U.S. Court of Appeals in Denver Hears Arguments Over Wild Horse Removal

The U.S. Court of Appeals in Denver is currently deliberating a significant case concerning the removal of wild horses frompublic landsin Wyoming. This case, which involves the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and private landowners, could have far-reaching implications for land management across the western United States.

The U.S. Court of Appeals in Denver heard a case Monday that will decide if theBLM, the agency that oversees the government’s free-roaming wild horse program, can removemustangsfrom public land in Wyoming at the request of a private landowner.

Wyoming is a party in the case as well, siding with the Bureau of Land Management’s position that a landowner’s request to remove horses from adjacent public land is sufficient to trigger the removal from adjacent public land.

In 2014, theBLMremoved 1,263 federally protected horses from the Wyoming Checkerboard area, a 2 million-plus acre strip of land near Rock Springs that includes both public and private property parcels, separated by few fences.

Property owners whoselivestockgraze their land requested the removal.

Last year, a federal judge in Wyoming ruled that the removal violated the National EnvironmentalPolicyAct because the agency failed to consider alternatives to removal.

But Chief Judge Nancy Freudenthal, of the U.S. District Court of Wyoming, also ruled that the agency could comply with a request from a private owner to remove wild horses from public land adjacent to private property.

The American Wild Horse Conservation (formerly American Wild Horse Preservation) and other advocates appealed Freudenthal’s decision, saying that section 3 of the Wild Horse Act requires theBLMto make a formal determination that too many wild horses are present onBLMlands, and that they must be removed to maintain a natural ecological balance. TheBLMmade no such determination before the 2014 Checkerboard roundup.

BLMroundups, called “gathers,” use helicopters to herd the animals, and horses can run miles crossing multiple public and private boundaries before they are trapped.

The animals’ mobility complicates efforts to gather the horses only on public land.

Judge Mary Beck Briscoe, one of three justices hearing the case, said the close proximity of public and private property boundaries makes management of the animals difficult. “What we have here is an overwhelming mess.”

William S. Eubanks, a lawyer for the advocates, said there are areas throughout the west where horses roam and public and private property are adjacent to each other. At least 20 areas are similar to Wyoming’s Checkerboard, a crowded patchwork of public and private land.

A court ruling in favor of Wyoming’s position would have ramifications throughout the west, he told the three-judge panel.

Wyoming is trying to “protect the rights of private citizens in Wyoming,” said Erik Petersen, Wyoming senior assistant attorney General.

A decision in favor of theBLMwould benefit ranchers by eliminating the federally protected animals from land where they belong, Suzanne Roy, executive director of the American Wild Horse Conservation (formerly American Wild Horse Preservation), said after the hearing.

The court also heard a second case involving the horses, a Wyoming lawsuit against theBLMdemanding the agency remove hundreds ofmustangsfrom federal land throughout the state.

TheBLMargues that before removing animals it must first determine that overpopulation exists in a herd management area, and that the horses must be removed to assure ecological balance.

In 2015, the Wyoming federal district court dismissed Wyoming’s suit, saying the state failed to state a viable legal claim. Wyoming appealed that ruling.

Originally posted by Denver Post