Our team has been really busy this spring. Most of you know about the cases we have in Federal Civil Court from Carter, Buckhorn and Coppersmith to Pancake, Devil’s Garden, and Stone Cabin (that is now in the Ninth Circuit) and more. We are in active briefing on those cases and will have an update later shortly on Carter. 

What many of you do not know is that before we jump a case to Federal Civil Court we file briefing in what is called the administrative appeal. These are lawsuits; the same type of briefing (with a distinct scope) has to be done. WHE carry 14 of these appeals right now. This article will focus on two of those appeals where we filed documents this week.

What is an administrative appeal?

An administrative appeal is the first level of legal review inside an agency, where groups like Wild Horse Education ask a neutral board to decide whether BLM followed the law before any lawsuit goes to federal court. When BLM approves a roundup or long‑term plan that harms wild horses or burros, people cannot just run straight to a federal judge. First, they must file an “administrative appeal” within the Department of the Interior, usually to the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA), which functions like an appeals court inside the agency. In an administrative appeal, advocates bring the science, history, and legal requirements to the Board and ask it to throw out BLM’s decision or send it back to be done honestly and lawfully.

An administrative appeal can also open the door to practical relief, whether through a mediated solution with the agency or a favorable ruling from the Board. It is a forum where we can put everything we know—field data, science, history, and law—on the table in a process that is far less expensive than going straight to federal court, which is why our team writes most of these briefings ourselves. At the same time, IBLA often moves at a glacial pace and, in many cases, functions as a stepping stone to federal court, because the law requires advocates to “exhaust” these administrative remedies before a judge can review a case. With limited resources, we cannot take every meritorious appeal all the way into federal civil litigation; instead, we have to make strategic choices about which cases to elevate in order to advance key precedents and open new legal avenues for wild horses and burros. Someday, we hope to bring more of these hard‑fought administrative records before higher courts, so the sacrifices made in each case can lead to stronger protections across the West.

At the bottom of this page we added a glossary of acronyms to help you understand the lingo and a flow chart of BLM decisions and the steps we can take afterwards, 

Why these appeals matter now

Right now, Wild Horse Education (WHE) and partners have key appeals pending that will shape how BLM treats both wild horses and wild burros in the West. Two important examples are Desatoya in Nevada and the Tassi–Gold Butte burros on the Arizona–Nevada border. In both places, BLM tried to push through aggressive removal plans while downplaying legal requirements and ignoring newer science about wildfire, grazing, and desert wildlife. Our appeals ask IBLA to reject “trust us, we’ll do better next time” excuses and instead hold BLM to the laws that are supposed to protect these herds and their habitat.

Update: Desatoya wild horse gather EA appeal

In 2021, BLM’s Stillwater Field Office approved a 10‑year plan to repeatedly round up and remove wild horses from the Desatoya Herd Management Area (HMA) in Nevada. Wild Horse Education and WildLands Defense appealed that decision, arguing BLM could not move forward without a lawful Herd Management Area Plan (HMAP) and a real analysis of wildfire, livestock grazing, and cumulative impacts. BLM went ahead and conducted gathers in 2022 and 2023, then has now told the IBLA that Desatoya is now within its “Appropriate Management Level” and that it has “no intent” to keep using the 2021 plan. On that basis, the agency asked IBLA to “vacate” (erase) the decision and declare the appeal moot, which would let BLM walk away without any formal finding that it broke the law.

WHE and WildLands Defense filed a detailed response opposing that request. We explain that BLM’s own numbers do not support its AML claims, that early termination of the 2023 gather makes another roundup likely, and that a federal court ruling in Leigh v. Raby has already confirmed the same types of legal violations we challenged at Desatoya.

Our filing asks IBLA either to keep the case and decide the legal issues on the merits, or—if it vacates the 2021 decision—to issue a declaratory ruling forcing BLM to adopt clear legal standards before any future Desatoya roundup. Those standards include completing a lawful HMAP first, providing a real NEPA analysis of wildfire fuels and risk, and fully addressing cumulative impacts from livestock grazing and other projects.

The Desatoya case is now fully briefed, and we are waiting for IBLA’s written decision. Until IBLA rules, the 2021 gather plan remains under challenge and BLM’s attempt to erase the case without accountability is just a request—not a done deal. For the public and our supporters, a win at IBLA would mean more than a line on a scorecard. It would signal that agencies cannot evade accountability by claiming to finish operations quickly, providing no documentation that their original population estimates were inflated, and then declaring the case moot, and it would push Desatoya toward a real, transparent management plan that take reals management seriously.

Tassi-Gold could easily meet the criteria for wild burro Range and not a zero out.

Update: Tassi–Gold Butte burro appeal

On the Arizona side of the Tassi–Gold Butte landscape, BLM approved a plan to “zero out” the wild burro herd, wiping burros off that area entirely despite an older management plan that set a target of 90–100 burros.

Wild Horse Education, founder Laura Leigh, WHE volunteers Laurie Ford and Tammi Adams filed a formal legal brief challenging this plan before IBLA. Our brief explains that BLM is trying to erase an historic herd without honestly accounting for its genetic, ecological, and cultural importance, or giving the public a genuine chance to weigh in. We argue that BLM leaned on outdated assumptions, ignored newer burro and desert tortoise data, and treated a long‑standing Herd Management Area as if it could be unilaterally turned into a “burro‑free zone.”

Tassi–Gold Butte is a rugged “biological island” in Gold Butte National Monument, where burros have survived generations of extreme heat and drought and likely developed special adaptations to harsh Mojave conditions. Our filing describes how older lead animals carry “terrestrial memory”—knowledge of hidden springs, safe routes, and survival strategies—that is lost when those leaders are removed.

We also highlight research showing that burros can help desert ecosystems by digging and maintaining water sources that benefit many native species, while BLM’s analysis relies on older, less relevant documents and a study from a different, hotter region to claim burros are a major threat to tortoises. In the Northeastern Mojave Recovery Unit, which includes Tassi–Gold Butte, newer data show tortoise numbers and densities have actually increased over time with burros present, and burros are ranked among the lowest threats compared to other pressures.

With our latest response filed, IBLA now has the full record and written arguments from both sides. The Board can agree with BLM, or side with the burros and void the gather plan, or send the decision back to BLM with orders to fix legal and scientific gaps by updating the environmental analysis and revisiting the herd’s management plan.

If IBLA upholds BLM’s decision, the next step could be federal court review. In the meantime, public awareness and support are essential to show that these burros are part of the living history and fragile desert life our public lands are meant to protect.

For new advocates, following these appeals is one of the first steps to learn how policy, science, and on‑the‑ground herds intersect in legal actions advocacy can take.

Just because something is written into a plan by federal land management agencies it does not automatically make it legally sound.

You can help by reminding decision‑makers that these horses and burros—and the  language of laws that protect them—matter. One of those places is in the sending bills passed each year (learn more and take action).

As IBLA issues decisions in Desatoya and Tassi–Gold Butte, we will translate those rulings into plain language and explain what they mean for future gathers, management plans, ongoing challenges and the broader fight for honest, science‑based wild horse and burro management.

Our legal team is really busy. We are pounding out briefings, preparing for hearings and creating comments for new plans to set up the next round in the fight to protect freedom, obtain mercy, achieve justice, for our precious wild horses and burros. 

Right now your contribution will be matched in honor of National Volunteer Week and Earth Day!

Through May 1, your gift will be matched dollar-for-dollar up to $10,000. 

We need your support to keep our teams engaging lawmakers, our team fighting in the court, our team ready to run the roundup schedule. 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. 

Acronyms

Administrative Appeal Glossary

BLM – Bureau of Land Management
The Interior Department agency that manages most federal public lands in the West and makes decisions about wild horses and burros, grazing, mining, and energy projects.

NEPA – National Environmental Policy Act
The federal law that requires agencies like BLM to study and disclose environmental impacts, consider alternatives, and involve the public before acting.

EA – Environmental Assessment
A shorter NEPA document BLM uses to decide whether a proposed action (like a roundup) will have “significant” impacts. If BLM thinks impacts are not significant, it can stop at an EA instead of doing a full EIS.

EIS – Environmental Impact Statement
A detailed NEPA document used for actions expected to significantly affect the human environment. An EIS analyzes alternatives in depth and supports major decisions like land use plans (RMPs).

FONSI – Finding of No Significant Impact
A written finding BLM issues after an EA when it decides that an EIS is not needed because impacts will not be “significant.”

RMP – Resource Management Plan
BLM’s big land use plan for a field office or planning area. It sets long‑term goals, allocations, and allowed uses (including wild horse and burro areas) and is usually supported by an RMP/EIS.

DR – Decision Record
The document BLM issues at the end of an EA process explaining what it decided to do, why, and what alternatives it considered. A DR often comes with a FONSI instead of an EIS.

ROD – Record of Decision
The document BLM issues at the end of an EIS process, especially for RMPs and major projects. It formally selects an alternative and explains the decision and mitigation measures.

Protest (RMP Protest)
A written challenge to a proposed RMP/ROD, filed within a short deadline, arguing that BLM did not follow its own planning rules or the law. It is decided within BLM, not by IBLA, and applies mainly to land use plans.

Administrative Appeal
A formal challenge to a final BLM decision (such as a gather, HMAP, or site‑specific project) brought to the Interior Board of Land Appeals or, in some cases, to another reviewing official. It is usually required before going to federal court.

IBLA – Interior Board of Land Appeals
An independent review board inside the Department of the Interior that acts like an in‑house appeals court for many BLM decisions. IBLA is often the last administrative step before federal court.

OHA – Office of Hearings and Appeals
The umbrella office in the Interior Department that houses IBLA and other appeals bodies and administrative law judges.

ALJ – Administrative Law Judge
A specialized judge within the administrative system who sometimes handles hearings when factual disputes need to be resolved before a final Interior decision.

Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
The legal requirement that you must finish the available protest/appeal steps inside the agency (like an IBLA appeal) before a federal court can review BLM’s decision.

Federal Civil Court (Judicial Review)
A federal district court that reviews the final agency decision under laws like NEPA and the Administrative Procedure Act to decide whether BLM acted lawfully. This usually comes only after protests and administrative appeals are completed.