Tonto National Forest Plan Revision Comments

March 12, 2010

Neil Bosworth, Forest Supervisor

Tonto National Forest

2324 East McDowell Road

Phoenix, AZ 85006

Submitted online: https://cara.ecosystem-management.org/Public//CommentInput?Project=51592

Subject: Tonto National Forest Plan Revision #51592

Dear Supervisor Bosworth:

These comments on the “Tonto National Forest Plan Revision #51592” are submitted on behalf of The Cloud Foundation (TCF).

TCF is a national organization that is committed to protecting and preserving America’s wild horse and burros on our public lands through education, engagement and public participation in our government.

I. OVERVIEW

The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) is soliciting public comment on the proposed Tonto National Forest Plan Revision. The Forest Plan Revision states:

The Salt River Horse herd includes the horses that inhabit and that have historically lived in and around the lower Salt River and Saguaro Lake areas in the Tonto National Forest and are absent a brand or other identifiers indicating ownership.

We strongly support the USFS intention to:

Work with the Arizona Department of Agriculture and the Salt River Horse Collaborative to develop and implement a management plan for the Salt River Horses.

We request that the Forest Service:

- Support the humane PZP birth control program implemented by the state of Arizona and its partners;

- Enhance habitat (fence removal, etc) for wild horses given their economic and recreational importance;

- Acknowledge the social, economic and historic importance of the Salt River wild horses to the local and national communities.

III. COMMENTS

The Forest Plan Revision states that the following for Management Approaches for Salt River Horses (p63):

Work with the Arizona Department of Agriculture and the Salt River Horse Collaborative to develop and implement a management plan for the Salt River Horses.

While we support this broad approach, we urge the USFS to address and incorporate the specifics outlined herein.

1. Support the humane PZP birth control program

As a part of working with the Arizona Department of Agriculture (ADA), we urge USFS to support the humane PZP birth control program by ensuring the management plan:

- allow darting on USFS-managed public lands; and

- allow, if needed, bait feeding on USFS-managed public lands in order to assist with the application of PZP fertility control humane management plan.

2. Enhance habitat for wild horses

Given the economic and recreational importance of the Salt River Wild Horses to the local and national communities, USFS should include as a part of its management plan enhancing habitat for wild horses by removing (or preventing) fencing that inhibits the wild horse natural migratory patterns. Wild horses move daily, seasonally and annually – these movement patterns have developed over time to accommodate the well-being of the horses. Fencing prevents these natural movements and can jeopardize the well-being of the horses – preventing the horses from accessing lifesaving water sources or forage.

Additionally, the Forest Plan Revision must ensure that water sources are available for wild horses who visit or live on Forest lands. While these horses are not federally-protected animals, they are protected by the state of Arizona laws and as such should be afforded protections to prevent harm and suffering. Ensuring water sources are distributed will enhance horse distribution thereby reducing pressure on specific areas.

The USFS must incorporate in the Forest Plan Revision a policy that prevents USFS actions that may jeopardize the well-being of the Salt River Horses by constructing fencing that would knowingly cut off horse access from their natural migratory patterns or life-sustaining water or forage.

The Forest Plan Revision must acknowledge that the USFS shall not create circumstances that could lead to a crisis for the wild horses. The Forest Plan Revision should incorporate provisions that would ensure consultation with the state of Arizona, the Salt River Horse Collaborative and the public prior to taking actions that may impact the Salt River horses.

USFS must not knowingly create an avoidable crisis for the horses. Horses have natural migratory patterns or movements which are necessary for the horses to access forage or water. Creating or allowing fencing that cuts off horse access from their natural movement would knowingly put the horses in danger. While the USFS is not legally responsible for the horses, the agency is responsible to the public which demands protection, such as ensuring access to water or food, for these cherished horses.

3. Acknowledge the significant social, economic and historic importance of the Salt River wild horses

In addition to acknowledging the historic presence of the Salt River Horses in the lower Salt River and Saguaro Lake areas in the Tonto National Forest, the Forest Plan Revision must acknowledge the significant social, economic and historic importance of the Salt River wild horses to the local area, the region and to the nation. Many visitors to the Forest who experience the Salt River wild horses feel a connectedness to the Forest because of this experience.

Without question the majority of the public appreciate observing the beauty of the Salt River wild horses. Thousands of visitors to the Forest enjoy observing the natural behaviors of the horses. The public’s experience of these wild horses provides a positive connotation of the visitors’ experience of their public National Forest.

Additionally, local businesses that rely on tourism to the Salt River benefit economically from the Salt River wild horses. Rafting, kayaking, tubing and other tourist operators understand the public attraction to see the horses on the Salt River. The Tonto National Forest also benefits from the popularity of the Salt River wild horses. As such, the Forest Plan Revision must acknowledge these social and economic benefits of the Salt River wild horses in the Forest Plan.

IV. SAGUARO WILD BURRO AREA

Based on USFS evidence, we strongly urge that the Forest Plan Revision include a provision to re-draw the boundaries of the Wild Burro Area given the error made when the boundary was first drawn and the decades-long evidence that burros rarely if ever lived within those erroneous boundary lines. This boundary revision can be conducted by presenting the evidence as outlined in the EIS that burros have lived outside of the current Area boundaries and by documenting that historic use to define the correct Area boundaries. The formal Forest Plan Revision process is the correct mechanism to address this error in Area boundary which jeopardizes the Congressionally-protected burros. National Forest Management Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1600-1687(“NFMA”) By refusing to consider revising the Area boundaries the USFS will fail to take a “hard look” at the environmental impacts arising from the loss of the natural burro habitat and the impact that has on the well-being of these federally-protected burros. By ignoring this raised Burro Area boundary issue, the USFS would wrongly make the conclusory determination that revising the boundary would have no effect on federally-protected burros or their habitat a violation of NEPA. National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4370 USFS has the same authority as BLM to change Herd Area or Burro Area (Territory) boundaries: “Decisions to change HA boundaries, to designate HMAs for the maintenance of WH&B, or to remove all or a portion of an area’s designation as an HMA must be made through a LUP amendment, revision or new RMP”(cite BLM 43 CFR 4710.1 and H-1601-1: Land Use Planning Handbook). Because the Tonto National Forest is nearly 4,500 square miles or more than 2.8 million acres, the Saguaro Burro Area (currently 42 square miles or 27,000 acres) the revision of the Area boundary will “not significantly alter the multiple-use goals and objectives for long-term land and resource management.” Therefore, “Adjustments of management area boundaries or management prescriptions resulting from further on-site analysis when the adjustments do not cause significant changes in the multiple-use goals and objectives for long-term land and resource management.” Forest Service Manual § 1926.51 Clearly, the Area boundary revision would not “have an important effect on the entire land management plan or affect land and resources throughout a large portion of the planning area during the planning period” and therefore would not be considered “significant” according to the USFS Manual. Forest Service Manual § 1926.52

This boundary revision is even more urgent and important because burros are in great peril given the decline in wild burro genetic health which has deteriorated over the past few decades due to agency (USFS and BLM) mismanagement. The limited number of federally-protected burros is at great jeopardy due to forced inbreeding due to the low Allowable Management Levels (AMLs). USFS manages very few federally-protected burros and as such should be made a priority by the agency.

We urge the Forest Plan Revision to include the policy to relocate burros to the Saguaro Wild Burro Area if they are outside of the Area boundaries. Rounding up and removing burros is the management that has created the crisis now facing America’s federally-protected wild burros.

The Saguaro Wild Burros could be another attraction to the Tonto National Forest if the USFS were to cultivate and humanely manage the burros with PZP fertility control. It is a sad reflection of Forest management that this burro population was allowed to be reduced to zero while burros were removed from other parts of the Forest.

The current “Allowable” Management Level (AML) of 15 burros for the 42 square-mile wild burro area is inadequate. The Forest Plan Revision should not allow livestock grazing to be prioritized above wild burros.

The AML must be in conformance with the 1971 Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act. The majority of AUMs or forage allocation within the Saguaro Wild Burro Area must be “principally but not necessarily exclusively to [burros]” as outlined in the 1971 Wild, Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act (WFRHBA). Based on current scientific evidence, AML should be a minimum of 150 to 200 burros (in order to have 50 effective breeding animals) as recommended for wild horse populations as per the BLM Wild Horse and Burro Handbook in order to maintain an acceptable level of genetic diversity. “A minimum population size of 50 effective breeding animals (i.e., a total population size of about 150-200 animals) is currently recommended to maintain an acceptable level of genetic diversity within reproducing WH&B populations (Cothran, Gus, 2009. BLM Letter dated July 16, 2009. Effective population size to keep the rate of loss of genetic variation at 1 percent per generation). This number is required to keep the rate of loss of genetic variation at 1 percent per generation. Animal interchange between adjacent HMAs with smaller population sizes may reduce the need for maintaining populations of this size within each individual HMA. Research has not yet established a recommended minimum breeding herd size for burros.”

1. Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA)

FLPMA requires that USFS “balance wild horse and burro use with other resources” which equates at minimum to a 50-50 allocation of available forage between burros and livestock on all burro Herd Areas or Territories. This has not happened in the Saguaro Wild Burro Area. The Forest Plan Revision must take this into consideration.

FLPMA addresses 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 USFS is mandated by law to protect wild horses and burros. Therefore, the agency’s management and Forest Plan Revision should reflect these priorities and legal requirements.

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 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).

2. Taylor Grazing Act (TGA)

The TGA provides the government broad discretion to decide whether to allow livestock owners to use the public lands i.e., 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 even if necessary 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 WHA (Wild Horse Act). See 16 U.S.C. § 1333(a); see also 43 C.F.R. § 4710.5(a).

Livestock grazing on public lands is a privilege that can be taken away if necessary, to protect the health of the range and even, if necessary, to protect wild horses.

3. Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971

Following is general definition of “range” in the 1971 Act and it applies to all BLM-managed public lands where the horses were “presently found” in 1971 and thus applies to all Herd Areas

“Definitions . . . (c) ‘range’ means the amount of land necessary to sustain an existing herd or herds of wild free roaming horses and burros, which does not exceed their known territorial limits, and which is devoted principally but not necessarily exclusively to their welfare in keeping with the multiple-use management concept for the public lands; . . .” [Public Law 92-195 § 1332]

4. National Academy of Sciences and National Research Council

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 Forest Plan Revision should consider recommendations and reviews from the NAS and NRC – while directed to the BLM Wild Horse program, these positions are applicable to the USFS management of Congressionally-protected wild burros.

The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Report on the BLM Wild Horse and Burro (WHB) Program dated June 2013 (hereafter “NAS Report”) also supports the above requirements of FLPMA:

“It is unlikely that all the values involved can be monetized in a way that is satisfactory to all parties, so use of economic policy tools such as benefit-cost analysis and contingent valuation, although potentially informative, is not able to resolve value differences fully and is not adequate to support decisions.” p. 273

“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

“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 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…

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...

The Forest Plan Revision must consider the interests of those who cherish the opportunity to observe, photograph, and otherwise enjoy wild horses and/or burros which Congress declared to be “national esthetic treasure[s]” when it enacted the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971. We, along with the thousands of our supporters, are American who value the opportunity to observe photograph and enjoy burros in Tonto National Forest.

Additionally, the Forest Plan Revision must include managing burros outside of the Burro Area through PZP and relocations not through removals. The number of burros outside of the Territory is easily controlled and reduced through natural attrition through PZP.

V. HISTORY

The Forest Plan Revision must expand its acknowledgement of the history of the Salt River wild horses. Below are excerpts from the USFS “Tonto National Forest Final Assessment Report – Final Assessment Report of Social and Economic Conditions, Trends, and Risks to Sustainability, Vol II”.

page 72:

The Tonto National Forest contains one wild burro territory established under the Wild Horse and Burro Act of 1971. The Saguaro Wild Burro Territory covers 27,092 acres within the Sunflower grazing allotment, with the majority located in the Four Peaks Wilderness (see figure 30). In 1985, the herd size was estimated at 31 burros but it has since declined to zero due to mortality and the movement of individuals out of the designated territory. The target herd size was set at 15 burros, based on available resources. At the time of designation, an existing herd of feral horses on the Tonto was also considered for designation but was not granted wild horse status. There are currently no wild horse territories designated on the Tonto National Forest.

page 74:

A number of unbranded horses has been living near the lower Salt River and Saguaro Lake area for many years. The Tonto National Forest was surveyed for the presence of horses in 1973. Documentation indicates there were no wild horses present as defined by the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act and further stated that the only horses observed were branded horses that the stockmen from the reservations claimed as their animals. Hence, there was no territory established on the Tonto National Forest for Wild Horses as mandated by that Act.

page 321:

Saguaro Wild Burro Area

The Saguaro Wild Burro Area is located in the Mesa Ranger District, within the Four Peaks Wilderness (USDA Forest Service 1998a; see figure 30). Tonto National Forest Plan management direction is to continue existing management of the Saguaro Lake wild burro area and to conduct a biannual administrative check of burros to determine herd size, herd health, and extent of home range. Herd size objective will be 15 animals over their entire established range (USDA Forest Service 1985). Currently there are no burros in this area.

We request the historic information attached (below) be incorporated into the Forest Plan Revision.

Thank you for your consideration,

Xxx

ATTACHMENT

From the Salt River Wild Horse Management Group homepage:

History of Wild Horses

The Salt River wild horses are a historic population of unbranded, unclaimed, wild and free-roaming horses, that were born in the wild and merit protection within our National Forest.

Back in 1890 the Salt River wild horses were referred to as “native animals”.

How long have the Salt River wild horses been here?

According to Arizona’s own historical records, wild horses have been living on the Salt River and the Salt River Valley since well before the Tonto National Forest was created in 1902, but more likely much longer.

This Arizona Champion Newspaper article, dated January 25, 1890, and located in the Arizona State Archives, classifies horses in the Salt River Valley as “native stock” and “native animals”.

For people back then to classify the free roaming horses as native, there would have to have been a minimum of 5 or 6 generations who knew about their existence (equal to 100 years), proving they existed here since at least 1790.

Mustangs are descendants of Spanish, or Iberian, horses that were brought to the Americas by Spanish explorers in the 16th century. The name was derived from the Spanish word mustengo, which means “ownerless beast”. Once escaped, these horses evolved without the influence of man and through survival of the fittest, evolved into the incredibly durable and tough breed we know today. The word Mustang or Wild Horse is used interchangeably.

Tracing the Salt River wild horses back, historic records indicate that in 1687 Missionary Father Eusebio Keno journeyed to Southern Arizona (then Sonora) Due to his efforts, missions and stockyards were developed, he reportedly left hundreds of horses and cattle at each mission. His many expeditions on horseback covered over 50,000 square miles. He had 6 successful missions in Arizona including in Phoenix. Father Kino remained in southern Arizona until his death in 1711. (source; Architect of the Capitol, Washington D.C.).

The bloody truth

Sadly, very similar to the story of the bison, the mass extermination started around 1850. Wild horses were considered competition for cattle (much like today) and useless beasts. They were shot, poisoned and killed. The Forest Service and ranchers organized roundups to shoot the animals. In 1908 the Forest Service put out a standing order on its domain, to kill every wild horse on site in Lander County.

Locally, according to this newspaper article [see below], titled: “Phoenix Concern Eliminating Wild Horses From State,” dated 1927, there were “a half a million wild horses on Arizona Ranges,” assuring an unlimited supply for the operations of the Arizona Reduction works, a horse slaughter house. The majestic animals were considered “worthless” and were rounded up and slaughtered by the thousands in Phoenix.

The Salt River wild horses likely escaped the killings by hiding in the thick vegetation along the river banks.

By the 1800’s all over the western planes, the herds had grown and it was reported by many settlers and explorers (Meriwether Lewis and Clark, George Catlin, Rosa Bonheur) who described that there were large herds of wild horses roaming the planes, together with the bison.

Today, it is estimated by the BLM, that we have less than 500 wild horses left in the entire State of Arizona. This includes the Heber wild horse Territory and two BLM Herd Management Area’s (Bureau of Land Management) of the Cerbat Mountains and Yuma.

The claim by the United States Forest Service (USFS), that the Salt River horses are not “wild” but let loose by ranchers instead, is based on a 1974 letter that acknowledged “dense riparian vegetation … makes it very difficult to … even observe these animals.” (simply put, they went out looking for horses once and didn’t find any) They based their entire decision to deny the wild horses protection under the Act on one outing. That decision ran counter to the longstanding FS policy to manage these horses as “wild” and distinct from stray livestock all the years prior to 1971.

In fact, then US Forest Service Regional Rangeland Ecosystem Specialist Mr. Curtis M. Johnson, who worked at the Mesa Ranger District, states that the horses “… were not considered unauthorized use, they were considered wild horses” and managed as such throughout the 1960s under the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960.

Click here to see the Youtube video of Mr. Curtis Johnson, (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=872wQnVTbHo) who had a long career working for the US Forest Service for 42 years. In the video he testifies and explains how the Salt River wild horses were managed before 1971.

So, while the horses were considered native in 1890 and managed under the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act before 1971, they were deemed Indian horses, stray livestock and Feral after 1971. It seems that the Forest Service either forgot history or simply made a very big oversight in 1971, when they were mandated by the Wild Free Roaming Horse and Burro Act, to count and protect wild horses and establish a wild horse territory.

While looking further into US Forest Service documents we found that they themselves acknowledged the existence of the wild horses since 1930. Furthermore, we found this document from May 17, 1979, Phoenix Gazette. It proves several of our hypothesis. Mr. Perl Charles, a former Forest Service official and noted conservationist (for whom many hiking trails are named still) confirmed that the horses were wild and had been present on the Salt River “maybe since the turn of the century.” he said. Mr. Charles was advocating for protection of the population of the estimated 40 to 50 wild horses on Forest Service lands, stating, “It’s a delightful thing to watch them running free.”

During his career with the local Forest Service, Mr. Perl Charles estimates he rounded up and removed more than 3,500 head of wild horses within the national forests. Therefore, Mr. Perl Charles should be a credible authority on identifying wild horses, versus the alleged “branded” Indian horses present at the time.

The article also stated that John Blackwood, deputy forest supervisor considered the horses trespass from the Ft McDowell Indian reservation. But one paragraph later confirms that the Forest Service deployed a helicopter and 17 riders to try to round then horses up. The horses escaped and not one was caught. The fact that they attempted a roundup proves that they were on Forest Service Lands and that they were aware of that fact. This document also stated that the Forest Service is eager to protect eagles but eager to keep wild horses off the land.

Simply put, the USFS claim that these horses are stray livestock is not supported by

historical or current evidence and some foul play on the part of Forest Service management in 1971 is evidenced by these documents.

No parties — including neighboring tribes or the State of Arizona — claimed these horses in response to the July 31, 2015, USFS-published “notice to impound.” Therefore, it may be considered confirmed that they are not truly feral or stray livestock.

While looking further into US Forest Service documents we found that they themselves acknowledged the existence of the wild horses since 1930. Further, more we found this document from May 17, 1979, Phoenix Gazette. It proves several of our hypothesis. Mr. Perl Charles, a former Forest Service official and noted conservationist (for whom many hiking trails are named still) confirmed that the horses were wild and had been present on the Salt River “maybe since the turn of the century” he said. Mr. Charles was advocating for protection of the population of the estimated 40 to 50 wild horses on Forest Service lands, stating, “It’s a delightful thing to watch them running free.”

The article also stated that John Blackwood, deputy forest supervisor considered the horses trespass from the Ft. McDowell Indian reservation. But one paragraph later confirms that the Forest Service deployed a helicopter and 17 riders to try to round then horses up. The horses escaped and not one was caught. The fact that they attempted a roundup proves that they were on Forest Service Lands and that they were aware of that fact. This document also stated that the Forest Service is eager to protect eagles but eager to keep wild horses off the land.

Simply put, the USFS claim that these horses are stray livestock is not supported by historical or current evidence and some foul play on the part of Forest Service management in 1971 is evidenced by these documents.

After all these years the wild horses remain; they have maintained their own freedom by hiding in the trees and escaping from helicopters and riders. Today we feel lucky that through these circumstances we still have a piece of living history left in Arizona.

Our history is their history. This is a picture of wild horses on Forest Service lands in the exact same spot where they hang out today, it was taken 1956 and published in 1957 by Arizona Highways.

# # #

Dana ZarrelloMarch 12, 2020