Horse Health

Wild Horses: Let the Gruesome Frankenstein Experiments BEGIN!

BLM Announcement

36 replies »

  1. Dr. Charles Mayo, of the famous Mayo Clinic, stated:
    “I abhor vivisection … it should be abolished…I know of no discovery that could not have been obtained without it….”

    Medical Definition of VIVISECTION : the cutting of or operation on a living animal usually for physiological or pathological investigation; broadly : animal experimentation especially if considered to cause distress or result in injury or death to the subject.


  2. The Oregon Warm Springs wild horse herd BLM published statistics shows ongoing highly deceptive and scientifically unjustifiable population increases in numerous years. For example, in the 2009-2010 foaling season BLM shows a 129% increase in ONE year. This would require the herd of 158 horses to produce 204 successful surviving foals in one year which would require that every single horse – including the stallions! – have more than one successful surviving foal in one year. This is biologically impossible!

    Again in the 2014-2015 foaling season BLM stated a 92% increase in ONE year which would require the complete herd of 192 horses to have 176 successful surviving foals in one year. These are BLM’s published population figures and they are obviously FALSE statements which is a violation of title 18 (government fraud = federal crime).



    Late last week the Senate released its spending bill for Fiscal Year 2019 with protections still in place for America’s wild horses and burros! Previously, the House version of the spending bill had called for the mass sterilization -using brutal procedures – of our beloved herds. This is a moment to celebrate an important victory, but we must remain vigilant to make sure that the House language is not included in the final bill.

    Thankfully, the Senate Appropriations Committee refused to include language in the House bill put forth by Republican Representative Chris Stewart of Utah. Representative Stewart managed to convince his colleagues on the House Appropriations Committee that the heinous procedure for mares and jennets known as ovariectomy via colpotomy, was the same as spaying dogs and cats. His deceitful maneuver belied the facts regarding this dangerous and often fatal sterilization method.

    Thanks to you and other supporters who took action by calling and contacting your senators, we have achieved this victory in the Senate.
    The 16 members of the Interior Subcommittee drafted the spending bill and then all 31 senators on this list on this list voted to approve it.
    All of them deserve a thank you because no one added any wild horse and burro unfriendly amendments and they all voted for the final good bill.

    Congressional office staffers have told us they have been getting significant calls and letters on the subject, making our cause politically viable. Please thank as many senators as you are willing to call, but especially Interior Subcommittee Chairperson, Lisa Murkowski (R, AK) and Ranking Member, Tom Udall (D, NM). Our voices are making a difference!

    Liked by 1 person

  4. I am not doubting you Louie, but can someone please explain how the BLM can continuing their plans to use ovariectomy via colpotomy sterilization on our wild horses if the Senate voted against it?

    Not to mention, “It is the policy of Congress that [they] shall be PROTECTED from capture, branding, harassment, or death”.

    Is the BLM “above the law” of the United States of America?


    • GG, my understanding is the House passed their version, then the Senate passed theirs, and the two must be hashed together to produce the language which will be placed in the proposed FY 19 Budget. So none of this language is yet law. In the meantime, the BLM is violating both the letter and intent of the 1971 law since they are required to provide wild horses and burros “principal” rights to forage and water in their legal homelands, they are to be managed in the “minimal feasible” manner, and are (as you noted) to be protected from capture, branding, harassment or death, all of which are common BLM and USFS practices. The question is why they are escaping any consequences, and continue to be employed at taxpayer expense. The only accountability has to come from Congress, and Congressional representatives are elected by the people. Over one third of the Senate is up for reelection this November, and it is critical everyone reading this take note.


      Liked by 1 person

      • YES..VOTE and in the meantime keep on doing what we’ve been doing

        “Congressional office staffers have told us they have been getting significant calls and letters on the subject, making our cause politically viable.”

        Liked by 1 person

  5. Wyoming is surely on this path, and exterminating their wild horses probably does have a profit motive beyond what a few ranchers can make grazing livestock at the public trough:

    “The anti-federal land legislators — 20 legislators from western states mostly, supported by Scott Tipton —  argue that states would be better at managing federal lands then the federal land management agencies. The anti-federal land legislators are launching an ideological attack on government authority that protects and preserves land, water and wildlife.

    The Colorado State Land Board is the agency that would inherit this federal land. The Colorado State Land Board is a land rental and land sales agency whose mandate is to produce money for education. While this may be a source of income for education, it does not protect state lands from mismanagement. … anti-public land legislators passed Rule 233-190 that requires that land transfers to states must not take into account the value of public lands or their revenue potential. The new rule 233-190 eliminates the inherent value of the land and allows states to buy federal lands at next to nothing and ultimately resell them to developers.

    When you vote this fall remember which candidate would allow the devalued sale of public land to the states. This rule could destroy our public land heritage that is the envy of the world.”

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Copied from the link Louie provided — these are the members of the Senate who voted (so far) to safeguard our wild horses and burros. Please anyone reading this check to see if any from your state are running for office this fall, and support them IF they continue to support wild horses and burros. It’s not clear to me if all these listed are supporters, or which may be up for reelection. Nobody from my state is not on this list.

    Senate Appropriations Committee and Subcommittee members Senator/state/party phone number fax number

    Richard Shelby, Alabama (R) Chair ++
    202-224-5744 (202) 224-3416

    Lisa Murkowski, Alaska * (R)***subcommittee chair 202-224-6665 (202) 224-5301

    John Boozman, Arkansas (R)
    202-224-4843 (202) 228-1371

    Dianne Feinstein, California (D)* 202-224-3841 (202) 228-3954

    Chris Murphy, Connecticut (D)
    202-224-4041 (202) 224-9750

    Christopher Coons, Delaware (D) 202-224-5042 (202) 228-3075 Marco Rubio, Florida (R)* 202-224-3041 (202) 228-0285

    Brian Schatz, Hawaii (D) 202-224-3934 (202) 228-1153

    Richard Durbin, Illinois (D)
    (202) 228-0400

    Jerry Moran, Kansas ( R ) 202-224-6521 (202) 228-6966 Mitch McConnell, Kentucky (R)* 202-224-2541 (202) 224-2499

    John Kennedy, Louisiana (R)
    202-224-4623 (202) 228-5061

    Susan Collins, Maine ( R ) 202-224-2523 (202) 224-2693 Chris Van Hollen, Maryland (D)* 202-224-4654 (202) 224-8858

    Cindy Hyde-Smith, Mississippi (R) 202-224-5054 202-228-4310

    Roy Blunt, Missouri (R)* 202-224-5721 (202) 224-8149

    Steve Daines, Montana (R) * 202-224-2651 (202) 228-1236 Jon Tester, Montana (D)* 202-224-2644 (202) 224-8594

    Jeanne Shaheen, New Hampshire (D) 202-224-2841 (202) 228-3194 Tom Udall, New Mexico (D)* ***subcommittee ranking member 202-224-6621 (202) 228-3261

    John Hoeven, North Dakota (R) 202-224-2551 (202) 224-7999

    James Lankford, Oklahoma (R)
    202-224-5754 (202) 228-1015

    Jeff Merkley, Oregon (D)* 202-224-3753 (202) 228-3997 Jack Reed, Rhode Island (D)* 202-224-4642 (202) 224-4680

    Lindsey Graham, South Carolina (R) 202-224-5972 (202) 224-3808

    Lamar Alexander, Tennessee (R)* 202-224-4944 (202) 228-3398

    Patrick Leahy, Vermont (D)++
    Committee Vice Chair, *
    202-224-4242 (202) 224-3479

    Patty Murray, Washington (D) 202-224-2621 (202) 224-0238

    Shelley Moore Capito, West Virginia
    (202) 224-7665

    Joe Manchin, West Virginia (D) 202-224-3954 (202) 228-0002

    Tammy Baldwin, Wisconsin (D) 202-224-5653 (202) 224-9787
    ++ Chair and Vice Chair of Committee

    * Member of Senate Interior/Environment Appropriations Subcommittee
    ***Chair and Ranking member of Subcommittee

    Liked by 1 person

  7. It looks as though both ends are being played against the WHO?
    WHO is after America’s Public Lands and Resources?
    WHO stands to profit?

    Grazing Community Must Weigh In On Lander BLM Draft Plan

    By Dick Loper, Rangeland Consultant, Wyoming State Grazing Board (portions of letter)

    Last September the Lander BLM issued its draft Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement (RMP/EIS) for public comment, and the office must receive comments on this three-volume, 1,700-page draft Land Use Plan and EIS on or before Jan. 20.

    The WSGB does not want to convey that the entire contents of this draft, with respect to livestock grazing, are problematic, but our review of those narratives that apply to livestock grazing has identified a number of serious concerns.

    We encourage everyone in the livestock, banking, government and business communities who will be affected by these RMP decisions to obtain a copy of this document and provide substantive comments to the BLM by the deadline.

    Reduction in AUMs
    Of major concern is the proposed reduction of over 25 percent of the livestock AUMs now available to present or future permittees for the life of the plan.

    The document appears to convey that this level of reduction will be justified as the primary management action required to correct the current influence from livestock grazing and related activities on their interpretation of what is, or is not, healthy rangelands. The WSGB is in agreement with the vast majority of the range science community, in that BLM grazing regulations that convey what constitutes “healthy” or “unhealthy” rangelands are not consistent with the state-of-the-art science on this subject. We will provide a comment to this draft RMP that, should the BLM determine that livestock grazing is a contributor to rangelands that are “unhealthy,” in their opinion, the BLM should, in consultation with the permittee, the local county commission, and the state of Wyoming, seriously consider the use of all of the management tools available and not focus on reductions in AUMs as the panacea solution.

    Unfounded Statements
    The draft also contains language that we feel is most inappropriate for inclusion in this document. The draft conveys that a justification for the proposal to reduce AUMs by 25 percent over the life of this plan is an opinion that the livestock industry is an aging industry, and hints that this fact will reduce the demand from local ranchers for BLM AUMs. We are at a loss to understand the logic behind these types of statements, and we will comment that the average age of the ranching community in the Lander area has absolutely nothing to do with the future demand for livestock AUMs from BLM lands in this area.

    The draft also conveys that perhaps another justification for the proposal for reductions is that some local ranches are being sold to out-of-state buyers who might not have as much interest in grazing livestock on BLM lands as the current owner.

    This draft RMP also introduces the livestock community to the concept that any and all proposals from permittees to develop range improvements, such as water developments, fences, etc., must be part of a “Comprehensive Grazing Management Strategy” (CGMS).
    It will be our comment to the Lander BLM that neither of these “justifications” should be the basis for a proposed significant reduction in the ability of Lander-area ranches to purchase federal AUMs to support their families and continue to contribute to our local customs, culture and economy.
    Comprehensive Grazing Plans

    This draft RMP also fails to include a table that states the preference level of federal AUMs that were adjudicated to the private lands that serve as base property for these grazing permits, and it does not document the amount of “suspended” AUMs that might someday become available for active use by these permittees.

    This omission is important because the BLM’s grazing regulations clearly convey that the BLM is only required to recognize and authorize the type and number of federal AUMs that are documented in the Land Use Plan.


    • “What can be done to address the problems associated with public lands livestock grazing? There is a simple answer: end it. Get the cows and sheep off, let the wild creatures reclaim their native habitat, and send the ranchers a bill for the cost of restoration”


    • Too bad this is older information now, but the 25% AUM reduction actually squares with “state of the art” land management recommendations, since the vaunted “take half/leave half” dogma has been proven over and over to allow too much forage to be taken on an annual basis. The plants themselves need half their annual growth to survive and thrive, insects, weather, and wildlife take another 25% (insects, weather, rabbits, deer, elk, rodents etc.) and this cannot realistically be prevented, so only 25% is left that can be sustainably grazed, period, and even that must be thoughtfully reduced in times of extreme drought or other circumstances like wildfires that severely impact growth. It is not surprising but is disappointing the Wyoming State Grazing Board is ignoring what is widely known and widely disseminated through our national land grant universities, preferring instead to continue filling their “sacred cows” at the public trough. Kudos to the BLM for actually trying to reduce AUMs to match rangeland realities.


  8. Pulling this forward so readers don’t miss it.

    Maggie Frazier
    June 29, 2018 at 3:36 PM Edit

    Good news for a change!

    ESA Update: Victory Stands as USFWS Withdraws Appeal
    2018 06 28 02 001 ESA Buffalo Field Campaign Stephany Seay Photo 800

    Photo by Stephany Seay, Buffalo Field Campaign

    On Monday, (June 25) our attorneys at Friends of Animals informed BFC that the US Fish & Wildlife Service has withdrawn their appeal, and Buffalo Field Campaign and Western Watersheds Project’s lawsuit victory will stand.
    On January 31, 2018, U.S. District Court Judge Christopher R. Cooper ruled the Service violated the Endangered Species Act in finding that the imperiled bison did not warrant protection under the Act. With their appeal officially withdrawn, the Service now has to issue a new 90-day finding consistent with Judge Cooper’s opinion.

    In his ruling, Judge Cooper said the Service couldn’t pick and choose science and ignore evidence that bison may be threatened. At the 90-day finding stage, Judge Cooper found the Service must credit evidence presented in our petition that bison may warrant listing as an endangered species.

    The clock is now ticking for the Service to act and issue a new 90-day finding on our petition to list bison as an endangered species.


    • This is interesting because Judge Christopher Cooper is the one who allowed the West Douglas Wild Horses to be removed and the HMA to be zeroed out in 2015

      Court Gives BLM Green Light to Destroy Colorado’s Historic West Douglas Wild Horse Herd
      Zeroing out entire wild horse herd not viewed as constituting “irreparable harm.”

      Washington, DC (Sept. 15, 2015) – Today, Federal Judge Christopher R. Cooper denied a Preliminary Injunction to stop the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) from carrying out its decades old quest to remove the entire West Douglas wild horse herd. Tomorrow the BLM will begin a helicopter roundup and removal of wild horses in and around the herd area with the ultimate goal of zeroing out the herd (area).


      • Cant pick & choose? Apparently that applies when its buffalo, but not wild horses. Unfortunately, getting wild horses Endangered Species Protection seems to be a little hard to come by. The deserve it – but then they deserve so much more – freedom & the right to live free.

        Liked by 1 person

    • This is interesting because it was Judge Cooper that allowed the West Douglas Herd to be zeroed out.

      Court Gives BLM Green Light to Destroy Colorado’s Historic West Douglas Wild Horse Herd
      Zeroing out entire wild horse herd not viewed as constituting “irreparable harm.”

      Washington, DC (Sept. 15, 2015) – Today, Federal Judge Christopher R. Cooper denied a Preliminary Injunction to stop the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) from carrying out its decades old quest to remove the entire West Douglas wild horse herd. Tomorrow the BLM will begin a helicopter roundup and removal of wild horses in and around the herd area with the ultimate goal of zeroing out the herd (area).


  9. Not experimental. They know exactly what they are doing.

    This is the Abstract of an article written by Gail H. Collins and John W. Kasbohm about the spaying and vasectomizing of wild horses on the Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge: (

    The management of free‐roaming, feral horse (Equus caballus) populations in the western United States is a contentious and challenging issue. Between 2008 and 2014, 1,873 individual horses from a closed population in the northern Great Basin, USA were captured, uniquely marked, and were either removed for private adoption or had permanent fertility control treatments (i.e., vasectomy or ovariectomy) applied prior to release. We derived the annual population size, growth rate, and the number of horses by sex and age by using the horse’s estimated age at first capture to infer its age during each year it was part of the population. Estimates of population size from 2 aerial survey techniques averaged within 5.3%–9.6% of derived population estimates. The overall survival (i.e., recapture) rate for individual horses was 88% for individuals released back into the population between 2009 and 2012. Treated horses maintained group associations and there were no differences between survival rates for released females or males that received fertility control treatment, compared to animals released without treatment. The application of combined fertility control efforts resulted in a decline in the population‐level annual foaling rate from >20% to <4% within 4 years. Maintaining a proportion of a population as permanently non‐reproducing has the potential to safely maintain free‐roaming horse herds at desired management levels. © 2016 The Wildlife Society.

    And from an article by The Wildlife Society: (

    She [Collins] and her colleagues removed 10 to 20 percent of the population each year and sent them to contractors for private adoption. They spayed 114 of the remaining mares and performed vasectomies on 268 stallions. Collins said the combination of permanently sterilizing females and males was successful in decreasing the foaling rate from over 20 percent a year to less than 4 percent. “It was a pretty immediate success,” she said. “And we didn’t have to treat all of the males or all of the females, only a little more than a third of the total population.”

    Dr. Leon Pielstick was the veterinarian.

    But that wasn't good enough. The removed ALL of the horses from SNWR in 2014.

    Liked by 1 person

    • So does anyone really think paid research was needed to prove that sterilization reduces foaling rates? Really? Our tax dollars at work… and we get what we pay for it seems.


    • The point being is, they have already “experimented” on wild horse herds, and collected data. They know what the results are in terms of population control and herd behavior. They are using the the terms “research”, “study” “analyze”, etc. as justification to go in and make herds all but completely sterile, and certainly not genetically viable. Those doing Trap-Neuter-Return on feral cat colonies know that it is more effective than trap and remove in reducing cat populations over time. This is the same tactic BLM is now planning to employ on our wild horses.

      Liked by 1 person

  10. Leave “OUR” WILDHORSES to hell alone .. these animals are not overgrazing the western plains like the cattlemen say they are … it’s the
    Herds of cows, cattle dumped day after day on the same ground used also by our burros and WILDHORSES… cattlemen having to pay to graze and they say out horses contribute nothing to pay back what they eat … those horses got you, the Whitman , Indian to this country and parts so’s you could open up the whole US to civilization and also s well known fact called eating? They ho’ed your row so you wouldn’t have to … you’re here because of them…..


  11. Leave our WILDHORSES/ burros alone … you’re in this country because of these animals .. they got you here.. they ho’ed your row so you wouldn’t have to .. this is animal cruelty at its best .. SHAME ON YOU BLM?

    Liked by 1 person

  12. The procedures of this sterilization method is barbaric at best. In an ideal climate of a surgical procedure with precise environment and DOMESTIC ANIMALS, maybe it works. BUT, not out in the field with WILD HORSES AND BURROS. How, will they keep them calm? Tranquilizers? SQUEEZE CHUTE? Wouldn’t a squeeze chute displace internal organs? Maybe, the man has a hold of a poopball in the intestine and what he thinks is the ovary . And now he will ligate it and causd irreparable damage and probable death of this wild horse. How many will die? Oh, yeah, that is blm’s goal. DEATH TO THE WILD HORSES.


  13. coltswesternshop

    July 5, 2018 at 11:11 AM Edit



  14. Protect the Harvest stands for the Right to Kill destroy, maim or otherwise treat animals outside the current laws and to overturn protective laws preventing abuse and cruelty while pretending to be Welfare. This Organization is Behind the Spaying. They have no reason to ruin these mares yet they devalue them by spayung. No ovaries means once adopted they cannot be reproduced either giving the argument they are worthless. The undermining measures PTH is taking to remove ovaries means they succeed in AQHAs destructive agenda against WILD horses. In twisted and should Never occur. To unnaturally remove parts from mares leaving them vulnerable to herd behavior changes that could result in shorter herd protectiveness and certainly lead to their death. Spaying mares that aredomestic is fine however it’s been invasive enough not many people ever do it. The process is way more expensive than contraception. I re introduce the issue of them selling the parts which is why the mass removal plan via surgical removal. This needs to be stopped.

    Liked by 1 person

Care to make a comment?

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.