Bureau of Land Management: Effective Long-Term Options Needed to Manage Unadoptable Wild Horses
Published: 2008-10-09T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages about 33,100 wild horses and burros on 199 Herd Management Areas (HMA) in 10 western states. Under the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971, as amended, BLM is to protect wild horses and burros, set appropriate management levels (AML), maintain current inventory counts, and remove excess animals to prevent overpopulation and rangeland damage. Over the years, various stakeholders have raised issues about BLM's management of the animals on and off the range. GAO examined (1) BLM's progress in setting and meeting AML; (2) BLM's management of animals off the range through adoptions, sales, and holding facilities; (3) BLM's controls to help ensure the humane treatment of animals; and (4) what challenges, if any, BLM faces in managing for the long-term sustainability of the program. GAO surveyed and analyzed documents from 26 of the 44 BLM offices that manage wild horses and burros.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: BLM has made significant progress toward setting and meeting AML (the optimum number of animals which results in a thriving natural ecological balance and avoids range deterioration). BLM has set AML for 197 out of 199 HMAs. Most of the field offices GAO surveyed considered similar factors in determining AML, such as rangeland conditions; however, BLM has not provided specific formal guidance to the field offices on how to set AML. Without clear guidance, BLM cannot ensure that the factors considered in future AML revisions will be consistent across HMAs. At a national level, in 2007, BLM was closer to meeting AML (about 27,200 animals) than in any other year since AMLs were first reported in 1984. The extent to which BLM has actually met AML depends on the accuracy of BLM's population counts. Nineteen of the 26 field officials GAO surveyed used a counting method which, researchers say, consistently undercounts animals and does not provide a statistical range of population estimates. Undercounting can put animals at risk and lead to increased program costs. The number of animals removed from the range is far greater than the number adopted or sold, which has resulted in the need for increased short-term and long-term holding. Since 2001, over 74,000 animals have been removed from the range, while only about 46,400 have been adopted or sold. Thirty-six percent fewer animals were adopted in 2007 than compared to the average adoption rates in the 1990s. As of June 2008, BLM was holding 30,088 animals in holding facilities, up from 9,807 in 2001. To accommodate the increased removals and declining adoptions and sales, BLM has increased the number of short-term and long-term holding facilities. BLM has implemented multiple controls to help ensure humane treatment, including random checks on adopted horses and agreements with adopters and buyers to prevent slaughter. Although BLM state offices collect data on the treatment of the animals, BLM does not always compile the information in its central database or report it to the public. Providing additional information to the public on the treatment of these animals could help inform the public about their treatment and improve transparency. The long-term sustainability of BLM's Wild Horse and Burro Program depends on the resolution of two significant challenges: (1) If not controlled, off-the-range holding costs will continue to overwhelm the program. The percentage of the program's direct costs for holding animals off the range increased from $7 million in 2000 (46 percent) to $21 million in 2007 (67 percent). In 2008, these costs could account for 74 percent of the program's budget. (2) BLM has limited options for dealing with unadoptable animals. The act provides that unadopted excess animals shall be humanely destroyed or, under certain circumstances, sold without limitation. However, BLM only manages these animals through sales with limitations. BLM is concerned about the possible reaction to the destruction of healthy animals.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Wild horses have long been a symbol of the independence of the American  West, but today, the health of their population depends heavily on  government management. At their peak, in the mid-1800s, an estimated  2 million wild horses roamed America’s rangelands. Populations decreased  as development reduced habitat for wild horses and native grazers and as  horses and burros were rounded up to make room for livestock and  farming operations. By the early 1900s, most wild horses had disappeared  from the Great Plains and those that remained were found primarily in the  remote mountains, deserts, and badlands of the West. By 1971, only about  9,500 wild horses were thought to live on public rangelands. Public  concerns about abuse and wild horse population declines swelled in the  1950s and 1960s. Subsequently, Congress enacted the Wild Free-Roaming  Horses and Burros Act of 1971 to protect wild horses and burros from  abuse and death and to manage them to achieve and maintain a thriving  natural ecological balance on the public lands. The 1971 act declared  these wild animals to be “living symbols of the historic and pioneer spirit  of the West; that they contribute to the diversity of life forms within the  Nation and enrich the lives of the American people; and that these horses  and burros are fast disappearing from the American scene.” Since the  passage of the act, wild horse and burro populations have increased, but  the way they are managed on public lands has been controversial and wild  horse advocates continue to voice concerns about horses being  slaughtered.
The 1971 act authorized and directed the Secretary of the Interior, on  public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and the  Secretary of Agriculture, on public lands managed by the Forest Service,  “to protect and manage wild free-roaming horses and burros as  components of public lands.” The act also directed the Secretaries to  manage them “to achieve and maintain a thriving natural ecological  balance on the public lands.” BLM field offices are responsible for  determining where the animals are to be managed within areas where they  were found as of 1971. In fiscal year 2007, the program was funded at  $36.4 million under BLM’s Management of Lands and Resources  appropriation. Forty-four BLM field units manage approximately  33,100 wild horses and burros on 199 Herd Management Areas (HMA)  covering over 34 million acres in 10 western states—Arizona, California,  Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and  Wyoming. BLM’s Nevada State Office manages about half of the land and  animals in the Wild Horse and Burro Program.
In the mid- to late 1970s, population counts indicated that there was a  large increase in wild horses and burros and that they were contributing to  overgrazing of the rangeland. Congress amended the 1971 act in 1978 to  protect the range from wild horse overpopulation, among other things.  The Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 directed the Secretaries  of the Interior and Agriculture to determine appropriate management  levels (AML), maintain a current inventory of wild horses and burros, and  determine whether and where overpopulation exists. AML has been  defined as the “optimum number of wild horses which results in a thriving  natural ecological balance and avoids deterioration of the range.” Each  BLM field office is responsible for determining AML for each of the HMAs  it manages. The aggregate AML for BLM’s 199 HMAs is approximately  27,200. Because wild horse populations can double every 4 years and few  natural predators remain, managing wild horse and burro populations at  AML has become a primary objective of the program. To reach and  maintain AML, BLM primarily conducts “gathers” to remove excess  animals from the range. From 1971 through 2007, over 267,000 wild horses  and burros were removed. In 2001, BLM began implementing its most  recent management strategy, to reach AML by increasing removals. Since  then, about 10,600 animals have been removed, on average, per year.
Maintaining current and accurate inventories of wild horses and burros is  a key component of on-the-range management. BLM has traditionally  counted animals using the direct-count method, which involves flying over  the HMA and reporting on each individual animal they see. BLM generally  conducts this type of animal count or “census” every 4 years or so, leading  up to a removal of excess animals. To produce annual population  estimates between counts, BLM adjusts these census figures for each HMA  based on an estimate of the herd’s annual population growth. If the census  numbers are inaccurate, particularly if they underestimate the actual  population, BLM runs the risk that adequate forage or water may not be  available for the wild horses and burros or for livestock and wildlife in the  area.
After being removed from the range, excess animals are managed in short- term holding facilities, where they are either prepared for adoption or sale,  or in long-term holding facilities, where they will live out the remainder of  their lives. The preferred outcome for healthy animals removed from the  range is that they be adopted through BLM’s Adopt-a-Horse-or-Burro  Program. As of 2007, approximately 235,700 animals have been adopted by  the public since the start of the program in 1971. On average, about  6,300 wild horses and burros have been adopted annually since 2001.  Under the act, as amended, BLM is required to assure that adopters can  provide humane treatment and care. When adoption demand is not  sufficient to absorb all the animals removed, the act, as amended, directs  BLM to either destroy the remaining healthy animals in the most humane  and cost-efficient manner possible or, under certain circumstances, sell  them without limitation. BLM has not destroyed any animals since  January 1982, when a former BLM director issued a moratorium to end the  destruction of excess unadoptable animals. To manage for the growing  number of unadoptable animals, BLM began opening long-term holding  facilities. Unlike the rangelands of the West where the animals normally  live, the long-term holding facilities use Midwest grasslands that generally  provide the animals with abundant forage and decreased stress. This  allows most of the animals to live far longer than they would in the wild.  BLM pays the private contractors that operate the long-term holding  facilities a fee per horse per day. The sales directive, which was enacted  on December 8, 2004, directs BLM to sell excess wild horses and burros  without limitation if the animal is more than 10 years of age or has been  offered unsuccessfully for adoption at least three times.
Since the passage of the 1971 act, there has been controversy over the  number of wild horses and burros that BLM manages in the wild and the  amount of public land available for their management. There is concern by  some, including wild horse and burro advocacy groups, that the number of  animals managed in the wild is too low to protect their genetic integrity;  that the numbers are based on insufficient rangeland monitoring data; and  that BLM gives preference to other users of the range, primarily livestock  and wildlife. For instance, groups often point out that BLM permits far  more cattle and sheep to graze on BLM managed lands than horses.  Specifically, in fiscal year 2007, approximately 567,000 head of cattle or  sheep grazed BLM public lands. However, livestock are managed on  160 million acres of BLM lands, compared to the 29 million BLM acres that  are available for wild horses and burros. Additionally, advocacy groups  are concerned that the animals removed from the range are too often  adopted into abusive homes or are ultimately sold for slaughter. Some  livestock and wildlife groups argue that the population of wild horses and  burros has far exceeded the level that provides ecological balance and  equitable forage distribution for competing users, such as cattle and sage  grouse.
We first reviewed BLM’s Wild Horse and Burro Program in 1990. At that  time, regarding on-the-range management activities, we found that BLM’s  decisions on how many wild horses to remove from federal rangelands  were not based on direct evidence that wild horse populations exceeded  what the range could support and that removals were often not  accompanied by reductions in livestock grazing levels or range  management to increase the land’s capacity. We recommended that BLM  develop carrying capacity and range condition data and, in locations  where overgrazing was occurring, that BLM implement range management  techniques designed to give vegetation more opportunity to grow and,  when necessary, remove wild horses and reduce livestock grazing in  proportion to the numbers of each species on the range. Regarding off-the- range management activities, we found that “BLM’s wild horse sanctuaries   are likely to be much more expensive than  originally envisioned and may represent only a temporary solution to the  disposal of unadoptable horses.… If horse removals above levels that can  be handled by private adoptions are reinstituted, other disposal options  will have to be considered.” We recommended that BLM consider a variety  of disposal options for unadoptable horses and, as necessary, make  recommendations for congressional consideration.
To update our 1990 report, we are reporting on (1) BLM’s progress in  managing wild horses and burros on the range through setting and meeting  AML; (2) BLM’s management of wild horses and burros off of the range  through adoption, sales, and holding facilities; (3) the controls BLM has in  place to help ensure humane treatment of wild horses and burros; and  (4) what challenges, if any, BLM faces in managing the long-term  sustainability of the Wild Horse and Burro Program. We were also asked to  review how and why the acreage available for wild horses and burros had  changed since the 1971 act. We did not examine the acreage issue because  BLM is in the process of compiling a history of acreage determinations.  BLM officials expect their review to be completed by March 2009.
To examine how BLM manages wild horses and burros on and off of the  range and to identify the challenges facing BLM, we reviewed relevant  laws, regulations, BLM policies, and strategic plans. We also surveyed, and  analyzed documents from, 26 of the 44 BLM field offices that manage wild  horses and burros. We collected and reviewed relevant resource  management decision documents from the surveyed field offices to help  corroborate their responses about specific questions, including those  about factors used to make AML determinations and gather decisions. In  addition, we also conducted follow-up phone calls to clarify ambiguous or  incomplete survey responses. We received usable responses from all field  offices that we surveyed—a 100 percent response rate. We surveyed field  offices in all 10 western states that have HMAs. The field offices we  surveyed represented 82 percent of all BLM acres managed for wild horses  and burros, 74 percent of all BLM managed wild horses, and 69 percent of  burros on the range at the time of our survey. We interviewed BLM Wild  Horse and Burro Program managers at the state and national levels and  conducted site visits at two field offices that manage HMAs, two adoption  events, three short-term holding facilities, and one long-term holding  facility. To examine humane treatment, we collected information from  BLM’s compliance database and interviewed public citizens, advocacy  groups, and BLM officials. A more detailed description of our scope and  methodology is presented in appendix I.
We conducted this performance audit from September 2007 to October  2008 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to  obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for  our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe  that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings  and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: During the 20th century, tens of thousands of wild horses were either  killed or captured for slaughter on America’s western ranges. Documented  abuses suffered by wild horses led concerned individuals and national  humane organizations to push for federal protections in the 1950s.  Subsequently, Congress passed legislation in 1959 prohibiting the use of  aircraft or motor vehicles to capture or kill wild horses or burros on public  lands and polluting watering holes on public lands to trap, kill, wound, or  maim wild horses or burros. Despite the 1959 act, wild horse exploitation  continued, and some questioned whether the population would eventually  be eradicated. To protect wild horses and burros, Congress passed  additional legislation in 1971 to require the protection and management of  wild free-roaming horses and burros on public lands. The 1971 act was  amended in 1976, 1978, 1996, and 2004 (see table 1). The 2004 amendments  directed BLM to sell, without limitation, excess animals more than  10 years of age or that have been offered unsuccessfully for adoption at  least three times.
The passage of the 1971 act changed the way BLM managed wild horses  and burros on public lands. Rather than considering them as feral species  that caused damage to the rangeland, the agencies had to change their  mind-set to protect and manage the animals as an integral part of the  ecosystem. One of the first tasks in managing the animals was to  determine where they lived and their populations. According to the act,  BLM is only authorized to manage wild horses and burros in areas where  they were found in 1971. The areas where wild horses and burros were  found, largely on public lands managed by the BLM and the Forest Service,  as of the date of the act are called herd areas, and they comprise about  53.5 million acres. Once the exact land status and ownership of the herd  areas was verified, it was determined that most herd areas were on BLM  administered public lands, but some also included private and state-owned  in-holdings. The 1971 act states that the Secretaries of the Interior and  Agriculture shall arrange for the removal of wild horses and burros that  stray onto private land upon notification by the owner.
Next, through its land management planning process, BLM designated  HMAs within these herd areas. In making HMA designations, BLM  determined whether or not the areas where wild horses and burros were  found contained adequate forage and water to sustain the herds. BLM also  designated some HMAs in such a way as to avoid conflicts with private  landowners. Today, BLM is responsible for managing 199 HMAs covering  34.3 million acres across 10 western states (see fig. 1). BLM is currently  compiling a history of how BLM field offices made the determination to  manage wild horses and burros on the current 34.3 million acres,  compared to the 53.5 million acres where they were originally found in  1971. According to BLM officials, they expect the review to be completed  by March 2009.
The number of HMAs and their acreage has changed over time for many  different reasons, including BLM land being redesignated as National Park  land and declines in forage or water that make an area unsustainable,  among others. About half the acreage managed under BLM’s Wild Horse  and Burro Program is located in Nevada (see table 2). While most of BLM’s  management activities for wild horses and burros occur within HMAs,  BLM is responsible for removing populations of animals that stray onto  public lands outside of HMAs, as well as those that stray onto private  property.
Wild horses and burros are to be managed as self-sustaining populations of  healthy animals in balance with other multiple uses and the productive  capacity of their habitat. Because wild horses and burros reproduce at an  estimated rate of 20 percent annually and no natural predators remain,  except for in a very few isolated HMAs, BLM must actively manage the  population of the herds. AML has been defined as the “optimum number of  wild horses which results in a thriving natural ecological balance and  avoids deterioration of the range.” AML determinations can be made in a  variety of land planning or decision documents, including, but not limited  to, resource management plans, Herd Management Area Plans, and  multiple use decision documents. The actual number set through an AML  determination is predicated, in part, on (1) the number of acres set-aside  for the management of wild horses and burros within a specific resource  planning area and (2) the proportion allocation of the available forage  allotted for wild horse and burro consumption among other users, such as  livestock and wildlife. After these two key multiple use decisions have  been made, BLM field offices can then set the actual AML numbers.  Available forage is based on range conditions and other data.
BLM’s Wild Horse and Burro National Program Office encourages field  offices to establish AML as a range with an upper and lower limit. The  upper limit of the range equals the maximum number of animals that can  be sustained to result in a thriving natural ecological balance and avoid  deterioration of the range. The lower limit is generally determined as the  number to which a population must be gathered to help ensure the  population will not exceed the upper limit of AML within the established  gather cycle. For example, if the established gather cycle was 4 years, it  would be the number to which a population must be gathered to help  ensure the population will not exceed the upper limit of AML within a 4  year time period. BLM strives to maintain a national herd population level  that is at the midpoint of AML, where the recently gathered HMAs would  be at the lower limit of AML, while those awaiting gathers would be closer  to the upper limit of AML. As of February 2008, the upper limit of AML (the  cumulative total for each of the 199 HMAs) was approximately 27,219, and  the midpoint was about 22,588.
Because AMLs are intended to reflect the population of animals that can  be sustainably maintained in an HMA, they are subject to change over  time. Changes in AML happen for several reasons, including when acreage  is added to or subtracted from an HMA and when changes in rangeland  conditions result in improved or reduced forage and water availability  sufficient to sustain a certain population level. In the arid ranges where  most wild horses and burros are managed, conditions generally do not  improve rapidly and have been further degraded by drought conditions  that have lasted for over a decade (see fig. 2). The effects of climate  change are likely to exacerbate the poor conditions that many HMAs are  already experiencing.
Herd Mgement Are (HMA)
Determining which type of animal is responsible for rangeland damage is  important to properly managing an HMA and in determining the number of  animals to permit on the range. BLM can control the number of livestock  and wild horses and burros to permit on the range, but BLM is not  responsible for managing wildlife numbers on the range. Because BLM is  not the lead agency responsible for wildlife on public lands, they are to  coordinate with state wildlife officials about the forage allocation for  wildlife populations. An increase in allocation of any species may cause  increased competition for the remaining users of the range, especially  under severe conditions. For example, in severe drought conditions,  grazing and browsing is concentrated in limited areas near water sources.  This intense competition causes heavy use and perhaps depletion of the  resources the animals are dependent upon.
Throughout the life of the program, the population of wild horses and  burros on the range has generally far exceeded AML. BLM has used the  removal of animals from the range as a primary management tool for  managing herd sizes. To gather animals for removal, BLM uses private  contractors to herd the animals in an HMA into temporary on-site corrals.  The animals are primarily gathered using helicopters. In some cases, when  gathering smaller numbers of wild horses and burros, BLM officials or  contractors will use other trapping techniques, such as bait trapping, to  capture the animals. Once collected into the temporary corrals, BLM  officials use a selective removal process to determine which of those  gathered animals to remove from the HMA. Animals that are not selected  are returned to the wild. When animals are removed from the range, they  are taken to short-term holding facilities to receive vaccinations and other  treatment prior to either being adopted, sold, or sent to long-term holding.  Figure 3 depicts BLM’s management of wild horses and burros on and off  of the range.
subsections: section_title: 4. Long-Term Holding 4. Long-Term Holding
paragraphs: Anim thre removed from the rnge nd cnnot dopted or old re plced in  long-term holding fcilitie to live ot the ret of their live. Mot of the fcilitie re  locted on Midwet grassnd in Ksas nd Oklhom. A of Jne 200, the ner  of hor in long-term holding was 22,101.
For fiscal year 2001, BLM requested a budget increase for the program as  part of a major initiative to reach the upper limit of AML by 2005.  Subsequently, program funding allocated from congressional  appropriations—what the agency refers to as “enacted funding”— increased from $19.8 million in fiscal year 2000 to $34.4 million in fiscal  year 2001, an increase of $14.6 million. In 2002, enacted funding for the  program was $29.6 million, about $10 million over the 2000 congressional  funding level. After reassessing the initiative in 2004, BLM estimated it  needed an additional $10.5 million on top of their enacted funding level of  $29.1 million in fiscal year 2004 to meet its revised goal of meeting the  midpoint of AML by 2006. In fiscal year 2005, enacted funding was  increased about $10 million for a total of $39 million in fiscal year 2005  (see fig. 4). The President’s 2008 budget requested $32 million for the  program, about $4 million less than enacted funding for fiscal year 2007.
section_title: BLM Has Made Progress in Setting and Meeting AML, but Guidance Is Lacking and Meeting AML Has Proven Difficult
paragraphs: BLM has made significant progress in setting and meeting AML for the  HMAs. As of February 2008, BLM has set AML for 197 out of 199 HMAs.  Most of the field offices we surveyed considered similar factors in  determining AML, such as rangeland conditions and climate data;  however, BLM has not provided specific formal guidance to the field  offices on how to set AML. BLM has been working on revising the  program’s handbook to provide such guidance since 2006. With increased  retirements, field offices reported losing the experienced personnel most  familiar with the informal practice of determining AML. Until BLM  finalizes the handbook or issues other guidance, it cannot ensure that the  factors considered in future revisions of AML determinations are  consistent across HMAs. At the national level, BLM reported that it was  closer to meeting AML in 2007 than in any other year since AMLs were  documented in 1984. Specifically, as of February 2007, BLM estimated the  population at 28,563, which was about 1,000 animals over AML. To reach  this level, BLM has reduced the nationwide population in the wild by about  40 percent since 2000. However, the population estimates are higher for  2008, and BLM has not met its goal of meeting AML for each HMA. The  fact that not all HMAs have met AML remains a concern because of the  damage excessive populations can cause on the range. Twenty of 26 field  officials we surveyed told us that conducting gathers to remove excess  animals is among their top challenges to maintaining AML because  delayed gathers can cause animal populations to quickly exceed AML. In  our 1990 report we concluded that BLM’s decisions on the number of wild  horses and burros to remove were made without adequate information  about range carrying capacity or the impact of the animals on range  conditions. In August 2005, BLM updated its formal policy on gathers and  removals and specified the key factors that should be considered in the  decision making process. The extent to which BLM has actually met AML  depends on the accuracy of BLM’s wild horse and burro population  counts. Nineteen of the 26 field officials we surveyed used a method that  consistently undercounts animals and does not provide a statistical range  of population estimates. Alternative counting methods may be more  expensive, but undercounting a population can lead to overpopulation and  costlier gathers in future years.
subsections: section_title: BLM Has Set AML for 197 out of 199 HMAs, but No Formal Guidance Exists on How to Establish AML
paragraphs: BLM has made significant progress in setting AML using rangeland  monitoring data for the HMAs. As of February 2008, BLM has set AML for  197 out of 199 HMAs, compared to 2002 when about two-thirds of HMAs  had set AML. Prior to 1984, many of the initial AMLs were not based on  rangeland data but on factors such as initial herd population counts or  administrative convenience. For example, the original AML established for  Beaty’s Butte HMA in Oregon in 1977 was based on the number of horses  found in that area on December 15, 1971. In Wyoming, AMLs for about  one-third of the HMAs were based on agreements with local grazing  interests because they owned private lands that were interspersed with  BLM lands where wild horses were found in 1971. Only 10 out of the  26 field offices we surveyed identified the use of rangeland data to  determine their initial AMLs. But since 1984, in accordance with the Dahl  v. Clark decision, BLM officials told us that field managers have generally  based AML decisions on monitoring data and an in-depth analysis. Most  of the current AMLs for the 199 HMAs were set after 1984 (see table 3).  Although some current AMLs were set many years ago, they are generally  reviewed every 4 years or so as part of the recurring process to gather and  remove excess animals. If during this process, and through monitoring, it  is determined that an AML is no longer appropriate, field offices will  consider changing it. For example, table 17 in appendix III shows how the  current AMLs for the 26 HMAs in our sample have been changed, as  applicable, since they were initially set.
Most of the field offices we surveyed considered similar factors in  determining AML. According to BLM National Program Office officials,  field office staff should consider at least four factors in making AML  determinations—climatic data, utilization data, actual use data, and trend  data. Climate data measures the amount of precipitation within a specific  area. In addition, temperature and wind data may be collected to evaluate  the effect of climate on vegetation; utilization data measures the percent of  forage consumed by livestock, wild horses and burros, wildlife, and  insects during a specified period; actual use data is the number of grazing  animals that used an area within a certain amount of time; and trend data  measures the direction of change in ecological status or resource rating  observed over time. Our survey results indicate that these four key AML  determination factors were considered by some, but not all, of the BLM  field offices responsible for setting AML for our sample of 26 HMAs (see  table 4).
Almost all of the field offices considered trend (25) and utilization (23)  data, but only 19 considered climate and actual use data for livestock,  while 14 considered actual use data for wildlife (see table 5).
In addition to the four factors mentioned by BLM National Program Office  officials, field offices considered other factors to help make their AML  determinations, including census inventory, water resource availability,  herd health, and unique local conditions. For instance, in Arizona, one  field office reduced the AML for burros on an HMA because they found  that burros were foraging on the same willows critical to the survival of  the endangered Southwestern Willow Flycatcher.
In determining AML, field office staff must also consider rangeland  conditions for wild horses and burros in conjunction with other users of  the range, including livestock and wildlife. Determining which species is  responsible for rangeland damage is an important task to properly  managing the HMA and in determining the number of wild horses and  burros to permit on the range. For example, if field staff determine that  cattle are primarily responsible for damaging an area, they may pursue  several management options, including fencing out cattle, reducing the  number of cattle, or changing the time of year cattle are allowed to graze  in a particular area. BLM lacks similar management techniques to control  wild horse and burro use due to their free-roaming nature. BLM’s direct  management actions are limited to dealing with livestock and wild horses  and burros, since individual states are responsible for managing wildlife.
We recognized the difficulty in distinguishing the difference between  impacts that wild horses and burros have on the range versus other users  in our 1990 report. Some advocacy groups have criticized BLM because  they believe that BLM unfairly faults wild horse and burros for damage to  the range to justify their removal and reductions in AML. Several BLM  officials told us ascribing range impacts can be difficult, but 20 out of the  26 field offices that we surveyed said they had a procedure in place do so.  When the damage is caused by all the user groups or when the damage can  not be attributed to a specific user group, BLM will generally make across- the-board reductions in the number of animals allowed on the range based  on the historic proportion of each user group on the range. For example, if  wild horses and burros historically accounted for 10 percent of the forage  consumption on the range, then wild horses and burros would bear  10 percent of the necessary reductions.
BLM has also made steady reductions in cattle grazing on BLM land as  drought conditions in much of the West have worsened, resulting in the  reduction of forage and water availability. For example, in Nevada, the  state that manages for the greatest number of wild horses, permitted  livestock use was reduced from about 2.5 million animal unit months in  1990 to a little over 2 million in 2006. The actual use during this same  period, however, decreased from 1.8 million animal unit months to  1.2 million.
In addition to the factors considered in making AML determinations, the  age of the data, or how current it is, can also be important. The meaning of  “current” data collection depends on the ecosystem and may vary across  HMAs. BLM national program officials explained that data used to support  AML decisions should be collected on a frequent basis. In general, they  told us climate, utilization, and actual use data should be collected  annually and trend data should be analyzed and reviewed within 4 years of  setting AML. However, of the respondents who provided the age for data  used, fewer than half collected their data for actual use for livestock and  wildlife within 1 year of their AML determination; half collected their data  for utilization within 1 year of the determination; and more than half  collected their data for climate within 1 year of the determination. Fifteen  of the 19 respondents who provided the age for data used considered  trend data within 4 years of the determination (see table 6).
Although field offices use many factors to make their AML determinations,  BLM has no guidance or policy about the specific factors they must  consider in determining AML. This is in contrast to the BLM policy that  exists for a similar type of analysis that is conducted for removals.  According to BLM’s 2005 gather policy, the determination to remove  animals must be supported by the following factors: climatic data,  utilization data, actual use data, trend data, and current census data.  While 22 out of 26 BLM field offices responded that the data used to make  their AML determination were moderate to very sufficient, several BLM  officials told us that with increased retirements, field offices are losing the  experienced personnel most familiar with the informal practice of  determining AML. Therefore, without clear guidance, BLM cannot ensure  that the factors considered in future revisions of AML determinations will  be consistent across HMAs. To make the informal AML determination  process official and to help ensure consistency among BLM field offices,  BLM officials have been working on drafting a new handbook for the  program since 2006, which specifies the factors field offices should use in  making AML determinations. Due to higher priorities and limited  resources, the handbook is still in draft form and is undergoing final  revision. BLM officials told us they expect the handbook to be completed  in fall 2008.
section_title: BLM Has Made Significant Progress toward Meeting AML, but Some HMAs Remain Far over AML
paragraphs: Since 2000, BLM has made significant progress toward meeting AML. At  the national level, BLM was closer to meeting AML in 2007 than in any  other year since 1984 (when AML levels were first reported by BLM), with  a population of 28,563, or about 1,000 animals over the upper limit of AML  (see fig. 5). Meeting AML has been a challenge for most of the lifetime of  the program. In 1985, in reporting on the Department of the Interior and  related agencies’ appropriations, the Senate Committee on Appropriations  recommended more than tripling the program’s funding above the original  budgeted amounts to, according to the committee, permit BLM to maintain  nearly 14,000 animals in corrals through the end of fiscal year 1986 and to  remove 17,000 excess animals during fiscal year 1986. The program’s  funding was tripled in fiscal year 1986, and with the increased funding,  BLM removed 18,959 excess animals. In fiscal year 2001, BLM began  implementing a 4-year strategy to aggressively remove animals from the  range to reach the upper limit of AML by 2005. However, just before  initiating the strategy—which relied heavily on specific assumptions about  the number of animals removed, adopted, and held in short-term and long- term holding—emergency drought and fire conditions called for the  removal of wild horses and burros in numbers far greater than anticipated.  These additional removals and decreases in adoption targets changed  BLM’s assumptions and made it clear the agency would not be able to  meet the targets set forth in their plan. In 2004, BLM again revisited targets  and management options that would help them to achieve and maintain  the midpoint of AML by 2006. Over the past several years, the program is  closer to meeting AML as a result of increases in the number of wild  horses and burros removed from the range, but it continues to face  challenges in maintaining that level. According to BLM data, the  population now exceeds the upper limit of AML by an estimated  5,886 animals. BLM attributes most of the increase in population to more  accurate population census counts.
While the national statistics appear to indicate that BLM is close to  meeting its goal, it is important to note that, under the act, BLM is required  to maintain HMAs at a level that is at or below the upper limit of AML. To  stay below the upper limit of AML, HMAs should be gathered to the lower  limit of AML approximately every 3 to 5 years. However, only 7 of the  26 BLM field offices we surveyed said they were typically able to gather to  this low level. When animals are not gathered to the low level of AML, a  population can quickly rise well above the upper limit of AML. Fewer than  half (10) of the field offices surveyed said they were usually able to  manage the population of wild horses and burros on their HMAs within the  limits of AML. Fifteen field offices said they managed populations that  were typically above AML.
We are not reporting in detail on the extent to which individual HMAs have  met AML because we do not believe that BLM’s data are precise enough to  accurately make such a determination. BLM’s estimates of the number of  HMAs that are at or below AML may be overstated because, for reporting  purposes, BLM considers the HMAs where the population is not more than  10 percent over the upper limit of the AML to be at AML. BLM officials told  us that this is done to account for those HMAs that may slightly exceed  AML. For example, in 2008, BLM reported that 61 of the 102 HMAs in  Nevada were at or below AML. Without the 10 percent adjustment factor,  we calculated that 52 HMAs were at or below AML. Because of this  adjustment factor and questions about the accuracy of BLM’s animal  counting methods, we concluded that the data on whether or not  individual HMAs had met AML were not sufficiently reliable to report  because an error of plus or minus one or two animals could change the  status of an HMA from being under or over AML. Aside from the precise  issue of whether or not an HMA is within or over AML, it is clear from the  data that some HMAs are significantly over AML. For example, as of  February 2008, BLM reported that 87 HMAs were over AML. About half of  these HMAs were over AML by 50 percent or less, about a quarter were  over AML by between 51 and 100 percent, and about another quarter of the  HMAs were over AML by more than 100 percent.
Populations that exceed AML can harm the health of the range. For  example, in 2004, the Calico HMA in Nevada exceeded AML by about  200 percent. The herds were found to concentrate in sensitive areas,  affecting the threatened Lahontan cutthroat trout and contributing to the  nonattainment of grazing allotment objectives and standards for rangeland  health. As of February 2008, the wild horse population in this HMA  exceeded the upper limit of AML by 160 percent. The excess population  levels and continued drought are expected to continue to negatively  impact sensitive riparian areas relied upon by the Lahontan cutthroat  trout. The overpopulation of wild horses and burros on the range may  negatively impact herd health, rangeland health, and livestock and wildlife  that depend on the range. An over-obligation of the vegetative resources  can result in declines in the healthy vegetative condition that may take  years to recover. See figure 6 for our survey results on the possible  negative impacts of populations that exceed the upper limits of AML.
In addition to the effects on the range, overpopulation in HMAs also  results in costlier gathers because a greater number of animals would have  to be removed to maintain AML in future years.
Although there has been an increased effort to meet AML, there have been  many challenges in meeting and maintaining that level. Twenty of the  26 field officials we surveyed identified limitations to gathers to remove  excess animals as one of their top challenges to meeting or maintaining  AML. One limitation identified by these respondents included limited  funding available to conduct gathers. Another limitation identified by  respondents was unplanned gathers that alter the gather schedule as  resources are directed to HMAs in critical need. Reasons for unplanned  gathers include escalating problems and emergencies. An HMA with an  escalating problem is defined as an area where deteriorating rangeland  conditions, such as declining availability of forage or water, will negatively  affect animal condition and rangeland health. Emergency situations are  unexpected situations that threaten the immediate health of wild horses  and burros or their habitat, such as fire, disease, or other catastrophic  events.
In addition to using gathers and removals to manage the population on the  range, BLM may also use fertility treatment to manage the reproductive  rates of wild horses. BLM is using this tool on a limited number of HMAs.  However, some animal fertility researchers and wild horse advocates  believe that this tool should be used more widely. They say that unless the  reproductive rate is curtailed, the need to gather a large number of animals  from the range will continue. See appendix II for more information about  BLM’s use of this treatment.
section_title: BLM Has Established a Formal Policy on Gathers and Removals that Specifies the Key Factors that Should Be Considered in the Decision Making Process
paragraphs: Removals are used as a primary method for managing wild horse and  burro populations on the range; however, the data used to support these  removal decisions have been criticized. Specifically, our 1990 report  concluded that BLM’s decisions on the number of wild horses and burros  to remove were made without adequate information about range carrying  capacity or the impact of the animals on range conditions. In August  2005, BLM issued an update to their 2002 policy on gathers that  determinations to support gathers and removals must be based on a  National Environmental Policy Act analysis and a gather plan that  consider five key factors—utilization, trend, actual use, climatic data, and  current census. Eleven of the 26 field offices we surveyed considered all  five key factors in their most recent gather plan (see table 7). However,  many of these field offices conducted their most recent gathers prior to  the issuance of the 2005 policy that specified which factors to consider in  their decision making process. Specifically, 11 field offices conducted their  most recent gathers between 1990 and 2005. Additionally, some field  offices’ most recent gathers were conducted as a result of an emergency  situation. In those cases, a field office may not have had enough time to  consider all five criteria due to the critical time response necessary to  remove the animals.
Regardless of when the most recent gathers were conducted, 25 of the  26 field offices we surveyed considered the data used to support their  removals for specific HMAs as moderately to very sufficient. See table 8  for the number of field offices that considered each of the factors we  asked about in our survey.
Unlike our previous report, which stated that data to justify removals was  outdated, most respondents who provided the year in which their data was  collected indicated that their data was current as of the year of their most  recent gather or less than 4 years old (see table 9).
Half of the survey respondents identified impediments to conducting  gathers as a major challenge in managing their HMAs to achieve healthy  herd populations that are in balance with the range and other multiple  uses. Only 7 of the 26 field offices surveyed said that they were able to  typically gather to their lower limits of AML. While several BLM officials  explained that gathers can be delayed as a result of funding restrictions or  emergency gather priorities, only four of the field offices surveyed  indicated that their most recent gather was delayed.
section_title: Research and Experience Have Shown That BLM’s On-the-Range Population Estimates Are Too Low
paragraphs: Accurate animal population counts are critical to BLM’s ability to properly  manage wild horse and burro herds and in determining whether AML  targets were met. However, many field offices use a population counting  method—the direct-count method—that researchers consider inaccurate.  This method generally calls for one person to count each animal they spot  from an airplane or helicopter. According to researchers, it consistently  undercounts animals and does not provide a statistical range of estimates.  Nineteen of the 26 field officials we surveyed used the direct-count  method for conducting their most recent census.
Regardless of which method is used, counting wild horses and burros can  be challenging, particularly when the animals are obscured by trees or  when the rangeland is covered with snow. Because counting poses such  challenges, researchers are investigating alternative counting methods to  assist BLM in collecting accurate population data to form statistically valid  population estimates. Each method the researchers are evaluating  includes some range of statistical error, whereas direct count only reports  the raw number spotted on the ground. Researchers believe that the most  effective method will likely be a combination of two or more counting  techniques. BLM’s population counts of wild horses and burros have long  been questioned by managers and advocacy groups alike. By employing  alternative methods that account for a range of error, BLM would have a  more defensible way of determining population estimates. In the most  recent 2008 BLM population estimates, for example, population counts  exceeded those in 2007 by approximately 4,500 animals. As a result, on a  nationwide level, BLM is once again well over the upper limit of AML,  which brings into question earlier population estimates and whether or not  those previous years were as close to meeting AML as once thought. BLM  is working with the Department of the Interior’s U.S. Geological Survey’s  Fort Collins Science Center and the Colorado State University to develop  these methods to achieve greater accuracy in population counts. Some  BLM offices have begun to employ some of these methods. For example,  in Arizona, managers use the simultaneous double-count method to  improve population counts and avoid underestimating burro populations.  Some field offices, however, are reluctant to use alternate counting  methods because they are concerned that they would require too much  additional staff or would be too expensive. Researchers agree that other  methods may be slightly more expensive, given the greater number of staff  needed.
When a population is undercounted, BLM is likely to remove fewer  animals than is needed to control overpopulation. For example, in 2002, a  direct count was used to census the wild horse population located on the  Jackson Mountain HMA in northern Nevada, an area that has been affected  by severe drought. When a gather was conducted in 2003, staff believed  they removed the adequate number of wild horses to reach AML. Funds to  conduct their scheduled census in 2006 were not available, and BLM was  unable to conduct its population count until the summer of 2007. It was at  this point that staff realized that their 2002 census was incorrect and that  they miscalculated the population in 2007 by approximately 640 wild  horses. They found that the actual population in 2007 was about five times  greater than what they determined was sustainable. In the winter of 2007,  BLM began to monitor water availability more regularly. The BLM field  staff member who managed that HMA told us that although the herd  condition was weakened, the horses did not appear to be in extremely  poor condition. Nevertheless, more than 150 of the wild horses removed  from this HMA died in a short-term holding facility due to disease that was  able to overtake the animals in their weakened state.
section_title: Declining Adoptions and Sales Have Increased the Need for Short-Term and Long-Term Holding Facilities, and Holding Costs Have Increased
paragraphs: The number of wild horses and burros removed from the range is far  greater than the number adopted or sold. Since 2001, about 74,000 animals  have been removed from the range, while only about 46,400 have been  adopted or sold. This has resulted in significant spending increases due to  a greater number of animals in short- and long-term holding. Thirty-six  percent fewer wild horses and burros were adopted in 2007, compared to  average adoption rates in the 1990s—a trend BLM officials attribute to the  decrease in adoption demand and increasing hay and fuel costs. Since  2004, when BLM was directed to sell excess wild horses and burros  without limitation, BLM has sold about 2,700 animals—far fewer than  expected, despite the low average selling price of $15. As of June 2008,  BLM was holding 30,088 animals in short- and long-term holding facilities,  compared with the estimated 9,807 held in 2001. To accommodate the  increase in animals removed from the range and the decline in adoptions  and sales, BLM has increased the number of short- and long-term holding  facilities. This has resulted in an increase in spending for short- and long- term holding facilities.
subsections: section_title: Adoption Rates Have Declined Since the 1990s, and the 2004 Sale Directive Generally Has Not Been Used
paragraphs: BLM has historically managed wild horses and burros removed from the  range through adoptions to the general public. Adoption has been  regarded as the most economical way to provide humane long-term care to  animals that have been removed from the range. In the 1990s, the number  of animals removed from the range was about equal to the number of  animals adopted. The average number of animals adopted each year in the  1990s was about 7,500. Since 2000, the number of animals removed has  outpaced the number of animals adopted or sold due to an increase in  removals and a steady decline in adoption demand and sales. Since 2001,  about 74,000 animals have been removed from the range, compared to  about 46,400 adopted or sold. The average number removed annually from  2001 to 2007 was about 10,600, compared to the average adoption rate of  about 6,300 annually. According to BLM’s 2004 Report to Congress, at least  7,000 adoptions were needed annually to assist in achieving and  maintaining AML. However, only about 4,700 animals were adopted in  2007. Although BLM has increased efforts to market adoptions, demand  continues to decline for wild horses, even though the price for adopting  them has remained at the minimum fee of $125 since 1997. BLM officials  attribute the steady wild horse adoption decline in recent years to  increases in hay and fuel costs associated with horse care, the large  number of domesticated horses that are currently flooding the adoption  market, a general urbanization of rural areas, and a shift toward other  forms of recreation. For example, according to one official, individuals  who once had corrals with two or three horses may now own one horse  and four all-terrain vehicles. Figure 7 compares the number of wild horses  and burros removed from the range with the number adopted from 1989  through 2007.
One alternative for managing unadoptable excess wild horses and burros,  as provided for by the 2004 amendment to the 1971 act, is to sell the  animals “without limitation.” The act directs BLM to offer excess animals  for sale that are more than 10 years old or that have been offered  unsuccessfully for adoption at least three times. At the time of the  amendment, BLM estimated that approximately 8,400 animals were  eligible for sale. To date, BLM has sold only about 2,700 animals—far  fewer than originally expected, despite the low average selling price in  2006 of $15 (see table 10).
In 2005, the first sale was made to a wild horse protection group in  Wyoming who purchased 200 horses that would otherwise have likely  ended up in long-term holding under BLM’s care. A few other animals that  were sold, however, ultimately ended up in slaughterhouses. To reduce the  likelihood that a buyer would purchase these animals and then sell them  for slaughter, BLM changed its sales process to require buyers to sign a  “statement of intent” that they do not intend to sell the animals for  slaughter. This limitation, as well as a decrease in demand, has contributed  to the small number of sales.
section_title: BLM Manages 30,088 Animals in an Increasing Number of Short-Term and Long-Term Holding Facilities, and Holding Costs Have Increased
paragraphs: As of June 2008, BLM was holding a combined 30,088 animals in short- term and long-term holding facilities, compared to 9,807 animals in 2001.  To accommodate the increase in animals needing care once removed from  the range, the number of short-term and long-term holding facilities has  increased. Spending on combined short-term and long-term holding has  also increased from about $7 million in 2000 to about $20.9 million in 2007.  From 2001 through 2008, the number of short-term holding facilities  increased from 14 to 24, and the number of animals held in these facilities  increased from 6,514 animals to 7,987 by June 2008. These holding  facilities provide the animals with vaccinations and other care prior to  their being adopted, sold, or sent to long-term holding. The average cost of  animals in short-term holding increased from $3.00 per horse per day in  2001 to $5.08 per horse per day in 2008. From 2000 to 2001, the cost for  short-term holding increased from $6.4 million to $11.2 million. From  2001 through 2007, the cost remained relatively stable, but for 2008, costs  are anticipated to increase to $16.2 million. According to several BLM  officials, the escalating cost for caring for animals in short-term holding is  primarily a result of the dramatic increase in hay and fuel prices from  2007 to 2008. For example, hay prices for one short-term holding facility in  Nevada increased from about $160 per ton in 2007 to almost $300 per ton  in 2008. Decreases in adoption and sales and a lack of capacity in long- term holding has not only increased the number of animals held in short- term holding, but has also increased the time animals are held there.  According to one state official, animals in his state spent 45 to 60 days in  short-term holding facilities in the late 1990s. Beginning in 2000, this  official told us, it was not uncommon to hold animals for more than a year.  Nationwide, according to BLM, the average length of stay in short-term  holding in 2008 has been 210 days. This is far longer than the 90 days BLM  projected animals would spend in short-term holding in their 2001  initiative to meet AML.
Similarly, the number of long-term holding facilities has increased, as has  the cost. The number of facilities increased from 1 in 1988 to 11 as of June  2008, and the number of animals cared for increased from 1,500 in 2000 to  22,101 as of June 2008 (see table 11). These long-term holding facilities  have reached their capacity—currently 22,100—despite the increase in  numbers of facilities. BLM anticipates it will need greater long-term  holding capacity and is working to contract for additional facilities.
BLM pays private contractors an average of $1.27 per horse per day to  maintain the animals for the remainder of their lifespan, unless removed  from long-term holding for adoption or sale. While this fee has increased  by only 7 cents since 2000, the number of animals cared for has also  increased, resulting in a significant increase in BLM spending on long-term  holding. In 2000, BLM spent approximately $668,000 in 2000, compared to  more than $9.1 million in 2007 to care for wild horses in long-term holding.  The long-term holding facilities are primarily located in Oklahoma and  Kansas, where forage is typically more abundant than on HMAs of the  West. Table 12 lists the 11 long-term holding facilities.
For at least two decades, BLM’s primary strategy to manage excess  unadoptable wild horses has been to increase long-term holding, despite  warnings in our 1990 report that these facilities were likely to be more  expensive than envisioned and to be only a temporary solution to the  disposal of unadoptable animals. In 1994, the Department of the Interior’s  Office of Inspector General also issued a report that strongly discouraged  long-term holding as a solution to managing horses removed from the  range due to the large costs. BLM continues to look for more facilities but  faces difficulty attracting new contractors that can sustain a large number  of animals and that will accept the fee BLM offers, compared to perhaps  more profitable land uses.
section_title: BLM Has Controls in Place to Help Ensure the Humane Treatment of Wild Horses and Burros, but It Could Better Track and Report These Data to the Public
paragraphs: BLM has implemented multiple controls to help ensure the humane  treatment of wild horses and burros, including standard operating  procedures and agreements with all three slaughterhouses in the United  States before they closed in 2007. A variety of controls are used at various  stages in the management of wild horses and burros, including for those  animals that are gathered, in short-term holding facilities, in long-term  holding facilities, adopted, or sold. BLM’s controls for gathers include  standard operating procedures, inspections, and data collection. While  BLM state offices collect detailed data on animals that die during gathers,  the information is not compiled by BLM headquarters in its centralized  database, nor is it reported to the public. In addition, BLM does not  regularly provide the information it tracks on the treatment of animals in  short- and long-term holding and adoption inspections to the public.  Making more of this data available to the public may help inform them  about the treatment of the animals and improve transparency. Beginning  in 1998, until the last horse slaughterhouse in the United States shut down  in 2007, BLM sought agreements with all three slaughter facilities to alert  BLM of wild horses that entered their facilities. According to BLM data,  since 2002, about 2,000 wild horses whose legal titles were obtained by  private citizens either through adoption or purchase were slaughtered.  During that same period, another 90 wild horses whose title still belonged  to BLM were retrieved from slaughterhouses by BLM and by wild horse  groups. We reviewed the basic controls BLM has in place, but we did not  evaluate their effectiveness. While BLM is required to implement controls  to help ensure the humane treatment of wild horses and burros, such  controls cannot provide absolute assurance that all agency objectives will  be met.
subsections: section_title: BLM Internal Controls Help Ensure Humane Treatment, but BLM Could Improve Data Gathering and Reporting in Some Areas
paragraphs: A variety of controls are used at various stages in the management of wild  horses and burros, including for those animals that are gathered, in short- term holding facilities, in long-term holding facilities, adopted, or sold.  BLM’s controls for gathers include standard operating procedures,  inspections, and data collection. Data collected from 6 of the 10 states  from fiscal years 2005 through 2007 indicate that mortality as a result of  gathers is about 1.2 percent. Similarly, controls for short- and long-term  holding include standard operating procedures, inspections, and data  collection. BLM did not report any deaths due to neglect or abuse at  holding facilities, aside from one animal that was repossessed by BLM  after having been abused by an adopter. BLM has controls over the  adoption of wild horses and burros, and data indicate that from 2005 to  2007, about 9 percent of adopters were not in compliance with BLM’s  standards of care. BLM’s controls over humane treatment primarily apply  to horses and burros before ownership is passed to private individuals, but  BLM has also implemented some controls to protect horses and burros  once ownership passes, such as when wild horses and burros are sold. For  animals that are sold, since spring 2005, BLM has required buyers to sign a  statement that they do not intend to slaughter the animals. BLM does not  consistently track information on treatment during gather operations  through a central database, nor does it report information about the  treatment of animals during gathers, holding, or adoption inspections to  the public.
subsections: section_title: Gathers
paragraphs: BLM has established controls, such as standard operating procedures and  tracking systems, to help ensure humane treatment during gather  operations. BLM hires contractors to remove wild horses and burros from  the range. These contractors generally use helicopters to herd the animals  into capture pens on the range (see fig. 8).
Due to the stress caused to wild animals by gathering them into pens,  gather operations have the potential to cause harm to wild horses and  burros, such as nervous agitation; conflict between captured animals; or  more rarely, animal death. Because of the potential for harm and to help  ensure the safe and humane handling of all animals captured, BLM has  implemented a range of standard operating procedures for its gather  contractors. Prior to the start of gather operations, BLM personnel  evaluate the site of the gather to determine whether it is suitable based on  environmental and safety concerns. They also approve gather facility plans  ensuring, among other things, that they do not present puncture or  laceration hazards and that they prevent animals from seeing humans,  vehicles, and other perceived threats. During the herding of the animals,  BLM sets limitations on the distance and speed the animals will travel,  depending on the condition of the animals and other factors. As the  animals are herded into the gather site, BLM requires contractors to  segregate horses by age and sex to reduce the possibility of conflict and to  ensure that very young horses and burros are not left behind to fend for  themselves on the range. Finally, as the captured animals are transported  from the gather site to short-term holding facilities, contractors are  required to follow procedures to ensure animal safety, such as using  adequately sized motorized equipment that has been inspected for safety.  BLM has managed gathers with standard operating procedures since the  passage of the act in 1971.
Although BLM’s controls are designed to enhance the safety of wild horses  and burros during gather operations, some animals are accidentally killed  in the course of gathers or are euthanized because of ill health or prior  injury. Six of the 10 BLM state offices reported data about the number of  animals that die as a result of their gather operations. Data collected from  6 of the 10 states from fiscal years 2005 through 2007 indicate that, of the  24,855 animals removed from these states during this period, about  1.2 percent were either euthanized or died accidentally (see table 13).  Horses and burros sometimes die due to accidents during gather  operations on the range or after they are brought to the holding pens. For  example, wild horses will sometimes panic and break their necks against  capture pens. Animals found with conditions that make it unlikely they  will be able to live their life without significant pain, such as lameness or  club feet, are euthanized.
Although BLM national and state officials told us that they sometimes  record data about the animals accidentally killed or euthanized during  gathers at the BLM state office level, BLM does not centrally compile or  report these data to the public on a regular basis on a national level. A  BLM official told us that although their main tracking database has the  capability to record the number of animals that are killed or euthanized  during gathers, they generally do not use the database to do so because it  was originally intended to track adoptions. Moreover, BLM has not  regularly reported to the public how many wild horses and burros are  killed in the course of gathers, although BLM officials have cited the data  during public hearings. Some advocates and members of the public believe  that gathers are held in secret and highlight individual cases of apparent  mistreatment as evidence that inhumane treatment is widespread.
However, a BLM official told us that it is BLM’s standard practice to allow  the public and the media to observe gather operations, and BLM is  required to hold public hearings prior to scheduled gathers using  helicopters. If BLM does not improve its transparency by presenting  reliable data to members of the public, BLM will continue to be vulnerable  to accusations that gathers are generally cruel and inhumane.
section_title: Short-Term Holding
paragraphs: BLM has issued standard operating procedures to help ensure that wild  horses and burros held in short-term holding facilities are well cared for.  They include procedures for minimizing the excitement of the animals to  prevent injury; separating horses by age, sex, and size; observation of the  animals on a regular basis; and recording information about the animals  that BLM later uses for tracking the animals in BLM’s database. BLM’s  short-term holding facilities are mostly maintained and directly managed  by BLM, either on government property or on leased property. Several are  at state prisons, and a few others are maintained by contractors in  privately-owned feedlots or ranches that BLM has leased. According to  BLM staff, they regularly inspect the short-term holding facilities and the  animals they hold. They inspect to see that the corral equipment is up to  code and that animals are treated with appropriate veterinary care. For  example, staff check to see that the horses’ hooves are regularly trimmed  so that they do not become too long and cause injury. At two of the short- term holding facilities we visited, we observed specially constructed  chutes that hold and rotate horses in place so that horses’ hooves can be  trimmed more quickly, easily, and with less risk to the animals and the  employee than other methods, such as using tranquilizer darts or roping  (see fig. 9).
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. BLM reported that none of the animals in  its care died of neglect or abuse between 2005 and 2007, aside from one  case in 2006, where a reclaimed adopted horse died in BLM care due to the  effects of abuse suffered while it was in the care of an adopter. BLM data  showed that the animals generally died due to sickness, broken limbs, or  injuries sustained accidentally during gathers. BLM does not report this  information regularly to members of the public who remain concerned  that the agency does not adequately care for animals in short-term holding.
section_title: Long-Term Holding
paragraphs: BLM has similar controls in place for its long-term holding facilities. BLM  staff inspect long-term holding facilities annually to count the number of  animals held. Staff also monitor pasture conditions, winter feeding, and  animal health throughout the year. According to BLM staff, during these  visits they ensure the contractors comply with BLM provisions and discuss  possible problems that can be corrected. In addition, veterinary staff from  the Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection  Service inspect long-term holding facilities annually; these inspections  involve a full count of the horses held there, an inspection of the horses’  general health, and written reports. Animal and Plant Health Inspection  Service reports from 2007 indicate that the horses kept in long-term  holding sanctuaries are generally in “good” or “excellent” condition. These  reports, however, highlight some areas for possible improvement. At one  facility, one area of improvement included the proper disposal of the  remains of animals that have died of natural causes. To help ensure the  animals are well cared for, a contract veterinarian provides care when  needed at BLM direction and expense. In addition to inspecting the  facilities for the well being of wild horses in long-term holding, contractors  are required to count and report the number of horses held on a weekly  basis for billing and payment purposes. In 2007, long-term holding  contractors were paid an average fee of $1.27 per horse per day, or about  $460 per horse per year. While this contract fee structure is not in itself a  control that guarantees humane treatment, it provides a profit incentive  for contractors to ensure the continued health of the horses. According to  one BLM official, BLM does not regularly document the results of its  inspections. This official told us that the agency would take actions and  record them if it found problems, but the official generally has not found  problems with the contractors that have warranted action beyond informal  conversations to address minor issues.
BLM collects data on how wild horses are cared for in long-term holding,  including the number of animals that die in long-term holding. The average  mortality rate of wild horses in long-term holding from 2003 through 2007  was about 8 percent, but it fluctuated from a low of 5 percent to a high of  14 percent during that time period. Specifically, for 2007, BLM reported  938 deaths in long-term holding facilities. The number of wild horses in  long-term holding in 2007 was 19,652. The animals that die in long-term  holding are generally found in the pastures, and unless there is evidence of  foul play, BLM does not investigate the cause of death. According to BLM,  barring any evidence to the contrary, it is assumed that the animals in  long-term holding die of old age. Officially, BLM reported about 95 percent  of the animal deaths in long-term holding as “undiagnosed.” Some of the  other causes of deaths reported included old age and respiratory illness.  No animals in long-term holding died from neglect or abuse, according to  BLM reports. While BLM collects this data, it does not report this data  regularly to the public. In the absence of this data, some members of the  public who advocate greater protection for wild horses have repeatedly  expressed their concern that BLM does not adequately care for animals in  long-term holding.
section_title: Adoption
paragraphs: The act requires BLM to determine that adopters have provided humane  conditions, treatment, and care for adopted animals for at least 1 year  before BLM transfers ownership to the adopter. To implement the act,  BLM has established policies for inspecting adopted horses or burros in  this first year through telephone calls or personal visits. BLM inspections  focus on the condition of the animal; the condition of the facilities; and  whether the adopter has notified BLM if the adopted animal has been  moved, was stolen, has escaped, or has died. Prior to taking possession of  an adopted animal, BLM requires that adopters describe the facility where  they will maintain the adopted animal. This is documented in their  application, which confers penalties for providing false information.
According to BLM data, from 2005 through 2007, an average of about  9 percent of adopted wild horses and burros that still belong to the  government have not been treated in compliance with BLM standards (see  table 14). BLM randomly selects a sample from the universe of  approximately 5,000 adopters per year who have not yet received title of  their adopted animal for inspection. BLM inspects these adopters in order  to generate a statistical sample of the likely percentage of adopted animals  kept under conditions that do not comply with BLM’s policies and  standards. The most common conditions in need of improvement included  the failure to report changes in the animal’s location or status and  substandard facilities, such as inadequate fencing or shelter. Less common  conditions included lack of care of the animal, such as inadequate feeding  or failure to trim the animal’s hooves before they grew too long.
In addition, BLM policy directs that officials or certified volunteers  conduct personal inspections of all adopted animals whenever BLM  receives complaints about mistreatment or when an individual or  organization adopts more than four wild horses or burros at one time.
Similar to the data collected on the animals in short- and long-term  holding, BLM does not provide information on the results of its adoption  inspections to the public. The information regularly provided to the public  on the treatment of these animals is in contrast to the comparatively large  amount of information BLM provides on the program’s Web site regarding  information on AML and population estimates for each HMA.
section_title: Sales
paragraphs: In the case of animals that were legally sold, BLM has implemented  limitations to prevent these animals from being resold to slaughter  facilities. In 2004, the act was changed and directed BLM to sell, “without  limitation,” excess wild horses and burros more than 10 years of age or  that had been offered unsuccessfully for adoption at least three times,  until all excess animals for sale are sold or until AML is met in all HMAs.  However, shortly after BLM began to sell wild horses and burros without  limitation, in early 2005, it was discovered that 41 of these wild horses had  been slaughtered. In April 2005, BLM suspended its wild horse sales  program and resumed sales in May 2005, after adding controls intended to  restrict the sale of animals for the purpose of selling them for slaughter.  These controls included BLM’s requirement that buyers sign a statement  they do not intend to sell the animals for slaughter and verification that  potential buyers would provide adequate care for the animals.
section_title: BLM Implemented Controls to Prevent Slaughter of Wild Horses in the United States
paragraphs: Although BLM is no longer required to protect animals after ownership has  passed to adopters or buyers, BLM implemented controls to help prevent  their slaughter beginning in 1998. BLM had negotiated agreements with all  three U.S. facilities that operated horse slaughterhouses. The  slaughterhouses agreed to alert BLM to all wild horses that entered their  facilities and refrain from slaughtering those wild horses whose title still  belonged to BLM. According to BLM data, which it was able to provide  since 2002, about 2,000 wild horses whose legal titles were obtained by  private citizens through adoption or purchase were slaughtered. During  that same time period, at least 90 adopted wild horses that were still  owned by the government were brought to these slaughterhouses, and all  were retrieved by BLM and interested wild horse groups.
As of fall 2007, all horse slaughter facilities in the United States had been  shut down following unsuccessful legal challenges to state laws effectively  banning the practice. In January 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the  Fifth Circuit ruled that a 1949 Texas law banning the sale, possession, or  transfer of horsemeat applied to the two slaughterhouses in Texas. In  September 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit upheld  an Illinois ban. These rulings effectively closed the plants and ended  horse slaughter in the United States.
Even though all horse slaughter facilities in the United States have been  closed, it is still possible for wild horses and burros to be sold to facilities  outside the United States. Prior to the closure of all U.S. horse slaughter  facilities, about 50,000 domestic horses were brought to slaughter in the  United States annually between 2001 and 2004. Generally, exporting  horses and burros to other countries for slaughter, such as Canada or  Mexico, is not prohibited; for example, about 3,000 horses per month were  exported for slaughter in 2007, according to Department of Agriculture  information. We attempted to determine how many of these horses were at  one time wild, but we were not able to do so. The Department of  Agriculture, which certifies the inspections of horses and other livestock  exported to other countries, is not required and does not report how many  of the horses exported to other countries were once wild horses.
section_title: Challenges to the Long-Term Sustainability of the Program Include Growing Holding Costs and Limited Options for Dealing with Unadoptable Animals
paragraphs: The long-term sustainability of BLM’s Wild Horse and Burro Program  depends on the resolution of two significant challenges. First, holding  costs are overwhelming the program’s ability to manage animals on the  range and will continue to do so if BLM does not consider alternatives to  holding. Second, BLM has limited options for dealing with unadoptable  animals off of the range because its alternatives under the act—humane  destruction of the animals or selling the animals without limitation—are  thought to be unacceptable to the public. As a result, BLM has placed over  30,000 wild horses and burros in holding.
subsections: section_title: If Not Controlled, Off-the- Range Holding Costs Will Continue to Overwhelm the Program
paragraphs: The portion of the Wild Horse and Burro Program’s spending that is  directed toward short- and long-term holding has increased from  46 percent of the program’s direct costs in 2000 to 67 percent in 2007. This  increase leaves a smaller portion of the budget available for on-the-range  management activities. Much of the increase has occurred because  accelerated removals implemented to reach AML have coincided with a  decline in adoption demand. Because long-term holding facilities are at  capacity, BLM has had little choice but to hold excess unadoptable horses  in more expensive short-term holding. BLM’s spending on short- and long- term holding has increased from about $7.0 million in 2000, or 46 percent  of the program’s direct costs, to about $20.9 million in 2007, or 67 percent  of the program’s direct costs (see fig. 10). In 2008, BLM anticipates that  holding costs will account for about 74 percent of the program’s direct  costs. To deal with its long-term holding problem, BLM has primarily  sought increased funding to open additional long-term holding facilities.  However, funding is not likely to increase in the future, and limited  funding is forcing BLM to make difficult choices. For example, in January  2008, BLM considered canceling all remaining removals scheduled for the  fiscal year because of the amount needed for short- and long-term holding.  As of July 2008, BLM was seeking the funds to continue these removals by  redirecting money from other BLM activities to the Wild Horse and Burro  Program. As a result, under current funding levels, BLM must now choose  between either managing the range to prevent overpopulation or exercise  one or both of its other options—destroying animals or selling them  without limitation.
To continue to reduce overpopulation on the range by using gathers alone,  BLM projects that the program’s budget would have to increase to about  $77 million by fiscal year 2012, from about $36 million in 2008. If BLM does  not receive this increase or exercise its other options to reduce  populations off the range, then it will not have sufficient funds to manage  wild horses and burros on the range, and populations will sharply  increase. BLM’s current projections indicate that caring for unadoptable  animals would reduce the agency’s ability to gather horses to an average of  about 4,500 animals per year, which would only be enough to prevent  animals from dying from the effects of overpopulation and drought. At  these removal levels, BLM projects that the on-the-range population would  reach 50,000 animals by 2012—about 80 percent greater than the upper  limit of AML. This on-the-range population level would be greater than the  population level prior to the beginning of BLM’s 2001 strategic plan.
Since 2004, BLM has had the goal of reducing the total population on the  range to the midpoint of AML. If it were to reach this level, which is  currently about 22,588 animals, an annual population growth rate of  20 percent would require the annual removal of about 4,500 animals to  maintain that level, approximately equal to the recent adoption rate.  Assuming that rate remained constant, fewer animals would be sent to  long-term holding. However, even if BLM is able to reach a balance  between animals removed and those adopted, it still has the challenge of  dealing with 30,088 animals that are currently held in short-term and long- term holding facilities across the country. Furthermore the number of  animals held in holding would exceed 40,000 animals if BLM were to  remove the approximately 11,000 animals necessary to reach the midpoint  of AML.
BLM has a number of research projects under way and ideas in  development that could slow the increase in the population on the range.  These include fertility control efforts, such as the development of a  fertility vaccine (see app. II for more information on this vaccine) and  releasing sterilized male horses back to the range after capture. Given that  many existing HMAs are already over AML, releasing a large number of  sterilized male horses or nonreproducing herds back to the range as a  means of trying to reduce future holding costs would likely require  changing existing land use decisions within BLM’s existing authority to  increase AMLs, expand existing HMAs or designate new HMAs; or through  seeking new legislative authority. Under the 1971 act, the land available for  the management of wild horses and burros is limited to the areas where  they existed at the time of the act. The originally designated herd areas  consisted of 53.5 million acres compared to the existing HMA acreage of  34.3 million, a difference of 19.2 million acres. Specifically, the BLM  owned acreage managed for wild horses and burros has changed from  42.2 million acres to 29.0 million acres, a difference of 13.2 million acres.  As we mentioned earlier, BLM is in the process of compiling a history of  actions that led to these changes. At this point, however, it is not clear  how much of the 13.2 million acres is still public land under BLM’s control.
While BLM could change AMLs, expand existing HMAs, or designate new  HMAs within its existing authority, BLM is a multiple use agency and it  weighs the needs of wild horses and burros against other competing uses.  Alternatively, should BLM chose to do so, new legislative authority could  be pursued to allow nonreproducing herds to be relocated to areas where  they were not found at the time of the act. We believe that it is important  to consider increasing AML or expanding HMA acreage only as a means to  accommodate nonreproducing herds. Increasing the number of  reproducing animals on the range without corresponding solutions for  fertility control or declining adoption demand will, in the long run, only  exacerbate BLM’s problems with dealing with excess animals.
section_title: Under Current Law BLM’s Options Are Limited for Dealing with Unadoptable Animals
paragraphs: Despite these budget problems, BLM has avoided using two options in the  act for dealing with unadoptable animals because of concerns over the  public and congressional reaction to the large-scale slaughter of thousands  of healthy horses. The Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act, as  amended, requires that excess animals, for which the adoption demand is  not sufficient to absorb all the animals removed from the range, be  destroyed in the most humane and cost-efficient manner possible or,  under certain circumstances, be sold without limitation. The 1978  amendments to the original 1971 act directed that “he Secretary shall  cause additional excess wild free-roaming horses and burros for which an  adoption demand by qualified individuals does not exist to be destroyed in  the most humane and cost efficient manner possible.” From 1981 to 1982,  BLM destroyed at least 47 excess animals. BLM decided not to destroy  excess unadoptable animals in 1982 after the Director issued a policy  prohibiting the destruction of healthy animals because of public dismay.  Furthermore, from fiscal year 1988 through fiscal year 2004, Congress  prohibited BLM from using its Management of Lands and Resources  appropriations to destroy excess healthy, unadoptable wild horses and  burros.
In our 1990 report, we found that keeping excess animals in long-term  holding was costly and recommended that BLM examine alternatives, such  as sterilizing animals and releasing them back into the wild. Although  BLM was prohibited from using its Management of Lands and Resources  appropriations for humanely destroying excess animals through  euthanasia at the time of that report, we also recommended that BLM  consider this action as a last resort in the event that Congress lifted the  prohibition in the future. The recurring prohibition in the annual  appropriations bills ended after fiscal year 2004. Since then, BLM has no  longer been prohibited from using its Management of Lands and  Resources appropriations for carrying out the requirement to destroy  excess animals. BLM still has not used this option.
In 2004, Congress provided BLM with an alternative to destroying  unadoptable excess animals by amending the act to state that “ny  excess animal or the remains of an excess animal shall be sold if—(A) the  excess animal is more than 10 years of age; or (B) the excess animal has  been offered unsuccessfully for adoption at least 3 times.” Furthermore,  the amendment stipulated that the excess animals “shall be made available  for sale without limitation.” BLM has instead imposed limitations on the  sales of excess animals in an effort to reduce the risk that animals  purchased at a low price would be resold to slaughterhouses for profit.
As a result, BLM is not in compliance with the act. BLM officials told us  that they have chosen not to destroy excess animals or sell them without  limitation because of concerns about public and congressional reaction to  the large-scale slaughter of thousands of healthy horses. Various BLM  officials at different levels of responsibility also told us that the agency has  not complied with these provisions because doing so would cause an  immediate threat to the careers of any officials involved, due to the  anticipated negative reaction of the public and Congress. Nevertheless, as  of June 2008, budget constraints forced BLM to reconsider all of its  options, officials told us. Specifically, for fiscal year 2009, BLM is  considering euthanizing about 2,300 horses from short-term holding— about one-third of the animals currently in short-term holding. In addition,  they are considering selling without limitation about 8,000 animals from  both short- and long-term holding. However, as of August 31, 2008,  legislation was pending in the 110th Congress that would repeal the  directive for BLM to sell animals without limitation, but not the  requirement to destroy unadoptable excess horses.
Other than one pilot project, BLM has not initiated strategies to reduce the  number of horses they currently manage in long-term holding and has not  formally considered other possible solutions to indefinitely caring for  horses in long-term holding. BLM officials who lead state Wild Horse and  Burro Programs suggested several actions that could be taken to alleviate  off-the-range costs to the program, but many of these changes would  require changes in the law or BLM regulations. The most common  suggestion, made by 4 of the 10 state leads, was that the federal  government should provide incentives for private individuals or  organizations to care for unwanted wild horses, such as monetary  incentives or tax deductions. In 2003, BLM initiated a pilot project in  Wyoming to pay private ranchers a one-time lump sum to care for  unadoptable excess animals. This pilot project ended because of a lack of  up-front funds. In addition, a BLM official familiar with the project told us  that private ranchers had less interest in the project as the market for  cattle grazing improved. Implementing tax deductions would likely require  changes in the tax law. Another suggestion made by three of the state  leads was that the act should be changed to allow the government to  manage unadoptable wild horses and burros on public or private lands  outside areas where they were originally found. The act currently does not  allow BLM to relocate wild horses and burros to areas of public lands  where they were not found when the act was passed. To date, BLM has not  sought the legislative changes that would make these suggestions possible.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: The management of a program consisting of wild free-roaming animals is  unique within BLM, and it presents distinct management challenges. While  BLM has made significant progress in increasing the number of HMAs that  have set AML and in moving toward meeting AML, its recent removal  efforts have resulted in the agency managing almost the same number of  animals off of the range as they manage in the wild. By spending an ever  increasing amount of funding on caring for animals off the range, little  funding is left to conduct important on-the-range management activities,  as originally envisioned in the act. Now that BLM is closer to meeting  AML, it is important for field offices to have the resources necessary to  maintain those levels and to monitor whether those levels indeed create  the “thriving natural ecological balance” called for in the act.
Future changes to AML determinations should be based on consistent  factors across HMAs. With the turnover of the more experienced senior  BLM staff that set the existing AMLs to newer more junior staff, it is  important that the newer staff have clear official guidance to follow on  making AML determinations. It is also important for the management of  the program that BLM have the most accurate population estimates  possible. While counting wild free-roaming animals is an inherently  challenging task, the widespread use of statistically based counting  methods across more HMAs, as appropriate, would provide a scientifically  sound basis for compensating for possible undercounts. BLM provides a  great deal of information about the Wild Horse and Burro Program  through its Web site, including information on AML and population  estimates for each HMA. However, despite public concerns about the  humane treatment of these animals, BLM has not provided the public with  easily accessible information about their treatment. In some cases, BLM  headquarters does not centrally compile information on the treatment of  animals during gathers. Providing the public with additional information  on the treatment of animals during gathers and once they are removed  from the range would help inform the public about their treatment.
In our 1990 report, we noted that given the amount of federal resources  needed to maintain unadoptable excess horses in long-term holding, BLM  would need to seek alternative options. At the time, we recommended that  BLM consider a variety of disposal options for these horses that were not  being used, including sterilization and euthanasia. Today, about 20 years  after the first long-term holding facility opened, with adoption demand  declining and alternative disposal options still not being used, BLM is  continuing to open new long-term holding facilities to care for  unadoptable wild horses, and the costs continue to escalate. Cost-effective  alternatives for long-term holding are still needed.
BLM is faced with a dilemma as it attempts to comply with the act. On one  hand, the act directs BLM to protect and preserve wild horses and burros,  and on the other hand the act directs BLM to destroy excess animals for  which an adoption demand does not exist or, under certain circumstances,  to sell them without limitation, which has led to the slaughter of some  animals. BLM has committed to caring for these animals, even though the  law requires their humane destruction or sale without limitation and the  cost for their care off-the-range is now overwhelming the program. The  program is at a critical crossroads. Within the program’s existing budget,  BLM cannot afford to care for all of the animals off the range, while at the  same time managing wild horse and burro populations on the range.  Resource limitations are forcing BLM to reconsider all available  management options, and a workable solution must be developed to bring  BLM into compliance with the act.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: We make five recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior.
To improve the management of BLM’s Wild Horse and Burro Program, we  make four recommendations that the Secretary of the Interior direct BLM  to:  finalize and issue the new Wild Horse and Burro Program Handbook  that establishes a policy for setting AML to ensure that AML is  determined based on consistent factors across HMAs into the future;    continue to adopt and employ statistically based methods to estimate  animal populations across HMAs, such as those being evaluated by  animal population researchers, to improve the accuracy of population  estimates integral to BLM’s management of wild horses and burros on  the range and in planning for capacity needed for excess animals once  they are removed from the range; track the number of animals harmed or killed during the gather process  in a centralized database system and determine what information on  the treatment of gathered animals, short-term and long-term holding  animals, and adopted animals could easily be provided to the public to  help inform them about the treatment of wild horses and burros; and   develop cost-effective alternatives to the process of caring for wild  horses removed from the range in long-term holding facilities and seek  the legislative changes that may be necessary to implement those  alternatives.
To address BLM’s noncompliance with the act, as amended, we  recommend that the Secretary of the Interior direct BLM to discuss with  Congress and other stakeholders how best to comply with the act or  amend it so that BLM would be able to comply. As part of this discussion,  BLM should inform Congress of its concerns with (1) the act’s requirement  for the humane destruction of excess animals and (2) the possible  slaughter of healthy horses if excess animals are sold without limitation,  under certain circumstances, as the act requires.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to the Department of the Interior for  review and comment. The department concurred with our findings and  recommendations and believes they will help to improve the Wild Horse  and Burro Program. In addition, the department provided several technical  clarifications, which we incorporated as appropriate.  Appendix IV  contains the Department of the Interior’s comment letter.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the  report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the Secretary  of the Interior, the Director of BLM, and other interested parties. We will  also make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report  will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff has any questions about this report, please contact me  at (202) 512-3841 or nazzaror@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page  of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are  listed in appendix V.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: We examined (1) the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) progress in  managing wild horses and burros on the range through setting and meeting  appropriate management levels (AML); (2) BLM’s management of wild  horses and burros off of the range through adoption, sales, and holding  facilities; (3) the controls BLM has in place to help ensure humane  treatment of wild horses and burros; and (4) what challenges, if any, BLM  faces in managing for the long-term sustainability of the Wild Horse and  Burro Program. We were also asked to review how and why the acreage  available for wild horses and burros had changed since the 1971 act. We  did not examine the acreage issue because BLM is in the process of  compiling a history of acreage determinations. BLM officials expect their  review to be completed by March 2009.
To examine how BLM manages wild horses and burros on and off of the  range and to identify the challenges facing BLM, we reviewed relevant  laws, regulations, BLM policy, and BLM strategic plans. We also surveyed,  and analyzed documents from, 26 of the 44 BLM field offices that manage  wild horses and burros. We collected and reviewed relevant resource  management decision documents from the surveyed field offices to help  corroborate their responses about specific questions, including those  about factors used to make AML determinations and gather decisions. We  surveyed field offices in all 10 western states that manage HMAs. The field  offices we surveyed represent 82 percent of all BLM acres managed for  wild horses and burros, 74 percent of all BLM managed wild horses, and  69 percent of burros on the range at the time of the survey. Our survey  sample included 100 percent of the BLM field offices that manage HMAs in  Nevada, including the Tonopah Field Station (seven offices); three  randomly selected field offices from each of the five states whose field  offices or district offices manage a population of wild horses and burros  that fall between 1,000 and 10,000 horses (Arizona, California, Oregon,  Utah, and Wyoming); and one randomly selected field office from each of  the four states whose field offices manage a population of wild horses and  burros that is less than 1,000 (Colorado, Idaho, Montana, and New  Mexico). Because most of our survey questions focused on the  management of a particular HMA, we judgmentally selected an HMA for  each field office to consider in responding to our survey. We considered a  variety of factors in making these HMA selections, including herd  population size and whether the HMA had met or not met AML (according  to 2007 BLM Statistics). Table 15 lists the 26 BLM field offices and HMAs  we selected as part of our survey.
The survey included several open-ended responses aimed at determining  the primary challenges associated with meeting and maintaining AML, the  primary challenges facing the Wild Horse and Burro Program as a whole,  and suggestions for ways to improve the program. Two GAO analysts  independently reviewed these open-ended survey responses, agreed upon  the categories for coding each response, and resolved any disagreements  in coding to determine what the respondents as a whole thought about  these issues.
The practical difficulties of conducting any survey may introduce errors,  commonly referred to as nonsampling errors. For example, difficulties in  how a particular question is interpreted, in the sources of information that  are available to the respondents, or in how the data are entered into a  database or were analyzed can introduce unwanted variability into the  survey results. We took steps in the development of the questionnaire, the  data collection, and the data analysis to minimize these nonsampling  errors. For example, survey specialists designed the questionnaire in  collaboration with GAO staff with subject matter expertise. Then, the draft  questionnaire was pretested with officials from five BLM field offices in  four different states to ensure that the questions were relevant, clearly  stated, and easy to comprehend. We also conducted follow-up phone calls  to clarify ambiguous or incomplete responses. We received usable  responses from all field offices that we surveyed—a 100 percent response  rate. See appendix III for a summary of the survey responses not  presented elsewhere in the report.
We also interviewed agency officials at BLM Headquarters; the National  Program Office in Reno, Nevada; and Wild Horse and Burro Program State  Leads from each of the 10 states that manage wild horses and burros. In  addition, we conducted site visits at two field offices that manage HMAs in  Nevada and Colorado; one long-term holding facility in Oklahoma; three  short-term holding facilities in Colorado, Nevada, and Wyoming; and  attended two adoption events in Arizona and Colorado.
To examine humane treatment, we reviewed relevant laws, regulations,  and BLM policies. We collected and analyzed reports from BLM  Headquarters, state offices, and data from BLM’s compliance database. We  also interviewed BLM compliance officials from two states, a veterinarian  from the Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection  Service, and public citizens and advocacy groups that work to promote the  well being of wild horses and burros.
As part of our overall methodology, we interviewed a range of  stakeholders interested in BLM’s management of the Wild Horse and Burro  Program, including, but not limited to, the American Wild Horse  Preservation Campaign, the Animal Welfare Institute, the Cloud  Foundation, the Humane Society of the United States, the National  Cattlemen’s Beef Association, and Nevada Bighorns Unlimited.
We conducted this performance audit from September 2007 to October  2008 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to  obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for  our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe  that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings  and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix II: Fertility Control and Genetic Variability
paragraphs: In addition to the information provided in this report to answer our  primary objectives, we encountered two other issues related to BLM’s  management of the Wild Horse and Burro Program. The issues primarily  relate to BLM’s on-the-range management activities, including fertility  control and genetic variability.
subsections: section_title: Fertility Control
paragraphs: BLM has been pursuing a fertility control vaccine called porcine zonae  pellucida since 1992 to use as a tool for slowing the reproductive rate in  wild horse populations. A slower reproductive rate would reduce the  number of animals that would have to be gathered and removed, adopted,  and held. BLM officials do not consider this treatment as the best short- term management tool to achieve AML but believe that once HMAs are at  AML, fertility treatment can help to maintain that level. Much research has  been conducted about the use of the vaccine in domestic and wild horses.  The Department of the Interior’s National Park Service has used this  treatment to successfully manage wild horse populations at two national  seashores. BLM field offices have been directed to consider the use of  fertility control as an alternative in their gather plans, but they are not  required to choose this research tool. The vaccine is considered  experimental, and as such, there are barriers to its use. Since 2004,  47 HMAs have used fertility treatments, and a total of about 1,800 wild  horses have been injected with the treatment. BLM considers the use of  this treatment as a research tool; however, according to a prominent wild  horse fertility researcher, BLM should more actively pursue its use as a  management tool. According to BLM officials, fertility control may offer  the possibility of reducing reproduction rates and costs, but BLM will still  need to place horses in long-term holding in the future.
section_title: Genetic Variability
paragraphs: Herd health is another important component of BLM’s on-the-range  management of wild horses and burros. Specifically, it is important to  maintain a degree of genetic variability to decrease the likelihood of  disease and to maintain the biological fitness of the population. The  amount of genetic variability that is sufficient to maintain a healthy  population, however, is difficult to discern. Some groups have criticized  BLM for setting AMLs at levels that are less than 100 or 150 animals. As of  February 2008, 135 of the 199 HMAs had an upper limit of 150 or less for  AML (see table 16). Several of these smaller HMAs, however, are part of a  complex of HMAs that are managed as one unit where there is regular  genetic interchange. For example, 13 complexes in Nevada encompass  45 of their 102 HMAs. According to a leading researcher in the field of wild  horse genetics, however, a herd that has a population of less than 100 can  be maintained with the introduction of at least one or two horses every  6 to 7 years, including those whose herd size are as small as 10 to  15 horses.
BLM manages a few herds that show strong evidence of old Spanish  heritage which no longer exists outside of the Americas. For example, the  Kiger Mustangs of Oregon and the Pryor Mustangs of Montana have some  colonial Spanish traits. For most of the HMAs, however, genetic variability  is important primarily in maintaining the health of the herd, rather than  managing for a specific genetic trait or bloodlines.
section_title: Appendix III: Wild Horse and Burro Survey Results
paragraphs: The following tables summarize responses collected through our survey  instrument that was sent to 26 BLM field offices that manage HMAs. See  appendix I for a complete explanation of which offices were chosen and  the methodology used to select those field offices and specific HMAs. Our  survey was divided into two sections. The first asked questions specific to  the field offices’ management of particular HMAs. The second section  asked questions related to the field offices’ general management of all  HMAs.
section_title: Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of the Interior
section_title: Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the individual named above, Jeffery D. Malcolm, Assistant  Director; Ulana Bihun; Kevin Bray; Lee Carroll; Benjamin Shouse; Gregory  Wilmoth; and Elizabeth Wood made key contributions to this report. Also  contributing to the report were Beverly Ross and Monica Wolford.