WINNEMUCCA — The BLM moved forward Monday with an effort to remove approximately 2,700 wild horses off rangeland in western Humboldt County after a legal effort by wild horse enthusiasts failed to stop the roundup.  The BLM said the removal was necessary to reduce overpopulation on a range with depleting resources.

In Defense of Animals, an animal-welfare organization based in San Francisco, along with Nevadans Terri Farley and Craig C. Downer, attempted to block the gather by filing a request in federal court for a preliminary injunction.  In court on December 16 they argued the BLM lacked the authority under the Wild Horse and Burro Act to remove wild horses from the rangeland and hold them in long-term care facilities.

U.S. District Court (Washington, D.C.) Judge Paul L. Friedman issued a written ruling last week that rejected the first argument but favored the second.  Friedman  ruled the BLM does have the legal duty under the Wild Horse and Burro Act to gather excess horses when the herds become overpopulated.  However, the act does not give the agency authority to hold the horses in long-term care facilities, he ruled.

Approximately 30,000 horses are currently in long-term holding facilities in Kansas, Oklahoma and South Dakota, according to BLM.

Friedman did give some latitude to the BLM on the issue of long-term holding facilities because representatives for the agency argued they did not have the opportunity to fully address the issue, which was only raised in a reply brief they said. The judge concurred.

Long-term holding facilities for wild horses is a murky issue because over the years Congress has apparently changed its mind on the matter.

The Senate Report on the Wild Horse and Burro Act from 1971 notes:  “(T)he management of the wild free-roaming horses and burros (should) be kept to a minimum both from the aspect of reducing costs of such a program as well as to deter the possibility of “zoo-like” developments.  An intensive management program of breeding, branding, and physical care would destroy the very concept that his legislation sets to preserve.  A recurrent theme in testimony by witnesses before the committee advocates, in effect, leaving the animals alone to fend for themselves.”

As Friedman noted, that same legislation instructs the BLM to euthanize excess unadopted wild horses in “the most human and cost-efficient manner possible” (quoting from the WHBA).

However, for the last 20 years Congress has written specific instructions into wild horse appropriations bills in which the representatives instruct the BLM the money may not be used for euthanization. Congress has, though, been willing to pay for long-term holding facilities.

Friedman wrote, “The Court’s consideration of the merits of this claim is further complicated by the unusual, perhaps unique, treatment of the Wild Horse Act by Congress. Thus far, the (BLM) have not claimed that any particular provision of the Wild Horse Act gives (them) the authority to confine excess horses for long periods of time in lieu of euthanizing them.  Instead, they have relied entirely on extra-statutory authority:  congressional appropriations bills.”

In short, Congress may not have taken the steps to amend the law to allow for long-term holding facilities, and they may not have specifically earmarked the money for long-term holding,  but they’ve paid for it nevertheless.  Although Friedman did not favor this argument by the BLM, he also acknowledged the agency did not have the opportunity to fully develop the information before the case came before him.

The BLM previously said the horses gathered from the rangeland over the next few months would be held in Nevada facilities – at least for the time being.  A limited number of the gathered horses will be returned to the rangeland.  The fate of the rest will be decided over the next few months in court and in Congress.  Legislation is under consideration that would allow the BLM to move excess horses to rangeland in the mid-west.

Click on to Page 2 for a photo gallery of the gather. Page 3 is the U.S. District Court's Decision on the gather.