July 18, 2008
James M. Sparks, Field Manager
Jared Bybee, State Wild Horse and Burro Specialist
Bureau of Land Management
Billings Field Office
5001 Southgate Drive
Billings, Montana 59101
Comments: Environmental Assessment MT-010-08-33
Thank up for the opportunity to comment on the referenced EA on behalf of The Cloud Foundation (TCF), Ginger Kathrens personally, The Colorado Wild Horse and Burro Coalition, Toni Moore personally, The American Mustang and Burro Association, Barbara Flores, personally, Craig Downer personally, and our thousands of supporters in the United States and around the world.
We would like to point out that this EA calling for the removal of 38 Pryor Mountain Wild Horses fails to mention what would be done with the wild horses once they are removed, vital information that is conspicuously absent.
The EA on page 29 specifically states that “Current mandates prohibit the destruction of healthy animals that are removed or deemed to be excess. Only sick, lame, or dangerous animals can be euthanized, and destruction is no longer used as a population control method.”
This is not the case based on the recent announcements by BLM indicating that euthanasia is something the agency is considering for wild horses currently in captivity.
It is essential that the public be notified of what will happen to the horses once they are captured and whether they could be subject to euthanasia. The public should be afforded additional time to assess this new information in their in their comments.
We ask that this EA be modified to include what you are proposing to do with the up to 38 Pryor Wild Horses you would remove and to clarify the BLM position on killing wild horses in captivity, which could very well include these animals, especially if you remove horses not protected by the WHB Act as amended by the Conrad Burns rider to the Appropriations Bill in November of 2004.
1.3 Where is the range data “correlating census data with vegetation monitoring data to determine the level of wild horse use”? Just saying what the data concludes does not allow the public to look at the data for themselves.
We have not seen data correlating horse use with range conditions. Certainly the NRCS Report did not make this connection. In fact, at the NRCS oral presentation in Billings the presenter was asked how horse use related to plant health, to which he responded that “We didn’t look at the horses.”
Is the data to which you refer the same data you used in writing the HMAP? If so, Jeff Powell, PhD, CRMC, CPR was able to review the data provided after a request from Valerie Stanley, Esq. He began his report by stating that "After reviewing both the PMWHR Draft Range Evaluation and the PMWHR HMAP, I believe the HMAP plan to remove almost half a herd of wild horses from the range is inadequately substantiated. The conclusions reached in the Range Evaluation are not statistically valid because of too few data points for 39,000 acres. In addition, certain critical data and explanation of methodology are missing from the Evaluation. This omission significantly influences the credibility of the conclusions used for the HMAP." (Exhibit 1- Powell review of range conditions)
When TCF was able to acquire data from other sources, we found that the 2007 measurements were for 6 “key area sites”. Consider that the Pryor range is around 39,000 acres. 6 sites cannot adequately represent an area this large and diverse.
On page 8 you say that “The area has experienced years of drought with only four of 12 years with above average precipitation levels.” Where is the data to back this up? And you say “above average precipitation” as if average precipitation was a bad thing. How many years of the 12 have had average or above average precipitation? Again, we see no references listed or data provided to back up this statement.
You speak of drought but the drought monitor does not rate the area as being in a drought. (U.S. Drought Monitor as of July 8, 2008
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/expert_assessment/seasonal_drought.pdf
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/expert_assessment/drought_monitor.pdf)
2007-2008 produced an above average snow pack and abundant rains which have continued into July causing the Custer National Forest to order a road closures including: “Dryhead Vista Road to BLM Horse Range Boundary cattle guard are closed to all motor vehicles Title 36 Code of Federal Regulations 261.54(a) and (b). The roads are closed due to erosion control (heavy snow and water causing soil and water damage)." Obviously, this area is not in a drought.
Also on page 8 you write that “During winter and spring of 2008, there has been a decline in the wild horses’ body condition. The combination of excess wild horses with a cold winter and late spring has reduced the available forage for wild horses. Removal of excess wild horses would produce more forage for the remaining population.”
There is always a pendulum swing of weight for the Pryor wild horses. They lay on fat going into winter and gradually lose weight until spring green up. Those of us who have observed the herd for many years in all seasons see this every year, not just this past winter.
(Exhibit 2--Photographs of wild horses July, 2008) The mare in Photo 2, page 8 of the EA is 9525. No date was given on the photo but it appears to be from May of 2008 prior to spring green up. The mare in the photo, whom I have known since she was a few weeks old, has a naturally light, very Spanish body style which is different than some of the thicker, blockier horses on the Pryors. She was also still nursing her yearling in May. Compare the picture taken in May with the same mare in early July. (Exhibit 4---Mare 9525)
Compare the BLM mare picture on the cover page of the EA, mare 8816, with the picture taken in July of the same mare. (Exhibit 5—Mare 8816).
An independent equine veterinarian, R.L. Parker, DVM of Elbert, CO, reviewed the photographs taken of the horses this month, concluding that the Pryor "horses appear to be in good flesh." Using the Henneke Scale, he indicated that one mare was a 5 (ideal) and the rest were 6 (moderate fleshy) to 7 (fleshy). (Exhibit 15--R.L. Parker email).
Clearly, this is not a removal that needs to move forward on the basis of compromised horse health or declining range conditions. (Exhibit 3—Range condition photos June, 2008)
1.4 On page 11 The BLM states that : “Minimum viable population (MVP) size is a moving target. Part of the hypothesis behind MVP is that populations are not manipulated by human intervention, and it’s generally about 100 years before a population is at risk due to a loss of genetic variation.” There is no reference or data supplied to support this confusing statement. The population is manipulated by human intervention. And, this statement doesn’t reveal whether all mammals are being lumped together here or if this refers to just one species. Is this from the Scribner reference cited later?
The EA states that their primary goal with respect to management of the PMWHR is: “Wild horses are to be managed as free-roaming, self sustaining (emphasis added) populations of healthy animals . . .” Yet, by this action, the adult population would fall to around 130 adult wild horses over the age of one which does not meet minimum viability standards as outlined in a number of studies.
According to Gus Cothran, a genetically viable population minimum is 150 individuals, 50 of which are generally expected to be successful breeding adults in wild horse populations. However in personal conversations with Dr. Cothran, he expressed his concern with having a Ne of 50 and indicated his support of a greater Ne to guard against the uncertainties of living in the wild (predation, weather, disease). He indicated that the herd is experiencing some genetic loss at the current levels.
Gary Wockner, Francis Singer, and Kate Schoenecker write in their report (An Animal Location-Based Habitat Suitability Model for Bighorn Sheep and Wild Horses in Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area and the Pryor Mountain Wild Horse Range, Montana and Wyoming, August 1, 2004). “Since the Ne>-50 goal is set for the breeding of domestic animals, and since the vagaries of drought, severe winters, predation, and other stochastic events cause stress in wild animals, larger goals for Ne (e.g. Ne>-100) for wild horses are even more desirable (emphasis added)”. (USDI, BLM 1999). A Ne of 100 would mean that the herd would need to grow to 300 to be truly safe from the vagaries mentioned in this report.
You again refer to “Deteriorating range and forest conditions. . .” on page 10, when the range is in an improving condition based on personal conversations with long time residents. And the longevity of the Pryor horses speaks volumes about the health of their habitat. There are currently 30 horses over 15 and, amazingly, 8 horses who are 20 or older (4 males and 4 females). Over the past 14 years, there was only one horse who reached the age of 20 and one other, Flash, who lived to be 26. If the range were in a deteriorating condition, the horses would not be living longer.
1.5. On page 12, the EA dismisses Range Expansion, saying “Wild horses can only be managed on areas of public lands where they were known to exist in 1971, at the time of the passage of the Act”. This statement is factually inaccurate. Personal observations and photographs clearly attest to the presence of wild horses in an area which included the west edge of the Bighorn Canyon to near Warren, including East Pryor and Red Pryor Mountains, the Crooked Creek drainage, the Sage Creek drainage, Commissary Ridge, Tony Island, Tillett and Sykes Ridges and south to near Cowley, Wyoming.
First-hand observations of Gail Tillett Goode (Exhibit 6—Tillett Goode letter), Hope Ryden (Exhibit 7—Ryden letter/photograph) Reverend Floyd Schweiger (Exhibit 8—Schweiger Video Interview May 23, 2005), Ferrill Mangus, Garrett Despain, John Nickle and others attest to the presence of horses west of the designated range in the Custer National Forest and BLM lands, during and after passage of the Wild Horse and Burro Act of 1971. Photographic evidence of horses in the FS around the 1971 date also exists.
Hermann Krueger who addressed a group at the Pryor Mountain Complex Meeting in Red Lodge, MT on July 11, 1973 mentioned the presence of wild horses in the undesignated range. His statement from that meeting appears on page 21 of the May 23, 1974 Pryor Mountain Complex Land Use Decisions: “Tony Island (on the Custer National Forest) was the principal hangout for range horses as there was water there, as well as grass. If any place could have been classed as prime horse range on Pryor Mountain that was it and that is where they were in number.” (Tony Island remains a “hangout” for wild horses, yet it is not included in the legal wild horse range.) (Exhibit 9--- page 21 Pryor Mountain Complex Land Use Decisions)
Big Pryor in the FS was also used by the wild horses as reported in David Harvey’s history of the range: A General Historical Survey of the Pryor Mountains page 20. “Jim Donley of Cowley used to round up horses during the forties and fifties on Big Pryor. . .”
(Exhibit 10--- page 20 Harvey History 1974)
Francis Singer, PhD in the Manager’s Summary: Ecological Studies of the Pryor Mountain Wild Horse Range 1992-1997, p. 76) writes that “the population was much larger prior to 1971 (n= 270 horses), although completion of the PMWHR boundary fence in 1970, which excluded 40 horses and a large winter kill and starvation losses (51%) in 1977-78 reduced the herd.” Note that 40 horses were outside the boundary fence in 1970 on the undesignated forest service lands. (Exhibit 13 Dr. Singer Ecology Study)
Ron Hall, who conducted a 1971 survey of the area and compiled his data in Wild Horse Biology and Alternatives for Management, mentions on page 53 the presence of wild horses on Demi John Flat which could easily be used for an expanded wild horse range. He also mentions how this area could be used by the public to view the horses. We wholeheartedly agree. The Crooked Creek road does not require a four wheel drive vehicle and the “excellent forage conditions” Ron mentions as well as the scenic vistas would make this a popular viewing spot for the public and a popular grazing area for the horses in an expanded range. Ron on page 54 mentions that “All of the Custer National Forest is also potential wild horse range.”(Exhibit 11--- pages 53-54 Hall report)
Hall in an Email to Patricia Fazio in 2003 indicated that “Horse use was present on the old ‘Mystic Allotment’ or Herman Kruger Allotment on the top of the mountain. The area over towards the Dryhead Overlook was not used much by horses but there was an occasional horse in these areas on top of the mountain.” Ron does not say in which season flights were made which could affect the number of horses he saw in this area. (Exhibit 12--- Hall email)
Despite documentation supporting the presence of wild horses in undesignated portions of the FS lands, the Custer National Forest has been reluctant to add the historic range to the designated range citing possible wilderness designation of this historic range as a reason to disallow legal status for the wild horses. Wild horses are present in a dozen or more designated Wilderness areas and were present prior to the designation of these Wilderness Areas and, in most cases, the agencies who manage those lands. (Exhibit 13-- Craig Downer summary)
In August 2005, John Nickle and I met with Gail Kimbell when she was the Regional Forest Supervisor. In that meeting Ms. Kimbell stated to us that she had “no problem with wild horses in Wilderness.” And, subsequently, FS personnel traveled to the mountain to assess areas for potential wild horse expansion. However, expansion seems to be a sticking point with either the BLM or the Custer National Forest. Perhaps, now that Ms. Kimbell is the Chief of the U.S. National Forest, and Steve Williams is the Custer National Forest supervisor, real strides can be made in adding this historic FS wild horse use area to the designated range connecting with and including the BLM’s Demi-John Flat.
TCF et al. recommend that BLM work with the Custer National Forest to incorporate these current and historical rangelands into the designated Pryor Wild Horse Herd Range. Formally expanding the range would allow for a viable, self-sustaining wild horse herd of 300 adult animals.
And we recommend that the FS and BLM work with the Montana Wilderness Association, the Wilderness Society, TCF et al. and other organizations as well as the public to formally designate this as a wilderness area. It is our belief and the belief of others that the famous Pryor wild horse herd will assist in getting this accomplished for Eastern Montana.
We endorse the language on page 63 in the 2008 HMAP Draft which refers to the WSA as follows: “This unit is in the heart of the PMWHR, and the supplemental attribute of the free-roaming wild horse herd enhance the wilderness characteristics of the area.” If you believe what you wrote in that draft than let’s expand the herd area and work together for wilderness designation.
This is an issue of vital importance to the long term survival of the Pryor herd. Expansion would solve the viability issue once and for all, as a much larger herd could live on the Pryors in a population suggested by Dr. Singer in his Habitat Suitability study (300 horses).
Range Expansion would put to rest the expensive, intrusive, and ill advised augmentation idea. TCF does not support any periodic augmentation of the Pryor Mountain horse herd through the importation of wild horses from other herds. The only reason for importing outside horses is a significant loss of genetic make-up in the herd due to managing the horse population at a non-sustainable level (i.e. too few horses). The BLM is required to maintain the herd at sustainable levels per the Wild Horse and Burro Act of 1971. Hope Ryden, one of the writers of the draft that eventually became the 1971 WHB Act, indicated that the drafters clearly meant sustainable to be interpreted as “self-sustaining”, a word that you use in several places in this EA.
Until expansion occurs, the herd should not be taken under the minimum level of 150-185 adult animals and the animals currently living in the Forest Service should be allowed to stay.
Back in 1999, Field Manager Sandra Brooks realized that BLM was managing for too few horses when she stated: “Preliminary evidence suggests that the herd has been managed at dangerously minimum levels for the past 25 years and an increase in established appropriate management levels (AML’s) will need to be considered in order to preserve the genetic viability of the herds. Several options are available to help remedy this situation – one of which is the potential for range expansion. . .” (Exhibit 14—Complete Brooks letter)
Ironically, when Sandra Brooks wrote that letter in 1999 the adult population of wild horses on the Pryor Mountains was exactly the same as 2008 when BLM issued this EA calling for removals.
2.1 The EA states that “If the animals were not able to be sorted at the trap, the entire band would be transported to Britton Springs. Any animals not identified for removal would be released back onto the range.” Would the horses be transported back to the area where they were captured or released at Britton Springs? This is important to note as some band members have never been to Britton Springs and would not readily know how to return to their home areas, potentially causing social unrest and band instability. If bands are taken to Britton Springs, it is important that they be returned to the capture site.
You discuss trap sites which would be placed in or adjacent to WSA. The last time bait trapping was conducted on the Kruger Family Foundation property, it destroyed the area in and around the trap site. We believe that this trap, which is adjacent to a WSA, should be rehabilitated. Because this type of clearly destructive undertaking diminishes wilderness attributes, we believe that no traps should be placed in or adjacent to a WSA.
4.1 On page 17 you write that “Predation and disease do not substantially regulate wild horse population levels.” In this one sentence you dismiss the proven ability of predators to hold the herd at zero population growth and the clear benefit of implementing a natural management strategy whereby predator and prey populations would be allowed to regain a natural ecosystem balance for the benefit of all wildlife in the Pryor Mountains. A natural management strategy would lessen the need for round-ups and bait trapping. We are not saying that BLM should not have the ability to remove animals, but are encouraging a more enlightened approach which is far less disruption and much more cost effective.
Allowing for a balance of predator and prey would save the horses the considerable stress they undergo as a result of these practices, as well as saving substantial taxpayer dollars. Adopting natural management was referred to in the 1984 BLM PMWHR Management Area Plan, which states that: “One of the agencies management goals for the horse range is to maintain, as nearly as is possible, the natural balance between all levels of flora and fauna” (p. 28).
Natural herd management has been successful in the Montgomery Pass herd area on the central California-Nevada border for over 20 years. Round-ups have not been conducted since 1984 due to mountain lion predation, according to researcher John W. Turner, Jr., PhD who spent 10 years in the field studying the lion/horse relationship.
Dr. Turner writes that “. . .no human intervention has been required in more than 17 years---a stark contrast to every other wild-horse range in the United States. . .” (Equus 2001, p. 78). A 1995 article featuring Turner’s research reported that “While 90 percent of the foals in other parts of the Great Basin survived to become yearlings, only 25 to 40 percent at Montgomery Pass made it to their first birthday. An investigation suggested the cause: "The range wasn't overpopulated," Turner says. "Mountain lions had it under control." (National Wildlife, 1995)
The Pryor Wild Horse Herd has demonstrated self-management in the past, when it was at zero population growth and then declined in 2004 by 11 percent due to mountain lion predation. When three lions were killed in the winter of 2004/2005 the horse population increased. In the winter of 2006/2007, two more lions were killed and there was no apparent predation on the 2007 foal crop. However predation is present in 2008. Two yearlings were lost and four foals so far and the claw mark of a lion was quite apparent on the right shoulder of the foal born to Mare 2517. (Exhibit 17 Foal picture)
The killing of mountain lions has a direct result on foal survival according to Dr. John Turner. In his scholarly document: Influence of Predation by Mountain Lions on Numbers and Survivorship of a Feral Horse Population (John W. Turner, Jr., Michael L. Morrison The Southwestern Naturalist, Vol. 46, No. 2 (Jun., 2001), pp. 183-190,) Turner states that “increased foal survival during the latter part of our study, and especially during 1997, was apparently related to a substantial decrease in the number of lions.”
TCF et al. recommends that the BLM work closely with the Wyoming and Montana wildlife officials to suspend all hunting of mountain lions in the wild horse range and adjoining Custer National Forest Lands.
We have no reason to believe that the BLM cannot have significant influence on the Montana and Wyoming wildlife agencies. Case in point: In 1999 it was reported that NPS managers suggested that the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks suspend hunting of the declining bighorn herd. State officials instead issued only one hunting permit for the herd. State officials decreased the number of hunting permits on the request of the NPS.
Mountain lions are the natural and top predators of wild horses in the Pryor Mountains, and their periodic absence has led to an unbalanced ecosystem.
This EA does not even mention the words “mountain lion”, apparently ignoring the role that predators play in regulating their prey base (deer and wild horse foals and yearlings). This dynamic equilibrium will fluctuate with predator and prey numbers adjusting to each other over time.
It also appears that BLM has an unwillingness to “let nature take its course.” Whether this reflects a lack of knowledge or a lack of appreciation of natural systems is unclear. What is quite clear is the BLM’s reliance on intrusive human manipulation that intrudes on the natural order, has been harmful to the wild horses, and has proven to be costly to the American taxpayers.
Interestingly, mountain lions were discussed in a more positive by BLM way back in 1984 : “The mountain lion has the greatest potential of being a predator of the wild horse herd…this method of biological control of herd numbers is endorsed by all three agencies” (p. 28). Yet, this EA does not endorse or acknowledge the biological potential for control. Instead they endorse round ups and bait trapping. The TCF et al. and the public as a whole do not agree with this position as BLM no doubt knows.
We encourage BLM to make natural management a cornerstone of a new, less intrusive management strategy.
4.5 On page 22 BLM writes that “Wild horses are aggressive around water sources. Some animals may not be able to compete, which could lead to the death of individual animals.” This is an outrageous, undocumented statement. Wild horse stallions defend their mares, yes, but any horse has the ability to move away or go to the other side of the water hole to avoid conflict. If BLM is referring to the little tank recently installed on Burnt Timber where only a few horses can drink at one time, I imagine there could be some competition. But, to say that horses will die while competing for water is misleading to members of the public who have no experience with natural wild horse behavior.
5.0 Again, BLM writes of “Resource damage. . .” with no accompanying documentation or data. The EA states that “BLM’s policy is to conduct gathers in order to facilitate a four-year gather cycle.” This is exactly the entrenched, intrusive management style which appears to look at wild horses more as livestock than as a wildlife species.
Ignoring the historic range of the Pryor wild horses and the role of predators in controlling their numbers, discounting the ability of wild horses to self regulate their population in response to changing range conditions (density dependency) and to produce fewer foals based on their population size and resources (compensatory reproduction), appears to lead BLM into making costly and intrusive decisions which have worked against the health and stability of the Pryor wild horse herd.
Words like “viable, vigorous, and stable” describe BLM goals for the horse herd in the EA, yet we believe that the Proposed Action will have the opposite effect. For this reason and the other reasons we state in our response, we strongly urge you to select the No Action alternative. We would appreciate a response to our questions. Thank you.
Toni Moore,
Colorado Wild Horse and Burro Coalition
Barbara Flores,
The American Mustang and Burro Association, Inc.
Craig Downer,
Wildlife Ecologist