Support New Mexico Senate Bill 126

  • SB 126 clarifies the definition of horses in the New Mexico livestock code
  • SB 126 is good for property owners in rural areas
  • SB 126 is good for New Mexico’s environment
  • SB 126 is good for wildlife and wildlife habitat
  • SB 126 is good for sportsmen and outdoor enthusiasts
  • SB 126 will cost taxpayers nothing

SB 126 will help rural homeowners cope with trespassing horses.

Senate Bill (SB) 126 (“Change Livestock and Animal Definitions”) was introduced by Senator Pat Woods. If passed, it would solve one aspect of the feral horse problem in rural communities. Since 2015, property owners who corral a trespassing horse on their property haven’t been able to count on the NM Livestock Board (NMLB) to take the horse. A trespassing cow, pig, goat, ostrich or llama yes, but not a horse. That’s because a 2015 Court of Appeals ruling changed the definition of a horse. It said that a horse that is “undomesticated and unowned” (e.g., feral or free-roaming) isn’t livestock; unfortunately, the NMLB is only authorized to deal with “livestock”.

The ruling has inadvertently made a mess of what used to be a simple process for dealing with feral horses that regularly trespass on private property. It has left property owners who want to protect their land from harm and citizens who are concerned with environmental sustainability stuck between a rock and a hard place.

SB 126 would provide a simple fix. Its straightforward clarification of the livestock definition will mean that property owners can once again fully utilize NMLB’s services regarding estray horses. By making it easier for property owners and communities to cope with feral horses, SB 126 will help protect New Mexico’s rural lands, fragile desert lands, forests and wildlife corridors. It will help reduce the public safety hazard due to feral horses wandering busy roads.

The bill will be heard shortly by the Senate Judiciary Committee. As of today, the hearing date has not been set. Because the wild/feral horse lobby is loud, persistent, promotes falsehoods, and scares the bejeezus out of legislators, it is important for more reasonable voices to be heard. We urge you to contact your state senator and Senate Judiciary Committee members and ask them to support SB 126.


The photo below shows the decimation of native grasses by feral horses grazing on unfenced BLM land (on the left) in northern Placitas compared with the protected San Jose de las Huertas Archeological Conservancy site (on the right).


Why do we need to preserve native grasses? They provide sustenance to small mammals, quail and songbirds–and thus other species all up the food chain. Grasses protect nutrient-rich topsoil from being washed away. They put out huge networks of roots that hold deeper layers of soil in place and prevent erosion. In prairie ecosystems, they are a foundation species, without which the ecosystem becomes severely imbalanced and lacks resilience to stress.

snakeweedPlacitas has a long history of being overgrazed by livestock. Although the sheep of the Spanish settlers are long gone and cattle no longer graze on the BLM buffalo tract due to its lack of forage, they’ve been replaced by feral horses, whose numbers exploded over the last decade.  Unlike other livestock, these horses are unmanaged and on the land 24/7, 365 days a year, giving the land no chance to recover.

Broom snakeweed is a native plant that becomes invasive when the grasses are gone. It takes over large swaths of land and prevents balanced plant communities from coming back. Just a few short years ago, there were knee-high grasses in many parts of  northern Placitas. Where they once grew, you now see acres of broom snakeweed and bare, plantless areas of sheet erosion.

It appears we Placitans are no smarter than folks elsewhere. Human societies have a long history of destroying local ecosystems for short-term purposes–and not recognizing the extent of the damage until it’s too late for either the land or the society to recover. For an engrossing and illuminating read, check out “Collapse” by historian Jared Diamond.

WHOA appeals District Court’s dismissal of Placitas horse lawsuit–again

scales_of_justiceThe WHOA v. NMLB case regarding the Placitas horses was dismissed for a second time by the District Court on September 7th, but WHOA has appealed the decision. So, our celebration of the case being over was short-lived. For more on the dismissal, see the Sandoval Signpost article by Bill Diven. The appeal is currently pending and we’ll let you know the outcome as soon as we know.

It’s hard to see what WHOA gains through the appeal, since the Court of Appeals, in reviewing the case’s first dismissal, already issued an opinion that loose horses in Placitas that are unowned and undomesticated aren’t livestock and shouldn’t be treated as estray livestock under the livestock code. That ruling supports WHOA’s primary goal in filing the suit—to ensure that captured Placitas free-roaming horses can’t be auctioned by NMLB. (All free-roaming horses captured in the Placitas area in recent years have been captured by property owners on their private land; no captures have occurred on the Placitas Open Space, roadways or BLM tracts.)

WHOA files new suit. Meanwhile, in August WHOA filed a new suit against NMLB that challenges the agency’s jurisdiction over free-roaming horses in the Ruidoso area. In seeking to prevent NMLB from treating captured free-roaming horses as estrays, WHOA has presented the same arguments that it did in its Placitas horse lawsuit. You can stay up to date on that case through the Ruidoso News. As far as we know, a hearing date has not yet been set.

By the way…WHOA continues to claim on its website that it “won” the WHOA v. NMLB case in the NM Supreme Court, with four Supreme Court judges siding with WHOA. This is completely false. In 2014, NMLB asked the Supreme Court to review the Court of Appeals ruling (the one that stated that “unowned and undomesticated” horses aren’t livestock). But the NM Supreme Court declined to get involved. Thus, the case has continued on its way in the lower courts. The fact that WHOA just filed an appeal regarding the District Court’s second dismissal of the case is a really big clue that the case never came before the state Supreme Court. If at this point you believe any of the information WHOA puts out, we have a bridge to nowhere we’d like to sell you.


Full disclosure:  The editors of this blog are among the 12 Placitas residents who were permitted by the court to join the “WHOA v. NMLB” case as Defendants by Intervention (individuals who are not a party to the case but who have an interest in the outcome).

Case Dismissed!

WHOA has lost its lawsuit against the NM Livestock Board. This scales_of_justiceafternoon, Judge Huling of the Second Judicial District Court dismissed the lawsuit that the Wild Horse Observers Association (WHOA) brought against the NM Livestock Board (NMLB). WHOA had maintained that it was illegal for NMLB to use its estray livestock procedure to deal with free-roaming horses captured in the Placitas area because, WHOA alleged, the horses are “wild”.

The editors of this blog and several other Placitas residents had joined the case as “defendants by intervention” to protect local wildlife habitat and support private property rights and the right of citizens to use the NMLB’s estray livestock services that our tax dollars fund.

We’ll provide more details soon. Right now, we’re celebrating.

Movie night in Bernalillo

Need a mid-week break? The documentary film, “The First Millimeter: Healing the Earth,” will be shown on Thursday, April 28, 6:30 pm, in Bernalillo (CSWCD, 1500 Idalia Rd., Bldg C). The film features leading earth scientists and conservationists addressing why “the first millimeter of soil is crucial to our collective future.” The movie night, complete with popcorn and snacks, is free and sponsored by the Coronado Soil and Water Conservation District. You can get more information at

Yearning for wildness, slowly obliterating it

Placitas hillsideIn a recent opinion piece in the Santa Fe New Mexican, Toner Mitchell, New Mexico Public Lands Coordinator at Trout Unlimited, writes,

“It would be a sane and intelligent day if the money and resources expended on feral horses were instead used to restore the ecosystems they’ve destroyed…With feral horses, management to habitat’s benefit is practically impossible…”

Just the Facts: More about Placitas Horse Lawsuit

scales_of_justiceThis guest post comes to us from attorney Dave Reynolds, who represents the group of Placitas residents that joined WHOA v. NMLB as “Defendants by Intervention” (a third party with a stake in the outcome and right to be heard), and Carolyn Kennedy, who provided editorial assistance.

First, a little background. WHOA’s lawsuit in the New Mexico courts contends that NMLB has no right to treat Placitas “wild” horses as estray livestock when captured. In July 2014 the District Court ruled the free-roaming Placitas horses are indeed livestock and subject to estray livestock laws and dismissed the case. WHOA appealed the decision, and in August 2015 the Court of Appeals overturned the dismissal (it didn’t agree with the lower court’s reason for dismissal), and kicked the case back to District Court. (Sidebar: In October 2015, NMLB and the Intervenors asked the NM Supreme Court to review the Court of Appeals decision, but the Supreme Court said “not interested”). So, the case is proceeding in District Court and not over yet. However, the August 2015 Court of Appeals’ opinion does impact the status of Placitas horses right now. We’ll let Dave explain.

Summary of NM Court of Appeals Decision and Current Status of the Case, WHOA v. NM Livestock Board

Wild Horse Observers Association (WHOA) has recently published numerous blatant falsehoods about the ruling of the Court of Appeals in WHOA’s case against the NM Livestock Board (NMLB). This is a brief summary of what the Court of Appeals decided; what it did not decide; and the impact of the decision going forward with regard to free-roaming horses in the Placitas area.

By way of background, an appellate court does not, and can not, decide facts—fact finding is something that trial courts do through witness testimony and trial exhibits.  The Court of Appeals decides matters of law, such as interpreting what a statute means, and setting the legal framework for the trial court to apply law to the facts that have been proved to the trial court’s satisfaction. The New Mexico Court of Appeals did not make, and could not make, any determination as to whether the “Placitas horses” as a group, or as individuals, are “wild.” That question is up to a trial court to decide.

What the Court DID decide is that, under New Mexico law, not all horses are necessarily livestock, subject to the estray livestock impoundment procedure. The Court of Appeals ruled that if horses are proven, as a matter of fact based on evidence presented to a trial court, to be unowned and “undomesticated,” they are not livestock. Accordingly, the NMLB would have no jurisdiction over those particular horses, and would not be allowed to impound them for sale under the estray statutes.

The Court of Appeals did NOT rule that “the horses of Placitas are wildlife.” It did not rule that they are “protected wildlife.” It did not rule that “it is not legal to kill/auction NM’s wild horses.” With regard to animal cruelty laws, the Court ruled that while such laws apply to any horse in captivity, they do NOT apply to horses that are not in captivity.

While WHOA trumpets the Court of Appeals decision as a major victory, the legal consequences of the ruling are anything but a victory for free-roaming horses. By virtue of a 1994 New Mexico Attorney General Opinion regarding feral horses on White Sands Missile Range, which Opinion WHOA cited extensively in its Complaint in district court, the legal status of non-livestock horses is that of unregulated, unprotected wildlife, no different than coyotes or pack rats. Moreover, the Attorney General Opinion found that if such horses are captured on private land, they become the property of the landowner on whose land they were captured, and that landowner is free to sell them, keep them, and, yes, kill them. There is no opportunity, as there would be if the horses were found to be “domesticated” livestock subject to the statutory impoundment procedure, for individuals or rescue groups to purchase and adopt them at a livestock impoundment sale. In that regard, WHOA, in “winning” the legal argument that unowned horses are not livestock, actually gave landowners absolute power over unowned horses that they capture on their land. It doesn’t matter if the horses are “Spanish Mustangs”—if they are captured on private land, the landowner owns them.

WHOA did prevail against the livestock board in getting the Court of Appeals to find that the NMLB is the agency tasked by the DNA statute (Sec. 77-18-5 NMSA 1978) to test any non-livestock horses captured on the DNA statute’s narrowly defined “public lands.” However, this amounts to a big “so what?” in the Placitas area, because there is little, if any, “public” land in the Placitas area. Land that is under the control of the BLM, the forest service, and certain state trust land is excluded from the DNA statute’s definition of “public” land.  Even the City of Albuquerque’s Placitas Open Space is not “public” land, because as land the City acquired from the BLM under the Federal Recreational and Public Purposes Act, it remains under the ultimate control of the BLM. That leaves county road right of ways as the only “public” land in the Placitas area that is subject to the DNA statute. As a result, it is hard to conceive of a situation where horses captured anywhere in the Placitas area would have to be DNA tested by the NMLB.

It is important to note that the DNA statute does NOT apply to horses captured on private land, which is where all horse captures in the Placitas area have occurred. It doesn’t matter if they are unowned, undomesticated, free roaming Spanish Mustangs.  If they are captured on private land, they are the property of the landowner.

While the Intervenors and the NMLB asked the New Mexico Supreme Court to issue a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals, it declined to do so, and, as a result, the Court of Appeals decision stands. The Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari does not make the Court of Appeals decision a Supreme Court decision. It simply means the Supreme Court was not convinced that this was a case of sufficient importance to take up time on the Court’s docket. As a decision of the Court of Appeals, it may be overturned by the Supreme Court at any time in the future.

It would seem that WHOA has won a pyrrhic victory in the Court of Appeals.  They succeeded in removing all legal protections for free-roaming horses captured on private land, and while now the NMLB must DNA test horses captured on “public” land, from a practical standpoint, no such land exists in the Placitas area.

In accordance with the mandate issued by the Court of Appeals after the Supreme Court declined review, the case has been sent back to the district court for further proceedings, if any, that the district court decides are appropriate, given the Court of Appeals ruling. The court may very well find that in light of that ruling, the case should now be dismissed as moot.


For more about WHOA v. NMLB, see these posts and articles:

7/19/2014: Court Dismisses WHOA Lawsuit

7/21/2014: Judge Rules Placitas Horses Not Wild (Albuquerque Journal)

7/22/2014: Placitas Horse Group May Appeal Judge’s Ruling (Albuquerque Journal)

10/2015. Court Ruling Reshapes Placitas Horse Captures (Sandoval Signpost)

9/6/2015: Appeals Court Creates New Type of Horse

9/7/2015: The New Horse Ruling and the Consequences of Not Being Livestock

10/22/2015: NM Supreme Court Declines to Take Up WHOA v. NMLB

3/18/2016: WHOA Special Edition Spreads Misinformation