Sand Wash, CO
We are getting a lot of questions.
Some address the (not updated) BLM roundup schedule. Sand Wash (CO), Fifteenmile (WY) and Jackson Mountains (NV) all begin in the next seven days and will close-out the 2026 fiscal year. We will have observers at all of these operations.
Many of you are asking about October, the beginning of the new fiscal year. BLM has not released that schedule, but Congress has approved an interim budget to fund the government through December 11. This funds the government until after the election when debates on the full fiscal year budget will resume (so you can still take action).
BLM has not updated the roundup schedule since May 15. This is extremely unusual and has left many in the dark.
Most of your questions are about lawsuits. So many of you want us to take on more. We are stretching as far as we can. Litigation is not easy nor cheap. A lot of you are concerned about Sand Wash in Colorado and want us to take that on. We have been sending information to people associated with the lead on this action (local government) for months now. Many of you are aware of the letter Governor Polis and Rep. Neguse sent BLM calling for a halt. We have reason to believe there will be additional action and will update you.
We did a long explainer about Carter, Buckhorn and Coppersmith as BLM appeals to the Ninth Circuit to obtain a “review of the Preliminary Injunction” that halted that roundup slater to start September 1. Lawsuits are all about specific language, data, processes. We cannot shorthand an update. Please read HERE.
Many of you are asking about Devil’s Garden. We thank all of you that have not forgotten that fight. The following is the “long story.”
Devil’s Garden: Lawsuit Enters Final Briefing
The legal challenge to the U.S. Forest Service’s Devil’s Garden wild horse roundup is now moving into summary-judgment briefing—the stage where the court will decide the core legality of the agency’s actions. The roundup was allowed to proceed during the preliminary phase, but the court has already indicated that plaintiffs have a very strong likelihood of prevailing on the central claim: that the Forest Service lacked a valid NEPA foundation for the removal operation.
The final decision could invalidate both the older 2013 management framework and the agency’s later 2025 plan, require legally adequate analysis before future removals or fertility-control actions, and determine what relief is appropriate for horses removed under an unlawful decision.
The lawsuit
The case challenges the Forest Service’s management of the Devil’s Garden Plateau Wild Horse Territory in Modoc National Forest.
For years, the agency relied on a 2013 territory-management plan that excluded the approximately 23,000-acre Middle Section from the wild horse territory and used that reduced territory as a basis for management decisions, including the Appropriate Management Level, or AML—the agency’s numerical target for how many horses it claims the range can sustain.
But the Middle Section issue was already litigated. In 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that the Forest Service’s decision to eliminate the Middle Section was arbitrary and capricious. The court ruled that the agency failed to adequately acknowledge and explain its policy reversal and failed to adequately consider whether a full Environmental Impact Statement was required under NEPA.
That ruling matters because the boundaries of a horse territory, the forage and habitat within it, the population estimate, and the AML are inseparable. An agency cannot lawfully remove a portion of a territory, calculate an AML on the resulting reduced acreage, and then use that reduced AML to justify removals—especially after a federal appellate court has already ruled that the territory reduction was unlawful.
But USFS kept using that plan.
In August 2025, with less than 2 weeks notice, the Forest Service announced another large-scale Devil’s Garden roundup. Plaintiffs filed emergency litigation shortly before helicopter operations began, arguing that the agency had not completed a valid NEPA process establishing legal authority for the roundup and permanent removal of horses.
During the litigation the Forest Service issued a new 2025 plan after the roundup was already underway. Plaintiffs amended the case to challenge that later-issued plan as well.
That timing is central to the new dispute. NEPA is intended to require environmental review before an agency commits to an action and before it irreversibly affects the environment or wildlife. A post hoc plan cannot simply erase the legal problem created when an agency moved forward with removals first and sought to supply its analysis afterward.
The new plan also did not resolve the underlying Middle Section problem. Plaintiffs contend that both the older 2013 plan and the new 2025 plan fail to honor the prior court order requiring the agency to meaningfully address the Middle Section as part of a lawful Devil’s Garden territory analysis.
WHE team members and volunteers have a long history at Devils Garden
What the judge has already found
At the preliminary stage, Judge Daniel J. Calabretta did not issue a final ruling on the merits. However, he found that plaintiffs had demonstrated a likelihood of success on their NEPA claim.
The court concluded that plaintiffs had shown the Forest Service appeared to be relying on the 2013 plan even though a key part of that plan—the exclusion of the Middle Section and its supporting environmental review—had been invalidated by the D.C. Circuit. The court further indicated that the Forest Service had not completed the environmental work needed to cure the defects identified in the earlier litigation.
This was a substantial finding. A preliminary likelihood-of-success ruling means the court saw a serious and persuasive legal basis for plaintiffs’ central argument: that the Forest Service did not have a valid NEPA decision authorizing the 2025 roundup.
Yet the court allowed the operation to continue during the emergency phase. The Forest Service represented that the gathered horses would be retained rather than immediately permanently removed, and argued that delaying the operation would create practical problems, including financial constraints and continued reproduction. The court concluded that, at that preliminary moment, the balance of harms did not justify stopping the gather outright.
That was not a ruling that the roundup was lawful. It was a ruling on whether extraordinary emergency relief should issue before the full record and final briefing were complete.
Privately owned domestic cattle grazing in sensitive areas of Devil’s Garden
Why the case still matters
The lawsuit now presents a much broader question than whether a single helicopter gather should have been paused.
The question is whether the Forest Service can continue to manage Devil’s Garden using plans built on a territory configuration already rejected by a federal court; unsupported or shifting population and AML assumptions; and environmental documents that did not lawfully precede the action taken on the range.
The litigation also raises the issue of fertility control. The Forest Service’s own program materials stated that its updated Devil’s Garden planning process would address potential use of PZP, GonaCon, and possibly IUDs. But plaintiffs contend that the agency began administering GonaCon to stallions without first completing NEPA review or providing a public disclosure document and opportunity for public input and calling it separated by a “partnership.” GonaCon is a powerful immunocontraceptive. Its use in a small, isolated wild-horse population—and especially its use on stallions where it causes permanent sterilization—raises serious questions that require transparent, site-specific analysis: effects on reproduction, genetic viability, herd age structure, behavior, social organization, monitoring, reversibility, and cumulative impacts alongside removals.
What a win could mean
If plaintiffs win at summary judgment, the court could find that the Forest Service’s Devil’s Garden decisions were arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to NEPA and other applicable law. The precise remedy would be up to the court, but a successful outcome could include the following:
- Invalidation of the 2013 framework. The court could set aside continued reliance on the 2013 management plan and its reduced-territory analysis, particularly where that analysis depends on excluding the Middle Section.
- Invalidation of the 2025 plan. If the 2025 plan was issued after the roundup began, failed to cure the Middle Section defect, or did not adequately analyze changed on-range conditions, the court could vacate that plan as well.
- No valid operative gather plan. If both plans are invalidated, the Forest Service could be left without a lawful management decision supporting future helicopter gathers, bait trapping, permanent removals, or other population-reduction actions.
- A full, lawful analysis of the Middle Section. The Forest Service could be required to reassess Devil’s Garden as a whole, including the Middle Section, rather than treating the territory as though the prior court order never happened. The agency would need to explain its boundaries, available habitat, forage, population objectives, the number allowed on the range (AML)and management assumptions using lawful and current analysis.
- A new AML determination. The agency could be required to revisit its claimed AML only after evaluating the full territory and real current conditions—including fire impacts, predation, population age structure, available habitat, the horses already removed, and the actual current population.
- A halt to future fertility-control actions lacking NEPA approval. A win could prevent the Forest Service from continuing GonaCon or PZP actions—including GonaCon use on stallions.
- Potential protection for horses already gathered. Depending on the court’s remedy and the status of the horses, plaintiffs can seek protection against further disposition and can argue for return to the territory where appropriate.
- A precedent against ‘plan later’ management. The case could establish that the Forest Service cannot initiate removals, alter the herd, or begin a fertility-control program and then attempt to cure its lack of authority with a plan issued after the fact.
Where we stand now
The case has moved beyond the first emergency fight. The administrative record has been developed, the complaint has been expanded to include the later-issued 2025 plan, and the parties are now preparing the final legal arguments for summary judgment.
The Forest Service may argue that the 2025 plan superseded the older plan, that changing circumstances justified its actions, or that its removal and fertility-control decisions were within agency discretion. Plaintiffs’ position is that changed circumstances make a real, current, lawful NEPA analysis more necessary—not less necessary—and that neither the old plan nor the new plan lawfully addresses the Middle Section or supplies the required foundation for removal and fertility-control actions. If the new circumstances is the tact USFS relies on, then by the nature of doing a roundup (particularly on reaching AML range) Plaintiff’s can show they completely changed the circumstances the 2025 plan claimed to analyze.
The court has already recognized the strength of the plaintiffs’ NEPA theory. The remaining task is to show, through the full administrative record, why the 2013 plan cannot continue to support Devil’s Garden management, why the 2025 plan does not cure the problem, why the Middle Section must be included in a lawful analysis, and why the Forest Service cannot continue removals or GonaCon experimentation without first complying with NEPA and the court’s earlier directives.
The coming briefing will ask the court to decide a fundamental question: whether Devil’s Garden wild horses will be managed through a transparent, lawful, science-based public process—or through after-the-fact paperwork that follows irreversible actions already taken on the range and continues to ignore the previous court order.
We hope this answers questions regarding Devil’s Garden.
Carter, Buckhorn and Coppersmith: BLM appeals to the Ninth Circuit to obtain a “review of the Preliminary Injunction” that halted that roundup slater to start September 1. Please read HERE.
We are working on the update on additional cases including Pancake, Stone Cabin/Saulsbury, Callaghan, etc.
We thank you for standing with us as we push 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.