FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 10000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Animals : an open access journal from MDPI2022; 12(19); 2656; doi: 10.3390/ani12192656

Fertility Control and the Welfare of Free-Roaming Horses and Burros on U.S. Public Lands: The Need for an Ethical Framing.

Abstract: To be effective and publicly acceptable, management of free-roaming horses and burros in the United States and elsewhere needs a consistent ethical framing of the animals and the land they occupy. In the U.S., the two laws that largely govern wild horse and burro management, the 1971 Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act and the 1976 Federal Land Policy and Management Act ("FLPMA"), rest on conflicting foundations, the former based on an ethic of care and the latter on largely utilitarian principles. These conflicts specifically fuel debates over the selection of appropriate fertility control agents for horse and burro management. Because land-use and management decisions are largely controlled by the FLPMA, and because the ethical treatment of animals is typically considered under conditions established by their use, both the larger debate about equids and land management and the specific debate about fertility control are dominated by cost/benefit calculations and avoid broader ethical considerations. In our view, the long-term health and ethical treatment of free-roaming horses and burros, the lands they occupy, and the wildlife and people they share it with will require the replacement of the resource-use model with a more holistic, care-based approach.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2022-10-03 PubMed ID: 36230397PubMed Central: PMC9559278DOI: 10.3390/ani12192656Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
LinkedInCopy
  • Journal Article

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

This research article highlights the need for an ethical framework in the management of free-roaming horses and burros on U.S. public lands, particularly in relation to fertility control methods. It argues for a more holistic, care-focused approach as opposed to the current cost/benefit analysis model mandated by the 1976 Federal Land Policy and Management Act.

Conflicting Foundations of Wild Horse and Burro Management

  • Management of free-roaming horses and burros in the U.S. is mainly guided by the 1971 Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act and the 1976 Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA).
  • The 1971 Act is rooted in an ethic of care, while FLPMA leans more towards utilitarian principles.
  • This clash of values leads to controversies, notably in the selection of suitable fertility control methods for managing horse and burro populations.

Dominance of Cost/Benefit Calculations

  • Largely, land-use and management decisions fall under the purview of the FLPMA.
  • Given the provisions of FLPMA, the ethical treatment of animals and discussions about animal and land management become predominantly about cost/benefit calculations, ignoring broader respects of ethics.
  • Such an approach can often sideline the welfare considerations of free-roaming horses and burros, the lands they live on, and the wildlife and people who share these spaces.

Call for a More Ethical and Holistic Approach

  • The researchers suggest the need to replace the prevalent resource-use model with more comprehensive and caring strategies, a change that is crucial for the long-term health and ethical management of these animals and the lands they inhabit.
  • Creating such a “care-based” model would allow for more balanced and ethical decisions, factoring in the well-being of animals, the health of public lands, the needs of local ecosystems, and the interests of human communities.

Cite This Article

APA
Rutberg AT, Turner JW, Herman K. (2022). Fertility Control and the Welfare of Free-Roaming Horses and Burros on U.S. Public Lands: The Need for an Ethical Framing. Animals (Basel), 12(19), 2656. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12192656

Publication

Animals : an open access journal from MDPI
ISSN: 2076-2615
NlmUniqueID: 101635614
Country: Switzerland
Language: English
Volume: 12
Issue: 19
PII: 2656

Researcher Affiliations

Rutberg, Allen T
  • Center for Animals and Public Policy, Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine at Tufts University, 200 Westboro Road, North Grafton, MA 01536, USA.
Turner, John W
  • Department of Physiology and Pharmacology, University of Toledo, Toledo, OH 43606, USA.
Herman, Karen
  • Sky Mountain Wild Horse Sanctuary, P.O. Box 2946, Santa Fe, NM 87504, USA.

Grant Funding

  • 103704-00001 / Humane Society of the United States

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

This article includes 42 references
  1. Kirkpatrick J.F., Turner J.W.. Reversible contraception in nondomestic animals.. J. Zoo Wildl. Med. 1991;22:392–408.
  2. Garrott R.A.. Effective management of free-ranging ungulate populations using contraception.. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 1995;23:445–452.
  3. Massei G., Cowan D.. Fertility control to mitigate human-wildlife conflicts: A review.. Wildl. Res. 2014;41:1–21.
    doi: 10.1071/WR13141google scholar: lookup
  4. Hobbs R.J., Hinds L.A.. Could current fertility control methods be effective for landscape-scale management of populations of wild horses (Equus caballus) in Australia?. Wildl. Res. 2018;45:105–207.
    doi: 10.1071/WR17136google scholar: lookup
  5. Hampton JO, Hyndman TH, Barnes A, Collins T. Is Wildlife Fertility Control Always Humane?. Animals (Basel) 2015 Oct 21;5(4):1047-71.
    doi: 10.3390/ani5040398pmc: PMC4693202pubmed: 26506395google scholar: lookup
  6. Webster J.. Animal Welfare: Limping towards Eden.. .
  7. Fraser D.. Understanding Animal Welfare. The Science in Its Cultural Context.. .
  8. Sandøe P., Christiansen S.B.. Ethics of Animal Use.. .
  9. Mellor DJ. Moving beyond the "Five Freedoms" by Updating the "Five Provisions" and Introducing Aligned "Animal Welfare Aims".. Animals (Basel) 2016 Sep 23;6(10).
    doi: 10.3390/ani6100059pmc: PMC5082305pubmed: 27669313google scholar: lookup
  10. National Research Council. Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals.. 8th ed. 2011.
  11. Herzog H.. Some We Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat.. 2010.
  12. Broom D.M.. Some thoughts on the impact of trapping on mammal welfare with emphasis on snares.. 2022;pp. 121–128.
  13. Geist V.. How markets in wildlife meat and parts, and the sale of hunting privileges, jeopardize wildlife conservation.. Conserv. Biol. 1988;2:15–26.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.1988.tb00331.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  14. Organ J.F., Geist V., Mahoney S.P., Williams S., Krausman P.R., Batcheller G.R., Decker T.A., Carmichael R., Nanjappa P., Regan R.. The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation.. 2012.
  15. Proulx G.. The five W’s of mammal trapping.. 2022;pp. 1–22.
  16. Bartholow J.. Economic benefit of fertility control in wild horse populations.. J. Wildl. Manag. 2007;71:2811–2819.
    doi: 10.2193/2007-064google scholar: lookup
  17. Gray ME, Cameron EZ. Does contraceptive treatment in wildlife result in side effects? A review of quantitative and anecdotal evidence.. Reproduction 2010 Jan;139(1):45-55.
    doi: 10.1530/REP-08-0456pubmed: 19656957google scholar: lookup
  18. Harvey AM, Beausoleil NJ, Ramp D, Mellor DJ. A Ten-Stage Protocol for Assessing the Welfare of Individual Non-Captive Wild Animals: Free-Roaming Horses (Equus Ferus Caballus) as an Example.. Animals (Basel) 2020 Jan 16;10(1).
    doi: 10.3390/ani10010148pmc: PMC7022444pubmed: 31963232google scholar: lookup
  19. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management BLM/OC/ST-22/003+1165. [(accessed on 27 September 2022)];Public Land Statistics 2021. Available online: https://www.blm.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2022-07/Public_Land_Statistics_2021_508.pdf.
  20. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management Populations of Wild Horses and Burros in BLM’s Off-Range Facilities (as of September 2022) [(accessed on 27 September 2022)]; Available online: https://www.blm.gov/programs/wild-horse-and-burro/about-the-program/program-data.
  21. Rutberg A.. Wild horses and burros in the United States.. 2003;pp. 217–221.
  22. Reed C.M.. Wild horse protection policies: Environmental and animal ethics in transition.. Int. J. Public Adm. 2008;31:277–286.
    doi: 10.1080/01900690701590454google scholar: lookup
  23. Dalke K.. Mustang: The paradox of imagery.. Humanimalia 2010;1:97–117.
    doi: 10.52537/humanimalia.10106google scholar: lookup
  24. Nimmo D.G., Miller K.K.. Ecological and human dimensions of management of feral horses in Australia: A review.. Wildl. Res. 2007;34:408–417.
    doi: 10.1071/WR06102google scholar: lookup
  25. Beever E.A., Huntsinger L., Petersen S.L.. Conservation challenges emerging from free-roaming horse management: A vexing social-ecological mismatch.. Biol. Conserv. 2018;226:321–328.
    doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2018.07.015google scholar: lookup
  26. Scasta J.D., Hennig J.D., Beck J.L.. Framing contemporary U.S. wild horse and burro management processes in a dynamic ecological, sociological, and political framework.. Hum.-Wildl. Interact. 2018;12:31–45.
  27. Norris K.A.. A review of contemporary U.S. wild horse and burro management policies relative to desired management outcomes.. Hum.-Wildl. Interact. 2018;12:18–30.
  28. Beschta RL, Donahue DL, DellaSala DA, Rhodes JJ, Karr JR, O'Brien MH, Fleischner TL, Deacon Williams C. Adapting to climate change on Western public lands: addressing the ecological effects of domestic, wild, and feral ungulates.. Environ Manage 2013 Feb;51(2):474-91.
    doi: 10.1007/s00267-012-9964-9pubmed: 23151970google scholar: lookup
  29. Callicott J.B.. Whither conservation ethics?. Conserv. Biol. 1990;4:15–20.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.1990.tb00261.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  30. Leopold A.. Wilderness.. 1949;pp. 188–201.
  31. Cronon W.. The trouble with wilderness or, getting back to the wrong nature.. 1995.
  32. Cronon W.. Changes in the Land. Indians, Colonists, and the Ecology of New England.. 2003.
  33. Mann C.C.. 1491, New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus.. 2nd ed. 2011.
  34. Dunbar-Ortiz R.. An Indigenous Peoples’ History of the United States.. 2014.
  35. Gilio-Whittaker D.. As Long as Grass Grows, The Indigenous Fight for Environmental Justice, from Colonization to Standing Rock.. 2019.
  36. Leopold A.. The land ethic.. 1949;pp. 201–226.
  37. Meine C.. Correction Lines, Essays on Land, Leopold, and Conservation.. 2004.
  38. Donovan J., Adams C.. The Feminist Care Tradition in Animal Ethics.. 2007.
  39. Gruen L.. Entangled Empathy, An Alternative Ethic for our Relationships with Animals.. 2015.
  40. Eichler L., Baumeister D.. Hunting for justice, an indigenous critique of the North American Model of wildlife conservation.. Environ. Soc. Adv. Res. 2018;9:75–90.
    doi: 10.3167/ares.2018.090106google scholar: lookup
  41. John K.D.. Animal colonialism—Illustrating intersections between animal studies and settler colonial studies through Diné horsemanship.. Humanimalia 2019;10:42–68.
    doi: 10.52537/humanimalia.9501google scholar: lookup
  42. Weatherdon M.S.. Religion, animals, and indigenous traditions.. Religions 2022;13:654.
    doi: 10.3390/rel13070654google scholar: lookup

Citations

This article has been cited 1 times.
  1. Lovász L, Sommer-Trembo C, Barth JMI, Scasta JD, Grancharova-Hill R, Lemoine RT, Kerekes V, Merckling L, Bouskila A, Svenning JC, Fages A. Rewilded horses in European nature conservation - a genetics, ethics, and welfare perspective. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 2025 Feb;100(1):407-427.
    doi: 10.1111/brv.13146pubmed: 39279124google scholar: lookup
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,911 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.