The Salt River Herd and the Problem of Governance

I have been asked repeatedly a straightforward question: Who should manage the Salt River horses?
And if I were in that position, how would I respond to being told to reduce the herd?

Those are fair questions. They deserve more than a quick reply in a Facebook post or comment thread. They require stepping back and examining the deeper structure that shapes every decision being made.

The Herd as a Political Creation

The first point may sound provocative, but it is essential: the modern “Salt River horse herd” is a political creation, not a biological one.

Historically, horses along the Salt moved across what is now the Tonto National Forest and the reservation lands of the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation and the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community (Akimel O’odham and Pee Posh). They did not operate within a neatly defined management unit.

Horses respond to forage, water, and pressure. They do not recognize jurisdictional lines.

When the State of Arizona, through legislation in 2016, restricted the herd to a defined management area, it effectively froze a naturally moving population inside an artificial boundary. That decision was political. It was made within a legal and administrative framework. And it has ecological consequences.

If you constrain movement, density increases. If density increases, stress on habitat increases. If stress increases, the debate shifts toward removals.

Many of the tensions we are experiencing today flow from how the herd has been politically defined.

Numbers Without Territory Are Misleading

Public discussion often centers on numbers: 120 horses. 150 removals. Five-year reduction plans.

But numbers divorced from territory tell only half the story.

Carrying capacity depends on land base, water, vegetation cycles, and seasonal movement. When land access is limited by statute rather than ecology, the calculation changes.

If territory is artificially constrained, the “correct” number becomes artificially low.

This is why any serious conversation must include a review of territorial parameters. If the herd historically ranged between forest service and reservation lands, then a durable solution must examine that shared geography.

Without that structural conversation, we are debating arithmetic inside a fixed political frame.

Who Should Manage the Herd?

The question of “who” cannot be answered by naming a single organization.

This herd exists within overlapping sovereignties:

• State authority, exercised through the Arizona Department of Agriculture
• Federal land management within the Tonto National Forest
• The sovereign governments of the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation and the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community
• And a deeply invested public

No single private nonprofit should hold unilateral authority over a herd that sits at the intersection of all of these jurisdictions.

What is needed is a comprehensive, formalized management framework that includes:

• Both bordering Indigenous nations as equal governmental partners.
• State and federal land managers.
• Transparent scientific input.
• Public accountability mechanisms.

Without coordinated governance, any agreement remains politically fragile.

Transparency in Reproduction Management

If herd reduction is pursued — whether gradually or immediately — reproductive transparency becomes essential.

At minimum, responsible oversight requires:

• Testing mares to determine which remain fertile.
• Public accounting of how many mares are biologically capable of reproduction.
• Clear disclosure of which mares have been sterilized or permanently rendered infertile.
• Accurate documentation of fertility control timelines.

If permanent sterilization has occurred, the public deserves to know how many mares are affected and what that means for long-term herd viability.

Without verified reproductive data, we are not managing; we are estimating.

Horses removed do not return. Mares sterilized permanently do not regain fertility. Each action alters the genetic and demographic future of the herd.

Those are irreversible decisions.

The Role of Indigenous Nations

It is impossible to discuss this herd honestly without acknowledging that it exists on land shaped by Indigenous sovereignty and history.

Both the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation and the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community border or encompass lands historically traversed by these horses.

Any management model that excludes formal, meaningful participation from those sovereign governments is incomplete.

Involving Indigenous nations is not symbolic. It is structural.

If I Were Told to Reduce the Herd

Several people have asked me directly: if you were in charge and told reductions were required, what would you do?

First, I would publicly acknowledge that the reduction is a political directive. I would not frame it as purely ecological inevitability. Honesty builds trust.

Second, I would insist that as much — if not more — attention be paid to where the horses are going as to how many are leaving.

Removal without destination transparency is not management.

I would refuse vague or non-verifiable categories such as “AZDA-approved sanctuaries” if those sanctuaries are not publicly identified, inspected, and documented in advance.

I would not accept language such as “we are going to find places — trust us.”

Trust is not a management strategy.

If horses are to be relocated, then:

• The properties must be identified before removals occur.
• Carrying capacity for those properties must be publicly evaluated.
• Veterinary oversight must be documented.
• Long-term funding stability must be demonstrated.

Reducing a herd on public land while transferring uncertainty to private land does not resolve risk — it relocates it.

Third, I would not implement irreversible herd reductions without first establishing a clearly defined, intergovernmental management framework that:

• Defines shared jurisdictional responsibilities
• Clarifies territorial parameters
• Establishes transparent scientific review
• Creates binding accountability mechanisms
• Ensures formal participation of both bordering Indigenous nations as sovereign governments

Fourth, I would not implement permanent removals until the Arizona Legislature extends statutory protection to Salt River horses regardless of whether they are physically located inside the current management boundary.

As the law presently stands, protection attaches to geography, not to the herd itself.

That means a horse standing within the legislatively defined area is protected under state law. That same horse, once relocated outside that boundary, no longer is protected by that statutory shield.

Legal protection should follow the herd — not stop at an artificial line on a map.

If removals proceed without extending legal status beyond the current boundary, we are not preserving the Salt River herd. We are dividing it into legally protected and legally exposed segments.

That creates instability.

No irreversible demographic decision should be made until the legislature clarifies that Salt River horses retain their protected status whether on state-recognized range, reservation-adjacent lands, or approved relocation properties.

Reduction without territorial reform and legal continuity does not secure the herd’s future. It narrows it.

Moving the Conversation Forward

Many people say, “I am not in favor of removing the horses.”

That position comes from care. I understand it.

But the deeper issue is not simply whether removals occur. It is how we define the herd’s territory, how we measure ecological impact, how we account for reproduction, and how we share authority across sovereign entities.

As long as the debate remains focused solely on numbers, we will cycle through the same conflict.

If instead we address the political structure that defines the herd — its boundaries, its governance, its reproductive transparency, and its intergovernmental coordination — we may build something more durable.

The horses deserve stability.
The land deserves ecological integrity.
The public deserves transparency.
And sovereign nations deserve inclusion.

That is the direction I believe our discussion should move.