Foal that escaped trap being roped by BLM on the third day of emergency roundup in June, Jackson Mountain (roundup was stopped in court)
For decades, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has avoided doing the real, site‑specific management planning that wild horses and burros are legally owed. That planning is supposed to come in the form of Herd Management Area Plans, or HMAPs. Instead, BLM spent years relying on piecemeal gathers, vague land use language, and deals with local livestock interests—while claiming it didn’t actually have to complete HMAPs at all.
A recent string of legal wins and new filings are changing that. In 2024, we secured a precedent through two lawsuits that confirmed HMAPs were unlawfully withheld and that BLM does, in fact, have to prepare them.
Now, as BLM scrambles to adjust, the agency is trying new tactics to keep removals and sterilization on track while still avoiding the core transparency and accountability that real management planning would require.
Jackson Mountains is the latest—and one of the most revealing—examples. This article explains how we got here, what BLM is doing at Jackson Mountains, why it’s legally vulnerable, and how your public comments right now can help push the agency toward genuine management plans instead of “HMAP‑in‑name‑only” (and push back as BLM tries to rebrand and soft-pedal surgical sterilization).
We litigated Jackson under the last plan in 2012 when BLM tried to do a helicopter trapping in June, outside the timeframe of the prohibition. They claimed they could do the whole HMA because of emergency. We shut it down as BLM had to admit the emergency was contained to only the southeast side and that there was no exchange with horses in the north.
In 2012 BLM expressly deferred long-term management questions to a future HMAP. The agency cannot defer in 2012 to a future HMAP and then declare the same questions outside the scope of the HMAP in 2026.
Scroll down to read text to find out how you can get involved and comment on Jackson Mountain.
How BLM Walked Away from Real HMAPs
After the Wild Free‑Roaming Horses and Burros Act was codified and updated, BLM initially told Congress it was working on management plans for herd areas. Many early plans did little more than set interim AMLs based on local “agreements” and admit that the agency lacked real data on horse movement, forage, water distribution, and boundaries. They often promised to come back later with improvements and updated analysis.
By the late 1980s, BLM had completed fewer than one‑fifth of the HMAPs that should have been in place. Instead of finishing those plans, the agency shifted to aggressive removals and emergency gathers, leaning on a court decision that allowed short‑term gathers while HMAPs were still being developed. The court made clear that this was not a blank check and that BLM still had to comply with environmental law.
BLM never finished the job. The “temporary” gap became permanent practice. For decades, the agency denied that it had an ongoing obligation to complete HMAPs, even as it continued to remove horses, set AMLs, approve new livestock and mining uses, and alter habitat—without the herd‑specific planning that would force transparent, science‑based management.
The Breakthrough: Proving HMAPs Were Illegally Withheld
In 2024, we won a lawsuit (and then another) that finally broke through that wall of denial. The court agreed that HMAPs had been unlawfully withheld and that BLM could not simply operate indefinitely without them. The ruling recognized that the Act is about more than removal; it is about on‑the‑ground management of herds and habitat.
The court’s order required BLM to prepare an HMAP and acknowledged that decades of delay were not acceptable. It confirmed what advocates have argued for years: you cannot permanently manage wild horses and burros through ad‑hoc gathers and generic land use language. You need actual management plans that disclose the data, the trade‑offs, and the constraints—and that can be challenged when they violate the law.
This decision cracked open the door that BLM had kept shut for decades.
BLM’s Response: “HMAP” Templates and Work‑Arounds
Once the court made clear that BLM could not ignore HMAPs forever, the agency tried to adjust in ways that preserved its existing practices as much as possible.
The first move was to simply start re‑labeling gather EAs and long‑term removal documents as “HMAPs.”
The next was to create templates for an Appendix they attach to a roundup plan that are so vague you could remove simple location identification from these documents and they are interchangeable.
Rather than bringing horses/burros and habitat under genuine, data‑based management, BLM was trying to retrofit the word “HMAP” onto paperwork designed primarily to justify removals (continuing the “gather and stockpile plan” status quo).
We are in court on those first “HMAP‑in‑name‑only” documents right now.
Those cases are still active, and they matter. They may be forcing BLM to keep shifting tactics (as we could very well win each case) and exposing the gaps each time it tries to dodge its responsibilities. They do not want to do these plans. Doing these plans the way they should be done with do two things: 1) create the contention they have tried to avoid for decades if they try to create fair plans, 2) Demonstrate that the last 50 years have never been based on any data or science and the money spent on this program has been based on nothing substantive, ever.
The Next Tactic: A Separate “HMAP” at Jackson Mountains
At Jackson Mountains in Nevada, BLM has rolled out a new variation. On the surface, it looks like improvement: the HMAP is separated into its own document instead of being buried as a generic Appendix inside a gather EA.
But once you open the Jackson draft, the problems jump off the page:
- AML is treated as a given. There is no transparent, scientifically defensible explanation of how AML was set, what data were used, or how forage and water were allocated between uses.
- Water and range improvements for horses are vague or missing. The plan fails to lay out a clear program of range and water improvements specifically for horses, even while livestock and other uses are entrenched.
- Sub‑unit structure is misrepresented or ignored. The distinct and isolated subunits in Jackson are not properly described or analyzed, which has huge implications for genetics and long‑term viability.
- Boundaries remain “flexible” while removals are rigid. Instead of refining boundaries based on actual use, BLM clings to legacy lines and uses them to justify removals, not protection.
- Core HMAP functions are pushed “outside the scope.” The document claims that many of the very issues HMAPs are supposed to address—AML basis, forage allocation, boundary adjustments, mitigation—are beyond what the HMAP will cover.
On top of that, Jackson’s draft HMAP and associated NEPA documents open the door to extremely invasive tools, including surgical sterilization (spaying) of mares.
The plan contemplates permanently altering through surgical sterilization (including spaying) roughly a third of a population that is already divided between distinct subunits and is riskily low from a genetic standpoint even before any “fertility control.” In the text BLM is trying to rebrand sterilization of mares already included in the AML as somehow representing their “generosity and concern” allowing horses that would otherwise be removed to stay on the range instead of going through the “Sale Program” that BLM knows the public holds deep contempt for as BLM uses that program as a sort of work around to funnel horses out of the system landing the majority into the slaughter pipeline. BLM is not allowing “more” horses to stay on the range, they plan to sterilize horses that would be left on the range already under the legal parameters of “AML.”
This “HMAP” reads more like a gather plan lead‑in than a true management plan. It is structured to authorize removals and sterilization now, and push genuine, enforceable management decisions into some indefinite future.
Are We Going to Have to Litigate Jackson?
Unless BLM makes major changes in response to public comments, the answer is almost certainly yes.
The legal problems at Jackson track the issues we have raised in other HMAP cases even though the package looks different. In addition, BLM is pushing sterilization (spaying) again and trying to tie it up with a pretty public relations “pink bow” as it further shortchanges herds where no actual data-based AML determination was ever made.
Are We Still Moving the Needle? Yes.
It can feel like we are stuck in an endless loop: win a case, BLM shifts tactics, we sue again. But each round is moving us closer to the core goal: real management plans that put wild horses and burros and their habitat on equal footing with other uses.
Here’s what has already changed because of these efforts:
- BLM can no longer credibly claim that it does not need to do HMAPs at all. Courts have rejected that position.
- Every time BLM tries to avoid real analysis with templates or vague language, it strengthens the record that these are not genuine management plans—and that pattern will be visible to federal judges. It shows the court that BLM is really trying to circumvent the intention of judicial rulings.
How You Can Take Action on Jackson Mountains
Right now, your comments on the Jackson draft HMAP are critical. They don’t just influence this one plan; they help build the record and reinforce the message that “HMAP” must mean more than a heading on a gather plan.
When the link is posted below, you will be able to submit your comments directly to BLM on the Jackson Mountains HMAP. In your comment, you can:
Remind BLM: In 2012, BLM expressly deferred long-term management questions to a future HMAP. The agency cannot defer in 2012 to a future HMAP and then declare the same questions outside the scope of the HMAP in 2026.
- Demand transparent disclosure of how AML was set, including the data, modeling, and allocation choices for forage and water between horses, livestock, and wildlife.
- Insist that core HMAP functions—boundaries, range and water improvements for horses, monitoring, genetics, and foaling protections—be included in the HMAP itself, not deferred to undefined future decisions.
- Object to permanent sterilization (spaying) and large‑scale removals in an already low population without a scientifically defensible AML and and habitat‑based alternatives.
- Call for recognition of the distinct sub‑units in Jackson and a concrete plan to maintain long‑term genetic viability, not manage the herd down to numbers that cannot sustain themselves.
Jackson Mountains Wild Horse Herd Management Area Plan Preliminary Environmental Assessment is available for a 30-day public comment period, ending June 15, 2026.
Crafting your own comment and submitting it through the “Participate Now” button on the BLM website or emailing to BLM_NV_WDO_WHB@blm.gov Attn: Jackson Mountains HMAP PEA are the most impactful ways of commenting. Or you can send via mail to: Jackson Mountains HMAP PEA, Black Rock Field Office, 5100 East Winnemucca Blvd., Winnemucca, NV 89445
If you cannot craft your own comments you can click here to sign onto a public letter we will send to BLM. You can also copy and paste the text of that letter into your own email as a start to crafting your own comments.
WHE has sent a very extensive comment letter.
We thank you for being an active advocate.
We need your support to keep our teams engaging lawmakers, our team fighting in the court, our team ready to run the roundup schedule. 
