Mare Ovariectomy Experiments: Legal Battle Against BLM's Controversial Procedures

An alliance of wild horse protection andanimal welfareadvocates has filed a lawsuit against the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to halt controversial surgical experiments on wild mares. These experiments, aimed at removing the ovaries of wild mares, have sparked significant legal and public opposition due to concerns over their safety and ethical implications.

Citing violations of the U.S. Constitution and three federal laws, the lawsuit was filed on September 21, 2018, in the U.S. District Court in Portland. The groups involved include The Cloud Foundation (TCF), the American Wild Horse Conservation (formerly American Wild Horse Campaign), theAnimal WelfareInstitute (AWI), and wildlife photographer Carol Walker. The legal representation is provided by Nick Lawton of Meyer, Glitzenstein and Eubanks LLP.

A primary demand of the lawsuit is the right to meaningful public observation and video recording of the experiments. This transparency is crucial for raising public awareness about the treatment of federally protected wild horses and to inform theBLMthat such inhumane sterilization methods are socially unacceptable.

The lawsuit also argues that the experiments, which involve an outdated surgical procedure known as ovariectomy via colpotomy, are unscientific, inhumane, and dangerous. This procedure involves a veterinarian inserting their arm into a mare's abdominal cavity through an incision in the vaginal wall to manually locate and remove the ovaries, posing significant risks of pain and life-threatening complications.

This is not the first time theBLMhas attempted such research. In 2016, the American Wild Horse Conservation (formerly American Wild Horse Campaign) and TCF sued to uphold their First Amendment rights to observe the experiments, leading to the cancellation of the initial attempt. TheBLM's renewed efforts this year have faced similar opposition, with limited observation opportunities provided and the withdrawal of Colorado State University from the project.

Despite public and veterinary opposition, and warnings from the National Academy of Sciences about the health risks, theBLMannounced on September 13, 2018, that it would proceed with the spay feasibility study. This decision came after two major research institutions, CSU and OSU, ended their affiliations with the project.

Legal Documents

• Government's Motion to Lift Stay
• Government's Motion to Dismiss
• Filed Opposition to Government's Motion to Dismiss
• Filed Motion to Stay
• Government Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss
• Government Opposition to Stay
• Complaint as Filed
• Filed Motion for Preliminary Injunction
• Government's Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction
• Filed Reply Brief
• Filed Government Motion for Stay of Proposed Order
• Filed Opposition to Stay of Entry of Proposed Order
• Order Granting Preliminary Injunction
• BLM Extension Motion for Answer
• BLM Motion for Clarification
• IBLA Decision
• Joint Status Report
• Motion to Stay
• Notice that Appropriations Have Been Restored

In Depth

• Spay Experiments: What Our Preliminary Injunction Means