Moriah Herd Area Wild Horse Roundup PEA DOI-BLM-NV-L060-2020-0010-EA
July 24, 2020
Attn: Ben Noyes, Wild Horse and Burro Specialist
Bureau of Land Management, Ely District Office
702 N. Industrial Way, Ely, NV 89301
Submitted via email: blm_nv_eydo_moriah_ha_gather_ea@blm.gov
Dear Mr. Noyes,
On behalf of The Cloud Foundation (TCF), a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization committed to
protecting and preserving America’s wild horse and burros on our public lands through
education and advocacy, and our more than 500,000 supporters, I respectfully submit these
comments on the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) Preliminary Environmental Assessment
(EA) Moriah Herd Area Wild Horse Gather DOI-BLM-NV-L060-2020-0010-EA.
The PEA 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 removal of all wild horses living on public lands in the Moriah Herd Area, which is habitat
specifically designated by Congress for wild horses.
The EA uses the manufactured excuse that “it would be impossible to dart 100% of the mares”
to exempt themselves from implementing a humane, comprehensive PZP fertility control
program. However, they fail to use this same logic and apply it to their proposed action. It will
also be impossible to capture 100% of the horses during a roundup. If horses are left behind,
which they inevitably will be, they will begin breeding and eventually BLM will be back in the
same place we are now. Thus, this proposed action is an irresponsible and doomed expenditure
of millions of taxpayer dollars.
I. Intent of Congress Is Clear on Public Lands Designated as Wild Horse Habitat
The Proposed Action seeks to eliminate, or zero out, all wild
horses from the 55,300 acres of public lands which were
Congressionally-designated as wild horse habitat. The boundaries
of the Herd Area (HA) were specifically drawn to exclude adjacent
private lands as shown to the left.
The EA states the following are the basis for the elimination of all
wild horses from Moriah HA:
- “This EA and decision include addressing management needs in
regards to public safety, emergency situations and private
land issues.”
- “The Moriah HMA failed to meet one or more of the five required
habitat components” which are “forage, water, cover, space and
reproductive viability.”
Moriah HA Roundup EA
The Cloud Foundation comments
page 2
The BLM further states, “Approximately half of these 714 excess horses regularly move or
reside outside the HA in search of forage, water and space.” Meaning that approximately half of
all these horses live within the HA. This is clear evidence that there is sufficient forage, water,
and space and that the reproductive viability is strong.
While extenuating circumstances may sometimes exist to support such an extreme action as
that of zeroing-out a wild horse population, this EA fails to support such an action for the Moriah
HA.
A. 1971 Wild, Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act (Act)
The EA fails to consider the Congressional mandate for managing wild horses on public lands.
1. Congressional Intent Is Clear: Designated “Range” Is “Devoted Principally” for
Wild Horse Use
Congress clearly outlined in the Act that wild horses have a special, protected status.
The Act specifically identifies the "range" where wild horses were presently found (in 1971) as
“the land necessary to sustain an existing herd or herds of wild free-roaming horses.” The Act
then states this wild horse habitat “is devoted principally but not necessarily exclusively to
their [wild horses and burros] welfare...” [Public Law 92-195 § 1332]
Congress’ usage of the word “is” clearly indicates Congressional intention, which does not grant
BLM any discretion in whether the public lands should be devoted principally for wild horses.
Had Congress wanted to provide BLM with discretion, the word “may” would have been used.
Again, the clear language of the Act leaves no possible ambiguity about the intent of
Congress, or that wild horses “are to be considered in the area where presently found, as an
integral part of the natural system of the public lands.”
“If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court, as well as the
agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.” [Chevron, U.S.A.,
Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 467 U.S. 837, 842–43 (1984)].
BLM’s regulations state that “wild horses and burros shall be considered comparably with other
resource values in the formulation of land use plans.” [43 CFR 4700.0-6]1 The EA fails to render
a comparable evaluation of wild horse use of these public lands with that of privately-owned
livestock that use the same area - despite Congress’ clear intention that these public lands are
to be devoted principally to wild horses.
Additionally, Congress was clear in its requirement that “All management activities shall be at
the minimal feasible level...” Obviously, eliminating all wild horses is not a “minimal”
1 43 CFR 4700.0-6 Policy (a) Wild horses and burros shall be managed as self-sustaining populations of
healthy animals in balance with other uses and the productive capacity of their habitat. (b) Wild horses
and burros shall be considered comparably with other resource values in the formulation of land use
plans. (c) Management activities affecting wild horses and burros shall be undertaken with the goal of
maintaining free-roaming behavior.
Moriah HA Roundup EA
The Cloud Foundation comments
page 3
management action. In fact, nothing could be more extreme than eliminating an entire herd of
wild horses from lands specifically designated for their use.
The creators of the EA clearly fall into one of the two categories of BLM personnel noted in the
1982 National Research Council’s report on the BLM Wild Horse Program: “our experience also
suggests that the Bureau must be sensitive to considerable pockets of resistance to the
program within its own ranks and to the pressures which many district and area personnel
feel to depict range, population, and other conditions in an antihorse and antiburro context.”
2. National Academy of Sciences
The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) was founded in 1863 in the midst of the American
Civil War. The National Research Council (NRC) was founded in 1916 against the backdrop of
the First World War. These two independent research bodies have played significant roles to
ensure the U.S. government is provided balanced, fact-based information and data which
should be incorporated in governmental decision-making processes.
The Secretary of the Interior is instructed by the Act to consult with the NAS. The BLMcommissioned
2013 NAS report “Using Science to Improve the BLM Wild Horse and Burro
Program: A Way Forward” (NAS Report) (Attachment 2) 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
stated2:
“It continues to be obvious that the major motivation behind the wild horse and burro protection
program and a primary criterion of management success is public opinion. Attitudes and values
that influence and direct public priorities regarding the size, distribution, and condition of horse
herds, as well as their accessibility to public viewing and study, must be an important factor in
2 Department of the Interior and related agencies appropriations for fiscal year 1984 hearings before a
subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, United States Senate, Ninety-eighth Congress, first
session · Part 1
Moriah HA Roundup EA
The Cloud Foundation comments
page 4
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 consider the interests of those who cherish the opportunity to observe,
photograph, and otherwise enjoy wild horses and their natural behaviors in the Moriah HA …
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.
II. 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 horses and livestock on
WHTs. The EA fails to address this.
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
Moriah HA Roundup EA
The Cloud Foundation comments
page 5
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.
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 analyze these issues.
III. Taylor Grazing Act (TGA)
The TGA provides the government broad discretion to decide whether to allow livestock owners
to use public lands. The issuance of a grazing permit does not confer any entitlement or right to
use the public lands; rather, it is a privilege that can be taken away, if necessary, to protect the
health of the range and/or to protect the wild horses. See 43 U.S.C. § 315b (BLM, is
“authorized” to issue permits for the grazing of livestock on public lands “upon the payment . .
.of reasonable fees”); id. (“the creation of a grazing district or the issuance of a [grazing] permit .
Moriah HA Roundup EA
The Cloud Foundation comments
page 6
. . 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).
At least 4,021 AUMs (335 cows/horses annual equivalent) are permitted annually for the
livestock allotments within the HA’s public lands. That annual average use has been at least
1,855 AUMs (155 cows/horses annual equivalent). If these public lands can accommodate
hundreds of cows, there is no sound or legal basis for the elimination of all wild horses from this
HA.
The fact that the BLM has intentionally refused to implement a humane fertility control program
is not justification to eliminate all wild horses from Congressionally-designated wild horse
habitat. The EA claims the following:
“Monitoring data collected for the HA during the years 2012 through 2019 indicates
that forage utilization at key grazing areas by wild horses is heavy severe in
established key grazing areas. Insufficient water, space, and cover within dominant
ecological sites does not support healthy wild horses, and this situation has led to
excess utilization and trampling that directly impacts range conditions and prevents
vegetative recovery of key sites…”
Yet, despite these environmental concerns, it is important to note that the BLM continues to
permit livestock grazing in the HA. The BLM should have managed the wild horse population
through humane fertility control, which would have mitigated the need for the Proposed Action.
Instead, the BLM refused to implement humane fertility control and instead allowed wild horse
populations to expand in order to manufacture the current conditions. Wild horses should not
pay the price for the BLM’s failure to uphold its obligation to manage wild horses as per the Wild
Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act. The BLM has intentionally manufactured conditions
through negligence and then turns around claiming the agency cannot manage the horses in
Moriah and must instead remove all horses; this is the epitome of contrived bureaucratic actions
that exhibit an anti-wild horse bias.
The EA fails to analyze alternatives that would avoid the need for the Proposed Action.
Hiding behind the 13-year-old Land Use Plan (LUP) is not acceptable given that NAS and BLM
itself have highlighted the need to implement adaptive management and that LUPs cannot be
the only consideration.
IV. 43 C.F.R. 4710 Management Considerations
The EA fails to take a hard look at the BLM authority to temporarily or permanently reduce or
eliminate livestock grazing from the public lands in the HMA pursuant to 43 C.F.R. 4710.5(a).
This regulation allows the BLM to temporarily or permanently close a public land area to
livestock grazing, "If necessary, to provide habitat for wild horses or burros…” The BLM has the
Moriah HA Roundup EA
The Cloud Foundation comments
page 7
discretion to implement this policy either temporarily or permanently and this action is available
whether or not there is an emergency.
Instead, the BLM falsely claims that, “this authority is usually applied in cases of emergency and
not for general management of wild horses since it cannot be applied in a manner that would be
inconsistent with the existing land-use plans.” (43 CFR § 4710.1)” 43 CFR § 4710.1 merely
states, “Management activities affecting wild horses and burros, including the establishment of
herd management areas, shall be in accordance with approved land use plans prepared
pursuant to part 1600 of this title.” There is nothing in part 43 CFR part 1600, nor any BLM
regulation, that prohibits the BLM from amending the LUP or delaying the Proposed Action
until such amending could be implemented.
Clearly, the Moriah HA has the necessary components for a thriving wild horse population – if it
didn’t, there wouldn’t be more than 700 horses living in the area. The EA fails to adequately
address these issues.
43 CFR § 1610.5-3 states, “Any person adversely affected by a specific action being proposed
to implement some portion of a resource management plan or amendment may appeal such
action pursuant to 43 CFR 4.400 at the time the action is proposed for implementation.”
The EA fails to consider utilizing the agency's Adaptive Management mandate and its discretion
under 43 C.F.R. 4710.3-2 and 43 C.F.R. 4710.5(a), which allows for the reduction or elimination
of grazing for privately-held animals in order to improve conditions and forage availability for
federally-protected wild horses or burros.
V. 43 CFR 4700.0-6 Policy
BLM statute 43 CFR 4700.0-6 clearly establishes the policies for the agency’s management of
wild horses. The EA fails to adhere to these policies by proposing to zero-out all horses from the
Moriah HA.
43 CFR 4700.0-6 states in part:
“(b) Wild horses and burros shall be considered comparably with other resource values
in the formulation of land use plans.
(c) Management activities affecting wild horses and burros shall be undertaken with the goal of
maintaining free-roaming behavior.”
The EA fails to take a hard look at 43 CFR 4700.06(b), given the proposal to zero-out all wild
horses while allowing livestock grazing to continue and perhaps increase after the horses are
removed. The statute specifically states that horses “shall be considered comparable with other
resource values in the formulation of land use plans.” If the Proposed Action is implemented, the
BLM will not be in conformance with this statute, because they are not treating wild horses in
the Moriah HA as “comparable” - or the same as - livestock that graze in the same area.
VI. Cumulative Impacts
Moriah HA Roundup EA
The Cloud Foundation comments
page 8
The EA fails to disclose or analyze the cumulative impact of the Proposed Action in relation to
other federally-designated wild horse habitats in Nevada which the agency has previous zeroedout.
The BLM has zeroed-out wild horses from 29% of the original federal wild horse habitat on
public lands in the state of Nevada. That number increases to 32% when including all Herd
Areas in Nevada. Yet, the BLM continues to permit livestock grazing in the vast majority, if not
all, of these same areas.
The Proposed Action will further increase this wipe out, or elimination, of wild horses on our
public lands in Nevada. On the whole, the agency has reduced wild horses on all federal lands
designated for their use by 36%. Currently, BLM only manages wild horses and burros on 64%
of the original public lands identified by Congress for wild horse and burro habitat.
BLM has wiped out wild horses and burros from more than 1 of every 3 acres of public lands
that Congress designated “principally” for wild horse and burro usage. (Attachment 7) The EA
fails to consider the cumulative impacts of the Proposed Action on the metapopulation of wild
horses throughout the state and nationally.
VII. An EIS Is Required
The BLM cannot justify its failure to prepare an EIS on this highly controversial action to zeroout
all horse from the Moriah HMA. An EIS must be prepared for this proposed action to fully
examine all direct, indirect and cumulative impacts.
The actions opposed, as outlined in this letter - 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. Instead, the agency
must establish a new and valid AML as described above.
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
Moriah HA Roundup EA
The Cloud Foundation comments
page 9
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.
The concerns and issues raised in this letter are precisely the types of uncertainty about
environmental impacts that require preparation of an EIS. [See Fund for Animals v. Norton, 281
F. Supp. 2d at 234 (“uncertainty as to the impact of a proposed action on a local population of a
species, even where all parties acknowledge that the action will have little or no effect on
broader populations, is a ‘basis for finding that there will be a significant impact’ and setting
aside as FONSI”), quoting Anderson, 314 F.3d at 1018-2.]
Implementing, through a Decision Record, any of the opposed actions outlined in this letter
“may establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects,” [40 CFR 1508.27].
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 toboth “protect” wild
horses on their designated lands in the Moriah HMA and also maintain a thriving natural
ecological balance in the HMA.
VIII. NEPA Requires Review and Analysis of CURRENT Conditions
The Proposed Action would continue through 2030 and related 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 conditions 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 the wild horses the agency is required to protect. 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. The Proposed Action uses vague and expansive terminology to include and
implement currently untested fertility control methods. As such, citizens would have no legal
recourse to object to actions which may be taken in the future,and which may 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. Itmust also allow the public ample opportunity to
Moriah HA Roundup EA
The Cloud Foundation comments
page 10
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.
IX. Animal Welfare
The EA fails to adequately address the protection of wild horses during the proposed roundup.
The BLM’s “Comprehensive Animal Welfare Program (CAWP)” is woefully inadequate in
establishing humane standards for the treatment of wild horses and burros during a roundup. It
must go further in its protection of these animals.
If helicopters are to be used as a part of any management, the plan must consider, analyze and
implement humane standards as outlined in the below recommendations. These
recommendations are necessary to reduce potential stress and harm to the wild horses during a
roundup. The EA must consider the following information to minimize trauma and injury to wild
horses during a roundup:
a) Limit the distance wild horses may be chased by a helicopter to no more than five (5)
miles.
b) Require that the helicopter not chase/move wild horses at a pace that exceeds the
natural rate of movement of the slowest animal. This means that if an animal begins to
lag behind, the helicopter must lift pressure off the band so as to bring them in together.
c) 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. The helicopter should not move
or capture compromised, old, weak or young animals.
d) 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 consider and implement the following with regards to CAWP:
• Improved public observation of all agency actions. There is significant public interest in the
agency’s management of wild horses and burros and its management of these protected
animals. The NAS specifically recommended to the BLM to improve the transparency of its
management of the Wild Horse and Burro Program (Attachment 1). The treatment of the
wild horses and agency transparency are paramount.
• All removal operations must be located on public lands to allow public observation of all
activities. No government operations should be located on private lands for which the
owners will not give permission for public observation of activities.
• Real-time cameras with GPS should be installed on all aircraft and/or helicopters used in
operations and video should be live streamed on the Internet. This will improve the
transparency and accountability of roundup operations and enable the USFS 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 USFS 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:
Moriah HA Roundup EA
The Cloud Foundation comments
page 11
“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 8)
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.
VIII. Conclusion
In summary, as an interested and affected party, I will be harmed if the BLM proceeds with
eliminating horses from the Moriah HA. It is time for the BLM tto listen to the American people,
stop pitting American against American, and create win-win solutions so advocates and
ranchers can work together.
We request that the important issues raised in this letter be disclosed and analyzed in the EA.
The vast majority of Americans greatly cherish our iconic wild horses. We urge the BLM to be
responsive to the public’s call for a fair and equitable program for our wild horses, one that
manages the public lands in the Moriah HA primarily for wild horses.
Thank you for your consideration,
Ginger Kathrens
Executive Director
The Cloud Foundation
Attachments:
1. xxx
x. “Using Science to Improve the BLM Wild Horse and Burro Program: A Way Forward,”
National Academy of Sciences, June 2013.
x. BLM Herd Management Area statistics, 2019
x. Temple Grandin letter dated 2012
Moriah HA Roundup EA
The Cloud Foundation comments
page 12
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 preMoriah
HA Roundup EA
The Cloud Foundation comments
page 13
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.
# # #