Warm Springs Release of 66 a Plan for Extinction

CAES responded to Bureau of Land Management Plans to release only 66 horses on the Oregon Warm Springs HMA. This is what we had to say:

AA
Photo courtesy Val Cecama-Hogsett. Wild horse in the Ochocos National Frest, OR.

Thank you for the opportunity to submit these public comments on the above-referenced DNA for the release of wild horses onto the Warm Springs, HMA in Oregon.

We have the following concerns with this DNA

  • The Environmental Assessment (EA) doesn’t meet NEPA requirements.
  • The Decision of Record (DR) approving removal horses from the Warm Springs Herd Management Area (HMA) was vacated, making the initial removal of 846 horses illegal which should warrant releasing all gathered horses back to the HMA until an EIS is completed.
  • This Determination of NEPA Adequacy (DNA) is not adequate where range health and genetic health are both much more relevant than the EA previously done addressed.
  • Genetic anomalies that are seen as a result of inbreeding was never mentioned. A genetic analysis that is up to date must be done before considering removal of 88% of the herd/genetics.
  • The numbers are not consistent in your own reports and statements on the number of horses considered excess
  • The census numbers for remaining animals is inconsistent.
  • The AML set for this HMA is clearly arbitrary.
  • This DNA is clear retaliation
  • The stated list of reasons for not putting the horses back for various reasons in 2019 covers January through December, which creates doubt that horses will ever be put back out there. When gathers are done you do not follow these same stipulations which show a clear favorability to removing horses, but definitely not for releasing any. Any waiting for the mares to foal, foals to be weaned and then taking them away from the mares to only release the mares is animal cruelty and also ensures the likelihood of very few foals being on the HMA this year. With very questionable genetics already in this herd, this is very bad management.

    These are the restrictions you listed for releasing horses:

    • BLM can’t return horses now or until approximately May or June because the roads are not good enough
    • Can’t return mares that are pregnant March – June because well, they might deliver on transport?  (They gather and transport pregnant mares routinely)
    • Won’t return mares with foals because of danger to foals on transport (They transport foals routinely)
    • Won’t return mares until foals are weaned and ripped away from mares 4 – 6 months after birth (so no returns from March – June until after 4 – 6 months later which would be as late as December
    • No returns during fire season June through fall
    • No returns if there is not adequate water (to be assessed in flyovers in June) even though forage is good and water on one half is good, the other side was questionable, and the solution is the removal of a livestock fence between the 2 sides of the HMA
    • No mares returned who were not pregnant, they could be sterile (erm the original plan was to return nearly 30 sterile mares wasn’t it?)
    • No stallion released without a mare released to keep a 50/50 sex ratio (unnatural and why can’t they release 33 stallions and release 33 mares as they can be based on their other fake conditions)
    • AND BLM retains the right to alter, change, nullify, or create a whole new plan even if this one is passed

Doesn’t meet NEPA requirements/ Determination of NEPA Adequacy (DNA) is not adequate

The final EA and DR were subsequently vacated which makes the removal of the horses in the first place an action that was done with a then vacated decision of record. The horses should all be returned to the HMA until such time as a new EIS is done.

The EA did not address the emergency need for removal due to the health of the horses. There was some mention of water issues on the west side of the HMA, however, that was not going to stop 100 horses being released on that side of the EA for the study. So, obviously, the water issue is not real, or plans to remedy that problem were canceled because there is now no study.

You said: “this determination of NEPA Adequacy (DNA) assesses whether the 2018 EA adequately analyzed the environmental impact of permanently removing wild horses and burros from the Warm Springs HMA, the proposed return of horses to low appropriate management level (AML) for the HMA, and the treatment of mares to be 2 returned to the HMA with porcine zona pellucida (PZP).”

The EA did not analyze permanent removal of all horses from the HMA, it analyzed the removal of all horses and the return of 200.

There has been no environmental impact study (EIS) on the removal of 88% of the herd permanently. And to do that we feel an EIS, not an EA must be done. We feel it must compare the total number of all grazing animals, wild and domestic, and the financial comparison of each proposed action should also be a factor in the proposed actions. Financial aspects figure into the human element of the environment, especially when figuring the reduction of livestock to mitigate water problems or the removal of a fence. Would removing the fence be more of a hardship on the permittee with livestock than it is on the taxpayer who pays to house and feed the horses who cannot be on the land.

The BLM must provide the number of livestock on the HMA, the number of all other grazing wildlife species on the HMA, and the AUM’s allotted for each, including wild horses, for forage use.

BLM needs to explain why fencing is not removed if it is impeding horses from getting to water on various parts of the HMA, there and why the fence is not removed. If the fence is not to be removed what BLM is doing per applicable laws to provide water improvements to the west side of the HMA. That would also remedy the previously mentioned problem of impassable roads to vehicles hauling water. But BLM still has not justified how water was going to be provided during the study, but cannot be done now. Are only horses being studied managed?

The removal of 846 horses was vacated

You said:
“This DNA in no part replaces or relies on the 2018 DR, which was vacated in its entirety.“

Based on this statement, the entire DR was vacated meaning the horses you removed is a decision that was vacated and all of the horses should legally be returned.

Genetics

The final gather reports indicated a very high number of horses euthanized due to genetic issues. Where are the genetics studies, and how do you justify removing from 852 horses (Your census estimate per Appendix E of the EA) all but 96 horses, if there were 30 horses left on the HMA post gather. That is removing almost 88% of the genetics from the herd when the final gather report clearly stated horses were euthanized because of a genetic issue. The largest of which being angular limb deformities which are a KNOW inbreeding issue.

A new genetic analysis must be done before a reduction to below the recommended numbers for genetic viability is done. Even with 850 plus horses in this herd, there are genetic issues. That should bring into question the science you are using to manage these herds as self-sustaining herds. Until there is a scientific answer to the genetic problems with this herd, and given that all removed were in average to above average body condition, this herd should not be reduced at all, but a reduction by 88% is criminal mismanagement. It definitely does not meet with a decision that has used the best available science.

Census numbers and removal numbers do not add up or are inconsistent

You said: “…conditions that caused the BLM to determine that approximately 652 animals were excess and needed to be removed from the range remain present and necessitate the current decision.” Since 845 were removed per your final gather report this would mean that 193 horses should be returned as they were not determined to be excess.
 
On January 31, 2018, you said:
“Because the goal of this gather was to capture up to 100 percent of the horses, the contractor spent many hours and days flying the HMA and was able to collect a good estimate of the remaining horses on the HMA (25-35). Not post gather survey was conducted by BLM because we were confident in the pilot’s count.”

So where do these new statistics of 30 horses and 30 burros left on the range come from? This statement does not say 25 – 35 of each horse and burro, therefore it is our belief there were 25 – 35 animals, combined horses, and burros left. Where are the pilot’s statements that there were 30 each? Those need to be made public.

The EA said you would return 200 horses, 100 to each the east and west sides of the HMA, it did not say 200 minus 30 horses that are out there or 200 minus any left out there post gather. So 200 should be released. We recognize that some of the mares to be released would not be reproducing mares, and that would have some effect on future population, so we recommend that at least those 28 – 34 mares be treated with PZ vaccines before release, and it could easily be done, and boosted before they are released.

The AML is Arbitrary

If the study could release 200 horses, and the land could support those 200 horses, how do you justify now only being able to support 75 horses despite saying the range conditions continue to be the same as when they were gathered? Does this mean if the sterilization of 28 – 34 mares, and releasing those mares in the  200 for the purposes of the study would have had to be halted because of new range conditions? If so there has to be a full EIS done to determine the health of this range because your EA obviously failed in determining whether or not this range could support the 200 horses to be released according to the EA that was done.

Also as we stated in our opposition to the EA this HMA, should not have been created as a bubble within the original HA to be the only place horses are managed on the entire HA, and multiple use mandated in FLPMA only applies to lands that are not already set aside for use in a previous land use policy or act which is what the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act is. Therefore removal of horses to this level is not in keeping with your mandate to manage this area principally for wild horses, in fact, they do not even get an equal amount of forage, water, and land allotted to them.

This DNA is Retaliation

This action shows clear retaliation on the part of the BLM after not being able to proceed with the mare sterilization study that was to be done. The EA that was approved for that study stated 200 horses would be returned to the HMA.

According to court documents during our IBLA Appeal, this decision to release less than half the horses approved for release in your DR was predetermined if you did not win the case we filed against the mare sterilization and removal of too many horses from the herd. See Sharp Declaration at Pg. 6 where you stated: “IF BLM is unable to carry out the surgical procedures, it would not return all 200 wild horses involved in the study back to the HMA.” This further proves our assertion that the AML is arbitrary, and this action is retaliatory and not based on science.

BLM plans to do the study, after removing horses, used this emotional bribery to try and get us to drop the case, did not respond to our assertions in the case that there was a genetic problem and removal of so many horses was inappropriate, but then asks for a redaction, and ignores the fact that they just illegally removed horses with no approved DR. NOW, you again try to push a predetermined decision on the public and the horses without following appropriate laws or the best available science. Moreover, you are not managing for the health of this herd or their survivability on a genetic level. Where is the ON Range Management? Removals are not sustainable.

We Recommend

  • An EIS be done
  • A water improvement plan for the west side of the EA be done, or the fence be taken down separating the 2 sides of the HMA
  • A genetic study is done to determine the cause of the extremely high number of genetic anomalies seen and resulting in the euthanasia of horses after the gather.
  • The AML to be reevaluated and adjusted, and an update to the LUP be done to reflect that change.
  • This herd is managed at a more appropriate management level of 175 – 200 horses, with on range management tools such are PZP which can be darted via helicopter or bait trapping a family band at a time. Although if the vast majority is released and mares are already darted and boosted it will not need doing again for at least 3 years.

Respectfully Submitted,
Theresa J Barbour
Research & Legal Consultant
Citizens Against Equine Slaughter
PO Box 115
Drain, OR 97435

American Wild Horse Campaign -Seriously…WHAT Are You Doing???

15941122_1325944210795974_8445497496136084193_n

AWHC puts out another “give us your email” petition which will give them some kind of claim to another issue they did not even realize was an issue, but rather celebrated as one of their wins:

Take Action for the Wild Horses of Warm Springs

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is seeking public comments on a Determination of NEPA Adequacy (DNA) for the Warm Springs Herd Management Area (HMA) in Oregon…

That plan includes the return of just 66 horses to the range to meet the low Appropriate Management Level (AML) of 96 horses…

Bottom line: The BLM plan is releasing too few horses to maintain a healthy, genetically viable population…

We encourage you to submit comments directly there, and also take one moment to sign our petition below.

Val Cecama-Hogsett who has been following the media reports, doing the FOIA’s, and assisted on the legal cases Citizens Against Equine Slaughter filed with the Interior Board of Land Appeals in both 2016 and 2018 posted on your Facebook page the following comment in regard to your latest action:

“For crying out loud…YOU celebrated this as a great win of your 1st amendment lawsuit….now after we pointed out that BLM’s plan is definitely NOT a win, not acceptable, not legal NOW you put out this action to make people think you actually care?!?!?!?! How about you get real and honest with your supporters. I know Citizens Against Equine Slaughter and several other small advocate groups have had it with the fraudulent posts and half-truths of this organization.”

2019-03-10 (1)

CAES addressed the celebration AWHC claimed on this issue just a few weeks ago:

BLM DEAL TO RETURN WARM SPRINGS HORSES IS NO DEAL #FAKEWIN

WHILE OTHER WILD HORSE ADVOCATE GROUPS CELEBRATE, LIKELY BECAUSE THEY NEED TO FIND A WIN IN THE LAWSUIT THEY HAD DISMISSED FOR BEING MOOT, WE SEE THAT THIS NEW ANNOUNCEMENT OF BLM ON THE WARM SPRINGS CASE IS NO WIN AT ALL FOR THE HORSES. IN FACT, IT IS NOTHING AT ALL.

THE REAL STORY HERE IS READING THE MESSAGE BLM JUST ISSUED:

WE DIDN’T GET OUR WAY SO WE ARE NOT RETURNING 200 HORSES AS WE AGREED TO IN A PREVIOUS APPROVED PLAN. BUT HEY WE’LL TRY TO RETURN HORSES, JUST NOT FROM NOW THROUGH DECEMBER OF 2019, AND NOT PREGNANT OR UNPREGNANT MARES, OR STALLIONS.

What is BLM really proposing?

BLM issued a new plan to release wild horses on the Warm Springs Horse Management Area (HMA), changing the already approved plan. As we reported in our previous article on this the release of less than half the horses approved in the plan should not be changed because BLM could not go through with plans to sterilize mares. If the range could support 200 for their gruesome study, it can support the release of 200 without the study. Period. 200 horses must be released and we reject this new plan.

As if that was enough of an insult to our intelligence BLM also gives the following restrictions on releasing even the meager 66 these mainstream fake advocate organizations are touting as a great win. Here are the conditions that may change the release of just 66 horses:

BLM can’t return horses now or until approximately May or June because the roads are not good enough

Can’t return mares that are pregnant March – June because well, they might deliver on transport?  (They gather and transport pregnant mares routinely)

Won’t return mares with foals because of danger to foals on transport (They transport foals routinely)

Won’t return mares until foals are weaned and ripped away from mares 4 – 6 months after birth (so no returns from March – June until after 4 – 6 months later which would be as late as December

No returns during fire season June through fall

No returns if there is not adequate water (to be assessed in flyovers in June) even though forage is good and water on one half is good, the other side was questionable, and the solution is the removal of a livestock fence between the 2 sides of the HMA

No mares returned who were not pregnant, they could be sterile (erm the original plan was to return nearly 30 sterile mares wasn’t it?)

No stallion released without a mare released to keep a 50/50 sex ratio (unnatural and why can’t they release 33 stallions and release 33 mares as they can based on their other fake conditions)

AND BLM retains the right to alter, change, nullify, or create a whole new plan even if this one is passed

So, in other word BLM has said :

WE DIDN’T GET OUR WAY SO WE ARE NOT RETURNING 200 HORSES AS WE AGREED TO IN A PREVIOUS APPROVED PLAN. BUT HEY WE’LL TRY TO RETURN HORSES, JUST NOT FROM NOW THROUGH DECEMBER OF 2019, AND NOT PREGNANT OR UNPREGNANT MARES, OR STALLIONS.

Again in the latest attempt to promote your organization, you claim that your organization stopped the sterilization experiments…when in fact the BLM asked for an order to vacate and remand the plan during OUR legal case. The fact is that until the BLM can find a way to get around the law that says ‘surgical experiments on any wildlife expected to survive MUST be done in an aseptic (not field sterile) environment’ they simply cannot do these experiments. We asked you in 2016 to help us pursue this legal avenue, you refused, even after taking donations to file a lawsuit to “stop” these experiments. When we pointed out to you in emails that you had in fact collected funds for these purposes and asked you to donate those to us since we and several other orgs. were, in fact, filing that lawsuit, you refused, then 3 days later filed a lawsuit to ‘watch’ the experiments.

When your case this last time, 2018, again a first amendment lawsuit to watch the experiments was ruled moot because BLM canceled plans, again during OUR legal action, you announced it as a win YOU had for the horses and told people BLM would be releasing the horses. Hence, we clarified that with the above Feb 18th article. We would like to know what action your organization took that resulted in a win for any horse in this situation?

BLM responded to the end of your lawsuit by telling the media that they are working on ways to proceed with the experiments despite the litigation. They have not STOPPED plans to sterilize mares, they are simply trying to figure out how to get around the legal issues brought before them. Your lawsuit did nothing but once again, as in 2016, give them a first amendment lawsuit to claim was an issue, use as the reason the media gets for stopping plans, when in reality it gave them the chance to get our entire legal battle, and then use you fake lawsuit to request a vacate and remand order, and avoid a ruling on the legal issues we have now TWICE filed. Instead of working with us on solid legal arguments you file a first amendment lawsuit…something you told another advocate from yet another group is a lawsuit that doesn’t work when she asked about helping her file one to watch radio-collaring of wild horses in WY.

You not only refused to post but completely ignored our article to address the issue with BLM regarding this decision in another article we posted on February 15:

BLM DECIDES NOT TO RELEASE ALL THE HORSES PROMISED IN OREGON

BLM DOESN’T GET THEIR WAY AND WARM SPRINGS HORSES FROM OREGON SUFFER FOR IT.

Feb.15, 2019

In 2018 we filed legal action to stop the BLM in Oregon from performing brutal, archaic sterilization experiments on pregnant mares. The BLM, after receiving our legal arguments against their plans, and after we got the Oregon Veterinary Medical Examining Board to investigate the lead veterinarian who wishes to do these procedures, Burns BLM in Oregon canceled their plans to do them.

One declaration written by Burn’s BLM Rob Sharp to the court stated that if BLM was not able to do the experiments they would not release all 200 horses, which was what the approved plan stated. We called this emotional blackmail then, and after bringing this up on the BLM Facebook page for their wild horse and burro program…just the next day…BLM loads online a new proposed plan to return less than half what was approved in the previous APPROVED plan.

“Despite the DR being vacated, the conditions that caused the BLM to determine that approximately 652 animals were excess and needed to be removed from the range remain present and necessitate the current decision. To that end, this determination of NEPA adequacy (DNA) assesses whether the 2018 EA adequately analyzed the environmental impact of permanently removing wild horses and burros from the Warm Springs HMA, the proposed return of horses to low appropriate management level (AML) for the HMA, and the treatment of mares to be returned to the HMA with porcine zona pellucida (PZP). This DNA in no part replaces or relies on the 2018 DR, which was vacated in its entirety.”


OOPS – FOIA DOCUMENTS PROVE THIS IS A LIE

BLM — you removed “850 or so” stating “only 652-ish” are to be permanently removed.  The following email communication was received by CAES through a FOIA request. Note the author is BLM Public Affairs Specialist Tara Thissell.

Thissell emails 1

According to the gather reports from Sun J, the contractor who did the gather…846 horses were gathered, and of those only 813 made it to holding because of the horses that were killed or euthanized (and one lucky one that got away)

Per the new BLM proposal they will only leave a total of 96 horses and 15 burros (the low end of the AML for the Warm  Springs HMA. The reason they claimed an emergency to gather the HMA before any appeals on the gather were heard was deteriorating range conditions…which we also challenged because they had known about, and had been hauling water for months.

Despite the range being able to support the release of 200 of the gathered horses then (to do their study), they now claim that it can only support to the low end of the AML.

“The AML for the Warm Springs HMA is 96 to 178 horses and 15 to 24 burros. The number of animals gathered combined with the estimated 30 horses and 30 burros remaining on the range indicates that there are approximately 779 excess horses (plus 2 mules) and 56 excess burros above the low end of the respective AMLs.”

BLM tries to say…mares released would have been spayed so we would be releasing mares that can reproduce and add to the population which was not part of the original plan. When in reality only 28 – 34 of the 200 released would have been spayed mares, and BLM states in the new plan that they are
So let’s recap…

BLM removes 850-ish

SunJ Contractor who did gather says 889 removed – 846 horses, 43 burros. However, only 813 of those horses were shipped to BLM holding because one got away and 33 were killed

Plans to experiment on some of the 200 they say they will put back on the land

BLM stomps feet and says in court documents if we can’t do the experiments we refuse to let all the horses we said we’d release go back on the range

BLM claims 850 or so were gathered

BLM claims 652 were “excess”

BLM can’t do experiments

BLM claims really 779 +2 +56 (horses mules and burros which were all added together in the number of animals gathered in 2018) are excess now…837 excess animals

BLM Plans to return 66 horses instead of the 200 approved in the proposed plan, and according to their estimate that there were also 30 burros left after the gather which is over AML so none will be returned.

And what is their justification…” the conditions …remain present and necessitate the current decision.” The conditions that were such that 200 horses would be returned?

Go to this link:

CLICK HERE TO COMMENT TO BLM

Tell BLM that when conditions remain the same…they have no justification for putting less than half the planned horses back out on the Warm Springs HMA. There was range to support 200 for a study, and they admit conditions remain present, not worse, therefore there is range to support returning 200.

WHY does AWHC seem to support only advocate groups that blindly, unquestioningly follow whatever AWHC wants to say/do? We asked you in 2016 emails, how you decide what actions to take, how you involve your members in making those decisions…your response was we are not a coalition. Now you seem to have your favorite ‘partners’ but again your members seem to be left in the cold with information provided to them, and you don’t seem to be following what we hear advocates saying they want. Why?

WHY is it that you refuse to give CAES credit for any work in stopping the mare sterilizations both in 2016 and 2018, why did you post only a short video from Salt River Wild Horse Management Group on the situation with the Heber wild horse shootings but completely shun CAES, and our AZ office the Heber Wild Horses Freedom Preservation Alliance and the decades of work we’ve done to protect that herd? When in fact that small video was done by Simone Netherlands of the SRWHMG actually was more harmful than helpful. It put the orphaned filly’s location out to the public when we were not sure if she was a target to the shooters, and all the commotion of Ms. Netherlands and her entourage chased off a family band we had hoped would adopt the foal. Then in the same posts about the Heber’s from the day she spent in the area she posted photos of herself at dinner with people she said were community members helping protect the horses, keeping an eye on the orphaned filly…we know these people, and we know they have been known to open their gates to a curious wild horse that later ends up part of their horses provided for trail rides. Another person in that photo who claims to be a great advocate in that area actually picked up and removed shell casings from some of the crime scenes. So instead of sharing the situation from the advocacy group that is most familiar, most involved and getting results in the case you promote one of YOUR partners. WHY? What is your real motivation?

WHY instead of promoting Anna Orchard, who was and is providing the on-the-ground work for the Virginia Range horses, are you trying to destroy her reputation trying to make sure she doesn’t get a contract to continue care for the herd? Why didn’t you support WHOA’s NM Bills for wild horses? So many ethical questions about your organization….and you just refuse to answer us.

Again we ask why you seek to destroy or diminish the work of all these small advocate groups and organizations…are we a threat to your visibility or funding? Are you working for the government to divide the advocacy? Are you providing distractions via less than adequate lawsuits, half-truths and other divisive tactics to cover-up BLM or FS actions?

OPEN LETTER TO AMERICAN WILD HORSE CAMPAIGN

©CAES2019
10 March 2019

CAES & Coyote Canyon Caballos d’Anza Orgs. Respond to AWHC & Their Handling of the Situation of the Modoc Wild Horses

advocacy

DISMISSING SMALLER ADVOCATE ORGANIZATIONS BECAUSE THEY WILL NOT BLINDLY FOLLOW MAY NOT BE THE BEST WAY TO DO BUSINESS. IT DOESN’T UNITE A MOVEMENT IT DIVIDES, WHICH IS A GOVERNMENT TACTIC…

As the organization that clearly brings in the most money in the name of being advocates FOR our wild horses we are asking that you listen to the will of the advocacy and represent us…otherwise aren’t you acting like the same government that will not hear our wishes for our wild horses in the first place?
Dear AWHC:

We are asking you to stop working with the BLM and FS and in apparent mover that are not in the best interest of the horses and sanitize government actions. The most recent of which is the issue with the Forest Service and the wild horses of the Modoc National Forest. There is law that forbids abdication of management of these federally protected wild horses.

Most recently we are responding to your article:
Recently we have asked you to do more than document gathers, we have asked you to report crimes and file court injunctions where you see animal cruelty and abuse happening.
Recently we pointed out that you gave zero credit to Citizens Against Equine Slaughter for work to stop the mare sterilizations in Oregon and that you celebrated BLM putting back 66 of nearly 850 horses removed when BLM asked the judges, in our case, to allow them to vacate plans to do experiments.
Recently we asked you to promote the small groups, promote us, empower us by posting/using our petition to stop euthanasia. asking the government not to allow our wild horses to be killed. You only use the word slaughter, which you are smart enough to know are 2 distinctly different things when it comes to speaking with lawmakers and getting bills passed.

Now in this case with the horses in the Modoc National Forest in California…we are asking that you use the millions of dollars you collect from the public and from the government to do what is right. Use the laws that exist to protect these horses.

It is important to note that the previous CA Wild Horse and Burro Manager Tom Pogacnik stated that the BLM Solicitor determined that BLM could not abdicate jurisdiction over the horses to another agency.

Kathleen Hayden, a co-founder of Coyote Canyon Caballos d’Anza Inc. stated, “In our case, it was the Coyote Canyon Herd and Herd Area that BLM transferred to CA Anza Borrego Desert state parks.”
This is applicable to any transfer that USFS may attempt in a transfer to another entity.
IS AWHC going to file to stop this flagrant violation of the law?
In Mar of 2016, re: fossil evidence
Karen Miner, Environmental Program Manager, stated:
“When and if available scientific information convinces the experts that determine the checklist of native species to North America that Equus caballus should be considered as an indigenous species, they will make the change in the next revision to the list, and then we would take that fact into consideration for inclusion on our state animal lists.”
We are asking AWHC to:
  • campaign to add wild horses to the inventory of native species,
  • get them listed under Ca Endangered Species Act 
  • fight to stop inhumane roundups
  • fight for increased AMLs to maintain genetically viable herds which retains their unique genetics in different pockets of the west
  • openly oppose the 10-year plan to reduce herds to AML
  • openly oppose plans to put wild horses in pastures or sanctuaries


Until you do this your organization is not using the most powerful tools in the box.

The most important SUPREME COURT case law, Kleppe v New Mexico opinion delivered by Marshall Thurgood identified the wildlife status and ordered the return to public lands. And in WHOANM v NM Livestock Board where the judges ruling confirmed our wild horses are not only wildlife but are “NATIVE” wildlife. 
The most recent DNA findings confirmed the native status, AND there is a plethora of sufficient data that distinguishes wild from domesticated behavior. That difference appeared to be disputed by USFWS for denying The Cloud Foundation’s petition to list.
In CA the path is clear, and the time is ripe.

To our readers:

If you agree and would like AWHC to start using their funding for the points we have posted about please contact their director, Suzanne Roy at sroy@americanwildhorsecampaign.org

or send your comments to us via the form below and we will forward them to AWHC.