<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Horse Back Magazine &#187; laura leigh</title>
	<atom:link href="http://horsebackmagazine.com/hb/archives/tag/laura-leigh/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://horsebackmagazine.com/hb</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 17:43:16 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Guest Column: War Horse, a Commentary</title>
		<link>http://horsebackmagazine.com/hb/archives/13306</link>
		<comments>http://horsebackmagazine.com/hb/archives/13306#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Dec 2011 04:51:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>steven</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[More Horseback News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[BLM]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[helicopter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[laura leigh]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stampede]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Steven Spielberg]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[war horse]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wild Horses]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://horsebackmagazine.com/hb/?p=13306</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[By Laura Leigh
This commentary was written and posted today on the personal website of Horseback friend and photographer Laura Leigh, a true American Hero cut from the mold of Wild Horse Annie herself.
The Editor

Note: this site is my “blog.” The information site on “Wild Horses” is http://wildhorseeducation.org 
Laura
Poster art by Fortunino Matania

“War Horse,” the much [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<h2>By Laura Leigh</h2>
<p>This commentary was written and posted today on the personal website of Horseback friend and photographer Laura Leigh, a true American Hero cut from the mold of Wild Horse Annie herself.</p>
<p>The Editor</p>
<div>
<p>Note: this site is my “blog.” The information site on “Wild Horses” is <a href="http://wildhorseeducation.org/" target="_blank">http://wildhorseeducation.org </a></p>
<p>Laura</p>
<div id="attachment_3110"><a href="http://artandhorseslauraleigh.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/aa9780.jpg"><img title="aa9780" src="http://artandhorseslauraleigh.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/aa9780.jpg?w=510" alt="" /></a>Poster art by Fortunino Matania</p>
</div>
<p>“War Horse,” the much anticipated screen adaptation by Steven Spielberg opened in theatres across the country on Christmas Day.</p>
<p>As someone deeply involved in the issues facing both our wild and domestic equines, I actually went to a movie theatre for the first time in ages to view the film. Not only was this film about my favorite subject, horses, but it was done by one of my favorite directors of all time, Steven Spielberg.</p>
<p>Speilberg first “rocked my world” with <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092965/" target="_blank">“Empire of the Sun,”</a> (not ET). Released in 1987 this autobiographical tale tells the story of James Graham, a boy “of privilege” that has his life shattered after the invasion of Shanghai in 1941. Spielberg wove his tale so that the audience became “Jim.” You experienced everything through the masterful performance of Christian Bale and through the vision of a great director. “Jim, try not to think so much!” is a line delivered at just the right moment, in just the right way, that it has haunted me for over twenty years.</p>
<p>The subject of war, and it’s cost to the human spirit, was again tackled by this master film maker in <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0108052/" target="_blank">“Schindler’s List”</a> and “<a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120815/" target="_blank">Saving Private Ryan.”</a> Both of these films, although executed with very different directorial choices, speak directly to the transformation of the human soul through the horror of human action and the ability of the human spirit to transcend. We all remember Shindler agonizing that he could have saved “Just one more.”</p>
<p>So Christmas Day of 2011 I took my “war weary” self to the theatre to watch <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1568911/" target="_blank">“War Horse.”</a></p>
<p>Now you may not like the analogy of “war weary.” But that is how I feel. Most of you know my work for the wild ones but are unfamiliar with a past that includes a decade of work in the “horse slaughter” issue. Our “front” is taking a massive onslaught this year as our rear scrambles to deal with the issues at the front and behind our own lines. Our beloved equines, both wild and domestic, are under siege.</p>
<p>I plunked down the ticket price, that has gone up significantly since the last time I treated myself to a film, anticipating another “masterpiece.”</p>
<p>Waiting in line to find a seat I watched the movie goers leave the theatre after watching the film. There were mixed reviews. One man said “It was good” as he made the “so-so” motion with his hand. Another said “If you don’t have a tissue, don’t go in.”</p>
<p>A woman in line next to me confided that she had not been to a movie in a long time, but this one was about a horse. “Me, too,” I smiled.</p>
<p>We eagerly took our seats.</p>
<p>After 23 minutes of previews that flickered and had to be reset, the film began.</p>
<p>I began to realize that I was not going to see the Spielberg I had anticipated. I was watching a Director held by constraint.</p>
<p>The first third of the film is too long. It had a “made for TV feel.” Spielberg then focuses his camera lens on a plow during a scene that is to demonstrate the heart of “Joey,” our equine “star,” and “Albert” our human “spirit” focus of the film. That is when I remembered this film was created for Disney.</p>
<p>Don’t get me wrong here. I cried. I cried eight times during the film. The opening scene had me in tears as “Joey” the newborn demonstrates his legs by running side by side with his mom. I have seen so many youngsters that can’t keep up to their mothers during the helicopter chases on public land and moms so tired they are fighting to just keep the pace. I have seen so many babes taken from that protective space and stuck in pens during the most horrific experience of their bands existence… it didn’t take much for me to need a tissue.</p>
<div id="attachment_3111"><a href="http://artandhorseslauraleigh.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/horsedrawndm0811_468x461.jpg"><img title="horsedrawnDM0811_468x461" src="http://artandhorseslauraleigh.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/horsedrawndm0811_468x461.jpg?w=281&amp;h=277" alt="" width="281" height="277" /></a>Archive photo of WWI (photographer not credited at source)</p>
</div>
<p>As we enter into the war, a third of the way through the film, we begin to comprehend the first World War.</p>
<p>In a battle (the first the British engage in the story and the first time you actually are told you are in Britain and not in Scotland, Wales or Ireland) you are taken to what I assume is the battle at <a href="http://www.firstworldwar.com/battles/mons.htm" target="_blank">Mons.</a> The only true cavalry charge of WWI takes place at Mons. WWI is the transitional point in human warfare into the “mechanization” era. Spielberg does demonstrate very effectively how the cavalry charge does not meet the machine gun successfully, regardless of the belief of British officers of the day.</p>
<p>After that point we learn that horses are utilized for transportation of wounded and the machines we now rely on to win wars. But we see these things in small vignettes.</p>
<p>Each time I feel that Spielberg will take me to that “real” place of experience, that had been relayed to me by my grandfather, we get close to the destination but never truly arrive. It kept making me wonder how Spielberg would have portrayed the story without restraint of a PG-13 rating. Not a thought you want as you wait to be transported from your seat into a film.</p>
<p>Casualty counts are not kept on horses and mules. Yet the estimate is more than 8 million horses and mules died in the conflict on all sides. 8 million died. It is estimated that 2 and one half million were treated for wounds and 2 million of those returned to the war.</p>
<p>A quarter of a million horses were purchased or taken from farmers at the beginning of the war for the British army.</p>
<p>As the conflict raged on more countries joined the efforts and horses were needed.</p>
<p>Yes, the “Yankees” entered in the war. The “Yankees” were not only American Soldiers, but America’s horses. America’s horses carried our soldiers but also those of other Nations. During the conflict two-thirds of the horses used by Britain were supplied by the US.</p>
<p>During World War I ranchers went into business selling horses to the military. All of Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge and much of the area we now call the “Tri-State Complex” had horses “harvested” and sent into battle in Europe and Africa. It is estimated that a million wild horses went into conflict, none of them returned to American soil.</p>
<p>American horses from the open plains of the west were described by Captain Sydney Galtrey of the British Cavalry ”in a rough and ready shape – they were shoeless, long-haired, tousled-maned and had ragged hips.  But they were tough; generations of their kind had become completely at home with roaming out in the open and in all kinds of weather.”</p>
<p>“You put your mask on him first,” said Grandpa “He can carry you out, you can’t carry him.”</p>
<p>Many soldiers were moved deeply and carried stories of the mounts that carried them to safety or that they saw die horrific deaths.</p>
<div id="attachment_3112"><a href="http://artandhorseslauraleigh.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/410px-gasmask_for_man_and_horse.jpeg"><img title="410px-Gasmask_for_man_and_horse" src="http://artandhorseslauraleigh.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/410px-gasmask_for_man_and_horse.jpeg?w=246&amp;h=359" alt="" width="246" height="359" /></a>Gas mask for man and horse demonstrated by an American Soldier National Archives and Records Administration cir 1917-18</p>
</div>
<p>I sat in the theatre with this knowledge. We would briefly touch the reality of a “War Horse” in the film and then it would vanish.</p>
<p>Then the scene came… (used in the trailers) a scene where “Joey” looses a companion and is faced with the “machine.” The war blazes around him as he flees an early tank. He seemingly can’t escape and vaults over the “beast.” His flight takes him through an horrific battlefield where earlier we had witnessed the casualties to man. He crashes through barbed wire. He begins to collect it as he runs through the destructive path laid by man. (I was crying and teeth clenched as I have seen what barbed wire can do and we lost some of our wild ones this year during roundups to the cruelty of the invention).</p>
<p>He becomes immobilized.</p>
<p>As dawn rises and snow begins to fall we watch as the combatants come together for a brief moment to recognize the spirit of an “amazing horse.” The scene is pure Spielberg. As the tears stream down my face I watch as “enemies” cooperate to free “Joey.” I care about “Joey” and the two men involved. I am finally “in” the film.</p>
<p>Only for a brief moment at the end of the piece do we even peripherally become aware of the possible fate of many of the horses. A “butcher” is present at auction. If you are not informed, you are never told the truth. You are never told how many the “butcher” actually takes.</p>
<p>This film will be on the shelf next to “The Black Stallion” and “My friend Flicka.” It is a “love story” story of a horse and a boy/man.</p>
<p>Does this film have the power of “Black Beauty” to raise the consciousness of a nation? A novel that was responsible for creating a climate to pass the first humane care laws in our country… I don’t know.</p>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://horsebackmagazine.com/hb/archives/13306/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>26</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>USDA Has Disproportionate Influence on BLM Wild Horse Board</title>
		<link>http://horsebackmagazine.com/hb/archives/13288</link>
		<comments>http://horsebackmagazine.com/hb/archives/13288#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Dec 2011 16:22:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>steven</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[More Horseback News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[BLM]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[chase]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[deaths]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[helicopter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hooves]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[laura leigh]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mustangs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stampede]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wild horse and burro advisory board]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wild Horses]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://horsebackmagazine.com/hb/?p=13288</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[By Steven Long
Photo by Laura Leigh
HOUSTON, (Horseback) – The United States Department of Agriculture has an unusually stout influence over appointments to the Wild Horse and Burro Advisory Board of the federal Bureau of Land Management. The giant cabinet department that serves the needs of farmers and ranchers has veto power to appointments to the [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>By Steven Long</p>
<p>Photo by Laura Leigh</p>
<p><a href="http://horsebackmagazine.com/hb/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Mustangs-Sweat-Steam-Leigh-Ely.jpg"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-13289" title="Mustangs Sweat Steam Leigh Ely" src="http://horsebackmagazine.com/hb/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Mustangs-Sweat-Steam-Leigh-Ely.jpg" alt="" width="288" height="178" /></a>HOUSTON, (Horseback) – The United States Department of Agriculture has an unusually stout influence over appointments to the Wild Horse and Burro Advisory Board of the federal Bureau of Land Management. The giant cabinet department that serves the needs of farmers and ranchers has veto power to appointments to the panel that oversees equine wildlife management on BLM lands.</p>
<p>“It&#8217;s in the board&#8217;s charter but is not in a statute,” said Tom Gorey, BLM chief Washington Spokesman. The charter was updated in July, 2010.</p>
<p>While the board’s responsibility is not to set policy, but to advise, the Wild Horse and Burro panel has served as a rubber stamp for BLM “gather” policy that has resulted in the capture, killing, and holding of tens of thousands of wild animals in giant pastures at taxpayer expense. The policy has cost so much in   that the federal agency depletes its entire $60 million wild horse budget each year. Often, as soon as horses are removed they are replaced by cattle.</p>
<p>Last year hundreds of horses died in the “gathers” including one in Nevada during the dead of winter. Typically, the horses are stampeded by helicopter into a trap. One foal ran so hard during a chase it lost its hooves and died. The agency is the subject of several lawsuits in different jurisdictions over alleged inhumane treatment of the animals, and denial of access to press and public access its captures. Recently allegations have surfaced that BLM vets routinely castrate stallions without the benefit of anesthesia. <a href="http://horsebackmagazine.com/hb/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Mustangs-chopper-steam-Ely-Leigh-4-inch.jpg"><img class="alignright size-full wp-image-13290" title="Mustangs chopper steam Ely Leigh 4 inch" src="http://horsebackmagazine.com/hb/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Mustangs-chopper-steam-Ely-Leigh-4-inch.jpg" alt="" width="288" height="192" /></a></p>
<p>Asked how the USDA, and by extension the ranching industry, got veto power over a wildlife board in the first place, Gory responded saying, “The charter was renewed (and possibly revised) during the late 1990s when Pat Shea of Utah was BLM Director. The reason USDA is involved is that the Forest Service manages a small number (2,000 or so) of wild horses and burros, in accordance with the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971.”</p>
<p>Wild horse advocates claim that more than a million cattle graze on BLM lands, much of which is covered under the Free Roaming Wild Horse and Burro Acto of 1971, the “Wild Horse Annie Law.” Stockmen lease BLM land at the below market price of $1.35 per cow and calf per month. Yet Gorey was unable to provide <em>Horseback</em> the exact number of animals grazing under lease.</p>
<p>“We manage cattle in accordance with the provisions of the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, and the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978.” He told <em>Horseback Magazine</em>. “We don&#8217;t count head of cattle but do keep track of forage used. In Fiscal Year 2010, livestock consumed 8.2 million forage units, known as animal unit months. Since most grazing is seasonal, the way to estimate the number of livestock grazing on BLM land year-round is to divide 8.2 million by 12 (months). For more info, see our grazing page on <a href="http://www.blm.gov/">www.blm.gov</a> in our &#8220;What We Do&#8221; section.”</p>
<p>Three board members terms expire January 8, 2012. They include Robyn Lohnes, a controversial appointee who operates the Washington based American Horse Protection Association, Dr. Boyd Spratling, a Nevada vet from the extremely rural town of Deeth, and Janet Jankura of Richfield, Ohio.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://horsebackmagazine.com/hb/archives/13288/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>38</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A Horseback Exclusive: Laura Leigh&#8217;s Report From the Field &#8211; Another Death at Calico</title>
		<link>http://horsebackmagazine.com/hb/archives/12830</link>
		<comments>http://horsebackmagazine.com/hb/archives/12830#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Dec 2011 01:11:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>steven</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[More Horseback News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[BLM]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[deaths]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[laura leigh]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mustangs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stampede]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wild Horses]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://horsebackmagazine.com/hb/?p=12830</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ 
By Laura Leigh, Horseback Magazine, President, Wild Horse Education
 
Yesterday, 11/29/2011, at the Calico Complex roundup in Northwestern Nevada a mare broke her neck on the panels.
THE CALICO COMPLEX, Nev (Horseback) &#8211; The young grulla mare&#8217;s death came after she was captured, separated from her family, processed, corralled, reprocessed and PZP treated. She was the last [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: small;">By Laura Leigh, <em>Horseback Magazine</em>, President, Wild Horse Education</span></p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p>Yesterday, 11/29/2011, at the Calico Complex roundup in Northwestern Nevada a mare broke her neck on the panels.</p>
<p><a href="http://horsebackmagazine.com/hb/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Mustang-Calico-Death-of-a-Mare-Leigh.jpg"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-12832" title="Mustang Calico Death of a Mare Leigh" src="http://horsebackmagazine.com/hb/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Mustang-Calico-Death-of-a-Mare-Leigh.jpg" alt="" width="288" height="192" /></a>THE CALICO COMPLEX, Nev (Horseback) &#8211; The young grulla mare&#8217;s death came after she was captured, separated from her family, processed, corralled, reprocessed and PZP treated. She was the last horse to load for the day to be released back to the range. The mare was agitated. She hit her head on a panel, broke her neck and was euthanized.</p>
<p>Operations in what BLM is referencing as the “Tri-State Calico Complex Gather” plan on the removal of 1,300 wild horses and 140 wild burros. The press release from the agency says that as many as 350 may be released back to the range with as many as 115 mares receiving the 22 month contraceptive, PZP-22.</p>
<p>The title “Tri-State Complex” has created some confusion among the public. The Calico Complex itself is not located in three states, but resides within Washoe and Humbolt counties within the state of Nevada. The label of “Tri-State” was added as an alleged symbol of interagency/inter district  management between Sheldon National Wildlife refuge (USFWS) to the North into Oregon, the High Rock Complex of Western Nevada/Eastern California (BLM), Twin Peaks of Nevada/California (BLM) as well as the Calico Complex of Nevada. However in practice the only “change” has been a dialogue about decreasing population numbers based on alleged populations of adjoining areas.</p>
<p>No operational procedures are “joined” and even basic protocols in field offices during roundup operations remain separate events.</p>
<p>Release procedures during the High Rock roundup included mixed sex group releases and stallions receiving a brand, prior to release, to identify them in the future to gain more information on population movement after the disruption of the roundup. At the “Tri-state” operation 50 stallions were released in a single sex group without any mark back into the range where a trap was still located and in use.</p>
<p>When questioned as to why the same procedure was not being followed at the “Tri-state” Complex Gene Seidlitz, district manager over the operation replied, “They did that?”</p>
<p>Serious questions arise about any designation of this “Tri-state” complex creating any management strategy other than a justification process for increased removals. If this complex system were designed for “management” why is there no infrastructure in place to to gain credible data for true management?</p>
<p>Serious questions arise when the “birth control” options do not take into account the stressors that a wild population would undergo as they enter the most fragile time of year on the range, winter. Family bands are hard wired for survival dependent on the structure of “the band.” Why is there no effort to release groups in even the most limited pretense of band structure, mixed sex release?</p>
<p>As operations continue through the end of the year, in this supposed “Tri-state” complex that proposed a “new” form of cooperation, it has yet to demonstrate anything but an acceleration of the “old” forms of communication and protocol.</p>
<p>Contact:<em> Laura Leigh is founder and president of Wild Hore Education and is an accredited  journalist/photographer  for Horseback Magazine on assignment in the West to cover activities of the federal Bureau of Land Management and other agencies of th U.S. Department of Interior.</em></p>
<p><a href="mailto:WildHorseEducation@gmail.com">WildHorseEducation@gmail.com</a></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: small;">By Laura Leigh, <em>Horseback Magazine</em>, President, Wild Horse Education</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: &amp;amp;quot; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA;"> </span></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://horsebackmagazine.com/hb/archives/12830/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>32</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Wild Horse Activists Critical of White House &#8220;Canned Response&#8221; by BLM Director</title>
		<link>http://horsebackmagazine.com/hb/archives/12675</link>
		<comments>http://horsebackmagazine.com/hb/archives/12675#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 19 Nov 2011 13:59:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>steven</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[More Horseback News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[AWHPC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bob Abbey]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cattlemen]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cattoor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EWA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gather]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[helicopter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[killer buyer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[laura leigh]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lawsuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mustangs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[slaughter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[stampedes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sun J]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wild Horses]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://horsebackmagazine.com/hb/?p=12675</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ 
AWHPC Statement on the White House&#8217;s &#8220;Canned&#8221; Response to Our Wild Horse Petition
Photo by Laura Leigh
If you signed the Wild Horse and Burro petition on the White House&#8217;s &#8220;We the People&#8221; website, you have received the same canned response that we received from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) director, Bob Abbey.
We are as frustrated [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><em> </em></p>
<p><strong><a href="http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=omaglqdab&amp;et=1108678045151&amp;s=46&amp;e=001Hi_Q14IOOatJC_U8M0ygueXpsO3DjSaitKRkyWuKacwfgIGEXlXICe4d1nNwmpg9vafqt-9TrpEfcibCq3vEAb7MF6bLpzlGvcF_TD0ZFY9EYfMBHcnIX7ner4t2Bsvp" target="_blank"><em>AWHPC</em></a><em> Statement on the White House&#8217;s &#8220;Canned&#8221; Response to Our Wild Horse Petition</em></strong></p>
<p><strong><em>Photo by Laura Leigh</em></strong></p>
<p><a href="http://horsebackmagazine.com/hb/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Mustangs-chopper-steam-Ely-Leigh-4-inch.jpg"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-12677" title="Mustangs chopper steam Ely Leigh 4 inch" src="http://horsebackmagazine.com/hb/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Mustangs-chopper-steam-Ely-Leigh-4-inch.jpg" alt="" width="288" height="192" /></a>If you signed the Wild Horse and Burro petition on the White House&#8217;s &#8220;We the People&#8221; website, you have received the same canned response that we received from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) director, Bob Abbey.</p>
<p>We are as frustrated and disappointed as you are with this insulting and dismissive response to the sincere concern of thousands of American citizens who seek reform of the costly and cruel federal Wild Horse and Burro Program.</p>
<p>We wanted to share our letter to President Obama&#8217;s chief of staff, William Daley, highlighting the inadequacy of the response and the White House&#8217;s utter failure to consider this issue, as promised in the &#8220;We the People&#8221; initiative.</p>
<p>To the thousands of you who took the time to sign the petition &#8211; WE THANK YOU and promise to continue to fight for our wild horses and burros. We hope that you will continue to join us.</p>
<p>18 November 2011</p>
<p>William Daley, Chief of Staff</p>
<p>The White House</p>
<p>1600 Pennsylvania Avenue</p>
<p>Washington, DC 20500</p>
<p>Dear Mr. Daley:</p>
<p>I am writing on behalf of the American Wild Horse Preservation Campaign and the thousands of Americans who signed the &#8220;We the People&#8221; petition titled &#8220;Protect Wild Horses and Burros; Reform Inhumane Interior Department Management Program That Wastes Tax Dollars&#8221; to register our grave disappointment with the November 17, 2011 response from the White House. The petition calls on the Obama Administration to stop the Interior Department&#8217;s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) from wasting millions of tax dollars to roundup and remove wild horses by the tens of thousands from public lands in the West, and to instead implement a cost-effective policy to manage these national icons on the range using proven and humane cost-effective methods.</p>
<p>The White House&#8217;s canned response to this petition, signed by thousands of American citizens, was authored, not by a White House policy official, but rather by BLM Director Bob Abbey - the very individual responsible for the mismanagement of the federal Wild Horse and Burro Program, which is the subject of the petition.</p>
<p>In unveiling the &#8220;We the People&#8221; initiative, the White House promised &#8220;a new way to petition the Obama Administration&#8221; and that &#8220;White House staff will review&#8221; the issue. However, there was nothing new in the response. The White House merely delivered the old familiar BLM rhetoric that has been used for the past several years to rationalize the agency&#8217;s mismanagement and waste of tax dollars. Included is the touting of a &#8220;new strategy&#8221; that is being implemented despite the receipt of tens of thousands of public comments opposing the majority of the strategy&#8217;s components.</p>
<p>Had we, the people who signed the petition, wanted a response from the BLM, we would have written to the BLM. Or better yet, since the response is just a cut-and-paste of BLM propaganda, we could have read it on the agency&#8217;s website and saved ourselves the considerable time and effort it took to log into the White House&#8217;s website and sign the petition!</p>
<p>President Obama has the full authority to reform the federal wild horse and burro program and could do so with one telephone call to his Secretary of the Interior. The fact that the White House didn&#8217;t even take the time to review this petition is a slap in the face to the American citizens who believed in the President&#8217;s promise that their concerns would be seriously considered. As a result, we are left to conclude that the entire &#8220;We the People&#8221; website is little more than a re-election campaign gimmick.</p>
<p>We conclude this letter with a final plea for President Obama&#8217;s attention to this issue and a request for a meeting with White House staff to discuss badly needed reform.  To such a meeting we would bring wild horse and range experts to discuss the humane, cost-effective solutions, which have already been proposed but continue to be ignored by the BLM and Mr. Abbey.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s time that President Obama intervened in this issue to fulfill his promise for hope and change for the future.</p>
<p>We await your prompt response.</p>
<p>Sincerely,</p>
<p>Suzanne Roy</p>
<p>Campaign Director</p>
<p>American Wild Horse Preservation Campaign</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://horsebackmagazine.com/hb/archives/12675/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>9</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Federal Judge Orders BLM to “Answer” Wild Horse Inhumane Charges</title>
		<link>http://horsebackmagazine.com/hb/archives/11933</link>
		<comments>http://horsebackmagazine.com/hb/archives/11933#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 09 Oct 2011 15:24:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>steven</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[More Horseback News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[deaths BLM]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gordon cowan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[helicopter Jun-Jay]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Howard McKibben]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ken Salazar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[laura leigh]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[r.t. fitch]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stampede]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wild Horse Education]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wild Horse Freedom Foundation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://horsebackmagazine.com/hb/?p=11933</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Federal Judge Orders BLM to “Answer” Wild Horse Inhumane Charges, Allegations documented in striking video
HOUSTON, (WHFF) &#8211; On October  6th, 2011 the Honorable Judge Howard McKibben ordered that the Motion for Injunctive Relief in the matter Laura Leigh v. Ken Salazar addressing “Humane Treatment” be answered. 
The matter addresses alleged inhumane conduct at Bureau [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://horsebackmagazine.com/hb/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Laura-Leigh-mug.jpg"><img src="http://horsebackmagazine.com/hb/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Laura-Leigh-mug.jpg" alt="" title="Laura Leigh mug" width="144" height="152" class="alignleft size-full wp-image-11936" /></a><a href="http://horsebackmagazine.com/hb/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Mustangs-Helicopter-Antelope-Leigh-4-72.jpg"><img src="http://horsebackmagazine.com/hb/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Mustangs-Helicopter-Antelope-Leigh-4-72.jpg" alt="" title="Mustangs Helicopter Antelope Leigh 4 72" width="288" height="145" class="alignleft size-full wp-image-11934" /></a><em>Federal Judge Orders BLM to “Answer” Wild Horse Inhumane Charges, Allegations documented in striking video</em></p>
<p>HOUSTON, (WHFF) &#8211; On October  6th, 2011 the Honorable Judge Howard McKibben ordered that the Motion for Injunctive Relief in the matter Laura Leigh v. Ken Salazar addressing “Humane Treatment” be answered. </p>
<p>The matter addresses alleged inhumane conduct at Bureau of Land Management (BLM) wild horse roundups. Late in August the parties met in a Federal Courtroom in Reno Nevada. There Judge McKibben granted Plaintiff a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) to pilot conduct demonstrated at the Triple B roundup in Eastern Nevada. </p>
<p>Included in documentation presented to the Court was video footage taken by Laura Leigh, founder of Wild Horse Education (WHE) and Vice President of Wild Horse Freedom Federation (WHFF), that showed a BLM contracted helicopter pilot coming into contact with a horse and his aircraft. That footage was considered so intense that it was deemed to be age-restricted based on “inappropriate” content by Youtube. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObXB0Wq3nRE)</p>
<p>At the hearing for the TRO Judge McKibben left the matter for Injunctive Relief open stating that the ruling would stand identical unless new information is presented to the Court. The Complaint itself is left active.</p>
<p>“At the Barren Valley Roundup in Oregon BLM did all they could to restrict the ability to assess pilot conduct,” stated Leigh “ yet every indication was observed that identical conduct continued. There were finally two runs (one day) where I was restricted, yet was able to catch seconds of the push and I saw the pilot, again, come in close proximity to the ground, the trap and the horses.”</p>
<p>Leigh returned to Reno (before heading out to the roundup again) and amended the Complaint to include the documentation she had of pilot conduct, conduct at holding, the lack of an upcoming roundup schedule and still no written humane handling protocol or consequence.</p>
<p>“It is amazing that an agency that will claim to care about the horses has no real standard for accountability for handling of animals,” states Leigh “Instead it is left up to arbitrary whim that has no consequence. That’s not how you handle something you care about.”</p>
<p>Since the Complaint was amended BLM announced an “internal” investigation into “alleged” activity  at Triple B. There was an internal investigation into the same type of conduct at the Antelope roundup that cleared the contractor and blamed “telephoto distortion” and “angles” of photographs. The outcome of this “investigation” is expected on October 12.</p>
<p>Since the Complaint was amended BLM has now issued it’s roundup schedule.</p>
<p>“Do we dare hope that the BLM will issue a handling protocol with accountability to avoid scrutiny of the Court?” asks R.T. Fitch, equine author and co-founder/President of Wild Horse Freedom Federation (WHFF), “After all it would seem to be standard operating procedure.”</p>
<p>According to the briefing schedule set by Judge McKibben the case for Relief could be heard before the Court by the end of next month.
<p>
To support the lawsuit call R.T. Fitch, President WHFF, 281-766-7566,Laura Leigh, Vice President WHFF, 800-974-3684</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://horsebackmagazine.com/hb/archives/11933/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Historic Wild Horse First Amendment Case Filed Against Feds</title>
		<link>http://horsebackmagazine.com/hb/archives/9852</link>
		<comments>http://horsebackmagazine.com/hb/archives/9852#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 02 Jul 2011 03:57:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>steven</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[More Horseback News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[BLM]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gordon cowan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[laura leigh]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mustangs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Photographers Committed For Freedom of the Press]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reporters Committe for Freedom of the Press]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wild orses]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://horsebackmagazine.com/hb/?p=9852</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ 
 
Advocate Challenges BLM Covert Wild Mustang Operations
Reno Attorney Gordon Cowan in Photo
HOUSTON, (WHFF) &#8211; On June 30, 2011 the last reply brief was filed in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the landmark First Amendment case for the public’s “right to know” in matters of government action; these actions do not relate to issues [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p><em><a href="http://horsebackmagazine.com/hb/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Cowan-Reply.pdf">Advocate Challenges BLM Covert Wild Mustang Operations</a></em></p>
<p><em>Reno Attorney Gordon Cowan in Photo</em></p>
<p><a href="http://horsebackmagazine.com/hb/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Gordon-Cowan-3.jpg"><img class="alignleft size-medium wp-image-9854" title="Gordon Cowan 3" src="http://horsebackmagazine.com/hb/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Gordon-Cowan-3-193x300.jpg" alt="" width="193" height="300" /></a>HOUSTON, (<a href="http://www.wildhorsefreedom.org/" target="_blank">WHFF</a>) &#8211; On June 30, 2011 the <a href="http://horsebackmagazine.com/hb/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Cowan-Reply.pdf">last reply brief</a> was filed in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the landmark First Amendment case for the public’s “right to know” in matters of government action; these actions do not relate to issues of national security, military secrets or pan-handling on the White House lawn but solely speak to the meaningful access to assess and track wild horses and burros from range through holding and the hands-on management of those herds by a government agency.</p>
<p>Plaintiff <a href="http://artandhorseslauraleigh.wordpress.com/">Laura Leigh</a>, Founder of <a href="http://wildhorseeducation.org/">Wild Horse Education</a> (WHE) and VP of <a href="http://www.wildhorsefreedom.org/">Wild Horse Freedom Federation</a> (WHFF) writes:</p>
<p><em>“As a journalist and representative of equine welfare agencies I travel to roundups and holding facilities with the express purpose of documenting individual animals from range through the system.</em></p>
<p><em> </em></p>
<p><em>The condition of horses coming off the range at Silver King could not be properly assessed. Wild Horses captured from Silver King ARE STILL in the system.</em></p>
<p><em>I was NOT able to track them like I did horses from Calico. I am STILL not able to track them. Horses from upcoming roundups cannot be tracked and their condition reported to the public.</em></p>
<p><em> </em></p>
<p><em>I am extremely frustrated that I cannot fulfill my full obligations to the public and the horses.”</em></p>
<p>There is an expressed expectation that Leigh will continue to be frustrated in the quest to properly assess condition of horses removed from the range, the protocol of capture, the number of horses captured and the condition of these horses as they move through the system.</p>
<p>“The public has a right to be informed of actions by its government, guaranteed by the Constitution,” states Leigh’s noted attorney Gordon Cowan of Reno, NV “the government cannot be allowed to evade review through cessation of an action where there is every expectation the conduct will continue.”</p>
<p>“This case is bigger than many people understand” explains <a href="http://rtfitch.wordpress.com/authorswriters/">R.T. Fitch</a>, <a href="http://www.rtfitch.com/">author</a> and President of WHFF, “The dialogue is reaching an audience much larger than our supportive wild equine advocate community. This case has been joined by the <a href="http://www.rcfp.org/index.php">Reporters Committee for a Free Press</a> and the <a href="http://www.nppa.org/">National Press Photographers Association</a>. The American public at large is beginning to understand the broad sweeping outrages of this issue.”</p>
<p>Award winning equine photographer <a href="http://www.facebook.com/tzfitch">Terry Fitch</a> added, “Working as Chief Photographer for <a href="http://www.horsebackmagazine.com/">Horseback Magazine</a> I have continually been denied appropriate access at wild horse stampedes.  The government and their contractors go to great lengths to ensure that the free press and American public cannot see what is actually happening to the last of our wild equines.”</p>
<p>WHFF is funding the legal operations of this action while Ms. Leigh’s field work is supported by Wild Horse Education (WHE).</p>
<p>###</p>
<p><strong><a href="http://www.wildhorsefreedom.org/"><em>Wild Horse Freedom Federation</em></a></strong><strong><em> (WHFF) is a registered, Texas non-profit corporation with 501c3 status pending.  WHFF puts people between America’s wild equids and extinction through targeted litigation against governmental agencies whose documented agendas include the eradication of wild horse and burros from public, federal and state lands.</em></strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://horsebackmagazine.com/hb/archives/9852/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Wild Horse Advocates Combine Legal Might to Protect National Icons</title>
		<link>http://horsebackmagazine.com/hb/archives/9810</link>
		<comments>http://horsebackmagazine.com/hb/archives/9810#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Jun 2011 04:13:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>steven</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[More Horseback News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[BLM]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gordon cowan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[laura leigh]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[r.t. fitch]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Terry Fitch]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wild Horse Freedom Foundation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://horsebackmagazine.com/hb/?p=9810</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ 
Recognized Advocates launch Wild Horse Freedom Federation
HOUSTON, (WHFF) &#8211; Noted equine author and wild horse advocate R.T. Fitch and his wife, award winning wild horse photographer Terry, have combined their legal forces with journalist/videographer Laura Leigh to form a unified wild horse legal advocate organization whose mission is to “place people between wild horses and [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p> </p>
<p><em>Recognized Advocates launch Wild Horse Freedom Federation</em></p>
<p><a href="http://horsebackmagazine.com/hb/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Laura-Leigh-mug.jpg"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-9814" title="Laura Leigh mug" src="http://horsebackmagazine.com/hb/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Laura-Leigh-mug.jpg" alt="" width="144" height="152" /></a>HOUSTON, (<a href="http://www.wildhorsefreedom.org/">WHFF</a>) &#8211; Noted <a href="http://www.rtfitch.com/">equine author</a> and wild horse advocate <a href="http://rtfitch.wordpress.com/authorswriters/">R.T. Fitch</a> and his wife, award winning wild horse photographer<a href="http://horsebackmagazine.com/hb/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/RT-at-White-House-2-72-2-inch.jpg"><img class="alignright size-full wp-image-9813" title="RT at White House 2 72 2 inch" src="http://horsebackmagazine.com/hb/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/RT-at-White-House-2-72-2-inch.jpg" alt="" width="144" height="216" /></a> <a href="http://www.facebook.com/tzfitch">Terry</a>, have combined their legal forces with journalist/videographer <a href="http://artandhorseslauraleigh.wordpress.com/">Laura Leigh</a> to form a unified wild horse legal advocate organization whose mission is to “place people between wild horses and extinction”.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.wildhorsefreedom.org/">Wild Horse Freedom Federation</a> (WHFF) is a registered non-profit organization, 501c3 pending, that brings together a consortium of major animal welfare organizations, as both plaintiffs and advisors, for the sole purpose of legally challenging the federal, state and local governmental agencies who’s inappropriate agendas include harassing, capturing and removing wild horses and burros from U.S. public lands.</p>
<p>While the Fitch’s <a href="http://wildhorsefreedomfederation.wordpress.com/legal-documents/legal-documents/north-piceancewest-douglas-activity/">legal actions</a>, personally funded with assistance from <a href="http://www.frontrangeequinerescue.org/">Front Range Equine Rescue</a>, the <a href="http://www.aspca.org/">ASPCA</a> and private donations, bring forth the issue of bad data utilized to zero out wild horse herds, Ms. Leigh’s filings, supported entirely by public donations and assistance from <a href="http://wildhorseeducation.org/">Wild Horse Education</a>, address the issue of <a href="http://wildhorsefreedomfederation.wordpress.com/legal-documents/legal-documents/first-amendment-activity/">First Amendment rights</a> and appropriate access.  Both can claim incremental victories as all of their cases are ongoing and in the spotlight of the global equine advocacy community.</p>
<p>Yet now these actions sit within one umbrella organization.</p>
<p>“Our mission is simple”, states R.T. Fitch president and co-founder of WHFF, “we are now working together to find the chink in the armor of the government agencies that hold themselves above the law and reproach of the American people and then concentrate on this weakness.  We are not a horse rescue, sanctuary or anything of the sort, but instead a consortium of equine welfare organizations and private citizens who feel that our last recourse in stopping this Wild Horse Harvesting Machine is in the courts of the United States Judicial System.”</p>
<p>“We have always been totally aligned and on parallel paths,” explained Laura Leigh VP of WHFF, “but now we will pull our legal pursuits together. This will unify the advocate community structure with more effective communication toward accountability to law and the American public.”</p>
<p>Equine photographer Terry Fitch adds, “We just need this nonsense to stop.  It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that the government’s facts and numbers are skewed against the wild horses and burros.  There needs to be a moratorium on these useless and costly wild horse stampedes while we take the time to accurately account for how many wild horses and burros are still left free roaming on their designated public lands.”</p>
<p><a href="http://www.wildhorsefreedom.org/">Wild Horse Freedom Federation’s</a> current list of plaintiffs include the <a href="http://www.aspca.org/">ASPCA</a>, Colorado Wild Horse and Burro Coalition, the <a href="http://www.thecloudfoundation.org/">Cloud Foundation</a>, <a href="http://www.frontrangeequinerescue.org/">Front Range Equine Rescue</a>, <a href="http://www.habitatforhorses.org/">Habitat for Horses</a> and private citizens Dr. Don and Toni Moore and journalist <a href="http://livepage.apple.com/">Laura Leigh</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://horsebackmagazine.com/hb/archives/9810/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Press Organizations Join in BLM Lawsuit Appeal</title>
		<link>http://horsebackmagazine.com/hb/archives/9216</link>
		<comments>http://horsebackmagazine.com/hb/archives/9216#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Jun 2011 01:07:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>steven</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[More Horseback News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[deaths]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gordon cowan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[helicopter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[laura leigh]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mustangs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[National Press Photographers Association]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stampede]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wild Horses]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://horsebackmagazine.com/hb/?p=9216</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[HOUSTON, (Horseback) &#8211; Two of the natin&#8217;s most respected press organizations have filed amicus briefs on behalf of journalist and photographer Laura Leigh in her appeal against an adverse ruling by a Reno federal court in a press freedom case that may have lasting implications for the federal Bureau of Land Management. The Reporters Committee [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://horsebackmagazine.com/hb/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Mustangs-Helicopter-Antelope-Leigh-4-72.jpg"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-9217" title="Mustangs Helicopter Antelope Leigh 4 72" src="http://horsebackmagazine.com/hb/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Mustangs-Helicopter-Antelope-Leigh-4-72.jpg" alt="" width="288" height="145" /></a>HOUSTON, (Horseback) &#8211; Two of the natin&#8217;s most respected press organizations have filed amicus briefs on behalf of journalist and photographer Laura Leigh in her appeal against an adverse ruling by a Reno federal court in a press freedom case that may have lasting implications for the federal Bureau of Land Management. The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and the National Press Photographers Association  filed the amicus brief.</p>
<p>Over a period spanning Labor Day, 2009, to the present, the federal agency in charge of the majority of the nation&#8217;s wild horses has restricted media access to helicopter driven stampedes it terms &#8220;gather.&#8221;</p>
<p>Laura Leigh is credentialed as a reporter for <em>Horseback Magazie.</em></p>
<p>Horseback magazine is offering the brief as a public service to our fellow reporters, editors, and the horse loving public.</p>
<p><em>To support Laura Leigh&#8217;s lawsuit send donations for attorney Gordon Cowan&#8217;s services to Wild Horse Education, P.O. Box 4176, Carson City, Nev 89702</em></p>
<p><span style="font-size: medium;">No. 11-16088 </span></p>
<div><strong><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: small;">______________________________________________________________________________</span></span></strong></div>
<p><strong><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: small;"></p>
<div><span style="font-size: large;">United States Court of Appeals</span></div>
<p></span></span><span style="font-size: large;"></p>
<div><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: large;">for the</span></span></em></div>
<p></span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: large;"></p>
<div><span style="font-size: large;">Ninth Circuit</span></div>
<p></span></span><span style="font-size: large;"></p>
<div><span style="font-size: small;">______________________________________________________________________________</span></div>
<p></span><span style="font-size: small;"></p>
<div><strong><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">LAURA LEIGH</span></span></strong></div>
<p></span><strong><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"></p>
<div><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">Plaintiff-Appellant,</span></span></em></div>
<p></span></span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">v.</p>
<div><strong><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">KEN SALAZAR, ET AL.</span></span></strong></div>
<p></span></span><strong><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"></p>
<div><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">Defendants-Appellees</span></span></em></div>
<p></span></span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-size: medium;">. </span></p>
<div><span style="font-size: small;">______________________________________________________________________________</span></div>
<p></span></span><span style="font-size: small;"></p>
<div><span style="font-size: medium;">ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES</span></div>
<p></span><span style="font-size: medium;">DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA,</p>
<p>THE HONORABLE LARRY R. HICKS</p>
<div><span style="font-size: small;">______________________________________________________________________________</span></div>
<p></span><span style="font-size: small;"></p>
<div><strong><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">BRIEF</span></span></strong></div>
<p></span><strong><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"></p>
<div><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">AMICI CURIAE </span></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">OF THE REPORTERS COMMITTEE FOR FREEDOM OF THE PRESS AND THE NATIONAL PRESS PHOTOGRAPHERS ASSOCIATION, IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANT’S APPEAL TO REVERSE THE DENIAL OF A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION </span></span><span style="font-size: small;">______________________________________________________________________________ </span><span style="font-size: medium;">Lucy A. Dalglish</span></em></div>
<p></span></span><em><span style="font-size: medium;">Gregg P. Leslie</p>
<p>Derek D. Green</p>
<p>1101 Wilson Blvd., Suite 1100</p>
<p>Arlington, VA 22209</p>
<p>Tel: (703) 807-2100</p>
<div><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">Counsel for The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press</span></span></em></div>
<p></span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"></p>
<div><span style="font-size: medium;">*</span></div>
<p></span></span><span style="font-size: medium;"></p>
<div><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">Additional Counsel listed on inside cover </span></span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;">Case: 11-16088 06/02/2011 Page: 1 of 31 ID: 7771733 DktEntry: 14-3 </span></span></span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;">Additional Counsel</span></span></span></em></div>
<p></span><em><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;">Mickey H. Osterreicher</p>
<p>40 Wagon Wheel Drive</p>
<p>East Amherst, New York 14051</p>
<p>Tel: 716.983.7800</p>
<div><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;">General Counsel for The National Press</span></span></span></em></div>
<p></span></span></span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;">Photographers Association</p>
<div><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;">Case: 11-16088 06/02/2011 Page: 2 of 31 ID: 7771733 DktEntry: 14-3</span></span></span></div>
<p></span></span></span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"></p>
<div><strong><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;"> </span></span></span></span></span></span></strong></div>
<p></span></span></span><strong><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;"></p>
<div><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;"> </span></span></div>
<p></span></span></span></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;"></p>
<div><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;"> </span></div>
<p></span></span></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;"><em><strong><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">TABLE OF CONTENTS</span></span></strong></em></p>
<p></span></span></p>
<div><span style="font-size: medium;">TABLE OF AUTHORITIES &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230; ii</span></div>
<p><span style="font-size: medium;">IDENTITY OF</p>
<p>SOURCE OF AUTHORITY TO FILE &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230; 2</p>
<p>FED. R. APP. P. 29(c)(5) STATEMENT &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230; 2</p>
<p>STANDARD OF REVIEW &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230; 2</p>
<p>SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230; 4</p>
<p>ARGUMENT &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;. 6</p>
<p>I. The District Court Erred in Ruling that Plaintiff/Appellant‟ Amended Request for Injunctive Relief was Moot. &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.. 6</p>
<p>II. The District Court Erred in Applying the Incorrect Legal Standard to Deny Plaintiff/Appellant Injunctive Relief. &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;. 9</p>
<p>A. The First Amendment protects the public‟ right to gather news. &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;..10</p>
<p>B. The district court erred in not subjecting the BLM restrictions to public forum analysis. &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;..13</p>
<p>C. Reversal of the district court‟ order is also warranted under an alternative right of access analysis. &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.20</p>
<p>CONCLUSION &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;..23</p>
<p>CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE</p>
<div><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">AMICI </span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">AND INTEREST IN CASE &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230; 1 </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;">Case: 11-16088 06/02/2011 Page: 4 of 31 ID: 7771733 DktEntry: 14-3</span></span></span></em></div>
<p></span><em><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;">ii </span></span></span></p>
<div><strong><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">TABLE OF AUTHORITIES</span></span></strong></div>
<p></span></span></span><strong><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">Cases</p>
<div><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">A&amp;M Records, Inc. v. Napster</span></span></em></div>
<p></span></span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-size: medium;">, </span></p>
<div><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">Inc.</span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">, 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001) &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.. 3 </span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell</span></span></em></em></div>
<p></span></span><em><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-size: medium;">, 632 F.2d 1127 (9th Cir. 2011) &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.. 3 </span></p>
<div><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">American Civil Liberties Union v. Lomax</span></span></em></div>
<p></span></span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-size: medium;">, 471 F.3d 1010 (9th Cir. 2006) &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.. 6 </span></p>
<div><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">American Horse Protection Ass’n, Inc. v. Watt</span></span></em></div>
<p></span></span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-size: medium;">, 679 F.2d 150 (1982) &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230; 8 </span></p>
<div><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">Blackston v. Alabama</span></span></em></div>
<p></span></span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-size: medium;">, 30 F.3d 117 (11th Cir. 1994) &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;..13 </span></p>
<div><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">Branzburg v. Hayes</span></span></em></div>
<p></span></span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-size: medium;">, 408 U.S. 665 (1972) &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.11 </span></p>
<div><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">Daily Herald Co. v. Munro</span></span></em></div>
<p></span></span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-size: medium;">, 838 F.2d 380 (9th Cir. 1988) &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230; passim </span></p>
<div><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">Dorfman v. Meiszner</span></span></em></div>
<p></span></span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-size: medium;">, 430 F.2d 558 (7th Cir. 1970) &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;..13 </span></p>
<div><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">Earth Island Institute v. Carlton</span></span></em></div>
<p></span></span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-size: medium;">, 626 F.3d 462 (9th Cir. 2010) &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;. 3 </span></p>
<div><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">First Nat’l Bank of Bos. v. Bellotti</span></span></em></div>
<p></span></span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-size: medium;">, 435 U.S. 765 (1978) &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.11 </span></p>
<div><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">Fordyce v. City of Seattle</span></span></em></div>
<p></span></span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-size: medium;">, 55 F.3d 436 (9th Cir. 1995) &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.12 </span></p>
<div><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">Gannett Co, Inc.. v. DePasquale</span></span></em></div>
<p></span></span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-size: medium;">, 443 U.S. 368 (1978) &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230; 7 </span></p>
<div><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court</span></span></em></div>
<p></span></span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-size: medium;">, 457 U.S. 596 (1982) &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;7, 10 </span></p>
<div><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">Grayned v. City of Rockford</span></span></em></div>
<p></span></span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-size: medium;">, 408 U.S. 104 (1972) &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.15 </span></p>
<div><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">Greenpeace Action v. Franklin</span></span></em></div>
<p></span></span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-size: medium;">, 14 F.3d 1324 (9th Cir. 1992) &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;. 7 </span></p>
<div><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;">Case: 11-16088 06/02/2011 Page: 5 of 31 ID: 7771733 DktEntry: 14-3</span></span></span></div>
<p></span></span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;">iii </span></span></span></p>
<div><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">Harris v. Board of Supervisors</span></span></em></div>
<p></span></span></span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-size: medium;">, 366 F.3d 754 760 (9th Cir. 2003) &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230; 2 </span></p>
<div><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">Iacobucci v. Boulter</span></span></em></div>
<p></span></span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-size: medium;">, 193 F.3d 14 (1st Cir. 1999) &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;..13 </span></p>
<div><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">In Defense of Animals v. United States</span></span></em></div>
<p></span></span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-size: medium;">, No. 2:10-cv-01852-MCE-DAD, 2011 WL 1528176 (E.D. Cal. April 20, 2011) &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;. 7 </span></p>
<div><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">In re. Express News Corp.</span></span></em></div>
<p></span></span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-size: medium;">, 695 F.2d 807 (5th Cir. 1982) &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;..11 </span></p>
<div><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">Kuba v. 1-A Agr. Ass&#8217;n</span></span></em></div>
<p></span></span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-size: medium;">., 387 F.3d 850 (9th Cir.2004) &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.. 18, 19 </span></p>
<div><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">NAACP v. City of Richmond</span></span></em></div>
<p></span></span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-size: medium;">, 743 F.2d 1346 (9th Cir. 1984) &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;..6, 17 </span></p>
<div><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">Nebraska Press Ass’n v. Stuart</span></span></em></div>
<p></span></span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-size: medium;">, 427 U.S. 539 (1976) &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;..7, 8 </span></p>
<div><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">Pell v. Procunier</span></span></em></div>
<p></span></span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-size: medium;">, 417 U.S. 817 (1974) &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.11 </span></p>
<div><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">Perry Educ. Assn. v. Perry Local Educators&#8217; Assn.</span></span></em></div>
<p></span></span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-size: medium;">, 460 U.S. 37 (1983) &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;14 </span></p>
<div><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">Preminger v. Principi</span></span></em></div>
<p></span></span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-size: medium;">, 422 F.3d 815 (9th Cir. 2005) &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;..13 </span></p>
<div><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia</span></span></em></div>
<p></span></span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-size: medium;">, 448 U.S. 555 (1980) &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.10 </span></p>
<div><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">S.H.A.R.K. v. Metro Parks Serving Summit County</span></span></em></div>
<p></span></span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-size: medium;">, 499 F.3d 553 (6th Cir. 2007) &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;. 14, 20, 21, 22 </span></p>
<div><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">Sierra Forest Legacy v. Rey</span></span></em></div>
<p></span></span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-size: medium;">, 577 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. 2009) &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.. 3 </span></p>
<div><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">Snyder v. Phelps</span></span></em></div>
<p></span></span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-size: medium;">, 131 S. Ct. 2107 (2011) &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;14 </span></p>
<div><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">United States v. Adams</span></span></em></div>
<p></span></span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-size: medium;">, 388 F.3d 708 (9th Cir. 2004) &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;..17 </span></p>
<div><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">United States v. Griefen,</span></span></em></div>
<p></span></span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-size: medium;">200 F.3d 1256 (9th Cir. 2000) &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;17 </span></p>
<div><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">United States v. Johnson</span></span></em></div>
<p></span></span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-size: medium;">, 159 F.3d 892 (4th Cir.1998) &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;17 </span></p>
<div><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;">Case: 11-16088 06/02/2011 Page: 6 of 31 ID: 7771733 DktEntry: 14-3</span></span></span></div>
<p></span></span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;">iv </span></span></span></p>
<div><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">United States v. Sherman</span></span></em></div>
<p></span></span></span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-size: medium;">, 581 F.2d 1358 (9th Cir. 1978) &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;10 </span></p>
<div><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">Whiteland Woods, L.P. v. Township of West Whiteland</span></span></em></div>
<p></span></span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-size: medium;">, 193 F.3d 177 (3rd Cir. 1999) &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;. 14, 20 </span></p>
<div><strong><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">Statutes</span></span></strong></div>
<p></span></span><strong><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"></p>
<div><span style="font-size: medium;">Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. § 1701(a)(8) &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;16</span></div>
<p></span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">National Trails System Act of 1968, 16 U.S.C. § 1241 &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;16</p>
<div><strong><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">Other Authorities</span></span></strong></div>
<p></span><strong><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"></p>
<div><span style="font-size: medium;">43 C.F.R. § 8364.1 &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;16</span></div>
<p></span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">C. Thomas Dienes, Lee Levine and Robert C. Lind,</p>
<div><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">Newsgathering and the Law </span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">(3rd ed. 2005) &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;..10 </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;">Case: 11-16088 06/02/2011 Page: 7 of 31 ID: 7771733 DktEntry: 14-3</span></span></span></em></div>
<p></span><em><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;">1 </span></span></span></p>
<div><strong><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">IDENTITY OF</span></span></strong></div>
<p></span></span></span><strong><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"></p>
<div><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">AMICI </span></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">AND INTEREST IN CASE </span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press is a voluntary, unincorporated association of reporters and editors that works to defend the First Amendment rights and freedom of information interests of the news media. The Reporters Committee has provided representation, guidance and research in First Amendment and Freedom of Information Act litigation since 1970.</span></em></div>
<p></span></span><em><span style="font-size: medium;">The National Press Photographers Association (&#8220;NPPA&#8221;) is a 501(c)(6) non-profit organization dedicated to the advancement of photojournalism in its creation, editing and distribution. NPPA‟ almost 8,000 members include television and still photographers, editors, students and representatives of businesses that serve the photojournalism industry. Since its founding in 1946, the NPPA has vigorously promoted the constitutional rights of journalists as well as freedom of the press in all its forms, especially as it relates to photojournalism.</p>
<div><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">Amici</span></span></em></div>
<p></span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-size: medium;">, on behalf of the journalists that they represent, have an interest in upholding the public‟ right of access to public places for the purpose of newsgathering and informing the public on matters of public concern. This interest is particularly strong in cases in which restrictions on public access compromise the ability of the press to fulfill its constitutional obligation to hold the government accountable to the people through reporting on government actions. The district </span></p>
<div><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;">Case: 11-16088 06/02/2011 Page: 8 of 31 ID: 7771733 DktEntry: 14-3</span></span></span></div>
<p></span></span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;">2 </span></span></span></p>
<div><span style="font-size: medium;">court‟ order refusing injunctive relief is of concern to</span></div>
<p></span></span></span><span style="font-size: medium;"></p>
<div><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">amici </span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">because the analysis underlying the court‟ order reflects a troubling interpretation of the right to challenge restrictions on access to public places for the purpose of newsgathering. </span><strong><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">SOURCE OF AUTHORITY TO FILE</span></span></strong></em></div>
<p></span><em><strong><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"></p>
<div><span style="font-size: medium;">Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 29(a),</span></div>
<p></span></span><span style="font-size: medium;"></p>
<div><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">amici </span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">are concurrently filing a motion for leave to file this brief with the Court. As noted in that motion, neither counsel for appellant nor appellees opposes the filing of this </span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">amici </span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">brief in principle, but the parties did not reach agreement on whether appellees should have additional time to respond to the briefing. </span><strong><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">FED. R. APP. P. 29(c)(5) STATEMENT</span></span></strong></em></em></div>
<p></span><em><em><strong><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"></p>
<div><span style="font-size: medium;">Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 29(c)(5),</span></div>
<p></span></span><span style="font-size: medium;"></p>
<div><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">amici </span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">state that no party‟s counsel authored this brief in whole or in part; no party or party‟s counsel contributed money that was intended to fund preparing or submitting the brief; and no person – other than </span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">amici</span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">, their members or counsel – contributed money that was intended to fund preparing or submitting the brief. </span><strong><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">STANDARD OF REVIEW</span></span></strong></em></em></div>
<p></span><em><em><strong><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"></p>
<div><span style="font-size: medium;">This Court generally reviews the denial of a preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion, although &#8220;[w]hen the district court is alleged to have relied on an erroneous legal premise, [the Court] review[s] the underlying issues of law</span></div>
<p></span></span><span style="font-size: medium;"></p>
<div><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">de novo</span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">.&#8221; </span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">Harris v. Board of Supervisors</span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">, 366 F.3d 754, 760 (9th Cir. 2003) (citations </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;">Case: 11-16088 06/02/2011 Page: 9 of 31 ID: 7771733 DktEntry: 14-3</span></span></span></em></em></div>
<p></span><em><em><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;">3 </span></span></span></p>
<div><span style="font-size: medium;">omitted). &#8220;A district court abuses its discretion in denying a request for a preliminary injunction if it bases its decision on an erroneous legal standard or clearly erroneous findings of fact.&#8221;</span></div>
<p></span></span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">On review, this Court determines whether the district court &#8220;employed the appropriate legal standards governing the issuance of a preliminary injunction and whether the district court correctly apprehended the law with respect to the underlying issues in the case.&#8221;</p>
<p>(1) they are likely to succeed on the merits; (2) they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) the balance of equities tips in their favor; and (4) a preliminary injunction is in the public interest.</p>
<div><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">Earth Island Institute v. Carlton</span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">, 626 F.3d 462, 468 (9th Cir. 2010). </span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">A&amp;M Records, Inc. v. Napster</span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">, </span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">Inc.</span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">, 239 F.3d 1004, 1013 (9th Cir. 2001). Plaintiffs may qualify for a preliminary injunction by showing: </span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">Sierra Forest Legacy v. Rey</span></span></em></em></em></em></div>
<p></span><em><em><em><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-size: medium;">, 577 F.3d 1015, 1021 (9th Cir. 2009) . This Court weighs these elements on a &#8220;sliding scale,&#8221; in which &#8220;„serious questions going to the merits‟and a balance of hardships that tips sharply towards the plaintiff can support issuance of a preliminary injunction, so long as the plaintiff also shows that there is a likelihood of irreparable injury and that the injunction is in the public interest.&#8221; </span></p>
<div><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell</span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">, 632 F.2d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;">Case: 11-16088 06/02/2011 Page: 10 of 31 ID: 7771733 DktEntry: 14-3</span></span></span></em></div>
<p></span></span><em><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;">4 </span></span></span></p>
<div><strong><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT</span></span></strong></div>
<p></span></span></span><strong><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"></p>
<div><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">Amici</span></span></em></div>
<p></span></span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-size: medium;">urge this Court to reverse the district court‟ order refusing plaintiff-appellant‟ (&#8220;plaintiff&#8221;) request for a preliminary injunction</span><span style="font-size: xx-small;">1 </span><span style="font-size: medium;">to preserve public access to a wild horse roundup known as the Silver King Gather. Procedurally, in determining that the requested relief was mooted by the completion of the gather, the district court did not acknowledge that disputes over the denial of access to places and events are the exact types of controversies for which the &#8220;capable of repetition, yet evading review&#8221; exception to the mootness doctrine should apply. The record here indicates that plaintiff‟ efforts to seek injunctive relief complied with all necessary requirements in order to maintain an injunctive action. </span></p>
<div><span style="font-size: xx-small;">1</span></div>
<p></span></span><span style="font-size: xx-small;">Substantively, the district court‟ alternative holding – that the merits did not entitle plaintiff to injunctive relief on her First Amendment claim – is premised on an incorrect, or at least incomplete, legal analysis. The district court concluded that plaintiff had &#8220;made no showing that she was denied access to the Silver King Gather, or that other members of the media were treated more favorable.&#8221; ER at 6. This brief does not address the fact-intensive issue of whether plaintiff was subjected to unfavorable treatment at the Silver King Gather. But there can be no</p>
<p><span style="font-size: medium;">The district court‟ April 13, 2011 order denied, </span></p>
<div><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">inter alia</span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">, plaintiff‟ initial motion for a preliminary injunction, an amended motion for a temporary restraining order, and an amended motion for a preliminary injunction. Excerpt of Record (&#8220;ER&#8221;) at 2. </span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">Amici </span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">understand this appeal to center on the denial of the amended motion for a preliminary injunction. ER at 10. </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;">Case: 11-16088 06/02/2011 Page: 11 of 31 ID: 7771733 DktEntry: 14-3</span></span></span></em></em></div>
<p></span><em><em><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;">5 </span></span></span></p>
<div><span style="font-size: medium;">dispute that the government imposed significant restrictions on plaintiff‟ – and the general public‟ – access to public land during the Silver King Gather. Indeed, the government acknowledges the existence of restrictions.</span></div>
<p></span></span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">This Court‟ case law recognizes a First Amendment right to gather news, including a right to film matters of public interest. The constitutional analysis of such a First Amendment claim must therefore turn on whether the acknowledged governmental restrictions impermissibly infringed on the recognized right of plaintiff to gather and disseminate information about a newsworthy event. The district court erred in not conducting such an analysis.</p>
<p>Alternatively, this dispute could also be viewed as one involving the First Amendment right of access. Under this alternative view, the district court‟ denial of preliminary relief would still warrant reversal. The evidence that plaintiff and other members of the public were prevented from viewing significant portions of the horse gather raises serious doubts as to whether the restrictions were justified in light of the First Amendment right at issue.</p>
<p>Either way, the fact remains that the district court appears to have not subjected the government restrictions to a constitutional analysis. Regardless of the ultimate determination, this Court must overturn the district court‟ decision because it is premised on an incorrect legal analysis.</p>
<div><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;">Case: 11-16088 06/02/2011 Page: 12 of 31 ID: 7771733 DktEntry: 14-3</span></span></span></div>
<p></span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;">6 </span></span></span></p>
<div><strong><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">ARGUMENT</span></span></strong></div>
<p></span></span></span><strong><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">I. The District Court Erred in Ruling that Plaintiff/Appellant’s Amended Request for Injunctive Relief was Moot.</p>
<div><span style="font-size: medium;">The district court improperly concluded that plaintiff was not entitled to a preliminary injunction because the Silver King Gather occurred prior to the court‟ ruling. ER at 5 (&#8220;[B]ecause the gather has been completed, there is no conduct to enjoin.&#8221;). Before reaching this conclusion, the district court should have considered whether the claims at issue fell within the &#8220;capable of repetition, yet evading review&#8221; exception to the mootness doctrine. The claims here meet all the requirements for that exception.</span></div>
<p></span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">Typically, a &#8220;case becomes moot when interim relief or events have eradicated the effects of the defendant‟ act or omission, and there is no reasonable expectation that the alleged violation will recur.&#8221;</p>
<div><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">NAACP v. City of Richmond</span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">, 743 F.2d 1346 (9th Cir. 1984). But there is a well-recognized exception where &#8220;the underlying dispute between the parties is „apable of repetition, yet evading review.‟ </span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">Id. </span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">at 1353 (internal citations omitted). This exception applies when &#8220;(1) the challenged action is too short in duration to allow full litigation before it ceases, and (2) there is a reasonable expectation that the plaintiff[] will again be subject to the same action.&#8221; </span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">American Civil Liberties Union v. Lomax</span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">, 471 F.3d 1010, 1017 (9th Cir. 2006). </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;">Case: 11-16088 06/02/2011 Page: 13 of 31 ID: 7771733 DktEntry: 14-3</span></span></span></em></em></em></div>
<p></span><em><em><em><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;">7 </span></span></span></p>
<div><span style="font-size: medium;">This exception commonly appears in disputes over government restrictions on access to newsgathering and publishing.</span></div>
<p></span></span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">The same reasoning is equally compelling in First Amendment challenges to regulations affecting public resources. In</p>
<p>As the present case reflects, controversies involving BLM horse gathers present similar timing challenges.</p>
<div><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">See, e.g., Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court</span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">, 457 U.S. 596, 603 (1982) (review of trial court order excluding public access to trial witness‟testimony); </span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">Nebraska Press Ass’n v. Stuart</span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">, 427 U.S. 539, 546 (1976) (prior restraint on publishing information about crime). Relief is often warranted in such cases because of the difficulty of litigating such disputes in a short timeframe and because similar disputes are likely to recur in the future. </span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">Globe Newspaper</span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">, 457 U.S. at 603; </span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">Gannett Co., Inc. v. DePasquale</span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">, 443 U.S. 368, 377-78 (1978). </span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">Greenpeace Action v. Franklin</span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">, this Court held that the &#8220;capable of repetition, yet evading review&#8221; exception to the mootness doctrine applied to a lawsuit challenging a fishing regulation that was in effect for under a year, noting that it was &#8220;difficult to obtain effective judicial review&#8221; on such a timeframe. 14 F.3d 1324, 1329-30 (9th Cir. 1992). </span><span style="font-size: xx-small;">2 </span><span style="font-size: medium;">The short timeframe between the announcement of a </span><span style="font-size: xx-small;">2</span></em></em></em></em></em></div>
<p></span><em><em><em><em><em><span style="font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Of note, a recent opinion from the Eastern District of California relied on this exception in declining to dismiss as moot a claim for injunctive and declaratory relief related to a horse gather that occurred prior to the court‟ ruling. </span></p>
<div><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">In Defense of Animals v. United States</span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">, No. 2:10-cv-01852-MCE-DAD, 2011 WL 1528176 at *10-12 (E.D. Cal. April 20, 2011). </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;">Case: 11-16088 06/02/2011 Page: 14 of 31 ID: 7771733 DktEntry: 14-3</span></span></span></em></div>
<p></span><em><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;">8 </span></span></span></p>
<div><span style="font-size: medium;">horse gather and the completion of the gather is such that it makes litigating the issue in advance difficult. The record also reflects that similar issues between the same parties are likely to recur at future gathers.</span></div>
<p></span></span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">In</p>
<div><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">Compare Nebraska Press</span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">, 427 U.S. at 547 (&#8220;The dispute between the State and the petitioners who cover events throughout the State is thus „apable of repetition.‟) </span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">with, e.g., </span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">ER at 79 (testimony from plaintiff that she &#8220;go[es] to gathers all the time all over the place&#8221;) </span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">and </span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">ER at 283-84 (plaintiff‟ declaration regarding previous horse roundups); </span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">see also </span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">ER at 273-74 (discussing prior litigation between the same parties involving another horse gather). </span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">American Horse Protection Ass’n, Inc. v. Watt</span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">, this Court held that an appeal of a district court‟ order refusing to enjoin a horse gather was mooted by the completion of the gather. 679 F.2d 150, 151 (1982) (per curiam). But the reasoning in the </span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">Watt </span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">case is instructive: the district court‟ order expressly instructed the BLM to give the appellants advance notice of future BLM actions, so that the plaintiffs would have an opportunity to challenge the actions. For this reason, this Court was &#8220;unconvinced&#8221; that &#8220;repetition will evade review.&#8221; The Court even noted that if the plaintiffs received &#8220;an adverse ruling,&#8221; they would have a chance to seek a stay pending appeal. </span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">Watt</span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">, 679 F.2d at 151 (&#8220;Where prompt application for a stay pending appeal can preserve an issue for appeal, the issue is not one that will evade review.&#8221;). Here, it is this type of adverse ruling that plaintiff is </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;">Case: 11-16088 06/02/2011 Page: 15 of 31 ID: 7771733 DktEntry: 14-3</span></span></span></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></div>
<p></span><em><em><em><em><em><em><em><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;">9 </span></span></span></p>
<div><span style="font-size: medium;">challenging. Plaintiff did everything possible to enable judicial review in this case. In such circumstances, it is error for a district court to dismiss the challenge on mootness grounds.</span></div>
<p></span></span></span><span style="font-size: medium;"></p>
<div><strong><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">II. The District Court Erred in Applying the Incorrect Legal Standard to Deny Plaintiff/Appellant Injunctive Relief.</span></span></strong></div>
<p></span><strong><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"></p>
<div><span style="font-size: medium;">The district court‟ alternative ground for denying plaintiff‟ motion for a preliminary injunction with respect to accessing the Silver King Gather was that plaintiff had &#8220;failed to establish that she [was] likely to succeed on the merits of her complaint.&#8221; ER at 6. The district court correctly recognized that determining the likelihood of success on the merits is of central importance to a preliminary injunction ruling. But the district court‟ decision failed to undertake the proper constitutional analysis of the merits.</span></div>
<p></span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">This Court has recognized that &#8220;the First Amendment protects the media‟ right to gather news.&#8221;</p>
<div><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">Daily Herald Co. v. Munro</span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">, 838 F.2d 380, 384 (9th Cir. 1988) (citation marks omitted). In denying plaintiff‟ request for injunctive relief, the district court failed to properly evaluate plaintiff‟ likelihood of success on this First Amendment claim. </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;">Case: 11-16088 06/02/2011 Page: 16 of 31 ID: 7771733 DktEntry: 14-3</span></span></span></em></div>
<p></span><em><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;">10 </span></span></span></p>
<div><strong><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">A. The First Amendment protects the public’s right to gather news.</span></span></strong></div>
<p></span></span></span><strong><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"></p>
<div><span style="font-size: medium;">The parameters of the press and public‟ recognized right to gather news are &#8220;less well developed&#8221; than other areas of First Amendment law.</span></div>
<p></span></span><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">3 </span><span style="font-size: medium;">Yet both this Court and the Supreme Court have acknowledged that the First Amendment affords protection to newsgathering activities. </span></p>
<div><span style="font-size: xx-small;">3</span></div>
<p></span><span style="font-size: xx-small;">Newsgathering is &#8220;not unambiguously enumerated in the very terms of the [First] Amendment,&#8221; but it is among the freedoms that should be recognized as &#8220;nonetheless necessary to the enjoyment of other First Amendment rights.&#8221;</p>
<p>The recognition of a right to gather news is consistent with the understanding that the &#8220;First Amendment goes beyond protection of the press and the self-</p>
<div><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">See </span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">C. Thomas Dienes, Lee Levine and Robert C. Lind, </span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">Newsgathering and the Law </span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">§ 1.05 (3rd ed. 2005). </span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">Globe Newspaper</span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">, 457 U.S. at 604 (holding public exclusion from criminal trial unconstitutional under strict scrutiny analysis); </span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">See also, e.g., Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia</span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">, 448 U.S. 555, 576 (1980) (plurality) (First Amendment incorporates a &#8220;right to gather information&#8221;); </span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">United States v. Sherman</span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">, 581 F.2d 1358, 1361 (9th Cir. 1978) (&#8220;The Supreme Court has recognized that newsgathering is an activity protected by the First Amendment, and the order here clearly restrained the media in their attempts to gather news.&#8221;) (citation omitted) (holding that trial court order restricting access to jurors after trial violated the First Amendment). </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;">Case: 11-16088 06/02/2011 Page: 17 of 31 ID: 7771733 DktEntry: 14-3</span></span></span></em></em></em></em></em></div>
<p></span><em><em><em><em><em><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;">11 </span></span></span></p>
<div><span style="font-size: medium;">expression of individuals to prohibit government from limiting the stock of information from which members of the public may draw.&#8221;</span></div>
<p></span></span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">The [F]irst [A]mendment‟ broad shield for freedom of speech and of the press is not limited to the right to talk and to print. The value of these rights would be circumscribed were those who wish to disseminate information denied access to it, for freedom to speak is of little value if there is nothing to say. Therefore, the Supreme Court recognized in</p>
<div><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">First Nat’l Bank of Bos. v. Bellotti</span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">, 435 U.S. 765, 783 (1978). As the Fifth Circuit explained: </span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">Branzburg v. Hayes</span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">, 408 U.S. 665, 681(1972), that news-gathering is entitled to first amendment protection, for &#8220;without some protection for seeking out the news, freedom of the press could be eviscerated.&#8221; </span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">In re. Express News Corp.</span></span></em></em></em></div>
<p></span><em><em><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">Of course, the right to gather news is not unlimited. Generally, the newsgathering right does not afford the press any greater rights than that of the general public.</p>
<p>Nonetheless, precedent has firmly established that the right to gather news prohibits the government from unnecessarily restricting the witnessing and documenting of public events. In</p>
<p><span style="font-size: medium;">, 695 F.2d 807, 808 (5th Cir. 1982) (holding post-verdict restriction on access to jurors violated First Amendment). </span></p>
<div><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">See Branzburg</span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">, 408 U.S. at 684. And it is true, for example, that the Supreme Court has rejected attempts to force additional media access to prisons that is not available to the public, </span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">see, e.g., Pell v. Procunier</span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">, 417 U.S. 817, 834 (1974). </span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">Daily Herald Co</span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">., news organizations challenged a state restriction on exit polling as an &#8220;unconstitutional[] infringe[ment] on their </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;">Case: 11-16088 06/02/2011 Page: 18 of 31 ID: 7771733 DktEntry: 14-3</span></span></span></em></em></em></div>
<p></span></span><em><em><em><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;">12 </span></span></span></p>
<div><span style="font-size: medium;">First Amendment rights to gather and broadcast news.&#8221; 838 F.3d at 383. This Court agreed. The Court explained that the statute implicated First Amendment rights &#8220;on several levels,&#8221; including the &#8220;right to gather news&#8221;:</span></div>
<p></span></span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">The media plaintiffs‟exit polling constitutes speech protected by the First Amendment, not only in that the information disseminated based on the polls is speech, but also in that the process of obtaining the information requires a discussion between pollster and voter. . . .</p>
<div><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">Moreover, the First Amendment protects the media’s right to gather news</span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">. Exit polling is thus speech that is protected, on several levels, by the First Amendment. </span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">Id.</span></span></em></em></div>
<p></span><em><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">Similarly, this Court is one of the many that has recognized that the right to gather news encompasses a &#8220;First Amendment right to film matters of public interest.&#8221;</p>
<p><span style="font-size: medium;">at 384 (citations and footnote omitted) (emphasis added). Because the governmental restrictions impinged on the exercise of these First Amendment rights, this Court held that the restrictions were subject to constitutional scrutiny, which they could not survive. </span></p>
<div><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">Id. </span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">at 384-87. </span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">Fordyce v. City of Seattle</span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">, 55 F.3d 436, 439 (9th Cir. 1995). In </span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">Fordyce</span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">, for example, the plaintiff claimed that police officers violated his First Amendment &#8220;right to gather news&#8221; by interfering with his attempt to videotape a protest march. </span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">Id</span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">. at 438. This Court held that a triable issue of fact existed &#8220;regarding whether Fordyce was assaulted and battered by a Seattle police officer in an attempt to prevent or dissuade him from exercising his First Amendment right to film matters of public interest.&#8221; </span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">Id. </span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">at 439. </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;">Case: 11-16088 06/02/2011 Page: 19 of 31 ID: 7771733 DktEntry: 14-3</span></span></span></em></em></em></em></em></div>
<p></span></span><em><em><em><em><em><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;">13 </span></span></span></p>
<div><span style="font-size: medium;">This Court is not alone in recognizing this general right. The Eleventh Circuit, for example, has held that the First Amendment &#8220;protects the right to gather information about what public officials do on public property, and specifically, a right to record matters of public interest.&#8221;</span></div>
<p></span></span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">4</p>
<div><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">Smith v. City of Cumming</span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">, 212 F.3d 1332, 1333 (11th Cir. 2000) (recognizing a First Amendment right to photograph or videotape police conduct, subject to reasonable time, place and manner restrictions). Other courts have reached similar conclusions. </span><span style="font-size: xx-small;">4 </span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">See, e.g., Iacobucci v. Boulter</span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">, 193 F.3d 14, 25 (1st Cir. 1999) (police officer was not entitled to qualified immunity for violating plaintiff‟s clearly established First Amendment right to videotape public officials talking in lobby of municipal building); </span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">Blackston v. Alabama</span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">, 30 F.3d 117, 120 (11th Cir. 1994) (noting prohibition on recording a public meeting &#8220;touched on expressive conduct protected by the Free Speech Clause&#8221;); </span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">cf. Dorfman v. Meiszner</span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">, 430 F.2d 558, 561 (7th Cir. 1970) (per curiam) (court rule limiting photography and broadcasting in courthouse and federal building was overbroad and &#8220;goes beyond the scope permitted by the first amendment.&#8221;). </span><strong><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">B. The district court erred in not subjecting the BLM restrictions to public forum analysis.</span></span></strong></em></em></em></em></div>
<p></span><em><em><em><em><strong><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"></p>
<div><span style="font-size: medium;">The standard framework for evaluating government restrictions on protected expression is to determine the type of forum in which the restriction occurs and then apply the corresponding level of scrutiny.</span></div>
<p></span></span><span style="font-size: medium;"></p>
<div><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">See, e.g., Preminger v. Principi</span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">, 422 F.3d 815, 823 (9th Cir. 2005) (&#8220;In order to assess their [free expression] claim, we first must „dentify the nature of the forum, because the extent to which the Government may limit access depends on whether the forum is public or </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;">Case: 11-16088 06/02/2011 Page: 20 of 31 ID: 7771733 DktEntry: 14-3</span></span></span></em></div>
<p></span><em><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;">14 </span></span></span></p>
<div><span style="font-size: medium;">nonpublic.‟) (citation omitted). The district court erred in not undertaking this analysis here.</span></div>
<p></span></span></span><span style="font-size: medium;"></p>
<div><strong><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">1. The government’s restrictions occurred on public land that qualifies as a public forum.</span></span></strong></div>
<p></span><strong><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"></p>
<div><span style="font-size: medium;">This Court‟ case law suggests that the public forum framework is the proper method for analyzing newsgathering claims. In</span></div>
<p></span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">In one respect, this framework presents a somewhat uneasy fit in many newsgathering cases.</p>
<div><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">Daily Herald Co.</span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">, this Court used this approach, first concluding that the exit polling restrictions occurred in a public forum and then assessed the restrictions for content neutrality and the reasonableness of time, place and manner restrictions. </span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">See Daily Herald Co.</span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">, 838 F.3d at 384-86. </span><span style="font-size: xx-small;">5 </span><span style="font-size: medium;">In typical expression cases, the quintessential public fora are &#8220;places which by long tradition or by government fiat have been devoted to assembly and debate.&#8221; </span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">Perry Educ. Assn. v. Perry Local Educators&#8217; Assn.</span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">, 460 U.S. 37, 45 (1983); </span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">accord Snyder v. Phelps</span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">, 131 S. Ct. 1207, 1218 (2011) (describing public streets as the &#8220;archetype of a traditional public forum&#8221;) (citation omitted). </span><span style="font-size: xx-small;">5</span></em></em></em></em></div>
<p></span><em><em><em><em><span style="font-size: xx-small;"></p>
<div><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">See, e.g., S.H.A.R.K v. Metro Parks Serving Summit County</span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">, 499 F.3d 553, 559-60 (6th Cir. 2007) (declining to evaluate challenge to recording events at public park under public forum analysis); </span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">Whiteland Woods, L.P. v. Township of West Whiteland</span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">, 193 F.3d 177, 181-83 (3rd Cir. 1999) (recognizing presumptive constitutional right of access to government meetings, but declining to adopt public forum analysis); </span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">cf. Daily Herald Co.</span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">, 838 F.3d at 389-90 (Reinhardt, J., concurring) (analyzing exit polling restriction as a right of access issue). </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;">Case: 11-16088 06/02/2011 Page: 21 of 31 ID: 7771733 DktEntry: 14-3</span></span></span></em></em></em></div>
<p></span><em><em><em><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;">15 </span></span></span></p>
<div><span style="font-size: medium;">In challenges based on the &#8220;right to gather news,&#8221; however, the First Amendment right at stake is less the ability to be heard at a particular forum as it is to observe and report about events that occur at that forum. In such instances, courts should consider whether the forum at issue is one that has traditionally been open to the exercise of those protected activities.</span></div>
<p></span></span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">Under this understanding of the public forum framework for newsgathering purposes, the BLM land at issue qualifies as a public forum. Federal environmental laws and regulations establish that public lands, including those under control of the BLM, are generally open to the public for a variety of uses. Congress has</p>
<div><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">Cf. Grayned v. City of Rockford</span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">, 408 U.S. 104, 116 (1972) (&#8220;The nature of a place, the pattern of its normal activities, dictate the kinds of regulations of time, place, and manner that are reasonable. . . . The crucial question is whether the manner of expression is basically incompatible with the normal activity of a particular place at a particular time.&#8221;) (quotation marks and citations omitted). As </span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">Daily Herald Co. </span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">reflects, this framework is compatible with newsgathering cases to the extent that courts acknowledge that the right to gather news is a type of expressive activity that informs whether the forum is &#8220;public.&#8221; </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;">Case: 11-16088 06/02/2011 Page: 22 of 31 ID: 7771733 DktEntry: 14-3</span></span></span></em></em></div>
<p></span><em><em><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;">16 </span></span></span></p>
<div><span style="font-size: medium;">repeatedly recognized the importance of allowing members of the public to access land – including BLM land – for a variety of uses.</span></div>
<p></span></span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">6</p>
<p><span style="font-size: xx-small;">6 </span></p>
<div><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">See, e.g., </span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">National Trails System Act of 1968, 16 U.S.C. § 1241(a) (maintaining and expanding &#8220;public access to . . . outdoor areas and historic resources of the Nation&#8221;) (emphasis added); Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. § 1701(a)(8) (declaring that &#8220;public lands be managed in a manner that will [</span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">inter alia</span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">] . . . provide for outdoor recreation and human occupancy and use&#8221;). </span><span style="font-size: xx-small;">7 U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management website for the Ely District Office in Nevada. http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/fo/ely_field_office.html (last accessed May 26, 2011).</span></em></em></div>
<p></span><em><em><span style="font-size: xx-small;"></p>
<div><span style="font-size: medium;">Federal regulations governing BLM land also create a presumption that the agency‟ lands are open to the public for a variety of uses. BLM officials have the power to close or restrict designated public lands to &#8220;protect persons, property, public lands and resources,&#8221; but in order to do so officials must follow particular procedures outlined by BLM‟ federal regulations. 43 C.F.R. § 8364.1 (2010). The implication from the rule is therefore that public lands are presumptively open for use and enjoyment by the public. Indeed, the BLM website for the Ely, Nevada District Office includes the following invitation to the public:</span></div>
<p></span><span style="font-size: medium;">Whether you are here to hike, fish, hunt or simply to enjoy the scenery, wildlife or wide-open spaces, we urge you to explore the many wonders of our district. 7</p>
<p>Nonetheless, the government asserted at the district court that the BLM land at issue was a non-public forum.</p>
<div><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">See </span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">ER 210. That position, however, is difficult to square with this Court‟ oft-repeated assumption that another type of multi-purpose </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;">Case: 11-16088 06/02/2011 Page: 23 of 31 ID: 7771733 DktEntry: 14-3</span></span></span></em></div>
<p></span><em><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;">17 </span></span></span></p>
<div><span style="font-size: medium;">federal land, namely forest service land, is presumptively public fora.</span></div>
<p></span></span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">Discerning a difference for public forum purposes between the BLM land at issue and other &#8220;public grounds, like a national forest,&#8221;</p>
<p>In short, BLM land at issue is a traditionally open public space in which news gathering can occur. Accordingly, it should be considered a public forum.</p>
<div><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">See, e.g., United States v. Griefen, </span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">200 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 2000) (restrictions on expressive conduct that occurs &#8220;on public grounds, like a national forest,&#8221; is subject to public forum analysis) (</span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">quoting United States v. Johnson</span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">, 159 F.3d 892, 895 (4th Cir.1998)); </span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">see also United States v. Adams</span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">, 388 F.3d 708, 710-11 (9th Cir. 2004) (treating Forest Service land as a public forum for First Amendment challenge to permitting restriction). </span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">Griefen</span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">, 200 F.3d at 1259, is not easy, particularly on this record. That fact should not be held against plaintiff, as the government bears the burden on the issue of whether &#8220;speech was restricted in a public forum.&#8221; </span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">NAACP v. City of Richmond</span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">, 743 F.2d 1346, 1354 (9th Cir. 1984). </span><strong><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">2. The government restrictions on newsgathering are subject to reasonable time, place and manner restrictions.</span></span></strong></em></em></em></em></em></div>
<p></span><em><em><em><em><em><strong><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"></p>
<div><span style="font-size: medium;">In a public forum, &#8220;permissible restrictions on expression . . . must be content-neutral, be narrowly tailored to serve an important government interest,</span></div>
<p></span></span><span style="font-size: medium;"></p>
<div><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;">Case: 11-16088 06/02/2011 Page: 24 of 31 ID: 7771733 DktEntry: 14-3</span></span></span></div>
<p></span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;">18 </span></span></span></p>
<div><span style="font-size: medium;">and leave open ample alternative channels for the communication of the message.&#8221;</span></div>
<p></span></span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">The district court‟ order did not undertake this analysis. With respect to the issue of &#8220;Access to the Silver King Gather,&#8221; the court‟ order suggests that the court‟ focus was solely on the issue of disparate treatment (or lack thereof) between plaintiff and other members of the public.</p>
<p>The record here suggests that those restrictions were not justified. The evidence cited in Appellant‟ opening brief raises concerns about the need for restrictions that effectively blocked public viewing and documenting of substantial portions of a newsworthy government event. Safety concerns are undoubtedly &#8220;significant&#8221; interests.</p>
<div><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">Kuba v. 1-A Agr. Ass&#8217;n</span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">., 387 F.3d 850, 856 (9th Cir.2004) (citation omitted). </span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">See </span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">ER at 5-6. To be sure, the court found that &#8220;Leigh has not proven that she was denied access to gather activities or that other members of the media received special treatment.&#8221; ER at 6. But the record leaves no doubt that the access of plaintiff, along with other members of the public, was restricted during the gather. The evidence was uncontested that the BLM limited the places the public could be during the gather. Indeed, the government‟ briefing acknowledged as much, rightfully focusing on whether the restrictions were justified. </span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">See, e.g.</span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">, ER at 209, 212-14. </span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">See Kuba</span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">, 387 F.3d at 858. But the mere invocation of those interests is not sufficient justification for a restriction that affects a First Amendment right; instead, &#8220;the government must also show that the proposed communicative activity </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;">Case: 11-16088 06/02/2011 Page: 25 of 31 ID: 7771733 DktEntry: 14-3</span></span></span></em></em></em></em></div>
<p></span><em><em><em><em><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;">19 </span></span></span></p>
<div><span style="font-size: medium;">endangers those interests&#8221; that the restrictions are to protect.</span></div>
<p></span></span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">Moreover, the restrictions also appear to not leave &#8220;open ample alternative channels for the communication of the message&#8221; that plaintiff seeks to convey through her newsgathering.</p>
<p>The present case is analogous. The evidence suggests that plaintiff and other members of the public were prevented from viewing significant portions of the gather due to the placement of the viewing zones selected by the BLM. The proffered evidence also suggests that the restrictions curtailed public viewing more significantly than in some other past gathers, which casts further doubt on the need for the restrictions here.</p>
<p>At a minimum, the district court should have analyzed the evidence in light of these constitutional requirements. But there is no indication that analysis took place here. As such, the district court‟ order constitutes reversible error.</p>
<div><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">Id</span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">. (holding that proffered concerns over traffic safety and congestion did not support restriction on leafleting and demonstrating). </span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">See Kuba</span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">, 387 F.3d at 856. This Court recognized a similar issue in </span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">Daily Herald Co</span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">., holding that even if a ban on exit polling was considered content-neutral, it was nonetheless still an unreasonable restriction because it left &#8220;no alternative channels of discussing or obtaining information uniquely derived from exit polling.&#8221; </span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">See Daily Herald Co. </span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">838 F.3d at 386. </span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">See, e.g., </span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">ER at 43-51, 108-115, 187. </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;">Case: 11-16088 06/02/2011 Page: 26 of 31 ID: 7771733 DktEntry: 14-3</span></span></span></em></em></em></em></em></div>
<p></span><em><em><em><em><em><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;">20 </span></span></span></p>
<div><strong><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">C. Reversal of the district court’s order is also warranted under an alternative right of access analysis.</span></span></strong></div>
<p></span></span></span><strong><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"></p>
<div><span style="font-size: medium;">As noted above, some Circuits have declined to analyze challenges to restrictions on news gathering on government land under the traditional public forum analysis, instead relying on a &#8220;right of access&#8221; analysis instead.</span></div>
<p></span></span><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">8 </span></p>
<div><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">Amici </span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">advance the public forum framework above because that is the analysis this Court has previously used in the newsgathering context. </span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">See Daily Herald Co.</span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">, 838 F.3d at 384 n.3 (expressly noting that it was not deciding the case under an alternative &#8220;right of access&#8221; analysis). Nonetheless, even if viewed under a right of access framework, the district court‟ denial of injunctive relief should be reversed. </span><span style="font-size: xx-small;">8</span></em></em></div>
<p></span><em><em><span style="font-size: xx-small;"></p>
<div><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">See supra </span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">note 5; </span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">see also Whiteland Woods, L.P. v. Township of West Whiteland</span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">, 193 F.3d 177, 181, 183 (3rd Cir. 1999) (constitutional right of access to government meetings turns on history and logic analysis common in access to court proceedings cases; &#8220;[t]he critical question regarding a content-neutral restriction on the time, place, or manner of access to a government proceeding is whether the restriction meaningfully interferes with the public‟s ability to inform itself of the proceeding: that is, whether it limits the underlying right of access rather than regulating the manner in which that access occurs&#8221;). </span><span style="font-size: xx-small;">9</span></em></em></div>
<p></span><em><em><span style="font-size: xx-small;">The Sixth Circuit addressed an attempt to access public lands to document government wildlife management activity as a right of access issue in</p>
<p><span style="font-size: medium;">The plaintiffs in </span></p>
<div><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">S.H.A.R.K. </span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">challenged the government‟ removal of plaintiffs‟surreptitiously-placed cameras in a park to document a deer culling operation. The court held that the government was justified in removing the cameras, which were affixed to trees, under existing regulations protecting the trees. 499 F.3d at 562. The court did not reach the merits on whether the government‟ erasure of the camera footage violated the plaintiffs‟First Amendment rights. </span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">S.H.A.R.K. v. Metro Parks Serving Summit County</span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">, 499 F.3d 553 (6th Cir. 2007).</span><span style="font-size: xx-small;">9 </span><span style="font-size: medium;">The Sixth </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;">Case: 11-16088 06/02/2011 Page: 27 of 31 ID: 7771733 DktEntry: 14-3</span></span></span></em></em></div>
<p></span><em><em><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;">21 </span></span></span></p>
<div><span style="font-size: medium;">Circuit‟ inquiry recognizes that while members of the press do not have a guarantee of special access to events, the government cannot arbitrarily shield newsworthy events from the public.</span></div>
<p></span></span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">The Sixth Circuit‟ inquiry in</p>
<p>10</p>
<p>The district court‟ order could not withstand this analysis. Whether the BLM‟ restrictions were audience selective is a disputed issue of fact, but it is uncontested that the restrictions limited the ability of plaintiff and the public to view and document the gather.</p>
<div><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">Id</span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">. at 559-60. </span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">S.H.A.R.K</span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">. contained three parts. The court first asked what government rule prohibits the plaintiffs from accessing the information and whether the rule selectively restricts the audience. </span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">Id</span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">. at 560. Next, the court examined the government‟ stated interest in invoking the rule. </span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">Id</span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">. at 561. Finally, the court determined whether the government‟ interest is sufficiently related to the means of accomplishing the interest, using different levels of scrutiny depending on whether the government regulation selectively restricts the audience. </span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">Id</span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">. If the restriction does not selectively restrict the audience, then the restriction can be upheld so long as it is reasonably related to the government interest. </span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">Id</span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">. If the restriction selectively restricts the audience, then a stricter level of scrutiny applies. </span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">Id</span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">. </span><span style="font-size: xx-small;">10 </span><span style="font-size: medium;">This Court has indicated that the standard should be even higher. Although </span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">Daily Herald Co. </span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">was not decided as an access case, this Court did note that &#8220;even where the right to access is qualified, any restriction must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest.&#8221; 838 F.3d at 384 n.3. </span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">See </span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">ER at 209, 213-14. </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;">Case: 11-16088 06/02/2011 Page: 28 of 31 ID: 7771733 DktEntry: 14-3</span></span></span></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></div>
<p></span><em><em><em><em><em><em><em><em><em><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;">22 </span></span></span></p>
<div><span style="font-size: medium;">Accordingly, the court would need to scrutinize the government‟ rules and their stated purpose to determine if the reasons for the restrictions outweigh the plaintiff‟ First Amendment rights. The inquiry is essential to ensuring that First Amendment rights are not given short shrift, because as the</span></div>
<p></span></span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">The record suggests that it is, at a minimum, debatable whether the benefits obtained through the BLM‟ actual restrictions on public access outweighed the benefits to the public that could have been obtained through less-restrictive limitations on access. Such inquiry would be a necessary part of any right of access analysis undertaken by a district court.</p>
<div><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">S.H.A.R.K. </span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">opinion points out, without such scrutiny the mere creation of a rule restricting access could establish a near-absolute bar to accessing newsworthy events. </span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">S.H.A.R.K</span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">., 499 F.3d at 560 (&#8220;if the first amendment is to retain a reasonable degree of vitality, the limitations upon access must serve a legitimate governmental purpose, must be rationally related to the accomplishment of that purpose, and must outweigh the systemic benefits inherent in unrestricted (or lesser-restricted) access&#8221;) (quotation omitted). </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;">Case: 11-16088 06/02/2011 Page: 29 of 31 ID: 7771733 DktEntry: 14-3</span></span></span></em></em></div>
<p></span><em><em><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;">23 </span></span></span></p>
<div><strong><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">CONCLUSION</span></span></strong></div>
<p></span></span></span><strong><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"></p>
<div><span style="font-size: medium;">For the foregoing reasons,</span></div>
<p></span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">Dated: June 2, 2011</p>
<p>Respectfully Submitted,</p>
<p>By: /s/ Lucy Dalglish</p>
<p>Lucy A. Dalglish</p>
<p>Gregg P. Leslie</p>
<p>Derek D. Green</p>
<p>1101 Wilson Blvd., Suite 1100</p>
<p>Arlington, VA 22209</p>
<p>Tel: (703) 807-2100</p>
<div><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">amici </span></span><span style="font-size: medium;">respectfully request this Court reverse the district court‟ order denying a preliminary injunction to plaintiff. </span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">Counsel for The Reporters Committee</span></span></em></em></div>
<p></span><em><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">for Freedom of the Press</p>
<div><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;">Case: 11-16088 06/02/2011 Page: 30 of 31 ID: 7771733 DktEntry: 14-3</span></span></span></div>
<p></span></span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"></p>
<div><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;">CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE</span></span></span></div>
<p></span></span></span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;">Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)C), I hereby certify that:</p>
<p>(1) the foregoing brief</p>
<p>(2) the foregoing brief</p>
<p>Dated: June 2, 2011</p>
<p>Arlington, VA</p>
<p>/s/ Lucy A. Dalglish</p>
<p>Lucy A. Dalglish</p>
<div><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;">amici curiae </span></span></span><span style="color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;"><span style="color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;">complies with the type-volume limitations of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(B) because it contains 5,340 words, excluding the portions exempted by Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(B)(iii); </span></span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;">amici curiae </span></span></span><span style="color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;"><span style="color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;">complies with the typeface requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(5) and the type style requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(6) because it was prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using Microsoft Word 2010 in 14-point Times New Roman font. </span></span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;">Counsel for The Reporters Committee</span></span></span></em></em></em></div>
<p></span></span></span><em><em><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times New Roman; color: #3131ff; font-size: medium;">for Freedom of the Press</p>
<div><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;">Case: 11-16088 06/02/2011 Page: 31 of 31 ID: 7771733 DktEntry: 14-3</span></span></span></div>
<p></span></span></span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica; color: #3131ff; font-size: small;"> </p>
<p></span></span></span></em></em></em></em></em></strong></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></strong></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></strong></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></strong></em></strong></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></strong></em></strong></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></strong></em></em></em></strong></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></strong></em></em></strong></em></em></strong></em></em></em></strong></em></strong></strong></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></em></strong></em></strong></em> </p>
<p></em></em></em></strong></em></strong></em></strong></em></strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://horsebackmagazine.com/hb/archives/9216/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Press Freedom vs BLM Suit Goes to the Ninth Circuit</title>
		<link>http://horsebackmagazine.com/hb/archives/9146</link>
		<comments>http://horsebackmagazine.com/hb/archives/9146#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 May 2011 05:17:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>steven</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[More Horseback News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[BLM]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cattoor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[deaths]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gordon cowan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[helicoptor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[laura leigh]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stampede]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wild Horses]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://horsebackmagazine.com/hb/?p=9146</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Fight Continues for the Public’s Right to Know
Plaintiff Laura Leigh pours over documents
Attorney Gordon Cowan makes final check of document inventory
Late last week the battle to view the government’s handling of wild horses and burros went to Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
RENO, (Wild Horse Education) &#8211; The Brief begins in part: “A journalist published [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><em>The Fight Continues for the Public’s Right to Know</em></p>
<p><em>Plaintiff Laura Leigh pours over documents</em></p>
<p><em>Attorney Gordon Cowan makes final check of document inventory</em></p>
<p>Late last week the battle to view the government’s handling of wild horses and burros went to Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.</p>
<p><a href="http://horsebackmagazine.com/hb/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Laura-Leigh-Plaintiff1.jpg"><img class="alignleft size-medium wp-image-9149" title="Laura Leigh Plaintiff" src="http://horsebackmagazine.com/hb/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Laura-Leigh-Plaintiff1-223x300.jpg" alt="" width="223" height="300" /></a>RENO, (Wild Horse Education) &#8211; The Brief begins in part: “A journalist published photos and videos of the methods employed by the government when rounding up and warehousing wild horses removed from public lands. The photos sparked public debate and concern. The photos resultantly became became unpopular with the government. The government then crafted protocol that continually changes, which effectively forecloses meaningful public observation of these same activities.”</p>
<p>This battle effectively began last year with a companion case heard for the summer Owyhee roundup. That suit brought two issues to the table:<a href="http://horsebackmagazine.com/hb/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Gordon-Cowan-briefs1.jpg"><img class="alignright size-medium wp-image-9151" title="Gordon Cowan briefs" src="http://horsebackmagazine.com/hb/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Gordon-Cowan-briefs1-195x300.jpg" alt="" width="195" height="300" /></a><a href="http://horsebackmagazine.com/hb/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Gordon-Cowan-briefs.jpg"></a> actual foaling season and public land closure. The documentation on foaling season was never heard as an alleged water emergency was declared after the suit was filed. Yet Reno attorney Gordon Cowan won on the land closure issue for Plaintiff Laura Leigh. Blanket closure of public land can no longer occur.</p>
<p>The issue of transparency is one of great concern to Leigh. “If there is nothing to hide,” asks Leigh “Why go through such lengths to keep the trap pens, holding facilities and records of sale secret?”</p>
<p>Instances of discriminatory access continue to occur and a convoluted paper trail has been uncovered since this suit began. </p>
<p>The paper trail includes documentation gained through a Freedom of Information Act requests by journalist Debbie Coffey that clearly shows that the Indian Lakes facility the Bureau of Land Management claims to be closed to the public is actually contracted to give weekly public tours through 2015.</p>
<p>“Public debate is vital to any Democratic process,” states attorney Cowan “If the information utilized in debate is subjected to content control the debate is moot, not the argument.”</p>
<p>“Mootness” is a common thread in many legal cases dealing with wild horse and burro management. A wild horse roundup lasts just a few days and the judicial process can take years. Yet when you have an issue that revolves around repetitive conduct the concept needs closer scrutiny.</p>
<p>That scrutiny will begin shortly in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.</p>
<p>To view the Brief and supporting documentation go to:</p>
<p><a href="http://wildhorseeducation.org/">http://WildHorseEducation.org</a></p>
<p>Brief is included in Wild Horse Education’s Newsletter:</p>
<p><a href="http://wildhorseeducation.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/whenewsletterv1.pdf">http://wildhorseeducation.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/whenewsletterv1.pdf</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://horsebackmagazine.com/hb/archives/9146/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Nevada Judge With Ranching Conections Zaps Leigh Free Speech Lawsuit</title>
		<link>http://horsebackmagazine.com/hb/archives/8183</link>
		<comments>http://horsebackmagazine.com/hb/archives/8183#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Apr 2011 01:34:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>steven</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[More Horseback News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[BLM]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[deaths]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Larry Hicks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[laura leigh]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lawsuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stampede]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[vets]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://horsebackmagazine.com/hb/?p=8183</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[OPINION: The battle to see our horses continues, as horses continue to die behind closed doors
By Laura Leigh, 
RENO, (WHE) &#8211; Wild Horse Education is continuing the legal battle for transparency against the Department of Interior (DOI) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Because the public is continually denied consistent access to roundups and holding [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><em>OPINION: The battle to see our horses continues, as horses continue to die behind closed doors</em></p>
<p>By Laura Leigh, </p>
<p><a href="http://horsebackmagazine.com/hb/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Mustangs-Helicopter-Antelope-Leigh-4-72.jpg"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-8184" title="Mustangs Helicopter Antelope Leigh 4 72" src="http://horsebackmagazine.com/hb/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Mustangs-Helicopter-Antelope-Leigh-4-72.jpg" alt="" width="288" height="145" /></a>RENO, (WHE) &#8211; Wild Horse Education is continuing the legal battle for transparency against the Department of Interior (DOI) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Because the public is continually denied consistent access to roundups and holding facilities that house the American public’s wild horses, taken from public land with public funds, this action is gaining increasing importance.</p>
<p>On February 14, 2011 Plaintiff Laura Leigh filed for permission to appeal her First Amendment Rights case against the BLM to the Ninth Circuit Court. Her plea was based on the fact that there had been no ruling by the Federal Court in Reno to her request for Emergency Injunctive Relief in a case she had filed five months previous. Her request cited that “no action” in a case requiring emergency relief was an essential denial of her motion.</p>
<p>Judge Larry Hicks of the Federal District Court in Reno has now denied Leigh’s motion as “moot.” However in his ruling he does allow written testimony to stand in the record that had been objected to by the BLM.</p>
<p>“Basically this is good news,” said Leigh “What the Judge has now given me is an opportunity to present this case without first going through the process of gaining the Court’s permission. He has also ruled that the entire record of the case remains intact and that is vital to demonstrate the repetitive behavior that has precedent in higher Courts as not moot.”</p>
<p>Leigh has spent the last year observing more roundups than any government personnel and bringing the public daily reports. The suit she brought earlier in the year, to the same Court over closure of public land and a roundup during the heat of summer for the Owyhee Herd Management Area, bore fruit for public observers. That suit found that closure of public land was a prior restraint to First Amendment Rights, creating the beginning of a daily observation platform for the public.</p>
<p>“The current suit is NOT about observing a single roundup,” Leigh stated “The emergency relief requested extends to the repetitive battle for observation. We have a right to know how our money is spent in the hands-on management of our horses throughout the process. From roundup through holding and their ultimate disposition, wherever that may be, it is our right to see it.”</p>
<p>This winter horses from the Eagle Complex joined those named in Leigh’s suit from the Silver King Herd Management Area behind the locked doors of the BLM Indian Lakes (Broken Arrow) facility in Fallon Nevada. Horses continue to die and suffer disease out of sight of public scrutiny. Horses in that facility continue to die at an alarming rate as indicated in the weekly reports.</p>
<p>Last spring the BLM closed the doors of the facility, which had previously offered weekly public tours, because of the intensity of public outrage. In an email from Dean Bolstad, of the Nevada state office in Reno to his superiors, dated May 25 of last year he writes: “The impact of stopping the tours pales in comparison to the impact to our employees and BLM&#8217;s image.”</p>
<p>Is this a reason to deny the public basic rights guaranteed in the Constitution? Or is this a reason to “clean up your act?”</p>
<p>The full Appeal is expected to be filed by Leigh and her attorney Gordon Cowan of Reno soon.</p>
<p><em>The legal efforts are supported solely by Wild Horse Education, a registered non-profit in the state of Nevada.</em></p>
<p>Website: <a href="http://wildhorseeducation.org/">http://WildHorseEducation.org</a></p>
<p>Free Book: <a href="http://wildhorseeducation101.wordpress.com/">http://wildhorseeducation101.wordpress.com/</a></p>
<p>Video of Eagle Roundup and denial of access to Indian Lakes (Broken Arrow): <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vw8iX7LO8g0">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vw8iX7LO8g0</a></p>
<p>Article published by Deb Coffey on the Indian Lakes facility contract in PPJ gazette: <a href="http://ppjg.wordpress.com/2011/04/17/blm%E2%80%99s-sweet-deal-paid-for-with-your-tax-dollars-of-course/#more-16184">http://ppjg.wordpress.com/2011/04/17/blm%E2%80%99s-sweet-deal-paid-for-with-your-tax-dollars-of-course/#more-16184</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://horsebackmagazine.com/hb/archives/8183/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

