## United States Government Ac countabilit y Office 

# GAO Report to the Chai rman, Committee on Natural Resources, House of Representatives



# BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
Effective Long-Term Options Needed to Manage Unadoptable Wild Horses October 2008

GAO-09 -7 7

## What GAO Found

**United States Government Accountability Office** 

## Why GAO Did This Study 

# H ighlights **Accountability Integrity Reliability Oct**  **ober 20 08**  

# BUREAU OF L A ND M A NAGEMENT

**Effective Lon g**  **-Term Option s**  **Needed to Mana g**  **e Unadopt**  **able Wild Hor s**  **e s** 
Highlights of GA O-09 -77 , a repo rt to the Chairman, Com m ittee on Natural Resou r ces, House of Repre s ent atives



### Th e De pa rt me nt of t h e In ter i o r ’s Bureau of L a nd M an a gem ent (BLM) manage s a b out 33 ,10 0 wild hors e s and bu rros o n 19 9 H e rd Man a gem en t Areas ( H MA) i n 10 w e st ern st at es. U n d e r th e Wi l d Fre e

- R oami n g Hors es an d Burros Act of 1 9 71 , a s am en de d, B L M i s t o protect wild h o rses and burros, s e t app r opri a t e man a gem en t l e v e l s (AML), main tain curr en t in ventory

cou n ts , and r e mo v e ex cess ani m al s to preven t o v erp opul ation and

ran g el an d d a ma ge . Ov er th e ye ars , various s t akeholders h a ve raised issues about BLM’s m anagem e nt of th e ani m al s o n a nd of f th e ran g e.

G A O exa m ined (1 ) BLM’s prog re ss in set t i ng an d mee t ing AML; (2) B L M’s m a nagement of anim als off the range throu g h adop tions,

sa le s, and hol ding fa c ilitie s; (3) B L M’s con t rols to help ensur e th e h u ma ne tr ea tm en t o f an imals; and ( 4 ) w h a t ch al l e n ges , i f an y, BLM faces in managing for the long -te r m susta i na bility of the pro g ram. GA O su rveyed and

an al yz ed do c u me nts fro m 26 o f t h e 4 4 BLM offices tha t mana ge wild hors e s and bu rros. 

## What GAO Recommend **s**

To impr ove the pro g r a m, GAO is

re comm en di n g , am on g o t h e r thi n gs, th at BLM est a bl i s h a form al policy for s e tting AML , d e velop al t e rn ati v es f o r l o n g

- t erm hol di ng fac ilitie s, an d initia te a discussion with Co ngres s an d o t h e r stakehold e rs on h ow bes t to

com p l ywi th t h e a c t , as am end e d

. Th e De pa rt me nt of t h e In ter i o r
con c u rred wi th GA O’s findi ngs an d

recomm en dations. 

### BLM has made significant progress to ward setting and meetin g AML (the optimum nu mber of animals which result s in a thriving natural ecological balance and avoids range de terioration). BLM has set AML for 197 out of 199 HMAs. Most of the field offices GAO su rvey ed cons idered s i mi la r factors in determining AML, such as rangel and conditions; however , BLM has not provided spe c ific formal g u idance to the field offices on how to set AML. Without clear guidance, BLM cannot ensu re that the factors considered in future AML revisions will be consist e nt acros s HMA s . At a nation al l e v e l , in 2007, BLM was closer to meetin g AML(about 27,200 animals) than in any other year si nce AMLs we re first repor ted in 1 9 8 4 . T h e extent to which BLM has actually met AML dep e nds on the accuracy of BLM’s population counts. Nineteen of the 26 field officials GAO surveyed used a counting method which, researchers say, consistent ly u ndercounts animals and d o es not provide a statistical range of populat io n estimates. Undercounti n g can put animal s at ris k and lead to incre a s e d program costs.

The number of animal s re moved from the range is f a r gr eater than the number adopted or sold, which has resulted in the need for increased short-term and long-term ho lding. Sinc e 2 0 0 1 , ov er 7 4 , 0 0 0 ani m al s have b een r e moved from the range, while only abo u t 46,400 have been adopted or sold. Thirty-six percent fewer animals were adopted in 2007 than co mpared to the average adoption rates in the 1990s. As of Ju n e 2008, BLM was holding 30,088 animals in holding facilities, up from 9,807 in 20 01 . To a c c o mmoda te the inc r ea se d removals and declinin g adoptions and sa les, BLM h a s in creased the number of short-term and long-ter m holding facilities.

BLM has imp l em ented multiple controls to help ens u re humane t r eatment, including random checks on adopted h o rses and agreements wit h adopters and buyers t o prevent slaughter. Althoug h BLM stat e offices collect data on the treatmen t of the anim als, BLM doe s not alwa ys compile the i n formation in its central database or rep o rt it to the public. Providing additional information to the public on the treatment of these animals co uld help inform the public about their treatment and improve tran sparency.
The long-term sustain a bility of BLM’s Wild Horse and Burro Pro g ram d e pends on the resolution of two signific ant challeng es:

• 

### If not controlled, off-the-range holdin g costs will continue to overwhelm the progra m . The percentage of the program’s dire ct costs for h o lding anima l s off the rang e incr eas ed from $ 7 mi llion in 2 0 0 0 (4 6 per c e n t) to $2 1 mi llion i n 200 7 ( 67 p e rcent). In 20 0 8 , thes e costs could a cco unt for 74 per cent of the program’s budget.

• 

### BLM has limited options for deal ing with unadop t able animals . The act provides thatunadopted excess animal s shall be hu manely destroyed or, under certain circumst ances, sold wi t hout limitation. However, BLM only manages these animals th rough sales with limitat ions. BLM is concerned about the po ssible reactio n to the destruction of h ealthy animals. To view t he full product, including the scope and methodolog y, click on GA O- 0 9 -77

. For mo re informa t ion, conta c t Rob i n M. Nazzaro at (202 ) 512-3841 or nazzaro r@gao. g o v

.

# Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 7 Background 1 1 BLM Has Made Progress in Setting an d Meeting AML, but Guidance Is Lacking a nd Meeting AML Has Proven Difficu lt 23 Declining A doptions an d Sales Have Increased t h e Need for ShortTerm and Long-Term Holding Faciliti e s, and Hold ing Costs Have Increased 4 0 BLM Has Controls in Place to Help E n sure the Humane Treat ment of Wild Horses and Burros, but It Could Better T r ack and Report These Data t o the Public 46 Challenges t o the Long-T erm Sustainability of the Program Include Growing Ho lding Costs and Limited Options for Dealing with Unadoptabl e Animals 56 C o n c l u s i o n s 6 1 Recommendations for Executive Act i on 63 Agency Comments and Our Evaluatio n 64


## Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 65



## Appendix II Fertility Contro l and Genet i c Variability 69 Fertility Control 69 Genetic Vari ability 69


## Appendix III Wild Horse and Burro Survey Results 71

Section I: Fi eld Office R e sponses Specific to S e l ected HMAs 71 Section II: F i eld Offices’ Responses to General Questions Regarding A ll of the HMAs They Manage 77


## Appendix IV Comments from th e Department of the Interior 80



## Appendi x V GAO Contact an d Staff Acknowledgments 81

Pag e i G A O- 09 -7 7 BL M’s Wil d H o rse and Burro Pro g ram

## Tables

Table 1: Major Legislation Governing BLM’s Wild Horse and Burro Progr a m 11 Table 2: Summary Statistics on BLM’s Wild Horse and Burro Program, by State, Fe bruary 20 08 15 Table 3: Years in Whi c h Current AMLs Were Set for BLM’s 199 H M A s 2 5 Table 4: Extent to W h ich BLM Field Office St aff Considered Each of the Four Key Fa ctors in Making the Most Recent AML Determination for Surve yed Field Offices 26 Table 5: Factors Considered by B L M Field Office Staff in Making the Most Recent AML Determinations for Surveyed Field Offices 27 Table 6: Age of Data Used to Make Current AML Determinations for Surveye d Field Offic e s 30 Table 7: Extent to W h ich BLM Field Office St aff Considered Each of the Five Key F a ctors in Making Their Most Recent Gath er Determination 36 Table 8: Factors Considered by F i eld Offices i n Decisions to Gather Wild Horses and Burros from the Rang e 37 Table 9: Age of Data Used by Fiel d Offices to Determine the Need for Most Recent Ga ther 38 Table 10: Number of Wild Horses and Burros Sold under t h e December 8, 200 4, Sal e s Directive 43 Table 11: Number of Wild Horses in Long-Term Holding, by Year, Since 2 000 44 Table 12: BLM Long-Term Holding Facilities, J une 2008 45 Table 1 3 : Number and Percenta ge of Wild Horses and Burros That Died During Gather Operations, (for 6 of 10 States) Fiscal Years 20 0 5 through 2 0 0 7 49 Table 14: Results of Random Inspections of Wild Horse and Burro Adoptions, 2005 th rough 2007 54 Table 1 5 : BLM Field Offices and H M As Included in GAO’s Survey 66 Table 16: Number of HMAs Mana ged at V a rious AMLs, Fe bruary 2008 7 0 Table 17: Current and Initial AML and Year of Determination per HMA Surveyed 71 Table 1 8 : Level of Dat a Sufficien c yUsed to De termine Current A M L 7 2 Table 19: Respondents’ Opinions about Current AML 73 Table 20: Population Level in Comparison with AML Range 73 Table 2 1 : Primary Challenges in M eeting or Maintaining AM L 73

Pag e i i G A O- 09 -7 7 BL M’s Wil d H o rse and Burro Pro g ram

### Table 22: Impact on Rangeland Re sources in HMA When Herd Populations Exceed the Upper Limit of AML by Less Than 25 P e rcent 74 Table 23: Impact on Rangeland Re sources in HMA When Herd Populations Exceed the Upper Limit of AML by 25 to 50 Percent 7 4 Table 24: Impact on Rangeland Re sources in HMA When Herd Populations Exceed the Upper Limit of AML by 51 to 100 P e rcent 74 Table 2 5 : Number of Field Offices That Have o r Do Not Have Procedures in Place to Distinguish Impact of Wild Horses and Burros, Cattle, and Wil d l i fe on Rangeland C o n d i t i o n 7 5 Table 26: Actions Taken to Manage HMAs Sinc e 2000 75 Table 2 7 : Number of HMAs with a Herd Management Area Plan 75 Table 28: Primary Physical Method Used in Most Recent C e n s u s/ I nv e n t o r y 7 5 Table 29: Primary Statistical Method Used in Most Recent C e n s u s/ I nv e n t o r y 7 6 Table 3 0 : Level of A c c u racy of Most Recent Ce nsus/Inventory 76 Table 31: Level of Dat a Sufficien cy Used to Su pport Most Recent G a t h e r 7 6 Table 32: Timing of Gather in Relation to Scheduled Date o f G a t h e r 7 6 Table 3 3 : Level of AML to Which HMA Is Typically Gath ered 77 Table 34: Actions Taken to Manage HMA’s Sin ce 2000 77 Table 3 5 : Field Offices Whose HMAs Have Herd Manageme n t Area Plans 77 Table 3 6 : Field Offices Working to Develop Her d Manageme n t Area Plans for All of Their HMAs 77 Table 3 7 : Actions to Help Field Off i ces Achiev e Healthy Her d Populations in Balance with the Range and Other Multiple Uses 78 Table 3 8 : Major Challenges Fa cin g Field Offic e s in Managi ng HMAs to Achieve He alth y Herd Popu lations That Are in Balance wit h the Rang e and Other Multiple Uses 78 Table 3 9 : Major Challenges Fa cin g BLM’s Wild Horse and Burro Program As a Whole 79

Pag e i ii G A O- 09 -7 7 BL M’s Wil d H o rse and Burro Pro g ram

## Figures
Figure 1: BLM Herd Areas and HMAs in the We stern United S t a t e s 1 4 Figure 2: Drought Conditions and HMAs, February 2008 18 Figure 3: BLM Management of Wild Horses and Burros on and off of the Rang e 20 Figure 4: BLM’s Wild Horse and Burro Program Funding, Fiscal Years 2000 t h rough 200 7 23 Figure 5: Estimated P opulation of Wild Horses and Burros on the Range 3 2 Figure 6: Number of Field Offices Who Reported Negati ve Impacts When Populatio ns Exceed t h e Upper Li mit of A M L 3 4 Figure 7: Comparison of Removed and Adopted Wild Horses and Burros, 1989 through 20 0 7 42 Figure 8: Helicopter Used to Gather Wild Horses Near Ely, Nevada, c. 2 006 48 Figure 9: BLM Contra ctor Trimming Horse Hooves Using a Special Hold ing Chute at a Contract S hort-Term Holding Facility in Fallo n, Nevada, October 2007 51 Figure 10: BLM Estima ted Wild Horse and Burro Direct Program Costs, Fiscal Years 200 0 t h rough 200 8 57

Abbreviations

AML appropriate management level BLM Bureau of L and Management HMA Herd Management Area

T his is a work of the U.S. government a nd is not subject to copyrig h t prote c tion in the United States. T he pub lish ed prod uct may be r epro duce d a nd distri buted i n its entirety without further permissi on fro m G A O

. Howe ver, becaus e this work may c ontai n copyrig h ted im ages or oth e r material, p e rmi ssion from the copyrig h t hol de r may be
necess a ry if you wish to repr o duce this mate rial sep a rate ly.

Pag e iv G A O- 09 -7 7 BL M’s Wil d H o rse and Burro Pro g ram

### Unit ed Stat e s Governm e nt Acco unta b ility Off i ce Wash ingto n , DC 205 48



### October 9, 2 008

The Honorable Nick J. R ahall, II Chairman Committee on Natural Resources House of Representative s

Dear Mr. Chairman:

Wild horses have lon g be en a symbol of the indep e ndenc e of t h e American West, but to day, the heal th of their p opulation depends heavil yon government management. At their pe ak, in the mid-1800s, an estimated 2 million wild horses roamed Americ a’ s rangel ands. Populati ons decreas ed as developm ent reduced habitat for wild horses and nativ e g r azers and as horses and burros were rounded up t o make room for livestock and farming operations. By the early 1900s, most wild horses had disappeared from the Great Plains an d those that remained were found pr imarily in the remote mou n tains, deserts, and badlands of the West. By 1971, only about 9,500 wild horses were thought to live on public rangelands. P ublic concerns ab out abuse an d wild horse population declines swelled in th e 1950s and 1960s. Subsequent ly, Congress enacted the Wild Fr ee-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971 to pro t ect wild horses and burros from abuse and d eath and to manage the m to achieve and maintai n a thriving natural ecol o gical b a lan ce on th e pu blic lands. 1 

### The 19 71 a c t declared these wild animals to be “living symbols of the historic and pioneer spirit of the West; that they co ntribute to t h e diversity of life forms within the Nation and e n rich the liv es of the American peo p l e ; and th at t h ese horses and burros are fast disappearing fro m the American scen e.” Since the passage of t h e act, wild horse and b u rro populations have in creased, but the way they are manage d on public l ands has been controversial and wild horse advocates continu e to voice co ncerns abou t horses being slaughtered.

The 19 71 a c t authorized and directed the Secret ary of the Int e rior, on public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Man agement (BLM), and the Secretary of Agriculture, on public la nds managed by the For e st Service, “to protect a nd manage wild free-roaming horses and burros as

1 Pub. L. N o . 92-195, 85 Stat. 64 9 (1971) (codif ied as amended at 16 U

. S.C. §§ 1331–1340).

Pag e 1 G A O- 09 -7 7 BL M’s Wil d H o rse and Burro Pro g ram

### components of public l a nds.” 2 

### The ac t also direct ed the S ecre t aries to manage the m “to achiev e and maint a in a thrivin g natural ec ological balance on t h e public l a nds.” BLM field offices are responsible for determining where the a n imals are to be manag e d within areas where they were found as of 1971. 3 

### In fiscal year 2007, the pr ogram was funded at $36. 4 million under BLM’s Management of Lands and Resources appropriation. Forty-four BLM field units manage approximately 33,1 00 wild horses and burros on 199 Herd Management Areas (HMA) covering over 34 million acres in 10 western stat es—Arizona , California, Colorado, Idaho, Montan a, New Mexico, Nevad a, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming. 4 

### BLM’s Nevada State Office manages ab out half of t h e land and animals in the Wild Horse and Burro Program.

In the mid- to late 1970s, population counts indicated that th ere was a large increase in wild horses and burros and that they were contributing to overgrazing of the range l and. Congre ss amended the 19 71 a c t in 197 8 to protect the r ange from wild horse overpopulatio n, among ot her things. The Public Rangelands Improvement Ac t of 19 78 directed th e Secretaries of the Interi or and Agric u lture to det e rmine appropriate management levels (AML), maintain a current inve ntory of wild horses and burros, and determine whether and where overpopulation ex ists. 5 

### AML has been defined as t h e “optimum number o f wild horses which results in a thrivi ng natural ecol o gical b a lan ce and avoid s deterioration of the ra nge.” 6 

### Each BLM field office is responsible for determining AML for each of the HMAs it manages. The ag grega te AML for BLM’s 199 HMAs is approximately 27,200. Because wild horse populatio ns can doubl e every 4 years and few

2 T h is report foc u s e s s o lely on BLM’s Wild Ho rs e and Bu rro P rogram. BLM is res pons ible for ma naging o ver 90 percent of the w ild ho r s es and b urr os on public lan d s

. T h e F ores t Service is res p ons ible for ma naging 2,200 w ild ho rs es and a bout 300 bur ro s in 37 Wild Horse Territori es that cove r a bout 2.5 million acres of Forest Service la nd.

3 Sho rtly after t h e 1971 act, BL M con ducted a wild horse a nd burr o po pulation ce nsus an d estimated the n u mber of wild horses to be ab out 17 ,300 a n d the n u mber of wild burr os to be about 8,000

.

4 The 44 BLM fie l d units include 39 field office s , 4 dis t rict offic e s in Oreg on , a nd 1 field station—the Tonopa h Field St ation in Nevada. We will refer to t h ese 44 B L M field units collectively as field offices. BLM’s count of the num ber of off i ces that mana ge HMAs may differ beca use t h e 4 district off i ces in Oregon manage 7 resource a r ea offic e s.

5 Pub. L. N o . 95-514, § 14 , 92 St at. 1803, 1 808 (1978) (ame nding 16 U

. S.C. §§ 1 3 32–1333).

6 Ani m a l Protec t i o n I nsti t ute of Ameri ca , 109 I B LA 112, 119 (1 989) (inte rnal q uotes omitted).

Pag e 2 G A O- 09 -7 7 BL M’s Wil d H o rse and Burro Pro g ram

### natural pred ators remain, managing wild horse and burro populations at AML has become a primary objecti v e of the program. To reach and maintain AML, BLM primarily conducts “gather s ” to remove excess animals from the range. From 1971 t h r ough 200 7 , over 2 67,0 0 0 wild horses and burros were removed. 7 

### In 2001, BLM began i m plementing its most recent mana gement strategy, to reac h AML by increasing re movals. Sinc e then, about 10,600 anim als have b e en removed, on average, per year.

Maintaining current and accurate inv e nt ories of wild horses and burros is a key component of on-t h e-range management. B L M has traditionally counted an i m als using the direct-co unt method, which invol ves flying o v er the HMA and reporting on each indi vidual an imal they se e. BLM generally conducts thi s type of ani m al count or “census” every 4 years o r so, leading up to a removal of ex ces s animals. To produce annual popul ation estimates between count s, BLM adjusts these census figures for each HMA based on an estimate of the herd’s an nual populat ion growth. If the census numbers are inaccurat e , particularly if they und erestimate the actual population, BLM runs th e risk that adequate forage or water may not be availab l e for the wild horses and burros or for livestock and wildlife in the

area.

After being r e moved from the range, excess ani m als are managed in shortterm holding faciliti e s, where they are either pr epared for adoption or sale, or in long-term holding facilities, wh ere they will live out the remainder of their lives. T h e preferred outcome for healthy ani m als removed from the range is thatthey be ado p ted throug h BLM’s Adopt-a-Horse-or-Burro Program. As of 2007, ap p r oximately 235,700 anim als have b e en adopted b y the public si nce the start of the progr a m in 1971. On average, about 6,300 wild horses and burros have been adopted annually sin ce 2001. Under the act, as amend e d, BLM is required to assure that adopters can provide humane treatment and care. 8 

### When adopti on demand i s not sufficient to absorb all th e animals removed, the act, as amen ded, directs BLM to either destroy the remaining healthy ani m als in the most humane and cost-effi cient manner possible or, under certain circumstances, sell

7 T h is total does not inclu d e t h e number of b urr os remove d fr o m the range in 1981. BLM

w a s not able to verify olde r da ta or es timate the n u mber of b urro rem o vals for 1981

. T h e total num ber of w ild ho rs es an d b urr os that B L M co uld ve rify w e re rem o ve d fr om the ra ng e between 1971 a nd 2007 was 24 9,489. Officials verified that t h e num ber of a n imals removed between 1977 a nd 1980 was 18 ,009; however, th ey were una ble to further specify this number by yea r or by species. Whe n a dded together, this tot al equals 267,49 8

.

8 16 U. S.C

. § 133 3(b)(2 )(B ).

Pag e 3 G A O- 09 -7 7 BL M’s Wil d H o rse and Burro Pro g ram

### them withou t limitation. 9 

### BLM has not destroyed a n y animals since January 19 8 2 , when a fo rmer BLM direct or issued a moratorium to end the destruction of excess un adoptable animals. To manage for t h e growing number of unadoptable animals, BLM began opening long-t erm holding facilities. Unlike the rangelands of the West where the animal s normally live, the long-term holding faciliti e s us e Midwest grasslands that generall y provide the animals with abundant f o rage and d ecreased stress. This allows most of the animal s to live far longer than t h ey would i n the wild. BLM pays the private co ntractors that operate th e long-term holding facilities a f e e per horse per day. Th e sales directi ve, which was enacted on Decembe r 8, 20 04, dir ects BLM to sell excess wild horses and burros without limitation if the animal is mo re than 10 years of age o r has been offered unsuccessfully fo r adoption at least three times. 10



### Since the pa ssage of the 1971 act, t h e r e has been controversy over the number of wild horses and burros that BLM mana ges in the wi ld and the amount of public land available for th ei r management. There is concern b y some, including wild horse and burro advocacy gr oups, that th e number of animals managed in the wild is too low to protect their geneti c integrity; that the numbers are based on insuffi cient rangel and monitoring data; an d that BLM gives preferenc e to other us ers of the ra nge, primarily livestock and wildlife. For instance, groups oft e n point out that BLM permits far more cattle and sheep to graze on BL M managed lands than h o rses. Specific a lly, in fiscal ye ar 200 7, a ppro x imately 56 7 , 000 h ead of cattle or sheep graze d BLM public lands. 11 

### However, livest o ck are man aged on 160 million acres of BLM lands, compared to the 29 million BLM acres that

9 16 U. S.C

. § 133 3(b)(2 )(C ) ( d es troy e x ces s animals for w h ich an ad optio n de mand does not exis t) and 16 U

. S.C

. § 1333(e ) (s ell w i thout limitation exces s animals unde r certain circumstances).

10 Pub. L. N o . 108-447, Div. E, Ti tle I, § 142, 118 Stat. 2809 , 3070 (2004) (amending 16 U.S.C. § 1333). In 2005 , shortly after t h e 2004 sales di rective was ena cted, legislation was introd uced i n t h e 109th Co ngr e s s that w ould have p rohi bited the s ale of w i ld ho rs es and burr os fo r proc es s i ng into co mmercial pro d u cts (H .R. 297 and S. 576)

. Nei t her of thes e bi lls were enacted. More recently, in the 110t h C o ng ress, H

. R. 24 9 was in troduc ed to prohibit the sale of wild horses and burros for processing into comme rcial products. The bill was passed by t h e House of Repre sentatives on A pril 26, 2007. A s of Aug u st 31, 2008, the Se nat e had not acted on the bill.

11 The num ber 567,000 re present s the cattle yea rlong eq uivalent derived by div i ding the actual num ber of animal unit months billed in fi scal year 20 07 by 12 months. An animal unit month refers t o the am ount of forage needed t o sustain an ad ult cow a nd her calf or h orse for 1 mont h. In reality, few livestock grazing permits are i ssued for yearl ong grazing.

Pag e 4 G A O- 09 -7 7 BL M’s Wil d H o rse and Burro Pro g ram

### are available for wild horses and burros. 12 

### Additionally, ad vocacy groups

are conc erned that the a n imals removed from the range are to o often adopted into abusive ho mes or are ultimately sold for slaught e r. Some livestock an d wildlife groups argue t h at the popu lation of wild horses and burros has far exce eded the lev e l tha t provides e c ologic al bal ance and equitabl e forage distribut ion for competing users, such as catt l e and sag e grouse.

We first reviewed BLM’s Wild Horse and Burro Program in 19 90. 13 

### At that time, regarding on-the-range management activiti e s, we found that BLM’s decisions on how many wild horses to remove from federal rangelands were not based on direct eviden ce t h at wild horse populatio ns exceed ed what the ran ge could support and that removals were often n o t accompanie d by reducti ons in livest o ck grazing l evels or ran ge management to increase the land ’s c a pacity . We recommended that BLM develop carrying capacityand ran ge condition data and, in lo cations where overg r azing was occurring, tha t BLM imple m ent range management techniqu es designed to gi ve vegetati o n more opportunity to gr ow and, when neces sary, remove wild horses and reduce livestock gr azing in proportion to the numbers of each sp eci es on the range. Regar ding off-therange management acti vities, we found that “BLM’s wild horse sanctuari e s [long-term holding facil i ties] are likel y to be muc h more expe nsive than originally e n visioned and may repres ent only a te mporary solution to the disposal of unadoptable horses.... If horse removals above levels that can be handl ed by private adoptions are reinstituted, other disposal options will have to be consider ed.” We reco mmended that BLM consider a vari e t y of disposal options for unadoptable horses and, as necessary, make recommend ations for co ngressional consideratio n.

To update o u r 1990 repo rt, we are re porting on (1) BLM’s progress in managing wild horses and burros on the range th rough setting and meeti n g AML; (2) BLM’s management of wild horses and burros off of the range through adoption, sales, and holding f acilities; (3) the controls BLM has in place to hel p ensure hu mane treatment of wild horses and burros; and (4) what challenges, if an y, BLM faces in managing the long-t erm sustainability of the Wild Horse and Bu rro Program. We were also asked to

12 BLM manages wild horses and b urros on 199 HMAs that are comprised of 2 9 million acres of BLM land and an additional 5. 35 million acres of non-BLM land.

13 GAO, Ra ngela n d Ma na gement: I m

p r

oveme n ts Ne ed ed i n Fed era l Wi ld H o rse Prog r a m , GAO/RCED-90-110 (Washingt o n, D.C

. : Aug

. 20 , 1990).

Pag e 5 G A O- 09 -7 7 BL M’s Wil d H o rse and Burro Pro g ram

### review how and why the acrea ge a v aila ble for wild horses and burros had change d since the 197 1 act. We did not examine the acre age issue becaus e BLM is in th e process of compiling a history of acreage d e term inations. BLM officials expect thei r review to be completed by March 2 009.

To examine how BLM manages wild horses and burros on and off of the range and to identify th e challen ges f acing BLM, we reviewed relevant laws, regulations, BLM policies, and strategic pla n s. We also surveyed, a n d analyzed do cuments from, 26 of the 44 BLM field offices that manage wild horses and burros. 14 

### We co llected and r eviewed rele vant resourc e management decision d o cuments from the surveyed fi eld of fices to help corroborate their responses about sp ecific questi ons, includi ng those about factor s used to make AML dete rminations and gather d e cisions. In addition, we also conducted follow-up phone call s to clarify ambiguous or incomplete survey responses. We received usabl e responses from all field offices that we surveyed —a 100 p e rcent response rate. W e surveyed fi el d offices in all 10 western states that h ave HMAs. The field offi c e s we surveyed re presented 8 2 percent of all BLM acre s managed f o r wild horses and burros, 74 perc ent o f all BLM managed wild h o rses, and 6 9 percent of burros on the range at th e time of ou r survey. We interviewed BLM Wild Horse and Burro Program managers at the state a nd national l evels and conducted s i te visits at t w o field o ffices that man age HMAs, two adoption events, thre e short-term holding fa ci lities, and o n e long-term holding facility. To examine humane treatment , we collected information from BLM’s compliance d a tab a se and inte rviewed pub lic citizens, advoca cy groups, and BLM officials. A more de tailed descri ption of our scope and methodology is presented in append i x I.

We conduct e d this perfo r mance audi t from September 2007 t o October 2008 in ac co rdance with generall yac cepted gove rnment auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain suffic i ent, approp riate evid e n ce to provid e a reasona b l e basis for our findings and conclusions based o n our audit objectives. We believe that the evid ence obt ain e d provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based o n our audit objectives.

14 We drew our sa mple of 26 fi eld units from am ong t h e 44 fi eld units that manage HMAs, which include 39 field offices, 4 district office s in Oreg on, a nd 1 field station in Nevada

. BLM’s count of the numbe r of offices that manage HMAs ma y differ becaus e the 4 district offices in Oreg on ma nage 7 re s ource a r ea off i ces

.

Pag e 6 G A O- 09 -7 7 BL M’s Wil d H o rse and Burro Pro g ram

### BLM has ma de significan t progress in setting and meeting AML for the HMAs. As of February 2 0 08, BLM has set AML for 197 out of 1 99 HMAs. Most of the field offices we surveyed considered similar factors in determining AML, such as rangel and conditions and climate d a ta; however, BLM has not provided speci fic formal guidance to th e field offices on h o w to set AML. BLM ha s been working on revisi ng the program’s handbook to provide this guidance since 2006. Wit hout clear guidance, B L M cannot ensure that the factors co nsidered in f u ture AML revisions will be consistent across HMAs, especially since t h e personnel most familia r with the current, informal practice of determining AML are retiring at a n increasing rate. At the national le v e l, BLM was closer to meeting AML in 20 07 tha n in any oth e r year since AMLs were first reported in 1984. Specifically, in February 20 07, BLM estimated the p opulation of wild horses and burros to be 28,563, about 1, 000 animals over AML. To reach this level, BLM has reduced th e nationwid e population in the wild by about 40 per cent since 2000. Our 1990 report was critical of B L M’s decisions on the number of wild horses and burros to remove from the range. At th at time we concluded th at the decisions were ma de without adequat e inf o rmation about range carrying capacity or the impact of the animals on range conditi ons. Since t h en, in Augu st 2005, BLM updated its formal policy on gat hers and removals and specif i ed the k ey f actors that should be co nsidered in t h e decision making process. The ext e nt to which BLM has actually met AML depends on the a ccur acy of its po pulation counts. Nineteen of the 26 field offici als we surveyed used th e direct-coun t method for their most re cent gathers. This method, accordin g to researchers, consistently undercount s animals and does not p r ovide a statistical range of popul ation estimates. Some BLM officials are concerned t h at other co unting methods would require too m u ch addition al staff or are too expensive. However, undercounti n g is also co stly since it often leads BLM to remove fewer a n imals than needed, which leads to overpopulati on and costl i er gathers i n the future. For example, in the summer of 2007, BLM sta ff on an HMA in Nevada miscalculate d the population b yapproximately 640 wild horses and found that t h e actu a l population was about five times greater than wh at they d e term ined was sustainable. Many of the wild horses subsequentl y removed from this HMA were in poor condition d u e to severe drought, and about 150 animals ultimately di ed from disease in short-term holding as a result. 

# Results in Brief

The number of wild horses and burros removed from the range is far greater than the number adopted or s o ld, which h a s resulted in a significant i n crease in t h e number of animals in short- and long-term holding and commensurate increases in spending for their care. Since 2001 , over 7 4 ,00 0 animal s have be en removed from the range, while only

Pag e 7 G A O- 09 -7 7 BL M’s Wil d H o rse and Burro Pro g ram

### about 46,400 have b een adopted or sold. Thirty-six percent few e r wild horses and burros were adopted in 2007, compared to average adoption rates in the 1990s. BLM officials attri bute the steady adopti o n decline in recent y ears to the de cre a sing deman d for horses in general a nd increasin g hay and fuel costs associated with th eir care. As of June 200 8 , BLM was holding 30,088 animals i n short- and l ong-term holding facil i ties, far more than in 2 001 when it held 9,80 7. From 200 1 throug h June 20 08, the number of short-term holding facilities incr eased from 14 to 24 to accommodate more animals, while the averag e cost per animal i n creased fro m $3.00 p e r day to $ 5 .0 8 per day. Th e total cost fo r short-term holding incr eased from $6.4 million in 2000 to $11.2 million i n 2001. Fro m 2001 thro ugh 2007, th e cost remained relativ e ly stable, but f o r 2008, cost s are anticip a ted to increase to $16.2 million. Similarly, BLM has increased the number of longterm holding faciliti e s from 1 in 1988 to 11 as of June 20 08, and the average cost per ani m al has increased to ap p r oximately $ 1 .27 p e r day

. Warnings issued in the 199 0s by us and the Dep a rtment of the Interior’s Office of Inspector General abo u t the potenti al for escalati n g costs for long-term holding have proven accurate, as spending on lon g -term holding has increased fr om about $668, 000 in 2000 to more t h an $9. 1 million in 2007. I n addition, with the long-t erm holding facilities at f u ll capacity—they held 22,1 01 wild horses as of June 200 8 a nd had a cap acity of 22, 1 00—more wild horses are spendin g a lon ger ti me in the more expensi ve short-term holding facil i ties.

BLM has implemented multiple contro ls to help ensure the humane treatment of wild horses and burros, including standard operating procedures, random checks on adop te d horses, and agreements with buyers to he lp prevent sl aughter. For gathers, it h a s establishe d standard operating pr ocedures an d reporting systems to help ensure humane treatment. According to data from 6 of the 10 states that manage wild horses and burros, 1.2 pe rcent of ani m als removed from 2005 to 200 7 were either eutha n ized or die d accid e ntal ly. While BL M state offices sometime s collect d a ta on animals that die durin g gath e rs, the information is not compiled by BLM headq u arters in it s centralized database, nor is it reported to t h e public. F o r animals held after removal in short- and longterm holding faciliti e s, staff from BL M and veteri n arians from the Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant H ealth Inspec tion Service inspect facil i ties on a re gular basis to help ensur e ade q uate c a re and treatment are provided. For wild horses and burros that have been adopted, BL M guidance directs field offices to make follow-u p phone call s or visits for all adopters during the fi rst year of th e adoption, physically inspect a random sample of adopt ed animals, an d conduct in spections of adopted an i m als whenever complai n ts are recei ved. According to the

Pag e 8 G A O- 09 -7 7 BL M’s Wil d H o rse and Burro Pro g ram

### results of BLM’s random adoption ins p ections, fro m 2005 thro ugh 2007, on average abo u t 9 percent of adopters did not comply with BLM standards of care for ado p ted wild horses and burros. The most common violations were failing to report changes in the animals’ status or location to BLM and failing t o provide adequate facili ties or care. For animals that are sold, since the spring of 20 05, BLM has required buyers to sign a sta t ement that they do not i n tend to slaughter the animals. Although BLM tracks information about the tr eatment of anim als in short- and long-term holding and after ad option, it do es not regul a rly report t h is information to the public. Doin g so could h e lp inform the public ab out the treat ment 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 ch al lenges:

• 

### If not controlled, off-the-range ho lding 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 o f the program’s direct costs—to about $21 millio n in 2007—6 7 pe rcent of the program’s direct costs. In 200 8, BLM anticipates t h at holding costs will account for ab out 74 p e rcent of the program’s direct costs. As holding co sts continue to increase, less funding is available for o n -the-range management, which cou l d result in sharp increases to the an imal population in the wi ld. To deal with its long-term holding probl em, BLM ha s primarily sought increased funding to o p en addition al holding f a cilities. However, fundin g is not likely to in crease in the f u ture, and li mited funding is forcing BLM to make the dif f icult choice among managing th e ani m als on the range to prevent overpopulation, destroying excess unado ptable anim als, or selling them without limitation. If funding is not i n creased or if BLM does not dispose of ani m als in other ways, BLM projects that the number of wild horses on the range would reach about 50,000, or about 80 perc ent o ver AML, by 2012

.

• 

### BLM’s optio n s are lim i ted for dealing with unadoptable animals . The Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act, as a m ended, req u ires that excess animals, for which the adopti on demand i s not sufficient to absorb all th e animals removed from the range, b e destroyed in the most human e and cost-efficient mann er possible or, under cert a in circumstances, be sold without lim itation. From fi scal year 1988 through fiscal ye ar 200 4, Congre ss prohibited BL M fro m usin g its Management of Lands a nd Resources appropriations to destroy exc e ss healthy, unadopted wild horses and burros, despite the amend e d act ’s directive to destroy exc e ss animals. However, since the ena c t ment of

Pag e 9 G A O- 09 -7 7 BL M’s Wil d H o rse and Burro Pro g ram

### the sales directive in 2004, which pr o v ided BLM with another means of disposal for these excess animals, Congress has appropriated funds to BLM withou t the prohibi tion. BLM has still chosen not to destroy or sell excess a n imals without limitation because of concerns ab out public and c ongressional reaction to the large-sc al e slaughter of thousands of healthy horses. How ever, by not des t roying or selling them withou t limitation, BLM is not i n compliance with the requirements of the act. Legislation i s pending in the 11 0th Co ngress that would repeal th e 20 04 sales dire ctive but not the require m ent to destroy exc e ss horses. As of June 2008, bu dget constraints have forc ed BLM to reconsider all of its options, including hu mane destruction and sales without limitations. BLM has not formally considered other possible solutions to deal with the current numb e r of wild horses in long-term holding other than one pil o t project in Wyoming. S o me BLM officials sug gested that other option s are possible, such as pl acing nonreproducing animals on vacant B L M grazing allotments or on other federal land s, but these actions would require le gislative cha n ges.

To improve the manage ment of BLM’s Wild Ho rse and Burro Program, we are recommending that t h e Secret ary of the Interi or direct BLM to finalize and issue th e new program handboo k to ensure t h at AML determinations are based on consistent factors across HMAs into the future, i m prove the accuracy of population estimates by cont inuing t o adopt stati s tically based methods to estimate animal populati ons, improve public access to data about the w e lfare of wil d horses and burros removed from the range, an d develop cost-effectiv e alt e rnatives to caring for wild horses removed from the range in long-term holding facil i ties. We are al so recommending that the Secret ary of the Int e rior direct BLM to initiate discussions with Congress to address BLM’s noncomplia nce with the act. In commenting on a draft of thi s report, the Department of the Interi or concurred with our findings and recommendations and p r ovided several technical clarification s , which we have made a s appropriate. Appendix IV presents the Department of the Interior’s comment letter.

Pag e 10 G A O- 09 -7 7 BL M’s Wil d H o rse and Burro Pro g ram

### During the 20th century, tens of t hou sands of wild horses were either killed or captured for slaughter on A m erica’s western ranges. Documented abuses suffered by wild horses led concerned in dividuals an d national humane organizations to push for federal protec tions in the 1950s. Subsequentl y, Congress passed legisl ati on 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 h o rses or burros. Despite the 1959 act, wild horse exploitation continued, a nd some que s tioned whether the pop ulation would eventu ally be eradic ate d . To protec t wild horses and burros, Congress passed additional l e gislation in 1 971 to re quir e the protect ion and man agement of wild free-roaming horses and burros on public l a nds. The 1971 act was amended in 1976 , 19 78, 1 996, and 2 0 0 4 (see table 1). The 2 004 amendments directed BL M to sell, without limitation, excess animals more than 10 years of age or that h a ve been o ffered unsuccessfully for adoption at least three ti mes. 

# Background

**T a**  **b l**  **e 1: Majo r L**  **e g**  **i slation**  **Go vern**  **in g**  **BL M’s W**  **i ld**  **Ho rse an**  **d Bu**  **rro Prog**  **ram**

**L e**  **g i**  **slatio n**  **Date Majo**  **r relevan t**  **p r**  **o v**  **isio n**  **s** Public Law 8 6

- 234 (W ild Horse An nie Act of 195 9 ) a Sept. 8, 1959 Establis hes cri m inal p e n alties for using an a i rcraft or motor vehicl e to hunt wild horses or b u rro s on pub lic la n d s for capturin g or killi ng a nd for poll uting w a tering holes on pu blic lands to trap, kill, wou nd, or maim wil d hors e or burros.
Public Law 9 2

- 195 (W ild F r ee-Ro a m ing Hors es and Burr os Act of 1971) b Dec. 15, 197 1 Authoriz es and directs the Se cretar ies of the Interior and A g ricultur e to pr otect and ma nag e wi ld hors e s and burros as com pon ents of the publ ic la nds to achiev e an d maintai n a thrivi n g natura l ecol o gical b a l ance. Authoriz es the Secretari es, in areas fou nd to be over pop ulat ed, to order ol d

, sick, or lame anima l s destro y ed in the most human e m ann er possi ble a n d to capture or remove wi ld h o rses and b u rro s under h u man e cond itions a n d care. Authori z es the Secretari es to order wil d h o rses an d burr o s destroye d in the most humane
mann er possi bl e whe n such a c tion is de eme d necess a ry to preserve and maintai n the h abitat in a su ita ble co ndit i on fo r continu ed us e. T he act also establis hes cri minal p e n alties for a number o f offenses invol ving wi ld h o rse s and burros.
F ederal Lan d Policy a nd Mana geme n t Act of 1976 c O c t. 21, 1976 Directs the Sec r etary of the Inte rior to pre par e and ma intai n an inve n tory o f publ ic la nds an d their reso urc e s and oth e r values and to, w i th pub lic involv eme n t, develo p, mainta i n , and revis e la nd use p lans, which pr ovid e for the use of pub lic la nds. Directs th e Secretary to mana ge the p u blic la nds u nde r princi ples of m ultipl e use a nd sustain ed yie l d

. Authorizes th e Secretari es o f the Interior an d Ag riculture to co n t ract fo r the use of helic opters and for usin g motor vehicl e s to tran sport capture d anima l s after a public hear ing and i n accord a n ce with hum ane p r oced ures.

Pag e 11 G A O- 09 -7 7 BL M’s Wil d H o rse and Burro Pro g ram**L e**  **g i**  **slatio n**  **Date Majo**  **r relevan t**  **p r**  **o v**  **isio n**  **s** Public R a n gel a nds Improvem ent Act of 1978 d O c t. 25, 1978 Directs the Sec r etaries of the Inte rior a nd Agr i culture to ma in tain a curre nt invent ory of wil d horses a nd b u rros on g i ven areas of pu blic lands to d e ter m ine wheth e r and w here ov erpo pul ation ex ists an d wheth e r to remove excess anima l s, the ap propri a te man a geme n t levels, and w hether a ppro p riate
mana geme n t levels co uld b e achiev ed by re moval or d e struction of exces s anima l s or thro ugh oth e r opti o n s. Direct s the Secretari es, up on find ing th at an overp opu latio n exists and that action is nec e ssary to remove excess wil d h o rses and b u rros, to restore a thrivi n g ecol ogic al ba lance by first destroyin g old, s i ck, and l a me an im als in the most huma ne man n e r possi ble; the n huma nely capturi ng an d removin g wil d h o rses an d burr o s for private mainte nanc e a nd care for whic h an ad optio n de mand ex ists by qualifi ed i ndiv i duals; a nd the n destroyi ng ad di tional excess w ild hors e s an d burros in th e most human e an d cost-efficient m ann er possi ble. Authorizes the Secretaries, u pon a ppl icatio n , to grant title to ex cess wild h o rs es and b u rros for which an in d i vidu al pr ovid e d huma ne con diti ons, treatment, and care fo r a perio d of 1 yea r . Provides that a wild h o rse or b u rro is no l ong er a wild horse and b u rro for p u rpos es of the 197 1 act once title h a s passe d to a n indiv id ual or i n a numb e r of other circumst ances. No wil d horse and b u rro or its remains may be sol d or tran sferred for consid erati on for processi ng i n to a commerc ial pro duct.
O m nibus Park s and Pub lic L ands Mana geme n t Act of 1996 e Nov. 12, 199 6 Attempts to clarify the effe ct of the 1976 am e ndme n t, which author ized the Secretari es of the Interior a nd Agricultur e to u s e helic opters and motor ve hi cles in the captur e and trans portat ion of an imals. Departme n t of the Interior an d Relate d Age n ci es Appro p riati o n s Act, 2005 f Dec. 8, 2004 Directs the sal e , wi thout limit ation, of exces s w ild hors e s a nd burr o s, or their remains, if the anima l s are m o re than 1 0 ye ars of age or h a ve be en offer ed
unsucc e ssfully for adopti on at least three tim e s, until al l exc e ss anim als ar e sold or until a ppro p r iate man agem ent leve l s ar e a ttained. It also provid es that w ild horses a nd bur ros, or their re mains, onc e so ld, are no l ong er wild h o rses and burros for the p u rpos es of the 197 1 act. Exempts animals s old u nder thes e provisi ons from the gener al pr ohib itio n und er the 1971 act of processin g the remains of wi ld horses an d bu rros into comm ercial pr od ucts.

Sour ce: GAO an al ysi s of l a w s p e r t i n e n t t o B L M ’ s m anagem ent of t h e W i l d H o r s e a nd Bur r o Pr ogr am

.

a Pub. L. No. 86 -2 34, 73 Stat. 470 (1959) (codified a s amende d at 18 U.S.C. § 47 ).

b Pub. L. No. 92 -1 95, 85 Stat. 649 (1971) (codified a s amende d at 16 U.S.C. §§ 133 1– 1340).

c Pub. L. No. 94-5 79, 90 Stat. 274 3 (1976). Specif ically, se ction 404 (90 Stat. 277 5) a m ended the 1971 act (codified as ame n ded at 16 U.S.C. § 1 3 3 8a).

d Pub. L. No. 95 -5 14, § 14, 92 Stat

. 1803, 1808 (197 8) (amen d ing 16 U.S.C. §§ 133 2– 1333).

e Pub. L. No. 10 4-333, Title VIII, § 803, 110 Stat. 4 0 93, 4186 (1 996) (amending 16 U. S.C. § 1338a ).

f Pub. L. No. 108-447, Div. E, Title I, § 142, 118 Sta t . 3039, 3070 (20 04) (ame nding 1 6 U.S.C. § 133 3 ).



### The passage of the 1 971 act ch anged the way BL M managed wild horses and burros on public lan d s. Rather than conside r ing them as feral specie s that caused damage to t h e rangel an d, the a genci es had to ch ange th eir mind-set to protect and manage the animals as an integral p a rt of the ecosystem. One of the fi rst tasks in managing th e animals was to determine where they lived and th eir populations. According t o the act , BLM is only authorized to manage wi ld horses and burros in areas where

Pag e 12 G A O- 09 -7 7 BL M’s Wil d H o rse and Burro Pro g ram

### they were fo und in 1971. 15 

### The areas where wild horses and burros were found, largel y on public l ands managed by th e BLM and the F o rest Service, as of the dat e of the act are call e d herd areas, an d they comprise about 53.5 million acres. Once the exact land st atus and ownership of the herd

areas was ve rified, it was determined that most herd areas were on BLM administered public lan d s, but some also included private an d state-owned in-holdings. The 19 71 a c t states that t h e Secret aries of the Int e rior and Agriculture shall arrang e for the re moval of wild horses and burros that stray onto p r ivate land u pon notification by the o w ner. 16



### Next, throug h its land management planning pro cess, BLM designated HMAs within these herd areas. In ma king HMA designations, BLM determined whether or not the area s where wild horses and burros were found contai ned adequat e forage and water to sustain the h e rds. BLM also designated s o me HMAs in such a wa y as to av oid conflicts with private landowners. Today, BLM is responsible for managing 199 HMAs covering 34.3 million acres across 10 west ern states (see fig. 1). 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 acr es, compared to the 53.5 million acres where they wer e originally f ound in 1971 . Accor d ing to BLM officials, th ey exp ect th e review to be complete d by March 20 09.

15 Pub. L. N o . 92-196, § 9 , 85 Stat . 649, 651 (re numbered as § 10 of the act a nd c odified at 16 U.S.C

. § 133 9).

16 Pub. L. N o . 92-196, § 4 , 85 Stat . 649, 651 (codified at 16 U.S.C

. § 1334 ).

17 Three of the 19 9 HMAs are classified as W ild Hors e Ra nges —the P r yo r Mo untains Wild Horse Ra nge in Monta n a, the Little Book Cli ffs Wild Horse R a nge in Colora do, an d the Nevada Wild H orse Range of south-cent ral Ne vada

. One of t h e HMAs is classified as a Wild Burro Range— the Marietta Wild Burro Range located i n Nev a da. Acc ording to the 1971 act , unde r certain c i rcums tances , t h e Sec r etaries of the Interio r and Ag riculture may des i gnate and maintain s p ecific ranges on public lan d s as s a nctuaries for t h e p rotecti on a n d preservation of wild free-roam i ng ho rses and burr os. 16 U

. S

. C. § 1333(a) . R a nges are t o be devoted princi p ally, but not necessarily exclusi vely, to t h eir welfare in kee p ing with t h e multiple-use management c o ncept for the public lands. 16 U

. S.C

. § 1332(c )

. BLM can also choose t o close app rop riate ar eas of p ublic la nds to grazing use by all or a particular kind of livestock, if necessary, to p rovide habitat f or wild horses or bur ros; to implement he rd management a ctions; or t o protect wild horses or burros f r om diseas e, hara ssment, or injury. 43 C

. F.R

. § 4710 .5.

Pag e 13 G A O- 09 -7 7 BL M’s Wil d H o rse and Burro Pro g ram**F i**  **g u**  **re 1: BL M Herd**  **Are as a**  **n d**  **HMAs in the W**  **estern Un**  **ited States** 

**UTAH CALIFORNIA** 

**ARIZONA IDAHO**  **MONTANA**

**OREGON**

**WYOMING**

**NEW MEXICO COLORADO**  **WA S**  **HINGTON**

**TEXA S**  **NEVADA**

Herd M a n a gement Are a (HMA) Herd Are a

S o u rce: BLM.



### The number of HMAs and their acre a ge has ch an ged ov er time for many different reasons, including BLM land be ing red e signated as National Park land and d e c lines in fora ge or water t h at make an area unsustainable,

Pag e 14 G A O- 09 -7 7 BL M’s Wil d H o rse and Burro Pro g ram

### among others. About half the acreage managed un der BLM’s W ild Horse and Burro Program is located in Nevada (see tabl e 2). While most of BLM’s management activities f o r wild horses and burros occur within HMAs, BLM is resp onsible for removing po pulations of animals that stray onto public lands outside of HMAs, as we ll as those tha t stray onto private property.

**T a**  **b l**  **e 2: Su mmary St**  **atistic s**  **o n**  **BL M’s**  **Wild Ho**  **rse an d**  **Bu rro**  **Pro g**  **ram, b y**  **State, Feb r**  **u ary 2**  **008**

**HMA acr eag**  **e State**  **Number of HMAs Total AML**  **a Populati**  **on es timate**  **BLM acre age**  **O ther acreage**  **Total acreage**
Nevad a 1 0 2 13,09 8 16,143 15,77 2,48 5 1 ,695,9 2 5 **17,46 8,41**  **0**
W y o m i n g 1 6 3,725 3,439 3,638,3 3 0 1 ,137,1 2 1 **4,775,4 5**  **1**
A r i z o n a 7 1,676 2,173 1,756,0 8 6 1 ,327,7 7 7 **3,083,8 6**  **3**
O r e g o n 1 8 2,715 2,473 2,703,4 0 9 259,7 2 6 **2,963,1 3**  **5**
U t a h 2 1 2,151 3,096 2,379,8 5 0 362,8 1 7 **2,742,6 6**  **7**
Califor n i a 2 2 2,237 3,878 1,946,5 9 0 471,8 5 5 **2,418,4 4**  **5**
I d a h o 6 617 703 377,9 0 7 40,28 7 **418,1 9**  **4**
Color ad o 4 812 933 366,0 9 8 38,65 6 **404,7 5**  **4**
Montan a 1 105 170 28,28 2 8 ,865 **37,14 7** 
New Mexic o 2 83 97 24,50 5 4 ,107 **28,61 2** 
**T o**  **t a**  **l 1**  **9 9**  **27,21 9**  **33,10 5**  **28,99 3,54**  **2 5**  **,347,1 3**  **6 34,34**  **0,67 8** 

Sour ce: BLM

.

a This column rep r esen ts th e uppe r limit of AML according to BLM da ta.



### Wild horses and burros are to be man aged as self-sustaining populations o f healthy ani m als in balance with oth e r multiple uses and the productive capacityof t h eir habitat. Because wild horses and burros reproduce atan estimated rate of 20 percent annuall y and no n a tu ral predators remain, except for in a very few isolated HMAs, BLM must actively manage the population o f the herds. AML has been defined as the “optimum number of wild horses which results in a thrivi n g natural ec ological bala nce and avoids deter i oration of t h e range.” 18 

### AML determinations can be made in a variety of l a nd planning or decision documents, including, b u t not limited to, resource management plans, Herd Manageme n t Area Plan s, and multiple use decision do cuments. The actu a l nu mber set through an AML determination is predicated, in part, on (1) the n u mber of acres set-aside

18

Ani m a l Protec t i o n I nsti t ute of Ameri ca , 109 I B LA at 119 (int ernal quotes omitted).

Pag e 15 G A O- 09 -7 7 BL M’s Wil d H o rse and Burro Pro g ram

### for the management of wild horses and burros within a specifi c resource planning area and (2) the proportion allocation of the availabl e forage allotted for wild horse and burro consumption among other users, such as livestock an d wildlife. After these two key multip le use dec i sions have been made, BLM field offices can th e n set the a c tual AML numbers. Available fo rage is based on range conditions an d other data.

BLM’s Wild Horse and Burro National Program Office enco urages field offices to es tablish AML as a range with an upper and lower limit. 19 

### The upper limit of the range equals the m a ximum nu mber of animals that can be sustained to result in a thriving n a tural ecologi cal bal ance and avoi d deterioratio n of the rang e. The lower limit is gene r ally determined as the number to which a popu l a tion must be gath e red t o help ensur e the population will not exceed the upper lim it of AML within th e established gather c ycle. For example, if the esta blished gath e r cycl e was 4 ye ars, it would be the number to which a pop ulation must be gath e red to help ensure the population will not exceed the upper l i mit of AML within a 4 year time pe riod. BLM strives to maintain a n a tio n al herd pop ulation lev e l that is at the midpoint of AML, where the recentl y gathered H M As would be at the lo wer limit of AML, while those awaiting gath e rs wo uld be closer to the upper limit of AML. As of Febr uary 2008, t h e upper limit of AML (the cumulative t o tal for eac h of the 1 99 H M As) was a pproximately 27, 219 , an d the midpoint was about 22,588. 20



### Because AMLs are inten d ed to reflect the populat ion of animals that can be sustainab l y maintaine d in an HMA, they are subject to c h a n ge ov er time. Changes in AML happen for se veral reason s, including when acreag e is added to or subtracted from an HMA and when chang e s in rangeland conditions result in improved or re duced forage and water availability sufficient to sustain a cer tain populati on level . In t h e arid ranges where most wild horses and burros are managed, condit i ons general ly do not

19 Some HMAs re port AML as a s i ngle numbe r r ather t h an as a range; h o w ever , they als o calculate an upper a n d lower l i mit of AML to determine t h e l e vel within which to manage herds. BLM is drafting guida n c e to direct a ll fi eld offices to i d entify AML as a range

.

20 According to B L M officials , as of F e b ruary 20 08, the u pper limit of AML nati onally w a s approximately 27,219 animals, and the lower l i mit of AML was approximately 17,957. Based

on our calculat i on, t h e mid poi nt betw een the tw o limits is appro ximately 22, 5 88. T h es e numbers are c o ns idered a ppr o x imate becaus e not all HMAs r e port AML as a range

. AM L for 7 HMAs are rep orted as th e midpoint of A M L, w h ile 29 H M As repo rt AM L as the u pper limit. T h erefor e , to acco unt f o r the 36 HMAs that re port a s i n g le AML n u mb er, B L M may only ap pr oxim ate the t rue up per, lower, an d midpoint of A M L o n a nation wide basis.

Pag e 16 G A O- 09 -7 7 BL M’s Wil d H o rse and Burro Pro g ram

### improve rapidly and h a ve been f u rt her degraded by drought conditions that hav e las t ed for over a dec a de (se e fig. 2). The effects of cl imate change are li kely to exacerbate the p oor conditio n s that many HMAs are already exp e riencing.

Pag e 17 G A O- 09 -7 7 BL M’s Wil d H o rse and Burro Pro g ram**Figure 2: Drought Conditio ns and HMAs, February 2008** 



### Utah

**Arizona Nevada** 

**California Idaho**  **Ore g**  **on Montana** 

**Wyomin g** 

**New Mexico Colorado**  **Wa s**  **hin g**  **ton**

S o u rce: BLM. Herd M a n a gement Are a (HMA)

A b norm a lly dry

Dro u ght moder a te

Dro u ght s evere

S t a te b o u nd a ry



### Determining which type of animal is responsible for rangelan d damage is important to properly managing an H M A and in determining the number of animals to permit on the range. BLM can control t h e number of livestock

Pag e 18 G A O- 09 -7 7 BL M’s Wil d H o rse and Burro Pro g ram

### and wild horses and burros to permit on the range, but BLM is not responsible for managing wildlife nu mbers on the range. Because BLM is not the lead agency resp onsible for wildlife on public lands, they are to coordinate with state wildlife officials about the forage allo cation for wildlife populations. An increase in allocation of any speci es may cause increased co mpetition for the remaining users of the range, es peciall y under sever e conditions . For example, in severe drought con d itions, grazing and browsing is concentrate d in limited areas near water sources. This intense competition causes heavy use and p e rhaps deplet ion of the resources the animals are depend entupon.

Throughout the life of th e program, the populatio n of wild horses and burros on the range has generall yfar exce eded AM L. BLM ha s used the removal of a n imals from the range as a primary management t ool for managing he rd sizes. To gather anim als for removal, BLM uses private contractors to herd the a n imals in an HMA into te mporary on-site corrals. 21 

### The animals are primarily gath e red u s in g helicop ters. In some cases, whe n gathering s m aller numb e rs of wild horses and burros, BL M officials or contractors will use other trapping tec hniques, such as bait tr apping, to capture the animals. Once coll ected into the temporary corrals, BLM officials use a selectiv e r e moval proc ess to determine which of those gathered ani m als to remove from the HMA. 22 

### Animals that are not selected are returned to the wild. When animal s are removed from the range, the y are taken to short-term holding facil i ties to receiv e va ccinatio n s and other treatment prior to either being ad opt ed, sold, or sent to long-t erm holding. Figure 3 d e p i cts BLM’s management of wild horses and burros on and of f of the range.

21 BLM has gat he r contracts with two private c o mpanies.

22 T h e s e lective removal policy i s us ed o n ly fo r w ild hors es ; it i s not a pplicabl e to w ild burr os

. Whe n g athers are con d u cted, an emph as is is placed o n rem o ving t h e younge r , more adopta b le anim als from the ra nge. How e ver , the s e x ratio a n d age s t r u cture of the her d

mus t als o be c o ns idered t o as s ure a healthy p opulation

.

Pag e 19 G A O- 09 -7 7 BL M’s Wil d H o rse and Burro Pro g ram**F i**  **g u**  **re 3: BL M Man**  **a g**  **e men**  **t o**  **f W**  **i ld**  **Ho rses an**  **d Bu**  **rro s o**  **n an**  **d o ff**  **o f**  **th e Ran**  **g e** 



## 1. On-the-Ran **g e Mana**  **g ement** 

**2. S**  **hort-Term Holdin g**  On-the-r a nge m a n a gement of wild hor s e s a nd bu rro s incl u de s m a n a gement a ctivitie s su ch as r a nge condition monitoring, pop u l a tion co u nt s , a nd r a ngel a nd improvement s . A s of Fe b r ua ry 200 8 , the e s tim a ted on the r a nge pop u l a tion w as 33 ,105.
Anim a l s a re periodic a lly removed from HMA s to re a ch a level th a t i s sus t a in ab le with other us e s of the r a nge. BLM typic a lly us e s helicopter s to herd a nim a l s into tempor a ry
corr a l s . In 2007, BLM removed 7,726 a nim a l s from the

r a nge.

Once a nim a l s a re removed from the r a nge, they enter s hort-term holding f a cilitie s where they receive veterin a ry c a re prior to b eing a dopted, s old, or s ent to long-term holding f a cilitie s . A s of J u ne 200 8 , the n u m b er of a nim a l s in s hort-term holding w as 7,9 8 7.

Pag e 20 G A O- 09 -7 7 BL M’s Wil d H o rse and Burro Pro g ram

## 4. Lon **g -Term Holdin**  **g 3**  **. Adoption and S**  **ale s**  **3 S**  **s**

BLM offer s a nim a l s removed from the r a nge for a doption to priv a te citizen s . In 2007, 4,772 wild hor s e s a nd bu rro s were a dopted.
Wild hor s e s c a n b e s old if they a re offered u n su cce ss f u lly for

a doption a t le as t three time s or a re more th a n 10 ye a r s of a ge.
Wild hor s e s a nd bu rro s th a t a re a dopted or s old a re us ed b y s ome as comp a nion s a nd b y other s as working a nim a l s

.

Anim a l s th a t a re removed from the r a nge a nd c a nnot b e a dopted or s old a re pl a ced in long-term holding f a cilitie s to live o u t the re s t of their live s . Mo s t of the f a cilitie s a re loc a ted on Midwe s t gr ass l a nd s in K a n sas a nd Okl a hom a . A s of J u ne 200 8 , the n u m b er of hor s e s in long-term holding w as 22,101.

S o u rce s : GAO (photo s , photo ill us tr a tion), BLM (photo s ).

Pag e 21 G A O- 09 -7 7 BL M’s Wil d H o rse and Burro Pro g ram

### For fiscal year 2001, BL M requested a budget in crease for th e program as part of a maj o r initiative to reach the upper limit of AML by 2005. 23 

### Subsequentl y, program funding allo cated from congressional appropriations—what th e agency ref e rs to as “enacted fundin g ”— increased fr om $19.8 mil lion in fiscal year 2000 to $34. 4 million in fiscal year 2001, an increase o f $14. 6 million. In 2002, enacted fun d ing for the program wa s $29.6 milli on, about $10 million over the 2000 congressional funding level. After reassessing the in itiative in 2004, BLM estimated it needed an additional $10.5 million on top of thei r 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, en acted fundin g was increased ab out $10 milli on for a total of $39 million in fiscal year 2005 (see fig. 4). The President’s 2008 bu dget requ ested $32 million for the program, about $4 millio n less than enacted fundi ng for fiscal year 2007.

23 U.S

. De partme nt of the Interi or, BLM , Li vi n g Lege n d s i n B a la nce wi th th e La nd , A S t ra tegy to Ach i e ve Hea lth y L a nd s a n d Vi a b le He rd s, Th e R estora t i o n of T

hrea tened Wa tersh ed s I n i t i a t i v e (Washi ngton, D

. C., 20 00).

Pag e 22 G A O- 09 -7 7 BL M’s Wil d H o rse and Burro Pro g ram**Figure 4: BLM ’**  **s Wil d**  **Horse and Burro Program Fundi**  **ng, Fiscal Years 2000 through**  **200 7** 

**Dollar s**  **in million s** 

S o u rce: BLM.

**0 5**  **10 15**  **20 25**  **3 0**  **3 5**  **40 45** 

Tot a l progr a m f u nding En a cted f u nding **2007 2006**  **2005 2004**  **200 3**  **2002 2001**  **2000**

**Fi s**  **cal year**

Note: The ena cte d funding level, a s rep o rted b y BL M, is the amoun t allocated from co ngressional appropriation s minus rescissions f o r the Wild Horse and Burro Prog ram. Total p r ogra m funding repre s ent s the sum of the ena cte d funding; rep r og rammed funding; and funding fro m other source s, such as reimbursement for BLM’ s management of parts of the Fore st Service’ s Wild Horse and Bu rro Program.



### BLM has ma de significan t progress in setting and meeting AML for the HMAs. As of February 2 0 08, BLM has set AML for 197 out of 1 99 HMAs. Most of the field offices we surveyed considered similar factors in determining AML, such as rangel and conditions and climate d a ta; however, BLM has not provided speci fic formal guidance to th e field offices on h o w to set AML. BLM ha s been working on revisi ng the program’s handbook to provide such guidan ce s i nce 2006. W i th increased retirements, field offices reported lo sing the experienced pers onnel most familiar wit h the informal practice of determining AML. Until BLM finalizes the handbook o r issues other guidance, i t cannot ensure that the factors considered in fut u re revi sions of AML determinations are consistent across HMAs. At the natio n al level, BLM reported that it was closer to meeting AML in 200 7 than in any oth e r y ear since AM Ls were documented in 198 4. Sp e c ifically , as of February 2007 , BLM estimated the 

# BLM Has Made Progres s in Setting and Meeting A M L, but Guidance Is Lacking and Meeting A M L Has Proven Difficult

Pag e 23 G A O- 09 -7 7 BL M’s Wil d H o rse and Burro Pro g ram

### population at 28,563, whi c h was abou t 1,000 anim als over AML. To reach this level, B L M has reduced the nati onwide population in th e wild by ab out 40 percent since 2000. However, the population estimates are higher for 2008 , and B L M has not met its goal of meeting AML for each HMA. The fact that not all HMAs ha ve met AML remains a concern bec au s e of the damage ex cessive popul ations can cause on the range. Twen ty of 26 fi eld officials we surveyed tol d us that co nducting gat h ers to remove ex cess animals is among their top challe nge s to maintaining AML because delaye d gath e rs can caus e animal po pul ations to quickly exce ed AML. In our 1990 rep o rt we concl uded that B L M’s decisions on the nu mber of wild horses and burros to remove were ma de without adequate info rmation about range carrying cap acity or the i m pact of the animals on range conditions. I n August 2005, BLM updated its formal policy on gathers and removals and specified t h e key f acto r s that should be considered in the decision making process. The ext e nt to which BLM has actual l y met AML depends on the accuracy of BLM’s wild horse and burro population counts. Nineteen of the 26 field offici als we surveyed used a method that consistently undercounts animals and does not provide a statistical range of populatio n estimates. Alternative counting methods may be more expensive, b u t undercou nting a popu lation can lead to overpopulation and costlier gath e rs 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 ma de significan t progress in setting AML using rangel and monitoring data for the HMAs. As of February 2008, BLM has set AML for 197 out of 1 99 HMAs, compared to 2002 when ab out two-thirds of HMAs had set AML. 24 

### Prior to 1984, many of the initial AM Ls were n o t based on rangeland d a ta but on f a ctors such as initial herd population counts or administrative con venie nce. For ex a m ple, the original AML e s tablished for Beaty’s Butte HMA in Oregon in 19 77 was based on the number of horses found in that area on December 15, 1 971. In Wyo m ing, AMLs for about one-third of the HMAs were based on agreements with local gr azing interests because they o w ned private la nds that were interspersed with BLM lands where wild horses were f ound in 1971. Only 10 o u t of the 26 field offic e s we surveyed identifi e d the use of rangeland d a ta to determine their initial AM Ls. But since 1 984, in a ccordanc e with the Dahl v. Clark dec i sion, BLM officials told us that field managers ha ve g e nerally

24 The num ber of HMAs manage d by BLM has c h anged over ti me. In 2002, BLM managed 208 HMAs, 142 of which had set AML, or 68 percent.

Pag e 24 G A O- 09 -7 7 BL M’s Wil d H o rse and Burro Pro g ram

### based AML decisions on monitoring data and an in-depth an alysis. 25 

### Most of the curre nt AMLs for the 19 9 HMAs were set after 198 4 (see tabl e 3). Although some current AMLs were set many years ago, they are gen erall y reviewed ev ery 4 y ears o r so as part of the recurr ing process to gather a n d remove excess animals. If during thi s process, and through monitoring, it is determined that an AM L is no longer appropri a te, field offi ces will consider changing it . For example, t a ble 17 in appendix III shows how the current AMLs for the 26 HMAs in our sample hav e been chan ged, as applicabl e , s i nce they were initially s e t.

**T a**  **b l**  **e 3: Years in**  **W h**  **ich Cu rren**  **t AML s**  **W ere Set fo**  **r BL M’s 199 HMA**  **s**

**Year s in**  **w h**  **ich cu**  **rren t AML**  **s w**  **ere set Nu**  **mb er o**  **f HMAs** 
197 5–1 97 9 a 2
198 0–1 98 4 13
198 5–1 98 9 13
199 0–1 99 4 45
199 5–1 99 9 32
200 0–2 00 4 68
200 5–2 00 8 24 Not yet set 2
**Tota l**  **199**

Sour ce: GAO an al ysi s of B L M dat a. Note: Although a n AML may h a ve been se t yea r s a go, they are ge n e rally re viewed e v ery 4 years o r
so a s part of the reoccu rring pro c ess to gathe r an d remo ve e xce ss animals.

a AML determinati ons we re first req u ired by th e Public Rangeland s I m provement A c t of 1978.



### Most of the field offices we surveyed considered similar factors in determining AML. 26 

### Accor d ing to BLM National Pr ogram Office officials, field office s t aff should consider at least four fact ors in making AML determinations—climati c data, utilizati on data, actual use dat a , and trend data. Climate data meas ures the amount of precipitation within a specifi c area. In addi tion, temperature and wi nd data may be coll ected to evalu a te

25

Dahl v. Clar k , 600 F. Supp. 58 5 (Dist. Ct

. Nev

. 1984).

26 For this re port we reviewed B L M’s pr oce ss for ma king AM L determinatio n s and t h e factors it considers during th a t process. We a r e not expre ssing a legal opini on as t o

w h ether a n y in dividual AML e s tablis hed thro ugh t h is pr oces s w ould ac hieve and maintain a “thriving natural ecological ba lance,” as requi r ed by the act. 16 U.S.C

. § 133 3(a), (b)(2); see als o , An imal Pr ote c t ion In s t itu t e of Amer ic a , 109 IB LA 112 , 115.

Pag e 25 G A O- 09 -7 7 BL M’s Wil d H o rse and Burro Pro g ram

### the effect of climate on vegetation ; ut ilization dat a measures the percento f forage cons umed by live s tock, wild horses and burros, wildlife, and insects during a specifi e d period; a c tual use data is the number of grazing animals that used an area within a certain amount of time; an d trend data measures the direction o f chang e in ecological status or resource rating observed ov er time. Our survey result s indicate t h at these fo ur key AML determination factors were consider ed by some, but not all, o f the BLM field offices responsible for setting AML for our sample of 26 HMAs (see table 4).

**Ta ble**  **4 :**  **Ex te**  **nt to W h**  **ic h BL**  **M Fie l**  **d Offic**  **e Sta**  **ff Cons ide**  **r e**  **d Ea**  **c h**  **of th e**  **Four Ke**  **y F**  **acto rs in**  **Makin g**  **th e Mo**  **st Recen**  **t AML D**  **e termin**  **atio n**  **fo r Su**  **rveyed F**  **i eld**  **O f**  **fices**

**Nu mb**  **er o f**  **th e fo**  **u r**  **key fact o**  **rs co n**  **s id**  **ere d**  **Nu mb**  **er o f**  **BL M field**  **o ffices** 
4 16
3 6
2 2
1 1
0 1
**Tota l**  **26**

Source: GAO survey r e sults.



### Almost all of the field off i ces consid ered trend (25) and utiliz ation (23) data, but onl y 19 conside r ed climate and actu a l u s e data for li vestock, while 14 con s idered actu a l use data f

o r wildlife (see tabl e 5).

Pag e 26 G A O- 09 -7 7 BL M’s Wil d H o rse and Burro Pro g ram**T a**  **b l**  **e 5: F acto**  **rs Co n**  **s id**  **ered b**  **y BL**  **M Field O**  **ffice Staff in Makin**  **g th**  **e Mo st Recen**  **t AML**  **Determin atio**  **n s**  **fo r Su**  **r vey**  **ed F**  **i eld**  **Offices**

**F acto**  **r Co**  **n s**  **id ered**  **Not**
**co n**  **s id**  **ered Don’t**  **k now**  **Not ap**  **p licab**  **le Blank** 
F a ctors BLM officials told us shoul d be co nsi dere d
T r e n d 2 5 1 0 0 0
Utilizati o n 2 3 2 1 0 0
Climate d a ta 19 3 4 0 0
Actual use: liv e s tock 19 2 2 3 0
Actual use: wi l dlife 14 5 6 1 0
O t her factors consid ere d Carrying capac i ty 23 1 2 0 0
Census/i nve n t o r y 2 2 2 2 0 0
W a ter resourc e s 21 3 2 0 0
Stakeho lder i n fluenc e 20 2 4 0 0
Producti o n 1 9 2 5 0 0
Herd h ealth 19 4 3 0 0
G enetic via bil ity 16 6 3 1 0
Recreati o n al u s e 14 6 3 3 0
Cultura l reso urces 12 6 5 2 1
Archeol og ical r e sourc e s 12 6 5 2 1
Livestock a g re ements 11 4 7 4 0
Human s a fety issues 8 8 2 8 0
Commun i ty expansi on 4 8 2 12 0
Court ord e r 2 5 2 17 0
Minera l extracti on 3 10 2 11 0
O t her factors 7 1 0 1 1 7

Source: GAO survey r e sults.



### In addition t o the four factors mentioned by BLM National Program Office officials, fiel d offices co nsidered other factors to help make t h eir AML determinations, includi ng census inventory, wat e r resource availability, herd health, and uniqu e l o cal con d iti ons. For instance, i n Arizona, one field office r e duced th e AML for burros on an HMA because they found

Pag e 27 G A O- 09 -7 7 BL M’s Wil d H o rse and Burro Pro g ram

### that burros were foraging on the sam e willows cri t ical to the survival of the endan g ered Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. 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, in cluding li vestock and wil d life. Determ ining which species is responsible for rangelan d damage is an important task to properly managing th e HMA and in determining the numb e r of wild horses and burros to permit on the range. For ex ample, if fiel d staff determ ine that cattle are primarily responsible for damaging an area, they may pursue several man agement opt ions, includi ng fencin g o u t cattle, r e d u cing the number of cattle, or ch a n ging the ti me of year c a ttle are allo wed to graze in a particul ar area. BL M lacks simila r manage ment techni ques to cont rol wild horse and burro use due to their free-roaming nature. BL M’s direct management actions are limited to dea ling with l i vestock and wild horses and burros, since individ u al states ar e responsible for managi ng wildlife.

We recogniz ed the diffi c u lty in distin guishing the difference b e tween impacts that wild horses and burros have on t h e r ange versus other users in our 1990 report. 28 

### Some advocacy groups have criticized BLM because they beli eve that BLM unfairly faults wild horse and burros for damage to the range to justify their removal and reductions i n AML. Seve ral BLM officials told us ascribing range impa cts can be di fficult, but 2 0 out of the 26 field offic e s that we surveyed said they ha d a p r ocedure in place do so. When the d a mage is caus e d by all the user groups or when the damage can not be attributed to a specific user group, BLM will generall ymake acrossthe-board reductions in t h e number of animals allowed on the range b a sed on the historic proportion of each user group on the range. F o r example, if wild horses and burros historically accounted fo r 10 percent of the forage consumption on the ran ge, then wild horses and burros would bear 10 perc ent o f the nec e ssary reductio n s.

BLM has also made steady reduction s in cattle grazing on BL M land as drought con d itions in much of the W e st have worsened, resulting in the reduction of forage an d water availability. For example, in Nevada, the

27 Under Section 7 of t h e E ndangered Species Act, all fede ral agencies must ensure t h at any actions they a u thorize, f u n d , o r car r y o u t a r e not likely t o jeo p ardize the co n t inued existence of a l i sted species or result in the de s t ruction or a dvers e modification of its designated criti cal habitat.

28 GAO/RCED-90-110

.

Pag e 28 G A O- 09 -7 7 BL M’s Wil d H o rse and Burro Pro g ram

### state that manages for t h e great est number of wild horses, permitted livestock us e was reduced from about 2.5 million animal uni t months in 1990 to a litt l e over 2 million in 2006. 29 

### The actu a l u s e during thi s same period, however, decreased from 1. 8 million animal unit months to 1.2 million.

In addition t o the factors considered in making AML determinations, the age of th e d a ta, or how current it is, can also b e i m portant. The meaning of “current” data collection depends on the ecosyste m and may v a ry across HMAs. BLM national pro g ram official s explained t h at data used to support AML decisions should be collect ed o n a frequent basis. In gen eral, they told us climate, utilizati on, and ac tual use data should be col l ected annually an d trend data should be an alyz ed and reviewed within 4 years of setting AML. However, of the respon dents who provided the age for dat a used, fewer than half col l ected th eir data for actu a l use for liv estock and wildlife within 1 ye ar of t h eir AML determination; half coll ect ed their dat a for utilization within 1 year of the determination; and more than half collecte d th eir data for climate within 1 ye ar of t h e determination. Fiftee n of the 19 respondents who provided the age for d a ta used co n s idered trend data w i thin 4 y ears of the det e rmination (see table 6).

29 An animal unit month refers t o the am ount of forage needed t o sustain an ad ult cow a nd her calf or ho rs e for 1 m onth

.

Pag e 29 G A O- 09 -7 7 BL M’s Wil d H o rse and Burro Pro g ram**T a**  **b l**  **e 6: Ag e o**  **f Data Used**  **to Make Cu**  **rre n**  **t AML**  **Determin atio**  **n s**  **fo r**  **Su rvey**  **ed F**  **i eld**  **O ffices** 

**Ag e o**  **f th**  **e d a**  **ta**

**F acto**  **r 1 yea**  **r 2**  **yea rs**  **3 yea rs**  **4 yea rs**  **5-10 y ear**  **s 11 ye**  **ars or**  **olde r**  F a ctors BLM officials told us shoul d be co nsi dere d
T r e n d 8 3 1 3 4 0
Utilizati o n 9 2 1 3 3 0
Climate d a ta 9 2 0 2 2 0
Actual use: liv e s tock 6 3 0 2 3 0
Actual use: wi l dlife 5 1 0 2 2 1
O t her factors consid ere d Carrying capac i ty 7 3 0 2 5 1
Census i n ve ntory 13 1 1 2 1 0
W a ter inventor y 11 2 0 2 1 0
Producti o n 6 1 0 2 3 2
Herd h ealth 11 1 0 3 1 0
G enetic via bil ity 8 0 0 3 1 0

Source: GAO survey r e sults.
Note: Some field offices t hat consi dered the f a cto r s lis ted in this tabl e did not pro v ide a yea r in which the data wa s collected.


### Although field offices use many fact ors to make their AML determinations, BLM has no guidanc e or policy ab out the specific factors they must consider in determining AML. This is in contrast t o the BLM policy that exists for a similar type o f analysis th at is conducted for removals. According t o BLM’s 2005 gath e r poli cy, the determ ination to remove animals must be supported by th e fol l owing facto r s: climatic data, utilization data, actual use data, tr end data, and current census data. 30 

### While 22 outof 26 BLM field offices r e sponded th at the dat a u s ed to make their AML determination were moderate to v e ry sufficient, several BLM officials told us that with increased r e tirements, field offices a r e losing the experienced personnel most familia r with the informal practice of determining AML. Therefore, without clear gu idance, BLM cannot ensure

30 U.S

. De partme nt of the Interi or, BLM , G a the r P

o lic y an d Sele c t ive Re moval Cr ite r ia, Ins t ruction Memorand um No. 2005-206 (Was h i ngton, D

. C. , A u g. 10 , 2005 ). A l though the instruction me morand um had an e xpiratio n d ate of Septem ber 30 , 2006 , ac cording to BLM officials, it is st ill considered t o be in effect until it is reissued.

Pag e 30 G A O- 09 -7 7 BL M’s Wil d H o rse and Burro Pro g ram

### that the fact ors considered in future revisions of AML determinations will be consisten t across HMAs. To make the informal AML determination process official and to h e lp ensure c onsistency a m ong BLM field offices, BLM officials have been working on drafting a n e w handbook for the program since 2006, which specifies th e factors fi eld offices s hould use in making AML determinations. 31 

### Due to higher priorities and limited resources, the handbook is still in dr aft form and is undergoing final revision. BLM officials told us they expect the handbook to b e completed in fall 2008.



# BLM Ha s Made Significant Progress toward Meeting AML, but Some HMAs Remain Far over AML Since 2 000 , BLM has ma de significan t progress toward meeting AML. At the national level, BLM was closer to meeting AML in 2007 t h an in an y other year si nce 1 984 (when AML lev e ls were first reported b yBLM), with a population of 28, 563, o r about 1,000 animals over the upper limit of AML (see fig. 5). Meeting AML has been a challen ge fo r most of the lifetime of the program. In 1985, in reporting on the Depart ment of the I n terior and related a gen cies’ approp riations, th e Senate Committee on Appropriations recommend ed more than tripling th e program’s funding abo ve the ori g in al budgeted amounts to, according to t h e committee, permit BLM to maintain nearly 1 4 ,00 0 animals in corrals through the end of fiscal ye a r

1986 and t o remove 17,0 00 ex cess an imals during fiscal ye ar 1 986. 32 

### The pro g ram’s funding was tripled in fiscal year 1986, and with t h e increased funding, BLM remov e d 18, 959 ex cess animals. In fiscal y e a r 200 1, BL M began implementing a 4- year str a tegy to a g g r essively re move animals from the range to rea c h the upp er limit of AML by 20 05. However, just before initiating the strategy—which relied h eavily on sp ecific assumptions about the number of animals removed, ado p ted, and h e ld in short-term and longterm holding—emergency drought and fire condi tions called for the removal of wild horses and burros in numbers far greater th an anticip a t e d. These additi onal removals and decre a ses in adop tion targets change d BLM’s assumptions and made it cle a r

the agen cy would not be able to meet the tar gets set forth in their pla n . In 20 04, B L M again re visited targe t s and management options that would help them t o achie ve an d maintain the midpoint of AML by 2006. Over t h e past several years, th e program is closer to meeting AML as a result of increases in the number of wild

31 According to B L M, t h e effo rt t o revise the Wi l d Horse a n d B urro Prog r a m Ha nd book was first initiated in 1997. T h e effort was restarted most recently i n 2006 whe n t h e draft hand boo k w a s s i gnificantly rew r itten and ex pande d.

32 S. R p t. 99-141, at 6, 121 (1985 )

.

Pag e 31 G A O- 09 -7 7 BL M’s Wil d H o rse and Burro Pro g ram

### horses and burros remov e d from the range, but it continues to face challen ges i n maintaining that le vel. According t o BLM data, the population n o w exceeds the upper li mit of AML by an estimated 5,886 animal s. BLM attributes most of the increase in population to more accurate po pulation cen s us counts.

**Figure 5: Esti mated Popula**  **t ion**  **of Wild Horses and Burros on the Ra**  **nge**

**Population**

S o u rce: BLM. **Year 0**  **10,000 20,000**  **3 0,000**  **40,000 50,000**  **60,000 70,000** 

Appropri a te m a n a gement level (AML) Tot a l e s tim a ted pop u l a tion on the r a nge **200 8**  **2007 2006**  **2005 2004**  **200**

**3 2002**  **2001 2000**  **1999 199** 

**8 1997**  **1996 1995**  **1994 199** 

**3 1992**  **1991 1990**  **19 8**  **9 19**  **88 19**  **8 7**  **19 8**  **6 19**  **8 5**  **19 83**  **19 8**  **4 19**  **8 2**  **19 8**  **1 19**  **8 0**  **1979 197** 

**8 1977**  **1976 1975**  **1974 197** 

**3 1971** 

Note: All population levels a r e e s timated ba sed on aerial surve ys t h at likely underco unt the numbe r o f animals on the ra nge. In 2000, BL M change d the ti me frame fo r its population count s from Octobe r 1 through Sept emb e r 30 of e v ery ye ar to March 1 th rough Feb r uary 2 8 or 29 of e v e r y year. For AM L levels prior to 19 84, BLM wa s un able to pro v ide e s timated figure s

. For AML le vels f r om 1984 through 1999, the figure s are e s timated a nd they do not n e ce ssa rily refle c t the upper limit of AML; from 2000 onwa r d, th e AML figures re prese n t the upp e r limit of AML.



### While the n a tional statistics appear t o indicate th at BLM is close to meeting its goal, it is important to not e that, und er 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 gath e red to the lower limit of AML approximately e very 3 t o 5 ye ars. However, onl y 7 of th e 26 BLM field offices we surveyed said they were t y picall yable to gather to this low leve l. When ani m als are not gathered to the low level of AML, a population can quickl y ri se well above the upp er limit of AML. Fewer than

Pag e 32 G A O- 09 -7 7 BL M’s Wil d H o rse and Burro Pro g ram

### half (10) of t h e field offi c e s surveyed said they we re usually ab le to manage the population o f wild horses and burros on their HMAs within the limits of AML. Fifteen fi eld offices sai d they managed popul ati ons that were typical ly above AML.

We are not r e porting in d e tail on th e extent to wh ich individu al HMAs have met AML be cause we do not believe that BLM’s data are preci s e enough to accuratel y make such a determination. BLM’s estimates of the number of HMAs that are at or belo w AML may be overstate d because , f o r reporting purposes, BLM considers the HMAs wher e the p opulation is not more than 10 perc ent o ver the upp e r limit of the AML to be a t AML. BLM officials told us that this is done to account for th ose HMAs that may slight ly exceed AML. For example, in 20 08, BLM reported that 61 of the 1 02 H M As in Nevada wer e at or belo w AML. Without the 10 percent adju stment factor, we calculat e d that 52 HMAs were at or below AML. Because o f this adjustment factor and qu estions a bout the accuracy of BLM’s animal counting methods, we concluded th at the data on whether or not individual H M As had me t AML were not sufficien tly reliable t o report because an error of plus or minus one or two animals could c h ange th e status of an HMA from b e ing und er 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 so me HMAs are significant l y over AML. For example, as of February 2008, BLM reported that 87 HM As were over AML. About half of these HMAs were over AML by 50 per cent or less, about a quarter were over AML by between 51 and 10 0 perc en t, and abo u t another quarter of the HMAs were over AML by more than 1 00 perc ent.

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 p e rcent. The herds were found to concentrat e in sensitive areas, affecting t h e threatened Lahontan cu tthroat trout and contrib u ting to the nonattainment of grazing allotment o b jectives an d standards for rangelan d health. 33 

### As of February 2008, the wild horse population in this HMA exceed ed th e upper limit of AML by 160 percent. The excess population

33 Rangeland heal th s tanda rds w e re develo p ed t o be consistent with the funda m entals of rangeland healt h , incl uding w a ters h eds that a r e in a p rope rly functio n ing c o ndition; ecological proc esses that are maintained in o rder to s u pp ort healthy biotic pop ulations an d communities; water quality t h at com p lies with state water quality standards; and habitat s that are being r e s t ored or mai n tained f o r

fed e ral threate n ed and en dangere d s p ecies , proposed or ca ndidate t hreate ned a n d enda n gered species, and other speci al status species.

Pag e 33 G A O- 09 -7 7 BL M’s Wil d H o rse and Burro Pro g ram

### levels and c ontinued dr ought are ex pected to co ntinue to ne gativel y impact sensitive riparian areas relied upon by the Lahontan cu tthroat trout. The o verpopulatio n of wild horses and burros on the range may negativ ely i m pact herd health, ran g eland he alth , and liv estock and wildl i fe that depend on the rang e

. An over-ob ligation of th e ve getativ e resources can result in declines in t h e health y v egetati ve c o ndition that may take years to rec o ver. Se e fig u re 6 for our survey results on the po ssible negative impacts of pop ulations thatexceed the upper limits of AML.

**F i**  **g u**  **re 6: Nu m**  **b er o**  **f F**  **i eld**  **O f**  **fices W h**  **o Rep**  **o r**  **ted Neg**  **a tive Imp**  **acts W h**  **en Popula**  **t i**  **ons E**  **x c**  **e e**  **d the**  **Uppe r**  **Limit of AML** 

**0 2 46 8**  **10 12 14 16 1 8**  **20 22 24 26**

Neg a tive imp a ct on f a ctor when AML i s exceeded b y le ss th a n 25 percent Neg a tive imp a ct on f a ctor when AML i s exceeded b y b etween 25 a nd 50 percent Neg a tive imp a ct on f a ctor when AML i s exceeded b y b etween 51 a nd 100 percent **Live s**  **tock habitat requirement s** 

**Wildlife habitat requirement s**  **Hor s**  **e and burro herd health Ran**  **g eland health** 

**Number of s**  **urvey re s**  **pondent s** 

S o u rce: GAO a n a ly s i s of su rvey d a t a

.

Note: We a sked surve y re spond e n ts to identif y th e impact (po s itive, slight ly positive, no impact, slightly negative

, and negative ) th at populations th at exceed the up per limit of AML would have on th e four fa ctors abo ve. The figure is a graphic d epictio n of su rve y resp o ndents who re po rted negati v e impacts when po pulations exceed AML. See appe ndix III for the nu mber of surve y responde nts who reporte d positive, slightly positive, no impact, o r s lig htly negative impact s when th e up per limit of AML is exceeded by a certain pe rcenta ge.



### In addition t o the effects on the range, overpopul ation in HMAs also results in costlier gather s because a greater number of animal s would have to be removed to maintain AML in future years.

Pag e 34 G A O- 09 -7 7 BL M’s Wil d H o rse and Burro Pro g ram

### Although th ere has been an increased effort to meet AML, there have been many challe nges in meet ing and mai n taining that level. Twenty of the 26 field offic i als we surveyed id entifi ed limitations to gathers to remove excess animals as one of their top ch allenges to meeting or maintaining AML. One limitation identified byth ese respondents included limited funding avai lable to con duct gath e rs. Another limitation identified by respondents was unplanned gath e rs that alter th e gath e r schedule as resources are directed to HMAs in critical need. R easons for unplanned gathers incl ude escal ati n g problems a nd emerge ncies. An HMA with an escalating p r oblem is defined as an a r ea where d e teriorating rangeland conditions, such as decli n ing availabi lit y of forage or water, will negati vely affect animal condition and rangelan d health. Emergency situations are unexpect ed situations that threaten t h e immediate health of wild horses and burros or their habit a t, such as fi re, disease, or other cat astrophic events.

In addition t o using gath e rs and removals to manage th e pop ulation on th e range, BLM may also use fertility tr eatment to manage the reproductive rates of wild horses. BLM is using this tool on a l i mited numb e r of HMAs. However, some animal fertility rese archers and wild horse advocates believe that this tool should be used more widely. They say th at unless the reproductive rate is curt ailed, th e need to gath e r a large n u mber of animals from the range will conti nue. See appendix II for more information about BLM’s use of this treatment.



# BLM Has Established a Formal Policy on Gathers and Removals that Speci fies the Key Factors that Should Be Considered in the Decision Making Process Removals are used as a p r imary method for managing wild ho rse and burro populations on th e range; ho wever, the d a ta used to s upport these removal dec i sions have been criticiz ed. Spe cifically, our 19 90 report concluded t h at BLM’s decisions on t h e number of wild horses and burros to remove were made without adequ ate information about range carrying capacityor t h e impact of the animals on range co nditions. 34 

### In August 2005 , BLM issued an upd ate to their 2 002 poli cy o n gathers th at determinations to support gathers and removals must be based on a National Environmental Policy Act a n alysis and a gath e r pla n that consider five key f actor s—utilizatio n, tr end, actual use, clim atic dat a , and

34 GAO/RCED-90-110.

Pag e 35 G A O- 09 -7 7 BL M’s Wil d H o rse and Burro Pro g ram

### current cens u s. 35 

### Eleven o f the 26 fi eld offices we surveyed con s idered all five ke y fact ors in their most recen t gather plan (see table 7). However, many of these field offices conducted their most recent gathers prior to the issuance of the 2 005 policy thatspecified whi c h factors to consider in their decisio n making process. Speci fically, 11 fi eld offices co nducted thei r most recent gathers bet w een 199 0 a nd 200 5. Ad ditionally, s o me field offices’ most recent gath ers were conducted as a result of an emergency situation. In those cases, a field offic e may not ha ve had enou gh time to consider all five criteria due to the critical time response necessary to remove the animals. 36

**T a**  **b l**  **e 7: Exten t**  **to Wh**  **ich BLM F**  **i eld O**  **ffice Staff Co**  **n s**  **id e**  **red Each**  **o f**  **the F i**  **ve Key F**  **acto rs in**  **Makin g**  **Th eir Most Rec**  **e n**  **t G**  **a th**  **er Deter m**  **in a**  **t io**  **n**
**Number of the five key facto rs**  **considered Number of respondents** 
5 11
4 4
3 5
2 1
1 4
0 1
**Tota l**  **26**

Source: GAO survey r e sults. 

### Regardless of when the most recent gathers were conduct e d , 25 of th e 26 field offices we surveyed considered the data used to support their removals for specific HMAs as moderately to very sufficient. S ee tabl e 8 for the number of field offices that considered each of th e f actors we asked about in our survey.

35 U.S

. De partme nt of the Interi or, BLM , G a the r P

o lic y an d Sele c t ive Re moval Cr ite r ia, Ins t ruction Memorand um No. 2005-206 (Was h i ng ton, D

. C., A u g. 10 , 2005 ). The 2005 policy update d BLM I n struction Me morand um No. 2002-095, dated Februa ry13, 20 02. T h e 2002 policy did not e xplicitly enumerate the k ey factors t h at should be c ons idered as part of the gather a nd removal a n a l ysis.

36 U.S

. De partme nt of the Interi or, BLM , Es tabl is hme n t /Adju s tme n t of Appr opr iate Ma na gement L e vel s , a n d Ma n a gi ng Pla nned Esca la ti ng Pro blem a n d Eme r gen c y Ga th ers, Ins t ru ction Memo ran dum No. 2004-1 5 1 (Was hingt o n , D

. C. , Ma r. 16, 2004). When gathers are con ducted as a result of a n eme r g e ncy, suc h as a fire, a National Environme n tal Policy Act analysis and gather plans are still re quired prior t o the animal re moval, if time permits. If imm e diate action is require d , em er gency actions s hould be doc u m ented a nd a report p r epare d after resoluti on of the p robl em.

Pag e 36 G A O- 09 -7 7 BL M’s Wil d H o rse and Burro Pro g ram**T a**  **b l**  **e 8: F acto**  **rs Co n**  **s id**  **ered b**  **y F**  **i eld O**  **f fices in**  **Decisio n**  **s to**  **G a**  **th er W**  **i ld**  **Ho rses** 
**an d**  **Bu rro**  **s fro m**  **th e Ran**  **g e** 

**F acto**  **r C**  **o n**  **s id**  **ered Not** 
**co n**  **s id**  **ered Don’t**  **k now**  **Not ap**  **p licab**  **le Blank** 
F a ctors that should be cons id ered
Census/i nve n t o r y 2 4 2 0 0 0
Utilizati o n 2 1 3 1 0 1
Climate d a ta 19 5 1 0 1
T r e n d 1 6 6 2 1 1
Actual use: liv e s tock 11 8 2 4 1
Actual use: wi l dlife 8 10 3 4 1
O t her factors consid ere d
Herd h ealth 21 4 1 0 0 Carrying capac i ty 17 6 2 0 1
W a ter resourc e s 16 7 1 0 2
Stakeho lder i n fluenc e 16 3 3 2 2
Producti o n 1 2 8 4 1 1
Livestock a g re ements 12 6 1 5 2
Cultura l reso urces 12 7 1 4 2
Archeol og ical r e sourc e s 12 8 1 3 2
G enetic via bil ity 11 11 2 1 1
Recreati o n al u s e 8 8 1 7 2
O t her factors 8 0 1 3 1 4
Human s a fety issues 7 10 1 6 2
Court ord e r 3 5 1 14 3
Minera l extracti on 3 9 1 11 2
Commun i ty expansi on 1 11 1 11 2

Source: GAO survey r e sults. 

### Unlike our previous report, which stated that dat a to justify re movals was outdated, most respondents who provided the year in which their data w a s collecte d in dicated th at their data w a s current a s of the ye ar of their most recent g a the r or less than 4 ye ars old (see table 9 )

.

Pag e 37 G A O- 09 -7 7 BL M’s Wil d H o rse and Burro Pro g ram**T a**  **b l**  **e 9: Ag e o**  **f Data Used**  **b y**  **F i**  **eld O**  **ffic es to**  **Determi n**  **e th e Need**  **fo r Mo**  **st Rece n**  **t G**  **a th**  **er**
**Ag e o**  **f th**  **e d a**  **ta**

**F acto**  **r 1 yea**  **r 2**  **yea rs**  **3 yea rs**  **4 yea rs**  **5-10 y ear**  **s 11 ye**  **ars or**  **olde r**  F a ctors that should be cons id ered
Census/i nve n t o r y 14 2 3 0 0 0
Utilizati o n 13 1 0 1 0 0
Climate d a ta 15 0 0 1 0 0
T r e n d 8 1 1 1 2 0
Actual use: liv e s tock 10 0 0 0 0 0
Actual use: wi l dlife 7 0 0 0 0 0
O t her factors consid ere d
Herd h ealth 11 2 1 1 0 0 Carrying capac i ty 6 1 1 0 1 2
W a ter resourc e s 8 0 0 1 0 0
Producti o n 6 1 0 1 0 0
G enetic via bil ity 1 1 1 2 1 0

Source: GAO survey r e sults. 

### Half of the survey respo ndents ident i fied impediments to conducting gathers as a major challe nge in mana ging their H M As to achieve h ealthy herd populations that are in bal ance with the range and other multiple uses. Only 7 of the 26 fiel d offices surveyed said t h at they wer e able to typically gat her to their l o wer limits of AML. While several B L M officials explained th at gathers can be del ayed as a result o f funding res t rictions or emergency g a ther priorities, only fo u r of the field offices surveyed indicated th at their most recent g a th er was delay e d.



# Research and Experience Have Shown That BLM’ s On-the-Range Population Estimates Are T oo Low Accurate ani m al population counts ar e critical to BLM’s ability to properl y manage wild horse and b u rro herds and in determining wheth e r AML targets were met. However, many fiel d offices use a populatio n counting method—the direct-cou nt method—that researchers consider inaccurate. This method generall ycalls for one person to cou n t each ani m al they spot from an airplane or heli copter. Accor d ing to rese archers, it c onsistently undercounts animals and does not provide a statistical range of estimates. Nineteen of the 26 fi eld officials we surveyed us ed the direct -count method for conducting their most re cent census.

Pag e 38 G A O- 09 -7 7 BL M’s Wil d H o rse and Burro Pro g ram

### Regardless of which method is used, counting wi ld horses and burros can be chall e ngi n g, particul a r ly when the animals are obscured by trees or when the rangeland is covered with snow. Because counting poses such challen ges, r e searchers are investigat ing alternati ve countin g methods to assist BLM in collectin g accurate po pulation dat a to form statistically v a li d population estimates. 37 

### Each method the research ers are evalu a ting includes some range of statistical error, whereas direct count only reports the raw number spotted on the groun d. Research ers believe t h at the most effective method will likely be a com b ination of t w o or more counting techniqu es. BLM’s population counts of wild horses and burros have lon g been qu estioned by mana gers and ad v o cacy group s alike. By e m ploying alternative methods that account fo r 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, populati on counts exceed ed th ose in 200 7 by approximately 4,50 0 a n imals. As a result, on a nationwide l evel, BLM is once again well over th e upper limit of AML, which brings into question earlier po pulation esti mates and whether or no t those previo u s years were as close to meeting AML as once th ought. BLM is working with the Department of the Interior’ s U.S. Geological Survey’ s Fort Collins Science Center and the Co lorado State Universit yto develop these methods to achieve greater accuracy in po pulation cou n ts. Some BLM offices have b egun t o employ some of these methods. For example, in Arizona, managers use the simultaneous dou ble-count method to improve population coun ts and avoid underestimating burro populations. Some field o ffices, however, are relu ctant to use alternate co unting methods because they are concerned that they would require too much

37 The five methods expe rts are i n vestigating include the follo w i ng: (1) P hot o g raphic ma rkres i ght involve s tw o or mo re s e parate c ounts

. F i rs t, an aerial count is con d u cted, a n d each grou p of anima l s photog raphe d. This is follo wed soon after by ad ditional a e rial counts. Th e phot ograp h s fr om each s urve yare c o mpare d to determine w h ich animals w e re s e en o n each pass and which were mi ssed. A statistical technique to estimate the number missed is bas e d o n t h e n u mber mis s i ng on eac h pas s

. ( 2 ) Simultane o u s dou ble-count is a form of mark-res i ght th at us es only on e cou n t w h e r e t w o obs erve rs in an aircraft in depen d ently observe a n d re cord a direct c ount of wild ho rs es or bur ros. Sighting rates a r e estimated by comparing s i ghting reco rds of the tw o obs erv e rs , an d t h e n u m ber of h ors es that w e re mis s e d by bot h individuals ca n be es timated. (3) Sighta bility bias correction involves obs ervers t h at count animals but als o reco rd s othe r factors about each s i ghting, s u c h as i f the gr oups w e r e large o r s m all, ter r ain type, w e ather, a n d ot her fact ors that may have prevented som e animals from being seen. (4 ) Distance sampling estimates the number of animals or he r d s bas e d on the dis tance an d l o cation of t h e a n imals that are seen on the ground. The da ta enables statisticians to predi ct the number of animals that are not seen because they a r e too far away . (5 ) C o mbined techniques utilize different c o mbinations of the aforementioned four tec h niques to miti g a te known biases associated with each individual meth od.

Pag e 39 G A O- 09 -7 7 BL M’s Wil d H o rse and Burro Pro g ram

### additional st aff or would be too exp e nsive. Resea r chers agree that other methods ma y be slightl y more expensive, given t h e great er number of staff needed.

When a pop ulation is un dercounted, BLM is likely to remove fewer animals than is needed t o control ov erpopulatio n. For example, in 2002, a direct count was used to census the wild horse population lo cated on the Jackson Mountain HMA in northern Nevada, an area that h a s been affect ed by severe dr ought. When a gath e r was conducted in 2003, staff believed they removed the ad equate number of wild horses to reach AM L. Funds to conduct thei r scheduled census in 2006 were not availab l e, an d BLM was unable to co nduct its po pulation cou n t until the s u mmer of 2007. It was at this point that staff reali z ed that thei r 2002 censu s was incorrect and th at they miscalculated the p opulation in 2007 by approximately 640 wild horses. They found that t h e actu a l po pulation in 2007 was abo u t five times greater than what they d e termined was sustainable. In the wi nter of 200 7, BLM began t o monitor water availabi lity more regularly. The BLM field staff membe r who managed that HMA told us that although th e herd condition was weakened, the horses did not ap pear to be in extremely poor conditi on. Neverth eless, more than 150 of t h e wild horses removed from this HMA died in a short-term hol ding facil i ty due to di sease that was able to o vert a ke the ani m als in their weakened s t ate.

The number of wild horses and burros removed from the range is far greater than the number adopted or s o ld. Since 2001, abo u t 74, 000 animals have b een re moved from the range, while only ab out 46,4 00 h ave b een adopted or s o ld. This has resulted in significant s p ending in creases due to a greater nu mber of animals in short- and long-t erm holding. Thirty-six percent few e r wild horses and burros were adopted in 2007, compared to averag e ado p tion rates i n the 19 90s —a trend BLM officials attribute to the decrease in adoption demand and in creasing hay and fuel costs. Since 2004 , when BLM was directed to sell excess wild horses and burros without limitation, BLM has sold abo u t 2,700 ani m als—far fe wer than expected, despite the lo w average s e lling price of $15. As of June 2008, BLM was ho lding 30,088 animals in short- and long-term holding faciliti e s, compared with the estimated 9, 807 h e ld in 2 001. To accommodate the increase in animals remo ved from the range and t h e declin e in adoptions and sales, B L M has increased the n u m ber of short- and long- t erm holding facilities. This has resulted in an i n cr ease in spending for short- and longterm holding faciliti e s. 

# Declining Adoptions and Sales Have Increas e d the Need for Short-T e rm and Long-T erm Holding Facilities, and Holding Costs Have Increased

Pag e 40 G A O- 09 -7 7 BL M’s Wil d H o rse and Burro Pro g ram

### BLM has historically ma naged wild h o rses and burros remove d from the range throu g h adoption s to the gen eral public. A doption has been regarded as the most economical way to provid e humane lo ng-term care to animals that have b een r e moved from the range. In the 1 990s , the number of animals removed from the range was about equal to th e n u mber of animals adopted. The average numb e r of animal s adopted each year in th e 1990s was about 7,500. S i nce 2000, th e number of animals removed has outpaced th e number of animals adopted or sold due to an i n crease in removals and a steady d ecline in ado p tion demand and sales. Since 2 001 , about 74,000 animals have been r e moved from the range, compared to about 46,400 adopted or sold. The average numb e r removed annually fro m 2001 to 2007 was about 10,600, comp ar ed to the average adop tion rate of about 6, 300 annually. According to B L M’s 2004 R e port to Congress, at leas t 7,000 adopti ons were needed ann u al ly to assist in achieving and maintaining AML. Howe ver, only ab out 4,700 ani m als were adopted in 2007. Althou gh BLM has increased ef forts to market adoption s , demand continues to decline for wild horses, even thou gh the price fo r adopting them has remained at th e minimum fee of $ 125 since 1 997. 38 

### BLM officials attribute the steady wild horse adoption declin e i n recent years to increases in hay and fuel costs associated with ho rse care, the large number of domesticated horses that are currentl yflooding th e adoption market, 39 

### a general urbani zation of rural areas, and a shift toward other forms of rec r eation. For example, ac cording to o n e official , i ndividuals who once had corrals with two or three horses may now own one horse and four all- terrain vehic les. Figure 7 compares the number of wild horses and burros removed from the range with the number adopted from 1989 through 2007. 

# Adoption Rates Have Declined Since the 1990s, and the 2004 Sal e Directive Generally Has Not Been Used

38 Demand for bu rros has s t ayed relatively s table from an ann u al average of 1, 154 bu rros adopte d fr om 1 990 thr ough 19 99 and an ann u al average of 1, 092 bu rros a d o p ted f rom 2000 through 2 007.

39 T h e las t hors e s l aughterho us e in the U n ited S t ates clos ed in fall 2007. T h e n u mber of domestic horses killed in slaug h terhouses from 2000 to 2005 ra nged from about 40 , 0 00 t o 75,000 annually . Without these outl ets, m ore domestic horses ar e available t o the public, causing direct competition wi th wild h orse a doptio ns and s ales.

Pag e 41 G A O- 09 -7 7 BL M’s Wil d H o rse and Burro Pro g ram**Figure 7: Com p**  **arison of Re moved and A**  **dopted Wil**  **d H**  **o rses and Burros, 1989 thro**  **ugh 2007**

**Number of animal s** 

S o u rce: BLM. **0 2,000**  **4,000 6,000**  **8 ,000**  **10,000 12,000**  **14,000**

Tot a l removed Tot a l a dopted **2007 2006**  **2005 2004**  **200 3**  **2002 2001**  **2000 1999**  **199 8**  **1997 1996**  **1995 1994**  **199 3**  **1992 1991**  **1990 19**  **8 9** 
**Year**



### One alternat ive for managing unadop table ex cess wild horses and burros, as provided for by the 2 0 04 amendme n t to the 1 9 7 1 act, is to sell the animals “without limitation.” The act directs BLM to offer excess animals for sale that are more than 10 y ears ol d or that hav e been offered unsuccessfully for adopt ion at least three times. At the time of the amendment, BLM estima ted that app r oximately 8 , 400 animals were eligible for s a le. To date, BLM ha s sold only abo u t 2,70 0 anim als—far fewer than o r iginally ex p ected, d e spite the low average sellin g price in 2006 of $1 5 ( s ee table 10)

.

Pag e 42 G A O- 09 -7 7 BL M’s Wil d H o rse and Burro Pro g ram**T a**  **b l**  **e 10: Nu mb**  **er o f**  **W i**  **ld Ho**  **rses an**  **d Bu**  **rro s So**  **ld u**  **n d**  **er th e Dece**  **mb er 8, 200**  **4, Sales Dire**  **ctiv e** 

**Y e**  **a r**  **N u**  **mb e**  **r so**  **ld**
200 5 1,468
200 6 645
200 7 420
200 8 a 211
**Tota l**  **2,744**

Sour ce: BLM

.

a As of June 200 8

. 

### In 2005, the first sale was made to a wild horse protection gr oup in Wyoming who purchase d 200 h o rses that would otherwise have lik ely ended up in long-term holding under BLM’s care. A few other animals that were sold, however, ulti mately ended up in slaughterhouses. To reduce th e likelihood th at a buyer would purchase these ani m als and then sell them for slaughte r, BLM changed its sales process to require buy ers to sign a “statement of intent” that they do not intend to sel l the animals for slaughter. T h is limitation, as well as a decre a se i n demand, h a s contributed to the small number of sales.



# BLM Manages 30,088 Animals in an Incr easing Number of Short-T e rm and Long-T erm Holding Facilities, and Holding Costs Have Increased As of June 2008, BLM was holding a combined 3 0 ,08 8 animal s in shortterm and long-term holding faciliti e s, compared to 9,807 animals in 2001. To accommodate the in crease in an i m als needing care o n ce removed from the range, the number of short-term a nd long-term holding facilities has increased. S p ending on combined short-term and long-term holding has also increas ed from about $7 million in 2000 to about $20.9 million in 2007. From 2001 t h rough 2008, the number of short-term holding facilities increased fr om 14 to 24, 40 

### and the num ber of animals held in these faciliti e s increased fr om 6,514 ani m als to 7,98 7 by June 20 08. These ho lding facilities pro v ide the ani m als with vaccinations and other car e prior to their being adopted, sold , or sent to l ong-term holding. The average cost of animals in short-term holding incre a s ed from $3.00 per horse per day in 2001 to $5 .0 8 per horse per day in 2 008. From 2 000 to 200 1, the cost for short-term h o lding increased from $6.4 million t o $11. 2 million. From

40 Three of these facilitie s were added to inco rporate horse ge ntling program s to improve the likelihoo d of ad option

.

Pag e 43 G A O- 09 -7 7 BL M’s Wil d H o rse and Burro Pro g ram

### 2001 throug h 200 7, the c o st remained relativel y stable, but fo r 2008, costs are anticip a t e d to increase to $16. 2 million. According to several BLM officials, the escalatin g c o st for caring for animal s in short-term holding is primarily a result of the dramatic in c r ease in hay and fuel pric es from 2007 to 2008. For example, hay prices for one short-term holding facility in Nevada in creased from about $160 p e r t on in 2007 to almost $300 p e r ton in 200 8. Dec r eases in ad option and s a les and a la ck of ca paci ty in longterm holding has not on ly increased the number of animals held in shortterm holding, but has al so increased the time ani m als are held there. According t o one state official, a n i m als in his state spent 4 5 to 60 d ays i n short-term holding facil i ties in the lat e 19 90s. Beg i nning in 2 0 0 0 , this official told us, it was not uncommon to hold ani m als for more than a ye ar. Nationwide, according to BLM, the av erage l e ngth of stay in sh ort-term holding in 2 008 h a s bee n 210 d ays. This is far longer than th e 90 d ays BL M projected an imals would spend in short-term holding in their 2 001 initiative to meet AML.

Similarly, the number of long-term holding facil i ties has increased, as has the cost. The number of facilities increas ed from 1 in 1988 to 11 as of June 2008 , and th e number of animals care d for increas ed from 1,50 0 in 20 00 to 22,101 as of June 2008 (see tabl e 11)

. These long-t erm holding facilities have re ache d their cap a c ity—curren t ly 22, 100— despite the i n crease in numbers of f acilities. BLM anticipa tes it will need greater long-term holding capacity and is working to contract for additional facilities.

**T a**  **b l**  **e 11: Nu mb**  **er o f**  **W i**  **ld Ho**  **rses in L**  **o n**  **g -**  **T erm Ho**  **ld ing**  **, b**  **y Year, Sin**  **ce 200 0** 

**Year Number of facilities**  **C apacity**  **Nu mb**  **er o f**  **h o**  **rse s**  **in l ong-term h**  **o ldi**  **n g**  200 0 1 2
, 0 0 0 1,500
200 1 3 6
, 0 0 0 3,293
200 2 5 10,00 0 7,311
200 3 7 14,00 0 10,12 2
200 4 7 14,00 0 13,15 1
200 5 9 20,60 0 15,37 9
200 6 8 19,70 0 18,19 8
200 7 1 0 21,80 0 19,65 2
200 8 a 11 22,10 0 2 2
, 1 0 1

Sour ce: BLM

.

a As of June 200 8

.

Pag e 44 G A O- 09 -7 7 BL M’s Wil d H o rse and Burro Pro g ram

### BLM pays private contra ctors an ave rage of $ 1 .2 7 per horse per day to maintain the animals for the remainde r of their lif espan, unles s removed from long-term holding for adoption or sale. Whil e this fee h a s increased by only 7 ce nts since 20 00, the number of animal s cared for has also increased, r e sulting in a significant i n crease in B L M spending on long-t erm holding. 41 

### In 2 000, BLM spent approxi mately $66 8, 000 in 200 0, compared to more than $9.1 million i n 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 t y picall ymo re abundant t h an on HMAs of the West. Table 12 lists the 11 long-term holding facil i ties.

**Table 12: BLM Lon g-Term Holdi**  **ng Faciliti**  **es, June 2008**

**Name of facility Location**  **Year( s) an**  **ima l**  **s first held i**  **n fa**  **cility Cap**  **acity Ho**  **rses he**  **ld**
Bartlesvil l e O k lahom a 198 9 2,300 2,066
Catoos a O k lahom a 200 1 2,000 2,042
T e terville East Kansas 200 1 2,200 1,913
T e terville W e st Kansas 200 2 2,200 2,531
F o r a k e r O k lahom a 200 3 2,500 2,507
Pawh u s k a O k lahom a 200 3–2 00 4 3,400 3,646
G r enol a K a n s a s 200 4 2,200 2,269
Hula h O k lahom a 200 4 2,200 2,203
H e r d O k lahom a 200 7 1,000 1,042
W hitehors e S o u t h Dak o ta 200 7 1,100 1,169
S t r o h m O k lahom a 200 8 1,000 713
**T o**  **t a**  **l 22,10**  **0 22,10**  **1**

Sour ce: BLM

.



### For at least t w o decades, BLM’s primary strategy to manage e x cess unadoptable wild horses has been to i n crease long-term holding, despite warnings in our 1990 rep o rt that thes e faciliti e s were likely to be more expensive th an envisioned and to be only a temp orary solution to the disposal of unadoptable animals. 42 

### In 1 994, th e Dep a rtment of the Interior’s Office of Inspector Gene ral also issued a report t h at strongly discouraged

41 Long-term hold i ng cos t s w e re, on ave r age, $1. 20 in 2000 , $1 .2 2 in 2001 , an d $ 1 .25 pe r hors e per day f rom 2001 thr o u g h 2004. In 200 5 , the cos t inc r eas e d to $1 .27 per hors e per day throug h 20 07 and will increase to $1.28 per horse pe r da y by t h e e n d of 2008.

42 GAO/RCED-90-110

.

Pag e 45 G A O- 09 -7 7 BL M’s Wil d H o rse and Burro Pro g ram

### long-term holding as a s o lution to managin g hor ses removed from the range due to the large co sts. 43 

### BLM continues to look for more facilities but faces difficu lty attractin g new contra ct ors that ca n sustain a l a rge number of animals and that will acceptthe f ee BLM offers, compared to perhaps more profitable land uses.

BLM has implemented multiple contro ls to help ensure the humane treatment of wild horses and burros, including standard operating procedures and agreements with all th ree slaughterhouses in the United States befor e they close d in 20 07. A var iety of co ntrols are used at v a riou s stages in the managemen t of wild horses and burros, including for those animals that are gathered, in short-te rm holding facilities, in l ong-term holding facil i ties, adopted, or sold. BLM’s controls for gathers include standard operating procedures, inspections, and data coll ecti on. While BLM state offices colle ct detailed d a t a

on animals that die dur ing gath e rs, the information is not co mpiled by BLM headqua r

ters in its centralized database, n o r is it reported to the pu blic. In add i tion, BLM does not regularly pr ovide the inf o rmation it tracks on the treatment of animals in short- and long-term holding and ad option inspections to the public. Making more of this dat a available to the public may help inf o rm them about the tr eatment of t h e animals and improve transp arency. Beginning in 1998, unti l the last hor se slaughterhouse in the United Stat es shut down in 200 7, BL M sought agreements with all three s l aughter fa ci lities to alert BLM of wild horses that entered thei r facilities. A ccording to BLM data, since 2002, about 2,000 wild horses w hose legal titles were obtained by private citiz e ns either th rough adopt ion or purch ase were slaughtered. During that same period, another 90 wild horses whose title still belonged to BLM were retrieved f r om slaughterhouses by BLM and by wild horse groups. We reviewed the basic contro ls BLM has in place, but we did not evaluat e the i r effective n ess. While BLM is required to imple m ent controls to help ensu re the humane treatmentof wild horses and burros, such 

# BLM Has Controls in Place to Help E n sure the Humane T

r eatm ent of W ild Hors es and Burros, but It C ould B e tter T

r ack and Report Thes e Data to the Public

43 U.S

. De partme nt of the Interi or, Office of In s p ector Ge nera l, S e lected Asp e cts of th e Wi ld Hors e a n d Bur r

o Prog r a m (Was hington, D

. C. , May 1994 ).

Pag e 46 G A O- 09 -7 7 BL M’s Wil d H o rse and Burro Pro g ram

### controls can not provide absolute assurance that all ag ency o b jectives wil l be met. 44



# BLM Internal Controls Help Ensure Humane T

r eatment, but BLM Could Improve Data Gathering and Reporting in Some Areas A variety of controls are used at vari ous stages in the manag e ment of wild horses and burros, including for those animals that are gath e red, in shortterm holding faciliti e s, i n long-term holding facil i ties, adopted, or sold. BLM’s controls for gathers include standard oper a ting proced ures, inspections, and data col l ection. Data collect ed fr om 6 of the 10 states from fiscal years 2005 th rough 200 7 i ndi cate th at mortality as a result of gathers is ab out 1.2 p e rc ent. Similarl y, controls f o r short- and long-term holding incl ude standar d operating procedures, inspections, and data collection. BLM did not report any d e aths due to neglect or a buse at holding facil i ties, aside fr om one ani m al that was repossessed by BLM after havin g been abused by an adopt er. BLM has controls over the adoption of wild horses and burros, and data ind i cate th at from 2005 to 2007, about 9 percent of adopters were not in co mpliance with BLM’s standards of care. BLM’s controls ov er humane treatment primarily apply to horses and burros before ownersh i p is passed to private in dividuals, bu t BLM has also implemented some con t rols to protect horses and burros

once owner s hip passes, such as when wild horses and burros are sold. Fo r animals that are sold, sin ce spring 20 05, BLM has required buy ers to sign a statement that they do n o t intend to slaughter th e animals. BLM does not consistently track information on trea tment during gath e r ope rations through a central database, nor does it report information about the treatment of animals during gath e rs, holding, or adoption inspections to the public.

BLM has established con t rols, such as standard operating pro cedures and tracking syst ems, to help ensure humane treatme nt during gat her operations. BLM hires contractors to remove wild horses and burros fro m the range. T h ese contra ctors generally use heli c opters to he rd the animal s into capture pens on the range (see fi g. 8). 

## Gathers

44 Standar d s fo r i n ternal c ontr o l in the fe deral g o vernment des c ribe inter n al c ontrols as “a series of actions and activities that occ ur t hroughout an [ag e n cy’s] operations and on an ongoing basis” used “t o reg u late and gu ide [the agency’s] ope rations.” See G A O, Stan d a r d s for I n te rna l Co ntrol i n th e F e d era l Gover n ment , G A O/AIMD-00-21.3.1 (Wa s hington, D

. C. : November 1999 ).

Pag e 47 G A O- 09 -7 7 BL M’s Wil d H o rse and Burro Pro g ram**F i**  **g u**  **re 8: Helico p**  **t er Used**  **to G**  **a th**  **er W i**  **ld Ho**  **rses N e**  **a r**  **Ely, Nevad a, c** 

**. 2006** 

S o u rce: BLM.



### Due to the st ress caused to wild animals by gath e ring them int o pens, gather opera tions have t h e potential to cause harm to wild horses and burros, such as nervous agitation; co nflict between captured animals; or more rarely, animal deat h. Because o f the potenti al for harm and to help ensure the safe and humane hand lin g of all animals captured , BLM has implemented a range of standard ope rating procedures for its gather contractors. Prior to the start of gath e r operation s, BLM personnel evaluat e the site of the g a t her to determ ine whether it is suitable based on environmental and safety concerns. They also approve gather facility pl ans ensuring, among other things, that t h ey do not p r esent punct u re or laceration h a zards and that they pre vent animals from seeing humans, vehicles, an d other perc eived thre at s. During the herding of the animals, BLM sets limitations on the distance and speed t h e animals will travel, depending o n the conditi on of the ani m als and other factors. As the animals are herded into the gath e r site, BLM requires contractors to segregate ho rses by age and sex to redu ce the possibility of co nflict and to ensure that very youn g horses and burros are not left behind to fend for themselves on the rang e

. Finally, as t h e captured animals are transported from the gather site to short-term ho lding faciliti e s, contract ors are required to f o llow procedures to ensure animal safety, such a s using adequat ely s i zed motorized equipme nt that has b een inspect e d for safety. BLM has ma naged gathe rs with standard operati ng procedur es since the passage of t h e act in 19 7 1

.

Pag e 48 G A O- 09 -7 7 BL M’s Wil d H o rse and Burro Pro g ram

### Although BLM’s controls are designed to enhan c e the safety of wild horses and burros during gather operations, some animals are accid e ntally killed in the cours e of gath e rs or are euthanized becau se of ill heal th or prior injury. Six o f the 10 BLM state offices reported data about the number of animals that die as a res u lt of their g a ther operat i ons. Data c o llected fro m 6 of the 10 st ates from fiscal y ears 20 05 through 2 007 indi cate that, of the 24,855 anim als removed from these states during this period, about 1.2 perc ent were either euthanized or died ac ci dentally (se e table 13). Horses and burros so metimes die due to acciden t s during gat her operations on the range or after they are brought to the holdi ng pens. For example, wild horses will sometimes panic an d break their n e cks against capture pen s . Animals found with conditions that make it u n likely they will be able to live their life without significant pain, such as l a meness or club feet, ar e euthanized

.

**T a**  **b l**  **e 13: Nu mb**  **er an d**  **Per cen**  **tag e**  **o f**  **W i**  **ld Ho**  **rses an d**  **Bu rro**  **s T h**  **a t Died**  **Du rin**  **g Gather Operat**  **ions, (f or 6 of**  **10 Stat es) Fiscal Years 2005 through 2007** 

**F i**  **scal yea**  **r Number** 
**remo v**  **ed Number of**  **accid e**  **n t**  **al d eath**  **s Perc**  **en tag**  **e Number** 
**eu th**  **an ized**  **Perc en**  **tag e**  200 5 9
, 8 3 0 25 0

. 2 5 % 46 0.47%
200 6 8
, 0 8 1 64 0

. 7 9 79 0.98
200 7 6
, 9 4 4 28 0

. 4 0 60 0.86
**T o**  **t a**  **l 2**  **4 ,**  **8 5**  **5 117**  **0**

**. 4**  **7 %**  **185 0.74%** 

Sour ce: GAO an al ysi s of B L M dat a.
Note: Thi s ch art i s ba sed on d a ta reporte d by 6 of 10 state s : C a lifornia, Colorado, Id aho, Ne vada, New Me x i c o , and Wy oming. The d a ta pro v ided could not be v e rified f o r its reliability

. We reque s t ed this information from the other f our state s (A rizona, Montana, Orego n, and Utah ), but the information was not pro v ided

. 

### Although BLM national and state offi cials told us that they so metimes record data about the an imals accide ntally killed or euthanized during gathers at th e BLM state office le vel, BLM does not centrally compile or report these data to the p ublic on a re gular basis o n a nation al level. A BLM official told us that although their main tracking datab a se has the capability to record the number of anim als that are killed or euthanized during gathe rs, they gen e r ally do not use the data base to do s o because it was originally intended t o track adop tions. Moreover, BLM has not regularly reported to th e public ho w many wild horses and burros are killed in the course of gathers, although BLM officials have ci ted the dat a during publi c hearings. S o me advocates and members of the p ublic beli eve that gath e rs are held in s ecret and hi ghlight indi vidual cases of apparent mistreatmen t as eviden c e that i nhum ane treatment is widespread.

Pag e 49 G A O- 09 -7 7 BL M’s Wil d H o rse and Burro Pro g ram

### However, a BLM official told us that it is BLM’s standard prac tice to all o w the public and the medi a to observe gather op erations, and BLM is required to hold public hearings prior to schedu led gath e rs using helicopters. If BLM does not improve its transparency by presenting reliable dat a to members of the publi c , BLM will continue to be vulnerabl e to accusatio n s that gath e rs are generally cruel and inhumane.

BLM has issued standar d operating procedures to help ensur e that wild horses and burros held in short-term holding facil i ties are well cared for. They inclu d e procedure s for minimizing the exc i tement of the animals to prevent inju ry; separatin g horses by age, sex , an d size; observation of th e animals on a regular basi s; and recor d ing information about t h e animals that BLM later uses for tracking th e animals in BLM’s database. BLM’s short-term holding facil i ties are most ly maintaine d and directl ymanaged by BLM, either on gov e rnment propert y or on leas ed property. Several are at state prisons, and a f e w others are maintained by contracto r s in privately-ow ned feedlots or ranches t h at BLM has leased. Ac c o rding to BLM staff, they regul a rly inspect the short-term holding fac i l i ties and the animals they hold. They i n spect to se e that the co rral equipment is up to code and th at animals a r e treated wi th appropria te veterin ary care. For example, staff check to see that th e h o rses’ hooves are regular l y trimmed so that they do not beco me too long and cause injury. At two of the shortterm holding faciliti e s we visited, we observed specially const r ucted chutes that hold and rot a te horses in place so th at horses’ hooves can be trimmed mo re quickly, easily, and wi th less risk to the animal s and the employee th an other methods, such as using tranquilizer darts or roping (see fig. 9). 

## Short-Term Holding

Pag e 50 G A O- 09 -7 7 BL M’s Wil d H o rse and Burro Pro g ramPage 51 GAO-09-77 BLM’s Wild Horse and Burro Program **Figure 9: BLM Contractor Trimming Horse H ooves Using a Special Holding Chute at**  **a Contract Short-Term Holding Facilit y in Fallon, Nevada, October 2007** 



### 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. 45 

### BLM reported that none of the animals in its care died of neglect or abuse be tween 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 di ed due to sickness, broken limbs, or injuries sustained accidentally dur ing 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.

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

45 For 2007, BLM also reported 616 births in short-term holding facilities. 

## Long-Term Holding Source: GAO.

### animal healt h throughou t the ye ar. According to BLM staff, during these visits they e n sure the co ntractors comply with BLM provisions and discu ss possible problems that can be c o rrec t ed. In additi on, veterin ary staff from the Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health In spection Service inspect long-t erm holding fa cilities annually; these inspections involve a ful l count of th e horses hel d there, an i n spection of the horses’ general h eal th, and written reports. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service repo rts from 200 7 indicat e th at the horse s kept in lon g -term holding sanctuaries are generally in “g ood” or “excellent” con d ition. Thes e reports, however, hig h lig ht some areas for possible improvement. At one facility, one area of improvement in cluded the pr oper disposal of the remains of animals that have di ed of natural c au s es. To help ensure the animals are well cared f o r, a contrac t veterinaria n provides c a re when needed at B L M direction and exp e n s e. In additi on to inspec ting the facilities for the well bei n g of wild horses in long-term holding, contractors are required to count and report the n u mber of horses held on a weekly basis for billing and payment purposes. In 2007, l ong-term holding contractors were paid a n avera ge fe e of $1 .27 p e r horse per day, or abo u t $460 per hor se per year. While this c ontract fee s t ructure is not in itself a control that guarantees humane trea tmen t, it provides a profi t incentive for contract ors to ensure the co ntin ued health o f the horses. According t o one BLM official, BLM does not regu larly document the resul t s of its inspections. This official told us th at t h e ag ency would take ac tions and record them if it found p r oblems, but the official generall yhas not found problems with the contr actors that h ave warrant ed action beyond informal conversations to address minor is su es.

BLM collects data on ho w wild horses are cared for in long-t erm holding, including th e number of animals that die in lon g -t erm holding. The av erage mortality rate of wild horses in long-t erm holding from 2003 th rough 200 7 was about 8 percent, but it fluctuated from a low o f 5 percentt o a high of 14 perc ent d u ring that ti me period. Specifical ly, f o r 2007, BLM reported 938 d eaths i n long-term holding fac i l i ties. 46 

### The nu mber of wild horses in long-term holding in 2 0 0 7 was 19,6 5 2

. The animal s that die in long-term holding are generall yfo und in the p a st ures, and unless there is evidence of foul play, BL M does not investigate t h e cause of d eath. Acc o rding to BLM, barring any eviden ce to the contrary , it is assumed that the a n imals in

46 For 2007, BLM also reported 303 births in long-term holding facilitie s. Although studs are gelded p r ior to being s e nt t o lo ng-term h o ldin g and the w ild hors es are s e pa rated by s e x , pregna n t mares may be tra n sferred from s hort -term holding f a cilitie s into long-term holding facilities.

Pag e 52 G A O- 09 -7 7 BL M’s Wil d H o rse and Burro Pro g ram

### long-term holding die of old age. Officially, BLM reported abo u t 95 percen t of the animal deaths in l ong-term hol ding as “un d iagnosed.” Some of the other causes of deaths reported includ ed old age and respiratory illness. No animals in long-term holding died from neglec t or abuse, a ccording to BLM reports. While BLM collects this data, it do es not report this data regularly to the public. I n the absen c e of this dat a , some members of the public who advocat e gr eater protec tion for wild horses have repeatedl y expressed their concern that BLM does not ade q u ately care f o r animals in long-term holding.

The act requ ires BLM to determine that adopters have pro v id ed humane conditions, t r eatment, an d care for ad opt ed animals for at least 1 year before BLM transfers ownership to the adopter. T o implement the act, BLM has established pol icies for insp ecting ado p ted horses or burros in this first year through tel e phone calls or personal visits. BLM inspections focus on the condition of the animal; the conditio n of the facil i ties; and whether the adopter has notified BLM if the ado p ted animal has been moved, was stolen, has e s caped, or h a s died. Prio r to taking p o ssession of an adopted animal, BLM requires that adopters describe the f acility wher e they will maintain the adopted anim al. This is documented in t h eir application , which confers penaltie s for providing false inform ation. 

## A doption

According t o BLM data, from 2005 th rough 2007, an average o f about 9 percent of adopted wil d horses and burros that still belong t o the government have notbee n treated in compliance with BLM standards (see table 14). BLM randomly selects a sample from the universe of approximately 5,0 00 ado p ters per ye ar who have not yet re ce ived title of their adopted animal for inspection. BLM inspects these adop ters in order to generat e a statistical sample of the likely perc entage of ad opted animal s kept under conditions that do not co mply with BLM’s policies and standards. The most common conditions in need of improvement included the failure t o report cha n ges in the a n imal’s locat ion or status and substandard facilities, such as inadeq uate fencing or sh elter. Less common conditions i n cluded l a ck of care of t h e animal, s u ch as inad equate feedin g or failure to trim the animal’s hooves before they grew too l ong.

Pag e 53 G A O- 09 -7 7 BL M’s Wil d H o rse and Burro Pro g ram**Table 14: Results of Random Inspections of Wild Horse and Burro Ad**  **options, 2005 through 2007**

**200 5**  **200 6**  **200 7** 
**Re s**  **u lt of r**  **a n**  **d o**  **m a dopti**  **on i**  **n s**  **p e**  **c t**  **ions Nu**  **mb er**  **Perc en**  **t N**  **u m**  **b e**  **r P**  **e r**  **c en**  **t Nu**  **mb er**  **Perc en**  **t**
No viol atio n 395 94% 614 91% 805 89%
F ailure to n o tify BLM of chan ge in status 10 2 2 4 4 36 4
F ailure to pr ovi de ad equ ate fa cilities/car e 4 1 3 0 30 3
F ailure to pr od uce an imal 5 1 13 2 19 2
Unaut horiz ed transfer/sal e 0 0 6 1 15 2
Commerci al ex ploitati on 0 0 0 0 4 0
Inade quat e facility 4 1 6 1 0 0
Unaut horiz ed d e struction 0 0 5 1 0 0
Inhuma ne treat ment 2 0 0 0 0 0
**T o**  **t a**  **l 420**  **100 %**  **671 100**  **% 909**  **100 %** 

Sour ce: GAO an al ysi s of B L M dat a.



### In addition, BLM policy directs that officials or c e rtified volu nteers conduct per s onal inspections of all adopted animals whenever BLM receives co mplaints about mistreatme nt or when an individ u al 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, BL M does not provide info rmation on the results of its adoption inspections to the public . The information regula rly provided to the public on the treat ment of these animals is in contrast to the compa r atively l a rg e amount of information BLM provides on the program’s Web site regarding information on AML and population estimates for each HMA.

In the case o f animals that were legal ly sold, BLM has implemented limitations to prevent th ese animals from being resold to slau ghter facilities. In 2004, the act was changed and direct ed BLM to sell, “without limitation,” excess wild horses and burros more than 10 ye ars of age or that had b e en offered un successfully for adoption at least three times, until all excess animals for sale are s o ld or until AML is met in all HMAs. However, shortly after BLM began to sell wild horses and burros without limitation, in early 2 005 , i t was discovered that 4 1 of these wild horses had been slaught e red. In April 200 5, BLM suspended its wild horse sales program and resumed sales in May 2005 , after a dding contr o ls intended to restrict the sale of animals for the purpose of selling them for slaughter. These contr o ls included BLM’s requir ement that buyers sign a statement 

## Sales

Pag e 54 G A O- 09 -7 7 BL M’s Wil d H o rse and Burro Pro g ram

### they do not i n tend to sell the animals for slaughte r and verific ation that potential bu yers would provide ad e q uate care f o r the animal s. 

# BLM Implemented Controls to Prevent Slaughter of W ild Horses in the United States Although BLM is no longer required t o protect ani m als after ownership has passed to ad opters or buyers, BLM impl emented controls to help prevent their slaught e r beginnin g in 199 8. BL M had negot i ated a g ree m ents with all three U.S. facilities that opera ted horse slaughterhouses. The slaughterho u ses agreed to alert BLM to all wild h o rses that entered their facilities and refrain from slaughteri ng those wild horses wh ose title still belonged to BLM. According to BLM data, which it was able t o provide since 2002, about 2,000 wild horses w hose legal titles were obtained by private citiz e ns through adoption or purchase were slaughter e d. During that same time period, at least 90 adopted wild horses that were still owned by th e government were brought to thes e slaughterh ouses, and all were retrieved by BLM and interested wild horse groups.

As of fall 2007, all horse slaughter fac ilities in the United States had been shut down following unsuccessful legal ch alleng es to state la ws effectivel y banning th e practice. In January 2007, the U.S. C ourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that a 1949 Texas l a w banning the sale, pos session, or transfer of horsemeat applied to the t w o slaughterhouses in Texas. 47 

### In September 2007, th e U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit upheld an Illinois b an. 48 

### These rulings effecti v ely closed th e plants and ended horse slaughter in the Un ited States.

Even though all horse slaughter facili ties in the U n ited States have b een closed, it is still possible for wild horse s and burros to be sold to facilities outside the United States. 49 

### Prior to the closure of all U.S. horse slaughter facilities, about 50,000 domestic horse s were bro u ght to slaughter in the United States annually b e tween 20 01 and 2004. Generally, ex porting horses and burros to other countries fo r slaughter, such as Canada or Mexico, is not prohibited; for exampl e, about 3,000 horses per month were exported for slaughter in 2007, accor d ing to Department of Agriculture

47

Emp a c ad ora de Ca rne s d e Fr esni llo v. C urr y , 476 F.3d 326 (5th Cir. 2007 ), cert . d eni ed , 75 U.S.L.W. 356 9 (U .S. May 21 , 2007). S ee a l so , T e x. Agric. Co de An n. §§ 149 .001-149.007.

48 Cave l In t’l, Inc. v. Madigan , 5 00 F.3d 551 (7t h Cir. 2007), ce rt. d eni ed , 76 U

. S.L.W. 3410 (U.S. June 16 , 2 008). S ee a l so , 225 Ill. Com p . Stat. 635/1.5

.

49 Curre nt legislation pe nding in t h e 110th Co ngr e ss (H.R. 503 a nd S. 311) woul d p rohi bit the commercial s ale of hors es to f oreign c o u n tries , s u ch as Cana d a an d Me xico, to be

s l aughtered f o r

huma n c ons u m ption.

Pag e 55 G A O- 09 -7 7 BL M’s Wil d H o rse and Burro Pro g ram

### information. We attempt e d to determin e how many of these horses were at one time wild, but we were not ab le t o do so. The Department of Agriculture, which certifies the insp ections of horses and other livestock exported to other countries, is not requ ired and d o es not repo rt how many of the horses exported t o other coun tries were once wild horses.

The long-term sustainability of BLM’s Wild Horse and Burro Program depends on the resolution of two significant ch al lenges. First, holding costs are overwhelming the program’s ability to manage ani m als on the range and will continue t o do so if BLM does not consider alt e rnatives to holding. Second, BLM has limited options for deal ing with unadoptable animals off of the range because its alternatives under the act—humane destruction of the animals or sellin g the animals without limitation—are thought to b e unacceptable to the pu blic. As a result, BLM has placed over 30,000 wild horses and burros in holding.

The portion of the Wild Horse and Burro Program’s spending that is directed toward short- and long-term holding has i n creased fro m 46 perc ent o f the progra m’s direct costs in 2000 to 67 perc en t in 200 7. Th is increase le a ves a smalle r portion of the budgeta vailabl e for on-the-range management activities. Much of the increase has occurred be cause accel erated removals implemented t o reach AML have coinci ded with a decline i n ad option demand. Because l ong-term holding facil i ties are at capacit y , BL M has had little choice b u t to hold ex cess unadop table horses in more expensive short-term holding. BLM’s spending on sh ort- and longterm holding has increased from about $7.0 million in 2000, or 46 percent of the progr a m’s direct costs, to a bout $20. 9 million in 2007, or 67 percen t of the progr a m’s direct c o sts (see fig. 10). In 2 008 , BLM anticipates that holding cost s will accou n t for about 74 percent o f the program’s direct costs. To deal with its long-term holding problem, BLM has primarily sought increased funding to open addi tional long-term holding faciliti e s. However, funding is not likely to in crease in the f u ture, and li mited funding is fo rcing BLM to make diffi cu lt choices. For example, in January 2008 , BLM considered c ancelin g all remaining removals scheduled for th e fiscal year b ecause of th e amount needed for sho r t- and long- t erm holding. As of July 2008, BLM was seeking the funds to con t inue these r e movals by redirecting money from other BLM activities to t h e Wild Horse and Burro 

# Challenges to the Long-T erm Sustainability of the Program Incl u de Growing Holding Costs and Limi ted Opti ons for Dealing with Unadoptable Animals

If Not Controll ed, Off-theRange Holding Costs W ill Continue to Overwhelm the Program

Pag e 56 G A O- 09 -7 7 BL M’s Wil d H o rse and Burro Pro g ram

### Program. As a result, un der current f unding level s, BLM must now choose between eit h er managin g the range t o prevent o v erpopulatio n or exercis e one or both of its other options—destroying ani m als or selling them without limitation.

**F i**  **g u**  **re 10: BLM Estimated W**  **ild Ho rse an**  **d Bu**  **rro Direct Pro**  **g ram Co**  **sts, F i**  **scal Year s**  **2 0**  **0 0**  **thr ough**  **2 0**  **0 8** 

**0 10**  **20 3**  **0 40**  **50 60**  **70 8**  **0 90**  **100**

R a nge m a n a gement

Adoption s a nd compli a nce
S hort-term holding (e s tim a te)

Long-term holding (e s tim a te) **200 8**  **projected 2007**  **2006 2005**  **2004 200**  **3 2002**  **2001 2000** 

S o u rce: GAO a n a ly s i s of BLM d a t a

. **Percenta g**  **e**

**Fi s**  **cal year**

Note: Thi s ch art represents direct program s pen ding. It omits spendi ng on overhead items— which
av era ge about $ 7 million per y ear—s u c h a s adminis trati v e cos t s , v e hic l e c o s t s , and other nondirec t program related costs.



### To continue to reduce o v erpopulatio n on the ran ge by usin g gathers alon e, BLM projects that the pr ogram’s budget would h ave to in crease to about $77 million by fiscal year 2012, from about $36 million in 2008. If BLM does not receiv e t h is increase or exer cise i t s other options to reduc e populations off the range, then it will not have sufficient funds to manage wild horses and burros on the range, and populati ons will sharply

Pag e 57 G A O- 09 -7 7 BL M’s Wil d H o rse and Burro Pro g ram

### increase. BL M’s current projections indicate th at caring for u n adoptable animals wou l d reduce th e agency’s abilit y to gath er horses to an average o f about 4, 500 animals per year, which would only be enough t o prevent animals from dying from the effect s of overpop ulation and drought. At these removal lev e ls, BLM projects that the on-th e-range po p u lation would reach 50,000 animals by 2012—ab out 80 percent greater than the upper limit of AML

. This on-the-range popul ation level would be greater than the population l evel prior to the begi nni ng of BLM’s 2001 strategi c plan.

Since 2004, BLM has had the go al of reducing th e total popul ation on the range to the midpoint of AML. If it were to reach this level, w h ich is currently ab out 22,588 animals, an annual popul ation growth rate of 20 percent would require the annu al removal of about 4, 500 animals to maintain that level, appr oximately equal to th e recent adopti on rate. Assu ming that rate remai n ed consta n t , fewer ani m als would be sent to long-term holding. However, e ven if BLM is able to reach a b a lance between ani m als removed and those adopted, it s t ill has the challenge of dealing with 30,0 88 animals that are c u rrently hel d in short-term and longterm holding faciliti e s across the country. Furthermore the number of animals held in holding would excee d 40,0 00 ani m als if BLM were to remove the approximately 11, 000 ani m als necessary to reach the midpoint of AML.

BLM has a number of research projects under way and id eas i n developmen t that could slow the incr ease in the population o n the range. These include fertility control efforts, such as the development of a fertility vaccine (see app. II for more information on this vacci n e) and releasing sterilized male horses back to the range after captur e . Given that many existing HMAs are alread y ov er AML, releasing a large number of sterilized male horses or nonreproducin g herds back to the range as a means of trying to reduce future hol ding costs would likely r equire changin g exi s ting land us e decisions within BLM’s existing au thority to increase AMLs, expand existing HMAs or designate new HMAs; or through seeking newlegislativ e a u thority. Under the 19 71 act, the lan d avail a ble f o r the manage ment of wild horses and burros is limited to the a r eas where they existed at the time o f the act. Th e originally designated h e rd areas consisted of 53.5 million acres compar ed to the existing HMA acreage of 34.3 million, a difference of 19.2 million acres. Specificall y , the BLM owned acre age mana ge d for wild horses and burros has changed from 42.2 million acres to 29.0 million acres , a difference of 13.2 mi llion acres. As we menti oned 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 l and under B L M’s control.

Pag e 58 G A O- 09 -7 7 BL M’s Wil d H o rse and Burro Pro g ram

### While BLM could chan ge AMLs, expand existing HMAs, or designate new HMA s withi n its existing authority, B L M is a mult iple use agency and it weighs the n eeds of wild horses and burros against other competing uses. Alternativel y, should BL M chose to do so, new legislative au thority coul d be pursued t o allow nonreproducing herds to be relocated to areas where they were n o t found at t h e time of th e act. W e bel i eve th at it is important to consider i n creasing AM L or expa nding HMA acreage only as a means to accommodate nonrepro ducing h e rds. Increasing the number of reproducing animals on the range wi thout corresponding sol u tions for fertility cont rol or declining adoption demand will, in the long run, only exacerb a te BLM’s problems with de aling with e x cess animals.



# Under Current Law BLM’ s Options Are Limited for Dealing with Unadoptabl e Animals Despite these budget problems, BLM has avoided using two options in the act for deal i n g with unadoptable ani m als because of con cern s over the public and congressional reaction to the large-scale slaughter of thousands of healthy h o rses. The Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act, as amended, requires that excess animals, for which the adoptio n demand is not sufficien t to absorb all the animal s removed from the range, be destroyed in the most humane and co st-efficient manner possible or, under certai n circumstances, be so l d without limitation. The 1978 amendments to the origi n al 1971 act directed that “[t]he Secr etary shall cause additi onal exc e ss wild free-roam ing horses and burros for which an adoption demand by qualified individ u als does no t exist to be destroyed in the most humane and co st efficient manner possible.” 50 

### From 198 1 to 1 9 8 2 , BLM destroyed at l east 47 ex cess an imals. BLM decided not to destroy excess unad optable ani m als in 1982 after the Dir ector issued a policy prohibiting t h e destructi on of health y animals because of pub lic dismay. Furthermore, from fiscal year 1 988 t h rough fiscal year 2 004 , Congress prohibited BLM from u s ing its Mana gement of Lands and Resources appropriations to destroy excess healthy, unadop table wild h o rses and burros.

In our 1990 report, we found that keeping excess animals in long-term holding was costly and r ecommended that BLM examine alt e rnatives, su ch as sterilizing animals and releas ing them back int o the wild. 51 

### Although BLM was prohibited fro m using its Management of Lands a nd Resources appropriations for humanely destroying excess animals throu g h

50 16 U. S.C

. § 133 3(b)(2 )(C ).

51 GAO/RCED-90-110

.

Pag e 59 G A O- 09 -7 7 BL M’s Wil d H o rse and Burro Pro g ram

### euthanasia a t the time of that report, we also reco mmended that BLM consider this action as a last resort in the ev ent t h at Congress lifted the prohibition in the future. The recurri ng prohibiti on in the an nual appropriations bills ended after fis cal year 2004. S i nce then , BLM has no longer bee n prohibited from us ing its Management of Lands a nd Resources appropriations for carryin g out the re q u irement to destroy excess animals. BLM still has not used this option.

In 200 4, Con g ress provided BLM with an altern ati ve to destro ying unadoptable excess ani m als by amending the act to state that “[a]ny excess animal or the re mains of an excess animal shall be s o ld if—(A) the excess animal is more than 10 years of age; or (B) the excess animal has been offered unsuccessfully for adop tion at least 3 times.” 52 

### Furthermore, the amendment stipulate d that the ex cess animals “shall be made a vailabl e for sale without limitation.” 53 

### BLM has instead imposed limitations on the sales of exc e ss animals in an effort t o reduce th e risk that ani m als purchased at a low price would be resold to slaughterhouses for profit.

As a result, BLM is not in complianc e with the a c t. BLM officials told us that they h a ve chosen n o t to destroy excess ani m als or sell them without limitation because of co n cerns about public and congressional reaction to the large-scale slaughter of thousands of healthy horses. Various BLM officials at different level s of respons ibility also told us that the agency has not complied with these provisions because doi ng so would cause an immediate threat to the careers of a n y officials i nvolved, due to the anticipated negative reaction of the public and C ongress. Nevertheless, as of June 200 8 , budget con s traints forc ed BLM to reconsider al l of its options, officials told us. Specific a lly, for fiscal ye ar 200 9, BL M is considering euthanizing about 2, 300 horses from short-term holding— about one-th i rd of the an imals currently in short-term holding. In addition, they are considering selling without lim itation about 8,000 ani m als fro m both short- and long-term holding. However, as of August 3 1 , 20 08, legislation was pending i n the 110th Congress that would repeal the directive for BLM to sell animals without limitation, but not t h e requirement to destroy u n adoptable excess horses. 54

52 16 U.S.C

. § 133 3(e)(1).

53 16 U.S.C

. § 133 3(e)(2).

54 H.R. 249, 110th Cong. (2007 ). The bill was pa s s ed by t h e House of Represent atives on April 26, 2007. As of Aug u st 31 , 2008, the Se na te had not acte d on t h e bill.

Pag e 60 G A O- 09 -7 7 BL M’s Wil d H o rse and Burro Pro g ram

### Other than o n e pilot proj ect, BLM ha s not initiate d strategies to reduce th e number of horses they c u rrently manage in long- t erm holding and h a s not formally considered other possible so lutions to indefinitely caring for horses in long-term holding. BLM officials who lead state Wild Horse and Burro Programs suggested several a c tions that c ould be tak e n to alle viat e off-the-range costs to the program, but many of t h ese chan ges would require chan ges in the l a w or BLM regulations. T h e most common suggestion, made by 4 o f the 10 stat e leads, was that the fed e ral government should provide incenti ve s for private individuals or organization s to care for unwanted wild horses, such as mone tary incentives or tax deducti ons. In 2003, BLM initiated a pilot pr oject in Wyoming to pay privat e r anchers a on e-time lump sum to care for unadoptable excess ani m als. This pilot project ended because of a l ack o f up-front funds. In additi on, a BLM official familiar with the project told us that private ranchers ha d less interest in the project as the m a rket for cattle grazin g improved. Implementin g tax deduct i ons would likely require changes in the tax law. Another suggestion made by three of the state leads was that the act should be ch anged to allo w the government to manage unadoptable wil d horses and burros on public or private lands outside areas where they were originally found. T h e act currently does no t allow BLM to relocate wild horses and burros to areas of pub lic lands where they were not found when the act was passed. To date, BLM has not sought the l egislative ch anges that w ould make t h ese suggest i ons possible.

The management of a program consisti ng of wild free-roaming animals is unique withi n BLM, and it presents distinct manag e ment chall e nges. Whil e BLM has ma de significan t progress in increasing t h e number of HMAs that have set AML and in mo ving toward meeting AML, its recent removal efforts have resulted in t h e ag ency managin g almost the same number of animals off of the range as they man age in th e wild. By spend i ng an ever increasing amount of funding on caring for animals off the range, little funding is left to conduct important on-the-range managemen t activities, as originally envisioned i n the act . Now that BLM is closer to meeting AML, it is important for field offices t o have t h e r e sources ne cessary to maintain those levels and to monitor whether those levels ind eed cre a te the “thriving natural e c ol ogical b a lan ce” call e d fo r in the act. 

# Conclus i ons

Future chan ges to AML determinati ons should be based on consistent factors acro ss HMAs. With the turno ver of the m o re experien ced senior BLM staff th at set the exi s ting AMLs t o newer more junior staff, it is important that the newer staff have cl ear official g u idance to f o llow on making AML determinations. It is al so important for the management of

Pag e 61 G A O- 09 -7 7 BL M’s Wil d H o rse and Burro Pro g ram

### the program that BLM have th e most accurat e po pulation esti mates possible. While countin g wild free-roaming animals is an inh e rently challen g ing task, the widespread use of statistically based counting methods across more HMAs, as appropria te, would provide a scientifical ly sound basis for compensating for pos sible undercounts. BLM provides a great deal of information about the Wild Horse and Burro Pro g ram through its Web site, in cluding info rmation on AML and population estimates for each HMA. However, de spite publi c concerns about the humane trea tment of these animals, BLM has not provided th e public wit h easily acces sible information about t h eir treatment. In some cases, BLM headqu arters does not centrally comp ile information on the t r eatment of animals during gath e rs. Providing th e public wit h additional information on the treat ment of animals during gathers and once the yar e removed from the range would hel p inform the public abo u t their treat ment.

In our 199 0 report, we noted that gi ven the amoun t of federal r e sources needed to maintain unad optable ex cess horses in long-term holding, BL M would need to seek altern ative optio ns. At the time, we recommended that BLM consid er a variet y of disposal opt ions for these horses that were not being used, i n cluding sterilization a nd euthanasia. Today, about 20 years after the first long-term holding fa cil i ty opened , with adoption demand declining and alternative disposal options still not being used, BLM is continuing t o open new long-term holding facil i ties to care f o r unadoptable wild horses, and the costs continue t o escalat e. C o st-effective alternatives for long-term holding are still needed.

BLM is faced with a dile mma as it attempts to comply with the act. On on e hand, the act directs BLM to protect and preserve wild horses and burros, and on the o t her hand th e act dire cts BLM to destroy excess a n imals for which an ad option demand does not exist or, under certain ci rcumstances, to sell them without limitation, which has led to the slaughter of some animals. BLM has committed to cari n g for these animals, even though the law requires their humane destructio n or sale without limitation and the cost for their care off-th e-range is no w overwhelming the program. The program is at a critical cr ossroads. Within the pro g ram’s existing budget , BLM cannot afford to car e for all of t h e animals o ff the range, while at the same time managin g wild horse and b u rro populations on the range. Resource limitations are forcing BL M to reconsider all a vaila ble management options, an d a workable solution must be devel oped to brin g BLM into compliance with the act

.

Pag e 62 G A O- 09 -7 7 BL M’s Wil d H o rse and Burro Pro g ram

### We make fiv e recommendations to th e Secret ary of the Interi or.

To improve the manage ment of BLM’s Wild Ho rse and Burro Program, we make four recommendations that the S ecret ary of the Interi or direct BLM to: 

# Recom m endations for Executive Action

• 

### finalize and i ssue the ne w Wild Horse and Burro Program Handbook that establishes a policy for setting AML to ensure that AML is determined based on co nsistent factors across HMAs into the future;

• 

### continue to adopt and employ statis tically b a sed methods to estimate animal popu lations acro ss HMAs, su ch as those being evaluated by animal popu lation resear chers, to improve the accuracy of po pulation estimates integral to BL M’s management of wild horses and burros on the range an d in plannin g for capa c it y need ed for excess ani m als once they are rem o ved from the range ;

• 

### track the number of animals harme d or killed during the gat h er process in a centrali zed databas e system and determine what information on the treatmen t of gathered animals, short-term and long-term holding animals, and adopted ani m als could easily be provided to the p ublic to help inform them about the treatment of wild horses and burros; and

• 

### develop cost-effectiv e alt e rnatives to the process of caring for wild horses remo ved from the range in long-term holding faciliti e s and seek the legislati v e chan ges th at may be n e cessary to i m plement those alternatives.

To address BLM’s noncompliance with the act, as amended , we recommend that the Se cretary of the I n terior direct BLM to discuss with Congress and other stak eholders ho w best to comply with the act or amend it so that BLM would be abl e to comply. As part of this discussio n , BLM should inform Cong ress of its concerns with (1) the act’s requirement for the humane destruct ion of exc e ss animals and (2) the possible slaughter of healthy hors e s if excess animals are sold without limitation, under certai n circumstances, as the act requires.

Pag e 63 G A O- 09 -7 7 BL M’s Wil d H o rse and Burro Pro g ram

### We provided a draft of th is report to the Department of the In terior for review and comment. Th e departmen t concurred with our findings and recommend ations and b e lieves th ey will help to i m prove the Wild Horse and Burro Program. In addition, the department provided several techni cal clarification s , which we incorporate d as appropriate. Appen d ix IV contains the Department of the Interi or’s comme nt letter.

As agreed with your offi ce, unl ess you publicly announce th e contents o f this report earlier, we plan no further distributio n until 30 d a ys from the report date. At that time, we will send copies of t h is report to the Secret ary of the Interi or, the Director of BLM, and other interested part ies. We will also make copies avail a ble to others upon request. In additio n , the report will be avail a ble at n o charge on th e GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov

. 

# Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

If you or yo ur staff has any qu estions about this report, pleas e contact me at (202) 5 12- 3841 or nazzaror@gao.gov . Contact p o ints for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public A ffairs may be found on t h e last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are listed in app e ndix V.

Sincerely yo urs,

Robin M. Nazzaro Director, Natural Resources and Envi ronment

Pag e 64 G A O- 09 -7 7 BL M’s Wil d H o rse and Burro Pro g ramAppendix I: Obj e ctives, S c ope , and Methodology

Pag e 65 G A O- 09 -7 7 BL M’s Wil d H o rse and Burro Pro g ram 

# Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

We examine d (1) the Bureau of Land Managemen t’s (BLM) progress in managing wild horses and burros on the range th rough setting and meeti n g appropriate management levels (AML); (2) BLM’s management of wild horses and burros off of the range th rough adopti on, sales, an d holding facilities; (3) the controls BLM has in place to hel p ensure hu mane treatment of wild horses and burros; and (4) what challen ges, if any, BLM faces in man aging for th e long-term sustainability of the Wild Horse and Burro Program. We were also asked to review h o w and why the acre age availab l e for wild horses and burros had chan ged since the 1 9 71 a c t. We did not exa m ine the acr eage issue because BLM is in the process of compiling a history of acreage d e term inations. BLM officials expect th eir review to be completed by March 20 09.

To examine how BLM manages wild horses and burros on and off of the range and to identify th e challen ges f acing BLM, we reviewed relevant laws, regulations, BLM policy, a nd B L M strategic plans. We al so surveyed, and anal yze d documents from, 26 of th e 44 BLM field offices that manage wild horses and burros. 1 

### We colle cte d and revi e w ed relevan t resource management decision d o cuments from the surveyed fi eld of fices to help corroborate their responses about sp ecific questi ons, includi ng those about factor s used to make AML dete rminations and gather d e cisions. We surveyed fie l d offices in all 10 western states that manage HMAs. The field offices we surveyed rep r esent 82 pe rcent of all BLM acres managed for wild horses and burros, 74 perc ent o f all BLM managed wild h o rses, and 69 perc ent o f burros on the range at t h e time of th e survey. Ou r survey sample included 10 0 perc ent of the B L M field offices that man age HMAs in Nevada, i n cl uding the To nopah Field Station (seven offices); t h ree randomly selected fi eld offices from each of th e f i ve states whose field offices or di strict offices manage a p opulation of wild horses and burros that fall bet w een 1,00 0 and 10, 00 0 h o rses (Arizona, Californi a, Oregon, Utah, and W y oming); an d one rando mly selected field office f r om each of the four states whose field offices ma nage a pop ulation of wild horses and burros that is less than 1, 000 (Colora do, Idaho, M ontana, and New Mexico). Because most of our survey questions f o cused on t h e management of a partic ular HMA, we judgmentally select ed an HMA for each fi eld of fice to co nsider in responding to our survey. We considered a

1 We d r ew o ur s a mple of 26 field units fr om am ong t h e 44 field units that manage Herd Management A r eas (HMA), w h ich include 39 fiel d offices, 4 district o ffices in Oreg on, and 1 field station i n Neva da. We will refer to t h e s e 44 BLM field units collectively as field offices. BLM’s count of t h e nu mber of offi ces that ma nage H M As may differ because t h e 4 dis t rict office s in Oreg on ma nage 7 res ourc e area offices

.Appendix I: Obj e ctives, S c ope , and Methodology



### variety of f a ctors in making these H M A selections, including herd population s i ze and whet her the HMA had met or not met AML (according to 200 7 BLM Statistics). Table 1 5 lis ts the 26 BL M field offices and HMAs we selected as part of ou r survey.

**T a**  **b l**  **e 15: BL M F**  **i eld O**  **ffices an d**  **HMAs In clu**  **d e**  **d in**  **G A**  **O ’**  **s Su rvey** 

**BL M field**  **o ffice b**  **y state**  **HMA**
A r i z o n a Yuma F ield O ffice Cibo la–T ri go Hassayam pa F ield O ffice Lake Pl easa n t Kingma n F iel d O ffice Black Mou n tai n Califor n i a Surprise F i e ld O ffice High R o ck
Alturas F ield O ffice Red Rock Lak es Ridg ecrest F iel d O ffice Cente nni al
Color ad o W hite River F i eld O ffice Picea n ce–E ast Dougl as Cre e k
I d a h o F our Rivers F i eld O ffice F our Mile
Montan a Billi ngs F iel d O ffice Pryor Mounta i n W ild Horse Ra nge Nevad a T onop ah F iel d Station Montezum a Pe ak
Battle Mounta i n F ield O ffice South Shos ho ne Carson C i ty F ield O ffice F lanig an Elko F ield O ffic e Rock Creek Ely F ield O ffice Dry Lake Las Veg a s F iel d O ffice Red Rock
W innimucc a F ield O ffice G r anite Ra nge New Mexic o Socorro F iel d O ffice Bordo Atraves ado
O r e g o n Prinevi lle D i stri ct O f fice Ligg ett T able
Lakeview District Of fice Beaty’s Butte
Vale District O ffice Coyote L a ke– A lvord T ule S p rings

Pag e 66 G A O- 09 -7 7 BL M’s Wil d H o rse and Burro Pro g ramAppendix I: Obj e ctives, S c ope , and Methodology

**BL M field**  **o ffice b**  **y state**  **HMA**
U t a h
Richfie ld F iel d O ffice Canyo n La nds
Vernal F i eld O ffice Hill Cr eek
F illmore F i e ld O ffice Cong er W y o m i n g Rock Sprin g s F ield O ffice Divid e Basin Cody F iel d O ffice McCull oug h Pe aks
Lan der F iel d O ffice Dishp an Butte

Sour ce: GAO

. 

### The survey i n cluded several open-en ded responses aimed at determining the primary challen ges a ssociated wi th meeting a nd maintaining AML, the primary challenges fa cin g the Wild H o rse and Burro Program as a whole, and suggesti ons for ways to impro ve the program. Two GAO a n alysts independent ly reviewed these ope n-ended survey responses, agreed upon the cate g ori e s for codin g ea ch respo n se, and res o lved an y di sagreements in coding to determine what the resp ondents as a whole thought about these issues.

The practical difficulties of conductin g any survey may introduce errors, commonly referred to as nonsampling errors. For example, di fficulties in how a partic ular questio n is interprete d, in the sources of inf o rmation that

are av ailable to the respo ndents, or in how the dat a are ent e re d into a database or were analyz ed can introduce unwanted variability into the survey results. We took steps in the developmen t of the qu estionnaire, th e data coll ecti on, and the data an alysi s to minimize these nons ampling errors. For example, survey spe c ialis ts designed t h e question naire in collaboration with GAO staff with su bj ect matter expertise. T h en, the draf t questionnair e was pretested with officials from five BLM field offices in four different states to en sure that the questions were relev ant, clearly stated, and easy to comprehend. We also conducted follow-up phone call s to clarify am biguous or incomple te responses. We recei ved u s able responses from all field offices th at we surveyed —a 100 p e rcent response rate. See appendix III for a summary of the survey responses not presented el sewhere in the report.

We also inte rviewed age ncy offici als at BLM Headquarters; the National Program Office in Reno , Nevada; and Wild Horse and Burro Program State Leads from each of th e 10 states tha t manage wild horses and burros. In addition, we conducted site visits at t w o field offices that man age HMAs in Nevada and Colorado; one long-term holding fa ci lity in Oklah o ma; three

Pag e 67 G A O- 09 -7 7 BL M’s Wil d H o rse and Burro Pro g ramAppendix I: Obj e ctives, S c ope , and Methodology



### short-term holding facil i ties in Colorado, Nevad a, and Wyoming; and attended tw o adoption events in Arizona and Col o rado.

To examine humane trea tment, we r eviewed relev ant laws, reg u lations, and BLM policies. We col l ected and a n alyzed rep o rts from BLM Headquarter s , state offic e s, and dat a from BL M’s compliance database. We also intervie wed BLM compliance off i cials from two states, a veterinarian from the Department of Agriculture’ s Animal and Plant Heal th Inspectio n Service, and public citizens and advo cacy groups that work to promote the well being o f wild horses and burros.

As part of our overall methodology, we interviewed a range of stakeholder s interested in BLM’s ma nagement of the Wild Ho rse and Burro Program, including, but not limited to, the American Wild Ho rse Preservation Campaign, t h e Animal Welfare Institu t e, the Clou d Foundation, the Humane Society of th e United States, the Nati onal Cattlemen’s Beef Association, and N evada Bigho r ns Unlimite d

.

We conduct e d this perfo r mance audi t from September 2007 t o October 2008 in ac co rdance with generall yac cepted gove rnment auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain suffic i ent, approp riate evid e n ce to provid e a reasona b l e basis for our findings and conclusions based o n our audit objectives. We believe that the evid ence obt ain e d provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based o n our audit objectives.

Pag e 68 G A O- 09 -7 7 BL M’s Wil d H o rse and Burro Pro g ramA Var

ppendix II: Fe r t ility C o ntr o l and Genet i c

i abil ity

Pag e 69 G A O- 09 -7 7 BL M’s Wil d H o rse and Burro Pro g ram 

# Appendix II: Fertility Control and Genetic V ariability

In addition t o the information provid ed 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 manage ment activi t ies, includi ng fertility control and genetic vari a bility.

BLM has been pursuing a fertility co ntrol vaccin e call e d por cine zonae pellucida since 1992 to u s e as a tool f o r slowing the reproductive rate in wild horse populations. A slower rep r oductive rate would reduce the number of animals that would have to be gath e red and remo ved, ad opte d , and held. BLM officials do not consid er this treatment as the best shortterm management tool to achie ve AM L but belie ve that on ce HMAs are at AML, fertility treatment can help to maintain that level. Much research h a s been con d u c ted about the use of th e vaccine in domestic and wild horses. The Depart ment of the I n terior’s National Park S e rvice h a s used this treatment to successfully manage wild horse populations at t w o national seashores. BLM field offices hav e bee n directed to consider th e use of fertility cont rol as an alt e rnative in t h eir gather plans, but they are not required to choose this research tool . The vaccin e is consider ed experimental , and as suc h , there are barriers to its use. Since 2004 , 47 HMAs have used ferti lity treatmen t s, and a tot a l of about 1,800 wild horses have been inje cte d with the treatment. BLM considers the use of this treatment as a resea r ch tool; ho wever, acco rding to a pr ominent wild horse fertility researcher , BLM should more actively pursue it s use as a management tool. Accor d ing to BLM officials, fer t ility control may offer the possibility of reducing reproducti on rates and costs, but BLM will still need to pl ace horses in long-term holding in the future.

Herd health is another i m portant component of BLM’s on-th e-range management of wild horses and burros. Specific ally, it is important to maintain a d egree of gen etic variabili ty to decrease the likelih ood of disease and to maintain the biologi c al fitness of the populatio n. The amount of genetic variability that is sufficient to maintain a healthy population, however, is difficult to d i scern. Some groups have criticized BLM for setting AMLs at levels that a r e less than 100 or 1 50 a n imals. As of February 20 08, 1 35 of th e 19 9 HMAs had an upp e r limit of 150 or less for AML (see table 16). S eve ral of these s m aller HMAs, however, are part of a complex of HMAs that are managed as one unit where there is regular genetic inter c hange

. For example, 13 complexes in Nevada en compass 45 of their 1 02 HMAs. According to a leading rese archer in the field of wild 

# Fertility Control

Genetic V a

ri abil ityA ppendix II: Fe r t ility C o ntr o l and Genet i c Var i abil ity



### horse geneti c s, however, a herd that has a population of less than 100 can be maintain ed with the i n troduction of at least o n e or two horses every 6 to 7 years, including th ose whose herd size are as small as 10 to 15 horses.

**T a**  **b l**  **e 16: Nu mb**  **er o f**  **HMAs Man**  **a g**  **e d**  **at Vario u**  **s AML**  **s ,**  **F e**  **b r**  **u ary 20**  **08**

**Upper limit of AML**  **Number of HMAs**
0 8
1–1 00 102
101 –15 0 25
151 –20 0 16
201 –30 0 25
301 –50 0 16
501 –1,00 0 5 Not yet determi ned 2
**Tota l**  **199**

Sour ce: BLM

.


### BLM manages a few her d s that show strong evid e nce of old Spanish heritage whi c h no long er exists outside of the A m ericas. For example, th e Kiger Mustangs of Oregon and the Pr yor Mustangs of Montana hav e some colonial Sp a n ish traits. For most of the HMAs, however, gen etic v a riabili ty is important primarily in maintaining the health of the herd, ra ther than managing fo r a specific g e netic trait o r bloodlines.

Pag e 70 G A O- 09 -7 7 BL M’s Wil d H o rse and Burro Pro g ramAppendix III: Results Wild H o rse and Burro Surv e y

Pag e 71 G A O- 09 -7 7 BL M’s Wil d H o rse and Burro Pro g ram 

# Appendix III: W ild Horse and Burro Survey Results

The following tables summarize resp onses collec t ed through our survey instrument that was sent to 26 BLM field offices t h at manage HMAs. See appendix I f o r a complet e explan atio n of which o ffices were chosen and the methodology used to select those field offices and specific HMAs. Our survey was divided into two sections. The first asked questio n s specific t o the field offi ces’ manage ment of particular HMAs. The second section asked questi ons related t o the field of fices’ gen eral manageme n t of all HMA s

. 1

**T a**  **b l**  **e 17: Cu rr**  **en t an**  **d In**  **itial AML**  **an d**  **Year o f**  **Determin atio**  **n p**  **er HMA Su rvey**  **ed**

**HMA, by state Initial**  **AML Year in**  **itial AML**  **w as set**  **Cu rren**  **t AML**  **Year cu r**  **ren t**  **AML w**  **as set**
A r i z o n a Cibo la–T ri g o 3 1 5 198 0 a a
Lake Pl easa n t 80 198 8 208 200 0
Black Mou n tai n 148 197 8 478 199 6
Califor n i a High R o ck 70– 100 198 1 78– 120 200 1
Red Rock Lak es 16– 25 198 1 a a
Cente nni a l 1 6 8 198 0 168 200 5
Color ad o Picea n ce–E ast Dougl as Creek 90– 140 198 1 1 3 5 –23 5 199 9
I d a h o F our Mile 37– 60 200 1 a a
Montan a Pryor Mounta i n W ild Horse Rang e 121 198 4 9 5 199 2 

# Section I: Field Offi ce Responses Specific to Selected HMAs

1 Eight of t h e 26 field offices surveyed manage only one HMA.Appendix III: Wild H o rse and Burro Surv e y Results

**HMA, by state Initial**  **AML Year in**  **itial AML**  **w as set**  **Cu rren**  **t AML**  **Year cu r**  **ren t**  **AML w**  **as set**
Nevad a Montezum a Pe ak 161 197 4 0 200 7
South Shos ho ne 78 198 6 60– 100 200 5
F lanig a n 8 3

– 125 199 0 a a
Rock Creek 119 198 7 250 200 3 Dry Lake 82 198 3 94 200 1
Red Rock 116 198 2 41– 76 200 4
G r anite Ra nge 155 –25 8 199 3 a a
New Mexic o Bordo Atraves ado 20– 30 198 0 50 199 1
O r e g o n Ligg ett T able 10– 25 198 9 a a Beaty's Butte 234 197 1 100 –25 0 198 3 Coyote L a ke– A lvord T ule Springs 198 –39 0 197 8 a a
U t a h Canyo n La nds 60– 100 200 1 a a
Hill Cr eek 195 198 5 a a Cong e r 3 4 197 7 40-8 0 198 7
W y o m i n g Divid e Basin 425 –58 8 197 9 415 –60 0 199 7
McCull oug h Pe aks 70– 140 198 5 70– 140 199 0 Dishp an Butte 35– 50 198 3 50– 100 199 3

Source: GAO survey r e sults.

a At the time of ou r su rve y , AML f o r 9 of the 26 H M As we select ed ha d not been revi se d since it w a s initially set. F o r t hose 9 HMAs, t h e initial AML and the yea r initial A M L was set i s also the cu rrent AM L and the year current AML wa s se t.

**T a**  **b l**  **e 18: L evel o**  **f Data Su**  **fficien cy Used**  **t o**  **Determin e C**  **u rren**  **t AML**

**Level of sufficiency Number of respondents**  Very sufficient 15
Moderat ely suf f icient 7
Moderat ely ins ufficient 2 Very insuffici en t 1
Unsure/ don ’t know 1

Source: GAO survey r e sults.

Pag e 72 G A O- 09 -7 7 BL M’s Wil d H o rse and Burro Pro g ramAppendix III: Wild H o rse and Burro Surv e y Results

**Table 19: Respondents’ Opi**  **n ions about C**  **u rrent AML** 

**Current AML Number of respondents** 
T oo hig h 3 About rig h t 17
T oo low 2
Unsure/ don ’t know 4

Source: GAO survey r e sults.

**T a**  **b l**  **e 20: Po pu**  **latio n**  **L evel in**  **Co mp**  **ariso n w**  **i th AML**  **Ran g**  **e**
**Populati on**  **level Number of respondents** 
Above 15
W i thin limits 10
Below 0
Unsure/ don ’t know 1

Source: GAO survey r e sults.

**T a**  **b l**  **e 21: Primary Ch allen**  **g es in**  **Meeting o**  **r Main**  **tain in**  **g AML** 

**Cha lle**  **nge Numbe**  **r of r**  **e s**  **ponde nts**  Impedime n ts to cond ucting g a thers 20
Lack of sufficie n t removal o u tl et 12
Inabil ity to con duct rang e ma nag ement 9
Limitatio ns to a ccurate po pul a t ion cou n ts 8
HMA bou ndary issues 5
Public pressur e to not remov e anim als 4 Multipl e use b a lance 4 Staffing limitati ons 3 Litigati on 2
Habitat lim itati ons 2 High re pro ducti ve rates of the anima l s 2
O t her 2

Source: GAO survey r e sults.

Pag e 73 G A O- 09 -7 7 BL M’s Wil d H o rse and Burro Pro g ramAppendix III: Wild H o rse and Burro Surv e y Results

**T a**  **b l**  **e 22: Imp act o**  **n Ran**  **g e**  **lan d**  **Reso u**  **rce s in**  **HMA W h**  **e n**  **Herd Po**  **p u**  **latio n**  **s Exceed**  **th e Up**  **p er L**  **i m**  **i t o**  **f AML b**  **y Less T**  **h a**  **n 25 Perc**  **en t** 

**L evel o**  **f imp**  **act**

**Ra nge**  **la nd r**  **e s**  **our c**  **e Po**  **sitive Slight**  **ly positive**  **No imp**  **act Slight**  **ly**
**ne ga**  **tiv e**  **Negative Blank** 
Horse a nd burr o herd healt h 1 2 1 0 1 0 3 0 Rang el and h e a l th 0 1 5 10 10 0
Livestock h abit at requir ements 0 1 1 0 9 5 1
W ildlife h abit at requir ements 0 1 8 9 8 0

Source: GAO survey r e sults.

**T a**  **b l**  **e 23: Imp act o**  **n Ran**  **g e**  **lan d**  **Reso u**  **rce s in**  **HMA W h**  **e n**  **Herd Po**  **p u**  **latio n**  **s Exceed**  **th e Up**  **p er L**  **i m**  **i t o**  **f AML b**  **y 2**  **5 to**  **50 Percen t** 

**L evel o**  **f imp**  **act**

**Ran g**  **e lan**  **d reso**  **u rce**  **Po sitive**  **Slight ly**  **positive No**  **imp act**  **Slight ly** 
**ne ga**  **tiv e**  **Negative Blank** 
Horse a nd burr o herd healt h 1 1 4 1 0 10 0 Rang el and h e a l th 0 0 0 8 18 0
Livestock h abit at requir ements 0 0 4 9 12 1
W ildlife h abit at requir ements 0 0 3 8 15 0

Source: GAO survey r e sults.

**T a**  **b l**  **e 24: Imp act o**  **n Ran**  **g e**  **lan d**  **Reso u**  **rce s in**  **HMA W h**  **e n**  **Herd Po**  **p u**  **latio n**  **s Exceed**  **th e Up**  **p er L**  **i m**  **i t o**  **f AML b**  **y 5**  **1 to**  **100 Perc e**  **n t** 

**L evel o**  **f imp**  **act**

**Ran g**  **e lan**  **d reso**  **u rce**  **Po sitive**  **Slight ly**  **positive No**  **imp act**  **Slight ly** 
**n e**  **g a**  **t i**  **v e**  **N e**  **g a**  **tive Blan**  **k**
Horse a nd burr o herd healt h 0 1 2 4 19 0 Rang el and h e a l th 0 0 0 0 26 0
Livestock h abit at requir ements 0 0 3 3 19 1
W ildlife h abit at requir ements 0 0 3 2 21 0

Source: GAO survey r e sults.

Pag e 74 G A O- 09 -7 7 BL M’s Wil d H o rse and Burro Pro g ramAppendix III: Wild H o rse and Burro Surv e y Results

**T a**  **b l**  **e 25: Nu mb**  **er o f**  **F i**  **eld O**  **ffices T h**  **a t Have o**  **r Do**  **No t Have P**  **r o**  **ced u**  **res in Place to**  **Distinguish I m**  **pact of Wil d**  **Horses and B u**  **rros, Cattle, and Wi ldl**  **i fe on Rangeland**  **Conditi on** 

**Pr oc**  **e dur**  **e to dis**  **t ing**  **u is**  **h impa**  **c t**  **Numbe r**  **of r e**  **s ponde**  **nts**
Yes 20
No 6
Unsure/ don ’t know 0

Source: GAO survey r e sults.

**T a**  **b l**  **e 26: Actio n**  **s T**  **aken to**  **Man a**  **g e**  **HMA s**  **Sin ce 200**  **0**

**Actio n**  **taken Yes**  **N o**  **Don’t k**  **now Not**  **ap p**  **licab le**  **Blank**
Cond ucted p o p ulatio n inv entor y 24 2 0 0 0
Cond ucted g a t hers an d remo vals 23 3 0 0 0
Reduc ed or m odifie d liv estoc k use 15 7 0 4 0
Increase d reso urce monit orin g 14 10 2 0 0 Vegetativ e/ripa rian re storati o n 1 4 1 1 1 0 0
O t her land ma nag ement acti ons 12 2 1 2 9
Chan ge d AML 7 18 1 0 0

Source: GAO survey r e sults.

**T a**  **b l**  **e 27: Nu mb**  **er o f**  **HMAs w**  **i th a Herd**  **Man a**  **g e**  **men t**  **Ar ea Plan** 

**Plan Y**  **e s**  **No Uns**  **u r**  **e /**  **don’t k**  **now** Herd Man a g e m ent Area Pla n 16 9 1
Plan to dev elo p a Herd Ma na geme n t Area Plan 8 2 5

Source: GAO survey r e sults.

**Table 28: Primary Physical Method Used**  **in M o**  **st Recent Census/Inv e**  **ntory**

**Pr ima**  **r y**  **me th**  **od Numbe**  **r of r**  **e s**  **ponde nts** 
F i xed-wi ng airc r aft 3
Helic opter 20
Horseback/on f oot 2
Don’t kn ow 1

Source: GAO survey r e sults.

Pag e 75 G A O- 09 -7 7 BL M’s Wil d H o rse and Burro Pro g ramAppendix III: Wild H o rse and Burro Surv e y Results

**Table 29: Primary St atistical Method U**  **sed in Most Recent Census/Inventory**

**Pr ima**  **r y**  **me th**  **od Numbe**  **r of r**  **e s**  **ponde nts** 
Direct cou n t (single numb e r) 17 Direct count (range) 2
Simultan eo us dou ble-c ount 3 Sighta bil ity bia s correction m odel 2
O t her 2

Source: GAO survey r e sults.

**T a**  **b l**  **e 30: L evel o**  **f Accu**  **rac y o**  **f Mo**  **st Recen t Cen**  **s u**  **s /Inven**  **to ry** 
**Level of accuracy Nu**  **mber of respondents**
G r eatly over co unted 0
O v er counted 0
Count ed ab out right 15
Underc o u n ted 1 0
G r eatly und erc ounte d 0
Unsure/ don ’t know 1

Source: GAO survey r e sults.

**T a**  **b l**  **e 31: L evel o**  **f Data Su**  **fficien cy Used**  **t o**  **Su pp**  **o r**  **t Most Rec e**  **n t**  **G a**  **th er** 
**Level of sufficiency Number of respondents**  Very sufficient 21
Moderat ely suf f icient 4
Moderat ely ins ufficient 0 Very insuffici en t 0
Unsure/ don ’t know 1

Source: GAO survey r e sults.

**Ta ble**  **3 2**  **: Timi**  **ng of Ga**  **the r**  **i n**  **Re la**  **tion t o**  **Sc he**  **dule d**  **Da te**  **of Ga the**  **r**
**Timing of**  **ga the**  **r Numbe**  **r of r**  **e s**  **ponde nts** 
Cond ucted e a rl ier 2
Neither earli er nor de laye d 18 Delay ed 4
Unsure/ don ’t know 2

Source: GAO survey r e sults.

Pag e 76 G A O- 09 -7 7 BL M’s Wil d H o rse and Burro Pro g ramAppendix III: Wild H o rse and Burro Surv e y Results

**T a**  **b l**  **e 33: L evel o**  **f AML**  **to W**  **h ich**  **HMA Is T**  **y p**  **i cally G**  **a th**  **ered**

**Level of AML Number of respondents**  Upper 7
Middl e 7
Lower 7
Unsure/ don ’t know 5

Source: GAO survey r e sults.

**T a**  **b l**  **e 34: Actio n**  **s T**  **aken to**  **Man a**  **g e**  **HMA’s Sin ce 200**  **0**

**Actio n**  **taken Yes**  **N o**  **Don’t k**  **now Not**  **ap p**  **licab le**  **Blank**
Cond ucted p o p ulatio n inv entor y 19 0 0 0 0
Cond ucted g a t hers an d remo vals 18 1 0 0 0
Reduc ed or m odifie d liv estoc k use 14 2 1 2 0 Vegetativ e/ripa rian restorati o n 14 5 0 0 0
Increase d reso urce monit orin g 12 7 0 0 0
Chan ge d AML 11 8 0 0 0
O t her land ma nag ement acti ons 6 2 1 0 1 0 

# Section II: Field Offi ces’ Responses to General Questions Regarding All of the HMAs They Manage

Source: GAO survey r e sults.

**T a**  **b l**  **e 35: F i**  **eld O**  **ffices W hose HMAs H**  **a v**  **e Herd**  **Man a**  **g e**  **men t**  **Are a**  **Plan s** 

**Pla n**  **A l**  **l S**  **ome None**  **Uns u**  **r e**  **/ d**  **o n**  **’ t**  **k now**  Herd Man a g e m ent Area Pla n 11 6 8 1

Source: GAO survey r e sults.

**T a**  **b l**  **e 36: F i**  **eld O**  **ffices W o**  **r k**  **in g**  **to Devel o**  **p Herd**  **Man a**  **g e**  **men t**  **Area Plan**  **s fo r All of**  **Their HMAs**

**Re s**  **pons e**  **Numbe r**  **of r e**  **s ponde**  **nts**
Yes 6
No 8

Source: GAO survey r e sults.

Pag e 77 G A O- 09 -7 7 BL M’s Wil d H o rse and Burro Pro g ramAppendix III: Wild H o rse and Burro Surv e y Results

**Table 37: Actions to Help Fi eld Offi**  **ces Achieve Healthy Herd Populati**  **ons in Balan**  **ce w i**  **th th**  **e Ran g**  **e an**  **d O t**  **h er Mu**  **ltip le Use**  **s**

**Ac tions**  **Numbe r**  **of r e**  **s ponde**  **nts**
Increase ra nge manag ement activities 15
Reach and ma i n tain AML 9 Improve staff capacity 7 Improve cens u s /inventory 7
Increase fun d i ng 6 Improve ad opti on outl e t 3 Improve coor di natio n in man a geme n t 3 Improve acces s to HMAs 2
Solve l ong-ter m holdi ng situ a t ion 2

Source: GAO survey r e sults.

**T a**  **b l**  **e 38: Majo r Ch**  **allen g**  **es F acin**  **g F**  **i eld**  **O ffices in**  **Man a**  **g i**  **n g**  **HMAs to Ach**  **i eve**  **He a**  **l thy**  **He r**  **d Popula**  **t i**  **ons T**  **h a**  **t Ar**  **e in Ba**  **la nc**  **e with the**  **Ra nge**  **a nd Ot**  **he r**  **Multip le**  **Uses**

**Ma jor**  **c h**  **a lle**  **nge s**  **Numbe r**  **of r e**  **s ponde**  **nts** Impedime n ts to cond ucting g a thers 13 Staffing limitati ons 11
Limitatio ns to a ccurate po pul a t ion cou n ts 8
Inabil ity to con duct rang e ma nag ement 8 Multipl e use b a lance 7
Lack of sufficient removal outlet 6 Ability to mai n tain AML 4
Habitat lim itati ons 4
O t her 4
Plan nin g proce ss 3 Public pressur e 3
HMA bou ndary issues 3

Source: GAO survey r e sults.

Pag e 78 G A O- 09 -7 7 BL M’s Wil d H o rse and Burro Pro g ramAppendix III: Wild H o rse and Burro Surv e y Results

**T a**  **b l**  **e 39: Majo r Ch**  **allen g**  **es F acin**  **g BL**  **M’s W i**  **ld Ho**  **rse an d**  **Bu rro**  **Pro g**  **ram As a**  **Whole**

**Ma jor**  **c h**  **a lle**  **nge s**  **Numbe r**  **of r e**  **s ponde**  **nts**
Lack of sufficient removal outlet a 18 Staffing limitati ons 11
Inabil ity to con duct rang e ma nag ement 8 Public pressur e 7 Impedime n ts to cond ucting g a thers 5
Unwa nted h o rs es rele ased to BLM lan ds 5
F undi ng 3 Lack of supp or t 3
Limitatio ns to a ccurate po pul a t ion cou n ts 2
Habitat lim itati ons 2
Lack of mana g e ment flexi bilit y 2 Multipl e use b a lance 2 Poor pu blic p e r c eptio n 2

Source: GAO survey r e sults.

a Removal outlet limitations include decrease d optio ns for animals on ce rem o ved from the range, su ch as de crea sed ad options, e x pen se of ca ring for ani ma ls remo ved f r om the rang e, an d limited capacity in long-term holding fac ilities

.

Pag e 79 G A O- 09 -7 7 BL M’s Wil d H o rse and Burro Pro g ramA ppendix IV: C o mme n ts from the Departme nt of the Interior

Pag e 80 G A O- 09 -7 7 BL M’s Wil d H o rse and Burro Pro g ram 

# Appendix IV : Comments from the Department of the InteriorAppendix V: St GA O Conta c t a n d

aff A c kno wl e d gme n t s

Pag e 81 G A O- 09 -7 7 BL M’s Wil d H o rse and Burro Pro g ram 

# Appendix V : GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

Robin M. Nazzaro, (202) 512-3 841 or nazzaror@ga o.gov

In addition t o the individ u al named above, Jeffer yD. Malcol m, Assistant Director; Ulana Bihun; Kevin Bray; L ee Carroll; Benjamin Shouse; Gregory Wilmoth; and Elizabeth Wood made key contribu tions to this report. Also contributing to the repor t were Beverly Ross and Monica Wolford. 

# GAO Contact

Staff Acknowledgments

(360883)

# 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; eval uates 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.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is through GAO’s Web site ( www.gao.gov ). Each weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its Web site newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.” 

# Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

Order by Phone The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm

. Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov Automated answering system: ( 800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov , (202) 512-4400 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 Washington, DC 20548 

# To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs Congressional Relations

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov , (202) 512-4800 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, DC 20548 

# Public Affairs