A BILL for an Act to create and enact a new section to chapter 54-60 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to the Theodore Roosevelt national park working group; to provide a report; and to provide an appropriation.
SB 2331 would create a Theodore Roosevelt National Park working group within state law to study and coordinate policy on the park’s wild horse population. The group would be chaired by a legislator and include representatives from the Legislature, state agencies, the National Park Service, Medora-area commerce or tourism interests, the university system, a nonprofit focused on protecting the horses, and the Indian Affairs Commission. Its duties would include working with the National Park Service and the federal government to recommend ways to keep the wild horse herd above 200 animals, identify support measures, promote the horses as a tourism asset, educate the public, meet quarterly, and submit an annual report to legislative management.
The bill also authorizes the working group to recommend management options such as birth control, removals, and permanent placement of horses after removal, while requiring that management be humane and nonlethal unless a horse’s health or safety is compromised. The state could enter agreements with the National Park Service or with private entities to address horse-related issues. The bill includes a $50,000 general fund appropriation for the Department of Commerce to administer the working group during the 2025-2027 biennium.
In terms of state law, the bill would add a new section to chapter 54-60 of the North Dakota Century Code and create an ongoing advisory and coordination structure focused on the Theodore Roosevelt National Park horse herd. It would not directly change criminal, tax, or regulatory law, but it would establish a state-backed process for policy recommendations, intergovernmental coordination, and public reporting on wild horse management.
The overall sentiment appears supportive of the bill’s goals but not enough to advance it. The measure failed on Senate second reading by a vote of 14-33, indicating substantial opposition in the chamber despite interest in the issue. Because there were no committee transcript snippets provided, the available record does not show detailed debate, but the vote suggests the proposal did not command broad legislative support.
The main point of contention is likely the appropriate role of the state in managing a federally controlled national park herd, including whether North Dakota should spend state funds on a working group and whether the bill’s preferred approach to maintaining the herd size and limiting lethal management is practical or consistent with federal park management authority. Supporters would likely emphasize tourism, horse preservation, and public education, while opponents may have questioned cost, duplication of federal efforts, and the feasibility of the herd-size mandate.
The bill would create a new advisory working group in North Dakota law under chapter 54-60 and appropriate $50,000 from the general fund to the Department of Commerce to support its administration. It would affect the Department of Commerce, the Parks and Recreation Department, the Division of Tourism, the Agriculture Commissioner, the university system, the Indian Affairs Commission, and outside stakeholders by formalizing their participation in a state-federal coordination process regarding the Theodore Roosevelt National Park wild horse herd. It would also authorize agreements with the National Park Service and private entities, but it would not directly alter broader statewide regulatory schemes beyond establishing this new program and reporting requirement.
The bill’s policy objective appears to have had some appeal, especially around preserving the wild horses and leveraging them for tourism, but the final vote shows the chamber was not persuaded to adopt it. The 14-33 Senate second-reading vote indicates clear opposition or skepticism, and the bill ultimately failed. With no committee transcript available, the record does not reveal detailed floor arguments, but the outcome suggests the proposal was viewed as too limited, too costly, or too dependent on federal cooperation to gain majority support.
The likely areas of disagreement were the state’s role in a national park issue, the use of state general-fund money, and the bill’s policy direction on horse management. Supporters likely favored protecting the herd, keeping the population above 200, promoting tourism, and requiring humane, nonlethal management whenever possible. Opponents may have objected to the state setting herd targets for a federally managed park, the possibility of state involvement in birth control or removals, and whether the working group would produce meaningful results. The absence of committee discussion limits certainty, but the vote margin suggests these concerns were significant.