It would be a great idea for the horse herds to be managed (not mismanaged), and the cost of ownership of so much land includes management of that land which includes management of the wildlife on it.

In our area,the federal leases to ranchers are pretty much a thing of the past.  My rancher friends hold a large federal lease(s) but have told me that there are no more leases being given - at least in that district.  If they do not maintain their lease or if it were to lapse, they could not release and they have been leasing for decades. 

Here you can't develop a water source legally without some right to that water, so that is another problem with cattle leases.  Different states and different forestry districts have different rules, but wildlife needs to be preserved and, to me, that includes wild horse herds.  What is the point of government ownership of land?  Is it to preserve the land? for recreation? for exploitation? what?  I guess that's the first question. 

If you have 10,000 private land owners and one here or there decides that the mustangs must go, that has a smaller impact than the federal government buying 80 - 90 percent of Nevada, and deciding to implement a policy to destroy the mustangs.  The impact of the federal government is completely different and the impact of a group of property owners who act independently. 

The federal government simply does not want to maintain the land and habitats that it owns.  That's the bottom line problem.  Whether it's pine beetles or mustangs, it comes down to the government's incompetence or laziness.

Here is a report on the round up going on in Utah this week.

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=23151676&nid=148&title=blm-continues-controversial-horse-round-up&s_cid=featured-3

I will just point out that here are enormous amounts of Western land owned by the Federal government. There are no property taxes paid on these lands. Add to that, the amount of land owned by state and local governments which also pay no property tax, and it's clear that wild horses are not the problem with reduced property tax revenues. Additionally, the government-owned land is no inhabited by income tax paying individuals and businesses.  I'm not here to argue the advantages and detriments of the extensive ownership of land by governments, but I do think that it is not the wild horses that are even a key ingredient in the money issues that you point out. 

Then, if you look at the national debt and the proposed unlimited future spending, well...the horses just don't amount too much in the grand scheme of things related to the financial future of this country.