Wild Horse Control Dilemma
Subject Of Federal Hearing

RENO, Nev. —(AP)— They make their home under the expansive skies of the American West.

Descendants of the mounts of 16th century conquistadors, these feral mustangs roam the landscape where they feed, frolic — and breed.

To many, they are romantic symbols of the Western frontier; legacies of the toil and grit upon which the nation was founded.

Congress recognized them as "living symbols of the historic and pioneer spirit of the West," and in 1971 passed the Wild Horse and Burro Act, giving them federal protection from harm and harassment.

But as the limitations of the wide open spaces become realized and differing interests jockey for precious turf, some argue that wild horses have been coddled to the point of destruction — destruction of the land, and possibly themselves.

A House subcommittee chaired by Rep. James Hansen, R-Utah, conducted a field hearing here recently to discuss the growing numbers of wild horses and burros and the federal program administered by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management that has cost more than $240 billion over the past 27 years.

Ranchers, who are often targeted by environmental activists for damage done by livestock to public lands, argued that wild horses are overgrazing lands already scarce in the grasses they depend on to feed sheep, cattle and other livestock.

Wild horse advocates say that if lack of forage is the problem, then livestock, too, should be restricted.

Most agree horse and burro populations need to be kept in check. The disagreements arise over how to do it.

About 43,000 wild horses and burros roam public lands, more than half of them in Nevada. The BLM estimates the population is growing by about 24 percent a year, a reproduction rate at which a herd will double in size in three years.

Some ranchers suggest the animals are natural resources, much like deer, elk and other game animals, and should be managed as such.

"All of us love Bambi and all of us love deer," said Demar Dahl, an Elko County rancher who argued that wild horses have destroyed prime grazing grounds.

"But we recognize they need to be managed, and how do we do it? We eat them," he said.

Horse meat is a common ingredient in pet foods, and is served for human consumption in much of the world, though the practice is uncommon in the United States.

State Sen. Dean Rhoads, R-Tuscarora, and Assemblyman John Carpenter, R-Elko, said states would be better able than the federal government to manage wild horse and burros, as they do other wildlife.

They also suggested authorizing the sale of excess animals, whether as pets or for slaughter.

"Each year our country sells thousands of privately owned horses for slaughter. But the mere mention of sale authority of ‘wild’ horses with the possibility of slaughter is offensive to some," John Balliette, contractual natural resource manager for Eureka County, told the subcommittee.

"Horses must be viewed as ... a renewable resource that can be effectively managed by harvesting excess numbers."

David Tattam, field director of the National Wild Horse Association, agreed that older, sick or unadoptable horses must be culled from the range, through sale, euthanasia, or funding for a sanctuary, to protect not only the range, but the animals from pain and suffering brought on by sickness, drouth and starvation.

Ranchers and subcommittee members accused the BLM of mismanaging the program and failing to control herds. But BLM officials say Congress and the courts have limited options for dealing with excess animals to birth control efforts and the agency's adoption program.

In 1988, Congress prohibited the agency from destroying any healthy animals. A year earlier, a federal judge issued an order prohibiting the BLM from issuing title to an animal if the agency knows the person trying to adopt a wild horse intends to use it for commercial purposes.

Last year, the Fund for Animals and the Animal Protection Institute of America sued the BLM for failing to protect wild horses from slaughter.

The federal court lawsuit followed a series by The Associated Press on abuses in the BLM adoption program that found many animals went to slaughter. As a result, the BLM agreed to tighten controls on the program and require potential adopters to sign affidavits stating their intent not to use or sell the animals for commercial purposes.

Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., who arranged the field hearing in Reno, said slaughter is not preferred, but all options should be considered.

"If we don't do more than we're doing today, disease, starvation, will take a huge toll on these animals," he said. "If we're going to protect that symbol, we have to do it smarter, more effectively, more efficiently ... in order to have a viable herd."