`
`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