Hardtrigger Wild Horse” “HMAs” “and a third of the Black Mountain HMA” (BLM Soda Gather). The BLM rounded up the horses after the fire was controlled. Horses had already suffered burn injuries and were standing on “unburned islands of vegetation” (BLM Soda Gather). Specifically, 29 horses died in the fire, 6 horses were killed by the BLM due to severe injuries, and 30 horses had “mild” or “moderate” burns (Soda Fire Report, page 9). The horses were sent to BLM off-range corrals, trainings, and adoptions (9). Foals were separated from family, in the aftermath of a fearful fire experience, in order to be sent to 4-H programs (9). In the end, only a “group” of horses was sent back to the HMAs, and BLM goals for how many horses to return fell much lower than or at the low end of the already questionable AMLs for the areas (9).

The BLM’s fire response plan included making fuel breaks and replanting seedlings (3,5). Fuel breaks are areas in which the vegetation is mowed, attacked by herbicides, or grazed (5). But even though wild horses graze and can decrease excess vegetation as natural fire managers, the BLM has continued to remove them. The BLM instead allows livestock grazing, benefitting ranchers and the slaughter system. The BLM calls livestock grazing and herbicides “treatments” but considers wild horses to be animals that must be gathered and removed (3).

Instead of allowing horses to be burnt in fire, the BLM should have conducted a humane emergency roundup or push to safety of horses before the fire reached the entirety of the HMAs. The BLM should also promote more use of natural fire retardants. For post-fire horse and burro safety, the BLM should thoroughly investigate the quality of care the animals with burns receive and publish more detailed reports on this. To address both fire prevention and food-related problems, the 1971 Act needs to be amended by Congress to remove the §1339 limit on transfer of the animals to other federal lands where they are not present. However, a humane way to temporarily move horses and burros to suitable lands needs development first. The idea behind this recommendation is that horses and burros naturally act as vegetation, and therefore fire, managers.

Food/Water-Related

The BLM conducts emergency gathers when food and water sources are running low in HMAs. The BLM often uses bait traps that involve setting up traps where the BLM lays out food and water for the horses.

There are ways to increase food and water supply in order to let wild horses and burros thrive in their homes. One increasingly popular and natural method of increasing water supply and holding is beaver-related restoration. In beavers’ native habitats, they are reintroduced and allowed to act in their natural roles as ecosystem engineers, a type of keystone species. USFS already participated in a beaver-related restoration report, so it would not be difficult to implement restoration in HMAs which have beaver habitat. A way to increase HMAs’ food supply is for the BLM to stop or decrease farm animal grazing allotments. This would also inherently decrease BLM support for the slaughter process.

As mentioned in the fire-related recommendations, the 1971 Act should be amended such that horses and burros can be humanely and temporarily moved to other federal lands with suitable environments when HMA food or water supply runs low. But there may not be a way for wild horses and burros to be humanely moved. So, subsidies and agreements with nearby (to HMAs) landowners should be pursued. Sometimes, wild horses and burros stray off HMAs and onto a nearby landowner’s or tribe’s land. The response of these people has often been to call the BLM to take the wild horses and burros back. Of course, this is better than allowing people to angrily harm the animals, but what if attitudes towards these animals and corresponding incentives changed such that the animals were welcomed onto nearby lands where food and water are available? Subsidies and agreements could cause this, as could education of nearby people about how horses and burros are wildlife with unique, innocent lifestyles and are symbolic of American freedom.

If it is not possible for the horses and burros to gain more area or access to other federal lands, the BLM could consider sustainable ways to temporarily provide food while levels are low. The Western Governors’ Association, in 2021, suggested that “hay harvested from highway rights-of-way could be used to feed wild horses and burros” in holding facilities. This recommendation promotes sustainability by use of unused plants. It should be implemented, along with hay from highway medians, in HMAs (since facilities should be closed) when food runs low. On a similar note, the U.S should establish a no-waste harvest program in which surplus hay can be donated to horses and burros. The U.S could increase awareness of the donation program with educational materials.

Round-Up-Related

Rounding up wild animals inherently disrespects their wild, free nature. Wild horses and burros live peaceful, free, and autonomous livelihoods. During round-ups, they can be subjected to fear, intense physical movement, emotional harm, and separation from family members and homes. When a round-up is ordered because of AML being reached, the underlying problem is that AMLs are artificial, man-made limits that cannot truly reflect nature’s capacity. In addition, round-ups that cause fear in horses utilize methods and equipment that have no place in wild lands, let alone near wild animals.

In 1959, the Wild Horse Annie Act was passed. It was named after a wild horse advocate from Nevada. The Act prohibited the use of motor vehicles and aircraft “to hunt, for the purpose of capturing or killing,” wild horses and burros. It even prohibited pollution of water holes for killing or harming wild horses and burros. This Act is impressive for its strong intent to care for wild horses and burros. Unfortunately, its protection did not last more than 20 years: in 1976, the 1971 Act was amended so that the Secretaries received permission to use helicopters and motor vehicles in wild horse and burro management. Since then, the BLM has sometimes used helicopter round-ups, which instill fear in wild horses and burros and send them running from the noise and machinery.

U.S Congress members have proposed amending the 1971 Act to restore the Wild Horse Annie Act’s intent. Proposals have taken place numerous times, with one recent example being H.R.6635 of the 117th Congress. If it had passed, it would have been called the Wild Horse and Burro Protection Act of 2022. A finding of the bill states, “In January 2022, during the horse gathering at the Pancake Complex in central Nevada, a young colt was chased for miles by helicopter, ultimately gravely injuring itself, and necessitating the need for the animal to be shot and killed.” This is one example of the distress that helicopter round-ups cause.

The idea of a helicopter, and motor vehicle as well, ban is excellent. Also, round-ups should not be conducted for the purpose of getting rid of horses and burros. At the most, they should be conducted only for horse and burro safety reasons (fire, lack of food), when a humane method of transportation has been finalized, and as a last resort. This may need to be included in a comprehensive amendment, along with the vehicle ban. Again, an amendment to the 1971 Act should include permission for horses to be moved to any suitable public lands.

Holding-Related

Once horses and burros are rounded-up, they are held in off-range pastures and corrals. Off-range pastures are more natural and offer more freedom to roam than corrals do. The concern about off-range corrals is that they lack space, are man-made, and are barren, making them prisons for wildlife. Quite literally, off-range corrals include actual human prisons. Wild horses have died after running into corral fences, likely yearning for restoration of their lifestyles and homes. It is no surprise that the BLM hid off-range corrals from this infographic, despite its numbers indicating that about 20,000 animals were held in corrals.

Corrals are not only terrible places to force wildlife to live but also costly for American taxpayers. In Fiscal Year 2021, 39% of the $112.2 million spent on wild horses and burros was for off-range corrals. Problematically, taxpayers do not receive the basic assurance that the BLM Comprehensive Animal Welfare Program is actually helping the wild horses and burros, just that Internal Assessments occur. Under the Program, the BLM assesses activities and holding facilities. It notes when they do not comply with the Program, but follow-ups and enforcement/responsive reforms are lacking, undermining actual welfare.

All places of holding function as prisons for wild horses and burros who have done nothing wrong. Even worse, the BLM discriminates among its victims, even though they would have rather never come to a holding place at all. Specifically, the BLM kills blind and visually disabled horses in holding places and uses fertility control on others. Blind and disabled animals are killed despite the fact that they exist and function perfectly well when freely roaming the HMAs. The individuals killed are discriminated against because the BLM wants to train, domesticate, and sell the wild animals who are rounded-up. Fertility control disregards genetic diversity and its benefits.

Sometimes, training programs take place in the human prisons where horses and burros are sent. Whenever animals are sent to training programs, the question arises of whether training methods are humane. So far, there has not been enough transparency on training methods. But even if training methods themselves are humane, it is inhumane to subject free and independent wild animals to suppression of emotions and wild instincts, the point of training.

Fertilization should be stopped in order to preserve natural genetic lines and genetic diversity. Similarly, blind and visually disabled horses should be left in the wild to continue their lives in the way they manage them. Holding and training/domestication should not be happening at all, just as round-ups should not be happening, because horses and burros are wildlife. But if some holding is necessary and until that ideal can be reached, the BLM should exclusively use off-range pastures and not off-range corrals. All off-range corrals should be closed and replaced with either off-range pastures or sending the animals back to HMAs. Any remaining pastures that are not fully in compliance with the Welfare Program or that are not large enough for horses’ and burros’ comfort should be shut down and replaced. Yet again, there needs to be a way for horses to be moved to other suitable public lands, since it is odd that this is not a practice but movement to off-range corrals is.

Sale/Auction-Related

The BLM auctions and sells off the wild horses and burros it captures. These have adopter requirements, but until round ups are stopped completely, the criteria needs to be stricter. There need to be criteria about child/family abuse records because people who treat others badly may not be good adopters. It would be interesting to add certifications to adopters who have been proven to have good records of animal care; however, there would need to be a base criteria to avoid future corruption. There also should be a minimum acreage rule, so that horses and burros are guaranteed roaming space.

Recently, digital auctions have sometimes been used. The obvious problem here is that adopter identity and behavior cannot be fully apparent when auctions and inspections are digital. This can undermine the eventual safety of the wild horses and burros. The BLM should stop using digital spaces for such important tasks.

Post-adoption, the BLM has a rule where adopters cannot transfer the horses and burros to others’ care and other locations for more than a 30 day period unless the BLM gives permission (Care Guide, 3). Untitled, a status that lasts for at least a year after adoption, animals are not allowed to be sold or given away without permission (3). But a criticism of the adoption program has been that horses and burros end up in slaughter sales and auctions. To avoid this, there should be a strictly enforced no second sales rule, where any abandonment of animals must be to the BLM. There should also be increased penalties for abuse or slaughter sales, along with a requirement that the BLM take back and care for abused animals with the goal of releasing them back to HMAs. Buyers in sales cannot return wild horses and burros to public lands unless the BLM gives permission, likely through a livestock grazing permit. This could create problems for animals whom buyers no longer want, since buyers might leave the animals somewhere unsafe instead. The BLM should take back horses and burros to be free-roaming or to be rehabilitated first, if abused or sick.

The public should send tips to the BLM whenever slaughter sales or likely slaughter sales of horses and burros are seen. The BLM should institute an anonymous tip system to encourage tips. People should also write to their government officials against potential tribal slaughter and slaughter sales. An amendment of the 1971 Act allows sale of older and unadopted horses in “livestock selling facilities,” which increases the danger that underhand slaughter buyers will buy the animals (§1333). The Act should be amended to remove this.

When adopters do keep the horses and burros, other problems can arise. For instance, the conditions at the property might deteriorate or become unsuitable for horses and burros. Humane treatment checks are required by the BLM one year after adoption and just before title/ownership passes. They may be biased, especially when owners are allowed to choose the veterinarian or choose from among the “qualified” people: veterinarians, county extension agents, and humane officials. There should be more frequent and randomized checks on conditions at adopter horse/burro homes and for a longer time period. Adopters could consent upon adoption. There should also be independent veterinary checks, meaning that the BLM contracts veterinarians to check the horses and burros, rather than allowing the owner to. Importantly, the humane checks do not apply to sales, just adoptions, since sales allow title/ownership to pass immediately. Because this does not ensure humane treatment of horses and burros, sales should be banned.

Treatment-as-Wildlife-Related

As mentioned before, people do not tend to think of horses and burros as wild unless they have seen those managed by the federal government. Horses and burros are most certainly wildlife: they have wild lifestyles, have been living in the U.S for a long time, are called wild and free-roaming by the 1971 Act, and are called wildlife by a U.S Supreme Court case. Like orcas, wild horses and burros are unfairly and cruelly subjected to captivity and training. Like wolves, wild horses and burros are subject to government-sponsored killings.

Conclusion

If you want to help wild horses and burros, write to your representatives and government officials and/or comment to the BLM Wild Horse and Burro Advisory Board. Attacks on wild horses and burros arise frequently. For instance, in Theodore Roosevelt National Park (THRO), the officials were considering removing the wild horse herd. The horses in National Parks are not protected by the 1971 Act, leaving them at the mercy of Park officials. NARN sent a letter to the Department of the Interior and THRO officials against the removal of wild horses and steers and the alternative plans presented. You can read it here Recently, on April 25th, 2024, the National Park announced termination of its plans. This reveals that public support for wild horses can directly help them continue their wild lives. Finally, if you want to view a slideshow of the policy recommendations of this article, here.




The post Needing a Wild Life: Policy Issues and Recommendations for Wild Horses and Burros appeared first on NARN - Northwest Animal Rights Network.
 
Top