Wild Horse Advocates Urge Tenth Circuit to Protect Herds in Wyoming

A panel of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments on Tuesday from wild horse advocacy groups seeking to challenge a government decision that removes federal protections for over 1,000 wild horses in southwest Wyoming, Courthouse News Service reports.

The case centers on a 2023 ruling by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), which eliminates protections for wild horses in a checkerboard land area—a mix of public and private lands—where horses frequently stray onto private property.

At the heart of the dispute is whether BLM’s decision aligns with the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act, which requires the agency to manage wild horses while maintaining a “thriving natural ecological balance.”

Friends of Animals attorney Jennifer Best argued that BLM overstepped its authority by deciding to remove wild horses without making the required findings about overpopulation or ecological balance.

“This is a straightforward case about agency overreach,” Best stated.

BLM contends that it has the authority to remove wild horses to prevent conflicts with private landowners, as the Wild Horse Act allows for the removal of animals that stray onto private lands.

US Circuit Judge Harris Hartz acknowledged the difficulty of managing wild horses in such areas, stating,

“To police that, to respond to the demand that there not be any on [private] property, it’s going to take a lot of management.”

Bruce Wagman, attorney for Return to Freedom, argued that BLM’s decision goes against the intent of the Wild Horse Act, which focuses on public land management rather than private land concerns.

“You can’t manage no horses,” Wagman said. “It’s minimal feasible management on public lands, not private lands.”

In addition, wild horse advocates claim that BLM failed to conduct a proper environmental review, instead predetermining the outcome to favor ranching interests. Attorney William Eubanks, representing the American Wild Horse Campaign, stated that BLM’s actions undermined Congressional protections for wild horses.

“BLM is not allowed to come in and say there are other reasons to tinker with those threshold congressional protections,” Eubanks argued.

The BLM and the US Department of Justice maintain that the decision was necessary due to logistical and resource challenges.

Government attorney Ezekiel Peterson argued that managing wild horses in the checkerboard region would require constant intervention, moving animals back onto public land.

“BLM doesn’t have the resources… to have agents going out there and literally playing checkers with these horses, moving them from square to square,” Peterson said.

Attorneys for Wyoming and the Rock Springs Grazing Association, which intervened in support of BLM, also defended the agency’s authority. Greg Weisz, representing Wyoming, noted that building barriers or fences to keep wild horses off private land would negatively impact wildlife migration, including big game and sage grouse habitats.

The Tenth Circuit panel, which includes US Circuit Judges Timothy Tymkovich, Allison Eid, and Harris Hartz, has not indicated when it will rule on the case.