This is published for those of you that have contacted us over the few days after BLM published the roundup schedule. We want you to know we are already in federal court working to stop this roundup. 

Joint Statement, Carter/Buckhorn/Coppersmith: Lawsuit Update 

Wild Horse Education and Carter Reservoir Mustangs Inc. have filed our formal opposition to the Bureau of Land Management’s Motion to Dismiss in our federal civil case challenging BLM’s treatment of wild horses in the Carter Reservoir, Buckhorn, and Coppersmith Herd Management Areas (HMAs).

This filing is a critical step to ensure that the court hears the case on its merits rather than allowing BLM to avoid judicial review on technical grounds.

This opposition comes at a moment of profound anxiety for the public and local communities, as these herds have now been placed on BLM’s roundup schedule with a target date of September 1.

The prospect of large-scale removals on that schedule has generated fear that the very future existence of these herds on their home ranges is at risk. People who visit, photograph, and advocate for these horses are watching the calendar and wondering if they will soon be gone.

In our opposition brief, we explain that our organizations and our members have concrete, ongoing interests in seeing, studying, and protecting the wild horses and the ecological health of the Carter Reservoir, Buckhorn, and Coppersmith HMAs. We detail aesthetic, recreational, conservation, and economic interests that are directly harmed by BLM’s gather plans and land use decisions, and we show how setting aside those decisions (the roundup plan) would help redress those harms. We also explain that the case is not moot and was filed on time, because BLM’s decisions and plans continue to shape how many horses remain on the range, what the Appropriate Management Level (AML) will be, and how habitat is managed going forward.

Our brief challenges BLM’s attempt to end the case now by relying on extrinsic documents and disputed facts at the motion‑to‑dismiss stage. At this early point in the case, the court must accept the complaint’s well‑pled allegations as true and should not resolve factual disputes or treat this “Motion to Dismiss phase” as a premature merits decision. We emphasize that this case arises under the Wild Free‑Roaming Horses and Burros Act, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act, all of which require lawful, science‑based, and transparent management of public lands and wild horses.

While the current schedule targets these herds for removal beginning September 1, BLM’s gather calendar is not fixed in stone, and schedules are frequently revised, delayed, or altered as conditions and legal obligations evolve. All of us have seen schedules change numerous times; just because a target is listed today does not mean it will remain as it is and not be modified, delayed or cancelled altogether.

There is still time for litigation to influence what actually happens on the ground before that date.

Our goal in this litigation is to ensure that any decisions affecting these herds are consistent with federal law, informed by sound science, and fully consider the long‑term viability of the wild horses and the public’s interest in them.

Filing this opposition is therefore about more than one procedural skirmish; it is about keeping the courthouse doors open so a judge can examine BLM’s decisions before irreversible damage is done. If BLM’s Motion to Dismiss were granted, the court would never reach our evidence about how low AMLs, cumulative gathers, extreme use of fertility control and land use plan decisions threaten the long‑term genetic viability, visibility, and cultural value of these wild horse herds. This is a very unlikely outcome that the case would be fully dismissed. 

By pressing forward, we are defending these specific herds and the broader principle that wild horse management on public lands must be accountable to the law and to the people. We expect the court to determine the scope of our challenge, not dismiss it entirely.

Next, BLM will have an opportunity to submit a reply to our opposition. After the briefing is complete, the judge may schedule a hearing or decide the motion based on the written submissions. If the motion is denied in whole or in part, the case will move into the next phase, including production of the administrative record and, ultimately, full merits briefing on whether BLM’s decisions violated the law.

During this period, we will continue to inform the public about developments in the case and to use every lawful tool available to protect the Carter Reservoir, Buckhorn, and Coppersmith herds while there is still time to affect the outcome.

We are meeting with our attorneys to explore all options for the next phase. 

We will keep you informed and thank you for standing with us to protect these very special wild horses. 

In case you missed it:

WHE has filed in the Ninth Circuit to protect Stone Cabin and hold BLM accountable

Review of the BLM 2026 Population Statstics Report: a counterpoint when BLM and industry lobbyists present “overpopulation” and “unsustainable costs” as the only story.

We thank you for being an active advocate and standing up for Freedom, Mercy and Justice. 

Every mile we travel to cover roundups or assess a herd, every court case we bring, every win, every action we take is only possible because of your support.