proceedings
national advisory board for
WILD FREE-ROAMING
SEPTEMBER 18, 19, 20, 1974
RENO, NEVADA
States Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
States Department of Agriculture
Forest Service
*
\
ID ©061 MSI
Sf
3(20.3
^ AGENDA
CW*° National Advisory Board
Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros
Holiday Inn
1000 East 6th
Reno, Nevada
Sept. 18
September 18, 19, & 20, 1974
7 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Field Tour
Sept. 19
8:30 a.m.
Introduction and Welcome - Ed Rowland, BLM Nevada State Director
8:45 a.m.
BLM Management Plans and Problems in Wyoming
9:45 a.m.
Break
10 a.m.
BLM Management Plans and Problems in Colorado
11 a.m.
Murderer's Creek Wild Horse Management Plan, Forest Service
11:45 a.m.
Lunch
1 p.m.
BLM Management Plans and Problems in California
2 p.m.
Forest Service Management Plans and Problems in Nevada
3 p.m.
BLM Management Plans and Problems in Nevada
4 p.m.
Public Comments
5 p.m.
Adjourn
Sept. 20
8:30 a.m.
Research Projects, Dr. Robert Ohmart, Arizona State Univ.
9:30 a.m.
Agency Reports
(1) Report to Congress
(2) Oversight Hearing
(3) Research and Research Needs
(4) Advisory Board Administrative Matters
11:30 a.m.
Adjourn
Associate DiresJ
r . BLMUbmy
4.L. Po .SC
t Denver Federal Center
tor, Bureau of Land Management P-O. BOX 2504 7
Oerter, Cotorado 802*i
Board Members Present - September 19, 1974
Dr. C. Wayne Cook, Chairman
Dr. Roger Hungerford
Dr. Floyd Frank
Mrs. Velma B. Johnston
Mrs. Pearl Twyne
Mr. Dean Prosser
Mr. Ben Glading
Mr. Ed Pierson
Mr . Roy Young
Agency Personnel Present - September 19, 1974
George L. Turcott, Washington, D.C., Associate Director,
Bureau of Land Management
E. I. Rowland, Nevada State Director, Bureau of Land Management
George D. Lea, Washington, D.C. , Deputy Assistant Director,
Bureau of Land Management (Representing the Secretary of the Interior)
Hallie Cox, Assistant Director, Division of Range Management,
Forest Service (Representing the Secretary of Agriculture)
Kay W. Wilkes, Washington, D.C., Chief, Division of Range,
Bureau of Land Management
Robert J. Springer, Washington, D.C., Bureau of Land Management
Betty Cullimore, Washington, D.C., Bureau of Land Management
Darwin R. Jensen, Lamoille, Nevada, Forest Service
John L. Lytle, Tonopah, Nevada, Forest Service
J. Richard Ward, Mountain City, Nevada, Forest Service
i
G. Glade Quiltan, Tonopah, Nevada, Forest Service
Orlo Johnson, Reno, Nevada, Forest Service
L. Christian Vosler, Burns, Oregon, Bureau of Land Management
Louis A. Boll, Bakersfield, California, Bureau of Land Management
Charles P. Douglas, Las Vegas, Nevada, National Park Service
Tom Ballou, Reno, Nevada, Department of Agriculture
Jim Blaisdell, Ogden, Utah, Intermountain Forest and Range
and Range Experiment Station
Carl M. Rice, Sacramento, California, Bureau of Land Management
Charles Sundstrom, Reno, Nevada, Forest Service
Vernon E. Sylvester, Elko, Nevada, Forest Service
Chester Conard, Winnemucca, Nevada, Bureau of Land Management
Ralph C. Cisco, Reno, Nevada, Forest Service
Lester Fluckiger, Ogden, Utah, Forest Service
Dean Bibles, Susanville, California, Bureau of Land Management
Bill Cooperrider, San Francisco, California, Forest Service
Henry J. La Sala, Santa Fe, New Mexico, National Park Service,
Southwest Region
A1 Oard, John Day, Oregon, Forest Service
Don Gipe, Portland, Oregon, Bureau of Land Management
Russ Penny, Sacramento, California, Bureau of Land Management
Jesse R. Lowe, Cheyenne., Wyoming, Bureau of Land Management
Glen Stickley, Winnemucca, Nevada, Bureau of Land Management
R. T. Schultz, Ely, Nevada, Bureau of Land Management
ii
Kenneth Weyers, Billings, Montana, Forest Service
Milford Fletcher, Santa Fe, New Mexico, National Park Service
Floyd Kinsinger, Denver Service Center, Bureau of Land Management
?
Phil Smith, Albuquerque, New Mexico, Forest Service
Gene Nodine, Battle Mountain, Nevada, Bureau of Land Management
John Boyles, Las Vegas, Nevada, Bureau of Land Management
Raymond Hoem, Winnemucca, Nevada, Bureau of Land Management
Peter G. Sanchez, Death Valley, National Park Service
John 0. Hunter, Bandelier National Mon., National Park Service
Don Pomi, Carson City, Nevada, Bureau of Land Management
Ross Ferris, Reno, Nevada, Bureau of Land Management
Dwan Berreman, Reno, Nevada, Bureau of Land Management
Public Appearances - September 19, 1974
R. D. Ohmart, Tempe, Arizona, Arizona State University
Susan Woodward, Topok, Arizona, UCLA/ASU
Ward Brady, Division of Agriculture, Arizona State University
Dean 0. Rhoads, Tuscarora, Nevada, University of Nevada
Tilly Barling, China Lake, California, Naval Weapons Center
Rick Seegmiller, Tempe, Arizona, Arizona State University
Deloyd Satterthwai te , Tuscarora, Nevada, Nevada Wool Growers
Ellis LeFevre, Caliente, Nevada, National Mustang Association
Bob Flournoy, California Cattlemen's Association
in
Glen K. Griffith, Nevada Department of Fish and Game
Pat Woodie, Howe, Idaho
W. Glen Bradley, Las Vegas, Nevada, University of Nevada
People Signing Visitors Roster - September 19, 1974
George Tsukamoto, Nevada Fish and Game Department
Mrs. Brown, Reno, Nevada
Mr. & Mrs. John Reilly, Sparks, Nevada, ISPMB
William Butler, Tempe, Arizona, Arizona State University
Loriene McElwee, Reno, Nevada
Clark Torell, Sunvalley, Nevada, University of Nevada
Dan Lechefsky, Reno, Nevada, Peavine Mt. Gang
Tina Nappe, Reno, Nevada, Foresta Institute
Dave Mathis, University of Nevada
Mrs. Dean Prosser, Cheyenne, Wyoming
William Freeman, Las Vegas, Nevada, National Wild Horse Association
Erma Lee Oard, John Day, Oregon
Dan Klebenow, Reno, Nevada, University of Nevada
Jean A. Rasmussen, Reno, Nevada, Reno Evening Gazette
Nana McElwee, Reno, Nevada
Davy Reynolds, Reno, Nevada
Dave J. Borough, Reno, Nevada, Sierra Club Organization
Ron Parry, Reno, Nevada, KOLO TV
Dawn Lapp in, Reno, Nevada
iv
Janet Black, Howe, Idaho
Chuck Kelly, Reno, Nevada
Matt Nifsch, California
Michael Pontrelli, Reno, Nevada
R. E. Eckert, Jr., Reno, Nevada
Chuck Richardson, Las Vegas, Nevada, Cummins Secured Sales
Larry Marshall, Orange, California, Western Livestock Journal
Kenneth R. Rogers, Caliente, Nevada, National Mustang Association
Yvonne Fisher, Reno, Nevada
Dan Hubbard, Sparks, Nevada
Norman Hall, Carson City, Nevada, Department of Conservation
Linda Zimmerman, Reno, Nevada
Doris Bennett, Gardnerville, Nevada
Nolan F. Keil, Reno, Nevada
v
Board Members Present - September 20, 1974
Dr. C. Wayne Cook, Chairman
Dr. Floyd W. Frank
Mr. Ben Glading
Dr. Roger Hunger ford
Mrs. Velma Johnston
Mr. Ed Pierson
Mr. Dean Prosser
Mrs. Pearl Twyne
Mr . Roy Young
Agency Personnel Present - September 20, 1974
Hallie Cox, Assistant Director, Division of Range Management,
Forest Service (Representing the Secretary of Agriculture)
George D. Lea, Washington, D.C., Deputy Assistant Director,
Bureau of Land Management (Representing the Secretary of the Interior)
Kay W. Wilkes, Washington, D.C., Chief, Division of Range,
Bureau of Land Management
Robert J. Springer, Washington, D.C., Bureau of Land Management
Betty Cullimore, Washington, D.C., Bureau of Land Management
Jesse Lowe, Cheyenne, Wyoming, Bureau of Land Management
Ron Pomi, Carson City, Nevada, Bureau of Land Management
Raymond Hoem, Winnemucca, Nevada, Bureau of Land Management
Gene Nodine, Battle Mountain, Nevada, Bureau of Land Management
vi
Al Oard, John Day, Oregon, Forest Service
Chet Conard, Winnemucca, Nevada, Bureau of Land Management
Vernon E. Sylvester, Elko, Nevada, Forest Service
Lester Fluckiger, Ogden, Utah, Forest Service
Henry J. LaSala, Santa Fe, New Mexico, National Park Service
Charles Dorzle, Las Vegas, Nevada, National Park Service
Robert Waun, Santa Fe, New Mexico, National Park Service
John Boyles, Las Vegas, Nevada, Bureau of Land Management
Bill K. Cooperrider, San Franciso, California, Forest Service
Sam S. Rowley, Reno, Nevada, Bureau of Land Management
L. Christian Vosler, Burns, Oregon, Bureau of Land Management
J. Richard Ward, Mountain City, Nevada, Forest Service, Humboldt
National Forest
R. T. Schultz, Ely, Nevada, Bureau of Land Management
Floyd E. Kinsinger, Denver Service Center, Bureau of Land
Management
Ken Weyer, Billings, Montana, Forest Service
Peter G. Sanchez, Death Valley National Monument, National
Park Service
Don Gipe, Portland, Oregon, Bureau of Land Management
Carl Rice, Sacramento, California, Bureau of Land Management
Milford Fletcher, Santa Fe, New Mexico, National Park Service
Jack Lavin, Reno, Nevada, Toiyabe National Forest
John D. Hunter, Bandelier National Mon., National Park Service
Vll
Jim Blaisdell, Ogden, Utah, Intermountain Forest & Range
Experiment Station
Ross Ferris, Reno, Nevada, Nevada State Office, Bureau of Land
Management
Dwan Berreman, Reno, Nevada, Nevada State Office, Bureau of Land
Management
Orlo Johnson, Reno, Nevada, Toiyabe National Forest
People Signing Visitors Rosters - September 20, 1974
Pat Woodie, Howe, Idaho
R. D. Ohmart, Tempe, Arizona Zoology Department, Arizona State
University
R. E. Eckert, Reno, Nevada, Agricultural Research Service
Tilly Barling, Naval Weapons Center, China Lake, California
W. Glen Bradley, Las Vegas, Nevada, Department of Biology,
University of Nevada
Norman Hall, Carson City, Nevada, Department of Conservation
William Freeman, Las Vegas, Nevada, National Wild Horse Association
Mr. & Mrs. Ted Barber, Oravada, Nevada, Rancher-Pilot
Jeannie Rasmussen, Reno Evening Gazette
William L. Reavley, Sacramento, California, National Wildlife
Federation
Sharley Reavley, Sacramento, California, National Wildlife
Federation
W. J. Butler, Jr., Tempe, Arizona, Arizona State University
Mrs. Dean Prosser, Cheyenne, Wyoming
Dean A. Rhoads, Tuscarora, Nevada, Nevada Cattlemen's Association
viii
DeLoyd Satterthwaite, Tuscarora, Nevada, Nevada Wool Growers
Tina Nappe, Reno, Nevada, Cason Foresta Institute
Ira H. Zint, Fallon, Nevada, Nevada Cattlemen's Association
Roger Van Tigeur, Denver, Colorado, American Humane Association
Joan Maguire Lamb, Las Vegas, Nevada
Ward Brady, Tempe, Arizona, Division of Agriculture, Arizona
State University
ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Introduction 1
Proceedings, September 19 2
Proceedings, September 20 . 6
Certification 11
Presentations
Remarks of BLM Associate Director Appendix No. 1
Jesse Lowe - Wyoming, BLM Appendix No. 2
Dale Andrus - Colorado, BLM Appendix No. 3
A1 Oard - Oregon, FS Appendix No. 4
Lou Boll - California, BLM Appendix No. 5
Carl Rice - California, BLM Appendix No. 6
Dean Bibles - California, BLM Appendix No. 7
Orlo Johnson - Nevada, FS Appendix No. 8
John Lyttle - Nevada, FS Appendix No. 9
Darwin Jensen - Nevada, FS Appendix No. 10
Ross Ferris - Nevada, BLM
11
Appendix No.
Don Gipe - Oregon, BLM Appendix No. 12
Chris Vosler - Oregon, BLM Appendix No. 12
Dr. Robert Ohmart - Arizona SU Appendix No. 13
Susan Woodward - Arizona SU Appendix No. 13
Rick Seegmiller - Arizona SU Appendix No. 13
Dr. Ward Brady - Arizona SU Appendix No. 14
Call to Meet Appendix No. 15
Notice of Public Meeting Appendix No. 16
Delegation of Director, BLM
to Deputy Assistant Director, Resources. . . . Appendix No. 17
Delegation of Forest Service Appendix No. 18
Minority Report of Velma B. Johnston Appendix No. 19
Proceedings of The National Advisory Board
for
WILD FREE-ROAMING HORSES AND BURROS
Reno , Nevada
September 18, 19, 20, 1974
Introduction:
The sixth meeting of the National Advisory Board on Wild Free-Roaming
Horses and Burros was held in Reno, Nevada. The meeting was requested
by Rogers C. B. Morton, Secretary of the Interior, on behalf of himself
and Secretary Butz of the Department of Agriculture by memorandum dated
June 27, 1974.
This meeting was scheduled in the State of Nevada so that the Board
members were able to observe areas having a considerable number of wild
horses.
The first day of the meeting (September 18) was spent on a field trip
southeast of Reno in and around the Tonapah area to observe wild horses.
The trip was by plane, helicopter, and bus providing the Board an
excellent chance to observe the type of terrain and conditions where
wild horses are found. The bus portion of the tour allowed the Board to
see forage and water conditions on the ground.
The meeting was held at the Holiday Inn in Reno. The meeting was called
to order at 8:20 a.m. by Chairman C. Wayne Cook, and thereafter was
conducted within the agenda outline, except that an additional presenta-
tion was included by BLM personnel from the State of Oregon.
PROCEEDINGS
National Advisory Board
on
Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros
September 19, 1974
The meeting of the National Advisory Board on Wild Free-Roaming Horses
and Burros was called to order at 8:20 a.m. , September 19, 1974, at
Reno, Nevada, by Chairman C. Wayne Cook.
Mr. Ed Rowland, Nevada State Director, welcomed the Board to Reno stat-
ing he hoped its visit would be helpful in gaining a better understand-
ing of the wild horse management problems in Nevada and he would like
to receive any suggestions the Board might have to improve the management
situation.
Mr. George L. Turcott, Associate Director for the Bureau of Land Manage-
ment, brought the Board and audience up to date on BLM operations in
the wild horse and burro program. For the complete text of his speech
see Appendix 1.
The Chairman introduced the following speakers. For the full text or
outline of their presentations see appendicies 2 to 14 .
Mr. Jesse Lowe, Associate State Director, Bureau of Land Management,
Wyoming
Mr. Dale Andrus, State Director, Bureau of Land Management, Colorado
Mr. Al Oard, Forest Supervisor, Malheur National Forest, Oregon
Mr. Lou Boll, District Manager, Bureau of Land Management, Bakers-
field, California
Mr. Carl Rice, Range Specialist, Bureau of Land Management, California
State Office
Mr. Dean Bibles, District Manager, Bureau of Land Management, Susan-
ville, California
Mr. Orlo Johnson, Range Staff, Toiyabe National Forest, Nevada
Mr. John Lyttle, Range Conservationist, Toiyabe National Forest,
Nevada
Mr. Darwin Jensen, District Ranger, Forest Service, Humboldt National
Forest, Nevada
Mr. Ross Ferris, Wild Horse Specialist, Bureau of Land Management,
Nevada State Office
2
Mr. Don Gipe, Range Conservationist, Bureau of Land Management,
Oregon State Office
Mr. Chris Vosler, District Manager, Bureau of Land Management,
Burns , Oregon
Dr. Robert Ohmart, Arizona State University
Ms. Susan Woodward, Arizona State University
Mr. Rick Seegmiller, Arizona State University
Dr. Ward Brady, Arizona State University
The following individuals made presentations during the time allocated
for public participation in the meeting. The full text of their state-
ments is on file with the Bureau of Land Management, the Agency retaining
the official Advisory Board records. These records are available for
public inspection in the Office of the Director, Bureau of Land Manage-
ment, Washington, D.C.
A short summary of each individual's presentation follows:
Mrs. Bob "Tilly" Barling and Dr. Glen Bradley described the burro
program on the Naval Weapons Center at China Lake, California.
Dr. Bradley described a study being prepared on burros in the
Amity Spring area of the Slate Mountain range. Seventy-five per-
cent of the burros in the Slate Mountains are concentrated in the
Amity Spring area. It is estimated there are 260-300 burros within
an 8-mile radius of the spring or a minimum of five burros per
section of land.
The number of burros far exceeds the grazing capacity and has
caused severe damage to the natural resources through trampling,
trailing, and grazing habits. It was suggested that total removal
of burros might be the only management policy which would allow
recovery of the existing natural vegetation.
Mr. Robert Flournoy, President of the California Cattlemen's
Association, read resolutions from the Modoc National Forest Grazing
Advisory Board and from the Susanville Bureau of Land Management
District Advisory Board. Both resolutions sought control for excess
numbers, giving protection to other multiple-uses, recommending amend-
ments to the Act, and that the wild horse and burro numbers be held
to 1971 levels.
Mr. Ellis LeFevre of the National Mustang Association described
the NMA ranch at Barclay, Nevada, and told how the association was
making improvements with water developments and improved pastures.
3
The improvements will provide additional feed for the horses on
the ranch. He stressed the point that he wanted any excess horses
provided with good homes.
Mrs. Pat Woodie of Howe, Idaho, presented the ranchers' version
of the horse roundup. She stated much unfortunate and misleading
publicity was put out prior to a public hearing that actually
determined the horses to be privately owned animals.
She stated all other uses of the public lands are controlled.
Wild horses, where they occur, should also be regulated. There
is a severe lack of communication, Mrs. Woodie said, in being »
able to communicate the problems of wild horse management to the
public, particularly those living in the Eastern portion of the
country. Most people do not realize or are aware of the forage
resource damage that can occur from uncontrolled numbers of wild
horses or burros on public lands.
Mr. DeLoyd Satterthwaite , President, Nevada Wool Grower's Associ-
ation and Vice President of the National Wool Growers Association,
stated drought conditions existed in Nevada and forage was at an
all time low. He called for control of wild horse numbers, stat-
ing his association is not for complete elimination of these
horses but there is a need for control.
The Nevada Wool Grower's Association strongly urges the Advisory
Board to do all in its power to help pass the recommendations for
amendments to the Wild Horse and Burro Act and come up with a work-
able solution to solve the problems of wild horses and burros on
Western ranges.
Mr. Dean Rhoads read a statement on behalf of the Public Lands
Council. He reported that at the Denver meeting on September 17,
the Council passed a strong resolution recommending amendatory
legislation which would permit the Federal Agencies to use aircraft
in rounding up wild horses and burros, and also to authorize the
Secretaries to sell or donate, without restriction, excess horses
or burros to individuals or organizations. He said these animals'
forage consumption will reach such levels if uncontrolled to have
highly detrimental effects on domestic livestock grazing and wild-
life on the public lands.
Glen Griffith, Director, Nevada Department of Fish and Game Com-
missioners, read a statement urging Congress to approve the legis-
4
lative proposals of the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture
regarding use of aircraft and motorized vehicles and the selling
or donation of excess wild horses or burros.
A letter for the record from Mr. George Parman, Eureka, Nevada,
stated wild horses should be placed on ranches purchased by wild
horse enthusiasts where the horses could then be observed by the
general public.
A letter from Jewelle Finley Parman explained, "There is no 'wild
horse,' such as deer or buffalo." She belives production of food
is more essential than sentiment over wild horses.
A letter by William Freeman representing the National Wild Horse
Association of Nevada was read to the Board explaining some of
its projects done in cooperation with BLM to repair and develop
watering sites for wild horses.
The challenging issue stressed by the association was overpopula-
tion and it supported the proposed amendments to Public Law 92-195.
One area needing drastic management, according to Mr. Freeman, is
the Nellis Bombing Range where much of the association's project
work to help wild horses was conducted last year.
This statement submitted by Rob Flournoy was read into the record
on behalf of the California Cattlemen's Association:
The Association expressed its concern about the lack of
adequate management of wild horse populations on public land
and asked the Bureau of Land Management to actively and effec-
tively control wild horse numbers on public lands. Grazing
use of any kind should be practically managed to protect
the quality of forage production, thereby increasing an eco-
logical balance on the public lands. The association sup-
ported the proposed amendments to the Wild Horse and Burro
Act of 1971.
A letter submitted by Mr. Roy Jesser on behalf of the Salmon River
Cattlemen's Association, Inc., was read into the record. He said
the association had invested in portable corrals, other equipment,
and spent many hours in preparing blinds and traps to capture
owned animals. He contended ranchers are being subjected to impos-
sible restrictions in the capture of privatfely owned horses, both
physically and economically.
5
The association requests the use of aircraft which can be the most
humane method of gathering horses. The association asks that emer-
gency procedures be initiated immediately to prevent mass starva-
tion of horses and range damage.
A letter from William B. Wright, Jr., of Deeth, Nevada, was read
into the record. He discussed how the present number of horses
came into existence on the public lands. He felt the present
claiming procedures were not fair to stockmen. Many other people
and the U.S. Government have contributed to the number of privately
owned horses now existing on the BLM lands. A simplified by "cir-
cumstantial evidence" type of procedure based on local history and
testimony should and could be used to establish ownership of many
unmarked horses "beyond the reasonable shadow of a doubt."
Mr. Wright said there's no way to expect brands on all privately
owned horses when we know they weren't coralled every year.
The meeting was recessed at 5:15 p.m.
The meeting was called to order again September 20.
The June 1974 Report to Congress by the Bureau of Land Management and
the Forest Service was the next topic of discussion before the Board.
Mr. Kay Wilkes briefly summarized the report for the Board. He also
read the conclusions of Assistant Secretary Horton's presentation at
the oversight hearing on June 26 as follows:
In conclusion, let us restate the problem of wild horses
and burros. Their populations are growing at a rate between
18 to 30 percent, or 8 to 10 thousand new animals per year.
Their isolated herds are scattered over 50-60 million acres
of BLM lands and 10 million acres of Forest Service land.
Unlike game animals, such as deer and elk, wild horses and
burros have no natural predators nor are they subject to
sport hunting as a means of population control.
Processing claims for private ownership required under the
Act has been difficult or impossible because adjudication
requires physical inspection.
This requires a roundup which now can be conducted only by
saddle horse — an expensive, inefficient, and highly uncer-
tain operation.
6
The problem of determining the ownership of these animals
is compounded by the problem of controlling population
growth. Neither can be solved under authorities in the
present Act.
The Act does not now provide for the transfer of excess
animals to individuals or organizations without a private
maintenance agreement.
Private individuals or parties have not been willing to
adopt wild horses and burros under these conditions. Our
past experience indicates that it is highly improbable
that 8 to 10 thousand horses a year would be willingly
adopted by private individuals under the present authorities.
The herds are now actively growing and they will continue
to grow unless we adopt different, more adaptive and
enlightened management practices.
Without natural predators, and with finite forage capacity,
the control of population growth has two primary solutions.
It can be provided by the humane and more flexible methods
which we propose to the Committee today.
Or it can come from overgrazing, famine, sickness, emacia-
tion and possible starvation.
The latter alternatives are grim, harsh, inhumane and
repugnant.
They are also unnecessary.
This Administration is deeply committed to the cause and the
protection of the wild horse — as a special population to be
protected and preserved, as an expression of the spirit of
the old West, as a continuing symbol of the heritage and
generosity of our Western lands.
To protect the wild horse and burro, the objective is clear.
We must protect it from itself.
We must do so in a manner that also protects the competing
species in its natural environment and that respects the
necessary balance and the range on which it depends.
We must do so in a manner compatible and consistent with
the intent and understanding of the Congress.
7
We congratulate the Committee for scheduling hearings on this
challenging, complex and difficult issue.
The research program for the 1975 and 1976 fiscal years was outlined
by Dr. Floyd Kinsinger from the Denver Service Center of the Bureau
of Land Management. The BLM has negotiated two contracts with
Arizona State University for studies on burros. These contracts
will cost approximately $35,000 in the 1975 fiscal year. In FY 1976,
it is anticipated approximately $135,000 will be used for wild horse
and burro research.
There was considerable discussion by Board members on whether the amount
of research by BLM was sufficient and results could be obtained in time
to help solve existing problems in wild horse and burro management.
Forest Service is requesting $450,000 for wild horse and burro research
studies. A portion of this may apply to BLM lands.
The Board proposed the following resolution and recommended:
That the Interagency Forest and Range Experiment Station request
$450,000 for research and that BLM request adequate funding for
cooperative research; that joint BLM-FS management research be
undertaken including control methods. Further, that mechanical
equipment be released for experimental purposes in both coopera-
tive and in-house research, and further, that research efforts
be centered on national resource lands.
This recommendation was passed unanimously.
Dr. Floyd Frank made the observation that the 1971 Wild Horse and Burro
Act gave the animals special status in that they are the only large
herbivorous animal that is not subject to some rather automatic popu-
lation control. Fish and game departments increase or decease the num-
ber of wildlife taken through hunting. Domestic livestock numbers are
controlled. The world is reported on the verge of a food shortage.
Food reserves and fertilizers are limited. Cereal grains will be con-
sumed directly by humans and society will not longer be able to afford
the luxury of putting cereal grains into animals to produce red meat.
This will change the eating patterns of the American people. He
stated in his prognostication that poultry, pork, and grain fed beef
and lamb will be priced out of the reach of the average consumer.
The animals that people depend on for meat will be herbivores. In
other words, primarily cattle and sheep. This will mean that every
citizen will have a major stake in seeing that our Western rangelands
are stewarded in a manner which will result in (1) minimum ecological
damage and (2) maximum utilization of forage for red meat production.
8
It was stated that anyone who has really studied the Wild Horse and
Burro Act recognizes that until we either modify or repeal it the
Agencies are going to have some serious difficulty in managing public
lands in the West in a manner which is in the best interest of the
American people.
This Board cannot allow itself to be dissuaded by special interest
groups on either side from handling the administration of the Wild
Horse and Burro Act in the best interest of everyone.
Considerable discussion followed on population dynamics and the effec-
tiveness of using helicopters for capture purposes.
A rather long resolution was then proposed covering the points just
discussed. Several amendments were added.
The use of motorized equipment and aircraft was deleted from the orig-
inal resolution on the objection of one ^aiimber. The result was the
two recommendations being acted upon separately:
(1) WHEREAS, during the 3 years that the Wild Horse and Burro
Act of 1971 has been in force populations of these animals have
increased dramatically; and
WHEREAS, these increases in equine populations have resulted in
overgrazing and severe damage to the ecological balance of the
public lands and whereas if populations are allowed to continue
to increase this damage will become extreme; and
WHEREAS, the impending worldwide food shortage gives emphasis to
the urgent need to manage and conserve the Western rangelands
as a resource for food production; and
WHEREAS, certain provisions in the Act have the effect of severely
restricting the Federal Agencies in effectively keeping horse
numbers at a level which will prevent deterioration of the ranges.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the National Wild Horse and
Burro Advisory Board urges the Secretaries, and through them the
Congress of the United States, to modify the Act in a manner which
will:
Authorize the Secretary to sell or donate excess animals to indi-
viduals or organizations on written assurance that such animals
will receive humane treatment; place a statute of limitations on
9
claims or ownership of branded or unbranded horses except those
animals which entered the public lands after the effective date
of these changes; give serious consideration to the use of inten-
sive management areas as a management tool for these animals with
appropriate restitution for the grazing privileges lost.
Passed unanimously.
(2) WHEREAS, helicopters are recognized as an essential and
humane tool in management of wildlife throughout the world.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the National Wild Horse and
Burro Advisory Board urges the Secretaries, and through them the
Congress of the United States, to modify the Act in a manner which
will allow the use of motorized equipment and helicopters under
direct supervision of the Secretary or duly authorized official
or employee of the Departments in management of wild horses and
burros .
Mrs. Johnston dissented. (See minority report, Appendix 19.)
Based upon the field trip on Wednesday and the Agency reports, the Board
took up a discussion on disposal of excess numbers of wild horses and
burros. The lack of action resulting from the preparation of the Report
to Congress on Wild Horses and Burros submitted to Congress in June by
the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture indicated to the Board
a more positive method of exposing the situation and problems facing
the managing Agencies to congressional members was needed. To alert
Congress further to the immediacy of controlling wild horse and burro
numbers and to expedite the removal of privately owned animals from the
public lands, the following recommendation was drawn up:
WHEREAS , the National Advisory Board for Wild Free-Roaming Horses
and Burros has made several substantial recommendations for amend-
ment to Public Law 92-195 to the Secretaries; and
WHEREAS, the Secretaries have carried our recommendations to Members
of Congress at the oversight hearing held on June 26, 1974; and
WHEREAS , Congress has not shown any disposition toward implement-
ing these recommendations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the National Advisory Board
requests that the Secretaries ask the Chairmen of the Interior and
Insular Affairs Committees of both the U.S. Senate and House of
Representatives to call a field hearing on the subject of popula-
tion increases of the wild horses and burros , preferably here in
10
Reno, Nevada, at the earliest possible date; and that copies of
this resolution be sent to all members of the above-mentioned
congressional committees.
Passed unanimously.
The Secretaries of the Interior's and Agriculture's plan to rotate
Board membership was reviewed. With one exception all of the members
expressed a desire to serve at the discretion of the Secretaries. It
is planned to replace three members of the Board for the 1975 calendar
year. The Board will organize and select a chairman at the first
meeting. All members will be contacted prior to the meeting for possible
agenda topics.
The subject of range deterioration and the possible harassment of wild
horses and burros by off-road vehicle traffic was reviewed. The Board
was made aware of presidential Executive Order 11644 of February 8, 1972,
regulating and restricting the use of off-road vehicles on public land.
Both the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management have issued
regulations implementing the provisions of that Executive order.
The Bureau of Land Management is lacking enforcement capability, man-
power, and funds at the present time to fully carry out this Executive
order and that everyone certainly recognized what needs to be done. The
Forest Service is well along in implementing its program.
The following resolution was made and passed unanimously by the Board:
WHEREAS, it is necessary to protect the habitat of the wild horses
from off-road vehicle use, I move that the Board suggest to the
Secretaries that enforcement procedures be established that will
enable the Bureau of Land Management to properly protect the public
lands in the public interest.
I certify that I attended the proceedings of the National Advisory Board
on Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros herein reported, and that this is
an accurate summary of the matters discussed and the recommendations made.
(D^te)
11
Appendix No. 1
REMARKS OF GEORGE L. TURCOTT, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
Mr. Chairman, Advisory Board members, ladies and gentlemen.
I am pinchhitting for Director Berklund, today. I have attended
more than half of your previous meetings and have been involved with
this wild horse and burro problem for many, many years. I had con-
vinced the Director that he should come and meet with you this time
because not only of the importance of the matters that are always
discussed by this Board, but at this particular time as we really get
into more serious discussions about population control that he should
be here. But he was preempted at the last, so I've come again and
also it gives me a chance to come home again.
Your activities, deliberations, and recommendations have been a great
help in formulating the wild horse and burro programs for both the
Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service. Your services and
advice to this Bureau and to the Department have been greatly
appreciated. You have been a dynamic and responsive Board.
In previous meetings, we have stressed formulation of regulations,
environmental impact statements, management criteria relating to
specific ranges, wild burro programs, research needs, and a progress
report to the Congress with legislative recommendations.
The tour yesterday and our meeting today emphasize resource management
problems, particularly those associated with population control.
Now, I want to talk about several matters relating to the wild horses
and burros that are of primary concern to us and to you as Board
members. These matters relate to the recent recommendations made to
Congress for legislative changes.
The roundup and ownership determination of claimed horses is progress-
ing very slowly or going by default because of required constraints
on presently authorized methods of gathering. We will discuss this
in more detail later today.
We have removed some excess horses from national resource lands
without the use of aircraft, but we cannot see continuing to do so
over vast expanses of rangelands because of the inefficiencies and
nonproductivity, high manpower requirements and their related costs.
Aircraft and motorized equipment properly operated is a humane method
for capturing private horses and, when necessary, the wild horses as
well.
We also believe that we must receive approval for our recommended change
in legislation so that we can donate or sell excess animals to interested
parties without restrictions. The Secretary requested the wording "with-
out restriction" because we cannot be responsible ultimately for every
horse or burro that may be given away or sold. Also, the problems of intra
and interstate transportation, and lack of desirability of many of the
animals. This matter is a serious problem and will become increasingly
so in terms of the numbers of animals that must be removed.
In June, we reviewed these two critical issues with Senator Jackson and
the Interior and Insular Affairs Committee during the oversight hearing.
To date, no legislation incorporating our suggestions has been introduced.
We are considering two additional changes that might help to alleviate
what I think is the basic problem raised by our suggested legislation.
These are, first, inclusion of a clear statement that aircraft and motorized
vehicles may be used only under direct supervision of officials of the
Department; and second, the establishment of a statute of limitations on
filing of claims. These changes would permit more effective planning and
management by assuring timely filing of claims and would also serve to
guarantee that use of motorized vehicles and aircraft in the claiming
process would be undertaken under the strictest supervision.
I'm going to digress from my prepared statement to make myself clear.
The two big proposals made last spring in the proposed legislation, of
course, called for the legislative authority to use aircraft and motor-
ized equipment because we can't find any other way to gather claimed
animals and we can't, of course, find any other way to manage the wild
animals. Second, we need some way to clearly be able to sell or donate,
as a first priority donate, these animals in terms of a quit claim deed
process and the Government would be relieved of its responsibility.
I've been to several meetings lately, in fact I was out in Reno just a
month ago when the wild horse and burro problem was taken up by the
Public Lands Council. I've been to other meetings at which wild horse
people have expressed to me a very fundamental fact. There seems to be
fear that the way the regulations are interpreted by the lawyers, the
BLM regulations, that even though there was a 90-day claiming period
in the regulations as finally promulgated, that as a matter of law there
is nothing to prevent anyone at any time, since we're way past the 90-day
claiming period, from coming in and claiming their private property.
2
So, frankly, the wild horse enthusiasts are, as they expressed it to me,
very frightened that if the use of motorized vehicles and aircraft were
authorized by law, the Bureau and Forest Service would be deluged with
claims for the many, many animals that are out there once we had a
viable means of their capture and management.
Number two, if there's anyone who doubts the motives or intentions of
the Bureau of Land Management, or me, myself, that 1 do believe in the
forepart of the Act that there should be a viable population of these
animals on the public ranges as part of our national heritage, as part
of the natural landscape, as part of our natural ecosystem, and all the
rest of it, then I cannot see why, if it's legally possible to do it, we
could not put a statute of limitations in for claims. If there are any
livestock people in this room, I've told them much more pointedly at a
meeting a month ago at which they dominated the audience that that ' s
exactly what I meant. Of course, there would have to be a provision that
any animal that escaped onto the public lands administered by this Bureau
after the date of a statute of limitations for claiming were filed, an
opportunity would have to be given to gather it. That would be an escaped
animal after the date.
That'skind of a middle-of-the-road approach, in my view. To me it's
eminently fair. The lawyers are scratching their heads and this is not
a Departmental proposal, it's merely a Bureau proposal about a statute
of limitations.
Frankly, another reason I'm not too afraid of it if it's legal because
since the day of the Act and as time goes on and on I can't help but
think that the fact of an ever-increasing trespass charg'e on any claimed
animals that were gathered is mounting and when this charge gets up over
$200 on an animal, I can't think, really, that there would be much of an
overwhelming claiming process to take hundreds of animals off. That's
just the practicalities of life.
Maybe you'll want to start discussing this. I will say this, that I
recommended to the Secretary of the Department of the Interior that this
four-part proposal, the two parts that were recommended prior and these
latter two parts I've just discussed, be submitted formally to the
House of Representatives and the Senate with what we call a Speaker letter,
i.e., the formal submission. That means that Office of Management and
Budget, and, of course, we're facing termination of the 93rd session of
Congress, even with a lame duck session, but I did recommend it formally
this week if nothing else to get the thing out and flushed out in the open.
I have serious doubts that they will send it up formally, but I was allowed
to discuss it informally here.
3
Hopefully, with this flexibility, a confrontation between these particular
interests may be avoided. Without this flexibility, I believe that range
conditions in some areas will get much worse because of competition for
forage between wild horses and burros, wildlife, and livestock. It is
possible that the basic soil resource and vegetation in these areas could
be damaged beyond recovery or become so deteriorated that rehabilitation
would be "long and costly."
As an update on the Howe, Idaho horse roundup, a State brand inspector
issued a decision on September 3 declaring that the horses involved in
the roundup were privately owned animals. Max Palmer of Sugar City,
Idaho, was determined to be the owner. Other claimants to the horses
were Senator Abourezk and Congressman Gude. If Senator Abourezk and
Congressman Gude do not appeal the State brand inspector s decision under
Idaho State appeal procedures, we will release the horses to Max Palmer.
Only then will the horses in custody of BLM and Forest Service be released
to the claimant if he is still determined to be the rightful owner.
We are anxiously awaiting a decision on the New Mexico burro case challenging
the constitutionality of the Wild Horse and Burro Act. The case is scheduled
for hearing before a three-judge panel later this month.
As you remember, the State, through its Livestock Board, authorized the
roundup of some 19 burros by private parties in February 1974.
It boils down to the fact that the Livestock Board contends the State
law clearly gives New Mexico full authority over unbranded and unclaimed
horses and burros within its boundaries. The Federal Government contends,
of course, that BLM and the Forest Service have jurisdiction over national
resource and national forest lands as directed by the Wild Horse and
Burro Act.
I can certainly appreciate the concern of the Livestock Board in meeting
its responsibilities under State law.
This New Mexico case and the roundup of horses in Idaho have slowed
down our processing of ownership claims and the gpthering of private
animals from the pub'fic land. Authority to gather 8,189 animals has
been issued. After 66 roundups and many man-days of effort, only 635
horses and burros haye been gathered. Of the total, 617 were determined
to be private animals. The remaining horses were turned back onto the
open range.
4
At this meeting, BLM representatives from Nevada, Oregon, California,
Colorado, and Wyoming will discuss management problems in their
particular State and present their views on management proposals.
Forest Service representatives from Oregon and Nevada will discuss
their horse and burro activities. Their problems may or may not be
similar to those encountered by BLM. They are, however, equally
important.
As we intensify our efforts to conduct inventories, we find more horses
and burros on national resource lands than previously estimated. The
full impact of wild horse and burro management will not be realized
until we have fully analyzed all of the resource values within a
given planning unit and established a management goal for the unit. We
know that one resource cannot be developed to its full potential while
we ignore possible conflicts with other resource uses. Planning, like
politics, is a matter of compromise, give and take. But, if we have
full participation in our planning process and sound recommendations
from the public, we feel that we can assure the people of the United
States that their public land and resources are used wisely.
Of all the uses or users of the public land, the livestock industry will
feel the greatest impact with full implementation of the wild horse
and burro program. This impact may be reflected by allotment boundary
modification, forage allocation, and constraints on fencing and other
facilitating projects.
In some situations wild horses and burros may have to be relocated or
eliminated from areas when agreements cannot be negotiated with private
landowners. This will be particularly true in checkerboard areas where
public land cannot be managed independently.
As required by the Act itself, a program is underway to inform and to
help educate the public about wild horses on public land. It is our
intention to factually portray this rather exciting story and to explain
our responsibility in the overall management.
Public involvement and understanding is important to any such program.
As an example, less than a week ago, BLM held a roundup of horses at
Kiger Gorge in Oregon. It was held at the request of private landowners
who wanted the horse,? off the land.
The public was informed in advance about the roundup. Interested persons
and the media were invited to attend. It was our intention to show the
planning and measures taken to properly conduct this roundup.
5
I understand the three major television networks filmed the event. In
all, 35 press people were present to chronicle the roundup. Also
present were representatives from the Humane Society and the American
Horse Protection Association, with several actually accompanying BLM
personnel on their own horses.
A thorough briefing was held one day prior, citing objectives and also
pointing out the potential hazards that exist in working with wild
animals.
It was planned that the gathered horses would be offered to the public
this week under the Act's maintenance provision. These horses were to
be entrusted to individuals who have expressed an interest in the animals.
As might be expected, the roundup provided fewer horses than anticipated--
eight out of roughly 100. It was conducted without incident.
However, because of the small numbers gathered, a second roundup took
place Tuesday of this week. Here again, the Humane Association and the
AHPA members were present.
This roundup was not without incident. A band of 12 horses being worked
into the corral reacted far differently than those gathered a day earlier,
and broke through the fencing. One wild animal and one riding horse was
injured and had to be disposed of- -10 escaped. The rider was not seriously
injured.
This situation illustrates, better than any hypothetical case, the inherent
problems in the management of wild, feral horses under the present
legislation.
There is no assurance that under any gathering methods, mechanized or
otherwise, that wild horses or burros will react in a similar manner.
This is as true today as it was in the days of the frontier West.
However, this does not minimize our responsibility as we try to face
up to the problems and opportunities as they exist to preserve a delicate
environmental balance.
As I have explained, we strongly want the public to know, as completely
as possible, what it's all about.
6
In the months and years ahead, we expect greater attention to be given
to the serious range problems we face on the national resource lands.
Such actions will include increased supervision of range use and such
adjustment of grazing privileges to bring authorized grazing use in
balance with carrying capacity of the range. In doing this, we must
consider a realistic apportionment of forage for use by wildlife and
wild horses and burros. The need for such action has been stressed
continually in our range program evaluations.
Recently, we released a special evaluation report on range conditions
in Nevada that points out many of the problems associated with the
livestock grazing program.
The Bureau, in response to the Senate Interior Appropriations Committee
requests, will submit a report at the end of this year highlighting
the current condition of the range and associated management problems.
We will also include a realistic budget and manpower estimate that
reflects what is needed to correct the management problems and restore
the rangelands to a satisfactory condition. An important part of this
report will pertain to wild horse and burro management needs.
Your continued advice and recommendations can significantly influence
our management program in the years ahead. So will the recommendations
from other advisory boards.
In previous meetings, we discussed the need to keep this Board dynamic
and progressive. Our proposal was to rotate membership periodically.
As a result, three new members will be added next year. You were all
asked if you were interested in continuing to serve as Advisory Board
members. We have received written expressions from some of you. We
would like for the rest to respond before the meeting adjourns. In
rotating membership we will lose experience and expertise but rotation
will add new and different views to the Advisory Board--allow more
individuals to participate and advise the managing Agencies, but we
will still maintain continuity with six experienced members.
In closing, I want to assure you again that your input and advice is
always needed and always welcome. Everyone here has contributed and we
look forward to excellent working relationships in the future.
Thank you.
7
Appendix No . 2
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
WYOMING STATE REPORT
Meeting of National Advisory Board
on
Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros
Reno, Nevada - September 18, 19, and 20, 1974
We appreciate the opportunity to present a statement on the manage-
ment status of wild free-roaming horses and burros in Wyoming. The
suggested items for discussion are problems of management on checker-
board land pattern areas and those associated with the animal claiming
process. Before addressing these issues, however, a general description
of animal numbers, distribution and area habitat is in order.
Most of the free-roaming horses and burros in Wyoming are located
in the southwest quarter of the state. Small herds run in several areas
in central Wyoming near Green Mountain and in the Big Horn Basin. Horses
have used these areas since being introduced by man. Through this long
history, numbers have fluctuated in response to many factors. The growth
of the livestock industry in the West, the loss of military markets
following World War I, the abandonment of farm horses owing to mechani-
zation, the extensive gathering of horses for commercial meat purposes,
the periods of extreme weather and forage conditions, and the recent
passage of legislation to protect and manage wild free-roaming horses have
all contributed in some way to changing populations. As inventories
became more systematic and thorough, it became evident that earlier
estimates of numbers were too conservative.
The numbers estimated in December 1971 were 4325 horses. The
current inventory as of August 1974 is 8163 horses based on infor-
mation derived from actual counts.
Dec. 1971 March 1974 Current (Aug. 1974)
Rawlins
544
1799
2250
Rock Springs
2524
3629
5431*
Worland
217
331
423
Casper
0
60
59
Statewide Total
4325
5819
8163
*Includes 20 Burros
The best counts were made by helicopter; however, when any
disparities occurred as to numbers in large herds, the more con-
servative figure was used.
Current inventories are now being done with more accuracy,
attributable to greater experience and intensification of compre-
hensive field work.
The habitat of the 8100 horses is generally in areas remote from
towns, highways and other developments. The majority of the Wyoming
horse herds are rarely seen by humans owing to the wildness of the
animals and the vastness of the land area. These areas generally
encompass 1/2 to 1 million acres where no fences, buildings, or human
habitation exist. Access into the areas is variable and is usually on
county roads, truck trails, or seismographic trails.
The vegetation basically consists of sagebrush, saltbush, wheat-
grasses, cheatgrass and forbs typical of semi-arid regions. The
2
topography of these areas is rolling to rimrock country interspersed
with large open valleys in the southern part of the state. The north
central areas are characterized by benches not readily accessible to
cattle.
So far, 26 herd areas have been separately identified that range on
approximately 4 million acres. Most of this area is unfenced. These
use areas are not stable because of the change in the leadership of the
herds, availability of water, natural migration patterns and movement
forced by weather conditions.
Reproduction for 1974 was high by actual count and even after
applying adjustment for death loss the first year, numbers have
increased significantly. Several factors account for the high average
colt crop.
1. Last summer during breeding season, the horses were in good
condition, thus increasing fertility.
2. An abundance of feed was available in the horse use areas
because of livestock users taking between 50 to 60 percent
non-use .
3. Within the increasing herds, the age ratio is younger, which
yields a larger number of young fertile mares and a smaller
percent of older post-productive mares.
4. Normally these areas receive 6 to 10 inches of snow which
remains on the ground for extensive periods because of low
temperatures, making feed more accessible.
Numbers projected to 1978, after adjustments, are 15,000 horses.
3
1974 Colt
Current
Number
Crop
Actual
%
Ad lusted
Colt Crop % Uses
in Proiection
Numbers Pro-
iection '78*
Rawlins
2,250
30
20
20
3,500
Rock Springs
5,431
37
27
20
10,690
Worland
423
10
10
10
574
Casper
59
—
—
—
10
Wyoming
8,163
14,774
*Does not include claimed horses or estimated branded horses.
The general management problems are that horse numbers are increasing
at a much higher rate than the Bureau's capability, thus far, to implement
control measures. So far, Wyoming is not experiencing a serious forage
problem. The reason for this is that many livestock operators are requesting
conversion of sheep to cattle use and are taking non-use while awaiting the
completion of resource studies and environmental analyses. If the sheep
(active) non-use, amounting to 100,000 AUMs, in southwestern Wyoming were
activated, it would immediately create a critical overgrazing situation.
Domestic horse use has been stopped in wild horse areas by virtue of
ranchers not applying to turn out, thus the Bureau is not licensing horses
in the herd areas.
Day-to-day problems are studs stealing privately owned mares, which
is indicated by an increasing number of complaints. So far this year,
studs have been successful on five occasions.
Highway hazards have been identified in the Baggs area, north of
Rock Springs, and north of La Barge, Wyoming. At least 10 horses were
hit by automobiles this year.
4
Recreationists have complained of wild horses chasing them. On the
average each district gets one or two calls a week relating to horse
problems.
To the extent possible, unauthorized horse gathers are being moni-
tored through cooperation of State Brand Inspectors (155 inspectors in
7 districts throughout the state) and cooperation of Highway Patrol who
stop all trucks hauling horses to examine brand certificates. Despite
this assistance and surveillance by Bureau employees, some unauthorized
capture of horses may be occurring on Natural Resource lands in Wyoming.
A reported 75 to 80,000 horses are slaughtered each year at North Platte,
Nebraska, only 160 miles east of Cheyenne, and Nebraska does not require
proof of ownership. BLM has received excellent cooperation from the
State Brand Inspectors under the leadership of Dean Prosser who is on
your Board.
Two other fundamental problems relate to land pattern and the
claiming process.
The checkerboard lands in Wyoming extend for 250 miles and provide
habitat for free-roaming horses on approximately 2.8 million acres of
private and public lands. This area is principally unfenced and is
grazed by sheep in the winter but some is slowly being converted to
summer cattle use. The area is also an important antelope and deer
winter range.
Future use by free-roaming horses on the checkerboard land areas
may depend on resolution of legal questions before it can be considered
as permanent habitat for the existing 3,900 free-roaming horses, or some
other number decided for the future.
5
The basic question of "who" owns the wild horse has to be answered
first. A department solicitor on June 11, 1971, issued an opinion that
no one, including the Bureau, owns a wild animal as such. Further, the
opinion holds that wild horses on private lands are not under the juris-
diction of the Department. As custodian of the horses, this raises the
question of the Bureau's liabilities in the checkerboard areas for forage
consumed, for tourist injury, for property damage, for situations where
domestic horses are run off by wild stallions, and for public hazards
on highways.
Attention is now directed to the regulations under the Act with
respect to removal of animals from private lands which state:
"The authorized officer shall remove, as soon as he can make
the necessary arrangements, wild free-roaming horses and burros,
from private land at the request of the landowner where the
private land is enclosed in a legal fence. A legal fence for
this purpose is one which complies with State standards and
specifications. In no fence districts or other areas where
the private landowner is not required by State statute to
fence the private land to protect it from trespass by domestic
livestock, the authorized officer shall, as soon as he can make
the necessary arrangements, remove wild free-roaming horses or
burros from such private land at the request of the landowner."
The Bureau has no authority to go on private land to gather horses,
particularly if the landowner is not cooperative.
Since the Bureau is responsible for wild horses, the private land-
owner can require BLM to remove the horses from his land.
6
Under the "open range law" as in Wyoming, the question is posed
what is the Bureau responsibility under the Wild Horse Act, as managers
of the animal, for constructing a legal fence to stop trespass on private
lands?
Almost 50 percent of the free-roaming horses currently in Wyoming
are grazing in the checkerboard area; therefore, "cooperation" will have
to be the key to the continued existence to wild horses on these areas.
Only one industry group in the checkerboard area, thus far, has indicated
a willingness to discuss a possible cooperative agreement with the Bureau
to manage a "reasonable" number of wild horses on their allotment. This
group is the "Rock Springs Grazing Association," and this is their
situation.
Number of shareholders - 30
Acreage: Public
1,127,129 acres
Private
1,116,569 acres
State
38,285 acres
Total
2,281,983 acres
Number livestock: Qualifications
Sheep
110,000 - Dec. 15 to May 31
Cattle
3,000 - Summer season
Currently the active use is 23,000 AUMs and non-use is 68,506 AUMs.
If the assoication should activate their livestock use and no agree
ment is reached as to wild horse numbers, the Bureau will obviously be
confronted with both legal and forage management problems.
7
The fencing controvery in southwest Wyoming has received much
publicity. The area east of Rock Springs almost to Rawlins and 40 to
50 miles north has almost no fences. Within this area is the Red Desert.
Special interest groups have brought pressure to have this area set aside
(even though half of the checkerboard is private land) as an antelope
range. The private land and NRLs are grazed by sheep and cattle, along
with large numbers of antelope and lesser numbers of deer, elk and wild
horses. The planning decision is to consider each fence on a case basis
but with emphasis on no fencing.
BLM is coming out with a new fencing policy, following a recent
Regional Fencing Workshop, which will establish criteria and guidelines
for fencing critical wildlife areas. Hopefully, the environmental analysis
and planning system process will indicate management alternatives and the
direction for use decisions that will be most equitable to all user and
interest groups. Livestock operators have the legal right to fence
private lands to protect their property. The key to implementing sound
wild horse management on areas of interspersed ownership is to win the
cooperation of all interests. However, such cooperative agreements are
binding on the Bureau to perform.
The determination of a balanced mix of uses between livestock, wild
horses and wildlife, the decisions to allow conversion of sheep winter
use to cattle summer use that will necessitate additional fencing, the
approach to discharging Bureau's legal responsibility to control trespass
on private lands without benefit of efficient and effective methodology
are all questions that must be answered before cooperative agreements
8
can be negotiated. When considering the current legal and technical
obstacles, the Bureau would be placing itself in an untenable management
position at this time by entering into agreements when it cannot fulfill
the terms.
The status of the claiming process is that 31 claims were filed
for 782 horses: 16 claims range between 1 to 10 horses each, 11
claims range between 11 to 48 horses each, and 3 large claims of 71,
150 and 266 horses each with one claim for an unspecified number.
The Bolten Ranch claim was for 150 head, but by actual count
only 70 head have been found. The Bolten claim involved two gathers
which is discussed later. Two other claims have been processed
involving 1 (one) horse and 18 horses.
Conservative estimates are that at least 1,500 claimable horses
were not claimed.
A rancher near Big Piney purchased and received a "Bill of Sale"
10 years ago for 50 head of horses on NRL on the Desert Unit north of
Rock Springs. The horses were not licensed and now he will not file
a claim as the horses are not worth the cost of the trespass fee.
This 50 head and their offspring now account for most of the 217 head
in this area.
9
The largest number of claims are in the Rock Springs District (15) .
The problem of processing claims in the Rock Springs District and to a
lesser extent in the other districts is the lack of facilities (fences
and catchments) to trap the horses. In most cases herds of 20 to 150
will need to be gathered to catch the 1 to 10 head claimable.
Another problem is associated with public lands adjacent to the many
small communities in Wyoming. For years town people have been turning
out horses of all sorts. One such town Is Midwest, Wyoming, where 59
horses were inventoried and most are found to be unbranded. No claims
were filed; however, the local people are registering complaints over
contemplated trespass and management action relating to unbranded horses
under P.L. 92-195.
Problems connected with gathering claimed horses can best be illustrated
by a recent experience on the Bolten Ranch (now Tuttle Ranches) located
southeast of Rawlins. The owner entered into a contract with Harry Void
last spring to gather all horses on the ranch. The Bureau analyzed the
gathering plan and after consultation with the State Brand Inspector
and issuing public notice authorized the gather with use of saddle
horses to begin May 6, 1974.
Personnel involved in the gather were Harry Void and 4 riders. All of
these individuals are experienced horsemen. Harry Void is a rodeo stock
contractor and horse grower. The crew came well equipped with 28 saddle
horses in good physical condition. After learning the country (terrain,
fencing, distribution of horses), the crew repaired fences, removed some
10
fencing in a small canyon and staked 10 head of saddle horses as decoys
just outside the opening. They tried to gather bands of various size and
guide them through the opening out of the big pasture into a smaller, lower
elevation pasture. It was antipicated that horses being unfamiliar with
the new area could be driven to the corrals. This was attempted several
times over 3 days with no success. As the horses neared the fence they
sensed the danger and turned, running back through the riders. One
observer concluded that 50 mounted men could not have turned these horses
back. As the gather proceeded, 3 of the slower horses were successfully
roped and taken.
The crew spent three 12- to 14-hour days (May 6th thru 8th) trying to
gather the horses. Crew and saddle horses were pushed to the limits of
endurance and the futility of the effort became obvious. On the evening
of May 8, Mr. Void decided to cease the operation. All 28 head of saddle
horses had been ridden to the point of exhaustion (some were lame) and he
did not want to permanently cripple or kill any of his saddle horses.
Three horses and four colts were corralled. The mature horses included
one yearling filly, one 2-year-old stud, and one 12-year-old saddle broke
gelding. Two abandoned colts were located and followed the riders into
the corrals on the evening of the first day's effort. Two others were
picked up by the riders on the second and third days and taken to the
ranch headquarters.
The terrain on this range is such that the placement and concealment
of traps is of dubious value. The pastures are quite large necessitating
long rides with saddle horses before encountering the claimed horses. The
11
open terrain and the familiarity of the horses with the fencing and terrain,
coupled with the fact that numerous individuals have run these horses in
the past, made the gathering of the animals on horseback almost impossible.
Using saddle horses resulted in an exhaustive experience for the
claimed horses, the domestic stock, and the crew involved. The rough
terrain and the expanse of the area compelled the riders to change horses
as many as three times a day.
The Bolten Ranch crew was experienced, qualified, and well-equipped,
and yet they were unsuccessful and had to give up the contract.
Later in the summer (1974) Bolten Ranches entered into a second con-
tract with a Mr. Hertzog to round up the horses.
Using the experience from the gather in May, Mr. Hertzog developed
new ideas and plans for gathering these horses. The plan was based upon
a "low key" type of roundup. Running of horses was going to be held to
a minimum, and catchments were planned on the back side of hills along
fences. The plan was to trap and rope the "renegades" first. Then the
younger horses and mares would be trapped.
With this in mind, the district manager approved the gather which
commenced August 5, 1974.
Mr. Hertzog roped a large stud (attempted roping several others
first), but in so doing his saddle horse was thrown on his back.
Mr. Hertzog, possibly one of the most knowledgeable horse wranglers in
a three-state area, sustained serious internal injuries.
The injury stopped the roundup until August 20. When work resumed,
the plan for gathering these horses began to take shape and in the next
4 days 45 head of horses were gathered. Within another week they had
12
gathered another 5 for a total of 52. The gather ended on September 6
at which time 68 head were captured and none of these were "slicks" or
wild horses.
The success of the Hertzog gather over the Void gather was primarily
due to the patience applied by Hertzog in relation to the "fast riding,
hard running" approach of Void's. Both men are excellent wranglers, but
Hertzog had learned from Void's mistakes.
Conclusions reached from this experience are: Most of the horses
located in large open areas will be difficult to gather and, once spooked,
the horses may travel for many miles before they settle down. Probably
all horses will not be captured. Gathering on horseback places stress on
the stock being gathered. Colts become separated from their mothers and
were out distanced by the rest of the herd. The herd stud prevented the
mares from returning to their colts. Roping animals individually is a
slow, tedious and dangerous process to both the horses and riders.
Injuries are very probable both to the wild horses and to the men and
saddle horses being used. Gathering operations will be costly and the
scattered occurrences of bands will necessitate many traps or trap loca-
tions. Gathering operations will be a long continuing process requiring
a constant supply of manpower, material and equipment. People qualified
to do this type of work are limited. Special knowledge and experience
is necessary for the proper construction of traps, handling of horses,
and use of tranquilizers which is not now available in the Bureau.
13
An economic analysis of the two horse gatherings follows.
First gather May 6-8, 1974, of Harry Void:
Personnel costs -
Harry Void - 3 days (estimated 42 hours) * $220
4 riders - 3 days (est. 3 x 42 = 126 hrs.) 378
Equipment and horse costs:
Number of saddle horses - 28 x 3 horse days = 840
Hauling of 28 horses from Fowler, Maybell,
Colo., and Cheyenne, Wyo. Cost (5600 horse
miles) = 10 cents/mile = 560
Total Cost $1,998
Number of horses gathered - 7
Sale of 3 claimed horses 306
Estimated Net Loss $1,692
(Cost to BLM for care of the 4 stray colts —
care and vet cost) $1,179.51
All but one colt died. Colt that survived awarded
to girl in Rawlin's area upon request from Senator
MaGee's office.
14
Second gather of August 5 thru Sept. 6th by Paul Hertzog:
Personnel costs: (3 men)
3 man months x $888
s
$2,664
Equipment and saddle horse costs:
8 saddle horses x 1 month
—
300
Saddle horse vet cost
=
50
Vehicle cost and hauling of horses from
Maybell, Colo.
s
600
Temporary corrals
=
400
Ropes and other tac
-
100
Miscellaneous expenses
as
100
Total cost of gather $4,214
Number of horses gathered - 68
50 claimed horses were sold by Hertzog, verified
as owned by Bolten Ranch.
12 colts (privately owned) were given away, verified
as owned by Bolten Ranch.
4 branded horses were sold as estrays by the Wyo.
Livestock Board.
2 claimed horses were replaced on the Bolten Ranch
(privately owned) under license.
Average price of the 50 horses sold by Hertzog was
$102 x 50 = $5,100
Money received from BLM for removing the estrays
by Hertzog by contract - 4 x 50 = 200
Total income $5,300
15
Summary of Hertzog Gather -
Cost of gather
$4,214
Income from sale of horses, etc.
5,300
Balance
$1,086
Less trespass cost to BLM for the horses
claimed over 6 months of age based on
35% National Resource lands
1,084.32
Cost Comparison
Void gather Cost - $1,998
Horses gathered:
3 claimed
4 wild colts
7 divided by $1,998 = $285/horse
Hertzog gather Cost - $4,214
Horses gathered:
68 divided by $4,214 = $62/horse
♦
16
In conclusion, the development of management plans and implementation
of an action program involves the following work:
Complete detailed inventories and update unit resource analyses and
management framework plans.
Complete the studies throughout the state that are started on a
limited basis to determine: the composition of diet for the horses; the
level of competition between horse and cattle, sheep, elk and antelope;
the geographic range of horse herds and individual bands; and the migra-
tion routes and consistency of use.
Develop and implement wild horse herd management (action) plans for
all 26-herd units — including construction and modification of range
improvements. Revise allotment management plans as identified in the
wild horse action plan.
Gather all free-roaming horses and remove estrays in the 26-herd
units.
Remove all excess horses as determined by the environmental
analysis, herd management action plans and full public exposure.
Horse habitat management plans are the vehicle that will direct the
management, control, and protection of the wild horses for each herd
area. They will be developed when sufficient studies and inventories
are completed and will be designed to comply with the laws, policies,
and guidance of the management framework plans. None have yet been
developed in Wyoming, and it may be FY 76 before any adequate plans are
completed .
17
Other external needs exist which should be resolved to facilitate
mounting an effective program. Some of these are: Use of aircraft or
other means to provide for a more humane method of gathering large
numbers of animals in unfenced areas; research related to the population
dynamics as it relates to biological and physiological needs of wild
horses; guidance on disposal methods including transfer of ownership;
adequate funding to implement the Wild Horse and Burro Act; criteria for
setting upper limits in population numbers; training of personnel in
enforcement; recruitment of personnel having knowledge of horse behavioral
patterns.
Accomplishment of the task appears to have insurmountable obstacles,
yet adherence to the requirements of the law is mandatory.
The Wyoming State organization intends to continue pursuit of the
wild free-roaming horse and burro management objectives to the fullest
extent that manpower capability and priority limitations permit.
Presented by Jesse R. Lowe,
Wyoming Associate State Director
18
Appendix No. 3
WILD HORSES IN COLORADO
(Slide Talk)
by Dale Andrus
Colorado BLM State Director
Colorado has never laid claim to a large quantity of wild horses. . . .
We do claim quality. . . quality of horses, and of wild horse areas.
We intend to maintain that quality.
We've shared our wild horses with the public, conducting tours, such
as this July trip with Mrs. Johnston from WHOA I
And, while we have the typical horse management problems,
Colorado prefers to look upon its wild horse population as more of
a management opportunity.
The Little Bookcliffs herd first reached national prominence in
1968 when over 2500 letters were received from concerned persons
urging protection for the animals.
By 1969 the Unit Resource Analysis for the land area including the
Little Bookcliffs horse and cattle range was completed. By 1970
we had worked up the first Management Framework Plan. The wild
horse herd was featured prominently in both planning steps.
The Bookcliffs wild bunch may well have been the first of such herds
to be incorporated into the BLM planning system. The general public
participated and aided the District Manager in his decisions. Keep
in mind, please — this was taking place BEFORE passage of the Wild
Horse and Burro Act of December 15, 1971.
9. Continuing interest in the horses, the land, and passage of the
Wild Horse and Burro Act emphasized that the rugged Little Bookcliffs
land area, and its unique resident horse herd merited an intensive
yet dynamic management program.
10. Colorado BLM, its citizens, and its law-makers, have long recognized
the wild horse as a manageable resource. Senate Bill 208 was passed
by the Colorado State Senate in 1969. This Bill provided for both
the protection and control of wild horses. During the Senate com-
mittee hearing, it was emphasized such horses were to be protected,
preserved, and controlled, consistent with the principles of sound
habitat management. The Bill did not survive.
11. The same management and control measures are what we seek in our
management plan for the Little Bookcliffs horse herd. This is a
100 percent colt crop. The black stud is to the left.
12. Control of numbers was almost taken from BLM hands in 1973 when rules
and regulations pertaining to management of wild horses and burros
were published. They provided for claiming of unauthorized and/or
branded horses. Mr. John D. Hill, a cattle permittee in the Little
Bookcliffs, filed a claim for all the horses in the area.
13. This brought us to the negotiating table, and the decision to further
intensify management of the range, the horses and the cattle, through
separation of cattle and horses.
2
14. Under the agreement, all wild cattle were removed from the area.
Little Bookcliffs is not a manageable area in terms of moving
livestock.
15. It is difficult to census cattle and horses. Dense stands of pinon/
juniper, and the deep canyons compound the task.
16. After some tense moments and months of negotiation, the licensees
and BLM agreed to the division, plus a grazing agreement of the
1974 season. 400 cattle were authorized during April and May.
This is a reduction of 222 cattle from the normal operation.
17. Under the agreement, wild horse and livestock use is separated.
Horses use the area known as Monument Mesa, Indian Park, and Lane
Pastures. These are recognized horse ranges. Livestock will use
the southeast portion of Bronco Flats and Pine Gulch, Red Rock,
Cosgrove, and Round Mountain Pastures.
18. We received approximately $200,000 for cattle and horse management
facilities. Fences, water development, trails, and corrals are
included. An allotment management plan is being developed for the
cattle areas and we are working on an AMP. The fencing separating
the range is wooden — not wire.
19. We used Youth Conservation Corps crews to build the fence. These
youngsters really put in a full day. And, another purpose was
served.
3
20. While working on the fence, the students had an opportunity to view
the various bands, and to also gain a greater interest in, and an
appreciation of, the wild horses.
21. We can rest assured that after many days of long, hot work, those
young people are going to insist on protection of those horses.
22. Our rationale for the division of livestock and wild horses was
based on consideration of the range and watershed resources.
23. Not only are wild horses and livestock dependent upon those resources,
but wildlife as well. With competition from both cattle and horses,
the deer herd is declining.
24. Separation of the horses from cattle will provide complete control
of each class. And, more importantly, the horses will not be sub-
jected to the interference associated with livestock handling
practices .
25. The management program, however, must include some method of control
as well as protection of the horses. We do have this gentleman
present in the Bookcliffs. Colorado's Division of Wildlife has
cooperated in its lion season by restricting permits to male cougars
only.
26. A wet season, followed by good grass, followed by a relatively mild
winter, blessec,! the Bookcliffs with an exceptional colt crop. We
have an actual count of 15 colts from 26 mares.
4
27. Our colt crop figures were challenged by some. The slides I'm
showing today of colts resulted from that question. I have ordered
a halt to the pictures- for-proof project.
28. In the future, those who challenge our census figures will be
politely but firmly requested to visit the horse area and spend
the time necessary on the ground, to see for themselves.
29. The Bookcliffs bands are unique. Perhaps too much so. Public
emphasis is consistently placed in the Bookcliffs, which has fewer
horses than our Piceance Basin, Sand Wash, Douglas Mountain and
Douglas Creek herds of the Craig District. Horses on the Craig
District are estimated at 612 , compared with 85 in the Bookcliffs.
(CHART COMMENTS)
30. Beginning last winter,
31.
32. (rapid sequence)
33.
34.
35. And continuing into the summer, the Craig District worked diligently
to count horses in the areas mentioned. Efforts were also made to
determine if any migrations were taking place due to increased
energy-development activity in the area.
36. Counts were made primarily by air, and it should be kept in mind
that anyone using the information on counts, sex and production must
be aware of the difficulty in coming up with accurate figures. We
know our figures are not inflated, and estimate that data for total
horses and clots in the Sand Wash and Douglas Mountain herd unit
could be within 20 to 30 of actual numbers.
5
37.
There could be a 40 to 60 percent variance in the Douglas Creek and
Piceance Basin unit due to dense stands of pinon- juniper .
38. Keep in mind, also — the information we have on production and
increase does not consider the yearly mortality of these herds. Wild
horse figures must be accepted in the same light as census counts
of any wild animal, such as deer, elk, etc.
39. I have attempted to give you a visual impression of our wild horses,
and the range they enjoy in Colorado.
40. Our management program — providing reasonable control methods can be
employed — should improve both horse herd, and range conditions.
41. Lacking control, natural or otherwise,
42. The range and horses will suffer.
43. Monument Rock lies in the center of the Bookcliffs horse range.
To us, it is symbolic. We intend through our efforts, to develop
a monument to good land management.
44. We intend, therefore, to proceed with caution and innovation in our
wild horse management program in Colorado.
45. From which the wild horse will benefit.
LIGHTS PLEASE
6
Appendix No. 4
Murderer's Creek Wild Horse Management Plan
A1 Oard, Supervisor, Malheur National Forest
Discussed the Murders Creek wild horse situation and possibilities
for management. He pointed out that there was reliable data to
indicate a 30-percent annual increase in numbers and that control
action would be needed soon to keep the numbers in balance with
available forage. Mr. Oard's discussion was highlighted by a
slide presentation. Each board member received a draft copy of the
Murderer's Creek Wild Horse Area Biological Unit Management Plan.
T- .
«. r- -f
Appendix No. 5
THE RELATIONSHIPS & PROBLEMS BETWEEN
BURROS & WILDLIFE 6c MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES
by Lou Boll
BLM DISTIRCT MANAGER - BAKERSFIELD
There has been considerable emphasis placed on the relationships between
bighorn sheep and the burro. Because of the magnificance of the bighorn,
this attention is probably deserved. We should avoid directing our atten-
tion in such a way which will overlook the relationship between all wildlife
species which inhabit the same areas as the burro. There are approximately
300 species which should be considered. The significance of these species,
individually, may not be as great as the burro or the bighorn, but the
overall significance of wildlife populations is certain to be much greater.
Our first consideration in the management of the areas occupied by burros
is to determine what factors have the greatest influence on the animal
population. At first glance, water would seem to be limiting, especially
in the desert areas, but this limits only the areas suitable for use or
the seasons of use.
After determining that an area is suitable, the most important limiting
factor remaining which we can influence is vegetation. All animal popu
lations are dependent on this vegetation and their productivity is depend-
ent on the quality. In natural plant animal communities there are biolog-
ical factors which keep populations in balance with their habitat. By
introducing a new large herbivore such as the burro, the immediate effect
is the reduction of plant nutrients available for transfer to the native
consumer species. In this unnatural situation the only thing limiting
the burro is the availability of forage. When the population increases
to a point where forage is limiting, there are some definite impacts on
vegetation and the same type of impacts on wildlife. The first measurable
impact is the reduction in the number of species of plants and animals.
This is followed by a temporary increase in a few "weed" species, so to
speak. For plants, this might be annual grasses. For animals, it may
be the deer mouse and horned lark. This, then, is followed by a general
decrease in total biomass. In areas where burros occur, their use areas
coincide almost exactly with the important areas for wildlife. The obvious
first use area is the vegetation generally found around water holes or
springs. This is also used for cover, nesting and food by wildlife.
Another area of importance used heavily by the burro is the dry wash.
They use it for the same reason as wildlife--as a travel lane, forage
area, shade and protection. The washes are the single most important
area for nesting birds. Nests are mostly located in the taller plants
such as acacia, palo verde or desert willow, but they will use any type
of dense brush. Reductions in vegetation and reduction in wildlife occur
in all areas where burros coinhabit the habitat.
The problems facing us now is -- how much of our wildlife are we willing
to sacrifice in order to maintain a burro population.
There are several alternatives to be considered in facing this problem.
First are areas which could be set aside as burro ranges without regard
for effects on wildlife. In these areas our only concern would be that
the burro did not destroy his own habitat. It must be recognized that
any wildlife populations that do exist in the area will suffer drastic
reductions .
The second alternative is where small populations of burros can be main-
tained at individual water sources. Wildlife considerations for this
alternative are:
1. What wildlife population would be eliminated by small amounts
of continous burro use?
a. If so, would the loss be significant in the overall welfare
of the species involved?
The third alternative would be a modification of the second. It would
involve fencing the water sources and rotating the burro use on a three
to four year rotation. Areas suitable to this type situation are probably
rare. This type of use may allow vegetation and wildlife population to
restore themselves.
The fourth alternative is to limit burro use areas by permanently control -
ing access on some of the water sources. In case of competition with the
bighorn this could be an elevation segregation. This is one alternative
we would like to evaluate immediately.
2
By protecting some of the water sources, it would be possible to preserve
some of the wildlife habitat.
None of these alternatives eliminate the need to control the burros. The
questions remain. How much of our wildlife can be lost? What species
can we afford to reduce in numbers? What wildlife habitat areas can we
afford to give up?
3
Appendix No. 6
ANIMAL DISEASES
by Carl M. Rice
RANGE MANAGEMENT SPECIALIST
CALIFORNIA STATE OFFICE, SACRAMENTO
I will briefly cover some of the implications of existing and potential
problems of animal diseases in both burros and horses. I am being real
general so please don't take some of my material out of context. We
can get more specific by individual questions.
Diseases are one of our most serious management problem indicators we
have. Often diseases go hand-in-hand with population overcrowding*
older animals, poor habitat, and poor forage conditions. Starvation
has a direct line relationship with the susceptability of an animal to
disease, whether it is a parasite infestation or bacterial infection.
Inbreeding can also cause similar problems. Injuries through competition
in the breeding process can be another cause for infections not only locally
but spreading thru narrow herd units especially with burros.
The suspected outbreak of Equine Dourine on the NWC this summer really
pointed out the need for a coordination program between Federal, State,
and county agencies. Although there is a definite potential conflict
between State and Federal responsibilities and lack of a decision as to
the applicability of PL 92-195 on some Federal lands, everyone involved
in the ED outbreak in California was interested in getting a top notched
job and we proceded to get it done.
The State will furnish qualified vets and processing of any specimens
necessary and the Federal agencies (DVNM and NWC) are working hand-in-
hand on the actual management program. This ties right into the Early
Warning and Detection System that is almost being developed by omosis.
If a suspected disease occurs, the applicable people are alerted by the
agency or individual discovering the animal or animals with potential
symptoms. This has happened twice in California so far and lapse time
between the first telephone call and the last was l\ hours.
Agreed, some diseases build up naturally and the management decision on
what to do weighs heavily on the decisionmaker, especially when the
impacts of doing nothing or elimination of the diseased animals are
unknown at this time.
I believe we can agree that a healthy environment means a healthy popula-
tion and when this occurs, then our management problem and expendures are
a minor item and the manpower and funds can be concentrated on maintaining
a healthy environment and the rest will come naturally. This is good
economics in anyone's language.
If you have any specific questions on Equine Dourine or other diseases
I am sure Dr. Floyd Frank (Idaho) would be glad to answer them later on
and Mrs. Tilly Barling will clarify the animal disease happening this
summer on the NWC during the general session.
2
Appendix No. 7
WILD HORSES
by Dean Bibles
BLM District Manager - Susanville
In order to discuss problems in control of populations of wild horses,
a base line of knowledge of the population, habitat and terrain must
be acquired.
I will discuss the approach taken in California in arriving at some of
the conclusions and recommendations which we made. We will discuss
range trend, range condition, watershed status or erosion condition,
methods of inventory utilized and management problems.
The area considered consists of ten herd management areas within the
Susanville District covering some 2,275,000 acres which we believe the
the horses inhabited at the time of the passage of Public Law 92-195.
A review of our records depicting the most recent range conditions with-
in these herd areas shows that 91,000 acres amounting to 4% of the area
was in good condition; 1,185,000 acres or 52% in fair condition; and
1,000,000 acres or 44% in poor condition.
The range trend information shows 696,000 acres or 31% improving,
1,264,000 acres or 55% static and 319,000 acres or 14% deteriorating.
While this data is not current, I think it does give us a base of infor-
mation to make certain judgments or estimates.
Our watershed or erosion conditions reflect much the same or similar data.
Keep in mind that watershed conditions lag several years behind range
condition. Recovery of watershed conditions generally takes a consider-
able amount of time even under sound management practices.
Not reflected by the more general studies are the small critical wet
meadows which are the very "life blood" of the cold high desert country.
These delicate wet meadows deteriorate rapidly under heavy grazing
pressure.
In studying the problems associated with loss of these meadows we can
graphically show the rapid loss that occurs once the plants weaken and
the soil mantle becomes exposed.
Once erosion starts, the headcut progresses across the meadow lowering
the water table which then causes the meadow type vegetation to go out
of the picture to be replaced by the vegetation common to dry areas.
Significantly, the major species most critically affected by loss of the
meadow habitat is the sage grouse which must have the succulent vegetation
to rear its brood. Without this critical part of the life cycle, the sage
grouse simply cannot continue to be a part of the fauna.
The adjudicated class I allowable use for livestock is 127,196 animal
unit months. Our basic forage inventory indicated 114,350 animal unit months
available for domestic livestock, 24,620 animal unit months for wildlife
and none allocated for wild horses.
Since the 1974 season has not been completed, I will utilize the data
for the 1973 season which was:
51,480 animal unit months
90,846 animal unit months
31,620 animal unit months
173,946 animal unit months
wildlife use
livestock
horse & burro
total use
With estimated total forage production of 138,970, you can see that even
though the livestock operators did not utilize some 36,350 which they
could have in 1973, we still had an overuse of 34,979 animal unit months.
[n order to arrive at these calculations, we first had to determine what
use was being made. The livestock use is fairly exacting since the data
can be gathered directly from grazing licenses. The wildlife use data is
estimated both by B.L.M. and State fish and game biologists and taken
from published statistical data with conversions made to livestock animal
unit months. Our estimates on the horses was taken from inventory. The
1973 calculations were based on inventories of February 1973 and August
1973. We now have a more recent inventory as of August 1974.
2
The method utilized for inventory was to grid the areas both geographi-
cally and topographically in pre-planning and discuss this grid with
personnel involved prior to flying. Data collected included age class,
description of the specific animals, location and recording of most bands
photographically.
In order to gather the data we felt was necessary, the use of a helicopter
was mandatory. We found that we could get near enough the animals to
accurately record herd data, yet not unduly frighten them. To the best
of my knowledge, with well over 100 flying hours in inventory, we have
not caused any injuries to the horses even though at times we have gotten
very close to them.
Our February 1973 inventory reflected a total of 1841 which was composed
of 191 young and 1650 mature.
The August 1973 inventory showed a total of 2605 composed of 483 young
and 2122 mature.
The August 1974 inventory revealed 3328 horses of which 666 were young
and 2662 mature.
We have the data on each herd management area. It is apparent that we
are experiencing significant increases in total populations during the
period observed.
If we are to sustain a healthy environment, it is evident that animal
populations must be controlled. The habitat must be protected and managed
if we are to carry out our responsibilities for the resources.
Population control of wild horses is not a simple chore and our choices
of methods is very limited. Our means of controlling the population at
the present time is limited to 1) relocation, 2) removal for private
manitenance, 3) destroy in place in a humane manner.
The first two methods require physical handling of the animals. I do not
believe that we will be able to accomplish this job with present restrictions.
3
With the results of some of the claimants in actually catching horses
by conventional means, the implication would be that most horses removed
from the public lands in the past few years has been with the use of
air borne equipment.
If our population expanses as shown since 1973 remain consistent, we
could have as many as 500 animals to remove each year in addition to
the first removal to bring the population near where it was in 1971.
Once animals are captured, the choice of relocation or private maintenance
must be made. We may not relocate to areas where they did not exist as of
the passage of the law and the biological niche for relocating very many
animals is just not available. I do not believe that relocation will be
significant in population control.
Removal for private maintenance could provide an opportunity for finding
homes for some of the animals. I rather doubt that on a long term basis
with as many as could be produced each year that people would continue to
accept responsibility but never be able to actually own the animal. If
this approach is taken, I believe that we should make reasonable attempts
to follow through to insure that the animals on cooperative agreement are
being properly cared for. Many so-called door yard pets are not properly
cared for after the first few months and the new has worn off and the
$80. 00/ton hay is beginning to mount.
Another consideration is that while someone of 12 or 13 who secures a
yearling will be ready for college while the animals are still quite
young. I think that a change which would allow us to pass title would
assist significantly in utilizing private maintenance for excess animals.
The third alternative may be the only viable alternative under the restric
tions which we are operating. There is no question as to the distasteful
aspects of having to take direct action to hold the population in check
but we must give serious consideration to this alternative also. For
many of the animals, this would be far more humane than to be subjected
to improper care as mentioned earlier. But in addition to the extreme
distaste that most people have for killing healthy beautiful horses of
4
the type we have in Susanville, there is the cold hard fact that shooting
horses with a high powered rifle will not be very efficient. After the
first few shots, the horses will be harder to stalk than elk during
season.
I believe that we can demonstrate that if we could utilize the helicopter
in effecting management control and could pass title to the horses,
that we would be able to carry out the population control and management
of this species.
5
Appendix No. 8
WILD FREE-ROAMING HORSE AND BURRO MEETING
Forest Service Management Plans and Problems in Nevada
by Orlo Johnson
Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros being a part of the "National System
of National Forest Lands," our objective, stated very simply, is to main-
tain a thriving ecological balance on the ranges where these animals exist.
If you aren't aware of this fact, this is the first time the Forest Service
has had the responsibility for management of a wild animal.
In the three years since passage of the Act, progress in management of
these animals and their home range hasn't been as rapid as desired.
Progress is being made as we are approaching the management planning phase
but problems have also been uncovered.
PROBLEMS
1. Inventory - To manage anything whether it be plant or animal we
must know where and when and how much of the subject exists. We have
difficulties here in establishing numbers, and the where and when of
seasonal migrations. Reference to the Forest Service Wild Horse and Burro
Territories on the Nevada State map. Vegetative cover type, topography,
wild nature of the animals, mobility are some specific problems on this
inventory .
2. Lack of Biological Data - Some of us know much about the needs and
the behavior of the domestic horse-we know little about the wild ones.
Again to manage an animal we must know of the nature and needs of that
animal and his habitat. A management plan developed without good data is
a management plan without a reasonable chance for success .
The Forest Service in Nevada is in this phase of the program. We are
confirming inventories, and territories and collecting basic data on the
animal and his habitat. Refer to the South Monitor territory and popu-
lation analysis. This data isn't gospel and is only mentioned here as an
indicator. Its value is relative only to a single season of data collection.
Total animals
306
Avg. band size
4.2
Colts/100 adults
16.7
Yearlings/100 adults
4.6
Animals in low sage cover type
71%
Animals in P-J type
18%
Herd of 1-3 animals (classified)
39%
are male
Herd of 4+ animals (classified)
10%
are male
2
3* Population Control - To manage any animal, population control over
that animal is a must. And for a good management system that can be
coordinated with other resource uses, we should be able to rotate that
use within the boundaries of the established territory. We do not have
the means to accomplish this part of the job in this rough country at
this time. Practically and safely it cannot be done with existing
direction.
In my opinion, these 3 problems are most important in the management of
these animals. The first two will only take time, perseverance and a
budget. The latter needs reconsideration of existing legislation and
this is perhaps most critical in the management of Wild Free-Roaming
Horses and Burros.
4. Coordination - There are innumerable problems now known and yet
unforeseen in the management of this resource: Paramount to these are
competition for space, water and forage between the wild ones, wildlife,
dome .tic livestock and people. The objective of this management planning
will be coordinated use and sustained yield on the habitat and an ecologi-
cal nalance on these wild horse territories. We expect it to be difficult
but riot impossible.
Our people on the Tonopah Ranger District have developed a study plan for
the ollection of data on this subject. We thought this would be of
mte est to you and therefore, John Lytle, Range Conservationist, is here
with an explanation of that study plan.
3
The Humboldt National Forest has a rather unique situation in a wild horse
management area and one that's been under observation for some time.
Darwin Jensen, Ranger at Lamoille, will tell us about the situation on the
Cherry Spring area.
4
Appendix No. 9
WILD HORSES IN THE TONAPAH RANGER DISTRICT
by
John Lyttle - Range Conservationist
With the passage of 92-195, the Forest Service had the responsibility
of protection and management of wild free-roaming horses. At the same
time we felt we didn't have the data to carry out this responsibility or
it was nonexistent. We on the Tonopah Ranger District felt we needed to
get and accomplish this information and data before we could write a manage-
ment plan and this is what we have done to date.
We felt there were three major categories of data necessary if the
land manager were to develop and implement a coordinated management plan.
These three categories are: Impact on the land itself, impact on other
users, and the biology of the horses and burros.
I'll go right in to the biology of the horses and burros, mainly
on observation and methods, how we come up with identification of these
animals, etc. First, the specific objectives of this plan were to determine
territories and population and obtain individual animal identification
for the entire Tonopah Ranger District by December 31, 1975.
Second, obtain the remainder of the data outlined in this handout
I passed out to be done by toe District resources, what's available to
us, by December 31, 1976,
Third, to develop and implement management plans based on the data
collected for vegetation, soil and water resources and the impact on
other users by December 31, 1977,
Fourth, secure interest, financing, and expertise needed to obtain
the data which cannot be provided by the District resources. Here,
we’re going to require help from the University of Nevada, research,
and other Forest Service experts, or functional experts, to help us
to obtain this data.
And the fifth is to develop and implement a coordinated management
plan by December 31, 1978. (Presented a slide program)
Appendix No. 10
SUMMARY OF A PRESENTATION MADE BY DARWIN R0 JENSEN, DISTRICT
RANGER, HUMBOLDT NATIONAL FOREST, AT THE NATIONAL WILDHORSE
ADVISORY MEETING AT RENO, NEVADA 9/19/74.
The wildhorse range at the south end of the Ruby Mountains in
Elko Country, Nevada, covers an area of approximately 37 square
miles. The area lies within portions of two cattle grazing
allotments and one sheep allotment..
The basic objective in management of this wildhorse herd is
to provide a thriving ecological balance of wildhorses,
wildlife and livestock.
1. Identify areas of probable conflict among wildhorses,
livestock, wildlife, recreation and other resource uses,
giving emphasis to conflicts where there is competition
for forage.
2. Inventory the range to determine vegetative condition and
trend, soil condition and trend and get estimates of
forage availability. Inventory wildlife in the area and
inventory wildhorses.
The wildhorse inventory includes gathering the following information.
Description of horses, numbers by age class, birth rate by class,
population size and density, mortality rate, age structure of each
band and composition of each band by sex.
At the last inventory made of the wildhorse herd 191 horses were
inventoried. This is believed to be virtually a 100 percent
inventory.
■
'J:
IS?
Appendix No. 11
WH&B Advisory Board Meeting
Reno, Nevada
September 19, 1974
Nevada Situation - Presented by R. E. Ferris
Mr. Ferris presented a Nevada map displaying the status of inventories and the
distribution of wild horses and burros within the State. Present inventories
indicate the population is in excess of 23,000 horses and 1,000 burros.
Over 7,000 of these horses have been claimed but only 834 actually captured and
removed.
Data relative to horse population increases was presented showing an average
increase of 19.6% based upon partial foal crop and approximately 25% increase
annually based upon total animal numbers.
Nevada is capturing and banding animals on a limited basis as the opportunity
occurs to assist in determining herd composition, seasonal movement, and colt
production and survival.
The major objectives in Nevada by job priority and the associated problems
were identified and discussed as follows:
Objectives (by priority) Problems
A.
Protection of WH&B's in
1.
Vast area involved.
accordance with P.L. 92-195
2.
Investigation and enforcement.
and 43 CFR 4700.
3.
Prosecution and court action.
B.
Completion of reliable
1.
Vast area involved and cost in
inventory.
manpower and funds.
2.
Importance of season.
3.
Supplemental data.
Additional cost
a. Animal classification
b. Photographs
C.
Interim population control.
1.
EAR or EIS.
2.
Capture or control techniques.
3.
Disposal of excess animals.
D.
Completion of MFP's.
1.
Completion Statewide FY 77.
2.
Update as additional data available.
E.
Development and implementation
1.
EAR's or EIS's.
of activity plans.
2.
Readjudication of forage production.
3.
Population control.
4.
Construction of management facilities
Mr. Ferris also discussed an interim management proposal for wild horses and
burros. This proposal would identify priority areas within the State for
future management and allow the public to evaluate the trade-offs made to
provide for each wild horse or burro herd management area. A copy of this
proposal was provided each Board member.
-
Appendix No. 12
WILD HORSES IN OREGON
by
Don Gipe
Chief, Branch of Range, Watershed and Wildlife
Oregon State Office, BLM
I'm going to give you a very short rundown on Oregon generally, population
summaries, etc., and then Chris Vosler, our District Manager in Burns,
will give you a slide presentation on the East Kiger herd that Mr. Turcott
mentioned this morning and the gathering that is in progress there.
We started out in 1971 with our first inventory at 2,941 head. Granted,
this was not a thorough inventory. There was not as much time spent on
it as there should be and, of course, we didn't have as good a technique
as we have now, but the 1974 inventory showed 5,728 head total. We have
concentrated on identifying colts during these inventories and these
vary from 15 percent to as high as 28 percent in certain areas. One
report we have from the Lakeview District, they really concentrated on
doing an excellent job there and they used helicopters in the survey,
they showed in 1974 a 28 percent colt crop with a total increase of only
19 percent. This does show that there is some death loss out there. We
feel this particular inventory is extremely accurate and we doubt that
there ' s going to be very much additional numbers found other than normal
increases .
We have prepared one herd management plan for Oregon and that is in the
Burns District; it's the one Chris will talk about. We are in the
process of preparing three or four additional plans. These are going to
to be on the areas in which we have the primary problem. We don't have,
as everyone has mentioned, the manpower or the funds to do the job that
we really feel needs to be done. So all we can do is to hotshot some of
this and hopefully keep from getting into too bad a shape until the
manpower and funds are forthcoming.
We've had 24 claims filed in Oregon for 1,208 horses. These were filed
in the 3-month period following the development of the regulations and
the numbers have increased since that time. That is, the actual herd
increases. . .the claimed horses are increasing right along with the
wild ones.
We've had several attempts at gathering, primarily with two different
operators. One of them had 130 head claimed and he worked for 5 days
and gathered 106. That's not too bad considering the success that many
others have had in there. One of the primary reasons for this is that
these horses, the majority of them, had been gathered periodically over
the years and turned back out so they were used to coming into the
corral.
The ether operator has a claim for 230 head and he worked for 7 days
with a group of good horse wranglers, they've been in the horse business
for many years, and he gathered 20 head in that 7-day period.
We've had two or three other claims, one and two head, that have gone
out and gathered the animals. These were mostly gentle animals that got
away and were claimed during the claiming process.
As everywhere else during our adjudication process, the horses that were
out there were not considered in the allocation of forage, only wildlife
and domestic livestock, primarily. We considered these horses in trespass
and we encouraged the owners to remove the horses.
The problem comes up of how do we go about reducing the livestock numbers
under our appeals procedures without a new forage inventory. This takes
a lot of time and a lot of effort and we simply do not have the resources
to do this.
We're fortunate, I think, in Oregon, for the most part, and we certainly
have areas that are critical, we've had a series of pretty good years
and our horse population increases have not really resulted in a deteri-
oration of the area yet. I want to emphasize that this is not true
throughout the total State. There are areas that are critical and Chris
will talk about that today. Our primary conflict is between big game
and the wild horses, both antelope and deer. This is what we know about
them. We really don't know how much conflict there is between the sage
grouse and the horse populations and between the many other forms of
wildlj fe that are out there.
We ha^e had some problems. We had some horses lost last year where they
got into a new area that they hadn't been in, they were not familiar
with the area, the water ran out, and they died. Several of them died
and we had to shoot a few. These are some of the things we are going to
have to face and in order to prevent that kind of thing we're going to
have to do a better job of surveillance and again, funds and manpower
limit that kind of surveillance.
2
We've got problems with bighorn sheep and wild horses in one area in
Oregon. This is along the Owyhee Breaks next to the Owyhee River. The
conflict is not too great at present but we know from past experience
that this is an excellent horse area, they multiply very rapidly and
there' ve been gatherings out of there over the years beginning around
World War II and following of several thousand head in this particular
area. The last gathering, I believe, was in 1967 or 8 when the ranchers
gathered out of there. There are still some 230 head in that area.
Another example of what we consider quite reliable inventory in that
particular area, they inventoried it in February by helicopter and they
came back about a month ago and re inventoried it and came up with only
a difference of only two adult animals.
We've got a number of areas in which the horses are moving into that
they did not inhabit prior to the passage of the Act. In one particular
area the herd increased from our initial inventory of 80 head to a
little over 200 head and, again, part of that is a result of improved
inventory, but they have moved out, about 80 of them have moved out of
the area in which they inhabited in 1971 to an area where there has been
no wi Ld horses for at least 10 years. We've got a number of areas in
the Vale District that the same thing is happening. Some of this resulted
from last year being a dry year, shortage of water, and horses moved out
to new areas to find water. During that period, again in the Vale
District primarily, there was quite a conflict between domestic livestock
and horses during the short water period. The horses would actually
drive the cows away from the water and so the cows, restricted to the
use ci water, had to be taken out early.
We've got one area in the Bailey's Butte unit of the Lakeview District
in which there's obvious competition between the antelope and the wild
horses. VJe don't know just why, but the antelope are moving out of this
area pretty heavily. We don't have any specific figures, but the Game
Commission inventories show a reduction in antelope in this particular
location. Again, when the gatherings are complete and all the claimed
animaLs are taken out of the area then we'll be back to a point where we
can live with it for a short time.
I think that the most serious problem that we have right now, and this
is going to be a continuing problem, is in the John Day River area where
we've got some 250 head of horses and again this inventory is not
anywhere near complete. The public land in that area varies from about
10 percent to about 40 percent. It's a real bad situation. All of
these horses have been claimed and the claims approved by us and the
3
Oregon Brand Inspector, but gathering is going to be something else.
It's real rough country similar to some the Forest Service was showing
this morning and it's impossible, even I think with a helicopter, to
gather all of the horses out of that particular area. Unless we can get
a cooperative agreement with the ranchers in that area we are going to
have to eliminate the horses from where they are using the private land.
Someone this morning mentioned the problems we would run into in trying
to shoot the animals. I agree wholeheartedly that even though it might
be acceptable to the public it's going to be a tremendous job to try to
clean them out that way. I believe it will be virtually impossible.
Conflicts at present are primarily in the Burns District. We've got
several areas in that District where we've got severe competition between
big game, deer winter ranges, and horse populations. Also in this area
we've got a heavy obligation of livestock and something's got to give.
We have closed most of the areas in Oregon to the licensing of domestic
horses. We feel that this is absolutely essential to the disposition of
any branded livestock that may be in there and there's a lot of them,
I'm sure, that will be branded simply because the owners have either
left t:he country or they decided not to put in a claim because of the
problems involved and the trespass charges, etc. In one particular case
there was an area that had 125 head of horses in. There's no question
in our minds or in the minds of the brand department as to who those
horses belong to, but this individual decided not to file a claim because
we restricted the gathering by prohibiting the use of aircraft and he
felt he could not do the job without it and he didn't want to take on
the burden of trying.
Chris Vosler , District Manager, Burns, Oregon gave a slide presentation
on the roundup of excess horses now underway in the East Kiger Gorge
allotment. The District Manager gave each board member a copy of the
wild horse management plan that provides for maintaining a viable herd
of wild horses in this allotment.
4
Appendix No. 13
DAILY AND SEASONAL MOVEMENTS OF FERAL BURROS (Equus as inis) i
in the Havasu Resource. Area, Colorado River Valley, California — Arizona
by Dr. Robert Ohm art
Assisted by Ms. Susan Woodward and Mr. Rick Seegmiller
Arizona State University
The immobilizing drug, H-99. has been used successfully to capture feral
burros in the Havasu Resource Area. A dosage of 2.25 M-99 combined with
30.0 mg Azaperone has proven effective on all age classes (except very young
colts, which were not immobilized by drugs) and has resulted in no deleterious
side-effects. Drugged burros were immobile within a mean of 10 minutes (range =
3“30| n = 33) following injection with the drug and were back on their feet
about 6 minutes after intramuscular injection of the antidote, M50-50 (4.5 mg).
M 50-50 injected intravenously gives a much quicker response in that bunos
are mobile within 45-53 seconds.
All captured burros 6 months of age or older were eartagged and fitted
either with color-collars or radio-bearing collars. Two one-month colts,
being too small for collars, were only eartagged. Standard measurements
were taken on all animals; weights and ages were estimated. In addition,
blood and fecal samples were collected for analysis. There are presently
one jack and one jenny instrumented with radios on each side of the Colorado
River. In the Bill Williams Mountains (Arizona) study site, there are 7
3
color-collared burros; 6 in the Aubrey Kills (Arizona) near the south end
f Lake Havasu; and 25 in the Trampas Wash area of the Chemehuevi Mountains
(California) .
Capture data, a skull collection and field observations permit a preliminary
description of the copulation structure of feral burro herds. Tnis information
is summarized in Tables 1-2.
Skulls were gathered from the deserts on both sides of the Colorado
River within and without the Havasu Resource Area. Most came from near the
Imperial National Wildlife Refuge (Arizona) north of luma, Arizona, or from
the Aubrey Hills south of lake Kavasu City, Arizona. The clumping of skull
finds and the young ag of many of the dead animals leads us to believe that
mo.it are the remains of burros shot before Public Law 92-195 went into effect,
and that the collection, therefore, represents a more or less random sample
of the tot il population. Ages of captured animals and of burro skulls were
estimated, according to a dentition chart for horses and mules. At about
3 years, tushes erupt in the male, allowing the determination of sex in the
skull collection. It is not clear at this time at what age sexual maturity
occurs in wild burros. Females less than one year old have been observed
copulating. One collared female with an estimated age of 2-| years had a
one-month old colt. Since the gestation is approximately 3^5 days, she must
have conceived when about 18 months old.
Skull data show the eldest animals to be males and suggest that differ-
ential mortality during the reproductive years may lead to the imbalanced
sex ratios observed.
Movements of burros marked in the Chemehuevi Mountains (California)
have been monitored since late January 197^* Although definite conclusions
must await further data, some generalizations and tentative statements can
be made. The distance covered by a burro in a single day is often less than
a mile. This is especially true in cool weather or after rains when the
burros do not have to travel to the Colorado River for water. It Is usually
possible to relocate a burro in the morning within 0.5 to 1.0 miles of where
it was last seen the evening before.
Burros spend most of their time on the interfluves. Major washes, at
least in the cool seasons, appear to be the main avenues for travel to the
Colorado River. If water is available in springs, tenejas or arroyo channel
sands, burros do not go to the river to drink. Now that these are dry, when
the burros visit the river, very little time is spent in the riparian vegetation
(mesquite-tamarisk) . After a trek of over a mile to the river, they have
been observed to stay at the river's edge for less than 10 minutes. This
pattern, of course, may change during summer months.
There has not been enough time yet to determine seasonal distribution
patterns or annual home ranges. A shift toward the river with prolonged
drought and the onset of hot weather is indicated in both the aerial surveys
and ground observations.
Quantitative appraisal of the diet of burros is not yet available.
Fecal analysis is being conducted by R. M. Hanson at Colorado State University
and over 70 samples have been sent to Dr. Hanson's laboratory. Field ob-
servations show a reliance on cured annuals (especially Plantago) throughout
the winter and spring months. In the spring, burros supplemented this diet
with greening shrubs and flowering forbs. They have been seen to take the
3
following perennials with apparent relish i Fouquieria splendens, Lycium
andersonii, Ambrosia dumosa, and Kraneria grayl. Ceridium floridum is a minor
element in their diet at this time of year. (The several head of cattle in
the area seem to rely more heavily on palo verdes than do burros.)
Considerable damage is done to ocotlllo, which has its stems broken
and bark (including thorns) stripped} but no plants seem to have been killed
by concentrated browsing. Instead, the ocotillo apparently responds by
branching and giving a denser, thornier appearance, which may discourage
further browsing.
In many instances Ambrosia is closely cropped and stunted, if not
destroyed. However, only the new growth and flowers of Lycium and Kramerla
are removed. With annuals, the whole plant, including roots, is consumed.
Luplnus sp. is avoided and possible Cryptantha sp. also. Encelia is a species
which is definitely ignored, if not avoided. Table 4 gives a tentative listing
of the flora of the Trampas Wash area and indicates those species which
burros have been observed eating.
Attention has been paid to any type of social behavior among burros
which might Influence their distribution or density. So far no definite
sign of territoriality or dominance on the part of a jack has been observed.
This may be in part due to the large number of indistinguishable gray males.
Additional collaring will hopefully remedy this situation.
In general, males travel
singly or in small groups of 2 - 5 animals. This breaks down when a female
is in estrus and as many as 20 males may attend and copulate with her.
Jennies remain alone with their colts or in a jenny group composed of 2,
seldom 3, jennies and their colts. During the month of May, it should
be noted, this general pattern has changed and larger jenny groups and mixed
groups have been seen. This may be due to a restriction of movements and
hence increase in population density to within 1-2 miles of the Colorado
River, presently their only water supply. It remains to be seen if the larger
herds are usual in the hot, dry summer months.
Analysis of body measurements from immobilized adults Indicates there
are no significant differences between sexes in either California or Arizona.
Further, there are no significant differences in body measurements between
the populations that were sample°d in California versus Arizona.
4
Renewal of our contract will allow Susan Woodward to continue full-
time field studies on burros in the Trampas Wash Area from July 1, 1974
to June 30, 1975. Richard Seegmiller is currently living in the Bill
Williams Mountains and will be there until August 20, 1974. He will return
in December (1974) and remain until June 30, 1975. Both are examining
behavior, movements and food habits of burros in their studies and
Seegmiller will concentrate on bighorn sheep/burro interactions when the
sheep begin to lamb in January and February.
TABLE 1
Age Classes and Sex Ratio According to Skull Data
Age
Males
Females
< 1 year
- •
-
2 years* s
• -
-
3
2
1
4
1
1
5
3
1
6
0
1
7
0
1
8
0
0
9
0
2
10
2
0
11
0
1
12
0
0
13
1
0
14
2
0
15
2
0
16
1
0
17
0
0
18
1
0
Total 15 8
??
8
7
3
18
Total
8
7
6
2
4
1
1
0
2>
2
1
0
1
2
2
1
0
1
41
*Sexes cannot be determined from dentition until about 3 yeaxs of age.
Age Classes
TABUS 2
and Sex Ratios According to Capture E&ta*
Hales Females Both Sexes
6 mos - l-,i yr 2
1-2 yrs 8
3 ?
4 4
5 2
6 0
7 2
8 0
9 0
10 0
11 1
Totals 24
Not a random sample since
4
2
4
3
3
1
1
0
1
6
10
9 •
7
5
1
3
0
1
0
0
0
1
19 ^3
adults were selectively captured and marked.
TABUS 3
Age Classes and Sex Ratios According
to Field Observations
Ground Observations
Males
Females
??
Total
Colts < 1 yr
4
5
3
12
Adults >1 yr
21
li
— H
2k
Total '•
25
20
3
48
Aerial Observations (April flight 1974)*
•
Males
Females
??
Total
Colts < 1 yr
0
0
29
29
Adults > 1 yr
0
0
115
1X1
Total
144
*From fixed-wing aircraft, yearlings might be classified as adults.
Appendix No. 14
Ward Brady
Division of Agriculture
Alii one State University
Tempo, AZ 8528 1
Research Summary for Analysis of Ca Trying Capacity of Feral Burro Habitat
in the Havasu Resource Area s Arizona,
Research has beer: initiated in cooperation with the Bureau of Land
Management on analysis of carrying capacities of desert ranges for Feral
Burros. The attached figure Illustrates some of the major variables under-
study and some of the interrelationships between variables.
Variables under the most intensive study Include forage production in
relation to envl ronmental parameters » distribution of plant community types
over the landscapes and nutritive Quality of desert forage species. Dr,
Clayton Haugebak , of Arizona State University, has Initiated research on
Nutritional Efficiency of Burros. All research is being done In cooperation
with Dr, Robert Ohmart and Information from his studies will be used in the
carrying capacity model,.
Simulation studies based on a more complex model similar to that
illustrated in the figure will be used in the analysis of long term carrying
capacities of desert ranges.
am
Naas! ‘4 i"
.
I
--/•. ■ • ■ y>
* $■
.
OTHf *
INFLUENCES
PSE C I? I TAT ION
L
I
□ 0
TE viP E It A TORE
J
SO. ‘I MOISTURE
1
X.
\
\
if
/ava'ilaslTn
i OSiNMNO
NUMBER OF BURROS
! N SV UDY AREA
3
’[produce a>E ^ta^casom j
i ■> |cTmMU N ! T V
.&&UE{L_>
. ..i1 .
ASONAl A.
b St r i aimcN)
vof sim»Qsy
i
i
~SIaS©nm X
NUTSITIVE QUAUTT]
CHANGES J
<jf
-■ ./"PATTERNS' Of\
'!;> i i i z a t i ohJ
<S
NUMSE*
UliRROS
OF
/HECTAR/SEASONj
/^tbitiowaTN
* KEGUIREMSNTSf-
\ffcR BURRO
/nutritional cmciewcv cT surkSTs
f nufi’ifrnlj abss-rb'.i \
v nu -V ov MOfet*
V
taJfc
*1
:UTIlli ABLE
NUTRIENTS /
CONSUME C;/
■'HcCTA R^/SE-tSON
-1
fp ROPER USE
‘imi or.
! «oS«5/4,ecT*^eAsoKj
y
_r_
1
1
1
f
1
1
1
;
| CONSUMPTION
i REQUIREMENT
RATIO j — J
Appendix No. 15
United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240
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 Reno, Nevada, on September 18-20, 1974.
You will be advised of further details by the Director, Bureau of
Land Management.
i
21 .oil xibn9<3qA
f!
YJ?AT3>ID32 3HT 3C tOIHO
'
. ;'ui
8.a±«60^-sa73 hIJ:W no fcisofl v'xoakvbA I final U.A
.
hr-B ' ?.oaioH gfilmsoJI-asi’? bliW iol bisoa vtoa-rvbA InnoxJBM
,M?I , OS-81 39dmoiq92 no , sbavsft , ono^r r
■
—
Appendix No. 16
NATIONAL ADVISORY BOARD ON WILD
FREE-ROAMING HORSES AND BURROS
Notice of Meeting
Notice is hereby given that the Na-
tional Advisory Board for Wild Free-
Roaming Horses and Burros will hold a
meeting on September 18, 19, and 20 at
the Holiday Inn, 1Q0Q East 6th, Reno,
Nevada, beginning at 8:30 a.m. The agen-
da for the meeting will include :
September 18 — An aerial field trip
southeast of Reno to view wild horse
and burro management problems. The
Advisory Board will leave Reno at 7 am.
and is scheduled to return to Reno at
5 p.m. Since this tour is primarily by air,
no provisions have been made for the
general public to participate in the field
trip.
September 19 — (1) Introduction and
welcome: (2) Public comments; (3)
BLM management plans and problems
with wild horses and burros in the States
of Wyoming, Colorado, California, and
Nevada: (4) Murderer’s Creek Wild
Horse Management Plan, Forest Service ;
(5) Forest Service management plans
and problems in Nevada.
September 20 — (1) Research projects;
(2) Agency reports on (a) Report*© Con-
gress, (b) Oversight hearing, Re-
search and research needs, id) Advisory
Board administrative matters.
The meeting will be open to the pub-
lic. Time has been set aside from 4 to
5 pm., September 19, for brief state-
ments by members of the public. Those
persons wishing to make an oral state-
ment must inform the Advisory Board
Chairman in writing prior to the meet-
ing of the Board. Any interested person
may file a written statement with the
Board for its consideration. The Advi-
sory Board Chairman is Dr. C. Wayne
Cook. Written statements may be sub-
mitted at the meeting or mailed to Dr.
Cook % the Director (330), Bureau of
Band Management, Washington, D.C.
20240.
Additional details can be obtained by
contacting the Office of Public Affairs,
Bureau of Land Management, Federal
Building, Room 3008, 300 Booth Street,
Reno, Nevada 89502.
Minutes of the meeting will be avail-
able for public Inspection 60 days after
the meeting at the Office of the Direc-
tor (330), Bureau of Land Management,
Interior Building, Washington, D.C.
20240.
Geobge L. Turcotte,
Associate Director.
July 19, 1974.
[PR Doc.74—17126 Filed 7-25-74;8:45 am]
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 145— FRIDAY, JULY 26, 1974
'• •• v
Appendix No. 17
IN REPLY REFER TO:
United States Department of the Interior
1214 (330)
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240
Memorandum
To:
Deputy Assistant Director, Resources
From:
Direc tor
Subject: Delegation of Authority--September 1974 Meeting of the
Pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Secretary of
the Interior, I hereby delegate to you authority and responsi-
bility to act as the authorized representative of the Secretary
at the September 18-20 meeting of the joint National Advisory
Board for Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros.
Wild Horse and Burro Advisory Board
Save Energy and You Serve America !
UnitedStates Department of-' Agriculture
FOREST SERVICE
Appendix No. 18
WO
REPLY TO:
2260 Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros
July 15, 1974
subject : 'JSDA Representative to Sixth Meeting of National
Advisory Board for Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros
to: Director, Bureau of Land Management
I will be unable to attend the Sixth Meeting of the National
Advisory Board for Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros on
September 18-20, 1974. Mr. Hal lie L. Cox will attend in my
place and I have delegated to him my responsibilities as
official representative of the Department of Agriculture at this
meeting.
FRANK J. SMITH
Director of Range Management
Appendix No. 19
SUBJECT: Minority Report of Velma B. Johnston, member of the
National Advisory Board on Wild Free-Roaming Horses
and Burros, opposing action taken by the Board at its
meeting in Reno, Nevada, September 18-20, 1974, that
resulted in a recommendation for amendment to Public
Law 92-195.
MOTION: Whereas helicopters are recognized as an essential and
humane tool in management of wildlife throughout the
world;
Now, therefore, be it resolved that the National Wild
Horse and Burro Advisory Board urges the Secretaries,
and through them the Congress of the United States, to
modify the Act in a manner which will allow the use of
motorized equipment and helicopters under direct super-
vision of the Secretaries or duly authorized official
or employee of the Departments in management of wild
horses and burros. (This resolution was part of a
larger resolution as originally proposed. It was
later separated from the original motion and was voted
upon separately.)
The resolution as written sets forth the necessity for removal of wild
horses and burros from public lands in order to make more forage avail-
able for food-producing animals in the face of shortage of food for
human consumption; and in order to reduce and control the numbers of
these animals that use of aircraft be allowed through amendment to
existing legislation.
The vote I will make to that resolution as it has been presented to
the board will cast me in the role of a person not caring whether the
world eats or not, and I do care. I would like to see our ranges back
like they belong. Included in that resolution, however, is the one
thing I cannot support. I want it perfectly understood that my "no"
vote on that resolution is solely because the provision to restore the
use of aircraft is included in that resolution. Please understand that.
I want to point out, too, at this point that everything is being zeroed
in on the wild horses and burros. Under the Multiple-Use Act, there
are many, many other uses that are going to affect our public land
resource and drastically affect the domestic livestock interests. It
just happens the wild horses are the scapegoats at this point. I want
to make very clear my position that I do not believe solving this
situation on wild horses is going to save the public lands. Not unless
other encroachments upon them are likewise given the same public atten-
tion and the same undue pressures that this particular issue has been
subjected to. I will support the reduction and designation of specific
areas if that part of the resolution is presented separately from the
recommendation for restoration of use of aircraft.
j
)
2
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11