Temporary holding located (where it usually is) on the private property of the livestock permittee where the roundup is happening.

At the ongoing Triple B roundup there was a “no fly” day yesterday and today. This gives us a moment to talk about the sheer lack of actual follow-through by BLM in many layers of policy. (You can see our WHE team updates here)

Many of you took action on the Herd Management Area Plan (HMAP) Scoping for the distinct Triple B and Antelope Complexes yesterday. We thank you very much for helping us demonstrate the public interest in wild horses as we actively litigate for this herd and others.

When we talk about BLM failures to follow the protocols that are outlined under law involving data collection, analysis requirements under the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), Scope and Intensity issues and other areas of absolute neglect, we know it can get hard to follow. Most often, these are the areas we are limited to arguing in a courtroom (under law).

Simply put, in the multi-layered and lengthy (legal) battle of management we are showing BLM has illegally withheld actual management planning and has essentially failed to do required analysis because… for 50 years they have actually failed to gather more than miniscule amounts of data and never disclose even that. Analysis of data (and equations utilized to create “hard lines” like forage allocation, numbers of horses or burros allowed, boundaries, etc.) is never given a “hard look.”

There is no “hard look” because they have only assertions and not many real facts to look at… and they just keep passing the buck. 

All of our court cases are against ten-year roundup plans (the roundup plan at Blue Wing was a twenty-year plan). So you might see a roundup and the court win afterward. Please remember the ruling impacts years of removals after the one you saw. Yes, it really hurts. We know these herds and wish things could move faster…. but together we are moving forward to ensure there actually is a future for all of our herds. 

We have won two court cases this year where the courts clearly recognize that a “gather plan-EA” is not an “HMAP-EA.” The court also recognizes these are both documents BLM would need to distinctly complete, covering distinct issues. 

Obviously BLM is simply trying to do exactly what they have always done: write gather plans without any foundation of data or management planning. They simply cannot grasp any other concept either due to pressure from the historic cronyism (buddy system prioritizing livestock) or an actual lack of understanding of the legal responsibility of their jobs.

Together, if we remain vigilant, we sit on the verge of cracking the failures of the Wild Horse and Burro Program wide open. 

Reading one of the BLM scoping or draft plans can feel overwhelming and complicated. Commenting on those plans is the first step in paperwork that sets up our ability to litigate if BLM finalizes the plan. 

Sometimes when we switch the conversation to something the public sees (roundups) it gets easier to understand how BLM simply fails our wild ones over and over and then creates a narrative to deflect. 

A Helicopter Accident: A Hard Look

Looking at a helicopter crash can provide an avenue to simply demonstrate the way BLM operates: Claim there is a protocol, pick and choose what suits them in the protocol (while ignoring the rest), try to confuse the issue by pointing to dead ends, outright fabrication and completely failing to do anything they are required to do and destroying public trust.  

Edited to add: to those of you focusing on the use of the word “crash” and not the context, here is the dictionary definition. What happened and the extent of damage is “crash.” Now let’s get on with the discussion.

A helicopter accident is inarguably a big deal. A helicopter accident happened at the Triple B roundup in 2022. BLM makes all kinds of statements about how they review and create “policy” to create safety. So how does this work? Maybe we can’t find any analysis on welfare issues (or why BLM simply dismisses things like air quality due to wild fire smoke and the impacts to horses and burros) but we should be able to track how they handle something this big?

The simple circumstances surrounding the incident:

A helicopter that had repeated mechanical issues during the roundup and put back in the air each time. The chopper was then was flown “too fast and low” causing the tail rotor to hit the ground while in direct and high speed pursuit near the trap. (It looks like a horse may have been hit but it is not something we can state with certainty and BLM said no horse was hit.)

Our team member was the only person that had video taped the incident. In fact, the BLM person in charge did not even actually see the crash. 

Immediately after the accident we were asked by BLM for the footage “to include in reports and review.” In the past BLM has only seemed to ask for footage simply to “see whatever the public could actually see” so they knew how much they had to disclose and respond to. We were obviously intrigued to see what would be done with that footage and what a BLM review might look like. Our team filed FOIAs

Things you need to know:

BLM uses the Incident Command System (ICS) for things like wildfire and adopted during wild horse and burro roundups. That is why you will see note who the Incident Commander (IC) is onsite because they are the ones responsible for what happens each day. The term comes from this system. In order to serve as an “IC” a BLM employee has to take classes in the ICS system. A “Wild Horse and Burro Specialist” is supposed to do all field work, analyze the data, write any management and roundup plans. They also work the roundups. When they serve in charge as “IC,” they also make more money.

If a helicopter crashed during anything else under the ICS system, there would be a formal review and it would be included in the After Action Review (AAR) that is another piece of the ICS protocol to ensure the same mistakes are not repeated. In the event of aircraft, the ICS review and AAR would be reported to the FAA and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB).

Obviously an IC working fire is not dealing with wild horses and burros, traps, and all of those moving parts that have unique obligations under additional laws.

In addition, the Wild Horse and Burro Program is required under the Federal Land Management Policy Act (FLPMA) to hold a hearing to address motorized vehicles. These hearings are incorporated as “occurring annually” as  both a compliance requirement and an analysis requirement  in every single roundup.

And… what about the Comprehensive Animal Welfare Program (CAWP)? A reasonable person would think some internal report would go to the CAWP team so they could see if a standard for helicopter capture needed review.

Above: The last trap before the “no fly day” was the same trap as the trap of the crash. Our team member onsite is the same team member that video tapped the crash. Obviously she had questions. What she found out is simply jaw dropping. 

Through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests (and other investigative work) we had already found out that the NTSB has ruled that pilot error was the cause flying to low and fast. We had also found out that the After Action Review (AAR) the IC is supposed to complete was basically nothing more than a few lines (that could have been scribbled on a napkin). You can see that and more HERE.

Onsite this week we also found out that the BLM IC literally did nothing with the video except pass it to the contractor. BLM themselves did not do any review themselves.

The BLM IC, when confronted with the shock that they did nothing, replied that after he gave it to the contractor that replied that after he gave it to the contractor that there was communication between the contractor and us! Nothing of the sort ever happened and it would be really inappropriate anyway. To make things even more absurd, the IC literally said that BLM has nothing to do with this, as if he has no responsibility to do the prescribed reviews and follow-up that defines the role of IC. It gets maddening. (If BLM fire was using a contracted aircraft and it crashed, the IC would still be required to do the review.)

The IC also never gave the information to anyone involved in the mandatory Motorized Vehicle Hearing. However even that would have resulted in a dead end because, even though we gave it in testimony at that hearing, BLM never crafted the required response to comments noted in regulations.

Let’s look at the circumstances again that BLM should have a detailed record of (right?): A helicopter that had repeated mechanical issues during the roundup and put back in the air each time. The chopper was then was flown “too fast and low” causing the tail rotor to hit the ground while in direct and high speed pursuit near the trap. (It looks like a horse may have been hit but it is not something we can state with certainty and BLM said no horse was hit.)

What should have happened? 

• Under the ICS system BLM should have done a review of all data before, during and after the crash.
• They should have noted the repeated repairs to the aircraft.
• They should have crafted a recommendation to ensure this did not happen again and pass it to the Motorized Vehicle Hearing for discussion and adoption into protocol.

If not the ICS system, shouldn’t this information have gone into some report and included in the Motorized Vehicle Hearing and the (never done) revisions?

The new protocol could have been as simple as: If a helicopter requires more than 1 repair during an active gather, the chopper is grounded and a new one obtained. 

It is mind boggling. Follow the protocols you get paid to follow and… this should have been EASY for BLM to do. Even here, they fail miserably.

Instead… BLM asked for information simply to (apparently) determine what they needed to disclose. Gave that information to the person that would be investigated (pilot) by the NTSB prior to his questioning. Failed to follow ICS protocol. Failed to even address operating procedures in any report resulting from a mandatory hearing. No report sent to the CAWP team? Then they created an absurd fiction to pass the buck to the “contractor and advocate” (to increase tension?).

It certainly seems to any reasonable person that something like a helicopter accident would be part of a procedural review in one of the many places it should be reviewed. This is an incident where the public can see plainly… there is no actual “hard look” at anything.

Clear as Day

This is exactly how BLM writes gather plans and is now trying to impose this lack of ethics into management planning. It might get hard to understand the layers where data should exist and does not, the layers where analysis should exist and does not, the manipulation of regulations in NEPA planning instead of following them… but the standard mode of operation becomes really clear if you just look at a helicopter crash or their absolute refusal to create an enforceable welfare policy. 

Simply put, in the multi-layered and lengthy (legal) battle of management we are showing BLM has illegally withheld actual management planning and has essentially failed to do required analysis because… for 50 years they have actually failed to gather more than miniscule amounts of data.

There is no “hard look” because they have only assertions and not facts to look at… and they just keep passing the buck. 

This year, we have already won two cases to crack the failing on range program. If we stay vigilant we can reach the long sought after goal of reform.

WHE has a 10K match challenge through Giving Tuesday, Dec. 3. Help us raise the funds to unlock this critical funding!

We are sincerely grateful for your support. 

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