Bureau of Land Management
Effective Long-Term Options Needed to Manage Unadoptable Wild Horses Gao ID: GAO-09-77 October 9, 2008The Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages about 33,100 wild horses and burros on 199 Herd Management Areas (HMA) in 10 western states. Under the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971, as amended, BLM is to protect wild horses and burros, set appropriate management levels (AML), maintain current inventory counts, and remove excess animals to prevent overpopulation and rangeland damage. Over the years, various stakeholders have raised issues about BLM's management of the animals on and off the range. GAO examined (1) BLM's progress in setting and meeting AML; (2) BLM's management of animals off the range through adoptions, sales, and holding facilities; (3) BLM's controls to help ensure the humane treatment of animals; and (4) what challenges, if any, BLM faces in managing for the long-term sustainability of the program. GAO surveyed and analyzed documents from 26 of the 44 BLM offices that manage wild horses and burros.
BLM has made significant progress toward setting and meeting AML (the optimum number of animals which results in a thriving natural ecological balance and avoids range deterioration). BLM has set AML for 197 out of 199 HMAs. Most of the field offices GAO surveyed considered similar factors in determining AML, such as rangeland conditions; however, BLM has not provided specific formal guidance to the field offices on how to set AML. Without clear guidance, BLM cannot ensure that the factors considered in future AML revisions will be consistent across HMAs. At a national level, in 2007, BLM was closer to meeting AML (about 27,200 animals) than in any other year since AMLs were first reported in 1984. The extent to which BLM has actually met AML depends on the accuracy of BLM's population counts. Nineteen of the 26 field officials GAO surveyed used a counting method which, researchers say, consistently undercounts animals and does not provide a statistical range of population estimates. Undercounting can put animals at risk and lead to increased program costs. The number of animals removed from the range is far greater than the number adopted or sold, which has resulted in the need for increased short-term and long-term holding. Since 2001, over 74,000 animals have been removed from the range, while only about 46,400 have been adopted or sold. Thirty-six percent fewer animals were adopted in 2007 than compared to the average adoption rates in the 1990s. As of June 2008, BLM was holding 30,088 animals in holding facilities, up from 9,807 in 2001. To accommodate the increased removals and declining adoptions and sales, BLM has increased the number of short-term and long-term holding facilities. BLM has implemented multiple controls to help ensure humane treatment, including random checks on adopted horses and agreements with adopters and buyers to prevent slaughter. Although BLM state offices collect data on the treatment of the animals, BLM does not always compile the information in its central database or report it to the public. Providing additional information to the public on the treatment of these animals could help inform the public about their treatment and improve transparency. The long-term sustainability of BLM's Wild Horse and Burro Program depends on the resolution of two significant challenges: (1) If not controlled, off-the-range holding costs will continue to overwhelm the program. The percentage of the program's direct costs for holding animals off the range increased from $7 million in 2000 (46 percent) to $21 million in 2007 (67 percent). In 2008, these costs could account for 74 percent of the program's budget. (2) BLM has limited options for dealing with unadoptable animals. The act provides that unadopted excess animals shall be humanely destroyed or, under certain circumstances, sold without limitation. However, BLM only manages these animals through sales with limitations. BLM is concerned about the possible reaction to the destruction of healthy animals.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-09-77, Bureau of Land Management: Effective Long-Term Options Needed to Manage Unadoptable Wild Horses
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-09-77
entitled 'Bureau of Land Management: Effective Long-Term Options Needed
to Manage Unadoptable Wild Horses' which was released on November 10,
2008.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to the Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources, House of
Representatives:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
October 2008:
Bureau of Land Management:
Effective Long-Term Options Needed to Manage Unadoptable Wild Horses:
GAO-09-77:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-09-77, a report to the Chairman, Committee on Natural
Resources, House of Representatives.
Why GAO Did This Study:
The Department of the Interior‘s Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
manages about 33,100 wild horses and burros on 199 Herd Management
Areas (HMA) in 10 western states. Under the Wild Free-Roaming Horses
and Burros Act of 1971, as amended, BLM is to protect wild horses and
burros, set appropriate management levels (AML), maintain current
inventory counts, and remove excess animals to prevent overpopulation
and rangeland damage. Over the years, various stakeholders have raised
issues about BLM‘s management of the animals on and off the range.
GAO examined (1) BLM‘s progress in setting and meeting AML; (2) BLM‘s
management of animals off the range through adoptions, sales, and
holding facilities; (3) BLM‘s controls to help ensure the humane
treatment of animals; and (4) what challenges, if any, BLM faces in
managing for the long-term sustainability of the program. GAO surveyed
and analyzed documents from 26 of the 44 BLM offices that manage wild
horses and burros.
What GAO Found:
BLM has made significant progress toward setting and meeting AML (the
optimum number of animals which results in a thriving natural
ecological balance and avoids range deterioration). BLM has set AML for
197 out of 199 HMAs. Most of the field offices GAO surveyed considered
similar factors in determining AML, such as rangeland conditions;
however, BLM has not provided specific formal guidance to the field
offices on how to set AML. Without clear guidance, BLM cannot ensure
that the factors considered in future AML revisions will be consistent
across HMAs. At a national level, in 2007, BLM was closer to meeting
AML (about 27,200 animals) than in any other year since AMLs were first
reported in 1984. The extent to which BLM has actually met AML depends
on the accuracy of BLM‘s population counts. Nineteen of the 26 field
officials GAO surveyed used a counting method which, researchers say,
consistently undercounts animals and does not provide a statistical
range of population estimates. Undercounting can put animals at risk
and lead to increased program costs.
The number of animals removed from the range is far greater than the
number adopted or sold, which has resulted in the need for increased
short-term and long-term holding. Since 2001, over 74,000 animals have
been removed from the range, while only about 46,400 have been adopted
or sold. Thirty-six percent fewer animals were adopted in 2007 than
compared to the average adoption rates in the 1990s. As of June 2008,
BLM was holding 30,088 animals in holding facilities, up from 9,807 in
2001. To accommodate the increased removals and declining adoptions and
sales, BLM has increased the number of short-term and long-term holding
facilities.
BLM has implemented multiple controls to help ensure humane treatment,
including random checks on adopted horses and agreements with adopters
and buyers to prevent slaughter. Although BLM state offices collect
data on the treatment of the animals, BLM does not always compile the
information in its central database or report it to the public.
Providing additional information to the public on the treatment of
these animals could help inform the public about their treatment and
improve transparency.
The long-term sustainability of BLM‘s Wild Horse and Burro Program
depends on the resolution of two significant challenges:
* If not controlled, off-the-range holding costs will continue to
overwhelm the program. The percentage of the program‘s direct costs for
holding animals off the range increased from $7 million in 2000 (46
percent) to $21 million in 2007 (67 percent). In 2008, these costs
could account for 74 percent of the program‘s budget.
* BLM has limited options for dealing with unadoptable animals. The act
provides that unadopted excess animals shall be humanely destroyed or,
under certain circumstances, sold without limitation. However, BLM only
manages these animals through sales with limitations. BLM is concerned
about the possible reaction to the destruction of healthy animals.
What GAO Recommends:
To improve the program, GAO is recommending, among other things, that
BLM establish a formal policy for setting AML, develop alternatives for
long-term holding facilities, and initiate a discussion with Congress
and other stakeholders on how best to comply with the act, as amended.
The Department of the Interior concurred with GAO‘s findings and
recommendations.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-09-77]. For more
information, contact Robin M. Nazzaro at (202) 512-3841 or
nazzaror@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
BLM Has Made Progress in Setting and Meeting AML, but Guidance Is
Lacking and Meeting AML Has Proven Difficult:
Declining Adoptions and Sales Have Increased the Need for Short-Term
and Long-Term Holding Facilities, and Holding Costs Have Increased:
BLM Has Controls in Place to Help Ensure the Humane Treatment of Wild
Horses and Burros, but It Could Better Track and Report These Data to
the Public:
Challenges to the Long-Term Sustainability of the Program Include
Growing Holding Costs and Limited Options for Dealing with Unadoptable
Animals:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Fertility Control and Genetic Variability:
Fertility Control:
Genetic Variability:
Appendix III: Wild Horse and Burro Survey Results:
Section I: Field Office Responses Specific to Selected HMAs:
Section II: Field Offices' Responses to General Questions Regarding All
of the HMAs They Manage:
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of the Interior:
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Major Legislation Governing BLM's Wild Horse and Burro
Program:
Table 2: Summary Statistics on BLM's Wild Horse and Burro Program, by
State, February 2008:
Table 3: Years in Which Current AMLs Were Set for BLM's 199 HMAs:
Table 4: Extent to Which BLM Field Office Staff Considered Each of the
Four Key Factors in Making the Most Recent AML Determination for
Surveyed Field Offices:
Table 5: Factors Considered by BLM Field Office Staff in Making the
Most Recent AML Determinations for Surveyed Field Offices:
Table 6: Age of Data Used to Make Current AML Determinations for
Surveyed Field Offices:
Table 7: Extent to Which BLM Field Office Staff Considered Each of the
Five Key Factors in Making Their Most Recent Gather Determination:
Table 8: Factors Considered by Field Offices in Decisions to Gather
Wild Horses and Burros from the Range:
Table 9: Age of Data Used by Field Offices to Determine the Need for
Most Recent Gather:
Table 10: Number of Wild Horses and Burros Sold under the December 8,
2004, Sales Directive:
Table 11: Number of Wild Horses in Long-Term Holding, by Year, Since
2000:
Table 12: BLM Long-Term Holding Facilities, June 2008:
Table 13: Number and Percentage of Wild Horses and Burros That Died
During Gather Operations, (for 6 of 10 States) Fiscal Years 2005
through 2007:
Table 14: Results of Random Inspections of Wild Horse and Burro
Adoptions, 2005 through 2007:
Table 15: BLM Field Offices and HMAs Included in GAO's Survey:
Table 16: Number of HMAs Managed at Various AMLs, February 2008:
Table 17: Current and Initial AML and Year of Determination per HMA
Surveyed:
Table 18: Level of Data Sufficiency Used to Determine Current AML:
Table 19: Respondents' Opinions about Current AML:
Table 20: Population Level in Comparison with AML Range:
Table 21: Primary Challenges in Meeting or Maintaining AML:
Table 22: Impact on Rangeland Resources in HMA When Herd Populations
Exceed the Upper Limit of AML by Less Than 25 Percent:
Table 23: Impact on Rangeland Resources in HMA When Herd Populations
Exceed the Upper Limit of AML by 25 to 50 Percent:
Table 24: Impact on Rangeland Resources in HMA When Herd Populations
Exceed the Upper Limit of AML by 51 to 100 Percent:
Table 25: Number of Field Offices That Have or Do Not Have Procedures
in Place to Distinguish Impact of Wild Horses and Burros, Cattle, and
Wildlife on Rangeland Condition:
Table 26: Actions Taken to Manage HMAs Since 2000:
Table 27: Number of HMAs with a Herd Management Area Plan:
Table 28: Primary Physical Method Used in Most Recent Census/Inventory:
Table 29: Primary Statistical Method Used in Most Recent Census/
Inventory:
Table 30: Level of Accuracy of Most Recent Census/Inventory:
Table 31: Level of Data Sufficiency Used to Support Most Recent Gather:
Table 32: Timing of Gather in Relation to Scheduled Date of Gather:
Table 33: Level of AML to Which HMA Is Typically Gathered:
Table 34: Actions Taken to Manage HMA's Since 2000:
Table 35: Field Offices Whose HMAs Have Herd Management Area Plans:
Table 36: Field Offices Working to Develop Herd Management Area Plans
for All of Their HMAs:
Table 37: Actions to Help Field Offices Achieve Healthy Herd
Populations in Balance with the Range and Other Multiple Uses:
Table 38: Major Challenges Facing Field Offices in Managing HMAs to
Achieve Healthy Herd Populations That Are in Balance with the Range and
Other Multiple Uses:
Table 39: Major Challenges Facing BLM's Wild Horse and Burro Program As
a Whole:
Figures:
Figure 1: BLM Herd Areas and HMAs in the Western United States:
Figure 2: Drought Conditions and HMAs, February 2008:
Figure 3: BLM Management of Wild Horses and Burros on and off of the
Range:
Figure 4: BLM's Wild Horse and Burro Program Funding, Fiscal Years 2000
through 2007:
Figure 5: Estimated Population of Wild Horses and Burros on the Range:
Figure 6: Number of Field Offices Who Reported Negative Impacts When
Populations Exceed the Upper Limit of AML:
Figure 7: Comparison of Removed and Adopted Wild Horses and Burros,
1989 through 2007:
Figure 8: Helicopter Used to Gather Wild Horses Near Ely, Nevada, c.
2006:
Figure 9: BLM Contractor Trimming Horse Hooves Using a Special Holding
Chute at a Contract Short-Term Holding Facility in Fallon, Nevada,
October 2007:
Figure 10: BLM Estimated Wild Horse and Burro Direct Program Costs,
Fiscal Years 2000 through 2008:
Abbreviations:
AML: appropriate management level:
BLM: Bureau of Land Management:
HMA: Herd Management Area:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
October 9, 2008:
The Honorable Nick J. Rahall, II:
Chairman:
Committee on Natural Resources:
House of Representatives:
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Wild horses have long been a symbol of the independence of the American
West, but today, the health of their population depends heavily on
government management. At their peak, in the mid-1800s, an estimated 2
million wild horses roamed America's rangelands. Populations decreased
as development reduced habitat for wild horses and native grazers and
as horses and burros were rounded up to make room for livestock and
farming operations. By the early 1900s, most wild horses had
disappeared from the Great Plains and those that remained were found
primarily in the remote mountains, deserts, and badlands of the West.
By 1971, only about 9,500 wild horses were thought to live on public
rangelands. Public concerns about abuse and wild horse population
declines swelled in the 1950s and 1960s. Subsequently, Congress enacted
the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971 to protect wild
horses and burros from abuse and death and to manage them to achieve
and maintain a thriving natural ecological balance on the public lands.
[Footnote 1] The 1971 act declared these wild animals to be "living
symbols of the historic and pioneer spirit of the West; that they
contribute to the diversity of life forms within the Nation and enrich
the lives of the American people; and that these horses and burros are
fast disappearing from the American scene." Since the passage of the
act, wild horse and burro populations have increased, but the way they
are managed on public lands has been controversial and wild horse
advocates continue to voice concerns about horses being slaughtered.
The 1971 act authorized and directed the Secretary of the Interior, on
public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and the
Secretary of Agriculture, on public lands managed by the Forest
Service, "to protect and manage wild free-roaming horses and burros as
components of public lands."[Footnote 2] The act also directed the
Secretaries to manage them "to achieve and maintain a thriving natural
ecological balance on the public lands." BLM field offices are
responsible for determining where the animals are to be managed within
areas where they were found as of 1971.[Footnote 3] In fiscal year
2007, the program was funded at $36.4 million under BLM's Management of
Lands and Resources appropriation. Forty-four BLM field units manage
approximately 33,100 wild horses and burros on 199 Herd Management
Areas (HMA) covering over 34 million acres in 10 western states--
Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada,
Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming.[Footnote 4] BLM's Nevada State Office
manages about half of the land and animals in the Wild Horse and Burro
Program.
In the mid-to late 1970s, population counts indicated that there was a
large increase in wild horses and burros and that they were
contributing to overgrazing of the rangeland. Congress amended the 1971
act in 1978 to protect the range from wild horse overpopulation, among
other things. The Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 directed
the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to determine
appropriate management levels (AML), maintain a current inventory of
wild horses and burros, and determine whether and where overpopulation
exists.[Footnote 5] AML has been defined as the "optimum number of wild
horses which results in a thriving natural ecological balance and
avoids deterioration of the range."[Footnote 6] Each BLM field office
is responsible for determining AML for each of the HMAs it manages. The
aggregate AML for BLM's 199 HMAs is approximately 27,200. Because wild
horse populations can double every 4 years and few natural predators
remain, managing wild horse and burro populations at AML has become a
primary objective of the program. To reach and maintain AML, BLM
primarily conducts "gathers" to remove excess animals from the range.
From 1971 through 2007, over 267,000 wild horses and burros were
removed.[Footnote 7] In 2001, BLM began implementing its most recent
management strategy, to reach AML by increasing removals. Since then,
about 10,600 animals have been removed, on average, per year.
Maintaining current and accurate inventories of wild horses and burros
is a key component of on-the-range management. BLM has traditionally
counted animals using the direct-count method, which involves flying
over the HMA and reporting on each individual animal they see. BLM
generally conducts this type of animal count or "census" every 4 years
or so, leading up to a removal of excess animals. To produce annual
population estimates between counts, BLM adjusts these census figures
for each HMA based on an estimate of the herd's annual population
growth. If the census numbers are inaccurate, particularly if they
underestimate the actual population, BLM runs the risk that adequate
forage or water may not be available for the wild horses and burros or
for livestock and wildlife in the area.
After being removed from the range, excess animals are managed in short-
term holding facilities, where they are either prepared for adoption or
sale, or in long-term holding facilities, where they will live out the
remainder of their lives. The preferred outcome for healthy animals
removed from the range is that they be adopted through BLM's Adopt-a-
Horse-or-Burro Program. As of 2007, approximately 235,700 animals have
been adopted by the public since the start of the program in 1971. On
average, about 6,300 wild horses and burros have been adopted annually
since 2001. Under the act, as amended, BLM is required to assure that
adopters can provide humane treatment and care.[Footnote 8] When
adoption demand is not sufficient to absorb all the animals removed,
the act, as amended, directs BLM to either destroy the remaining
healthy animals in the most humane and cost-efficient manner possible
or, under certain circumstances, sell them without limitation.[Footnote
9] BLM has not destroyed any animals since January 1982, when a former
BLM director issued a moratorium to end the destruction of excess
unadoptable animals. To manage for the growing number of unadoptable
animals, BLM began opening long-term holding facilities. Unlike the
rangelands of the West where the animals normally live, the long-term
holding facilities use Midwest grasslands that generally provide the
animals with abundant forage and decreased stress. This allows most of
the animals to live far longer than they would in the wild. BLM pays
the private contractors that operate the long-term holding facilities a
fee per horse per day. The sales directive, which was enacted on
December 8, 2004, directs BLM to sell excess wild horses and burros
without limitation if the animal is more than 10 years of age or has
been offered unsuccessfully for adoption at least three times.[Footnote
10]
Since the passage of the 1971 act, there has been controversy over the
number of wild horses and burros that BLM manages in the wild and the
amount of public land available for their management. There is concern
by some, including wild horse and burro advocacy groups, that the
number of animals managed in the wild is too low to protect their
genetic integrity; that the numbers are based on insufficient rangeland
monitoring data; and that BLM gives preference to other users of the
range, primarily livestock and wildlife. For instance, groups often
point out that BLM permits far more cattle and sheep to graze on BLM
managed lands than horses. Specifically, in fiscal year 2007,
approximately 567,000 head of cattle or sheep grazed BLM public lands.
[Footnote 11] However, livestock are managed on 160 million acres of
BLM lands, compared to the 29 million BLM acres that are available for
wild horses and burros.[Footnote 12] Additionally, advocacy groups are
concerned that the animals removed from the range are too often adopted
into abusive homes or are ultimately sold for slaughter. Some livestock
and wildlife groups argue that the population of wild horses and burros
has far exceeded the level that provides ecological balance and
equitable forage distribution for competing users, such as cattle and
sage grouse.
We first reviewed BLM's Wild Horse and Burro Program in 1990.[Footnote
13] At that time, regarding on-the-range management activities, we
found that BLM's decisions on how many wild horses to remove from
federal rangelands were not based on direct evidence that wild horse
populations exceeded what the range could support and that removals
were often not accompanied by reductions in livestock grazing levels or
range management to increase the land's capacity. We recommended that
BLM develop carrying capacity and range condition data and, in
locations where overgrazing was occurring, that BLM implement range
management techniques designed to give vegetation 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.
Regarding off-the-range management activities, we found that "BLM's
wild horse sanctuaries [long-term holding facilities] are likely to be
much more expensive than originally envisioned and may represent only a
temporary solution to the disposal of unadoptable horses.— If horse
removals above levels that can be handled by private adoptions are
reinstituted, other disposal options will have to be considered." We
recommended that BLM consider a variety of disposal options for
unadoptable horses and, as necessary, make recommendations for
congressional consideration.
To update our 1990 report, we are reporting on (1) BLM's progress in
managing wild horses and burros on the range through setting and
meeting AML; (2) BLM's management of wild horses and burros off of the
range through adoption, sales, and holding facilities; (3) the controls
BLM has in place to help ensure humane treatment of wild horses and
burros; and (4) what challenges, if any, BLM faces in managing the long-
term sustainability of the Wild Horse and Burro Program. We were also
asked to review how and why the acreage available for wild horses and
burros had changed since the 1971 act. We did not examine the acreage
issue because BLM is in the process of compiling a history of acreage
determinations. BLM officials expect their review to be completed by
March 2009.
To examine how BLM manages wild horses and burros on and off of the
range and to identify the challenges facing BLM, we reviewed relevant
laws, regulations, BLM policies, and strategic plans. We also surveyed,
and analyzed documents from, 26 of the 44 BLM field offices that manage
wild horses and burros.[Footnote 14] We collected and reviewed relevant
resource management decision documents from the surveyed field offices
to help corroborate their responses about specific questions, including
those about factors used to make AML determinations and gather
decisions. In addition, we also conducted follow-up phone calls to
clarify ambiguous or incomplete survey responses. We received usable
responses from all field offices that we surveyed--a 100 percent
response rate. We surveyed field offices in all 10 western states that
have HMAs. The field offices we surveyed represented 82 percent of all
BLM acres managed for wild horses and burros, 74 percent of all BLM
managed wild horses, and 69 percent of burros on the range at the time
of our survey. We interviewed BLM Wild Horse and Burro Program managers
at the state and national levels and conducted site visits at two field
offices that manage HMAs, two adoption events, three short-term holding
facilities, and one long-term holding facility. To examine humane
treatment, we collected information from BLM's compliance database and
interviewed public citizens, advocacy groups, and BLM officials. A more
detailed description of our scope and methodology is presented in
appendix I.
We conducted this performance audit from September 2007 to October 2008
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Results in Brief:
BLM has made significant progress in setting and meeting AML for the
HMAs. As of February 2008, BLM has set AML for 197 out of 199 HMAs.
Most of the field offices we surveyed considered similar factors in
determining AML, such as rangeland conditions and climate data;
however, BLM has not provided specific formal guidance to the field
offices on how to set AML. BLM has been working on revising the
program's handbook to provide this guidance since 2006. Without clear
guidance, BLM cannot ensure that the factors considered in future AML
revisions will be consistent across HMAs, especially since the
personnel most familiar with the current, informal practice of
determining AML are retiring at an increasing rate. At the national
level, BLM was closer to meeting AML in 2007 than in any other year
since AMLs were first reported in 1984. Specifically, in February 2007,
BLM estimated the population of wild horses and burros to be 28,563,
about 1,000 animals over AML. To reach this level, BLM has reduced the
nationwide population in the wild by about 40 percent since 2000. Our
1990 report was critical of BLM's decisions on the number of wild
horses and burros to remove from the range. At that time we concluded
that the decisions were made without adequate information about range
carrying capacity or the impact of the animals on range conditions.
Since then, in August 2005, BLM updated its formal policy on gathers
and removals and specified the key factors that should be considered in
the decision making process. The extent to which BLM has actually met
AML depends on the accuracy of its population counts. Nineteen of the
26 field officials we surveyed used the direct-count method for their
most recent gathers. This method, according to researchers,
consistently undercounts animals and does not provide a statistical
range of population estimates. Some BLM officials are concerned that
other counting methods would require too much additional staff or are
too expensive. However, undercounting is also costly since it often
leads BLM to remove fewer animals than needed, which leads to
overpopulation and costlier gathers in the future. For example, in the
summer of 2007, BLM staff on an HMA in Nevada miscalculated the
population by approximately 640 wild horses and found that the actual
population was about five times greater than what they determined was
sustainable. Many of the wild horses subsequently removed from this HMA
were in poor condition due to severe drought, and about 150 animals
ultimately died from disease in short-term holding as a result.
The number of wild horses and burros removed from the range is far
greater than the number adopted or sold, which has resulted in a
significant increase in the number of animals in short-and long-term
holding and commensurate increases in spending for their care. Since
2001, over 74,000 animals have been removed from the range, while only
about 46,400 have been adopted or sold. Thirty-six percent fewer wild
horses and burros were adopted in 2007, compared to average adoption
rates in the 1990s. BLM officials attribute the steady adoption decline
in recent years to the decreasing demand for horses in general and
increasing hay and fuel costs associated with their care. As of June
2008, BLM was holding 30,088 animals in short-and long-term holding
facilities, far more than in 2001 when it held 9,807. From 2001 through
June 2008, the number of short-term holding facilities increased from
14 to 24 to accommodate more animals, while the average cost per animal
increased from $3.00 per day to $5.08 per day. The total cost for short-
term holding increased from $6.4 million in 2000 to $11.2 million in
2001. From 2001 through 2007, the cost remained relatively stable, but
for 2008, costs are anticipated to increase to $16.2 million.
Similarly, BLM has increased the number of long-term holding facilities
from 1 in 1988 to 11 as of June 2008, and the average cost per animal
has increased to approximately $1.27 per day. Warnings issued in the
1990s by us and the Department of the Interior's Office of Inspector
General about the potential for escalating costs for long-term holding
have proven accurate, as spending on long-term holding has increased
from about $668,000 in 2000 to more than $9.1 million in 2007. In
addition, with the long-term holding facilities at full capacity--they
held 22,101 wild horses as of June 2008 and had a capacity of 22,100--
more wild horses are spending a longer time in the more expensive short-
term holding facilities.
BLM has implemented multiple controls to help ensure the humane
treatment of wild horses and burros, including standard operating
procedures, random checks on adopted horses, and agreements with buyers
to help prevent slaughter. For gathers, it has established standard
operating procedures and reporting systems to help ensure humane
treatment. According to data from 6 of the 10 states that manage wild
horses and burros, 1.2 percent of animals removed from 2005 to 2007
were either euthanized or died accidentally. While BLM state offices
sometimes collect data on animals that die during gathers, the
information is not compiled by BLM headquarters in its centralized
database, nor is it reported to the public. For animals held after
removal in short-and long-term holding facilities, staff from BLM and
veterinarians from the Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service inspect facilities on a regular basis to help
ensure adequate care and treatment are provided. For wild horses and
burros that have been adopted, BLM guidance directs field offices to
make follow-up phone calls or visits for all adopters during the first
year of the adoption, physically inspect a random sample of adopted
animals, and conduct inspections of adopted animals whenever complaints
are received. According to the results of BLM's random adoption
inspections, from 2005 through 2007, on average about 9 percent of
adopters did not comply with BLM standards of care for adopted wild
horses and burros. The most common violations were failing to report
changes in the animals' status or location to BLM and failing to
provide adequate facilities or care. For animals that are sold, since
the spring of 2005, BLM has required buyers to sign a statement that
they do not intend to slaughter the animals. Although BLM tracks
information about the treatment of animals in short-and long-term
holding and after adoption, it does not regularly report this
information to the public. Doing so could help inform the public about
the treatment of the animals and improve transparency.
The long-term sustainability of BLM's Wild Horse and Burro Program
depends on the resolution of two significant challenges:
* If not controlled, off-the-range holding costs will continue to
overwhelm the program. The Wild Horse and Burro Program's spending for
off-the-range holding increased from $7 million in 2000--46 percent of
the program's direct costs--to about $21 million in 2007--67 percent of
the program's direct costs. In 2008, BLM anticipates that holding costs
will account for about 74 percent of the program's direct costs. As
holding costs continue to increase, less funding is available for on-
the-range management, which could result in sharp increases to the
animal population in the wild. To deal with its long-term holding
problem, BLM has primarily sought increased funding to open additional
holding facilities. However, funding is not likely to increase in the
future, and limited funding is forcing BLM to make the difficult choice
among managing the animals on the range to prevent overpopulation,
destroying excess unadoptable animals, or selling them without
limitation. If funding is not increased or if BLM does not dispose of
animals in other ways, BLM projects that the number of wild horses on
the range would reach about 50,000, or about 80 percent over AML, by
2012.
* BLM's options are limited for dealing with unadoptable animals. The
Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act, as amended, requires that
excess animals, for which the adoption demand is not sufficient to
absorb all the animals removed from the range, be destroyed in the most
humane and cost-efficient manner possible or, under certain
circumstances, be sold without limitation. From fiscal year 1988
through fiscal year 2004, Congress prohibited BLM from using its
Management of Lands and Resources appropriations to destroy excess
healthy, unadopted wild horses and burros, despite the amended act's
directive to destroy excess animals. However, since the enactment of
the sales directive in 2004, which provided BLM with another means of
disposal for these excess animals, Congress has appropriated funds to
BLM without the prohibition. BLM has still chosen not to destroy or
sell excess animals without limitation because of concerns about public
and congressional reaction to the large-scale slaughter of thousands of
healthy horses. However, by not destroying or selling them without
limitation, BLM is not in compliance with the requirements of the act.
Legislation is pending in the 110th Congress that would repeal the 2004
sales directive but not the requirement to destroy excess horses. As of
June 2008, budget constraints have forced BLM to reconsider all of its
options, including humane destruction and sales without limitations.
BLM has not formally considered other possible solutions to deal with
the current number of wild horses in long-term holding other than one
pilot project in Wyoming. Some BLM officials suggested that other
options are possible, such as placing nonreproducing animals on vacant
BLM grazing allotments or on other federal lands, but these actions
would require legislative changes.
To improve the management of BLM's Wild Horse and Burro Program, we are
recommending that the Secretary of the Interior direct BLM to finalize
and issue the new program handbook to ensure that AML determinations
are based on consistent factors across HMAs into the future, improve
the accuracy of population estimates by continuing to adopt
statistically based methods to estimate animal populations, improve
public access to data about the welfare of wild horses and burros
removed from the range, and develop cost-effective alternatives to
caring for wild horses removed from the range in long-term holding
facilities. We are also recommending that the Secretary of the Interior
direct BLM to initiate discussions with Congress to address BLM's
noncompliance with the act. In commenting on a draft of this report,
the Department of the Interior concurred with our findings and
recommendations and provided several technical clarifications, which we
have made as appropriate. Appendix IV presents the Department of the
Interior's comment letter.
Background:
During the 20th century, tens of thousands of wild horses were either
killed or captured for slaughter on America's western ranges.
Documented abuses suffered by wild horses led concerned individuals and
national humane organizations to push for federal protections in the
1950s. Subsequently, Congress passed legislation in 1959 prohibiting
the use of aircraft or motor vehicles to capture or kill wild horses or
burros on public lands and polluting watering holes on public lands to
trap, kill, wound, or maim wild horses or burros. Despite the 1959 act,
wild horse exploitation continued, and some questioned whether the
population would eventually be eradicated. To protect wild horses and
burros, Congress passed additional legislation in 1971 to require the
protection and management of wild free-roaming horses and burros on
public lands. The 1971 act was amended in 1976, 1978, 1996, and 2004
(see table 1). The 2004 amendments directed BLM to sell, without
limitation, excess animals more than 10 years of age or that have been
offered unsuccessfully for adoption at least three times.
Table 1: Major Legislation Governing BLM's Wild Horse and Burro
Program:
Legislation: Public Law 86-234 (Wild Horse Annie Act of 1959)[A];
Date: Sept. 8, 1959;
Major relevant provisions: Establishes criminal penalties for using an
aircraft or motor vehicle to hunt wild horses or burros on public lands
for capturing or killing and for polluting watering holes on public
lands to trap, kill, wound, or maim wild horse or burros.
Legislation: Public Law 92-195 (Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act
of 1971)[B];
Date: Dec. 15, 1971;
Major relevant provisions: Authorizes and directs the Secretaries of
the Interior and Agriculture to protect and manage wild horses and
burros as components of the public lands to achieve and maintain a
thriving natural ecological balance. Authorizes the Secretaries, in
areas found to be overpopulated, to order old, sick, or lame animals
destroyed in the most humane manner possible and to capture or remove
wild horses and burros under humane conditions and care. Authorizes the
Secretaries to order wild horses and burros destroyed in the most
humane manner possible when such action is deemed necessary to preserve
and maintain the habitat in a suitable condition for continued use. The
act also establishes criminal penalties for a number of offenses
involving wild horses and burros.
Legislation: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976[C];
Date: Oct. 21, 1976;
Major relevant provisions: Directs the Secretary of the Interior to
prepare and maintain an inventory of public lands and their resources
and other values and to, with public involvement, develop, maintain,
and revise land use plans, which provide for the use of public lands.
Directs the Secretary to manage the public lands under principles of
multiple use and sustained yield. Authorizes the Secretaries of the
Interior and Agriculture to contract for the use of helicopters and for
using motor vehicles to transport captured animals after a public
hearing and in accordance with humane procedures.
Legislation: Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978[D];
Date: Oct. 25, 1978;
Major relevant provisions: Directs the Secretaries of the Interior and
Agriculture to maintain a current inventory of wild horses and burros
on given areas of public lands to determine whether and where
overpopulation exists and whether to remove excess animals, the
appropriate management levels, and whether appropriate management
levels could be achieved by removal or destruction of excess animals or
through other options. Directs the Secretaries, upon finding that an
overpopulation exists and that action is necessary to remove excess
wild horses and burros, to restore a thriving ecological balance by
first destroying old, sick, and lame animals in the most humane manner
possible; then humanely capturing and removing wild horses and burros
for private maintenance and care for which an adoption demand exists by
qualified individuals; and then destroying additional excess wild
horses and burros in the most humane and cost-efficient manner
possible. Authorizes the Secretaries, upon application, to grant title
to excess wild horses and burros for which an individual provided
humane conditions, treatment, and care for a period of 1 year. Provides
that a wild horse or burro is no longer a wild horse and burro for
purposes of the 1971 act once title has passed to an individual or in a
number of other circumstances. No wild horse and burro or its remains
may be sold or transferred for consideration for processing into a
commercial product.
Legislation: Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996[E];
Date: Nov. 12, 1996;
Major relevant provisions: Attempts to clarify the effect of the 1976
amendment, which authorized the Secretaries of the Interior and
Agriculture to use helicopters and motor vehicles in the capture and
transportation of animals.
Legislation: Department of the Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2005[F];
Date: Dec. 8, 2004;
Major relevant provisions: Directs the sale, without limitation, of
excess wild horses and burros, or their remains, if the animals are
more than 10 years of age or have been offered unsuccessfully for
adoption at least three times, until all excess animals are sold or
until appropriate management levels are attained. It also provides that
wild horses and burros, or their remains, once sold, are no longer wild
horses and burros for the purposes of the 1971 act. Exempts animals
sold under these provisions from the general prohibition under the 1971
act of processing the remains of wild horses and burros into commercial
products.
Source: GAO analysis of laws pertinent to BLM's management of the Wild
Horse and Burro Program.
[A] Pub. L. No. 86-234, 73 Stat. 470 (1959) (codified as amended at 18
U.S.C. § 47).
[B] Pub. L. No. 92-195, 85 Stat. 649 (1971) (codified as amended at 16
U.S.C. §§ 1331-1340).
[C] Pub. L. No. 94-579, 90 Stat. 2743 (1976). Specifically, section 404
(90 Stat. 2775) amended the 1971 act (codified as amended at 16 U.S.C.
§ 1338a).
[D] Pub. L. No. 95-514, § 14, 92 Stat. 1803, 1808 (1978) (amending 16
U.S.C. §§ 1332-1333).
[E] Pub. L. No. 104-333, Title VIII, § 803, 110 Stat. 4093, 4186 (1996)
(amending 16 U.S.C. § 1338a).
[F] Pub. L. No. 108-447, Div. E, Title I, § 142, 118 Stat. 3039, 3070
(2004) (amending 16 U.S.C. § 1333).
[End of table]
The passage of the 1971 act changed the way BLM managed wild horses and
burros on public lands. Rather than considering them as feral species
that caused damage to the rangeland, the agencies had to change their
mind-set to protect and manage the animals as an integral part of the
ecosystem. One of the first tasks in managing the animals was to
determine where they lived and their populations. According to the act,
BLM is only authorized to manage wild horses and burros in areas where
they were found in 1971.[Footnote 15] The areas where wild horses and
burros were found, largely on public lands managed by the BLM and the
Forest Service, as of the date of the act are called herd areas, and
they comprise about 53.5 million acres. Once the exact land status and
ownership of the herd areas was verified, it was determined that most
herd areas were on BLM administered public lands, but some also
included private and state-owned in-holdings. The 1971 act states that
the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture shall arrange for the
removal of wild horses and burros that stray onto private land upon
notification by the owner.[Footnote 16]
Next, through its land management planning process, BLM designated HMAs
within these herd areas. In making HMA designations, BLM determined
whether or not the areas where wild horses and burros were found
contained adequate forage and water to sustain the herds. BLM also
designated some HMAs in such a way as to avoid conflicts with private
landowners. Today, BLM is responsible for managing 199 HMAs covering
34.3 million acres across 10 western states (see fig. 1).[Footnote 17]
BLM is currently compiling a history of how BLM field offices made the
determination to manage wild horses and burros on the current 34.3
million acres, compared to the 53.5 million acres where they were
originally found in 1971. According to BLM officials, they expect the
review to be completed by March 2009.
Figure 1: BLM Herd Areas and HMAs in the Western United States:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a map of the western United States with Herd Areas and
Herd Management Areas (HMA) indicated.
Source: BLM.
[End of figure]
The number of HMAs and their acreage has changed over time for many
different reasons, including BLM land being redesignated as National
Park land and declines in forage or water that make an area
unsustainable, among others. About half the acreage managed under BLM's
Wild Horse and Burro Program is located in Nevada (see table 2). While
most of BLM's management activities for wild horses and burros occur
within HMAs, BLM is responsible for removing populations of animals
that stray onto public lands outside of HMAs, as well as those that
stray onto private property.
Table 2: Summary Statistics on BLM's Wild Horse and Burro Program, by
State, February 2008:
State: Nevada;
Number of HMAs: 102;
Total AML[A]: 13,098;
Population estimate: 16,143;
HMA acreage: BLM acreage: 15,772,485;
HMA acreage: Other acreage: 1,695,925;
HMA acreage: Total acreage: 17,468,410.
State: Wyoming;
Number of HMAs: 16;
Total AML[A]: 3,725;
Population estimate: 3,439;
HMA acreage: BLM acreage: 3,638,330;
HMA acreage: Other acreage: 1,137,121;
HMA acreage: Total acreage: 4,775,451.
State: Arizona;
Number of HMAs: 7;
Total AML[A]: 1,676;
Population estimate: 2,173;
HMA acreage: BLM acreage: 1,756,086;
HMA acreage: Other acreage: 1,327,777;
HMA acreage: Total acreage: 3,083,863.
State: Oregon;
Number of HMAs: 18;
Total AML[A]: 2,715;
Population estimate: 2,473;
HMA acreage: BLM acreage: 2,703,409;
HMA acreage: Other acreage: 259,726;
HMA acreage: Total acreage: 2,963,135.
State: Utah;
Number of HMAs: 21;
Total AML[A]: 2,151;
Population estimate: 3,096;
HMA acreage: BLM acreage: 2,379,850;
HMA acreage: Other acreage: 362,817;
HMA acreage: Total acreage: 2,742,667.
State: California;
Number of HMAs: 22;
Total AML[A]: 2,237;
Population estimate: 3,878;
HMA acreage: BLM acreage: 1,946,590;
HMA acreage: Other acreage: 471,855;
HMA acreage: Total acreage: 2,418,445.
State: Idaho;
Number of HMAs: 6;
Total AML[A]: 617;
Population estimate: 703;
HMA acreage: BLM acreage: 377,907;
HMA acreage: Other acreage: 40,287;
HMA acreage: Total acreage: 418,194.
State: Colorado;
Number of HMAs: 4;
Total AML[A]: 812;
Population estimate: 933;
HMA acreage: BLM acreage: 366,098;
HMA acreage: Other acreage: 38,656;
HMA acreage: Total acreage: 404,754.
State: Montana;
Number of HMAs: 1;
Total AML[A]: 105;
Population estimate: 170;
HMA acreage: BLM acreage: 28,282;
HMA acreage: Other acreage: 8,865;
HMA acreage: Total acreage: 37,147.
State: New Mexico;
Number of HMAs: 2;
Total AML[A]: 83;
Population estimate: 97;
HMA acreage: BLM acreage: 24,505;
HMA acreage: Other acreage: 4,107;
HMA acreage: Total acreage: 28,612.
State: Total;
Number of HMAs: 199;
Total AML[A]: 27,219;
Population estimate: 33,105;
HMA acreage: BLM acreage: 28,993,542;
HMA acreage: Other acreage: 5,347,136;
HMA acreage: Total acreage: 34,340,678.
Source: BLM.
[A] This column represents the upper limit of AML according to BLM
data.
[End of table]
Wild horses and burros are to be managed as self-sustaining populations
of healthy animals in balance with other multiple uses and the
productive capacity of their habitat. Because wild horses and burros
reproduce at an estimated rate of 20 percent annually and no natural
predators remain, except for in a very few isolated HMAs, BLM must
actively manage the population of the herds. AML has been defined as
the "optimum number of wild horses which results in a thriving natural
ecological balance and avoids deterioration of the range."[Footnote 18]
AML determinations can be made in a variety of land planning or
decision documents, including, but not limited to, resource management
plans, Herd Management Area Plans, and multiple use decision documents.
The actual number set through an AML determination is predicated, in
part, on (1) the number of acres set-aside for the management of wild
horses and burros within a specific resource planning area and (2) the
proportion allocation of the available forage allotted for wild horse
and burro consumption among other users, such as livestock and
wildlife. After these two key multiple use decisions have been made,
BLM field offices can then set the actual AML numbers. Available forage
is based on range conditions and other data.
BLM's Wild Horse and Burro National Program Office encourages field
offices to establish AML as a range with an upper and lower limit.
[Footnote 19] The upper limit of the range equals the maximum number of
animals that can be sustained to result in a thriving natural
ecological balance and avoid deterioration of the range. The lower
limit is generally determined as the number to which a population must
be gathered to help ensure the population will not exceed the upper
limit of AML within the established gather cycle. For example, if the
established gather cycle was 4 years, it would be the number to which a
population must be gathered to help ensure the population will not
exceed the upper limit of AML within a 4 year time period. BLM strives
to maintain a national herd population level that is at the midpoint of
AML, where the recently gathered HMAs would be at the lower limit of
AML, while those awaiting gathers would be closer to the upper limit of
AML. As of February 2008, the upper limit of AML (the cumulative total
for each of the 199 HMAs) was approximately 27,219, and the midpoint
was about 22,588.[Footnote 20]
Because AMLs are intended to reflect the population of animals that can
be sustainably maintained in an HMA, they are subject to change over
time. Changes in AML happen for several reasons, including when acreage
is added to or subtracted from an HMA and when changes in rangeland
conditions result in improved or reduced forage and water availability
sufficient to sustain a certain population level. In the arid ranges
where most wild horses and burros are managed, conditions generally do
not improve rapidly and have been further degraded by drought
conditions that have lasted for over a decade (see fig. 2). The effects
of climate change are likely to exacerbate the poor conditions that
many HMAs are already experiencing.
Figure 2: Drought Conditions and HMAs, February 2008:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a map of the western United States depicting the
following:
Herd Management Areas (HMA);
State boundary;
Abnormally dry drought condition;
Drought moderate;
Drought severe.
Source: BLM.
[End of figure]
Determining which type of animal is responsible for rangeland damage is
important to properly managing an HMA and in determining the number of
animals to permit on the range. BLM can control the number of livestock
and wild horses and burros to permit on the range, but BLM is not
responsible for managing wildlife numbers on the range. Because BLM is
not the lead agency responsible for wildlife on public lands, they are
to coordinate with state wildlife officials about the forage allocation
for wildlife populations. An increase in allocation of any species may
cause increased competition for the remaining users of the range,
especially under severe conditions. For example, in severe drought
conditions, grazing and browsing is concentrated in limited areas near
water sources. This intense competition causes heavy use and perhaps
depletion of the resources the animals are dependent upon.
Throughout the life of the program, the population of wild horses and
burros on the range has generally far exceeded AML. BLM has used the
removal of animals from the range as a primary management tool for
managing herd sizes. To gather animals for removal, BLM uses private
contractors to herd the animals in an HMA into temporary on-site
corrals.[Footnote 21] The animals are primarily gathered using
helicopters. In some cases, when gathering smaller numbers of wild
horses and burros, BLM officials or contractors will use other trapping
techniques, such as bait trapping, to capture the animals. Once
collected into the temporary corrals, BLM officials use a selective
removal process to determine which of those gathered animals to remove
from the HMA.[Footnote 22] Animals that are not selected are returned
to the wild. When animals are removed from the range, they are taken to
short-term holding facilities to receive vaccinations and other
treatment prior to either being adopted, sold, or sent to long-term
holding. Figure 3 depicts BLM's management of wild horses and burros on
and off of the range.
Figure 3: BLM Management of Wild Horses and Burros on and off of the
Range:
[See PDF for image]
This figure contains a series of photographs with associated
information as follows:
1. On-the-Range Management:
On-the-range management of wild horses and burros includes management
activities such as range condition monitoring, population counts, and
rangeland improvements. As of February 2008, the estimated on the range
population was 33,105. Animals are periodically removed from HMAs to
reach a level that is sustainable with other uses of the range. BLM
typically uses helicopters to herd animals into temporary corrals. In
2007, BLM removed 7,726 animals from the range.
2. Short-Term Holding:
Once animals are removed from the range, they enter short-term holding
facilities where they receive veterinary care prior to being adopted,
sold, or sent to long-term holding facilities. As of June 2008, the
number of animals in short-term holding was 7,987.
3. Adoption and Sales:
BLM offers animals removed from the range for adoption to private
citizens. In 2007, 4,772 wild horses and burros were adopted.Wild
horses can be sold if they are offered unsuccessfully for adoption at
least three times or are more than 10 years of age. Wild horses and
burros that are adopted or sold are used by some as companions and by
others as working animals.
4. Long-Term Holding:
Animals that are removed from the range and cannot be adopted or sold
are placed in long-term holding facilities to live out the rest of
their lives. Most of the facilities are located on Midwest grasslands
in Kansas and Oklahoma. As of June 2008, the number of horses in long-
term holding was 22,101.
Sources: GAO (photos, photo illustration), BLM (photos).
[End of figure]
For fiscal year 2001, BLM requested a budget increase for the program
as part of a major initiative to reach the upper limit of AML by 2005.
[Footnote 23] Subsequently, program funding allocated from
congressional appropriations--what the agency refers to as "enacted
funding"--increased from $19.8 million in fiscal year 2000 to $34.4
million in fiscal year 2001, an increase of $14.6 million. In 2002,
enacted funding for the program was $29.6 million, about $10 million
over the 2000 congressional funding level. After reassessing the
initiative in 2004, BLM estimated it needed an additional $10.5 million
on top of their enacted funding level of $29.1 million in fiscal year
2004 to meet its revised goal of meeting the midpoint of AML by 2006.
In fiscal year 2005, enacted funding was increased about $10 million
for a total of $39 million in fiscal year 2005 (see fig. 4). The
President's 2008 budget requested $32 million for the program, about $4
million less than enacted funding for fiscal year 2007.
Figure 4: BLM's Wild Horse and Burro Program Funding, Fiscal Years 2000
through 2007:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a multiple line graph depicting the following data:
BLM's Wild Horse and Burro Program Funding, Fiscal Years 2000 through
2007 (dollars in millions):
Fiscal year: 2000;
Enacted funding: $19.873 million;
Total program funding: $21.906 million.
Fiscal year: 2001;
Enacted funding: $34.471 million;
Total program funding: $35.203 million.
Fiscal year: 2002;
Enacted funding: $29.629 million;
Total program funding: $32.539 million.
Fiscal year: 2003;
Enacted funding: $29.524 million;
Total program funding: $34.053 million.
Fiscal year: 2004;
Enacted funding: $29.059 million;
Total program funding: $37.239 million.
Fiscal year: 2005;
Enacted funding: $39.045 million;
Total program funding: $39.902 million.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Enacted funding: $36.362 million;
Total program funding: $39.078 million.
Fiscal year: 2007;
Enacted funding: $36.354 million;
Total program funding: $39.248 million.
Source: BLM.
Note: The enacted funding level, as reported by BLM, is the amount
allocated from congressional appropriations minus rescissions for the
Wild Horse and Burro Program. Total program funding represents the sum
of the enacted funding; reprogrammed funding; and funding from other
sources, such as reimbursement for BLM's management of parts of the
Forest Service's Wild Horse and Burro Program.
[End of figure]
BLM Has Made Progress in Setting and Meeting AML, but Guidance Is
Lacking and Meeting AML Has Proven Difficult:
BLM has made significant progress in setting and meeting AML for the
HMAs. As of February 2008, BLM has set AML for 197 out of 199 HMAs.
Most of the field offices we surveyed considered similar factors in
determining AML, such as rangeland conditions and climate data;
however, BLM has not provided specific formal guidance to the field
offices on how to set AML. BLM has been working on revising the
program's handbook to provide such guidance since 2006. With increased
retirements, field offices reported losing the experienced personnel
most familiar with the informal practice of determining AML. Until BLM
finalizes the handbook or issues other guidance, it cannot ensure that
the factors considered in future revisions of AML determinations are
consistent across HMAs. At the national level, BLM reported that it was
closer to meeting AML in 2007 than in any other year since AMLs were
documented in 1984. Specifically, as of February 2007, BLM estimated
the population at 28,563, which was about 1,000 animals over AML. To
reach this level, BLM has reduced the nationwide population in the wild
by about 40 percent since 2000. However, the population estimates are
higher for 2008, and BLM has not met its goal of meeting AML for each
HMA. The fact that not all HMAs have met AML remains a concern because
of the damage excessive populations can cause on the range. Twenty of
26 field officials we surveyed told us that conducting gathers to
remove excess animals is among their top challenges to maintaining AML
because delayed gathers can cause animal populations to quickly exceed
AML. In our 1990 report we concluded that BLM's decisions on the number
of wild horses and burros to remove were made without adequate
information about range carrying capacity or the impact of the animals
on range conditions. In August 2005, BLM updated its formal policy on
gathers and removals and specified the key factors that should be
considered in the decision making process. The extent to which BLM has
actually met AML depends on the accuracy of BLM's wild horse and burro
population counts. Nineteen of the 26 field officials we surveyed used
a method that consistently undercounts animals and does not provide a
statistical range of population estimates. Alternative counting methods
may be more expensive, but undercounting a population can lead to
overpopulation and costlier gathers in future years.
BLM Has Set AML for 197 out of 199 HMAs, but No Formal Guidance Exists
on How to Establish AML:
BLM has made significant progress in setting AML using rangeland
monitoring data for the HMAs. As of February 2008, BLM has set AML for
197 out of 199 HMAs, compared to 2002 when about two-thirds of HMAs had
set AML.[Footnote 24] Prior to 1984, many of the initial AMLs were not
based on rangeland data but on factors such as initial herd population
counts or administrative convenience. For example, the original AML
established for Beaty's Butte HMA in Oregon in 1977 was based on the
number of horses found in that area on December 15, 1971. In Wyoming,
AMLs for about one-third of the HMAs were based on agreements with
local grazing interests because they owned private lands that were
interspersed with BLM lands where wild horses were found in 1971. Only
10 out of the 26 field offices we surveyed identified the use of
rangeland data to determine their initial AMLs. But since 1984, in
accordance with the Dahl v. Clark decision, BLM officials told us that
field managers have generally based AML decisions on monitoring data
and an in-depth analysis.[Footnote 25] Most of the current AMLs for the
199 HMAs were set after 1984 (see table 3). Although some current AMLs
were set many years ago, they are generally reviewed every 4 years or
so as part of the recurring process to gather and remove excess
animals. If during this process, and through monitoring, it is
determined that an AML is no longer appropriate, field offices will
consider changing it. For example, table 17 in appendix III shows how
the current AMLs for the 26 HMAs in our sample have been changed, as
applicable, since they were initially set.
Table 3: Years in Which Current AMLs Were Set for BLM's 199 HMAs:
Years in which current AMLs were set: 1975-1979[A];
Number of HMAs: 2.
Years in which current AMLs were set: 1980-1984;
Number of HMAs: 13.
Years in which current AMLs were set: 1985-1989;
Number of HMAs: 13.
Years in which current AMLs were set: 1990-1994;
Number of HMAs: 45.
Years in which current AMLs were set: 1995-1999;
Number of HMAs: 32.
Years in which current AMLs were set: 2000-2004;
Number of HMAs: 68.
Years in which current AMLs were set: 2005-2008;
Number of HMAs: 24.
Years in which current AMLs were set: Not yet set;
Number of HMAs: 2.
Years in which current AMLs were set: Total;
Number of HMAs: 199.
Source: GAO analysis of BLM data.
Note: Although an AML may have been set years ago, they are generally
reviewed every 4 years or so as part of the reoccurring process to
gather and remove excess animals.
[A] AML determinations were first required by the Public Rangelands
Improvement Act of 1978.
[End of table]
Most of the field offices we surveyed considered similar factors in
determining AML.[Footnote 26] According to BLM National Program Office
officials, field office staff should consider at least four factors in
making AML determinations--climatic data, utilization data, actual use
data, and trend data. Climate data measures the amount of precipitation
within a specific area. In addition, temperature and wind data may be
collected to evaluate the effect of climate on vegetation; utilization
data measures the percent of forage consumed by livestock, wild horses
and burros, wildlife, and insects during a specified period; actual use
data is the number of grazing animals that used an area within a
certain amount of time; and trend data measures the direction of change
in ecological status or resource rating observed over time. Our survey
results indicate that these four key AML determination factors were
considered by some, but not all, of the BLM field offices responsible
for setting AML for our sample of 26 HMAs (see table 4).
Table 4: Extent to Which BLM Field Office Staff Considered Each of the
Four Key Factors in Making the Most Recent AML Determination for
Surveyed Field Offices:
Number of the four key factors considered: 4;
Number of BLM field offices: 16.
Number of the four key factors considered: 3;
Number of BLM field offices: 6.
Number of the four key factors considered: 2;
Number of BLM field offices: 2.
Number of the four key factors considered: 1;
Number of BLM field offices: 1.
Number of the four key factors considered: 0;
Number of BLM field offices: 1.
Number of the four key factors considered: Total;
Number of BLM field offices: 26.
Source: GAO survey results.
[End of table]
Almost all of the field offices considered trend (25) and utilization
(23) data, but only 19 considered climate and actual use data for
livestock, while 14 considered actual use data for wildlife (see table
5).
Table 5: Factors Considered by BLM Field Office Staff in Making the
Most Recent AML Determinations for Surveyed Field Offices:
Factor: Factors BLM officials told us should be considered: Trend;
Considered: 25;
Not considered: 1;
Don't know: 0;
Not applicable: 0;
Blank: 0.
Factor: Factors BLM officials told us should be considered:
Utilization;
Considered: 23;
Not considered: 2;
Don't know: 1;
Not applicable: 0;
Blank: 0.
Factor: Factors BLM officials told us should be considered: Climate
data;
Considered: 19;
Not considered: 3;
Don't know: 4;
Not applicable: 0;
Blank: 0.
Factor: Factors BLM officials told us should be considered: Actual use:
livestock;
Considered: 19;
Not considered: 2;
Don't know: 2;
Not applicable: 3;
Blank: 0.
Factor: Factors BLM officials told us should be considered: Actual use:
wildlife;
Considered: 14;
Not considered: 5;
Don't know: 6;
Not applicable: 1;
Blank: 0.
Factor: Other factors considered: Carrying capacity;
Considered: 23;
Not considered: 1;
Don't know: 2;
Not applicable: 0;
Blank: 0.
Factor: Other factors considered: Census/inventory;
Considered: 22;
Not considered: 2;
Don't know: 2;
Not applicable: 0;
Blank: 0.
Factor: Other factors considered: Water resources;
Considered: 21;
Not considered: 3;
Don't know: 2;
Not applicable: 0;
Blank: 0.
Factor: Other factors considered: Stakeholder influence;
Considered: 20;
Not considered: 2;
Don't know: 4;
Not applicable: 0;
Blank: 0.
Factor: Other factors considered: Production;
Considered: 19;
Not considered: 2;
Don't know: 5;
Not applicable: 0;
Blank: 0.
Factor: Other factors considered: Herd health;
Considered: 19;
Not considered: 4;
Don't know: 3;
Not applicable: 0;
Blank: 0.
Factor: Other factors considered: Genetic viability;
Considered: 16;
Not considered: 6;
Don't know: 3;
Not applicable: 1;
Blank: 0.
Factor: Other factors considered: Recreational use;
Considered: 14;
Not considered: 6;
Don't know: 3;
Not applicable: 3;
Blank: 0.
Factor: Other factors considered: Cultural resources;
Considered: 12;
Not considered: 6;
Don't know: 5;
Not applicable: 2;
Blank: 1.
Factor: Other factors considered: Archaeological resources;
Considered: 12;
Not considered: 6;
Don't know: 5;
Not applicable: 2;
Blank: 1.
Factor: Other factors considered: Livestock agreements;
Considered: 11;
Not considered: 4;
Don't know: 7;
Not applicable: 4;
Blank: 0.
Factor: Other factors considered: Human safety issues;
Considered: 8;
Not considered: 8;
Don't know: 2;
Not applicable: 8;
Blank: 0.
Factor: Other factors considered: Community expansion;
Considered: 4;
Not considered: 8;
Don't know: 2;
Not applicable: 12;
Blank: 0.
Factor: Other factors considered: Court order;
Considered: 2;
Not considered: 5;
Don't know: 2;
Not applicable: 17;
Blank: 0.
Factor: Other factors considered: Mineral extraction;
Considered: 3;
Not considered: 10;
Don't know: 2;
Not applicable: 11;
Blank: 0.
Factor: Other factors considered: Other factors;
Considered: 7;
Not considered: 1;
Don't know: 0;
Not applicable: 1;
Blank: 17.
Source: GAO survey results.
[End of table]
In addition to the four factors mentioned by BLM National Program
Office officials, field offices considered other factors to help make
their AML determinations, including census inventory, water resource
availability, herd health, and unique local conditions. For instance,
in Arizona, one field office reduced the AML for burros on an HMA
because they found that burros were foraging on the same willows
critical to the survival of the endangered Southwestern Willow
Flycatcher.[Footnote 27]
In determining AML, field office staff must also consider rangeland
conditions for wild horses and burros in conjunction with other users
of the range, including livestock and wildlife. Determining which
species is responsible for rangeland damage is an important task to
properly managing the HMA and in determining the number of wild horses
and burros to permit on the range. For example, if field staff
determine that cattle are primarily responsible for damaging an area,
they may pursue several management options, including fencing out
cattle, reducing the number of cattle, or changing the time of year
cattle are allowed to graze in a particular area. BLM lacks similar
management techniques to control wild horse and burro use due to their
free-roaming nature. BLM's direct management actions are limited to
dealing with livestock and wild horses and burros, since individual
states are responsible for managing wildlife.
We recognized the difficulty in distinguishing the difference between
impacts that wild horses and burros have on the range versus other
users in our 1990 report.[Footnote 28] Some advocacy groups have
criticized BLM because they believe that BLM unfairly faults wild horse
and burros for damage to the range to justify their removal and
reductions in AML. Several BLM officials told us ascribing range
impacts can be difficult, but 20 out of the 26 field offices that we
surveyed said they had a procedure in place do so. When the damage is
caused by all the user groups or when the damage can not be attributed
to a specific user group, BLM will generally make across-the-board
reductions in the number of animals allowed on the range based on the
historic proportion of each user group on the range. For example, if
wild horses and burros historically accounted for 10 percent of the
forage consumption on the range, then wild horses and burros would bear
10 percent of the necessary reductions.
BLM has also made steady reductions in cattle grazing on BLM land as
drought conditions in much of the West have worsened, resulting in the
reduction of forage and water availability. For example, in Nevada, the
state that manages for the greatest number of wild horses, permitted
livestock use was reduced from about 2.5 million animal unit months in
1990 to a little over 2 million in 2006.[Footnote 29] The actual use
during this same period, however, decreased from 1.8 million animal
unit months to 1.2 million.
In addition to the factors considered in making AML determinations, the
age of the data, or how current it is, can also be important. The
meaning of "current" data collection depends on the ecosystem and may
vary across HMAs. BLM national program officials explained that data
used to support AML decisions should be collected on a frequent basis.
In general, they told us climate, utilization, and actual use data
should be collected annually and trend data should be analyzed and
reviewed within 4 years of setting AML. However, of the respondents who
provided the age for data used, fewer than half collected their data
for actual use for livestock and wildlife within 1 year of their AML
determination; half collected their data for utilization within 1 year
of the determination; and more than half collected their data for
climate within 1 year of the determination. Fifteen of the 19
respondents who provided the age for data used considered trend data
within 4 years of the determination (see table 6).
Table 6: Age of Data Used to Make Current AML Determinations for
Surveyed Field Offices:
Factors BLM officials told us should be considered: Trend;
Age of the data: 1 year: 8;
Age of the data: 2 years: 3;
Age of the data: 3 years: 1;
Age of the data: 4 years: 3;
Age of the data: 5-10 years: 4;
Age of the data: 11 years or older: 0.
Factors BLM officials told us should be considered: Utilization;
Age of the data: 1 year: 9;
Age of the data: 2 years: 2;
Age of the data: 3 years: 1;
Age of the data: 4 years: 3;
Age of the data: 5-10 years: 3;
Age of the data: 11 years or older: 0.
Factors BLM officials told us should be considered: Climate data;
Age of the data: 1 year: 9;
Age of the data: 2 years: 2;
Age of the data: 3 years: 0;
Age of the data: 4 years: 2;
Age of the data: 5-10 years: 2;
Age of the data: 11 years or older: 0.
Factors BLM officials told us should be considered: Actual use:
livestock;
Age of the data: 1 year: 6;
Age of the data: 2 years: 3;
Age of the data: 3 years: 0;
Age of the data: 4 years: 2;
Age of the data: 5-10 years: 3;
Age of the data: 11 years or older: 0.
Factors BLM officials told us should be considered: Actual use:
wildlife;
Age of the data: 1 year: 5;
Age of the data: 2 years: 1;
Age of the data: 3 years: 0;
Age of the data: 4 years: 2;
Age of the data: 5-10 years: 2;
Age of the data: 11 years or older: 1.
Factor: Other factors considered: Carrying capacity;
Age of the data: 1 year: 7;
Age of the data: 2 years: 3;
Age of the data: 3 years: 0;
Age of the data: 4 years: 2;
Age of the data: 5-10 years: 5;
Age of the data: 11 years or older: 1.
Factor: Other factors considered: Census inventory;
Age of the data: 1 year: 13;
Age of the data: 2 years: 1;
Age of the data: 3 years: 1;
Age of the data: 4 years: 2;
Age of the data: 5-10 years: 1;
Age of the data: 11 years or older: 0.
Factor: Other factors considered: Water inventory;
Age of the data: 1 year: 11;
Age of the data: 2 years: 2;
Age of the data: 3 years: 0;
Age of the data: 4 years: 2;
Age of the data: 5-10 years: 1;
Age of the data: 11 years or older: 0.
Factor: Other factors considered: Production;
Age of the data: 1 year: 6;
Age of the data: 2 years: 1;
Age of the data: 3 years: 0;
Age of the data: 4 years: 2;
Age of the data: 5-10 years: 3;
Age of the data: 11 years or older: 2.
Factor: Other factors considered: Herd health;
Age of the data: 1 year: 11;
Age of the data: 2 years: 1;
Age of the data: 3 years: 0;
Age of the data: 4 years: 3;
Age of the data: 5-10 years: 1;
Age of the data: 11 years or older: 0.
Factor: Other factors considered: Genetic viability;
Age of the data: 1 year: 8;
Age of the data: 2 years: 0;
Age of the data: 3 years: 0;
Age of the data: 4 years: 3;
Age of the data: 5-10 years: 1;
Age of the data: 11 years or older: 0.
Source: GAO survey results.
Note: Some field offices that considered the factors listed in this
table did not provide a year in which the data was collected.
[End of table]
Although field offices use many factors to make their AML
determinations, BLM has no guidance or policy about the specific
factors they must consider in determining AML. This is in contrast to
the BLM policy that exists for a similar type of analysis that is
conducted for removals. According to BLM's 2005 gather policy, the
determination to remove animals must be supported by the following
factors: climatic data, utilization data, actual use data, trend data,
and current census data.[Footnote 30] While 22 out of 26 BLM field
offices responded that the data used to make their AML determination
were moderate to very sufficient, several BLM officials told us that
with increased retirements, field offices are losing the experienced
personnel most familiar with the informal practice of determining AML.
Therefore, without clear guidance, BLM cannot ensure that the factors
considered in future revisions of AML determinations will be consistent
across HMAs. To make the informal AML determination process official
and to help ensure consistency among BLM field offices, BLM officials
have been working on drafting a new handbook for the program since
2006, which specifies the factors field offices should use in making
AML determinations.[Footnote 31] Due to higher priorities and limited
resources, the handbook is still in draft form and is undergoing final
revision. BLM officials told us they expect the handbook to be
completed in fall 2008.
BLM Has Made Significant Progress toward Meeting AML, but Some HMAs
Remain Far over AML:
Since 2000, BLM has made significant progress toward meeting AML. At
the national level, BLM was closer to meeting AML in 2007 than in any
other year since 1984 (when AML levels were first reported by BLM),
with a population of 28,563, or about 1,000 animals over the upper
limit of AML (see fig. 5). Meeting AML has been a challenge for most of
the lifetime of the program. In 1985, in reporting on the Department of
the Interior and related agencies' appropriations, the Senate Committee
on Appropriations recommended more than tripling the program's funding
above the original budgeted amounts to, according to the committee,
permit BLM to maintain nearly 14,000 animals in corrals through the end
of fiscal year 1986 and to remove 17,000 excess animals during fiscal
year 1986.[Footnote 32] The program's funding was tripled in fiscal
year 1986, and with the increased funding, BLM removed 18,959 excess
animals. In fiscal year 2001, BLM began implementing a 4-year strategy
to aggressively remove animals from the range to reach the upper limit
of AML by 2005. However, just before initiating the strategy--which
relied heavily on specific assumptions about the number of animals
removed, adopted, and held in short-term and long-term holding--
emergency drought and fire conditions called for the removal of wild
horses and burros in numbers far greater than anticipated. These
additional removals and decreases in adoption targets changed BLM's
assumptions and made it clear the agency would not be able to meet the
targets set forth in their plan. In 2004, BLM again revisited targets
and management options that would help them to achieve and maintain the
midpoint of AML by 2006. Over the past several years, the program is
closer to meeting AML as a result of increases in the number of wild
horses and burros removed from the range, but it continues to face
challenges in maintaining that level. According to BLM data, the
population now exceeds the upper limit of AML by an estimated 5,886
animals. BLM attributes most of the increase in population to more
accurate population census counts.
Figure 5: Estimated Population of Wild Horses and Burros on the Range:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a multiple line graph depicting the following data:
Estimated Population of Wild Horses and Burros on the Range:
Year: 1971;
Total estimated population on the range: 25,345.
Year: 1973;
Total estimated population on the range: 39,752.
Year: 1974;
Total estimated population on the range: 40,612.
Year: 1975;
Total estimated population on the range: 47,511.
Year: 1976;
Total estimated population on the range: 48,993.
Year: 1977;
Total estimated population on the range: 61,474.
Year: 1978;
Total estimated population on the range: 53,393.
Year: 1979;
Total estimated population on the range: 62,269.
Year: 1980;
Total estimated population on the range: 62,638.
Year: 1981;
Total estimated population on the range: 62,756.
Year: 1982;
Total estimated population on the range: 56,800.
Year: 1983;
Total estimated population on the range: 60,356.
Year: 1984;
Total estimated population on the range: 63,970.
Year: 1985;
Total estimated population on the range: 50,421;
Appropriate management level (AML): 22,970.
Year: 1986;
Total estimated population on the range: 44,763;
Appropriate management level (AML): 30,158.
Year: 1987;
Total estimated population on the range: 43,286;
Appropriate management level (AML): 30,207.
Year: 1988;
Total estimated population on the range: 42,347;
Appropriate management level (AML): 30,554.
Year: 1989;
Total estimated population on the range: 46,549;
Appropriate management level (AML): 30,646.
Year: 1990;
Total estimated population on the range: 45,541;
Appropriate management level (AML): 30,606.
Year: 1991;
Total estimated population on the range: 50,697;
Appropriate management level (AML): 29,797.
Year: 1992;
Total estimated population on the range: 54,804;
Appropriate management level (AML): 28,537.
Year: 1993;
Total estimated population on the range: 46,462;
Appropriate management level (AML): 27,737.
Year: 1994;
Total estimated population on the range: 42,410;
Appropriate management level (AML): 26,234.
Year: 1995;
Total estimated population on the range: 43,593;
Appropriate management level (AML): 27,153.
Year: 1996;
Total estimated population on the range: 42,138;
Appropriate management level (AML): 26,912.
Year: 1997;
Total estimated population on the range: 43,037;
Appropriate management level (AML): 26,618.
Year: 1998;
Total estimated population on the range: 44,495;
Appropriate management level (AML): 26,444.
Year: 1999;
Total estimated population on the range: 47,376;
Appropriate management level (AML): 27,379.
Year: 2000;
Total estimated population on the range: 48,624;
Appropriate management level (AML): 27,379.
Year: 2001;
Total estimated population on the range: 45,414;
Appropriate management level (AML): 28,724.
Year: 2002;
Total estimated population on the range: 38,815;
Appropriate management level (AML): 27,880.
Year: 2003;
Total estimated population on the range: 37,186;
Appropriate management level (AML): 28,849;
Year: 2004;
Total estimated population on the range: 37,135;
Appropriate management level (AML): 28,468.
Year: 2005;
Total estimated population on the range: 31,760;
Appropriate management level (AML): 28,186.
Year: 2006;
Total estimated population on the range: 31,206;
Appropriate management level (AML): 27,512.
Year: 2007;
Total estimated population on the range: 28,563;
Appropriate management level (AML): 27,492.
Source: BLM.
Note: All population levels are estimated based on aerial surveys that
likely undercount the number of animals on the range. In 2000, BLM
changed the time frame for its population counts from October 1 through
September 30 of every year to March 1 through February 28 or 29 of
every year. For AML levels prior to 1984, BLM was unable to provide
estimated figures. For AML levels from 1984 through 1999, the figures
are estimated and they do not necessarily reflect the upper limit of
AML; from 2000 onward, the AML figures represent the upper limit of
AML.
[End of figure]
While the national statistics appear to indicate that BLM is close to
meeting its goal, it is important to note that, under the act, BLM is
required to maintain HMAs at a level that is at or below the upper
limit of AML. To stay below the upper limit of AML, HMAs should be
gathered to the lower limit of AML approximately every 3 to 5 years.
However, only 7 of the 26 BLM field offices we surveyed said they were
typically able to gather to this low level. When animals are not
gathered to the low level of AML, a population can quickly rise well
above the upper limit of AML. Fewer than half (10) of the field offices
surveyed said they were usually able to manage the population of wild
horses and burros on their HMAs within the limits of AML. Fifteen field
offices said they managed populations that were typically above AML.
We are not reporting in detail on the extent to which individual HMAs
have met AML because we do not believe that BLM's data are precise
enough to accurately make such a determination. BLM's estimates of the
number of HMAs that are at or below AML may be overstated because, for
reporting purposes, BLM considers the HMAs where the population is not
more than 10 percent over the upper limit of the AML to be at AML. BLM
officials told us that this is done to account for those HMAs that may
slightly exceed AML. For example, in 2008, BLM reported that 61 of the
102 HMAs in Nevada were at or below AML. Without the 10 percent
adjustment factor, we calculated that 52 HMAs were at or below AML.
Because of this adjustment factor and questions about the accuracy of
BLM's animal counting methods, we concluded that the data on whether or
not individual HMAs had met AML were not sufficiently reliable to
report because an error of plus or minus one or two animals could
change the status of an HMA from being under or over AML. Aside from
the precise issue of whether or not an HMA is within or over AML, it is
clear from the data that some HMAs are significantly over AML. For
example, as of February 2008, BLM reported that 87 HMAs were over AML.
About half of these HMAs were over AML by 50 percent or less, about a
quarter were over AML by between 51 and 100 percent, and about another
quarter of the HMAs were over AML by more than 100 percent.
Populations that exceed AML can harm the health of the range. For
example, in 2004, the Calico HMA in Nevada exceeded AML by about 200
percent. The herds were found to concentrate in sensitive areas,
affecting the threatened Lahontan cutthroat trout and contributing to
the nonattainment of grazing allotment objectives and standards for
rangeland health.[Footnote 33] As of February 2008, the wild horse
population in this HMA exceeded the upper limit of AML by 160 percent.
The excess population levels and continued drought are expected to
continue to negatively impact sensitive riparian areas relied upon by
the Lahontan cutthroat trout. The overpopulation of wild horses and
burros on the range may negatively impact herd health, rangeland
health, and livestock and wildlife that depend on the range. An over-
obligation of the vegetative resources can result in declines in the
healthy vegetative condition that may take years to recover. See figure
6 for our survey results on the possible negative impacts of
populations that exceed the upper limits of AML.
Figure 6: Number of Field Offices Who Reported Negative Impacts When
Populations Exceed the Upper Limit of AML:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a multiple horizontal bar graph depicting the following
data:
Number of Field Offices Who Reported Negative Impacts When Populations
Exceed the Upper Limit of AML:
Rangeland health:
Negative impact on factor when AML is exceeded by between 51 and 100
percent: 26;
Negative impact on factor when AML is exceeded by between 25 and 50
percent: 18;
Negative impact on factor when AML is exceeded by less than 25 percent:
10.
Horse and burro herd health;
Negative impact on factor when AML is exceeded by between 51 and 100
percent: 19;
Negative impact on factor when AML is exceeded by between 25 and 50
percent: 10;
Negative impact on factor when AML is exceeded by less than 25 percent:
3.
Wildlife habitat requirements;
Negative impact on factor when AML is exceeded by between 51 and 100
percent: 21;
Negative impact on factor when AML is exceeded by between 25 and 50
percent: 15;
Negative impact on factor when AML is exceeded by less than 25 percent:
8.
Livestock habitat requirements;
Negative impact on factor when AML is exceeded by between 51 and 100
percent: 19;
Negative impact on factor when AML is exceeded by between 25 and 50
percent: 12;
Negative impact on factor when AML is exceeded by less than 25 percent:
5.
Source: GAO analysis of survey data.
Note: We asked survey respondents to identify the impact (positive,
slightly positive, no impact, slightly negative, and negative) that
populations that exceed the upper limit of AML would have on the four
factors above. The figure is a graphic depiction of survey respondents
who reported negative impacts when populations exceed AML. See appendix
III for the number of survey respondents who reported positive,
slightly positive, no impact, or slightly negative impacts when the
upper limit of AML is exceeded by a certain percentage.
[End of figure]
In addition to the effects on the range, overpopulation in HMAs also
results in costlier gathers because a greater number of animals would
have to be removed to maintain AML in future years.
Although there has been an increased effort to meet AML, there have
been many challenges in meeting and maintaining that level. Twenty of
the 26 field officials we surveyed identified limitations to gathers to
remove excess animals as one of their top challenges to meeting or
maintaining AML. One limitation identified by these respondents
included limited funding available to conduct gathers. Another
limitation identified by respondents was unplanned gathers that alter
the gather schedule as resources are directed to HMAs in critical need.
Reasons for unplanned gathers include escalating problems and
emergencies. An HMA with an escalating problem is defined as an area
where deteriorating rangeland conditions, such as declining
availability of forage or water, will negatively affect animal
condition and rangeland health. Emergency situations are unexpected
situations that threaten the immediate health of wild horses and burros
or their habitat, such as fire, disease, or other catastrophic events.
In addition to using gathers and removals to manage the population on
the range, BLM may also use fertility treatment to manage the
reproductive rates of wild horses. BLM is using this tool on a limited
number of HMAs. However, some animal fertility researchers and wild
horse advocates believe that this tool should be used more widely. They
say that unless the reproductive rate is curtailed, the need to gather
a large number of animals from the range will continue. See appendix II
for more information about BLM's use of this treatment.
BLM Has Established a Formal Policy on Gathers and Removals that
Specifies the Key Factors that Should Be Considered in the Decision
Making Process:
Removals are used as a primary method for managing wild horse and burro
populations on the range; however, the data used to support these
removal decisions have been criticized. Specifically, our 1990 report
concluded that BLM's decisions on the number of wild horses and burros
to remove were made without adequate information about range carrying
capacity or the impact of the animals on range conditions.[Footnote 34]
In August 2005, BLM issued an update to their 2002 policy on gathers
that determinations to support gathers and removals must be based on a
National Environmental Policy Act analysis and a gather plan that
consider five key factors--utilization, trend, actual use, climatic
data, and current census.[Footnote 35] Eleven of the 26 field offices
we surveyed considered all five key factors in their most recent gather
plan (see table 7). However, many of these field offices conducted
their most recent gathers prior to the issuance of the 2005 policy that
specified which factors to consider in their decision making process.
Specifically, 11 field offices conducted their most recent gathers
between 1990 and 2005. Additionally, some field offices' most recent
gathers were conducted as a result of an emergency situation. In those
cases, a field office may not have had enough time to consider all five
criteria due to the critical time response necessary to remove the
animals.[Footnote 36]
Table 7: Extent to Which BLM Field Office Staff Considered Each of the
Five Key Factors in Making Their Most Recent Gather Determination:
Number of the five key factors considered: 5;
Number of respondents: 11.
Number of the five key factors considered: 4;
Number of respondents: 4.
Number of the five key factors considered: 3;
Number of respondents: 5.
Number of the five key factors considered: 2;
Number of respondents: 1.
Number of the five key factors considered: 1;
Number of respondents: 4.
Number of the five key factors considered: 0;
Number of respondents: 1.
Number of the five key factors considered:
Total; Number of respondents: 26.
Source: GAO survey results.
[End of table]
Regardless of when the most recent gathers were conducted, 25 of the 26
field offices we surveyed considered the data used to support their
removals for specific HMAs as moderately to very sufficient. See table
8 for the number of field offices that considered each of the factors
we asked about in our survey.
Table 8: Factors Considered by Field Offices in Decisions to Gather
Wild Horses and Burros from the Range:
Factor: Factors that should be considered: Census/inventory;
Considered: 24;
Not considered: 2;
Don't know: 0;
Not applicable: 0;
Blank: 0.
Factor: Factors that should be considered: Utilization;
Considered: 21;
Not considered: 3;
Don't know: 1;
Not applicable: 0;
Blank: 1.
Factor: Factors that should be considered: Climate data;
Considered: 19;
Not considered: 5;
Don't know: 1;
Not applicable: 0;
Blank: 1.
Factor: Factors that should be considered: Trend;
Considered: 16;
Not considered: 6;
Don't know: 2;
Not applicable: 1;
Blank: 1.
Factor: Factors that should be considered: Actual use: livestock;
Considered: 11;
Not considered: 8;
Don't know: 2;
Not applicable: 4;
Blank: 1.
Factor: Factors that should be considered: Actual use: wildlife;
Considered: 8;
Not considered: 10;
Don't know: 3;
Not applicable: 4;
Blank: 1.
Factor: Other factors considered: Herd health;
Considered: Factors that should be considered: 21;
Not considered: 4;
Don't know: 1;
Not applicable: 0;
Blank: 0.
Factor: Other factors considered: Carrying capacity;
Considered: 17;
Not considered: 6;
Don't know: 2;
Not applicable: 0;
Blank: 1.
Factor: Other factors considered: Water resources;
Considered: 16;
Not considered: 7;
Don't know: 1;
Not applicable: 0;
Blank: 2.
Factor: Other factors considered: Stakeholder influence;
Considered: 16;
Not considered: 3;
Don't know: 3;
Not applicable: 2;
Blank: 2.
Factor: Other factors considered: Production;
Considered: 12;
Not considered: 8;
Don't know: 4;
Not applicable: 1;
Blank: 1.
Factor: Other factors considered: Livestock agreements;
Considered: 12;
Not considered: 6;
Don't know: 1;
Not applicable: 5;
Blank: 2.
Factor: Other factors considered: Cultural resources;
Considered: 12;
Not considered: 7;
Don't know: 1;
Not applicable: 4;
Blank: 2.
Factor: Other factors considered: Archaeological resources;
Considered: 12;
Not considered: 8;
Don't know: 1;
Not applicable: 3;
Blank: 2.
Factor: Other factors considered: Genetic viability;
Considered: 11;
Not considered: 11;
Don't know: 2;
Not applicable: 1;
Blank: 1.
Factor: Other factors considered: Recreational use;
Considered: 8;
Not considered: 8;
Don't know: 1;
Not applicable: 7;
Blank: 2.
Factor: Other factors considered: Other factors;
Considered: 8;
Not considered: 0;
Don't know: 1;
Not applicable: 3;
Blank: 14.
Factor: Other factors considered: Human safety issues;
Considered: 7;
Not considered: 10;
Don't know: 1;
Not applicable: 6;
Blank: 2.
Factor: Other factors considered: Court order;
Considered: 3;
Not considered: 5;
Don't know: 1;
Not applicable: 14;
Blank: 3.
Factor: Other factors considered: Mineral extraction;
Considered: 3;
Not considered: 9;
Don't know: 1;
Not applicable: 11;
Blank: 2.
Factor: Other factors considered: Community expansion;
Considered: 1;
Not considered: 11;
Don't know: 1;
Not applicable: 11;
Blank: 2.
Source: GAO survey results.
[End of table]
Unlike our previous report, which stated that data to justify removals
was outdated, most respondents who provided the year in which their
data was collected indicated that their data was current as of the year
of their most recent gather or less than 4 years old (see table 9).
Table 9: Age of Data Used by Field Offices to Determine the Need for
Most Recent Gather:
Factors that should be considered: Census/inventory;
Age of the data: 1 year: 14;
Age of the data: 2 years: 2;
Age of the data: 3 years: 3;
Age of the data: 4 years: 0;
Age of the data: 5-10 years: 0;
Age of the data: 11 years or older: 0.
Factors that should be considered: Utilization;
Age of the data: 1 year: 13;
Age of the data: 2 years: 1;
Age of the data: 3 years: 0;
Age of the data: 4 years: 1;
Age of the data: 5-10 years: 0;
Age of the data: 11 years or older: 0.
Factors that should be considered: Climate data;
Age of the data: 1 year: 15;
Age of the data: 2 years: 0;
Age of the data: 3 years: 0;
Age of the data: 4 years: 1;
Age of the data: 5-10 years: 0;
Age of the data: 11 years or older: 0.
Factors that should be considered: Trend;
Age of the data: 1 year: 8;
Age of the data: 2 years: 1;
Age of the data: 3 years: 1;
Age of the data: 4 years: 1;
Age of the data: 5-10 years: 2;
Age of the data: 11 years or older: 0.
Factors that should be considered: Actual use: livestock;
Age of the data: 1 year: 10;
Age of the data: 2 years: 0;
Age of the data: 3 years: 0;
Age of the data: 4 years: 0;
Age of the data: 5-10 years: 0;
Age of the data: 11 years or older: 0.
Factors that should be considered: Actual use: wildlife;
Age of the data: 1 year: 7;
Age of the data: 2 years: 0;
Age of the data: 3 years: 0;
Age of the data: 4 years: 0;
Age of the data: 5-10 years: 0;
Age of the data: 11 years or older: 0.
Factor: Other factors considered: Herd health;
Age of the data: 1 year: 11;
Age of the data: 2 years: 2;
Age of the data: 3 years: 1;
Age of the data: 4 years: 1;
Age of the data: 5-10 years: 0;
Age of the data: 11 years or older: 0.
Factor: Other factors considered: Carrying capacity;
Age of the data: 1 year: 6;
Age of the data: 2 years: 1;
Age of the data: 3 years: 1;
Age of the data: 4 years: 0;
Age of the data: 5-10 years: 1;
Age of the data: 11 years or older: 2.
Factor: Other factors considered: Water resources;
Age of the data: 1 year: 8;
Age of the data: 2 years: 0;
Age of the data: 3 years: 0;
Age of the data: 4 years: 1;
Age of the data: 5-10 years: 0;
Age of the data: 11 years or older: 0.
Factor: Other factors considered: Production;
Age of the data: 1 year: 6;
Age of the data: 2 years: 1;
Age of the data: 3 years: 0;
Age of the data: 4 years: 1;
Age of the data: 5-10 years: 0;
Age of the data: 11 years or older: 0.
Factor: Other factors considered: Genetic viability;
Age of the data: 1 year: 1;
Age of the data: 2 years: 1;
Age of the data: 3 years: 1;
Age of the data: 4 years: 2;
Age of the data: 5-10 years: 1;
Age of the data: 11 years or older: 0.
Source: GAO survey results.
[End of table]
Half of the survey respondents identified impediments to conducting
gathers as a major challenge in managing their HMAs to achieve healthy
herd populations that are in balance with the range and other multiple
uses. Only 7 of the 26 field offices surveyed said that they were able
to typically gather to their lower limits of AML. While several BLM
officials explained that gathers can be delayed as a result of funding
restrictions or emergency gather priorities, only four of the field
offices surveyed indicated that their most recent gather was delayed.
Research and Experience Have Shown That BLM's On-the-Range Population
Estimates Are Too Low:
Accurate animal population counts are critical to BLM's ability to
properly manage wild horse and burro herds and in determining whether
AML targets were met. However, many field offices use a population
counting method--the direct-count method--that researchers consider
inaccurate. This method generally calls for one person to count each
animal they spot from an airplane or helicopter. According to
researchers, it consistently undercounts animals and does not provide a
statistical range of estimates. Nineteen of the 26 field officials we
surveyed used the direct-count method for conducting their most recent
census.
Regardless of which method is used, counting wild horses and burros can
be challenging, particularly when the animals are obscured by trees or
when the rangeland is covered with snow. Because counting poses such
challenges, researchers are investigating alternative counting methods
to assist BLM in collecting accurate population data to form
statistically valid population estimates.[Footnote 37] Each method the
researchers are evaluating includes some range of statistical error,
whereas direct count only reports the raw number spotted on the ground.
Researchers believe that the most effective method will likely be a
combination of two or more counting techniques. BLM's population counts
of wild horses and burros have long been questioned by managers and
advocacy groups alike. By employing alternative methods that account
for a range of error, BLM would have a more defensible way of
determining population estimates. In the most recent 2008 BLM
population estimates, for example, population counts exceeded those in
2007 by approximately 4,500 animals. As a result, on a nationwide
level, BLM is once again well over the upper limit of AML, which brings
into question earlier population estimates and whether or not those
previous years were as close to meeting AML as once thought. BLM is
working with the Department of the Interior's U.S. Geological Survey's
Fort Collins Science Center and the Colorado State University to
develop these methods to achieve greater accuracy in population counts.
Some BLM offices have begun to employ some of these methods. For
example, in Arizona, managers use the simultaneous double-count method
to improve population counts and avoid underestimating burro
populations. Some field offices, however, are reluctant to use
alternate counting methods because they are concerned that they would
require too much additional staff or would be too expensive.
Researchers agree that other methods may be slightly more expensive,
given the greater number of staff needed.
When a population is undercounted, BLM is likely to remove fewer
animals than is needed to control overpopulation. For example, in 2002,
a direct count was used to census the wild horse population located on
the Jackson Mountain HMA in northern Nevada, an area that has been
affected by severe drought. When a gather was conducted in 2003, staff
believed they removed the adequate number of wild horses to reach AML.
Funds to conduct their scheduled census in 2006 were not available, and
BLM was unable to conduct its population count until the summer of
2007. It was at this point that staff realized that their 2002 census
was incorrect and that they miscalculated the population in 2007 by
approximately 640 wild horses. They found that the actual population in
2007 was about five times greater than what they determined was
sustainable. In the winter of 2007, BLM began to monitor water
availability more regularly. The BLM field staff member who managed
that HMA told us that although the herd condition was weakened, the
horses did not appear to be in extremely poor condition. Nevertheless,
more than 150 of the wild horses removed from this HMA died in a short-
term holding facility due to disease that was able to overtake the
animals in their weakened state.
Declining Adoptions and Sales Have Increased the Need for Short-Term
and Long-Term Holding Facilities, and Holding Costs Have Increased:
The number of wild horses and burros removed from the range is far
greater than the number adopted or sold. Since 2001, about 74,000
animals have been removed from the range, while only about 46,400 have
been adopted or sold. This has resulted in significant spending
increases due to a greater number of animals in short-and long-term
holding. Thirty-six percent fewer wild horses and burros were adopted
in 2007, compared to average adoption rates in the 1990s--a trend BLM
officials attribute to the decrease in adoption demand and increasing
hay and fuel costs. Since 2004, when BLM was directed to sell excess
wild horses and burros without limitation, BLM has sold about 2,700
animals--far fewer than expected, despite the low average selling price
of $15. As of June 2008, BLM was holding 30,088 animals in short-and
long-term holding facilities, compared with the estimated 9,807 held in
2001. To accommodate the increase in animals removed from the range and
the decline in adoptions and sales, BLM has increased the number of
short-and long-term holding facilities. This has resulted in an
increase in spending for short-and long-term holding facilities.
Adoption Rates Have Declined Since the 1990s, and the 2004 Sale
Directive Generally Has Not Been Used:
BLM has historically managed wild horses and burros removed from the
range through adoptions to the general public. Adoption has been
regarded as the most economical way to provide humane long-term care to
animals that have been removed from the range. In the 1990s, the number
of animals removed from the range was about equal to the number of
animals adopted. The average number of animals adopted each year in the
1990s was about 7,500. Since 2000, the number of animals removed has
outpaced the number of animals adopted or sold due to an increase in
removals and a steady decline in adoption demand and sales. Since 2001,
about 74,000 animals have been removed from the range, compared to
about 46,400 adopted or sold. The average number removed annually from
2001 to 2007 was about 10,600, compared to the average adoption rate of
about 6,300 annually. According to BLM's 2004 Report to Congress, at
least 7,000 adoptions were needed annually to assist in achieving and
maintaining AML. However, only about 4,700 animals were adopted in
2007. Although BLM has increased efforts to market adoptions, demand
continues to decline for wild horses, even though the price for
adopting them has remained at the minimum fee of $125 since 1997.
[Footnote 38] BLM officials attribute the steady wild horse adoption
decline in recent years to increases in hay and fuel costs associated
with horse care, the large number of domesticated horses that are
currently flooding the adoption market,[Footnote 39] a general
urbanization of rural areas, and a shift toward other forms of
recreation. For example, according to one official, individuals who
once had corrals with two or three horses may now own one horse and
four all-terrain vehicles. Figure 7 compares the number of wild horses
and burros removed from the range with the number adopted from 1989
through 2007.
Figure 7: Comparison of Removed and Adopted Wild Horses and Burros,
1989 through 2007:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a multiple vertical bar graph depicting the following
data:
Comparison of Removed and Adopted Wild Horses and Burros, 1989 through
2007:
Year: 1989;
Total adopted: 5,220;
Total removed: 4,480.
Year: 1990;
Total adopted: 4,290;
Total removed: 5,174.
Year: 1991;
Total adopted: 5,967;
Total removed: 7,228.
Year: 1992;
Total adopted: 8,095;
Total removed: 6,663.
Year: 1993;
Total adopted: 7,251;
Total removed: 8,545.
Year: 1994;
Total adopted: 7,867;
Total removed: 7,868.
Year: 1995;
Total adopted: 9,655;
Total removed: 9,286.
Year: 1996;
Total adopted: 8,074;
Total removed: 9,365.
Year: 1997;
Total adopted: 8,692;
Total removed: 10,443.
Year: 1998;
Total adopted: 7,844;
Total removed: 6,389.
Year: 1999;
Total adopted: 6,778;
Total removed: 6,078.
Year: 2000;
Total adopted: 6,202;
Total removed: 8,631.
Year: 2001;
Total adopted: 7,630;
Total removed: 13,277.
Year: 2002;
Total adopted: 7,746;
Total removed: 12,029.
Year: 2003;
Total adopted: 6,165;
Total removed: 10,081.
Year: 2004;
Total adopted: 6,644;
Total removed: 9,899.
Year: 2005;
Total adopted: 5,701;
Total removed: 11,023.
Year: 2006;
Total adopted: 5,172;
Total removed: 9,926.
Year: 2007;
Total adopted: 4,772;
Total removed: 7,726.
Source: BLM.
[End of figure]
One alternative for managing unadoptable excess wild horses and burros,
as provided for by the 2004 amendment to the 1971 act, is to sell the
animals "without limitation." The act directs BLM to offer excess
animals for sale that are more than 10 years old or that have been
offered unsuccessfully for adoption at least three times. At the time
of the amendment, BLM estimated that approximately 8,400 animals were
eligible for sale. To date, BLM has sold only about 2,700 animals--far
fewer than originally expected, despite the low average selling price
in 2006 of $15 (see table 10).
Table 10: Number of Wild Horses and Burros Sold under the December 8,
2004, Sales Directive:
Year: 2005;
Number sold: 1,468.
Year: 2006;
Number sold: 645.
Year: 2007;
Number sold: 420.
Year: 2008[A];
Number sold: 211.
Year: Total;
Number sold: 2,744.
Source: BLM.
[A] As of June 2008.
[End of table]
In 2005, the first sale was made to a wild horse protection group in
Wyoming who purchased 200 horses that would otherwise have likely ended
up in long-term holding under BLM's care. A few other animals that were
sold, however, ultimately ended up in slaughterhouses. To reduce the
likelihood that a buyer would purchase these animals and then sell them
for slaughter, BLM changed its sales process to require buyers to sign
a "statement of intent" that they do not intend to sell the animals for
slaughter. This limitation, as well as a decrease in demand, has
contributed to the small number of sales.
BLM Manages 30,088 Animals in an Increasing Number of Short-Term and
Long-Term Holding Facilities, and Holding Costs Have Increased:
As of June 2008, BLM was holding a combined 30,088 animals in short-
term and long-term holding facilities, compared to 9,807 animals in
2001. To accommodate the increase in animals needing care once removed
from the range, the number of short-term and long-term holding
facilities has increased. Spending on combined short-term and long-term
holding has also increased from about $7 million in 2000 to about $20.9
million in 2007. From 2001 through 2008, the number of short-term
holding facilities increased from 14 to 24,[Footnote 40] and the number
of animals held in these facilities increased from 6,514 animals to
7,987 by June 2008. These holding facilities provide the animals with
vaccinations and other care prior to their being adopted, sold, or sent
to long-term holding. The average cost of animals in short-term holding
increased from $3.00 per horse per day in 2001 to $5.08 per horse per
day in 2008. From 2000 to 2001, the cost for short-term holding
increased from $6.4 million to $11.2 million. From 2001 through 2007,
the cost remained relatively stable, but for 2008, costs are
anticipated to increase to $16.2 million. According to several BLM
officials, the escalating cost for caring for animals in short-term
holding is primarily a result of the dramatic increase in hay and fuel
prices from 2007 to 2008. For example, hay prices for one short-term
holding facility in Nevada increased from about $160 per ton in 2007 to
almost $300 per ton in 2008. Decreases in adoption and sales and a lack
of capacity in long-term holding has not only increased the number of
animals held in short-term holding, but has also increased the time
animals are held there. According to one state official, animals in his
state spent 45 to 60 days in short-term holding facilities in the late
1990s. Beginning in 2000, this official told us, it was not uncommon to
hold animals for more than a year. Nationwide, according to BLM, the
average length of stay in short-term holding in 2008 has been 210 days.
This is far longer than the 90 days BLM projected animals would spend
in short-term holding in their 2001 initiative to meet AML.
Similarly, the number of long-term holding facilities has increased, as
has the cost. The number of facilities increased from 1 in 1988 to 11
as of June 2008, and the number of animals cared for increased from
1,500 in 2000 to 22,101 as of June 2008 (see table 11). These long-term
holding facilities have reached their capacity--currently 22,100--
despite the increase in numbers of facilities. BLM anticipates it will
need greater long-term holding capacity and is working to contract for
additional facilities.
Table 11: Number of Wild Horses in Long-Term Holding, by Year, Since
2000:
Year: 2000;
Number of facilities: 1;
Capacity: 2,000;
Number of horses in long-term holding: 1,500.
Year: 2001;
Number of facilities: 3;
Capacity: 6,000;
Number of horses in long-term holding: 3,293.
Year: 2002;
Number of facilities: 5;
Capacity: 10,000;
Number of horses in long-term holding: 7,311.
Year: 2003;
Number of facilities: 7;
Capacity: 14,000;
Number of horses in long-term holding: 10,122.
Year: 2004;
Number of facilities: 7;
Capacity: 14,000;
Number of horses in long-term holding: 13,151.
Year: 2005;
Number of facilities: 9;
Capacity: 20,600;
Number of horses in long-term holding: 15,379.
Year: 2006;
Number of facilities: 8;
Capacity: 19,700;
Number of horses in long-term holding: 18,198.
Year: 2007;
Number of facilities: 10;
Capacity: 21,800;
Number of horses in long-term holding: 19,652.
Year: 2008[A];
Number of facilities: 11;
Capacity: 22,100;
Number of horses in long-term holding: 22,101.
Source: BLM.
[A] As of June 2008.
[End of table]
BLM pays private contractors an average of $1.27 per horse per day to
maintain the animals for the remainder of their lifespan, unless
removed from long-term holding for adoption or sale. While this fee has
increased by only 7 cents since 2000, the number of animals cared for
has also increased, resulting in a significant increase in BLM spending
on long-term holding.[Footnote 41] In 2000, BLM spent approximately
$668,000 in 2000, compared to more than $9.1 million in 2007 to care
for wild horses in long-term holding. The long-term holding facilities
are primarily located in Oklahoma and Kansas, where forage is typically
more abundant than on HMAs of the West. Table 12 lists the 11 long-term
holding facilities.
Table 12: BLM Long-Term Holding Facilities, June 2008:
Name of facility: Bartlesville;
Location: Oklahoma;
Year(s) animals first held in facility: 1989;
Capacity: 2,300;
Horses held: 2,066.
Name of facility: Catoosa;
Location: Oklahoma;
Year(s) animals first held in facility: 2001;
Capacity: 2,000;
Horses held: 2,042.
Name of facility: Teterville East;
Location: Kansas;
Year(s) animals first held in facility: 2001;
Capacity: 2,200;
Horses held: 1,913.
Name of facility: Teterville West;
Location: Kansas;
Year(s) animals first held in facility: 2002;
Capacity: 2,200;
Horses held: 2,531.
Name of facility: Foraker;
Location: Oklahoma;
Year(s) animals first held in facility: 2003;
Capacity: 2,500;
Horses held: 2,507.
Name of facility: Pawhuska;
Location: Oklahoma;
Year(s) animals first held in facility: 2003-2004;
Capacity: 3,400;
Horses held: 3,646.
Name of facility: Grenola;
Location: Kansas;
Year(s) animals first held in facility: 2004;
Capacity: 2,200;
Horses held: 2,269.
Name of facility: Hulah;
Location: Oklahoma;
Year(s) animals first held in facility: 2004;
Capacity: 2,200;
Horses held: 2,203.
Name of facility: Herd;
Location: Oklahoma;
Year(s) animals first held in facility: 2007;
Capacity: 1,000;
Horses held: 1,042.
Name of facility: Whitehorse;
Location: South Dakota;
Year(s) animals first held in facility: 2007;
Capacity: 1,100;
Horses held: 1,169.
Name of facility: Strohm;
Location: Oklahoma;
Year(s) animals first held in facility: 2008;
Capacity: 1,000;
Horses held: 713.
Name of facility: Total;
Capacity: 22,100;
Horses held: 22,101.
Source: BLM.
[End of table]
For at least two decades, BLM's primary strategy to manage excess
unadoptable wild horses has been to increase long-term holding, despite
warnings in our 1990 report that these facilities were likely to be
more expensive than envisioned and to be only a temporary solution to
the disposal of unadoptable animals.[Footnote 42] In 1994, the
Department of the Interior's Office of Inspector General also issued a
report that strongly discouraged long-term holding as a solution to
managing horses removed from the range due to the large costs.[Footnote
43] BLM continues to look for more facilities but faces difficulty
attracting new contractors that can sustain a large number of animals
and that will accept the fee BLM offers, compared to perhaps more
profitable land uses.
BLM Has Controls in Place to Help Ensure the Humane Treatment of Wild
Horses and Burros, but It Could Better Track and Report These Data to
the Public:
BLM has implemented multiple controls to help ensure the humane
treatment of wild horses and burros, including standard operating
procedures and agreements with all three slaughterhouses in the United
States before they closed in 2007. A variety of controls are used at
various stages in the management of wild horses and burros, including
for those animals that are gathered, in short-term holding facilities,
in long-term holding facilities, adopted, or sold. BLM's controls for
gathers include standard operating procedures, inspections, and data
collection. While BLM state offices collect detailed data on animals
that die during gathers, the information is not compiled by BLM
headquarters in its centralized database, nor is it reported to the
public. In addition, BLM does not regularly provide the information it
tracks on the treatment of animals in short-and long-term holding and
adoption inspections to the public. Making more of this data available
to the public may help inform them about the treatment of the animals
and improve transparency. Beginning in 1998, until the last horse
slaughterhouse in the United States shut down in 2007, BLM sought
agreements with all three slaughter facilities to alert BLM of wild
horses that entered their facilities. According to BLM data, since
2002, about 2,000 wild horses whose legal titles were obtained by
private citizens either through adoption or purchase were slaughtered.
During that same period, another 90 wild horses whose title still
belonged to BLM were retrieved from slaughterhouses by BLM and by wild
horse groups. We reviewed the basic controls BLM has in place, but we
did not evaluate their effectiveness. While BLM is required to
implement controls to help ensure the humane treatment of wild horses
and burros, such controls cannot provide absolute assurance that all
agency objectives will be met.[Footnote 44]
BLM Internal Controls Help Ensure Humane Treatment, but BLM Could
Improve Data Gathering and Reporting in Some Areas:
A variety of controls are used at various stages in the management of
wild horses and burros, including for those animals that are gathered,
in short-term holding facilities, in long-term holding facilities,
adopted, or sold. BLM's controls for gathers include standard operating
procedures, inspections, and data collection. Data collected from 6 of
the 10 states from fiscal years 2005 through 2007 indicate that
mortality as a result of gathers is about 1.2 percent. Similarly,
controls for short-and long-term holding include standard operating
procedures, inspections, and data collection. BLM did not report any
deaths due to neglect or abuse at holding facilities, aside from one
animal that was repossessed by BLM after having been abused by an
adopter. BLM has controls over the adoption of wild horses and burros,
and data indicate that from 2005 to 2007, about 9 percent of adopters
were not in compliance with BLM's standards of care. BLM's controls
over humane treatment primarily apply to horses and burros before
ownership is passed to private individuals, but BLM has also
implemented some controls to protect horses and burros once ownership
passes, such as when wild horses and burros are sold. For animals that
are sold, since spring 2005, BLM has required buyers to sign a
statement that they do not intend to slaughter the animals. BLM does
not consistently track information on treatment during gather
operations through a central database, nor does it report information
about the treatment of animals during gathers, holding, or adoption
inspections to the public.
Gathers:
BLM has established controls, such as standard operating procedures and
tracking systems, to help ensure humane treatment during gather
operations. BLM hires contractors to remove wild horses and burros from
the range. These contractors generally use helicopters to herd the
animals into capture pens on the range (see fig. 8).
Figure 8: Helicopter Used to Gather Wild Horses Near Ely, Nevada, c.
2006 (Photograph):
[See PDF for image]
Source: BLM.
[End of figure]
Due to the stress caused to wild animals by gathering them into pens,
gather operations have the potential to cause harm to wild horses and
burros, such as nervous agitation; conflict between captured animals;
or more rarely, animal death. Because of the potential for harm and to
help ensure the safe and humane handling of all animals captured, BLM
has implemented a range of standard operating procedures for its gather
contractors. Prior to the start of gather operations, BLM personnel
evaluate the site of the gather to determine whether it is suitable
based on environmental and safety concerns. They also approve gather
facility plans ensuring, among other things, that they do not present
puncture or laceration hazards and that they prevent animals from
seeing humans, vehicles, and other perceived threats. During the
herding of the animals, BLM sets limitations on the distance and speed
the animals will travel, depending on the condition of the animals and
other factors. As the animals are herded into the gather site, BLM
requires contractors to segregate horses by age and sex to reduce the
possibility of conflict and to ensure that very young horses and burros
are not left behind to fend for themselves on the range. Finally, as
the captured animals are transported from the gather site to short-term
holding facilities, contractors are required to follow procedures to
ensure animal safety, such as using adequately sized motorized
equipment that has been inspected for safety. BLM has managed gathers
with standard operating procedures since the passage of the act in
1971.
Although BLM's controls are designed to enhance the safety of wild
horses and burros during gather operations, some animals are
accidentally killed in the course of gathers or are euthanized because
of ill health or prior injury. Six of the 10 BLM state offices reported
data about the number of animals that die as a result of their gather
operations. Data collected from 6 of the 10 states from fiscal years
2005 through 2007 indicate that, of the 24,855 animals removed from
these states during this period, about 1.2 percent were either
euthanized or died accidentally (see table 13). Horses and burros
sometimes die due to accidents during gather operations on the range or
after they are brought to the holding pens. For example, wild horses
will sometimes panic and break their necks against capture pens.
Animals found with conditions that make it unlikely they will be able
to live their life without significant pain, such as lameness or club
feet, are euthanized.
Table 13: Number and Percentage of Wild Horses and Burros That Died
During Gather Operations, (for 6 of 10 States) Fiscal Years 2005
through 2007:
Fiscal year: 2005;
Number removed: 9,830;
Number of accidental deaths: 25;
Percentage: 0.25%;
Number euthanized: 46;
Percentage: 0.47%.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Number removed: 8,081;
Number of accidental deaths: 64;
Percentage: 0.79%;
Number euthanized: 79;
Percentage: 0.98%.
Fiscal year: 2007;
Number removed: 6,944;
Number of accidental deaths: 28;
Percentage: 0.40%;
Number euthanized: 60;
Percentage: 0.86%.
Fiscal year: Total;
Number removed: 24,855;
Number of accidental deaths: 117;
Percentage: 0.47%;
Number euthanized: 185;
Percentage: 0.74%.
Source: GAO analysis of BLM data.
Note: This chart is based on data reported by 6 of 10 states:
California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, and Wyoming. The data
provided could not be verified for its reliability. We requested this
information from the other four states (Arizona, Montana, Oregon, and
Utah), but the information was not provided.
[End of table]
Although BLM national and state officials told us that they sometimes
record data about the animals accidentally killed or euthanized during
gathers at the BLM state office level, BLM does not centrally compile
or report these data to the public on a regular basis on a national
level. A BLM official told us that although their main tracking
database has the capability to record the number of animals that are
killed or euthanized during gathers, they generally do not use the
database to do so because it was originally intended to track
adoptions. Moreover, BLM has not regularly reported to the public how
many wild horses and burros are killed in the course of gathers,
although BLM officials have cited the data during public hearings. Some
advocates and members of the public believe that gathers are held in
secret and highlight individual cases of apparent mistreatment as
evidence that inhumane treatment is widespread. However, a BLM official
told us that it is BLM's standard practice to allow the public and the
media to observe gather operations, and BLM is required to hold public
hearings prior to scheduled gathers using helicopters. If BLM does not
improve its transparency by presenting reliable data to members of the
public, BLM will continue to be vulnerable to accusations that gathers
are generally cruel and inhumane.
Short-Term Holding:
BLM has issued standard operating procedures to help ensure that wild
horses and burros held in short-term holding facilities are well cared
for. They include procedures for minimizing the excitement of the
animals to prevent injury; separating horses by age, sex, and size;
observation of the animals on a regular basis; and recording
information about the animals that BLM later uses for tracking the
animals in BLM's database. BLM's short-term holding facilities are
mostly maintained and directly managed by BLM, either on government
property or on leased property. Several are at state prisons, and a few
others are maintained by contractors in privately-owned feedlots or
ranches that BLM has leased. According to BLM staff, they regularly
inspect the short-term holding facilities and the animals they hold.
They inspect to see that the corral equipment is up to code and that
animals are treated with appropriate veterinary care. For example,
staff check to see that the horses' hooves are regularly trimmed so
that they do not become too long and cause injury. At two of the short-
term holding facilities we visited, we observed specially constructed
chutes that hold and rotate horses in place so that horses' hooves can
be trimmed more quickly, easily, and with less risk to the animals and
the employee than other methods, such as using tranquilizer darts or
roping (see fig. 9).
Figure 9: BLM Contractor Trimming Horse Hooves Using a Special Holding
Chute at a Contract Short-Term Holding Facility in Fallon, Nevada,
October 2007 (photograph):
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
BLM data indicate that the wild horses and burros held in short-term
holding facilities from 2003 to 2007 had a mortality rate of about 5
percent. Specifically, for 2007, BLM reported 936 deaths in short-term
holding facilities out of a total of 17,363 animals that passed through
short-term holding facilities in that year.[Footnote 45] BLM reported
that none of the animals in its care died of neglect or abuse between
2005 and 2007, aside from one case in 2006, where a reclaimed adopted
horse died in BLM care due to the effects of abuse suffered while it
was in the care of an adopter. BLM data showed that the animals
generally died due to sickness, broken limbs, or injuries sustained
accidentally during gathers. BLM does not report this information
regularly to members of the public who remain concerned that the agency
does not adequately care for animals in short-term holding.
Long-Term Holding:
BLM has similar controls in place for its long-term holding facilities.
BLM staff inspect long-term holding facilities annually to count the
number of animals held. Staff also monitor pasture conditions, winter
feeding, and animal health throughout the year. According to BLM staff,
during these visits they ensure the contractors comply with BLM
provisions and discuss possible problems that can be corrected. In
addition, veterinary staff from the Department of Agriculture's Animal
and Plant Health Inspection Service inspect long-term holding
facilities annually; these inspections involve a full count of the
horses held there, an inspection of the horses' general health, and
written reports. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service reports
from 2007 indicate that the horses kept in long-term holding
sanctuaries are generally in "good" or "excellent" condition. These
reports, however, highlight some areas for possible improvement. At one
facility, one area of improvement included the proper disposal of the
remains of animals that have died of natural causes. To help ensure the
animals are well cared for, a contract veterinarian provides care when
needed at BLM direction and expense. In addition to inspecting the
facilities for the well being of wild horses in long-term holding,
contractors are required to count and report the number of horses held
on a weekly basis for billing and payment purposes. In 2007, long-term
holding contractors were paid an average fee of $1.27 per horse per
day, or about $460 per horse per year. While this contract fee
structure is not in itself a control that guarantees humane treatment,
it provides a profit incentive for contractors to ensure the continued
health of the horses. According to one BLM official, BLM does not
regularly document the results of its inspections. This official told
us that the agency would take actions and record them if it found
problems, but the official generally has not found problems with the
contractors that have warranted action beyond informal conversations to
address minor issues.
BLM collects data on how wild horses are cared for in long-term
holding, including the number of animals that die in long-term holding.
The average mortality rate of wild horses in long-term holding from
2003 through 2007 was about 8 percent, but it fluctuated from a low of
5 percent to a high of 14 percent during that time period.
Specifically, for 2007, BLM reported 938 deaths in long-term holding
facilities.[Footnote 46] The number of wild horses in long-term holding
in 2007 was 19,652. The animals that die in long-term holding are
generally found in the pastures, and unless there is evidence of foul
play, BLM does not investigate the cause of death. According to BLM,
barring any evidence to the contrary, it is assumed that the animals in
long-term holding die of old age. Officially, BLM reported about 95
percent of the animal deaths in long-term holding as "undiagnosed."
Some of the other causes of deaths reported included old age and
respiratory illness. No animals in long-term holding died from neglect
or abuse, according to BLM reports. While BLM collects this data, it
does not report this data regularly to the public. In the absence of
this data, some members of the public who advocate greater protection
for wild horses have repeatedly expressed their concern that BLM does
not adequately care for animals in long-term holding.
Adoption:
The act requires BLM to determine that adopters have provided humane
conditions, treatment, and care for adopted animals for at least 1 year
before BLM transfers ownership to the adopter. To implement the act,
BLM has established policies for inspecting adopted horses or burros in
this first year through telephone calls or personal visits. BLM
inspections focus on the condition of the animal; the condition of the
facilities; and whether the adopter has notified BLM if the adopted
animal has been moved, was stolen, has escaped, or has died. Prior to
taking possession of an adopted animal, BLM requires that adopters
describe the facility where they will maintain the adopted animal. This
is documented in their application, which confers penalties for
providing false information.
According to BLM data, from 2005 through 2007, an average of about 9
percent of adopted wild horses and burros that still belong to the
government have not been treated in compliance with BLM standards (see
table 14). BLM randomly selects a sample from the universe of
approximately 5,000 adopters per year who have not yet received title
of their adopted animal for inspection. BLM inspects these adopters in
order to generate a statistical sample of the likely percentage of
adopted animals kept under conditions that do not comply with BLM's
policies and standards. The most common conditions in need of
improvement included the failure to report changes in the animal's
location or status and substandard facilities, such as inadequate
fencing or shelter. Less common conditions included lack of care of the
animal, such as inadequate feeding or failure to trim the animal's
hooves before they grew too long.
Table 14: Results of Random Inspections of Wild Horse and Burro
Adoptions, 2005 through 2007:
Result of random adoption inspections: No violation;
2005: Number: 395;
2005: Percent: 94%;
2006: Number: 614;
2006: Percent: 91%;
2007: Number: 805;
2007: Percent: 89%.
Result of random adoption inspections: Failure to notify BLM of change
in status;
2005: Number: 10;
2005: Percent: 2%;
2006: Number: 24;
2006: Percent: 4%;
2007: Number: 36;
2007: Percent: 4%.
Result of random adoption inspections: Failure to provide adequate
facilities/care;
2005: Number: 4;
2005: Percent: 1%;
2006: Number: 3;
2006: Percent: 0;
2007: Number: 30;
2007: Percent: 3%.
Result of random adoption inspections: Failure to produce animal;
2005: Number: 5;
2005: Percent: 1%;
2006: Number: 13;
2006: Percent: 2%;
2007: Number: 19;
2007: Percent: 2%.
Result of random adoption inspections: Unauthorized transfer/sale;
2005: Number: 0;
2005: Percent: 0;
2006: Number: 6;
2006: Percent: 1%;
2007: Number: 15;
2007: Percent: 2%.
Result of random adoption inspections: Commercial exploitation;
2005: Number: 0;
2005: Percent: 0;
2006: Number: 0;
2006: Percent: 0;
2007: Number: 4;
2007: Percent: 0.
Result of random adoption inspections: Inadequate facility;
2005: Number: 4;
2005: Percent: 1%;
2006: Number: 6;
2006: Percent: 1%;
2007: Number: 0;
2007: Percent: 0.
Result of random adoption inspections: Unauthorized destruction;
2005: Number: 0;
2005: Percent: 0;
2006: Number: 5;
2006: Percent: 1%;
2007: Number: 0; 2007:
Percent: 0.
Result of random adoption inspections: Inhumane treatment;
2005: Number: 2;
2005: Percent: 0;
2006: Number: 0;
2006: Percent: 0;
2007: Number: 0; 2007:
Percent: 0.
Result of random adoption inspections: Total;
2005: Number: 420;
2005: Percent: 100%;
2006: Number: 671;
2006: Percent: 100%;
2007: Number: 909;
2007: Percent: 100%.
Source: GAO analysis of BLM data.
[End of table]
In addition, BLM policy directs that officials or certified volunteers
conduct personal inspections of all adopted animals whenever BLM
receives complaints about mistreatment or when an individual or
organization adopts more than four wild horses or burros at one time.
Similar to the data collected on the animals in short-and long-term
holding, BLM does not provide information on the results of its
adoption inspections to the public. The information regularly provided
to the public on the treatment of these animals is in contrast to the
comparatively large amount of information BLM provides on the program's
Web site regarding information on AML and population estimates for each
HMA.
Sales:
In the case of animals that were legally sold, BLM has implemented
limitations to prevent these animals from being resold to slaughter
facilities. In 2004, the act was changed and directed BLM to sell,
"without limitation," excess wild horses and burros more than 10 years
of age or that had been offered unsuccessfully for adoption at least
three times, until all excess animals for sale are sold or until AML is
met in all HMAs. However, shortly after BLM began to sell wild horses
and burros without limitation, in early 2005, it was discovered that 41
of these wild horses had been slaughtered. In April 2005, BLM suspended
its wild horse sales program and resumed sales in May 2005, after
adding controls intended to restrict the sale of animals for the
purpose of selling them for slaughter. These controls included BLM's
requirement that buyers sign a statement they do not intend to sell the
animals for slaughter and verification that potential buyers would
provide adequate care for the animals.
BLM Implemented Controls to Prevent Slaughter of Wild Horses in the
United States:
Although BLM is no longer required to protect animals after ownership
has passed to adopters or buyers, BLM implemented controls to help
prevent their slaughter beginning in 1998. BLM had negotiated
agreements with all three U.S. facilities that operated horse
slaughterhouses. The slaughterhouses agreed to alert BLM to all wild
horses that entered their facilities and refrain from slaughtering
those wild horses whose title still belonged to BLM. According to BLM
data, which it was able to provide since 2002, about 2,000 wild horses
whose legal titles were obtained by private citizens through adoption
or purchase were slaughtered. During that same time period, at least 90
adopted wild horses that were still owned by the government were
brought to these slaughterhouses, and all were retrieved by BLM and
interested wild horse groups.
As of fall 2007, all horse slaughter facilities in the United States
had been shut down following unsuccessful legal challenges to state
laws effectively banning the practice. In January 2007, the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that a 1949 Texas law banning
the sale, possession, or transfer of horsemeat applied to the two
slaughterhouses in Texas.[Footnote 47] In September 2007, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit upheld an Illinois ban.
[Footnote 48] These rulings effectively closed the plants and ended
horse slaughter in the United States.
Even though all horse slaughter facilities in the United States have
been closed, it is still possible for wild horses and burros to be sold
to facilities outside the United States.[Footnote 49] Prior to the
closure of all U.S. horse slaughter facilities, about 50,000 domestic
horses were brought to slaughter in the United States annually between
2001 and 2004. Generally, exporting horses and burros to other
countries for slaughter, such as Canada or Mexico, is not prohibited;
for example, about 3,000 horses per month were exported for slaughter
in 2007, according to Department of Agriculture information. We
attempted to determine how many of these horses were at one time wild,
but we were not able to do so. The Department of Agriculture, which
certifies the inspections of horses and other livestock exported to
other countries, is not required and does not report how many of the
horses exported to other countries were once wild horses.
Challenges to the Long-Term Sustainability of the Program Include
Growing Holding Costs and Limited Options for Dealing with Unadoptable
Animals:
The long-term sustainability of BLM's Wild Horse and Burro Program
depends on the resolution of two significant challenges. First, holding
costs are overwhelming the program's ability to manage animals on the
range and will continue to do so if BLM does not consider alternatives
to holding. Second, BLM has limited options for dealing with
unadoptable animals off of the range because its alternatives under the
act--humane destruction of the animals or selling the animals without
limitation--are thought to be unacceptable to the public. As a result,
BLM has placed over 30,000 wild horses and burros in holding.
If Not Controlled, Off-the-Range Holding Costs Will Continue to
Overwhelm the Program:
The portion of the Wild Horse and Burro Program's spending that is
directed toward short-and long-term holding has increased from 46
percent of the program's direct costs in 2000 to 67 percent in 2007.
This increase leaves a smaller portion of the budget available for on-
the-range management activities. Much of the increase has occurred
because accelerated removals implemented to reach AML have coincided
with a decline in adoption demand. Because long-term holding facilities
are at capacity, BLM has had little choice but to hold excess
unadoptable horses in more expensive short-term holding. BLM's spending
on short-and long-term holding has increased from about $7.0 million in
2000, or 46 percent of the program's direct costs, to about $20.9
million in 2007, or 67 percent of the program's direct costs (see fig.
10). In 2008, BLM anticipates that holding costs will account for about
74 percent of the program's direct costs. To deal with its long-term
holding problem, BLM has primarily sought increased funding to open
additional long-term holding facilities. However, funding is not likely
to increase in the future, and limited funding is forcing BLM to make
difficult choices. For example, in January 2008, BLM considered
canceling all remaining removals scheduled for the fiscal year because
of the amount needed for short-and long-term holding. As of July 2008,
BLM was seeking the funds to continue these removals by redirecting
money from other BLM activities to the Wild Horse and Burro Program. As
a result, under current funding levels, BLM must now choose between
either managing the range to prevent overpopulation or exercise one or
both of its other options--destroying animals or selling them without
limitation.
Figure 10: BLM Estimated Wild Horse and Burro Direct Program Costs,
Fiscal Years 2000 through 2008:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a stacked vertical bar graph depicting the following
data:
BLM Estimated Wild Horse and Burro Direct Program Costs, Fiscal Years
2000 through 2008:
Fiscal year: 2000;
Long-term holding (estimate): 11%;
Short-term holding (estimate): 34%;
Adoptions and compliance: 33%;
Range management: 22%.
Fiscal year: 2001;
Long-term holding (estimate): 7%;
Short-term holding (estimate): 40%;
Adoptions and compliance: 31%;
Range management: 22%.
Fiscal year: 2002;
Long-term holding (estimate): 16%;
Short-term holding (estimate): 36%;
Adoptions and compliance: 28%;
Range management: 20%.
Fiscal year: 2003;
Long-term holding (estimate): 23%;
Short-term holding (estimate): 41%;
Adoptions and compliance: 21%;
Range management: 16%.
Fiscal year: 2004;
Long-term holding (estimate): 27%;
Short-term holding (estimate): 36%;
Adoptions and compliance: 19%;
Range management: 18%.
Fiscal year: 2005;
Long-term holding (estimate): 24%;
Short-term holding (estimate): 37%;
Adoptions and compliance: 19%;
Range management: 20%.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Long-term holding (estimate): 28%;
Short-term holding (estimate): 31%;
Adoptions and compliance: 21%;
Range management: 20%.
Fiscal year: 2007;
Long-term holding (estimate): 30%;
Short-term holding (estimate): 37%;
Adoptions and compliance: 20%;
Range management: 13%.
Fiscal year: 2008(projected;
Long-term holding (estimate): 30%;
Short-term holding (estimate): 43%;
Adoptions and compliance: 13%;
Range management: 13%.
Source: GAO analysis of BLM data.
Note: This chart represents direct program spending. It omits spending
on overhead items--which average about $7 million per year--such as
administrative costs, vehicle costs, and other nondirect program
related costs.
[End of figure]
To continue to reduce overpopulation on the range by using gathers
alone, BLM projects that the program's budget would have to increase to
about $77 million by fiscal year 2012, from about $36 million in 2008.
If BLM does not receive this increase or exercise its other options to
reduce populations off the range, then it will not have sufficient
funds to manage wild horses and burros on the range, and populations
will sharply increase. BLM's current projections indicate that caring
for unadoptable animals would reduce the agency's ability to gather
horses to an average of about 4,500 animals per year, which would only
be enough to prevent animals from dying from the effects of
overpopulation and drought. At these removal levels, BLM projects that
the on-the-range population would reach 50,000 animals by 2012--about
80 percent greater than the upper limit of AML. This on-the-range
population level would be greater than the population level prior to
the beginning of BLM's 2001 strategic plan.
Since 2004, BLM has had the goal of reducing the total population on
the range to the midpoint of AML. If it were to reach this level, which
is currently about 22,588 animals, an annual population growth rate of
20 percent would require the annual removal of about 4,500 animals to
maintain that level, approximately equal to the recent adoption rate.
Assuming that rate remained constant, fewer animals would be sent to
long-term holding. However, even if BLM is able to reach a balance
between animals removed and those adopted, it still has the challenge
of dealing with 30,088 animals that are currently held in short-term
and long-term holding facilities across the country. Furthermore the
number of animals held in holding would exceed 40,000 animals if BLM
were to remove the approximately 11,000 animals necessary to reach the
midpoint of AML.
BLM has a number of research projects under way and ideas in
development that could slow the increase in the population on the
range. These include fertility control efforts, such as the development
of a fertility vaccine (see app. II for more information on this
vaccine) and releasing sterilized male horses back to the range after
capture. Given that many existing HMAs are already over AML, releasing
a large number of sterilized male horses or nonreproducing herds back
to the range as a means of trying to reduce future holding costs would
likely require changing existing land use decisions within BLM's
existing authority to increase AMLs, expand existing HMAs or designate
new HMAs; or through seeking new legislative authority. Under the 1971
act, the land available for the management of wild horses and burros is
limited to the areas where they existed at the time of the act. The
originally designated herd areas consisted of 53.5 million acres
compared to the existing HMA acreage of 34.3 million, a difference of
19.2 million acres. Specifically, the BLM owned acreage managed for
wild horses and burros has changed from 42.2 million acres to 29.0
million acres, a difference of 13.2 million acres. As we mentioned
earlier, BLM is in the process of compiling a history of actions that
led to these changes. At this point, however, it is not clear how much
of the 13.2 million acres is still public land under BLM's control.
While BLM could change AMLs, expand existing HMAs, or designate new
HMAs within its existing authority, BLM is a multiple use agency and it
weighs the needs of wild horses and burros against other competing
uses. Alternatively, should BLM chose to do so, new legislative
authority could be pursued to allow nonreproducing herds to be
relocated to areas where they were not found at the time of the act. We
believe that it is important to consider increasing AML or expanding
HMA acreage only as a means to accommodate nonreproducing herds.
Increasing the number of reproducing animals on the range without
corresponding solutions for fertility control or declining adoption
demand will, in the long run, only exacerbate BLM's problems with
dealing with excess animals.
Under Current Law BLM's Options Are Limited for Dealing with
Unadoptable Animals:
Despite these budget problems, BLM has avoided using two options in the
act for dealing with unadoptable animals because of concerns over the
public and congressional reaction to the large-scale slaughter of
thousands of healthy horses. The Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros
Act, as amended, requires that excess animals, for which the adoption
demand is not sufficient to absorb all the animals removed from the
range, be destroyed in the most humane and cost-efficient manner
possible or, under certain circumstances, be sold without limitation.
The 1978 amendments to the original 1971 act directed that "[t]he
Secretary shall cause additional excess wild free-roaming horses and
burros for which an adoption demand by qualified individuals does not
exist to be destroyed in the most humane and cost efficient manner
possible."[Footnote 50] From 1981 to 1982, BLM destroyed at least 47
excess animals. BLM decided not to destroy excess unadoptable animals
in 1982 after the Director issued a policy prohibiting the destruction
of healthy animals because of public dismay. Furthermore, from fiscal
year 1988 through fiscal year 2004, Congress prohibited BLM from using
its Management of Lands and Resources appropriations to destroy excess
healthy, unadoptable wild horses and burros.
In our 1990 report, we found that keeping excess animals in long-term
holding was costly and recommended that BLM examine alternatives, such
as sterilizing animals and releasing them back into the wild.[Footnote
51] Although BLM was prohibited from using its Management of Lands and
Resources appropriations for humanely destroying excess animals through
euthanasia at the time of that report, we also recommended that BLM
consider this action as a last resort in the event that Congress lifted
the prohibition in the future. The recurring prohibition in the annual
appropriations bills ended after fiscal year 2004. Since then, BLM has
no longer been prohibited from using its Management of Lands and
Resources appropriations for carrying out the requirement to destroy
excess animals. BLM still has not used this option.
In 2004, Congress provided BLM with an alternative to destroying
unadoptable excess animals by amending the act to state that "any
excess animal or the remains of an excess animal shall be sold if--(A)
the excess animal is more than 10 years of age; or (B) the excess
animal has been offered unsuccessfully for adoption at least 3 times."
[Footnote 52] Furthermore, the amendment stipulated that the excess
animals "shall be made available for sale without limitation."[Footnote
53] BLM has instead imposed limitations on the sales of excess animals
in an effort to reduce the risk that animals purchased at a low price
would be resold to slaughterhouses for profit.
As a result, BLM is not in compliance with the act. BLM officials told
us that they have chosen not to destroy excess animals or sell them
without limitation because of concerns about public and congressional
reaction to the large-scale slaughter of thousands of healthy horses.
Various BLM officials at different levels of responsibility also told
us that the agency has not complied with these provisions because doing
so would cause an immediate threat to the careers of any officials
involved, due to the anticipated negative reaction of the public and
Congress. Nevertheless, as of June 2008, budget constraints forced BLM
to reconsider all of its options, officials told us. Specifically, for
fiscal year 2009, BLM is considering euthanizing about 2,300 horses
from short-term holding--about one-third of the animals currently in
short-term holding. In addition, they are considering selling without
limitation about 8,000 animals from both short-and long-term holding.
However, as of August 31, 2008, legislation was pending in the 110th
Congress that would repeal the directive for BLM to sell animals
without limitation, but not the requirement to destroy unadoptable
excess horses.[Footnote 54]
Other than one pilot project, BLM has not initiated strategies to
reduce the number of horses they currently manage in long-term holding
and has not formally considered other possible solutions to
indefinitely caring for horses in long-term holding. BLM officials who
lead state Wild Horse and Burro Programs suggested several actions that
could be taken to alleviate off-the-range costs to the program, but
many of these changes would require changes in the law or BLM
regulations. The most common suggestion, made by 4 of the 10 state
leads, was that the federal government should provide incentives for
private individuals or organizations to care for unwanted wild horses,
such as monetary incentives or tax deductions. In 2003, BLM initiated a
pilot project in Wyoming to pay private ranchers a one-time lump sum to
care for unadoptable excess animals. This pilot project ended because
of a lack of up-front funds. In addition, a BLM official familiar with
the project told us that private ranchers had less interest in the
project as the market for cattle grazing improved. Implementing tax
deductions would likely require changes in the tax law. Another
suggestion made by three of the state leads was that the act should be
changed to allow the government to manage unadoptable wild horses and
burros on public or private lands outside areas where they were
originally found. The act currently does not allow BLM to relocate wild
horses and burros to areas of public lands where they were not found
when the act was passed. To date, BLM has not sought the legislative
changes that would make these suggestions possible.
Conclusions:
The management of a program consisting of wild free-roaming animals is
unique within BLM, and it presents distinct management challenges.
While BLM has made significant progress in increasing the number of
HMAs that have set AML and in moving toward meeting AML, its recent
removal efforts have resulted in the agency managing almost the same
number of animals off of the range as they manage in the wild. By
spending an ever increasing amount of funding on caring for animals off
the range, little funding is left to conduct important on-the-range
management activities, as originally envisioned in the act. Now that
BLM is closer to meeting AML, it is important for field offices to have
the resources necessary to maintain those levels and to monitor whether
those levels indeed create the "thriving natural ecological balance"
called for in the act.
Future changes to AML determinations should be based on consistent
factors across HMAs. With the turnover of the more experienced senior
BLM staff that set the existing AMLs to newer more junior staff, it is
important that the newer staff have clear official guidance to follow
on making AML determinations. It is also important for the management
of the program that BLM have the most accurate population estimates
possible. While counting wild free-roaming animals is an inherently
challenging task, the widespread use of statistically based counting
methods across more HMAs, as appropriate, would provide a
scientifically sound basis for compensating for possible undercounts.
BLM provides a great deal of information about the Wild Horse and Burro
Program through its Web site, including information on AML and
population estimates for each HMA. However, despite public concerns
about the humane treatment of these animals, BLM has not provided the
public with easily accessible information about their treatment. In
some cases, BLM headquarters does not centrally compile information on
the treatment of animals during gathers. Providing the public with
additional information on the treatment of animals during gathers and
once they are removed from the range would help inform the public about
their treatment.
In our 1990 report, we noted that given the amount of federal resources
needed to maintain unadoptable excess horses in long-term holding, BLM
would need to seek alternative options. At the time, we recommended
that BLM consider a variety of disposal options for these horses that
were not being used, including sterilization and euthanasia. Today,
about 20 years after the first long-term holding facility opened, with
adoption demand declining and alternative disposal options still not
being used, BLM is continuing to open new long-term holding facilities
to care for unadoptable wild horses, and the costs continue to
escalate. Cost-effective alternatives for long-term holding are still
needed.
BLM is faced with a dilemma as it attempts to comply with the act. On
one hand, the act directs BLM to protect and preserve wild horses and
burros, and on the other hand the act directs BLM to destroy excess
animals for which an adoption demand does not exist or, under certain
circumstances, to sell them without limitation, which has led to the
slaughter of some animals. BLM has committed to caring for these
animals, even though the law requires their humane destruction or sale
without limitation and the cost for their care off-the-range is now
overwhelming the program. The program is at a critical crossroads.
Within the program's existing budget, BLM cannot afford to care for all
of the animals off the range, while at the same time managing wild
horse and burro populations on the range. Resource limitations are
forcing BLM to reconsider all available management options, and a
workable solution must be developed to bring BLM into compliance with
the act.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
We make five recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior.
To improve the management of BLM's Wild Horse and Burro Program, we
make four recommendations that the Secretary of the Interior direct BLM
to:
* finalize and issue the new Wild Horse and Burro Program Handbook that
establishes a policy for setting AML to ensure that AML is determined
based on consistent factors across HMAs into the future;
* continue to adopt and employ statistically based methods to estimate
animal populations across HMAs, such as those being evaluated by animal
population researchers, to improve the accuracy of population estimates
integral to BLM's management of wild horses and burros on the range and
in planning for capacity needed for excess animals once they are
removed from the range;
* track the number of animals harmed or killed during the gather
process in a centralized database system and determine what information
on the treatment of gathered animals, short-term and long-term holding
animals, and adopted animals could easily be provided to the public to
help inform them about the treatment of wild horses and burros; and:
* develop cost-effective alternatives to the process of caring for wild
horses removed from the range in long-term holding facilities and seek
the legislative changes that may be necessary to implement those
alternatives.
To address BLM's noncompliance with the act, as amended, we recommend
that the Secretary of the Interior direct BLM to discuss with Congress
and other stakeholders how best to comply with the act or amend it so
that BLM would be able to comply. As part of this discussion, BLM
should inform Congress of its concerns with (1) the act's requirement
for the humane destruction of excess animals and (2) the possible
slaughter of healthy horses if excess animals are sold without
limitation, under certain circumstances, as the act requires.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report to the Department of the Interior
for review and comment. The department concurred with our findings and
recommendations and believes they will help to improve the Wild Horse
and Burro Program. In addition, the department provided several
technical clarifications, which we incorporated as appropriate.
Appendix IV contains the Department of the Interior's comment letter.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days
from the report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report
to the Secretary of the Interior, the Director of BLM, and other
interested parties. We will also make copies available to others upon
request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the
GAO Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff has any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-3841 or nazzaror@gao.gov. Contact points for
our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found
on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions
to this report are listed in appendix V.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
Robin M. Nazzaro:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
We examined (1) the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) progress in
managing wild horses and burros on the range through setting and
meeting appropriate management levels (AML); (2) BLM's management of
wild horses and burros off of the range through adoption, sales, and
holding facilities; (3) the controls BLM has in place to help ensure
humane treatment of wild horses and burros; and (4) what challenges, if
any, BLM faces in managing for the long-term sustainability of the Wild
Horse and Burro Program. We were also asked to review how and why the
acreage available for wild horses and burros had changed since the 1971
act. We did not examine the acreage issue because BLM is in the process
of compiling a history of acreage determinations. BLM officials expect
their review to be completed by March 2009.
To examine how BLM manages wild horses and burros on and off of the
range and to identify the challenges facing BLM, we reviewed relevant
laws, regulations, BLM policy, and BLM strategic plans. We also
surveyed, and analyzed documents from, 26 of the 44 BLM field offices
that manage wild horses and burros[Footnote 55]. We collected and
reviewed relevant resource management decision documents from the
surveyed field offices to help corroborate their responses about
specific questions, including those about factors used to make AML
determinations and gather decisions. We surveyed field offices in all
10 western states that manage HMAs. The field offices we surveyed
represent 82 percent of all BLM acres managed for wild horses and
burros, 74 percent of all BLM managed wild horses, and 69 percent of
burros on the range at the time of the survey. Our survey sample
included 100 percent of the BLM field offices that manage HMAs in
Nevada, including the Tonopah Field Station (seven offices); three
randomly selected field offices from each of the five states whose
field offices or district offices manage a population of wild horses
and burros that fall between 1,000 and 10,000 horses (Arizona,
California, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming); and one randomly selected field
office from each of the four states whose field offices manage a
population of wild horses and burros that is less than 1,000 (Colorado,
Idaho, Montana, and New Mexico). Because most of our survey questions
focused on the management of a particular HMA, we judgmentally selected
an HMA for each field office to consider in responding to our survey.
We considered a variety of factors in making these HMA selections,
including herd population size and whether the HMA had met or not met
AML (according to 2007 BLM Statistics). Table 15 lists the 26 BLM field
offices and HMAs we selected as part of our survey.
Table 15: BLM Field Offices and HMAs Included in GAO's Survey:
BLM field office by state: Arizona: Yuma Field Office;
HMA: Cibola-Trigo.
BLM field office by state: Arizona: Hassayampa Field Office;
HMA: Lake Pleasant.
BLM field office by state: Arizona: Kingman Field Office;
HMA: Black Mountain.
BLM field office by state: California: Surprise Field Office;
HMA: High Rock.
BLM field office by state: California: Alturas Field Office;
HMA: Red Rock Lakes.
BLM field office by state: California: Ridgecrest Field Office;
HMA: Centennial.
BLM field office by state: Colorado: White River Field Office;
HMA: Piceance-East Douglas Creek.
BLM field office by state: Idaho: Four Rivers Field Office;
HMA: Four Mile.
BLM field office by state: Montana: Billings Field Office;
HMA: Pryor Mountain Wild Horse Range.
BLM field office by state: Nevada: Tonopah Field Station;
HMA: Montezuma Peak.
BLM field office by state: Nevada: Battle Mountain Field Office;
HMA: South Shoshone.
BLM field office by state: Nevada: Carson City Field Office;
HMA: Flanigan.
BLM field office by state: Nevada: Elko Field Office;
HMA: Rock Creek.
BLM field office by state: Nevada: Ely Field Office;
HMA: Dry Lake.
BLM field office by state: Nevada: Las Vegas Field Office;
HMA: Red Rock.
BLM field office by state: Nevada: Winnimucca Field Office;
HMA: Granite Range.
BLM field office by state: New Mexico: Socorro Field Office;
HMA: Bordo Atravesado.
BLM field office by state: Oregon: Prineville District Office;
HMA: Liggett Table.
BLM field office by state: Oregon: Lakeview District Office;
HMA: Beaty's Butte.
BLM field office by state: Oregon: Vale District Office;
HMA: Coyote Lake-Alvord Tule Springs.
BLM field office by state: Utah: Richfield Field Office;
HMA: Canyon Lands.
BLM field office by state: Utah: Vernal Field Office;
HMA: Hill Creek.
BLM field office by state: Utah: Fillmore Field Office;
HMA: Conger.
BLM field office by state: Wyoming: Rock Springs Field Office;
HMA: Divide Basin.
BLM field office by state: Wyoming: Cody Field Office;
HMA: McCullough Peaks.
BLM field office by state: Wyoming: Lander Field Office;
HMA: Dishpan Butte.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
The survey included several open-ended responses aimed at determining
the primary challenges associated with meeting and maintaining AML, the
primary challenges facing the Wild Horse and Burro Program as a whole,
and suggestions for ways to improve the program. Two GAO analysts
independently reviewed these open-ended survey responses, agreed upon
the categories for coding each response, and resolved any disagreements
in coding to determine what the respondents as a whole thought about
these issues.
The practical difficulties of conducting any survey may introduce
errors, commonly referred to as nonsampling errors. For example,
difficulties in how a particular question is interpreted, in the
sources of information that are available to the respondents, or in how
the data are entered into a database or were analyzed can introduce
unwanted variability into the survey results. We took steps in the
development of the questionnaire, the data collection, and the data
analysis to minimize these nonsampling errors. For example, survey
specialists designed the questionnaire in collaboration with GAO staff
with subject matter expertise. Then, the draft questionnaire was
pretested with officials from five BLM field offices in four different
states to ensure that the questions were relevant, clearly stated, and
easy to comprehend. We also conducted follow-up phone calls to clarify
ambiguous or incomplete responses. We received usable responses from
all field offices that we surveyed--a 100 percent response rate. See
appendix III for a summary of the survey responses not presented
elsewhere in the report.
We also interviewed agency officials at BLM Headquarters; the National
Program Office in Reno, Nevada; and Wild Horse and Burro Program State
Leads from each of the 10 states that manage wild horses and burros. In
addition, we conducted site visits at two field offices that manage
HMAs in Nevada and Colorado; one long-term holding facility in
Oklahoma; three short-term holding facilities in Colorado, Nevada, and
Wyoming; and attended two adoption events in Arizona and Colorado.
To examine humane treatment, we reviewed relevant laws, regulations,
and BLM policies. We collected and analyzed reports from BLM
Headquarters, state offices, and data from BLM's compliance database.
We also interviewed BLM compliance officials from two states, a
veterinarian from the Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service, and public citizens and advocacy groups that
work to promote the well being of wild horses and burros.
As part of our overall methodology, we interviewed a range of
stakeholders interested in BLM's management of the Wild Horse and Burro
Program, including, but not limited to, the American Wild Horse
Preservation Campaign, the Animal Welfare Institute, the Cloud
Foundation, the Humane Society of the United States, the National
Cattlemen's Beef Association, and Nevada Bighorns Unlimited.
We conducted this performance audit from September 2007 to October 2008
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Fertility Control and Genetic Variability:
In addition to the information provided in this report to answer our
primary objectives, we encountered two other issues related to BLM's
management of the Wild Horse and Burro Program. The issues primarily
relate to BLM's on-the-range management activities, including fertility
control and genetic variability.
Fertility Control:
BLM has been pursuing a fertility control vaccine called porcine zonae
pellucida since 1992 to use as a tool for slowing the reproductive rate
in wild horse populations. A slower reproductive rate would reduce the
number of animals that would have to be gathered and removed, adopted,
and held. BLM officials do not consider this treatment as the best
short-term management tool to achieve AML but believe that once HMAs
are at AML, fertility treatment can help to maintain that level. Much
research has been conducted about the use of the vaccine in domestic
and wild horses. The Department of the Interior's National Park Service
has used this treatment to successfully manage wild horse populations
at two national seashores. BLM field offices have been directed to
consider the use of fertility control as an alternative in their gather
plans, but they are not required to choose this research tool. The
vaccine is considered experimental, and as such, there are barriers to
its use. Since 2004, 47 HMAs have used fertility treatments, and a
total of about 1,800 wild horses have been injected with the treatment.
BLM considers the use of this treatment as a research tool; however,
according to a prominent wild horse fertility researcher, BLM should
more actively pursue its use as a management tool. According to BLM
officials, fertility control may offer the possibility of reducing
reproduction rates and costs, but BLM will still need to place horses
in long-term holding in the future.
Genetic Variability:
Herd health is another important component of BLM's on-the-range
management of wild horses and burros. Specifically, it is important to
maintain a degree of genetic variability to decrease the likelihood of
disease and to maintain the biological fitness of the population. The
amount of genetic variability that is sufficient to maintain a healthy
population, however, is difficult to discern. Some groups have
criticized BLM for setting AMLs at levels that are less than 100 or 150
animals. As of February 2008, 135 of the 199 HMAs had an upper limit of
150 or less for AML (see table 16). Several of these smaller HMAs,
however, are part of a complex of HMAs that are managed as one unit
where there is regular genetic interchange. For example, 13 complexes
in Nevada encompass 45 of their 102 HMAs. According to a leading
researcher in the field of wild horse genetics, however, a herd that
has a population of less than 100 can be maintained with the
introduction of at least one or two horses every 6 to 7 years,
including those whose herd size are as small as 10 to 15 horses.
Table 16: Number of HMAs Managed at Various AMLs, February 2008:
Upper limit of AML: 0;
Number of HMAs: 8.
Upper limit of AML: 1-100;
Number of HMAs: 102.
Upper limit of AML: 101-150;
Number of HMAs: 25.
Upper limit of AML: 151-200;
Number of HMAs: 16.
Upper limit of AML: 201-300;
Number of HMAs: 25.
Upper limit of AML: 301-500;
Number of HMAs: 16.
Upper limit of AML: 501-1,000;
Number of HMAs: 5.
Upper limit of AML: Not yet determined;
Number of HMAs: 2.
Upper limit of AML: Total;
Number of HMAs: 199.
Source: BLM.
[End of table]
BLM manages a few herds that show strong evidence of old Spanish
heritage which no longer exists outside of the Americas. For example,
the Kiger Mustangs of Oregon and the Pryor Mustangs of Montana have
some colonial Spanish traits. For most of the HMAs, however, genetic
variability is important primarily in maintaining the health of the
herd, rather than managing for a specific genetic trait or bloodlines.
[End of section]
Appendix III: Wild Horse and Burro Survey Results:
The following tables summarize responses collected through our survey
instrument that was sent to 26 BLM field offices that manage HMAs. See
appendix I for a complete explanation of which offices were chosen and
the methodology used to select those field offices and specific HMAs.
Our survey was divided into two sections. The first asked questions
specific to the field offices' management of particular HMAs. The
second section asked questions related to the field offices' general
management of all HMAs.[Footnote 56]
Section I: Field Office Responses Specific to Selected HMAs:
Table 17: Current and Initial AML and Year of Determination per HMA
Surveyed:
HMA, by state: Arizona: Cibola-Trigo;
Initial AML: 315;
Year initial AML was set: 1980;
Current AML: [A];
Year current AML was set: [A].
HMA, by state: Arizona: Lake Pleasant;
Initial AML: 80;
Year initial AML was set: 1988;
Current AML: 208;
Year current AML was set: 2000.
HMA, by state: Arizona: Black Mountain;
Initial AML: 148;
Year initial AML was set: 1978;
Current AML: 478;
Year current AML was set: 1996.
HMA, by state: California: High Rock;
Initial AML: 70-100;
Year initial AML was set: 1981;
Current AML: 78-120;
Year current AML was set: 2001.
HMA, by state: California: Red Rock Lakes;
Initial AML: 16-25;
Year initial AML was set: 1981;
Current AML: [A];
Year current AML was set: [A].
HMA, by state: California: Centennial;
Initial AML: 168;
Year initial AML was set: 1980;
Current AML: 168;
Year current AML was set: 2005.
HMA, by state: Colorado: Piceance-East Douglas Creek;
Initial AML: 90-140;
Year initial AML was set: 1981;
Current AML: 135-235;
Year current AML was set: 1999.
HMA, by state: Idaho: Four Mile;
Initial AML: 37-60;
Year initial AML was set: 2001;
Current AML: [A];
Year current AML was set: [A].
HMA, by state: Montana: Pryor Mountain Wild Horse Range;
Initial AML: 121;
Year initial AML was set: 1984;
Current AML: 95;
Year current AML was set: 1992.
HMA, by state: Nevada: Montezuma Peak;
Initial AML: 161;
Year initial AML was set: 1974;
Current AML: 0;
Year current AML was set: 2007.
HMA, by state: Nevada: South Shoshone;
Initial AML: 78;
Year initial AML was set: 1986;
Current AML: 60-100;
Year current AML was set: 2005.
HMA, by state: Nevada: Flanigan;
Initial AML: 83-125;
Year initial AML was set: 1990;
Current AML: [A];
Year current AML was set: [A].
HMA, by state: Nevada: Rock Creek;
Initial AML: 119;
Year initial AML was set: 1987;
Current AML: 250;
Year current AML was set: 2003.
HMA, by state: Nevada: Dry Lake;
Initial AML: 82;
Year initial AML was set: 1983;
Current AML: 94;
Year current AML was set: 2001.
HMA, by state: Nevada: Red Rock;
Initial AML: 116;
Year initial AML was set: 1982;
Current AML: 41-76;
Year current AML was set: 2004.
HMA, by state: Nevada: Granite Range;
Initial AML: 155-258;
Year initial AML was set: 1993;
Current AML: [A];
Year current AML was set: [A].
HMA, by state: New Mexico: Bordo Atravesado;
Initial AML: 20-30;
Year initial AML was set: 1980;
Current AML: 50;
Year current AML was set: 1991.
HMA, by state: Oregon: Liggett Table;
Initial AML: 10-25;
Year initial AML was set: 1989;
Current AML: [A];
Year current AML was set: [A].
HMA, by state: Oregon: Beaty's Butte;
Initial AML: 234;
Year initial AML was set: 1971;
Current AML: 100-250;
Year current AML was set: 1983.
HMA, by state: Oregon: Coyote Lake-Alvord Tule Springs;
Initial AML: 198-390;
Year initial AML was set: 1978;
Current AML: [A];
Year current AML was set: [A].
HMA, by state: Utah: Canyon Lands;
Initial AML: 60-100;
Year initial AML was set: 2001;
Current AML: [A];
Year current AML was set: [A].
HMA, by state: Utah: Hill Creek;
Initial AML: 195;
Year initial AML was set: 1985;
Current AML: [A];
Year current AML was set: [A].
HMA, by state: Utah: Conger;
Initial AML: 34;
Year initial AML was set: 1977;
Current AML: 40-80;
Year current AML was set: 1987.
HMA, by state: Wyoming: Divide Basin;
Initial AML: 425-588;
Year initial AML was set: 1979;
Current AML: 415-600;
Year current AML was set: 1997.
HMA, by state: Wyoming: McCullough Peaks;
Initial AML: 70-140;
Year initial AML was set: 1985;
Current AML: 70-140;
Year current AML was set: 1990.
HMA, by state: Wyoming: Dishpan Butte;
Initial AML: 35-50;
Year initial AML was set: 1983;
Current AML: 50-100;
Year current AML was set: 1993.
Source: GAO survey results.
[A] At the time of our survey, AML for 9 of the 26 HMAs we selected had
not been revised since it was initially set. For those 9 HMAs, the
initial AML and the year initial AML was set is also the current AML
and the year current AML was set.
[End of table]
Table 18: Level of Data Sufficiency Used to Determine Current AML:
Level of sufficiency: Very sufficient;
Number of respondents: 15.
Level of sufficiency: Moderately sufficient;
Number of respondents: 7.
Level of sufficiency: Moderately insufficient;
Number of respondents: 2.
Level of sufficiency: Very insufficient;
Number of respondents: 1.
Level of sufficiency: Unsure/don't know;
Number of respondents: 1.
Source: GAO survey results.
[End of table]
Table 19: Respondents' Opinions about Current AML:
Current AML: Too high;
Number of respondents: 3.
Current AML: About right;
Number of respondents: 17.
Current AML: Too low;
Number of respondents: 2.
Current AML: Unsure/don't know;
Number of respondents: 4.
Source: GAO survey results.
[End of table]
Table 20: Population Level in Comparison with AML Range:
Population level: Above;
Number of respondents: 15.
Population level: Within limits;
Number of respondents: 10.
Population level: Below;
Number of respondents: 0.
Population level: Unsure/don't know;
Number of respondents: 1.
Source: GAO survey results.
[End of table]
Table 21: Primary Challenges in Meeting or Maintaining AML:
Challenge: Impediments to conducting gathers;
Number of respondents: 20.
Challenge: Lack of sufficient removal outlet;
Number of respondents: 12.
Challenge: Inability to conduct range management;
Number of respondents: 9.
Challenge: Limitations to accurate population counts;
Number of respondents: 8.
Challenge: HMA boundary issues;
Number of respondents: 5.
Challenge: Public pressure to not remove animals;
Number of respondents: 4.
Challenge: Multiple use balance;
Number of respondents: 4.
Challenge: Staffing limitations;
Number of respondents: 3.
Challenge: Litigation;
Number of respondents: 2.
Challenge: Habitat limitations;
Number of respondents: 2.
Challenge: High reproductive rates of the animals;
Number of respondents: 2.
Challenge: Other;
Number of respondents: 2.
Source: GAO survey results.
[End of table]
Table 22: Impact on Rangeland Resources in HMA When Herd Populations
Exceed the Upper Limit of AML by Less Than 25 Percent:
Rangeland resource: Horse and burro herd health;
Level of impact: Positive: 1;
Level of impact: Slightly positive: 2;
Level of impact: No impact: 10;
Level of impact: Slightly negative: 10;
Level of impact: Negative: 3;
Level of impact: Blank: 0.
Rangeland resource: Rangeland health;
Level of impact: Positive: 0;
Level of impact: Slightly positive: 1;
Level of impact: No impact: 5;
Level of impact: Slightly negative: 10;
Level of impact: Negative: 10;
Level of impact: Blank: 0.
Rangeland resource: Livestock habitat requirements;
Level of impact: Positive: 0;
Level of impact: Slightly positive: 1;
Level of impact: No impact: 10;
Level of impact: Slightly negative: 9;
Level of impact: Negative: 5;
Level of impact: Blank: 1.
Rangeland resource: Wildlife habitat requirements;
Level of impact: Positive: 0;
Level of impact: Slightly positive: 1;
Level of impact: No impact: 8;
Level of impact: Slightly negative: 9;
Level of impact: Negative: 8;
Level of impact: Blank: 0.
Source: GAO survey results.
[End of table]
Table 23: Impact on Rangeland Resources in HMA When Herd Populations
Exceed the Upper Limit of AML by 25 to 50 Percent:
Rangeland resource: Horse and burro herd health;
Level of impact: Positive: 1;
Level of impact: Slightly positive: 1;
Level of impact: No impact: 4;
Level of impact: Slightly negative: 10;
Level of impact: Negative: 10;
Level of impact: Blank: 0.
Rangeland resource: Rangeland health;
Level of impact: Positive: 0;
Level of impact: Slightly positive: 0;
Level of impact: No impact: 0;
Level of impact: Slightly negative: 8;
Level of impact: Negative: 18;
Level of impact: Blank: 0.
Rangeland resource: Livestock habitat requirements;
Level of impact: Positive: 0;
Level of impact: Slightly positive: 0;
Level of impact: No impact: 4;
Level of impact: Slightly negative: 9;
Level of impact: Negative: 12;
Level of impact: Blank: 1.
Rangeland resource: Wildlife habitat requirements;
Level of impact: Positive: 0;
Level of impact: Slightly positive: 0;
Level of impact: No impact: 3;
Level of impact: Slightly negative: 8;
Level of impact: Negative: 15;
Level of impact: Blank: 0.
Source: GAO survey results.
[End of table]
Table 24: Impact on Rangeland Resources in HMA When Herd Populations
Exceed the Upper Limit of AML by 51 to 100 Percent:
Rangeland resource: Horse and burro herd health;
Level of impact: Positive: 0;
Level of impact: Slightly positive: 1;
Level of impact: No impact: 2;
Level of impact: Slightly negative: 4;
Level of impact: Negative: 19;
Level of impact: Blank: 0.
Rangeland resource: Rangeland health;
Level of impact: Positive: 0;
Level of impact: Slightly positive: 0;
Level of impact: No impact: 0;
Level of impact: Slightly negative: 0;
Level of impact: Negative: 26;
Level of impact: Blank: 0.
Rangeland resource: Livestock habitat requirements;
Level of impact: Positive: 0;
Level of impact: Slightly positive: 0;
Level of impact: No impact: 3;
Level of impact: Slightly negative: 3;
Level of impact: Negative: 19;
Level of impact: Blank: 1.
Rangeland resource: Wildlife habitat requirements;
Level of impact: Positive: 0;
Level of impact: Slightly positive: 0;
Level of impact: No impact: 3;
Level of impact: Slightly negative: 2;
Level of impact: Negative: 21;
Level of impact: Blank: 0.
Source: GAO survey results.
[End of table]
Table 25: Number of Field Offices That Have or Do Not Have Procedures
in Place to Distinguish Impact of Wild Horses and Burros, Cattle, and
Wildlife on Rangeland Condition:
Procedure to distinguish impact: Yes;
Number of respondents: 20.
Procedure to distinguish impact: No;
Number of respondents: 6.
Procedure to distinguish impact:
Unsure/don't know; Number of respondents: 0.
Source: GAO survey results.
[End of table]
Table 26: Actions Taken to Manage HMAs Since 2000:
Action taken: Conducted population inventory;
Yes: 24;
No: 2;
Don't know: 0;
Not applicable: 0;
Blank: 0.
Action taken: Conducted gathers and removals;
Yes: 23;
No: 3;
Don't know: 0;
Not applicable: 0;
Blank: 0.
Action taken: Reduced or modified livestock use;
es: 15;
No: 7;
Don't know: 0;
Not applicable: 4;
Blank: 0.
Action taken: Increased resource monitoring;
Yes: 14;
No: 10;
Don't know: 2;
Not applicable: 0;
Blank: 0.
Action taken: Vegetative/riparian restoration;
Yes: 14;
No: 11;
Don't know: 1;
Not applicable: 0;
Blank: 0.
Action taken: Other land management actions;
Yes: 12;
No: 2;
Don't know: 1;
Not applicable: 2;
Blank: 9.
Action taken: Changed AML;
Yes: 7;
No: 18;
Don't know: 1;
Not applicable: 0;
Blank: 0.
Source: GAO survey results.
[End of table]
Table 27: Number of HMAs with a Herd Management Area Plan:
Plan: Herd Management Area Plan;
Yes: 16;
No: 9;
Unsure/don't know: 1.
Plan: Plan to develop a Herd Management Area Plan;
Yes: 8;
No: 2;
Unsure/don't know: 5.
Source: GAO survey results.
[End of table]
Table 28: Primary Physical Method Used in Most Recent Census/Inventory:
Primary method: Fixed-wing aircraft;
Number of respondents: 3.
Primary method: Helicopter;
Number of respondents: 20.
Primary method: Horseback/on foot;
Number of respondents: 2.
Primary method: Don't know;
Number of respondents: 1.
Source: GAO survey results.
[End of table]
Table 29: Primary Statistical Method Used in Most Recent Census/
Inventory:
Primary method: Direct count (single number);
Number of respondents: 17.
Primary method: Direct count (range);
Number of respondents: 2.
Primary method: Simultaneous double-count;
Number of respondents: 3.
Primary method: Sightability bias correction model;
Number of respondents: 2.
Primary method: Other;
Number of respondents: 2.
Source: GAO survey results.
[End of table]
Table 30: Level of Accuracy of Most Recent Census/Inventory:
Level of accuracy: Greatly over counted;
Number of respondents: 0.
Level of accuracy: Over counted;
Number of respondents: 0.
Level of accuracy: Counted about right;
Number of respondents: 15.
Level of accuracy: Undercounted;
Number of respondents: 10.
Level of accuracy: Greatly undercounted;
Number of respondents: 0.
Level of accuracy: Unsure/don't know;
Number of respondents: 1.
Source: GAO survey results.
[End of table]
Table 31: Level of Data Sufficiency Used to Support Most Recent Gather:
Level of sufficiency: Very sufficient;
Number of respondents: 21.
Level of sufficiency: Moderately sufficient;
Number of respondents: 4.
Level of sufficiency: Moderately insufficient;
Number of respondents: 0.
Level of sufficiency: Very insufficient;
Number of respondents: 0.
Level of sufficiency: Unsure/don't know;
Number of respondents: 1.
Source: GAO survey results.
[End of table]
Table 32: Timing of Gather in Relation to Scheduled Date of Gather:
Timing of gather: Conducted earlier;
Number of respondents: 2.
Timing of gather: Neither earlier nor delayed;
Number of respondents: 18.
Timing of gather: Delayed;
Number of respondents: 4.
Timing of gather: Unsure/don't know;
Number of respondents: 2.
Source: GAO survey results.
[End of table]
Table 33: Level of AML to Which HMA Is Typically Gathered:
Level of AML: Upper;
Number of respondents: 7.
Level of AML: Middle;
Number of respondents: 7.
Level of AML: Lower;
Number of respondents: 7.
Level of AML: Unsure/don't know;
Number of respondents: 5.
Source: GAO survey results.
[End of table]
Section II: Field Offices' Responses to General Questions Regarding All
of the HMAs They Manage:
Table 34: Actions Taken to Manage HMA's Since 2000:
Action taken: Conducted population inventory;
Yes: 19;
No: 0;
Don't know: 0;
Not applicable: 0;
Blank: 0.
Action taken: Conducted gathers and removals;
Yes: 18;
No: 1;
Don't know: 0;
Not applicable: 0;
Blank: 0.
Action taken: Reduced or modified livestock use;
Yes: 14;
No: 2;
Don't know: 1;
Not applicable: 2;
Blank: 0.
Action taken: Vegetative/riparian restoration;
Yes: 14;
No: 5;
Don't know: 0;
Not applicable: 0;
Blank: 0.
Action taken: Increased resource monitoring;
Yes: 12;
No: 7;
Don't know: 0;
Not applicable: 0;
Blank: 0.
Action taken: Changed AML;
Yes: 11;
No: 8;
Don't know: 0;
Not applicable: 0;
Blank: 0.
Action taken: Other land management actions;
Yes: 6;
No: 2;
Don't know: 1;
Not applicable: 0;
Blank: 10.
Source: GAO survey results.
[End of table]
Table 35: Field Offices Whose HMAs Have Herd Management Area Plans:
Plan: Herd Management Area Plan;
All: 11;
Some: 6;
None: 8;
Unsure/don't know: 1.
Source: GAO survey results.
[End of table]
Table 36: Field Offices Working to Develop Herd Management Area Plans
for All of Their HMAs:
Response: Yes;
Number of respondents: 6.
Response: No;
Number of respondents: 8.
Source: GAO survey results.
[End of table]
Table 37: Actions to Help Field Offices Achieve Healthy Herd
Populations in Balance with the Range and Other Multiple Uses:
Actions: Increase range management activities; Number of respondents:
15.
Actions: Reach and maintain AML;
Number of respondents: 9.
Actions: Improve staff capacity;
Number of respondents: 7.
Actions: Improve census/inventory;
Number of respondents: 7.
Actions: Increase funding;
Number of respondents: 6.
Actions: Improve adoption outlet;
Number of respondents: 3.
Actions: Improve coordination in management;
Number of respondents: 3.
Actions: Improve access to HMAs;
Number of respondents: 2.
Actions: Solve long-term holding situation;
Number of respondents: 2.
Source: GAO survey results.
[End of table]
Table 38: Major Challenges Facing Field Offices in Managing HMAs to
Achieve Healthy Herd Populations That Are in Balance with the Range and
Other Multiple Uses:
Major challenges: Impediments to conducting gathers;
Number of respondents: 13.
Major challenges: Staffing limitations;
Number of respondents: 11.
Major challenges: Limitations to accurate population counts;
Number of respondents: 8.
Major challenges: Inability to conduct range management;
Number of respondents: 8.
Major challenges: Multiple use balance;
Number of respondents: 7.
Major challenges: Lack of sufficient removal outlet;
Number of respondents: 6.
Major challenges: Ability to maintain AML;
Number of respondents: 4.
Major challenges: Habitat limitations;
Number of respondents: 4.
Major challenges: Other;
Number of respondents: 4.
Major challenges: Planning process;
Number of respondents: 3.
Major challenges: Public pressure;
Number of respondents: 3.
Major challenges: HMA boundary issues;
Number of respondents: 3.
Source: GAO survey results.
[End of table]
Table 39: Major Challenges Facing BLM's Wild Horse and Burro Program As
a Whole:
Major challenges: Lack of sufficient removal outlet[A];
Number of respondents: 18.
Major challenges: Staffing limitations;
Number of respondents: 11.
Major challenges: Inability to conduct range management;
Number of respondents: 8.
Major challenges: Public pressure;
Number of respondents: 7.
Major challenges: Impediments to conducting gathers;
Number of respondents: 5.
Major challenges: Unwanted horses released to BLM lands;
Number of respondents: 5.
Major challenges: Funding;
Number of respondents: 3.
Major challenges: Lack of support;
Number of respondents: 3.
Major challenges: Limitations to accurate population counts;
Number of respondents: 2.
Major challenges: Habitat limitations;
Number of respondents: 2.
Major challenges: Lack of management flexibility;
Number of respondents: 2.
Major challenges: Multiple use balance;
Number of respondents: 2.
Major challenges: Poor public perception;
Number of respondents: 2.
Source: GAO survey results.
[A] Removal outlet limitations include decreased options for animals
once removed from the range, such as decreased adoptions, expense of
caring for animals removed from the range, and limited capacity in long-
term holding facilities.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of the Interior:
United States Department of the Interior:
Bureau Of Land Management:
"Take Pride in America"
Washington, DC 20240:
[hyperlink, http://www.blm.gov]:
September 5, 2008:
Robin M. Nazzaro:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001:
Dear Ms. Nazzaro:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Government
Accountability Office draft report entitled, "Bureau of Land
Management: Effective Long-Term Options Needed to Manage Unadoptable
Wild Horses," (GAO-08-989).
The Department of the Interior concurs with the findings and
recommendations for executive action and believes these will help us
improve the Wild Horses and Burro Program. The Bureau of Land
Management will work to develop cost effective alternatives to long
term holding. BLM will seek advice from the National Wild Horse and
Burro Advisory Board and other partners and stakeholders to find
acceptable solutions, and will discuss any helpful legislative
proposals with Congress.
The enclosure provides technical comments on the draft report.
If you have any questions, please contact Don Glenn, Chief, Division of
Wild Horses and Burros at (202) 452-5082 or LaVanna Stevenson-Harris,
BLM Audit Liaison Officer, at (202) 785-6580.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Illegible, for:
James L. Caswell:
Director:
Enclosure:
[End of section]
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Robin M. Nazzaro, (202) 512-3841 or nazzaror@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the individual named above, Jeffery D. Malcolm,
Assistant Director; Ulana Bihun; Kevin Bray; Lee Carroll; Benjamin
Shouse; Gregory Wilmoth; and Elizabeth Wood made key contributions to
this report. Also contributing to the report were Beverly Ross and
Monica Wolford.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] Pub. L. No. 92-195, 85 Stat. 649 (1971) (codified as amended at 16
U.S.C. §§ 1331-1340).
[2] This report focuses solely on BLM's Wild Horse and Burro Program.
BLM is responsible for managing over 90 percent of the wild horses and
burros on public lands. The Forest Service is responsible for managing
2,200 wild horses and about 300 burros in 37 Wild Horse Territories
that cover about 2.5 million acres of Forest Service land.
[3] Shortly after the 1971 act, BLM conducted a wild horse and burro
population census and estimated the number of wild horses to be about
17,300 and the number of wild burros to be about 8,000.
[4] The 44 BLM field units include 39 field offices, 4 district offices
in Oregon, and 1 field station--the Tonopah Field Station in Nevada. We
will refer to these 44 BLM field units collectively as field offices.
BLM's count of the number of offices that manage HMAs may differ
because the 4 district offices in Oregon manage 7 resource area
offices.
[5] Pub. L. No. 95-514, § 14, 92 Stat. 1803, 1808 (1978) (amending 16
U.S.C. §§ 1332-1333).
[6] Animal Protection Institute of America, 109 IBLA 112, 119 (1989)
(internal quotes omitted).
[7] This total does not include the number of burros removed from the
range in 1981. BLM was not able to verify older data or estimate the
number of burro removals for 1981. The total number of wild horses and
burros that BLM could verify were removed from the range between 1971
and 2007 was 249,489. Officials verified that the number of animals
removed between 1977 and 1980 was 18,009; however, they were unable to
further specify this number by year or by species. When added together,
this total equals 267,498.
[8] 16 U.S.C. § 1333(b)(2)(B).
[9] 16 U.S.C. § 1333(b)(2)(C) (destroy excess animals for which an
adoption demand does not exist) and 16 U.S.C. § 1333(e) (sell without
limitation excess animals under certain circumstances).
[10] Pub. L. No. 108-447, Div. E, Title I, § 142, 118 Stat. 2809, 3070
(2004) (amending 16 U.S.C. § 1333). In 2005, shortly after the 2004
sales directive was enacted, legislation was introduced in the 109th
Congress that would have prohibited the sale of wild horses and burros
for processing into commercial products (H.R. 297 and S. 576). Neither
of these bills were enacted. More recently, in the 110th Congress, H.R.
249 was introduced to prohibit the sale of wild horses and burros for
processing into commercial products. The bill was passed by the House
of Representatives on April 26, 2007. As of August 31, 2008, the Senate
had not acted on the bill.
[11] The number 567,000 represents the cattle yearlong equivalent
derived by dividing the actual number of animal unit months billed in
fiscal year 2007 by 12 months. An animal unit month refers to the
amount of forage needed to sustain an adult cow and her calf or horse
for 1 month. In reality, few livestock grazing permits are issued for
yearlong grazing.
[12] BLM manages wild horses and burros on 199 HMAs that are comprised
of 29 million acres of BLM land and an additional 5.35 million acres of
non-BLM land.
[13] GAO, Rangeland Management: Improvements Needed in Federal Wild
Horse Program, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/RCED-
90-110] (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 20, 1990).
[14] We drew our sample of 26 field units from among the 44 field units
that manage HMAs, which include 39 field offices, 4 district offices in
Oregon, and 1 field station in Nevada. BLM's count of the number of
offices that manage HMAs may differ because the 4 district offices in
Oregon manage 7 resource area offices.
[15] Pub. L. No. 92-196, § 9, 85 Stat. 649, 651 (renumbered as § 10 of
the act and codified at 16 U.S.C. § 1339).
[16] Pub. L. No. 92-196, § 4, 85 Stat. 649, 651 (codified at 16 U.S.C.
§ 1334).
[17] Three of the 199 HMAs are classified as Wild Horse Ranges--the
Pryor Mountains Wild Horse Range in Montana, the Little Book Cliffs
Wild Horse Range in Colorado, and the Nevada Wild Horse Range of south-
central Nevada. One of the HMAs is classified as a Wild Burro Range--
the Marietta Wild Burro Range located in Nevada. According to the 1971
act, under certain circumstances, the Secretaries of the Interior and
Agriculture may designate and maintain specific ranges on public lands
as sanctuaries for the protection and preservation of wild free-roaming
horses and burros. 16 U.S.C. § 1333(a). Ranges are to be devoted
principally, but not necessarily exclusively, to their welfare in
keeping with the multiple-use management concept for the public lands.
16 U.S.C. § 1332(c). BLM can also choose to close appropriate areas of
public lands to grazing use by all or a particular kind of livestock,
if necessary, to provide habitat for wild horses or burros; to
implement herd management actions; or to protect wild horses or burros
from disease, harassment, or injury. 43 C.F.R. § 4710.5.
[18] Animal Protection Institute of America, 109 IBLA at 119 (internal
quotes omitted).
[19] Some HMAs report AML as a single number rather than as a range;
however, they also calculate an upper and lower limit of AML to
determine the level within which to manage herds. BLM is drafting
guidance to direct all field offices to identify AML as a range.
[20] According to BLM officials, as of February 2008, the upper limit
of AML nationally was approximately 27,219 animals, and the lower limit
of AML was approximately 17,957. Based on our calculation, the midpoint
between the two limits is approximately 22,588. These numbers are
considered approximate because not all HMAs report AML as a range. AML
for 7 HMAs are reported as the midpoint of AML, while 29 HMAs report
AML as the upper limit. Therefore, to account for the 36 HMAs that
report a single AML number, BLM may only approximate the true upper,
lower, and midpoint of AML on a nationwide basis.
[21] BLM has gather contracts with two private companies.
[22] The selective removal policy is used only for wild horses; it is
not applicable to wild burros. When gathers are conducted, an emphasis
is placed on removing the younger, more adoptable animals from the
range. However, the sex ratio and age structure of the herd must also
be considered to assure a healthy population.
[23] U.S. Department of the Interior, BLM, Living Legends in Balance
with the Land, A Strategy to Achieve Healthy Lands and Viable Herds,
The Restoration of Threatened Watersheds Initiative (Washington, D.C.,
2000).
[24] The number of HMAs managed by BLM has changed over time. In 2002,
BLM managed 208 HMAs, 142 of which had set AML, or 68 percent.
[25] Dahl v. Clark, 600 F. Supp. 585 (Dist. Ct. Nev. 1984).
[26] For this report we reviewed BLM's process for making AML
determinations and the factors it considers during that process. We are
not expressing a legal opinion as to whether any individual AML
established through this process would achieve and maintain a "thriving
natural ecological balance," as required by the act. 16 U.S.C. §
1333(a), (b)(2); see also, Animal Protection Institute of America, 109
IBLA 112, 115.
[27] Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, all federal
agencies must ensure that any actions they authorize, fund, or carry
out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed
species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of its
designated critical habitat.
[28] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/RCED-90-110].
[29] An animal unit month refers to the amount of forage needed to
sustain an adult cow and her calf or horse for 1 month.
[30] U.S. Department of the Interior, BLM, Gather Policy and Selective
Removal Criteria, Instruction Memorandum No. 2005-206 (Washington,
D.C., Aug. 10, 2005). Although the instruction memorandum had an
expiration date of September 30, 2006, according to BLM officials, it
is still considered to be in effect until it is reissued.
[31] According to BLM, the effort to revise the Wild Horse and Burro
Program Handbook was first initiated in 1997. The effort was restarted
most recently in 2006 when the draft handbook was significantly
rewritten and expanded.
[32] S. Rpt. 99-141, at 6, 121 (1985).
[33] Rangeland health standards were developed to be consistent with
the fundamentals of rangeland health, including watersheds that are in
a properly functioning condition; ecological processes that are
maintained in order to support healthy biotic populations and
communities; water quality that complies with state water quality
standards; and habitats that are being restored or maintained for
federal threatened and endangered species, proposed or candidate
threatened and endangered species, and other special status species.
[34] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/RCED-90-110].
[35] U.S. Department of the Interior, BLM, Gather Policy and Selective
Removal Criteria, Instruction Memorandum No. 2005-206 (Washington,
D.C., Aug. 10, 2005). The 2005 policy updated BLM Instruction
Memorandum No. 2002-095, dated February13, 2002. The 2002 policy did
not explicitly enumerate the key factors that should be considered as
part of the gather and removal analysis.
[36] U.S. Department of the Interior, BLM, Establishment/Adjustment of
Appropriate Management Levels, and Managing Planned Escalating Problem
and Emergency Gathers, Instruction Memorandum No. 2004-151 (Washington,
D.C., Mar. 16, 2004). When gathers are conducted as a result of an
emergency, such as a fire, a National Environmental Policy Act analysis
and gather plans are still required prior to the animal removal, if
time permits. If immediate action is required, emergency actions should
be documented and a report prepared after resolution of the problem.
[37] The five methods experts are investigating include the following:
(1) Photographic mark-resight involves two or more separate counts.
First, an aerial count is conducted, and each group of animals
photographed. This is followed soon after by additional aerial counts.
The photographs from each survey are compared to determine which
animals were seen on each pass and which were missed. A statistical
technique to estimate the number missed is based on the number missing
on each pass. (2) Simultaneous double-count is a form of mark-resight
that uses only one count where two observers in an aircraft
independently observe and record a direct count of wild horses or
burros. Sighting rates are estimated by comparing sighting records of
the two observers, and the number of horses that were missed by both
individuals can be estimated. (3) Sightability bias correction involves
observers that count animals but also records other factors about each
sighting, such as if the groups were large or small, terrain type,
weather, and other factors that may have prevented some animals from
being seen. (4) Distance sampling estimates the number of animals or
herds based on the distance and location of the animals that are seen
on the ground. The data enables statisticians to predict the number of
animals that are not seen because they are too far away. (5) Combined
techniques utilize different combinations of the aforementioned four
techniques to mitigate known biases associated with each individual
method.
[38] Demand for burros has stayed relatively stable from an annual
average of 1,154 burros adopted from 1990 through 1999 and an annual
average of 1,092 burros adopted from 2000 through 2007.
[39] The last horse slaughterhouse in the United States closed in fall
2007. The number of domestic horses killed in slaughterhouses from 2000
to 2005 ranged from about 40,000 to 75,000 annually. Without these
outlets, more domestic horses are available to the public, causing
direct competition with wild horse adoptions and sales.
[40] Three of these facilities were added to incorporate horse gentling
programs to improve the likelihood of adoption.
[41] Long-term holding costs were, on average, $1.20 in 2000, $1.22 in
2001, and $1.25 per horse per day from 2001 through 2004. In 2005, the
cost increased to $1.27 per horse per day through 2007 and will
increase to $1.28 per horse per day by the end of 2008.
[42] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/RCED-90-110].
[43] U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Inspector General,
Selected Aspects of the Wild Horse and Burro Program (Washington, D.C.,
May 1994).
[44] Standards for internal control in the federal government describe
internal controls as "a series of actions and activities that occur
throughout an [agency's] operations and on an ongoing basis" used "to
regulate and guide [the agency's] operations." See GAO, Standards for
Internal Control in the Federal Government, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1] (Washington,
D.C.: November 1999).
[45] For 2007, BLM also reported 616 births in short-term holding
facilities.
[46] For 2007, BLM also reported 303 births in long-term holding
facilities. Although studs are gelded prior to being sent to long-term
holding and the wild horses are separated by sex, pregnant mares may be
transferred from short-term holding facilities into long-term holding
facilities.
[47] Empacadora de Carnes de Fresnillo v. Curry, 476 F.3d 326 (5th Cir.
2007), cert. denied, 75 U.S.L.W. 3569 (U.S. May 21, 2007). See also,
Tex. Agric. Code Ann. §§ 149.001-149.007.
[48] Cavel Int'l, Inc. v. Madigan, 500 F.3d 551 (7th Cir. 2007), cert.
denied, 76 U.S.L.W. 3410 (U.S. June 16, 2008). See also, 225 Ill. Comp.
Stat. 635/1.5.
[49] Current legislation pending in the 110th Congress (H.R. 503 and S.
311) would prohibit the commercial sale of horses to foreign countries,
such as Canada and Mexico, to be slaughtered for human consumption.
[50] 16 U.S.C. § 1333(b)(2)(C).
[51] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/RCED-90-110].
[52] 16 U.S.C. § 1333(e)(1).
[53] 16 U.S.C. § 1333(e)(2).
[54] H.R. 249, 110th Cong. (2007). The bill was passed by the House of
Representatives on April 26, 2007. As of August 31, 2008, the Senate
had not acted on the bill.
[55] We drew our sample of 26 field units from among the 44 field units
that manage Herd Management Areas (HMA), which include 39 field
offices, 4 district offices in Oregon, and 1 field station in Nevada.
We will refer to these 44 BLM field units collectively as field
offices. BLM's count of the number of offices that manage HMAs may
differ because the 4 district offices in Oregon manage 7 resource area
offices.
[56] Eight of the 26 field offices surveyed manage only one HMA.
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room LM:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
