Lawsuit Breakdown: Nevada Wild Horse Population Plan

American Wild Horse Conservation (formerly American Wild Horse Campaign)is at the forefront of a legal battle against the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) controversial plan to manage wild horse populations in Nevada. The plan involves drastic measures such as gelding andfertility control, which have sparked significant debate and legal challenges. This article delves into the details of the lawsuit, the arguments presented, and the ongoing litigation efforts.

Background of the BLM's Plan

At the end of 2017, theBLMreleased a final plan to reduce the breeding population of wild horses in both the Antelope and Triple B Complexes in Nevada to near extinction levels – 227 in Antelope and 272 in Triple B. This plan included gelding 50% of the returned stallions, skewing the sex ratio of these wild horse populations to 60% male/40% female, and treating all the returned mares withfertility control, either PZP or GonaCon, a vaccine that the National Academy of Sciences said required further research before implementation on wild horse herds.

Lower Court Proceedings

On February 6, 2018, AWHC and photographer Kimerlee Curylfiled suitin U.S. District Court in Nevada. The lawsuit challenged a ten-year plan by theBLMto round up and remove nearly 10,000 federally-protected wild horses from the Antelope and Triple B Herd Management Area (HMA) complexes in southeastern Nevada. The complaint argued against the proposal to manage the wild horses that remained on the range by castrating the stallions (gelding) and using an unproven birth control vaccine (GonaCon) on the mares.

The complaint emphasized the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) due to the scope and scientific controversy surrounding these management decisions. TheBLM's plan could have drastically impaired the wild horses’ natural behaviors and destroyed the social organization of the remaining herds. The decision to proceed with gelding without referencing an ongoing study or acknowledging the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report’s findings was particularly contentious.

On June 29, 2018, AWHC filed a motion for summary judgment, asking the Court to vacate theBLM’s final decision and associated Environmental Assessment. However, the court ruled in favor of theBLM’s motion for summary judgment.

Current Litigation Efforts

Disagreeing with the lower court's ruling, AWHC filed anappealon April 29, 2019, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The appeal focuses on the proposed gelding of wild horses within the Complexes, aiming to set a positive precedent for future cases. The government filed its answer to the appeal, and AWHC submitted a reply in early October. Updates will be provided as the case develops.