Wild and Free-Roaming Horses and Burros: Current Knowledge and Recommended Research. (1980)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

CHAPTER 4 SOCIOECONOMIC AND POLITICAL ISSUES INFORMATION NEEDS Socioeconomic and political factors must be considered in any decisions about the management of public lands and resources. Three categories of information needs have been identified in this broad subject area. First, economic information is needed about the demand for wild and free-roaming horses and burros and on the cost of various management alternatives. Both the direct costs of the horse and burro management program and the indirect costs on other range management programs should be assessed. Such information is needed to supplement what is known about the use and management of public rangelands; i.e., livestock and range economics focused on economic characteristics of individual firms; economic industry studies depicting the structure of livestock-dependent communities and regions, and the impact of possible changes in these structures; and economic valuation of extra-market wildlife values, with possible extensions of methodologies to horse and burro populations. Second, decision makers in federal land-management agencies need data to help them determine proper management strategies for wild horse and burro populations on federal lands within the context of the agencies' overall responsibilities for land management. The decision-making processes of these institutions must be understood if the scientific information they provide about horses and burros is to be effectively applied. It is also important for scientists to understand the legal and political constraints confronting federal land managers, so that management decisions acceptable to all those concerned can be made. Third, information is needed regarding public attitudes, values, and management preferences so that appropriate management policies and strategies can be determined. This information should quantify the relative worth of wild horses and burros to the various sectors of the public concerned about them. The value of wild horses and burros relative to that of livestock and other wildlife should focus on the recreational, aesthetic, utilitarian, ecological, scientific, and historical benefits and costs associated with all these animals. In addition, information is needed regarding the public's preference for alternative management and control strategies. Studies of predator l72

l73 control and endangered species protection have revealed that several variables seriously affect public attitudes towards management and control. The views of both the general public and special interest groups should be considered. STATE OF KNOWLEDGE Information Sources Numerous sources were searched in order to assess the current state of knowledge regarding legal, political, economic, and sociological issues. Many journals, articles, Congressional hearings and other government documents, technical publications, books, and manuscripts chronicle the long history and intensity of the issue. Several basic bibliographies, periodical indexes, and computerized data-access systems were used to assess the full parameters of the debate. The following computer systems were searched for relevant citations: AGRICOLA (Agricultural Data Base) BIOSIS CIS (Congressional Index Service) CRECORD (Congressional Record) ENVIROLINE EPB (Environmental Periodical Bibliography) GPO Monthly Catalogue LEXIS NTIS Social Science Search USDA/CRIS. The library collections of the University of California at Davis and Berkeley and of Yale University were also searched. The following sources were searched manually: Bibliographies of references uncovered by the searches Bibliography of Wildlife Theses Biological and Agricultural Index Conservation and Wildlife Bibliography Dissertation Abstracts International (Social Sciences and Biological Sciences) Environment: A Bibliography of Social Science and Related Literature (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) Forest History Society Bibliographies General Science Index Index to Legal Periodicals Keyword Index of wildlife Research Natural Science Research Reports: l973 - May l978, Southwest Region, NPS Public Affairs Information Service

l74 Reader's Guide to Periodic Literature Wild, Free-Roaming Horses - An Annotated Bibliography Wildlife Review. To supplement the literature searches, several active range and natural resource economists at New Mexico State University, University of Wyoming, and Utah State University were consulted. Interested public and private organizations and individuals and various state and federal agencies were contacted personally, by telephone, or by mail. Contacts were made with 34 agencies and organizations. Federal agencies included BLM, National Park Service (NFS) , the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the USFS. Letters requesting information at the state and district level were sent to all BLM state offices and to all state fish and game departments that deal with wild horses and burros. Some l9 private organizations and interest groups were contacted by letter or telephone. After careful initial investigation, five organizations—BLM, NPS, the Humane Society of the United States, the Fund for Animals, and the American Horse Protection Association—were visited in Washington, D.C.; files were inspected and relevant personnel interviewed. Nine individuals—academics and others with special expertise—were consulted. In addition, a great deal of anecdotal information, as well as transcripts from various public meetings, were collected and are available upon request. Correspondence and clipping files were identified as potential sources of raw data. Economic Considerations The economics literature that focuses specifically on issues concerning wild and free-roaming horses and burros (abbreviated WFRHB in this chapter) is rather sparse (only Hyde l978; Godfrey l979a, b). However, range and ranch economics has a long-established history at many land-grant institutions in the West. From the mid-l950s through l969, the Western Agricultural Economics Research Council (WAERC) sponsored the Committee on the Economics of Range Use and Development. During those years, that committee issued a series of reports and proceedings on a wide variety of range resource and management topics; their last report (WAERC l969) is a range and ranch economics bibliography. In our review we found many references to reasonably current studies. Nielsen and Workman (l97l) and Ching (l978) list rather extensive bibliographies relating to ranching and public land use in the western states. Thus, we conclude that enough information and background analysis exist to permit a basic understanding of the economics of livestock firms and of the economic structure of livestock-dependent communities or regions. There are many studies, cited in Appendix C, that pertain specifically to particular ranching areas in the West or that clearly define the methodological approaches that can be used in studies in other areas.

l75 Part of the impetus for PL 95-5l4 was the concern that the public rangelands were producing at less than their potential. Several reports published earlier in the decade gave evidence of this situation; e.g., see portions of the Public Land Law Review Commission report, One Third of the Nation's Land (U.S. Department of Commerce l970); study reports by the Stanford Environmental Law Society (l97l) and the University of Wyoming College of Law (l970); a U.S. General Accounting Office study (l977); Box and others (l977); and papers contained in the l977 Forum on the Economics of Public Land Use in the West (Ching l978). The recent economics literature includes some citations on range improvement; e.g., Godfrey (l972), Stevens and Godfrey (l972), Cordingly and Kearl (l975), Heady and Bartolome (l977), and Olson and others (l977). These studies provide information about and methodologies for addressing public rangeland improvement problems, which may be useful in those cases where rangeland improvements and WFRHB populations occur together and where the economic effect of improvement must be considered in the allocative management decision. Although little economic literature specific to WFRHB issues is available, theoretical methodologies applicable to the problem probably exist. Market and nonmarket valuation techniques are developed, although the latter are less refined and are still undergoing additional theoretical development. Nonmarket valuation and analysis for environmental and aesthetic nonconsumable goods—including wildlife—are discussed in Krutilla (l972) , Brown and others (l973), NAS (l975), Brookshire and others (l979), and Section 704.l29 (Recreation) of the recent U.S. Water Resources Council report (l979). Two economists have written papers on WFRHB issues. Hyde (l978), in a variation of a paper previously presented at the l977 National Wild Horse Forum (Artz l977), developed an approach for a qualitative evaluation of management alternatives by comparing "consumer" benefits with management costs. The elements in Hyde's approach included (a) the value of recreational viewing of horses (and burros); (b) "vicarious" values, gained through the enjoyment of others or through the mere knowledge that wild horses (and burros) will be there whether one ever sees them or not; (c) the values of adopted animals to foster owners; (d) the opportunity cost of domestic livestock and wildlife foregone because of competing WFRHB populations on the public ranges; (e) the separable cost of managing WFRHB populations, including roundup, disposal, legal, and enforcement costs; (f) and the cost of negative externalities created by WFRHB management on private individuals and economic units—e.g., unwanted grazing on private land. Hyde recognized the difficulty in quantifying the above-mentioned elements for management, but urged that it be attempted in demonstrative case studies. The second, and more recent, survey of the impact of the Wild and Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act was performed by Godfrey (l979a, b) . (The first citation is a project report and the second a short publication summarizing the former.) Godfrey (l979b:50) noted that "there are reasons why the capture and use of WFRHB need to be

l76 controlled but it is not obvious that the present laws result in efficient or equitable solutions," and that "most of the research that has been advocated by others is ecological, and must precede any economic evaluation of the WFRHB problem." Major socioeconomic areas of inquiry identified by Godfrey as needing attention included: (a) the value of and demand for WFRHB, (b) evaluation of adoption procedure and success, (c) evaluation of control and management techniques, (d) analysis of optimal WFRHB numbers and management alternatives for maintaining populations, and (e) evaluation of the costs of existing legal regulations and restrictions. The study, which was based on response to a mail survey of BLM and USFS districts in the l0 western states, attempted an evaluation of the economic costs of WFRHB management through the l978 fiscal year and described reported impacts on other uses. Legal and Political Issues The legal-political literature on matters directly and indirectly germane to this inquiry is extensive. In the specific area of WFRHB policy and law, numerous journals, articles, Congressional hearings and other government documents, technical publications, books, and manuscripts chronicle the long history and intensity of the issue. We conclude that when the printed material on this policy issue is added to the public hearing and other interview material generated by the efforts of this Committee, no primary research will be required. Equally important is the extensive literature concerned with federal land-use planning, multiple-use decision making, wildlife management, and the history of public lands. The extensive literature that exists on many of the issues of concern to this Committee will provide vital input to its final report, even though no research needs to be done in these areas. The Committee's final report to Congress should discuss the historical background of the federal land-management agencies and the resources they manage. This information is already available in a number of publications. However, it must be studied so that the final Committee report can place the wild horse and burro management program in the context of the agencies' management authorities, their institutional structures, and their historic personnel and budget resources. The legislative history of the Wild and Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act should also be analyzed, along with the pre-l97l management of these animals under state estray laws. The material for this analysis exists already. The final report should also discuss the agencies' single-purpose mandates as they constrain multiple-use management. The constraints include the Endangered Species Act of l973, the cultural resources program, and the mining laws. Again, the literature on these issues exists and no primary research is required. Table 4.l contains a list of civil cases filed under the Wild and Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act along with brief descriptions of the legal issues presented in each case. Most of the lawsuits fall into two categories: (l) those challenging the need for roundups and the

l77 TABLE 4.1 Cases Filed Under the Wild and Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act Reported Cases 1. Kleppe v. New Mexico, 426 U.S. 529 (l979) Constitutionality of the Act, particularly federal authority to manage wildlife on public lands. 2. American Horse Protection Ass'n v. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 551 F. 2d 432 (D.C. Cir. l977) Howe Massacre litigation. Issue: whether ownership under state laws is to be determined by state or federal officials. Final decision is federal under S5 of the Act upholding federal authority. 3. Roaring Springs Associates v. Andrus, 471 F. Supp. 522 (D. Or. 1978) Obligation of federal government to remove wild horses from unfenced private lands. 4. Sheridan v. Andrus, 465 F. Supp. 662 (D. Colo. l979) (Craig, Colo.) Alleged improper taking by government of horses owned by plaintiffs. 5. American Horse Protection Ass'n v. Andrus, 460 F. Supp. 880 (D. Nev. 1978) (Palomino Corral and Nevada roundups). Compliance with NEPA; legality of roundups; humane conditions. (Appeal pending before Ninth Circuit) . 6. American Horse Protection Ass'n v. Kleppe, 6 ELR 20802 (D. D.C. Sept. 9, 1976) Legality of Challis roundup under the Act and NEPA. 7. American Horse Protection Ass'n v. Frizzell, 403 F. Supp. 1206 (D. Nev. 1975) (Stone Cabin roundup). Legality of roundup under the Act and NEPA and legality of state cooperative agreement. Unreported or Pending Cases 1. Mountain States Legal Foundation v. Andrus, Civ. No. C79-275 (D. Wyo. filed 9/20/79) Private parties seek to order Dept. of the Interior to reduce horse numbers so as to prevent alleged damage to public lands, to remove all horses from checkerboard private lands and to pay monetary damages for past harm to plaintiffs. 2. State of Nevada v. U.S., Civ. No. R-79-l85-BRT (D. Nev. filed 8/20/79). State seeks court-ordered gathering of horses back to 197l census levels and a declaratory judgment that the state can manage the wild horse population itself without federal interference. 3. State of Nevada v. U.S., Civ. No. R-78-0076 (D. Nev. 3/25/78) Jurisdiction of state versus federal government in ownership determinations. (Dismissed 3/28/79) (same issue as American Horse Protection Ass'n v. U.S. Dept. of the Interior). 4. National Animal Welfare League v. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, (Civ. No. F-77-93 E.D. Cal) (burros in Saline Valley, Calif.) Legality of wild burro roundup program (bighorn conflict). 5. Humane Society of the U.S. v. Udall, Civ. No. 2l58-68 (D. D.C. l968). Challenge to Pryor Mt. roundup. Case dismissed when BLM stated it had no plans for a roundup. I

l78 adequacy of the environmental impact statements relied upon by the government, and (2) those challenging federal, as opposed to state, government authority over the animals. The lawsuits reflect serious concern about the implementation of the Act by those interested in protecting wild horses and burros, those interested in preserving state control over them, and those concerned about the impact of the animals on rangelands. The lawsuits also illustrate serious disagreement among experts about fundamental information like herd size, population levels and trends, reproductive rates, and the impact of the animals on other resources such as wildlife and the range itself. The Committee will further analyze the use of such information in these lawsuits and the reaction of the courts to this information by reviewing the transcripts of all judicial proceedings. The final report will provide more detail. However, primary research is unnecessary. Sociological Aspects An empirical data base is lacking regarding the sociological aspects of the wild horse and burro issue. Many interesting and provocative accounts were found, but nearly all stemmed from hearsay. The only limited attempt to ascertain public attitudes on the issue empirically—as well as to determine relative values associated with wild horses—was undertaken by Rey (l975). The major thrust of Key's contribution was to "define exactly which resource values associated with wild horses should be maintained." To determine public sentiment on the issue, he surveyed recreationists and other key resource groups in the Pryor Mountain area for preferences regarding various wildlife species (including wild horses) and for presumptions about the benefits associated with wild horses. While the methodology could have been scientifically more sophisticated, the information provided at least some insight on the topic and represents—except for a fairly limited study by the NFS on burros—just about the only empirical material on the subject. On the other hand, some useful sociopolitical analyses have been written, and these are summarized in the annotated bibliography in Appendix C. NEEDED RESEARCH Levels of Inquiry All or part of the recommended projects should be carried out at several levels of intensity. Whatever level is chosen, selection of representative research sites should be based on socioeconomic as well as biological considerations. We have identified three such levels of analytic effort that are based on the management relevance of the information generated and the availability of research resources. A minimum-level research program in the socioeconomic area would include Project llA—"Taxonomy of Values and Benefits of WFRHB,"

l79 Project l3—"Management Costs of WFRHB Alternatives," and a time-lagged study—Project l4—"Economic Considerations for Management Alternatives Drawn from Proposed Research Programs." This research can be conducted largely, but not exclusively, by systematic analysis of existing materials. Increased research resources would permit a higher but still restricted level of inquiry. It would involve generation of original data, but issues would have to be specific, and populations and sites would be, of necessity, limited. Projects that would be included in an intermediate research program (in addition to those noted above) are Project llB—"Public Preferences for Alternative Management and Control Strategies," Project l2—"Analysis and Evaluation of Demands for Excess WFRHB," and Project l5—"Nonmarket Values for WFRHB." Socioeconomic data necessary to a systems-level understanding of WFRHB management issues could be generated at a third, more inclusive, level of research effort. This level would require that all projects ll-l5 be executed with the final attention to research agendas of Project llC—"Public Attitudes, Behaviors, and Knowledge Regarding WFRHB" and Project l6—"Conceptual Development of Public Rangeland Management Models." Note that each higher level of effort is to include the projects in the level below it. Project ll. Public Attitudes llA. Taxonomy of Values and Benefits of WFRHB llB. Public Preferences for Alternative Management and Control Strategies llC. Public Attitudes, Behaviors, and Knowledge Regarding WFRHB Rationale The joint report submitted by the BLM and USFS to Congress in l976 stated that "greater public understanding of the wild horse and burro situation, plus public involvement in decisions concerning these animals, is vital to stated management goals." In this section we propose a series of research efforts that could enhance agency understanding of public awareness, needs, attitudes, and preferences. Objectives Three interrelated projects are identified as llA, llB, and llC. They involve different objectives and levels of data collection efforts. The third project, llC, incorporates llA and llB within the context of a larger, much more costly primary-data collection effort.

l80 llA: Values and Benefits of Wild Horses and Burros. On the basis of existing, secondary-source information (e.g., public testimony, hearings, Congressional records, etc.), develop a taxonomy of commodity and noncommodity values and benefits associated with wild horses and burros relative to other public land resources. llB: Public Preferences for Alternative Management and Control Strategies. Collect original but limited site- and population-specific public attitude information regarding preferences for alternative WFRHB management and control strategies. llC: Public Attitudes, Behaviors, and Knowledge Regarding WFRHB. Conduct national and special-interest group study of public attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors associated with WFRHB. The objectives of this project include those identified in llA and llB. Furthermore, collect information on public awareness, knowledge, and understanding of the WFRHB issue (including related issues of multiple-use management, legislative mandates, and potential socioeconomic impacts of alternative WFRHB management practices on rangeland-dependent commercial activities). Methodology llA: Values and Benefits of Wild Horses and Burros. Conduct content analysis of secondary-source information (e.g., public hearings, Congressional testimony, etc.) to develop a taxonomy of values and benefits associated with WFRHB. An empirical assessment of the relative importance and strength of these values among special-interest groups and the general public would require some form of public survey research, described below under llC. llB: Public Preferences for Alternative Management and Control Strategies. Conduct a small-scale survey of special-interest groups representing livestock producers, horse and burro advocates, and wildlife and range scientists regarding alternative control strategies. As much as possible, the sample site for this data collection should correspond with the location of the biological and ecological research efforts. The methodological steps associated with the survey work in project llB are described under llC. These same procedures are applicable in llB but on a more restricted scale. llC: Public Attitudes, Behaviors, and Knowledge Regarding WFRHB. l. Sample selection and data collection. Two samples should be drawn, the first consisting of the following special-interest groups: livestock producers (particularly cattlemen), horse and burro protection advocates, and wildlife professionals. The second sample should be a cross section of the American population differentiated according to level of familiarity with or knowledge about the horse and burro issue.

l8l The selection of both groups should be random. In the case of the special-interest groups, stratified random-sample selection may be required. For example, a random sample of livestock producers could be obtained through BLM districts, weighting each district for numbers of stockmen. In addition, the cooperation of national organizations (e.g., the National Cattlemen's Association) could be enlisted. Similarly, horse and burro advocates and wildlife professionals could be selected from organization lists properly weighted for the size and representativeness of the groups involved. The national sample should be drawn according to probability random selection standards: i.e., each individual in the population should have a roughly equivalent chance of being selected. Given cost constraints, a telephone interview is most appropriate. In creating the sample, some type of random-digit dialing method should be employed. An acceptable method should be used to randomly designate a desired respondent within households of various sizes. Once the size of the household has been determined, the caller is to ask for the designated respondent. If that individual is not at home, a minimum of two callbacks should be attempted before the designated respondent is dropped. These callbacks should be made in the evenings and on weekends, if possible. The general public sample should not be selected or interviewed in the summer months to avoid bias stemming from different likelihoods of interviewees being at home. The telephone interviews should not require more than 20 to 30 minutes to complete. If more time is needed, especially in the case of the special-interest group samples, mailed questionnaires should be substituted. If such instruments are used, a response rate of at least 60 percent is required, and some type of validation of nonrespondents should be carried out. If the data collection is subcontracted, the subcontract should be made only with private or public firms with the capacity to perform national sampling. Competitive bids should be required from at least l0 potential subcontractors. These bids should include a study proposal, cost estimates with major categorical breakdowns, and a list of at least six previous clients who can comment on the subcontractor's work (if possible, such clients should be in the natural resource area or have conducted a national sample). At least l5 percent of the interviews should be verified. It is assumed that the subcontractor will code and keypunch all the data collected. The principal investigator is expected to work with the subcontractor on developing the coding system. When special-interest groups are sampled, subgroups should be of at least the following sizes: livestock producers, 400; horse and burro advocates, 200; wildlife professionals, 200. The general public should be divided into informed (knowledgeable about the horse and burro issue) and uninformed groups. The size of the former should be at least 800; that of the latter, 400. At least l50 respondents should reside in the major livestock-producing states and, thus, a special oversampling may be required in this area. If this oversampling occurs, proper weights should be used in any analysis that refers to the overall American public.

l82 2. Interview schedule. The basic interview schedule should consist of five sections: a. Attitudes and values associated with wild horses and burros. This subject area should be explored separately for both horses and burros, and also in relation to livestock and wildlife. b. Attitudes concerning the socioeconomic problems and benefits of wild horse and burro management, range management for livestock, and related wildlife-management issues. Public preferences and concerns for alternative wild horse and burro management and control strategies should be included. c. Knowledge, awareness, and understanding of wild horses and burros, range management, and relevant wildlife needs and populations should be covered. d. Behavioral interactions with wild horses and burros, wildlife, livestock, and outdoor recreational activities that might correlate with perceptions of the wild horse and burro issue. e. Sociodemographic characteristics of respondents, particularly age, sex, income, education, occupation, size of town, region, and parents' occupation. Three variations of this interview schedule should be administered, depending on whether the respondent is a member of a special-interest group, the informed general public, or the uninformed general public. The special-interest group interview schedule should consist of all the areas mentioned above, plus a number of questions of particular relevance to these groups. For example, livestock producers should be queried as to the way in which they perceive socioeconomic impacts of varying levels of wild horse and burro management; horse and burro advocates should be asked extra questions regarding alternative control options; wildlife professionals should address extra questions on the competitive interactions and population dynamics of horses and burros in relation to indigenous wildlife. The first section of the general public interview schedule should focus on knowledge, awareness, and understanding of the issue. If the respondent indicates lack of awareness of or familiarity with the issue, only a shortened version of the remaining interview schedule should be administered. This shortened version should only include some general attitudinal questions regarding horse and burro values, alternative control options, and sociodemographic characteristics. Those members of the general public who indicate either a relatively moderate or great knowledge and awareness of the issue should be administered the complete interview schedule. At least three complete pretests of the interview schedule should be developed and administered to samples of at least l00 respondents. The pretest samples need not be randomly selected, but should include to the extent possible a representative cross section of the population. As much as is possible, attitude questions—particularly those regarding horse and burro management—should attempt to include socioeconomic impacts and tradeoffs in their design. In addition, all

l83 attitude questions should include some measure of intensity (e.g., Likert scale question). 3. Timetable. Project llA: 6-month study Project llB: l2-month study (breakdown similar to llC) Project llC: l8-month study: first 6 months—study design, pretesting, subcontracting; 6th to l0th month—data collection; l0th to l4th month—data analysis; l4th to l8th month—presentation of results and final report. Progress reports should be submitted once every 2 months. A thorough progress report should be submitted at the conclusion of month l2. A preliminary final report should be submitted at the end of month l6. Project l2. Analysis and Evaluation of Demands for Excess WFRHB Rationale Much of the research activity recommended in Chapters 2 and 3 is designed to describe or predict the future supply of WFRHB on western rangelands. If WFRHB populations need to be managed, public decision makers will have to be informed about the demand for the animals so that the "excess" may be removed and/or placed in the most cost-effective manner. As of October 7, l979, l4,685 "excess" WFRHB were placed via BLM's adoption program and l2,620 applications for adoption were pending ("Wild Horse and Burro Program Monthly Report, September-October l979") . These problems and applications relate to a rather large population of adopters that can be examined to determine consumer preferences and characteristics of both successful and unsuccessful adoptions. An integrated survey of individuals and organizations active in the Adopt-A-Horse Program that seeks information on past adoptions, pending applications, characteristics of adopted animals, and potential pools of future "excess animals" will help clarify the prospects for alternative management programs. These past experiences with the adoption program can provide useful information. Objectives l. Carefully examine adoptions, applications, and characteristics of WFRHB populations. Give explicit attention to the following: a. What are the characteristics of successful and unsuccessful WFRHB adoptions? b. What are the consumer preferences for WFRHB? c. What types of animals are adoptable? d. Are there any demands for currently unadoptable animals?

l84 e. Are there alternatives to destruction of unadoptable animals, or should they be immediately destroyed at roundup to save nonrecoverable costs? f. What changes, if any, in adoptees and adopters have occurred as a result of the new provision for private ownership of no more than four animals? Has the new program caused any other changes, and if so, what kinds? g. What are the private costs and benefits of adopting WFRHB? What happens after adoption? h. What are the characteristics of "problem" adoptions? i. What happens if an individual doesn't get the kind of animals he or she wants? j. Where in the United States are there likely to be markets for future placements, and how can these potential demands be fulfilled most efficiently? All of the questions listed above will ultimately improve methods for disposing of excess animals. 2. Evaluate the existing data base and record system for the purpose of answering questions like the ones mentioned above. The contractor shall make specific recommendations for establishing comparable record systems—including those at collection and distribution centers—to facilitate data collection and analysis. Methodology The successful completion of this project will require the evaluation of adoption applications, actual placements, and animal records. Both past and prospective adopters need to be surveyed. The survey(s) will probably require stratification with respect to area or region of placement, policy at placement, number of animals per adopter, etc. Valid sample subpopulations to be reflected in the stratification are to be determined by the contractor. Animal records at collection and distribution centers will also provide useful information. Statistical analysis and modeling may be required to develop predictive tools for linking possible future demands with possible WFRHB supplies. Project l3. Management Costs of WFRHB Alternatives Rationale So that WFRHB populations may be managed efficiently, there is a need to estimate the economic costs of such management activities as census and inventory, roundup and disposal, enforcement, planning, and administration under current programs. It is important that all costs be accurately and uniformly identified and developed, so that managers and decision makers can be assured that comparisons between districts, herds, collection centers, distribution centers, etc. are valid.

l85 Objectives l. Identify separable and joint costs for management units associated with WFRHB management activities. 2. Examine current agency cost categories and estimates for coverage and adequacy. 3. Develop and monitor a cost-reporting system to reflect WFRHB management costs for at least l year of management activity. 4. Analyze factors influencing activity costs and make recommendations for future collection of administrative and management costs associated with the WFRHB program. 5. Suggest cost-effective management alternatives and optimally sized administrative and management units that will take into account the nature of economic costs and carry out required WFRHB management activities most efficiently. Methodology District and area data, and perhaps herd-specific data, can be used to develop estimates for all activities associated with WFRHB management. Factors can be identified that influence activity costs, and costs should be estimated in a uniform manner over all study areas. For example, roundup costs could be examined at three possible levels—costs per roundup, per animal, and per adopted animal—and could vary as a function of such factors as the number and age distribution of animals processed, herd density, season, topography, type of habitat and watershed, roundup technique (e.g., helicopter, water trap, etc.), and others that are found to influence costs. The data collected for different districts, areas, and herds ought to yield sufficient variability in the factors influencing costs to provide management with programmatic cost estimates over a range of management alternatives. Results will be useful for improving the efficiency of management, and can provide insights as to what kinds of herds should be fostered and how they should be managed. Project l4. Economic Considerations for Management Alternatives Drawn from Proposed Research Programs Rationale This research project may be the most difficult to specify and to manage. It will require the development of a research agenda after the research programs suggested in Chapters 2 and 3 have been specified and accepted. Project l4 thus depends directly upon those research programs. It can cover a wide range of topics; it is intended to be the mechanism for translating the output of those programs into relevant economic measures. For example, the nature of interspecific competition between WFRHB, wildlife, and livestock determines the economic tradeoffs among

l86 those species on a given type of range. The costs of repairing, replacing, or improving structures, watersheds, watering facilities, etc. are a measure of the cost of possible environmental degradation, once the nature and extent of that damage is quantified. If selected contraception techniques prove feasible as management tools, the costs associated with each method with respect to effectiveness, duration, etc., are important to management efficiency. If WFRHB have a preference for improved ranges over natural areas, what are the losses (costs) to BLM rangeland improvement programs previously expressed as livestock benefits? If there are seasonal overlaps in forage preferences, can the carrying capacity of the range be further improved, and if so at what cost? Other important economic dimensions will become evident as the research program is specified and implemented. Close coordination among the several projects will be required. Objectives and Methodology The objectives of this project need to be developed after the Committee's other research programs are specified and initiated. The objectives should be identified at the end of the first year's research programs, after the nature and design of those programs have been clarified and they have been implemented for the first season. Project development could be an item on the agenda of the Committee or its Subcommittee 3 at the time the Committee reviews the first year's research. One approach to implementation might be to supply funds for a project investigator(s) and for the augmentation of projects that are determined to have aspects of interest to Project l4. Project l5. Nonmarket Values for WFRHB Rationale This project requires an investigation into the nonmarket aspects of WFRHB. Such an inquiry might follow the lines of recent advances in wildlife valuation. The nature and extent of nonmarket WFRHB values need to be ascertained so that managers can make decisions that are supported by a wide spectrum of the public. Quantification of nonmarket and recreational values for WFRHB would be an aid to future management efforts. Objectives l. Quantify the nonmarket values of WFRHB populations in the West. Examine a variety of questions, including, for example: a. Are there areas (herds) where WFRHB are being demanded on an aesthetic or recreational basis or are values more characteristically "option" values or "existence" values?

l87 b. What is the nature of these values and is there currently any commercial effect on local communities or regions? c. Would recreational benefits be enhanced by establishing viewing refuges as opposed to more dispersed spatial distributions? d. Are there "negative" recreational impacts and how might those negative benefits (costs) be mitigated? 2. Direct equal attention toward determining whether district, area, or herd differences affect nonmarket values for WFRHB populations. Methodology This project will require surveys of potential "user" populations that investigate aesthetic, option, and existence values. It may be desirable to coordinate this investigation with the regional and national survey to be conducted for Project ll, which seeks to identify public attitudes, values, and preferences associated with WFRHB. Additional field activity will be required to identify characteristics associated with "valued" herds and areas, a designation determined by the level of current visitation and viewing. Project l6. Conceptual Development of Public Rangeland Management Models Rationale This proposed project is meant to be a conceptual mechanism for drawing together the outputs from the various research projects to be funded under this program. Project l6 would examine the comprehensiveness of the proposed research program and suggest how the various bits and pieces of preexisting information might be integrated with the proposed research results into usable management models for several selected study areas. This project serves a twofold purpose: first, to help ensure that research outputs are potentially usable in alternative models and to suggest possible additional information needs that would facilitate such use; and second, to provide a springboard for a possible empirical study to be conducted after results are available from the study program recommended by this Committee. A large amount of information will be generated by the various research projects recommended in this report. Most of that information will become available just prior to the completion of the Committee's contractual obligation. The empirical study would be a continuation of this proposed "conceptual development of public rangeland management models" project, and would involve the quantification of those conceptual models.

l88 Objectives The objective is to enhance the management of public rangelands in the West, by creating policy-relevant models that will facilitate the examination of alternative objectives or goals. Once the factual information base about horses and burros is strengthened, the models should be able to evaluate the outcomes of alterative solutions against changes in the population dynamics of WFRHB. Such models could quantify the tradeoffs among WFRHB, wildlife, and livestock. Such models should also help assess the impacts of alternative management policies on ecosystems and economic activities. Methodology This project provides the opportunity to thoroughly review what is known about WFRHB and their interactive effects by applying that knowledge to the development of conceptual models for public rangeland management. Such models must reflect institutional as well as scientific and socioeconomic realism, and must include alternative management scenarios for multiple use of public grazing lands in the West.