Feral Horses in Miller Creek

Thank you for the opportunity to make comments before voting on August 25th. Below I present some questions, I understand I won’t get answers but hoping to inspire more thought on this resolution document. Here are my comments:
1. First off during the hearing it was noted that the updated resolution was posted on the Missoula County Voice and it was not there when I looked. I did find as an attachment to the agenda as also referenced. Only noted this as the resolution may not be easily found.
2. My feeling is this resolution addresses mainly the private landowners that would have access to a horse corral and if they do it gives them a lot of power on a horses fate. For example, in the last whereas statement, “for the landowner to assist the county” and “providing guidance on capturing abandoned horses” and “guiding transfer”. Also, in Section 9. “the private landowner may choose one of the following disposition methods.” Why does the private landowner get all this power? I feel it should be decided by more than just the landowner.
3. In the 5th whereas statement: It is noted that the DOL has statutory options for “abandoned horses” but not “estray”. In the 6th whereas statement it notes that there is no agency authority over the abandoned horses.
a. These two whereas statements contradict each other.
b. Would it be better to label these horses as estray for their own safety? Which would take out the DOL from any authority over them.
c. Or…Would it be better to label these horses as abandoned and rely on DOL to assist? In other words, does keeping the DOL involved assist the county, public or the horses? In my opinion, it may complicate and delay the process plus makes this resolution more complicated. I would like to advocate for the horse and pick whichever serves their freedom and keeping the herd together the best.
d. Or…Would it be better to reference them continually with both estray/abandoned and why?
e. When researching, found this:
Montana Code Annotated 2025
TITLE 81. LIVESTOCK
CHAPTER 4. CONTAINMENT OF LIVESTOCK
Part 5. Roundup of Abandoned Horses
Sale Of Abandoned Horses
81-4-506. Sale of abandoned horses. All abandoned horses taken up in a roundup must be delivered to the roundup supervisor in charge of the roundup and must be offered by the supervisor for sale at public auction and sold to the highest bidder for cash, if there is any bidder, and any abandoned horses offered for sale and for which no bid is made must be destroyed or otherwise disposed of in the discretion of the board of county commissioners unless reclaimed as provided in this part.
History: En. Sec. 5, Ch. 140, L. 1925; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 29, L. 1927; re-en. Sec. 3406.5, R.C.M. 1935; R.C.M. 1947, 46-1805(part); amd. Sec. 2660, Ch. 56, L. 2009.

11. The 8th whereas statement labels the horses a nuisance, specifically stating “constitute a nuisance”. This is an opinion. Also, I have a problem with the statement “threats to motorists”. Could you consider this wording in its place: “In recent years, horses have become habituated to living within the Missoula city limits and developed residential neighborhoods, have presented challenges for management, and present public safety risks, including roadway danger to motorists, property damage, and human safety”.
12. Under Section 1. Purpose and Findings:
a. I feel the statement of “This resolution aims to promote public safety, humane treatment of animals, and responsible management”, deserves to be the first statement and priority of the resolution not “the process for private landowners to capture ‘estray/abandoned’ horses,” I feel the sentencing order implies importance.
b. Also, that the before mentioned quote in a. above also deserves to be the lead and included in the title of this proposed resolution as well.
13. Section 3. Findings, this section notes that, “this resolution applies only to horses found to meet the definition of estray or abandoned”.
a. In this case, in the prior “whereas statements” and throughout the document it needs to state both estray/abandoned not just one unless of course applicable.
b. I’d like to reiterate that David Aronofsky, a retired attorney, stated how important it was to pick the definition that applied to these horses. His feeling was the definition of estray horses fits best.
c. If it was decided to state estray horses only it would appear there would be no oversight state/federal agency and just this resolution that would dictate our local issues and simplify this resolution and possible oversight delays.
14. Section 2. Definitions. I would like to suggest that the resolution add to the stated definitions both of the words “humane treatment,” “harassment,” and “bait trapping”.
a. Suggestion for Humane Treatment: “Humane treatment refers to the practice of treating any animal with care, kindness, compassion, and respect. Ensuring their well-being and alleviate suffering. Humane treatment includes providing adequate food, shelter, medical care, and a safe environment, as well as avoiding cruelty and neglect”.
b. Suggestion for Harassment: “Intentional provocation demonstrating disregard for the well-being of the horse; such as: making loud noises, sudden movements, encircling, flanking or separating herd, feeding, baiting, touching, throwing rocks, shooting arrows, guns, chasing horses, pursuing by air, by helicopter, airplane or drone. Roadway harassment is where drivers intentionally rev engines, honk, or pass dangerously close or fast, which can startle the animal to behave unpredictably.
c. Suggestion for Bait Trapping: A corral is set up with bait for horses, such as hay or grain. The corral may be set up in stages over a period of days to allow the horses to grow accustomed to it. When a certain number of horses enter the pen, the gate to the corral can be closed, confining the horses.
15. Section 6. Notice and Authorization of Capture.
a. My opinion is that private capture is hard to do and dangerous for someone inexperienced, especially hard without using food to bait/lure/entice a horse into a corral. I’m hoping that bait trapping is prohibited within this resolution under Section 6. Perhaps under (1) adding at the end…It is prohibited for the private landowner to use bait trapping to capture the horse.
b. Consider adding to the end of (1) Contact information for the Official shall be published and maintained by the County and provided to 911 for needed emergency response. (This would be due to the eye witness account in the first public hearing to the motor vehicle accident. She noted that it took 1.5 hours to resolve the issue with euthanasia of the horse victim. She felt that no one knew what to do. Does the resolution sufficiently address this problem from happening again? It appears the official will be the Sherriff department from my interpretation of the resolution, but not 100% clear in Section 12.)
c. At this point could the Miller Creek Horse Alliance be notified and the extenuating circumstances that led to the authorized capture? Could this be part of the resolution? For the Alliance to assist with problem solving, it will need to be informed of documented horse issues in a timely and consistent manner.
16. Section 8. Department of Livestock Inspection and Examination
a. If define the horses as estray this section would need to be rewritten.
b. This section confirms how complicated it is to not have a set definition for these horses.
c. (1) Last sentence should read “eligible for disposition under Section 9 not 6”.
d. (1) What if the DOL determines that the horse is estray? Which is not mentioned. “Following private landowner notification, the Department of Livestock shall conduct a brand inspection and determine whether horses are abandoned, estray and unowned.”
e. (3) Again, couldn’t the DOL determine the horse to be abandoned or estray? “assess the health and physical condition of an abandoned or estray horse”
f. (4) Last sentence should read “required prior to disposition as outlined under Section 9 not 6”.
17. In Section 9, #4: Preferably when stating “including sale”. Instead note “including sale, preferably no kill options”.
18. Another suggestion that I’d like to reiterate was done by David Aronofsky, a retired attorney, at the last public hearing was to run the resolution by the DOL before voting on it on August 25th. They may have some valuable suggestions and the DOL may like the idea he presented on making an interagency agreement with them which could be deemed useful and grant the county more authority to act.
19. Section 12 Enforcement and Compliance:
a. The public needs to understand the consequences to not following this resolution. In looking up MCA Title 7 which is referenced, it is not clear what the consequences are? Please consider clearly stating within the resolution what the possible consequences are and if consequences will escalate for a repeat offender.
b. This section lists the MCA Title 7 as a supporting document for enforcement but not an enforcement authority.
20. Section 13. Program Administration. It is not clear if the Missoula County Sherriff is the “official” who will be responsible for providing information to private landowners mentioned in the first paragraph in this Section 13? Also, would this be the person who could share information with the Alliance?
21. There are two Section 15’s
22. Section 15. Severability and Effective Date: Consider adding when the resolution can and would be reviewed again for needed updates. Perhaps state, update as needed or this resolution will be reviewed annually for needed updates.
The horses provide a feeling of magic that never fades every time they appear! I feel privileged to live in this neighborhood with them!

Thanks for listening!
Diane Gray
Miller Creek Resident

While I understand the want for a "population control" plan, I would like to state that sterilization of any of the horses should be avoided. They have been around for quite a long time, which could suggest that they have an already fragile gene pool. If any of the horses were to be sterilized, it could lead to that gene pool shrinking even further. We need to try and avoid triggering inbreeding amongst them, as that would not only impact their health, but it could shrink the population and lead to the eventual entire disappearance of them all.

My concern about "baiting" was intended to prevent a scenario of landowners intentionally luring the horses via hay, feed, water, salt, minerals, scents, or other attractants, to come onto their private land for the purpose of capture and removal.

Please add a prohibition regarding feeding, petting, and watering the feral horses.

Following the meeting held on August 6th, several items within the Resolution remain outstanding and require further attention.

As Mr. David Aronofsky indicated, there are available options to enact laws and impose fines that would prohibit the petting, harassing, and feeding of horses. We respectfully request that the cases he referenced be researched accordingly.

The term "baiting" requires further clarification and elaboration. Specific examples should be documented to ensure the language is sufficiently precise.

The current provision allowing landowners to capture horses must include additional restrictions. Beyond the prohibition on baiting referenced above, a stipulation should be added to prevent landowners from capturing horses with the intent to sell for profit, or for any purpose of resale or slaughter. If "property damage" is a reason for capture, "damage" should be defined and must be of some logical significance.

Finally, we encourage acceptance of the assistance offered by the Conservation representative in Billings regarding the implementation of contraception measures. We are aware that there are individuals who seek to eliminate entire herds. However, any contraception program should be carefully calibrated so as not to suppress reproduction entirely.

Commissioners: Today at the August 6th meeting it was brought up about “baiting” the horses. I am wondering if calling a horse over to you...or walking up to a horse with food is considered BAITING? After posting my question, I looked into this better and this is what I found:
Legal definition "BAITING" per BLM+MT FWP+every wild horse organization: "Intentionally using food, water, salt, or other attractants to lure wild horses to alter their natural behavior or location for human interaction, viewing, photography or capture."
So the following is all considered baiting:
1. calling horses to you=Vocal attractant. Changes natural behavior.
2. walking up with food=Food attractant. Conditions horses to approach humans=death sentence. Habituated horses="nuisance"=BLM removes them.
3. Leaving apples/hay piles=Obvious baiting.
4. "I just wanted to pet them"=Intent doesn't matter. Impact matters=Fed horse=dead horse

What's NOT BAITING=
1. Observing from 100+ ft on public roads with binoculars. No interaction.
2. Photographing if horses approach YOU and you don't feed/talk/touch.
3. Hazing away from highway per official plan. That's safety not baiting.
Feeding and petting wild horses kills them. PERIOD.

MCHA's position: These horses are strong, resilient, and designed to graze. Foraging gives them exercise and naturally wears their hooves. HUMAN FOOD causes colic, laminitis and habituates them to people.

A fed horse approaches cars, homes, and bad actors. BLM then removes them as "nuisance animals. Your neighbor's apple=a death sentence.

Coexistence requires one rule: Wild stays wild. No food. No touch. No calling. Observe ONLY. We protect them by leaving them alone.
Thank you for your time

Removed by moderator.

Removed by moderator.

It would be absurd to promote large feral livestock ranging in neighborhoods, public parks and routes to a school. These are not native animals which will continue to cause damage to public lands, put people, other animals and the feral horses themselves at risk. The sentiment of a few horse loving people should not override reasonable removal of a potentially dangerous and destructive invasive species.
Would it be appropriate to feral dogs and cats to roam at large in these spaces without concern to the damage they could do to property, people and ecosystems? Would people be allowed to dump their unwanted livestock in this area? Will the population be allowed to grow to indefinite numbers? Who will remove the dead animals? How will these animals be managed if wildfire or severe drought affects the area?

A brief addendum to my earlier comment: today on Lower Miller Creek Road I observed a pile of apples placed at the road edge, on HOA-owned open space, with a deer feeding on it - still there hours later when I drove back. I have a timestamped photo and will gladly provide it to staff on request. Feeding the deer this pile attracted is already unlawful under MCA 87-6-216, as an artificial concentration of game animals constituting a public safety threat. But feeding the horses it was presumably intended for is prohibited by nothing. I note that several other commenters have independently asked for a prohibition on feeding or petting the horses. This is the gap such a provision would close, and as of this week it is actively being exploited - with feed placed directly beside a roadway. I'd urge the commissioners to add a feeding and watering prohibition to the resolution before adoption.

In regard to the most recent Resolution, people mustn't feed/water, touch, or harass the horses.
These behaviors harm the horses' health, alter their natural behavior, and put both the horses and humans in severe danger.
Feeding grass clippings/yard waste and/or human food can cause intense digestive issues and trigger metabolic disorders; some fatal.
A startled/challenged horse may become aggressive or run into traffic
Please make the above-mentioned behaviors illegal and impose a strict, notable fine for each violation.
Thank you for your efforts in protecting these majestic, historically significant Missoula treasures.

I appreciate your proactive engagement in addressing the concerns regarding these horses and the community, and I value the opportunity for collaborative problem-solving. This draft resolution has undergone significant development since its initial iteration which is very positive. The community has identified a critical omission that requires immediate attention: the implementation of ordinances prohibiting the feeding, petting, or harassment of these horses. Such ordinances are essential to provide a robust framework for broader initiatives. While I acknowledge that initial enforcement may require considerable resources, this ordinance enforcement will diminish significantly once educational programs are fully established with the nonprofit being created. Currently, there is no compelling deterrent for individuals to cease these activities without the explicit support of this regulatory measure. We commend your receptiveness and commitment to action. Thank you for all the work you have done.

Tammy Staat

Good Morning- I am very please with the way this is progressing. I would like to ask that the ordinance would include: not to feed, pet, or harass the horses. I believe that this is vital to the signage and education for both the horses as well as the public.
I am very excited to watch this group of people, who have come together for a great cause, do something amazing. Something that future generations can enjoy. I don't see the horses often but just the excitement and wonder of...Will they be around the next corner? Is a feeling that I hope will be here in Missoula for years to come.

I’ve lived 5 miles up Miller Creek for 50 years. We’ve had very many episodes with the horses. When my son was two years old, we were in the front yard. I had to come in the house for a few minutes so I brought my son with me. In a matter of a minute, I looked out the front window and there was a big stallion standing in my front yard where we just were. And for all these people saying that we should fence them out, they should know that we had an electric fence and that stallion came through it and was in our front yard. The road up Miller Creek over the hill is very curvy. The land is getting developed up here. More people are moving in there are elderly, and there are young that are learning to drive. The horses are a definite danger to themselves and to all drivers they have come in our yard. They stand in the middle of the street there have gotten to be more and more of them overtime. Fencing does not keep them out if something isn’t done to remove them and put them somewhere safe lives can be lost. The people who think they’re great to look at do not live on these curvy parts of Miller Creek. They probably have a clear view of the horses and can avoid hitting them which we do not have further up the road, which is where the majority of their time is spent people think they can pet them. Or feed them it has gotten totally out of control. Please do something about them remove them and take them somewhere. They can be safe and we can be safe. It’s gotten to be too dangerous for them to continue as they have been over these past 50 years. Thank you.

Please don't remove the horses. Please let the community form Management group to manage the horses. Arizona has done this and it works really well. I have gone to Arizona for several years to see the horses there and have talked with the management group. The group can provide education to the residents on how to not approach the horses and stay at least 50 feet away and to not feed them. Feeding the horses can cause them to get colic.

Also if you're going to consider using a birth control for the horses I would recommend looking into PZP over Gonacon with PZP being reversible and is safer for the horses.

I agree with putting signage on roads to let people know that there's horses in the area but also put signage around to not feed or try to approach the horses.

Also, please make it illegal to harass the horses for example throwing rocks at them or hurting them in any way. Thank you! Feel free to contact me for more information.

Thank you for stepping up for these horses and the community, and for allowing us the opportunity to collaboratively problem-solve! This draft resolution has come a long way since the first draft. There is one glaring omission. We absolutely must have ordinances making it unlawful to feed, pet, or harass these horses. This gives the backbone to the rest of the work we would like to do. While I understand that initially this may be enforcement-intensive, once we have our education plans in place, this will quickly cease to be a problem. There is currently no reason for people to discontinue petting and feeding them unless you support this stance. I appreciate your willingness to listen and act!

I would like to see the commission/city/county enact laws making it illegal to feed, pet or harass these horses. They are a wonderful, majestic part of our neighborhoods and we need to do what we can to keep them safe and keep them wild.

Dear Commissioners,

I live in the Miller Creek area, at the edge where dense residential development meets the open space corridor these horses use daily. I'm commenting on the revised draft resolution (No. 2026-099).

First, credit where due: Section 5's fertility control provisions are the most important addition to this draft. Immunocontraception is proven, humane herd management, and it addresses the actual driver of this problem - a growing population in a developing area. Section 15's framework for nonprofit coordination is likewise welcome. I support both.

But notice the pattern in the drafting: every county action in this resolution is permissive, and every private obligation is mandatory. The County "may" install signage, "may" employ fertility control, "may" engage nonprofits, "may" seek funding. The landowner "must" obtain authorization before acting, "must" coordinate and fund capture, "must" pay for veterinary examination, testing, and any required treatment (Sections 8(3)-(4), 10), acts entirely at their own risk with the County assuming no liability (Section 11), and faces civil remedies for noncompliance (Section 12). As written, everything promising is optional and everything burdensome is compulsory. I ask that Section 5 be revised from "may employ" to a committed fertility-control program with a funding source and a timeline - that single change would transform this from a liability document into a management plan.

The cost structure of the capture process remains unworkable. No resident will fund the capture, veterinary workup, and treatment of 1,500-pound feral animals at personal expense and personal risk, with permission required first and penalties available if they err. I'd note that even MCA 81-4-503 - a 1925 statute - paired its petitioner-pays roundup structure with reimbursement from an abandoned horse fund. This resolution asks more of residents than a hundred-year-old law asked of ranchers, and it will therefore produce zero captures. Meanwhile, my neighbors and I have had irrigation systems damaged by horses seeking water, and HOA covenants prevent many of us from fencing our own yards - the "landowner responsibility" premise is legally unavailable to the people bearing the damage.

Two additions the resolution still needs: a prohibition on intentionally feeding or watering the herd, which some residents have discussed and which would anchor the horses in the neighborhood permanently and undermine the fertility-control program; and coordination with the City of Missoula beyond signage requests, since the preamble itself acknowledges the horses are habituated to living within city limits.

On Section 4: caution signage is a reasonable supplement but a weak primary safety measure for animals that occupy roadways at night, and it should not be mistaken for the public-safety response the first WHEREAS clause's police powers exist to provide.

Finally, drafting corrections needed before adoption: the sixth WHEREAS clause states abandoned horses "are not managed under the authority of the Department of Livestock or any other state agency," which contradicts the resolution's own reliance on Department of Livestock inspection and disposition authority (the first draft correctly referenced Fish, Wildlife and Parks); Section 8 twice cross-references "Section 6" for disposition, which is now Section 9; and the document contains two Sections 15 and no Section 14. Given the adoption date printed on the signature page, I'd urge these be corrected and the substantive issues above addressed before a vote.

I love horses - I've spent much of my life around them. Fertility control is the beginning of actually caring for this herd. Please fund it, commit to it, and don't leave the rest of the problem on the backs of individual residents. Thank you.

In addition to my previous comments urging Missoula County to model its Miller Creek horses ordinance after the one adopted by Currituck County, North Carolina applicable to the Outer Banks Corolla wild horses, I am writing here to ask Missoula to study the Chincoteague, Virginia regulations governing public interactions with the Chincoteague ponies. It is a sensible approach agreed to by the federal, state and local governments with the ponies' lawful owner, the Chincoteague Volunteer Fire Department. https://www.chincoteaguechamber.com/pony-penning/
Thanks for considering this recommendation.

Removed by moderator.