Bill Overview
Title: Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Protection Act of 2022
Description: This bill modifies requirements under the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act, including by directing the Department of the Interior to (1) establish regulations that require humane treatment of the animals during handling, management activities, removals, euthanasia, holding, and other activities; and (2) take actions to correct, prevent the recurrence of, and record violations of such regulations. The bill also prohibits Interior from destroying such animals unless they are fatally injured or terminally ill.
Sponsors: Rep. Grijalva, Raúl M. [D-AZ-3]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals involved in and affected by wild horse and burro management and conservation
Estimated Size: 500000
- The bill specifically relates to wild free-roaming horses and burros, ensuring their humane treatment in the United States.
- The primary human stakeholders impacted by this legislation are people involved in the management and preservation of these animals, such as employees of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and other organizations.
- Animal rights organizations and their supporters, who advocate for humane treatment of these animals, are also directly impacted.
- Ranchers, landowners, and those who may be affected by the population management of these animals in their local ecosystems have an interest in this legislation.
- The general public is impacted as taxpayers, since government resources will be allocated to enforce these new provisions.
Reasoning
- The overall cost of the policy implementation is restricted by a budget, thus impacting how extensive the program can be in addressing violations and ensuring humane treatment.
- The main stakeholders are people directly and indirectly involved with wild horses and burros, including government employees, landowners, and animal rights activists.
- Not all people in the population will be directly affected by changes in wild horse and burro protected measures.
- A diverse range of attitudes towards the policy exists, from those who view it as a necessity for humane treatment to those who see it as an additional bureaucratic burden.
Simulated Interviews
BLM Manager (Nevada)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I feel this policy is essential in ensuring humane treatment for these animals.
- There are a lot of challenges in managing these populations humanely without violating animal rights.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Rancher (Wyoming)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The idea is good, but I'm worried about the impact on my land and resources.
- We need a balance between animal rights and landowner rights.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Animal Rights Advocate (California)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is a step in the right direction for animal rights.
- I'm hoping it will lead to further policy changes nationally.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 5 |
Wildlife Biologist (Colorado)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Implementing structured guidelines can aid in scientific management of these animals.
- There are complexities involved in balance of ecosystems and animal management.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Retired from BLM (Oregon)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- There’s a lot of ground to cover, but this policy is much needed.
- I’m concerned about enforcement due to budget limitations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Veterinarian (Utah)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Hopefully this will reduce the instances of neglect seen historically.
- Vet services for these victims of mismanagement should improve.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Student (Texas)
Age: 26 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policies like these are crucial for the future of animal conservation.
- I look forward to their implementation during my career.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Editor for Environmental Magazine (New York)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy seems like a win for the animal rights community.
- It could set a precedent for future environmental legislation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Park Ranger (Arizona)
Age: 32 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Closer regulations should improve interactions between wild horses and visitors.
- I’m cautious but hopeful about the execution on the field level.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Farmer (Montana)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Conservation is important, but so are my crops and livelihood.
- I need more involvement in policy discussions that affect local resources.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)
Year 2: $15500000 (Low: $10500000, High: $20500000)
Year 3: $16000000 (Low: $11000000, High: $21000000)
Year 5: $17000000 (Low: $12000000, High: $22000000)
Year 10: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $25000000)
Year 100: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $60000000)
Key Considerations
- The scope of animal management and natural resource duties may increase for the Department of the Interior, impacting workload and budget allocation.
- Animal rights groups will likely monitor and potentially challenge the implementation of these regulations, affecting public relations strategy.
- Local economies may need to adapt to changes in population management practices for these animals.