Update on Congress’s (BLM) Spay Experimentation on Wild Mares


BREAKING NEWS: Update on Congress’s SPAY Experimentation on Wild Mares.
Yesterday, a consortium of Groups who filed a lawsuit to WATCH the illegal Spay experimentation on conscious pregnant wild mares, announced that they had “WON” “VICTORY“. 
However, in a motion filed today by these same groups (Kathrens et. al.), an attempt was made to preserve the group’s so far, verbal temporary stay.
In the group’s motion, the following statement was made:
 “. . . BLM has not in fact actually vacated the challenged decision, nor even provided any definitive time frame in which it will do so.”
In their 2016 case to WATCH the BLM’s Spay experimentation the following was stipulated (understood and agreed to) by both parties.
          “. . . Once a Decision Record has been appealed to the IBLA, BLM loses jurisdiction over the Decision Record. . .  “
          “(if a timely notice of appeal is properly filed, the office issuing the decision loses jurisdiction over the case and has no further authority to take any action on the subject matter of the appeal until jurisdiction over it is restored by Board action disposing of the appeal) . . .”
Hence, the BLM Decision of Record IS still operative, until the  BLM asks the IBLA for a vacate and remand order in our CAES appeal and it is granted.
CAES is still working hard on the Appeal with our next brief due to the IBLA in coming days.
We will continue to celebrate whenever and however these illegal torture experiments are actually ended. When and If the IBLA does indeed actually cancel these illegal experiments, we will let you know!

CAES Will Gain Protection for Wild Mares Again, No Spay Experiments!

BLM Announces Plans to Ask the IBLA to Remand the DOR and Cancel Spay Experiments

BLM is Frustrated, to Say the Least

©CAES 07 November 2018

Yesterday we filed the latest round with the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA) in our case to stop the brutal sterilization experiments on pregnant wild mares in Oregon.

In our Answer to the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM’s) latest round, Citizens Against Equine Slaughter (CAES) allegations were that the decision made was not following proper procedures per National Environmental Policy Act including:

– There was no Environmental Impact Study (EIS) and no appropriate EIS to tier (refer) to.

– The choice of ovariectomy over other alternatives including native PZP was arbitrary and capricious and cruel for the sake of cruelty.

– The cost analysis to support this arbitrary decision was based on a fraudulent and out of date characterization of PZP as requiring roundup and branding thereby artificially and fraudulently inflating PZP costs. (Native PZP is no longer experimental since 2012 when it was registered by the EPA in order to allow feasible on range management per the EPA label in 2012.

– That the BLM was ignoring both federal animal cruelty laws regarding experimentation (AWA) as well as state and local animal cruelty laws regarding animals and sentients.

That in itself should cause the IBLA to rule in our favor but we also asked for a time extension because BLM is blocking Freedom Of Information Act requests for documents surrounding the deaths of horses gathered from the Warm Springs Herd Management Act.

While CAES did also state that there was public disgust and extreme controversy requiring an EIS, CAES did not file a case to only watch the illegal torture of sentient beings.

Today the BLM announced to a federal court, Kathrens et al. v Zinke et al. (3:18cv1691) that they intend to ask the IBLA for a redaction of their Decision of Record (DOR). This was exactly what the result of our 2016 case was.

BLM cannot cancel a DOR while the DOR is under appeal (our case is that appeal) with the IBLA.

BLM has asked the Portland court to delay entering the preliminary injunction because they plan to ask for remand in our case and that will make the Portland court case moot.

Before BLM can rescind the portion of the Decision Record relating to the spay study itself, the Interior Board of Land Appeals must first vacate and remand the decision record to BLM. (emphasis added) See, e.g., Benton C. Cavin, 166 IBLA 78, 81-82 (2005) (after appeal to the Interior Board of Land Appeals, “BLM has no jurisdiction unilaterally to reverse a decision under appeal and grant relief”). BLM will file a motion to vacate and remand the Decision Record with the Interior Board of Land Appeals in the coming days.

Because BLM will soon rescind the portion of the Decision Record relating to the spay
study, Plaintiffs’ claims will soon be moot and there will be no need for an order relating toPlaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction.” (emphasis added)

“Therefore, Defendants respectfully request that the Court stay entry of Plaintiffs’ proposed order, or any other order on the motion for preliminary injunction, for 14 days, until November 21, 2018. Defendants will submit a status report on November 21, 2018, informing the Court of their progress toward rescinding the Decision Record.”

2018-11-07 (11)

While the Kathrens et al makes the claim that these experiments are socially unacceptable. CAES asserted in our case that they are illegal.

CAES thanks all of you who have supported us, the little fish, in an ocean of sharks! You made this happen, all of you keep us going with your support and love. We’re in this for the horses, not the media, not the credit or fame, but the truth and the law that will save our horses. Thank you from us at CAES, and from the horses and their unborn foals.

“Unity is only effective when you are fighting the same battles” – TJB™

Muddy Creek Appeal – and an Explanation of the IBLA Appeals Process

CAES Files Next Round with the Interior Board for Land Appeals. on the Muddy Creek Wild Horse Gather and Removals.

Allegations include: illegal transfer of withdrawn lands to SITLA, animal cruelty, torture, neglect, fraud, failure to follow proper procedures, inadequate, possibly intentional lack of transparency and FOIA requests, and much more.

©CAES 2018 October 31, Val Cecama-Hogsett

2018-10-27 (10)

Ok so, we announced a while back that we filed an appeal on the Muddy Creek gather in UT. For those who don’t know the process when you file the appeal, against a BLM action or Decision of Record, you file a document called the Notice of Appeal, and that might also include a Petition of Stay (like an injunction filed in court to stop something from happening while the case is being heard).

After that is filed there may be some response from BLM that we file a reaction to, but the next major step in the appeal case is called the Reason for Appeal. This is the bulk or meat of the appeal. All the reasons you feel BLM acted in error, or against the law etc.

So today we filed that Reason for Appeal brief….and BLM is likely to respond to it, which means it is likely we will have one more round of documents to go to court which will be our reaction to whatever they respond with.

Other actions in this particular case that have been noteworthy have been that BLM timed the Decision of Record just perfect so that they could begin the gather before the time period to appeal had expired. So sadly our due process was stolen and horses were gathered. However, we now know about this statute that we were not aware of that allows BLM to use the phrase “Effective Upon Issuance” to usurp the appeals deadline. And we will be ready for and watching for that tactic from here on out in all other actions BLM takes.

Read the entire brief here:  Muddy Creek Reason for Appeal 2018

Scoping Period and Public Comment Period Announced for Skull Hollow Campground and Trailhead Improvements – Ochocos Nat’l Forest

USDA Forest Service
Crooked River National Grassland
Ochoco National Forest
Jefferson County, Oregon
T.13 S, R.14 E, Section 33, Willamette Meridian
Skull Hollow is the busiest recreation site on the Crooked River National Grassland due to its close proximity to urban communities and to the adjacent Smith Rock State Park. Located minutes away from Redmond, Terrebonne, Prineville, Sisters, and Bend, the area has become a popular recreation site for nearby communities during the winter and spring months when higher elevation areas are inaccessible due to mud and snow. Skull Hollow serves as a launching point for mountain biking, hiking, horseback riding, rock climbing, and camping.

Skull Hollow Campground consists of a concessionaire-operated campground that offers 28 campsites from mid-May to mid-November and a trailhead that accesses the popular Gray Butte and Smith Rock. Public use of the site has exceeded the capacity of current infrastructure. Between 2010 and 2016, recreation use nearly doubled at the campground, from 6,586 camper days in 2010 to 12,618 camper days in 2016. The
campground is often full so dispersed camping and parking sprawls out around the trailhead, even though dispersed camping with a vehicle within 300 feet of a road is not permitted in this area. Dispersed campers often enter the campground to use the two existing toilets though they have not paid the campground fees.
With the dispersed camper’s unauthorized use of the campground toilets, there is often lines of 10 or 12 people waiting for each toilet during the high season. There is no designated parking area, toilets or water available at the trailhead.
Proposed Action
The Crooked River National Grassland is proposing to improve recreational facilities at Skull Hollow Campground and Trailhead. Proposed activities at the campground would include adding 32 developed campsites with gravel parking spurs, three vault toilets, a potable water system with pump house, hydrant and storage tank, and a 12-foot culvert pipe. Proposed activities at the trailhead would include developing ADA compliant parking areas for hikers, bikers and equestrians, installing two vault toilets, horse tethering rails and feeding troughs, a bicycle maintenance area, up to three picnic pavilion shelters with cement pads, paved day use trails and an information kiosk. This project also proposes to remove the cattle guard at the junction of Lone Pine Road and Jefferson County Public Use Road 5710 and relocate it at the north side of the trailhead exit and to reroute portions of the Cole Loop Trail to provide segregated access for equestrians and bikers. Refer to Map 1 and 2 for details about the campground and trailhead improvements.
Current recreation funding is very limited and there is no money to purchase new toilets. Eight vault toilets that currently receive little to no use in other areas of the Ochoco National Forest will be evaluated for relocation and up to five of these toilets would be moved to the Skull Hollow Campground and Trailhead. Relocating toilets that receive little to no use will make the best use of existing amenities for a greater number of public visitors. Refer to Map 3 and 4 for toilet locations. Appendix A includes a list of these toilets, a description of the site, use levels, and other considerations.

The proposed work at the campground and trailhead would be accomplished using a backhoe, road grader, dump trucks, cement trucks, and asphalt equipment. Toilet relocation would involve lifting the top structure and vault with the use of a crane and backfilling the resulting holes using weed-free fill from a local Forest Service pit. All areas of ground disturbance would take place on the previously disturbed ground in order to minimize impacts. Work would include rehabilitation of the old trail parking area and the user created dirt road that parallels the north boundary of the campground and relocation of approximately 400 feet of wire fencing at the southwest corner of the campground.

Purpose and Need
The purpose of the proposed project is to improve recreation facilities at Skull Hollow Campground and Trailhead in order to accommodate increased use, improve visitor experience, and better protect nearby resources from unplanned and unsustainable use. The project is needed to prevent people from damaging the surrounding area by camping illegally and driving on and trampling sensitive soils and spreading invasive
weeds and leaving excessive amounts of trash and human waste. The project would provide adequate designated parking areas for hikers, bikers and horse trailers and more designated camping sites and restrooms to accommodate increasing numbers of visitors. The proposed work would also alleviate conflicts between overnight and day users, and between different types of recreation use, by providing adequate parking and facilities to accommodate different uses. Information signage is needed to promote sustainable use of the recreation site in accordance with Leave No Trace principles.
Land and Resource Management Plan Direction

The proposed project is expected to meet Forest-wide standards and guidelines and Management Area standards and guidelines as described in the Ochoco National Forest and Crooked River National Grassland Land and Resource Management Plan as amended. Management allocations for the project area include MA-G3 General Forage.

Categorical Exclusion Criteria

Decisions may be categorically excluded from documentation in an environmental impact statement or environmental assessment when they are within one of the categories identified by the U.S. Department of Agriculture in 7 CFR part 1b.3 or one of the categories identified by the Chief of the Forest Service in Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.15 sections 31.12 or 32.2, and there are no extraordinary circumstances
related to the decision that may result in a significant individual or cumulative environmental effect. The specific category anticipated for this proposed action is found in 36 CFR 220.6(d) (5) and described in Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.15, Chapter 30, Section 32.12(5) – Repair and maintenance of recreation sites and facilities.


Public Comment
Comments may be submitted online through the Forest Service online comment system available at

or mailed to:

Kent Koeller
Recreation Planner, Ochoco National Forest
3160 NE Third Street
Prineville, Oregon 97754

Implementation Date
Implementation is anticipated to begin Summer 2018.

Contact Information
For further information, please contact Kent Koeller, Recreation Planner, Ochoco National Forest, at:
or 541-416-6482.

2018-10-302018-10-30 (1)

Reward Offered for Information on Shootings of Federally Protected Wild Horses in the Heber Herd in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest




ph (202) 225-2435
fax (202) 225-1541

Or use this information from hos Tuscon office:
If you need help with a federal agency, please contact one of our caseworkers at
520-622-6788 or
email az03services@mail.house.gov

The Heber wild horses are being illegally shot after months of roping, trapping, and even wrangling to steal them off their land.

Image may contain: outdoor




An anonymous donor has put up $2,500 for reward and additional donations are coming in for information that will help catch the perpetrators of this federal crime.

Two Heber Wild Horse young stallions were found shot dead on10-13-2018 on Forest Service Rd 50 around mile marker 8. We were told the Navajo County Sheriff’s Dept did an investigation today and turned their information over to Forest Service law enforcement. We were also told by Arizona Game and Fish that they were notified yesterday and that Forest Service law enforcement had been out to investigate.

Please, if anybody knows anything about this, please contact us at 541.315.6650.

If you were in the area yesterday and saw any vehicles or heard gunshots, please let us know.

If you’ve heard any rumors, let us know. We want to stay on top of this and make sure a thorough investigation is done.

Somebody knows something, please keep your eyes and ears open and if you head out to the forest be careful! There are a lot of sick people in this world.

The Heber Herd is a federally protected herd.


Image may contain: shoes and outdoor

For too long the Forest Service has NOT taken these acts seriously, and perhaps even encouraged them.

We have receipts gained through FOIA, whereby the FS contracted with local ranchers through the years to gather and ship some of the herd to slaughter. And there has been a history of horses being caught, wrangled, from the Forest for decades.

Halter around the neck from attempted capture.

This year we brought you to notice that horses were trapped without water (between livestock fences on the wild horse territory), and we worked with FS to get them to allow us to haul water in, and we provided the tanks, manpower, and water.

Recent months have seen suspicous horse trailers in the Forest, horses caught in a trap, and horses with ropes around their necks.

Trapped mare with her foal and another whose mother was outside the trap.

It is long past time for Richard Madril and Steve Best of the Forest Service to demand that the Forest Service Law Enforcement find out who is responsible for these actions and put an end to them. THAT is the job of the Forest Service and Mr. Madril and Mr. Best we support your efforts to do that job!


If you have any information please call CAES @ 541.315.6650. We will keep your name anonymous.

CAES Files a Stay to Stop Dangerous Experiment Tantamount to Abortions on Wild Mares

On Friday, October 12, 2018, CAES filed a 415-page Appeal and Petition for Stay with the Interior Board of Land Appeals.

CAES is asking the judges on the Board to rule in favor of their motion to stop any experiments from happening on the Warm Springs Mares while the appeal against the plan to experiment on the mares can be decided by the Board of Judges.

The Burns, Oregon BLM, along with Dr. Leon Pielstick, Dr. Julie Weikel and others have been working on this plan since they were stopped from doing these experiments in 2016.

In 2016 CAES filed appeal against this plan, and the BLM asked the Board to redact their decision of record claiming they no longer wished to do them.

Since that time there has been a concentrated effort to convince the public and unknowing members of Congress that these experiments are safe and necessary.

Jeff Rose the District Manager and Rob Sharp the Wild Horse & Burro Specialist at the BLM Burns District office conspired with Dr. Pielstick and well-known, pro-slaughter organization Protect the Harvest to circumvent the law and do the experiments.

They sold horses to the organization, they were still behaviorally wild, or ungentled, and Dr. Pielstick knew this and knew what the laws were. Whether or not the law was broken, it was certainly unethical. And BLM broke their own policy by selling to a pro-slaughter organization.

Burns BLM also sold horses knowing they were to be experimented on. That is also a very questionable, and legally questionable action as well.

Then we have Dr. Weikel, another Oregon veterinarian who has been on boards, panel discussions, and speeches to promote the experiments. All the while knowing the federal agency she had been under contract with to do these procedures on cows, was going to be joining BLM to do this. It is likely she will be involved in the experiments in Burns if they are allowed to move forward.

To make matters even more corrupt add in the lies of western Congressman like Chris Stewart:

Screenshot 2018-06-06 10.44.26

———-I love these horses….but we have to kill them.————-

And Rob Bishop


———-You will let us do horse abortions or we’ll kill them all.————–



And how do they get the science to prove that this is acceptable via veterinary practice and research standards….even though this is an antiquated, unsafe surgery done in a non-sterile environment, even admitting that unborn foals will be aborted (and stating so as if it is doesn’t matter at all)?

Well, they set up councils, working groups, and advisory boards who will be their puppets. Then they get special interest groups to sit on those boards and support what they want, oh and lets also not forget their wives, cousins, brothers, and work associates, some with absolutely no credentials to write fake reports or studies that might seem to support their agenda.

After digging in and combing through nearly 30 pages of references listed by the Burns BLM in their Environmental Assessment and supporting documents, we provided assessments of many of those studies and reports. We noticed that there are a few names that were common throughout and that the 2 studies the BLM used the most as the foundation of support for these experiments are not written by credentialled scientists, one just written by 2 people who worked for the agency where Pielstick did the experiments before. Pielstick himself has never provided on written Piece of paper on any of the prior procedures he has done.

Earlier in the year, CAES filed a complaint against Pielstick with the Oregon Veterinary Medical Examining Board who opened an investigation. But this whole thing reeks of collusion and we believe even rises to a conspiracy against the American people.

We’ll update you as the case moves forward. For now, we just hope the IBLA can see through these shenanigans and not allow more innocent, sentient beings fall prey to the sick minds of humans.




Muddy Creek Appeal – It Isn’t Over Yet

by Val Cecama-Hogsett

UPDATE – Even though we were denied our Due Process for a Stay to be heard and the horses were gathered, there is still a case to be fought. The IBLA denied a motion from the BLM to dismiss our case for cause, and again for lack of standing. We are moving forward and this far BLM has had to ask for 2 time extensions just to respond to the initial notice of appeal. We are fighting back, we are fighting for the horses that remain on the HMA, for the horses that were removed, and for the behaviors historic and present of the BLM and ranching community. Stay tuned and please don’t feel defeated…we need to be strong, that’s who wild horse advocates and warriors are! We will not let them wear us down and belittle us.

Part of the complaint we bring forward is a clear bias against not only the wild horses but also the people who advocate for them. In the initial round of documents, we included an email we obtained, between two BLM employees, Shawna Richardson, and Joy Fatooh. In this email wild horse advocates are said to be “emotionally driven” and that we cannot read these documents (referring to an EA for Oil and Gas leases on an HMA) and that we cannot understand NEPA. Ms. Richardson asked for the mailing list, a list of interested parties that must be notified of certain actions, such as a new EA open to public comment, so that she could see who was on it, and know “what we’re (the BLM) up against.” This is just another example of the psychological warfare used against us by the government. Let me see who is on the list, so we know what to say in the EA to avoid issues.
Shawna Richardson may be a familiar name to some of our followers. She sits in many wild horse groups on social media. That’s her job, she is there to monitor what we say, what we post, get to know what issues are important to us and what might cause a public relations problem for the BLM. That is why our Board members and other volunteer team members made the decision to leave several of the Facebook pages and groups. We also do not let people we know are working for BLM in this type of capacity sit in our groups. I have no problem telling BLM what we’re doing, or what we think, but don’t sit in our groups and just act like a spy. Is that really what you want the government doing with your tax money?
The general attitude toward wild horse advocates is one we see bestowed upon our wild horses. That attitude is that we are of little value and just a nuisance. That is evident in the comments you will read in this email about our annoying form letters and letters in general. So if you do not write often…guess what you need to do…
And this letter makes it clear that your letters DO make a difference!

Richardson Email 1Richardson Email 2

The Illegal Process of a Collaborative Group…it’s the Trend.

Heber Wild Horse Management Plan will be drafted by people who have no interest in providing management for the health or protection of the wild horses. The only real advocate for the horses was just fired. Fired from a working group??

They fired her through a voicemail…how cowardly is that?!?!
Click here to listen

This comes just days after Mary Hauser, with the help of her organization had submitted her thoughts on the recommendations for the first Heber wild horse management plan in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest.

The working group has been a very hostile environment for Mary. And the meetings have been held illegally behind closed doors, no public allowed, no minutes kept, not even a recording of these meetings. They have been held over the phone when Mary was at work and Mary was not allowed a substitute if she could not be there. Another member of our Arizona branch (the Heber Wild Horses Freedom Preservation Alliance – HWHFPA) and Val Cecama-Hogsett from CAES tried to substitute for Mary and even asked to be allowed just to listen as members of the public, we were not allowed.

Mary issued a public response to her voicemail firing from the working group which we are sharing here:

“The Deck is Stacked Against the Heber Wild Horses

The Heber Wild Horse Territory Collaborative Working Group Terminated Me Via Voicemail.

My Public Response by Mary Hauser

The reason I am writing a public response following my termination by the Heber Wild Horse Territory Collaboration Working Group is not to defend myself in the public’s eye. It is because I have seen the inside workings of this group and I am terrified as to what is being planned for the Heber Wild Horse Herd and I think the public has a right to know.
In Mike Schoon’s voicemail, he said, “In our opinion, you have not been working in the spirit of the Collaboration.” He never said what that “spirit” was, so I’m left to draw my own opinion. My opinion is because I would not conform to what I believe to have been their preset agenda for their ultimate management plan which will decimate the herd and send more than 3/4 of the Heber herd to a fate unknown.

As excited as I was to join the Collaborative Group and represent the Heber Wild Horses and their Territory, I am just as disappointed to see how it was orchestrated and carried out over the last twelve months. Arizona State University along with Southwest Decision Resources was contracted and paid to administrate the working group. The initial problem I had was for a meeting of this magnitude where in attendance we had the Forest Service, BLM, and Arizona Game and Fish officials as well as, cattle grazing permittees, and other interested parties involved and yet no official minutes were ever taken at any of these meetings.

I repeatedly asked for minutes to be taken during the first three meetings so that meetings could be reviewed. This would have been a nice paper trail for someone who would have wanted to know who made comments and who is in favor and who is not. There are very important decisions being made during these meetings and people should be held accountable for their decisions. I was told they were not taking minutes because they were not necessary. ASU answers…Someone would take Notes.

Originally I felt my contributions to the group would be to support and protect the herd with my long-term observations and studies of the herd, individual workings of the bands, and my knowledge of the forest. However, I realized I was being forced out of my role as a contributor and into the role of a quiet observer of a well-orchestrated screenplay of a management plan for the Heber Wild Horse Territory. I believe this was a plan which appeared to have already been devised and laid out prior to the first meeting of the Collaborative Group.
The reason this became so obvious is that members of the Collaborative Group openly admitted to me at the onset of these meetings that they did not have much if any knowledge of the Sitgreaves National Forest. Many, including some of the Forest Service personnel, had never even been out into the forest until a field trip with this group.

The next startling obvious change occurred when people who had never owned a horse or had very limited to no experience with the Heber Wild Horses were suddenly full of knowledge. Those same people now were full of suggestions about the logistics of gathering, monitoring, tagging, placing tracking collars, and darting birth control. They also took active roles in decisions on how many horses would be left on the land without education or concern of genetics or viable herd numbers.

Their sudden knowledge gave me the impression that they had been hired as actors (without pay) and apparently given scripts to drive the direction of these meetings that were already planned out. The meetings moved swiftly to follow the path of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) recommendations and the activities that BLM currently engages across our nation.
It also became obvious within the first three meetings that there was no education of the day to day life of the Heber wild horses. When I attempted to educate, defend or make a point in support of the Heber Wild Horses it was ignored. Sometimes I would receive a follow-up phone call from one of the ASU members, Michael Schoon, to ‘correct’ me and advise me on what I could, should or should not say during the meetings. Meanwhile, it appeared others had freedom of speech.

Early on the BLM took the lead of this Collaborative Group even though these horses are not on BLM land. The BLM agent controlled the direction of how things were going to be carried out. The Forest Service employees to this point made very few comments even though they are charged with the management of these horses. Per the Wild and Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971, the Forest Service has the responsibility to designate Wild Horse Territories and implement management plans for those Territories. Through the years the Forest Service had failed to devise a plan to manage the Heber Wild Horse Territory, so it’s not surprising that they have passed their responsibility off to the BLM which has had years of experience stripping the American West of wild horses.

We have to make it clear that there is nobody left on the working group panel who is truly an advocate for the horses. We know it by their own words…one of the so-called advocates suggested “euthanasia” as a way to cull the herd. We know it by their actions…the Forest Service illegally contracted with ranchers in the 1980s and 1990s to capture and remove free-roaming horses without ever having a management plan. Then again in 2005, they announced they were going to remove free-roaming horses until a court injunction prevented them from doing so. We know it by their inaction…a working group member turned her back on the wild horses for approximately three weeks in an area she was assigned by Forest Service to deliver water to during the drought.

Over the course of the meetings, their lack of professionalism was displayed as shown here in their final voicemail termination. This came as no surprise because they knew I would NEVER accept their plan to manage the Heber Wild Horse Herd into extinction.

To the Forest Service: This is notice to ensure that my name is NOT to appear on any documentation connected with the Heber Wild Horse Territory Management Plan.”

So the Forest Service has fired the only person in the group with historic and recent knowledge of the horses themselves. They fired the advocacy group that provided much-needed water to not only horses but all wildlife in the forest. They fired her because they found out during those water hauling efforts that she and the HWHFPA is a branch of CAES, and they knew the recommendations submitted recently, by Mary Hauser who is a board member of CAES,  followed laws that they want nothing to do with because it doesn’t support the rest of the working groups wishes to get rid of the herd.

They plan to decrease the herd to numbers that are too low to survive genetically. They want to make sure they do not lose the grazing rights for one single cow on the forest, but the horses are ok to go! They insist the herd has grown and justified it by now counting horses that live off the territory. The territory boundaries that were never drawn up to include the historic location of the horses. The horses have never only lived in the 3 by 20-mile map the FS drew and decided was going to be their territory. In fact, very few live on the territory because the entire territory is fenced for cattle allotments.

They insist there has been a population boom, when in fact the population has been maintained for 13 years by predators and other natural contributions. This year, for example, the herd went from an estimated 230 horses to under 180 because of drought and predation on foals. This is a herd where the ecosystem is balanced, except for the cattle and fences!

We have also noticed the complaints by livestock owners that livestock is being preyed on by predators. This means if they reduce the herd to the 60 to 66 horses the working group wants to recommend then there will be more livestock lost to predators, then the ranchers will want the predators killed. That will, in turn, lead to a larger population of horses….etc…etc…etc.

Here are the recommendations and attachments submitted by Mary in regards to the working groups draft recommendations to the forest service:



This ecosystem in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest has several endangered species. One of them is the Mexican Gray Wolf. Although most predation on the wild horse population is due to lions, we know there are wolves in the herd territory, we saw them during water hauling efforts. We want them protected too and really feel this area of our world is so special, it is the only working ecosystem we know of where wild horses are being managed close to perfect because man has had very little impact.

In fact, the only impact other than the obvious fencing issues that impeded the free-roaming nature of the horses, and their ability to access their own territory in full, is the illegal gathering of horses that the FS paid ranchers to do periodically. This, of course, was before the working group and was brought to light when the FS tried to gather horses a few years back and was promptly sued for not having a management plan before the gather and removal of horses.

The current working group was commissioned by the FS as a result of that lawsuit, and the FS was to include the advocates involved in that lawsuit, of which Mary was one, and they were to include the public which they have never done, and that was brought to their attention many times over the past several months. AZ University representatives even went so far as to say they are above any open meetings or Sunshine Act laws.

Statement from the Arizona State University webpage on the working group:

“In 2007, the Forest Service entered into a Stipulation Agreement to develop a written Territory Management Strategy (Plan) in compliance with the Act and other relevant laws and regulations that govern Forest Service procedures. Creating a management plan for the HWHT will help provide for the sustainability of natural resources and horse populations connected to the territory. “

Click here to read the Court Agreement

Arizona State University also makes the following claim on the website:

“As the collaboration moves forwards, ASU will provide regular updates on the working group’s deliberations. As input and recommendations develop for the Territory Management Plan, ASU and the working group will provide ways for the public to engage.”

Ironically, not only have they not provided any updates, but they have also not made meeting public, provided any minutes or recordings of the meetings and expressly voted to remove members of the public from a meeting of the working group. (The other wild horse advocate (in name only) voted with the Federal and State Employees, ranchers and others at the meeting to oust public, and also not to allow Mary a substitute when the meetings were scheduled during her known work hours.

Ultimately, responsibility for following the court-ordered agreement, to develop this working group, and involve certain people, including the public, falls upon the FS and thus far they have not attempted to meet the judges mandate in doing so to develop a wild horse management plan. In fact, Richard Madril, the District Ranger for the Heber Wild Horse Territory and surrounding area, specifically told CAES board members that they have no power over what the working group does.

Mr. Madril also told CAES that the Forest Service is not a law enforcement agency, even though they do have law enforcement personnel. This was during the same discussion but addressing recent incidences of harassment including roping and trapping of the Heber Wild Horse herd on the territory.

Horse shot. No perpetrator ever found.
Trapped mare with her foal and another whose mother was outside the trap.
Halter around the neck from attempted capture.

A bit of research on that statement from the District Ranger and we found this statement on the Forest Service website:

Law enforcement is an integral part of the overall management of the National Forest System. Law enforcement personnel, line officers, and appropriate staff ensure that prevention, investigation, enforcement, and program management requirements are fully integrated into all National Forest System resource management programs. Law enforcement personnel operate as full partners within the Forest Service organization in carrying out the agency’s mission, especially in upholding Federal laws and regulations that protect natural resources, agency employees, and the public. Accomplishment of the Forest Service law enforcement mission is a product of trust, cooperation, and collaboration between law enforcement personnel and other agency employees.

National Forest lands are divided administratively into regions and each region has a Special Agent in Charge also known as a SAC who oversees the law enforcement program. Each region is divided into zones and special agents are stationed in each zone according to work load.


Uniformed Law Enforcement Officers (LEO) enforce Federal laws and regulations governing National Forest Lands and resources. As part of that mission LEOs carry firearms, defensive equipment, make arrests, execute search warrants, complete reports and testify in court.


Special Agents are criminal investigators who plan and conduct investigations concerning possible violations of criminal and administrative provisions of the Forest Service and other statues under the U.S. Code. Special agents are normally plain clothes officers who carry concealed firearms, and other defensive equipment, make arrests, carry out complex criminal investigations, present cases for prosecution to U.S. Attorneys, and prepare investigative reports.”

Mr. Madril went on to justify the lack of action taken on shootings, ropings and trapping of wild horses to be a problem of being understaffed. He said the first priority of their law enforcement ranger would be to people. So we asked how many problems they are seeing with people there? He said there are always accidents. One would think if there are ‘that’ many people issues in that area of the forest then perhaps the workload would be such that added law enforcement would be provided by the FS based on the above statement. However, when asked what the FS is doing about these incidents, Mr. Madril replied, “What would you like us to do?”

We explained what we would like the FS to do, and one member was able to calmly explain the duty the FS has to ‘do’ something. The other board member was not quite as calm and called Mr. Madril on his obvious sarcasm. However, the suggestions of cameras, increased presence and a press release with the position of the FS on incidents like these were suggested.

In the end, we also requested that as the agency that commissioned, and per the ASU is a partner in the working group, FS also reinstate Mary Hauser on the working group. If she is reinstated, we applaud her for her willingness to continue on in such a hostile environment. That truly shows her dedication to the Heber Wild Horse Herd.

The Hebers are a unique herd with old world, or primitive traits including leg bars, and the short thick neck and a short head with stout build. Like the ones pictured below. If the management plan comes out with the suggested Appropriate Management Level (AML) range that the working group is suggesting, it will mean the herd will have to be maintained genetically but introducing horses from outside herds from time to time. This has been done in other wild herds and CAES has always maintained that this is a way to water down these unique genetics so that no one herd has to be managed in a self-sustaining population that has enough horse to be genetically viable.

We thought we should leave you with some of the beauty since we shared the horror in the photos above this section.

one of Buckys mares




Gorgeous Winter Horse Quilted Wallhanging Being Auctioned



If you are interested in helping the quilting efforts to provide funding for things like legal fees, and water projects for Equines and wildlife please send us an email using the form below, or join the Facebook group: Equine Quilters – Quilts for the Horses, Habitats and Humane Handling

AUCTION  WILL RUN FROM 9/15/2018 (12 A.M. PST) TO 9/22 (12 P.M. PST)

To commemorate our epic fight for wild ones your very own throw. For you to snuggle under, a warm, handmade quilt made by Ruth Mullen in 2017. A 25W x 37L, cotton, quilted throw with a beautiful winter scene featuring a bay and gray, with two cardinals in the corner. On the other side a simple calico. All funds collected will fund CAES’s lawsuits to help our precious wild horses and burros remain healthy and free.



TO BID SIMPLY POST YOUR BID IN DOLLAR AMOUNTS (no cents please) IN THE COMMENTS ON THIS WEBPAGE BELOW. Starting bid of $75 to kick it off!



This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Shipping is free and your winning bid is tax deductible.

CAES is a 501c3, national organization for the protection of horses, habitats and humane handling (the essential 4-H). We are 100% volunteer, in the courts, at the legislature, and on the ground! Please consider making a bid or a donation today and help us help them.


BLM Announces Decision to Move Ahead with Plans to Experiment on Pregnant Mares

13 September 2018

BLM in Burns, Oregon announced their final decision to move ahead with plans to brutally sterilize wild, pregnant mares.


CAES has been fighting this plan since 2016 when they announced their first plan to do these experimental surgical procedures. The surgery is called an ovariectomy via colpotomy. It is a blind surgery in which the veterinarian reaches inside the mare, via the vagina and feels around for the ovaries. Once he locates (what he hopes is) the ovary, he inserts a tool with a chain loop around the ovary, then twists the chain to crush and pulled out the ovary.

2018-09-13 (5)

This surgery is still experimental in wild horses, which means it must be done in a sterile environment. BLM plans to do them at the holding facility.

BLM needs IACUC approval, which they have had from 2 different universities, both of which have pulled out of these experiments. Therefore there is now no IACUC approval.

2018-09-13 (1)

The veterinarians pushing this procedure have lied, and complaints have been filed, investigations into these veterinarians were launched, and yet BLM plans to move ahead.


CAES will be taking further action as we expect many, many organizations and people will be.

What can you do?
Call your Senators, Representative, and the National BLM office and tell them this abuse and barbaric treatment will not stand up to public scrutiny, and as a voter and owner of these wild horses, you do not want a penny of your tax dollars paying for this antiquated and barbaric experiments.

Or if you feel you want to try your hand at filing an administrative appeal against this action here is a great link with the regulations and procedures to get you started: