AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The case involves the Wild Horse Observers Association, Inc. (the Association) challenging the New Mexico Livestock Board's (the Board) classification of a group of undomesticated, unowned, free-roaming horses near Placitas, New Mexico (the Placitas horses), as "livestock" and "estray" rather than as "wild horses" under the Livestock Code. The Association filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief, asserting that the Board unlawfully treated the Placitas horses as estray livestock, leading to their impoundment and auction. The Association sought a declaration that the Placitas horses are wild, not estray, and that the Board failed to comply with statutory requirements for DNA testing and relocation of wild horses (paras 3-5).

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County, Valerie A. Huling, District Judge: Dismissed the Association's complaint for failure to state a claim under Rule 1-012(B)(6) NMRA (para 7).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant (the Association): Argued that the Placitas horses are not "livestock" as they have never been domesticated or used on a farm or ranch, and thus cannot be "estray." Claimed the Board failed to comply with Section 77-18-5(B) by not DNA testing and relocating the wild horses (para 8).
• Defendant-Appellee (the Board): Contended that the Placitas horses are estray livestock whose owners are unknown, making them both livestock and estray. Argued that excluding wild horses from the definition of "livestock" would create an absurd exception to the Livestock Code (para 6).
• Defendants by Intervention-Appellees (Intervenors): Supported the Board's position and argued that the appeal is moot and barred by collateral estoppel (para 1).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Placitas horses are legally "wild horses" rather than "livestock" and "estray" under the Livestock Code (para 2).
• Whether Section 77-18-5(B) requires the Board to DNA test and relocate wild horses (para 2).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals of New Mexico reversed the district court's dismissal of the Association's complaint and remanded for further proceedings (para 9).

Reasons

• Per Jonathan B. Sutin, with concurrence from Michael D. Bustamante and Cynthia A. Fry, the court held that "livestock" does not include undomesticated, unowned animals, including horses, thus undomesticated, unowned horses may not be "estray." The court also concluded that Section 77-18-5(B) requires the Board to DNA test and relocate wild horses, finding that the Association pleaded sufficient facts in its complaint to withstand a motion to dismiss under Rule 1-012(B)(6). The court reasoned that interpreting "livestock" to include only domestic or domesticated animals aligns with the Livestock Code's purpose and avoids absurd or unreasonable results. The court rejected the Board and Intervenors' arguments that excluding wild horses from the definition of "livestock" would create loopholes in the law, noting that wild horses would still be subject to transportation laws and protected by general animal cruelty statutes if in captivity. The court further determined that the Legislature intended for the Board to test and relocate wild horses captured on public land as provided under Section 77-18-5(B), rejecting the argument that this responsibility does not explicitly fall to the Board (paras 10-32).