Still free in Blue Wing

This is a longer article that contains important information. If you want to understand what BLM is doing and how we must fight back, we hope you take the time to read. 

Background

Chaos. The way our wild horses and burros are “managed” always seems to be buried under an avalanche of “proposed” actions (removal, sterilization, even a debate about killing or selling off all the captives in holding).

Getting advocates to scramble, without BLM ever truly explaining anything like they do for livestock and mining, has been one of the ways BLM has kept mismanagement running full-steam for 50 years. It really is an intentional attempt to get advocates off-balance, create contention inside advocacy, exhaustion.

For 50 years BLM skipped actual management planning and plowed through approved “gather plan after gather plan.” Instead of having a meeting where they explain how management planning works and how to get involved (like they do for livestock) BLM created as much confusion as they could and then blamed advocates for not addressing a process the way it is intended. In each gather plan they approved things like sterilization, fertility control and mass removal. When advocates would talk about things like validating the number allowed on the range (what BLM calls Appropriate Management Level, AML), range improvements, genetics, on and on, BLM would say that was outside the scope of the decision and plow ahead. These “gather plans” were all put in place to last ten years or longer and BLM pushed each plan to the very last day packed with as many removals as they could do without ever providing any information to show those plans were valid.

Last year, there were court rulings to begin to change the historic practice of sweeping data and disclosure under the rug and simply running the Wild Horse and Burro Program to suit planning for every profit driven business on public lands. 

The courts ruled:

• BLM had illegally delayed creation of the foundational management document called the Herd Management Area Plan (HMAP).
• BLM had failed in analyzing gather plans with regard to things like the impact of removing large numbers of wild horses on wildfire.
• BLM could not simply keep running a ten-year gather plan beyond attaining AML and without supplemental information (like a Decision of NEPA Adequacy). 

In order to comply with the court, BLM had to begin scoping for HMAPs (in the two areas we won litigation). 

Still living in the Pancake Complex

BLM took the laziest path possible. In a nutshell the court ruled that management plans are not removal plans and BLM had to fix the gather plan and do an HMAP. So what BLM did was basically create what they finalized as a “Gather and Herd Management Plan” (even the title is not correct) and tried to simply do a roundup/fertility control plan with just another name.

Now we have had to file litigation to hold BLM accountable to actually creating an HMAP and not just changing the name of a gather plan. 

But does BLM stop and think? No. BLM throws a flurry of HMAP Scoping for numerous herds across the West (because they do not want another court ruling that they illegally delayed creating one the next time they do a roundup plan without an HMAP). However, in doing all of them in the same fashion as they just did Pancake (that is already in a legal battle, we filed May 1), they are setting themselves up to face litigation on every HMAP they try to slam through as a “gather plan with a new name.” 

BLM is creating the need for advocates to file repetitive, expensive, time consuming litigation. BLM is not waiting to see how the courts rule on the Pancake HMAP. Instead, BLM is repeating the exact steps they made at Pancake everywhere… wasting taxpayer money over and over. 

They already did that and did not learn a thing. They repeated what they did at Pancake at Blue Wing, even though there was active litigation at Pancake on the exact same subject. Litigation at Blue Wing garnered them the same court ruling as Pancake…. BLM illegally delayed creating the HMAP and a gather plan is NOT an HMAP. 

BLM is now accusing us of filing repetitive litigation. We have to. BLM keeps doing the same things even though a court already ruled against it! Crazy making? you bet. But if we did not file, BLM will just plow through with no accountability and our herds will continue to essentially diminish to tokens. 

Open Comment periods… and more

Blue Wing: Comments due June 4

In order to comply with the ruling of the court, BLM did scoping for a herd Management Area Plan (HMAP) at Blue Wing. Last April, BLM began a Scoping period for the HMAP (as the court case was still active attempting to moot the case). You can see the article about Scoping HERE and sample comments. 

Just as with what just occurred with litigation at Pancake and then Blue Wing, BlM has repeated some of the same steps that are in court documents already filed for Pancake on May 1 of this year. Instead of waiting for adjudication, they repeat themselves. Although not blatantly lumping a gather EA into an HMAP EA (as is the case at Pancake), BLM still defines the purpose of an HMAP as to facilitate removals. That is not the purpose of an HMAP. The purpose of an HMAP is to define management goals and objectives and, frankly, to define what is being managed (how AML is set, how horses/burros use landscape, genetics, management options, etc.).

Again, BLM fails to recognize that an HMAP does not simply “comply” with other planning, it “informs.” In other words, if a plan for livestock or mining was outside the parameters of existing land use planning it would trigger the need to revise the existing plan. For wild horses and burros (that never had a plan in place to protect herd and habitat from encroachment), BLM just says “Nah, we don’t want to look at anything outside of what we have always done and do not want to even think about fixing any mistakes.”

One example:

Every alternative begins by taking the population of the 2 million acre Complex (in it’s entirety) to low AML. No discussion about evaluating the absurdly low AML prior to any removal. Only after a removal, might they evaluate using a bit of data and science.

Our team is working on our full comments to the draft HMAP. We are still working on them. Comments set up your ability to litigate and we must be thorough.

If you are commenting on the DRAFT plan yourself, you can find the planning document and the “participate now” button on BLMs website HERE. 

Sample comments could sound like:

• None of the alternatives BLM presents address a valid foundation until AML is validated through disclosure of the actual data used to set current AML and reevaluation and disclosure of current data and the actual carrying capacity equation. Nowhere in this draft EA does BLM demonstrate (through data) how many AUMs are actually available within the complex and an equation for allocation and how that impacts AML. Without justifying AML, any decision on gathers and/or the use of temporary or permanent fertility control is premature.
• BLM falsely states that it cannot reduce livestock grazing in compliance with 43 CFR Part 4100 to protect resources to sustain a viable herd of wild horses and burros (because it is not in the existing Land Use Plan, LUP). Wild horses and burros can only legally occupy 12% of public lands (where cattle occupy over 66%). The CFR was put into place to protect horses/burros on the lands designated for their use. An HMAP decision would/could amend the LUP (just as Sage Grouse planning, mining or livestock AMPs do). BLM fails to analyze this in the draft and must rectify this in the Final. (The same parameters apply to setting AML in Herd Areas for active management. An HMAP would amend the LUP.)
• There are numerous issues with this draft HMAP that are already in front of the courts re: DOI-BLM-NV-L060-2024-0013-EA, Pancake Complex. Court orders directing BLM to craft the HMAP for Blue Wing were repetitious with court orders for Pancake. It is not in the public interest for BLM to continue to waste tax dollars creating the actual need for repetitive litigation. BLM should wait until all matters involving DOI-BLM-NV-L060-2024-0013-EA in front of the court are resolved prior to finalizing this EA, DOI-BLM-NV-W010-2024-0027-EA.

Comments are due June 4. If you are commenting on the DRAFT plan yourself, you can find the planning document and the “participate now” button on BLMs website HERE. 

PLEASE NOTE: Click and send letters and petitions do NOT count as individual comments. If you are clicking a button that is NOT on the BLM website but in a mailer for an organization, BLM will not count your comment as unique. 

Silver King, in the “Wilson Creek” gazing decision area

Silver King: Comments due June 23

We are also actively involved in litigation that shows that determining any mitigation for damages done by private profiteers is impossible (to legally determine) without HMAPs (one case has been active since 2021). The “Wilson Creek Decision” is a massive livestock grazing decision impacts 35% of the Silver King HMA (formerly called Dry Lake, Highland Ridge and Rattlesnake), 76% of the Eagle HMA (formerly called Wilson Creek and Deer Lodge Canyon) and 56% of the Chokecherry HMA… and all of the HA land in between. This case is so massive the courts have broken it up into subsets (basically proving the point that BLM should have done an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or done multiple EAs instead on one (even the court had to break the case up into pieces). We are working now on a brief to notify the court and use the fact that BLM is finally addressing the HMAP issue to obtain a remand of the massive livestock grazing decision. The same will hold true with the HMAP Scoping. Either BLM has to wait until the Wilson Creek matter is adjudicated (in order to address valid planning for livestock) or drop the Wilson Creek plan until the HMAP for Silver King (as well as Eagle and Choke Cherry) is complete.

Did you follow that? This is really how “land use planning” is done. Land use planning is litigation and agreement driven. Land Use Planning (LUP) is not a landscape level analysis. Livestock files a lot more litigation that wild horse and burro advocates. All mining has to do is push Congress and hold the threat of litigation over BLM (because they have so much money their lawyers just bury you in paper).

Silver King is at the “Scoping” phase. The first phase where BLM is supposed to identify issues. Usually what BLM does during a Scoping period is that they hold meetings. Even telecommunications get scoping meetings. The exact district doing scoping for Silver King wild horse management is holding a scoping meeting for expansion of a substation at Robinson on June 4.(An important note: If BLM approves the expansion of the substation, it will amend the land use plan. The substation does NOT comply with the current Resource Management Plan. But if approved, will amend the land use plan. BLM ignores the fact that if an HMAP found that expanding boundaries to include HA area that was zeroed out, as an example, an HMAP would amend the RMP/LUP.)

Scoping at Silver King, or any other herd, does not come with a meeting to explain anything. You get old the old zero real data, zero disclosure on how anything is actually set (boundaries, livestock fencing, AML) and then a big word salad that tries to turn an HMAP into a gather plan to “comply” with management plans for every private pocket exploiting your public lands and pushing horses/burros into smaller and smaller spaces.

During Scoping you can ask for whatever you want to or present data, research and material BLM might not have seen. As with most of the “scoping” for HMAP that BLM has done, the (lack of) review and actual data involved in current management in the scoping report is tragically absent. The report (of the last 50 years of management) is 14 pages. No disclosure of how AML is set.

You can say anything: Fire fuels? Blue Wing is in an area where grass fueled fire potential rises every year. You can talk about analysis of AML on fire fire fuel reduction. Fertility control? An HMAP would determine “if” it is needed. It would also be the place (if needed) to determine what kind, when it should be done, how would it be applied, monitored and how changes would made. Foaling season? Identifying a site-specific foaling season is necessary to comply with the provision mandating that no helicopter drive-trapping happen during that fragile time. Monitoring site-specific changes in foaling season due to climate factors and past fertility control. should also be in the HMAP.

We would suggest that you include these comments in your own unique words:

• BLM must include impacts from off-road racing and recreation. Limiting the size and time of year of any off-road racing activity must occur in the HMAP. “Foaling season” must be off-limits to off-road racing of any kind.
• There is active legal action against the 2021 “Wilson Creek combined grazing EA” that impacts over 35% of Silver King HMA (formerly called Dry Lake, Highland Ridge and Rattlesnake and those names are reflected in the grazing permits today) and surrounding HA land involved in this HMAP scoping. One of the main issues contained in legal briefing concerning wild horses is that the lack of an HMAP prohibits appropriate analysis of damages and mitigation. The HMAP must take a hard look at reducing livestock both to protect wild horse resources from livestock damage and as a potential mitigation for impacts from off-road racing and recreation and update LUP/RMP accordingly including the Wilson Creek grazing decision.
• No removal or fertility control should be considered until AML has been fully evaluated and methodology disclosed.
• We request a Scoping meeting like the one this district did for the Robinson Substation expansion. The public has a lot of questions and BLM has offered no opportunity for the public to ask them in any site-specific fashion, but expects the public to comment in a site-specific fashion.

You can find the scoping document for Silver King HERE. For some unknown reason BLM has not created a “participate now” button and prefers you email comments to  BLM_NV_EYDO_SilverKingHMA_MgmtEvaluation2025@blm.gov (preferred); or delivered to the BLM Caliente Field Office, Attn: Tyler Reese, PO Box 237, Caliente, NV 89008. The comment period will close June 23, 2025.

We know that this is a long article. Please bookmark and come back as necessary. 

An educated and active advocacy is needed more than ever. 

Our team is working on a case-by-case update of our active litigation. We are juggling a number of cases and expect rulings soon on two of them. We will update as fast as we can.

Our roundup team is also gearing up to bring you in-depth reporting as helicopter season begins in just 6 weeks. 

All of our work is only possible with your support. 

We thank you for being a vital part of the work of WHE at this critical time. Together, we are mounting a strong defense to protect and preserve our treasured wild ones.