Surprise Complex Wild Horse and Burro “Roundup” Plan (EA) – DOIBLM-CA-N020-2021-009-EA.
The Cloud Foundation 107 S. 7th St, Colorado Springs, CO 80905
February 14, 2021
Bureau of Land Management
Attn: Surprise Gather EA
708 W. 12th Street
Alturas, CA 96101
Submitted via email: blm_ca_surprisegather@blm.gov
To: BLM Applegate Field Office
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) Surprise Complex Wild Horse and Burro “Roundup” Plan (EA) – DOIBLM-
CA-N020-2021-009-EA.
The EA fails to adequately analyze important issues and consider the prevailing public
sentiment in 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 includes:
• removing the vast majority of wild horses while allowing allow livestock grazing to
continue in the same areas;
• using Gonacon for fertility control because it is documented to destroy natural hormone
production which is necessary to protect natural wild behaviors;
• skewing of the natural sex ratios of wild horses because of the aggression and chaos
that is caused by this unnatural man-made condition. Sex-skewing has detrimental
impacts on the wild horses and their well-being; data suggests that skewing (a drastic
change of natural condition) plays a minor role in suppressing population growth over
the long-term (whereas there is much documented data that highlights the real impact of
compensatory reproduction that results from removals);
• using IUDs which have, to date, not been sufficiently tested in wild mares 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 definitively
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:
Surprise Roundup EA, The Cloud Foundation comments
February 14, 2021 – page 2
§ 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
Surprise encompasses 377,063 acres (589 square miles) of public lands in northwestern
Nevada. The BLM allows ranchers to graze their private, commercial livestock on these same
public lands – permitting the equivalent of 2,549 year-round cows on this habitat that Congress
declared was to be “devoted principally” for wild horse usage and welfare. BLM artificially
confines the Surprise Complex wild horse population to just 283 to 496 horses and 0 burros
although wild burros are reported to be in the Complex. Under the Proposed Action, the BLM
would:
• Round up more than 1,000 wild horses (or 75% of the existing population which BLM
claims was counted at 1,301 in June 2019).
• Continue roundups and an undesignated “fertility control” for a 10-year period to keep
the horse population down to just 283 to 496 horses while authorizing up to 9 times as
many private livestock 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.
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
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)].
Surprise Roundup EA, The Cloud Foundation comments
February 14, 2021 – page 3
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 75% of wild horses is not a “minimal”
management action. In fact, not much is more extreme than so drastically reducing a herd of
wild horses on 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 the Surprise Field Office Resource Management Plan and Record of Decision (April
2008), 2011 High Rock Complex Wild Horse Population Management Plan EA (DOI-BLM-CAN070-
2011-04-EA, and the Decisions pertaining to the six grazing allotments2 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 the land use
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.
2 1. BLM Environmental Assessment, DOI-BLM-CA-N070-2013-0007-EA, Massacre Lakes Permit Renewal (2013)
2. BLM Revised Environmental Assessment, DOI-BLM-CAN070-2009-006-EA, Livestock Grazing Authorization for
the Nut Mountain Allotment (2009)
3. BLM Environmental Impact Statement, DOI-BLM-CA-N020-2008-0002-RMP-EIS, Surprise Resource Management
Plan and Record of Decision (2008)
4. BLM Environmental Impact Statement, DOI-BLM-NV-W030-2018-0022-RMP-EIS, Black Rock-High Rock NCA
Resource Management Plan of 2004 (2004)
5. BLM Environmental Assessment, CA-370-2001-03, Environmental Assessment for Livestock, Grazing
Authorization and Grazing Plan Revision: Wall Canyon East Allotment Actions to Meet Rangeland Health Standards
(2000)
6. BLM Environmental Assessment, CA-370-99-08, Bare Allotment and Fox Hog Wild Horse Herd Management Area
Livestock Carrying Capacity and Grazing Strategy Wild Horse Appropriate Management Level (1999)
Surprise Roundup EA, The Cloud Foundation comments
February 14, 2021 – page 4
plan, EISs and EAs all fail to consider, analyze and authorize the AUM resources “principally” or
“comparably” for wild horses and therefore they are 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.
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 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 in the Surprise Complex continues to exceed the current
wild horse population (as stated above). While the BLM claims more than 1,000 wild horses and
11 burros must be removed for TNEB, 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 and burros in the Surprise Complex
“comparable” – or the same as – livestock that graze in the same area.
The EA states that horses must be removed to maintain a “thriving natural ecological balance"
(TNEB). The EA claims, “Wild horses have been identified as a causal factor in not meeting
rangeland health standards. Thus, reducing livestock AUMs to increase AMLs would not
achieve a thriving natural ecological balance.” The EA fails to provide scientific data to
support this claim. It is well documented (Attachments 2, 3) that there is no greater threat to
this balance than the extensive livestock grazing authorized by BLM in this same area.
The EA states, “operators are authorized to use a total of 30,587 AUMs of forage each year”
and shows that nearly consistent increased actual use of livestock has occurred in the Complex
since 2015. This increased usage by livestock occurred during the 2011-2017 drought. Yet,
despite the six-year drought, BLM increased livestock grazing in the area, further depleting
water tables. In 2019, BLM reports that the annual equivalent of more than 2,549 cow/calf pairs
grazed in the Complex – and there are far fewer wild horses and burros (estimated at
approximately 1,500 (including 2020 foals) and compared to the high AML of 496 wild horses.
Surprise Roundup EA, The Cloud Foundation comments
February 14, 2021 – page 5
Even at current estimated population of 1,301 wild horses (or 1,500 adjusted for 2020 foals), the
permitted and actual use of livestock grazing exceeds the current wild horse and burro use. The
artificially low wild horse “Allowable” Management Level (AML) of just 283 to 496 horses for the
entire 377,063-acre Complex is less than 16% of the total AUMs allocated; the BLM allocates
for privately-owned livestock 5 to 9 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.
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 Complex 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 “this authority is usually applied in cases of specific
emergency conditions and not for the general management of wild horses or burros under the
Wild Horse and Burro Act, as wild horse and burro management is based on the land-use
planning process, multiple use decisions, and establishment of AML.” (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.
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
Surprise Roundup EA, The Cloud Foundation comments
February 14, 2021 – page 6
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
present and future needs of the American people... combination of balanced
and diverse resource uses …”
Surprise Roundup EA, The Cloud Foundation comments
February 14, 2021 – page 7
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
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
Surprise Roundup EA, The Cloud Foundation comments
February 14, 2021 – page 8
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 36,539 AUMS which are
currently allocated to livestock (30,587 AUMs) and wild horses (up to 5,952 AUMs) in the
Complex which would result in a wild horse population of 1,523 horses and burros – which is
approximately the current population. In fact, that wild horse number should be higher than the
50% based on the Act which requires the Complex be devoted “principally” to wild horses which
would increase the wild horse/burro population up to 1,675 (at 55% of the AUMs). Based on
2019 livestock actual use AUMs, the wild horse and burro population should be at least 1,200
wild horses/burros.
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
WFRHBMA (Wild Horse Act). See 16 U.S.C. § 1333(a); see also 43 C.F.R. § 4710.5(a).
While the BLM claims up to 1,300 wild horses (adjusted for 2020 foals) and 11 burros must be
removed to achieve TNEB, the BLM allows larger number of livestock to graze in the same
area. If these public lands can accommodate thousands of livestock, there is no ecological or
legal basis for the removal of 1,300 wild horses and 11 burros from the Complex.
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:
Surprise Roundup EA, The Cloud Foundation comments
February 14, 2021 – page 9
“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
stated3:
“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
3 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
Surprise Roundup EA, The Cloud Foundation comments
February 14, 2021 – page 10
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.
Protecting wild behavior must play a direct role in managing wild horses because without
natural wild behaviors the BLM would be managing “free-roaming” horses, which could include
unbroke domestic horses. 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. IUDs – Included in Proposed Action
The BLM previously 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) The EA states, “The initial
management use was in mares from the Swasey HMA, in Utah.” However, no information is
provided about this singular application of IUDs in mares in the Swasey HMA – how many
mares were implanted, what type of IUD, how the mares are being monitored, the success rate,
any deleterious impacts to the mares, etc. 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 currently insufficient 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.
Surprise Roundup EA, The Cloud Foundation comments
February 14, 2021 – page 11
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.
“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 54) 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 trials 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 no 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 fertility control method. 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 fertility control 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.
4 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.”
Surprise Roundup EA, The Cloud Foundation comments
February 14, 2021 – page 12
IUDs (o-ring) cause “mild chronic endometritis” or inflammation of the inner lining of the uterus
(endometrium). (Attachment 6). Symptoms may include fever, lower abdominal pain, and
abnormal vaginal bleeding or discharge and has been found to be related to infertility.5
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.”
(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 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 EA fails to identify the specific
type of IUD being proposed for usage in wild mares – therefore it is difficult to provide specific
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 – the EA refers to all types and therefore providing meaningful comments on the specific
IUD cannot be provided.
To summarize, the BLM must conduct extensive pen trials prior to implementing on a limited
number of easy-to-monitor free-roaming mares; such monitoring should continue for a number
of years until the IUD is to be removed. Such in situ studies, after the pen trials, should adhere
to a rigorous protocol in order to extract usable data that addresses concerns expressed in
these comments.
5 https://www.healthline.com/health/endometritis
Surprise Roundup EA, The Cloud Foundation comments
February 14, 2021 – page 13
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.
B. 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
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
Surprise Roundup EA, The Cloud Foundation comments
February 14, 2021 – page 14
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, or 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
and 2013. If human studies on behavior changes were done with a similar behavioral protocol –
people 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 production of various natural
hormones. 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 farreaching
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)
Surprise Roundup EA, The Cloud Foundation comments
February 14, 2021 – page 15
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 during 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
mid-gestation, 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
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.”
Surprise Roundup EA, The Cloud Foundation comments
February 14, 2021 – page 16
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)
C. 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
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.
VIII. 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
Surprise Roundup EA, The Cloud Foundation comments
February 14, 2021 – page 17
to the Proposed Action. If wild horses need to be reduced in the Complex, 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 Complex (as stated previously).
The EA fails to analyze alternatives that would avoid the need for the Proposed Action.
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 at
minimum in balance with livestock usage), which would be in conformance with existing statutes
and laws.
IX. 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 (and burros) in this Complex. 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. In the Surprise Complex wild horses are
allocated an even smaller portion of the resource – just 17%.
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.
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
Surprise Roundup EA, The Cloud Foundation comments
February 14, 2021 – page 18
will suffer. Yet, on the other hand, BLM continues the same number of livestock grazing and
claims that it 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 Complex.
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 14)
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 Complex, and
other pertinent data necessary for managing range conditions for multiple use.
X. EA Fails to Consider Range Improvements to Mitigate Need to Remove Wild Horses
The EA fails to consider range improvement (development) measures to mitigate the need to
remove wild horses (and burros). Measures that must be considered in the EA include
protecting riparian areas (piping water to a trough) – in areas including Sage Hen Spring in the
Massacre Lakes HMA and Cherry Spring, in the High Rock HMA, developing water sources to
better distribute wild horses and prevent heavy usage in certain areas, and/or fencing off
sensitive areas to allow a greater number of wild horses (and burros) to live in the Complex.
Such range management measures are regularly conducted for livestock use of the public
lands.
Surprise Roundup EA, The Cloud Foundation comments
February 14, 2021 – page 19
The EA states, “Riparian function assessments were completed for 67 springs in the Surprise
Complex. The majority were rated as ‘Nonfunctional,’ and most of the rest were rated as
‘Functional - At Risk.’ Only three springs were rated as ‘Proper Functioning Condition.’” Despite
this, thousands of cattle are permitted to graze in the Complex – if there is sufficient water for
cows (who are known to destroy riparian areas based on their usage patterns) but the BLM
claims the limited water is the basis for removal of wild horses and burros – based on existing
statues, as discussed above, cows need to be removed in order to ensure sufficient water for
wild horses and burros.
The EA fails to consider the opportunity to develop water sources in areas that have insufficient
water during the dry summer months. Developing water sources would mitigate the claimed
need to remove wild horses and burros.
XI. Adaptive Management
The EA fails to consider utilizing Adaptive Management to adjust the AML through an LUP
amendment. 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 15)
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 16)
XII. Removing Burros from the Range Jeopardizes Genetic Health of Total Population
The EA fails to consider the threatened state of burros under BLM management and to consider
an RMP amendment to accommodate burros in the Complex. Under the WFRHBA, wild burros
and horses are an “integral part” of the public lands on which they roamed in 1971. They are
“living symbols” that “enrich the lives of the American people.” The Act was passed to keep
them from “fast disappearing” as a protected national resource.
Dr. Gus Cothran, the BLM’s geneticist, has presented to the BLM, NAS and the general public
the genetic data available on all burros managed by the BLM. It is clear from the data that BLM
management of our wild burros has created a genetic crisis for these protected animals.
The NAS Report states that the genetic viability of the U.S. burro population is in jeopardy due
to the aggregated populations and overall low number of burros stating, “removing burros
permanently from the range could jeopardize the genetic health of the total population.” Clearly,
burros should not be removed from any BLM-managed public lands.
The NAS Report (Attachment 1) states that it “could not identify a science-based rationale” used
by BLM to allocate resources and establish “Allowable” Management Levels (AMLs). The NAS
report notes:
Surprise Roundup EA, The Cloud Foundation comments
February 14, 2021 – page 20
• “removing burros permanently from the range could jeopardize the genetic health of the
total population.” (NAS page 268)
• BLM "may need to assess whether the AMLs set for burros can sustain a genetically
healthy total population." (NAS page 268)
• BLM must utilize “A participatory adaptive-management process for the setting and
adjustment of AMLs…” (NAS page 250)
• “Environmental variability and change, changes in social values, and the discovery of
new information require that AMLs be adaptable.” (NAS pages 12 and 253)
• “…management should engage interested and affected parties and also be responsive
to public attitudes and preferences.” (NAS page 292)
BLM’s equine geneticist Dr. Gus Cothran stated that the U.S. burro population is at a genetic
crisis. The BLM’s massive roundups have brought burro numbers so low as to cause the
animals to inbreed, destroying the genetic health of the herds. Dr. Cothran stated, “The burros,
I think, have in many cases had more severe population contractions [roundups] probably more
inbreeding because of the smaller numbers on the land…. And one of things we are seeing is
that most of the burro herds show very low [genetic] variability ... I think the burros, in terms of
genetic diversity, are a much bigger problem than the horses are. And again, we have tested a
fair number of burros...” Source video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5HTuKtVMVg
The EA fails to consider the cumulative effects that the Proposed Action would have on the
national wild burro population which is in genetic decline. By removing any burros from the wild
further compromises the long-term well-being of the national burro population.
The EA failed to take a hard look at this important affect – only stating the RMP does not allow
for the management of burros on these public lands. The EA fails to consider adaptive
management in order to allow the RMP to be amended to accommodate wild burros, who are
suffering a genetic crisis as a direct result of the BLM’s own management strategies of massive
roundups and maintaining population numbers that are below the threshold for genetic viability.
TCF strongly urges the BLM to revise the EA and utilize adaptive management in order to reassess
AML through the land use planning process, to accommodate the small burro population
in the Complex.
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.
Surprise Roundup EA, The Cloud Foundation comments
February 14, 2021 – page 21
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires that agencies review current data and seek
public input and information regarding government 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:
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.
Surprise Roundup EA, The Cloud Foundation comments
February 14, 2021 – page 22
• 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 17)
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.”
Surprise Roundup EA, The Cloud Foundation comments
February 14, 2021 – page 23
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 and establishing AML for burros is an available alternative that the
EA fails to consider. Adaptive management could and should be used to postpone the removal
of horses until the RMP is amended.
XVI. Conclusion
The EA state that mares who have been treated by one of the methods of sterilization or fertility
control will be freeze branded. Wild horses should not be branded or marked. We strongly
oppose marking or freeze branding wild horses released to the wild. Such branding is generally
reserved for use on domestic animals; the BLM must stop trying to manage wild horses as
domestic horses.
As a result of the aforementioned deficiencies, the BLM should re-evaluate the alternative for
managing wild horses in the Surprise Complex. We urge the BLM to avert the need for this
unnecessary mass removal of wild horses from this Complex by:
• Re-evaluating and increasing wild horse AML by reassessing and amending plans under
BLM’s Adaptive Management Policy;
• 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 because no other
actions could be taken to achieve TNEB.
• 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.
• Water availability would likely be improved for wild horses and burros if fewer livestock
were permitted to graze in the Complex, mitigating the claimed need to remove wild
horses and burros.
Surprise Roundup EA, The Cloud Foundation comments
February 14, 2021 – page 24
Dana Zarrello
• There is an appropriate and fair distribution of resources between livestock, wild horses
and other wildlife species in this federally-designated Complex.
• 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. UN FOA Livestock Report (sections relating to USA)
3. Costs and Consequences, The Real Price of Livestock Grazing on America’s Public Lands
4. Killian, et al
5. Blakeney, OSC-Holyoak IUD research (2020)
6. Daels, O-ring IUD article
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. “Updating the Animal Unit Month,” Dr. John Carter, Western Watersheds Project
15. BLM document, Appendix N: Adaptive Management
16. Adaptive Management, the U.S. Dept of Interior Technical Guide
17. Temple Grandin letter dated 2012
Surprise Roundup EA, The Cloud Foundation comments
February 14, 2021 – page 25
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 precapture
evaluation. Pens should be made as large as possible to reduce stress and tension
among the animals.
Surprise Roundup EA, The Cloud Foundation comments
February 14, 2021 – page 26
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.
# # #