Shout out

11 07 2011

Thank you to all who commented on our preliminary EA for this fall’s roundup in Spring Creek Basin. Your support of our mustangs is very much appreciated!

Juniper & Winona





Down to the wire

10 07 2011

Comments on our preliminary EA for this fall’s roundup are due tomorrow – Monday, July 11. Comments from this preliminary document will form the basis of the final EA. If nothing else, and if you haven’t already, please send comments in support of “Alternative 1 – proposed action: Helicopter drive trap and capture up to 60 wild horses in order to remove 50 excess animals. Apply the contraceptive porcine zona pellucida (PZP) with annual boosters over the next five years, and establish a 60% male sex ratio.”

Cinch

Details: Mail to Tom Rice, BLM Associate Field Office Manager, 27501 Highway 184, Dolores, CO 81323, or email to trice@blm.gov. For more information, call Tom Rice at (970) 882-6843. Comments are most helpful if they are specific to Spring Creek Basin Herd Management Area and to the proposed gather activities described in the Alternatives section of the EA. Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses, will be part of the public record.

Hacho & Maiku

We have worked hard – almost four years, since the last roundup in 2007 – to get to this point. Is there more work to do? Of course there is – management has goals, but good management has no end point – it evolves. Right now, this is the next step on the path to sustainable management for the mustangs of Spring Creek Basin. Do we wish bait trapping was being used over the helicopter? Of course we do. We worked on that, and for a variety of reasons, that plan did not come to fruition for this roundup. We’re also working on the gender skewing issue. Sixty percent stallions is actually better than it was after 2007 – and now we know the exact makeup of the herd to ensure it’s no more than that.

Whisper & Aurora

But annual PZP darting is a huge, integral part of the new management plan – and that IS being implemented at this roundup. This is a giant step, and it represents numerous steps in a process that at times has been massively frustrating, and it heralds a valuable new partnership between our advocacy groups (National Mustang Association/Colorado, Four Corners Back Country Horsemen, Mesa Verde Back Country Horsemen – as individual groups and collectively as Disappointment Wild Bunch Partners (which also includes San Juan Mountains Association)) and the Dolores Public Lands Office, managing agency for Spring Creek Basin Herd Management Area. Representative volunteers from these groups will be actively involved at both the roundup and adoption.

To clarify some concerns I’ve heard from people: We are NOT using PZP-22 here again; we are using native PZP, delivered annually via dart. No stallions will be returned to the basin as geldings. Cattle grazing in the basin is NOT part of the current EA – which pertains to the roundup only.

Sustainable management means managing wild horses in the wild. Doing that means reducing population growth. The means to do that is within reach. Please support Alternative 1.

Varoujan






Preliminary roundup EA – comments due Monday

8 07 2011

A reminder that comments for the preliminary EA for the scheduled roundup this fall of Spring Creek Basin are due Monday, July 11.

Here’s a link to my previously posted thoughts about this preliminary EA and a request for folks to get their comments in. Again, this roundup and the removal of some horses IS necessary this year. Visitors can attest to how dry it is in the basin, and we’re nearing capacity for what this range can sustain in numbers of horses. Please support “Alternative 1 – Proposed Action: Helicopter drive trap and capture up to 60 wild horses in order to remove 50 excess animals. Apply the contraceptive porcine zona pellucida (PZP) with annual boosters over the next five years, and establish a 60% male sex ratio.”

https://springcreekwild.wordpress.com/2011/06/28/thoughts-on-the-preliminary-ea-for-scb-roundup/





Happy Independence Day!

3 07 2011

What cost, freedom? What value? What would we do to preserve it?

That others fought and fell – fight and fall – so we may live independent of tyranny and oppression, we must never forget.





Thoughts on the preliminary EA for SCB roundup

28 06 2011

With less than two weeks before comments are due for the preliminary EA for the Spring Creek Basin roundup this fall, some thoughts.

First, here’s the link to the preliminary EA.

And here is information about where to send your comments.

I’ve been reading over the preliminary EA for our roundup this fall, and our groups (National Mustang Association/Colorado, Four Corners Back Country Horsemen and Mesa Verde Back Country Horsemen – singularly, and collectively as Disappointment Wild Bunch Partners) propose to support “Alternative 1 – Proposed Action: Helicopter drive trap and capture up to 60 wild horses in order to remove 50 excess animals. Apply the contraceptive porcine zona pellucida (PZP) with annual boosters over the next five years, and establish a 60% male sex ratio.”

A roundup IS necessary in Spring Creek Basin with the attendant removal of some horses for the benefit of the herd as a whole and for the finite, fenced environment on which they depend.

Notice that this preliminary EA is for the roundup, not specifically and/or separately for fertility control. I/we thought that was coming in a combined EA, but that’s apparently not the case. The fertility control EA will have to be much more complete – along the lines of the Pryor Mountain Wild Horse Range Fertility Control Environmental Assessment, but there are some things that need to be addressed in the roundup preliminary EA as presented.

Some of my concerns about our preliminary EA:

* Application of PZP: All the mares will need to be treated with primer this fall (primer, not “primary”), not just the mares captured and released. Hopefully, that’s just an oversight in this prelim EA because I’ve been talking about that all along. Also, I wonder when the number of mares to be “treated” fell from 10 to five? This has never been discussed with us by BLM. Note, it’s still “10” on the roundup schedule, even though the number of horses to be captured/removed varies between this preliminary EA (round up 60/remove 50) and the roundup schedule (round up 65/remove 45) – and has changed from the original roundup schedule (round up 90/remove 60). I was never sure where the number 10 came from originally (in fact, this was the first glimmer we had that BLM was planning fertility control here), and I’m making the possibly erroneous assumption that that’s the number of mares BLM thinks to give the booster (as opposed to the primer … but given the information about PZP, the EA writer is unfamiliar with PZP at all) … The point is, that number from BLM is premature; no one knows the post-roundup makeup of the herd or number of total mares, and there is no herd manager or approved fertility control plan in place to dictate for certain one way or another. As it says about gender skewing in this preliminary EA: “It is impossible to determine the sex ratio of captured horses until the gather takes place.” (Page 12, third full paragraph) It also is impossible to determine the number of mares to be boostered (or even given the primer) until the roundup is complete and the number of horses and makeup of the herd is known. But to implement the program, it is necessary to treat all the mares with the primer. They get it just once in their lifetimes, but they have to get it before the booster can be given the first time. The primer needs to be given even if the mare will not be boostered next spring. In the future, we will have a seasonal application plan of boostering selected mares in the late winter/early spring and giving primer doses in the fall to maturing fillies. NMA/CO will pay for the PZP (primer and booster doses) for the first five years. This should not be a problem, and it should not have been overlooked in this preliminary EA.

* Low range of AML: This preliminary EA continually mentions taking the population back to the bottom range of the AML – 35 (AML is 35 to 65 adult horses). We also have repeatedly argued against that, especially with the implementation of an annual PZP darting program. Based on the precedent in Spring Creek Basin of leaving 43 horses after the last roundup and the PMWHR statement that their “Decision Record” states “The population will not be taken to the low range of AML when fertility control is utilized” (top of Page 3), I’d like to see that acknowledged here, especially with the continuation of gender skewing. Even with gender skewing (apparently even less than this prelim EA proposes – gender skewing was said to be 55% stallions/45% mares post-2007 roundup and is planned to be 60% stallions/40% mares this fall), and the PZP-22 that was administered to the released mares in 2007 not working (it worked on one mare; two of the original five have since died), and the introduction of three mares (from Sand Wash Basin, for their genetics) between the last roundup and currently (and three foals produced by two of the mares), we still went four years before a roundup. There’s no rational reason to remove more horses than necessary given BLM’s troubled Wild Horse & Burro Program and all the horses in holding. In fact, rational reason dictates managing horses in the wild as much as possible and appropriate – as is the case here. So our suggestion is for BLM to leave 40-45 horses after this roundup, in conjunction with the annual PZP darting and their 60/40 gender skew. We do not plan to contest the gender skewing – partly because I think it will fall on deaf ears and so it’s not a battle worth fighting at this time, and partly because, if we are given enough time and not hampered in our ability to prove the efficacy of PZP here, it should naturally skew back to normal (and I’m curious enough to see that happen).

* Modeled population growth: Also, I’m disappointed that BLM’s “Win Equus” model of population growth and this preliminary EA seem to present a token use of PZP rather than making full use of it in a plan of sustainable management that will actually save BLM money and labor and us horses. This preliminary EA suggests status quo (even with the use of PZP and gender skewing): the continuation of roundups every few years – three per 10 years (2011, 2016 and, presumably, 2021) – as was done in 2001, 2005 and 2007. Why? Just five years between this roundup and the next? Why? My proposal shows that it’s possible to reduce roundups here from three per decade to one – with all the attendant cost savings, in roundups (lack thereof; this would amount to at least $150,000 in savings per decade in roundups NOT held), and horses going to holding (lack thereof; this is by far the biggest savings over time, at least $2 million saved in horses NOT removed and sent to holding during the decade). So BLM is already anticipating that PZP won’t work? Or that it won’t use the PZP well enough to be as beneficial as it could be? With a roundup in 2011, the next anticipated roundup (by BLM) – indicated by this preliminary EA – will be in 2016 (Page 31) and, presumably, one to follow in 2021, that’s three per decade – exactly what we’re trying to prevent.

Again, reviewing some precedents to the above issues: In 2007, BLM left 43 horses (remember, low end of the AML is 35). Pryor Mountain, in its fertility control EA (which, again, we do NOT yet have here …), says that when PZP is used, the herd population does NOT need to be reduced to the low end of the AML. Mention is made in our EA (Page 12) that it is “impossible to determine the sex ratio of captured horses until the gather takes place.” By all logic, it also is impossible to know how many mares to treat post-roundup with PZP – other than with primer, and this number should be “all.” 😉

A concern raised specifically by our Colorado chapter of the National Mustang Association is the lack of mention of our group’s longtime role in advocating for these particular mustangs – about 15 years’ worth.

On page 41, the preliminary EA states: “The Four Corners Back Country Horsemen has helped obtain horse counts in the Spring Creek Basin HMA for several consecutive years (I believe this is at least 12 years). They also have been consulted regarding the proposed gather and subsequent local adoption. Some members have expressed an interest in observing the gather but none have expressed any specific concerns relative to the gather or the adoption.”

I guess I can’t speak for 4CBCH, but NMA/CO and MVBCH have expressed concerns – members of both our groups made comments at the public hearing. Not mentioned? Why? Also, although 4CBCH has, indeed, conducted counts all these years, BLM has not very often taken their counts into account. Case in point: In February 2007, a flyover was conducted during which two BLM personnel (the then-current herd area manager and the previous herd area manager) counted horses. They each (separately, we were told) observed “97 horses.” In May that year, during their annual count, 4CBCH counted about 120 horses. Based on my knowledge of the 2007 roundup and subsequent documents and my own documentation, there were between 110 and 120 horses in the herd. Based on the numbers in this preliminary EA we’re now discussing, there were at least 118 horses present in the herd pre-roundup 2007. 4CBCH just about nailed it – but was discounted.

In the paragraph above the aforementioned, it states: “A local wild horse advocacy group the Disappointment Wild Bunch [Partners] (affiliated with the Colorado Chapter of the National Mustang Association (NMA)), has worked closely with BLM on several projects and have been consulted regarding both the proposed gather and the adoption planned immediately afterward at the Montezuma County Fairgrounds. In ” (One wonders what got cut out …)

Correctly, NMA/CO is one of the represented groups that make up Disappointment Wild Bunch Partners. Each group holds equal representation as a stakeholder in the welfare and well-being of the Spring Creek Basin wild horse herd. NMA/CO was formed at the request of a former BLM herd area manager (surprise?) and is the longest-serving advocate of the Spring Creek Basin herd.

Also, no mention is made of the specific, extensive documentation project conducted (by yours truly) that enables – finally – a sustainable management plan for this herd – and would allow for NOT BRANDING PZP-treated mares. This hasn’t been mentioned, but it’s a lingering concern. NMA/CO, 4CBCH and MVBCH have been the foundation and support of the documentation work I’ve been able to do to reach this point. Nationwide, BLM hasn’t been able to figure out a sustainable management plan in 40 years (euthanization, sterilization, tens of thousands of horses in holding, more being rounded up, HMAs and HAs zeroed out/reduced in size … need I say more?!) – though some individual herds have and are on that path (Little Book Cliffs, Pryor Mountain, McCullough Peaks). Now we have been able to, in less than three years, hand BLM a sustainable management plan on a silver platter. We had hoped bait trapping would be the method of this roundup … but that’s another story … and it’s likely coming in the future.

I’m extremely proud of the accomplishments we’ve made, and I’m cautiously optimistic for the future (I say that a lot; it has been a frustrating journey in many ways). We have a lot more work to do, but we’re here, we’re obviously not going away, and we will continue to advocate for the sustainable future of our Spring Creek Basin mustangs.

Again, with any questions, please contact me by leaving a comment or email me at mtbgrrl (at) fone (dot) net. If you’re a long-time reader of this blog and enjoyer of these mustangs, you are aware of most of the unique components of this herd and how/why we’ve arrived at this point. If not, I’ll be happy to explain some of the “back story” in more detail. Thank you with all appreciation for your support of our Spring Creek Basin mustangs.





Oppose sterilization

24 06 2011

Sterilizing wild horses is NOT management. BLM has apparently “reconsidered” spaying mares in two Wyoming herds (White Mountain and Little Colorado) but plans to continue with the gelding of stallions.

No, no and NO.

http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/6931/t/0/blastContent.jsp?email_blast_KEY=1168526

Why BLM in general *won’t* come up with sustainable management plans is beyond me. It talks about that often enough. In fact, we’ve effected change here by showing local BLM just how workable sustainable management can be. In 40 years, things have gone from bad to worse with these hare-brained ideas apparently designed to allow BLM to do little to nothing about their responsibility to wild horses and burros AND the American public for whom mustangs and burros are managed. And yet, when I talk about fertility control in the form of REVERSIBLE PZP, people invariably ask: “Why don’t they just geld the stallions and return them?”

* Horribly invasive.

* Horses must be rounded up and captured to do it.

* Horses must (?!) be held in corrals while they heal.

* Complications?? One of the introduced Spring Creek Basin stallions (three were introduced in the late 1980s or so) was later removed to a sanctuary, where he was gelded … and bled out … How often does this happen insanitary conditions? In a temporary pen full of other horses in dusty range conditions …??

* If I wanted to see a pasture – no matter the size – of geldings, I’d take a drive up the road to see ranch horses. Talk about upsetting the natural dynamic of wild and free-roaming (as much as possible) horses.

In contrast, fertility control such as PZP is reversible. By its use, we’re not trying to stop population growth, just limit it to sustainable levels. Periodic removals will still occur but with less frequency and hopefully on a much smaller scale than currently. While I fully appreciate that annual darting is not feasible or even possible in many large areas, where it IS, it should be used.

As adamantly as I support limiting population growth, I am adamantly opposed to stopping it altogether.





Insanity in Wyoming

17 06 2011

I saw this news just before I left for the basin this week … to visit with wild horses and their foals. BLM officials for two Wyoming wild horse herds – White Mountain and Little Colorado – plan to make the herds completely sterile, non-reproducing and totally unnatural.

Pam Nickoles has information on her blog with this post.

This sort of death knell to rational – sustainable – management cannot be allowed to be set as precedent. Slow population growth, don’t stop it.

As readers of this blog are aware, I am a huge proponent of native PZP, and we plan to implement such a plan of annual darting here this fall. I am absolutely against sterilization of wild horses (and burros).

Please visit Pam’s blog for all the pertinent contact information to urge AGAINST sterilization of these herds (of any herds).





EA out for roundup

10 06 2011

Preliminary Spring Creek Basin Wild Horse Herd Gather Environmental Assessment available for comment

The Bureau of Land Management is seeking public comments on a preliminary Environmental Assessment, which analyzes the environmental consequences of removing up to 50 excess wild horses from the Spring Creek Basin Herd Management Area on BLM lands located in San Miguel and Dolores counties, about 45 miles northeast of Dove Creek, Colo., and 33 miles southwest of Norwood, Colo., off San Miguel County Road 19Q. The document is tiered to the 1994 BLM Spring Creek Basin Herd Management Area Management Plan and the 1985 San Juan/San Miguel Resource Management Plan.

The Proposed Action would gather about 60 and remove approximately 50 excess wild horses from within and outside (if necessary) the Spring Creek Basin Herd Management Area in mid-September 2011 (the roundup is now scheduled from Sept. 15-18). Horses would be removed using a selective removal strategy.  In keeping with BLM guidance, fertility control options are also being evaluated.  

Comments must be received by close of business on Friday, July 11, 2011, and should be mailed to Tom Rice, BLM Associate Field Office Manager, 27501 Highway 184, Dolores, CO 81323 or emailed to trice@blm.gov. For more information, please contact Tom Rice at (970) 882-6843. Comments are most helpful if they are specific to the Spring Creek Basin Herd Management Area and to the proposed gather activities described in the Alternatives section of the EA. Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses, will be part of the public record. Link to PDF : Preliminary Spring Creek Basin Wild Horse 2011 Gather Plan EA

[NOTE: The EA link referred to above is not actually set as a hyperlink right now, but this is the link to the San Juan Public Lands website for the above information: http://www.blm.gov/co/st/en/fo/sjplc.html 

Please also note that the correct name of our herd area is Spring Creek Basin Herd Management Area, not “Spring Creek Wild Horse Herd Management Area.”

**I’ve changed it above to reflect the correct name.]

UPDATE: Here is the link to the actual preliminary EA for the 2011 Spring Creek Basin Herd Management Area Gather Plan.





Wild horses as natives!

7 06 2011

http://www.katu.com/news/national/123199993.html

Are wild horses native to the U.S.? BLM roundups challenged

RENO, Nev. (AP) – American history textbooks teach generation after generation that the wild horses roaming the Western plains originated as a result of the European explorers and settlers who first ventured across the ocean and into the frontier.

But that theory is being challenged more strongly than ever before at archaeological digs, university labs and federal courtrooms as horse protection advocates battle the U.S. government over roundups of thousands of mustangs they say have not only a legal right but a native claim to the rangeland.

The group In Defense of Animals and others are pressing a case in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that maintains wild horses roamed the West about 1.5 million years ago and didn’t disappear until as recently as 7,600 years ago. More importantly, they say, a growing stockpile of DNA evidence shows conclusively that today’s horses are genetically linked to those ancient ancestors.

The new way of thinking could carry significant ramifications across hundreds millions of acres in the West where the U.S. Bureau of Land Management divides up livestock grazing allotments based partly on the belief the horses are no more native to those lands than are the cattle brought to North America centuries ago.

Rachel Fazio, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, told a three-judge appellate panel in San Francisco earlier this year that the horses are “an integral part of the environment.”

“As much as the BLM would like to see them as not, they are actually a native species. They are tied to this land,” she said. “There would not be a horse but for North America. Every single evolutionary iteration of the horse is found here and only here.”

Judge Mary Schroeder, former chief of the circuit, asked: “Just like polar bears?”

“Yes,” Fazio answered, “they belong there.”

The lawsuit cites researchers who say the most recent science backs her up and that the concept is widely accepted by most of the scientific community, with the most notable exception being the BLM itself.

“It’s significant because BLM treats the wild horses like they are an invasive species that is not supposed to be out there,” Fazio said in a recent interview with The Associated Press.

A reversal of that long-held belief could have the effect of moving the native horses to the front of the line when divvying up the precious water and forage in the arid West.

BLM maintains the horse advocates are perpetuating a myth and many ranchers claim it’s part of a ploy to push livestock off public lands.

“There are plenty of horses out in the Nevada desert,” said Tom Collins, a Clark County commissioner who has a ranch outside of Las Vegas and has run cattle on U.S. lands in Arizona, Idaho and Utah.

“Most of these folks, maybe their father slapped them or their mother didn’t love them, so now they are in love with these wild horses that aren’t really wild,” he said

BLM devotes “Myth No. 11” on its Web site to the “false claim” that wild horses are native to the United States.

“American wild horses are descended from domestic horses, some of some of which were brought over by European explorers in the late 15th and 16th centuries, plus others that were imported from Europe and were released or escaped captivity in modern times,” it says.

“The disappearance of the horse from the Western Hemisphere for 10,000 years supports the position that today’s wild horses cannot be considered `native’ in any meaningful historical sense,” BLM explains. It acknowledges the horses have adapted successfully to the Western range, but biologically they did not evolve on the North American continent

Jay F. Kirkpatrick, a leader in horse reproduction research who directs ZooMontana’s Science and Conservation Center in Billings, Mont., is among those who say BLM’s view is outdated.

“On the face of the science, it is just absolutely incorrect,” said Kirkpatrick, who has studied reproductive physiology for decades since earning his degree at the College of Veterinary Medicine at Cornell University.

“It wasn’t the predominant horse on the continent but it was here. It is native to North America,” he told AP.

Kirkpatrick, who actually supports roundups as a necessary tool to control herd populations, said the key to determining if an animal is native is where it originated and whether or not it co-evolved with its habitat.

The mustangs “did both, here in North America,” he said, beginning about 1.4 million years ago. He said they eventually crossed the Siberian land bridge into Asia before going extinct locally as recently as 7,600 years ago.

“This isn’t about history, it’s about biology,’ Kirkpatrick said. “The Spanish were bringing them home.”

Ross MacPhee, curator of the Department of Mammalogy at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, agrees. He said the mustangs are classified as Equus caballus, which “evolved from more primitive forebears” in North America.

“There is therefore no question that it is `native’ within any reasonable meaning of that word – much more so than bison, for example, whose immediate ancestry is Asian,” MacPhee said. “Yes, it disappeared from our shores for a few thousand years, but that has no bearing scientifically on whether it is historically `native.”

BLM officials said they can’t comment on pending litigation, but referred AP to their Web site descriptions and a leading scientist who agrees the agency’s version is closer to the truth.

“Horses did evolve in North America but they went extinct 10,000 years ago,” said Michael Hutchins, executive director of the Wildlife Society, a nonprofit scientific and educational association in Bethesda, Md.

Today’s mustangs are “a domesticated, feral version that had gone through many, many generations of selective breeding to use as beasts of burden and were brought back to North America,” he told AP. “They are a mishmash of domestic horses. They are not native. They are not wild horses.”

If they are native, then so too are camels, cheetahs and lions that roamed the continent before extinction about the same time, Hutchins said. But they are not, he said, partly because the same ecological conditions no longer exist, the climate changed and most big predators gone.

Kirkpatrick said Europe’s domestication of the horse over about 6,000 years may have changed the nuclear makeup of some genes but “it remains the same species and retains the same social organization and social behaviors that evolved over 1.4 million years.”

“It matters not a Tinker’s Damn if the ecology has changed,” he said. “E. Caballus is the same species that disappeared.”

The case pending in the 9th Circuit could go a long way toward determining future management of the animals and has the potential to send BLM back to the scientific drawing board before it can resume seasonal roundups of thousands of mustangs it says are damaging the environment.

The case already has cleared an unprecedented legal hurdle in that the appellate court is entertaining arguments about the merits of the law at all.

In previous similar challenges, courts have denied requests for emergency injunctions to block pending roundups based on conclusions plaintiffs failed to prove significant harm was imminent and/or they were likely to ultimately succeed in proving the government broke the law.

Then in a sort of “Catch-22,” by the time a non-emergency hearing arrives, the BLM already has completed the roundup and persuades the judge the case is moot, any damage already done.

But that may be changing.

David Schildton, a Justice Department lawyer representing BLM, was following that script when he told the Ninth Circuit panel in January that “a live controversy” would have to exist for the court to act.

“And since the gather has already occurred and approximately seven horses were humanely destroyed because of pre-existing conditions, I don’t know that there is effective relief,” he said.

Not necessarily, said Judge Johnnie Rawlinson.

“The remainder of the horses could be returned,” she said. “The overall claim for relief is these horses were being taken from their native habitat. If the horses are being housed at a long-term or short-term facility, they could be reinstated to their native habitat.”

The 9th Circuit ruling is still pending. But the judge in Sacramento who denied the original bid in September to block a 1,700-horse roundup in the Twin Peaks area along the California-Nevada line adopted a similar position in April when he refused BLM’s request to dismiss the case.

U.S. District Judge Morrison England Jr. ruled it could go forward because “effective relief can still be granted” if plaintiffs prove BLM violated the National Environmental Policy Act or the Wild and Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971.

“This court could conceivably provide relief in the form of an order returning all animals in … holding facilities to either Twin Peaks or the West until all requirements of NEPA are met,” he said.

BLM agrees Congress wants the horses treated as part of the environment, Schildton said, but the focus should be on protecting the land itself not affording the horses special treatment.

“They are not an endangered species,” Schildton said. “The effect on the horses themselves would be part of the environmental study… but the ultimate question is, `Does this proposal bring about a significant environmental impact?”‘

Fazio said BLM misinterprets the law.

“The whole purpose of this act is to protect the wild horses from capture, harassment, branding and death,” she said. “Multiple use if fine, but where lands are designated for horses – this icon of the West, this embodiment of freedom – you have to make a priority out of protecting them.”





Another virus update, per BLM

27 05 2011

I got this release from Tom Rice, our local BLM chief. Please pass it on as appropriate.

If you haven’t yet heard about this outbreak, click here for a Durango Herald article about it that ran about a week ago and here for a follow-up article.

From the first article: “The disease is highly contagious and can cause respiratory problems, neurologic disease and death. There is no cure, though symptoms may be treatable, officials said.”

Little Book Cliffs Wild Horse Range officials already had limited access to the range by domestic horses with a deadline of today. Not sure whether that’s being extended.

BLM Statement on Outbreak of Equine Herpes Virus (EHV-1)

The BLM is aware of the recent outbreak of neurologic disease caused by the equine herpes virus (EHV-1) in the western United States. The Bureau has been working with state and federal animal health officials to help protect the health and well-being of wild horses and burros on the range, along with those in BLM holding facilities.

No BLM-managed wild horses or burros on the range or at BLM facilities are known to have been exposed or affected by the neurologic EHV-1 outbreak at this time. However, the Bureau is consulting and coordinating with animal health officials regarding the movement of wild horses and burros, as well as the scheduling of events such as adoptions that may place horses and burros in contact with horses, burros, or their owners in the domestic horse community. Some lower-risk movements between BLM facilities or BLM facilities and adoption events will continue. Other movements may be canceled because of concerns regarding potential exposure to EHV-1.

At this time, decisions will be made on a local, case-by-case basis in consultation with the BLM’s attending veterinarians and the state veterinarians in the area. All BLM horses and burros that travel interstate do so with valid Certificates of Veterinary Inspection (health certificates) and in accordance with state and federal animal health regulations. The BLM asks the public to be aware of disease transmission risks and to contact local BLM offices to see if there are any restrictions in place before bringing domestic horses onto BLM-managed public lands.