---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Suzanne Roy <sroy@wildhorsepreservation.

org>
Date: Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 7:06 PM
Subject: Reporting Animal Welfare Complaint - Mare Sterilization
Research at BLM Burns Corrals
To: iacuc.chair@oregonstate.edu, Rebecca.Henry@oregonstate.edu, He
len.Diggs@oregonstate.edu, Rich.Holdren@oregonstate.edu
To the Members of the Oregon State University Institutional Animal
Care and Use Committee:
I am writing to report urgent animal welfare concerns relating to a
research project under review by your IACUC.
The research in question involves three experiments described in
the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Mare Sterilization Research
Environmental Assessment, to be conducted by Oregon State
University (OSU) in conjunction with the BLM.
Since it is my understanding that the IACUC is currently reviewing this
research, this complaint requires your immediate attention
I am officially submitting the attached comments, specifically
beginning at Section V, page 7, and veterinary statements regarding
the proposed research to your IACUC and asking your IACUC to decline
to approve these proposed experiments, based on the concerns
outlined in these documents.
In brief, these include the following.
1. Functional assessment of ovariectomy (spaying) via
colpotomy of wild mares as an acceptable method of
contraception and wild horse population control
In its June 2013 report, Using Science to Improve the BLM Wild Horse
and Burro Program: A Way Forward, the NAS/NRC recommended
against ovariectomy in wild horses, stating, The possibility that
ovariectomy may be followed by prolonged bleeding or peritoneal
infection makes it inadvisable for field application. (p. 148-149)
A second NAS panel convened by the BLM to evaluate this specific
research proposal recommended it for funding but did not address the
first NAS finding regarding advisability for field setting, but did warn
that the conduct of the procedure on wild horses may cause the
mortality rate to be higher than the 1% reported in the published

literature. For this reason, the NAS/NRC review panel stated that
proposals for less invasive methods would be safer with less risk of
hemorrhage or evisceration and probably less painful.
Specific concerns:

Lack of post operative care - When ovariectomy is performed

in domestic horses, extensive post-operative care is required,
including stall confinement, including a period of time in crossties to prevent lying down or rolling, which would place horses at
increased risk of hemorrhage or evisceration. Careful postoperative monitoring, pain relief and antibiotic treatment are also
required. None of this required post-operative care will be
provided to mares in this study.

Increased risk to pregnant mares - 75 percent of the wild

horses used in this study will be pregnant. The procedure will
cause mares in early to mid-stages of pregnancy to lose their
foals due to loss of progesterone production caused by removal
of the ovaries. Mares in later stages of pregnancy will also be at
risk of abortion due to the trauma of capture, handling,
confinement in a squeeze chute and the procedure itself. No
contingencies have been developed to address
complications from pregnancy loss, including retained
placentas. No consideration has been given to the fact
that pregnant mares are at higher risk of hemorrhage
from ovariectomy due to the engorgement with blood and
hormones of reproductive tract tissues.

Sedation requirements. The BLM has not addressed the

differing sedation requirements of wild horses when compared to
domestic horses, and the variation in response to sedation drugs
amongst individual wild horses. Video taken of a veterinarian
associated with this research conducting an ovariectomy on a
wild burro documents an inadequately anesthetized animal who
clearly feels the pain of the procedure. This burro died after
undergoing this surgery. (see BLM expert spay panel attached).

Use of 100 horses not justified. Te question regarding the

effects of ovariectomy via colpotomy on wild horses could be
answered through the use of far fewer animals.

2. Evaluation of minimally invasive methods of contraception

in wild horse and burro mares: tubal ligation and
hysteroscopically-guided oviduct papilla laser ablation

These procedures while less invasive still raise concerns regarding

effects on pregnant mares, pain management and post-procedure
monitoring and care.
Additional the number of horses proposed to be used is too large to be
justified, and the necessity of these experiments is questionable,
particularly in light of a NAS/NRC suggestion that proof of concept
study on domestic mares be conducted before attempting the
procedure in wild mares, who cannot be handled, closely monitored or
examined post-procedure. To my knowledge no proof of concept study
has been done and the BLM is proceeding with the procedure on at
least 50 wild mares.
I will be submitting more detailed information to you next week. Until
that time, I ask that you place any actions to approve these
experiments on hold.
Thank you for your consideration.
Suzanne Roy
-Suzanne Roy, Director
American Wild Horse Preservation Campaign
www.WildHorsePreservation.org
919-697-9389