Blake v. Babbitt, Civ. A. No. 93-0726 (RCL).

• Court: United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
• Writing for the Court: Teri T. Thomsen, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendants
• Citation: 837 F. Supp. 458
• Parties: Michael BLAKE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Bruce BABBITT, Secretary of the Interior, et al., Defendants.
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 93-0726 (RCL).
• Decision Date: 18 November 1993

837 F. Supp. 458

Michael BLAKE, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
Bruce BABBITT, Secretary of the Interior, et al., Defendants.

Civ. A. No. 93-0726 (RCL).

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

November 18, 1993.

837 F. Supp. 459

Richard H. Chused, Washington, DC, Gary L. Francione, Newark, NJ, for plaintiffs.

Teri T. Thomsen, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

LAMBERTH, District Judge.

This matter comes before the court on cross-motions for summary judgment. The court finds that there are no genuine issues of material fact, and that defendants are entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law, dismissing this case.

At issue is the validity of a regulation of the Bureau of Land Management ("BLM") of the United States Department of Interior, 43 C.F.R. § 4770.3(c), that allows a delegated field officer ("authorized officer") of BLM to make and place in full force and effect a decision to remove wild horses or burros pursuant to the Wild and Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act ("Wild Horse Act", or "the Act"), 16 U.S.C. § 1331, et seq.

The Wild Horse Act was enacted in 1971, and it "extended federal protection to wild horses and empowered BLM to manage horses roaming public ranges as a part of the Agency's management of the public lands." American Horse Protection Association v. Watt, 694 F.2d 1310, 1311 (D.C.Cir.1982).

Because overpopulation of wild horses and burros resulted from passage of the 1971 Act, Congress in 1978 amended the Act through the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978. These amendments seemed to strike a new balance between "protecting wild horses and competing interests in the resources of the public range." American Horse Protection Association v. Watt, 694 F.2d at 1316. The amendments made clear the importance of management of the public range for multiple uses, rather than emphasizing wild horse needs. Id. The legislative history makes clear that one of Congress' goals was to "deal with range deterioration in areas where excess numbers of wild-free roaming horses and burros exist." H.R.Rep. No. 1122, 95th Cong., 2nd Sess. 9 (1978). The House Report indicated that the Wild Horse Act had been so successful that the numbers of wild horses and burros "now exceed the carrying capacity of the range. Excess numbers of horses and burros pose a threat to wildlife, livestock, the improvement of range conditions, and ultimately their own survival." Id., at 21.

The Wild Horse Act was specifically amended, then, to require "immediate" removal of excess horses. 16 U.S.C. § 1333(b)(2). When a determination is made that there is an over-population of wild horses, action is required based on the knowledge currently available, even if it is not complete. American Horse Protection Association v. Watt, 694 F.2d at 1317-19. Adjustments can be made later, but the endangered and rapidly deteriorating range cannot wait. Id.

Another part of the legislative history of the 1978 Amendments clearly sets forth Congress' goal:

837 F. Supp. 460

"The goal of wild horses and burro management, as with all range management programs, should be to maintain a thriving ecological balance between wild horse and burro populations, wildlife, livestock, and vegetation, and to protect the range from the deterioration associated with overpopulation of wild horses and burros."

H.R.Rep. No. 1737, 95th Cong., 2nd Sess., 15 (1978), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1978, 4069, 4131.

By 1991, it became clear to BLM that it was having difficulty complying...