In any high-stakes public policy debate, especially one involving public lands, wildlife, and federal law, the strength of the argument should rest on data, transparency, and lawful process.

But too often, the conversation is derailed by tactics designed not to inform—but to distract.

We are watching the public narrative get hijacked both online and in Congress, again. These are the very same tactics used to create the existing faults in the framework and to stop reforms year-after-year.

As an advocate is is part of your job to stop this corrosive process. Do not bite the bait. 

Let’s look at the problem of deflection. 

When it comes to deflection it is often used to blame wild horses and burros for a myriad of issues federal agencies simply refuse to look at. Somehow the “overpopulation” claims repetition places an absurd solution to every problem as “remove wild horses and everything will be fine.”

Getting advocates, media and Congress from having any discussion on actual range management issues is the goal of deflection. The goal of the deflector is to bully you into accepting the broken framework as valid and not to obtain any transparency, data or science into the existing framework.

Pushing focus into a “what is your solution for overpopulation or we are going to push selling wild horses to slaughter” mindset keeps the deeper planning issues from ever make the room (like actually protecting wild horse and burro habitat for wild horses and burros).

A bit of “red herring” humor

Four of the most common tactics are deflection, conversation hijacking, red herring fallacies, and whataboutism. These are not just abstract communication concepts. Sadly, they actively shape the public narrative around wild horse and burro management.

Understanding how they work is essential to stopping them.

Deflection: Avoiding the Real Issue
Deflection is a psychological defense mechanism used to evade difficult or uncomfortable truths. Instead of addressing the actual issue, the conversation is redirected to something safer or more convenient.

A spotlight example: WHE posted an article updating the fight at Carter/Buckhorn/Coppersmith. The deflection and redirection began immediately and we had to remove a few comments that became really disturbing. In the context of the “big picture” in Congress, this is a real problem nationwide. 

In the case of the Carter Herd Management Area (HMA), the issue is clear: a legal challenge has advanced into the preliminary injunction phase without dismissal, allowing a full examination of decades of inadequate planning. This includes the progressive reduction of habitat—from over 260,000 acres to just 23,468 acres—and the absence of basic requirements like accessible year-round water.

There is also the critical issue of genetic viability. Carter is an isolated herd with no population exchange, maintaining a unique genetic profile. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) proposes reducing this herd to 25 animals and administering GonaCon to 15 of them.

This creates what is known as functional extinction.

Functional extinction occurs when a population technically still exists but can no longer sustain itself. This can result from:

• • Too few breeding individuals
  • Disrupted age structure
  • Loss of genetic diversity
  • Reproductive suppression

In wildlife management, this condition is treated as an emergency. For other species, such a proposal would trigger immediate conservation intervention, not implementation.

Yet instead of engaging with these facts, deflection shifts the conversation away from the absence of data, analysis, and lawful planning required under statutes like NEPA and FLPMA. Not one single comment on the posting made by the “opposition” addressed the facts at Carter. 

Above: New Years Lake was the original Herd Area and became the original Herd Management Area. It was renamed “Carter” and 230,000 acres was removed for use by wild horses with zero data analysis and simply a declaration it was all being given to livestock. The asserted AML for Carter is now 25 wild horses. About what any boarding barn might have onsite. If we are talking about “management” the territory designated for wild horse use would be analyzed for that use, an actual AML set for the New Years Lake HMA. Not how do we get to 25 wild horses on land that does not have a year round stable water source.

Conversation Hijacking: Changing the Subject Entirely
Conversation hijacking takes deflection a step further by replacing the topic altogether.

After Wild Horse Education shared updates on the Carter case—focused on legal process and lack of planning—responses quickly shifted to unrelated talking points like “What is your solution to overpopulation?”

At 25 horses, “overpopulation” is not just irrelevant—it is mathematically impossible. A boarding facility could hold more animals than the entire proposed population.

This tactic reframes the discussion into a different debate entirely, one that was never part of the original issue.

Breakdown of AML for the HMAs nationwide. Only 3 HMAs in the U.S. have an AML over 500. Only 31 have an AML over 150 (genetic sustainability minimum). These same ranges support thousands of cattle and massive extractive industries. (Fallacies debunked here)

Red Herring Fallacy: Introducing Irrelevant “Evidence”
A red herring introduces unrelated information to distract from the core argument.

Examples in this context included:

• • Posting photos from different locations (such as Heber)
  • Sharing images of dead horses without context or verification (that look like the group was shot where they stood)
  • Suggesting isolated incidents as representative of broader conditions

None of these relevant to Carter, the place being discussed.

These do not address the Carter HMA, its data gaps, or the legal deficiencies under review. They are designed to provoke emotional reactions and derail fact-based discussion.

Whataboutism: Turning Accusation Into Counterattack
Whataboutism is a specific form of deflection where criticism is met with a counter-accusation.

Instead of addressing the lack of habitat analysis or lawful planning, responses pivot to:

• “What about overpopulation?”
• “What about costs? This is too expensive and you are responsible!”
• “What about horses dying everywhere? You are responsible.”

This tactic shifts the burden away from the agency’s obligations and onto advocates, reframing the issue as if the failure lies elsewhere.

“Whataboutism” often escalates further into personal attacks, such as labeling advocates as “ignorant” or blaming them for outcomes tied to agency decisions.

Kiger families seeking shade in the heat. BLM claims wild horses do not seek shade and do not have to provide shelters in facilities. But use a lack of shade or windbreaks as a reason to zero out HMAs.

The Manufactured Narrative
These tactics do more than disrupt individual conversations—they build a false framework.

Claims about “percentages of hundreds or thousands over AML,” excessive program costs, or inevitable ecological collapse are repeated until they feel like established facts, even when they have been thoroughly debunked with actual data and analysis.

This is not accidental. These narratives often align with interests that benefit from prioritizing livestock grazing on public lands, even when doing so conflicts with federal law and the multiple-use mandate.

The result is a public discourse that is disconnected from:

• • • Actual population data
    • Habitat capacity analysis
    • Legal requirements for land and wildlife management

Carter

Why This Matters Now

The Carter case provides an opportunity to present the full thread: decades of decisions made without adequate data, without proper analysis, and without updating management plans to reflect current conditions.

A Herd Management Area Plan (HMAP) should have been updated first—using modern data to assess habitat suitability, water availability, and genetic health. Instead, a roundup plan was advanced based on outdated and unsupported assumptions.

That is the issue before the court.

Not overpopulation. Not unrelated incidents. Not rhetorical distractions.

In Congress right now the same tactics are being used again to push a desperate narrative with an end game of actually reopening slaughter plants in the US and/or allowing open sales to slaughter (we all see it in the budget debate). An almost blackmail style tactic that essentially states that if we push for real data-based reforms they will push to kill wild horses and burros. 

How to Stop the Hijacking
To keep the conversation grounded in fact and law, it is critical to recognize and respond to these tactics effectively:

• Stay anchored to the original issue. When the topic shifts, bring it back: “This discussion is about Carter HMA planning and legal compliance.”
• Refuse false premises. Do not engage with claims that are irrelevant or factually incorrect, such as overpopulation at non-viable herd levels. Do not bite the bait.
• Ask for evidence. Require data tied specifically to the HMA in question, not generalized or unrelated examples.
• Separate emotion from analysis. Emotional imagery and anecdotes should not replace data and documented process.
• Recenter on law and science. NEPA, FLPMA, and established wildlife biology standards are the framework—not opinion or narrative.

Most importantly, do not allow these tactics to define the conversation.

Because they already have.

The current crisis in wild horse and burro management did not emerge from data-driven policy.

It was built through years of narrative framing that sidelined science, ignored legal requirements, and normalized decision-making without accountability.

Changing that starts with refusing to follow the conversation away from the facts.

Do not bite the bait. 

Right now your contribution will be matched in honor of National Volunteer Week and Earth Day!

Through May 1, your gift will be matched dollar-for-dollar up to $10,000. 

We need your support to keep our teams engaging lawmakers, our team fighting in the court, our team ready to run the roundup schedule. Every mile we travel to cover roundups or assess a herd, every court case we bring, every win, every action we take is only possible because of your support.