November/December 2026 Issue

November/December 2026 | EAST COAST EQUESTRIAN 15 forage consumed by a cow and calf in one month. The 2026 federal rate is $1.69 per AUM, compared with an average $23.40 on private lands in 2024. In 2017, admin- istering the federal grazing program cost the BLM more than $32 million, while livestock operations paid just over $18 million in fees. TCS concludes that the system benefits a small segment of the livestock industry at substantial taxpayer expense. The hors- es-versus-cattle debate is often character- ized as a zero-sum competition. Patricia Miller, executive director of the Ameri- can Wild Horse Conservancy (AWHC), sees it differently. “I value the Western way of life and understand what is at stake for ranching communities,” she says. “I also believe ranchers can be essential partners in building a better approach. We want to work together on humane fertility control, habitat stewardship, and practical solutions that support wild horses, wild- life, working landscapes, and taxpayers.” She advocates collaboration rather than confrontation, guided by “sound science, fair resource allocation and meaningful protection for the horses Congress entrust- ed the government to preserve.” Reevaluate the Formula, or Reimagine the Law? Now, forces within the federal policy apparatus are advocating something far more consequential: removing some pro- tectio ns afforded wild horses. Project 2025, the governing roadmap prepared by the Heritage Foundation before President Trump’s second term, acknowledges BLM efforts to expand adoption, gathers, holding capacity and fertility control. Then it concludes: “All of that will not be enough to solve the prob- lem, however. Congress must enact laws permitting the BLM to dispose humanely of these animals.” Meanwhile, existing law allows the BLM to sell horses to private buyers. Its stated objective is placement in “loving homes,” and horses are offered through feder- al adoption programs. But a recent New York Times investigation revealed what can happen when animals move from adoption into the sales system. Horses may be offered for adoption three times before becoming eligible for sale. Adopted horses retain federal pro- tections against slaughter. Sold horses lose those protections, although buy- ers must agree not to slaughter them or knowingly transfer them for that purpose. Subsequent resale, how- ever, makes accountability difficult. The Times documented more than 60 horses purchased for $25 apiece by an Ohio buyer. The following night, two double-decker cattle trucks arrived, loaded the mustangs and disappeared. Canadian border livestock records re- vealed that some federally sold horses ultimately reached slaughter plants. AWHC’s investigative work helped establish the foundation for the Times reporting through federal sales records and identification of former BLM hors- es in kill pens. “That raises serious ques- tions about whether the protections in place are being effectively enforced,” Mill- er says. She supports responsible adop- tion but insists government policy must be distinguished from what actually hap- pens after animals leave federal custody. AWHC advocates stronger buyer screen- ing and a $500 minimum sale price. Birth Control vs. Killing Horses Former acting BLM director William Perry Pendley wrote Project 2025’s wild- horse chapter. His conclusion that the system ultimately needs authority to kill horses overlooks another available tool: fertility control. Immunocontraceptive drugs can be administered remotely by dart gun, con- trolling herd growth while allowing horses to remain on the range with their family bands. They’re relatively inexpensive and minimally invasive. Miller supports reversible treatments such as PZP but emphasizes that success requires sustained application, sufficient coverage and careful monitoring. “AWHC operates the world’s largest wild horse fer- tility control program on Nevada’s Virginia Range and more than 20 other programs operate across the country.” The USDA recently approved a $30million investment in BLM fertility-control efforts. Miller applauds the funding while ac- knowledging legitimate ecological con- cerns. “Where horses are contributing to degradation, we support responsible, hu- mane management. That is precisely why we advocate sustained fertility control and habitat stewardship, to protect the land and the animals before conditions become a cri- sis.” She adds: “Acknowledging ecological impacts does not mean accepting repeated helicopter roundups and long-term holding as the only solution.” Doing the Right Thing The Forest Service website attempts, rather strangely, to temper public senti- ment by reminding readers that wild hors- es aren’t necessarily as beautiful as televi- sion and film suggest. Those magnificent, mane-flying mustangs, it explains, are of- ten equine actors selected for their appear- ance. But beauty was never supposed to be the threshold for protection. The question is whether the BLM and Forest Service have created a system that fulfills Congress’s promise in 1971. Pro- tecting wild horses and burros needn’t mean ignoring ecological realities or the needs of ranching communities. Respon- sible grazing, fertility control, habitat stewardship, adoption and, when neces- sary, removal can coexist. But the starting point must be recognition of the animals’ intrinsic worth, and an honest examina- tion of a system that allows horses to be chased from the range, confined indefi- nitely at taxpayer expense or sold for al- most nothing into a marketplace where federal protections become increasingly difficult to enforce. Mollie Beattie, the first female director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, un- derstood the significance of those choices. “What a country chooses to save is what a country chooses to say about itself.” Image Courtesy of AmericanWild Horse Conservation