The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against two Nevada ranchers seeking faster wild horse removals, finding that the law’s requirement to act “immediately” gives federal officials time to handle animals humanely and address practical challenges.
Ranchers Colvin & Son LLC and Stone Cabin Ranch LLC argued that once the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) determines horses are overpopulating the range, it must remove the excess animals immediately rather than spread that work over a 10-year planning period.
Writing for the three-judge panel, U.S. District Judge John W. Holcomb said the law requires removal “as promptly as logistically and reasonably possible,” while accounting for humane treatment and other statutory duties. The decision affirmed a Nevada district court judgment favoring federal officials.
Background
The case concerns wild horse gather plans for the Little Fish Lake Joint Management Area and Stone Cabin Complex in Nye County, NV.
Little Fish Lake is jointly managed by BLM and the U.S. Forest Service and covers approximately 117,041 acres, with an appropriate management level (AML) of 79-132 horses. BLM estimated the wild horse population in 2021 at 291 horses, and the agency said that excess animals were within the herd management area (HMA).
The Stone Cabin Complex includes the Stone Cabin and Saulsbury HMAs and covers more than 540,000 acres. Its combined AML is 242-404 horses, and the agency estimated the population at 1,097 horses.
Court documents show BLM adopted a gather plan for Little Fish Lake in 2022 and a plan for Stone Cabin in 2023. Each outlined 10 years of initial removals, population controls and maintenance gathers.
The ranchers challenged the plans under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and the district court granted the government summary judgment. The ranchers appealed, and the appellate panel heard arguments on March 11. They asked the courts to set aside the plans as contrary to federal law or beyond BLM’s statutory authority.
Ranchers sought firmer deadlines
Congress passed the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act in 1971, and subsequent amendments enable BLM to manage wild horses and burros to maintain an ecological balance on public lands.
Under the opinion, the law requires BLM to track herd populations and determine how many animals the range can support. Once the agency determines that excess animals must be removed, it must act immediately to bring the population within those limits and restore ecological balance.
The ranchers argued that BLM’s plans failed that requirement because they set no enforceable deadlines for initial gathers. They argued that a 10-year management framework could not substitute for the immediate removal obligation triggered by an excess-population finding.
The ranchers also challenged provisions tying later gathers and population controls to available funding and other national priorities. Without clear deadlines, they argued, BLM had too much room to put off removals.
Opinion
Holcomb wrote that the word “immediately” must be read alongside the statute’s other requirements, including humane care, scientific recommendations and consultation with state wildlife agencies. A rigid timing requirement could prevent BLM from meeting those obligations, the panel concluded.
“The Wild Horses Act does not require that removal actions occur within a specific time frame,” he wrote. “Nor does the Act require BLM to set a specific time frame for removal actions.”
The judges also rejected the argument that the plans allowed BLM to stretch initial removals across 10 years. Both required prompt gathers to reach the lower management level, with population controls and maintenance gathers continuing afterward. The planning period did not permit BLM to wait a decade to address existing overpopulation.
Holcomb noted that the Little Fish Lake plan calls for reducing horse numbers to the lower management level as quickly as possible, and the Stone Cabin plan acknowledges the legal duty to remove excess animals immediately. Bad weather, horses escaping capture and a shortage of contractors could require more than one gather. Recognizing those obstacles showed BLM had considered how to carry out removals, Holcomb said, and did not establish unlawful delay.
That flexibility does not allow BLM to put off removals indefinitely. Holcomb wrote that both plans require prompt action. If the agency takes too long, a party with legal standing could challenge the delay under the APA.
Holcomb wrote that BLM must plan to remove excess animals “as promptly as logistically and reasonably possible.” The agency has considerable flexibility to determine what that requires, but its reasons must be grounded in the law. The panel found both gather plans stayed within those limits.
W. Alan Schroeder, attorney for the ranchers, told WLJ they are “processing the next steps” and that he had contacted his clients for further comment, but WLJ had received no response as of press time. — Charles Wallace, WLJ contributing editor
