It is the diminution of habitat determined by Resource Management Plans that threatens and endangers wild horse and burro herds. The diminution of habitat provides the managing agency with the allegation of over population, and a 80M budget for extraction and conversion. THE BUYER OR ADOPTER IS SUBJECT TO PROSECUTION FOR VIOLATIONS AS DETERMINED IN U.S.v HUGHES UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS, NINTH CIRCUIT United States v. Hughes United States 626 F.2d 619 (9th Cir. 1980) Summary: The defendant had adopted 109 wild horses through the federal Adopt-a-Horse program, whereby excess wild horses were adopted out to private individuals under the stipulation that the horses would be treated humanely and not used for commercial purposes. The defendant was charged under the criminal provisions of the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act and with conversion of government property after he sold a number of the adopted horses to slaughter. At the trial, the defendant argued that he could not be found guilty of conversion because the federal government did not have a property interest in the horses, as the power to regulate wild horses on public lands does not equate to an ownership interest in the horses by the federal government. The court held that, regardless of whether the WFRHBA intended to create an ownership interest in wild horses, the government has a property interest in wild horses that it has captured, corralled, and loaned out. The court also held that wild horses did not lose their protection under the WFRHBA merely because they ceased to meet the precise definitions of “wild horse” under the Act. The court upheld the defendant’s conviction.

The 1966 National Historic Preservation Act was passed to maintain our heritage as part of our living landscapes. The 1971 Free Roaming wild horse and burro act, was the ONLY ACT passed to dedicating this RARE special species as a cultural icon on existing public lands. The 1973 ESA ensured the preservation of species to PREVENT threats to rare threatened and endangered species…the very same reason why the 1971 FRWHBA was passed. Subsequently the Supreme court determined that species must be afforded sufficient habitat..such as herd areas. Herd areas are relevant to the exemption clause” of the 1976 Federal Land Planning & Management Act. Sec. 302(a) which says; in relevant part, “where a tract of the BLM lands has been dedicated to specific uses according to other provisions of law, it shall be managed in accordance with such laws.” i.e.such as the intent of the 1966 National Historic Preservation Act. 1971 Free Roaming Wild Horse and Burro Act,and the 1973 Endangered species Act.