Nevada Agriculture Officials Transfer Ownership of Mustangs Amid Controversy

The relationship between Nevada's Department of Agriculture and the American Wild Horse Conservation (formerly American Wild Horse Preservation) had been tense for months. By late October, the department terminated its agreement with the nonprofit, citing breaches in a 2013 agreement intended to prevent Nevada horses from being sent to slaughter. This decision has become a focal point in the ongoing debate over managing wild horse populations in Nevada, often pitting advocates against agricultural interests.

On Tuesday, the Nevada Department of Agriculture board voted 8-1 to end the agreement and directed the state agency to transfer ownership of about 3,000 horses on the Virginia Range near Reno. "There is so much passion around this issue," said Jim Barbee, director of the department, which oversees the state's livestock, including feral horses. "I get that. I understand that. [But] there is so much responsibility to adhere to the state's laws that it's just an absolute challenge."

Barbee presented the move as a step toward transferring responsibility to a nonprofit with resources to care for the horses, arguing it would give local parties more say in management. However, during over two hours of public comment, dozens of horse advocates expressed concerns that the action could put the horses at risk of slaughter. One commenter referred to the plan as a "death warrant."

The American Wild Horse Conservation (formerly American Wild Horse Preservation) presented a letter from an attorney stating, "It is our opinion that transfer of ownership of the Virginia Range horse herd violates NRS Chapter 569." This statute governs how the department handles feral livestock.

A representative for the Tahoe-Reno Industrial Center urged the board not to vote on the plan, emphasizing that mustangs are a significant draw for businesses like Tesla. "They won't build in a site that has poor or sloppy environmental management," said Kris Thompson, project manager for the industrial park. "This kind of agenda item would drive people away…. The Virginia Range horses are a global phenomenon in the business world."

As evidence, Thompson submitted an Instagram post from Tesla CEO Elon Musk, viewed over 736,000 times, showing mustangs near the Gigafactory, along with an MSNBC Money article about the post.

Through the Department of Agriculture, the Virginia Range horses are state property. The board's proposal effectively called for the wholesale adoption of the mustangs, transferring responsibility from the state to a third-party group.

Nevada’s Horses on Federal Land

To understand Nevada's role in managing horses on non-state land, one must grasp the complex laws governing Western horses. In 1971, Congress mandated the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to protect wild horses as a symbol of the West. The Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act defines a "wild horse" as unbranded or unclaimed, while domesticated horses that escape are "feral horses."

After reducing populations in the Virginia Range in the 1980s, the BLM declared it a "wild horse free area," meaning legally, no horses fell under federal jurisdiction. However, some feral horses remained.

"The BLM recognized the difficulties they were going to have in that area," Barbee said after the meeting. "When they depopulated that [herd management area] and declared it wild horse free, in one fell swoop it changed the status of any remaining horses there." Responsibility for these horses then fell to the state, as feral livestock under the agriculture department's oversight.

Horses thrive in the wild, with few natural predators and a robust digestive system. The Virginia Range herd grew to about 3,000, although the department claims it can only support 300-600 horses, based on a 2001 range inventory report. Advocates dispute these findings, arguing the report surveyed only a fraction of the range.

Nonetheless, the department cited overpopulation as causing issues, including traffic accidents and homeowner complaints about horses in their yards.

When the department rounded up excess horses, they could be adopted by advocates or sold at auction, transferring ownership. Barbee noted that, to his knowledge, advocates adopted all auctioned horses during his tenure.

However, the word "auction" raises concerns among advocates, as new owners could send horses to slaughter. U.S. slaughterhouses closed when federal inspections were defunded in 2007, but horses can still be sent to slaughter across borders, a practice that has put the BLM under scrutiny, according to ProPublica.

Amid outcry over auctions in 2013, advocates reached a deal with the state. The American Wild Horse Conservation (formerly American Wild Horse Preservation) entered a cooperative agreement with the agency. At the time, one advocate called it a "win-win solution."

The Cooperative Agreement Falls Apart

On October 25, Deniz Bolbol, communications director for the wild horse campaign, received an email marked "Importance: High" from the state agency. "I saw an email from the department and I knew it was bad news," said Bolbol, the campaign's point-of-contact for the agreement. The letter informed her of the agreement's termination, which came as a surprise, leaving her suspecting ulterior motives.

"It's political or personal, or both," she said. Despite frayed relations and claims of breaches, Bolbol believed they could resolve their differences.

From the department's perspective, the letter was overdue. "AWHPC's refusal to perform all management portions of the agreement prevented the group from fulfilling the goal of the agreement, which led to this decision," the termination letter reads. The department also cited public safety concerns.

"Since mid-July 2017, more than 43 horse-vehicle collisions have occurred in the Virginia range area," said Chris Miller, an agriculture enforcement officer. The cooperative agreement began to unravel in 2016 after the wild horse campaign proposed an amendment and shifted focus to a birth control program. Bolbol claimed an official verbally agreed to the amendment, but the department never signed it.

Meanwhile, the campaign operated as if the amendment was in effect, focusing on birth control. The department cited this shift as a reason for termination. To Bolbol, this rationale is Kafkaesque.

It took over a year for the department to terminate the agreement after the amendment proposal, delayed by the legislative session and turnover. Bolbol argued the amendment was proposed because the agency breached the agreement, working with local groups on management issues, potentially leaving the campaign liable.

"I can't be legally liable for stuff like that," she said. The department emphasized its responsibility to address immediate public safety issues.

"During the July 2016 meeting, our enforcement officer said it became clear that AWHPC was not able to quickly respond to public safety threats," wrote Doug Farris, the department's Animal Industry division administrator.

After the October letter, both sides aired grievances publicly. Advocates called on Gov. Brian Sandoval to intervene, while Barbee wrote an op-ed for the Reno-Gazette Journal. Once cooperative groups accused each other of spreading misinformation.

Preventing Horses from Going to Slaughter

The Nevada Board of Agriculture, overseeing the department, intervened. A board member requested an agenda item for the December meeting, directing the department to transfer ownership of its feral horses to a nonprofit animal advocate organization through a request for proposal process.

Originally posted by Elko Daily News