A smaller but not insignificant voice against wild horses is that of the outdoorsmen, who argue that the horses are stealing resources from game animals.

In Section 3 of the original WHB Act, Congress ordered the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture to work with state wildlife agencies to balance the needs of the horses with those of wildlife, especially endangered species.

That language is now in paragraph 1333(a) of the current statute.

Lands set aside for wild horses and burros are to be managed principally for those animals, according to paragraph 1332(c), but only four of them are.

What happened?  Refer to CFR 4710.3-2: The requirement was nullified by the unelected bureaucracy.  Management plans for those areas put the horses in the minority.  That’s why so much money is being spent on roundups, adoption incentives, training programs, fertility controls, off-range pastures, sanctuaries and preserves.

Can a federal regulation trump a duly enacted statute?  If you look at current practices, the answer must be “Yes.”  (If that’s true, our most cherished principles are now on very shaky ground.)

The HMAs and WHTs reviewed on these pages (sidebar on the right under ‘Short End of Stick’) intersect multiple grazing allotments, with most of the resources consigned to privately owned cattle and sheep.  Would you be surprised to learn that most of them are managed that way?

Would the fences that confine the livestock to their allotments impede the movement of horses and wildlife, limiting their access to critical resources?

How many free-roaming horses and burros have to move off their designated areas to find enough food and water?

What types of diseases are transmitted to wildlife by privately owned livestock?

Perhaps the outdoorsmen should look at the data before criticizing the horses.

RELATED: Pneumonia Killing Off Bighorn Sheep in Nevada?

Refer to this guest column posted today by The Salt Lake Tribune.  If AWHC understands that most of the forage on HMAs has been consigned to privately owned cattle and sheep, why do they keep pushing fertility control?

Contraceptives drive wild horse numbers down—a technique you’d apply if you wanted to manage the land primarily for livestock.

RELATED: Grazing Program Overhaul, Management of Western Rangelands in 2018.

Comments on the draft management plan will be taken until March 16, after which it will be finalized by the Forest Service, according to a report posted this morning by the White Mountain Independent of Show Low, AZ.

A problem with the plan is the amount of land dedicated to the WHT—it’s only half the size of the tiny Pryor Mountains WHR in Montana.

If the land can support a stocking rate of five wild horses per thousand acres, and the minimum herd size is 150 per Section 4.4.6.3 the Management Handbook, then the WHT should contain at least 30,000 acres, with an AML of 150.

Public-lands ranchers, referred to by some as “stewards of the forest,” would oppose any such move.  They are trying to paint themselves as victims of the process, typical for government dependents.

Groups that represent them were unwilling to go on record for the article.

Some advocates say the plan is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to eradicate the herd.

One thing is for sure: Unlike the ranchers, wild horses have no friends in government.

RELATED: Disposition of Heber ‘Excess’ Horses?

Back in December, Congress awarded an additional $21 million to the BLM to further address the wild horse ‘problem,’ courtesy of the ill-conceived ‘Path Forward.’

Keep in mind that most of the affected lands were set aside for the horses and that the agency involved is responsible for their protection.

Q. How many wild horses could be removed with the additional funding?

A. Given a cost of roughly $1,000 to gather and process one animal, as many as 21,000 could be removed beyond what the BLM had already anticipated in FY 2020.  This does not mean the agency has the capacity in its outplacement programs to handle that many horses.  Probably not.  So let’s reduce the number to 10,000.

Q. Which areas would be targeted first?

A. Given the agency’s bias toward livestock grazing, which existed before FLPMA, HMAs where the poor ranchers are suffering from AUM cutbacks (because of the horses) would likely be at the top of the list.

Q. What economic benefits might accrue from the $21 million expenditure?

A. The government could receive up to $162,000 per year in incremental grazing fees from the ranchers to whom the ‘liberated’ forage is sold (10,000 horses × 12 months per year × $1.35 per AUM).

Q. Are there any other economic benefits?

A. Not to the government, only the cost of warehousing that many more horses, about $2 per day per head.  The ranchers would benefit, of course, but they’re not the ones spending the $21 million.  Think of it as redistribution of wealth: From your pocket to theirs, assuming you pay federal taxes.

Q. Could the expenditure be described as an investment in America’s future?

A. No.  There is no payout and no rate of return.  It’s negative cash flow all the way.  You don’t spend $21 million up front so you can spend an additional $7.1 million annually after that ($162,000 per year – 10,000 horses × $2 per day × 365 days per year).

Q. I thought the ‘Path Forward’ would cut costs and reduce government spending?

A. It’s not about saving money.  There are no plans to close departments, sell buildings and lay people off when AML is achieved.  It’s about enriching the public-lands ranchers and those who operate off-range pastures, sanctuaries and preserves.

RELATED: Wild Horses: Existential Threat to Ranching Agenda.

Rejoice and be glad!  The 2020 grazing season starts tomorrow, with fees stuck in a time capsule since the 1960s.

Pray for good weather and abundant forage (not for the stupid horses) and that the ranchers will always be insulated from the realities of a free market, at least on the cost side.

May they never be forced off the public lands and have to pay (OMG) the going rate to feed their livestock.

RELATED: Grazing Fee Unchanged in 2020, Cost of Feed?, Grazing Fee Defies FLPMA.

Results from the first census of 2020 should be released in the next few days (Maryland side of the island).  The last report from 2019 indicated a large imbalance between mares and studs.  Nevertheless, the PZP zealots cite the program as a success story.