Chris Kman - Advocating for the Proper Management of the Wild Horses at Theodore Roosevelt National Park - S1 E7

Send us a text

Chris Kman, photographer and wild horse advocate shares with us her work to preserve the wild horses at Theodore Roosevelt National Park in North Dakota. 
The Park Service has proposed eliminating the horses from the park completely.  Join us as Chris explains what is happening and what you can do to keep the horses, a national treasure whose roots go back to Sitting Bull's horses, at the park for future generations to enjoy. 

https://www.empathetic-trainer.com/

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:01):
Okay, hi, I'm Barbara O'Brien and you're listening to
the Empathetic Trainer.
Today's guest is Chris Command.
Chris is a photographer andwild horse advocate.
She moved to Northwestern NorthDakota in the spring of 2016.
Chris is the president ofChasing Wild Horses Wild Horse
Advocates.
Welcome, chris, glad to haveyou.

(00:21):
Hi, thanks for having me,thanks for taking the time to
come talk to us today about yourhorse life and about the
Mustangs at Theodore RooseveltNational Park, this whole thing
going on with them, and wedefinitely want to hear about
that and how we can help.
But in the meanwhile, just tostart out, let's let's learn a

(00:42):
little bit more about you.
So how did this all begin?
Were you always an animalperson?
I mean, did you remember as achild where horses are a thing,
kind of?
Just start us out.

Speaker 2 (00:53):
Um, yeah, I've always loved horses.
My entire life.
I've, as a little girl, wasalways fascinated by horses.
I've loved all animals dogs,cats um, growing up in Chicago,
not a lot of opportunity to havean actual horse, but, um,
anytime that I was around horses, you know whether it was riding
trails or things like that justalways happy as a kid.

(01:15):
And you know, of course, youknow even now as an adult when
you drive down the theinterstate and you're like, oh,
a horse, right.
So, um, there was a lot of thatin my life, and my husband and
I moved to Southwestern NorthDakota in 2016.
I was working for a big boxretailer and we had a.
I had a two year contract to behere, so our intention was to

(01:37):
move to North Dakota and then goback to Illinois where our
family is after that two yearsand within six months we fell in
love with North Dakota and, um,the park and the wild horses
that were there.
So when I found out that therewere wild horses in the park,
you know we immediately had togo and check it out.
And, um, then we startedlearning that they have names

(01:58):
and they have families, They'vegot bands and kind of educating
ourselves about the horses.
But then you start hearingthings like um, you know,
they're calling all the babiesout of the herd, and so you
start asking questions and we'rebeing told you know, we don't
question the park by othernonprofits, we don't question
the park, the park knows whatthey're doing.

(02:18):
And it just seems kind ofcommon sense to me that if we
have mostly older horses in thepark, you're taking all the four
month old to three year oldhorses out every year.
What's going to happen to thisherd?

Speaker 1 (02:31):
Right.

Speaker 2 (02:32):
Um, so we were questioning that.
We were also questioning theuse of GONECon, or GONECon birth
control.
In 2009, the park started, uh,working with Colorado State
University and they wereliterally experimenting on the
horses in this park, this newform of birth control.
The four year study went on for11 years and now there's

(02:53):
questions on if any of ourmayors are permanently
sterilized.
Um, there was a subset of 24mayors and when the study ended
the experiment ended in 2020, 19of those 24 mayors had not
returned to fertility andthey're still using that drug in
the park today.
So, after working with other,you know, I worked with other

(03:15):
nonprofits that you knowadvocate for the horses and work
with the park and you can'tcontinue to to support removing
all the horses and this, youknow, um really rogue way of of
handling birth control,especially when you see that
there are other wild horse herdsthat are responsibly managing
their horses, like Acetic.

(03:36):
You know Acetic Island wasusing PCP on their mayors to
control the population.

Speaker 1 (03:42):
Okay, for for our listeners who aren't familiar,
um, if you could just tell uswhat Acetic I mean.
I know what it is, but let'slet's talk about how famous they
are.

Speaker 2 (03:50):
It's another national park.
Right.

Speaker 1 (03:52):
So it's another national park.

Speaker 2 (03:54):
It's located in Maine .
Um, there's two different sides.
Well, there's the, the Aceticponies are.
There's two different sides Oneruled by the national park, one
managed by the national parkand one by the local fire
department.
But so it's another nationalpark is is the point of this?
So we know that there are wildhorses in other national parks.

(04:16):
We know that they are managingthem responsibly.
We know that they manage themas a cultural and historical
resource, exactly.

Speaker 1 (04:23):
Because, uh, misty of Shinkote, any horse loving kid
grew up reading Margaret Henry'sbooks about Misty of Shinkote
and Stormy of Shinkote, and Iremember seeing the movie, you
know, and loving it.
Um, now, that is a big, youknow, culturally well known
Thing, right?
So whatever they were doing topreserve them, market them the
fire department, the annualroundup, et cetera, um has

(04:45):
worked well for them.
So they're like a good model,you might say.

Speaker 2 (04:49):
Well.
So the national park servicepart is also a good model,
because they don't call thatherd, they don't want Acity
Island wild horses at large inthe community, um, and they use
PZP as birth control and it hadworked so well that they
currently are not giving any oftheir mirrors birth control to
get the population numbers up.
So if it's working there,there's no reason why we can't

(05:13):
model that here in our park.
Okay, so, um, so we startedasking questions.
Um, we have a law firm that wework with, u banks and
associates, um, they're greatenvironmental lawyers so we're
working with them.
We've also been working withAmerican Wild Horse Campaign
trying to get answers and tryingto get responsible management
out of the park.

(05:34):
So the last management plan thepark did was in 1978.
And it's a Wow, it's a.
It's a ridiculous plan thatsays that they can only have 35
to 60 horses.
They've never stuck to that.
And, even more importantly, atthe time that was done, the
department of the Interior senta BLM rain specialist out to the

(05:55):
park to look at what they wereproposing for the horses, to see
if there were otheralternatives, and the guy that
they sent out there debunkedeverything in this 1978 EA, you
can handle a lot more than 35 to60 horses.
Yeah, let's talk about that.

Speaker 1 (06:08):
How much land?
Sorry, there's a cat tail inthe shop.
There's just under 50,000 acres.

Speaker 2 (06:12):
Sorry say that again, just under 50,000 acres of land
in the South unit of the park.
Okay, so he told normalcircumstance for people who
aren't familiar with range, landand grasslands.

Speaker 1 (06:26):
what can that, you know support without any uh
danger to the horses starvingthings like that?
Like what can that normallysupport, you know, compared to
just 30 horses?

Speaker 2 (06:37):
So those questions, those are things that, um, I
think that we were hoping to getfrom the park in this
management planning process,because there are also.
So the park is a beautifulplace.
Right, it is.
It's a it's.
It's an just incredible placethat has very unique
opportunities, where people cansee not only bison but you can

(07:01):
see horses, you can see deer,you can see pronghorn, you, I
mean there's a variety ofspecies in the back, you know
the beautiful badlands backdropin a place where all these
things are thriving and have forso long.
So in this 1978 plan where theytalked about 35 to 60 horses,

(07:21):
this range specialist came inand said you could easily handle
a lot more than that.
Um, these the soils arenutrient rich, these horses
aren't starving.
Um, this is some of the bestgenetically genetic horses I've
seen.
You know and this was a guythat was going everywhere, so

(07:42):
they didn't listen, of course Um, he warned against them
introducing new blood and thingslike that.
So they went ahead with theirplans to introduce new blood in
the 70s and when that was withplease, when they introduced the
new blood in this in the 80sand 90s.
Okay, and where did?

Speaker 1 (07:59):
that come from the new.
What were the horses?
Were they?

Speaker 2 (08:02):
So again it speaks to like the ignorance of the day.
They took like local ranchstock and took those horses and
threw them in the park.
So they took a domesticatedhorses and threw them into the
badlands Like they had a chanceof surviving.
Well, they didn't.
Um they ended up having.
They ended up having to takeout dominant studs and mayors

(08:24):
because they wouldn't breed withthese horses.
They wouldn't let them breed.
There was one horse I know Iread a story about.
They put a couple of mayors ina catch pen with him for, you
know, a I don't know a period oftime, a week or two and as soon
as they opened the gate and letthem out, the mayors took off
running.
They wanted nothing to do withthis.
The stallion, any of theintroduced horses that they put

(08:45):
in, they had to take out becausethey couldn't.
They couldn't survive, theycouldn't get bands and they they
decimated this herd in theprocess.
So two brothers, frank and LeoCoons I don't know if you've
heard of them they were actuallybuying the horses from the park
before they introduced this newblood because they recognized

(09:05):
this was a very unique horse.
Um, it is the horses now namedthe Nicota horse.
It's the state's honoraryequine.

Speaker 1 (09:14):
Why don't you back up and give me a history on the
Nicota horse?
Then, like, like, like, explaina little bit about um, cause um
?
Let's just assume my audience,because I don't know a lot of
this Um, so my audience probablydoesn't either.
Let's back up a little bit thecultural heritage of the Nicota
horse, why they're important,why we want to preserve them.
You know why putting moderncortohorses or something like

(09:34):
that is going to dilute it, notbe good for it.
You know right.

Speaker 2 (09:38):
So the importance of protecting it.
So Dr Castle McLaughlin was anintern at Theodore Roosevelt
National Park in the 80s and shewas wondering where did these
horses come from?
You know what is the history,what is the story of these
horses?
Because she's seen the parkalso trying to eradicate them.
And, dr McLaughlin, she went onto be a curator at Harvard's

(10:00):
Peabody Museum but she wascommissioned by the park and to
do research on the horses.
So she has an over 300 pagereport and we have it on our
website Um, the history of thewild horses in this area.
She talked to people who are nolonger around anymore.
She worked with Tom Tesher andLeo Coons, um, who both are no

(10:23):
longer here, but when she wentback and she had all of the
park's records she had access.
You know she's got a ton ofinformation in this report.
Um, there is a very clear paththat shows the horses that were
in this area when the park wasfenced have a direct line to

(10:44):
Sitting Bulls, war Ponies.
That when he surrendered atFort Buford, just a, you know, a
couple hours away from wherethe park now sits.
You know his horses were soldto the Marquis de Morres who
founded the town of Madura.
He sold some of his horses to abig rancher in the area, ac
Heide Cooper, and those horseswere running free in this area

(11:04):
In the fifties.
When they realized that they hadhorses fenced into the park,
they called on local ranchersand said hey, this is your last
chance.
Come and get your horses.
We're going to round them up,get them out.
And anyone who was a part ofthat roundup said we took all
the horses that had brands onthem, right?
So the ones that were left werewild, right.
So I think that there's also alot of question about, um, you

(11:28):
know, like, at one time they saythat this horse herd got down
to 16 horses I don't know howmuch that's true because of the
vastness of the land and if they, and if they really did count
everything or know what they had, because they didn't even know
the horses were there until TomTesscher had let them know.
So, um, so there's rich historyhere, rich cultural and

(11:51):
historical history.
And again, I mean the parkmemorializes Theodore Roosevelt,
who of course, saw horses whenhe was here and he had a ranch
there and probably used some ofthese horses.

Speaker 1 (12:03):
I've been reading a whole bunch of books by Will
James you know Will James, aWestern author from the 30s and
40s and 20s and of course hetalks a lot about Mustangs and
how vast the West was and howthe ranch horses and the
Mustangs were kept on the openrange, like they would just go
get them when they needed themthat day, you know whatever.

(12:23):
And so it seems very plausibleto me that there was a lot more
horses there they couldn't find.
You know, like, when they firstfenced it in they didn't know
where they were because, beingwild horses which were pretty
difficult to catch, you know, onhorseback at the time, they
would know where to hide.
You know, if someone's comingaround, they would know how to
get away from that.
And so it seems very plausibleto me, just from reading that

(12:46):
historical record even though itwas fiction he was basing it on
historical things or realthings that was happening at the
time that these horses would bethere and that they've always
been there.
And I love the fact that theyhave even more cultural and
historical importance, beingfrom sitting bulls herd and you
know others Right.
So they fenced the park in when?

(13:08):
When did that happen?
In the 1950s, 1950s, okay, andfrom that point on did people
understand there was wild horsesthere and it was like that was
a draw, or did that take alittle time to build?

Speaker 2 (13:22):
I think that, just from what I can see from
historical, you know like theNew York Times covered the story
on the roundup in the 50s.
So I would think that peoplewere aware, and I do know that
even in that 1978 document andthroughout Castle's report and
she had access to all theNational Park Service records

(13:42):
too In the 1978 report they saidwe don't ever recommend fully
removing the horses, trying tofully remove the horses from the
park, because public outcry andlocal pressure is so great.
So it was almost like a warningto the park.
You know, like to the futurepark don't do this.

(14:03):
We've been down this road Right.
Local pressure is a lot, publicoutcry is a lot, and here the
park is still continuing on thispath.

Speaker 1 (14:12):
And that's so now.
Well, do you?
You're younger than me, but Ido remember Wild Horse Annie and
how she became an advocate forthe Mustangs and how public
perception of Mustangs changedfrom we're going to shoot them
all and turn them into dog food,cat whatever, right.
You know back in that she wasreally important and others

(14:35):
really important in bringing ashedding of light on what was
happening and that we needed topreserve them.
And then didn't the?
Wasn't there a federal act toprotect them at some point?
But for some reason let mecorrect me if I'm wrong that the
Teddy Roosevelt ones aren'tunder the same laws the BLM as
the wild horses that we knowabout right now.

Speaker 2 (14:55):
Right.
So in Castle talks about thisin her report.
The National Park Serviceactually went to court to ask to
be excluded from the Wild Horseand Burrow Act.
So National Parks are in chargeof managing the horses on their
lands in whatever way they want.

Speaker 1 (15:11):
Essentially, Okay, so they.

Speaker 2 (15:13):
They just so the shinkotage acetate there's no,
there's no protection for wildhorses, the wild horses at Cape
Lookout National Seashore, whichis where, sorry, which is where
they're down south.
Okay, but on the east side ofthis on the east coast, correct?

(15:35):
Okay, so the the Shacklefordbanks.
Wild horses there are protectedunder federal law and that's
something that we're trying toget done for the horses here.
They found a sympatheticfederal delegate who ended up
getting these horses protected.
It's something that we've beentalking to Senator John Hoven
about to here and something thathe did say that he would be

(15:58):
interested in doing for thesehorses North.

Speaker 1 (16:00):
Dakota.
He's a North Dakota senator.
Okay, yes, okay, great, yeah,you have worked tirelessly.
From what I've seen, when Iread everyone go to her Facebook
page, go to Chris's website,educate yourself about this
issue and we'll talk more aboutwhat people can actually do now
to help.
But we'll get to that.
But Chris and her group andthen other groups as well but

(16:21):
Chris's group has workedtirelessly to, it seems to me,
to get publicity, which is great, yes, and to get the word out
to your legislators who can helpthis process.
And we'll talk more about whereyou're at right now, although
podcast time will pass andhopefully things will turn out,
but this is kind of what'shappening now, wow, so there's

(16:46):
just so much to take in.
So the argument I was trying to,of course, I'm going to
advocate personally for seeingthe horses because, as like
everybody else, I've hadpersonal experience.
I was blessed enough to traveltwice in 2022 to the park.
I'd never been there before, sowe went in the spring and we
saw the foals and I'm aphotographer, so with a nice

(17:09):
long lens, not disturbing theherd, but I was able to have
that magic, that feeling, thatthat like right, oh my, you know
the fact that like look, we cansee them and they're
interacting and they're relaxedand we can get these photographs
without very important, notdisturbing them, right and then
to.
So the horses were.
It was Earthrea.

(17:29):
It was fantastic and I canunderstand, even if you don't
like horses, seeing them intheir environment.
And they look great, I know.
But you know they have foals attheir side.
But the mares were fat andsassy.
There's enough to eat even indrought.
There's got to be enough.
They looked great.
Foals look great.
And then we saw the bison, ofcourse, and then the calves.
I mean often, you know, thenormal person like me doesn't

(17:50):
get a chance to see bison.
I'm in Wisconsin, I meanthere's no right, you know not
running around anyway.
So to see the calves, and youknow prairie dogs, okay, we
don't have them.
So that was a blast.
Oh, just like you go around tobend and there'd be something
else.
It's an amazing park.
And then I read a lot aboutTeddy Roosevelt and read his

(18:12):
book about the badlands, abouthis ranch.
He wrote several books.
People should check them out,you know.
So there's a whole.
I met my husband in Minnesotahistory class so you have to
understand that history is a bigdeal for me.
So it was really great to goand walk where these people
walked and then think about theNative Americans that you know
that was their land and things.

(18:33):
Just, there's so much history,so some people are the.
I'm trying to understand theother side, where they go.
Well, the horses haven't alwaysbeen here.
Well, neither have any of us,so that means we shouldn't be
there either.
You know, and right, it doesn'tmake sense to me to like, try
and make.
We're trying to go back todiner start time, where there's
nothing.
I mean, I mean of coursethere's animals, but no, you

(18:55):
know, then let's get rid of theroads, let's get rid of all the
electricity, let's get you knowwhat is.
What are you trying to do?
How far back do we?
Because the horses have beenhere, been there, since horses
have been reintroduced to theUnited States, right?
So the horses have been there.
Why?
Why aren't the bison treatedthe same way?
Then you know where they.
They were always there, right?

(19:16):
So?
I'm trying to understand theargument what?
What are they?

Speaker 2 (19:19):
trying to do so.
The horses were fenced into thepark, so the horses were here
right the park reintroducedbison in the fifties.

Speaker 1 (19:28):
Okay, and in the seventies reintroduced the elk.

Speaker 2 (19:31):
Okay, but according to the park, the bison are
native and the elk are nativeand the horses are the non
native out of the group.
It doesn't make sense and, likeyou're saying, what are we
trying?
Where are we trying to go backto and how are we defining
native?
And that's a huge debate.
Our attorney general, drewRigley, said you know, yeah, we

(19:53):
could talk about native in termsof, like you're saying, you
know, going back, you know, toprehistoric times and when did
the horse die out?
And all this other stuff.
But there isn't anybodycurrently living in North Dakota
that remembers the time thatthese horses weren't here.

Speaker 1 (20:08):
So they're native to this area.

Speaker 2 (20:09):
Right.
So that's.
That's a very big point and abig argument that we continue to
make.
What the park did was they cameout and decided, after years of
calling the horses you know,historically significant, a
culturally a cultural herd, allof a sudden now they've

(20:30):
reclassified them as livestock.
We don't believe that the parktook the proper steps to
classify the horses.
They just pulled the name outof the air and found a way
around things.
So now they're citing all kindsof National Park Service
policies that say wild horsesaren't allowed on National Park
Service lands or livestock arenot allowed on National Park

(20:53):
Service lands.

Speaker 1 (20:53):
So that draws the question for me how come the
horses, the ascetic, how youpronounce it, asateeg right,
asateeg horses?
Okay, the national parks areboth national parks, exactly.
How does that not apply to themthen?
And what an outcry you wouldget.
You know, people were tosuddenly go.
No more misty of Shinkote, why?

(21:14):
Why does one park get to do oneset of rules, another park get
to do another set of rules?

Speaker 2 (21:19):
that so so I've been talking to the chief resource
manager at Asateeg a lot,because I wonder the same things
.
Right, this is a national park,you're a national park, you
have horses, we have horses, sowhy are things working there so
well and why are they notworking so well here?
So when all this came up, Isent him an email and I said hey

(21:39):
, I'm just wondering, will theybe getting rid of the horses at
Asateeg, because I've heardlivestock aren't allowed on
National Park Service lands, soour horses have to go.
And he said no, our horses arenot in danger of being of
leaving, because we see them asa cultural resource.
That's how they label them.
So as quickly as the parklabeled them as livestock, they

(22:00):
can change that label, becausethey didn't do it through any
kind of policy means that theyshould have.
If they truly were changing theclassification of these horses
to livestock, they would havehad to have engaged with the
public on that and let thepublic know and let the public
weigh in, and that neverhappened to our knowledge.

Speaker 1 (22:15):
Our lawyers have asked yeah, does that benefit
you then, in the sense of yourargument that they did well our
lawyers have.

Speaker 2 (22:22):
Our lawyers have asked and we have tried to FOIA
for records to show where theclassification of these horses
came.
And since the park refuses toproduce that document, I'm
guessing it's because it doesn'texist, right?
If it existed, you, if youtruly reclassified these horses
as livestock, you would havedocumentation to show that.
We're asking you for that andyou're not giving it.

(22:43):
So I'm guessing it doesn'texist.
So this is just a ploy from thepark, a way that they found to
try to get rid of the horses.
So they, they, they've decidedthat they're livestock.
I think that my husband willlaugh, because I just say this
all the time, I don't knowanother way to say it Almost
anything that we hear from thepark, I feel like their

(23:04):
responses are equivalent totoilet paper math these days.
Right, when you were in, youcould do the test of this, right
?
You used to be able to go tothe store and you would buy six
rolls of toilet paper and thepackage would say six rolls of
toilet paper.
Now it says six equals 18, sixequals 12.
So you don't understand why thetoilet paper companies are

(23:24):
trying to make you believe thatyou're really getting 12 rolls
of toilet paper when you'relooking at six, but it's the
same thing with the park.
Why can't the horses stay here?
It doesn't matter what they say, it just doesn't make sense.

Speaker 1 (23:35):
Well then, how long has this been going about as far
as them saying they don't needthe horses?
Is this a new development?
Is it when administrationchange, or has it been
consistent throughadministrations, or it's been?

Speaker 2 (23:48):
consistent through administrations.
If you look at Castle's report,I mean there were times that
they would try to bait the baitand trap the horses where they
would put hay out.
They put sexinal chlorine inthe hay to try to drug the more
dominant stallions so they couldtry to get them out.
The bison ate the hay instead.
I mean just the her report isjust a whole, a chronological

(24:12):
event of just the attempt.

Speaker 1 (24:15):
When did she release the report again?

Speaker 2 (24:17):
The report was released in the 80s but it goes
through the beginning of thepark.
Like I said, she started fromwell.
She started like long beforethe park, right.

Speaker 1 (24:26):
So it's been documented and you have this.
People can access this on yourwebsite if they want to learn
more.
Okay, all right, so it's been a.
This hasn't been a hugepriority for the federal
government to solve this problem.

Speaker 2 (24:38):
Well, no, they've been trying to get rid of the
horses, right?
I mean, that's how they want tosolve it, but they haven't been
open-minded about.

Speaker 1 (24:43):
I mean because you guys have worked tirelessly.
It seems that the localcommunity and your state level,
you know, notwithstanding all ofthe people who visit the park,
so even just the local peopleare very much in favor of the
horses because a culturallyimportant and b a huge draw.
Why would you want to hurt alocal economy by such an

(25:04):
arbitrary decision?
Because I've been to Madura sowe can talk about all that so.

Speaker 2 (25:07):
So they started this process.
So last March, in 2022, is whenthey started this process and
they had what they now call,because they changed things all
the time.
So it was now a pre-scopingperiod where they gave us six
alternatives to consider.
None of them allowed for agenetically viable herd of
horses.
They supposedly listened topublic input and came back in

(25:32):
December with three alternatives, with the proposed action being
complete elimination of theherd.
So their proposed action is toget rid of the horses period.
They gave us a no actionalternative, which is that 35 to
60 horses from the 1978management plan, and then the
only other alternative they'reconsidering is a, an alternative

(25:56):
that gets rid of all of thehorses quicker.
So we have one way that thehorses would all be gone within
two years, and then theirproposed alternative, which
they're saying would mean thehorses would be removed over the
course of a 10 year period.
So when they go back to, sowhen, when this process and so
right now we're in they'vereleased their draft

(26:18):
environmental assessment, whicha lot of people are upset about,
but we've been saying all alongwhen this comes out, we expect
this to support their proposedaction.
Right?
They're not going to find somemiracle to keep the horses.
They want to get rid of them,and that's what the draft
environmental assessment does.
So what we did find that wasreally telling and, I would say,

(26:45):
shacking.
But I don't know that anythingshacking anymore is.
There were documents that theycited in the draft environmental
assessment and one of them togo back to your tourism question
when I was looking through thereport with our lawyers, we were
kind of talking on the phoneand just kind of like skimming
through and seeing what wasthere they made a point to say

(27:06):
that they had a study done, avisitor survey done, in 2017 and
2018 and that report wasreleased in 2020.
That report stated that only49% of visitors to the park
support the ongoing presence ofwild horses in the park.
So when you hear that statement, don't you automatically think

(27:30):
51% of people they polledactually said they don't want
horses in the park.
So our lawyers said you need toget this report.
If they cited it in here, theyhave to make it available to the
public.
Okay, so I sent a superintendentan email and they downloaded, I
think, about 80 differentdocuments to the website that
they're planning website thatyou can look at.
And when you look at thisreport, because they have to

(27:54):
answer, like you said, to thetourism aspect.
This is going to have an impacton the local economy and
they're trying to use thisreport to say well, no, because
only 49% of people polled evencare about the horses being in
the park.
When you look at the report,there are three different,
varying degrees of supportstrongly support, support and

(28:15):
somewhat support and when youadd those three up, it's
actually 89% of visitors thatsupport the ongoing presence of
horses in the park.

Speaker 1 (28:26):
Yeah, only 4%.
Yes, that's kind of shocked.

Speaker 2 (28:27):
Yeah, only 4% opposed the horses being in the park at
all.
And not only that, but out of22 scenarios that the park gave
and what people wanted toexperience in the park, the
horses were the number one thingpeople want to experience.

Speaker 1 (28:47):
Exactly, exactly.
We went back in the fall and wesaw them in the fall.
We got even closer and it waseven cooler.
And I wasn't the only onelooking at them.
I mean everybody was so excitedand children to see them, to
understand and to you know,because the park does a good job
explaining history, I mean the,the actual people that we met

(29:09):
at the park were wonderful asfar as people working there, and
we're very excited to tell uswhat we saw.
The horses might be over here,they might be over there.
You know, they were reallygreat about it.
So I'm sure a good number ofthem like the horses as well.
I think this probably comesfrom higher up.
You know so, right, right, andyou know so.
But so I understand what you'resaying.

(29:30):
Like, of course, almost 90% ofpeople would be like, yeah, we
want the horses there.

Speaker 2 (29:36):
Right.
So so the other thing is that inthis document dump they did, a
document was dumped in.
It's called NPS 2022H and thisis a document that's a recap of
a meeting that they, the parkservice, had in October of 2022
so before the Strathe A came outof upper level management

(30:01):
people within the park, thatthere were people that were
there in person and people thatvisited remotely for this
meeting.
They had their attorney fromthe Department of the Interior
there, so it's letting you know.
You know the, the National ParkService and the Bureau of Land
Management all fall under thejurisdiction of the Department
of the Interior, so theDepartment Interior lawyer was

(30:23):
there also giving advice, andthis report has since
disappeared off the website, butwe have it downloaded and you
can get it on our website and weencourage everyone to look at
it, because if they're hidingthis report, then there's
something that they don't wantyou to see and everyone needs to
see it.
This report is shows howcalculated and determined they

(30:44):
are to get rid of the horses.
They have an answer foreverything, anything, okay, so
let me stop you there.

Speaker 1 (30:52):
What is their motivation to get?
Is it, you know?
Because?
Do they cost more?
Does it work?
What's the reason?
I mean, besides the going backto whatever was the million
dollar question.

Speaker 2 (31:03):
But so what they're telling the public?
And it says in this documentthey need to connect the dots
for the public.
So they're trying to let youknow we're not smart enough to
come to our own conclusions.
They're going to let us knowwhy we need to get rid of the
horses, and you know we have tofollow their dots when you look
outside those dots.
So they're saying that thehorses are not native, of course

(31:23):
.
So that's one argument.
They have to restore their.
They're managing for the nativeprairie ecosystem, which they
haven't defined.
So we don't know again, is thatgoing back to prehistoric times
?
Are you talking about thenative prairie ecosystem from
when the Eurasia vals was here?
Um?

Speaker 1 (31:42):
yeah, but that see that right on the face of it,
that makes no sense, becausenone of it, the, none of it, the
, the, the eco prairie systemhad horses on it had by right on
it had.
Right, you know, elk had thesethings um horses hundreds and
hundreds of years now.
So it's not like I mean unlessthey're going back to you know

(32:02):
way, way, way back, which meansno people, no roads.
That, on the face of it, justseems, you know, makes no sense.

Speaker 2 (32:09):
They've also said that they are not.
They are no longer interestedin theater Roosevelt's ranching
legacy, they're only interestedin his conservation legacy.

Speaker 1 (32:22):
Oh, that's interesting.
Why, why, where did the what,what, how soon, how long?
When did that start?

Speaker 2 (32:27):
Because that seems well, that's a good question
because a couple years ago theygot a five million dollar grant
to restore the Peaceful ValleyRanch within the park right To
make that into an interpretivecenter.
So if you don't care about theranching legacy, why did you
take that grant to do that?

Speaker 1 (32:42):
The timing on that, I mean how long ago?
That was within the last coupleof years.
Right so did the was?
When did the shift happen fromranching is not good.
I mean, we're not going to talkabout it to you know.
Restoration of the prairie,which it's not that good.

Speaker 2 (33:00):
It's that they're not interested in his ranching
legacy, which of course led tohis conservation.

Speaker 1 (33:04):
Like legacy Right he wouldn't have been the guy he
was if he hadn't had theexperience out West doing the
things he did.
So I mean, did that, was thatreal recent, or was it when?
Did that paradigm shift?
Where they were Let me get itCorrect they weren't interested
in the ranching history, only inthe conservation history, which
are hand in hand.

Speaker 2 (33:21):
Correct and in 2014,.
They actually have a documentit's called the foundation
document that talks about thepurpose of the park and all of
that.
The horses are mentioned inthere as a cultural resource, as
wildlife.
They're not referred to aslivestock, and to change this
foundation document would be abig undertaking.
So even in the draft EA theymake mention of you know why,

(33:47):
why they can go away from thefoundation document, which
really, again, it's like toiletpaper math.
It just makes your head hurtwhen you try to figure out why
and what?

Speaker 1 (33:56):
Yeah.
So I have another question thatout loud, you know yeah, no,
people definitely go look at thewebsite, educate yourself, I
mean, because then then you can,then you can argue articulately
.
So my question is then okay, sothis is culturally important.
This is a Dakota horse.
Culturally important, this ishistory.
So let's put, let's put TeddyRoosevelt aside, so we're

(34:18):
talking about the people thatwere there before Teddy
Roosevelt.
So, culturally important, weare trying as a society to be
really aware of all cultures andcelebrate all cultures and
whatever.
Right, be aware of our history.
Why wouldn't that be a hugelyimportant part then?
I mean, obviously we want tocare about history, we want to,
you know, preserve this, becausein Minnesota they just recently

(34:42):
have come across I want to makesure I get the name right but a
jib.
They were bred by the jibba,horses bred by the jibba, and
they're starting to try topreserve that bloodline, this
kind of smaller mustangy typehorse, and that's being
celebrated here and it'swonderful.
And you know, these people aredoing their best to preserve
that they don't run wild, butthey're trying to at least

(35:04):
preserve this heritage breed.
Now, the Dakota would be maybeit is under the consiverse.
You know, there's an animalcontroversy, can't say what the
word conservatory, whatever, ofheritage breeds, you know so
maybe the Dakota is even listedthere, I don't know.
But I'm saying, like, whywouldn't that be a super big,
important argument for thatkeeping them there?

(35:24):
As far as the federalgovernment, who's supposed to be
sensitive to these culturalissues and should care about
them?
We, as Americans, all of us,should care about this history.
Why isn't that part I mean, Iknow that's part of your
argument and how do the, thenative peoples that are
interested in this happening?
I'm sure you're getting support.
How come they're not beingheard as well?

(35:45):
What's going on there?

Speaker 2 (35:47):
Well, so the park service has said that they are
meeting with the tribes, they'remeeting with our legislators,
and all of this, but here's whatwe can tell you.
They did say that when theyremove the horses from the park
which, by the way, we'll begoing back to helicopter
roundups, and if the horsesdon't sell on their government

(36:07):
surplus website, where they sellthem on, then they will just
euthanize the horses.
So that's the plan foreliminating the horses, which is
just disgusting in itself, iflike everything wasn't bad
enough.
Let's put some icing on the cake, I feel like.
But they said that they wouldfirst offer the horses to the
tribes.
Well, like you said, since thishappened on December 12th, when

(36:28):
they came out with theirannouncement of getting rid of
the horses, our organization'sbeen pounding the pavement,
trying to get support in someany way, shape or form.

Speaker 1 (36:36):
December 12th of what year?
Sorry, just so you know 2022December 12th.

Speaker 2 (36:40):
Okay, so the first thing we did was we reached out
to our state legislators, andNorth Dakota is unique in that
we have part-time politiciansthat run our state, so they are
only in session for 80 days outof every two years and,
thankfully, 2023 was a year thatthey were in session.
So they did, we did help themdraft a resolution asking the

(37:05):
park to keep the horses, andthat passed unanimously in the
House and Senate in North Dakota.

Speaker 1 (37:10):
Well, good on North Dakota.

Speaker 2 (37:12):
That's 100% I mean, and that doesn't happen in the
state, but it doesn't happen inpolitics anywhere in our country
right now, right when you canget 100% of politicians in an
area to agree on anything, andthey did.
So they sent a resolution tothe state, to the park and to
the National Park Service inWashington DC and to our federal

(37:33):
delegates, asking for help tokeep these horses in the park.
Our governor came out inJanuary, right before the end of
the coming in lightness withthe governor is again governor
Doug Burgum.
So he came out in support ofkeeping the horses in the park,
told the park we will likepretty much offer the park any
resources available within thestate of North Dakota to help

(37:55):
keep the horses.

Speaker 1 (37:56):
You know the park can't say it's a money deal,
then like they can't go, like oh, we can't afford it.

Speaker 2 (38:01):
Right, you need money , we have money.
You need people, we have people.
We've got universities.
We've got equine programs inthe state.
We will do whatever we can tohelp you.
After the governor came outwith that statement, the United
tribes of North Dakota came outand said we stand with Governor
Burgum.
Okay, keep the horses in thepark.
And then we also, ourorganization, also worked with

(38:23):
the MHA nation.
They came out with their ownresolution.

Speaker 1 (38:27):
What's the MHA nation ?

Speaker 2 (38:28):
Sorry, it's one of the tribes in North Dakota Okay
that, and they came out with aresolution saying that the
horses were culturally andhistorically significant to
their tribe and that they wantedthe horses staying in the park,
and that again passedunanimously within their tribal
council.
Okay so we also worked with thecity of Madura, where the park

(38:52):
is located.
At their city council came outwith a resolution asking the
park to keep the horses.
And then we've also beenworking with Senator John Hoven
and Senator Hoven at the timethat all of the starters in
December he was on thesubcommittee for national parks
Okay so he set up a meeting withour governor, our top state

(39:14):
legislators, national ParkService Director Sam's and
Superintendent Angie Richmondhere at theater, was about
National Park and had aconversation about you know,
what can we do as a state?
How do we work together to keepthe horses?
And I do know the statelegislators that I talked to and
Senator Hoven's office.

(39:34):
I felt like it was a goodmeeting and that it was
constructive that they werebeing heard.
In April of last year, ourorganization was asked to speak
at the Save Our Wild HorsesConference in Washington DC and
we spent several days lobbyingCongress.
We went to over 200congressional offices.

Speaker 1 (39:52):
Wow.

Speaker 2 (39:54):
Passing out packets of information to members of
Congress, letting them knowabout our horses here and what
was going on and what was beingproposed, asking for help in
whatever way that they can.
And then Senator Hoven alsosits on the Appropriations
Committee for the Senate which,for everyone who doesn't know
this, is the purse strings ofthe national government right of

(40:14):
our federal government.
So Senator Hoven put languagein the Senate report for the
Interior Department'sappropriations bill specifically
saying we're aware that you'retrying to eliminate the wild
horses of theater was aboutNational Park this the Senate,
is urging the park to keep thesehorses in the park.

Speaker 1 (40:35):
Wow.

Speaker 2 (40:36):
And in spite of all of this, that happened on a
state and federal level rightthe park still came out with a
draft environmental assessmentthat supports their claims on
why they need to get rid of thehorses in the park.

Speaker 1 (40:49):
Okay, wow, that's so.
Where does it stand?
What's?
What's the October 30th 2023?
Where does this stand right now?
So let's talk about that.
Where does this stand?
And then let's talk a littlebit about how people can help.
What can we do?
What's next?

Speaker 2 (41:06):
So as of right now.
So on September 25th the parkcame out with their draft
environmental assessment.
So that was followed by a 30day public comment period.
We requested, our organizationjoined, had other organizations
sign on with us and we sent aformal request to the park
asking that they extend thatpublic comment period so that
the public had ample time tomake a good, impactful comment

(41:31):
and also for time to review the80 documents that they didn't
release until a week after theassessment was given to us.
So Senator Hovind's office alsolast week sent a letter to
National Park Service DirectorSam's asking him for an
extension in the comment period.
So we were granted a 30 dayextension.
So the comment period now endson November 24th.

(41:53):
Okay, so we need everyone tocomment to the park, but your
comment has to have somesubstance behind it.
There's a lot of people.
So what I told people initiallywhen all this first hit I
understand you're mad, right,we're mad, we're upset, we're
pissed off too.
Write your letter, right.
Write your letter.
Use every swear word that youhave to put all of your emotion

(42:15):
into it and then rip that up andget ready to write something
constructive that's going tohelp these horses and that has
to be factual, that talks aboutthe economic aspect, the
cultural aspect Are there?

Speaker 1 (42:27):
guidelines on your website.
So for a person who wants to dothis, commenting yes.

Speaker 2 (42:32):
We have talking points on our website, Excellent
.
We have a ton of documents thatyou can use for scientific,
historical, cultural I mean anyof those things.
All that information on ourwebsite for you to use.
You can download thesedocuments and read them for
yourself, Okay, what has beenthe response?

Speaker 1 (42:49):
Have people been commenting?

Speaker 2 (42:52):
Well, we don't have a way to tell and this is
something that I asked the parklast week.
When the BLM does a publiccomment period like this, I
think that you can generally seehow many people have commented.
We just know from their civicengagement meeting they had a
few weeks ago that up until thattime about 2,000 people had
commented.
Already In the last publiccomment period, over just under

(43:14):
20,000 people commented and weknow from their they do a report
afterwards that lets you knowwhat people had said.
We know from their report only45 people out of those 20,000
supported the park's decisionand they still came back with
this environmental assessment.
Reading the way that it does theenvironmental assessment, when

(43:34):
you read it is very like whenyou read through it.
It seems damning, I guess.
But when you start poking holesinto things that they're saying
, like the Brownlee study thatwe talked about and the only 49%
of visitors wanting the horses,those are things that need to
be called out to them whenyou're writing your comment

(43:54):
letter to debunk what they'resaying.
Our lawyers are personallywriting our comment letter and
that's so that we make sure thatour eyes are dotted and our
teeth are crossed, because ourorganization is prepared to take
this as far as we need to.
I will also say, too, we'revery happy that American Wild
Horse Campaign is signing on ourcomment letter with us, so

(44:15):
they'll be helping with thelegal fees associated with
paying that and they're willingto go the distance with us too
to fight for these horses tostay where they are.

Speaker 1 (44:22):
So what would be your recommendation?
Somebody's heard this podcast.
What would be next steps forthem?
So there's two things, twothings.

Speaker 2 (44:31):
One is go to our website.
I've been doing blog posts kindof dissecting different parts,
so if you want to talk to thehistorical part, here's some
talking points that you need totalk about.
Here's some references that youcan use.
We have all the differentpolicies that they cite in there
listed on our website too, soyou can look at them in their

(44:51):
full context, not in the piecesand parts that they're giving us
, so you can see the whole scopeof what it actually says.
So making sure that peoplecomment, and just giving people
to make sure that they comment,is the big thing.
The second thing and this wehappened upon a couple weeks ago
we're trying to figure out ourorganization is trying to figure
out how do we get these horsesto be labeled culturally and

(45:15):
historically significant.
So, I reached out to our statehistoric preservation office and
found out that there's actuallya section 106 review process.
There's a natural historicpreservation act in section 106
talks about the preservation ofcultural and historical
significance.

(45:36):
Hold on a second Sorry, excuseme, physically and historically
significant.
And people places things.
I guess Normally animals arenot a part of this, I've heard.
But my question was how do weget these horses to be seen as

(45:58):
culturally and historicallysignificant?
Well, the State HistoricPreservation Office is actually
now in the process of reviewingthat process.
So when a federal agency likethe park proposes an action like
this, the section 106 reviewprocess kicks in immediately.
So this is out of the hands ofthe park.

(46:19):
This is being done by the NorthDakota State Historic
Preservation Officer.

Speaker 1 (46:24):
And he is reviewing.

Speaker 2 (46:26):
he's reviewing the material that they've given and
why the horses are nothistorically or culturally
significant, and also looking atare they historically and
culturally significant?
And the key is, the public canweigh in on this.
So public comment matters tothe State Historic Preservation
Office.
So we have on our website too,people can go on, we have it on

(46:48):
our website so you can eithersend your own letter to the
State Historic PreservationOfficer or, to make it easier,
we have created a petition sopeople can sign on to the
petition and we've gotten, Ithink, just under 2,500 names on
that petition so that we canpresent that we need to get some
more.

Speaker 1 (47:03):
So there you go.
Well, this sounds like you'veworked tirelessly and the people
you work with have workedtirelessly, and your public
officials and the communities,all these people pulling for the
horses.
So after November, thecommenting section is done, or
what happens after that.

Speaker 2 (47:22):
So when the comment period is over, then the park
will review all the commentsthat were given in all the
comments and all of thesupporting documentation that
was given to them.
I would imagine that sometimeover the next few months they'll
give us another report, likethey've done in the past with
the last two comment periods,letting us know how many people
commented and what thosecomments looked like, and then

(47:43):
they will come back either.
So this is a NEPA process.
They're involved in NationalEnvironmental Policy Act and so,
according to the NEPA process,nepa requires them to look at
will there be any significantimpacts on the action that
they're proposing whether it'sscientific, historical, cultural
, economically.

(48:04):
So they're supposed to belooking at that and what the
park is saying.
No, there'll be little to noeconomic impact.
There won't be any impact onanything for taking 200 horses
out of the park right, not evenscientifically.

Speaker 1 (48:18):
A big draw for the park too economically for the
park and the surrounding areaRight?

Speaker 2 (48:24):
So they're saying that there won't be, and so what
we're expecting that they woulddo then is come back with it's
called a finding of nosignificant impact, so they
would say there's no impact onthe decision that we're making,
so we're going to move forwardwith our plans to remove the
horses.
So this is the last publiccomment period.
What our organization believesand I think everybody else under

(48:45):
the sun believes that theyshould do, is actually
environmental impact statement,which would mean that they would
have to take a harder andcloser look at the decision that
they're making, which wouldthen start a whole public
process, a public commentprocess again, where they would
go into a scoping period andthen they would have to really
spend a lot more time digging indeep on the impacts of what

(49:08):
they're proposing, and that'swhat we're hoping In your
perfect world.

Speaker 1 (49:12):
okay, what would be the outcome?
What are we shooting for here?
What's the best possibleoutcome that we can strive for?
Work together?

Speaker 2 (49:21):
The biggest thing is to get everybody to comment, and
we're hoping that the park Imean the park is engaged in a
process and this is why peopleask us all the time like why are
your lawyers doing this?
Why is in Congress doing that?
Why isn't Senator Hovan doingsomething now?
They have to finish thisprocess.
They can't just I mean Isuppose they could stop if they

(49:42):
wanted to, but I mean they'reengaged in a process.
They have to finish and see itthrough.
So we're hoping that when theycome back with the results of
this, that they say, hey, weneed to do an environmental
impact statement.
They've already told usrepeatedly that they think this
environmental assessment is goodenough.
What they've done is enoughresearch and it's good enough.
So then what'll happen is, ifthey decide to stay the course

(50:04):
and do the finding of nosignificant impact, we will talk
to our attorneys and see whattheir legal advice is for us at
that time.
People have to understand anylegal process that we engage in
is going to cost a lot of moneyand we are not in the
application.

Speaker 1 (50:19):
Right, I was gonna ask you about that, I was gonna
ask you about that.
So not only the petitions, buthow can we donate, how can we
help?
I know you're a nonprofit,which is great, but Right.

Speaker 2 (50:28):
there's a number of ways you could donate on our
website from PayPal, throughsocial media, facebook.
We're gonna be doing a silentauction in November to help
raise money too, so people caneither participate in the
auction, they can donate itemsfor the auction, and all that's
on our website too, so any ofthose things will help.

(50:50):
The big thing is, yes, it takesmoney and nonprofits and we're
included.
We need money to keep going on.
We've been doing some socialmedia ads with some videos that
some friends that we have atNational Geographic have put
together for us, and that'sgenerating a lot more interest
and a lot of public outcry, sowe're glad that that's happening

(51:10):
.
I mean we're literally I keepsaying that, we're advocating
from every angle that we canthink of, and if we even made a
blog post the other day and said, hey, let's brainstorm, what
aren't we doing, what should wedo that you can see, and asking
our followers that and trulytrying to get that engaged with
us.

Speaker 1 (51:26):
This information will be in the links for the podcast
, but let's say it out loud toowhat is the website that they
should go to?

Speaker 2 (51:36):
wwwchwaorg.

Speaker 1 (51:39):
Okay, why don't we do one more time?
Just repeat it one more timewwwchwaorg.

Speaker 2 (51:46):
It's Chasing Horses, wild Horse Advocates.
We do blogs almost every daywhere we're giving you some kind
of other information or youknow people-.

Speaker 1 (51:54):
No, you are working super hard.
I mean, there's just no doubtabout it.
You and the people helping youare working super hard.
And, boy, I tell you, if I wasa horse at Teddy Roosevelt, I'd
be grateful that you werefighting for me, because you're
pretty fierce, chris, and it'spretty wonderful.
We're grateful for you.
Yeah, we'll have all theselinks and all this information.
I encourage everyone to go tothe website to donate, to do

(52:15):
what they can and educateyourselves.
It's not that hard to write theletter.
It doesn't have to beparagraphs and paragraphs, it
just has to sound like it didn'tcome from a robocall.
It has to sound like it's youand I bet you're all.
If you care about these horsesat all, I bet you're capable of
at least doing that.
This is a chance for people todo their best to help move
government.
I mean, how often do we getthat chance?

(52:36):
And it's such an important,important, important thing.
Wow, this is Chris.
I tell you I am gonna.
I can't wait to get back to thepark.
Start right there.
I really want to see the horsesagain and thank you again for
this.
Now we're to the section of thepodcast.
Warren, if you would go grab.
We're to section of the podcast.

(52:57):
We call the cake break or pietime or whatever, and if you
were here if you were here wewould be partaking of some yummy
snack together.
This marks, course, sort ofwrapping up the podcast, because
this has been incrediblyinformative and interesting and
we haven't talked about youyourself all that much, because
I know you're not thinking thisis about you, this is about the

(53:18):
horses, but we still want toknow about you.
So let me just see if I can getthat to the camera.
See, it's a little caramelapple cake, very, very good,
gotta feed my crew and we'llsend it to you vicariously.
But when I was setting up theinterview, I sent you a series
of questions, and what thesequestions are we have stolen

(53:40):
from Warwick Schiller, who's afamous horse trainer, and he
stole this idea from, orborrowed this idea from, tim
Ferriss's book Tribe of Mentors.
But it's a series of fivequestions that will help us
understand a little bit moreabout you, and they're kind of
fun to ask.
So I sent you 20 questions andyou picked out the five
questions that we're gonna ask.

(54:01):
Okay, okay, and then we can dothat.
So if you could send a messageto the world, what would that be
?
Or do you have a favorite quote, and why?

Speaker 2 (54:11):
I think I said my favorite quote is Margaret Mead
never doubt that a group ofconcerned citizens can change
the world.
Indeed, that's all that everhas.
And we're changing things andthat's a big thing that I have a
hard time talking about me,because I tell our followers all
the time.
I could call our statelegislators, I could call
Senator Hoven's office, they arenot gonna care.

(54:33):
It's the voice and the strengthof our voice that comes from
all of us together saying thesame thing and bringing that
voice up and bringing the volumeof that voice up and making it
loud so people can change things.
This is our.
The big thing is this is ournational park.
It's paid for by tax payerdollars and we absolutely have a
right to say what happens here.

Speaker 1 (54:55):
For sure.
What is the most valuable thingthat you've put your time into
that has changed the course ofyour life?

Speaker 2 (55:02):
These horses honestly these horses have.
They've really changed my life.
My husband and I started, youknow, when we fell in love with
North Dakota and fell in lovewith the park, started just
photographing the horses in thepark and we started a Facebook
page just as a way to have somewithin to do with our pictures
that we were taking and let ourfriends and family back home in

(55:23):
Illinois you know understand whywe're still in North Dakota or
what we're doing here, and thatgrew into a small business.
We've got a business right downthe street from the park in
Madura.

Speaker 1 (55:32):
Yeah, why don't you?
What's the name of the?
What's the name of the business?

Speaker 2 (55:35):
Our store is called Chasing Horses.
And it actually comes from, yes,wwwchasinghorsescom, and the
name actually comes from my mom.
At the time was still living inIllinois and anytime she would
call me, it would be on my daysoff and she'd say what are you
doing?
And I'd say, well, we're in thepark.
And she said, well, is that allyou do in North Dakota?

(55:56):
You just chase horses now?
And so it kind of stuck.
So when it came time to pick abusiness name, I thought you
know, that's what we do, right,we're chasing horses and it is
you know, learning about themand trying to find them in the
park at different times.
And then, as the park continuedwith their calling practices
and removing all the babies,four months old to the three

(56:17):
years old our followers on thepage were saying what do we do?
What do we do?
What do we do?
And none of the otherorganizations were challenging
the park or trying to get themto stop.
That's when our nonprofit wasborn.

Speaker 1 (56:30):
So truly these horses .

Speaker 2 (56:31):
That was our nonprofit.
Started in 2021.

Speaker 1 (56:34):
Wow okay.
So you've been at this, I meanprior, but then the number as
well.

Speaker 2 (56:39):
Right, we were advocating before we were a
formal nonprofit group.
So I would say that Because itwasn't about.

Speaker 1 (56:43):
It was about the horses.
Okay, all right, this is a goodquestion for you, because you
seem to work really hard at allthe things you do.
Where do you go or what do youdo to recharge your batteries?

Speaker 2 (56:55):
I go to the park to see the horses.
I can say that this year hasbeen really hard, because it's
hard.

Speaker 1 (57:09):
Well, this is something so important and you
believe so much in it, andthat's okay, it's our future.

Speaker 2 (57:14):
This is our history, it's our future.
I say all the time, mygrandkids deserve to walk into
that park at any time in theirlives, the same way that we can
right now, and see these horsesFrom December 12th.
You know like I kept thinkingthat, all right, when the public

(57:37):
comment period's over, my lifeis gonna go back to normal and I
can, you know, do somethingelse.
And it's just been, you know,getting ready for the conference
in Washington DC, gettingpackets together for Congress,
talking to the press.
I mean, that's something wedidn't talk about either when
the press, when the park firstmade their announcement.

(57:58):
My husband and I are watchingthe news and nobody's talking
about this.
And we waited another day andnobody's talking about this on
the news, like the park just putout a press release saying
we're getting rid of the horses.
And the next day I called everystation in North Dakota and said
are you aware that the parkjust announced they're getting
rid of the horses?
And then all of a sudden it washey, can you come into the

(58:18):
studio and talk to us andexplain what's going on?
So we've had a constant,constant interactions with the
press, also making sure thatthey're informed that they're
covering the story, that they'restaying engaged and I can say
that there was a day in Aprilwhere the horses had moved to
like where they go in the springand the summer and it's one of

(58:39):
my favorite places to see thehorses because you have just the
backdrop of the beautifulbuttes in the area and my
husband and I just took a dayand went out to the park and
there were probably about 10 or12 bands we're talking over 100
horses in this area and when Igot there it was like this is
what we're fighting for.
This is exactly what we'refighting for.
I had advocate friends.

(59:03):
We held a rally over the summerand we had advocates come from
all across the United States andI had advocate friends from
American Wild Horse Campaign andin defense of animals who have
seen wild horses on the Westernrange in various places, who
have said this is different,this is very different, this is
very special.
So it's worth fighting for.

(59:25):
If these horses are removedfrom this park, they will never
be returned.
They'll be gone forever.

Speaker 1 (59:31):
That would be wrong.
I'm really hoping and prayingfor a really good outcome and I
encourage again everyonelistening or watching this
podcast.

Speaker 2 (59:41):
It's not too late, even in those little time of the
matter, we're still fightingwith everything we can.

Speaker 1 (59:48):
For sure, for sure.
Ok, what inspires and motivatesyou to do what you do?
What is your true purpose inthe world?

Speaker 2 (59:58):
That I don't know.
Well, I mean I'm enjoyingadvocating.
I mean I've enjoyed.
This has been a very I am verythankful to people who tell me
all the time that I seem verywell organized and I seem like I
know what I'm doing.
And this seems like it comesnatural Because there's

(01:00:18):
struggles.
I mean it's been a very hardlearning curve.
I knew my knowledge of the NEPAprocess before last March was
pretty much zero.
So that whole learning curve tounderstand what we're doing,
what's happening, why are theydoing this, you know, like,
where do we go from here?
What is this now?
What is that now?
It's been a huge learning curvethat's really consumed

(01:00:41):
everything, because I feel likethere's no way for me to step
away now.
I can't just say, eh, I decidedI didn't want to do this
anymore.
I mean the fight has tocontinue.

Speaker 1 (01:00:51):
Yeah, and it seems ongoing.
It is ongoing.
You might get these smallvictories, but you have to keep
going.

Speaker 2 (01:00:57):
But then the other thing that's happening.
What I'm really hoping is thatadvocates are watching what's
happening here, because we arehaving successes where other
people aren't.
We have the North DakotaStockman's Association
advocating with us for keepingthese horses.
That doesn't happen in wildhorse advocacy.

Speaker 1 (01:01:14):
No.
I mean that's a traditionallygoes way, way back to a conflict
of interest between cattle onthe range and horses on the
range.

Speaker 2 (01:01:25):
So now we're having other smaller groups saying, hey
, how can I do what you did here?
What can I do?
And so.
I'm very welcome to share anyof that information with anybody
, and if anything that we'redoing here will help wild horse
advocates anywhere else.
I don't have any secrets.
I'll tell you what we did.
To me I don't feel like we didanything really spectacular.

Speaker 1 (01:01:46):
We just had a lot of work.
Your work and people helpingyou is transcending.
Transcending just your littlelocal issue, what's important,
but setting the bar,transcending so that people can
do more for more horses acrossthe country.
That's fantastic.

Speaker 2 (01:02:03):
And that's what we're hoping.

Speaker 1 (01:02:04):
Yeah, that's great.
Ok, this is a little bit easierquestion Do you have a favorite
animal companion?

Speaker 2 (01:02:13):
So right now I could say that my animal companion.
Last year we got a puppy thathappened into our life and he's
a German shepherd.
German shepherd Akita mixed.
He's probably about a 75 poundone year old baby that I have.
He is.
He reminds me every morning.

(01:02:33):
We take a walk every morningfor about an hour or so and
watch the sunrise, and that'sbecause of him.
So he reminds me to take timefor myself, enjoy the sunrise.
He makes me laugh and he's aconstant companion.
If I let him be in here, hewould be sitting at my feet
right now.
When I'm downstairs working onmy computer.
He's laying under my desk, soyeah, he's my companion.

(01:02:58):
Now I also have a seven yearold dog named Rocky.
He's a little Jack Russell.

Speaker 1 (01:03:04):
Beagle, you're a brave woman, the Dakita and a
Jack Russell.

Speaker 2 (01:03:08):
Yeah, so the two of them.
When our weather's not so bad,the Jack Russell goes out
walking with us two in themorning and the two of them are
just great.
And to me it's my way to takesome part of my day for myself
before I give it to everybodyelse.

Speaker 1 (01:03:25):
Well, you need that balance and I'm sure you still?
don't take enough time.
I'm sure you work tirelesslyWell, I tell you I'm grateful
for your efforts.
I know that if the horses couldspeak and understand, they
would be grateful for yourefforts.
I'm going to encourage everyoneto act.
Time is short.
We need to act now, right?

(01:03:45):
That's going to be the goalhere, and so, on behalf of the
horses, on behalf of mylisteners, on behalf of anybody
watching, chris, we are gratefulto you.
We're grateful to your husband,because I'm sure he's a big
part of your support systemthere.
And so shout out, shout out tohusbands and again thank you for
everything, and we'll have allthe information listed so people

(01:04:06):
can click right on the linksand we'll put up your website so
that people can see and allthese pieces and things like
that.
So I want to thank you forbeing on the podcast and
appreciate again all the hardwork you're doing.

Speaker 2 (01:04:21):
Thank you, I appreciate the time.