Saddle Sores
When I asked the Conquistador Equine Rescue and Advocacy Program’s president, Pat Haight, how she knows the escaped horses have Spanish blood, she said: “Because [U.S. Cavalry] General Crook’s trail follows [conquistador] Coronado’s trail, and some of the old timers up there have talked to their grandfathers about it. I’m not going to get into a debate over it with you. I have Spanish horses, and I know their colors.” Not only are the genetics of these and other feral horses unknown, they are irrelevant. Alien is alien. Asian bittersweet, for example, is wild and free and beautiful, but we don’t preserve it on the landscape as an “icon of colonial America” simply because it has infested our continent since 1736.
It’s not as if the feral-horse activists weren’t winning before 2006. With the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act of 1971 Congress banned lethal control. In addition, it placed all unrestrained, unclaimed horses and burros under the care of the federal government, primarily the BLM, and gave it the task of managing an alien species so as “to achieve and maintain a thriving natural ecological balance.” That task is, of course, impossible. No alien species can thrive or even exist in “natural ecological balance.” And, in our predator-impoverished land, even native ungulates can’t be managed without lethal control.
In 2004, with feral horses proliferating in the wild and in BLM holding facilities, Congress amended the act, stipulating that excess horses “shall be made available for sale without limitation” and directing the agency to euthanize animals more than 10 years old or that had been unsuccessfully offered for adoption at least three times. But intimidated by the feral-horse lobby, the BLM declined to euthanize and all but blocked purchases by making customers sign a “statement of intent” that they wouldn’t sell the animals for slaughter. Therefore the “BLM is not in compliance with the act,” charges a scathing, 88-page report issued by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) in 2008.
Even if the BLM dared to obey the law, it lacks the money and manpower to control feral horses. In 2007 the agency spent $38.8 million rounding up and holding horses; in 2010 it spent $63.9 million; and for 2011 it has budgeted $75.7 million with an additional $42.5 million from the Land and Water Conservation Fund to buy more holding facilities. This doesn’t include most costs of removing or excluding feral horses from lands managed by states, private entities, the National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Forest Service. Currently the BLM is maintaining 34,500 feral horses and burros on welfare and supposedly managing 37,800 others in the wild. (Feral horses vastly outnumber feral burros.) No one knows how many animals exist on other lands, public and private.
Increasing the cost is the need for more BLM staffers at gathers to cater to and control observers, most of whom are in their faces about imagined horse abuse. The agency has even taken to providing port-o-potties. The estimated cost for the Adobe Town-Salt Wells gather alone had been $700,000, but the final figure will be well above that. By contrast our federal government, via its endangered species program, spends an average of $86,673 a year on each of 2,071 wild species believed to face imminent or possible extinction.
“It is interesting that we have a law requiring us to manage a non-indigenous species across the American landscape,” remarks Dwight Fielder, the BLM’s chief of fish, wildlife, and plant conservation. “Not only is this having a huge impact on the landscape, it’s having a huge impact on our budget. It’s just not a sustainable proposition. And of course some of the horse activists are extremely vocal and highly emotional.” Indeed they are.
Although the BLM has repeatedly vowed never to euthanize excess horses, the mere possibility that it could do so was enough to send the feral-horse lobby screaming to Congress. In July 2009 the House obligingly passed the Restore Our American Mustangs (ROAM) Act. The bill, now before the Senate, would set up 19 million additional acres on which feral horses can explode and would revoke the BLM’s unused authority to destroy old, sick, or unadoptable horses.
Even if the BLM wanted to sell horses for slaughter, it couldn’t. In 2007 the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia ordered the last horse-slaughter plant closed. “Keep America’s horses in the stable and off the table” was the battle cry of the political action committee called HOOFPAC. So now, instead of getting something back on their investments, people who own ailing domestic horses or adopted mustangs often must pay to have them put down, then hauled to a landfill because they’ve been shot full of poison by the euthanizing veterinarian. The result is that more and more horses are being turned loose on public land.


pitiful press
I thought Audubon would present factual information, not bias and scorn packaged as journalism.
America's wild horses are not feral, they are a reintroduced native species. The horse originated in North America, nowhere else. Ross MacPhee, curator of the Department of Mammalogy at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, said the mustangs are classified as Equus caballus, which “evolved from more primitive forebears” in North America. “There is therefore no question that it is `native’ within any reasonable meaning of that word – much more so than bison, for example, whose immediate ancestry is Asian,” MacPhee said. “Yes, it disappeared from our shores for a few thousand years, but that has no bearing scientifically on whether it is historically `native.” Bighorn sheep evolved in Asia and migrated here recently compared to the horse yet you refer to them as sensitive desert creatures and consider them native. That seems to happen with species that hunters prefer.
"A feral horse is a far greater threat to native ecosystems than a cow." That is an outright lie and downplays the fact that cows are on public lands in numbers 42 times greater than the equid population. Apparently you aren't listening to the conservation scientists who have said for decades that cattle are the problem on the public lands. It also seems that you fail to understand that the 1971 Act that gave the wild horses & burros their territory made horses the principle in those protected areas, so in those areas the livestock should be removed first if there is a resource conflict. The 1971 act gave the horses 54M acres of public land which has been reduced to 31M acres by BLM. By your reasoning, 75,000 horses (includes the horses in holding) is too much for 31M acres to bear, yet 3M livestock on 160M acres is not much of a problem for existing wildlife? In Adobe Town & Salt Wells, even 2500 horses is not too many for 1.6M acres. Did the BLM mention how much they spend on predator control to protect the livestock of the welfare ranchers? Those natural predators, left in place, could help naturally maintain equid populations. But BLM is there for the ranchers and DOI, not science, law, or even common sense.
The condition of the land should determine overpopulation. The ALM is an arbitrary number that has very little to do with actual range conditions. BLM has increased authorized livestock grazing levels after removing horses. Dr. Patricia Muir, Director of Oregon State University's Environmental Sciences Undergraduate Program: "This emphasis by the BLM on grazing use over other uses is typical: of the range improvement monies that BLM can account for since 1980, 96.5% were used to benefit livestock. Major challenges to BLM's and Forest Service's management practices are actually coming from the courts rather than from changed legislation… For example, a coalition of environmentalists and others brought suit against the BLM over grazing in five canyons in Utah, and a Federal judge stopped grazing on those allotments. The judge decided that BLM had violated and even defied federal law in administering the grazing permits there. Grazing was banned there until an approved environmental impact statement is completed, and it is demonstrated that grazing is in the best interests of the canyons and the public. The same kind of thing happened in the Stanley Basin in the Sawtooth National Recreation Area in ID, where a suit brought by a coalition of fishermen and environmentalists was successful in requiring that 2/3 of the cattle be removed from the area."
2009 Elk - 950,000 (only in the 10 states with wild horse & burro AMLs)
2009 Pronghorn Antelope - 780,808 min (only in the 10 states with wild horse & burro AMLs)
2008 Bighorn Sheep - 70,000
2009 Wild Horse & Burro AML - 26,831
Wyoming:
WY Wild Horse AML (2008): 3,725 (0.4%)
WY Bighorn Sheep (2000): 6,483 (0.6%)
WY Elk (2009): 95,000 (9.4%)
WY Pronghorn Antelope (2006): 300,000 (29.8%)
WY Mule Deer (2005): 480,000 (47.6%)
WY Livestock Authorized Use/Cattle (2009): 122,706 (12.2%) *
WY Livestock Actual Use/Cattle (2009): 57,115 (6.1%) *
* Calculated using BLMs 2009 WY Livestock Authorization Rpt of annual forage as represented by AUMs and divided by 12 to represent the potential head of cattle as expressed through year-round grazing.
There are BLM offices and contractors that do care about the horses so I hope that is what you observed. However, if you aren't experienced with equines you may not recognize subtler forms of abusive handling or if you are biased, you may ignore it completely. If you've watched the many many videos of the choppers who come extremely close the horses, run them quite hard in both cold & hot weather, or even hit the horses & burros with their skids you would understand the reason so many horse lovers are concerned about these wild horses being treated like they are brainless livestock.
former Audubon admirer