PHOENIX (CN) - The feds can continue operating one of the largest off-range horse and burro corrals in the country after the Ninth Circuit affirmed the corral meets the standards of the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act.
Though animal rights activists say the Nevada corral, designed to hold up to 4,000 animals, keeps horses in inhumane conditions and can pollute local waterways via waste runoff, the Ninth Circuit determined in a Wednesday opinion that the Bureau of Land Management acted within the scope of the National Environmental Policy Act when it declined to produce a full environmental impact statement, finding no significant impact in its initial environmental assessment.
"It is clear BLM did not ignore impacts on animals to be held at the facility," U.S. Circuit Judge Richard Tallman wrote in a 34-page opinion. "BLM analyzed and addressed humane treatment of the animals at the facility by requiring the contractor to adopt and comply with the standards and other requirements to ensure animals are properly taken care of while housed at the Winnemucca Off-Range Corral."
The international animal advocacy group Friends of Animals sued the bureau in 2022, claiming it failed to take a hard look at the impact on both the horses and the environment when it approved a contract with JS Livestock to construct what was at the time the largest off-range corral in the country. As of today, the corral holds just under 3,500, providing more than 750 square feet per animal.
A trial judge granted summary judgment to the bureau in July 2024, prompting an appeal.
In October, the plaintiffs argued the corral is built on dusty, flood-prone soil and that it lacks proper shade. They also said the minimum of two annual cleanings is not nearly enough to prevent the spread of disease and waste leakage into groundwater.
Because JS Livestock received a Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation permit through the state of Nevada, which follows the same level of cleanliness and flood-control guidelines as the National Environmental Policy Act, Tallman wrote that the bureau reasonably concluded that pollution and flooding would be non-issues. He added that the bureau's "dust prevention and control plan" is adequate to address soil concerns.
"The Bureau of Land Management should not be allowed to continually rely on vague policy documents to establish the standard for all wild horse facilities," plaintiff attorney Jennifer Best said in an email to Courthouse News. "These policies were never made available for public comment or approved through the official rulemaking process. Moreover, there is abundant evidence of harsh conditions and brutal injuries and deaths at wild horse facilities. Here, BLM failed to even consider minimum safeguards, such as shade for all horses at a facility subject to extreme heat and cold weather."
Best said Friends of Animals is evaluating its options moving forward and will continue to advocate for all horses on public lands.
In its environmental assessment, the bureau found no significant threat of environmental impact by the construction and operation of the corral. That decision was based on the bureau's Comprehensive Animal Welfare Program guidelines, requiring at least 700 square feet per animal, specific drainage to avoid floods, and adequate shade and shelter for sick or weak animals, among other things.
The plaintiffs said their own panel of experts disagreed with the bureau's standards but couldn't show the bureau didn't conduct the proper assessments.
"Based on our review of the record, BLM addressed each of these issues through the standards and additional contract solicitation requirements," wrote Tallman, a Bill Clinton appointee. "Friends simply disagrees with BLM's determination of what practices are necessary for humane treatment and asks us to reweigh the evidence in favor of its own experts.
"But it is not within our purview to engage in a battle of experts," he added. "BLM is entitled to rely on the opinions of its own experts, which it did here."
The plaintiffs also pointed to the deaths of horses and burros in other corrals compliant with those standards to show that they aren't adequate to protect animal lives.
"Here, however, BLM has imposed additional requirements beyond the standards," Tallman wrote. "Moreover, Friends does not provide evidence that the incidents and deaths to which it cites are a result of compliance with the standards. To the extent Friends argues that ORCs are inherently more hazardous than the wild, even if true, that does not mean that ORCs are necessarily inhumane."
As to concerns over shade and shelter for "compromised animals" in this specific corral, Tallman said the plain text of the agreement requires shade and shelter, making the standards sufficient.
The Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971 legally defines some horses across the West as "wild" and establishes nearly 10% of public lands as protected wild horse and burro territory. However, genetic studies show that most, if not all, horses in the West are feral descendants of domesticated horses, having escaped tribal and ranchlands as recently as decades ago and as early as the arrival of the Spanish Conquistadors.
Whether the horses were present in pre-colonial America, most experts agree that their presence in large quantities is detrimental to the ecological balance of their environment, especially in the desert Southwest.
To manage their impact, the Bureau of Land Management regularly rounds up both feral and "wild" horses and burros, temporarily holding them in off-range corrals while they await adoption, sale or placement in long-term off-range pastures. The bureau spends more than $100,000 annually on holding horses and burros.
Source: Courthouse News Service
