F.2d 1310, 1316 (D.C.Cir.1982) (citing 16 U.S.C. § 1332(f)). The legislative history underlying the 1978 amendments further illuminates Congress’ intent: “The goal of wild horse and burro management, as with all range management programs, should be to maintain a thriving ecological balance between wild horse and burro populations, wildlife, livestock and vegetation, and to protect the range from the deterioration associ ated with overpopulation of wild horses and burros.” Conference Report 95-1737, October 6, 1978 to accompany H.R. 10587, Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978. The Act should consequently not be viewed as requiring that the BLM increase the numbers of horses, or give wild horses priority over other users. See Fallirá v. Hodel, 725 F.Supp. 1113, 1118 (D.Nev. 1989) (<HOLDING>). Instead, the focus of the Act is rightly
holding that the act does not give horses higher status than cattle on public lands holding that a congressional policy allowing vertical integration of logging on federal lands does not indicate that a similar policy is permissible on state lands holding that state officers may execute on tribal lands process related to offreservation violations of state law holding that the first amendment does not by itself give rise to a cause of action for damages holding that uipa does not give commission exclusive power to adjudicate deceptive act claims