RENO, Nev. — Hundreds of wild horses and burros slated for roundup at a national wildlife refuge along the Nevada-Oregon line will continue to roam free, at least for now, to the relief of wild horse advocates and dismay of some other environmentalists and wildlife officials.
After the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service canceled a planned gather last month under pressure from horse advocates and a House committee chairman, horse groups applauded.
But wildlife officials fear the herds will gobble up scarce resources and destroy habitat for the animals the Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge was created to protect. The victory for horses endangers pronghorn antelope, bighorn sheep, pygmy rabbits, sage grouse, mule deer and untold species found in isolated springs, they say.
Other environmental groups, while not necessarily opposed to wild horses, argue too many will significantly degrade the delicate western Great Basin ecosystem and pillage the refuge's financial resources.
"We simply can't put the needs of horses above all other wildlife, especially when law requires these refuges be managed for specific species," said Evan Hirsche, president of the National Wildlife Refuge Association, an independent nonprofit organization that advocates for refuges.
As the dust over the proposed roundup settles, federal managers have agreed to reconsider whether horses and burros, viewed by many as romantic symbols of the American West, should have a bigger claim to the expansive high desert refuge than the stake they were given a quarter-century ago when cattle also shared the land.
"We're not saying there should never be a roundup of horses or they should let them go unchecked," Matt Rossell, outreach coordinator for the animal rights group In Defense of Animals.
"We just want to make sure the horses are gathered humanely and we really have good information on how many horses the land can sustain and that the horses are ending up in good homes."
Paul Steblein, project manager at the Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge and the nearby Hart Mountain refuge, said besides the horses damaging habitat and posing a threat to motorists on a rural nearby highway, managing the animals eats up a big chunk of the refuge's funding.
"Every dollar we spend on a horse is a dollar we don't have for other priorities," Steblein said. "In general, we've spent in the last year more than half of our budget on horses and burros."
"The No. 1 human experience that we are charged to implement is conservation to protect native plants and animals in the ecosystem," Steblein said. "There are species that occur no place else."
Horse advocates and other animal rights groups rallied in protest this spring after the Fish and Wildlife Service determined that reducing the herd was a continuation of an existing policy and would not "significantly affect the quality of the human environment" or experiences at the refuge. The finding made a thorough environmental study unnecessary under federal law.
But the service's finding brought a stern rebuke from Rep. Nick Rahall II, D-W.V., chairman of the House Committee on Natural Resources.
In a letter to Fish and Wildlife Director Dale Hall, Rahall, D-W.V., said "it is hard to fathom how the service can justify as 'not significant"' its plan to drastically reduce "a viable herd of wild horses."
Horse advocates complained the Fish and Wildlife Service relied on studies done in 1980 and the late 1970s — when livestock grazing was allowed on the refuge — that set target population levels at 75-125 horses and 30-60 burros.
But grazing on the refuge was banned in the 1990s, and they argued that with cattle gone, new studies to determine how many horses and burros the refuge can support should be done before large numbers of the animals are removed.
Refuge officials estimate as many as 1,600 horses and 100 burros roam the Sheldon Refuge that was established in the 1930s and covers more than 500,000 acres in northern Nevada and southeastern Oregon.
"Whether or not cattle are there, those horses are causing damage to our wetlands, impacting our native species and wildlife," Steblein said.
"There's a problem out there with water resources, water holes drying up," he said. Steblein said staff members and others have reported horses staking out watering holes and chasing off pronghorn.
Steblein said the herd adds about 300 horses annually through reproduction.
Critics say poor management on the refuge led to the current population boom.
In public comments, the Humane Society of the United States said horses numbered 400 or less when the targeted population levels were set in 1980.
"If management actions had been taken as prescribed, it is doubtful that the horse population would be hovering around 1,500 as it is today," wrote Lauren Nolfo, a Human Society scientist.
The Fish and Wildlife Service has denied activists' claims that it intended to gather up to 1,400 horses before the roundup was canceled, but horse groups remain unconvinced.
"They can certainly say what they want," said Howard Crystal, a Washington, D.C., lawyer for In Defense of Animals. "But the decision authorized them to round up 1,400."
Other environmental groups supported the agency's findings and the targeted population numbers.
Horse proponents, Hirsche said, are "putting horses above all else and I think that's unreasonable."
Still he supports the government's decision to delay the roundup.
"I think it's good they're going back and dotting all the i's and crossing all the t's," he said.
The Sierra Club also supported thinning the herds to the previous target levels.
"Current adverse impacts from growing numbers of wild horses and burros on vegetation and wildlife habitat on the refuge as well as refuge staff and resources are unacceptable," Rose Strickland, public lands committee chairwoman for the Toiyabe Chapter of the conservation group, said in written comments supporting the agency's planned roundup.
The Fish and Wildlife Service received more than 700 comments from the public when it shared its plans in April.
Most argued that horses and burros have as much right to the landscape as other animals, even if they are not native to the region.
"We're talking about wildlife that has been in this area since before it was a refuge," Crystal said. "It's true these particular horses came to be in this area because they were released by people. But that was an awful long time ago.
"When the refuge was created, the horses were there," he said.
While advocates call them "wild," refuge managers consider them "feral."
The U.S. Bureau of Land Management has about 200 designated herd management areas around the West where horses and burros are a "featured priority," Steblein said.
In the short-term, Steblein said Fish and Wildlife Service will consider maintaining a status quo on current horse and burro populations as one of the alternatives to be considered as it revises its environmental study for the refuge. An comprehensive conservation plan for the refuge is scheduled to be completed in 2010, he said.
"No matter what, we do need to move on with managing all aspects of the refuge," Steblein said.