Ninth Circuit says ‘immediate’ removal of Nevada wild horses doesn’t mean instant

A Ninth Circuit panel sided with the Bureau of Land Management over ranchers who said its plans to remove excess wild horses in Nevada weren’t fast enough.(CN) — The Ninth Circuit ruled Thursday that the government’s duty to “immediately” remove excess wild horses does not require instantaneous action.The three-judge panel upheld two Bureau of Land Management plans to thin herds in Nye County, Nevada. It rejected a challenge from ranchers Colvin & Son and Stone Cabin Ranch, who argued the plans were illegal because they set no deadline for the work.U.S. District Judge John Holcomb, a Central District of California judge sitting by designation, wrote for the panel that the Wild Horses Act requires the agency to remove excess animals “as promptly as logistically and reasonably possible.”The plans cover the Little Fish Lake Joint Management Area, about 117,000 acres, and the Stone Cabin Complex, more than 540,000 acres. The agency’s target for Little Fish is 79 to 132 horses, and it estimated 291 there in 2021.The Stone Cabin target is 242 to 404 horses. The agency estimated 1,097 wild horses there.The ranchers argued the plans should have set a timeline for the first roundup. They also objected that follow-up roundups and population control depend on things like funding and competing national priorities.At arguments in March, their attorney, Alan Schroeder, said the work should be expeditious, not spread over the 10 years in the plans. Government attorney Tamara Rountree countered that the 10 years covers the whole plan, including population control, not just the first roundup.Rountree also told the panel the word at the center of the case defies a precise meaning. “‘Immediately’ oddly escapes specificity,” she said.U.S. Circuit Judge Mark Bennett voiced the practical problem. “These things can’t all be done like yesterday,” he said.Holcomb began with the word itself. “The plain, ordinary meaning of ‘immediately’ contemplates prompt action,” he wrote. But the same law requires the agency to treat the animals humanely, find qualified adopters, weigh costs and consider scientists’ advice.“BLM cannot simply snap its fingers, Thanos-like, and thereby remove all excess animals from the contemplated range,” Holcomb wrote.He found nothing in the law requires a specific timeline. Both plans direct the agency to start the first roundup promptly, and the Little Fish plan sets a goal of reaching its target “as immediately as possible.” The weather and other practical limits the plans mention are “precisely the kinds of practical constraints” the law lets the agency consider, he wrote.The second argument failed for a different reason. The conditions the ranchers object to apply only after a herd is already down to its target, Holcomb wrote, so the law’s “immediately” requirement doesn’t reach them.But the agency can’t wait forever. A missing deadline, Holcomb wrote, “does not allow for the indefinite deferral of an initial gather,” and a party that believes the agency is moving too slowly can bring a separate delay claim under the Administrative Procedure Act.The panel decided only whether the plans required enough speed, not whether the agency has actually moved fast enough. U.S. District Judge Anne Traum of Nevada had earlier ruled for the government.Representatives for the Bureau of Land Management, Colvin & Son and Stone Cabin Ranch didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads