February

10, 2016

Mare Sterilization Research Project Lead
Burns BLM District Office
28910 Highway 20 West
Hines, OR 97738

Via Fax: 541-573-4411 (27 pages) and email (with attachments)

To Whom It May Concern:

The American Wild Horse Preservation Campaign (AWHPC) is a non-profit organization whose
mission to protect and preserve Americas wild horses on public lands in the West is endorsed
by a national coalition of more than 60 organizations. AWHPC has reviewed the Bureau of Land
Managements (BLMs) Mare Sterilization Research Environmental Assessment (DOI-BLM-OR-
B000-2015-0055-EA) and offers these comments on this document, which we find to be grossly
deficient and misleading.

I. Overview

Nearly 21,000 individual citizens have submitted comments in opposition to the Bureau of
Land Managements (BLMs) proposal to conduct dangerous sterilization experiments on wild
mares held at the Burns Corrals in Oregon. AWHPC joins these citizens in strong opposition to
this research.

The EA states on page 5: The BLM will decide whether or not to proceed with one or
more of the proposed sterilization procedures at the BLMs Oregon Wild Horse Corral
Facility and under what terms and conditions.

AWHPC has reviewed the Environmental Assessment (EA), the National Academy of Sciences
(NAS) National Research Council (NRC) 2013 report, Using Science to Improve the BLM Wild
Horse and Burro Program: A Way Forward, and the NRC review of the research proposals (EA
Appendix B), as well as consulted with numerous experts in the field of equine veterinary
medicine and reproduction and concludes that the weight of scientific evidence clearly
supports a BLM decision NOT to proceed with any of these sterilization procedures in wild
mares.

American Wild Horse Preservation Campaign, 1025 Alameda, #633, Belmont, CA 94002
WildHorsePreservation.org

-
-
-

Ovariectomy is not an appropriate management tool for wild horses due to behavioral
changes and social disruption it will undeniably cause when implemented on the range,
as well as the health risk this surgical procedure poses for mares and their unborn foals.
The BLM should focus on non-surgical methods of fertility control that preserve the
natural behaviors that distinguish wild-free roaming horses from domestic horses and
are protected under federal law.
The BLMs pursuit of ovariectomy in wild mares directly contradicts the
recommendations of the NAS/NRC which concluded that ovariectomy was inadvisable
for a field setting.
Ovariectomy via colpotomy is risky and largely outdated procedure that has been
supplanted by more modern, laparoscopic techniques.
The risks of this procedure are increased when performed on wild mares, who cannot
be handled or confined and therefore cannot be provided with required post-operative
care. These risks include serious and potentially life-threatening complications including
hemorrhage, evisceration (intestines protruding through surgical incision) and infection.
The use of pregnant mares in this sterilization research is unacceptable. The
experiments and the stress and trauma related to them will cause many of the mares to
abort their unborn foals. According to the EA, the majority of the 225 wild mares to be
used in these experiments will be pregnant.
The two less invasive procedures -- tubal ligation and hysteroscopically-guided laser
ablation should be tested in domestic horses before being attempted in wild horses, as
recommended by the NRC. Neither procedure has ever been performed in horses. Both
are of questionable feasibility in a field setting due to the cost of equipment, lack of
trained surgeons and, in the case of laser ablation, cannot be performed on pregnant
mares.

It is unconscionable that the BLM is proposing to subject wild mares to painful and risky
experiments that present grave risks to the mares and their unborn foals, particularly when a
proven non-invasive and safe fertility control method exists in the readily available PZP birth
control vaccine. Instead of wasting millions of tax dollars to fund experiments on inhumane,
impractical and invasive surgical sterilization experiments, the agency should instead focus
resources on vaccinating sufficient numbers of mares with the PZP fertility control vaccine,
which is documented through 30 years of experience and published science, to be safe, cost-
effective and successful in managing wild horse populations.

The Environmental Assessment (EA) for these experimental proposals is grossly inadequate
because it glosses over the real risks of the procedures identified by the NRC and published
science, and fails to adequately consider the alternatives to and impacts (including social and
economic) of these procedures. Instead it selectively quotes from NRC findings, utilizes
unpublished data and relies on observations from unnamed veterinarians. Although the EA
states that the BLM will make the decision about whether or not to proceed with these
procedures based on the analysis o f their impacts, its clear that the EA has been crafted to
support the foregone conclusion that these experiments will be conducted. Finally, because the
Proposed Action could set precedent for the implementation of highly controversial methods of


wild horse population control on the range, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is
required,

II. Proposal to Conduct Ovariectomy Experiment Contradicts NAS/NRC

Recommendations

The Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act requires BLM to manage wild horses
and burros in a manner that protects their wild and free-roaming behavior. While Section
3(b)(1) as modified by the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978, does specify options for
population management that include sterilization, it states that such determinations must be
made in conjunction with other wildlife agencies and experts independent of government, such
as those recommended by the National
Academy of Sciences.

In 2011, the BLM requested and paid for an NAS/NRC scientific review of its Wild Horse and
Burro Program. In February 2011, then BLM director Bob Abbey announced that the NAS/NRC
review was a cornerstone of the agencys accelerated reform, stating that the NAS/NRC findings
would determine how the BLM should proceed in light of the latest scientific research. (Attachment 1)

In the study scope as defined by BLM, the NAS/NRC was specifically asked to evaluate
ovariectomy as an option to managing wild horses:

Managing a portion of a population as non-reproducing: What factors should the BLM consider
when managing for WH&B herds with a reproducing and non-reproducing population of animals
(i.e., a portion of the population is a breeding population and the remainder is non-reproducing
males or females)? When implementing non-reproducing populations, which tools should be
considered (geldings (castration), sterilized (spayed) mares or vasectomized stallions or other
chemical sterilants)? Statement of Task (Attachment 2)

In its final report entitled Using Science to Improve the BLM Wild Horse and Burro Program: A
Way Forward, June 2013 (Attachment 3) the NAS/NRC concluded that spaying was
inadvisable and also recommended against gelding.

The possibility that ovariectomy may be followed by prolonged bleeding or peritoneal infection
makes it inadvisable for field application. (p.130)

Surgical ovariectomy and ovariohysterectomy are commonly used in domestic species, such as
cats and dogs (including feral cats and dogs), but seldom applied to other free-ranging species.
(p. 114)

Ovariectomy during the first 2-3 months of pregnancy results in abortion because of the loss of
progesterone from the corpus luteum (Holtan et al., 1979). (p. 115)

Typical side effects associated with ovariectomy in many species include decreased activity and
weight gain. ( p. 115)



Despite the scientific recommendation from the NAS/NRC AGAINST ovariectomy (even
laparoscopic) as a method to control population growth, despite the public urging the BLM NOT
to pursue spaying mares, despite the overwhelming controversy, the BLM is nevertheless
pursuing this dangerous, precedent-setting and extreme plan to sterilize wild horses. The EA
has failed entirely to accurately and forthrightly address the NAS recommendation AGAINST
ovariectomy as a management tool and is completely inadequate in its assessment of the
procedures impacts on wild free-roaming horses.

III. Spaying Wild Mares Not an Appropriate Management Tool; EA Fails to

Analyze Impacts to Wild Free-Roaming Behaviors

The importance of assessing the viability of a fertility control method by its effects on natural
behavior was affirmed by the NAS/NRC multiple times in its 2013 report:

often-stated public interest in maintaining natural behaviors in free roaming horses. (p.
123)

preserving natural behaviors is an important criterion. (p. 131)

The most appropriate comparison that should be made in assessing the effects of any
method of fertility control is with the current approach, gathering and removal. That is, to
what extent does the prospective method affect health, herd structure and the expression of
natural behaviors relative to the effects of gathering?

The EA wrongly states that impacts of ovariectomy are outside the scope of this EA. However,
there can be no doubt that ovariectomy will impact the natural behaviors of mares and this
goes to both the need for, and feasibility of the proposed procedure, which is clearly NOT
outside the scope of analysis in this EA. Indeed it supports the No Action alternative as clearly
superior, because none of the experiments proposed will produce data on feasible, safe and
humane population management tools.

According to Robin Kelly, DVM, whose northern California-based equine veterinary practice
includes care of 240 wild horses and burros at the Montgomery Creek Ranch sanctuary in Elk
Creek

I am concerned about the use of this procedure in the wild, due to the concerning potential
disruption of the normal social behaviors of post ovariectomized mares and how this will affect
their role within the herd once they return to their families. According to the reproductive
specialist I consulted, while estrogen is secreted by multiple tissues, progesterone is only
produced by the ovaries. Since progesterone is the hormone that prevents mares going into
estrus, ovariectomized mares frequently act like they are in heat all the time. Putting
ovariectomized mares back on the range could create social havoc within wild herds. Stallions
instinctively know which mares are fertile/receptive and which are not. The stallions job is to
breed and impregnante mares after they deliver. If he has a number of ovariectomized mares in


his harem who act llike they are in estrus continuously but canot become pregnant, or some of
the time would not accept his advances, the stallions social behaviors could be severely
disrupted or over used inappropriately. In addition, ovariectomized mares may act sexually but
my not want to breed, raising the potential for serious kick injuries to stallions and mares if a
stallion attempts to breed an unreceptive mare. Ovariectocmized mares may also lose their
status within the mare band. Lead mares would be unlikely to retain that position post-
ovariectomy. Social ostracism is certainly possible for hese post operative if they are no longer
accepted by the herd.

To summarize, introduction of ovariectomized mares could be very damaging to the normal

socialization/structure and healthy interaction of the bands.

Dr. Kellys statement has been submitted separately as comments on the EA and is provided
with AWHPCs comments as Attachment 4.

Ovariectomy will cause profound behavioral changes in wild horses. Although the EA states
than an ovariectomized mare may show signs of estrus behavior, the EA also cites reports
that 60% of mares cease estrus behavior after ovariectomy.

The cessation of estrus behavior will obviously have impacts on the natural free-roaming and
social behaviors of these mares.

Wild horses typically live in reproductive bands consisting of adult mares, their
dependent offspring, and one or more stallions who lives revolve around trying to
protect mares from harassment by other stallions and securing exclusive reproductive
access to the mares for themselves; Mares, meanwhile, simultaneously bond to one
another and compete with each other for access to water, food, and other resources for
themselves and their foals. Neither geldings nor spayed mares participate in these
fundamental processes of wild horse behavior.
Allen T. Rutberg, Ph. D., Assistant Director, Center for Animals and Public Policy, Tufts-
Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine. (Attachment 5)

However, an equally problematic and unquestionably significant impact is raised by the BLMs
own expert panel, convened on September 24, 2015 to evaluate various methods of spaying
horses (Attachment 6).

Spayed mares can be receptive all year round. Typically can not even put them with geldings as they
would be mounted. If given the opportunity, a spayed mare would tolerate the sexual advance of an
amorous gelding. Sue McDonnell, Ph.D. , equine behavior and reproduction expert from the
University of Pennsylvania and member of the BLM Wild Horse and Burro Advisory Board.

Another panel member, Patricia Sertich, V.M.D. an equine reproductive specialist from the
University of Pennsylvania confirmed this:


Teaser mares (stimulus mares for semen collection) are ovariectomized. They are sexually
receptive to stallion advances every day for the rest of their lives.

Dr. Robin Kelly consulted with Mary Scott, DVM, Diplomate with the American College of
Theriogenologists, regarding her opinion of the proposed experiments. Dr. Kelly reports:

As described in a recent article in the Journal of Equine Veterinary Education: following

ovariectomy, the majority of mares will show heat (receptivity to the stallion) for prolonged
periods of time. Dr. Scott explained that this has been shown to be due to the secretion of
hormones from the adrenal gland. Importantly, the removal of ovaries takes away the primiary
tissue that is capable of producing enough progesterone to completely block receptive behavior.
The degree of receptivity can vary and an ovarectomized mare might initiate the social contact
but not allow mating and this could result in aggression, chasing and injury for either mare or
stallion. It is my understanding that in a typical wild herd, the mares are bred by the stallion,
become pregnant and the stallion and his band co-exist without sexual tension. I would be
concerned if many mares in the herd are showing persistent receptivity, it could cause social
havoc, including potential for OVX mares to migrate to other bands. With a re-occurring issue
resulting in subsequent bands they attempt to join.

Please see Attachment 7 for copy of Journal of Equine Veterinary Education article.
In addition to the above concerns, it is likely that the presence of ovariectomized mares
displaying prolonged estrus behavior and sexual receptivity will attract stallions from outside
the band and result in increased stallion-stallion aggression. This is another significant impact
that must be fully disclosed and analyzed in the EA.

It is well known that mares especially lead mares play a strong role in wild horse natural
behaviors and social structure. Altering mares hormones via ovariectomy would result in the
consequent reduction in or complete loss of natural lead-mare-type behaviors necessary for
maintenance of social organization, band integrity, and expression of a natural behavior
repertoire. In fact, the impacts of sterilization on wild horses can be severe, affecting their
physiology and ability to survive, as well as their behavior and therefore impact on the herd.

Since the wild horse and the domestic horse are the same species, there is no reason to believe that the
physiological effects of ovariectomy will differ. As a result, there is no question that spaying wild mares
will inalterably change their wild free-roaming behaviors, which are protected under federal law.

Removing a mare's ovaries is a permanent way of altering her estrous
cycle and behavior. - The Spayed Mare, Horsekeeping.com (Attachment 8)

Such behavioral changes, when induced via ovariectomy, will have serious consequences for
mares returned to the range, and to the social dynamics of individual bands and entire herds.
NEPA requires the BLM fully research, document, and analyze the proposed action of spaying
mares especially because this would be a precedent-setting proposed action. This EA has failed
to comply with this requirement.


We strongly urge the BLM to remove this as an option for research as it is ill-advised for wild,
free-roaming horses, is highly-controversial and counter to the Act. At minimum an EIS that
fully discloses and analyzes the impacts of this proposed action

IV. Health Impacts

In discussing the feasibility of ovariectomy as a population management tool, the EA minimizes

the serious health consequences that this procedure represents to mares who are returned to
the wild. However, the reduction of estrus and alteration of hormones undeniably has an
impact on the physiology of any mammal. Indeed the BLM must consider and analyze available
research that outlines the hormonal changes and the implication that has on bone density and
other physiological implications.
For example, the EA must consider and analyze veterinarians and horse experts, with years of
experience, have found that ovariectomy in horses and other mammals causes premature
menopause and in turn have a cascading impact to various body functions and conditions
including bone conditions (Attachment 9).
The EA dismisses concerns about ovariectomy and bone loss claiming at once that the theory is
based on research on other species, and then supporting its claim that exercise in wild free
roaming horses will prevent bone loss by citing research on other species. Hormone effects are
in large measure universal across species. In fact, the effects of estrogen on bone density were
initially established in studies with rodents not women. There is, in fact, some evidence to
suggest that exercise might counter the effects of estrogen loss on bone density (e.g., J Bone
Miner Res. 1993 Aug;8(8):937-42). However that is a study on rats, which by BLM standards on
best available science (EA, page 33) would not apply. To our knowledge, there is no evidence
from any studies showing that exercise can counteract the effects of estrogen loss on bone
density. The BLM is twisting the facts to suit its agenda, but the agency cannot have it both
ways.
The EA fails to analyze the physiological consequences of ovariectomy on the health, well-being
ad survivability of mares in the wild.

V. Surgical Ovariectomy via Colpotomy Experiments Should Be Cancelled

A BLM proposal to "spay" (surgically remove ovaries) wild female horses by a method which is
called inferior by the American College of Veterinary Surgeons is unconscionable and doomed to
failure. The wild, untrained mares will not have adequate veterinary medical care during and
after the surgery and will be at risk of fatal complications due to the lack of laparoscopic
equipment, which is the gold standard for this procedure.
- Dr. Pamela Corey, equine veterinarian (Attachment 9)

A. Overview



The BLM intends to use 100 mares in this ovariectomy experiment. Since the procedure chosen
- ovariectomy via colpotomy - is a rudimentary, but established, method of spaying mares,
the research aspect involves the testing of the effects of this invasive surgical procedure on
75 pregnant mares. As described in the EA (p. 13-17) this procedure involves:

- Holding mares off feed for 36 hours before surgery to empty the intestines of food
contents.
- Restraining the mares in chutes and sedating/anesthetizing them
- Preforming a rectal exam to evacuate the rectum and determine pregnancy status
and gestational stage.
- Making a 1-3 centimeter incision in the vagina, enlarging it with the surgeons
fingers, and perforating the perineum to allow the surgeons hand and arm to enter
through the vaginal channel into the abdominal cavity.
- Manually palpitating (blindly) the abdominal cavity to locate the ovaries.
- Injecting local anesthetic into each ovary.
- Removing the ovaries with a chain ecraseur, a rod-like device with a chain on the
end, which is used to encircle, crush and sever the ovaries.
- Leaving the incision open and returning the mare to her pen once she awakens from
surgery.

B. Colpotomy Does Not Meet Modern Day Equine Veterinary Standards

1. LIVESTOCK NOT WILDLIFE - MANAGEMENT PRACTICE

The EA states that this technique of ovariectomy has been described and is the most
commonly utilized technique in rural veterinary practice. (p. 16) It appears however, that while
colpotomy may be a common practice for livestock it is not common in the world of equine
veterinary medicine, let alone as a wildlife management tool. This observation is confirmed by
Dr. Julie Weikel, livestock veterinarian and member of the BLM Wild Horse and Burro Advisory
Board, who told the September 2015 expert panel convened by BLM that she had
ovariectomized 100,000 cows, but fewer than a dozen horses, and none via colpotomy.
As Dr. Corey notes in her statement:

Entering the abdominal cavity of an animal in the field is a practice more routinely performed on
cattle and they handle it well. Caesarean section or correction of a twisted stomach are routine
surgeries for ovine veterinarians working on large herds. But when a horse requires colic surgery
it is not an option to perform this in the owners barn. Even done as a last resort, the risks are
high enough to make recovery without pain or infection very difficult, and frankly, unlikely.

The BLMs livestock-based approach to wild horse management contradicts the mandate of the
Wild Free Roaming Horses and Burros Act, which mandates that these iconic animals be
managed as an integral part of the natural system of the public lands. This approach not only
ignores what makes these wild animals different from their domestic counterparts, it aims to


destroy it. The American public demands higher standards for the management of wild horses -
- wild, free-roaming animals with complex social behaviors that distinguish them from domestic
horses. The BLM is charged with managing wild horses, yet it continues to ignore the
importance of the very thing that makes them wild, setting the remaining wild horse herds in
this country on an inexorable path toward destruction.

2. OUTDATED PROCEDURE

Veterinarians contacted by AWHPC indicate that ovariectomy itself is an uncommon procedure
in mares, and if done today, is performed by modern laparoscopic techniques, not via
colpotomy. According to Dr. Kelly:

Historically, colpotomies had been done occasionally in some practices to manage adverse behaviors of
mares (or tumors), but with less invasive procedures currently available and pharmaceutical options
(Altrenogest and Regulate) surgical management of adverse behaviors has significantly declined. When
ovariectomies need to be done (to manage granuloma cell tumors for example) Laparoscopy is the
procedure of choice unless the tumor is too large in which case a ventral midline or flank approach would
be chosen. Only the affected ovary would be removed typically. Incisions with Laparoscopy are small and
external. Surgical prep is much less complex, visualization of the procedure is constant (not blind) and the
risks of complications/bleeding are much lower (compared to Colpotomies). (Attachment 4)

As Dr. Kelly later states, ovariectomy is also used on a limited basis for jump or teaser
mares used to collect semen for artificial insemination.

Colpotomy is a blind procedure wherein the surgeon manually enters the abdominal cavity
through an incision in the vagina large enough to accommodate his/her hand and arm. Because
the surgeon cannot see the internal structures, the risk of cutting an artery or the bowel is high.
In addition to the ability to visualize the internal structures through the use of small cameras,
modern laparoscopic techniques also offer the advantage of much smaller incisions, make this
the gold standard for this procedure in todays veterinary community. As Dr. Pamela Corey
states (Attachment ):

Culpotomy is the removal of an ovary through an incision via the vaginal area of a horse and in
order to access the organ, the abdominal cavity is entered. Numerous loops of intestinal tract
have to be identified to ensure only the ovary is accessed for surgical removal. The mare is
restrained in stocks and local anesthetic and sedation is used to enable the procedure to be
performed.

The American College of Veterinary Surgeons (ACVS) states that standing laparoscopic access to
the mare's ovaries is the gold standard for this surgical procedure. This approach is more direct
than via the vagina as it is through the flank of the mare and a camera is used to ensure that the
appropriate organ is identified before removal. Pain management, sedation, anesthesia and post
operative antibiotics for the horse are not optional in this procedure. They are vital. Horses are
extremely sensitive to pain and to peritonitis (infection of the abdomen) and as a species are
more likely to form adhesions after abdominal surgical procedures than cattle are.


A BLM proposal to "spay" (surgically remove ovaries) wild female horses by a method which is
called inferior by the ACVS is unconscionable and doomed to failure. The wild, untrained mares
will not have adequate veterinary medical care during and after the surgery and will be at risk of
fatal complications due to the lack of laparoscopic equipment, which is the gold standard for this
procedure. This is an uncommon surgery not performed by any significant percentage of equine
practitioners in the United States because horse owners do not need to sterilize their mares
unless they have disease of the reproductive tract, such as an ovarian tumor.

In summary, the vaginal culpotomy procedure (without laparoscopic equipment) performed on
wild female horses in a field setting (as opposed to an equine hospital facility) does not meet the
accepted standard of veterinary care in this country.

According to the American College of Veterinary Surgeons (Attachment 10):

with the advent of laparoscopic (keyhole) surgery, the gold standard technique is laparoscopic
ovariectomy in which the ovary is removed from a standing sedated horse, through a small
incision in the flank. This technique is both minimally invasive, avoids risks of general
anaesthesia and cosmetically very acceptable and therefore makes all other approaches
inferior. (Emphasis added.)

Use of laparoscopes could significantly improve the safety of the ovariectomy procedure:

Hemorrhage is a significant risk with most traditional ovariectomies. With laparoscopic

ovariectomy, the camera allows the surgeon to see the ovarian vessels. Surgeons at the UMN
CVM use a special device called a Ligasure to seal the vessels during the surgery. This makes the
hemorrhage risk minimal. University of Minnesota (Attachment 11)

Inexplicably, the EA does not contain a single mention of laparoscopic technology, and the
failure to consider more modern alternatives renders this document completely inadequate.
Further the EAs analysis of the risks to the mares of hemorrhage and evisceration through the
surgical incisions is completely inadequate as well.

C. High Risk Procedure; Outcome Dependent on Skill of Surgeon

In its assertion that ovariectomy via colpotomy is a safe procedure, the EA relies on
unpublished data and personal communications from Leon Pielstick, who may be the only
veterinarian in the U.S. who has done this procedure on wild mares. Dr. Pielstick also reports on
the results of a training he conducted on donkeys in Arizona, which he claims had a 1 in 5
mortality rate.

The lack of trained veterinarians and the difficulty in learning how to perform this invasive,
blind surgical procedure is a major drawback of this method. The BLM has not adequately
addressed the impacts to wild horses of being subjected to ovariectomy via colpotomy by
inexperienced veterinarians in training.

10


In September 2015, BLM convened an expert panel to discuss various methods of spaying
mares. This information was referenced, but not included in the EA. It was provided to AWHPC
by the BLM after we requested it, and it is included here as Attachment 12. From the expert
panel discussion:

It is also worth noting that the number of learning surgeons entering the body cavity of those
burros could have contributed to the one in five mortality rate for those burros. Dr. Asa noted
that one of the major complications could have been the training itself.

Julie has taught numerous vets to spay heifers. Only a small percentage are still spaying. All
found it to be quite difficult. Adopting colpotomy for wild mares means that we need to find
people who have gone through the steep learning curve. Some people can develop a good feel
to correctly assess what tissues you have hold of, but it takes experience to learn. While Julie
has usually required 100 heifers to train a veterinarian to spay heifers, 100 mares may not be
necessary to train an already accomplished equine surgeon to perform colptotomies. Training
will vary with the individuals involved and hopefully could be accomplished with many fewer
animals, maybe 5-10, with time to rest between surgeries for reflection during training.

Dr. Katrin Hinrichs suggested that 3-5 colpotomies should be done under supervision while Julie
Weikel noted:

People who were good had it after 1-2 animals. There are others who still wouldnt get it after
100. You need people with experience or competence.

Dr. Kelly, in her statement, confirms this:

The success and safety of colpotomies is partially dependent on the extensive surgical
experience of the operator. Every board certified surgeon I spoke with expressed concern over
Colpotomies being performed on these wild mares and in the proposed setting (BLM facilities)
instead of in a surgical facility. Each of these surgeons reported experience with or anecdotal
reports of complications to mares during and after Colpotomies. Each questioned the validity of
using this procedure when less invasive, less painful, safer procedures could be chosen for these
mares in the study.

The EA must assess the impacts and feasibility of this approach given a) the lack of veterinarians
trained to perform this procedure; and 2) the steep learning curve for veterinarians
attempting to master this blind surgical procedure that is rarely performed in horses. The
steep learning curve will involve the deaths of many horses, as the one in five mortality rate
reported by Leon Pielstick in his training of nine veterinarians in Arizona in the Expert Panel
report documents. This is unacceptable. The final EA must fully disclose the likely deaths of
untold numbers of horses in training exercises and must fully analyze the impacts of the lack of
trained veterinarians and the steep learning curve involved in training new veterinarians in
the procedure.

D. Health Increased by Colpotomy Performed on Wild Mares

11



The BLM is proposing to conduct surgical ovariectomies in a barn at a BLM holding facility under
conditions that may not be entirely sterile (p. 14) on wild free-roaming mares who can not
be handled or confined. This increases the risk of the colpotomy procedure to unacceptable
levels.

1. SEDATION AND RESTRAINT

As Dr. Kelly states, based on her experience treating wild horses:

Sedative levels required to perform a painful, standing procedure vary greatly in wild horses
(often requiring 2-3 times (or more) doses used in domesticated horses.) With painful stimuli or
over/under sedation levels, some wild horses sit or lay down in the chute (very dangerous if the
procedure is underway). Other horses tend to explode in the chute regardless of of the
squeeze being implemented and heavy sedation on board. In either case, if the ecraseur was
being crimped and the mare reacted adversely resulting in dislodgement of the ecraseur,
excessive/life threatening hemorrhage could result. The operators arm could also be at risk of
serious injury if the mares position within the chute cannot be maintained. (Adding an
abdominal strap to hold the mare up would potentially compress the abdominal
contents/pregnancy and make surgical approach even more difficult/more risky that abdominal
contents (bowel) would be forced up in abnormal positions.

The EA is silent on the risks of conducting this procedure on wild mares. The final EA must
consider the different sedation requirements of wild mares, and behaviors of terrified horses in
a hydraulic squeeze chute and how those behaviors may impact the outcome of the procedure
on the horses.

2. INABILITY TO PROVIDE POST-OPERATIVE CARE

Ovariectomy in horses is a serious procedure that requires careful post-operative monitoring
and care. Dr. Michael Ball described the risks of ovariectomy in horses in TheHorse.com
(Attachment 13_:

Regardless of the method used for ovariectomy, this procedure is generally a painful one and the
use of peri-operative analgesics is important. The horses often are hospitalized for 3-7 days and
very carefully monitored in the immediate post-operative period for any signs of hemorrhage,
which is a serious complication that can occur.

The NRC in its 2013 report also discussed these risks:

Although the risks are lower than with transabdominal surgery, episioplasty (suturing to close
the vulva) and stall restriction for 2-7 days are recommended to reduce the chance of
evisceration. Monitoring for 24-48 hours for signs of hypovolemic shock due to external bleeding
is also recommended. The procedure is not without risk. (p. 98-99) (Emphasis added.)

12


In its review of this research proposal (EA, Appendix B), the NRC also discusses post-operative
care requirements of this procedure.

Domestic mares are typically cross-tied to keep them standing for 48 hours to prevent
evisceration through an unclosed incision. That protocol would not be possible for free-ranging
mares because they cannot be held still for so long. Therefore, there is some concern that the
investigator may see more fatalities than the 1% quoted in the protocol, which is based on
domestic mares. (Emphasis added.)

Mary Scott, DVM Diplomate with the American College of Teriongenologists was consulted by Dr. Kelly,
and offered these comments confirming the risks to wild mares:

My opinion is that the predominating concern with the proposed study is the significant risk of
Colpotomy to the health/life of the mares during the surgery and post operatively, because they
are wild animals and cannot be handled or treated in the same manner as domesticated mares.
To reduce the risk of evisceration of bowel through the colpotomy incision, it is recommended
that mares should be maintained in a tie stall for up to 7 days and then restricted to a small
paddock turn out for two weeks following the surgical procedure. These guidelines were
developed because the risk of post-operative hemorrhage or evisceration are real. (Emphasis
added.)

When discussing the risks of colpotomy, the University of Minnesota (Attachment 11) writes:

However, ovary removal is done blindly. This can result in damage to the intestines or other
structures. The vaginal incision is generally not closed. This means bacteria can enter the
abdominal cavity and/or intestines can slide out through the incision. The mare may need to stay
in cross ties for a few days to allow healing and prevent intestinal herniation. Complications
include hemorrhage since the vessels are not ligated, peritonitis (infection of the abdominal
cavity), or vaginal abscesses.

Despite the documented risks, the wild mares in these experiments will not be provided with
any of the follow up care required of this procedure, including: stall confinement, including a
period in crossties to prevent lying down or rolling; careful monitoring for hemorrhage; pain
relief and antibiotic treatment.

Once the procedure is completed and the mare has recovered from a sedated state, she would
be returned to her corral and provided with adequate feed and water. It has been suggested
that keeping the mare standing for 2-4 days after surgery could be used to prevent evisceration.
However this risk is rare, and in the veterinarians experience withholding feed for 36 hours
prior to surgery creates empty intestines, decreasing the risk for evisceration either during
surgery or post surgically.

Here, the EA focuses solely on evisceration, offering an unsubstantiated theory that keeping the
mares off feed for 36 hours will reduce the risk of evisceration. Even if true, this does not
address the significant risk of hemorrhage or infection associated with this procedure. And

13


while empty intestines could reduce the risk of the surgeon accidentally (and fatally) mistaking
a fecal ball for an ovary, it would not entirely eliminate the risk of the intestines eviscerating
through the relatively large vaginal incision, which will be left open post-surgery when the
mares are returned to their pens.

In her statement, Dr. Kelly further explains the implications of the BLMs inability to provide
post-operative care to the mares who will be ovariectomized:

The post operative management proposed for these mares is minimal compared to significant
post operative recommendations for domesticated mares. These recommendations include
keeping mares tied in a tie stall/tie line to prevent them from laying down/rolling to reduce risk
of post operative hemorrhage or herniation of bowel through that that must be left open to
second intention healing. These measures are advised since extensive post-operative
hemorrhage or herniation of bowel thru incisions would not be survivable.

.Domesticated mares would be treated with a more aggressive antibiotic choice for 7-10 days
post operatively (monitoring daily for complications). Insufficient anti-microbials could result in
peritonitis (also likely not surviveable). . . . The wild mares will not be provided with post-surgical
pain relief, according to the study description, and presumably [will be] turned out in a
communal paddock with no restraint.

3. PAIN

All veterinarians AWHPC consulted with confirmed that ovariectomy is a painful procedure
which requires careful monitoring and pain relief post-surgery.

This was confirmed by the expert panel report provided to AWHPC by the BLM. In the report,
Dr. Katrin Hinrichs, a reproductive specialist, stated that she has observed
mares in pain at night after surgery; she now gives butorphanol for 24 h after surgery, or
morphine + detomidine epidural at the time of the surgery.

While Dr. Weikel asserted that she did not observe mares in pain after ovariectomy at the
Sheldon Refuge, Dr. Pielstick, who performed the surgeries, noted that surgeries were not
completed until 4 pm, so there was not a lot of light for observations after that. (Expert Panel
Report p. 5)

The EA fails to analyze the risk of post-operative pain in these mares and the impact of the
BLMs inability to provide post-surgical pain relief.

The EAs lack of honest and adequate analysis of the risks of this procedure to wild mares who
cannot be provided with required post-operative care is blatant and shocking. The only
evidence the EA can muster in support of this dangerous experiment is unpublished and
undocumented results from the spaying of mares at the Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge.
However, Sheldon officials have stated publicly that no follow up studies of spayed mares were

14


performed, no records were kept on the number of mares who were pregnant at the time of
spaying, and no data has been published based on the Sheldon Refuges spaying of mares.

The EA concludes that of the ovariectomy methods discussed by the expert panel, ovariectomy
via colpotomy appears to be relatively safe when practiced by an experienced surgeon, and is
associated with the shortest duration of potential complications after operations. In marked
contrast to a suggestion by the NRC Review (2013), this panel of experts identified evisceration
as not being a risk associated with ovariectomy via colpotomy.

It is important to note that the conclusions of this expert panel regarding risk of coplotomy
were based on domestic mares, who are ovariectomized to be jump mares or for ovarian
pathology, not on wild horses. Further the EA fails to note the lack of veterinarians trained in
this outdated procedure and the steep learning curve necessary to train them to perform it.

Again, the EA focuses on the risk of evisceration while paying no attention to the significant
risk of hemorrhage (increased by the plan to use pregnant mares see below) or infection.

It is clear that the NRC panel that reviewed this research proposal viewed these risks to be
significant. That panel concluded that the less invasive procedures of tubal ligation and
hysteroscopically-guided laser ablation would be safer with less risk of hemorrhage and
evisceration and probably less painful. (Appendix B)

This EA is grossly inadequate in its assessment of the impacts of ovariectomy via colpotomy on
wild mares, particularly with regard to the difficulties of sedating and confining wild horses in a
chute and the inability to provide wild mares with required post-operative care.

E. Impacts on Pregnancy in Mares not Adequately Analyzed

Since ovariectomy is an established, if outdated, procedure, the research question here is the
impact of this procedure on pregnant mares. According to the EA, Of the 100 mares used in
this experiment, 75 will be pregnant in three stages (0-4 months, 4-8 months, over 8 months) of
the 335-340 day gestation period. The EA states, There are few peer reviewed studies
documenting the effects of ovariectomy on the success of pregnancy in the mare. (p. 31).

1. ABORTIONS

The EA refers to the NRC review of this research proposal that predicted ovariectomy
performed on mares in the first 120 days of pregnancy will result in abortions, because the
mares ovaries and their production of progesterone are necessary to sustain pregnancy in its
early phase.

For those mares who do not abort their fetuses due to ovariectomy, the risk to their unborn
foals from the procedure is unknown. The EA states (p. 32), For those pregnancies maintained
after the procedure, likely those past 120 days, the development of the foal is not expected to

15


be affected. However, because this procedure is not commonly conducted on pregnant mares
the rate of complications to the fetus has not been quantified. There is a possibility that entry
of the abdominal cavity could cause premature birth related to inflammation; however after
five months the placenta should hormonally support the pregnancy after removal of the
ovaries. (Emphasis added.) As support for this claim, the EA cites pers. comm. principal
investigator, which the BLM has not included in this EA or otherwise provided for public
review.

As stated above, the BLM intends to use 100 mares in this study, with 25 less than four months
pregnant, 25 from 4-8 months pregnant, 25 over 8 months pregnant and 25 not pregnant.
Given the EAs statement that the ovaries are necessary to sustain pregnancy through 120 days,
and its later statement a pregnant mares placenta will produce the progesterone necessary to
sustain pregnancy after five months, it is likely that more than a third of the pregnant mares
used in this experiment will suffer from abortions. The EA fails to analyze this significant
impact, including whether this pregnancy loss rate is medically or socially acceptable.

Instead, the EA states that the NRC did not give a recommendation to the BLM on what rate of
abortion might be acceptable for ovariectomies at various stages of gestation. However, this
is not a question of science; it is a question of BLM policy and the social values and public input
surrounding this issue must play a significant role in the agencys decision. Although BLM has
precluded public input into this EA by declining to conduct a scoping period, the agency must
seriously consider the prevailing social preference that is evidenced by the over 20,000 public
comments the agency has received on this EA.

There is an additional impact that the EA did not consider, and that is the likelihood that the
stress of the experiment including restraint in the hydraulic chute, sedation and an invasive
surgical procedure on mares in later stages of pregnancy will cause them to abort their foals.

As Dr. Kelly writes:

I have consulted with Dr. Mary Scott (a Diplomate with the American College of
Teriongenologists) who also expressed experienced concern with the safety, efficacy and need of
this procedure proposed in the projected study and setting. She confirmed that ovariectomy
performed before 50 days of gestation will cause pregnancy loss. If Ovariectomy occurs between
days 50-70 of gestation, many mares will abort. By 100 + days of gestation, the feto-placetal unit
is providing significant hormonal support of the pregnancy and by that stage the ovaries are not
essential to maintain pregnancy. Research mares ovariectomized at 140-210 days of gestation
did not abort. However, in a wild mare, the stress of surgery (particularly a painful standing
procedure) and potential for post-op infection are significant risks to the maintenance of the
pregnancy. Either or both could precipitate an abortion. Abortion in later stages of pregnancy
can have its own set of complications.

The BLM has not addressed this risk or considered how post-procedure abortions/retained
placentas resulting in complex care complications from retained placenta (necessitating

16


uterine lavages to remove retained placenta remnants) or the management of compromised
foals born prematurely would be cared for.

The final EA must address the risks to mares at all stages of pregnancy and explain what steps
will be taken to aid mares who suffer abortion-related complications and foals who are born
prematurely as a result of the experiment.

2. INCREASED RISKS TO PREGNANT MARES IN ADDITION TO ABORTION

As Dr. Kelly noted (pers. Comm) during pregnancy, the tissues of the reproductive tract,
including the ovaries and the ovarian pedicle are engorged with blood and hormones, elevating
the risk of hemorrhage caused by ovariectomy.

In addition, 25 of the mares will be in the late stage of pregnancy. According to the expert
panel:

At 7-8 months pregnant it gets harder to move the intestines to reach the ovaries so it is ore
difficult to keep the intestine out of the ecraseur tool.

Puncturing or cutting into the intestine with the ecrasur tool would be a deadly mistake. The EA
fails to discuss this risk, or to evaluate an alternative that would exclude mares in later stages of
pregnancy from these ovariectomy experiments.

3. EXPERT PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS IGNORED

The expert panel discussed the need to administer progesterone to mares in the early to mid-
stages of pregnancy to ensure that the pregnancy is maintained and to avoid abortion and
related complications. The BLM ignored this recommendation. There is no proposal to use
progesterone in this experiment, leaving one with the conclusion that the loss of pregnancy is,
in fact, the BLMs desired outcome. This is totally unacceptable.

VI. If Tubal Ligation & Hysteroscopically Guided Laser Ablation are to be Tested,
They Should Be Developed in Domestic Mares First, if Test

These procedures have never been done previously on horses.

A. Description of Experiments

In the tubal ligation experiments, the BLM intends to use 50 mares in the tubal ligation
experiment, with 10 -15 in each of the following categories: pregnancy of less than four
months; 4-8 months pregnant; over 8 months pregnant; and not pregnant. The experiment
involves the following:

- mares are placed in a chute and sedated and given an anesthetic.

17

-
-
-
-

The veterinarian then inserts his/her hand into the vaginal vault inserts a needle
attached to a tube is inserted through the vaginal wall into the abdomen. The tube
pumps C02 gas into the abdomen to inflate it and make the structures easier to
visualize with the endoscope. This process is called insufflation. Insufflation can be
an uncomfortable procedure in some individuals, so if a mare shows discomfort,
she will be given epidural anesthesia.
After insufflation, the surgeon manually makes a 10-12 mm incision in the vaginal
wall and inserts an endoscope.
Using the image from the endoscope, the surgeon guides the instrument up to the
oviduct and using a laser, damages and divides it to cause an obstruction and
prevent pregnancy.
Following the procedure the mares would be transferred to a pen with other
recovering mares and observed for a period of 2 weeks.
After 2-4 weeks mares will be re-examined. Those confirmed not to be pregnant will
be exposed to a fertile stallion for 3-5 months observed for mating behavior and
checked for pregnancy rates.

This procedure is commonly performed in women, but the endoscope is placed through a small
incision near the navel as opposed to through the vaginal wall.

In hysteroscopically guided laser ablation, the BLM will use 25 or more mares in the following
procedure, which also has never before been performed on horses:

- mares are pre-treated with banamine and buscopan delivered intravenously to
minimize colic.
- Mares are placed in a chute and sedated and anesthetized.
- An endoscope is placed into the vaginal canal and advanced through the cervix into
the uterus.
- The uterus is partially inflated with air to aid in visualization of the structures
- The oviduct papilla (entrance to the oviduct) is injected with local anesthetic
- A laser placed through the endoscope is used to seal the oviduct opening by
creating inflammation and scar tissue.
- After surgery the uterus is infused with an antibiotic and saline
- Mares monitored for 24 hours and observed fro 2 weeks post surgery.
- At 3 weeks a portion of the mares will be reexamined to determine the presence of
scar tissue
- At 4 weeks up to 50 operated mares will be exposed to fertile stallions to determine
the pregnancy rate and effect of procedure.
- Due to invasion of the uterus, only non-pregnant mares can be used.
- Because this procedure has never been performed, the extent to which the scarring
will prevent pregnancy is unknown.

B. Risks

18


While these procedures are expected to have fewer risks and complications than surgical
ovariectomy, the EA does not adequately explain the BLMs plan to deal with the one likely side
effect from both procedures colic. The EA should provide a treatment protocol for mares
suffering from colic due to these procedures.

C. Feasibility in Field Setting

The EA is inadequate in its analysis of the feasibility of the proposed procedures for use on the
range:

Tubal ligation and hysteroscopically guided laser ablation have never been performed in horses
and are not feasible for implementation in a field setting. Implementing these theoretical
procedures in the field would require the costly purchase of a large number of endoscopes, an
economic impact not considered in the EA. In addition, no veterinarians are currently trained in
these procedures, and it is not viable for BLM to believe that it could find and train a sufficient
number of veterinarians to implement this in the field on a scale required to impact population
growth rates.

In addition, hysteroscopically guided laser ablation is infeasible for wild mares, according to the
NRC review, because it cannot be performed on pregnant animals without causing abortion.
Given that most mares captured by BLM are pregnant when they come off the range, the utility
of the procedure would be limited to young mares under the age of 2 and subfertile mares who
would be of lesser concern in terms of reproduction. Therefore the expenditure of resources on
this experiment is not justified.

B. Should be Tested in Domestic Mares First

Because wild mares cannot be handled or confined, the NRC panel that reviewed these
research proposals (EA, Appendix B) suggested:

A proof-of-concept study could be carried out quicly with domestic mares before the technique
is introduced to the [wild] horses in Burns [corrals]....

According to the EA, the BLM does not intend to evaluate the effects of the procedure with the
exception of whether the mares become pregnant or not. From a scientific perspective, it
would be necessary to evaluate the UTJ/uterus post-laser and not just assume that it will be
ok. Similar answers would be necessary for the tubal ligation procedure since this approach has
not been reported in the literature. As the NRC suggested, the endoscopic procedure and the
tubal ligation procedure should be performed on domestic mares first in order to evaluate
whether or not there are any adverse effects post-procedure. There opportunity for such re-
evaluation in wild mares will be non-existent.

VII. Alternatives Not Evaluated

19


The EA does not include an honest analysis of alternatives to invasive, risky and painful
sterilization procedures for wild free-roaming mares as recommended by the NAS/NRC.

On the basis of the peer-reviewed literature and direct communication with scientists who are
studying fertility control in horses and burros, the committee considers the three most promising
methods of fertility control to be PZP-22, GonaCon, and chemical vasectomy. p. 152

A. PZP

Of the three methods recommended by the NAS, only one PZP is available today without
further research. Yet the BLM has never adequately utilized the PZP vaccine in its native,
dartable form or in the pelleted, injectable PZP-22 form.

The EAs statement regarding the PZP vaccine -- The use of PZP for fertility control is well
documented; however longer lasting formulations have not proven effective at population
growth suppression on a majority of HMAs. is misleading on many fronts:

The PZP-22 vaccine has never been utilized in the majority of HMAs.
In most of the HMAs where BLM has utilized the PZP-22 vaccine, it has done so in a
token fashion by not vaccinating enough mares to impact population growth rates.
In the limited number of HMAs where PZP-22 has been utilized more widely, BLM wild
horse specialists report success in slowing population growth rates.
A number of HMAs (Pryor Mountain Range, Little Book Cliffs, McCullough Peaks, Spring
Creek Basin) are successfully managed through PZP delivered remotely via darting in
programs that have greatly reduced or eliminated the need for removals.

The use of PZP is well-established as an effective and economical method for wild horse
management. (See Attachments 14, 15). Yet BLM has consistently under-utilized this available
and humane tool:

2011: BLM promises to vaccinate 2,000 mares per year as part of its accelerated
reform program. (Attachment 16)
2012: BLM vaccinates 1,051 mares
2013: BLM vaccinates 509 mares
2014: BLM vaccinates 384 mares
2015: BLM vaccinates 466 mares
2012-2015: BLM removes 17,577 horses and burros from the range.

[Sources: http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/whbprogram/history_and_facts/quick_facts.html;
http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wo/Planning_and_Renewable_Resources/wild_horses_and_burros/
advisory_board_10_2011.Par.63582.File.dat/On Range Update Presentation 9 2015.pdf;
http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/whbprogram/herd_management/Data.html;
http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wo/Planning_and_Renewable_Resources/wild_horses_and_burros/s
tatistics_and_maps/holding__adoption.Par.69288.File.dat/Facility Report FY-2015.pdf]

20


It is clear from the above, that BLM has never made a serious attempt to utilize this available
tool to humanely manage wild horse populations. Its also clear that the BLM is intent on
sterilizing wild horses and burros on the range, regardless of the NAS/NRC recommendations to
the contrary.

Native PZP and PZP-22 are both effective for one year and have residual efficacy in Year 2. If the
BLM had been vaccinating herds every 2-3 years (via remote darting, or where that is not
possible via bait trapping or even improved helicopter drives) the agency would have by now
significantly reduced population growth on the range. In fact, according to an economic model
created by the Humane Society of the U.S., the BLM could achieve its population goals within
12 years AND SAVE TAXPAYERs $200 million by utilizing PZP and reducing and eventually
eliminating removals. (Attachment 17).

B. GonaCon

The NAS report recommended more research into whether or not GonaCon, another
immunocontraceptive vaccine, could be an acceptable tool for wild horse management. While
AWHPC has grave reservations about GonaCon, we note that the BLM has begun to use this
vaccine in a pilot program without a research study protocol, plan for follow up evaluation of
the mares vaccinated with GonaCon, and in the total absence of affiliation with an academic
institution that could collect and evaluate data and quantify the effects of GonaCon on wild
mares and its success as a fertility control tool. (Attachment 18)

C. Chemical Vasectomy

The BLM has ignored the NAS recommendation to conduct research into the feasibility of this
method, which would preserve natural behaviors. Instead the agency is galloping with
research on the behavioral effects of castrating (gelding) by castrating 70% of the stallions in
Utahs Conger HMA.

The fact that the BLM is proceeding with expensive research into invasive and risky permanent
sterilization methods that will destroy the wild free-roaming behaviors of wild horses instead of
following the recommendations of the NAS/NRC directly contradicts the BLMs 2011
commitment that NAS/NRC findings would determine how the BLM should proceed in light of
the latest scientific research.

The EA/EIS must accurately analyze the availability of alternatives to the proposed
spaying/sterilization methods and must accurately analyze the lack of feasibility of
implementing these risky and invasive measures in a field setting.

VIII. Social and Economic Impacts of Proposed Sterilization Experiments Not

Adequately Analyzed
.

21


BLM Oregon did not provide a scoping period for this EA process, thereby avoiding the flood of
comments opposing these experiments. Doing so enabled the BLM to falsely portray in its EA
that the public was divided on the topic of invasively spaying wild mares.

The lack of scoping period also prevented the public from having input into the impacts and
alternatives analyzed in this EA.

One clear social impact not analyzed is the importance of maintaining natural wild horse
behaviors, as discussed above and as affirmed by the NRC, which are valued by the public,
including those recreational users of our public lands who engage in wild horse watching.

Another social value not analyzed is the publics tolerance for procedures that subject mares to
risky, life-threatening procedures that will cause pregnant mares to abort their unborn foals.

These social values as expressed by the thousands of citizens who have submitted public
comments on BLM EAs in Oregon and elsewhere over the past decade and by the nearly
21,000 citizens who have submitted comments on this EA - should have been addressed in this
EA.

The economic impacts are not addressed in this study, including the feasibility of purchasing
expensive equipment and training large numbers of veterinarians to be competent in these
procedures, including those that have never been done before in horses.

In conclusion, the EAs social and economic impacts section is inadequate because:

- It minimizes public opposition to invasive and permanent sterilization procedures.
- Mischaracterizes concerns of opponents to sterilization.
- Falsely states that PZP has not been effective across most HMAs.
- Lack of scoping period prevented the public from providing evidence regarding the
success of PZP in multiple HMAs as well as documenting public opposition to these
invasive and dangerous procedures.
- Conclusions regarding the publics wishes for wild horse herds based not on scoping
comments, or on public comments submitted to the BLM but rather on Burns BLM
staff personal communications with horse enthusiasts who visit local herds. (p. 42)
- Definition of inhumane is inadequate: The notion that surgically sterilizing wild
mares is inhumane can be broken into two parts: 1) the idea of permanently
removing a mares ability to reproduce; and 2) the effect of the surgery on the
mares behavior and social status once returned to the range. This definition omits
important considerations regarding inhumane treatment: the pain that the mare
will suffer as a result of the surgical procedures and the risks of the invasive
procedures to the health of the mare and her unborn foal. Had the BLM conducted a
scoping period for this EA, the publics concerns about inhumane treatment would
have been clear.

22

IX. Experiment or Training? Experiments Use Far More Horses than Required for
Valid Results

The BLM proposes to use 225 wild mares in these experiments is excessive. Veterinary experts
consulted by AWHPC confirm that the study objectives could be achieved in a scientifically valid
manner with far fewer horses. The proposed use of such a large number of mares raises
questions about whether this Proposed Action is actually a research study or actually a training
exercise for veterinarians. The latter would indicate the BLMs intent to implement sterilization
procedures on the range regardless of the outcome of these research studies. The EA does not
provide a valid justification for the use of an excessive number of horses.

IX. EIS Required

An EA is not sufficient for these Proposed Actions. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is
necessary for these first-of-their- kind, research action that involves highly
uncertain and unknown risks and may establish a precedent for future actions and threatens a
violation of federal law including the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burro Act, which was
established to protect and manage wild free-roaming horses as an integral part of the natural
system of the public lands.

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires agencies to prepare an EIS regarding all
major Federal actions significantly affecting the environment, 42 U.S.C. 4332(C), and the
CEQ implementing regulations set forth a number of criteria governing when an action is to be
considered significant for this purpose. 40 C.F.R. 1508.27.

Here, there can be no legitimate doubt that, at the very least, there is certainly a substantial
question regarding many of the CEQ significance factors. Accordingly, the BLM was required
to prepare an EIS on the extreme research action proposed.

First, the BLMs research action to spay 225 federally-protected wild mares held at the BLM
Oregon Wild Horse Corrals may cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or
historical resources, 40 C.F.R. 1508.27(b) i.e., the very wild and free-roaming horses
that Congress has declared are living symbols of the historic and pioneer spirit of the West,
that are to be considered an integral part of the natural system of the public lands. This is
particularly true since this research will lay the groundwork for widespread implementation of
spaying as a management tool for wild herds.

Second, the BLM has over the past few years received tens of thousands of comments from the
public detailing opposition to the spaying of mares and permanent sterilization of wild horses
who live on the range, including over 20,000 comments on this EA. These comments were also
received in response to other BLM request for public comments including those received in
response to Secretary of the Interiors Strategy for the Future of the Wild Horse and Burro
Program (June 2010 and March 2011).

23



In light of the publics opposition to this research proposal and particularly the NAS
recommendation against spaying mares on the range and concerns about the dire
environmental impacts it will have on the individual horses and the herds as a whole, it is clear
that the environmental effects of the BLMs action are also highly controversial. 40 C.F.R.
1508.27(b).

Controversy under this factor also includes substantial questions are raised as to whether a
project . . . may cause significant degradation of the environment. Anderson, 314 F.3d at 1018.
Here, such substantial questions are raised below regarding the impacts of the release of
hundreds of geldings on the environment as well as on the individual horses and the wild horse
herds in general. The scientific controversy is demonstrated by the opinions of equine
veterinarians, including reproductive specialists, who raise questions about the risks of the
proposed procedures and their behavioral impacts and related implications for the social
integrity of wild herds.

Third, for similar reasons, the BLMs proposed action also involves possible effects that are
highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks. 40 C.F.R. 1508.27(b). Based on
available research that outlines the behavioral changes in domestic mares after spaying and the
NAS recommendations against spaying mares on the range due to the inherent dangers
involved, it is clear that this proposed action involves unique risks and BLM has no idea what
the impacts of performing ovariectomies on mares the majority of whom will be pregnant in
a holding corral without post-operative care will be, nor does the agency have any idea of the
implications of spaying mares on the the individual, band and herd social behaviors and
structures. This is precisely the kind of uncertainty about environmental impacts that require
preparation of an EIS. See Fund for Animals v. Norton, 281 F. Supp. 2d at 234 (uncertainty as to
the impact of a proposed action on a local population of a species, even where all parties
acknowledge that the action will have little or no effect on broader populations, is a basis for
finding that there will be a significant impact and setting aside as FONSI), quoting Anderson,
314 F.3d at 1018-2.

Fourth, the Proposed Action may establish a precedent for future actions with significant
effects since this is being conducted as a population management research study, as stated
in the scoping notice.

Finally, because the BLMs action here is completely at odds with its obligations under the
WFRHBA to protect these wild horses, to preserve them as an integral part of the natural
system of the public lands, to manage them in a manner that is designed to achieve and
maintain a thriving natural ecological balance on the public lands, and to employ management
activities at the minimal feasible level, 16 U.S.C. 1533, it also necessarily threatens a
violation of federal law yet another of the significance criteria. 40 C.F.R. 1508.27(b).

Therefore, because at least five of the significance factors are present here, and particularly
because the proposed action represents a radical departure from the way the BLM has dealt

24


with these issues in the past, it is clear that the agency is required to prepare an EIS before
implementing this research action.

XII. EA/EIS Cannot Be Complete in Absence of OSU IACUC Approval

According to the federal Office of Research Integrity, An institutional animal care and use
committee (IACUC) is required by federal regulations for most institutions that use animals in
research, teaching and testing. (https://ori.hhs.gov/education/products/ncstate/iacuc.htm)

The IACUC must approve protocols utilizing animals to ensure that the animals selected for a
procedure should be of an appropriate species and quality and the minimum number required
to obtain valid research results. The IACUC must also ensure the proper use of animals,
including the avoidance or minimization of discomfort, distress and pain when consistent with
sound scientific practices.
(http://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/references/phspol.htm#USGovPrinciples)

The IACUC can make changes to animal research protocols to minimize pain and distress to
animals as well as to require the utilization of fewer animals than proposed by the investigator.

The BLM has not received approval from the Oregon State University (OSU) IACUC for these
experiments. (Attachment 19) Given that the agency proposes to use wild mares in procedures
that are widely acknowledged in the veterinary community to be painful, and given that the
agency proposes to use large numbers of horses (225) in experiments that require far fewer
horses (see above), there is a likelihood that the IACUC could impose changes to the
experimental procedures, as described in the EA. Therefore, until the BLM receives IACUC
approval for these experiments, it cannot accurately describe the proposed actions or analyze
their impacts. Therefore the EA/EIS cannot be considered complete until the IACUC approval is
received, made public and incorporated into the EAs description of the Proposed Action and
analysis of its impact.

XII. Conclusion: The EA is Inadequate - Does Not Support the Conduct of the
Proposed Experiments

In its EA, the BLM says that it will decide whether or not to pursue the proposed experimental
sterilization procedures on wild mares at the Burns Corrals. The evidence clearly indicates that
the BLM should NOT proceed with these procedures for the following reasons:

1. Ovariectomy via Colpotomy

- Well-established and significant risks of hemorrhage and evisceration.
- Inability to provide required post-operative care including stall confinement,
restrictions in lying down and pain relief to wild mares.

25


-
-
-
-

Undeniable impacts to natural behaviors

Will cause abortions in mares in early to mid-stages of pregnancy.
Counter to the recommendations of the NRC in its 2013 report.
NRC review panel suggested less invasive procedures preferable due to lower risk of
hemorrhage and less painful.
More modern alternatives using laparoscopes not evaluated.

-

2. Tubal Ligation & Hysteroscopically Guided Laser Ablation

- Fewer health risks and impacts on natural behaviors but not feasible in a field
setting.
- Cost of equipment including purchase of numerous expensive endoscopes for use in
the field.
- Lack of trained veterinarians since procedure has never been done on horses.
- Inability to perform Hysteroscopically Guided Laser Ablation on pregnant mares,
eliminates this as procedure for most mares captured by the BLM.

For all the reasons stated above, AWHPC finds this EA to be entirely inadequate and believes
that the BLM must drop plans to proceed with experiments on costly, dangerous, invasive,
inhumane and impractical sterilization methods.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Suzanne Roy, Executive Director
919-697-9389
sroy@wildhorsepreservation.org

Attachment 1: BLM Press Release 2/24/11
Attachment 2: BLM Statement of Task for NAS/NRC Review
Attachment 3: Using Science to Improve the BLM Wild Horse and Burro Program: A Way Forward,
NAS/NRC, June 2013
Attachment 4: Comments of Robin Kelly, DVM on BLM Mare Sterilization Research EA.
Attachment 5: Statement of Allen Rutberg, Ph.D. regarding impacts of spaying wild mares and gelding
wild stallions.
Attachment 6: BLM September 2015 Expert Panel on Spaying Mares
Attachment 7: Can Ovariectomy be justified on grounds of behavior? Equine Veterinary Education,
(2016) 28 (1) 58-59.
Attachment 8: The Spayed Mare, Horsekeeping.com
Attachment 9: Statement of Pamela Corey, DVM

26


Attachment 10: ACVS Standing Equine Laparoscopic Ovariectomy
Attachment 11: University of Minnesota, The Equine Spay
Attachment 12: Dr. Michael Ball, TheHorse.com
Attachment 13: Achieving Population Goals in a Long-Lived Wildlife Species (Equus caballus) With
Contraception, Kirkpatrick/Turner, 2008
Attachment 14: Economic Benefit of Fertility Control in Wild Horse Populations, Barthalow.
Attachment 15: An Economic Model Demonstrating the Long-term Cost Benefits of Incorporating
Fertility Control into Wild Horse Management J. of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine, 2013.
Attachment 16: AWHPC Letter to BLM re: Gona Con Pilot Program, 2015
Attachment 17: Email from Lisa Grant, BLM re: OSU IACUC Approval of BLM Mare Sterilization
Experiments

27