Many of you have been asking about our active litigation. When you file a case with Federal District Court there are many steps. Generally speaking you file your first complaint, the defendant answers and usually files a Motion to Dismiss. You have to answer that motion and, if your case survives, you go on to address things like the Administrative Record and Discovery through further briefs and arguments. Usually you then amend your complaint based on what you learn and go through another round of motions. There can be further briefing and hearings prior to a case being adjudicated depending on circumstances. Litigation involves a lot of work.

We apologize for not being able to keep you apprised at each step. It has been a really busy year and roundups hit record levels this summer. We really are grateful for your support that keeps us going.

The issues at Stone Cabin/Saulsbury are complicated. There are multiple lawsuits. One is from the permittee trying to force a removal. A big Appeal over grazing being given to the livestock permittees in an area that is important to many environmental orgs is happening now (WHE is also involved). And our lawsuit directly against the gather plan argues BLM is really cutting corners on their obligations to manage wild horses.

Today there was a hearing on the Administrative Record for our lawsuit involving the Stone Cabin/Saulsbury gather plan.

Stone Cabin/Salusbury has historic significance to the advocacy movement itself. The first official roundup under the 1971 Act took place at Stone Cabin outside of Tonopah, Nevada. The first litigation affirmed that the Wild Horse and Burro Act was indeed the law as the counties challenged the jurisdiction of the government and tried to take possession of the horses and take them to auction. The court also found that BLM could not just assert that removing wild horses improved the range, they had to follow the analysis process guided by the brand new 1969 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

This spring we went out with visitors from all over the country that had attended the Rally in Reno to show them the beauty of the area.

That original court order spurred BLM to craft one of the first Herd Management Area Plans (HMAP) in the country. (Note: The HMAP is the only planning document codified into law.)

The original HMAP basically stated they would set an interim Appropriate Management Level (AML) based on an agreement with permittees and that they did not have enough data at that time. The HMAP required all kinds of monitoring to determine movement between HMAs and Forest Service Wild Horse Territories (WHT) and basically figure out “which horses were which” (what were BLM horses and which were simply transitory during seasonal shifts). It talked about water improvements specifically for wild horses and gathering data to set a data-based AML.

The original HMAP clearly stated that the HMAP-EA itself would be revised (with all the public process needed under NEPA) after all the data was collected.

Instead, BLM just rolled the administratively set AML into a Land Use Plan (LUP) and never released any data, never did any of the water improvements, never identified seasonal movement, etc.

But, at the same time, they claim they “complied” with the HMAP and that the land use plan complied with the HMAP (that never released any of the data the HMAP said needed to be done).

Then BLM started claiming gather plan Environmental Assessments (EA) that do not allow any public input on any management action except removal to the (administratively set) AML.

BLM released a multi-year gather plan to, once again, achieve that administratively set AML. They did not release the HMAP update the office had been working on in 2016. They did not show in the gather-ea how they set a science-based AML and just say it “is set” in the land use plan (that just carried over the administrative numbers from the original HMAP).

You can probably see part of the mess that we are dealing with here? How is the public supposed to understand if BLM never releases info or never does the things they say they will so you have a say (like HMAPs and updating HMAPs)?

Today was the argument to try to get additional documents so we can track down if BLM ever really set a data-based AML in over 50 years for this herd (because they never say where, when or how). BLM says they did and then lists a bunch of places they claim they did, but they do not disclose the analysis. If history shows again and again that the BLM has only relied on administrative ease to claim they have done an actual analysis of something, and if they simply refuse to disclose an actual analysis of how they set AML, we are supposed to just say “ok, you must be right?”

Today we took another step toward attempting to gain transparent and fair management. AML is not the only thing at issue here, but is is probably the easiest to explain. A gather plan is created (in part) to remove horses to get to AML and how they set capture numbers. If those numbers are not legally set, how can a long term gather plan (not a single gather for emergency purposes but one that claims it is needed for “management” purposes for at least ten years to get to a number on the rasnge) be legally done?

It gets hard to get all of the work done and keep you posted on each step in each during litigation because often things in other cases overlap and are our priority. We have briefs due in other cases early next week and are preparing for the 2025 roundup schedule to be announced in the next week (fiscal year 2025 roundups start October 1, 2024).

We expect the case at Stone Cabin/Saulsbury to continue into the new year and will do our best to keep you updated.

We are getting a lot of email as our social media has been sporadic the last few weeks. Now you know why.  We are deep in the maze fighting to protect and preserve our treasured wild ones.

Without your support, none of our work is possible.

Thank you for keeping WHE running for the wild. 

There are several ways you can support WHE from gift shopping to stock donations. Learn more HERE.