PHOENIX (CN) — A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit Wednesday challenging the presence of wild horses in the Tonto National Forest.
Arizonans have enjoyed water tubing down the Salt River alongside hundreds of horses since the 1980s. The Salt River herd is one of many herds of wild horses that roam the forests of Arizona. But how long they’ve been there, and whether they belong, remain hotly contested.
A coalition of conservation groups, led by the Center for Biological Diversity, sued the U.S. Forest Service in April, asking it to remove the horses they say are damaging habitat for endangered species and outcompeting native fauna for food.
The Forest Service entered an intergovernmental agreement with the Arizona Department of Agriculture in 2017 to manage a 20,000 acre allotment called the Lower Salt River Recreation Area. The agreement later produced a plan to manage the horses in the area and reduce the herd to 100-200 horses and protect them from further removal or harassment.
The coalition says both the agreement and the management plan ignore National Environmental Policy Act standards, and is insufficient to reduce the horse population to a manageable number.
U.S. District Judge James Teilborg preliminarily dismissed the lawsuit on Oct. 31, granting plaintiffs 30 days to amend their complaint. The plaintiffs didn’t do so by Nov. 31, so Teilborg dismissed the case a week later.
"We commend the USFS Tonto National Forest for filing a motion to dismiss the lawsuit and for continuing to work with the state on the humane management of these beloved horses," Simone Netherlands, president of the Salt River Wild Horse Management Group, said in a Saturday press release. "The court's decision will allow us to continue to manage and care for the Salt River wild horses, who are beloved by the Arizona public and an important part of our state's history."
Netherlands and the Salt River group work in tandem with Arizona department of agriculture to administer birth control via darting and provide water troughs and feeding programs. The group motioned to intervene in the lawsuit, but the motion was rejected as moot when the case was dismissed.
Netherlands advocated for the passing of a state law in 2016 that protects the Salt River horses removal or harassment.
Teilborg found the center’s challenge of the intergovernmental agreement moot because the terms of the agreement expired in 2022.
“Plaintiffs had ample time while the IGA was in effect to file a challenge against the agreement and obtain judicial review,” he wrote in his Halloween order.
The horse management plan, produced by members of the 2017 intergovernmental agreement and finalized in 2023, called for the reduction of the estimated 600-horse herd down to 100-200 within 10 years to be more easily managed.
The plaintiffs say it will take closer to 35 years just to reduce the herd to 200, and point to a conclusion from federal range scientists in 2019 that only 28-44 horses live in the area to ensure habitat health.
Teilborg found the plaintiffs have standing to challenge the management plan, but dismissed the claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
While the management plan came from the agreement with the Forest Service, the plaintiffs didn’t present convincing evidence that the Forest Service actually approved the plan. Because, then, the plan doesn’t represent a “final agency action” by the Forest Service, the action can't be brought as a challenge against the Forest Service.
Even if the Forest Service did approve the plan, it doesn’t become a federal action “unless the federal agency retains power, authority, or control over the state project,” Teilborg wrote.
Because the Arizona Department of Agriculture operates the management of the horses, not the Forest Service, Teilborg found that the Forest Service can’t be held responsible for the plan.
Teilborg gave the plaintiffs an opportunity to amend their complaint to further prove why the management plan constitutes a final action from the Forest Service, and added that plaintiffs still have standing to seek judicial review of the harm caused by an excessive horse population.
But because the plaintiffs didn’t respond in the given time, the case is now dismissed with prejudice.
The dismissal came on the same day that 45 horses were removed from the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest, where no state laws prevent their removal by a national forest that sees them, not as wild, but as feral, invasive animals.
Netherlands says the horses would have been slaughtered for food if the Salt River group didn't rescue them.
"The Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest should follow the Tonto National Forest's lead in managing wild horses humanely," Netherlands said. "Under no circumstance should the Forest Service ever send horses captured from our public lands to kill pens and slaughter auctions."
Neither the Forest Service nor the Center for Biological Diversity replied to a request for comment.
Follow @JournalistJoeAZ
Subscribe to Closing Arguments
Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.
