Nevada's Horse Giveaway Plan Under Fire

March 15, 2018

AWHC Contributor

Opponents of Nevada’s plan to give away nearly 3,000 publicly owned, free-range horses in the mountains east of Reno are intensifying their legal, political, and financial efforts against the proposal. This controversial plan has sparked significant debate and concern among horse advocates and the public.

On Monday, Lance Gilman, a Storey County Commissioner known for recruiting major companies like Walmart, Tesla, and Google to the industrial park in the horses’ habitat, made a passionate appeal to Governor Brian Sandoval. He urged the governor to instruct the state’s agriculture department to abandon the plan.

Leaders of the American Wild Horse Conservation (formerly American Wild Horse Campaign), a non-profit organization that previously had an agreement with the state to manage the horses and administer birth control to mares, joined Gilman in his plea. They presented recent polling results showing 75 percent of Nevada respondents oppose the giveaway and outlined their legal objections to the plan. Advocates argue that the giveaway would violate Nevada law and endanger the horses by potentially leading them to slaughter. Although they plan to take legal action, no filings have been made yet.

“You see the energy in this room, these folks are not going to quit, and I certainly am not,” Gilman stated following a speech in Reno to about 40 horse advocates.

He was referring to a December decision by the Nevada Board of Agriculture to issue a request for proposals from non-profit groups willing to take ownership of horses on the Virginia Range. These horses live similarly to wild horses throughout Nevada and the west but are legally distinct because they are under state, not federal, control. As such, they are not protected by federal laws that restrict horse roundups for slaughter.

In 2013 and 2015, the Nevada Department of Agriculture signed cooperative agreements with the American Wild Horse Conservation (formerly American Wild Horse Campaign) under which the volunteer organization would manage the horses by rescuing the sick and injured, supporting adoption, administering birth control to mares, and keeping horses away from roadways and other safety hazards. However, the agreement fell apart in October, with both parties accusing each other of failing to uphold the terms.

“Our goal is to get the state to come back to the table to negotiate cooperative 2.0,” said Suzanne Roy, director of the non-profit.

Roy described the breakup of the agreement and the subsequent giveaway plan as “a very dangerous turn of events for the horses.”

The campaign identifies four major issues with the plan. Firstly, it violates the intent expressed by Sandoval and the Legislature in 2013 when they approved legislation authorizing the state to work with a non-profit to manage the animals. Secondly, by transferring the horses to a private group, Nevada would violate state law regarding livestock ownership transfers, which requires individual identification of each animal. Thirdly, once the horses are given away, the state would be unable to prevent new owners from selling them for slaughter. Lastly, although the plan aims to keep the horses on the range under new ownership, state laws for livestock management and public safety would make it nearly impossible for a non-profit to manage the animals in their habitat.

“The plan fundamentally violates state law,” Roy asserted.

In a written statement, Nevada Department of Agriculture Director Jim Barbee said the goal is to ensure the horses go to an organization capable of managing the population and keeping the animals safe, healthy, and on the range. “Per the RFP, the intent is to place the ownership of the (horses) with a reputable animal advocate organization that has the experience, knowledge, tools, resources, and financial ability to manage the horses according to their needs,” Barbee stated. “It is intended that the selected owner will work to keep the horse population on the range and will facilitate adoptions of any horses removed from the range.”

He also mentioned that the department would collaborate with the Nevada Attorney General's office to comply with livestock ownership transfer laws.

In addition to legal concerns, Roy highlighted a recent poll showing strong political support for keeping the horses publicly owned and on the range. The poll, commissioned by the campaign and conducted March 9-10 by Public Policy Polling, revealed that 84 percent of Democrats, 69 percent of Republicans, and 73 percent of independents preferred state ownership of the animals over the giveaway plan.

“It really shows that Gov. Sandoval and the state are just plainly on the wrong side of this issue,” she said.

During his talk, Gilman expressed support for the American Wild Horse Conservation’s efforts to prevent Nevada’s giveaway plan, which advocates fear could lead to the horses being transferred to an ownership group that might herd them off the range and sell them for slaughter. He emphasized that the horses are a unique symbol of Nevada’s history and culture and play a significant role in attracting businesses to the area.

Gilman cited Walmart’s use of horse imagery in marketing materials and Tesla co-founder Elon Musk featuring the horses prominently on his social media accounts. More recently, Blockchains, LLC., a technology company that recently became the largest landowner in the park, confirmed its support for efforts by Gilman and horse advocates to block the proposed transfer.

In short, Gilman argued that the horses are much more valuable to Nevada when they are thriving on the open range. “We are not covered in asphalt, we are not covered in concrete,” Gilman said. “There is a lot of room for those horses to roam.”

The event on Monday marked an escalation of Gilman’s public involvement in the issue. He has previously written letters opposing the giveaway plan and urging Sandoval to direct Nevada Department of Agriculture Director Jim Barbee to reconsider the plan, which the department board approved in December.

“I’m really reaching out to Governor Sandoval,” Gilman said. “It is a pretty simple thing for him to put a mediator in place and we will get an alternate outcome.”

In a written statement, Sandoval responded: “Since Mr. Gilman is now threatening litigation, there will be no further comment from the Governor’s office.”

Originally posted by Reno Gazette-Journal