How the Decision was Made

What the AZDA Documents Show About the Salt River Horse Contract Decision

I filed a public records request with the Arizona Department of Agriculture (AZDA) asking for the documents behind their decision to award the Salt River horse management contract. What I received were the actual evaluation materials—score sheets, evaluator comments, and internal summaries.

These are the documents the evaluation team used to make the decision.

The evaluators were:

• Sheldon Jones, Deputy Director of the Arizona Department of Agriculture 
• John Hall, BLM Arizona Wild Horse & Burro Program Lead and Florence Prison Facility Manager 
• Scott Bender DVM, Veterinarian with the Navajo Nation Veterinary Program in Chinle, Arizona 
• Sarah Noelle, Research Manager and Senior Research Scientist at the University of Arizona’s Southern Arizona Experiment Station 
• Elaine Norton DVM, DACVIM-LA (who signed her evaluation as Elaine Moreno), Assistant Professor in Animal and Comparative Biomedical Sciences at the University of Arizona  

Each participated as an independent evaluator in the AZDA review process. 

Each evaluator scored the two proposals—Salt River Wild Horse Management Group (SRWHMG) and Wild Horse Transition Team (WHTT)—using the same criteria: qualifications, completeness, emergency planning, the management plan, and fiscal competence.

The outcome was consistent across all five reviewers. SRWHMG was ranked higher by every evaluator. The average score was 79 for SRWHMG and 60 for WHTT. The final decision was unanimous.

That establishes the result. The comments explain why.

Experience and Operational Continuity

SRWHMG has been managing the Salt River herd for years. Evaluators pointed to existing infrastructure, a functioning volunteer network, and experience handling feeding, fertility control, rescues, and day-to-day operations.

That experience includes emergency response. Evaluators noted that SRWHMG has a tested response structure—veterinary protocols, chain of command, and prior use during real events.

WHTT presented a structured plan with a stronger emphasis on science and long-term management. Evaluators noted that several partnerships described in the proposal were not yet secured, and the plan had not been implemented at this scale.

The distinction is direct: one group is already operating; the other is proposing to operate.

 Financial Stability

Evaluators repeatedly flagged WHTT’s financial model.

The proposal depends heavily on fundraising to support core operations. Reviewers noted:

• No secured funding commitments 
• No contingency reserve 
• Reliance on projected donations 

The scoring reflects how serious those concerns were. One evaluator (Norton) gave WHTT 5 out of 20 points for fiscal competence—the lowest score given in any category by any evaluator.

SRWHMG was described as having an existing funding base supported by donations and an established network. It is not described as fully secure, but it is functioning.

That difference shows up clearly in the scoring.

Proposal Completeness

WHTT’s proposal was marked down for missing or underdeveloped elements:

• No detailed budget 
• No defined revenue model 
• No forage or vegetation plan 

SRWHMG’s proposal was described as more complete and more aligned with the contract requirements, even where evaluators identified weaknesses.

Completeness affected multiple scoring categories.

The Ecological Failure

Neither proposal met the ecological requirements of the RFP.

Evaluator comments—especially from Sarah Noelle—state clearly that both proposals failed to adequately address:

• Forage-based management 
• Vegetation monitoring 
• Restoration planning 
• Herd health at a systems level 

In WHTT’s case, the issue goes further. Parts of the proposal treated ecological sections as out of scope.

That is not an incomplete answer. It is a decision not to address a core requirement.

SRWHMG did not meet the ecological standard either, but it included partial integration of forage considerations. That difference—partial versus absent—shows up in the scoring.

The result is a choice between two proposals that both fall short in the same critical area.

The Reality of the Herd

The evaluation materials include a direct assessment of the herd itself.

Under current conditions—limited forage, seasonal variability, heavy recreation, and unmanaged movement across boundaries—the herd cannot function as a self-sustaining wild population.

It will require:

• Supplemental feeding 
• Veterinary care 
• Active population management 

That defines what this contract actually governs.

The Migration Constraint

The documents identify a structural limitation neither proposal resolves.

Horses move across the reservation boundary. That movement prevents the herd from functioning as a closed system.

As a result:

• Population size cannot be fully controlled 
• Genetic management is limited 
• Forage use cannot be contained within a defined area 

Neither proposal provided a complete response to this constraint.

Herd Reduction and Removal Risk

Evaluators raised specific concerns about WHTT’s plan to remove horses.

The issue was not only removal, but the pace and the outcome.

Comments point to:

• Rapid removal of a large number of horses 
• No clear, secured placement pathway 
• Uncertainty about how those animals would be absorbed 

Without a defined placement structure, removal creates unresolved outcomes rather than completed ones.

This introduced both operational and welfare risk and affected scoring.

Organizational Capacity and Dependency

SRWHMG was described as having an established volunteer base and operational structure capable of supporting the herd.

At the same time, one evaluator raised concern about how closely the organization’s operations are tied to its founder, suggesting a level of dependency that could affect long-term stability. 

The question mark suggests this was not treated as disqualifying, but it was raised as a concern within the formal evaluation.

For a long-term contract, that dependency is part of the record.

WHTT did not demonstrate comparable organizational capacity. Evaluators noted uncertainty about its ability to secure funding, staff operations, and sustain long-term management.

The Progress Question

One evaluator raised a direct issue: SRWHMG has managed the herd for years and has not achieved a stable, dynamic population.

Another comment goes further. SRWHMG was described as valuing “maintenance of the SRHH over a balanced herd, resource and ecosystem management plan.”

That is not simply a question of progress. It suggests a difference in priorities—preserving the herd as it exists versus managing it toward ecological balance.

That distinction appears in the evaluation record.

What the Decision Reflects

The decision follows a consistent pattern across all evaluations:

• Existing operations scored higher than proposed operations 
• Demonstrated capacity scored higher than projected capacity 
• Secured funding scored higher than uncertain funding 
• Partial compliance scored higher than non-response 

WHTT’s proposal introduced a different approach, including a stronger emphasis on scientific management. The evaluations do not reject that approach in principle. They score it lower because it lacks the financial and logistical structure required to implement it without creating additional risk.

SRWHMG was not selected because it solved the problem. It was selected because it can continue operating under current conditions.

What the Decision Does Not Resolve

The documents identify ongoing issues that remain unaddressed:

• Ecological sustainability 
• Forage limitations 
• Population management under open-boundary conditions 
• These are not resolved by the contract award.

The decision determines which organization manages the herd. It does not change the conditions that define that management.