Many of the areas currently set aside for wild horses and burros are managed primarily for cattle and sheep, privately owned of course.
Other areas, where horses and burros were found in 1971, don’t have enough food and water to support them, although other users of public lands seem to do quite well.
Paragraph 1332(c) of the WHB Act says the land will be devoted principally for horses and burros.
CFR 4710.3-2 says “We’ll do that if we feel like it.”
Which viewpoint prevails?
Here is the issue in a nutshell:
Can a federal regulation supersede a duly enacted statute?
Can the unelected bureaucracy override the legislative process?
That is for the court to decide.
A ruling in favor of the advocacy groups wouldn’t improve anything: It would only put things back where they should have been in the first place.
After that, the hard work begins.