In a ruling from the bench after a seven-hour hearing in Reno, U.S. District Judge Larry Hicks denied an emergency order to halt the ongoing roundup of wild horses in Nevada. The nonprofit advocacy group Wild Horse Education had argued that the roundup was inhumane and illegal. However, Hicks stated that he did not have evidence to support granting the preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order sought by the organization. He acknowledged that the deaths of 31 horses during the roundup were tragic but said that these incidents are to be expected when gathering wild animals. Hicks agreed with the horse advocates that the federal agency had illegally denied them access to observe one of the mustang traps due to private land ownership, but he deemed it a constitutional violation that was now moot.

Government lawyers representing the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) argued that the deaths of the horses were unfortunate but anticipated and within the average mortality rate of 1% to 1.2% for wild horse gathers conducted from 2010 to 2019. They maintained that the gathers were necessary to address overpopulation, which poses a threat to the ecological health of the public rangeland. The advocates contended that the deaths were unnecessary and resulted from inhumane tactics used during the roundup, such as chasing pregnant mares and young foals in the summer heat across rocky desert terrain into makeshift corrals.

The ongoing roundup, which began on July 9, has gathered 2,500 horses so far and is scheduled to continue through August 22. Laura Leigh, founder of Wild Horse Education, expressed extreme disappointment in the ruling and discussed potential options with their attorney to address the lack of enforceable humane standards. Meanwhile, government lawyers accused the horse advocates of misleading the public with emotional photos and videos of injured mustangs, stating that the conditions of the gathers were not unusually dangerous for the horses. They also argued that the mustangs were being unfairly blamed for the damage caused by taxpayer-subsidized cattle grazing on the same limited forage in the high-desert range.

The lawsuit filed by the horse advocates on July 26 claims that the roundup is based on an outdated environmental review that does not reflect current conditions on the range. They also argue that the roundup disregards evidence that the herds are still in the midst of foaling season, during which helicopter use is largely prohibited. Democratic U.S. Rep. Dina Titus of Nevada is pushing legislation in Congress that would outlaw the use of helicopters altogether.

The ongoing legal battle between wild horse advocates and the U.S. government's Bureau of Land Management highlights the controversy surrounding the roundup of thousands of mustangs in Nevada. While the government argues that the gathers are necessary to address overpopulation and maintain the ecological health of the rangeland, advocates claim that the tactics used are inhumane and illegal. The judge's ruling denied an emergency order to halt the roundup, stating that there was insufficient evidence to support the horse advocates' claims. The lawsuit filed by the advocates argues that the roundup is based on outdated information and fails to consider the ongoing foaling season. The debate over the use of helicopters in the gathers and the larger issue of taxpayer-subsidized cattle grazing on public lands adds another layer of complexity to the dispute. As the roundup continues, horse advocates are considering their options to address the lack of enforceable humane standards.