Preliminary Desatoya Herd Management Area Wild Horse Roundup Plan Environmental Assessment (EA) – DOI-BLM-NV-C010-2021-0004-EA
The Cloud Foundation 107 S. 7th St, Colorado Springs, CO 80905
January 9, 2021
Desatoya Wild Horse Roundup PEA
BLM – Stillwater Field Office, Carson City District Office
5665 Morgan Mill Road
Carson City, NV 89701
Submitted via email: blm_nv_ccd_whb@blm.gov
To: Carson City District and Stillwater Field Offices
On behalf of The Cloud Foundation (TCF), a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization committed to
protecting and preserving America’s wild horse and burros on our public lands, and our more
than 500,000 supporters, I respectfully submit these comments on the Bureau of Land
Management’s (BLM) Preliminary Desatoya Herd Management Area Wild Horse Roundup Plan
Environmental Assessment (EA) – DOI-BLM-NV-C010-2021-0004-EA.
The EA fails to adequately analyze important issues and consider the prevailing public
sentiment on the Proposed Action.
I, along with TCF’s board, staff and supporters, enjoy and appreciate the wild horses currently
living in Nevada. We appreciate wild horses specifically for their natural behaviors – their social
bonds, herd dynamics and individual personalities. Therefore, we strongly oppose the Proposed
Action which include: removing the vast majority of wild horses while allowing allow livestock
grazing to continue in the same areas; the use of Gonacon for fertility control because it is
documented to destroy natural hormone production which is necessary to protect natural wild
behaviors, the skewing of the natural sex ratios of wild horses because of the aggression and
chaos that is caused by this unnatural man-made event and due to the lack of data that
suggests this plays any role in suppressing population growth over the long-term (whereas there
is documented data that highlights the real impact of compensatory reproduction that results
from removals); the use of IUDs which have, to date, not been sufficiently tested in wild mares
prior to implementation on the range (without a research study protocol that would be strictly
followed to provide daily, monthly and annual data on subject mares); and based on the EA’s
failure to identify the type of IUD which would be utilized (thereby making providing public
comments impossible – Appendix F is wholly insufficient).
Reducing wild horse populations to lower levels while allowing livestock grazing to continue in
the same area is illegal and wrong, and is opposed by the vast majority of Americans. The
Proposed Action’s removal of wild horses, proposed destruction of the natural behaviors of
these cherished animals through the use of Gonacon which is documented to destroy mares’
ovaries, and implementation of the still experimental and untested IUD will have a negative
impact on us, by definition causing harm to the human environment:
§ 1508.14 Human environment. Human environment shall be interpreted comprehensively
to include the natural and physical environment and the relationship of people with that
environment. ...
I. Overview
Desatoya Roundup EA, The Cloud Foundation comments
January 9, 2021 – page 2
Desatoya encompasses 157,836 acres (246 square miles) of public lands in central Nevada.
The BLM allows ranchers to graze their private, commercial livestock on these same public
lands -- permitting the equivalent of 800 year-round cows on this habitat that Congress declared
was to be “devoted principally” for wild horse usage and welfare. BLM artificially confines the
Desatoya wild horse population to just 127 to 180 horses. The EA has failed to adequately
justify or analyze the Proposed Action for the Desatoya Herd Management Area (HMA). Under
the Proposed Action, the BLM would:
• Round up at least 183 wild horses (or 85% of the existing population which BLM claims
was counted at 215 in October 2020) and remove 88 horses.
• Continue roundups and fertility control for a 10-year period to keep the horse population
down to just 127 to 180 horses while authorizing 4 times as many private cattle to graze
the same area.
• Artificially skew the sex ratio (40%-60% female-male) compared to naturally occurring
55-45 female-male sex ratio.
• Implement IUDs which remain experimental on wild mares.
• Administer PZP and/or Gonacon which is known to destroy the ovaries, natural hormone
production and natural wild horse behaviors.
The EA states that horses must be removed to maintain a “thriving natural ecological balance"
(TNEB). However, no threat to this balance is greater than the extensive livestock grazing
authorized by BLM in this same area. BLM authorizes year-round livestock grazing in the
Complex, permitting the annual equivalent of more than 800 cow/calf pairs vs. a maximum of
180 wild horses. (Even at current population estimate of 552 permitted cattle grazing exceeds
the current wild horse use.) The artificially low wild horse “Allowable” Management Level (AML)
of just 127 to 180 horses for the entire 157,000 HMA is less than one-fourth (1/4) the forage the
BLM allocates for privately-owned livestock (which is 4 to 6 times higher than allocated for wild
horses).
Throughout the EA environmental damage is attributed to “wild horses” without specific
information indicating the way in which BLM distinguishes between range damage caused by
wild horses and that caused by livestock grazing – whether historic or active. If TNEB is BLM’s
objective and if, as the EA states, range conditions are not meeting this objective, then the first
species that must be removed are the non-native, privately-owned livestock.
II. 1971 Wild, Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act (Act)
A. Congressional Intent Is Clear: Designated “Range” Is “Devoted Principally” for
Wild Horse Use
Congress clearly outlined in the Act that wild horses have a special, protected status.
The Act specifically identifies the "range" where wild horses were presently found (in 1971) as
“the land necessary to sustain an existing herd or herds of wild free-roaming horses.” The Act
then states this wild horse habitat “is devoted principally but not necessarily exclusively to
their [wild horses and burros] welfare...” [Public Law 92-195 § 1332]
The BLM does not hold any discretion or authority to diverge from the clear, stated intent of the
United States Congress. Congress told the BLM those lands are (must be) devoted principally
to these federally protected animals. Again, the clear language of the Act leaves no possible
Desatoya Roundup EA, The Cloud Foundation comments
January 9, 2021 – page 3
ambiguity about the intent of Congress, or that wild horses “are to be considered in the area
where presently found, as an integral part of the natural system of the public lands.”
“If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court, as well as the
agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.” [Chevron, U.S.A.,
Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 467 U.S. 837, 842–43 (1984)].
BLM’s regulations state that “wild horses and burros shall be considered comparably with other
resource values in the formulation of land use plans.” [43 CFR 4700.0-6]1 The EA fails to render
a comparable evaluation of wild horse use of these public lands with that of privately-owned
livestock that use the same area - despite Congress’ clear intention that these public lands are
to be devoted principally to wild horses.
Additionally, Congress was clear in its requirement that “All management activities shall be at
the minimal feasible level...” Obviously, eliminating all wild horses is not a “minimal”
management action. In fact, nothing could be more extreme than eliminating an entire herd of
wild horses from lands specifically designated for their use.
The creators of the EA clearly fall into one of the two categories of BLM personnel noted in the
1982 National Research Council’s report on the BLM Wild Horse Program: “our experience also
suggests that the Bureau must be sensitive to considerable pockets of resistance to the
program within its own ranks and to the pressures which many district and area personnel
feel to depict range, population, and other conditions in an antihorse and antiburro context.”
The EA fails to adhere to the Act.
III. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
A. 43 CFR § 4700.6 – Protection, Management, And Control of Wild Free-Roaming
Horses and Burros
BLM statute 43 CFR 4700.0-6 clearly establishes the policies for the agency’s management of
wild horses.
The EA and Land Use Plans (LUPs) fail to address that “Wild horses and burros shall be
considered comparably [similar] with other resource values in the formulation of land use
plans.” (43 CFR § 4700.0-6) The EA cites land use plans that range from 15 to 45 years old;
relying on these land use plans, which fail to authorize resources “principally” or “comparably”
for wild horses is clearly not in conformance with existing laws and statutes. The Final EA
cannot implement the Proposed Action because it is not in compliance with existing laws
and statutes.
1 43 CFR 4700.0-6 Policy (a) Wild horses and burros shall be managed as self-sustaining populations
of healthy animals in balance with other uses and the productive capacity of their habitat. (b) Wild
horses and burros shall be considered comparably with other resource values in the formulation
of land use plans. (c) Management activities affecting wild horses and burros shall be undertaken with
the goal of maintaining free-roaming behavior.
Desatoya Roundup EA, The Cloud Foundation comments
January 9, 2021 – page 4
43 CFR 4700.0-6 states in part:
“(b) Wild horses and burros shall be considered comparably with other resource values
in the formulation of land use plans.
(c) Management activities affecting wild horses and burros shall be undertaken with the goal of
maintaining free-roaming behavior.”
The EA and Land Use Plans (LUPs) fail to address that “Wild horses and burros shall be
considered comparably [similar] with other resource values in the formulation of land use
plans. (43 CFR § 4700.0-6) The EA cites land use plans that are 33 years old; relying on this
outdated land use plan which fails to authorize the HMA “principally” for wild horses or consider
wild horses “comparably [similarly] with other resource values” in the LUP is not in conformance
with existing laws and statutes. The Final EA cannot implement an action that is not in
compliance with existing laws and statutes.
The EA fails to take a hard look at 43 CFR 4700.06(b), given the proposal to remove wild
horses to low AML while allowing livestock grazing to continue. The BLM outlines that the actual
usage of private commercial livestock on the Desatoya HMA continues to exceed the current
wild horse population (actual use is reported at the annual equivalent of 552 cows/calf pairs –
grazing permits show many of these cows are permitted to graze year-round). So, while the
BLM claims 88 wild horses must be removed for TNEB (reducing the already small number of
horses), the BLM continues to allow more private livestock to graze the same area. This is in
direct conflict with governing statute which specifically states that horses “shall be considered
comparable with other resource values in the formulation of land use plans.” If the Proposed
Action is implemented, the BLM will not be in conformance with this statute, because they are
not treating wild horses in Desatoya “comparable” - or the same as - livestock that graze in the
same area.
B. 43 C.F.R. 4710 Management Considerations
The EA fails to take a hard look at the BLM authority to temporarily or permanently reduce or
eliminate livestock grazing from the public lands in the HMA pursuant to 43 C.F.R. 4710.5(a).
This regulation allows the BLM to temporarily or permanently close a public land area to
livestock grazing, "If necessary to provide habitat for wild horses or burros…” The BLM has the
discretion to implement this policy either temporarily or permanently and this action is available
whether or not there is an emergency.
BLM cannot claim that 43 CFR 4710.5 “usually applied in cases of emergency and not for
general management of wild horses since it cannot be applied in a manner that would be
inconsistent with the existing land-use plans.” (43 CFR § 4710.1)” 43 CFR § 4710.1 merely
states, “Management activities affecting wild horses and burros, including the establishment of
herd management areas, shall be in accordance with approved land use plans prepared
pursuant to part 1600 of this title.” There is nothing in part 43 CFR part 1600, nor any BLM
regulation, that prohibits the BLM from amending the LUP or delaying the Proposed Action
until such amending could be implemented.
The EA must consider and take a hard look at using adaptive management and, through the
LUP process, amending the RMP.
Desatoya Roundup EA, The Cloud Foundation comments
January 9, 2021 – page 5
The EA fails to consider utilizing the agency's Adaptive Management mandate and its discretion
under 43 C.F.R. 4710.3-2 and 43 C.F.R. 4710.5(a), which allows for the reduction or elimination
of grazing for privately-held animals in order to improve conditions and forage availability for
federally-protected wild horses or burros.
C. 43 CFR § 4710.5 – Closure to livestock grazing
The EA fails to take a hard look at the BLM’s clear authority to limit livestock grazing, pursuant
to 43 C.F.R. 4710.5(a), to close livestock grazing on areas of public lands:
“(a) If necessary to provide habitat for wild horses or burros, to implement herd
management actions, or to protect wild horses or burros, to implement herd
management actions, or to protect wild horses or burros from disease, harassment or
injury, the authorized officer may close appropriate areas of the public lands to grazing
use by all or a particular kind of livestock.
(b) All public lands inhabited by wild horses or burros shall be closed to grazing under
permit or lease by domestic horses and burros.
(c) Closure may be temporary or permanent. After appropriate public consultation, a
Notice of Closure shall be issued to affected and interested parties.”
The EA fails to consider 43 C.F.R. 4710.5; the BLM cannot claim that this statute is “usually
applied in cases of emergency and not for general management of wild horses since it cannot
be applied in a manner that would be inconsistent with the existing land-use plans.” (43 CFR §
4710.1)”
43 CFR § 4710.1 merely states, “Management activities affecting wild horses and burros,
including the establishment of herd management areas, shall be in accordance with approved
land use plans prepared pursuant to part 1600 of this title.” There is nothing in part 43 CFR part
1600, nor any BLM regulation, that prohibits the BLM from amending the LUP or delaying the
Proposed Action until such amending could be implemented. The EA must consider and take a
hard look at using adaptive management and through the LUP process amending the RMP.
43 CFR § 1610.5-3 states, “Any person adversely affected by a specific action being
proposed to implement some portion of a resource management plan or amendment may
appeal such action pursuant to 43 CFR 4.400 at the time the action is proposed for
implementation.” We are therefore appealing this Proposed Action and the RMP which
authorizes it.
The EA fails to take a hard look at implementing BLM authority, and requirement as discussed
above, to utilize its Adaptive Management mandate and its ability as per 43 C.F.R. 4710.3-2 and
43 C.F.R. 4710.5(a), which allows for the reduction or elimination of grazing for privately-held
animals in order to improve conditions and forage availability for federally-protected wild horses
or burros.
IV. Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA)
“The term ‘multiple use’ means the management of the public lands and their various
resource values so that they are utilized in the combination that will best meet the
Desatoya Roundup EA, The Cloud Foundation comments
January 9, 2021 – page 6
present and future needs of the American people... combination of balanced
and diverse resource uses …”
FLPMA requires that BLM “balance” wild horse and burro use with other uses which equates at
minimum to a 50-50 allocation of available forage between horses and livestock on HMAs. The
EA fails to address this. By allowing livestock to continue to graze and instead of reducing or
eliminating livestock, which is far more pervasive across BLM-managed public lands, the
agency has instead chosen to target wild horses for elimination and removal on the small 11%
of public lands authorized for their use and as their habitat.
The EA fails to address that FLPMA highlights the importance of the non-market value within its
definition of the term “multiple-use.” FLPMA requires that:
“(c) . . . consideration being given to the relative values of the resources and not necessarily to
the combination of uses that will give the greatest economic return or the greatest unit output.”
The intrinsic value of wild horses and burros falls under the non-market definition specified by
both laws.
Sec. 302 of FLPMA states:
“(a) The Secretary shall manage the public lands under principles of multiple use and sustained
yield, in accordance with the land use plans developed by him under section 202 of this Act
when they are available, except that where a tract of such public land has been dedicated to
specific uses according to any other provisions of law it shall be managed in accordance with
such law,” [43 U.S.C. 1732] and Sec. 102 “(b) The policies of this Act shall become effective
only as specific statutory authority for their implementation is enacted by this Act or by
subsequent legislation and shall then be construed as supplemental to and not in derogation of
the purposes for which public lands are administered under other provisions of law” [43 U.S.C.
1701]
In addition, FLPMA requires the public lands to be administered for “multiple-use,” which
Congress defined as:
“the management of the public lands and their various resource values so that they are utilized
in the combination that will best meet the present and future needs of the American people . . .
with consideration being given to the relative values of the resources and not necessarily to the
combination of uses that will give the greatest economic return or the greatest unit output.” [43
U.S.C. § 1702(c)].
While commercial livestock grazing is permitted on public lands it is not a requirement under
the agency’s multiple use mandate as outlined in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act
of 1976 (FLPMA). Indeed, public land grazing is a privilege and not a right, and the BLM is
mandated by law to protect wild horses and burros.
Grazing on public lands is a privilege, and not a right See 43 U.S.C. § 315b & 16 (1943 Taylor
Grazing Act, stating that grazing preferences "shall not create any right, title, interest, or estate
in or to the lands" belonging to the U.S. Government); 43 U.S.C. § 580l (FLPMA similar
provision); Omaechevarria v. Idaho, 246 U.S. 343, 352 (1918) ("Congress has not conferred
upon citizens the right to graze stock upon the public lands. The government has merely
suffered the lands to be so used"); U.S. v. Fuller, 409 U.S. 488, 494 (1973) (grazing permittee
Desatoya Roundup EA, The Cloud Foundation comments
January 9, 2021 – page 7
does not acquire a property interest in grazing permit); Swim v. Bergland, 696 F.2d 712, 719
(9th Cir. 1983) ("license to graze on public lands has always been a revocable privilege");
Osborne v. United States, 145 F.2d 892, 896 (9th Cir. 1944) ("it has always been the intention
and policy of the government to regard the use of its public lands for stock grazing. . . as a
privilege which is withdrawable at any time for any use by the sovereign without the payment of
compensation"); Diamond Bar Cattle Co. v. U.S.A., 168 F.3d 1209, 1217 (10th Cir. 1998)
(permittees "do not now hold and have never held a vested private property right to graze cattle
on federal public lands"); Alves v. U.S., 133 F.3d 1454 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (holding that neither
grazing permit nor preference is a compensable property interest).
Based solely on FLPMA, wild horses should be allocated 50% of the more than 11,760 AUMS
allocated to livestock and wild horses in Desatoya which would result in a wild horse population
of 490 horses. In fact, that wild horse number should be higher than the 50% based on the Act
which requires the HMA be devoted “principally” to wild horses.
The EA fails to analyze these issues and the Proposed Action is not in conformance with
existing statues and laws.
V. Taylor Grazing Act (TGA)
The TGA provides the government broad discretion to decide whether to allow livestock owners
to use public lands. The issuance of a grazing permit does not confer any entitlement or right to
use the public lands; rather, it is a privilege that can be taken away, if necessary, to protect the
health of the range and/or to protect the wild horses. See 43 U.S.C. § 315b (BLM, is
“authorized” to issue permits for the grazing of livestock on public lands “upon the payment . .
.of reasonable fees”); id. (“the creation of a grazing district or the issuance of a [grazing] permit.
. . shall not create any right, title, interest, or estate in or to” these public lands. Id. (emphasis
added). Indeed, the TGA also provides that the Secretary “is authorized, in his discretion, to . . .
classify any lands within a grazing district, which are . . . more valuable or suitable for any other
use,” 43 U.S.C. § 315f, including use by wild horses that are required to be protected under the
WHMA (Wild Horse Act). See 16 U.S.C. § 1333(a); see also 43 C.F.R. § 4710.5(a).
While the BLM claims 88 wild horses must be removed for TNEB, the BLM reports that the
agency is allowing the current “actual use” of livestock to exceed more than the annual
equivalent of 550 cow/calf pairs to graze in the same area. If these public lands can
accommodate hundreds of cows, there is no sound or legal basis for the removal of 88 wild
horses from this HMA.
VI. National Academy of Sciences
The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) was founded in 1863 in the midst of the American
Civil War. The National Research Council (NRC) was founded in 1916 against the backdrop of
the First World War. These two independent research bodies have played significant roles to
ensure the U.S. government is provided balanced, fact-based information and data which
should be incorporated in governmental decision-making processes.
The Secretary of the Interior is instructed by the Act to consult with the NAS. The BLMcommissioned
2013 NAS report “Using Science to Improve the BLM Wild Horse and Burro
Program: A Way Forward” (NAS Report) (Attachment 1) clearly states:
Desatoya Roundup EA, The Cloud Foundation comments
January 9, 2021 – page 8
“Horse and burro management and control strategies cannot be based on biological or
cost considerations alone; management should engage interested and affected parties
and also be responsive to public attitudes and preferences. Three decades ago, the
National Research Council reported that public opinion was the major reason that the
Wild Horse and Burro Program existed and public opinion was a primary indicator of
management success (NRC, 1982). The same holds true today.” p. 292
The NAS Report notes:
“Livestock grazing occurs on 160 million acres of land (65% of BLM land) with a
maximum of 12.5 million AUMs of grazing authorized and 8.6 million AUMs used. By
contrast, wild horses exist on 26.9 million acres of BLM land and are authorized
318,060 AUMs and are estimated to have used 447,689 AUMs. Put another way, of
forage allocated on BLM land to wild horses and livestock, wild horses account
for just 5% of consumption, while livestock account for 95%.”
The 1984 National Academy of Sciences report on the BLM’s wild horse and burro program
stated2:
“It continues to be obvious that the major motivation behind the wild horse and burro
protection program and a primary criterion of management success is public opinion.
Attitudes and values that influence and direct public priorities regarding the size,
distribution, and condition of horse herds, as well as their accessibility to public
viewing and study, must be an important factor in the determination of what
constitutes excess numbers of animals in any area. The choice of control strategies,
when and if they become necessary, must also be responsive to public attitudes and
preferences and cannot be based solely on biological or cost consideration. The
issue of excess numbers is conceptually severable from the strategies questions.
However, an otherwise satisfactory population level may be controversial or
unacceptable if the strategy for achieving it is not appropriately responsive to public
attitudes and values.” p1219
“Biologically, the area may be able to support 500 cattle and 500 horses and may be
carrying them. But if the weight of public opinion calls for 1,000 horses, the area can
be said in this context to have an excess of 500 cattle. For these reasons, the term
excess has both biological and social components. In the above example, biological
excess constitutes any number of animals, regardless of which class above 1,000.
Social excess depends on management policies, legal issues, and prevailing public
preference...” p1193
“[BLM] Personnel attitudes must also be accounted for in the decision-making
process. We have, in the process of our inquiries, encountered a broad range of
attitudes toward the wild horse and burro management program among BLM
employees. We are not, however, confident that attitudes are evenly distributed
throughout the Bureau. Indeed, we have met many employees who are sincerely
committed to wild horse and burro management in the spirit of the 1971 Act. But our
2 Department of the Interior and related agencies appropriations for fiscal year 1984 hearings before a
subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, United States Senate, Ninety-eighth Congress, first
session · Part 1
Desatoya Roundup EA, The Cloud Foundation comments
January 9, 2021 – page 9
experience also suggests that the Bureau must be sensitive to considerable pockets
of resistance to the program within its own ranks and to the pressures which many
district and area personnel feel to depict range, population, and other conditions in
an antihorse and antiburro context.” p1220
The EA fails to consider the interests of those who cherish the opportunity to observe,
photograph, and otherwise enjoy wild horses and their natural behaviors … these are the very
horses which Congress declared to be “national esthetic treasure[s]” when it enacted the Wild
Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971.
VII. Preserving and Protecting Natural Behaviors
The NAS determined "preserving natural behaviors is an important criterion" for wild horse
management. Therefore, the following should be precluded from management actions:
• sex ratio skewing, which causes stallion aggression due to the unnatural ratio of males
to females;
• castration, ovariectomy and other surgical sterilization methods that alter an animal's
ability to produce natural hormones; and
• any fertility control (e.g. IUDs, Gonacon) that alters the production of natural hormones
which are generated through natural estrus cycles and related physiological functions.
In 1971, Congress unanimously passed the Wild, Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act. It was
not called the "American Horses and Burros Act" for a reason. The word "Wild" has distinct
meaning, especially when it comes to wild horses. Wild behaviors are the basis for the rich and
complex natural social structure of wild horses.
Wild behavior is directly related to managing wild horses because without natural wild
behaviors the BLM would be managing “free-roaming” horses which could include unbroke
domestic horses that would have altered natural behaviors due to the surgery. The BLM
contention that, “BLM is not required to manage populations of wild horses in a manner that
ensures that any given individual maintains its social standing within any given harem or band”
is in direct violation of the WFRHBA and Congress’ intent to preserve and protect America’s
wild horses.
A. Castration/Gelding – Discussed in EA, but Not Included in Proposed Action
The NAS stated that maintaining natural behaviors in free-ranging horses is in the public interest
and that BLM should be more responsive to public sentiment.
“Individual males vary in their behavioral response to castration—for example, in the loss
of male-type behavior, such as aggression and sexual interest, depending on the age
and sexual experience of the male. However, some or total loss of sex drive would be
likely in castrated stallions, and this is counter to the often-stated public interest in
maintaining natural behaviors in free-ranging horses.” p123
“A potential disadvantage of both surgical and chemical castration is loss of testosterone
and consequent reduction in or complete loss of male-type behaviors necessary for
maintenance of social organization, band integrity, and expression of a natural behavior
repertoire.” p142
Desatoya Roundup EA, The Cloud Foundation comments
January 9, 2021 – page 10
Dr. Jay Kirkpatrick, wildlife reproductive biologist, Science and Conservation Center, Zoo
Montana. Dr. Kirkpatrick explains that altering natural hormone production through
castration essentially changes how that animal feels and behaves:
“The very essence of the wild horse, that is, what makes it a wild horse, is the social
organization and social behaviors. Geldings (castrated male horses) no longer exhibit
the natural behaviors of non-castrated stallions. We know this to be true from hundreds
of years of experience with gelded domestic horses. Furthermore, gelded stallions will
not keep their bands together, which is an integral part of a viable herd. These social
dynamics were molded by millions of years of evolution, and will be destroyed if the BLM
returns castrated horses to the HMAs … Castrating horses will effectively remove the
biological and physiological controls that prompt these stallions to behave like wild
horses. This will negatively impact the place of the horse in the social order of the band
and the herd.”
BLM has claimed that castration does not alter the natural behaviors of stallions. This is patently
false, as explained by renowned biologist Dr, Kirkpatrick above. Further, BLM refutes its own
claim by citing “anecdotal” information regarding returning castrated stallions to the range
stating, “Once released, anecdotal information indicates geldings would be expected to form
bachelor bands.” A true stallion has the biological imperative to claim mares and reproduce. If
geldings are expected to only “form bachelor bands,” this is an enormous departure from the
natural social behavior of a wild stallion. Thus, BLM contradicts itself.
Deciding which males will become permanent bachelors and not contribute to the gene pool of
the herd is indeed altering natural behaviors. To draw a parallel, while a human male may
choose to stay single and/or not have children, this is very different from forcibly castrating him.
A castrated human male, like a gelding, loses all sexual hormone production, which intrinsically
and definitively changes his biology and his behavior for the rest of his life.
Castration is performed in domestic settings largely to alter the horse’s natural behaviors and to
make him more docile and manageable – to make him a lifelong bachelor without stallion
behaviors. Gelding destroys natural stallion drives -- not just breeding behaviors but other
ritualistic social behaviors as well. These behaviors are essential for the social hierarchy of the
herd and each family band to remain intact. Most stallions do not naturally remain in bachelor
bands for life.
Bruce Nock, Ph.D., at Washington University School of Medicine and an expert in the
physiological effects of stress, states that gelding may compromise a horse’s ability to survive in
the rugged and extreme natural environment:
“Gelding (removing a horse’s testes) will have irreversible effects on both the individual
horse and the herd. A gelded horse does not behave as a “wild” or “free-roaming” horse.
. . It decreases muscle mass and strength, reduces bone density, and increases frailty.
These deficits put the horse at a significant disadvantage on the range in terms of
survival. A gelding will still have to compete with intact stallions for resources. His
smaller size and strength, however, will not only put him at a competitive disadvantage,
it increases the likelihood that agonistic encounters with intact stallions will result in
severe injuries.”
Desatoya Roundup EA, The Cloud Foundation comments
January 9, 2021 – page 11
“The compromised physical capacities that accompany gelding are likely to endanger
castrated horses in a number of ways. In addition to undermining their ability to compete
with intact stallions, it may diminish their ability to traverse the harsh terrain and great
distances normally travelled to acquire food and water. This would jeopardize their
survival particularly during challenging weather conditions, like droughts or heavy snow
storms. A limited geographical home range is also likely to deplete local resources and
negatively impact the ecological system as a whole. To survive in the wild, a horse must
be able to achieve a certain fitness level that may be impossible to attain once the
animal is castrated. In my professional opinion, releasing a castrated horse into a wild
herd is an inhumane management approach that certainly does not ‘protect’ or ‘help
preserve’ wild horses in any sense of the word.”
Experts state and data shows that releasing a castrated wild stallion to the range would
change natural behaviors that are imperative to his status as a wild horse. (Attachments 2,
3) BLM’s stated interest to release geldings to the range is to reduce reproduction rates, yet
BLM has also stated releasing geldings to the range would have only a “minor” impact on
reproduction rates because “a single intact stallion can breed a large number of mares.”
Again, BLM contradicts its own information which shows that gelding stallions is an utter
waste of tax-payer funds, resulting in little to no impact on population growth rates.
(Attachment 3)
B. IUDs – Included in Proposed Action
The BLM states, “Up through the present time (May 2020), BLM has not used IUDs to control
fertility as a wild horse and burro fertility control method on the range.” (Draft
Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2018-015-EA, p 10) In fact, BLM has not
conducted sufficient research to determine which type of IUD to utilize or how IUDs will be
tolerated by wild mares who are not available for monitoring or medical care. There is no data
that supports monitoring a mare for 24 hours after insertion of an IUD is sufficient. There is no
data available on the best type of IUD to be utilized in wild mares or if IUDs in wild mares create
complications, discomfort, short- or long-term health issues, etc. Therefore, an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) is necessary before implementing the administration of IUDs in wild
mares living on the range.
The BLM’s EA (DOI-BLM-NV-S030-2020-0003-EA) states, “…O-ring IUDs, the IUDs fell out at
unacceptably high rates over time scales of less than 2 months (Baldrighi et al. 2017).
Subsequently, the USGS / OSU researchers tested a Y-shaped IUD to determine retention
rates and assess effects on uterine health; retention rates were greater than 75% for an 18-
month period...” The current EA does not provide sufficient data or documentation that IUDs
have long-term safety in wild mares (this is due to the lack of available science supporting the
usage of IUDs in wild mares).
IUDs are known to fall out of mares and may cause complications which would never be
detected, given that wild horses are free-roaming and cannot be regularly monitored.
Before subjecting free-roaming mares to the potentially painful and dangerous condition of a
partially-ejected IUD – the complications of which could be serious – an EIS is required. This is
precisely the type of situation that calls for an EIS to ensure the safety and efficacy of
implementing this precedent-setting government action.
Desatoya Roundup EA, The Cloud Foundation comments
January 9, 2021 – page 12
“For IUD-treated mares, 80% (12/15) were infertile after Year 1, but only 29% (4/14) and 14%
(2/14) were infertile after Years 2 and 3, respectively. For IUD mares that were infertile, it
was possible to visualize the IUD by ultrasonography, leading us to conclude that mares that
became pregnant had lost their IUDs.” (Attachment 4)
More recent studies which only tracked horses for a shorter time period report, “The study
resulted in a 75% retention rate” for the Y design IUD conducted by Oklahoma State
University.” (Attachment 53) Questions regarding negative impacts to wild horses resulting from
IUDs (including but not limited to scar tissue, physical damage, infertility, etc.) remain
unanswered and further study is needed prior to implementation in situ. However, pen trails are
not sufficient because they (a) did not follow the mares for living in “pasture” settings with
multiple stallions for an extended period of time – a minimum of three to five years is minimal
given the BLM has not plan to remove the IUDs from free-roaming mares who are subjected to
this experiment.
The BLM has failed to conduct in situ trials with horses that are known by either BLM or BLM
volunteers. This is necessary so that the horses can be monitored in the wild over a period of
years to determine the short- and long-term deleterious psychological and physiological effects
of this new and relatively untested surgical sterilization. IUDs are not commonly used in
domestic mares who have their movement confined and are regularly administered medical
care and provided feed and water.
Subjecting mares who are living in harsh environments – with no access to medical care – to
this experimental surgical sterilization is inhumane and irresponsible. At minimum, BLM must
conduct additional pen trials which must be followed by limited in situ trials. Trials of these IUDs
should be undertaken first in well-known free-roaming mares who are easily monitored for at
minimum five years. Such in situ trials must be conducted with sufficient protocols in order to
record behavioral, physiological effects before proceeding with implementation on mares
outside of a well-controlled in situ study.
IUDs (o-ring) cause “mild chronic endometritis” or inflammation of the inner lining of the uterus
(endometrium). (Attachment 6). Endometritis is an inflammation of the inner lining of the uterus
(endometrium). Symptoms may include fever, lower abdominal pain, and abnormal vaginal
bleeding or discharge and has been found to be related to infertility.4
Currently, there is insufficient scientific data available to support the use of IUDs in free-roaming
horses without the necessary scientific study with acceptable protocols. The EA fails to consider
the likely negative effects and short- and long-term implications for mares.
The National Research Council in 1980 noted that “..IUDs often dislodged and surgery was
impractical in field conditions…” (Attachment 1, page 93) This is supported by the studies on
IUDs in mares. “20 percent of the IUD-treated mares were pregnant” because “the pregnancies
of the IUD-treated mares were due to loss of the relatively small IUDs, not to failure of efficacy,
because no IUDs were found on ultrasound examination of the pregnant treated mares.”
3 Note the Dr. Holyoak who conducted the IUD research for USGS states, “The IUD, if administered to the original
mustang pools, will maintain their genetic line while a product like GonaCon EQ can be used to shut down the
reproductive cycle of abandoned feral horses.”
4 https://www.healthline.com/health/endometritis
Desatoya Roundup EA, The Cloud Foundation comments
January 9, 2021 – page 13
(Attachment 1, page 122) “Mares that had IUDs in place continued to exhibit estrous cycles with
the same frequency as control mares.” Ibid.
Further study is needed because further data is needed to determine whether different types of
IUDs suppress estrus (Attachment 7), which would in turn destroy natural hormone production
which are necessary for natural wild behaviors (as discussed in these comments).
The above are just a few examples of the medical issues that must be thoroughly analyzed in
an EIS which includes:
1. identify the specific type of IUD that would be utilized.
2. conduct adequate pen trials and then to conduct limited on-range trials with mares that
are known and easily monitored prior to implementation in wild, free-roaming mares who
cannot be monitored or administered follow up medical care.
3. determine the short- and long-term affects to mares.
4. determine whether the specific IUD model proposed for use would destroy estrus cycles.
5. determine how IUDs would be removed from mares and when removal would occur.
If IUDs are found to be safe, effective and preserve natural behaviors, they may be an
alternative to the humane, reversible PZP fertility control. However, removal of IUDs would
remain a challenge for horses in the wild and would need to be adequately analyzed in an EIS.
The Proposed Action fails to specify which type (marble, metal, soft, hard, etc.) of IUD would be
utilized – therefore meaningful comments on the specific IUD cannot be provided. An EIS is
required in order to more thoroughly evaluate this precedent-setting application.
To summarize, the BLM must conduct pen studies prior to implementing this on easy-to-monitor
free-roaming mares; such monitoring should continue for a number of years until the IUD is to
be removed. After the pen studies, in situ studies will be needed that adhere to a rigorous
protocol in order to extract usable data that addresses concerns expressed in these comments.
The EA fails to indicate how or when IUDs would be removed from wild mares. An EIS would
allow all these issues to be adequately analyzed and would provide the public with an
opportunity to provide more meaningful comments.
C. Gonacon and Other Drugs that Shutdown Natural Hormone Production, Included
in Proposed Action
Gonacon destroys natural wild horse behaviors and with repeated application permanently
sterilizes mares. Currently there is insufficient data to know the long-term impacts of Gonacon
on wild horses and how many injections of Gonacon permanently destroys ovaries. The USGS
researcher, Dr. Holyoak, highlights the difference of managing feral horses to wild horses who,
“The IUD, if administered to the original mustang pools, will maintain their genetic line while a
product like GonaCon EQ can be used to shut down the reproductive cycle of abandoned feral
horses.” (Attachment 5)
The NAS stated in its 2016 Report:
“Thus, to the extent that GonaCon preserves natural behavior patterns while effectively
preventing reproduction, it is a promising candidate as a female-directed fertility-control
method. However, further studies of its behavioral effects are needed.” p. 149
Desatoya Roundup EA, The Cloud Foundation comments
January 9, 2021 – page 14
We now know that GonaCon literally shuts down a mare’s estrus cycle destroying the natural
production of hormones which are known to have behavior consequences.
Castration (gelding) and Gonacon shut down the natural production of hormones cause
changes to wild horses’ natural behaviors including:
• behavioral disruption of social structure and band integrity
• physiological disruption of hormones that play a vital role in survival ability in the harsh
and rugged wild environments
• environmental impacts caused by sterilization procedures which may alter the way
horses utilize the land
The EA fails to address that the WFRHBA requires BLM to manage wild horses and burros
in a manner that protects their wild and free-roaming behavior.
While Section 3(b)(1) as modified by the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978, outlines
options for population management that include sterilization, it is to be read with (not in
substitute for) the overarching intent of the WFRHBA: to protect wild horses. In addition, the
Act directs BLM to work with independent experts such as the NAS which has clearly stated the
importance of preserving natural wild behaviors in all management actions:
“A potential disadvantage of both surgical and chemical castration is loss of testosterone
and consequent reduction in or complete loss of male-type behaviors necessary for
maintenance of social organization, band integrity, and expression of a natural
behavior repertoire.”
The same need to preserve behaviors necessary for maintenance of social organization, band
integrity and expression of natural behaviors applies to mares. Gonacon research in other
species highlight, “there are potentially large ecological effects—such as changes to natural
selection, effects on social structures and reproductive behavior, timing of mating and birthing
seasons, changes to longevity, and effects on migratory or movement patterns—that still need
to be examined in free-ranging populations prior to use as a management tool.” Yet the EA fails
to adequately analyze material scientific evidence on Gonacon and the issues raised above and
an EIS is required. (Attachments 8a-b)
It appears from the limited studies of the application of Gonacon to wild mares (Theodore
Roosevelt National Park) that social behaviors were defined as “herding, reproduction, agonism,
harem-tending, and harem-social behavior” and “harem-social (e.g., allogrooming, pair-bonding,
female-female urine marking), harem-tending (e.g. stallion defense of a band female or
recruitment of a new female into the band), herding (e.g., driving or snaking behavior by the
stallion), interaction-with-humans” (Attachment 9) These identified social behavior categories
are inadequate to determining the behavioral impacts that relate to inter-horse bonds, individual
bonds with the band, social status within the band, survivability behaviors necessary to thrive
during inclement weather, etc.
These studies did not identify lead mares, distinguish whether individual horse behaviors or
personalities were altered due to the treatment. Behavioral observation for studies conducted in
the Theodore Roosevelt National Park were conducted for three to four months (April-
July/August, 2009 and 2010) and five months (March-July, 2014). Roundups occurred in 2009
Desatoya Roundup EA, The Cloud Foundation comments
January 9, 2021 – page 15
and 2013. If human studies on behavior changes were done with a similar behavioral protocol –
peoples suffering from mental illness may never be identified as long as they continued to
groom, interact with other people, had sex, slept, etc. Clearly behavioral changes which could
negatively impact a mare’s standing with the herd or her bonds with other members of the herd
would not be captured through this methodology.
Gonacon shuts down estrus cycle in mares and impacts various natural hormone production.
Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) suppression, whether by agonist, antagonist or
vaccine has been based on the disruption of regulatory feedback between gonads and the
pituitary, which, in turn, disrupts reproductive function (Dawson et al. 2006). The hypothalamus
secretes GnRH, which, in turn, stimulates the release of the gonadotropin follicle stimulating
hormone (FSH) and luteinizing hormone (LH) from the anterior pituitary. FSH causes follicular
growth and elevated estrogen secretion from the ovary, and LH causes ovulation, luteinization
and elevated progesterone levels. Both estrogen and progesterone have far-reaching biological
actions not only for successful reproduction but also provide feedback upon behavioral
platforms in the brain, causing important reproductive behaviors to occur. In most mammals,
the pituitary gland secretes factors into the blood that act on the endocrine glands to either
increase or decrease hormone production. This is referred to as a feedback loop, and it involves
communication from the brain to the pituitary to an endocrine gland and back to the brain. This
system is very important for the activation and control of basic behavioral activities, such as sex;
emotion; responses to stress; and eating, drinking, and the regulation of body functions,
including growth, reproduction, energy use, and metabolism. [Society for Neuroscience,
Hormones: Communication between the Brain and the Body, 2012].
Commercial vaccines that have been tested in mares include Equity (CSL, West Ryde, NSW,
Australia), Improvac (Pfizer Animal Health, Sandton, South Africa), and GonaCon (USDA).
The inhibition of GnRH will cause an absence of FSH and failure of follicular development
(Checura et al. 2009), and ovulation failure. (Attachment 10)
Unfortunately, the Baker, DL (2018) study (Attachment 9) which BLM relies on heavily to
administer Gonacon in wild horses is not forthcoming with, at minimum, questionable safety
issues for treatment in pregnant mares. In one instance Baker, DL (2018) claims, “We found this
vaccine to be safe for pregnant females and neonates.” Yet, it is documented that Gonacon use
in pregnant mares the first trimester (which may extend further) may cause abortion. Baker, DL
(2018) also states, “inoculation with GonaCon-Equine vaccine, during approximately the second
trimester of pregnancy, does not affect the existing pregnancy of treated females or neonatal
health and survival” and “revaccination could be applied to pregnant mares, during midgestation,
without risk to the existing pregnancy.” However, the key is during mid-gestation,
supporting other data that Gonacon causes abortions if administered prior to “mid-gestation.”
Again, Baker (2018) can only summarize its data on neonate safety “when applied at
approximately mid-gestation.”
The reversibility of Gonacon, after multiple treatments, continues to remain highly uncertain
based on current data available. In fact, the Baker, DL (2018) study only claims that some
mares recovered to fertility after a single dose of Gonacon, “demonstrating reversibility of the
primary vaccine treatment.”
Based on Baker, DL (2018) data, mares treated with one application of Gonacon experienced a
30% reduction in foaling in the first year of results; 22% reduction in the second year and no
reduction in the third year. “Gonacon is one of the rare exceptions among animal vaccines in
Desatoya Roundup EA, The Cloud Foundation comments
January 9, 2021 – page 16
that the formulation initiates high antibody titers that remain elevated in some individuals after a
single-injection; however, little research has been conducted to evaluate booster doses of this
vaccine in any free-ranging wild ungulate [17, 24] or domestic species.” The second treatment
in 2013 resulted in no foals for all treated mares, 4 foals for treated mares in 2016 and 1 foal for
treated mares in 2017. This highlights the high uncertainty of permanent or long-term
sterilization impacts and efficacy with more than one application and multiple use of Gonacon.
Clearly, additional years of observation are needed to ascertain what percentage of these
mares can return to fertility. The data to date remains incomplete with highly uncertain shortand
long-term effects.
The side effects of Gonacon on wild mares are equally uncertain; the Baker, DL (2018)
references two unpublished citations which were also authored by Dr. Baker, “Evaluation of
biological side effects has been reported for numerous wild ungulate species including whitetailed
deer [13, 34], elk [15, 16, 35], feral pigs [36], bison [21], and free-ranging horses [17, 24].”
Baker, DK (2018) claim that Gonacon “does not significantly change social behaviors [37]” relies
on Ransom, J (2014) which narrowly defined social behaviors as “associated with herding,
harem-tending, reproduction, and agonism from stallions toward females.” So Baker, DL (2018)
claims that, “A summary of results from these investigations indicate that GonaCon is reversible,
safe for use in pregnant females, does not significantly change social behaviors [37]” are highly
questionable because reversibility after more than one application has not been established,
safety during first trimester and possibly later has not been established and changes to social
behaviors have not been adequately studied due to the narrow identification of social behaviors.
Gonacon remains an experimental drug that should not be used outside a tightly controlled
study and as Baker (2018) states, “additional research is needed to complete the objectives of
this study including: 1) to define the duration of effective contraception postrevaccination, 2) to
determine if long-term or permanent infertility is a possible outcome, and 3) to assess if return to
fertility (if it occurs) results in altered birth phenology of treated mares.”
Other findings have revealed that Gonacon “altered reproductive behaviours that are integral to
the maintenance of the complex social structure of herd animals such as horses.” (Attachment
10)
D. Sex Ratio Skewing/Altering – Included in Proposed Action
The EA fails to provide any scientific information or data to support the artificial skewing of the
sex ratio. The Proposed Action is to skew sex ratios to 40/60 female/males. Wild horse natural
sex ratios favor females – the natural ratio is generally between 55/45 female/male ranging up
to 40/60 female/male. Creating unnatural sex ratios increases aggression among males and
causes stress and social disruption; it would create dangerous situations for females, who are
subject to repeated rape by stallions as a result of the lack of mares. Additionally, this increased
aggression between stallions and against mares puts foals at great risk of injury and death. This
ill-conceived management strategy has no basis in science and would have a devastating
impact on both individual horses and family bands.
The BLM Beatys Butte EA DR FONSI 2009 (Attachment 11) states:
"If selection criteria leave more studs than mares, band size would be expected to
decrease, competition for mares would be expected to increase, recruitment age for
reproduction among mares would be expected to decline, and size and number of
Desatoya Roundup EA, The Cloud Foundation comments
January 9, 2021 – page 17
bachelor bands would be expected to increase..."
The BLM EA for the South Steens Wild Horse Gather (Attachment 12) states:
“Skewing the sex ratio of stallions v. mares would result in a destabilization of the
band (stallion, mare and foal) structure moving it from five to six animals to three
animals. Social band structure will be lost resulting in combative turmoil as surplus
stallions attack a band stallion trying to capture his mare. This could result in the
foal being either killed or lost. The mare and foal will not be allowed to feed or water
naturally as the stallion tries to keep them away from the bachelor bands of stallions,
resulting in stress to the mare during her lactation condition.”
The BLM EA for Black Mountain and Hard Trigger HMA EA (Attachment 13) states:
“Band size would be expected to decrease, competition for mares would be expected to
increase, recruitment age for reproduction among mares would be expected to decline,
and size and number of bachelor bands would be expected to increase. Fighting
between band stallions and surplus stallions could result in the mares and foals not
being allowed to feed and water naturally as the herd stallion tries to keep them away
from bachelor bands.”
The BLM knows that sex ratio skewing does not significantly reduce population numbers
and that it destroys the important and complex structure of wild horse society – and puts
horses in danger by causing stallion aggression for limited mares. The Proposed Action fails
to address these important issues.
E. Ovariectomy – Included in EA, but Not Included in Proposed Action
The BLM has failed to adequately analyze the documented issues associated with the barbaric
ovariectomy via colpotomy as discussed herein. Castration and ovariectomy have not previously
been implemented as management strategies. These are highly controversial and, in the case
of ovariectomy via colpotomy, a risky, archaic procedure that is both unstudied and
inappropriate for wild animals.
The BLM cannot implement these fertility controls without an EIS because they would be
precedent-setting and likely be used for management in other HMAs. Therefore, an EIS is
required to thoroughly analyze the impacts of these proposed actions.
Both castration and ovariectomy and are primarily used on domestic horses to alter behaviors –
to make the animals more docile and conducive to training. This is done to kill the “wild” and
make the animals more tolerant of human dominance. Interfering in this way with wild horses or
burros is counter to the very spirit of the WFRHBA.
The Cloud Foundation has documented that mares – especially lead mares – play a critical role
in wild horse natural behaviors and social structure. Mare hormone production would be altered
through spaying or ovariectomy, or through the use of drugs such as Gonacon, which shutdown
a mare’s estrus and cycles. The resulting changes to their natural behaviors may only be known
on an individual basis.
Desatoya Roundup EA, The Cloud Foundation comments
January 9, 2021 – page 18
Altering a mare’s hormones through spaying or ovariectomy will result in the consequent
reduction in or complete loss of natural lead-mare-type behaviors necessary for maintenance of
social organization, band integrity, and expression of a natural behavior repertoire. In fact, the
impacts of sterilization on wild horses can be severe, affecting their physiology and ability to
survive, as well as their behavior, and can therefore impact the herd. A few excerpts follow here
regarding the importance of maintaining natural wild, free-roaming behaviors and the negative
impact that spaying would have on the individual behaviors, social behaviors, band structure,
etc. of wild horses.
We know that mammalian behaviors, especially social behaviors, are related to hormone
production. Therefore, it’s understandable that shutting down the production of certain
hormones would likely cause the loss of natural behaviors essential to “wild horses.”
Additionally, wild horses and burros living in extreme environments rely on their natural instincts
for survival -- destroying natural behaviors may actually put the lives of these animals at risk.
Dr. Jay Kirkpatrick, director of the Science and Conservation Center in Montana and
internationally-recognized expert on wildlife reproduction and biology summarized:
“Gelded stallions will not keep their bands together. Ovariectomized mares will not
display estrous behavior. The very essence of the wild horse, that is, what makes it a
wild horse, is the social organization and social behaviors, which in turn were molded by
millions of years of evolution. Gelding/spaying will take exactly that away and then you
no longer have wild horses... Sterilization is incompatible with the mandate to protect
and retain the free-roaming nature of wild horses.”
“Wild horses typically live in reproductive bands consisting of adult mares, their
dependent offspring, and one or more stallions who lives revolve around trying to protect
mares from harassment by other stallions and securing exclusive reproductive access to
the mares for themselves; …Mares, meanwhile, simultaneously bond to one another and
compete with each other for access to water, food, and other resources for themselves
and their foals. Neither geldings nor spayed mares participate in these fundamental
processes of wild horse behavior.” – Allen T. Rutberg, Ph. D., Assistant Director, Center
for Animals and Public Policy, Tufts-Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine.
The NAS 2013 on ovariectomizing wild mares:
“Any of the methods [castration, ovariectomy and GnRH products] described may also
affect behavior. Because all methods affect sexual function in some way, changes
in expression of sexual and social behavior should be considered. The ideal
method would not eliminate sexual behavior or change social structure
substantially. Castration, ovariectomy, and the GnRH products (vaccines and
agonists) eliminate or substantially reduce steroid hormone production and so
have a potentially profound effect on the expression of sexual behavior. In contrast,
vasectomy and the PZP vaccines result in a prolonged breeding season, with increased
sexual interaction, because females continue to undergo estrous cycles but fail to
conceive.” p149
“Typical side effects associated with ovariectomy in many species include decreased
activity and weight gain.” p115
Desatoya Roundup EA, The Cloud Foundation comments
January 9, 2021 – page 19
Years of conducting ovariectomies in domestic horses shows that behavioral change (referred
to as "improvement" for domestic mares because estral behaviors are deemed in the domestic
setting as undesirable) is seen in 83% of the mares who underwent surgery (Attachment 14a-h).
In addition to the behavioral changes, the reduction of estrus and alteration of hormones
undeniably has an impact on the physiology of any mammal. Any woman who has gone through
menopause knows this.
The BLM has not adequately analyzed available research that outlines the hormonal changes
and the implication those changes have on bone density, as well as the other physiological
implications these procedures would have on wild mares.
Ovariectomy causes menopause (which most horses do not naturally experience) and in turn
has a cascading impact to various body functions, processes and conditions – including bone
conditions and other deleterious physiological conditions that would likely jeopardize the longterm
welfare of animals who live under harsh environmental conditions. (Attachment 15).
Research shows that ovariectomy alters behaviors and personality; behaviors and personalities
drive the social dynamic of the individuals and social group. Ovariectomizing mares will
negatively impact the place of the individual in the social order of the band and herd -- and will
likely negatively impact the family band on the whole.
There are grave concerns about the physiological and psychological impacts that result from
ovariectomy and the related conditions and implications – both direct and indirect. There is
scientific literature that outlines the various deleterious effects of inducing premature
menopause (especially in a species that does not go into menopause). (Attachments. 16)
Prior to pursuing ovariectomies, Gonacon and/or any other fertility control treatment which
destroys natural hormone production on wild mares, the BLM must analyze the following
detrimental effects that would likely be caused from the sterilization method:
• Changes to the horse’s diestrus phase – the impact to hormone production or
organ/gland functions which directly and indirectly impact the horse’s physiology and
psychology.
• Changes to the horse’s estrous phase – the impacts to hormone production or
organ/gland functions and the direct and indirect resulting impacts to glands, organs,
tissues, production of hormones and all possible impacts to the horse’s physiology and
psychology.
• Changes to the horse’s production of progesterone – the impacts to hormone production
or organ/gland functions and the direct and indirect resulting impacts to glands, organs,
tissues, production of hormones and all possible impacts to the horse’s physiology and
psychology.
• Changes to the horse’s pituitary gland or the function of the pituitary gland and all
resulting impacts to hormone production – the direct and indirect resulting impacts to
glands, organs, tissues, production of hormones and all resulting impacts to the horse’s
physiology and psychology.
Desatoya Roundup EA, The Cloud Foundation comments
January 9, 2021 – page 20
• Changes to the horse’s production of estrogen – the impact to hormone production or
organ/gland functions, including all direct and indirect resulting impacts to glands,
organs, tissues, production of hormones and all possible impacts to the horse’s
physiology and psychology.
• Changes to the horse’s production of gonadal hormones – the impacts to hormone
production or organ/gland functions, including all direct and indirect resulting impacts to
glands, organs, tissues, production of hormones and all possible impacts to the horse’s
physiology and psychology.
• Changes to the horse’s serotonin pathways, catecholamine neurons and the basal
forebrain cholinergic system.
• Changes to ovarian steroids.
• Changes to cardiovascular health and immune function.
The BLM must base wild horse management decisions on science, not convenience. The
science clearly shows that removing ovaries has long-term, negative effects on a wild horse’s
physiology and psychology and in turn, on social behaviors. The EA fails to adequately analyze
existing data available on the deleterious effects of castration/ovariectomy and fails to provide
any supporting science or data to support the long-term implications of castration and
ovariectomy.
VIII. An EIS Is Required
The BLM cannot justify its failure to prepare an EIS on the highly controversial actions included
in the Proposed Action including plans to implement the still experimental implantation of IUDs
in wild mares. Implementation of IUDs in wild mares will have major negative impacts to “wild”
and “free-roaming” horses as intended by the WFRHBA. An EIS must be prepared for this
proposed action to fully examine all direct, indirect and cumulative impacts.
The actions opposed, as outlined in this letter should be rejected because the EA fails to
provide sufficient analysis of readily available alternative actions and is thus in violation of
governing laws and statutes
The BLM’s proposal to implement highly controversial IUD and Gonacon will “cause loss or
destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources,” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27(b) –
i.e., the very “wild” and “free-roaming” horses that Congress has declared are “living symbols of
the historic and pioneer spirit of the West,” that are to be considered “an integral part of the
natural system of the public lands.”
Additionally, the BLM has received thousands of comments opposing various component of the
Proposed Action – including but not limited to comments against gelding, sex ratio skewing,
IUDs, Gonacon, etc. BLM has received similar public comments in response to various EAs,
scoping and public meetings.
NEPA requires agencies to prepare an EIS regarding all “major Federal actions significantly
affecting” the environment, 42 U.S.C. § 4332(C), and the CEQ implementing regulations set
Desatoya Roundup EA, The Cloud Foundation comments
January 9, 2021 – page 21
forth a number of criteria governing when an action is to be considered “significant” for this
purpose. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27.
There can be no legitimate doubt that, at the very least, there is certainly a “substantial
question” regarding many of the CEQ “significance” factors.
In light of the public’s opposition to these management approaches and particularly the experts’
consistent concerns about the dire environmental impacts it may have on the individual horses
and the herds as a whole, it is clear that the environmental effects of the BLM’s action have
been and remain “highly controversial.” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27(b);
“Controversy” under this factor also includes “substantial questions are raised as to whether a
project . . . may cause significant degradation” of the environment. Anderson, 314 F.3d at
1018. There is tremendous scientific controversy regarding the use of dangerous sterilization
strategies. Releasing geldings is known to have greater negative impacts to the environment (as
cited herein); additionally, as previously stated there are negative impacts to the human
environment for many of the proposed actions.
Lastly, the concerns and issues raised in this letter are precisely the types of uncertainty about
environmental impacts that require preparation of an EIS. See Fund for Animals v. Norton, 281
F. Supp. 2d at 234 (“uncertainty as to the impact of a proposed action on a local population of a
species, even where all parties acknowledge that the action will have little or no effect on
broader populations, is a ‘basis for finding that there will be a significant impact’ and setting
aside as FONSI”), quoting Anderson, 314 F.3d at 1018-2.
Implementing, through a Decision Record, any of the opposed actions outlined in this letter
“may establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects,” [40 CFR 1508.27].
IX. EA Fails to Take a Hard Look at PZP Fertility Control Alternative
The EA fails to take a hard look at fully implementing (administer to a minimum of 85% of all
mares) a humane PZP fertility control program and reducing livestock grazing as an alternative
to the Proposed Action. The EA fails to consider implementing a humane PZP fertility control
program as an alternative. If wild horses need to be reduced in the HMA, humane PZP fertility
control should be used to accomplish this as recommended by the NAS (Attachment 1)
The BLM must be open to working with volunteer groups to determine whether bait trapping
may be effective to administer PZP. If not, the humane helicopter protocol (see Addendum) for
capture-treat-release should be followed to utilize helicopters to capture horses for fertility
control. TCF and other volunteer organizations would be happy to work with the BLM to
implement this humane management that prevents removals, and allows wild horses to live and
die wild as intended by the WFRHBA.
Despite claimed environmental concerns, it is important to note that the BLM continues
to permit livestock grazing in the Complex. Clearly, wild horses can – and do – thrive in
the Complex. The BLM has determined there is sufficient water and forage to continue
allowing livestock to graze throughout the HMA (as stated previously).
The EA fails to analyze alternatives that would avoid the need for the Proposed Action.
Desatoya Roundup EA, The Cloud Foundation comments
January 9, 2021 – page 22
The EA must consider implementing a rigorous PZP program to humanely manage wild horses
in this Congressionally-designated wild horse habitat – after working through the LUP process
to increase the AML so that wild horses are treated as the principal user of the resource (or a
minimum in balance with livestock usage) which would be in conformance with existing statutes
and laws.
X. EA Lacks Scientific Data and Justification for Removal of “Excess” Horses
The EA fails to provide hard data that shows there is a need to remove “excess” horses that
cannot be fulfilled by reducing or eliminating livestock grazing. In fact, the EA states, “Removal
of excess horses would benefit the rangeland conditions and available forage, allowing
livestock grazing to be permitted by the reduced competition for vegetation and water
resources. …. Livestock grazing is expected to continue at similar stocking rates …”
The Proposed Action is not intended to improve the Thriving Natural Ecological Balance
(TNEB). The Proposed Action is to “reduce[d] competition for vegetation and water resources” –
or to remove wild horses, so livestock can have greater use of the resource. The BLM’s biases
towards and preference for livestock is evident in the AUMs allocated for livestock compared to
wild horses in this HMA. Livestock graze on 155 million acres of the 245 million acres managed
by the BLM. That’s 63% or nearly 2 of every 3 acres is used for livestock. Wild horses, on the
other hand, are relegated to just 26.9 million acres or just 11%. Even on this tiny portion of
BLM-managed public lands that are designated for their use – wild horses are allocated less
than 20% of the resource or AUMs.
The EA does not sufficiently justify the Proposed Action as the law does not require that wild
horses be removed merely because they are over the AML; rather, the agency must show that
the existence of the horses – as opposed to livestock or other factors – are causing harm to the
Thriving Natural Ecological Balance (TNEB) and the EA must take a hard look at other
alternative actions before implementing the Proposed Action.
Anecdotal examples of wild horse range usage are not sufficient to justify the Proposed Action
given the historic problem of livestock overgrazing. Despite the range conditions cited in the EA,
the BLM is maintaining the current permitted livestock grazing levels. On one hand the BLM
claims that removing horses is needed because the range is suffering due to horses and that if
the removal doesn’t take place the environment will suffer. Yet, on the other hand, BLM
continues the same number of livestock grazing and claims that does not have a negative
impact on the range and endangered species and, accordingly, BLM land health assessments
do not indicate a need to reduce livestock.
These inconsistent assessments indicate that further analysis is needed to justify the Proposed
Action and analysis is needed of the alternative to reduce or eliminate livestock grazing in order
to allow the current population of wild horses to remain in the HMA.
In addition, BLM is understating forage usage by livestock, as documented by Dr. John Carter,
range specialist and Utah Director for the Western Watersheds Project in the attached report:
"BLM is understating forage consumption by cow/calf pairs by a nominal 50% based on
the average body condition and frame scores. The implication of this on stocking rates is
obvious. Based on forage consumption alone, not considering proper utilization, forage capacity
and capability factors, BLM is over stocking allotments 33% based on failure to take into
account current cattle weights and calves." (Attachment 17)
Desatoya Roundup EA, The Cloud Foundation comments
January 9, 2021 – page 23
Clearly the understatement of forage consumption and overstocking of allotments results in
extensive livestock damage to the range, further demonstrating that the BLM has no evidence to
that the damage is being caused by horses alone.
The EA fails to provide Rangeland Health Assessments or to indicate whether livestock
allotments are meeting Rangeland Health Standards for allotments in the Complex. The EA also
fails to indicate when the livestock allotment permits, within the Complex, were renewed.
Without reviewing and incorporating the data from the allotment rangeland health assessments
it is impossible for the BLM to make a determination of whether wild horses need to be removed
from these public lands. Livestock allotments overlap with the majority of the Complex. The EA:
• Is lacking in hard monitoring data, including data that support the claim that horses are
overpopulating the range and/or causing damage for the range. The EA is deficient of
monitoring data that clearly separates the impacts of livestock and wild horse use.
• Fails to consider the fact that horses utilize the environment, including stream riparian
areas, very differently from cattle.
• Fails to provide adequate information about water sources on the range, including how
fencing and engineering of wells and springs for livestock grazing has impacted water
availability for wild horses and other wildlife species, how fencing may or may not be
negatively impacting the ability of horses to access water throughout the HMA, and other
pertinent data necessary for managing range conditions for multiple use.
XI. Adaptive Management
The EA fails to consider utilizing Adaptive Management. BLM Adaptive Management document
states, “The RMP will be implemented using adaptive management processes. Under adaptive
management, decisions, plans and proposed activities are treated as working hypotheses
rather than final solutions to management of resources and uses. For the purposes of this
plan, adaptive management represents a process that tests, evaluates and adjusts the
assumptions, objectives, actions, and subsequent on-the ground results from the
implementation of RMP decisions..” (Attachment 18)
The Adaptive Management: U.S. DOI Technical Guide states, “…the use of adaptive
management in resource management almost always requires a fundamental shift from the
status quo…” and goes on to state, “adaptive management requires a much more open process
of decision making, in which stakeholders are directly engaged and decision making authority is
shared among them. It also requires that objectives, assumptions, and the other elements of the
decision making process be explicit, and therefore amenable to analysis and debate…”
(Attachment 19)
XII. “Allowable” Management Level
The AML set for Desatoya at just 127 to 180 wild horses was established more than 20 years
ago. The EA must disclose the data that is the basis for establishing this AML. These AMLs no
longer represent the use of the recourse that “will best meet the present and future needs of the
American people” and does not fulfill the BLM requirement (FLPMA) to ensure “balanced” use of
the resource.
Desatoya Roundup EA, The Cloud Foundation comments
January 9, 2021 – page 24
The EA fails to adequately analyze the current AML in light of the fact that wild horses are (a)
thriving in the HMA, (b) livestock grazing continues in the HMA and (c) the Proposed Action is in
violation of existing laws and regulations that protect wild horses on these public lands. AML
must be in conformance with the 1971 Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act. The majority
of AUMs or forage allocation within the HMA must be “principally but not necessarily exclusively
to wild horses” as outlined in the 1971 Wild, Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act (WFRHBA).
XIII. NEPA Requires Review and Analysis of CURRENT Conditions
The Proposed Action would continue through 2030 and the effects of those actions will continue
beyond 2030. This highlights the uncertainty of implementing the proposed new, unproven and
controversial actions over a 10-year period. Given the highly questionable short- and long-term
safety, efficacy and impacts that will likely result from the actions outlined in the EA, a 10-year
Decision Record is against the best interests of the public and puts the wild horses the agency
is required to protect at risk. By issuing a 10-year Decision Record, the public’s ability to take
legal action may be constrained. It is our right to oppose actions covered by the DR within the
10-year period as more information becomes available. Given that the Proposed Action includes
vague and expansive terminology to include and implement currently untested fertility control
methods, citizens would have no legal recourse to object to actions which may be taken in the
future that would not be disclosed to the public.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires that agencies review current data and seek
public input and information regarding governmental actions. Indicating that this EA would
satisfy the NEPA requirement for future actions over the next 10 years is blatantly incorrect,
unethical and sidetracks Congress’ intent to include the public and ensure that agencies have
the best current information when making decisions.
Due to changing environmental conditions, a blanket, 10-year EA cannot be considered
sufficient under NEPA. The final EA must fully disclose, describe and analyze specific and
current range data, water availability, range usage (differentiating usage by livestock and
horses), and the agency’s intended actions, and allow the public ample opportunity to review the
data and comment on the proposed action, as required by NEPA. To reiterate, NEPA requires
that the BLM conduct further environmental analysis and public comment for future wild horse
roundups and management actions and cannot rely on an outdated,10-year-old EA.
XIV. Animal Welfare
The EA fails to adequately address the protection of wild horses during the proposed roundup.
The BLM’s “Comprehensive Animal Welfare Program (CAWP)” is woefully inadequate in
establishing humane standards for the treatment of wild horses and burros during a roundup. It
must go further in its protection of these animals.
If helicopters are to be used as a part of any management, the plan must consider, analyze and
implement humane standards as outlined in the below recommendations. These
recommendations are necessary to reduce potential stress and harm to the wild horses during a
roundup. The EA must consider the following information to minimize trauma and injury to wild
horses during a roundup:
Desatoya Roundup EA, The Cloud Foundation comments
January 9, 2021 – page 25
a) Limit the distance wild horses may be chased by a helicopter to no more than five (5)
miles.
b) Require that the helicopter not chase/move wild horses at a pace that exceeds the
natural rate of movement of the slowest animal. This means that if an animal begins to
lag behind, the helicopter must lift pressure off the band so as to bring them in together.
Keep older, sick and young animals together with their companions, bands or mothers
as they are moved to the trap. The helicopter should not move or capture compromised,
old, weak or young animals.
c) Establish strict requirements for suspending helicopter roundup operations in
temperatures below 32 degrees F (freezing) or over 90 degrees F. Roundups outside of
this temperature range would be blatantly inhumane.
The EA must also consider and analyze the welfare standards attached in the Addendum.
The EA must consider and implement the following with regards to CAWP:
• Improved public observation of all agency actions. There is significant public interest in the
agency’s management of wild horses and burros and its management of these protected
animals. The NAS specifically recommended to the BLM to improve the transparency of its
management of the Wild Horse and Burro Program (Attachment 1). The treatment of the
wild horses and agency transparency are paramount.
• All removal operations must be located on public lands to allow public observation of all
activities. No government operations should be located on private lands for which the
owners will not give permission for public observation of activities.
• Real-time cameras with GPS should be installed on all aircraft and/or helicopters used in
operations and video should be live streamed on the Internet. This will improve the
transparency and accountability of roundup operations and enable the BLM and public to
monitor the direct impact motorized vehicle usage has on wild horses and the environment.
• Real-time cameras should be installed on any traps, corrals and temporary holding pens,
again, so that BLM personnel, public and media can monitor the entire roundup operation
and treatment of the horses.
The recommendation of real-time cameras is also supported by a report commissioned by
Cattoor Livestock Roundup, a long-time roundup contractor hired by the BLM which states:
“Video monitoring of animal operations is a good way to ensure humane handling is
taking place on a daily basis. Video cameras mounted in helicopters and in the
capture and holding pens can also render the activists’ videos as simply nothing more
than proof that your business ‘walks the walk’ when it comes to upholding animal
welfare standards.” The report was prepared by Mark J. Deesing, Animal Behavior &
Facilities Design consultant for Grandin Livestock Handling System. Deesing was an
assistant to the highly regarded livestock industry consultant Dr. Temple Grandin.
(Attachment 20)
Desatoya Roundup EA, The Cloud Foundation comments
January 9, 2021 – page 26
Video cameras will improve the transparency of the operations and enable the BLM and public
to monitor the direct impact motorized vehicle usage has on wild horses and the environment.
TCF would be happy to provide technical assistance and financial assistance to establish these
real-time cameras as described above.
XV. Public Input
The NAS (Attachment 1) states:
“Horse and burro management and control strategies cannot be based on biological or
cost considerations alone; management should engage interested and affected parties
and also be responsive to public attitudes and preferences.” p. 292
The 1982 National Research Council report on the BLM’s wild horse and burro program stated:
“Attitudes and values that influence and direct public priorities regarding the size,
distribution, and condition of horse herds, as well as their accessibility to public viewing
and study, must be an important factor in the determination of what constitutes excess
numbers of animals in any area… [A]n otherwise satisfactory population level may be
controversial or unacceptable if the strategy for achieving it is not appropriately
responsive to public attitudes and values…”
According to the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), under National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), “agencies are required to determine if their proposed actions
have significant environmental effects and to consider the environmental and related social and
economic effects of their proposed actions.”
The BLM has succeeded in doing one thing over the years: PROVED that this roundup-andstockpile
policy is an economic FAILURE. There is no doubt that rounding up wild horses and
burros is a FAILURE economically, a FAILURE from a social or societal perspective, a
FAILURE from a humane perspective and a FAILURE from a management perspective.
As stated by the NAS, NRC and CEQ the BLM must consider the prevailing public preference
which, in this case, is to humanely manage wild horses and burros on the range using PZP, a
method of fertility control that has been successfully and safely used for decades. BLM must
also develop year-round water sources to accommodate the wild horses on the range, just as is
regularly done for privately-owned livestock on public lands. An amendment to the RMP
increasing AML for horses. Adaptive management could and should be used to postpone the
removal of horses until the RMP is amended.
XVI. Conclusion
As a result of the aforementioned deficiencies, the BLM should re-evaluate the alternative for
managing wild horses in the Pancake Complex. We urge the BLM to avert the need for this
unnecessary mass removal of wild horses from this HMA by:
• Re-evaluating and increasing wild horse AML by reassessing and amending plans under
BLM’s Adaptive Management Policy;
Desatoya Roundup EA, The Cloud Foundation comments
January 9, 2021 – page 27
Dana Zarrello
• Decreasing or eliminating livestock grazing in affected HMAs pursuant to 43 C.F.R.
4710.5(a); and
• Designating such areas to be managed principally for wild horse herds under 43 C.F.R.
4710.3-2.
The EA has failed to establish that:
• An overpopulation of wild horses exists and that removal is necessary.
• The AML is appropriate given the continued livestock grazing that continues in the
Complex.
• Alleged range damage is caused by wild horses as opposed to the livestock grazing in
the area and the history livestock damage caused in the Complex.
• There is an appropriate and fair distribution of resources between livestock, wild horses
and other wildlife species in this federally-designated HMA.
• The proposed action will not have harmful effects on individual wild horses, wild horse
herds or the environment;
• Recreational users of these public lands, specifically those who enjoy wild horse
photography and viewing, will not be negatively impacted by the Proposed Action.
In summary, it is time for the BLM to listen to the American people, stop pitting American
against American, and create win-win solutions so advocates and ranchers can work together.
We request that the important issues raised in this letter be given a hard look and the Proposed
Action is modified in the Final EA. The vast majority of Americans greatly cherish our iconic wild
horses. We urge the BLM to be responsive to the public’s call for a fair and equitable program
that protects natural behaviors and respects the wonderful, complex social structure of our wild
horses.
Thank you for your consideration,
Dana Zarrello
Executive Director
The Cloud Foundation
Attachments:
1. “Using Science to Improve the BLM Wild Horse and Burro Program: A Way Forward,”
National Academy of Sciences (2013)
2. Expert statements and data on castration/gelding (attachments 2a-b)
3. BLM statement on geldings and population control
4. Killian, et al
5. Blakeney, OSC-Holyoak IUD research (2020)
6. Daels, O-ring IUD article
Desatoya Roundup EA, The Cloud Foundation comments
January 9, 2021 – page 28
7. New IUDs for suppressing estrus in mares
8. Gonacon articles (attachments 8a-b)
9. Baker (2018)
10. Hall (2017)
11. BLM Beatys Butte HMA EA and
12. BLM South Steens HMA EA
13. BLM Black Mountain and Hardtrigger HMA EA Ovariectomy/Castration abstracts
14. Ovariectomy articles (attachments 14a-i)
15. “Updating the Animal Unit Month,” Dr. John Carter, Western Watersheds Project
16. BLM document, Appendix N: Adaptive Management
17. Adaptive Management, the U.S. Dept of Interior Technical Guide
18. Temple Grandin letter dated 2012
Desatoya Roundup EA, The Cloud Foundation comments
January 9, 2021 – page 29
ADDENDUM
Standards for Wild Horse Treat-and-Release Gathers
The following humane recommendations are made for the use of helicopters in wild horse
management. These recommendations should be utilized to conduct humane fertility control
through a comprehensive PZP treat-and-release program that would will maintain the integrity of
wild horse family bands in order to minimize trauma and disruption and facilitate successful
release of treated bands back to the range. Family bands and social groups shall refer to
bachelor bands as well as stallion-led harem bands.
A. Pre-capture Evaluation of Existing Conditions
1. If possible, in advance of the roundup, field observation (game camera, observation, etc.)
should be conducted and documented for identification of bands, individuals within bands and
locations of bands to be gathered. Individual health or lameness issues should be noted. If a
helicopter is to be utilized, documentation of the target horses should be made day(s) before the
roundup; documentation should include an assessment of the location, number of bands and
individuals in each band to be gathered, as well as color markers that distinguish individual
bands. Photographic document should be utilized.
2. This information should be used to plan capture operation and configuration of the trap and
holding pens.
B. Humane Standards for Helicopter Roundups
1. To keep horses in a band together, the rate of movement of the animals should not exceed
the natural rate of movement of the slowest animal in the band. Every effort should be made to
keep older, sick and young animals together with their bands as they are moved into the trap.
2. If a member of a band is separated during the roundup, the BLM manager should make an
assessment on a case-by-case basis as to whether that animal should be pursued by the
helicopter or rounded up. In the event the animal is captured, every effort should be made to
place and hold that animal with its original band members after the animal is brought into the
trap.
3. Solitary animals should not be pursued by a helicopter or rounded up.
4. Every effort should be made to bring individual bands into the trap separately. If this is not
possible, the number of bands brought into the trap per run should be kept at a minimum to
ensure the integrity of the social groups. Pens for each band should be available to prevent
stallions from fighting.
5. The number of bands captured per day should be planned according to the pre-capture
evaluation and should not exceed the capacity of the holding pens to maintain horses within
their family bands.
C. Construction of Traps and Holding Facilities
1. The temporary holding pens should be constructed at the trap site. Both trap pens and
holding pens should be constructed to accommodate the maintenance of intact family groups
and should be configured based on the number and size of bands identified during the preDesatoya
Roundup EA, The Cloud Foundation comments
January 9, 2021 – page 30
capture evaluation. Pens should be made as large as possible to reduce stress and tension
among the animals.
2. A number of holding pens should be constructed away from other pens and can be separated
by alleyways in order to provide adequate space to reduce tensions between bachelor and
harem bands.
3. Pens with shared paneling should have snow-fencing or a similar visual barrier on the shared
paneling to minimize stallion interaction.
4. Bands, including bachelor bands, should housed individually. No mixing of social groups
should occur.
5. The on-site holding pens should be equipped with stationery or mobile chutes and other
necessary equipment to allow for processing and application of fertility drugs at the trap
location.
6. In the event that holding pens are constructed at a separate location from the trap site, family
bands members should be identified and documented and should be kept together at all times
during the holding period.
D. Holding and Release of Wild Horses
1. Horses should be held in intact family bands, including bachelor bands.
2. Every effort should be made to treat and release horses in the shortest time possible, after
the horses have been given time to rest and recover from the roundup, with the goal of treating
and releasing horses within 24 hours of capture.
3. Bands should be released at the same trap location where they were captured.
4. Bands should be released individually, with sufficient time between band releases to allow the
safe dispersal of horses back to the range.
# # #