PROCEEDINGS IATIONAL ADVISORY BOARD FOR WILD FREE-ROAMING HORSES AND BURROS June 3 and 4, 1976 John Day, Oregon Jolted States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Jnited States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Bureau of Land Management ! 50, Denver Federal Center Denver, CO 80225 4 Bureau ©T tan3 WlanagSK®^ Library p wW Se™lQe Cftnt#t p J “S®1! *roate*3 ■SF National Advisory Board for set Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros John Day, Oregon ,NS7 Forest Supervisor's Office Malhuer National Forest June 3-4, 1976 June 3 8 a.m. 5 a.m. June 4 Tour of Murderers Creek Wild Horse Herd Territory to Review Management and Control Program. Return to John Day j I H 8:30 a.m. Organization of Advisory Board — Selection of Chairman and Vice Chairman - Federal Representative Managing Wild Horses in Oregon - A1 Meyer, Forest Service Don Gipe, BLM 9:45 a.m. Break Problems Encountered in Assigning Excess Animals for Private Maintenance - Chris Vosler, BLM Status of the 1971 Wild Horse and Burro Act and Legislative Proposals - Kay Wilkes, BLM 11:30 a.m. Lunch 1 p.m. 2 p.m. 5 p.m. Report to Congress - Don Seaman, Forest Service Bob Springer, BLM Agency Reports - Bill Evans, Forest Service Kay Wilkes, BLM Status of Research Proposal — Jack Thomas, Forest Service Milt Frei, BLM Wild Horse Public Information Program - Dan Alfieri, BLM Public Comment Advisory Board Discussion and Recommendations Ad j ournment ^ i i i * IT Associate Director ,ireau of DBA Library Denver Service C— ITEM HAS BEEN DIGITIZED m ^ j* 035,1 101 3Q ■ • ‘ Board Members Present - June 4, 1976 Dr. Floyd Frank Mr. Arnold Ewing Mrs. Pearl Twyne Mr . Roy Young Dr. Patricia Moehlman Mr . William Reavley Dr. Michael Pontrelli Moscow, Idaho Eugene , Oregon Great Falls, Virginia Elko , Nevada Madison, Wisconsin Sacramento, California Reno , Nevada Agency Personnel Present - June 4, 1976 William L. Evans, Washington, D.C. , Director, Range Management, Forest Service Kay Wilkes, Washington, D.C., Chief, Division of Range, Bureau of Land Management Don Seaman, Washington, D.C., Assistant Director, Range Management, Forest Service Bob Springer, Washington, D.C., Division of Range, Bureau of Land Management Dan A1 fieri , Washington, D.C., Chief, Office of Public Affairs, Bureau of Land Management Nancy Manzi, Washington, D.C., Division of Range, Bureau of Land Management Milton Frei , Denver, Colorado, Biologist, Bureau of Land Management Dan Williams, John Day, Oregon, Forest Supervisor, Malheur National Forest A1 MeYer > John Day, Oregon, District Ranger, Malheur National Forest Bob Storch, John Day, Oregon, Malheur National Forest Don Gipe, Portland, Oregon, Bureau of Land Management i Larry Lee, Portland, Oregon, Bureau of Land Management Chris Vosler, Burns, Oregon, District Manager, Bureau of Land Management Les Fluckiger, Ogden, Utah, U.S. Forest Service Jack Royle, Prineville, Oregon, Ochoco National Forest Win Green, Blanco, New Mexico, U.S. Forest Service Clarence Almen, Portland, Oregon, U.S. Forest Service Jim Blaisdell, Ogden, Utah, U.S. Forest Service Jack Thomas, LeGrande, Oregon, U.S. Forest Service Bob Alverto, Burns, Oregon, Bureau of Land Management Jim Blaisdell, Klamath Falls, Oregon, National Park Service Milford Fletcher, Santa Fe, New Mexico, National Park Service Tilly Barling, China Lake, California, Naval Weapons Center Samuel R. Dunlap, Baker, Oregon, Wallowa -Whitman National Forest Debbie Steele, John Day, Oregon, Malheur National Forest State Agency Personnel Present - June 4, 1976 Ralph Denney, John Day, Oregon, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Bob Stine, Portland, Oregon, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Bill Brown, LaGrande, Oregon, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Dean Clark, Salem, Oregon, Oregon Department of Agriculture Members of the Public Present - June 4, 1976 Bill Prophet, John Day, Oregon KGW-TV Jim Farrell, John Day, Oregon UPI Velma B. Johnston, Reno, Nevada WHOA I ii I t Chuck John, Eugene, Oregon Paul Doe, Eugene, Oregon Mrs. Paul Doe, Eugene, Oregon Patricia Jenkins, Diamond, Oregon Richard Jenkins, Diamond, Oregon Belton P. Mouras, Jr., Sacramento, California, Animal Protection Institute Betty Morehouse, Christmas Valley, Oregon, chamber of Commerce and Environmental Protection Information Committee Dick Lawton, Mt. Vernon, Oregon, The Oregonian C. E. McKever, Mt. Vernon, Oregon, A. P. Freelance George Hanson, Mt. Vernon, Oregon, County Court iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Introduction . 1 Proceedings . 2 Certification of Proceedings . 8 Appendices Managing Wild Horses on the Ochoco National Forest, Jack Royle . Appendix No. 1 Wild Horse Management Areas, Oregon . Appendix No. 2 "Adopt-A-Horse" Program . Appendix No. 3 Statement of Belton P. Mouras, Animal Protection Institute . Appendix No. 4 Statement of Betty Morehouse, Oregon . Appendix No. 5 Statement of Milford Fletcher, Ph.D. , National Park Service . Appendix No. 6 Statement of Velma B. Johnston, WHOAJ . Appendix No. 7 Statement of Dean Clark, Oregon Department of Agriculture . Appendix No. 8 Letter from Pamela J. Dalton . Appendix No. 9 Responsive letter from Chairman Floyd Frank to Pamela J. Dalton . Appendix No. 10 Letter from Hewitt C. Wells . Appendix No. 11 Statement by Board Member Pearl Twyne . Appendix No. 12 Call to Meet . Appendix No. 13 Notice of Meeting . Appendix No. 14 Delegation for the Federal Representative .. Appendix No. 15 IV Proceedings of the National Advisory Board for Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Malheur National Forest John Day , Oregon June 3-4, 1976 Introduction : Ho™nth/rtin9 °f thS National Advisory Board for Wild Free-Roaming Forest and f^r°S.WaS held at John Da^ Oregon, on the Malheur National orest and adjoining national resource lands administered by the Bureau Secr^td anagaf'ent* The meting was requested by Thomas S. Kleppe, a^y ° 1:116 Interior, for himself and Secretary Earl L. Butz ° e ePartment of Agriculture, by memorandum dated April 12, 1976. The primary purp036 of this meeting was to review management, pro- ection, and control of wild horses in eastern Oregon. On June 3, a t0^r WaS conducted on the Murderers Creek Wild Horse Territory All Board Members present at the meeting were present on the field The^our^wh-T^ °f 018 °therS are liSt6d °n the attendance list, he tour, which was open to the public, was conducted over lands where a numbers control program had been carried out in early spring, 1976 Seek rre.reVlSUed' th* —9— „t Plan for the Mu^ereS SSS HfrSe Terrltory was explained and facilities used in trapping excess animals were observed. " y Official Proceedings were conducted in the Office of the Forest A^ndiS°r' ^lheUr National Forest, John Day, Oregon, on June 4, 1976. Attendance of seven of the nine Board Members and others as listed on the roster were included in these proceedings. Reports were made by Agency personnel on managing wild horses in eastern Oregon, and Agency reports, including the forthcoming report to ongress. In addition, eight statements were made to the Board y members of Federal or State agencies and the public. These presentations are summarized in the Proceedings with copies of entire presentations as appendices where available. The entire meeting was conducted within the approved agenda. Recommendations made by the Board are itemized in the Proceedings. 1 Proceedings of the National Advisory Board for Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros John Day, Oregon June 4, 1976 The meeting of the National Advisory Board for Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros was called to order at 8:40 a.m. on June 4, 1976, at the Forest Supervisor's office, Malheur National Forest, John Day, Oregon, by William L. Evans, the Federal Representative. As Federal Representative, Mr. Evans asked for nominations for a Board Chairman. Roy Young was nominated and elected. Mr. Evans directed Mr. Young to take over as presiding Officer of the Board. First order of business was to elect a Vice Chairman. Bill Reavley was nominated and elected by unanimous vote. Chairman Roy Young directed the meeting to proceed with the agenda items. Al Meyer, District Ranger, Bear Valley Ranger District (the area encompassing the Murderers Creek Wild Horse Territory) , gave a report with slides on the coordinated Resource Plan for the Murderers Creek area. He advised the group of the Management Plan for the Murderers Creek Wild Horse Territory, and, in addition, briefed the group on the recently completed excess animal removal program. The plan calls for a resident herd of about 100 animals. Numbers were in the vicinity of 170. A control program removed over 100 excess animals from the range. Thirty of these were rounded up and given over to private parties as claimed animals. Seventy (plus) animals were assigned under private maintenance agreements. The level estimated on the range now is 70 head. Numbers will be permitted to increase naturally over the next several years. When the population reaches approximately 135 horses, which is estimated to be four or five years, another removal program will be conducted. Jack Royle, Range Staff Officer, Ochoco National Forest, reviewed management of wild horses on the Big Summit Wild Horse Area on that forest. One-hundred horses are there at present. A manage¬ ment plan for Big Summit was approved in July 1975. The plan calls for a herd of 55-65 animals. Plans are being developed to remove any excess animals. The Forest will plan removals somewhat below the 65 head level and then let numbers increase above the number for several years before other removal programs are carried out. Retaining the herd at this level will make possible meeting other multiple use objectives on the Ochoco National Forest. Mr. Royle' s remarks appear as Appendix No. 1. 2 P°fla"f' °re«on state Bureau of Land Management, summarized the situation regarding wild horses grazing national resource lands in Oregon. Mr. Gipe stated that in 1971 there were an estimated 2,784 horses grazing these lands and on January 1^976 numbers had increased to 6,159. A statistical summary included ' the i eport appears as Appendix No. 2 in this report. There are currently eight approved management plans in Oregon. Other plans are in progress on other wild horse areas. Excess animal removals are being conducted currently but not at a fast ZT™n^St*bliSh lBVeU ** capacity of the VHSle^ ^Strict Mana herd management area into an area not occupied in 1971. 0Q 70-121 • F.S. gathered 115 Spring 76 * 34 claimed animals. M 25 burros also 30-50 20-30 80-120 To be gathered summer 76 80 horses removed in 1974 To be gathered summer 76 200-385 Removed 59 Spring 76 - Management plan approved * MFP decision to eliminate this herd mgmt. area * MFP decision to eliminate this herd mgmt. area 80-140 * MFP decision to eliminate this herd mgmt. area Removal plan approved by W.O. (No permanent water). 75-133 90-156 Management plan approved - gathering not funded 255 removed Fall 75 95 horses outside herd management area 1,334 horses outside herd mgmt. areas statewide including claimed horses Appendix 2, pg. Q. What if I receive a mare that's carrying a foal? A. Any offspring would belong to you. The government has no claim on any of the foals. Q. Are there specific rules or regulations for moving the horse from the pick-up corral to its new home? A. Yes. The attached application gives the guidelines and procedure for hauling the horse. Q. Does the government check up on the horses after they reach their new homes? A. Y es. We, or someone acting on our behalf, will check the horses periodically to make sure they are being treated well and that their "foster parents" are living up to the conditions of the contract. Q. Where would I pick up the horse? A. At the roundup site. All costs involved ir transportation would be your responsi¬ bility. We will try to make a horse avail¬ able for you at the site nearest your home, but this is not always possible. It may be necessary to travel a considerable distance to pick up the horse. Q. Where will most of the roundups occur? A. Almost all the roundups will occur in Idaho, Oregon, Utah, Colorado, Califor¬ nia, Nevada and Wyoming. Q. Must I be a certain age to adopt a wild horse? A. No. But, if you are not of legal age in your State, you must have a parent or guardian also sign the application. Q. What should I do if the horse should die? Is it necessary to have a veterinarian verify the cause of death? A. If the animal dies, it is not necessary to have a veterinarian verify the cause of death. You cannot sell the carcass to any facility that would process it into dog food or other such products. The carcass should be disposed of according to the sanita¬ tion requirements of your State. Burying or burning the carcass is the usual method. Q. Must I be a U.S. resident to apply for a horse? A. Yes. We cannot assign horses to anyone living outside the 50 States and U.S. terri¬ tories. Appendix 3, pg. Appendix So You’d Like To Adopt A Wild Horse? T here are now more than 50,000 wild horses and burros roaming the rangelands and deserts of the West. In fact, wild horse herds have in¬ creased to the point where, in some areas, they now pose a threat to themselves and to their en¬ vironment. When this happens the range is overgrazed and the animals deprived of ade¬ quate forage. As a result, thousands of wild horses will need to be removed each year from the range for their own good. Hopefully, new homes Can be found for as many of them as possible. Until recent years, there were few restric¬ tions on catching and selling wild horses but this has changed. The Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act of 1971 Calls for management, protection, and control of all unbranded and unclaimed horses or burros on public lands ad¬ ministered by the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. Although there is de¬ finitely a place for herds of wild horses in many parts of the West as a reminder of our frontier heritage, the question of how to control over¬ populations is difficult and serious. Wild horses are not native to America and they have few natural enemies. As their num¬ bers grow, they compete for food with live¬ stock and wildlife. Soon the land is unable to provide enough forage. Eventually, the land suffers, too. The only possible solution is management by man. The law does allow control of wild horse and burro numbers. The most extreme method for doing this would be shooting the animals on the open range. Such an act wou Id be offensive and distasteful. There just has to be a better way and Bureau of Land Management officials have a partial solution at least. Almost everyone, at some time during their lives, has wanted a horse to ride and care for. With the hope that many people haven’t com¬ pletely forgotten such wishes, the Bureau has a program under which wild horses and burros can be “adopted” for care in "foster” homes by qualified people. Through well planned and humanely con¬ ducted roundups, the Bureau expects to cap¬ ture a large number of wild horses from over- populated ranges and make them available to individuals. Although these animals appear similar to domestic horses, there is one major difference — they are wild. A training period is required to tame them. Bjul it is important to remember that wild horses have not had a life of proper care and attention that an owner would have given them. They may be undernourished and their appearance may be different from that of most domestic horses. However, with proper care, food and attention, these animals can become gentle, affectionate companions. QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT ADOPTING A WILD HORSE The following questions and answers may help you decide whether or not you would like to take care of a horse or possibly a burro while, at the same time, doing your part to protect the environment: Q. How do I go about getting a wild horse? A. By submitting the attached application which will tell us what type of horse you want and the kind of facilities you have for its care. Q. What does it cost to get a wild horse? A. There is no charge. But you must bear the cost of picking up the horse at the cap¬ ture site and the cost of feeding and caring for it. It costs about $600 per year to feed the average horse. Q. Are there any restrictions on use of the horse once it's in my care? A. The law states that the animals cannot be used for any commercial purpose which means renting them out as work animals or using them for other money making projects; otherwise, you can train the horse for riding, show it in horse shows, have it for a pet, or use it for other per¬ sonal reasons. Q. Will the horse or burro be in good health? WiH it be checked by a veterinarian before I pick it up? A. All the animals will be inspected at the pick-up site and cleared fortransport. The horse may be somewhat undernourished but proper feeding will soon correct this. Some, but not all. States require a veteri¬ narian’s inspection. Q. Who is responsible for any medical costs for the horse? A. As soon as the horse is transported away from the pick-up corral, all costs and re¬ sponsibilities, including medical, are assumed by the new custodian. Q. Will the horse be mine after I pick h up? A. No. The Wild Horse law requires that the Federal Government remain legal custo¬ dian. However, you will have custody for as long as you adhere to the terms of the maintenance contract. The horse cannot be sold. It may, however, be reassigned to another party with the written approval of the Bureau of Land Management. ANIMAL PROTECTION INSTITUTE OF AMERICA Appendix 4 5894 South Land Park Drive P.O. Box 22505 Sacramento, California 95822 916/422-1921 MEMBER WORLD FEDERATION FOR THE PROTECTION OF ANIMALS ZURICH, SWITZERLAND STATEMENT BY BELTON P. MOURAS , JR. FOR THE ANIMAL PROTECTION INSTITUTE BEFORE THE NATIONAL ADVISORY BOARD, JUNE 4, 1976, JOHN DAY, OREGON. The Animal Protection Institute is here again today, Mr. Chairman, to show its continued interest and concern for the humane treatment of the wild horses and burros. We have watched the operations of the adoption program with much admiration and we offer our continued support and approval of it. To assure that the horses are receiving proper treatment after they leave the government's hands, we have recently offered our full help and support to the government for follow-up inspection of the wild horses. The Animal Protection Institute has placed two staff members on call to assist in this mission, as well as a team of national investigators and California State Humane Officers. Let us go on record as being willing to assist the government in any way we can in its efforts to assure that the wild horses or burros receive the kind of care and humane treatment they should. Thank you. >f the Board and President MOURAS o California nan E GUERRERO California freesur** EMMON o, California Honorary Vice-Presidents MRS FRANK V BRACH Illinois HARRY DEARINGER Wyoming MRS ALFRED JACKSON California KIM NOVAK California National Advisory Board: ALBERT V ARANITA Biology-Ecology SUE BOHN Minnesota Regional Activities MERRILL A BURT. D V M Veterinary Mediclno COL B B BECK Midwest Regional Activities ANN CAPERTON Promotions & Auxiliaries DR GINA CERMINARA Speakers Bureau JOHN COULTER Graphics BRUCE MAX FELDMANN, D.V.M Veterinary Medicine & Pet Population MARJORIE GUERRERO Humane Education KATHY HARRISON Norihwe9t Regional Activities VELMA B JOHNSTON Wild Horse Annie" Mustangs & Burros ED KING Investigations & Law Enlorcemeni MARJORIE KING Publicity & Promotions MRS EARL E REED Idaho Regional Activities MARGARET L SCOTT Zoos » Wildlife Conservation STANLEY A SHAMES, D D S Delaware Regional Activities ROGER W SPENCER Financial Advisor MRS. RALPH YOUNGDALE Publicity & Promotions ALL CONTRIBUTIONS ARE DEDUCTIBLE FOR INCOME AND ESTATE TAX PURPOSES Foreign Advisors THF l ADY DOW DING Kent, England angus o McLaren Transvaal. South Africa MRS ANNA MUMf ORD Vancouver Canada ONIE OLIVL H. USA. Retired Pullach. Germany MICHAELA DENIS Nairobi. Kenya ■ Appendix 5, pg. 1 Box 123 Christmas Valley, Ore. 97638 May 20, 1976 The Director (330) Bureau Of Land Management Washington, D.C. 20240 I wish to make the following oral statement before the National Advisory Board for Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros June 4, 1976 at John Day, Oregon. My name is Betty Morehouse. I live at Christmas Valley, Oregon and I am a member of the American Horse Protection Association. I also serve as President of the Christmas Valley Chamber of Commerce and Chairman of EPIC ( Environmental Protection Information Committee.) and this statement has been prepared by me for these two organizat¬ ions • Wild horses are of great interest and concern to those of us who live at Christmas Valley. Approximately 100 head of horses in small bands of 10 to 15 head, range in the area of St Patrick Mountain. We have promoted and capitalized on public interest in the Wild Horse fo± the past 14 years; since the beginning of the small community of Christmas Valley. The horses have been here since the white man first settled the area. They roamed the country in large herds and as late as 1952 over 800 head were run from St. Patrick and trapped by a local rancher. The horse was here many thousands of years ago. In Christmas Lake Valley, only a few miles from the slopes of St. Patrick is the famed Fossil Lake, where the first black, sand-polished horse fossils were found 100 years ago. Fossils of several types of Pleistocene horses were Represented, not the three toed horse of millions of years ago, but horses identical to our breeds of horses and ponies of today. So abundant were these bones in the area, the basin became known as the Oregon "equus beds.* As one holds and looks at one of these horse, bones at Fossil Lake, then gazes at St. Patrick and envisions the wild horses running free there now, one wonders if the paleontologists will some day discover that all horses did not make their exodus from this land; that perhaps some survived and stayed after this bone was deposited only 12,000 years ago. The wild horse is truly native here. Christmas Valley depends on tourism for its very survival. Our situation is unique. We have good BLM access roads to within sight¬ ing distance of wild horses, only 15 miles from overnight facilities, and an airstrip and fuel make possible an exciting aerial panorama of open wild country and wildlife; including the wild horse. I know of no other place In Oregon where such easy accessibility to the wild horse is possible. Appendix 5, pg. 2 The Highway Dept, of the state of Oregon published an article last year about Christmas Valley in the Insiders' Guide To Oregon, Vol. 2 ,n which they told about the wild horses roaming near Christmas Valley In response to this article many people came to see the horses last year and we expect even more this summer. In 1 964 we featured a wild horse at our rodeo and received state wide publicity. Various articles and publications have told of our wild horses prior to the laws passed to protect them and since that time. We consider the wild horses at St. Patrick a valuble asset to our community, contributing not only to our esthetic and historical values, but to our economical survival as well. A recent illegal capture of six of these horses, brought to our attention the shocking fact that the BLM plans to remove or destroy every one of these horses from the St. Patrick area. The BLM has arbitrarily declared these horses were never there until after 1971 and have provided erroneous population counts to back up their ridiculous assertion and to promote their planned extermination of our wild horses. We of Christmas Valley ask the help of the National Advisory Board for Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros, in helping us to prevent the BLM from stripping our public land of a major asset to our community, in complete disregard of their own Multiple Use Concept. Thank you. Betty^orehouse Appendix 6, pg. 1 Remarks of Milford Fletcher Biologist, National Park Service, Santa Fe, New Mexico at John Day Meeting - June 4, 1976 The following comments reflect the thinking and planning of the South¬ west Region of the National Park Service. Bandelier National Monument, located in North-Central New Mexico, is an archeological area of approximately 30,000 acres. More than 20,000 acres of the monument will be incorporated in the National Wilderness System in the near future. Approximately 160 feral burros inhabit the southern half of the monument. The members of the Board may remember that in February 1975 the National Park Service began the final phase of research on the feral burro population at Bandelier. That research is now completed and the data are being compiled and tabulated. After review, the data will be presented to the public in the form of news releases. Next week the National Park Service will meet with nearly a dozen New Mexico State and Federal agencies in a session to consult with these agencies and iron out difficulties in philosophy and legal constraints. Sometime within the next two months, the Southwest Region of the National Park Service will hold a public meeting in Santa Fe, New Mexico to solicit public input and comments on an Environmental Assessment for Appendix 6, pg. 2 Feral Burro Management at Bandelier National Monument. By fall, 1976, the National Park Service will have fulfilled the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act and should be in a position to definitely state their policy for the feral burro j population at Bandelier. Comments and questions may be directed to the Regional Director, Southwest Regional Office, Box 728, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501. Milford Fletcher, PhD. Biologist Southwest Regional Office National Park Service Box 728, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501 Appendix 7, pg. 1 STATEMENT OF VELMA B. JOHNSTON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF WILD HORSE ORGANIZED ASSISTANCE, INC. (WHOA!) John Day, Oregon Jqne 4, 1976 To the Chairman and Members of the National Advisory Board on Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros: Thank you for this opportunity to appear before you today, for the first time in seven years, incidentally, here in the guest area instead of among you listening to someone else. The purpose of my statement today is an effort to seek your help in putting into perspective the many and varied opinions on PL 92-195 that are making their appearance in newspapers, magazines and other publications, many of them official. It is my hope that it will stimulate you, in your deliberations, to carefully weigh the inconsistencies in the many answers we receive to our questions. Shortly after the Wild Horse and Burro Act was passed, I was asked if I believed it could be effectively administered, and my reply was that it all depended on attitudes . . attitudes of those actually involved in administering the Act, including those at the field level. Subsequent developments have confirmed that opinion. An early specific example is the occurrence at the BLM District level near Howe, Idaho in February, 1973. Attitudes of those who are in other responsible positions from whom the news media draws its information are of vital significance as well, and when their highly exaggerated, negative and unsubstantiated statements are quoted in news releases, they serve only to add fuel to an already volatile situation, while at the same time disregarding the fact that the Act calls for the protection of wild horses and burros, as well as their management and control. Because we are meeting here in Oregon today, where a large number of the negative news stories, magazine articles and opinions originate, I shall direct my comments to the situation in this State. I do not mean to infer that it is not equally true in other areas. WHOA!, in whose behalf I am here today, has cooperated with the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service extensively in wild horse reduction programs when they are justified, and we have endeavored to have a representative at as many planning sessions as possible. When we cannot, we forward written input. We are active in the placement program as well, having pioneered it in Montana in 1971. Overwhelming as the temptation sometimes is to let emotion over-ride our common sense, results of our involvement is proof that our only concern is for the welfare of wild horses and burros, other wildlife, and preservation of the public land resource without which man himself, along with all other creatures dependent upon it, cannot survive. We have gone on record publicly and through our elected officials in support of the sweeping range management programs currently being undertaken and in so doing have earned for ourselves the enmity of those vested interest users of our national resource lands who are being required, at long last, to curtail their rape of our land. We have come out in strong support of the Senate-passed Organic Act, and in vehement opposition to the House Committee's emasculated version. We plan to continue in our cooperative role. Appendix 7, pg. 2 The article "Status Report on the Wild Horse on the National Resource Lands" appearing in the Spring issue of OUR PUBLIC LANDS, a publication of the United States Department of the Interior, while understandably pointing up the difficult task facing national resource administrators who are in the position of attempting to reverse the accelerating downward trend in the productivity of the public land, is an example of the prevailing negative approach in its presentation of the situation in this State. It has brought to mind a number of questions that could well be asked, and to which there has already been a disturbing inconsistency in the answers. The article opens this way: "Last January, cattlemen in the Burns, Oregon area got some bad news. The news was that they wouldn't be allowed to graze as many cattle on public range lands as usual this Summer, and that the grazing period permitted could be shortened by as much as two months. The reason? Because overgrazing by wild horse herds has reduced forage on both private and public range land to such a low level that there isn't enough food for either horses or cattle." The underlining is mine, to emphasize the point I am making. Well, the article is correct in that there isn't enough food, and this creates critical problems for all users, but we disagree completely that the responsibility for deteriorated ranges lies with the wild horse herds and that the depredation has occurred in the short period of time since enactment of the 1971 Law. Confirmation of our position is readily available in the indictment of BLM by BLM in its Task Force investigation into grazing practices released in 1974 which, while dealing specifically with my own state of Nevada, points to other investigations showing "similar or more serious conditions in other Western states". We cannot condone misrepresentations, unjustifiable reductions or negative attitudes when they appear to make wild horses and burros scapegoats: For a situation that existed long before any law was passed in behalf of these animals; For lack of proper management; Or to cover for the tendency to favor interests oriented toward consumptive uses of the public land which return short term economic benefits to the relatively few, while short-changing the many whose interests are not of an economic nature. I have prepared some figures that follow, using the Department of the Interior's publications PUBLIC LAND STATISTICS and information contained in "The Environmental Statement of the Bureau of Land Management on Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Management Regulations" (draft statement as of December 14, 1972, final statement as of July 3, 1973) and it is reasonable to assume that the figures used in the latter would apply to the previous calendar year, 1972. I do not have wild horse population figures for 1971, but neither does anyone else, nor can we say that any of the computed figures represent the wild horse population, as there are an awful lot of privately owned horses out there in trespass, claims to which were quickly dropped when claimants discovered their previous free- loading operations were at an end, so I shall refer to them as "free -roaming" horses in the balance of this discourse. To determine figures for the years preceding 1972, I have used the alleged percentage of increase in reverse and come up with a figure that will serve its purpose here, and enable me to make my point. Appendix 7, pg. 3 According to a District Manager's statement, prior to passage of the Act the State of Oregon took the position that all horses running on public lands belonged to someone. Why that "someone" was not required to remove the animals in the interests of range preservation, since free-roaming horses are alleged to cause undue stress on the public land resource, is a question that has not been raised. On December 15, 1971, a computed population of 2,440 free-roaming horses were running at large in Oregon. During the years preceding that date, we must assume the population was relatively stable, due quite possibly to the extent of harvests for commercial slaughter, and the absence of any complaints from the livestock operators that their domestic animals were being deprived of forage. Tables for permitted use of grazing district lands indicate that during the years 1968, 1969, 1970 and 1971, domestic livestock AUMs ranged from 899,242 in 1968 to 911,459 in 1971. The stabilized population of "someone's" horses would account for 29,280 AUMs annually, roughly 3.2% of grazing use measured in AUMs. In 1972 free-roaming horse numbers had increased to 2,925, according to the aforementioned Environmental Statement, resulting in an increase in AUMs of use of 5,820, while domestic livestock AUMs were reduced 7,998. Inasmuch as the management program requiring adjustment of AUM allotments to provide for wild horses had not yet got under way, that reduction was not likely to have been to accommodate the free-roaming horse increase. Free-roaming horses accounted for 3.87, of the AUMs. For the calendar year 1973, instead of holding domestic livestock allotments at the 1972 level, permitted use was increased by 27,056 AUMs, thus far the highest level of use since passage of the Act, while free-roaming horse use, based on the alleged annual population increase of 207,, increased 7,020 AUMs. By the end of that year, claims of private ownership had been filed on 1,310 free-roaming trespass horses, themselves with a forage consumption of 15,720 AUMs of the total 42,120 AUMs attributable to horses, or again roughly 4.57, of grazing pressures in AUMs. 1974* permitted domestic livestock use was further increased in the face of what was already an overgrazed condition, resulting from decades of over-use. Yet the Status Report in OUR PUBLIC LANDS unqualifiedly says: "... overgrazing by wild horse herds has reduced forage on both private and public range land to such a low level that there isn't enough food for either horses or cattle." It can be noted here, too, that few of the 1,310 animals claimed in 1973 have been removed. They also eat and multiply. By this time the ratio of free-roaming horse AUMs to domestic livestock AUMs was 5.47,. By 1975 the free-roaming horse population had grown to 7,000 in the State, according to the Status Report. That is an increase of more than 607, over the computed population for the previous year, and it would appear that there is something wrong with somebody's calculations somewhere. Much is made of the excessive costs incurred in gathering excess horses, and it appears that most information made available to reporters covers cost incurred in an early gathering in this State, excessive and not qualified as to expenditures for permanent installations, to publicity convenience, and to actual roundup and placement cost per animal. The recent Murderer's Creek report shows a considerably less total cost, and roundup and placement costs are shown separately from cost for construction of traps, which will be utilized for future gatherings. It is the foregoing type of information dissemination that leads to distorted opinions and a dangerously high degree of animosity among all interests involved in Appendix 7 , pg.' 4 national resource land use and preservation. It is now that we should all work together in a positive approach to carrying out what is a clear mandate of the public . . protection, management and control of wild horses and burros, keeping in mind always the necessity to reduce ALL pressures on our public land resource so that something of the privileges we have enjoyed will be there for future generations Until the entire situation is placed in perspective, and careful thought is given to dissemination of information; until negative attitudes become more objective until cooperation replaces competition, animosity will continue to be generated and nothing will be gained, with the national resource land becoming the ultimate irrevocable loss. Respectfully submitted, *This figure obtained from Don Gipe by telephone to him at the Oregon State Office May 11, 1976. Appendix 8, pg> 1 Statement of Dean Clark, Salem, Oregon Livestock Division Oregon Department of Agriculture PRESENTATION TO WILD HORSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING John Day Oregon June 3, 1976 The State of Oregon contends that ownership of free-roaming horses con¬ tinues to be vested in Oregon citizens and that the federal government's possession has not been gained by or through "due process." We have heard the argument that after previous claiming periods had expired, all owners of wild, free-roaming horses had abandoned such horses and that therefore, possession, if not ownership of such abandoned horses is now vested in the federal government. We would agree with this argument if the abandonment had been voluntary. But we contend that the abandonment, at least in Oregon, was involuntary and that therefore title, in and to, or ownership of all such horses re¬ mains vested in Oregon citizens. Our contention of involuntary abandon¬ ment of those horses by Oregon citizens is based upon numerous complaints to the Oregon Department of Agriculture that, in many cases, the trespass fees were so large that owners either (1) could not afford the trespass fee or (2) the trespass fee exceeded the value of the animal. Secondly, ranchers in Oregon as well as the department staff are concerned about any inhumane treatment of horses, whether wild or domestic; therefore the State of Oregon will vigorously enforce Oregon's Criminal Code to ensure humane gathering and humane treatment of free-roaming wild horses. If the United States Supreme Court holds that the 1971 Wild Horse Act is unconstitutional the Oregon Department of Agriculture would support a plan for management of the wild horses in Oregon that would: Appendix 8, pg. 2 (1) Ensure that wild horses do not disappear From the public lands (2) Limit Oregon's wild horse inventory to only that number necessary to perpetuate the species (3) Ensure rightful owners of the existing wild horses an opportunity to claim, gather or voluntarily abandon their personal property (*♦) Ensure a moratorium on trespass or penalty fees of any kind (5) Ensure humane treatment during gathering of horses from the publ i lands We in Oregon Department of Agriculture believe that within these five gen¬ eral guidelines a plan could be developed that could be supported by all persons interested in wild horses in Oregon. ♦ < Position of the State of Oregon as developed by the Oregon Department of Agr icu 1 ture. Appendix 9 November 10, 1975 Dr. Ployd W. Prank 1395 Walenta No s cow, Idaho Dear Dr. Frank: I am concerned about the growing prejudice against the wild horge. The mustang has no economic value. He is just a pest which has to be lived with because there is a law protecting him. Vustanging, for recreation, could change the wild horse from a pest to a valuable resource. Issuing permits for mustanging would result in some economic advantages for the agencies involved. The advantages of this operation would parallel those currently existing in srort hunting. I realize that the revenue from this policy would come nowhere near the amount of revenue recievea by the licensing of hunters. However, It would still be benificial. Nustanginr would heir control the populations of the wild hors It would provide economic assistance to the preservation and maintenance of the wild horse. Nus tanging would insure the survival of the horses, by creating an organized intrest group I suggest that the National Advisory Board on the Pree-Roaming Wild Horses and Burros recommend an ammendment to Public Law 92-195 be made to include ntustanging. Sincerely Pamela J. Dalton Appendix 10 Universityof Idaho College of Agriculture Agricultural Experiment Station Department of Veterinary Science Moscow, Idaho/83843 December 1, 1975 Pamela J. Dalton 7629 West Highrise Logan, UT 84321 Dear Ms. Da1 ton: This is in response to your letter of November 10 suggesting the issuance of permits for mustanging. This suggestion (mustanging) has been discussed in the Board but has not received favorable consideration. I cannot speak for the entire Wild Horse Advisory Board, but I believe the principle reservations concerning mustanging are: ‘ 1) It would result in a substantial amount of harassment of wild horse herds. 2) It would very likely result in dispersement and movement of wild horses into areas which are not now wild horse ranges. 3) There is a real question as to whether this would be an effective population control measure. I will distribute copies of your letter to the members of the Wild Horse Advisory Board so that it may serve as a possible stimulus to the members of the Board to reconsider the question of mustanging. Thank you for your interest in wild horses. Very truly yours. Wild Horse & Burro Advisory Board FWF/jl cc: Kay Wilkes (enclosure) *S I the University of Idaho is an £qual Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer Appendix 11 NEVADA WILDLIFE FEDERATION, INC. An Affiliate of the National Wildlife Federation P. O. BOX 49 / (702)358-7668 / SPARKS. NEVADA 89431 June 1 , 1 976 National Wild Horse and Burro Commission Meeting Corvallis, Oregon June 3,4, and 5, 1976 Ladies and Gentlemen: The Following is a current position oF the Nevada WildliFe Federation which we request that you include as a part oF your meeting record . The Nevada WildliFe Federation approves and requests that you implement the White¬ hurst Amendment to the Wild Horse and Burro Act, which Amendment will permit the use oF mechanical vehicles For the control oF these animals. Secondly, we request that you put Forth a strong plea to the Congress oF the United States For funds For management oF wild horses and burros. We urge you to encourage to the greatest degree possible the passage oF an Organic Act For the Bureau oF Land Management including within this Organic Act police powers For their implementation oF rulings. The Nevada WildliFe Federation considers that reasonable control measures must be implemented at once in relation to wild horses and burros inasmuch as there is a potential threat From the livestock industry to take measures into their own hands For such control and secondly, adverse range conditions created by these animals are highly detrimental to the Forage available For wildliFe. Mr. Mike Pontrelli has been requested to present this position on behalF oF the Nevada WildliFe Federation. Very truly yours. Nevada WildliFe Federation cc: Mr. M. Pontrelli Mr. W. Reavley Mr. E. Rowland, BLM CONSERVE OUR NATURAL RESOURCES , - Appendix 12, pg. 1 Statement by Member Pearl Twyne at Meeting I have served six years as a member of the National Wild Horse and Burro Advisory Board. I would like to express my views based upon this experience, and the practical education afforded by the very well planned field trips in many of the Western States. Trips were provided by the U. S. Departments of the Interior and Agriculture. These field trips were to acquaint the Board members with the operational problems faced by these agencies in their stewardship of the public lands, and the control and protection of feral horses in particular. 1. Wild horses have been charged in public statements and adverse publicity, as being the sole instrument in the depletion and erosion of the rangelands because of the Wild Horse and Burro Public Law. This is not true. There were thousands of horses on the public land, some wild, some domestic, competing with livestock, insects, rodents, and other wildlife for the limited forage on which all these creatures had to live. The land was badly overgrazed by livestock years before the public law was passed. Even today, especially in the State of Nevada, trespass cattle are overgrazing on ranges which are badly depleted and in which the vegetation is being irrevocably destroyed. 2. The Congress of the United States delegated to Agriculture and Interior the management, control, and protection of the feral horses and burros and set forth the method for disposing of these surplus animals. These agencies have started the reduction of surplus horses from the public lands and have advertised the availability of horses to the Appendix 12, pg. 2 public who might want horses and who can meet the standards for acquiring these animals. However, I believe that unless a proportionate reduction in the livestock is made, the reduction in horses only compounds the overuse by cattle to the detriment of the public and decimation of the horse population. A realistic survey should be made as to the carrying capacity of the ranges with a rest period where needed to give the land a chance to recover. The regulations regarding trespass cattle should be strictly enforced and violators charged with trespass fees. I realize that political pressures for special interest groups can cause a serious management problem, and I think the Advisory Board can be of tremendous help to these Government agencies by being informed and by supporting decisions made in the public interest. Reduction in numbers should be in line with available resources and, in particular, use of critical areas adjacent to water sources. If reduction is necessary, immediate steps should be taken to reduce the animals . The Advisory Board was provided for in the Federal law to recommend and to assist the Government agencies in carrying out the Act and I recommend that the Board be kept informed of the management efforts regarding the wild horses and that the expertise of each member be available to assist the agencies in carrying out their responsibilities. Appendix 13 United States Department of the Interior OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240 APR i 2 B76 Memorandum To: Members, National Advisory Board on Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros From: Secretary of the Interior Subject: Call to Meet Secretary of Agriculture Earl L. Butz and I have called a meeting of the National Advisory Board for Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros in John Day, Oregon, on June 3-4, 1976. You will be advised of further details by the Director, Bureau of Land Management. % ^ NOTICES DEPARTMENT OF THE. INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management NATIONAL ADVISORY BOARD FOR WILD FREE-ROAMING HORSES AND BURROS Meeting „ Notice la hereby given that the Na¬ tional Advisory Board for Wild Free- Roaming Horses and Burroa will hold a meeting on June 3 and 4, 1976. In John Dey, Oregon, at the Forest Supervisor's Office, Malhuer National Forest. The agenda and schedule of activities are out¬ lined below: June Si — A field trip to observe the management of wild horses In the Mur¬ derers Creek territory. The field trip will start from the Bear Valley work center at 8 am. The tour will end at 5 p.m. at John Day. Individuals from the public wanting to participate in the tour must provide their own transportation and lunch. June 4— The meeting will be called to order at 8:30 a.m. The first order of busi¬ ness will be the selection of a Chairman and Vice Chairman. Other Items on the agenda are: U) Managing wild horses In Oregon; (2) problems encountered In assigning excess animals for private maintenance; (3) status of the 1971 Wild Horse and Burro Act and legislative pro¬ posals; (4) Report to Congress; (5) Agency reports; (6) status of research proposals; (7) wild horse public Infor¬ mation program; (8) comments from the public; and (9) Advisory Board dis¬ cussion and recommendations. The meeting will be open to the public. Time has been set aside from 2 to 3 p.m., June 4. for brief statements by members of the public. Those persons wishing to make an oral statement must Inform the Director (330) , Bureau of Land Manage¬ ment. In writing prior to the meeting of the Board. An original copy of all oral statements identifying the author Is de¬ sired to provide a record for the minutes. Any Interested person may file a written statement with the Board for Its con¬ sideration. Written statements may be submitted at the meeting or mailed to the Director (330); Bureau of Land Management, Washington, D.C. 20240. Additional details can be obtained by contacting the office of the Forest Su¬ pervisor, Malheur National Forest, John Day, Oregon, or the Office of Public Af- fairs. Bureau of Land Management, 729 N.E Oregon Street, P.O. Box 2965, Port¬ land, Oregon 97208. Minutes of the meeting will be avail¬ able for public inspection 60 days after at Office of the Director B.ureau ot Land Management, Washington, D,C. 20240. April 30, 1976. Giorgk L. Turcott, Associate Director. [PR Doo.78-13819 Piled S-e-76;8:45 am] FEOWAl WOUTM. VOL. 41, NO. VO-^IOAY, MAY V, ,976 Appendix 15 United States Department of the Interior BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240 IN REPLY REFER TO 4710.1 (330) JUN 1 1976 Memorandum To: Director, Range Management, Forest Service From: Director, Bureau of Land Management Subject: Delegation of Authority — June 1976 Meeting of the Wild Horse and Burro Advisory Board Pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Secretary of the Interior, and in accordance with the May 1972 cooperative agreement between the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture, I hereby delegate to you authority and responsibility to act as the authorized representative of the Secretary at the June 3-4 meeting of the joint National Advisory Board for Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros. ... °? Inr jrt s# i ™a"as 'enmnj Smi<* Caatae Ubrary °? ^ MansSement Ke?C0eSedera' Center