Horse News

Advocates Say Scientific Wild Horse Panel is Pro-Livestock

Story by Scott Sonnor, first previewed in the Santa Cruz Sentential

Glaring Conflict of Interests Alarms Wild Horse Community

RENO, Nev.—A panel of experts chosen to spend two years generating the definitive study on wild horse management in the West is kicking up controversy before it even gets out of the chute.

Mustang protection advocates contend the committee charged with solving a conundrum that has eluded consensus for decades is stacked with allies of the livestock industry who won’t give the horses a fair shake.

The panel’s 14 members were picked by the National Academy of Sciences, an independent organization chartered by Congress to advise the government on science. Their first meeting is set for Thursday in Reno.

The American Wild Horse Protection Campaign, Cloud Foundation and others say several of the appointees are outspoken defenders of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management‘s current management strategy that relies on “mass wild horse roundups and removals at the expense of on-the-range management strategies.'”

“The heart of the controversy surrounding the wild horse issue is the conflict between private livestock and wild horses on the 11 percent of BLM land that is designated as wild horse habitat,” said Suzanne Roy, director of the American Wild Horse Protection Campaign, a coalition of environmental, public interest and animal rights organizations.

The public’s need for an accurate, objective review of the government’s controversial wild-horse management program will not be served unless the National Academy of Sciences corrects the panel’s “imbalances,” Roy said.

Academy spokesman Bill Kearney said the organization’s staff and legal counsel will investigate any concerns about conflicts and consider disqualifying members or adding new ones to provide additional expertise.

The BLM asked the academy earlier this year to assemble the panel of wildlife biologists, rangeland ecologists and others to review the program at an estimated cost of $1.2 million, after prodding from members of Congress critical of the roundups. The agency, which plans to round up another 6,000 horses in the coming months, argues the gathers are necessary to ease ecological damage on the range.

Opponents maintain the horse numbers are much lower than historical highs and that the roundups are intended to appease ranchers who don’t want the mustangs competing with their cattle and sheep for limited forage on arid rangeland.

The committee is tasked with producing a comprehensive study that addresses, among other things, total herd populations, genetic diversity, appropriate management levels, and population control options including immunocontraception and “managing a portion of a population as non-reproducing,” according to the academy’s website.

Committee members under fire include Dr. David Thain, former Nevada state veterinarian who is an assistant professor in the Department of Agriculture, Nutrition and Veterinary Sciences at the University of Nevada Reno.

Thain is a member of the Nevada Livestock Association—a “clear conflict of interest,” said Ginger Kathrens, executive director of the Colorado-based Cloud Foundation.

Thain also has published research on two drugs used to control horse fertility that some horse advocates dislike for fear of side effects, Roy said. He has a “vested academic interest in promoting specific fertility control agents” and therefore is not an objective committee member, she said.

Thain told The Associated Press he was familiar with the criticisms but felt it was best not to respond.

Other panel members targeted by critics include Erik Beever, a research landscape ecologist with the U.S. Geological Survey’s Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center in Bozeman, Mont., and Paul Krausman, a wildlife biologist in the University of Montana’s College of Forestry and Conservation in Missoula.

Beever is a member and Krausman the president-elect of the Wildlife Society, a national professional scientific group that Roy said has taken an advocacy role in defending BLM roundups.

Beever declined to comment directly on the groups’ criticism. He said he didn’t know the majority of the panel members but felt the ones he did know would be impartial. He said he got the impression that concern about the possible appearance of a conflict was the reason the BLM asked the academy to do the review as an “independent, impartial, scientific institution.”

“In inquiries to me, it seemed that they were seeking to achieve as much balance in terms of the disciplinary expertise as they possibly could,” he said Friday in an email to AP.

Krausman referred questions to academy staff.

Nevada has roughly half of the 33,000 wild horses that freely roam 10 Western states. Another 40,000 horses are being housed in short- and long-term holding facilities in the West and Midwest—a costly practice that has helped force the new search for solutions.

Over the 2010 fiscal year, holding costs accounted for $36.9 million, or 57 percent, of the BLM wild horse and burro program’s $63.9 million budget.

BLM spokesman Tom Gory said the agency has taken a “hands-off” approach to the committee’s review.

“We don’t have any control over any selections,” he said.

At the panel’s first meeting Thursday, members will listen to presentations from a number of experts then take public comment.

On Friday, the committee will hold an executive-session meeting, which will be closed to the public. The session will include a discussion about “conflict of interest and bias” and whether the committee is appropriately balanced from a scientific perspective, said Kearney, the academy spokesman.

“It’s not unusual after the first meeting to add a member or two for balance, or find additional expertise in an area where committee members may be lacking,” Kearney said.

For Additional Information to Attend First Meeting Click (HERE)

17 replies »

  1. 33,000 is not accuate. Carla Bowers and Cindy MacDonald had the right number. I think it will be 17,000 or is it that already?

    Like

  2. This sounds like they don’t want public input at all. Experts across the pound have been in this country and will counter any scientific data. As with any report of a scientific nature it will be peer reviewed by experts in their field not cattlemen and their payed monkey’s. Ken Salazar is and always will be a cattle rancher off paper. His friend’s on the other hand have a vested interest and all they have to say is boo and he clicks his heels to make horses disappear. I hope their is enough scientist to pick apart this report formed by this joke of a committee.

    Like

  3. THIS meeting should be open to the Public:

    On Friday, the committee will hold an executive-session meeting, which will be closed to the public. The session will include a discussion about “conflict of interest and bias” and whether the committee is appropriately balanced from a scientific perspective, said Kearney, the academy spokesman.

    Like

    • Louie I respectfully disagree. Boards need to be able to meet and talk without worry of being overheard–think of it like what goes on in the jury room during deliberations.

      However, we do have about an hour and a half to speak to our feelings. Plus I think they will also take written comments from those of us who are to frightened to speak in public!

      Thurs afternoon/early evening is OUR time to make our comments, to the point and be on target.

      Like

  4. This study is rigged before it even begins. Not surprising. Pro-corporate bias has infected the NAS too. They make sure they get their people on the panels to sway the outcome.

    Like

  5. If it’s got government initials its got government bias. If this panel stands as is they don’t have to worry about BLM interference, its already there. And who are they going to be getting their reports and numbers from? Ah let me guess.

    Like

  6. There may just not be such a thing as “unbiased”, this may not be a reality……!

    The study needs to be more than one study with documentation, evidence and analysis that can be scrutinized by a jury of accredited scientists and respected environmentalists (not affiliated with the National Academy of Science) that have taken weeks and weeks to pick.

    This information just furthers the deceit that surrounds anything to do with public lands and wild horses.

    I tell you, James, since someone in our midst suggested to talk to you as a filmmaker, a major motion picture project is needed of the goings on of all that is involved in this atrocity. A “Mission Impossible” group on secret missions allowing the captive horses freedom and releasing them back into the wild! Uncovering corruption, governmental and corporate control, and the plans for destruction and the take over of our country and our rights as citizens. Can you picture this?! Espionage, fast paced, tension, investigation, discovery and the fight for freedom, humane treatment and the rightful protection of wild horse protected by Law….

    Maybe this would get some attention!

    Like

  7. Margaret, I see your point. It does seem, though, that they would have already considered our comments as to a balanced panel. Comments were due by the end of September. To discuss this on the final day of the meeting seems a bit strange to me.

    Like

  8. It is not livestock when it is our friend to ride and enjoy. And to top it off they are full of Bute. A chemical not meant for humans, causes cancer. But we are so stupid to eat and think “no nothing will happen. Europeans are waking up and realize american horses are full of such chemical humans should not be eating at all and are discusted and will avoid. And we all wonder why we have like all meats, cholestoral, high blood pressure, cancers of all types, that in the end kill us.

    Like

  9. Congressman Grijalva’s letter to Secretary Salazar, signed by 64 members of Congress…just a couple of paragraphs regarding census

    Click to access Grijalva%20Letter%20to%20Salazar%20Wild%20Horse%20Managament%20July%2028.pdf

    We are also concerned that BLM has consistently failed to round up its target number of wild horses. There are numerous examples of actual herd numbers ending up to be far fewer than stated in the BLM Environmental Assessments. For example, a roundup this winter in the Antelope Complex of northeastern Nevada resulted in the removal of 1,398 wild horses. BLM maintained that there were 2,705 horses on the range and intended to remove between 1,867-2,228 of those horses. If BLM estimates of herd size are consistently more than actual herd size, then the stated overpopulation problem could be much more manageable than presented by BLM and require far fewer roundups. This discrepancy demonstrates the need for the execution of
    more accurate censuses.

    Given the current methods employed, we have serious doubts about BLM’s ability to provide an accurate census of the wild horse and burros. Despite pressure from outside groups for a state-ofthe- art multispectral camera census using unmanned aircraft- currently in use by Homeland Security, NASA, and the Department of Defense- it appears no real effort has been made to explore this option. The potential for partnership with other Federal Agencies with access to this technology exists. A partnership between NASA and the US Forest Service has resulted in the use of the unmanned aircraft to spot forest fires. Customs and Border Protection has unmanned
    aircraft at our Northern and Southern Borders that could be engaged for accurate wildlife census in the Western states.

    Like

  10. Excellent points, Louie.

    As to the discussion by the committee about bias, I also agree with Louie. Supposedly they should have already taken into account all of our comments sent to them back in September and done something to address the obvious imbalances of the committee members. I am under the impression they are just paying lip service to the promise of an unbiased committee and report. Maybe Mr. Sonnor’s article will be published in more places and force them to follow through.

    But I sure would like to be a fly on the wall during that particular meeting…..

    Like

  11. In DC the NRC Rep said that they would discuss the issues of bias and conflict of interest at this meeting. They may use the comments that were made, but this is the loose draft of the committee.

    The Wildlife Society has an agenda that refuses to consider recent studies that take advantage of mitochondrial DNA. This may be a set-up by FWS to stack this group. The Congressional testimony of the WS Director CEO Michael Hutchins should be part of the Congressional Record for this Congress with regard to HB 305 (could be 306). This testimony reveals an unmistakeable bias against wild horses.

    Like

    • The Wildlife Society is made up mostly of ex-BLM agents which explains their bias against our native wild horses.
      Why did the director get to testify before Congress with a bunch of lies? Why can’t our experts testify with the truth ?!

      Like

  12. A bit off-topic, but maybe not so much considering Nevada is the battleground state for the future of the majority of wild horses. The Nevada Appeal is still conducting their poll entitled: “Should the wild mustangs replace the Bighorn sheep as the state animal?”. Please vote “YES”!!! You can vote once a day, every day. Let the politicians and citizens Nevada know we support this singular honor for mustangs!
    http://apps.nevadaappeal.com/utils/polling/poll_results.php?poll_ident=2884

    Like

    • Agreed and I hope advocate go vote. BUT…the problem with NV being the battle ground state (and I only agree on that based on living pop counts…not HMAs, etc), the 1971 Act seems (and apparently always has been) negligent in the migratory nature of the wild equines (much like Big Bend) and ergo private and state and/or all leased lands (essentially set up to shut Annie up and give the “go” light to the killers). Factor in the abortion riders and amendments that have gutted the space granted, putrid pop counts, 3 strikes, etc…these killers got the system locked down a very long time ago.

      But we will not go away.

      Like

Care to make a comment?

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.