Retort to Williams(II) by Jay Kirkpatrick, Ph. D. Director. Shared with permission....
December 5, 2006
Contact:
Jay F. Kirkpatrick, Ph.D., Director
The Science and Conservation Center
2100 South Shiloh Road
Billings, MT 59106
406-652-9719
jkirkpatrick@montana.net
(3,211-word count)
(Please note: Cross-posting on listserves and between
individuals is permitted. However, formal publication
requires explicit permission from the author.)
*******************************************
A Wild Horse Scientist’s Retort to “Horse Sense”
by Jay F. Kirkpatrick, Ph.D.
(© 2006 by Jay F. Kirkpatrick)
Recently, an essay titled “Horse Sense” was published in Audubon magazine’s “Incite” section (September-October 2006, pp. 36-43), regarding wild horses in North America
http://www.audubonmagazine.org/incite/incite0609.html. The writer, Ted Williams, is a well-known and respected wildlife writer, and, on balance, he usually produces material that has a sound factual base that represents reasonable journalism. But sometimes even good writers have bad days. At the very least, his work deserves some form of response.
The article was aimed at the wild horse and this species’ transgressions against the land, livestock and wildlife. As such, it is no different than dozens of other similar articles published over the years. This piece, however, has two major flaws (as well as some laudable points). The first problem with the commentary is that on several salient points, it strays from reality. The second problem is that it diverts the reader from the real issues, which are not scientific, but those of policy, economics and culture.
First, let us all recognize that the entire subject of wild horses is especially emotional, laced through and through with strident opinions and differing value systems… and even a modicum of decent science. That doesn’t make the subject of wild horses much different from modern politics, but like this depressing example, conclusions based on opinions or unfounded ideas seldom lead us to satisfactory solutions.
Mr. Williams asserts that wild horses are a major problem, for several reasons. At the outset, let me make it clear that I agree that they do represent a major problem, but at the same time, I see different problems than those Mr. Williams points out. To get at the heart of the debate, let’s survey some of the assertions made by the author.
He argues that the heart of the 1971 Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burro’s Act mission, “to achieve and maintain a thriving natural ecological balance on the public lands,” is impossible. The rationale he offers that achieving this goal is impossible is that (1) there is no ability for “non-lethal feral-equid management,” and (2) that wild horses are not “native” to the North American continent. He then dissembles and tries to discredit claims that they are native by suggesting that this argument makes no more sense than claiming elephants are native because wooly mammoths were here during the Pleistocene Epoch. A bit later, he argues that the claim that wild horses in North America are linked to old Spanish Colonial horses of the 16th and 17th centuries is false.
Let’s examine these three key points of debate before we look deeper into Mr. Williams’ attacks upon the wild horse. The assertion that there is no “non-lethal feral-equid management” tool available is at odds with the facts. It is factual that the Bureau of Management’s (BLM) Adopt-A-Horse Program, where horses are gathered from federal lands and adopted out to worthy and responsible owners, is incapable of meeting management goals, and in some cases is not even “non-lethal,” with a small number of animals ending up in slaughter houses. But Adopt-A-Horse is a small part, and one tool that contributes to the potential solution. In and of itself, it is a failure, but as part of a larger, more diverse plan, it has some value. However, one non-lethal management tool that does currently exist is fertility control, and the evidence for its success is based in hard data. The National Park Service uses this approach successfully on Assateague Island and Cape Lookout National Seashores, and on Carrot Island, NC, it is used by the Rachel Carson National Estuarine Reserve. Even the BLM is slowly expanding the use of this technology on several of its national wild horse ranges in the west, including the Pryor Mountain Wild Horse Range in Montana/Wyoming and the Little Bookcliff Wild Horse Range in Colorado. The scientific literature is replete with confirming data. Granted that the scale of management where it has been employed is different from that where it is needed, but the technology to make serious inroads on wild horse population increases already exists. One-inoculation, long-acting forms of contraception are now available for wild horses, as well. The issue is not that the technology doesn’t exist, but that the BLM is not investing in it. Consider an annual budget of $30-$40 million for wild horse management and a yearly investment of about $150,000 by BLM in fertility control. Of course, fertility control is not helping at the moment, and it won’t, until agency policy – not science – changes.
Now let’s move on the assertion that the North American wild horse is non-native… an “exotic.” This claim is based on paleontological data that looks exclusively at phenotype, physical characteristics (morphology), and the idea that the horse that disappeared from North America between 13,000-11,000 years ago, during late-Pleistocene megafaunal extinction, was not the same species as the horse introduced to the New World by Columbus, on his second voyage in 1493 and on following voyages. Modern molecular biology, which examines mitochondrial DNA (mt-DNA), sorts out genetic lineages far more accurately than physiognomy, and reveals that the caballoid, or modern horse, originated in North America somewhere between 1.6 and 1.4 million years ago, and that most of the various Pleistocene species, such as Equus lambei, so-named on the basis of physical characteristics alone, are, in fact, genetically equivalent to Equus caballus, the modern horse. This discovery has not only shattered the idea of the wild horse as “exotic” or “non-native,” but these findings have also been confirmed by peer-reviewed, genetic studies of E. lambei tissue unearthed in the permafrost of Alaska. If one has doubts about this, consider two simple examples. Do Shetland ponies and Clydesdales look alike? No… but they are genetically equivalent and both classified as Equus caballus. Then, consider the findings of Tim Flannery (The Eternal Frontier, Vintage Press). Early American paleontologists described 74 different species of grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) but today, on the basis of molecular genetics, we recognize that these different “species” were, in fact, reflecting nothing more than the physical diversity of distinctly different geographic populations or ecotypes. The “non-native,” “exotic” wild horse of North America is, on the basis of modern science, a reintroduced native wildlife species, whether the government or ranchers welcome the idea or not. Opinion, prejudice, and non-factually based policies, do not change scientific fact.
On the third charge, that is, that the wild horse does not represent a link to old Spanish Colonial horses, Mr. Williams is guilty of nothing more than hyperbole. He is correct that most wild horses in the western U.S. are remnants of domestic horses turned loose during the Great Depression or in fits of irresponsibility by bored horse owners, but he ignores the work of respected equine geneticists, like Dr. E. Gus Cothran, of Texas A&M University, College Station, who have shown clear links between some wild horse populations in the west and old Spanish breeds. In the best example, Dr. Cothran has identified at least 10 different genetic alleles linking the wild horses of the Pryor Mountains, in Montana/Wyoming, to old Spanish horses. Three of these alleles are found almost exclusively in the old Spanish breeds, with the remaining seven strongly suggesting relationships to Spanish horses of the 16th and 17th centuries. No… Not all wild horses are so closely related to their historic forebears, but neither can we write off all wild horses as having no links to 400 years of history, either. This point of debate in Mr. Williams’ argument is more or less blown off by a director of bird conservation for The Audubon Society, and a BLM range manager. Neither is a geneticist, nor a molecular biologist.
Now we can move on to a fourth assertion. It seems that some BLM managers are opposed to maintaining small populations of wild horses (<100) because they are not genetically viable over the long term. The article goes on to say that this assertion is based on the BLM’s own science. That in itself is a relief, because at least we have departed from opinion and ventured into the world of science to justify a point. The problem, however, is that the BLM has been measuring the wrong genetic parameters for years, to make determinations of genetic viability. Most often, BLM managers select several alleles, and usually those with historical connotations, and then make determinations about how long it will take for those alleles to disappear at certain population levels. This approach first ignores the fact that these alleles have absolutely no biological importance to the horses. These alleles are politically potent within the debate, but not biologically valuable, in any sense. In contrast, the National Park Service measures kinship in their genetic analyses, trying to determine how closely related animals within a population might be over time, at certain population levels. This makes sense, but the disappearance of alleles has no biological significance within the context of population genetic viability. Finally, there is precious little empirical data to support almost any of the numbers that BLM has thrown about for genetic viability for wild horses. Is my own assertion here invalid? Search the literature, find corroborating empirical data, and make me eat it.
From here on, however, the debate embodied in Mr. Williams’ piece moves to one of values, and there is little in the way of science to support either side of the conflict. However, at the same time, we arrive at the true heart of the issue and the cause of the clash… differing value systems. Mr. Williams concedes that cows do more ecological damage on western rangelands than horses, because they outnumber horses (by about 40:1), and then he quotes a BLM range specialist. All those cows, the BLM range specialist points out, “…provide food and livelihoods.” There it is. Cows (and sheep), that are certainly not native species, are allowable and forgivable, because they have economic value, but horses, which do not, are the problem. A bit later on in the article, the conflict moves from valueless horses and valued livestock to a conflict between valueless horses and valued elk (another species, incidentally, which did not originate in North America). Wildlife, which has economic value, also trumps horses, which do not. Hold this thought for a paragraph or two.
On this issue, the article attempts hyperbole, or at least oversimplification, in one last major issue – the wild horse advocacy groups. Mr. Williams paints the whole lot of them, which he describes as the “horse mafia” with one broad-brush stroke. The discussion fails to distinguish the many groups, one from the other, with their widely varying goals and philosophies, and it fails to point out that some wild horse organizations are actually rational, while others are as ignorant of facts as is the vast body of the Audubon article. There are some 80 dues-paying animal welfare and animal rights groups in the U.S., and most won’t even talk to one another. The same is true for the wild horse advocacy groups. This broad-brush stroke approach to advocacy groups is a disservice to finding solutions and only serves to further polarize the debate. Wild horse organizations are not a homogeneous, monolithic group as they are portrayed. Still, the irrational groups do pose a major problem.
So, do Mr. Williams and I agree on anything? Sure. We generally have too many wild horses on lands where they exist (particularly after nine years of drought), and free-roaming horses can pose problems, if they are in direct competition with livestock. Too many horses can harm the ecosystems within their habitat. This is often referred to in wildlife circles as exceeding “carrying capacity.” Too many horses can harm themselves. Perhaps horse advocates should be more concerned about the health and well being of wild horses on the land than just about the number of horses per se. But at the same time, pitting horses against cattle, or elk, or discussing natural predatory controls, like wolves and mountain lions, will lead us into blind canyons. Livestock have economic value and horses do not. Huntable wildlife have economic value and horses do not. Natural controls, like wolves and lions, will harm cattle and sheep with economic value, as well as the horses, with no economic value (If you don’t believe this, just review the hysterical battle over wolves in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem). Regardless of our personal preferences, neither horses nor cattle nor sheep will be removed from public lands, so the conflict will remain. Despite our personal preferences, wolves and lions won’t be put back on the land, simply as tools for wild horse population control.
Mr. Williams is whistling in the dark if he thinks Congress is going to evict horses from federal lands. Horse advocacy groups are whistling in the dark if they think cattle and sheep are going to be evicted from federal lands. And, we are all whistling in the dark if we think lions and wolves will make a serious comeback. The idea of eradicating horses through gunfire, as the Australians do, now and then, is also over-simplistic, at least as a “solution” here in America. Yes… The Australian government has a “Model Code of Practice for the Humane Control of Feral Horses,” but Mr. Williams forgot to mention that approximately 10% of horses shot over there do not die immediately. That means if they cull 3,000 horses, 300 are going to stagger about with mortal wounds, sometimes for days. That simply isn’t going to happen here, but the larger question of why that figure wasn’t included in the article is more disturbing.
The first step in resolving this Gordian Knot is becoming honest about the issues. The issues have nothing to do with wild horses being a native or non-native, or whether or not wild horses are linked to old Spanish Colonial horses, or in most cases, even how many horses are genetically viable. The issues are almost entirely political, and economic, and cultural, but not scientific. So let’s begin to resolve this conflict by being honest. Let’s not beat around the bush, and try to distract the combatants with red herrings. Let’s face the tough questions without hyperbole or worthless generalizations.
Frankly, I have no idea how to resolve the issue of 26,000 incarcerated wild horses in BLM holding facilities. Someone smarter or less sensitive than I am must resolve that concern. But as a first step, let us accept the idea that, for a starting position, we must soon achieve zero population growth of herds that are still free-roaming. That, at least, can prevent the problem of confined horses from becoming worse and give us time to take the next step. That, in turn, must begin with a reasonable assessment of how many grass-eating herbivores can exist on any given piece of land, and that, in turn, must consider both livestock and horses. We must cease skirmishing over which of the two groups should be removed and make compromises; perhaps both groups of animals need to be reduced on most public lands. Once we know how many animals we should have, through range monitoring and accurate population censusing, we can go to work achieving ideal numbers. But, can that be accomplished with valueless horses and valued cows?
One problem that the Williams article glossed over is the increase in fencing across federal lands inhabited by “free-roaming” horses. Wild horses are becoming increasingly restricted even on their own herd management areas (HMA’s) by internal fencing. Under these conditions, wild horses can’t migrate to better foraging or watering areas, or seek more protective habitat, as conditions worsen in one section of the HMA. Tear down those internal fences. This situation is similar to the African elephant issue, with animals unable to move, as they historically could, when conditions change. I’m not advocating tearing down all fences but seeking to rid the HMA’s of internal barriers that restrict movement. Even some BLM horse managers agree with this.
Next, instead of spending $800 to $3,600 to capture just one horse, in the course of a gather, and then releasing large numbers of wild mares back onto the range without any fertility control treatment, why not begin treating every returned mare with available contraceptives? Even if the development of contraceptives is not yet perfect, the application of technology available could have immense wild horse population and economic consequences. One U.S. Geological Service study recently estimated that the BLM could save up to $7 million a year with this approach.
If wild horse advocacy groups are anxious about how this might compromise genetic viability of herds, then they and the BLM merely need to take a page from the incredibly rational approach by the National Park Service. On Assateague Island National Seashore, with its 400-year-old horse herd, and on Cape Lookout National Seashore, with its supposedly 500-year-old herd, contraception has eliminated or significantly reduced the need for gathers, but there is apprehension about what smaller herds and potential climatic catastrophes (such as hurricanes) might do to either herd. With uncommon rationality, the NPS has accepted the concept of a “metapopulation” of barrier island horses and would simply replace animals in a small non-viable herd that has suffered unacceptable losses, with wild horses from other barrier islands. The same could be done with almost any of the western populations. Many opponents of this concept will argue, as some have, that the Pryor Mountain horses are Pryor Mountain horses because of the Spanish genes they harbor. But I contend that Pryor Mountain horses are Pryor Mountain horses because they are born, live and die in the Pryor Mountains and not because of some genetic “brand.” Make no mistake, I would prefer to keep the Pryor horses, or the Cape Lookout horses, or the Assateague horses genetically pure, but with the genetically diverse majority of wild horses in the west, the “metapopulation” concept is quite rational.
Next, instead of spending $40 million on gathering and incarcerating horses, why not spend some of that money on subsidies to ranchers who will find a corner of their spreads expressly for wild horses. The caveat, of course, is that reproduction be prohibited. This might not solve the entire problem, but it could help. We give agricultural subsidies for non-native domestic sheep, for sugar beets, and for not growing crops! Why not offer financial assistance for wild horses?
One more important point… We won’t solve this problem in a year, or even five years, but if we put every one of these suggestions to work now, we will have less of a problem in 10 years. Of course, most of these suggestions were put forth 10 years ago, and no one took action. Perhaps another 10 years may have to pass before anyone pays attention. I certainly hope not. In any case, Mr. Williams’ article was not helpful. Like so much in politics today – and that is what the wild horse issue truly boils down to… politics – the article was divisive rather than constructive, and it wallowed in opinion rather than fact. As Hippocrates once wrote, in 400 B.C., “Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance.”
Jay F. Kirkpatrick, Ph.D. is Director of The Science and Conservation
Center, Billings, Montana and holds a Ph.D. in reproductive physiology
from the College of Veterinary Medicine at Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.
_______________________END.