“Tools in the toolbox” is a phrase many advocates have heard those opposed to wild horses and burros in the U.S. use frequently. The phrase is often used to lament that open sales for wild equine slaughter are not (currently) permitted under law. “We need to have all the tools in the toolbox!” they will say, meaning they want horse slaughter back. In the case of our wild ones, what they mean is they miss the days of mustanging and want to go back to the era of “the Misfits,” before the 1971 law.
Many of you are seeing headlines concerning the “Budget Debate.” Most of what you are seeing involves the “Reconciliation Bill“ for the 2025 fiscal year. Much like the shenanigans of Conrad Burns (R-MT) in 2004 when the Burns Amendment gutted the 1971 Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act, Mark Amodei (R-NV) has stuck an amendment onto the budget bill that would sell off hundreds of thousands of acres in the West without the normal analysis and public participation (he says: “Natural Resources leadership was excited about the potential of selling public lands in the West as a revenue generator needed to offset trillions in tax cuts and new border and energy spending.”)
His amendment to the Reconciliation bill was passed in the House after vehement debate and disgust was expressed at the lack of interaction with other western House members prior to proposing the amendment (and the gutting of due and regular process for public land sales). It now goes to the Senate for further debate.
Many of you are also seeing headlines that state the “Presidential Budget Request” for 2026 is out. Well… yes and no.
A letter was released that says it is a “rigorous line-by-line” discretionary budget request. (You can download it here.) The Bureau of Land Management is only mentioned once and the only “program” specifically noted involve defunding Conservation Programs (page 32).
The “White House Budget Request” is typically made up of numerous documents including: The Whitehouse Budget Request, Analytical Perspectives, Appendix, A Federal Credit Supplement and more. You can find past White House Budget Requests https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/budget
In order to determine the defined agenda for a program such as the BLM Wild Horse and Burro Program, we would need the actual budget request documents that are still not published.
Many of you are asking if the captive wild horses and burros are going to be killed. We suspect that is in discussion due to numerous conversations we have had. But we do not know for sure if that will be included in the White House 2026 fiscal year budget request, as it was in 2017, because it has not been published.
For those of you asking about “Project 2025” and wild horses and burros the section is short: out of 920 pages, only 1 page worth of text speaks to the issue. It notes inaccurate statistics and makes assertions of statements. It basically notes the BLM 2020 plan as “method” with the addition of requesting “disposal” of animals. (The “BLM 2020 Report” began with a lobby document called “Path Forward” that was incorporated into the 2018 Plan that was rejected by Congress for being insufficient and was then re-written as the 2020 plan.)
Are there “tools in the toolbox” BLM could use to save money (and build public trust) but never take those steps? Absolutely.
First, it needs to be recognized that the BLM Wild Horse and Burro Program is one of the least expensive programs run by the federal government. The cost of holding captive wild horses and burros removed from the range so that resources can be utilized by private profit businesses (livestock, mining) was around $100. million in 2024. Wild horses and burros are not a “use,” they are a resource just like the grass or minerals in the public domain.
Private profit systems are different. The private interest pays for a permit to generate a profit off of public resources. They are supposed to generate income and “benefit the public good.” Livestock grazing fees have barely changed (grazing fees were initially based on a “fair-market value” set at $1.23 per AUM in 1966… and in 2025 are $1.35 per month) and continue to only raise about a third of the direct cost of the grazing program where the fees are also cycled through “the rangeland improvement fund” to pay for things like water improvements for cattle/sheep. It was estimated that taxpayers lost around $125. million in grazing fees just in 2015 (and costs are much higher today). So basically, a “renter” costs you an awful lot of money and has not generated income for the taxpayer in a very long time. When looking at the larger “greater good,” the agriculture industry actually employs very few people in western states (one casino in NV can employ more people than the entire agriculture industry).
ATV races, hunting, recreation, wild horse and burro watching, all bring income to local communities through what is referenced as “tourism.”
Basically, in practice, the vast majority of public land “users” do not generate direct income. But the only place this “direct income” discussion seems to bother anyone is when it is used to remove wild horses and burros. As an example: A lot of money will be spent to protect a wild animal that can be tagged to keep hunters “enjoyment” of public lands alive in a specific area. With wild horses and burros an interested party will be told you can travel hundreds of miles away and try to find a horse or burro to enjoy there.
Could the Wild Horse and Burro Program Save Money? The simple answer is “yes.”
Litigation: When a court case is brought and it s found that BLM violated a code of law and procedure, BLM should immediately issue a directive to every state to change practices. Instead multiple lawsuits have to be filed in different districts addressing the same type of infraction(s).
As an example, the court found last year that BLM failed to provide additional data-based justification (a supplement to existing NEPA) for continuing to use a ten-year gather plan. Most districts began filing what is called a “Decision of NEPA Adequacy” (the existing name for the exact type of supplement the court said BLM failed to complete). In other words, BLM already has this process and just ignores it. Right now, there is litigation because BLM failed to supplement NEPA in NV (even though the ruling concerned herds in NV). BLM concedes they did not do the supplement but continues to fight an issue they lost in another case and rectify the issue… creating additional expense in existing litigation and inviting more litigation as they fail to provide these supplements elsewhere.
Another example concerns two other court rulings last year where it was shown that BLM illegally delayed creation of Herd Management Area Plans, HMAP: the actual management plan for a herd(s). BLM has not prioritized completing this fundamental planning document, is currently trying to pass off gather plans as HMAPs (the court already ruled these are distinct documents), and is inviting additional litigation and the expense of that litigation.
It would save a lot of money if BLM just created national policy instead of allowing each district to interpret law and invite (repetitive) litigation in the federal program.
* It must be stated that the livestock industry and environmental groups bring more litigation than BLM has ever faced in the Wild Horse and Burro Program. High-level administrators inside BLM have admitted that the program is “litigation driven.” Meaning if accountability or change is sought, the only way to get there is through the courtroom.
Repatriation of Herd Areas
During the debate in Congress to pass the 1971 Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act the idea that a free-roaming species would be managed behind artificial boundary lines became an unfortunate reality.
No real guidance about how to draw lines “where the wild horses and burros stand” was given. Boundary lines were primarily drawn along the bottom of mountains leaving as much of the flat grazing land to livestock (cattle do not move more than 2 miles from water or up more than a 30% slope unless pushed). These areas were called “Herd Areas,” or “HA”, meaning areas “designated for horse and burro use.”
Then BLM went through a process where they designated areas inside HAs. These were the areas they decided they would manage wild horses and burros. They called these areas “Herd Management Areas” or “HMA.” These areas removed areas of the deepest controversy, sometimes they just said “the terrain was too rough.” There were boundary lines drawn where no year round water source was present (we know horses drank water in 1971). These designations were created without any input from the public (except for selective livestock permittees).
Today when BLM zeros out an HMA (decides to no longer manage horses or burros in the area) the land is called “Reverted back to HA status: designated but not managed for wild horses/burros.”
If you look at any BLM population statistics report you can see that there are acres in every single state in the West that could be evaluated for management (horses/burros) could go back. There are 18 million acres that could be used right now without any cross-jurisdictional issues. Many of these areas could be used to take in wild horses and burros held in captivity decreasing holding costs. This process has always been a “tool in the toolbox” under law, but it has not been used one.
If you spend time on the ground you find that many of the areas labelled “HA” have never really reached “zero” and add to the notion that the range is “overpopulated.” Example: GOLDFIELD NV is listed with an AML of 0, and 246 horses estimated to exist in the area creating a 24600% over AML stat that is included in the national estimate denoting a percentage of wild horses and burros “over AML.” When this metric is meshed in a national percent number, the math is way off representing reality. Areas like MORIAH UT have always had horses and can (obviously) sustain a population. An AML needs to be set in order to have paperwork reflect reality.
There are so many options BLM could save money we cannot list them all. But, it is worth noting, that the BLM Wild Horse and Burro Program has been historically underfunded and understaffed. That could very well lie at the root of why so little field work to gather data is ever done and why brushing aside everything except the roundups to maintain political relationships is really the only tool in the toolbox BLM employs (because it is easier).
Getting to AML and staying there is BLM’s goal. But the goal is not inline with reality and the goalpost keeps moving. The goal of roundups is “low AML,” a number nearly half of the number Congress found “fast-disappearing” in 1971. Any other animal found “fast-disappearing” would have had a population recovery number set and not the number seen as “ok.” Nature is always going to push back and compensatory reproduction (increases in birth rates) coincides with large roundups (so then BLM is left using stronger and stronger fertility control as they make everything worse… sterilizing older mares and skewed foaling season in the ones that return to fertility).
The BLM 2020 Plan has been running fully funded and full steam for 5 years. Basically slam populations down as fast as you can and employ stronger and stronger fertility control (without monitoring plans).
Wouldn’t the only fiscally responsible step be to “stop” and to commission a science-based review by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS)? The 1971 Act calls for these studies. The last one was done in 2013, 15 years ago, long before the “2020 Plan” and the rapid slide into collapse.
Before throwing more money at a plan that has been running for 5 years, shouldn’t the plan be reviewed to see where the money was spent and the results?
A caucus (defined as a group of politicians focused on an agenda) was formed earlier this week by Dina Titus (D-NV), Juan Ciscomani (R-AZ), David Schweikert (R-AZ), and Steve Cohen (D-TN) in the House. You can find out if one of these people represents you by clicking HERE. If they do, make an appointment and express your views. If your rep is NOT a member of the caucus, ask them to join. You can find your rep HERE.
You can also just make one simple call to address the plans to sell off public lands and the underlying agenda to destroy (or sell without limits) our wild ones in holding. Learn more HERE
All of our work is only possible with your support.
We thank you for being a vital part of the work of WHE at this critical time.
Categories: Wild Horse Education
You must be logged in to post a comment.