Thank you for signing our Environmental, Wildlife and Wild Horse
MISSION STATEMENT
If you care about the environment or wildlife or wild horses you share a
COMMON CHALLENGE in the mismanagement of federal public lands
by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the US Forest Service.
Thank you for joining us. You can expect to hear from Counter Points about
HOW TO CONDUCT THE FIGHT for policy change.
PayPal if you want to support us
This mismanagement prioritizes subsidized private livestock grazing at the expense of ecological health, native wildlife, and federally protected wild horses. By uniting, these groups can build a stronger coalition to demand science-based reforms, including reduced livestock grazing, humane wild horse management (like fertility control), and an end to practices that harm biodiversity.
1. Livestock grazing, not wild horses, is the primary driver of overgrazing and land degradation
BLM data analyzed by independent groups like Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) shows that commercial livestock (mainly cattle and sheep) cause far more damage to public rangelands than wild horses. For example:
Over 40-44 million acres of BLM lands fail to meet basic land health standards (for water quality, vegetation, soils, and wildlife support), with livestock grazing identified as the primary or significant cause in the majority of cases—often over two-thirds of failing acres due solely to livestock, while less than 1% are due solely to wild horses.
Livestock graze on about 155 million acres of BLM land, while wild horses are restricted to roughly 27 million acres (often shared with livestock).
Livestock outnumber wild horses dramatically—estimates range from 37:1 to over 100:1 in terms of grazing impact or authorized use.
Here are some visual comparisons of the scale of livestock vs. wild horse presence and impact on public lands:These images illustrate degraded rangelands from heavy grazing (often livestock-related) versus healthier areas with balanced or minimal use—highlighting how overgrazing by domestic animals strips vegetation, causes soil erosion, and harms watersheds far more extensively than wild horses, which roam more widely and impact landscapes differently.Environmental groups like the Sierra Club and PEER have repeatedly called out this bias, noting that forage allocations on public lands are "severely biased" against wild horses and wildlife in favor of private livestock.
2. Private livestock interests drive the unnecessary killing of native wildlife
Federal programs, particularly USDA Wildlife Services, kill hundreds of thousands of native animals annually (coyotes, wolves, bears, bobcats, beavers, and more) to protect private livestock grazing on public lands—even in areas with no documented livestock damage. Wildlife advocates have long opposed this as unnecessary and ecologically harmful, with groups like the Center for Biological Diversity documenting how it endangers species and disrupts ecosystems.Wild horse advocates see parallels: wild horses are scapegoated for land issues while livestock grazing continues unchecked, leading to removals (often via traumatic helicopter roundups) of thousands of protected horses each year.
3. Existing alliances show the power of unity
Coalitions already exist and have achieved results. For instance:
Wild horse organizations (e.g., American Wild Horse Conservation, Return to Freedom, Animal Welfare Institute) frequently join environmental and wildlife groups (e.g., Western Watersheds Project, Sierra Club, PEER) in lawsuits and appeals against BLM plans that prioritize livestock over horses and habitat.
Recent examples include joint challenges to massive wild horse removals in Wyoming (e.g., the 2023-2024 Checkerboard cases), where groups argue that livestock competition, not horse overpopulation, drives poor management.
These partnerships highlight shared goals: restoring "thriving natural ecological balance" (as required by the 1971 Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act and broader public lands laws), reducing subsidies for destructive grazing, and prioritizing native species and biodiversity.
4. A united front can push for meaningful reforms
By combining forces, these communities can amplify demands for:
Phasing out or significantly reducing livestock grazing in sensitive areas (including wild horse habitats and wildlife corridors).
Prioritizing humane, on-the-range management for wild horses (e.g., proven fertility control instead of costly removals).
Ending taxpayer-funded wildlife killing programs tied to livestock protection.
Reallocating forage fairly to support native wildlife, wild horses, and ecological restoration.
The evidence is clear from BLM's own records and independent analyses: current federal management scapegoats wild horses while ignoring the dominant role of subsidized livestock in degrading public lands and harming wildlife. Unity among environmentalists, wildlife defenders, and wild horse lovers isn't just strategic—it's essential to protect these irreplaceable landscapes for future generations. Together, they can hold agencies accountable to science, law, and the public interest rather than special commercial interests.
Supported by