In Defense of Animals vs. Dept. of Interior

Wild Horses Defended in Court

By Robert WINKLER
The Desert Independent

January 21, 2010

WASHINGTON, DC – I spoke with Bill Spriggs, an attorney pursuing a case for In Defense of Animals against Ken Salazar, U.S. Secretary of the Interior. Attorney Spriggs and In Defense of Animals is seeking to legally prove that the Secretary of the Interior (Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Etc.) has and is acting illegally in their gatherings of wild Mustangs.

The Judge in this case (In Defense of Animals, et al. vs. Ken Salazar, et al., Civil Action No. 09-2222), Paul L. Friedman in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, has set the next court date for April 30 with a final opinion by May 26 of this year. All sides have agreed that there will be no horse removals before this date.

Attorney Spriggs is focused on three specific illegal activities of Salazar and the Department of the Interior.

• The method they use for the roundup is illegal because they violate 1333(b)(2) and the intent of Congress. Note: As you will recall, the BLM admits to killing over 38 horses through the use of helicopters in their roundups (See: The Wild Mustang Myths Facts).

• Removal of non-excess horses is illegal under the Colorado Wild Horse opinion of the D.C. U.S. District Court, August 5, 2009.

• Horses must not be moved off their home range, period; this is illegal under 1331, 1339 and 1333(a).

At a time when the government is spending money on bailouts, foreign wars, and other obligations, the Department of Interior is buying up land in the Midwest and Southeast to illegally house these horses.

Even Judge Friedman has preliminarily declared the removal to long term holding facilities is illegal. On page 16 of his December 23, 2009 opinion, he says "BLM's relocation of excess horses to those facilities for indefinite holding periods violates the plain language of Section 1339." He also says in an opinion it violates the "minimal feasible level" of management language in Section 1333(a). On page 17, he says "Such a large number of confined horses raises precisely the specter of the 'zoo-like developments' whose formation the Act was meant to prevent." He rejects the defendants' argument that Congress has authorized long term holding facilities through the appropriation of money process because it takes clear and specific language to accomplish such a thing and the language is lacking in appropriation measures to date.

Let’s hope that we don’t end up with Ken Salazar, U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s method for euthanizing horses: chasing old, sick and lame horses for miles at break neck speed in a Department of Interior helicopter. Something they now call a roundup.