“To clarify – the Forest Service needed to come up with a wild horse management plan for the Heber horses,”
WHITE MOUNTAINS — Eleven years ago 19,700 acres of the Black Mesa Ranger District in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests were designated the Heber Wild Horse Territory following litigation initiated by horse advocates to halt a proposed round-up of horses in the area.
The 2007 settlement of that litigation included a stipulation to “collaboratively engage the public to complete a territory management plan for the Heber Wild Horse Territory,” (HWHT).
A December press release from Arizona State University’s Global Institute of Sustainability has documented completion of the first enormous step in creating a viable management plan for the nearly 300 horses living in the forest east of Heber and south of State Route 260.
The Forest Service, Arizona Game and Fish and the Arizona Department of Agriculture participated as observers to the work group and were occasionally called upon to provide relevant information, data and details about how the agencies make decisions that are within their legal obligations and guidelines.
“The overall goal of the formation of the working group was to convene a diverse group of citizens to seek informed, creative, solution-oriented recommendations for consideration by the Forest Service as it makes decisions related to the HWHT management plan,” says draft one of the final report summary published by ASU.
Why a formal work group?
“To clarify – the Forest Service needed to come up with a wild horse management plan for the Heber horses,” said ASU Associate Professor Michael L. Schoon.
“The Forest Service was looking for a neutral convener because they didn’t want this to be a Forest Service project, although it’s for the Forest Service. They wanted advice but they wanted it to be apart from them and distinct from them,” added Schoon.
By allowing ASU and Southwest Decision Resources (SDR) to drive an independent process, the work group remained a “neutral endeavor initiative.”
And, neutrality is critical for the work group because of the controversial nature and competing interests surrounding wild horses including those currently living in the designated Heber Wild Horse Territory.
“The Forest Service is required to have a management plan as a result of the territory that was designated by Congress as a place for wild horses,” explained Schoon.
Who are the stakeholders?
Including members of ASU and SDR, there were approximately 14 to 20 volunteers who participated in the work group. These individuals were selected to represent “all potential interests related to this management,” states the press release.
Wild horse advocates, ranchers, wildlife managers, members of the public, residents of the region, scientists, veterinarians, equine specialists, equine rescues, equestrian recreation, local government officials including Navajo County and members of The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) were included in the working group.
What is the controversy?
The objective of the management plan is to “establish balanced use between permitted horses, livestock, and wildlife as part of the multi-use plan,” states the final report.
A number of items were among the issues stakeholders discussed. There is general disagreement on whether the horses are “wild/native or feral/non native.” As a result, some do not believe the Heber horses should be given protection under the 1971 Act. “It is believed [by some stakeholders] that the horses now in the territory are due to either horses migrating from the adjoining reservation or strays that have become accustomed to living at large,” states the report.
The responsibility of maintaining Heber Wild Horse Territory boundary fences between the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests and the White Mountain Apache Tribe is unclear, which contributes issues with possible feral horses,
There is also perception that ranchers don’t want any horses on the landscape because of alleged overgrazing from horses that impacts cattle forage abundance, water, etc.
There is a perception that horse advocates do not want horses managed or controlled in any way.
Some feel that there is a lack of fairness that cattle use is monitored through fees, pasture rotation, changing stock rates, etc. and suggest a revision of permitted grazing to include allotment and forage allocation for both horses and cattle.
Some respondents were concerned about direct competition between native wildlife species such as deer, pronghorn and elk and the horses.
What are the recommendations?
In summary, “Many interviewees indicated that forage availability and habitat impacts are the main challenges to managing horses in the HWHT,” states the report. Management theories vary greatly depending upon stakeholder interest, experience and perspective.
For this reason, the report recommends the utilization of scientific data measuring livestock grazing capacity and current range health conditions. For example, management of rangelands livestock considers the estimated amount of forage a cow will eat in a day.
The same must be determined for horses and other forage consuming wildlife such as elk, deer, antelope, etc. A formula called Animal Unit Equivalency, prepared by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, is recommended in determining how much pasture is required for a specific number of animals.
Click (HERE) to view report.