Committee backs bill to manage overpopulation of free‑roaming horses, adds fertility control and relocation process

House Bill 284 won a committee recommendation after sponsors and dozens of witnesses described local problems caused by large bands of free‑roaming horses and urged a humane management approach.

Representative McQueen, the bill sponsor, told the Senate Conservation Committee the measure "essentially does three things to help us with our overpopulation and free roaming horses. It provides a mechanism to adopt or relocate some of the horses, ... formalizes a process to administer fertility control ... and it prohibits the slaughter [of] free roaming horses once they enter that sort of system set up by this bill." He said the bill does not resolve all issues but “takes a significant and ... important step towards addressing that population issue.”

Local residents and officials described public‑safety and environmental impacts. Susan Harrelson of the Coronado Soil and Water Conservation District said an 80‑horse herd near Placitas is damaging vegetation, worsening erosion and reducing wildlife habitat. Placitas resident Mike Neese said his community has recorded "over 30 horses dead on our roads" in 13 years and told the committee that "NMDOT cannot do anything. The sheriff's department cannot do anything because there is no entity of jurisdiction in the state of New Mexico. This bill gives jurisdiction." Sandoval County Commissioner Catherine Burch described roadway safety issues and urged passage.

Animal‑welfare organizations supported the bill. Sabrina Pache of the ASPCA said the measure would "allow for the humane free roaming horse management that we need." The Pueblo of (name given in testimony) registered support through a lobbyist. The New Mexico Livestock Board described a neutral stance in committee testimony but said it viewed the bill as a positive step and that it had been consulted.

Opponents raised several concerns. Sharona Liashar of the American Wild Horse Campaign said the bill "addresses problems" but lacks language to protect wild, free‑roaming horse populations and could allow removal of all such horses. Senators on the committee, including Senator Ezell, asked detailed questions about how the bill defines free‑roaming horses versus estray animals, how contraceptive programs would be carried out and funded, whether castration would be used, the authority and duties of the proposed "free‑roaming horse expert," and legal consequences for slaughter or other violations. Representative McQueen and witnesses said nonsurgical fertility control (notably PZP) would be the primary tool and that castration is an option but more resource‑intensive.

Committee members discussed who would pay for fertility control and sanctuary care and whether counties and local jurisdictions would bear costs. Representative McQueen said some budget funding had been included: committee testimony referenced an HB2 line‑item of approximately $200,000 to aid initial rulemaking and set‑up. He also said the bill allows counties and municipalities to contract with registered horse experts for surveys, management, and capacity studies.

The bill also includes a prohibition on knowingly slaughtering horses that have been adopted, relocated or placed in retirement facilities under the program; violation is a misdemeanor. Committee members debated possible "stacking" of offenses and whether private landowners could act when horses trespass; sponsors said the bill focuses on programmatic tools and does not supplant existing private‑land responses.

After debate and multiple motions, the committee voted to give House Bill 284 a due‑pass recommendation. The recorded outcome was 5 yes, 2 no and 2 excused.

The measure sets a framework for local jurisdictions and the Livestock Board to use contracted experts, fertility control and adoption/relocation pathways to reduce herd sizes; details about funding and long‑term sanctuary capacity remained points of concern in committee discussion.