Search Results (2)

Wildlife managers and the public have expressed considerable interest in the use of contraception to help manage the populations of wild horses and burros (Equus caballus and E. asinus). Field testing has shown that two preparations of the porcine zona pellucida (PZP) vaccine, a simple emulsion (ZonaStat-H) and PZP-22 (which supplements ZonaStat-H with a controlled-release component) effectively prevent pregnancy in individual mares and can substantially reduce population foaling rates. To determine whether some PZP preparations might have secondary effects that harm treated mares or their foals, we examined the effects of PZP-22 vaccinations and the follow-up boosters of either PZP-22 or ZonaStat-H on adult female body condition, foaling season, and foal mortality in two wild horse herds in the western USA, Cedar Mountains Herd Management Area, Utah (CM; 2008–2015), and Sand Wash Basin Herd Management Area, Colorado (SWB; 2008–2014). At both sites in every study year, summer body condition scores improved faster in mares without foals than mares with foals (p < 0.001; CM, n = 234; SWB, n = 172), but PZP treatments did not affect mare body condition apart from their contraceptive effects. Births to mares treated with PZP within the previous three years were delayed and spread out over the foaling season, but foal mortality rates through the first and second year were low, unrelated to date of birth, and virtually identical for the foals of PZP-treated and untreated mothers (all comparisons n.s.; CM, n = 775, SWB, n = 640). Thus, in these two populations, we found no evidence that changes in reproductive timing associated with PZP treatments were harmful to either mares or foals. Full article

To be effective and publicly acceptable, management of free-roaming horses and burros in the United States and elsewhere needs a consistent ethical framing of the animals and the land they occupy. In the U.S., the two laws that largely govern wild horse and burro management, the 1971 Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act and the 1976 Federal Land Policy and Management Act (“FLPMA”), rest on conflicting foundations, the former based on an ethic of care and the latter on largely utilitarian principles. These conflicts specifically fuel debates over the selection of appropriate fertility control agents for horse and burro management. Because land-use and management decisions are largely controlled by the FLPMA, and because the ethical treatment of animals is typically considered under conditions established by their use, both the larger debate about equids and land management and the specific debate about fertility control are dominated by cost/benefit calculations and avoid broader ethical considerations. In our view, the long-term health and ethical treatment of free-roaming horses and burros, the lands they occupy, and the wildlife and people they share it with will require the replacement of the resource-use model with a more holistic, care-based approach. Full article