Wild Horses, Wilderness, and the Ethics We Choose”
Welfare judged by convenience, not ecology or ethics
Minimal feasible management" (16 U.S.C. §1333) is rarely honored today
Embedding free-roaming horses and burros within a utilitarian framework and viewing them as livestock at best or pests - at worst allows the BLM the latitude to establish welfare standards of convenience in other words to suit them. These standards need only exceed the lowest threshold of public acceptability. As a result, management can default to roundups and removals. These methods sever deep-rooted social and family bonds, and relegate previously free and self-sufficient to diminished lives in holding pens. These environments are often environmentally and socially impoverished, and the Wild Horses are subjected to the acute stress of roundups and unfamiliar human handling. Once removed from their home ranges and families, the best they can hope for is the companionship of buddy in holding and the care of (hopefully) kind humans.
This approach stands in stark contrast to the vision of the original 1971 Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act, which frames these animals as wild, living within ecosystems, yet still deserving of stewardship. The Act directs that:
"The Secretary shall manage wild free-roaming horses and burros in a manner that is designed to achieve and maintain a thriving natural ecological balance on the public lands..." (16 U.S.C. §1333(a))
The statute continues: "...all management activities shall be at the minimal feasible level...", further tying management decisions to the natural balance of all wildlife species.
Rooted in an ethic of compassion for Wild Horses historically subject to abuse, the 1971 Act calls for a more respectful conception of the horses place on the range, one grounded in ecological relationship, not utilitarian control. Raising the ethical bar for all management actions demands revisiting that vision: a future in which wild horses are not nuisances to be removed, but living animals deserving of thoughtful, minimal, and ecologically grounded care.
The FLPMA model of public lands management unequivocally compromises the vision set forth in the 1971 Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act. By positioning federal agencies as referees in an endless contest among users - many driven by commercial and market interests unrelated to the land’s intrinsic needs - FLPMA fails to protect either the welfare of wild horses and burros or the “thriving natural ecological balance” the 1971 Act mandates.
This systemic problem is only likely to deepen in the face of climate change, as drought, habitat loss, and shifting ecological conditions strain both land and wildlife. To survive and thrive, public lands and their nonhuman inhabitants must be freed from what commodifies them - forage is scarce, movement is restricted by fencing, or animals cling to life near shrinking water holes—offers limited choices and diminished autonomy, an idea that supports extraction, not coexistence.
A Wild Horse ethic must be considered. We cannot ignore the cost borne by horses removed from their home ranges and family bands. If removal is deemed necessary, we owe them not just survival, but the richest life possible—one that respects their sentience, social needs, and autonomy.