Wild Horse Observers Association (WHOA)

PO Box 932

Placitas, NM 87043

(505) 867-5228

whoa@thedesertsky.com

Wild Horse management and Tourism Program

SENATE JOINT MEMORIAL 41

Tourism and Local Pride

Conquistadors are extinct in Spain. There are only a few left here. They are exciting living treasures and are an asset of this state.

·       Tourism; Become leaders in horse tourism and utilize the local customs to develop Wild Horse Festivals staggered in time across the state, all ending at the State Fair. Advertise and utilize our remaining three wild horse herds on federal lands.

·       Encourage cultural pride in the youth of New Mexicans.

Conquistador Herd in Genetic Danger

There are three (3) functioning Federal National Wild Horse Territories of twelve (12) originally in New Mexico.  One is on BLM land; two are on Forest Service lands. All are being managed at small herd sizes.

·       Data from The Forest Service at El Rito Carson National Forest Jarita Mesa by Dr. E.Gus COTHRAN University of Kentucky Dept. of Veterinary Science Lexington, KY 40546-0076 states that;

“It is very likely that if population size remains small that the herd will reach this critical level in two to four generations”

·    Paper by Dr. D. Phillip Sponenberg, DVM, PhD Virginia-Maryland Regional College of Veterinary Medicine, Virginia Tech Blacksburg, VA 24061 states;

“New Mexico is also home to a feral herd of horses on Forest Service land, the La Jarita herd. A few of these have been adopted out, and have found homes in conservation herds. Some are very Spanish type, and include roans and dark colors”.

ATTACHMENTS

1.     SENATE JOINT MEMORIAL 41                                                                    03

2.     Genetic Variability Critical for El Rito (Jarita Mesa) wild horses          06

3.     Picture of EL Rito (Jarita Mesa) wild horses                                             07

4.     WHOA’s New Mexico Wild Horse Tourism Packet.                                  08

Contains Forest Service Lands Summary Table

5.     BLM Resource Notes No. 27                                                                        14

Genetic Variation in Horse Populations

6.     BLM Resource Notes No. 35                                                                        16

Summary Recommendations-BLM Wild Horse and Burro Population Viability Forum April 21, 1999

7.     The HACA Horse of Ancient Times in Spain                                            20

8.     The 1971 Free Roaming Wild Horse and Burro Act (The 1971 Act)    24

9.     The Burn Rider (Sunsets protections of the 1971 Act.)                        28

1.     SENATE JOINT MEMORIAL 41

Wild Horse management and Tourism Program

SENATE JOINT MEMORIAL 41

47th legislature - STATE OF NEW MEXICO - first session, 2005

INTRODUCED BY

Steve Komadina

A JOINT MEMORIAL

REQUESTING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO LOOK AT IMPROVING MANAGEMENT OF WILD HORSE HERDS AND REQUESTING THE STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS TO DEVELOP TOURISM PROGRAMS AT NATIONAL WILD HORSE TERRITORIES AND OTHER WILD HORSE RANGES.

     WHEREAS, New Mexico started out with twelve national wild horse territories but now has only three territories; and

     WHEREAS, the wild horse population of New Mexico on federal lands in 1973 was over six thousand, but currently the total wild horse population of New Mexico on federal lands is under four hundred and is targeted at two hundred eighteen; and

     WHEREAS, wild horses of Spanish colonial descent are part of New Mexico's living heritage and history, but they are endangered and may become extinct in New Mexico; and

     WHEREAS, there are increased efforts in the state to ensure the preservation of the descendants of those horses who came to the new world with the conquistadores, one means being DNA testing of wild horses and removing Spanish-line horses to separate preserves; and

     WHEREAS, like the buffalo, wild horses are emblematic of the old west, and it is the image of wild horses running free across the plains of the west that lives in the hearts and minds of Americans; and

     WHEREAS, it was with this idea in mind that the United States congress recognized that these living symbols of the historic pioneer spirit of the west were fast disappearing from the American scene and passed the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971 to protect wild horses; and

     WHEREAS, the wild horse is part of New Mexico's enchantment and essence and an integral part of the Indian, Hispanic, ranching and farming cultures; and

     WHEREAS, although tourism is the second largest industry in the state, the national wild horse territories in New Mexico are not advertised by either the federal or state governments; and

     WHEREAS, the state, in particular, is missing an opportunity to draw thousands of tourists from all over the world who are intrigued by the history, culture and art of the American west;

     NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO that the federal government be requested to develop the three existing wild horse territories in New Mexico and to open other national wild horse territories in New Mexico where herds currently exist; and

     BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the federal government endeavor to maintain a minimum herd size of two hundred in each national wild horse territory for genetic viability and for tourism; and

     BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the federal government control wild horse populations by the use of contraception rather than sale of excess animals; and

     BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that when overpopulation does exist, the federal government move the excess animals to other wild horse territories, preferably in New Mexico, or place them with private or state wild horse preserves after DNA testing to determine if the horses are Spanish-line descendants; and

     BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that helicopters not be used in the state's rugged terrain to round up wild horses, especially during foaling season; and

     BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the federal government honor the cultural heritage and history of New Mexico by maintaining Spanish-line and other wild horse populations for the enjoyment and education of New Mexico residents and other visitors to the state; and

     BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the state government be requested to develop advertising and other tourist-related information featuring the wild horses of New Mexico; and

     BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that copies of this memorial be transmitted to the bureau of land management of the Unite States department of the interior, the secretary of the interior, the New Mexico congressional delegation, the New Mexico tourism department and the governor of New Mexico.

2.     Genetic Variability Critical for El Rito (Jarita Mesa) wild horses

Based upon my analysis of genetic variability in the El Rito feral horse herd, this herd shows low genetic variation based upon extensive

comparison to domestic horse breeds and other feral horse populations from the western US.

The variation levels are near what I consider a

critical low level based upon the comparative analysis.

It is very likely that if population size remains small that the herd will reach this

critical level in two to four generations.

Gus Cothran

Dr. E.Gus COTHRAN

University of Kentucky

Dept. of Veterinary Science

Lexington, KY 40546-0076

USA

1-859-257-3777

3.     Picture of EL Rito (Jarita Mesa) wild horses

4.     WHOA’s New Mexico Wild Horse Tourism Packet

Contains Forest Service Lands Summary Table

New Mexico The Horse Friendly State

3/18/04

WILD HORSES TOURISM

Introduction 

The State of New Mexico has a natural and cultural resource that should be used to meet Governor Richardson’s goal of increased tourism and revenue for the State.

A partnership between the State government, the Forest Service, and the BLM, in which the State’s remaining wild horses are protected, managed, and promoted as a national legacy could result in increased tourism in and around the Wild Horse Territories of New Mexico.

Such is the case in Chincoteague, VA, where the wild horse population of Assateague Island is maintained below 150 animals originally by the annual pony swim and adoption, and birth control in the last 12 yrs. This event has grown from 15 colts sold in 1925 to the present day average of 85 ponies sold and an attendance that has continued to grow from 25,000 in 1937 (see attachment IV on pony penning). Countless other tourist-based businesses have been built on the legend of the Chincoteague ponies.

Wild horses can successfully draw tourists, especially when promoted in a state abounding with natural beauty that seems to change with every bend in the road and the added attraction of the Hispanic, Native American, and cowboy cultures.

FOREST SERVICE TOURISM

First Step

Advertise our National Horse Territories at the New Mexico Tourist Centers and their kiosks. Also advertise wild horse-based  New Mexican businesses at those locations.

Opportunities

Historical Classes/Videos/Books/Lectures on the history of the Spanish horse in New Mexico could be shown/made available at the Ranger Stations. Other subjects include:

·        Wild horse training,

·        Round-ups,

·        Spanish Conquistadors,

·        Biology,

·        Ecological balance,

·        Birth control in wild horse management,

·        Evolution,

·        Cultural value/significance,

·        Role of horse in NM and US history, etc.

·        Hispanic heritage,

·        Native American heritage,

·        Wildlife photography of wild horses in their open range,

·        Eco-Tourism and information,

·        1971 Wild Horse and Burro Act Education

Eco Tours given by the FS. Few states currently offer ecotourism and ecotours!  Make NM unique for promoting our Wild Horses as income generators while we preserve our national heritage.

Sales of Wild Horse Territory maps, wild horse souvenirs (hat pins, magnets, Christmas ornaments, post cards, note cards, posters, booklets, stuffed animals, etc.)

Camping/Horseback riding.

Careers in Wild Horse Management

LOCAL TOURISM

Opportunities to promote

·        Involve the locals near the Wild Horse Territories and the Wild Horse Businesses in the state on how they would like to be advertised nationally at our tourist centers and how to maximize tourism potential.

·        Annual Wild Horse Parades and Hispanic and Native American festivals in towns adjacent to current Wild horse territories, preserves, sites etc, all coordinated to overlap so visitors can go from town to town. Towns/areas include include:

(Also See Attachments I, II,II)

Mt. Taylor

Placitas

El Rito

Santa Fe

Socorro (BLM herd)

Jicarilla

Cedar Crest

·        Find out what the local Hispanic and Native American traditions were and are for celebrating their heritage in relationship to the horse. Use these.

·        Horseback Rides/Camping with the Ranchers.

·        State Fair (Feature the Annual National Spanish Registry Shows/Meetings/Event.)

·        Bed n Breakfasts advertised near these sites.

·        Local training demonstrations.

·        Local Artists Paintings of Wild Horses.

·        Local stores with wild horse figurines/books etc.

·        Real estate ads in the adjacent towns should add wild horse viewing opportunities around the state.

·        Endurance rides from town to town during the time staggard wild horse festivals all ending at the time of the state fair.

MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION

Six National Registries exist for Wild Horses

·        Horse of the Americas (is a unified registry for lovers of America's First True Horses) Barb, Spanish Mustang, Original Native American Horse, Colonial Spanish or Cayuse.) http://www.horseoftheamericas.com/  National Horse Registry

Wild Horse Breeders/Conservators/Businesses in New Mexico                   (Not a complete list)

·        http://www.mttaylormustangs.com/  Dan Elkins

·        http://www.caballosdecolores.com/aboutus.htm

·        http://www.buenasuertefarms.com/

·        Steve and Janie Dobrott
Ladder Ranch
HC 31, Box 95
Caballo, NM 87931-9702
(505) 895-5381

·        Jeff and Helena Hammer
P. O. Box 829
Tyrone, NM 88065-0829
(505) 388-1270
e-mail: spanishdun@cybermesa.com

·        Emmett Brislawn
Cayuse Ranch
2740 D Road, Oshoto, WY 82721
Telephone/Fax: 307 467-5394 Or email josie@cayuseranch.com http://cayuseranch.com/sales.html

Riding/Camping

·        http://www.laestanciaalegre.com/weekendwithhorses2002.pdf

·       Current Movie Hidalgo is about a Spanish Mustang

List of Books on training. Long but not complete!

·        http://www.mustangs4us.com/mustang_books.htm

List of Videos. Long but not complete!

·        http://www.mustangs4us.com/videos.htm

SUMMARY

The wild horses of New Mexico are a national treasure and an underutilized resource.  Benefits of promoting wild-horse related tourism include:

·        Additional revenue for the State and business communities around Wild Horse Territories

·        Another horse attraction that could gain National Attention such as the Arabian Nationals which we are losing to Oklahoma

·        Improved public perception of the Forest Service and BLM as caring and efficient stewards of public lands and wildlife

·        Tourism dollars could help pay for herd maintenance in some areas

·        More public attention on New Mexico’s wild horses would likely improve BLM wild horse and burro status.

Attachment I

Forest Service (FS) Inventory. 

The following is a listing of the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Territories in Region 3:

Wild Horse Territory Name                                                  Forest

Heber                                                                                       Apache/Sitgreaves (01)

Jicarilla                                                                                     Carson (02)

Mesa Las Viejas                                                                       Carson (02)

Mesa Montosa                                                                         Carson (02)

Jarita Mesa                                                                               Carson (02)

Deep Creek                                                                             Gila (06)

San Diego                                                                                Santa Fe (10)

Caja del Rio                                                                             Santa Fe (10)

Chicoma                                                                                   Santa Fe (10) 

Wild Burro Territory Name                                                  Forest

Double A                                                                                 Kaibab (07)

Dome (Bandelier)                                                                     Santa Fe (10)

Saguaro                                                                                    Tonto (12)

Attachment II

The current FS total Target No. for the horses in NM 218.

*(Cattle x 165 days)/30 = Head Months,  therefore  Cattle = Head Months/5.5

Attachment III

BLM Inventory Soccoro = 70 Wild horses 

 Total Wild Horses on Federal land in NM (411)

·        The total federally recognized and protected wild horse population on both Forest Service Lands and BLM multiple use lands is 411 in NM with a total target of 288.

CONTACT US:

Wild Horse Observers Assoc. (WHOA)

PO Box 932 Placitas, NM 87034

Ph/fax (505) 867-5228

A 501C3

5.     BLM Resource Notes No. 27

Genetic Variation in Horse Populations

NO. 27 DATE 07/20/00

Genetic Variation in Horse Populations

By: E. Gus Cothran, PhD., Department of Veterinary Science, University of Kentucky

The fifth in a series of 13, Session 2


Background
One of the major focuses of conservation biology and genetic management of small populations is the preservation of genetic variability. This topic is of particular relevance to the Wild Horse and Burro Program because the majority of wild equid populations managed by the BLM are kept at population sizes that are small enough for the loss of genetic variation to be a real concern. Because a loss of genetic variability can lead to a reduction in fertility or viability of individuals in a population, it is critical that genetic considerations be included in management plans for wild equid populations. An important aspect of utilizing genetic information in management planning is an understanding of what is meant by the term genetic variation and how genetic variability can be measured in horse and burro populations.

Discussion
Genetic variation is the amount of inheritable diversity in a population or an individual. It can be observed as morphological variation in size, conformation or color, but we are actually concerned with variability of genes, whether we can observe an effect of this variation or not. There are several different measures of genetic variation but two of the basic ways it is expressed are heterozygosity, the proportion of genes variable within an individual, and some type of estimate of allelic diversity, such as the total number of genetic types observed within the population. All of these different measures of variation are calculated from data collected from sampling a small set of genetic marker systems in a sample of individuals from a population. Traditionally, the genetic marker systems used to measure genetic variation in horses are a set of blood group and biochemical genetic marker systems that have been developed for parentage verification analysis of domestic horses. The blood group systems are tested by analysis of variation of antigens on the surface of red blood cells using specific antibodies and standard serological techniques. The biochemical genetic systems are serum or red cell proteins or enzymes detected by electrophoretic methods (relating to a method of separating large molecules such as DNA fragments from a mixture of similar molecules by passing an electric current through a medium containing the mixture - separation depends on each molecules electrical charge and size). Blood group testing requires a fresh blood sample with intact red blood cells. Biochemical genetic testing can utilize frozen blood or other tissues such as a muscle biopsy. At the University of Kentucky, we routinely test seven blood group and ten biochemical genetic systems so that genetic variability measures are based upon data from seventeen genetic loci.

Analysis of genetic variation in populations also is done by use of DNA genetic marker systems. In horses, these DNA systems are primarily a type of genetic marker called microsatellites. Microsatellites are highly variable sections of DNA that can be tested by use of PCR (polymerase chain reaction - a method for amplifying a DNA base sequence) and electrophoretic techniques. Direct testing of DNA can utilize almost any bodily product including hair (if the hair root bulb is present) or even feces. The estimates of genetic variation we can get from these techniques perhaps do not accurately correspond to total genomic variation, although that is not certain. However, with a sufficient comparative database, these measures can be used to determine the variation within a population as it compares to other horse populations and can be used to make inferences about the genetic health of the population at the time of sampling.

Conclusion
Genetic analysis of wild horse and burro populations can provide valuable information about current levels of genetic variation. This information can then be used to make predictions about how particular management strategies will influence genetic variation in the herd. Thus, genetic analysis can be a useful tool in the overall management of wild horse and burro populations on public lands.

Contact
E. Gus Cothran, PhD. Veterinary Science, Equine Blood Typing and Research Laboratory, 101 Dimock Animal Pathology Building
University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40546-0076
phone 606-257-3022
fax 606-257-4119
e-mail gcothran@pop.uky.edu.
 

6.     BLM Resource Notes No. 35

Summary Recommendations-BLM Wild Horse and Burro Population Viability Forum April 21, 1999

NO. 35 DATE 08/01/00

Summary Recommendations - BLM Wild Horse and Burro Population Viability Forum, April 21, 1999

by Linda Coates-Markle, Montana/Dakotas Wild Horse and Burro Specialist, Bureau of Land Management, Montana State Office

The final Note in a series of 13, Session 4

RECOMMENDATION #1:
BLM should carefully consider its mandate (The Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act) with respect to long-term genetic viability of populations of wild horses and burros.
EXISTING POLICY: BLM regulations and policy state that wild horses and burros shall be managed as viable, self-sustaining populations of healthy animals in balance with other multiple uses and the productive capacity of their habitat (CFR 4700.0-6).
DEFINITION: Self-sustaining refers to the process whereby established populations are able to persist and successfully produce viable offspring which shall, in turn, produce viable offspring, and so on over the long term. The absolute size which a population must attain to achieve a self sustaining condition varies based on the demographic and sociological features of the herd (and adjoining herds), and these aspects should be evaluated on a case by case basis. In many cases it is not necessary that populations be isolated genetic units, but both naturally-occurring and management-induced ingress and egress activity can be considered, in order to maintain sufficient genetic diversity within these populations.
DISCUSSION: Reproductive capacity is, to a large degree, dictated by the genetic fitness of a population. Generally speaking, the higher the level of genetic diversity, within the herd, the greater its long-term reproductive capacity. Inbreeding, random matings (genetic drift), and/or environmental catastrophes can all lead to the loss of genetic diversity within the population. In most herds, though, genetic resources will tend to be lost slowly over periods of many generations (~10 years/generation), and there is little imminent risk of inbreeding or population extinction. Potential negative consequences of reduced diversity, however, may include reduced foal production and survival, as well as reduced adult fitness and noted physical deformities. Smaller, isolated populations (<200 total census size) are particularly vulnerable when the number of animals participating in breeding drops below a minimum needed level. This minimum level can be calculated and is different for each population (see subsequent recommendations).
RECOMMENDATION #2:
BLM should continue to use (and improve upon) defensible scientific aerial and/or ground survey techniques in census activities for all managed wild horse and burro herds. In order to fully evaluate genetic viability issues, populations which participate in a measurable level of natural ingress or egress activity and which are, in reality, a component of larger metapopulations, should be identified, and the genetic impact of this activity should be estimated.
EXISTING POLICY: BLM regulations and policy state that HMAs should be inventoried and monitored for population size, animal distribution, herd health and condition and habitat characteristics at least every 4 years (CFR 4710.2). As such, BLM is required to provide reliable estimates of population size and distribution within each herd management area on a regular interval.
DEFINITION: Metapopulation refers to two or more local breeding populations which are linked to one another by dispersal activities of individual animals. These populations may have unique demographic features (birth and death rates) but ultimately may share some genetic material if interbreeding is occurring between individuals. This sharing of genetic material may act to enhance genetic diversity within participating herds, and as such, these populations should be evaluated as one larger metapopulation.
DISCUSSION: A complete population census of each herd management area is unrealistic, especially for the larger populations (>200 total census size). However, population size can and should be estimated using reliable scientific techniques. These survey techniques are under continual revision and BLM continues to participate in these research efforts. On a more critical level, however, is the determination of size of the many smaller populations (<200 total census size) over which BLM has responsibility. Available data indicates that almost 70% of the managed herds have AMLs (appropriate management levels) set at 150 animals or less. In fact, almost 40% of the herds in Nevada, Utah, Wyoming, Colorado, and Arizona (71 out of 177 total HMAs) are indicated to have population sizes of less than 50 animals. There is a real possibility that some of these populations will be unable to maintain self-sustaining reproductive ability, over the long term, unless there is a natural or management induced influx of genetic information from neighboring herds. An exchange of only 2 to 3 breeding age animals (specifically females), every 10 years, is often sufficient to maintain genetic diversity within a given herd. Estimates of existing genetic diversity can be calculated for each wild horse and burro population (see subsequent recommendations).
RECOMMENDATION #3:
BLM should establish baseline genetic diversity information for each population over which it has management responsibility.
EXISTING POLICY: BLM regulations and policy state that HMAs should be inventoried and monitored for population size, animal distribution, herd health and condition and habitat characteristics at least every 4 years (CFR 4710.2). Furthermore, the purpose of monitoring is to collect data necessary to evaluate progress (or lack thereof) in achieving the objectives of management. Within the context of wild horse and burro populations, the ability to maintain the quality of “reproductively self sustaining” is required. This can primarily be accomplished through evaluation and the maintenance of an acceptable level of genetic diversity within the population over the long term.
DEFINITION: Establishing baseline genetic diversity, for a wild horse population, often refers to typing up to 29 genetic marker systems from a sample of individual animals (~25 individuals or up to 25% of the population) within a specific herd. Traditionally, these marker systems have included blood group and biochemical systems, and have required fresh blood samples. These systems were originally developed for verifying parentage or founder animals within a herd. Analysis of genetic diversity, however, can also be done through the use of DNA genetic marker systems, and direct testing can utilize almost any bodily product including hair or even feces. Only DNA marker analysis can be used for burros, however, due to the very limited variation in blood protein genes.
DISCUSSION: Most wild horse herds, sampled to date, have shown fairly high levels of genetic diversity. In some cases, however, this diversity is attributed to a large number of low frequency and relatively rare genetic material which is often easily lost from the herd. Thus, it becomes important to understand the genetic makeup of individual herds. Baseline data needed to establish current levels of genetic diversity in populations is relatively easy to gather. Individual samples cost about $25 to process, and if ~25-50 individuals are sufficient to establish baseline information for herds ranging in size from 100 to 200 animals, then the cost would be approximately $1250 for herds of this size. As a result, a comparison of genetic viability levels in the tested population can be made to existing information from over 100 domestic and wild horse populations representing different herd sizes and demographic backgrounds.
RECOMMENDATION #4:
BLM should establish a realistic management goal for maintenance of genetic diversity within all managed populations. Previous wildlife conservation research, and current efforts with wild horses, suggest management should allow for a 90% probability of maintaining at least 90% of the existing population diversity over the next 200 years. Existing diversity should be sufficient to ensure a self-sustaining (see earlier definition) reproductive capacity within the herd.
EXISTING POLICY: BLM regulations and policy state that wild horses and burros shall be managed as viable, self-sustaining populations of healthy animals in balance with other multiple uses and the productive capacity of their habitat (CFR 4700.0-6). By definition this requires BLM to manage to allow established populations to successfully produce viable offspring which shall, in turn, produce viable offspring, and so on over the long term. This suggests that management monitor levels of genetic diversity within the population in order to mitigate the effects of genetic drift and possible inbreeding and population-associated problems due to loss of diversity.
DEFINITION: Genetic diversity, within wild horse and burro populations, refers to the entire complement of genetic material representative of all individuals (or a sample of individuals) from within the population. Some populations may possess genetic uniformity to a certain “type” or breed of horse, but management interests are specific to maintaining a maximum diversity of genetic material which appears representative of each herd. Promotion of diversity will minimize the effects of genetic drift, or the random loss of genetic material due to mating processes, and maximize genetic health of the herds.
DISCUSSION: Once baseline genetic data has been established, the main focus of genetic management, especially for the smaller populations (<200 total census size), becomes the attempt to preserve as much of the existing genetic diversity as possible. Establishing a genetic conservation goal will require re-testing of herd diversity on at least a five-year cycle, with subsequent evaluations of the potential impact of management decisions (including the establishment and/or revision of appropriate management levels) on that diversity. Management may need to evaluate ways to introduce genetic material into a herd which appears genetically deficient in order to be self-sustaining over the long-term (see subsequent recommendations). Baseline genetic data can also be incorporated into PVA (population viability analysis) models, which attempt to predict the impact of management decisions (as well as environmental catastrophes) on existing diversity levels. Most models require reasonably accurate data in terms of age class foaling and mortality rates, as well as individual genetic information. As such, the means to collect accurate data necessary for a genetically-based PVA, for most herds, is probably unavailable at the present time.

RECOMMENDATION #5:
BLM should, in its efforts to evaluate the genetic diversity and self sustaining nature of managed herds, estimate the genetic effective population size (Ne) of all populations, or metapopulations, with a total census size of 200 animals or less.

EXISTING POLICY: BLM regulations and policy state that wild horses and burros shall be managed as viable, self-sustaining populations of healthy animals in balance with other multiple uses and the productive capacity of their habitat (CFR 4700.0-6). By definition this requires BLM to manage to allow established populations to successfully produce viable offspring which shall, in turn, produce viable offspring, and so on over the long term.

DEFINITION: The genetic effective population size (Ne) is a measure of the total number of mares and stallions which contribute genetically, through successful breeding, to the next generation. Although no standard goal for Ne currently exists for wild horse and burro herds, a goal of Ne=50, which comes from domestic breeding guidelines, can be conservatively applied. Populations, where Ne is calculated to be less than 50, may experience higher rates of loss of genetic diversity than would be considered acceptable under recommended management goals (see earlier recommendation).

DISCUSSION: Limited research into wild horse herds (Pryor Mountain Wild Horse Range and Assateague Island National Seashore populations) has demonstrated that the “Ne”, for a herd under a natural age structure, is about 30-35% of the total census population size. In other words, a total population size of about 150 animals might support only a minimum (Ne=50) genetic effective population size. Ne, however, is difficult to calculate for wild horses, since the calculation is complicated by a number of issues. The harem structure of the population, for example, greatly limits male participation in breeding, creating an uneven ratio of breeding sexes which reduces Ne and contributes to a high variation in individual reproductive success. Extreme fluctuations in population size, due to the effects of removals, can also act to reduce the value of Ne. Ne is also highly influenced by the sex ratio and age class structure of a population. A sex ratio which favors males and results in larger numbers of smaller sized harems, within the herd, will act to increase Ne (and male participation in breeding) to a point. A population with an age structure involving high numbers of young animals (<5 years of age) will have a lower value of Ne than a similar sized population with a larger component of older breeding-age animals (>5 years of age). Also, there is no single, uniformly accepted method to calculate Ne. However, researchers have used and applied several formulas to certain wild horse herds and have found this comparative approach to provide the best estimates. Generally, the best possible data on population sex ratios and age structures, coupled with reasonable estimates of foaling and mortality rates, will enable managers to evaluate the genetic health of most herds.

RECOMMENDATION #6:
BLM should evaluate viable management alternatives for conserving or enhancing genetic diversity within populations (or metapopulations) having a known limited level of diversity, a total census size of less than 200 animals and/or an estimated genetic effective population size (Ne) of less than 50.

EXISTING POLICY: BLM regulations and policy state that wild horses and burros shall be managed as viable, self-sustaining populations of healthy animals in balance with other multiple uses and the productive capacity of their habitat (CFR 4700.0-6). By definition this requires BLM to manage to allow established populations to successfully produce viable offspring which shall, in turn, produce viable offspring, and so on over the long term. This suggests that management monitor levels of genetic diversity within the population in order to mitigate the effects of genetic drift and possible inbreeding.

DEFINITION: Viable management alternatives for conserving genetic diversity within managed wild horse and burro herds may take several forms. Some options to be considered might include: altering population age structure (through removals) to promote higher numbers of reproductively-successful animals; altering breeding sex ratios (through removals) to encourage a more even participation of breeding males and females; increasing generation intervals (and reducing the rate of loss of genetic material) by removing (or contracepting) younger versus older mares; and/or introducing breeding animals (specifically females) periodically from other genetically similar herds to help in conservation efforts. In this last scenario, only one or two breeding animals per generation (~10 years) would need to be introduced in order to maintain the genetic resources in small populations of less than 200 animals.
DISCUSSION: Simply increasing the total herd size by adding additional animals (adjusting the management AML upward) is not the only viable technique for enhancing the genetic effective population size (Ne) of a wild horse and burro population. With sound knowledge of existing herd demographic information, management alternatives for specific populations can be evaluated through research modeling efforts. As such, management also has the option of adjusting certain aspects of herd structure in order to promote genetic conservation. Major options for consideration were presented in the above definition. It should also be noted that any adjoining herds, which are naturally participating in an exchange of animals and genetic material through interbreeding, are probably self-maintaining their genetic diversity and management should consider both supporting and estimating this type of activity.
RECOMMENDATION #7:
BLM should continue to evaluate incidences of club foot and parrot mouth, and other such physical deficiencies, within individuals of wild horse and burro populations, on a case by case basis. Currently, there is no solid evidence that these physical conditions are purely genetically-based and that they may contribute to a long-term loss of genetic health in the herd.
EXISTING POLICY: BLM regulations and policy state that HMAs should be inventoried and monitored for population size, animal distribution, herd health and condition and habitat characteristics at least every 4 years (CFR 4710.2). Furthermore, the purpose of monitoring is to collect data necessary to evaluate progress (or lack thereof) in achieving the objectives of management.
DEFINITION: Physical deficiencies may be encountered at different rates for different wild horse and burro herds. Conformational deformity and/or misalignment is often expressed in the legs, feet and mouth but may be apparent in other structural areas as well. Despite the existence of a specific deficiency, however, an individual animal may otherwise be healthy, bear acceptable condition and be fit enough to contribute socially and genetically to the herd. If an individual animal is successful in these merits, there seems little reason to remove it simply on the grounds of physical imperfection by human standards.
DISCUSSION: These types of physical deficiencies are thought, by researchers, to potentially be both genetically and environmentally (poor forage base during fetal development) induced. As such, efforts to remove individual animals bearing this condition from herds may or may not result in a significant loss of expression of that trait from the herd. Success in this area will be related to the source of the genotype and whether it results from inbreeding, founder effect, and/or genetic drift. However, since multiple genes are probably responsible for the expression of these traits, it is likely that the genetic predisposition will remain in the herd despite the fact that minimal expression is observed. Eventually over time, then, the trait may continue to reappear. Future research may illuminate different theories regarding this situation. In the meantime, the impact of human-induced selection, over factors of natural selection, should be evaluated carefully and with due consideration as to the possible long-term impacts on individual herds. In other words, if the animal is otherwise healthy, maintaining a status within the social structure of the herd, and contributing to the gene pool through successful breeding, it might be left on the range. However, if a population excess has been determined, and an individual animal is young and has yet to contribute to the gene pool, it may be a candidate for removal and adoption or sanctuary-placement. Likewise, if the animal is older, less healthy, and has withdrawn from the herd, it may also be a candidate for removal with sanctuary placement.
RECOMMENDATION #8:
BLM should continue to manage wild horse and burro herds, beneath the level which is scientifically referred to as the ecological carrying capacity (EEC) of the population. This is the level at which science has determined that density-dependent population regulatory mechanisms would take effect within the herd. Most herds are currently managed close to their “economic carrying capacity” which is approximately 50-65% of EEC. At this level of management, health of both the horse herd and range ecosystem are prioritized.
EXISTING POLICY: BLM regulations and policy state that wild horses and burros shall be managed as viable, self-sustaining populations of healthy animals in balance with other multiple uses and the productive capacity of their habitat (CFR 4700.0-6). Thus appropriate management levels (AMLs) are established which provide for a level of use by wild horses and burros which results in a thriving natural ecological balance and avoids deterioration of the range. Furthermore, proper management requires that wild horses and burros be in good health and reproducing at a rate that sustains the population and that population control methods be considered before the herd size causes damage to the rangeland.
DEFINITION: Ecological carrying capacity (EEC) of a population, is a scientific term which refers to the level at which density-dependent population regulatory mechanisms would take effect within specific herds. At this level, however, the herds would show obvious signs of ill fitness including poor individual animal condition, low birth rates, and high mortality rates in all age classes due to disease and/or increased vulnerability to predation. In addition, supporting range conditions would be noticeably deteriorated, with much of the available habitat showing symptoms of irreparable over-grazing.
DISCUSSION: Populations of wild horses on western rangelands have the capacity for rates of increase as high as 20-25% per year. Recent research has shown that unmanaged populations of wild horses and/or burros might eventually stabilize (due to density-dependent regulatory mechanisms) at very high numbers, near what is known as their food limited ecological carrying capacity. At these levels, however, the herds would show obvious signs of ill-fitness including poor individual animal condition, low birth rates, and high mortality rates in all age classes due to disease and/or increased vulnerability to predation. In addition, supporting range conditions would be noticeably deteriorated, with much of the available habitat showing symptoms of irreparable over-grazing. Most wild herds are currently managed close to economic carrying capacity which allows the herds to be healthy with strong foal production and high individual survival rates. This approach should be continued, as it benefits the populations and also allows for the maintenance of healthy and in-balance rangeland systems.

Contact
Linda Coates-Markle
Program Specialist
Montana State Office, MT-010, Billings, Montana
phone (406) 896-5223, fax (406) 896-5281
email lcmarkle@mt.blm.gov

7.     The HACA Horse of Ancient Times in Spain

The Haca Horse of Ancient times in Spain

Pictured here on this page are paintings of horses and riders of Ancient times in Spain.  It is believed that these animals are the Haca horses (Jaca) of Spain that came to the Americas with the Spanish Conquistadors.  These horses resemble in body type of the Registered Andalusian of today, the PRE (Pure Raza Espanol) of Spain, as well as the Lusitano of current Portugal.   Spain and Portugal were all one country at one time in history.   Horses were left behind when the Conquistadors returned to Spain from the Americas/Mexico.  Recent research (1990's) on the history of the (Andalusian) of the 15th century, PRE of Spain, shows that the common horses of Spain were the Haca not the PRE as previously thought.  It only makes sense that if the soldiers and farmers were not allowed to own a PRE (only Royalty was allowed to own them in the beginning of the breed registry in Spain), the horses that came to the Americas with the Conquistadors and were left behind, must have been the common Haca horse of that time.  These horses were also again brought to the Southwestern America as the Spanish missions settled the area.  After the chain of missions came the early Spanish settlers,  who also brought horses with them.  As these paintings show the colors were the most common of the American Quarter Horse.  Which lends credence that this was the horse that was the foundation of the original AQHA and APHA of America.  The reason that AQHA horses of solid color bred to each other - crops out on a regular basis with the Paint coloring, is due to the Haca that was left here long ago, I believe. There are also cave paintings of Paint type colored horses in Spain.  It is only in recent history that the (Andalusian), PRE was bred to be predominantly Grey from certain farms/breeders.  The Lusitano of Portugal breeds more for the working horses and does not worry as much about colors, so there seems to be more dark colors in that breed.  The PRE also has many dark colors in it's history of the breed when looking at an extended pedigree of the breed.

Mexico does not allow any Paint colored horses in it's registry, nor does it allow the use of  Paint registered blood stock as foundation horses for their breed registry.  We do allow it here in the USA.  APHA registered blood stock horses are simply horses that have both parents that are AQHA registered - these babies/horses have too much white on their bodies to be registered as AQHA, so they are registered in the APHA registry instead.  We do not allow Pinto registered stock, as a Pinto registered horse can be from any breed (it is a color breed), not just AQHA like the Paints.  When we started our breed registry in 1989 the rules were AQHA blood crossed to Andalusian blood, we felt that the Paint registered stock met that qualification.  Why throw out a perfectly good horse due to it's colors.  Since research shows that those very colors came to this continent from Spain long, long ago why not allow it here and now.  In 1992 Mexico also did not allow Chestnuts, Buckskins, Palominos and a variety of other colors - they have since changed their rules and added many colors that were not allowed in the beginning.   Their choice for their registry.  We feel differently and cannot change it at this late date anyway, and feel that there is no legitimate reason to change our rules on these colors, as long as the blood lines are carefully chosen.  We pay close attention to research on the blood lines that are allowed for registration on the foundation of the American bred and registered Azteca horses in our registry.  Far more important to pay close attention to the attributes that crossing the AQHA/APHA to the Andalusian horse brings about  ~  than what colors they  are born with.

The Haca came to Spain from Europe, hence the possibility that there is Thoroughbred blood in the very beginning of the breed in Spain.  Once farms  were allowed to purchase the Royal PRE, the  crossing of these horses with the locally owned Haca made it so that they all looked "Andalusian" was a distinct possibility.  You will see the words Andalusia and Iberian in reference to the American Andalusian horse, because horses were bred on farms in an area of Andalusia Spain and on the Iberian Peninsula of Spain.