Opportunity Costs Related to Feral Horses: a Wyoming Case Study

J. Range Manage. 52:104Ð112 March 1999 Opportunity costs related to feral horses: A Wyoming case study

CHRIS T. BASTIAN, LARRY W. VAN TASSELL, ANN C. COTTON, AND MICHAEL A. SMITH

Authors are extension specialist, professor and graduate assistant, Agricultural and Applied Economics Department and professor, Renewable Resources Department, respectively, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyo. 82071.

Abstract Resumen

Concern over the humane treatment and diminishing num- La preocupacion del trato humano y la disminución del bers of feral horses (Equus caballus) led to their protection número de caballos salvajes condujeron a su protección under the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act of 1971. bajo el acta de 1971 de Caballos y Burros salvajes. El The potential for rapid population growth coupled with man- potencial para el rápido crecimiento de la población de agement constraints of the 1971 Act have increased the likeli- caballos junto con las restricciones de manejo del Acta de hood of excessive feral horse densities in important public 1971 ha incrementado la posibilidad de tener densidades rangeland habitats. Excessive densities can lead to deteriora- excesivas de caballos en importantes hábitats de pastizales tion of the range resource, smaller populations of wildlife and públicos. Densidades excesivas pueden conducir al del reduced stocking rates for domestic livestock. Consequently, recurso pastizal, reducir las poblaciones de fauna silvestre the potential for conflicts between wild horse and burro advo- y reducir la carga animal de ganado doméstico. cates, wildlife agencies, recreationists and livestock producers Consecuentemente, la posibilidad de tener conflictos entre is increased. los defensores de los caballos y burros, las agencias de Research concerning wild horses has largely focused on bio- fauna silvestre y los productores de ganado ha aumenta- logical and behavioral aspects such as habitat and dietary do. La investigación acerca de caballos silvestres se ha requirements. Limited economic research concerning wild enfocado principalmente a aspectos biológicos y de com- horses is available to aid public agencies in allocating federal portamiento talesœ como los requerimientos de hábitat y lands in a multiple use context. A case study was used in this su diet. La disponibilidad de investigación económica acer- analysis to estimate opportunity costs associated with fore- ca de los caballos silvestre que ayude a las agencia públicas gone wildlife and domestic livestock due to wild horses on an a asignarlas tierras federales en un contexto de uso múlti- existing allotment in Wyoming. Results indicate the marginal ple es limitada. Un estudio de caso de Wyoming fue usado opportunity costs associated with horse numbers beyond the en este análisis para estimar los costos de oportunidad aso- median target level specified in the allotment management ciados con la reducción de ganado y fauna silvestre debida plan are greater than $1,900 per horse. Forage consumption oÏa los caballos salvajes. Los resultados indican que los estimates indicate the range resource could face deterioration costos marginales de oportunidad asociados con el número at higher wild horse population levels. These results suggest de caballos silvestres mas alla del nivel medio especificado the objectives of multiple use, sustained yield and maintaining en el plan de manejo de asignación son superiores a los viable wild horse populations may be met if government $1900 dolares por caballo. Las estimaciones de consumo agencies are able to remove wild horses in a timely fashion. It de forraje indican que con poblaciones altas de caballos el is not possible to say, however, that lower wild horse levels pastizal podrí deteriorarse. Estos resultados suguieren que represent a more economically efficient allocation of the los objetivos de uso múltiple, rendimiento sostenido y man- range resources without estimating the total economic bene- tene poblaciones viables de caballos úsalvajes pueden ser fits associated with wild horses. logrados si las agencias de gobierno son capaces de remover los caballos de manera oportuna. Sin embargo, sin estimar los beneficios económicos totales ascociados Key Words: economic efficiency, resource allocation, wildlife, con los caballos salvajes, no es posible decir que pobla- biological and economic tradeoffs ciones bajas de caballos representan una asignación mas econ micamente eficiente de los recursos del pastizal. Concern over the humane treatment and diminishing numbers of wild or feral horses (Equus caballus) led to the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act of 1971 (Hyde 1978). The original act authorizes the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) to This research was partially funded by the Wyoming Agricultural Experiment Station competitive grants program. remove feral horses in excess of the ecological balance Manuscript accepted 11 June 1998. from public rangelands in 11 western states (Fisher 1983).

104 JOURNAL OF RANGE MANAGEMENT 52(2), March 1999 Public land managers have faced 2 es could point to cost reduction strate- scrutiny of foster homes, and (4) cost constraints when removing horses. gies for the adoption program. of negative externalities. An example First, roundups have been impeded by According to the interpretation of of a negative externality created by judicial actions brought about by ani- federal courts1, the Federal Land horses would be unwanted wild horse mal rights activists (Huffaker et al. Policy and Management Act cannot grazing on private land. Hyde (1978) 1990). Second, the BLM has not meet multiple-use and sustained-yield concluded that estimates must be found a cost effective way to dispose principles dictated in the act and give made before allocative inferences can of unclaimed captured horses that an exalted status to either livestock or be drawn and that even incomplete meets public approval. Roundups con- wild horses. Huffaker et al. (1990) estimates are preferable to ignorance. sequently have been somewhat infre- examined this issue using a bioeco- The focus of this study addresses the quent. Horses in federal holding pens nomic livestock/wild horse trade-off issue of opportunity costs associated cost taxpayers about $165 to capture mechanism. Their methodology was with foregone wildlife and domestic and $2.25/day to sustain in captivity designed to allow the BLM to manipu- livestock due to wild horses as pro- (Huffaker et al. 1990). According to late livestock densities (via the graz- posed by Hyde (1978). This focus Godfrey and Lawson (1986), BLM ing fee) and wild horse densities (via does not allow conclusions to be expenditures per adopted animal were wild horse removal rate) on an allot- drawn regarding an economically effi- between $600 and $1,800 from 1976 ment that induced a sustained vegeta- cient allocation of the public range- through 1985. Nack (1988) found the tion density satisfying multiple use, land resource. The economic analysis roundup program coupled with while holding the permittee's public uses a case study approach and is unclaimed horses cost the public $92 grazing at some predetermined level. based on a BLM allotment complex in million between 1980 and 1988. The analysis included an ecological Wyoming. This analysis uses the goals Rapid population growth coupled interaction model, a wild horse popu- of the allotment management plan to with horse removal constraints have lation dynamics model and a model illustrate the opportunity costs of wild resulted in high feral horse densities in that selected the sustained livestock horses. important habitats on many public stocking rate to maximize present rangelands (Krysl et al. 1984, value of net benefits to the livestock Eberhardt et al. 1982, Cook 1975). producer given a competing forager. A Materials and Methods High densities have led to deteriora- locus of grazing fee and wild horse tion of the range resource, smaller removal rate combinations that held Study Area populations of wildlife and reduced present value constant was derived. The case study area was based on stocking rates for domestic livestock Results provided theoretical implica- the Whiskey Peak allotment complex (Cook 1975, Fisher 1983). tions, pointed to the need for better (36,479 ha) administered by the BLM. Since the passage of the Public data and provided a framework for Elevations on the complex range from Range Improvement Act in 1978, considering stocking rates as a func- 1,976 m to 2,812 m with annual pre- research has largely focused on the tion of both ecological and economic cipitation, coming largely from snow- biological and behavioral aspects of parameters. Huffaker et al. (1990) fall, averaging 25.4 cm from 1951 to wild horses. Most research indicates concluded that inconsistent results 1980. Annual high and low tempera- similarities in habitat selection and between their mechanism and models tures have averaged 13.4 and 0.33¡C, diet composition between feral horses, designed to maximize social welfare with frost free days ranging from 114 big game species, and domestic live- must be viewed as reasons why the at lower elevations to less than 60 at stock (McInnis and Vavra 1987, Krysl objectives in federal grazing statutes the highest reaches (Martner 1986, et al. 1984, Miller 1983, Denniston et may be economically inefficient. BLM 1990). The majority (80%) of al. 1982, Rittenhouse et al. 1982, Hyde (1978) has suggested that the the Whiskey Peak Allotment Complex Smith et al. 1982, Salter and Hudson wild horse issue be expressed in an contains sagebrush-mixed grass vege- 1980, Olsen and Hansen 1977). economic framework that compares tation type (BLM 1990). The remain- Applied economic research concern- wild horse management costs with ing vegetative types include riparian ing wild horses and the allocation of wild horse benefits. Qualitatively, wild zones, aspen woodland, conifer wood- pubic range in a multiple use context horse benefits would include (1) value land and mountain shrubland. A has been sparse. of recreational viewing, (2) non-con- detailed description of the plant Godfrey (1979) and Godfrey and sumptive values, and (3) their value to species by habitat class, topographic Lawson (1986) concluded that the foster homes. Conversely, wild horse features and soils can be found in wild horse program has been relative- costs would include (1) the opportuni- Crane et al. (1997). ly expensive. Godfrey and Lawson ty value for domestic livestock and (1986) found wild horse adopters wildlife foregone, (2) separable man- Allotment Management Plan often incurred relatively large expens- agement costs, (3) cost of public Goals developed in the Whiskey es for undesirable horses. They sug- Peak Complex Allotment Management gested that a greater understanding Plan (AMP) concerning wild horse 1Cf. American Horse Protection Association, Inc. v. concerning the demand for wild hors- Frizzell, 403 F. supp. 1206 (D. Nev. 1975). management were used to depict

JOURNAL OF RANGE MANAGEMENT 52(2), March 1999 105 potential tradeoffs at various horse mum of 300 and a maximum of 830 bers and forage utilization, not on the population levels (BLM 1990). The mule deer and a minimum of 300 elk objective of maximizing social welfare. Whiskey Peak Allotment lays within were assumed for this analysis. The study objectives were to examine the Green Mountain Wild Horse Herd The AMP livestock grazing goals the opportunity cost of various wild Area and supports approximately 75% included provisions for a deferred- horse populations on the allotment of the horses in this herd area. Using rotation grazing system that meets eco- given the AMP population goals, not to this 75% population adjustment, AMP logical objectives by allowing for for- determine if the AMP maximized target levels for the Whiskey Peak age rest periods during the growing social welfare. Allotment were a minimum of 128, a season. The target AMP objective was The number of head for each wildlife median of 184 and a maximum of 225. to provide 8,427 Animal Unit Months species and the number of cattle in the In 1992, over 500 horses occupied the (AUMs) of cattle grazing on the allot- optimal solution for each of the 5 sce- Green Mountain Wild Horse Herd ment. Given the target of 8,427 AUMS narios provided the basis for estimat- Management Area. That same year the and a historical low of 4,000 AUMs ing opportunity costs. Economic val- BLM conducted a round-up to remove reported in the AMP, maximum and ues for the different wildlife species horses in excess of the specified man- minimum AUMs for cattle were speci- and cattle were used to calculate the agement levels (Crane et al. 1997). fied at 8,427 and 4,000, respectively. opportunity cost of foregone wildlife Viewing the 1992 population of 500 Another AMP goal used in this and cattle production at different levels horses as a recent historical maximum study was the specified objective of of wild horses as compared to estimat- for the Green Mountain Herd maintaining utilization of key species ed production with no wild horses, Management Area, a maximum popu- at 50% or less. This forage goal of consistent with procedures used by lation of 375 horses was inferred for take half-leave half, coupled with the Bastian et al. (1991). the Whiskey Peak Allotment. above mentioned minimums and maxi- The general LP model used to esti- Population levels of 128, 184, 225, mums for wildlife and cattle, provided mate animal numbers was: and 375 thus were used in this analy- constraints that were used to estimate n ∑ sis to analyze tradeoffs and forage tradeoffs between wild horses, elk, Max Z = CjXj (1) consumption. deer, antelope, and cattle. j=1 The primary recreational activity on subject to: m n the allotment is hunting. The Green ∑∑ ≤ ≥ ≥ Economic Analysis aijXij , = bi, given Xj 0 (2) Mountain/Whiskey Peak area provides A linear programming (LP) model i=1 j=1 some of the best elk (Cervus elaphus was used to estimate wildlife and cattle where: nelsoni Bailey), mule deer (Odocoileus production levels for 5 population sce- Z = the number of animals hemionus hemionus Rafinesque) and narios of wild horses, including a sce- Cj = the change in Z for a unit antelope (Antilocarpa americana nario of no horses. These scenarios change in Xj, in this case Cj = 1 americana Ord) hunting in central were developed from the AMP goals Xj = the unknown number of animal Wyoming (BLM 1990). Between 700 that guided management decisions on j to be estimated (wild horses, and 900 head of antelope from 2 dif- the allotment.2 Diet composition data cattle, elk, mule deer and ante- ferent herd units use the Whiskey were used to develop grazing activity lope) Peak complex. The target antelope constraints in the model. Right hand bi = the amount of the ith resource objective for the complex is to provide side constraints were based on the 50% available (the right hand limits 9,415 antelope months (i.e., provide forage utilization assumption and the for animals e.g. 300 elk and forage for an average of 784 antelope minimum and maximum target levels forage class by season, e.g., annually). The number of mule deer of wildlife previously described. The spring grass) using the complex ranges between 300 model was solved using an objective aij = the amount of resource i and 830 on a seasonal use basis, with function that maximized the number of required per unit of activity Xj the target objective for the complex animals subject to a specified level of (i.e., amount of forage by class being 7,331 deer months of forage. wild horses. This approach was consis- and season for each species). The population objective for the tent with management goals in the The objective function maximizes Green Mountain elk herd has been AMP, but it deviated from the tradition- the number of cattle, elk, deer, and established at 500. Given this elk pop- al economic objective of maximizing antelope for each specified level of ulation objective, the Whiskey Peak social welfare. Goals established in the wild horses examined given the forage Complex should provide forage for AMP were based on desired herd num- constraints and diet assumptions used. about 300 elk during the winter and Each animal thus has an equal weight somewhat fewer numbers during the 2 This population guideline approach is consistent (i.e., C =1) in the objective function. other seasons. The target objective for with Huffaker et al.’s (1990) assumption that multi- j This format was chosen to be consis- the complex is to provide 3,544 elk ple use and sustained yield principles dictated by FLPMA do now allow a trade-off that gives one tent with the AMP objectives and the months of forage. Given the objectives species exalted status over another, i.e., economic concept of multiple-use under FLPMA in the AMP, a minimum of 700 and a efficiency might dictate 1 species by given preference over another, but management agencies cannot as interpreted by the courts (Huffaker maximum of 900 antelope, a mini- use this as a guiding criteria under current policy. et al. 1990).

106 JOURNAL OF RANGE MANAGEMENT 52(2), March 1999 Table 1. Percent composition of diet by forage class and season for each species. associated with grazing on the allotment does not affect the market price Forage Category Wild Horsesa Cattleb Elka Mule Deera Antelopec for cattle. Loomis (1993) stated that ------% Diet------given this assumption, price can be Spring grass/forbs 99 98 24 30 7 used as a measure of gross willingness Spring shrubs 1 2 76 70 93 to pay for 1 more unit of commodity Summer grass/forbs 98 98 28 12 6 output. Loomis (1993) also defined Summer shrubs 2 2 72 88 94 producer surplus under these assump- Fall grass/forbs 87 84 22 11 16 Fall shrubs 13 16 78 89 84 tions as the net benefits or change in Winter grass/forbs 76 86 15 10 14 net income from producing a commod- Winter shrubs 24 14 85 90 86 ity on public land. Since prices of beef aBased on Crane et al. (1997). to consumers were assumed to be unaf- bBased on percentages used and reported in Bastian et al. (1991). fected by production from the allot- cBased on Medcraft and Clark (1986). ment, consumer surplus was assumed to be unaffected. Production of forage was based on the Dry matter intake for wild horses, Benefits from cattle grazing were productivity and target requirements elk, mule deer, and antelope were based on the average value of weight outlined in the AMP (take half-leave based on estimates in Holecheck gain per head minus average costs of half), on standing crop estimates from (1988).4 Dry matter intake was multi- gain per head for the 4 month grazing Crane et al. (1997) and on the Natural plied by the percentages in Table 1 to period. The average value of gain was Resources Conservation Service estimate grazing requirements for each equal to the ending weight (352 kg) Technical Guides (USDA/NRCS 1990) forage class and season. Cattle grazing multiplied by the 1985Ð1994 average for range sites in the area. Table 1 speci- activities for the analysis were based market price for that weight class dur- fies percent composition of diet for each on stocker steers. Steers were assumed ing October (Kearl 1990, Bastian animal species by season. Grasses and to graze 3 months in the summer and 1 1995) minus beginning weight (270 forbs were combined in terms of intake month in the fall at an average daily kg) multiplied by average market and right-hand- side constraints (bi). gain of 0.68 kg, with beginning and price during June. Total costs of graz- This is consistent with recommenda- ending weights of 270 kg and 352 kg. ing were equal to the average costs of tions by Sundstrom et al. (1973)3 that Forage consumption was calculated by production associated with federal forbs may substitute for grasses and multiplying percent of diet by each grazing in Wyoming plus an opportu- also is consistent with procedures in plant class and by kg of dry matter nity cost associated with the invest- Bastian et al. (1991). Percentages of required by the steers each month dur- ment in cattle. The opportunity cost each forage class by season were mul- ing the appropriate season as outlined was estimated to be $8.83 per head tiplied by the intake requirements for in Ensminger and Olentine (1978). using an average value approach over the grazing period (average weight each animal to estimate coefficients for The next step was to estimate the over the grazing period of 311 kg mul- each grazing activity. opportunity costs of foregone wildlife tiplied by the 1985Ð1994 average price Diets of animals were assumed to and cattle production at increased wild for that weight class over the months remain constant under the 50% forage horse levels. Opportunity costs for this grazed) multiplied by a 6% yearly real utilization assumption used in this analysis were defined as the foregone net interest rate for the 4 month grazing analysis. As animal numbers increase benefits to society associated with period.5 Costs of federal grazing as and pressure on habitat types intensify, reduced wildlife or cattle numbers as reported by Torell et al. (1995) for the diet composition will likely wild horse numbers increased. These Wyoming BLM permittees in 1992 change in terms of individual plants opportunity costs were based on changes were $13.76/AUM. Production costs and plant classes, i.e., the composition in producer and consumer surplus asso- used for this analysis were equal to of forage input bundles consumed by ciated with grazing and hunting. $28.98 per steer ($13.76/AUM * 0.75 animals may change as the number of Net benefits to livestock producers AUM coefficient * 4 months). All animals change (Godfrey 1983). were defined as the value of livestock prices were deflated to 1982 dollars Using the constant diet assumption weight gain on the allotment minus using the GNP Implicit Price Deflator. may therefore bias the trade-offs or the costs of grazing. Perfect competi- Given these estimates for the average marginal rates of substitution. Because tion in the beef cattle market was value of gain and associated opportuni- little information concerning the mar- assumed in this analysis, i.e., produc- ty costs, the average net income or pro- ginal rates of substitution exist (Clary ers face a horizontal demand curve ducer surplus of grazing per steer was 1983), dynamic utilization considera- and the increase in supply of beef estimated to be $12.75 per head. tions as animal populations vary can- 5 not be included in this study. 4 Another approach would be to estimate opportunity This assumes a static population and does not take cost using an integral of weight times value over the into account a dynamic population in which new ani- entire 4 months of grazing, discounted back to the mals are born and dietary requirements change with 3 beginning of the grazing season. It is not expected this The study by Sundstrom et al. (1973) dealt with age and weight proportions within the herd population approach would change the results greatly. pronghorn diets. for each species of animal.

JOURNAL OF RANGE MANAGEMENT 52(2), March 1999 107

JOURNAL OF RANGE MANAGEMENT 52(2), March 1999 Net benefits associated with wildlife Table 2. Number of animalsa estimated for different levels of wild horses. in this analysis were defined as benefits accruing to the recreational hunter Scenario minus costs of hunting, i.e., net will- Animal Species 1 2 3 4 5 6 ingness to pay for hunting. As wildlife ------(Number of head) ------numbers change in a particular hunt Wild Horses 0 128 184 196 241 area, wildlife management agencies Steers 2,809 2,360 2,173 2,162 2,159 often adjust the number of permits Elk 300 300 300 300 0 offered, the type of animal that can be Mule deer 830 740 586 300 0 taken (e.g., male or female) and/or the Antelope 1,200 1,199 1,199 856 133 length of hunting season. As herd size aConstrained by assumption of limiting forage consumption to 50% of current annual growth. decreases, the opportunity for a recreational user to experience the activity is decreased. Loomis (1993) states that The 2 principle methods currently adjusted by Sorg and Loomis (1984) the loss of a recreation site or changes used to estimate consumer surplus are to 1982 dollars, were used: deer hunt- in recreation quality to a recreational the Contingent Valuation Method ing, $33.03 per hunter day; elk hunt- user represent a change in consumer (CVM) and the Travel Cost Method ing, $36.37 per hunter day; and ante- surplus for that user. (TCM). The TCM uses observed lope hunting, $18.81 per hunter day. Consumer surplus is an appropriate behavior to estimate consumer surplus. As previously stated, the opportuni- representation of value when goods The CVM tries to elicit an individual's ty cost of foregone wildlife production such as wildlife are not efficiently willingness to pay (WTP) for a speci- in this analysis was defined as benefits price rationed (i.e., not sold in mar- fied change or willingness to accept to the recreational user associated with kets) (McCollum et al. 1992). This (WTA) a given change in dollar hunting minus the costs of hunting. type of value is appropriate for eco- amounts (Randall 1987). Hansen's (1977) estimates of the net nomic efficiency analyses which illus- Because hunting is the primary willingness to pay were used to obtain trate tradeoffs made under alternative recreational use of the allotment, value these estimates. Each of Hansen's policies. Expenditures are more cor- estimates from hunters were reviewed (1977) hunter day values were multi- rectly used when considering econom- as published in Sorg and Loomis plied by an estimated permit factor ic impact or equity issues. Consumer (1984) to obtain regionally relevant and by the average number of days per surplus estimates therefore were used values for wildlife. Hansen (1977) was hunt for each species in Wyoming dur- to determine economic values for the only reported study that estimated ing 1994 (deer, 8.6 days; elk, 13.5 wildlife species in this analysis. values for deer, antelope, and elk days; antelope, 2.2 days (Wyoming There is controversy in the literature hunting in the Intermountain region. Game and Fish Department, 1995)). concerning estimates of consumer sur- Hansen (1977) utilized CVM to derive The permit factor equaled licenses plus for wildlife. This debate centers values for antelope, deer and elk based sold divided by population of the around issues such as type of method- on a mail survey sent to a sample of species. The consumer surplus for the ology used, accuracy of the methodol- 1975 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service hunt only is realized if the hunter ogy, recreation quality and what these Hunting and Fishing Survey respon- draws a permit; thus, a particular herd estimates actually measure (Keith and dents. Survey participants were asked size does not provide as many permits Lyon 1985, Cory and Martin 1985, how much more they would be willing as there are animals. The total adjust- Cory et al. 1988, Bergstrom and Stoll to spend before not engaging in the ment to Hansen's (1977) net willing- 1989, Fried et al. 1995). Continued particular hunting activity in question ness to pay values ($/day * days/hunt theoretical, analytical, and empirical (i.e., at what cost above the current * (# licenses/ # animals)) provided an analyses are needed to address many trip cost would they quit hunting). estimate of the average consumer sur- of the issues raised in the literature. This yielded an estimate of net will- plus for a hunting trip on a per animal While these issues are beyond the ingness to pay or consumer surplus for basis. The resulting consumer surplus scope and purpose of this article, it is the hunting trip. The mail survey for- value may be a conservative estimate important to remember that economic mat was noniterative and open-ended.7 of wildlife as it does not account for values associated with wildlife are The following user day values, as non-consumptive values. The resulting subject to limitations. Those limita- economic values used in the analysis were $60.50 per deer, $285.76 per elk, tions should be recognized when such 7 Current CVM methodology uses a dichotomous 8 values are used in applied analyses. choice, or take it or leave it approach, to address per- and $18.83 per antelope. ceived problems with the open ended noniterative 6 methodoloty used by Hansen (1977). Additionally, It is likely there are other benefits associated with the values estimated by Hansen (1977) do not wildlife than just hunting opportunity such as viewing account for changes in recreational quality which and existence benefits (Cory et al. 1988). Consumer sur- may occur as herd populations change, nor do they 8These values were held constant while estimating plus for a hunting trip includes all the attendant goods of estimate possible existence values associated with opportunity costs associated with the different horse the trip and does not value just the animal. Unfortunately, these species. These values should therefore be population scenarios and therefore do not capture the more accurate estimates of the value of the animal were viewed only as a starting point since they may not likely increase in marginal value of wildlife as that unavailable. Thus, net benefits as defined in this analysis represent the true value of the wildlife. species becomes scarce on the allotment. should be viewed as an inception.

108 JOURNAL OF RANGE MANAGEMENT 52(2), March 1999 Results

Five different scenarios of animal production were estimated. The first scenario was the zero horse scenario. This baseline scenario, reported in Table 2, estimated the number of cattle, elk, deer, and antelope that could be produced on the allotment allowing no horses in the solution, assuming 50% forage utilization and constrain- ing wildlife at greater-than-or-equal-to the minimum numbers previously specified (300 elk, 300 mule deer, and 700 antelope). Wildlife entered the solution at or near the maximum target Fig. 1. Marginal opportunity cost of foregone wildlife and cattle production at var- levels specified in the AMP except for ious levels of wild horses. antelope. Antelope entered the solution at 300 head above their maximum BLM managers would have a greater An infeasible solution was obtained target level of 900. This result was opportunity to change livestock use when attempting to maintain horses at likely due to the take half-leave half than wildlife numbers. Results in the upper population levels of 225 and assumption being applied to shrubs Table 2 indicate that the minimum 375 head given a 50% forage utiliza- whereas some authors have suggested horse scenario (128 horses) resulted in tion constraint. This suggests upper that actual shrub use in a sagebrush a reduction of 449 steers, a 90 head levels of wild horses could pressure dominated area will be less than 50% reduction in deer and a reduction of 1 the range resource to the extent that for antelope and sheep (Severson et al. antelope. Elk remained at the mini- the goal of 50% utilization of key 1980). The number of steers entering mum level of 300 head. The estimated species could not be met given the the solution was 2,809 head, or the opportunity cost for this scenario was other goals and constraints. Scenario maximum constraint of 8,427 AUMs $11,189 (Table 3). 4, therefore, estimated the maximum (assuming 4 months of grazing and an The third scenario constrained horses feasible horse population when average AUM coefficient of 0.75). at the median population level of 184 wildlife were constrained at greater- This scenario provided the base from head. Wildlife constraints were less- than-or-equal-to the minimum levels which the biological tradeoffs and than-or-equal-to the maximum target (300 elk, 300 mule deer, and 700 ante- opportunity costs were estimated for levels for deer and elk and 1,199 head lope), cattle were constrained at cattle, elk, deer, and antelope in the for antelope. At this number of horses, greater-than-or-equal-to zero and for- remaining 4 scenarios. steers were reduced 636 head com- age was constrained at 50% utiliza- The second scenario constrained pared to the solution with no horses, tion. The number of horses was horses at the minimum target level of deer were reduced 244 head and ante- increased to 196 head before an infea- 128. The constraints for wildlife were lope remained at 1,199 head. Optimal sible solution was reached. At this again set at greater-than-or-equal-to solutions for this and the second sce- horse population level, both elk and the minimum levels and the steer con- nario came reasonably close to meet- mule deer entered the solution at 300 straint was set at greater-than-or- ing target levels of wildlife and cattle head while 856 antelope entered the equal-to zero. These constraints were months specified in the AMP. The solution (Table 2). Steers numbered used to represent target goals for opportunity cost associated with this 2,162 head in this scenario, and the wildlife in the AMP, realizing that third scenario was $22,890 (Table 3). estimated opportunity cost was $46,792 (Table 3). The next scenario examined the Table 3. Opportunity cost estimated for different levels of wild horses.ab maximum number of horses that could Animal Species 128 184 196 241 occupy the allotment while maintain- Ð Ð Ð Ð Ð Ð Ð Ð Ð Ð Ð Ð Ð Ð Ð Ð Ð Ð ($) Ð Ð Ð Ð Ð Ð Ð Ð Ð Ð Ð Ð Ð Ð Ð Ð Ð ing 50% forage utilization, but allow- Steers 5,725 8,109 8,249 8,288 ing wildlife populations to fall below Elk 0 0 0 85,728 their minimum target levels. Thus, this Mule deer 5,445 14,762 32,065 50,215 scenario estimated the opportunity Antelope 19 19 6,478 20,092 Total Cost 11,189 22,890 46,792 164,323 cost of foregone production of other a At zero horses we assume opportunity costs of $0 for these species. animals when an agency managed for b Opportunity costs equal [(change in number of head from 0 horse scenario to horse number being examined) * esti- maximum horse numbers given a 50% mated value per head], e.g., opportunity cost for mule deer at 128 horses is as follows: [(830Ð740) * $60.50]=$5,445. forage utilization standard. The maxi-

JOURNAL OF RANGE MANAGEMENT 52(2), March 1999 109 Table 4. Illustration of forage usage at different levels of horses, wildlife and steers. mate forage consumption by class and season of use at upper levels of wild Scenario horses (225 and 375) and the minimum Forage Category A B C D E F G H and maximum target levels of wildlife ———————- (Forage Usage as % of RHS constraint) a————— and steers. Utilization numbers report- Spring grass/forbs 112 112 174 174 120 120 182 182 ed for each combination are expressed Summer grass/forbs 70 127 80 137 70 127 81 138 Fall grass/forbs 38 59 49 70 39 60 50 71 as a percent of the right hand side val- Winter grass/forbs 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 ues of each forage class by season Spring shrubs 77 77 78 78 102 102 103 103 under the take half-leave half assump- Summer shrubs 73 79 73 80 99 105 99 106 tions. Therefore, numbers greater than Fall shrubs 43 51 46 54 54 63 57 66 Winter shrubs 98 98 113 113 127 127 141 141 100 represent consumption beyond the Scenario A- 225 horses, wildlife at minimum target levels, steers at minimum target level conserving 50% utilization goal. Scenario B- 225 horses, wildlife at minimum target levels, steers at maximum target level Results in Table 4 indicate spring Scenario C- 375 horses, wildlife at minimum target levels, steers at minimum target level grass would be utilized above the 50% Scenario D- 375 horses, wildlife at minimum target levels, steers at maximum target level Scenario E- 225 horses, wildlife at maximum target levels, steers at minimum target level rate for all scenarios. Additionally, Scenario F- 225 horses, wildlife at maximum target levels, steers at maximum target level winter grasses and shrubs were used Scenario G- 375 horses, wildlife at maximum target levels, steers at minimum target level heavily in all the scenarios. The Scenario H- 375 horses, wildlife at maximum target levels, steers at maximum target level aRHS constraint is estimated to be 50% of current annual growth (a number over 100 represents consumption increased competition for spring and beyond take half-leave half). winter forage at higher horse populations was expected given the dietary mum wild horse population obtained be required to relax the constant diet overlap suggested in Table 1. Results from the solution, 241 head, was below assumption used in this model and to also suggest that if wildlife, cattle, and the upper bound of 375 head. Elk and examine the effects of changes in diet wild horse numbers are at their maxi- deer were eliminated from the solution composition. The literature indicates mum, the range resource is at risk of and antelope were reduced to 133 head. that high levels of horses cause reduc- deterioration. Results indicate that the The opportunity cost in this scenario was tions in wildlife numbers, stocking primary tradeoffs made at higher horse $164,323 (Table 3). Increasing horse rates for cattle and decreases in range numbers are at the expense of wildlife numbers appeared to impact wildlife condition (Fisher 1983, Cook 1975), all numbers and/or forage productivity. numbers to a greater extent than steer of which are supported by these results. numbers. This was largely due to the Figure 1 represents the marginal Discussion and Conclusions assumptions about the grazing season for opportunity cost per horse (change in steers. This likely would not have been total cost/change in horses). The graph the case if steers were assumed to graze illustrates that at horse levels above the Opposing public views concerning earlier in the season. median population target, marginal cost the management of wild horses exist. The AMP goals were fairly easy to per horse increases well over $1,900. Wild horse and burro advocates gener- maintain at the horse numbers used in Solutions at these higher horse numbers ally favor high population densities of the first 2 scenarios. The horse num- approximate the tradeoffs required to feral horses and burros while livestock producers and wildlife interests gener- bers estimated (196 and 241 head) in meet the 50% forage utilization goal. ally do not (Williams 1985). This the last two scenarios represent the The opportunity cost would probably be analysis used a case study approach to tradeoffs necessary to meet the 50% lower if the 50% forage utilization level illustrate biological tradeoffs and forage utilization goal. Competitive were relaxed under higher horse pro- opportunity costs of foregone wildlife pressures associated with these upper duction scenarios, but the range and cattle production associated with levels of horses could force some ani- resource would likely be in danger of mals to forage elsewhere, but it was the current wild horse program. deterioration. Results for the case study area indicate beyond the scope of this study to pre- A forage consumption sensitivity dict how many would remain on the costs associated with foregone wildlife analysis was estimated to illustrate and cattle production were lower at the allotment. If animals were forced to for- possible effects higher horse numbers age off the allotment due to range dete- minimum and median target horse (225 and 375) might have on the range numbers outlined in the allotment rioration, adjoining private lands could resource (Table 4). The 50% forage experience externalities as additional management plan. Marginal opportuni- utilization constraint was omitted to ty costs associated with horse numbers resources would be used by species accommodate higher horse popula- other than livestock. This condition, at beyond those levels were well over tions. Grazing activities in the LP $1,900 per horse (Fig. 1). Additionally, the very least, could create added con- model were used to estimate forage flicts for federal land managers. forage consumption estimates indicate utilization levels for each vegetation the range resource could face deteriora- The diet composition and habitat class and season under 8 different selection of wildlife could also change tion at maximum wild horse population combinations of wild horses, wildlife, levels as specified in the AMP or based at these higher horse numbers (196 and steers. These combinations esti- and 241 head). Additional data would on recent historical levels (225 and 375

110 JOURNAL OF RANGE MANAGEMENT 52(2), March 1999 head) when minimum and maximum mated. Wildlife would not be expected Clary, W.P. 1983. Interfacing physical target numbers of wildlife and steers to change forage consumption patterns data and economics, p. 115Ð119. In: also graze the allotment. or habitat selection unless grazing Proc. Range economics symposium and The BLM is faced with managing conditions deteriorated significantly. workshop. F.J. Wagstaff (comp.). public rangelands given legislative Moreover, behavioral aspects of the USDA Forest Serv., Intermountain Region. Ogden, Utah. Gen. Tech. Rep. mandates that require sustained wild interactions between wild horses and INT-149. horse populations, multiple use, and other species could affect these pat- Cook, C.W. 1975. Wild horses & burros: sustained yield of the forage resource. terns as well. a new management problem. Results of this analysis suggest viable This analysis provides an illustration Rangeman's J. 2:19Ð21. wild horse populations could be main- of the data required to complete part of Cory, D.C. and W.E. Martin. 1985. tained and much lower opportunity the benefit-cost analysis as proposed Valuing wildlife for efficient multiple costs of foregone wildlife and cattle by Hyde (1978). Unfortunately, the use: elk versus cattle. Western J. Agr. production would be realized, if the data limitations given current research Econ. 10:282Ð293. BLM were able to remove wild horses require several assumptions that were Cory, D.C., B.D. Colby, and E.H. in a timely fashion. Certain barriers limiting at best in explaining real Carpenter. 1988. Uncertain recreation exist to this process and the costs asso- world trade-offs associated with wild quality and wildlife valuation: are con- ventional benefit measures adequate? ciated with more timely roundups and horses. The analysis proposed by Hyde Western J. Agr. Econ. 13:153Ð162. adoptions would likely be higher. (1978) would require more accurate Crane, K.K., M.A. Smith, and D. Economic efficiency implies the estimates of wildlife values, better bio- Reynolds. 1997. Habitat selection pat- resource base should be managed to logical data to more accurately esti- terns of feral horses in southcentral maximize social welfare regardless of mate marginal substitution rates as for- Wyoming. J. Range Manage. the distribution of benefits or income age consumption patterns and diets 50:374Ð380. derived from that resource. To say that change with populations of animals, Denniston, R.H., M. Boyce, W.D. lower levels of horses would represent and data that would facilitate a dynam- McCort, J. Timmerman, B. Holz, and a more economically efficient alloca- ic modeling of interactions between L. Wollrab. 1982. Feral horse study: tion of the range resource without esti- wild horses and other species. habitat preference and use. Univ. of Wyoming Dep. of Zool. and Physio. mating the economic benefits associat- Economic analyses of wild horses are Report to USDI-BLM Contract AA85- ed with wild horses would be unjusti- sparse. It is hoped this study will stimu- CTO-31. fied. Economic efficiency dictates that late further economic work along the Eberhardt, L.L., A.K. Majorowicz, and wild horses should be added or lines proposed by Hyde (1978). Only J.A. Wilcox. 1982. Apparent rates of removed until the marginal benefits when all the costs and benefits associ- increase for two feral horse herds. J. equal the marginal costs. Allocating ated with wild horses are estimated can Wildl. Manage. 46:367-374. the range solely on efficiency could the issue of economic efficiency con- Ensminger, M.E. and C.G. Olentine, Jr. create equity issues for some users or cerning wild horses and public resource 1978. Feeds and nutrition- abridged. groups, e.g., distribution of benefits allocation be fully addressed. Ensminger Publ. Co., Clovis, Calif. Fisher, C. 1983. The wild horse dilemma: and compensation of individuals for background, prospective, and action. loss due to infringement. Literature Cited Rangelands 5:164Ð166. This study estimated the opportunity Fried, B.M., R.M. Adams, R.P. Berrens, costs associated with foregone produc- and O. Bergland. 1995. Willingness to tion, and while this is an important Bastian, C.T. 1995. Average prices of pay for a change in elk hunting quality. component of a benefit cost analysis, cattle and calves: eastern Wyoming and Wildl. Soc. Bull. 23:680Ð686. conclusions concerning economic effi- western Nebraska, 1990Ð1994. Bull. Godfrey, E.B. 1979. The wild horse laws. ciency cannot be drawn. The results AE95-2. Dept. Agr. Econ. Univ. of Utah Sci. 40(2):45Ð50. and conclusions of this analysis are Wyoming. Laramie, Wyo. Godfrey, E.B. 1983. Economics and mul- Bastian, C.T., J.J. Jacobs, L.J. Held, consistent with the institutional frame- tiple use management on federal range- and M.A. Smith. 1991. Multiple use of lands, p. 77Ð81. In: Proc. Range eco- work faced by BLM managers and the public rangeland: antelope and stocker nomics symposium and workshop. F.J. conclusions of Huffaker et al. (1990) cattle in Wyoming. J. Range Manage. Wagstaff (comp.). USDA Forest Serv., concerning public range allocation. 44:390Ð394. Intermountain Region. Ogden, Utah. Estimates of opportunity costs at the Bergstrom, J.C. and J.R. Stoll. 1989. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-149. higher levels of wild horses should be Application of experimental economics Godfrey, E.B. and P. Lawson. 1986. viewed cautiously given the limita- concepts and precepts to CVM field sur- Wild horse management: an economic tions of the data. Cost estimates at the vey procedures. Western J. Agr. Econ. perspective. J. Equine Vet. Sci. higher levels of wild horses are partic- 14:98Ð109. 6:266Ð272. ularly limited since they are based on Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Hansen, C. 1977. A report on the value of 1990. Draft outline for Whiskey Peak wildlife. USDA Forest Serv., hypothetical tradeoffs required to complex allotment management plan. Intermountain Region. Ogden, Utah. achieve a 50% forage utilization. USDI, BLM Rock Springs District, Holecheck, J.L. 1988. An approach for Realistically, wildlife numbers would Wyo. setting the stocking rate. Rangelands most likely be greater than those esti- 10:10Ð14.

JOURNAL OF RANGE MANAGEMENT 52(2), March 1999 111 Huffaker, R.G., J.E. Wilen, and B.D. Medcraft, J.R. and W.R. Clark. 1986. Sorg, C.F. and J.P. Loomis. 1984. Gardner. 1990. A bioeconomic live- Big game habitat use and diets on a sur- Empirical estimates of amenity forest stock/wild horse trade-off mechanism face mine in northeastern Wyoming. J. values: a comparative review. Gen. for conserving public rangeland vegeta- Wildl. Manage. 50:135Ð142. Tech. Rep. RM-107, USDA, Forest tion. Western J. Agr. Econ. 15:73Ð82. Miller, R. 1983. Habitat use of feral hors- Serv., Rocky Mountain Forest and Hyde, W.F. 1978. Wild horses and alloca- es and cattle in Wyoming's Red Desert. Range Exp. Sta., Ft. Collins, Colo. tion of public resources. Rangeman's J. J. Range Manage. 36:195Ð199. Sundstrom, C., W.G. Hepworth, and 5:75Ð77. Nack, W. 1988. Bad time for wild horses. K.L. Diem. 1973. Abundance, distribu- Kearl, W.G. 1990. Average prices of cat- Sports Illus. Time, Inc. New York. tion and food habits of the pronghorn (a tle and calves: eastern Wyoming and April. pp:28Ð35. partial characterization of the optimum western Nebraska, 1985-1989. Bull. Olsen, F.W. and R.M. Hansen. 1977. pronghorn habitat). Bull. 12 Wyoming AE90-2. Dept. Agr. Econ. Univ. of Food relations of wild free-roaming Game and Fish Commission, Cheyenne, Wyoming. Laramie, Wyo. horses to livestock and big game, Red Wyo. Keith, J.E. and K.S. Lyon. 1985. Desert, Wyoming. J. Range Manage. Torell, L.A., L.W. VanTassell, N.R. Valuing wildlife management: a Utah 30:17Ð20. Rimbey, E.T. Bartlett, T. Bagwell, P. deer herd. Western. J. Agr. Econ. Randall, A. 1987. Resource economics: Burgener, and J. Coen. 1995. The 10:216Ð222. An economic approach to natural value of public land forage and the Krysl, L.J., M.E. Hubbert, B.F. Sowell, resource and environmental policy. John implications for grazing fee policy. Agr. G.E. Plumb, T.K. Jewett, M.A. Smith, Wiley & Son, New York. Exp. Sta. Bull. 767. New Mexico State and J.W. Waggoner. 1984. Horses and Rittenhouse, L.R., D.E. Johnson, and Univ. cattle grazing in the Wyoming Red M.M. Borman. 1982. A study of food U.S. Department of Agriculture/Natural Desert I, food habits, and dietary over- consumption rates and nutrition of horses Resources Conservation Service lap. J. Range Manage. 37:72Ð76. and cattle. Final report of the BLM. (USDA/NRCS). 1990. Technician's Loomis, J.B. 1993. Integrated public USDI. Washington, D.C. guide to range sites and range condition. lands management: principles and appli- Salter, R.E. and R.J. Hudson. 1980. Wyoming section. Major Land Resource cations to national forests, parks, Range Relationships of Feral Horses Area 34. wildlife refuges, and BLM lands. with Wild Ungulates and Cattle in Williams, T. 1985. Horses, asses, and Columbia Univ. Press, New York. Western Alberta. J. Range Manage. asininities. Audobon. September. Martner, B.E. 1986. Wyoming climate 33:266Ð271. pp:20Ð23. atlas. Univ. Neb. Press., Lincoln, Nebr. Severson, K.E., M. May, and W. Wyoming Game and Fish Department. McInnis, M.L., and M. Vavra. 1987. Hepworth. 1980. Food preferences, car- 1995. Annual report. Cheyenne, Wyo. Dietary relationships among feral hors- rying capacities and forage competition es, cattle and pronghorn in southeastern between antelope and domestic sheep in Oregon. J. Range Manage. 40:60Ð66. Wyoming's red desert. Univ. of McCollum, D.W., G.L. Peterson, and C. Wyoming Agr. Exp. Sta. SM-10. Sorg-Swanson. 1992. A manager's Laramie. guide to the valuation of nonmarket Smith, M.A., B.F. Sowell, L.J. Krysl, G.E. resources: what do you really want to Plumb, M.E. Hubbert, J.W. Waggoner, know? p. 25Ð52. In: G.L. Peterson, C. and T.K. Jewett. 1982. Vegetation uti- Sorg-Swanson, D.W. McCollum, and lization, diets, and estimated dietary M.H. Thomas (eds.), Valuing wildlife quality of horses and cattle grazing in resources in Alaska. Westview Press, the Red Desert of westcentral Wyoming. Boulder, Colo. Univ. of Wyoming Dept. of Range Manage. BLM contract No. AA851- CTO-31.USDI. Washington, D.C.

112 JOURNAL OF RANGE MANAGEMENT 52(2), March 1999