July 11, 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

Re: Pryor Mountain Wild Horse Range /Territory Preliminary Environmental Assessment
and Draft HMAP

On behalf of The Cloud Foundation, Taurus Productions, Inc., Ginger Kathrens, The Colorado Wild Horse and Burro Coalition and Toni Moore personally, as well as our thousands of supporters, thank you for allowing us to make comments based on your PMWHR HMAP.

If we misinterpreted certain points you were making or explanations of range plants and improvements please excuse us, but we found the document very confusing in places. A more substantive response would certainly have been possible if the document were written more clearly and pertinent range data supplied. The following are our comments based on the information provided as well as the assessments of experts in the fields of range conservation and equine genetics.

1. References to the Wild Horse and Burro Act of 1971

Not just clarity but accuracy is a concern in reading the HMAP. Early on when, on page 15, under the heading ISSUES STUDIED IN DETAIL under the sub-heading Ecological Conditions, you state that “The BLM and Forest Service are prohibited from allowing a “deterioration of the range associated with an overpopulation of wild horses.” (PL 92-195). PL 92-195 is the Wild and Free Roaming Horse and Burro Act passed in 1971 by Congress to protect and manage wild horses and burros on public lands. The wording you quote is not to be found in the Act.

Under the next sub-heading entitled Appropriate Management Level (AML) you state that: AML as “identified by the Wild and Free Roaming Horse and Burro Act (PL92- 195).” AML was not mentioned or discussed in the 1971 Act. You go on to state that “The Act mandates to ‘protect the range from the deterioration associated with overpopulation’ (PL 92-195). This wording does not appear in the Act either.

Under the sub-heading Genetic Viability you state that “Managing wild horses in a manner designed to maintain a thriving natural ecological balance within the productive capacity of the habitat is mandated by the Act.” The Act does not state this. What it does state is that “The Secretary shall manage wild free-roaming horses and burros in a manner that is designed to achieve and maintain a thriving natural ecological balance on the public lands.”

This is not the first time that BLM has either accidentally or intentionally misled the public by creating language that simply does not appear in the Wild Horse and Burro Act when it appears to suit their desires. It brings into question the accuracy of the rest of the document in areas not so easily cross-referenced.

What is in the original Act is this clause “All management activities shall be at the minimal feasible level. . .” While this HMAP presents a number of range improvements we endorse, it certainly violates the spirit of the 1971 Act by recommending the most manipulative and invasive techniques currently available. Instead of implementing range improvements and monitoring the success of these efforts first, it calls for the removal of nearly half of the Pryor Wild Horse Herd. (Exhibit 1: PL92-195 Wild, Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971)

2. Population genetics

The HMAP recommends that only 90 horses can live on the range, creating a non-viable herd according to the studies and comments of various genetics experts and BLM field Manager Sandra Brooks.

In April of 2005, Dr. Gus Cothran, an equine geneticist, responded to a BLM plan to reduce the herd to 100 for a maximum of five years stating that “This is a difficult decision and there are serious risks to the herd regardless of how the reductions are handled. It cannot be over emphasized that an effective population size of 50 that we have so often discussed is the absolute minimum and there will always be great uncertainty in translating census size to effective size. Also, the smaller the census size the greater the risks due to natural catastrophes . . . five years should be set a maximum time span and if range conditions improve, herd size should be increased as soon as possible to minimize both the unavoidable impact and the increased risks that the reduced population size exposes the Pryor herd to.” (Emphasis added) (Exhibit 2 Complete Cothran letter April 2005)

According to Dr. Cothran a genetically viable population minimum is 150 individuals, assuming that roughly 1/3 (50 adult horses) are generally expected to be successful breeding adults in wild horse populations. As Dr. Cothran states above, this effective population number (Ne) is the “absolute minimum”. In personal conversations with Dr. Cothran, he has expressed his concern with having an Ne of only 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.

Dr. Cothran stated in an email this week that “. . . The numbers we are talking about are minimal numbers from a genetic standpoint and that must be understood. The selection for type does add more potential to lower genetic variation, (emphasis added) both from the standpoint of removing animals that represent different genetics and due to selection itself. The heterozygosity number they use of .25 should be .31. Also, that specific number will have to be changed because it is based upon blood typing and we are not using that technology anymore. For DNA the number for the critical heterozygosity level is .659. (Exhibit 3 complete Cothran email)

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). “Wild horses are not prone to rapid disease die-offs. However, minimum goals for genetic viability in the Pryor Mountain wild horses (Ne<50) require that at least160 animals be present on the range (Singer et al. 2000). 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). (Exhibit 4 Habitat Suitability Study p. 2)

A Ne of 100 then would mean that the herd would need to grow to around 300 to be truly safe from the vagaries mentioned in this report.

BLM Field Office Manager, Sandra S. Brooks, wrote in a July 7, 1999 letter to Rand Herzberg, District Ranger in Red Lodge (Exhibit 20), that “Preliminary evidence suggests that the herd has been managed at dangerously minimum levels over the past 25 years and an increase in established appropriate manage levels will need to be considered in order to preserve the genetic viability of the herd.” When Ms. Brooks made her comments in 1999 the herd was over 173 adult animals according to the table provided in the Draft HMAP on page 8. Ironically, the herd is at this same level in 2008. This puts into clear perspective how disastrous the plan to manage at 90 adult horses would be and the permanent and immediate damage which could occur.

3. Selection for a Spanish Colonial Phenotype

The HMAP recommends selection for Spanish Colonial phenotype, hence Dr. Cothran’s comment: The selection for type does add more potential to lower genetic variation.

The Pryor herd has a range of phenotypes which may be a result of several hundred years of natural selection, adaptive characteristics which have developed over the past 200 years as well as from human selection.

Recently, I was hired as an expert regarding the phenotype of the Spanish horse to assess the characteristics of a wild horse herd in the remote Brittany Triangle of British Columbia for a Canadian biologist and the Indian Tribe in the area in question. I saw a range of body styles and colors in that herd as well. I would think that management there and in the Pryors should allow for adaptive characteristics as opposed to a narrow “ideal”.

Some Pryor horses have larger feet than the ideal and more fetlock hair than the ideal. Certain horses on the Pryors have a blockier body style than the ideal. The narrow chests, rafter hips, short backs and low croups of Spanish style horses are present in many horses but not in all the horses. All the head styles of the Pryor horses fit within the parameters of the Spanish horse ideal but some are clearly more Spanish looking with tapered faces, teacup noses, crescent nostrils, turned in ears, and large eyes. Are the ones who do not fit this mold less Spanish? Probably not. Even breeders of fine Spanish horses will attest to the differences among their own horses. Some look more like quarter horses while others fit the ideal perfectly. Are some more Spanish than others? No, as they all come from carefully maintained Spanish lines.

This kind of micro management should not be the goal of the BLM. Nature crafted a perfect animal and nature should be the one to determine who is best equipped to survive in this harsh mountain environment. And from a genetic viability standpoint, this kind of management has the potential to narrow genetic variation in a small, isolated population of wild horses. The Pryor herd is not a breeding farm, but a wildlife population that has survived for hundreds of years in this area without the “help” of the BLM, yet their Spanish characteristics have prevailed with modifications to fit the needs of hardy mountain mustangs.

Because color variation can go hand in hand with genetic variation, we support the HMAP when it talks about maintaining colors currently in the Pryors, some of which are rare due to managing for a small population and to removals of horses of rare colors in previous operations.

4. Augmentation

The HMAP concludes that when needed to bolster the genetics of the herd, mares will be brought in which are untitled Pryor Horses or are from other herds.

TCF ET. AL. does not support any periodic augmentation of the Pryor Mountain horse herd through the importation of wild horses from other herds or from untitled animals that have been in captivity. 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 nonsustainable level (i.e. too few horses). The BLM is required to maintain the herd at sustainable levels 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”.

5. Range Conditions

BLM justifies drastically reducing the Pryor Herd to 90 citing “deteriorating range and forest conditions” in basically two areas, the high mountain meadows and the Turkey Flat area in the low country. No substantive data was supplied, however. And when we were 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.

Jeff Powell, PhD, CRMC, CPR was able to review the data provided after a request from Valerie Stanley, Esq. His full assessment is included as Exhibit 5. He begin his report by saying 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."

We ask you to allow for an independent range assessment to be conducted before you make any drastic reductions in the herd. TCF ET. AL. does not have confidence in BLM’s ability to identify the health of the range if they cannot even identify the plants. On page 55 they write: Also the mountain meadows are in poor ecological condition with an inverse proportion of succulents to grasses. There are virtually no succulents in the area to which they refer.

On page 54 the HMAP states under Alternative C – Continuation of Existing Management that “Under this alternative ecological condition would continue to deteriorate (emphasis added) in the low elevation desert areas as well as the high elevation mountain meadows.” This is not a credible statement based on current conditions. The old timers in the area know it and anyone who has seen the range in 2002 and then in 2008 cannot deny the improvement based on the amount of snow in the winter and spring and the continuing moisture into July. And the range is supporting a higher population of wild horses than in 2002. (Exhibit 6 June, 2008 pictures)

For all of the above reasons, we believe that no removals should occur on the Pryor range or in any other wild horse herd area until the GAO report can be presented to Congress and for all the reasons stated in the attached letter sent July 9 to BLM by Congressman Rahall of West Virginia and Congressman Grijalva of Arizona. The letter outlines the concerns of Congress and the American public regarding the management of wild horses on our public lands. Any older horses removed from the PMWHR could be sent to long term holding, commonly believed to be the first place the killing of the captured mustangs would begin if BLM carries out their announced plans. We adamantly oppose the removal of old horses on the PMWHR and condemn any such plans as cruel and unnecessary. (Exhibit 7 Rahall/Grijalva letter to BLM)

The HMAP calls for nearly halving the population. Consider that the HMAP will last for far longer than the 5 years presented as a plan to Dr. Cothran. And the level of 100 would be 90 and could remain there for the life of this HMAP which, if history is our teacher, could be decades. By that time the unique Pryor horses will be lost.

6. This HMAP disregards obvious noninvasive and cost effective solutions to maintaining a viable herd on the Pryor Mountains.

The Cloud Foundation recommends that BLM put a major effort into expanding the PMWHR into historic wild horse use areas in the Custer National Forest. To read this HMAP you would think that wild horses did not occupy any areas except those in the designated range which is factually inaccurate. It is common knowledge that the wild horses historically ranged from 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.

First-hand observations of Gail Tillett Goode (Exhibit 8—Tillett Goode letter), Hope Ryden (Exhibit 9—Ryden letter/photograph) Reverend Floyd Schweiger (Exhibit 10— 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. (Exhibit 9)

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 11 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 12 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 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 14 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 the flights were made which could affect the number of horses he saw in this area. (Exhibit 15 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 16 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 lands in 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 this HMAP that refers to the WSA as follows: “This unit is in the heart of the PMWHR, and the supplemental attribute of the freeroaming wild horse herd enhance the wilderness characteristics of the area.” If you believe what you write here than let’s expand the herd area and work together for wilderness designation.

6.. The Cloud Foundation (TCF ET. AL.) recommends that BLM implement 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, bait trapping, and darting with PZP. We have never contended that other removal management practices should not be available to BLM.

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 HMAP discounts the ability of mountain lions (predators) to regulate their prey base (deer and wild horse foals and yearlings). This equilibrium will be dynamic, of course, with fluctuations in the number of prey and the number of predators going up and down. These fluctuations are natural in any wild system.

It has been suggested that BLM is not an appropriate agency to manage wild horses because they would appear to have vested interests in extractive land uses to the exclusion of non-extractive uses. While this appears to be true, it also appears that BLM has an unwillingness to “let nature take its course.” Whether there is basic lack of knowledge, or a lack of appreciation of the way natural systems work 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 way in the 1984 HMAP: “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, in the 2008 HMAP it does not appear that the BLM even endorses the biological potential for control. Instead they would appear to endorse round ups, bait trapping, water trapping, darting, and fencing. The public as a whole does not
agree with this position as you very well know and neither does TCF ET. AL..

TCF ET. AL. et al supports the above 1984 statement by the BLM and encourages BLM to make this a cornerstone of a new, less intrusive management strategy.

7. TCF ET. AL. recommends that the BLM assist in the funding of a mountain lion research project in order to determine the impacts of mountain lion predation on the wildlife populations as proposed by Cassity Bromley of the National Recreation Area. Her study would determine what impacts mountain lion predation have on their primary prey (mule deer, wild horses, and bighorn sheep) in the Recreation area, the designated PMWHR, and the adjoining historic use area of the wild horses in the Custer National Forest. During this study no mountain lions should be removed from the study area. In a similar research project conducted by Rich DeSimone, a wildlife biologist with the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, he told us that collared cats were shot soon after they were collared, so he requested a hunting ban in the study area which was granted.

8. We recommend managing for a “self-sustaining” Pryor wild horse population. This is a unique genetic herd and any augmentation plans should not be implemented or considered. The 2007 PMWHR Draft Evaluation states on page 1, that: “the resource objectives in this action will be to maintain a viable breeding herd which could perpetuate the characteristics of the Pryor Mountain wild horses.”

9. We did not see mention of satellite herds in this HMAP, but TCF ET. AL. does not recommend the creation of satellite herds which was mentioned in the 2007 Draft Evaluation, wherein portions of the Pryor Mountain wild horse herd would be removed from their home to live in areas outside their historic range. A self-sustaining wild horse population would not warrant the creation, maintenance or use of satellite herds.

10. TCF ET. AL. recommends that “population control” be limited to periodic helicopter gathers only when the wild horses pose a threat to themselves and their environment. We do not recommend the use of bait trapping which proved so damaging to the land in August and September of 2006 and also set up an unnatural situation in which mountain lions picked off two foals in successive nights due to the large number of horses drawn in to one location.

11. We recommend that any wild horses removed during a gather be offered at the base of the mountain to qualified adopters through a competitive bid auction. The sealed bid adoption was unsuccessful in the fall of 2006. For the first time in the history of the Pryor range animals received no bids and five were subsequently being readied for shipment to long-term holding until the BLM Billings and the TCF ET. AL. interceded, These horses are now in great homes in Colorado, are healthy and are being ridden by their very proud adopters.

12. TCF ET. AL. does not support or recommend the use of the experimental immunocontraceptive drug, PZP, which continues to have an unusual and unpredictable impact on the Pryor Wild Horse Herd.

PZP treatment was first administered to young females (seven yearlings and one two year- old) in 2001 when they were given shots in the corrals after a roundup in September 2001. The drug was designed to extend one year of infertility to this group. It was given in two consecutive years. The second year the drug was administered via field darting.

Of these eight young mares, one died and four have foaled. The only two-year-old, Moshi, foaled in 2002, as she was already pregnant. However, Moshi has produced no foals since.

Of the six remaining yearlings, now seven-years-old, four have produced a foal. Of the four foals, three were born in September. Administration of PZP was stopped on younger mares in 2005 due to anatural decrease in population largely because of mountain lion predation, and the unexpected absence of foal production by the young mares.

Nearly 50% of the young mares receiving the drug in the years 2001-2004 have never foaled. Of the 34 young mares to receive the drug between 2001-2004, 11 have died, 13 have foaled and 12 have not foaled. Two veterinarians (from Switzerland and Colorado) have independently expressed the same concern to us: mares not producing foals at a typically younger age (i.e. three-seven years) will have a more difficult time conceiving. They point out that this is true not just in horses but in humans as well as other species.

Of the 13 young mares that have foaled, five foals have been born out of season. One foal born in September never grew to full-size and was subsequently bait trapped and adopted out in September 2006. Another foal, born to Cecelia, #2224, a mare darted as a yearling and two-year-old in 2003 and 2004, was born in December of 2006. The majority of Pryor Mountain mares foal from May 15-June 15. We include a picture of Aztec, Mare 2017, an eight year-old who foaled in September 2007. This was the mare’s first foal. She was first PZPed as a yearling and as a two year-old in 2001 and 2002. (Exhibit 18-Photo Mare and foal March 2008)

Photo evidence attests to the masculine and aggressive behavior of certain PZPed fillies as well as the masculine appearance of Aurora #2036. She has a stallion-like cresty neck and physique. It is obvious that the hormones of these young mares have been altered by PZP.

Based on BLM PZP charts, of 21 older mares (11 years of age and older) given PZP beginning in 2003, 57% or 12 mares have foaled in spite of the field darting with Porcine Zona Pellucida. Only 43% or nine mares have not foaled (drug worked as designed). One mare, Tonopah #8603, produced a foal at the age of 21 in 2007.

Aside from the cruelty of raising a newborn foal going into a Montana winter, the drug has had other negative side effects in the form of abscesses, bleeding, and swelling on the hips of field darted mares. Of the 54 mares listed on the PMWHR Injection and Reaction Observations –updated June 2007 (BLM-03262), 41 mares are listed with swelling, nodules, bleeding or a combination of all these. 20 mares still have visible signs of nodules even years after they were injected. One mare, Hightail #8901, had an abscess from darting this year which has since healed on its own.

Phoenix #9104 had a major wound at the location of an injection site lump from the last field darting prior to the observed wound. Photo comparisons indicate the wound, which appeared in June 2007 matches the left hip nodule from a previous darting with PZP. (Exhibit 19 Photo Mare 9104). The mare and her foal were captured and treated in the corrals at the base of the mountain. Upon release to her band, the abscess looked to be healing although the mare had lost considerable weight while in the Britton Springs corrals.

The BLM has reported that density dependence (the ability for a wildlife population to self-regulate its numbers based on available resources) and compensatory reproduction (over-production by females to increase an under-represented population) have taken place on the Pryor Wild Horse Range. In other words the older mares that continue to reproduce despite the use of PZP are responding to an under-population. Generally the core reproducers as well as the older females share this burden. One older mare, Madonna #8913, who has been darted with PZP yearly since 2003, foaled in June 2007. The foal appeared to have trouble suckling and milk ran out its nose when nursing. The foal likely died during the night, as she was not with her mother the following morning.

To our knowledge this is the only herd in the West to receive PZP via field darts (Assateague Island off the coast of Virginia uses field darts with few reported problems).

We believe that the many problems with swelling, bleeding and abscessing may be partially blamed on field darting. The projectile is shot through unclean surfaces on the hips of the mares. The Director of the BLM in Wyoming stated in a recent meeting that field darting can cause abscesses.

Of the original group of young mares given the shot by hand while in the corrals, only one had any swelling. The other seven had no swelling, nodules or abscesses. This compares with 41 of 54 mares (a staggering 76%) with reported swelling, nodules and bleeding from at least one field darting experience. 43% of the mares darted this year have nodules or bleeding and one mare had an abscess (Hightail #8901).

According to USGS scientific reports, not all darts are recovered. Some needles may break off and remain in the mare where they could cause later abscessing. Significant problems may not be immediately observed, rather bacteria may linger and the problem area might be walled-off for some time then suddenly emerge as in the case of Phoenix #9104. This was mentioned as a possibility by four of the six equine veterinarians we consulted with. These veterinarians practice in California, Oregon, and Colorado and were asked for their opinions regarding the efficacy of field darting mares in the PMWHR, the potential hazards of this practice, and the possibility for a late abscess to appear months after the darting. One veterinarian expressed concern that the mare was darted again, thereby placing more strain on the immune system. Phoenix, who is the mother of Cloud, is one of the older mares who have produced a foal despite being darted.

Ironically, the initial stated reason for the administration of PZP by BLM was “purely from the standpoint of compassionate use”. Compassionate use was defined as “the use of the tool (or in this case a fertility control agent) to improve the quality of life of another (in this case younger or older wild mares”). . .” (BLM Field Manager, Sandra S. Brooks-June 3, 2004). BLM sought to prolong the life of the older mares by causing them not to foal and to delay the foaling of the younger mares for one year. Now BLM contends there are too many old horses and plan to remove them to reach AML.

The stated goal of the scientific community regarding an ideal wild horse fertility control agent was that it should be “at least 90% effective” (Wild Horse Contraceptive Research document, 1991 USGS website, posted 2-21-06). While the drug appears to be over 90% effective on Assateague Island, it has not performed in a similar manner in the Pryors. It has not prevented the foaling by a majority of the older mares and it has prevented foaling by the majority of the younger mares for 5 years in some cases.

Apparently it is not working as desired in Nevada either. At a BLM Advisory Board Meeting in Tucson, AZ on April, 2008 Susie Stokie, Nevada State Director of BLM in Nevada stated that the field people did not want to use the drug. When asked why she answered that they don’t think it works and takes time to administer. I don’t know exactly what she meant by “not working,” but I do know that it is not working in the Pryors. The “why” it is not working must be answered before BLM darts one more mare on the Pryors.

Instead of trying to manage the Pryor Mountain Wild Horses in a natural way, allowing for a predator-prey balance and only conducting a roundup when truly necessary, the former wild horse manager opted for the use of PZP in combination with helicopter roundups and bait trapping. These policies threaten the health of the unique Spanish mustangs of the Pryor Mountains. It is clear in this Draft HMAP that the current managers wish to continue on this same course.

13. TCF ET. AL. recommends that no fences be constructed that restrict the free-roaming ability of the herd, including fencing around water sources inside the designated range or outsid the designated range on their historic range in the Custer National Forest. We strongly disagree with fencing the ephemeral water source near Penns Cabin (mentioned on page 66 of the Draft HMAP ) or altering it by making the depressions deeper or putting a lining under these big puddles. This is one of the most photographed areas of the range and would destroy the scenic values of that sub-alpine area.

14. TCF ET. AL. supports using taxpayer dollars to:
- enhance or create unfenced water sources for the horses in under-utilized portions of the range as long as they do not detract from the wilderness values of the area.
-treat noxious weeds.
-reseed with native grasses.
-remove interior barbed-wire fencing.
-rehabilitate the bait trap site above the Krueger spring-fed water hole.
-retrofit enclosures with finger gates or remove them if they are no longer needed for comparative range data purposes.

15. TCF ET. AL. recommends that the BLM continue to ban off-road vehicle use.

16. TCF ET. AL. recommends that BLM require that all ATV’s entering the horse range be licensed.

17. TCF ET. AL. recommends BLM set up self-pay stations similar to the BCNRA sites. These would be located at all the entry points to the designated Pryor Wild Horse Range. All vehicles would be required to pay, place their license numbers on the stub which would be placed with payment in the station box. Display of the pass would be required on each vehicle. Too often ATV’s going off road can only be identified by color. We feel there needs to be some method to report offenders and for BLM to have some record of who is on the range.

18. TCF ET. AL. recommends that a speed limit be put in place to all motorized vehicles. I have personally had a near head on collision with a young ATV driver going very fast. As he swerved off the road to avoid my vehicle, he simply laughed off his “near death” experience and raced on.

19. TCF ET. AL. recommends that no main roads be closed, and strongly disagrees with the comment that range damage is created by those people observing wild horses. I saw damage occurring this May when two vehicles were racing down the mountain. When we walked up higher I took pictures of this damage which are available on request. These were not people looking at horses. They were thrill seekers who went off road whenever it suited them and nearly took out the side of the Burnt Timber Ridge exclosure. They reached the top of the mountain by using chains and wenches. We have observed “racing” by ATV users who are trying to make a loop out of Burnt Timber Ridge Road and Sykes Road in one day or afternoon. These drivers rarely stop for more than a few minutes (or at all) to view wild horses or other wildlife, including newborn foals.

20. TCF ET. AL. recommends that the BLM conduct minimal road improvement on Sykes and Burnt Timber Ridge roads where wash-outs and rocks have created dangerous conditions. We would be happy to identify these specific areas on a map.

21. TCF ET. AL. recommends that more volunteers be present on the mountain, particularly on weekends. An orientation for volunteers could be coordinated by the Pryor Wild Horse Center personnel who are familiar with the horses and the rules of the range.

We do not endorse any of the alternatives in this HMAP as stated. While there are pieces of each of the alternatives presented that are acceptable, they are coupled with plans which are totally unacceptable. Our recommendation is to extend the comment period to allow for further independent research and analysis regarding the many variables presented in this HMAP. It took BLM 24 years to present a completely new HMAP. It is only fair that the interested public have more than 30 days to reply.

Thank you for your time and consideration of our recommendations.

Sincerely,
Ginger Kathrens
Volunteer Executive Director
The Cloud Foundation
Attached: Exhibits 1-20.