Confusion HMA Wild Horse Mgmt and Roundup Plan

July 25, 2020

BLM Fillmore Field Office

Attn: Trent Staheli, Wild Horse and Burro Specialist

95 E 500 N

Fillmore, UT, NV 84631

Submitted online: https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/project/106367/570

To: BLM Fillmore Field Office and Mr. Staheli

On behalf of The Cloud Foundation (TCF), a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization committed to protecting and preserving America’s wild horses and burros on our public lands through education and advocacy, and our more than 500,000 supporters, we respectfully submit these comments on the Confusion HMA Wild Horse Management and Roundup “Gather” [sic] Plan (DOI-BLM-UT-W020-2018-015-EA).

The EA fails to adequately analyze important issues and the prevailing public sentiment on the Proposed Action.

I, along with TCF’s board, staff and supporters, enjoy and appreciate the wild horses currently living in eastern Nevada. We appreciate wild horses specifically for their natural behaviors – their social bonds, herd dynamics and individual personalities. Therefore, we strongly oppose the proposed removal of wild horses living on public lands in the Confusion Herd Management Area which is habitat specifically designated by Congress for wild horses.

TCF and its board members, staff and supporters, as well as the general public, enjoy and appreciate having our wild horses (and burros) living on our public lands in Utah. As interested and affected parties, we will be harmed if the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) proceeds with the Proposed Action or alternative actions addressed herein and as outlined in the Environmental Assessment (EA). Reducing wild horse populations to lower levels while allow larger numbers of livestock in the same area is opposed by the American people, illegal and wrong. Removing these wild horses and/or destroying the natural behaviors of these cherished animals through sterilization or drugs, which destroy or alter natural wild horse behaviors, will have a negative impact on us, by definition causing, harm to the human environment:

§ 1508.14 Human environment. Human environment shall be interpreted comprehensively to include the natural and physical environment and the relationship of people with that environment. ... This means that economic or social effects are not intended by themselves to require preparation of an environmental impact statement.

I. Overview

According to the EA (p25), the BLM permits more than 15,175 AUMs (annual equivalent of 1,265 cow/calf pair) within the HMA boundaries. Compare that to the “Allowable” Management Level (AML) for wild horses which 840-1,380 AUMs (70-115 horses). This shows that wild horses are permitted 5-8% of the AUMs permitted within the HMA.

The EA states, “In 2018 livestock AUMs in the Thousand Peaks Allotment were reduced from 18,597 to 12,289 …This was a 34% reduction in AUMs.” After this 34% reduction for the Thousand Peaks Allotment – livestock within the HMA continued to utilize 10,259 AUMs (annual equivalent of 855 cow/calf pair). Compare that to the current estimated wild horse population of 6,612 AUMs (551 wild horses): the current population of wild horses comprises only 39% of the grazing in the HMA.

Yet, the Proposed Action is to roundup and remove approximately 87% of the wild horses and to continue roundups over a 10-year period until low AML (70 horses) is achieved. On top of that, BLM proposes to sterilize 50% of the horses remaining on the range through gelding and the barbaric ovariectomy colpotomy, a dangerous method conducted in the 1800s. Gelding and ovariectomies destroy the production of natural hormones that are essential to natural wild horse behaviors.

The short- and long-term effects of these surgical procedures on the physiological and psychological well-being of wild horses on the range has never been established.

This EA and Proposed Action propose to cover a 10-year period. The EA makes the broad assumption that any horse over the BLM-established AML would be identified as “excess” at any point in time whether or not environmental conditions and other conditions have been met.

The EA fails to take a hard look at the legal requirement to maintain wild behaviors, increasing AML through Adaptive Management and the RMP process, and humane on-the-range management with the widely-accepted PZP fertility control. Additionally, the EA fails to consider taking actions to better distribute wild horses throughout the HMA through the development of year-round water sources, something which is regularly undertaken for livestock on public lands.

The House Range RMP 1987 RMP and LUD process has not authorized the Proposed Actions. The BLM must publish the House Range RMP in order for the public to provide meaningful input on the Proposed Action.

II. 1971 Wild, Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act (WFRHBA)

The EA fails to adequately analyze the 1971 WFRHBA outlines the mandates for the BLM management of wild horses on public lands.

A. “Range” Is “Devoted Principally” for Wild Horse Use

Congress clearly stated in the Act that wild horses have a special, protected status.

The Act specifically defines 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 also specifically states that 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. Had Congress wanted to provide BLM with discretion, the word “may” would have been used rather than “is”. Wild horse habitat “is devoted principally but not necessarily exclusively to their [wild horses and burros] welfare...” [Public Law 92-195 § 1332]

Again, the language of the Act leaves no possible ambiguity for Congress’ intent, 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).

Livestock grazing in the HMA existed at the time when the WFRHBA was enacted; yet the intent of the WFRHBA was not implemented by the BLM in the Confusion HMA. AML was established in the 1987 House Range Resource Management Plan. Clearly BLM has designated the majority (87%) of the forage in the HMA for private commercial livestock and not wild horses; therefore, because the issue is being raised that this is not in conformance with the plain language of the Wild, Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act (WFRHBA) an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is necessary to analyze this discrepancy with the WFRHBA. In addition, the BLM has been put on notice that the AML is not in conformance with existing statutes and laws; the EA must not cite the knowingly-illegal AML (established in the 1987 RMP) as justification for the AML which is not in conformance with existing statutes and laws. The BLM must disclose the 1987 RMP in order that the public may provide meaningful comments. The BLM must attach the 1987 RMP to the Administrative Record and make it available online if it is going to be relied upon for the Proposed Action.

III. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)

A. 43 CFR § 4700 – Protection, Management, And Control of Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros

The EA and Land Use Plans (LUPs) fail to address that “Wild horses and burros shall be considered comparably [similar] with other resource values in the formulation of land use plans. (43 CFR § 4700.0-6) The EA cites land use plans that range from 15 to 45 years old; relying on these land use plans which fail to authorize the for the most part (“principally”) or similarly (“comparably”) for wild horses is not in conformance with existing laws and statutes. The Final EA cannot implement an action that is not in compliance with existing laws and statutes.

B. 43 CFR § 4710.5 – Closure to livestock grazing

The EA and existing LUPs fail 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.”

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

FLPMA requires that BLM “balance wild horse and burro use with other resources” which

equates at minimum to a 50-50 allocation of available forage between horses and livestock on WHTs. The EA fails to address this. 43 U.S.C. § 1701

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 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 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).

The EA fails to take a hard look at these requirements.

V. 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).

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 2013 NAS report “Using Science to Improve the BLM Wild Horse and Burro Program: A Way Forward” (NAS Report) (Attachment 1) clearly 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. 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 stated[1]:

“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 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 adequately consider the importance of the wild horses of the Confusion HMA to the American public. TCF supporters and Americans from all over the country enjoy traveling to Utah to observe, photograph, and otherwise enjoy wild horses and their natural, wild social 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:

· castration, ovariectomy and other surgical sterilization methods that alter an animal's ability to produce natural hormones;

· 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;

· sex ratio skewing which causes stallion aggression due to the unnatural ratio of males to females.

While some of these actions were not included in the Proposed Action, TCF wanted to be on the record against these actions which are not in conformance with existing statues and laws. 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.

While wild behaviors may not be germane to population management, it is a subject directly related to managing wild horses because without natural wild behaviors the BLM would be managing free-roaming horses which could include unbroke domestic horses. The BLM contention that, “BLM is not required to manage populations of wild horses in a manner that ensures that any given individual maintains its social standing within any given harem or band” is in direct violation of the WFRHBA and Congress’ intent to preserve and protect America’s wild horses.

A. Castration/Gelding

The NAS stated that maintaining natural behaviors in free-ranging horses is in the public interest and that BLM should be more responsive to public sentiment.

“Individual males vary in their behavioral response to castration—for example, in the loss of male-type behavior, such as aggression and sexual interest, depending on the age and sexual experience of the male. However, some or total loss of sex drive would be likely in castrated stallions, and this is counter to the often-stated public interest in maintaining natural behaviors in free-ranging horses.” p123

“A potential disadvantage of both surgical and chemical castration is loss of testosterone and consequent reduction in or complete loss of male-type behaviors necessary for maintenance of social organization, band integrity, and expression of a natural behavior repertoire.” p142

Dr. Jay Kirkpatrick, wildlife reproductive biologist, Science and Conservation Center, Zoo Montana. Dr. Kirkpatrick explains that altering natural hormone production through castration essentially changes how that animal feels and behaves:

“The very essence of the wild horse, that is, what makes it a wild horse, is the social organization and social behaviors. Geldings (castrated male horses) no longer exhibit the natural behaviors of non-castrated stallions. We know this to be true from hundreds of years of experience with gelded domestic horses. Furthermore, gelded stallions will not keep their bands together, which is an integral part of a viable herd. These social dynamics were molded by millions of years of evolution, and will be destroyed if the BLM returns castrated horses to the HMAs … Castrating horses will effectively remove the biological and physiological controls that prompt these stallions to behave like wild horses. This will negatively impact the place of the horse in the social order of the band and the herd.”

Dr. Kirkpatrick explains that altering natural hormone production through castration essentially changes how that animal feels and behaves. Gelding, ovariectomies and other methods (e.g. drugs) are primarily used on domestic horses and burros to change behaviors – to make the animals more docile and conducive to training. This is literally done to kill the “wild” and make the animals more tolerant of human dominance. Interfering in this way with wild horses or burros is counter to the very spirit of the 1971 WFRHB Act.

BLM has claimed that castration does not alter the natural behaviors of stallions. This is patently false, as explained by renowned biologist Dr, Kirkpatrick above. Further, BLM refutes its own claim by citing “anecdotal” information regarding returning castrated stallions to the range stating, “Once released, anecdotal information indicates geldings would be expected to form bachelor bands.” A true stallion has the biological imperative to claim mares and reproduce. If geldings are expected to only “form bachelor bands,” this is an enormous departure from the natural social behavior of a wild stallion. Thus, BLM contradicts itself.

Deciding which males will become permanent bachelors and not contribute to the gene pool of the herd is indeed altering natural behaviors. To draw a parallel, while a human male may choose to stay single and/or not have children, this is very different from forcibly castrating him. A castrated human male, like a gelding, loses all sexual hormone production, which intrinsically and definitively changes his biology and his behavior for the rest of his life.

Castration is performed in domestic settings largely to alter the horse’s natural behaviors and to make him more docile and manageable – to make him a lifelong bachelor without stallion behaviors. Gelding destroys natural stallion drives -- not just breeding behaviors but other ritualistic social behaviors as well. These behaviors are essential for the social hierarchy of the herd and each family band to remain intact. Most stallions do not naturally remain in bachelor bands for life.

Bruce Nock, Ph.D., at Washington University School of Medicine and an expert in the physiological effects of stress, states that gelding may compromise a horse’s ability to survive in the rugged and extreme natural environment:

“Gelding (removing a horse’s testes) will have irreversible effects on both the individual horse and the herd. A gelded horse does not behave as a “wild” or “free-roaming” horse. . . It decreases muscle mass and strength, reduces bone density, and increases frailty. These deficits put the horse at a significant disadvantage on the range in terms of survival. A gelding will still have to compete with intact stallions for resources. His smaller size and strength, however, will not only put him at a competitive disadvantage, it increases the likelihood that agonistic encounters with intact stallions will result in severe injuries.”

“The compromised physical capacities that accompany gelding are likely to endanger castrated horses in a number of ways. In addition to undermining their ability to compete with intact stallions, it may diminish their ability to traverse the harsh terrain and great distances normally travelled to acquire food and water. This would jeopardize their survival particularly during challenging weather conditions, like droughts or heavy snow storms. A limited geographical home range is also likely to deplete local resources and negatively impact the ecological system as a whole. To survive in the wild, a horse must be able to achieve a certain fitness level that may be impossible to attain once the animal is castrated. In my professional opinion, releasing a castrated horse into a wild herd is an inhumane management approach that certainly does not ‘protect’ or ‘help preserve’ wild horses in any sense of the word.”

Experts state that releasing castrating a wild stallion to the range would change natural behaviors that are imperative to his status as a wild horse. (Attachment 2) BLM’s stated interest to release geldings to the range is to reduce reproduction rates, yet BLM has also stated releasing geldings to the range would have only a “minor” impact on reproduction rates because “a single intact stallion can breed a large number of mares.” Again, BLM contradicts its own information. Gelding stallions is an utter waste of tax-payer funds, resulting in little to no impact on population growth rates.

(Attachment 3)

B. Ovariectomy/Spaying

The Proposed Action includes the barbaric ovariectomy via colpotomy but has failed to adequately analyze the documented issues associated with this action as discussed herein. Castration and ovariectomy have not previously been implemented as management strategies. These are highly controversial and, in the case of ovariectomy via colpotomy, a risky, archaic procedure that is both unstudied and inappropriate for wild animals.

The Proposed Action cannot implement these fertility controls without an EIS because they would be precedent-setting and likely be used for management in other HMAs. Therefore, an EIS is required to thoroughly analyze the impacts of these proposed actions.

Both castration and ovariectomy and are primarily used on domestic horses to alter behaviors – to make the animals more docile and conducive to training. This is done to kill the “wild” and make the animals more tolerant of human dominance. Interfering in this way with wild horses or burros is counter to the very spirit of the WFRHBA.

The Cloud Foundation has documented that mares – especially lead mares – play a critical role in wild horse natural behaviors and social structure. Mare hormone production would be altered through spaying or ovariectomy, or through the use of drugs such as Gonacon which shutdown a mare’s estrus and cycles. The resulting changes to their natural behaviors may only be known on an individual basis.

Altering a mare’s hormones through spaying or ovariectomy will result in the consequent reduction in or complete loss of natural lead-mare-type behaviors necessary for maintenance of social organization, band integrity, and expression of a natural behavior repertoire. In fact, the impacts of sterilization on wild horses can be severe, affecting their physiology and ability to survive, as well as their behavior, and can therefore impact the herd. A few excerpts follow here regarding the importance of maintaining natural wild, free-roaming behaviors and the negative impact that spaying would have on the individual behaviors, social behaviors, band structure, etc. of wild horses.

We know that mammalian behaviors, especially social behaviors, are related to hormone production. Therefore, it’s understandable that shutting down the production of certain hormones would likely cause the loss of natural behaviors essential to “wild horses.”

Additionally, wild horses and burros living in extreme environments rely on their natural instincts for survival -- destroying natural behaviors may actually put the lives of these animals at risk.

Dr. Jay Kirkpatrick, director of the Science and Conservation Center in Montana and internationally-recognized expert on wildlife reproduction and biology summarized:

“Gelded stallions will not keep their bands together. Ovariectomized mares will not

display estrous behavior. The very essence of the wild horse, that is, what makes it a wild horse, is the social organization and social behaviors, which in turn were molded by

millions of years of evolution. Gelding/spaying will take exactly that away and then you

no longer have wild horses... Sterilization is incompatible with the mandate to protect

and retain the free-roaming nature of wild horses.”

“Wild horses typically live in reproductive bands consisting of adult mares, their dependent offspring, and one or more stallions who lives revolve around trying to protect mares from harassment by other stallions and securing exclusive reproductive access to the mares for themselves; …Mares, meanwhile, simultaneously bond to one another and compete with each other for access to water, food, and other resources for themselves and their foals. Neither geldings nor spayed mares participate in these fundamental processes of wild horse behavior.” – Allen T. Rutberg, Ph. D., Assistant Director, Center for Animals and Public Policy, Tufts-Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine.

The NAS 2013 on ovariectomizing wild mares:

“Any of the methods [castration, ovariectomy and GnRH products] described may also affect behavior. Because all methods affect sexual function in some way, changes in expression of sexual and social behavior should be considered. The ideal method would not eliminate sexual behavior or change social structure substantially. Castration, ovariectomy, and the GnRH products (vaccines and agonists) eliminate or substantially reduce steroid hormone production and so have a potentially profound effect on the expression of sexual behavior. In contrast, vasectomy and the PZP vaccines result in a prolonged breeding season, with increased sexual interaction, because females continue to undergo estrous cycles but fail to conceive.” p149

“Typical side effects associated with ovariectomy in many species include decreased activity and weight gain.” p115

Years of conducting ovariectomies in domestic horses shows that behavioral change (referred to as "improvement" for domestic mares because estral behaviors are deemed in the domestic setting as undesirable) is seen in 83% of the mares who underwent surgery (Attachment 4a-h).

In addition to the behavioral changes, the reduction of estrus and alteration of hormones undeniably has an impact on the physiology of any mammal. Any woman who has gone through menopause knows this.

The EA fails to consider and analyze available research that outlines the hormonal changes and the implication those changes have on bone density, as well as the other physiological implications these procedures would have on wild mares. Ovariectomy causes premature menopause and in turn has a cascading impact to various body functions, processes and conditions – including bone conditions and other deleterious physiological conditions that would likely jeopardize the long-term welfare of animals who live under harsh environmental conditions. (Attachment 5).

Research shows that ovariectomy alters behaviors and personality; behaviors and personalities drive the social dynamic of the individuals and social group. Ovariectomizing mares will negatively impact the place of the individual in the social order of the band and herd -- and will likely negatively impact the family band on the whole.

We have grave concerns about the physiological and psychological impacts that result from ovariectomy and the related conditions and implications – both direct and indirect. There is scientific literature that outlines the various deleterious effects of causing premature menopause (especially in a species that does not go into menopause). (Attachment 6)

The EA must analyze the following detrimental effects that would likely be caused from the sterilization methods included in the Proposed Action:

· Changes to the horse’s diestrus phase – the impact to hormone production or organ/gland functions which directly and indirectly impact the horse’s physiology and psychology.

· Changes to the horse’s estrous phase – the impacts to hormone production or organ/gland functions and the direct and indirect resulting impacts to glands, organs, tissues, production of hormones and all possible impacts to the horse’s physiology and psychology.

· Changes to the horse’s production of progesterone – the impacts to hormone production or organ/gland functions and the direct and indirect resulting impacts to glands, organs, tissues, production of hormones and all possible impacts to the horse’s physiology and psychology.

· Changes to the horse’s pituitary gland or the function of the pituitary gland and all resulting impacts to hormone production – the direct and indirect resulting impacts to glands, organs, tissues, production of hormones and all resulting impacts to the horse’s physiology and psychology.

· Changes to the horse’s production of estrogen – the impact to hormone production or organ/gland functions, including all direct and indirect resulting impacts to glands, organs, tissues, production of hormones and all possible impacts to the horse’s physiology and psychology.

· Changes to the horse’s production of gonadal hormones – the impacts to hormone production or organ/gland functions, including all direct and indirect resulting impacts to glands, organs, tissues, production of hormones and all possible impacts to the horse’s physiology and psychology.

· Changes to the horse’s serotonin pathways, catecholamine neurons and the basal forebrain cholinergic system.

· Changes to ovarian steroids.

· Changes to cardiovascular health and immune function.

The BLM must base wild horse management decisions on science, not convenience. The science clearly shows that removing ovaries has long-term, negative effects on a wild horse’s physiology and psychology and in turn, on social behaviors. The EA fails to adequately analyze existing data available on the deleterious effects of castration/ovariectomy and fails to provide any supporting science or data to support the long-term implications of castration and ovariectomy. (Attachment 6)

C. IUD included in EA, Although Not in Proposed Action

The “BLM has not used IUDs to control fertility as a wild horse and burro fertility control method on the range.” An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is necessary before implementing the administration of IUDs in wild mares living on the range. 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 14-a) 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 14-b) However, pen trails are not sufficient because they (a) did not follow the mares for living in “pasture” settings with multiple stallions for an extended period of time – a minimum of three to five years is minimal given the BLM has not plan to remove the IUDs from free-roaming mares who are subjected to this experiment. Additionally, the BLM has failed to conduct in situ trails with horses that are known by either BLM or BLM volunteers so that the horses can be monitored in the wild over years to determine the short- and long-term deleterious psychological and physiological effects this new and relatively untested surgical sterilization. IUDs are not commonly used in domestic mares who have their movement confined and are regularly administered medical care and provided feed and water. Subjecting mares who are living in harsh environments – with no access to medical care – to this experimental surgical sterilization is inhumane and irresponsible. At minimum, BLM must conduct additional pen trails and then in situ trials of the IUDs should be undertaken first in known free-roaming mares who are easily monitored for at minimum five years; such in situ trails must be conducted with sufficient protocols in order to record behavioral, physiological effects before proceeding with implementation on mares outside of a well-controlled in situ study.

IUDs (o-ring) cause “mild chronic endometritis” (Attachment 15); this raises the issue that other IUDs, Y design, may cause related issues. Endometritis is an inflammation of the inner lining of the uterus (endometrium). Symptoms may include fever, lower abdominal pain, and abnormal vaginal bleeding or discharge. Currently, there is insufficient scientific data available today to support the use of IUDs in free-roaming horses without the necessary scientific study with acceptable protocols.

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. If IUDs suppress estrus (Attachment 16), that would in turn destroy natural hormone production which are necessary for natural wild behaviors (as discussed in these comments).

The above are just a few examples of the medical issues that must be thoroughly analyzed in an EIS which includes:

1. identify the specific type of IUD that would be utilized.

2. conduct adequate pen trials and then to conduct limited on-range trials with mares that are known and easily monitored prior to implementation in wild, free-roaming mares who cannot be monitored or administered follow up medical care.

3. determine the short- and long-term affects to mares.

4. determine whether the specific IUD model proposed for use would destroy estrus cycles.

5. determine how IUDs would be removed from mares and when removal would occur.

If IUDs are found to be safe, effective and preserve natural behaviors, they may be an alternative to the humane, reversible PZP fertility control. However, removal of IUDs would remain a challenge for horses in the wild and would need to be adequately analyzed in an EIS.

D. Gonacon and Other Drugs that Shutdown Natural Hormone Production, Included in EA Although Not in Proposed Action

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), ovariectomy (spaying), 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:

The EA fails to adequately analyze material scientific evidence on Gonacon and the issues raised above and an EIS is required. (Attachment 7)

E. Sex Ratio Skewing/Altering, Included in EA Although Not in Proposed Action

There is no scientific information or data to support the artificial skewing of the sex ratio. Wild horse natural sex ratios favor females – the natural ratio is generally between 55/45 female/male ranging up to 60+/40- 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 8) 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 9) 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 10) 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.”

VIII. Implement Humane Management with PZP Fertility Control

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. The BLM must allow work with volunteer groups to determine whether bait trapping may be effective to administer PZP. If not, the humane helicopter protocol 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.

IX. “Allowable” Management Level

The current “Allowable” Management Level (AML) of 70-115 horses for the 350-square-mile HMA is inadequate. AML must be in conformance with the 1971 Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act. The majority of AUMs or forage allocation within the WHT must be “principally but not necessarily exclusively to wild horses” as outlined in the 1971 Wild, Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act (WFRHBA). Based on current scientific evidence, in order to maintain an acceptable level of genetic diversity, AML must be set at a minimum of 150 to 200 horses (in order to have 50 effective breeding animals) as recommended for wild horse management in the BLM Wild Horse and Burro Handbook.

“A minimum population size of 50 effective breeding animals (i.e., a total population size of about 150-200 animals) is the minimum number of animals recommended to maintain an acceptable level of genetic diversity within reproducing WH&B populations.” (Cothran, Gus, 2009. BLM Letter dated July 16, 2009.) “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.”

The EA fails to provide any scientific support for yet again enforcing, through this EA, the current AML which is below 150-200 individuals needed for a healthy and sustainable population. Expecting that horses from an adjoining HMA will ensure a healthy population is not scientifically justifiable especially given that BLM has not conducted genetic testing on the Confusion wild horses.

Given the AUMs permitted and utilized by livestock within the HMA, and in conformance with WFRHBA which requires the HMA is managed principally for wild horses, AML should be set at minimum of 690 to 759 wild horses. This is based on the total AUMs permitted for livestock and wild horses and allocating 50-55% of the resource to wild horses. In truth the AML should be higher in order to be in conformance with “devoted principally” WFRHBA language which says the “their known territorial limits [Herd Areas]…is devoted principally” to the wild horses and burros. The EA must give this issue a hard look and provide the analysis and scientific justification for enforcing a known AML which is not in conformance with existing BLM regulations and federal law.

X. NEPA Requires Review and Analysis of CURRENT Conditions

The Proposed Action would continue through 2030 and the actions could continue beyond 2030. This highlights the uncertainty of implementing the proposed new, unproven and controversial actions over a 10-year period. Given the highly questionable short- and long-term safety, efficacy and impacts that will likely result from the actions outlined in the EA, a 10-year Decision Record is against the best interests of the public and puts the wild horses the agency is required to protect at risk. By issuing a 10-year Decision Record, the public’s ability to take legal action may be constrained. It is our right to oppose actions covered by the DR within the 10-year period as more information becomes available. Given that the Proposed Action includes vague and expansive terminology to include and implement currently untested fertility control methods, citizens would have no legal recourse to object to actions which may be taken in the future that would not be disclosed to the public.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires that agencies review current data and seek public input and information regarding governmental actions. Indicating that this EA would satisfy the NEPA requirement for future actions over the next 10 years is blatantly incorrect, unethical and sidetracks Congress’ intent to include the public and ensure that agencies have the best current information when making decisions.

Due to changing environmental conditions, a blanket, 10-year EA cannot be considered sufficient under NEPA. The final EA must fully disclose, describe and analyze specific and current range data, water availability, range usage (differentiating usage by livestock and horses), and the agency’s intended actions, and allow the public ample opportunity to review the data and comment on the proposed action, as required by NEPA. To reiterate, NEPA requires that the BLM conduct further environmental analysis and public comment for future wild horse roundups and management actions and cannot rely on an outdated,10-year old EA.

XI. Animal Welfare

The EA fails to adequately address the protection of wild horses during the proposed roundup. BLM’s “Comprehensive Animal Welfare Program (CAWP)” is woefully inadequate for establishing humane standards for the treatment of wild horses and burros during a roundup.

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 information to minimize stress and injury to wild horses during roundups must be analyzed including the following:

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. Every effort should be made to keep older, sick and young animals together with their companions or mothers as they are moved to the trap. This means that if animals fall behind, the helicopter must lift pressure on the group. 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 for a catch-treat-release PZP fertility control program as recommended previously in these comments – attached as the Addendum.

The EA must analyze and implement the following with regards to CAWP:

· Improved public observation of all agency actions. There is significant public interest in the agency’s management of wild horses and burros and its management of these protected animals. The NAS specifically recommended to the BLM to improve the transparency of its management of the Wild Horse and Burro Program (Attachment 1). The treatment of the wild horses and agency transparency are paramount.

· All removal operations must be located on public lands to allow public observation of all activities. No government operations should be located on private lands for which the owners will not give permission for public observation of activities.

· Real-time cameras with GPS should be installed on all aircraft and/or helicopters used in operations and video should be live streamed on the Internet. This will improve the transparency and accountability of roundup operations and enable the BLM and public to monitor the direct impact motorized vehicle usage has on wild horses and the environment.

· Real-time cameras should be installed on any traps, corrals and temporary holding pens, again, so that BLM personnel, public and media can monitor the entire roundup operation and treatment of the horses.

The recommendation of real-time cameras is also supported by a report commissioned by Cattoor Livestock Roundup, a long-time roundup contractor hired by the BLM which states:

“Video monitoring of animal operations is a good way to ensure humane handling is taking place on a daily basis. Video cameras mounted in helicopters and in the capture and holding pens can also render the activists’ videos as simply nothing more than proof that your business ‘walks the walk’ when it comes to upholding animal welfare standards.” The report was prepared by Mark J. Deesing, Animal Behavior & Facilities Design consultant for Grandin Livestock Handling System. Deesing was an assistant to the highly regarded livestock industry consultant Dr. Temple Grandin. (Attachment 13)

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.

XII. An EIS Is Required

The BLM cannot justify its failure to prepare an EIS on the highly controversial actions outlined in these comments; implementation of any of the actions would have major negative impacts to “wild” and “free-roaming” horses as intended by the WFRHBA. An EIS must be prepared for this proposed action to fully examine all direct, indirect and cumulative impacts and to address all the issues raised in these comments.

The issues raised in these comments, whether included in the Proposed Action or not, should be rejected because the EA fails to provide sufficient analysis of readily available alternative actions and is thus in violation of governing laws and statutes.

NEPA requires agencies to prepare an EIS regarding all “major Federal actions significantly affecting” the environment, 42 U.S.C. § 4332(C), and the CEQ implementing regulations set forth a number of criteria governing when an action is to be considered “significant” for this purpose. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27.

Here, there can be no legitimate doubt that, at the very least, there is certainly a “substantial question” regarding many of the CEQ “significance” factors.

First, the BLM’s proposal to implement highly controversial and dangerous sterilization will “cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources,” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27(b) – i.e., the very “wild” and “free-roaming” horses that Congress has declared are “living symbols of the historic and pioneer spirit of the West,” that are to be considered “an integral part of the natural system of the public lands.”

Second, the BLM has received thousands of comments from the public, over many years, detailing opposition to many of the actions outlined in the EA – including but not limited to gelding, ovariectomy, IUDs, Gonacon, sex ratio skewing, etc. BLM has received these public comments in response to various EAs, scoping and public meetings.

In light of the public’s opposition to these management approaches and particularly the experts’ consistent concerns about the dire environmental impacts it may have on the individual horses and the herds as a whole, it is clear that the environmental effects of the BLM’s action have been and remain “highly controversial.” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27(b);

“Controversy” under this factor also includes “substantial questions are raised as to whether a project . . . may cause significant degradation” of the environment. Anderson, 314 F.3d at 1018. There is tremendous scientific controversy regarding the use of dangerous sterilization strategies. Releasing geldings is known to have greater negative impacts to the environment (as cited herein); additionally, as previously stated there are negative impacts to the human environment for many of the proposed actions.

Lastly, the concerns and issues raised in this letter are precisely the types of uncertainty about environmental impacts that require preparation of an EIS. See Fund for Animals v. Norton, 281 F. Supp. 2d at 234 (“uncertainty as to the impact of a proposed action on a local population of a species, even where all parties acknowledge that the action will have little or no effect on broader populations, is a ‘basis for finding that there will be a significant impact’ and setting aside as FONSI”), quoting Anderson, 314 F.3d at 1018-2.

Lastly, implementing, through a Decision Record, any of the opposed actions outlined in this letter “may establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects,” [40 CFR 1508.27].

The EA fails to take a hard look at alternative actions, which may be implemented through adaptive management, that would allow the agency to fulfill its mandate to “protect” wild horses and maintain a thriving natural ecological balance.

XIII. Public Input

The NAS (Attachment 1) states:

The 1982 National Research Council report on the BLM’s wild horse and burro program stated:

“Attitudes and values that influence and direct public priorities regarding the size, distribution, and condition of horse herds, as well as their accessibility to public viewing and study, must be an important factor in the determination of what constitutes excess numbers of animals in any area… [A]n otherwise satisfactory population level may be controversial or unacceptable if the strategy for achieving it is not appropriately responsive to public attitudes and values…”

According to the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), under National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), “agencies are required to determine if their proposed actions have significant environmental effects and to consider the environmental and related social and economic effects of their proposed actions.”

The BLM has succeeded in doing one thing over the years: PROVED that this roundup-and-stockpile 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 creating an AML for burros is also necessary. Adaptive management could and should be used to postpone the removal of horses and burros until the RMP is amended. Working with the Nellis Air Force (AF) Base, the BLM should revise the HMA boundaries to include the entire (or areas approved by the AF) Range and increase AMLs for wild horses and burros.

XIV. Conclusion

The BLM must stop trying to manage wild horses as domestic horses.

Rounding up and removing 87% of the total wild horse population and sterilizing 50% of the 7 remaining horse will destroy all of the family units within this HMA. The wild horse band (family unit) and social structure, along with natural wild behaviors, are the most important components of wild horse society – and is what we, and the public, enjoy and appreciate about America’s wild horses.

We request that the important issues raised in this letter be disclosed and analyzed in an EIS.

The vast majority of Americans greatly cherish our iconic wild horses. We urge the BLM to be responsive to the public’s call for safe and humane management of wild horses in Utah, one that does not destroy or jeopardize natural wild behaviors. We urge BLM to take immediate actions to increase AML for horses and implement a large-scale humane management program for these iconic animals utilizing the widely-supported PZP fertility control vaccine which has been successfully and safely used in wild horses for decades.

Thank you for your consideration,

Ginger Kathrens

Executive Director

The Cloud Foundation

Attachments: Don’t worry about Attachments – I’ll work on them on Thursday and plug them in

1. “Using Science to Improve the BLM Wild Horse and Burro Program: A Way Forward,”

National Academy of Sciences, June 2013.

2. Expert statements on castration/gelding (attachments 2a-b)

3. BLM statement on geldings and population control

4. Ovariectomy articles (attachments 4a-h)

5. “Menopause … and Wild Horse Management,” Bruce Nock, Ph.D., Washington University

School of Medicine, Depts of Psychiatry and of Anatomy and Neurobiology, St. Louis, MO.

6. Ovariectomy/Castration abstracts

7. Gonacon articles (attachments 7a-b)

8. BLM Beatys Butte HMA EA and

9. BLM South Steens HMA EA

10. BLM Black Mountain and Hardtrigger HMA EA Ovariectomy/Castration abstracts

11. BLM WHB Program Handbook

12. NTTR RMP September 2001 and NTTR RMP July 2004 (attachments 12a-b)

13. Temple Grandin letter dated 2012

14. IUD articles (attachments 14a-b)

15. Daels, O-ring IUD article

16. New IUDs for suppressing estrus in mares

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 pre-capture evaluation. Pens should be made as large as possible to reduce stress and tension among the animals.

2. A number of holding pens should be constructed away from other pens and can be separated by alleyways in order to provide adequate space to reduce tensions between bachelor and harem bands.

3. Pens with shared paneling should have snow-fencing or a similar visual barrier on the shared paneling to minimize stallion interaction.

4. Bands, including bachelor bands, should housed individually. No mixing of social groups should occur.

5. The on-site holding pens should be equipped with stationery or mobile chutes and other necessary equipment to allow for processing and application of fertility drugs at the trap location.

6. In the event that holding pens are constructed at a separate location from the trap site, family bands members should be identified and documented and should be kept together at all times during the holding period.

D. Holding and Release of Wild Horses

1. Horses should be held in intact family bands, including bachelor bands.

2. Every effort should be made to treat and release horses in the shortest time possible, after the horses have been given time to rest and recover from the roundup, with the goal of treating and releasing horses within 24 hours of capture.

3. Bands should be released at the same trap location where they were captured.

4. Bands should be released individually, with sufficient time between band releases to allow the safe dispersal of horses back to the range.

# # #

[1] 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

Dana ZarrelloJuly 25, 2020