throbber
Case 1:21-cv-02146-REB Document 1 Filed 07/02/21 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 120
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AMERICAN WILD HORSE CAMPAIGN
`338 G Street # B
`
`
`
`
`Davis, CA 95616,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SKYDOG RANCH & SANCTUARY
`
`23823 Malibu Road, Suite 50, Box 498
`
`Malibu, CA 90265,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CLARE STAPLES
`
`
`
`
`23823 Malibu Road, Suite 50, Box 498
`
`Malibu, CA 90265,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EVANESCENT MUSTANG RESCUE
`
`AND SANCTUARY, INC.
`
`
`8370 US Hwy 82,
`
`
`
`
`Sherman, TX 75090,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CAROL WALKER
`
`
`
`
`16500 Dakota Ridge Rd.
`
`
`
`Longmont, CO 80503
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEBRA HAALAND, Secretary
`
`
`U.S. Department of Interior
`
`
`
`1849 C Street N.W.
`
`
`
`
`Washington, D.C. 20240
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT,
`760 Horizon Drive
`
`
`
`
`Grand Junction, CO 81506,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-02146-REB Document 1 Filed 07/02/21 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 120
`
`1.
`
`This case challenges the highly controversial Adoption Incentive Program (“AIP”
`
`or “the Program”) created by the Department of Interior’s (“DOI”) Bureau of Land Management
`
`(“BLM”), under which BLM provides payments of up to $1,000 in federal funds to individuals
`
`for each wild horse or burro adopted through the Program, and which BLM created with no
`
`public notice, no opportunity for comment, and no environmental analysis—despite the fact that
`
`the program would foreseeably lead to wild horses and burros being profoundly mistreated and
`
`sold for slaughter in contravention of Congress’s intent in enacting the Wild Free-Roaming
`
`Horses and Burros Act (“WHA”) and subsequent appropriations of agency funding that
`
`specifically forbid any expenditure of federal funds for the slaughter of healthy wild horses or
`
`burros.
`
`2.
`
`BLM has repeatedly been subject to intense scrutiny and widespread public
`
`criticism for allowing wild horses to be sold or adopted in ways that have led to these federally
`
`protected animals being treated inhumanely or even sold for slaughter or processing into
`
`commercial products. Such scrutiny has included at least one investigation by the Department of
`
`Interior’s Office of the Inspector General, a federal grand jury investigation, numerous critical
`
`articles in major newspapers, and letters from members of Congress expressing concern that such
`
`practices violate federal law and the congressional intent to protect these animals. Notably,
`
`Congress has repeatedly and explicitly forbidden federal agencies, including BLM, from using
`
`any appropriated federal funds for the destruction of wild horses or burros, or for the sale of a
`
`wild horse or burro that results in the animal’s destruction for processing into a commercial
`
`product.
`
`3.
`
`Nevertheless, despite abundant, clear evidence that the public is extremely
`
`interested in ensuring that BLM’s programs do not result in the slaughter or inhumane treatment
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-02146-REB Document 1 Filed 07/02/21 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 120
`
`of wild horses or burros, and that neither Congress nor the American public condone federal
`
`agencies causing wild horses or burros to be slaughtered or treated inhumanely, BLM provided
`
`no public notice or opportunity for public comment when it created the AIP by promulgating an
`
`“Instruction Memorandum” (“IM”) known as Instruction Memorandum 2019-025 (“IM 2019-
`
`025”). Likewise, despite the AIP having significant adverse impacts on wild horses, and despite
`
`BLM’s own explicit intention for the AIP to free up federal funds for expenditure on agency
`
`operations on public lands that also have environmental impacts, BLM created the AIP without
`
`first undertaking any analysis of the likely environmental impacts of the Program, as required
`
`under the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”). Additionally, BLM failed to adequately
`
`analyze the economic impacts of the AIP, as well as how such economic impacts may cause
`
`further environmental impacts by altering BLM’s other wild horse and burro operations across
`
`western public lands.
`
`4.
`
`Since BLM created the AIP, Plaintiffs—a collection of non-profit organizations
`
`and individuals devoted to the welfare of wild horses and burros—have been forced to expend
`
`scarce resources investigating the fates of animals adopted through BLM’s Program and
`
`attempting to prevent dire outcomes for these animals. Plaintiffs’ investigations have revealed
`
`that numerous wild horses and burros adopted through the AIP have been subjected to severely
`
`inhumane treatment and have been sold at auctions that cater to the horse and burro slaughter
`
`industry. Plaintiffs compiled the results of their investigations into an extensive report that they
`
`submitted to DOI and BLM in order to demonstrate to the agencies that the AIP has caused
`
`inhumane—and unlawful—outcomes for federally protected animals, including the fact that the
`
`animals ended up at auctions that sell horses and burros for slaughter. Likewise, Plaintiffs
`
`submitted a formal petition to DOI and BLM explaining that the creation of the AIP violated
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-02146-REB Document 1 Filed 07/02/21 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 120
`
`federal law in numerous ways and explicitly requesting that the agencies withdraw the AIP, or at
`
`the very least impose a moratorium on the AIP so that the agencies could take the necessary
`
`steps to come into compliance with federal law. However, DOI and BLM have not provided any
`
`final response to Plaintiffs’ petition.
`
`5.
`
`The actions of DOI and BLM associated with the AIP violate federal law. For
`
`example, because the AIP meets the definition of a “rule” under the Administrative Procedure
`
`Act (“APA”), BLM was obligated to undertake notice-and-comment rulemaking before creating
`
`the AIP, yet BLM unlawfully failed to do so. Likewise, because the AIP has substantial adverse
`
`impacts on wild horses and burros—which BLM is statutorily tasked to protect—and because
`
`BLM designed the AIP to free up funds for other activities that will cause further environmental
`
`and economic impacts to the lands and resources under BLM’s management, BLM was obligated
`
`to prepare a NEPA analysis regarding the AIP’s impacts, yet BLM unlawfully failed to
`
`undertake this legally required process as well. Further, because in creating the AIP, BLM
`
`significantly deviated from its prior policies, which featured a more rigorous system for ensuring
`
`that wild horses and burros would not go be sold to those who may send the animals to slaughter,
`
`without any recognition or explanation for why it was doing so, BLM violated the APA’s
`
`mandates for reasoned decision-making. Moreover, by paying individuals to adopt wild horses
`
`and burros who then re-sell the animals for slaughter, the AIP constitutes an unlawful evasion of
`
`Congress’s prohibition on the expenditure of federal funds for the slaughter of wild horses or
`
`burros.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`6.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-02146-REB Document 1 Filed 07/02/21 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 120
`
`7.
`
`Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because defendant
`
`DOI, the parent agency ultimately responsible for the decisions at issue, is located in
`
`Washington, D.C., and because the decision at issue has nationwide implications that make
`
`judicial review in this forum appropriate.
`
`8.
`
`Venue is particularly appropriate in this Court because the AIP was created in
`
`Washington, D.C., as demonstrated by the fact that IM 2019-025, the mechanism establishing the
`
`AIP, bears the following caption:
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR
`BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
`WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240-0036
`
`Likewise, IM 2019-025 was signed by Kristin Bail, BLM’s Assistant Director for Resources and
`
`Planning, who, upon information and belief, was located in Washington, D.C. at the time she
`
`signed the IM. Furthermore, IM 2019-025 states that “[t]his policy was coordinated with the
`
`Washington Office WHB Program Staff.”
`
`9.
`
`Venue is also appropriate in this Court because the AIP is a nationwide program.
`
`Wild horses and burros that are rounded up and removed from public lands in numerous states
`
`may be subject to adoption through the AIP. Likewise, individuals receiving animals through the
`
`AIP—and receiving payments from BLM—may be located in many different states. Further,
`
`Plaintiffs’ investigations have documented the fact that wild horses and burros adopted through
`
`the AIP have subsequently been sold at slaughter auctions throughout the country, which are
`
`known to sell, or identify themselves as selling, horses and burros for slaughter, including in
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-02146-REB Document 1 Filed 07/02/21 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 120
`
`Kansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas. Accordingly, the AIP affects wild horses and burros,
`
`agency operations, and individuals in numerous states throughout the country.1
`
`10.
`
`Venue is also appropriate in this Court because of the AIP’s nationwide impacts
`
`on BLM’s activities on the range that affect wild horses and burros. As BLM explained in IM
`
`2019-025, BLM intended the AIP to create “cost savings” by increasing adoptions of wild horses
`
`and burros to reduce the long-term cost of feed and care for animals that have been permanently
`
`removed from the range. IM 2019-025 explains that BLM intends for these cost savings to
`
`“allow[] funding to be dedicated to other aspects of managing wild horses and burros,” and that
`
`“[t]he budget impacts of this policy will reduce off-range holding costs and allow those savings
`
`to support critical on-range operations.” On range operations refers to additional roundups and
`
`removals of wild horses and burros from the range, as BLM indicated when it told its Wild Horse
`
`and Burro Advisory Board that each incentivized adoption “is freeing up space . . . to remove
`
`more animals.”2 Accordingly, BLM explicitly intends for the AIP to free up money that the
`
`agency may spend in managing wild horse and burro populations in various states where wild
`
`horses and burros live on the range, such as California, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming.
`
`Likewise, the off-range holding areas from which BLM anticipates “cost savings” are also
`
`located in numerous different states, including Kansas, Oklahoma, and Wyoming.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 This Complaint uses the term “slaughter auction” to describe auctions that are known or often
`self-described to cater to the slaughter industry, as discussed in greater detail below. See infra ¶
`57.
`
` 2
`
` See Rough Caption Transcript, Wild Horse and Burro Advisory Board Meeting, October 10,
`2018, at 40, available at https://www.blm.gov/programs/wild-horse-and-burro/get-
`involved/advisory-board
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-02146-REB Document 1 Filed 07/02/21 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 120
`
`PARTIES
`
`11.
`
`Plaintiff American Wild Horse Campaign (“AWHC”) is a national 501(c)(3)
`
`nonprofit organization that is the nation’s leading voice on protecting and preserving wild horses
`
`and burros. AWHC’s mission is to defend America’s wild horses and burros, to protect their
`
`freedom, preserve their habitat, and promote humane standards of treatment. AWHC’s mission is
`
`endorsed by a broad-based coalition of public interest groups, environmentalists, humane
`
`organizations, and historical societies, representing over ten million supporters.
`
`12.
`
`A major focus of AWHC’s mission is to ensure that wild horses and burros that
`
`are removed from public lands are never sold for slaughter or processed into commercial
`
`products. AWHC has been working on this effort for more than a decade. Because preventing the
`
`slaughter of wild horses and burros is a key aspect of AWHC’s mission, AWHC has engaged in
`
`numerous efforts to prevent wild horses or burros that are removed from public lands from being
`
`sold for slaughter or processed into commercial products. For example, AWHC has conducted
`
`polling showing that 80 percent of Americans oppose the slaughter of federally protected wild
`
`horses and burros, and has been successful in convincing Congress to maintain annual
`
`appropriations language that prohibits BLM from using any appropriated funds for the slaughter
`
`of healthy, unadopted wild horses or burros or the sale of wild horses or burros that results in the
`
`animals’ destruction for processing into a commercial product. Likewise, after the United States
`
`Forest Service decided to sell wild horses “without limitation,” which would have effectively
`
`approved the sale of such animals for slaughter, AWHC filed suit against the Forest Service and
`
`successfully prevented such sales from occurring during the pendency of the lawsuit. At the
`
`same time, AWHC also successfully convinced Congress to extend its prohibition on using
`
`appropriated funds for the slaughter of wild horses and burros so that the prohibition applies to
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-02146-REB Document 1 Filed 07/02/21 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 120
`
`the United States Department of Agriculture and the Forest Service in addition to the Department
`
`of Interior and BLM.
`
`13.
`
`Another key component of AWHC’s mission is to promote the humane treatment
`
`of wild horses and burros on the range, during roundups and removals, and after the federal
`
`government has removed them from the range. AWHC has been actively engaged in this effort
`
`for more than a decade. For example, AWHC has an extensive history of observing and
`
`recording BLM’s management of wild horse and burro populations to document how the
`
`agency’s operations have caused inhumane outcomes for wild horses and burros, such as serious
`
`injuries and deaths associated with the agency’s use of helicopters to round up horses for
`
`removal from the range. AWHC has used these observations and recordings to successfully
`
`promote more stringent standards for the humane treatment of wild horses during roundups.
`
`Likewise, AWHC routinely comments on BLM’s wild horse and burro population management
`
`actions and advocates for the agency to select means of managing these animals that are more
`
`humane. The opportunity to provide input on BLM’s management of wild horses and burros is,
`
`for this reason, essential to AWHC’s mission of promoting more humane treatment of these
`
`animals by the federal government. AWHC has also requested information regarding the
`
`acquisition and disposition of horses in short-term holding facilities and has used that
`
`information to educate the public regarding the significant incidence of deaths that occur in
`
`holding pens in the days, weeks, and months after roundup operations. AWHC has also
`
`supported efforts to improve conditions at holding facilities by providing shelter from the
`
`elements and has facilitated the rescue of dozens of horses and burros from holding facilities.
`
`14.
`
`The creation and implementation of the AIP has frustrated AWHC’s core mission
`
`and caused AWHC to divert significant, and scarce, resources to mitigate the harms that the AIP
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-02146-REB Document 1 Filed 07/02/21 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 120
`
`has caused to AWHC’s mission and to federally protected wild horses and burros. For example,
`
`BLM’s creation of the AIP without any public notice or opportunity for comment deprived
`
`AWHC of any opportunity to advise BLM prior to the implementation of this Program of the
`
`foreseeable adverse consequences for wild horses and burros or to advise the agency of
`
`reasonable means of ensuring more humane outcomes for adopted animals. Wrongly deprived of
`
`any opportunity to advise the government of the AIP’s shortcomings or more protective and
`
`economically prudent alternatives, AWHC was forced instead to divert resources to educating
`
`the public about the AIP’s foreseeable adverse consequences. For example, shortly after the
`
`AIP’s creation, AWHC diverted staff resources to issuing a press release to educate the public
`
`about how the AIP would prove to be an economic boondoggle and “was a terrible idea from an
`
`animal welfare perspective” because “it will result in more federally-protected wild horses and
`
`burros entering the slaughter pipeline by incentivizing people without the necessary skills and
`
`resources to adopt wild horses.”3 The deprivation of any opportunity for input into BLM’s
`
`policy-making thus frustrated AWHC’s mission of promoting more humane treatment of wild
`
`horses and burros by the federal government.
`
`15.
`
`The creation and implementation of the AIP has also harmed AWHC’s core
`
`mission of promoting the humane treatment of wild horses and burros, and of preventing the
`
`slaughter of wild horses and burros, by causing severely inhumane outcomes for wild horses and
`
`burros adopted through the Program. To counter the harms to AWHC’s mission and to wild
`
`horses and burros, AWHC has been forced to divert resources to the investigation of the AIP’s
`
`adverse outcomes and the subsequent dissemination of the resulting information to Congress,
`
`
`3 See AWHC, Feds Give Cash Incentive for Mustang Adoptions – Advocacy Group Calls Foul,
`https://americanwildhorsecampaign.org/media/feds-give-cash-incentive-mustang-adoptions-
`advocacy-group-calls-foul (March 12, 2019).
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-02146-REB Document 1 Filed 07/02/21 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 120
`
`agencies, and others with authority to halt this unlawful Program. In particular, AWHC has been
`
`forced to devote significant staff time to the submission of numerous Freedom of Information
`
`Act (“FOIA”) requests seeking information about animals adopted through the AIP that BLM
`
`does not make public. Likewise, AWHC has been forced to devote substantial staff time and
`
`resources to the investigation and preparation of a report documenting how wild horses and
`
`burros adopted through the AIP have in fact been treated inhumanely and have in numerous
`
`instances been sold at auctions that identify themselves as selling horses and burros for slaughter.
`
`As AWHC and its partner organizations have documented, wild horses and burros that have been
`
`adopted through the AIP have been subjected to a wide range of inhumane treatment, including
`
`but not limited to being provided inadequate feed, being housed in dangerously inadequate pens,
`
`and not being provided with adequate veterinary care. In at least one instance, a wild horse
`
`adopted through the AIP suffered abuse and/or neglect so extreme that the animal sustained a
`
`neck injury so severe that the animal was unable to stand and was “put out of her misery.” On
`
`information and belief, the AIP has resulted in a dramatic expansion of adoption of wild horses
`
`and burros, largely to individuals who are either unprepared and unequipped to care for these
`
`animals, or who have no sincere interest in caring for these animals and are instead motivated
`
`principally or exclusively by the cash payments that BLM provides as an adoption incentive
`
`through the AIP. The dramatic increase in the number of animals being adopted through the AIP
`
`has resulted in a far greater number of instances of inhumane treatment of wild horses and burros
`
`than occurred before the AIP was created and implemented. Hence, the AIP has harmed
`
`AWHC’s ability to accomplish its mission of promoting the humane care and treatment of wild
`
`horses and burros and forced AWHC to expend significant resources to counter this harm to its
`
`mission.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-02146-REB Document 1 Filed 07/02/21 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 120
`
`16.
`
`The creation and implementation of the AIP has also impaired AWHC’s ability to
`
`accomplish its mission of preventing the slaughter of wild horses and burros. As AWHC and its
`
`partner organizations have documented, wild horses adopted through the AIP have frequently
`
`been sold at slaughter auctions, which are auction houses that describe themselves as “kill pens”
`
`or that Plaintiffs know to be frequented by kill buyers.4 (The term “kill buyer” refers to
`
`individuals who purchase horses and burros and sell them to horse slaughter plants in Canada or
`
`Mexico.) AWHC has documented nearly 240 instances—which is likely a fraction of the true
`
`number of instances—in which wild horses and burros that bear BLM freeze-brands have been
`
`sold at slaughter auctions since the creation of the AIP. On information and belief, the AIP has
`
`resulted in a dramatic expansion of adoption of wild horses and burros to individuals who have
`
`no interest in caring for the animals over the long term, but who instead retain the animals only
`
`for sufficient time to obtain payments of federal funds through the AIP and then sell them at
`
`slaughter auctions. Accordingly, on information and belief, the AIP has resulted in wild horses
`
`and burros being sold for slaughter. In this manner, the AIP has impaired AWHC’s mission of
`
`preventing the slaughter of wild horses and burros. To counter this injury to its mission and to
`
`counteract this unlawful Program, AWHC has been forced to divert significant resources to
`
`investigating what has happened to wild horses and burros that are adopted through the AIP, to
`
`documenting in an extensive report how the AIP has effectively become a pipeline for wild
`
`horses and burros to be sent to slaughter, and to educating the public about the AIP’s disastrous
`
`impacts for these federally protected animals.
`
`
`4 See https://stroudoklahomakillpen.com/about (“Yes, we are a kill pen”); see also
`https://fabriziuslivestock.com/ (“We are a kill pen that offer [sic] each horse a second chance
`before shipping to slaughter.”); see also Exhibit 1, Appendix 1 (containing screenshots of the
`websites of these kill pens).
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-02146-REB Document 1 Filed 07/02/21 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 120
`
`17.
`
`Due to BLM’s creation and implementation of the AIP—which has created a
`
`serious risk of many horses ending up at slaughter auctions—AWHC has had to divert
`
`significant organizational resources and staff time to investigating, disseminating information,
`
`and promoting solutions to counteract BLM’s unlawful Program, which otherwise would have
`
`been spent on AWHC’s other organizational priorities, such as PZP administration to wild horses
`
`on the range. For example, AWHC has been forced to divert roughly $20,000 to rescue wild
`
`horses and burros from slaughter auctions, prevent their slaughter, and to obtain title to these
`
`animals. AWHC has further been forced to divert significant staff resources to submitting dozens
`
`of FOIA requests for information regarding the implementation of the AIP and to comparing the
`
`information obtained through FOIA to the information on titles of rescued animals to verify that
`
`the wild horses and burros that AWHC and its partners have rescued were in fact adopted out
`
`through the AIP. Furthermore, AWHC has been forced to divert significant staff resources to the
`
`preparation and publication of an extensive report on the AIP’s disastrous consequences in order
`
`to educate the public and elected officials about this program and to explain to DOI and BLM
`
`how the AIP has inhumane and unlawful impacts. By draining AWHC’s limited resources and
`
`forcing the organization to substantially shift its money and staff time from other priorities, the
`
`AIP has significantly impaired AWHC’s day-to-day operations and frustrated key aspects of its
`
`organizational mission.
`
`18.
`
`Plaintiff Skydog Ranch and Sanctuary (“Skydog”) is a nonprofit organization that
`
`owns a 9,000-acre ranch near Bend, Oregon. Skydog’s ranch is home to approximately 175
`
`rescued horses and 50 rescued burros, some of which Skydog rescued at auctions before they
`
`could be purchased by kill buyers for slaughter or purchased from kill buyers when they had the
`
`animals in their feedlots waiting to ship to slaughter. Skydog’s staff—including individual
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-02146-REB Document 1 Filed 07/02/21 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 120
`
`Plaintiff Clare Staples—are regularly sent images of horses in need of rescue, often leading to
`
`such horses being saved hours or even minutes prior to them being shipped to Mexico or Canada
`
`for slaughter. Skydog’s ranch provides a permanent home for rescued horses. Skydog’s limited
`
`funding derives from fundraising events around specific trips to auctions to rescue a particular
`
`horse or group of horses based on the horses’ needs for that particular year. Skydog’s specific
`
`mission is to rescue as many wild horses from slaughter as possible, and to then provide humane,
`
`respectful care for the rest of their lives.
`
`19.
`
`Prior to the AIP, Skydog operated in a much smoother fashion, deliberately
`
`planning its needs and capacity for horse rescue on an annual basis. For example, Skydog would
`
`determine through board meetings whether to target rescues of a particular type of horse (e.g.,
`
`sale authority mustangs), and then would fundraise to support the execution of that year’s rescue
`
`plan. After the AIP, and to counteract the significant onslaught of AIP horses showing up at
`
`slaughter auctions, a significant portion of Skydog’s day-to-day operations and funding had to be
`
`diverted to bailing, hauling, and rescue costs associated with saving AIP horses from kill pens.
`
`Skydog’s staff were forced repeatedly to travel to kill pens and auctions in various states, where
`
`they took title to many AIP horses—sometimes as many as twelve at one time. Skydog’s staff
`
`were also forced to expend significant time, resources, and effort identifying third parties to haul
`
`the horses to Skydog’s ranch in Oregon or to affiliate partner rescue organizations in the United
`
`States or abroad (sometimes with the assistance of TIP trainers). Each AIP horse required
`
`Skydog to expend funds on various activities before they could be placed, including veterinarian
`
`bills, quarantine expenses (including supplemental feed during quarantine), hauling costs, and
`
`trainer costs given that many of the young AIP horses needed gentling. In total, the average cost
`
`to Skydog for each AIP horse that it placed outside of Skydog’s ranch amounted to roughly
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-02146-REB Document 1 Filed 07/02/21 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 120
`
`$5,000, with some costing more depending on the distance between the kill pen and the receiving
`
`horse rescue and whether or not the animal required veterinary care. The medical costs
`
`associated with veterinary care could also be considerable; for example, one rescued AIP horse
`
`required surgery to remove an eye at Colorado State University—an expenditure that Skydog
`
`would not have incurred but for the AIP. In 2020 and 2021 (to date), the AIP has forced Skydog
`
`to permanently take in roughly twice the number of new horses that Skydog had planned and
`
`budgeted for in setting its annual priorities for those years, all outside Skydog’s targeted in-need
`
`groups for those years.
`
`20.
`
`In total, Skydog has itself permanently rescued and relocated to its ranch
`
`approximately a dozen AIP horses that it had not planned or budgeted to rescue as part of its
`
`normal annual operations. This is a significant diversion of organizational resources that Skydog
`
`would not have expended but for the AIP, and which will continue to cost Skydog substantial
`
`sums of money throughout the lives of these animals, which could be up to thirty years given the
`
`young age of many of them. In addition, Skydog has rescued and helped place nearly 100 AIP
`
`horses at affiliate horse rescues all over the United States, as well as Germany, Bulgaria, and
`
`other countries (often with the assistance of TIP trainers). Because wild horses—including AIP
`
`horses—are not domesticated, Skydog has had to invest significant resources in identifying and
`
`hiring trainers to gentle AIP horses before they can be placed with Skydog or affiliate rescues in
`
`a manner that will harmonize with other animals on these ranches. Training of AIP horses alone
`
`has cost tens of thousands of dollars. Both because the AIP has forced Skydog to expend
`
`significant organizational resources rescuing and placing horses and because the AIP forced
`
`Skydog to divert those resources from other important organizational priorities, BLM’s creation
`
`and implementation of the AIP has fundamentally compromised Skydog’s day-to-day operations
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-02146-REB Document 1 Filed 07/02/21 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 120
`
`and frustrated its core mission. In addition, because Skydog has not always been successful in
`
`rescuing all AIP horses from slaughter, the fact that some horses have likely been slaughtered or
`
`placed in severely inhumane situations further undermines Skydog’s core mission to rescue all
`
`wild horses from horrific fates.
`
`21.
`
` Plaintiff Clare Staples is the Founder and President of Plaintiff Skydog. She has
`
`been working on wild horse protection and rescue issues for more than a decade, and she
`
`oversees Skydog’s management. Ms. Staples was heavily involved in Skydog’s efforts in 2020
`
`and 2021 (to date)—and will continue to be involved in those efforts—to rescue as many AIP
`
`horses as possible from kill pens and auctions before they are sent to Mexico or Canada for
`
`slaughter. After the creation of the AIP, Ms. Staples observed a noticeable difference in the
`
`people showing up at BLM corrals to adopt horses, many of them taking groups of very young
`
`horses. One year later, just after those same adopters would have received title, she received
`
`near-constant calls from individuals at kill pens and auctions that recognized wild horses there
`
`with BLM’s freeze brands, thus requiring her to attempt to rescue these horses from horrific
`
`fates. The AIP—and its foreseeable result of AIP horses ending up at kill pens and auctions
`
`known to sell to kill buyers—forced Ms. Staples, when possible, to arrange for the rescue and
`
`transport of wild horses dozens of times in 2020 and 2021 (to date) before they were sold to third
`
`party kill buyers.
`
`22.
`
`The last eighteen months—since AIP horses began showing up at slaughter
`
`auctions—have significantly affected Ms. Staples in many concrete ways. Financially, she has
`
`incurred tens of thousands of dollars of personal expenditures for training, hauling, transport, and
`
`other associated costs where Skydog had not yet conducted any fundraiser due to the urgent
`
`nature of these rescues of AIP horses. She has spent more than a thousand hours attempting to
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-02146-REB Document 1 Filed 07/02/21 USDC Colorado Page 16 of 120
`
`rescue AIP horses from horrific fates, and then planning logistics for quarantine, veterinarians,
`
`trainers, and hauling to placement locations—time she would not have spent on these matters but
`
`for the AIP. Ms. Staples has also suffered significant mental anguish and emotional distress from
`
`having to be repeatedly subjected to observing AIP horses—often in extremely poor health—in
`
`kill pens only hours or minutes from shipment to Mexico or Canada for slaughter. In addition,
`
`the AIP has placed tremendous personal and professional pressure on Ms. Staples because if she
`
`cannot find a suitable placement at a horse rescue or sanctuary, this failure equates to that horse
`
`or group of horses going to slaughter or to an inhumane setting. Due to the immense stress
`
`imposed on Ms. Staples by BLM’s creation and implementation of the AIP, she is terribly
`
`exhausted and emotionally fragile because the AIP places her in the position of deciding the fate
`
`of AIP horses that BLM, as the agency charged with protecting them, should be safeguarding
`
`from slaughter and inhumane conditions. Especially now that Skydog’s ranch is nearing capacity
`
`much faster than otherwise would have been the case due to taking in so many unexpected AIP
`
`horses, the emotional toll of many horses being slaughtered or treated inhumanely as a result of
`
`the AIP severely affects Ms. Staples day-to-day emotional well-being and success both
`
`personally and professionally.
`
`23.
`
`Plaintiff Evanescent Mustang Rescue and Sanctuary, Inc. (“Evanescent”) is a
`
`501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that was

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket