logo
Feds Planning to Gather Whole Herds of Free-Roaming Horses in Checkerboard Region of Wyoming

Feds Planning to Gather Whole Herds of Free-Roaming Horses in Checkerboard Region of Wyoming

Yahoo03-04-2025
The Bureau of Land Management is seeking public comment for its plan to gather and remove more than 3,000 wild horses from a checkerboarded region of Wyoming that covers around 2 million acres. Those roundups would start in July, and they would be the first step toward permanently removing two herds and a portion of a third herd in the southwestern part of the state near Rock Springs.
The roundups could be delayed, however, as the legal battle over Southwest Wyoming's free-roaming horse herds goes back more than a decade. The BLM now finds itself trying to balance conflicting mandates for wild horse management while simultaneously defending its plan from legal challenges.
The updated plan for the BLM's Rock Springs and Rawlings Field Offices was first announced by the agency in a 2023 Record of Decision. In that announcement, the agency said the amended plan was spurred by a 2013 settlement with a local grazing group, and that it sought to resolve conflicts between public and private land sections within the checkerboarded area.
The key amendments to the plan focused on four Herd Management Areas that fall within the checkerboard and are overseen by the two field offices. HMAs are designated areas where the BLM tries to manage a sustainable number of horses and burros while keeping rangelands healthy for other uses, like recreation and grazing.
Under the new plan, the Salt Wells Creek and Great Divide Basin HMAs would be eliminated and managed for zero horses going forward. The Adobe Town HMA would be allowed to persist, but with a much smaller population goal of around 225 to 450 horses. Because of the current populations of the three HMAs — around 1,125 in Salt Wells Creek, 737 in Great Divide Basin, and 2,438 in Adobe Town — meeting these goals would require the removal of an estimated 3,371 horses over a period of several years.
The new plan also mentions the White Mountain HMA, which would be managed as a 'non-reproducing' herd going forward, with a target population of 205 wild horses.
A coalition of wild-horse advocacy groups filed two lawsuits against the BLM in response to its 2023 ROD. A U.S. District Court Judge ruled in the BLM's favor in August 2024, but the groups appealed that decision. Their appeal is still pending in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, according to WyoFile.
'This is just the latest lawsuit in a 12 or more year legal battle to save these horses. We've litigated four or five times about this issue,' Suzanne Roy, executive director of American Wild Horse, told the Wyoming news outlet Tuesday. Roy said she was optimistic about their appeal, since they 'have prevailed in the 10th Circuit previously on this issue.'
Roy added that if the BLM's plan does move forward, it would be the first time the agency removed wild horses or burros from a landscape without demonstrating ecological reasons for the roundups. (Competition with native wildlife, damages to vegetation, and other negative impacts to local ecosystems are often cited as the primary reasons for removing the non-native grazers.) She claimed it could also set a dangerous precedent across the West by allowing private landowners to dictate the presence of free-roaming horses on a shared landscape.
The BLM did not immediately respond to a request for comment in response to Roy's claims or to confirm other details about its plans.
Wild horse management is inherently controversial in the West. But the 'issue' that Roy alludes to is complicated further by the unique checkerboard landscape in Southwest Wyoming, where public and private parcels interlock in a checkerboard pattern, and by the BLM's conflicting management mandates under the 1971 Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burro Act.
Section 3 of the Act directs the BLM to protect and properly manage wild, free-roaming horses and burros on public lands where they were present at the time the Act became law. While Section 4 requires the BLM to remove wild, free-roaming horses and burros that stray onto private land at the landowner's request.
'This dual mandate is difficult to implement in the checkerboard where every other section of land is private, and wild horses constantly drift between private and public land,' the BLM explained in the ROD.
Read Next: Beasts of Burden: Wild Horses and Burros Are Dying Hard Deaths in the West
In the past, the BLM was able to manage wild horses on the aforementioned HMAs because the Rock Springs Grazing Association allowed the horses to be there. As the largest private landowner in the checkerboard area, the local ranching group consented to the presence of up to 500 horses when the HMAs were first established. But in 2010, the RSGA withdrew that consent, citing the unchecked growth of horse populations as the primary reason, according to the BLM.
The RSGA subsequently sued the agency in 2011 for failing to remove the wild horses quickly enough. This led to a 2013 settlement, or 'consent decree,' requiring the BLM to amend its management plan within the checkerboard, which spurred the creation of the current plan that is now accepting public comment. That comment period closes April 30.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Justice Dept. escalates attacks on U.S. judge handling deportation cases
Justice Dept. escalates attacks on U.S. judge handling deportation cases

Washington Post

time6 hours ago

  • Washington Post

Justice Dept. escalates attacks on U.S. judge handling deportation cases

The Justice Department is escalating its attacks on the federal judge it has repeatedly clashed with during the Trump administration's efforts to deport accused Venezuelan gang members under a rarely invoked wartime law. Attorney General Pam Bondi announced that her office had filed a misconduct complaint against James E. Boasberg, the chief judge of the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C.

Minnesota pauses payments to 50 housing stability providers amid fraud investigation
Minnesota pauses payments to 50 housing stability providers amid fraud investigation

CBS News

time6 hours ago

  • CBS News

Minnesota pauses payments to 50 housing stability providers amid fraud investigation

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz said Monday he paused payments to dozens of the state's housing stabilization providers as federal agents investigate a "massive" fraud scheme connected to the program. Under a new Minnesota law that went into effect earlier this month, state agencies have the authority to withhold funding from organizations for up to 60 days if there is significant evidence to suggest they have committed fraud. A search warrant filed with the U.S. District Court for Minnesota details a fraud investigation tied to the Housing Stabilization Services, a newer Minnesota Medical Assistance benefit, which is set up to help find and maintain homes for people with disabilities and the elderly. What was estimated in 2020 to cost taxpayers $2.5 million a year had topped $100 million. The FBI called the housing program "extremely vulnerable to fraud." Walz told reporters Monday he used the "tools" approved by the Minnesota Legislature to stop payments to "most of the people involved in this program." He later said that 50 of the state's largest housing stability providers "will not be paid." He expects some of them will sue to receive their payments. Others, he said, will have to be patient for their funds to come through. "There is going to be legitimate organizations and legitimate need for people in good programs that are gonna just have to be a little bit slower and a little more barriers in place. Because it's proven right now the folks can find the loopholes," he said. The Minnesota Department of Human Services confirmed they stopped payments to 43 providers on Monday. Payments to seven others had been paused prior to that week as a result of a "billing data analysis" and "investigations conducted by the DHS's Office of Inspector General." "In March, DHS initiated a comprehensive data analytics project, reviewing HSS provider data, including billing records, in new ways. As a result, we have stopped payments and provided information to our law enforcement partners," said temporary DHS Commissioner Shireen Gandhi in a statement to WCCO. "Any HSS providers scheming to steal from our public programs are being stopped from receiving further public payment and with the help of law enforcement partners, they will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law." Starting in August, housing stabilization providers will be subject to additional documentation requirements, the DHS said in a statement. The new Minnesota law to allow agencies to withhold funds was passed in the wake of the $250 million Feeding Our Future scandal, which prosecutors have called the largest pandemic fraud case in the country. Autism support centers are also subject to a separate fraud investigation. The ringleader of the food fraud scheme, Aimee Bock, was convicted of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and conspiracy to commit federal programs bribery for taking millions of dollars meant to feed hungry children. Seventy people are charged in the scheme, of whom 48 have been convicted. "These people are being arrested and they're going to prison," Walz added on Monday. "And right now the people involved in this, you will be going to prison. The U.S. attorney is on it."Caroline Cummings contributed to this report.

Explained: The Misconduct Complaint Against Judge James Boasberg
Explained: The Misconduct Complaint Against Judge James Boasberg

Newsweek

time8 hours ago

  • Newsweek

Explained: The Misconduct Complaint Against Judge James Boasberg

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The U.S. Department of Justice has filed a formal misconduct complaint against Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, a prominent federal judge in Washington, D.C., accusing him of violating judicial ethics by making improper public remarks about President Donald Trump and his administration. Attorney General Pam Bondi announced the move on July 28. Newsweek contacted the DOJ for comment by email outside regular working hours. Why It Matters Boasberg is presiding over Martínez v. Mayorkas, a high-profile case brought by a group of Venezuelan asylum-seekers who allege that their transfer to a Salvadoran detention facility on March 15 violated federal law and international human rights norms. The DOJ filed its complaint days after Boasberg said he was considering disciplinary proceedings against government lawyers for their conduct in that case, Reuters reported. The move raises questions about potential retaliation and the separation of powers between the judiciary and executive branch. Judge James Boasberg, the chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, at an American Board Association panel discussion at the Marriott Marquis in Washington, D.C., on April 2. Judge James Boasberg, the chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, at an American Board Association panel discussion at the Marriott Marquis in Washington, D.C., on April 2. AFP via Getty Images/Drew Angerer What To Know What Is a Judicial Misconduct Complaint? A judicial misconduct complaint is a formal allegation filed against a sitting federal judge claiming behavior that violates the Code of Conduct for United States Judges. These complaints are reviewed by the appropriate judicial council—in this case, likely the D.C. Circuit—and may lead to disciplinary actions, including reprimand, censure or even referral for impeachment in severe cases. However, most complaints are dismissed or resolved confidentially unless clear evidence of serious misconduct emerges. What Boasberg Said That Sparked the Complaint The DOJ complaint cites comments Boasberg made at the Judicial Conference in March, where he expressed concern that the Trump administration would "disregard rulings of federal courts" and trigger "a constitutional crisis." According to the complaint, Boasberg's words and conduct "erode public confidence in judicial neutrality, and warrant a formal investigation under Rule 11," which stipulates how a chief judge of a U.S. Court of Appeals should respond when a judicial misconduct or disability complaint is filed. The department said the judge's remarks undermined the appearance of judicial neutrality and breached ethical standards requiring judges to avoid political commentary. What the Complaint Against Boasberg Says According to the court document obtained by Newsweek, the DOJ has accused Boasberg of violating Canon 1, Canon 2(A) and Canon 3(A)(6) of the judicial code, which prohibit judges from making "public comment on the merits of a matter pending or impending in any court" and require them to maintain impartiality and "uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary." The complaint further said Boasberg's conduct had called into question the integrity of pending proceedings and eroded public confidence in the judiciary's ability to fairly adjudicate matters involving the executive branch. What People are Saying Attorney General Pam Bondi wrote on X on Monday: "Today at my direction, the Justice Department filed a misconduct complaint against U.S. District Court Chief Judge James Boasberg for making improper public comments about President Trump and his Administration. These comments have undermined the integrity of the judiciary, and we will not stand for that." What Happens Next The complaint signals a sharp escalation in the broader institutional conflict between Trump's Justice Department and federal courts handling cases related to his administration's policies.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store