Allowing four permittees to utilize most of the resources in the Piceance-East Douglas HMA does not conform to the mandates of 16 USC 30, an act of Congress, according to comment #69 in the appendices of the EA for resource enforcement actions therein.
Western Horse Watchers refers to the practice as ‘managing primarily for livestock.’
In response, the government stated that the ‘principally but not necessarily exclusively’ language of the statute applies only to areas known as Wild Horse Ranges, not to HMAs in general, pointing to 43 CFR 4710.3-2, a rule created by the unelected bureaucracy.
Areas that no longer qualify as HMAs are managed almost exclusively for livestock.
These are the defining issues of the wild horse world.
Can regulations override statutes? Is the government trying to sidestep the law in favor of a special interest? Where is the consent of the governed?