05/03/2026
TRO DENIED ON PROCEDURE.
The court declined to combine our Heber wild horse claims with our ongoing Alpine lawsuit, rather than allowing us to supplement our complaint and ruling on the legality and substance of the claims themselves.
What happened?
The Apache-Sitgreaves Forest Service tried to quickly get rid of hundreds of Heber wild horses, just like they did with the Alpine herd, by declaring they are not wild at all, but “stray livestock.” BUT the sudden stripping of those protections has no legal basis whatsoever.
The word "stray livestock' is correctly used when someone abandones or loses a private horse on Forest Service lands, and that does happen sometimes. If the owner doesn't come retrieve his/her horse, then it can be sold through auction.
However, after decades of recognizing them as protected wild horses and having a year long of Heber wild horse collaborative meetings to try to come up with solutions and following NEPA regulations, -- suddenly changing their minds is NOT their perogative! (Through a completely different Decision record than just 30 days prior)
Basically, they try to act as if someone had actually dumped hundreds of private horses into the Forest in recent years — quite a technical impossibility, but a huge loophole in the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act. (WHBA)
📜 In 1971, this Act declared them:
“Living symbols of the historic and pioneer spirit of the West.”
The regulations define wild free‑roaming horses as “all unbranded and unclaimed horses and burros and their progeny that have used lands of the National Forest System on or after December 15, 1971, or do hereafter use these lands as all or part of their habitat.” [36 CFR 222.60(b)(13)].
Any plan or activity that asserts otherwise is not in compliance with regulations.
The 1971 Act, unfortunately, put the very agencies that were once helping to exterminate America’s wild horses as pests, in charge of protecting them.
🤔 If you think about it, that explains a lot.
🐀 That is not unlike putting the rat exterminator in charge of protecting the rats — overnight. We find that disdain for wild horses still runs deep within the agency today.
⚖️ The difference between these two designations, "wild or stray" is not whether the wild horses can be removed. Under either label, they can and likely will be removed.
The real difference between “protected wild horses” and “stray livestock” is what happens after removal:
🏇 Wild horses go through adoption facilities.
☠️ “Stray livestock” are almost always funneled into slaughter — either through auctions or direct shippers.
So for the horses, the difference is between LIFE and DEATH, and the Forest Service knows that. Its just much easier to let people ship the wild horses off, than adopting them out, or god forbid - get with the times and manage them humanely.
🚨 That is why we filed an emergency TRO in a hurry — to stop the immediate removals, which appeared were already happening through private individuals under the false claim of “they are my private horses.”
We had evidence that this was carried out under the posted Forest Service impound notice, with Forest Service permission, but without Forest Service oversight. There are many rules the FS failed to follow, even if there were some stray livestock.
⚖️ Our attorneys did an excellent job, and the case was very strong. However, Judge John J. Tuchi denied it, stating the cases were not closely related enough (our Alpine case and the Heber case).
😞 We are deeply disappointed, and ofcourse we disagree, because this is the exact same Forest Service, using the exact same approach.
The difference is that the Heber wild horses were protected under federal law for years.
The Apache Sitgreaves Forest Service needs to be called to order and follow the law.
📂 Our next steps could include filing a whole new lawsuit, because the issue was not our legal claims — the issue was that the judge did not want to combine those claims with our current lawsuit.
However, there is still a lawsuit ongoing by ISPMB right now, which raises the same legal basis and claims as ours did. We hope this lawsuit will be successful, because the case against the Forest Service is very strong. We dont think that writing meaningless words on the FS website helps too much, especially because its still very deceiving language by stating "non-private" horses. This means they might still let people claim fake "private" horses.
🤝 Our attorney has spoken with their attorney, who is very good, and we believe they are doing an excellent job. We hope they will be calling for a total cancelation of the illegal impound notice, the returning of all removed horses, and declare the EA completely invalid. All of the evidence from our lawsuit is available for them to use, and we will offer any additional evidence we have as well.
🙏 We wish them good luck and a good judge who's willing to stand up to the DOJ!
It is sad that we still live in a world today where the very agency responsible for the protection of wild horses and burros is, in fact, trying to do the exact opposite. !
Sincerely, SRWHMG.
