Animal Welfare Groups Challenge Court Decision Allowing Largest-Ever Eradication Of Wild Horses

A coalition of wild horse advocates, conservationists, and academics recently filed a notice of appeal following plans that aim to remove nearly 5,000 wild horses and eliminate 2.1 million acres of wild horse habitat in the Wyoming Checkerboard region, which includes the ecologically significant Red Desert—home to some of the state’s last remaining wild horses.

The notice was filed with the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, challenging a lower court decision that approved the horrific plan by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The court order, issued last Wednesday by the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming, gives the BLM broad discretion to eliminate Herd Management Areas and start rounding up wild horses as early as October 1st — directly contradicting the plain language of the federal Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act.

The plaintiffs include American Wild Horse Conservation, Animal Welfare Institute, Western Watersheds Project, author Chad Hanson, and wildlife photographers Carol Walker and Kimerlee Curyl.

“If allowed to stand, this flawed decision would give the BLM a new way to eradicate federally protected wild horses and burros from our public lands,” said Suzanne Roy, executive director of American Wild Horse Conservation. “We expected this case to be decided by a higher court, and we are returning to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, where we have already twice prevailed in defending the Red Desert’s wild horses from this special-interest-driven eradication plan.”

The plaintiffs’ lawsuit, filed last year, is the culmination of a decade-long battle against demands by the Rock Springs Grazing Association (RSGA) to remove wild horses from more than 2 million acres of land in the larger Wyoming Checkerboard, which is the southwestern part of the state. RSGA members graze private livestock on public lands within the Checkerboard and view wild horses as competition for cheap forage available through tax-subsidized grazing fees.

“Congress unanimously passed the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act in 1971, precisely because these animals are an ‘integral part’ of America’s landscape,” said Joanna Grossman, Ph.D., equine program director for the Animal Welfare Institute. “The district court’s decision robs federally protected horses of their rightful place on public lands designated for their habitat — lands that the BLM has acknowledged can sustain these beloved herds.”

The lawsuit filed by Eubanks and Associates challenges a BLM Record of Decision that approves a controversial land use plan amendment. The amendment proposes reclassifying the Salt Wells Creek and Great Divide Basin Herd Management Areas (HMAs) to Herd Areas, with an authorized population of zero wild horses. This change would result in the removal of all wild horses from these areas, which are currently popular destinations to see horses in the wild.

Additionally, the plan calls for a significant reduction in the size of the Adobe Town HMA, cutting it by approximately half. The proposed amendment also aims to reduce the wild horse population in this area to below 1,338, a number that was previously deemed necessary for maintaining a ‘thriving natural ecological balance’ with other land uses.

Protecting wild horses is essential for preserving ecological balance, as they help to maintain healthy grasslands and support biodiversity. Their presence in the wild enriches ecosystems, supporting a diverse range of plant and animal species.

Culturally, wild horses symbolize freedom and the American frontier, embodying a significant part of our heritage. They also hold spiritual value for Indigenous communities, making their protection a matter of cultural respect.

Ethically, wild horses deserve to live free without human interference. Their protection reflects our responsibility to ensure the welfare of animals and preserve our natural world.