Wyoming's Wild Horses: A Test of Public Land Stewardship

A federal court battle over the fate of wild horses in Wyoming’s high desert could have implications for the management ofpublic landsacross the American West. Wild horse advocates claim the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has ceded control over public lands near Rock Springs to local landowners. The federal agency claims it is only trying to fulfill its legal obligations to keep the horses off private grazing areas.

Underpinning the dispute are lofty notions of the American mustang as a symbol of the country’s pioneer spirit facing off against ranchers who claim wild horses are feral nuisances, an invasive species competing with productivelivestockfor precious resources in the arid west.

The Checkerboard Land Debate

The debate centers on about 2 million acres of “checkerboard” land just east of Rock Springs. Created in 1862 as part of negotiations with the Union Pacific Railroad, odd-numbered blocks of public land were sold while the even-numbered blocks were retained by the federal government.

Today, the Rock Springs Grazing Association owns the private blocks and uses the entire checkerboard area to graze sheep. With wild horses on grazing association land exceeding the numbers set by federal policies, the group sued theBLMin 2011, demanding that the bureau remove all horses from private land. The two parties settled in 2013, and theBLMrecently announced plans to remove all horses from the private andpublic landswithin the checkerboard area. The first roundup occurred in 2014.

Legal and Environmental Implications

But under the Wild Horses and Burros Act of 1971, Congress stipulated distinct procedures for removing horses from private andpublic lands. TheBLMargued — and a U.S. District Court agreed — that the bureau could treat the entire checkerboard area as private land for the purpose of removing horses.

A group of wild horse advocates is now appealing that decision and argued before the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver this week.

Bill Eubanks, an attorney representing the horse groups, said that while he understands the challenge of managing the combination of public and private lands in the checkerboard, theBLMis still obligated to protect wild horses onpublic lands.

If theBLMis allowed to treat public land interspersed with private holdings under the laws governing private land, there could be repercussions for federal land management across the country, Eubanks said. He said there were 20 checkerboard parcels of land across the country with wild horses; many otherpublic landswith wild horses are adjacent to or surrounded by private land.

BLM's Position and Future Plans

Foster, theBLMfield director, disputes the notion that the Wyoming fight will have any broader application. The Rock Springs grazers initially allowed some wild horses on their land before revoking their consent — a situation Foster called “extremely rare.”

Eubanks said that the bureau’s obligation under the Wild Horses Act should never have been affected by an agreement — or lack thereof — with private landowners and that Foster’s contention that the Rock Springs situation is unique “is from an objective standpoint completely false.”

The Rock Springs Grazing Association did not respond to a request for comment. However, attorneys for the association argued in a court brief that theBLMshould be allowed no discretion in removing all horses from the checkerboard area.

The case is wrapped in acronyms, lengthy environmental reviews and legal precedents. The Rock Springs case centers on three “herd management areas” known as Divide Basin, Salt Wells Creek and Adobe Town. About half the area of those three pieces of land is taken up by the checkerboard.

TheBLMis obligated to set a range for the number of horses that each area can support. While the number of wild horses is not supposed to exceed that range, the bureau is also charged with ensuring the population does not fall below the range.

Foster acknowledges that relocating all wild horses within the checkerboard area to off-site holding corrals may bring the horse populations in the three areas below their appropriate range.

Alternative Solutions and Public Opinion

Suzanne Roy, executive director of the American Wild Horse Conservation (formerly American Wild Horse Campaign), said that instead of removing all the horses in the checkerboard area, the agency should move some of them to thepublic landslocated outside the checkerboard area.

But Foster argues that because the population ranges were set based on the assumption that horses would be allowed to roam on the checkerboard land, once the district court ordered theBLMto remove all horses from that area, the remaining public land can no longer support the original population range.

U.S. District Judge Nancy D. Freudenthal agreed, writing in her 2015 decision that moving the horses to the public land outside the checkerboard would only lead to them quickly returning to private land.

Foster said the Rock SpringsBLMunit is revising its resource management plans and is looking at setting the appropriate population ranges for the checkerboard at zero to eliminate future debates of this sort. But a draft of the new plan won’t be ready until summer 2017.

The 10th Circuit of Appeals could release its ruling on the case within the next few weeks or months. In the meantime, the bureau is moving ahead with plans to remove the horses sometime after Oct. 15.

Foster said the roundup is taking place in October because that’s when new annual funding becomes available for federal agencies, not to squeeze it in before the court rules.

But Roy remains skeptical of the agency’s motives and adamant that theBLM’s agreement with the Rock Springs Grazing Association is nothing less than abandonment of its stewardship duties.

Since only 27 percent ofBLMland in the state used for grazing had wild horses on it, there was no need for a showdown between horses andlivestock, she added.

As for why Wyomingites should care about how theBLMtreats wild horses, Roy said that congressional protection for the animals means it’s not a fight she needs to wage in the public arena — and she argues public support for the animals is a given.

Originally posted by Casper Star Tribune