On June 30 the BLM announced that it was considering drastic changes to its Wild Horse and Burro Program. These changes included such concepts as issuing immediate title to adopters (so speculators could get cheap taxpayer subsidized horses and dump them at livestock sales to make a quick buck) and euthanizing some 30,000+ horses that it presently has confined to long term holding facilities. (Read the original AP Article.)

In 1971 Congress unanimously passed Public Law 92-195, the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act. The passage of the act followed an outpouring of public concern (citizen telegrams, letters and calls to Congress) that was second in America's history only to the Viet Nam war. The public spoke and Congress responded. Wild horses and burros were to be protected and were given legal standing on our public lands.

Since the passage of this act, aloof agencies and bureaucrats have often flaunted their authority and served special interests over the expressed will of Congress and the American People. This behavior is not unique to the Bureau of Land Management. The Bureau of Indian Affairs so ineptly administered the Indian Trust Funds that the department was hauled before a federal Judge who had to try to straighten things out. When Congress, in response to the will of the American People, cut funding for USDA inspectors to inspect slaughtered horses for human consumption, Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns made an end run in order to patronize to three foreign meat companies and essentially allowed the inspectors to work for the companies.

The wild horse issue, at the core, isn't really about wild horses. It's about public lands management policy, aloof agencies and bureaucrats, and a growing system where special interests are favored over the American public. The horses are simply some of the more visible victims of our federal agencies' behavior.

Why are so many horses "stuck" in long term holding facilities?

The answers are actually pretty simple.

The Bureau of Land Management didn't follow the intent of Congress when it passed PL 92-195.

A number of herd management areas were "zeroed out" (a number that is constantly increasing.) This is BLM's way of removing millions of acres of horse habitat from the equation so that the agency can continue to diminish the populations of free-roaming horses and yet still argue that too many horses are out on the ranges that remained allocated to them.

In response to pressure public lands ranchers, mineral companies and other range enterprises, funding was increased for wild horse removals. At the same time funding for placing wild horses with adopters decreased.

These and related practices produced a chain of events that anyone with vision could predict would result in long term costs to taxpayers as the BLM detached itself from the direction of Congress and the American People and obligated itself to somewhat unnecessary open ended obligations.

Designed for failure

The reality is that we have altered the landscape to the extent that horse herds and the environment require some management. However BLM has squandered many opportunities that could have sustained healthy ranges and place less reliance on costly horse removals. Besides, it is institutionally easier to simply blame horses for all the range problems, many of which weren't necessarily attributable to their presence, and shift the focus away from the impacts caused by special interests that make money on our public lands. Even the Government Accountability Office (GAO) figured out this game.

It appears that wild horse removals were calculated to benefit public lands ranchers. "BLM frequently used the lack of detailed carrying capacity and range monitoring data to explain why it has not taken action to reduce widely recognized overgrazing by domestic livestock." (GAO -1990-RCED-90/110)

"The primary cause of degradation in rangeland resources is poorly managed domestic livestock (primarily cattle and sheep) grazing." "Although recognizing that overgrazing was occurring, BLM range managers reported that no adjustments in the authorized livestock grazing levels were scheduled in 75% of the allotments threatened with further damage." (GAO- 1990 RCED -90/110)

"Despite congressional direction, BLM did not base its removal of wild horses from federal rangeland on how many horses ranges could support; BLM often did not accompany horse removals with a reduction in livestock grazing levels or effective range management, resulting in inhumane range conditions and exploitation; the number of wild horses BLM removed exceeded its adoption program's capacity; BLM terminated the program in September 1988 after negative publicity and congressional pressure, but did not rescind the regulations authorizing such adoptions; many horses remained at prison facilities much longer than the 30 to 60 days needed to halter train them, resulting in increased program costs; and BLM took steps to tighten management of the halter training program, but did not establish standards for the training time or the number and quality of trained horses the prison facility should produce. GAO believes that: (1) BLM will not be able to meet its objective of limiting wild horse sanctuaries' financial support to their first 3 years of operation; and (2) BLM will either have to commit to a long-term financial commitment to the sanctuaries or be prepared to have the horses returned to its custody." (GAO- 1990 RCED -90/110)

"BLM removed thousands of wild horses from the range each year without the land condition data that would enable it to determine how many horses the land could support and how many needed to be removed to meet this capacity; the number of wild horses BLM removed exceeded its adoption program's capacity; BLM was making its removal decisions on the basis of an interest in reaching perceived historic population levels or the recommendations of advisor groups largely composed of livestock permittees; the fee waiver adoption program led to the inhumane treatment and eventual slaughter of thousands of horses; and since wild horse sanctuaries would probably not achieve the BLM objective of being self-sustaining in 3 years, the government would either have to commit to long-term financial support or have the horses returned to its custody. (GAO- 1991 T-RCED -91/71)

The real costs of "Welfare Ranching"

If one is to believe the Government Accountability Office (GAO) findings, it appears that the wild horse "problem" is a simple one. Our public lands management agency, the BLM, allowed itself to be overly influenced by public lands ranchers and other special interests, thereby thwarting the will of Congress and the American Public. Furthermore, BLM policies, not the presence of the horses, were the primary contributors to degradation of range conditions and spiraling taxpayer costs.

Public lands "welfare" ranchers (those subsidized by our tax dollars) produce less than 2% of America's beef supply. So how much does this industry actually cost Americans in tax subsidies and damage to our public lands?

Subsidies to the public lands ranching industry cost us taxpayers nearly a half billion dollars per year! -
The Cost of the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Livestock Grazing Programs, publiclandsranching.org

"It is simple economics why corporations use public lands. Federal permittees pay only $1.35 per month to graze a single cow-calf pair on public lands while the average monthly cost of grazing per cow-calf pair on private lands is $11.10. In addition, subsidies for predator and pest control, drought and fire damage, further make the endeavor more profitable. In a one year period alone, welfare ranching cost taxpayers an estimated $72 million loss for Bureau of Land Management's Range Management Program (2001) and more than $52 million for Forest Service Program (2000)."
Welfare Ranching:The Subsidized Destruction of the American West, API Quarterly

"Most fencing and other developments on public lands are paid for in part, or in full, by taxpayers. These are expenses that, collectively, we would not have to bear if livestock were absent from our lands."
Ranching Economics and Livestock Subsidies: The True Cost of a Hamburger", National Public Lands Grazing Campaign

"Hundreds of species across the West are in danger of extinction primarily due to livestock production. Species as varied as the Bruneau Hot Springs snail, the Southwest willow flycatcher, and the Bonneville cutthroat trout are endangered as a consequence of habitat loss or degradation due to livestock grazing and its associated activities. No other human activity in the West is responsible for the decline or loss of more species than is livestock production."
Livestock: Myth and Reality, Western Watersheds Project

"Although cattle grazing in the West has polluted more water, eroded more topsoil, killed more fish, displaced more wildlife, and destroyed more vegetation than any other land use, the American public pays ranchers to do it.
Waste of the West: Public Lands Ranching, wasteofthewest.com

This report will be continued.