Ninth Circuit: Immediate Wild Horse Removal Plans Affirmed

• The Ninth Circuit ruled that the statutory requirement for "immediate" removal of excess wild horses does not mean instantaneous action.
• The court upheld two Bureau of Land Management plans for thinning herds in Nye County, Nevada, against a challenge from ranchers.
• Judge Holcomb stated that the Wild Horses Act requires removal "as promptly as logistically and reasonably possible," considering practical constraints and humane treatment.
• The ruling clarifies that while agencies have discretion in implementing "immediate" actions, it does not permit indefinite deferral of initial gathers.
• Parties can still bring a separate claim under the Administrative Procedure Act if an agency is deemed to be moving too slowly.

BLM cannot simply snap its fingers, Thanos-like, and thereby remove all excess animals from the contemplated range.

The Ninth Circuit recently affirmed the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) approach to managing excess wild horse populations in Nevada, rejecting a challenge from local ranchers. A three-judge panel upheld two BLM plans designed to thin herds across significant acreage in Nye County. Ranching operations Colvin & Son and Stone Cabin Ranch had contested these plans, arguing they were unlawful due to the absence of a specific timeline for the initial removal of animals.

The dispute centered on the interpretation of the term "immediately" as stipulated in the Wild Horses Act, which mandates the removal of excess animals. The ranchers contended that the BLM's proposed 10-year timeframe for its comprehensive management strategy, which included initial roundups and subsequent population control measures, was not sufficiently expeditious. The government, represented by attorney Tamara Rountree, clarified that the decade-long period encompassed the entirety of the plan, not solely the initial gather.

The plans specifically target the Little Fish Lake Joint Management Area, spanning approximately 117,000 acres, and the Stone Cabin Complex, covering over 540,000 acres. In 2021, the Little Fish area was estimated to have 291 wild horses, significantly exceeding its target range of 79 to 132. Similarly, the Stone Cabin Complex housed an estimated 1,097 horses, well above its desired population of 242 to 404. The appellate court's decision effectively validated the BLM's strategy for these areas, despite the ranchers' concerns about the pace of implementation.

Writing for the panel, U.S. District Judge John Holcomb, sitting by designation, clarified that the statutory requirement for "immediate" removal of excess wild horses does not equate to instantaneous action. Instead, the Wild Horses Act interpretation dictates that the agency must proceed "as promptly as logistically and reasonably possible." This nuanced definition acknowledges the practical realities and constraints inherent in large-scale animal management operations.

Judge Holcomb emphasized that the BLM's responsibilities extend beyond mere removal, encompassing humane treatment of the animals, securing qualified adopters, evaluating costs, and incorporating scientific recommendations. He famously remarked that the BLM cannot simply snap its fingers, Thanos-like, and thereby remove all excess animals from the contemplated range. The court found no provision within the Wild Horses Act that mandates a precise timeline for these actions. Both challenged plans explicitly direct the agency to commence the initial roundup promptly, with the Little Fish plan setting a goal to reach its target "as immediately as possible."

The court also considered the practical limitations cited in the BLM's plans, such as weather conditions, deeming them "precisely the kinds of practical constraints" that the law permits the agency to factor into its operations. A prior ruling by U.S. District Judge Anne Traum of Nevada had similarly favored the government's position. This ruling provides important clarity on the agency action 'immediately' definition, balancing statutory directives with operational feasibility.

While affirming the BLM's discretion in implementing its Nevada horse management plans, the Ninth Circuit's ruling also established important boundaries for agency action. Judge Holcomb underscored that the absence of a strict deadline does not grant the agency permission for "indefinite deferral of an initial gather." This distinction is crucial, as it prevents agencies from indefinitely postponing mandated actions under the guise of practical constraints.

The court explicitly noted that if a party believes an agency is moving too slowly, a separate claim for undue delay can be pursued under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). This provision ensures that agencies remain accountable for their pace of action, even when "immediate" is not interpreted as "instantaneous." The panel's decision focused solely on whether the BLM's plans met the statutory requirement for sufficient speed, not on whether the agency had actually executed its duties quickly enough in practice.

This outcome in Colvin & Son v BLM offers significant guidance for future challenges to agency timelines. It suggests that while courts will consider the practicalities of implementation, they will not tolerate perpetual inaction. The ruling reinforces the idea that statutory language like "immediately" implies a sense of urgency and promptness, but within the bounds of what is reasonably achievable, leaving room for judicial review of excessive delays through established legal mechanisms like the Administrative Procedure Act delay claim.

This ruling clarifies that statutory requirements for 'immediate' agency action do not mandate instantaneous execution, allowing for practical constraints and phased implementation. Lawyers advising clients on compliance with similar statutory language or challenging agency delays should note that while agencies have discretion, indefinite deferral is not permitted, and an APA claim for undue delay remains a viable avenue for redress.

Source: Original reporting via Courthouse News Service