In the coming weeks we have a lot of information we will be presenting in numerous articles. Most of these articles will tie to specific action items. 

There is no “one lawsuit,” or “one change” in law, that would end the need for advocacy for the wild. We must continue to address issues as they arise, and work for reform. We walk the same avenues as advocacy for any species that occupies a place in the natural world filled with resources that private industries desire.

We presented an article like this one in the past. However, as “helicopter roundup season ends,” the cycle of advocacy turns toward engaging with the system. When checking our inbox it appears that we need to republish an article that looks at the framework, a framework that often gets lost under the frustration many members of the public feel, but one that is vital to understand to create an effective voice.

Wild horses and burros sit inside federal jurisdiction. Gaining federal jurisdiction was a key objective of early advocates as they pushed to end mustanging. Mustanging was basically a free-for-all where free-roaming horses and burros were driven by plane, truck and roped and often hog-tied, shipped off to slaughter for dog food, chicken feed and fertilizer. This practice was made famous in the film “The Misfits.” Mustanging was endorsed (and even officially permitted) by states and local counties.

The vast majority of free-roaming horses and burros reside on public lands. The vast majority, more than all other jurisdictions, reside on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land. It was, and is, important to have a defined federal jurisdiction capable of creating and enforcing laws. When law is established (under federal jurisdiction) it is first codified into regulation, then policy is created, then internal operating procedures and, finally, proposed and actualized actions.

The process of public lands management begins in Congress (Legislative Branch) and then enters the Executive branch. Congress sets the intention of the law, the President signs it into law and then passes it to his Cabinet to determine how that law is carried out. Then the agencies headed by Cabinet members carry out the law. Today, Debra Haaland is the Cabinet member, the Secretary of Interior, whose authority directs the actions and current interpretation of regulations through the Leadership of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).

When there is a dispute over how the agency is carrying out or interpreting the law, the Judicial Branch needs to be engaged.

In simple terms: the legislative branch (makes the law), the executive branch (enforces/carries out the law), and the judicial branch (interprets the law).

Examples of how “what you want” can be addressed under the distinct branches of government. 

Simple Request: Enforceable welfare policy

Congress passes bills and “funds and defunds” through Appropriations (creates law and funds government by passing a bill each year). Congress does not make site-specific management decisions (carry out the law).

You can ask Congress to set aside specific funding to create an incentive for BLM to comply with existing law (humane management of wild horses and burros). We hope this article can help guide you to help make your advocacy as effective as it can be.

We made it easy: Just Click HERE

If you receive a letter back, call the number on the letter and ask for an appointment with an aide via phone or Zoom. Each time you meet with an aide, keep your “ask” clear and simple and within the authority of Congress (bill or “fund or defund”). Even if your member of Congress is not on that specific committee, every bill, including spending, goes for a full floor vote where any member of Congress can propose an amendment.

The Executive Branch carries out the law. The Secretary of Interior holds the authority under which agency action can take place. This is done through directives that go through the BLM Director and then to district offices and program Chiefs.

Debra Haaland, the current Secretary of the Interior, has the authority to direct rulemaking for an enforceable welfare policy. Tracy Stone-Manning is the current Director of the BLM and Holle Waddel is the current BLM Chief of the Wild Horse and Burro Program. All of these individuals could instigate the process of rulemaking to create an enforceable welfare policy. This process would gain an animal welfare policy that is enforceable for the wild ones at roundups and in holding facilities now and into the future.

A letter or call asking that they initiate formal rulemaking to create an enforceable welfare policy would be appropriate public engagement.

This is a box that we found in material used for a county commission meeting from 2 years ago. (blue box)

In recent years BLM has completely removed contact information for individuals that run the BLM and programs from their websites. BLM has created essentially a clearing house for wild horses and burros at 866-4MUSTANGS (866-468-7826) wildhorse@blm.gov This has allowed those responsible for specific parts of the program to avoid hearing directly from the public. BLM has even done this at the district level and removed individual emails from the website and replaced each with a main message box. Nowhere on the BLM website do they even list leadership positions.

BLM does not make it easy to find emails. But if you look closely, you can see a pattern. The first initial of the first name and them then last name is usually how you can reach someone at BLM.gov.

We have sent packets and attempted to engage this branch for a long time trying to gain an enforceable welfare policy. We had to move into engagement with the next branch – court.

When all of your efforts to gain traction to address an egregious error in management fail, we can turn to the courts. In the U.S. we can take our government to court; you can’t do that worldwide. However, the avenues for litigation must comply with narrow parameters through existing law. In other words, you can’t file a suit that says “Stop all roundups!” You have to craft your case through specific windows in the Constitution and other underlying processes.

This is why we had to file at a specific roundup, using specific language in underlying documents and specific instances that illustrate the damage done as BLM skirts noncompliance with existing law and practices.

The lawsuit filed during the Antelope Complex roundup is moving through briefing and is still active in the court.

Much like the steps in a criminal trial, there are five general stages of a civil court case: pleadings, discovery, trial, verdict, and (possibly) appeal. There can be more than one trial if motions dictate. An outcome may be found without a full trial under a process called “Summary Judgement.” That is why you will see many wild horse cases never go to trial; they went through Summary Judgement.

There is another federal court associated with land use planning called the Interior Board of Land Appeals or IBLA. Basically, IBLA is supposed to “provide an impartial forum within the Department of the Interior for the resolution of disputes involving public lands and natural resources under the Department’s jurisdiction.”

The IBLA would be an avenue for addressing issues with a plan (EA, EIS, etc.) where you made substantive comments and BLM failed to respond or make a needed change. Comment periods can begin a dialogue that sets a basis for an appeal to the IBLA or federal courts if analysis through NEPA is inadequate. This is where most livestock permittees (as an example) would file if they felt BLM did not address issues correctly when issuing a permit.

Example: Off-limits to the public holding facilities.

Requests to Congress could be crafted: “Do not allow funding to be used for holding facilities that deny public access and that forego the Constitutional right of the public to observe actions paid for with taxpayer funding. Please, amend the spending bill to require public funding only be used for facilities that allow regular public access.”

Requests to Agency (Executive Branch): “Please create regular visiting hours for all BLM facilities. Please open all facilities within 2 weeks that have taken in freshly captured horses or burros.”

We hope those 2 examples can help you understand how different powers of authority would require you phrase what you are asking for a bit differently, depending on which branch of the government you are addressing.

In the coming weeks, we will be publishing action items that deal with numerous subjects including the 2025 Appropriations (Spending) bill. We hope this article helps you plan your own advocacy.

Our wild horses and burros need you. A focused advocacy is their only hope. Your voice matters in the fight to protect and preserve our treasured wild ones.

We need your help to continue to document, expose, work toward reform with lawmakers and litigate. Our wild ones deserve to live free on the range, free from abuse and you deserve a voice. 

Thank you for keeping WHE on the frontline in the fight to protect and preserve our treasured wild ones.