America’s Heritage: Wild Horse Herds Mismanaged – A White Paper Discussion

chumash horse pre-dating mexico and spainish horses by 2 centuries

“It is American’s that must make their government responsible. If not us, then there is nobody else that will.” — John Cox, American Heritage and Horse Advocate

Let’s pause for a moment and truthfully consider the upcoming elections in November 2014. First let’s consider our Wild Horse Herds, criminality, ignorance, incompetence, and just straight out irresponsible behavior by our government agencies – by the way these agencies and everyone who works for them, from the least paid janitor to the most paid Superintendent or Director, receives their pay from our tax paid dollars.

And at the present, apparently the taxpayers of America are the least represented entity in America right now, by those legislator’s that are running for office in November. Yes, even government agency personnel, who we pay, treat taxpayers as an ignorant step-child, and worse our current legislator’s disrespect taxpayer’s and the common-American almost daily. Then act as though what they are doing is so righteous that it saves all American’s from??? – well, we are unsure, as American’s what it is they are saving us from, but many of us acknowledge America is worse off now than ever before in history and with no one representing our behalf.

Government Agencies and America

Many research scientists I have spoken to of late, agree – they all asserted that the necessity for Wild Horse Herd Roundups, the Environmental Assessments that conclude the necessity, and all Administrative Assessments and Plans adopted by the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Forestry as well as the Department of the Interior, lacks any scientific credibility.

98% of the Research Scientists and Terrestrial Biologists (corresponded with 12 Research Scientists and 23 Terrestrial Biologists, 12 of which currently work in government agencies – who perused 85 EA’s, 38 Technical Reports and Range Studies, numerous budgets, pre-plans for Public Land Management and implementation from both administrative and management plans, court documentation, legislative documents, et al) agreed with the statement that the authors of such material must go back to the drawing board and begin again.

Further, they contend that no valid scientific conclusions supporting the beneficial effects of administrative removal of wild horses off of Public Lands can be drawn from any of the studies or information distributed by these agencies mentioned. There was no scientific evidence presented that administrative removals achieved any of the stated goals (reduced complaints, livestock depredations or decreased competition for graze, and decreases shown in Public Land depredation or any biosphere improvements).

As fact just the opposite has occurred with the group, termed “Welfare Ranchers i.e. those who use America’s Public Lands for grazing of their cattle and sheep (mostly to obtain subsidies on the millions of dollars from taxpayer money) now over-reach to wanting Public Lands for themselves, rather than to just graze-by-permit their cattle upon. Science is clear, cattle destroys Public Lands. . .

100% are in complete agreement that taxpayer money has been spent frivolously for such misinformed, politically driven, and incompetent documentation and reference. For example, to literally make more room for cattle, by explaining the necessity to remove wild horses, is corrupt and misinformation, but is simply a political agenda decision. But this is what Legislator’s, both Senators and Congressmen read – more profound as you read this white paper further –

Furthermore, the suggestion by 72% of the above stated, “These agencies should consult with reputable wildlife scientists, terrestrial biologists, range management technicians as well as statisticians and editors to obtain a reliable experimental design, analysis, and develop further reports based on reality, not a narrow scope slanted toward special interest groups.”

The other 28% suggested that those involved in making these misrepresented reports should be replaced by more knowledgeable individuals, professionals rather than amateurs. They also strongly contended that future assessments of Range Management, Environmental Assessments, Scientific Technical Reports, and other information within the decision making process be outsourced, to independent contractors.

“What is needed currently is reliable information that prioritizes good policy, and fact based science that good and frugal decisions can be based upon. Innuendo and special agendas remain awkward at best, and certainly provide no quantitative information for taxpayers to spend millions, if not billions of dollars over time on something so frivolous and at the outset,” Clive Brown – PhD, Research Scientist, retired NSA.

The Bureau of Land Management (and the others mentioned) continues to ignore by choice, scientific concerns and criticisms toward and about all of the aforementioned studies and documents. Their population models, environmental assessments, and methodology often unanimously approved by BLM staff. Sadly, these documents have succeeded in a not so ironic and single focus: to advance the overwhelming destruction of America’s Public Lands on a much faster pace than years past. A simplified equation (one of numerous): More Cattle = Faster Public Lands Destruction.

Design and Analyses

The scientific design of many government agency studies was seriously flawed – there were no replications of treatments and controls and no accounting for competing hypotheses. The questions asked (effects of administrative removals on complaints, livestock depredations, or Public Lands improvements) could not be effectively answered with their prototype styled design, if any –

Note: most EA’s, for example, were copies from other EA’s previously completed, with the area names and distinctive locations changed. To further the example, many EA’s remain not signed, so legitimacy regarding the legality of many wild horse herd roundups remains questionable – but no response from the Department of Justice in this matter what so ever.

The analyses, in all of the subject documents, were entirely descriptive in nature – there was little or no use of statistical hypothesis testing to provide reliable tests and conclusions, especially on wild horse herd population and current herd size in a given area of concern. As a matter of fact, the BLM’s theory/conjecture objectively adverse in total to controlling wild horse herd population, and to those scientists as well as horse-people knowledgeable in breeding and study/observation of wild horse herds while in the wild.

Also quite obvious is the fact that the very fundamental basis for much of the research conducted by the above agencies, the base data erroneous, therefore the assimilation of further data remains erroneous.

Further, and extremely unfortunate – six biologists easily conducted tests on much of the BLM and Forestry data, randomly. Simple statistical tests refuted all of the descriptive conclusions based in all of the BLM and Forestry reports and research.

One Terrestrial Biologist pondered if the BLM and Forestry results were accumulated, then written by a grade school student – she then defined her comment as not being sarcasm, rather conveying the point of how awkwardly childish some of the government agencies work and references had been indeed conveyed and written. Worse yet, costly decisions and policies derived from such “unqualified drivel” (her words) that it was amazing no one noticed throughout the agencies approval process – if indeed a process even exists.

The claims made within much of the reports, whether administrative or management, seem to be based on pre-determined beliefs and philosophical positions – not scientific evidence. When we consider exactly what a report developed with a political agenda (or special interest groups) in mind, it is quite obvious many of these documents, if not all of them, fit the criteria.


The obvious benefit of developing a quality environment on our Public Lands is and remains questionable, at best; especially from those currently responsible for doing such and their ongoing incompetent and irresponsible behavior. As taxpayers we have a voice in this decision making process, despite the fact legislators and special interest groups would prefer the general public to “not” have a say in what these government agencies are doing with our Public Lands and America’s Heritage, the Wild Horse Herds! It is time for a change. . .


References and Notes:

Keep in mind when reviewing the references below, from 2005, a yearly increase develops at 12.8% yearly; also, benefits to American’s ZERO — YET IT IS TAXPAYER MONEY SPENT TO SUPPORT THESE ENDEAVORS (mostly middle-class taxpayers); also, representation from our legislator’s toward this .0001% Special Interest population, in the continued $$$Billions of dollars from taxpayer money, is tremendous, with no representation whatsoever from the same legislators toward 99% of the American taxpaying Public and general population; also, keep in mind that this group of legislators suspended school-lunch programs in American schools, in order to support these endeavors of welfare ranching and sending their low-quality beef products to Japan and China! This is unacceptable.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has reported the federal government spends at least $294 million each year managing private livestock grazing on federal public lands, but collects only $21 million in grazing fees—for a net loss of at least $123 million per year.1

• The GAO reported that ten federal departments and agencies operate grazing programs on federal public lands: Bureau of Land Management (BLM), USDA-Forest Service, National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of Energy, Bureau of Reclamation, Army Corps of Engineers, the Army, Air Force, and Navy.

• The GAO admits its report is incomplete because several agencies, including the Natural Resources Conservation Service and the Environmental Protection Agency, which spend millions of dollars mitigating for grazing damage such as non-point source water pollution, did not provide estimates of their grazing related costs to the GAO.
Other programs that benefit both private and public lands ranchers, such as the “Livestock Compensation Program,”2 were also not included in the total subsidy to public lands ranchers.

• Considering the additional direct and indirect costs not included in the GAO report, economists have estimated that the federal public lands grazing on only BLM and Forest Service lands may cost as much as $500 million to $1 billion annually.

• The majority of BLM and Forest Service grazing fees are not deposited to the U.S. Treasury, but instead are diverted to the “Range Betterment Fund” to pay for fencing, water developments, and related infrastructure to support continued livestock grazing (see below).

• No legitimate report has ever fully analyzed the incredible environmental costs of livestock grazing on federal public lands (Big AG and Hunting groups stops any of these efforts via coercion, whether political or outright criminal corruption of government agencies).

♦ The BLM has documented more than $1.1 billion in liens on BLM grazing permits/leases in the eleven western states.

♦ Approximately 300 ranch operations have taken more than $450 million in loans on Forest Service grazing permits.

♦ In Supreme Court documents, the State Bank of Southern Utah confirmed that financial institutions hold an estimated $10 billion in loans and related credit transactions to the public land ranching industry, with the grazing privileges alone worth approximately $1 billion.

GAO. 2005. Livestock grazing: federal expenditures and receipts vary, depending on the agency and the purpose of the fee charged. GAO-05-869. Government Accountability Office. Washington, DC.

The Livestock Compensation Program was a huge boondoggle that paid farmers and ranchers $635 in 2002 and 2003. G. M. Gaul, D. Morgan, S. Cohen. No drought required for federal aid: livestock grazing program grew to cover any “disaster.” Washington Post (July 18, 2006).

Moscowitz, K. and C. Romaniello. 2002. Assessing the Full Cost of the Federal Grazing Program. Center for Biological Diversity. Tucson, AZ. The estimated cost of the federal grazing program at $500 million is consistent with estimates developed by other experts. K. Hess (former special advisor on policy to the Assistant Secretary for Program, Policy, and Budget of the Department of the Interior) and J. Wald (senior attorney and Land Program Director, Natural Resources Defense Council) estimated the annual cost of the federal grazing program to be
approximately $500 million.

Hess, K. and J. H. Wald. 1995. Grazing reform: here’s the answer. High Country News 27(18). The Economist magazine has also reported the annual cost of the federal grazing program to be $460 million. Subsidized cow chow. The Economist (Mar. 7, 2002): 39.

The Forest Service “escrow waiver” program is further described in M. Salvo. 2002. “Mortgaging Public Assets: How Ranchers Use Grazing Permits as Collateral.” Pages 271-273 in G. Wuerthner and M. Matteson (eds.). WELFARE RANCHING: THE SUBSIDIZED DESTRUCTION OF THE AMERICAN WEST. Island Press. Covelo, CA.

T. Jones and M. Salvo. 2006. “Mortgaging Our Natural Heritage: An Analysis of the Use of Bureau of Land Management Grazing Permits as Collateral for Private Loans.” Distributed report. Forest Guardians, Santa Fe, NM; Sagebrush Sea Campaign, Chandler, AZ.

Mortgaging Our Natural Heritage: 5.

Brief of Amici Curiae State Bank of Southern Utah in Support of Petitioner, Public Lands Council v. Babbitt, 529 U.S. 728 (2000).

Wildlife Services claimed to spend $5.1 million to protect domestic livestock from predators on federal public lands in FY 2004 ($5 million). GAO. 2005. Livestock grazing: federal expenditures and receipts vary, depending on the agency and the purpose of the fee charged. GAO-05-869. Government Accountability Office. Washington, DC: 6. However, this amount may be higher. The agency annually spends approximately $10.3 million on activities in the eleven western states, and it is estimated that 75 percent of this amount is used to control predators on public land ($8 million).

Data compiled by WildEarth Guardians from Wildlife Services data tables for FY 2007. Total count includes black bears, bobcats, coyotes, mountain lions, northern gray wolves and Mexican gray wolves.

Wildilfe Services. 2008. Wildlife Services’ 2007 Annual Tables: Table A. Wildlife Services Federal and Cooperative Funding by Resource Category – FY 2007. USDA, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Services.

O’Toole, R. 1994. Audit of the USDA Animal Damage Control Program. Cascade Holistic Economic Consultants. Oak Grove, OR: 1.

Rogers, P. 1999. Cash cows. San Jose Mercury News (Nov. 7, 1999): 6S.

USDA-NASS. 2006. Cattle Death Loss. USDA-National Agricultural Statistics Service, Agricultural Statistics Board. (May 2006). Domestic dogs kill as many livestock as mountain lions, bobcats, bears, and wolves, combined.

USDA-NASS. 2006. Cattle Death Loss. USDA-National Agricultural Statistics Service, Agricultural Statistics Board. (May 2006)


Posted by on August 18, 2014 in Uncategorized


Wild Horses and Cattle: There is No Debate When Good Science Used


“There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him.” ― Robert A. Heinlein, The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress

Cattle pollute our environment! This is not a wives-tale, told by youngsters to pass on to their friends! It is a Truth. As American taxpayer’s, we have paid quite a bit for cattle to graze our Public Lands, and apparently the rancher’s that do hold Grazing Permits are going to make sure they bilk American taxpayer’s even more.

But to rid our Public Lands of Wild Horses – NO WAY! That is simply more apparent lies brought to you by a few Welfare Ranchers in this country, and corporations that lease Public Lands! Yes, they want America’s Wild Horses out of their way, and will say anything — lie, cheat, and steal to get their way – and have been doing so for quite a while now.

IN REALITY: American’s want Wild Horses on our Public Lands!

So let’s take a look at some good science. This is science that is quantifiable, no hidden agenda, does not exclude cattle from grasslands studies (BLM and DOI have arrogantly done so in the past costing taxpayer’s in the millions of dollars again), good science does not swear up and down, and lie stating horses wreck our environment and not cattle (as fact just the opposite is true) – and yes some lobby groups shout, yell, and kick and stomp up and down, like small spoiled children, all the while insisting that science is wrong and it is all the Wild Horses fault – yet nothing can be further from the truth as good scientific research shows 100%.

So the fact they jump up and down, reckless with their accusations about Wild Horses, only promotes the fact they do acknowledge destruction of our Public Lands quite evident; then peruse their attempt to place the blame on wildlife, who indeed cannot defend themselves from these outlandish attacks – America’s Wild Horses! Yes, on top of everything else, these Welfare Ranchers are simply bullies –

Good science, the truthful alternative to Welfare Ranchers and their cattle, also abides by procedure and optimal data gathering (compared to Welfare Rancher’s rants, raves and hate), plus objective review of this data, and then moves forward to quantifiable results that good environmental and wildlife decisions can be based upon.

Cattle and Research

“Studies show that the production of beef is around 10 times more damaging to the environment than any other form of livestock.”

“Scientists measured the environment inputs required to produce the main US sources of protein. It is a fact that beef cattle need 28 times more land and 11 times more irrigation water than pork, poultry, eggs or dairy.”

Beef Footprint

Researchers have developed a uniform methodology that they were able to apply to all five livestock categories (i.e. mentioned above) and to four measures of environmental performance.

“They had sharp view of the comparative impact that beef, pork, poultry, dairy and eggs have in terms of land and water use, reactive nitrogen discharge, and greenhouse gas emissions.”

The scientists used data from 2000-2010 from the US Department of Agriculture to calculate the amount of resources required for all the feed consumed by edible livestock.

They then worked out the amount of hay, silage and concentrate such as soybeans required by the different species to put on a kilo of weight.

They also include greenhouse gas emissions, not just from the production of feed for animals, but from their digestion and manure.

“As ruminants, cattle can survive on a wide variety of plants, but they have very low energy conversion efficiency from what they eat.”

“As a result, beef comes out clearly as the food animal with the biggest environmental impact. The scientists have developed a methodology to compare the relative impacts of different protein sources.”

“As well as the effects on land and water, cattle release five times more greenhouse gas and consume six times more nitrogen than eggs or poultry.”

“Cutting down on beef can have a big environmental impact,” many research scientists say; but the same is not true for all livestock.

“One can reasonably be an environmentally mindful eater, designing one’s diet with its environmental impact in mind, while not resorting to exclusive reliance on plant food sources,” said several scientists.

“In fact, eliminating beef, and replacing it with relatively efficiency animal-based alternatives such as eggs, can achieve an environmental improvement comparable to switching to plant food resources.”

“The overall environmental footprint of beef is particularly large because it combines low production efficiency with very high volume.”

“The result is that many researchers estimate that over 60% of the environmental burden of livestock in the US results from beef. The overall message here is quite clear, despite what Lobby Groups want American’s and Legislator’s to believe:

“Beyond a Doubt, Cattle dominate the livestock footprint in the U.S.”

EPA and AG Oriented Lobby Groups

The current environmental focus on controlling nonpoint pollution to protect our surface water has led to the discussion of management of riparian areas, as well as our Public Lands and small biospheres. The Environmental Protection Agency states that agriculture has a greater impact on stream and river contamination than any other nonpoint source (Horses are not included within this statement, and for several non-polluting reasons).

Grazing, particularly improper grazing of riparian areas, high desert flats, valleys, and Public Lands can contribute to nonpoint source pollution. Negative impacts downstream include the contamination of drinking water supplies (Brown, 1994)), eutrophication or biospheres (Richards et al., 2002), and hypoxia (Rabalais et al., 2001). All generated by Cattle – No other Source Contributes to any of the above mentioned pollutants.


It is simply time to stop catering to industries that destroy our environment. The cattle industry destroys America’s Public Lands! That simple! The corporate dollar is not worth much if American’s have nowhere to go any longer, nor any wildlife to watch interact within the wild.

In a conversation with an Economist and Sociologist, Dr. Kevin Blake, “In the long run corporations could care less, due to their insistent short-term thinking. In another words they can destroy our environment; in their minds, when the land-environment no longer producible monetarily, they can sell what’s left of the water and its environment. Perhaps why billionaires and their corporations placing so much emphasis on purchasing water-rights right now.”

There exist more paradigms, but in general billionaires and corporations are not America’s friends, rather very destructive enemies, and quite costly to taxpayers.

Ironically, we can compare all of this to Wild Horses, very simply I might add. It is shown through good science that Wild Horses are not only NON-Destructive to our Environment, but help, just as wolves do along with other wildlife, better our environment, creating wholesome and often self-sustaining biosphere’s. These biospheres assimilated into the overall environmental complex, and enhance our living as well.


Bellows, B. C. March 2003. Protecting riparian areas: Farmland management strategies. Soil Systems Guide, Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas. At

Belsky, A. J., A. Matzke, and S. Uselman. 1999. Survey of livestock influences on stream and riparian ecosystems in the western United States. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 54(1): 419-431.

Bohn, C. C., and J. C. Buckhouse. 1986. Effects of grazing management on streambanks. Trans. N. Am. Wildl. Natl. Resour. Conf. 51:265-271.

Bryant, H. T., R. E. Blaser, and J. R. Peterson. 1972. Effect of trampling by cattle on bluegrass yield and soil compaction of a meadowville loam. Agron. J. 64:331-334.

Chichester, F. W., R. W. Van Keuran, and J. L. McGuinness. 1979. Hydrology and chemical quality of flow from small pastured watersheds: Chemical quality. J. Envir. Qual. 8(2): 167-171.

Cole, D. W., 1981. Nitrogen uptake and translocation by forest ecosystems. In: F. E. Clark and T. Rosswall (eds.) Terestrial Nitrogen Cycles. Ecological Bulletin. Vol. 33. p. 219-232.

Cooper, A. B., C. M. Smith, and M. J. Smith. 1995. Effects of riparian set-aside on soil characteristics in an agricultural landscape Implications for nutrient transport and retention. Agric. Ecosystems Environ. 55:61-67.

Duff, Donald A. 1979. Riparian habitat recovery on Big Creek, Rich County, Utah. In Proceedings: Grazing and Riparian/Stream Ecosystems. Trout Unlimited, Inc. p. 91

Gardner, J. L. 1950. Effects of thirty years of protection from grazing in desert grassland. Ecology. 31:44-50.

Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Animal Agriculture: A Summary of Literature Related to the Effects of Animal Agriculture on Water Resources (G), 1999. The Environmental Quality Board, College of Agriculture, Food, and Environmental Sciences (COAFES), Univ. of Minnesota.

Green, D. M., and J. B. Kauffman. 1989. Nutrient cycling at the land-water interface: The importance of the riparian zone. In: R. E. Gresswell, B. A. Barton, and J. L. Kershner (eds.) Practical Approaches to Riparian Resource Management : An Education Workshop. U.S. Bureau of Land Management. Billings, MT. p. 61-68.

Gregory, S. V., F. J. Swanson, W. A. McKee, and K. W. Cummins. 1991. An ecosystem perspective of riparian zones. Bioscience 41(8): 540-550.

Hack-ten Broeke, M. J. D., W. J. M. De Groot, and J. P. Dijkstra. 1996. Impact of excreted nitrogen by grazing cattle on nitrate leaching. Soil Use Manage. 12:190-198.

Jawson, M. D., L. F. Elliott, K. E. Saxton, and D. H. Fortier. 1982. The effect of cattle grazing on nutrient losses in a pacific northwest setting, USA. J. Environ. Qual. 11:628-631.

Kaufmann, J. B., and W. C. Kreuger. 1984. Livestock impacts on riparian ecosystems and streamside management implications: A review. J. Range Manage. 37:430-438.

Knapp, R. A., V. T. Vredenburg, and K. R. Matthews. 1998. Effects of stream channel morphology on golden trout spawning habitat and recruitment. Ecol. Appl. 8:1104-1117.

Lemly, D. A. 1982. Modification of benthic insect communities in polluted streams: Combined effects of sedimentation and nutrient enrichment. Hydrobiologia. 87:229-245.

Li, H. W., G. A. Lamberti, T. N. Pearsons, C. K. Tait, J. L. Li, and J. C. Buckhouse. 1994. Cumulative effects of riparian disturbances along high desert trout streams of the John Day Basin, Oregon. Trans. Am. Fisheries Soc. 123:627-640.

Magilligan, F. J., and P. F. McDowell. 1997. Stream channel adjustments following elimination of cattle grazing. J. Am. Water Resour. Assn. 33:867-878.

Marcuson, Patrick E. 1977. Overgrazed streambanks depress fishery production in Rock Creek, Montana. Fish and Game Federation Aid Program. F-20-R-21-11a.

McColl, R. H. S., and A. R. Gibson. 1979. Downslope movement of nutrients in hill pasture,Taita, New Zealand: 2. Effects of season, sheep grazing and fertilizer. New Zealand J. Agric. Res. 22:151-162.
Meyers, T. J., and S. Swanson. 1991. Aquatic habitat condition index, streamtypes and livestock bank damage in northern Nevada. Water Resour. Bull. 27:667-677.

Minshall, G. W. 1984. Aquatic insect substratum relationships. In V. H. Resh and D. M. Rosenberg (ed.) The ecology of aquatic insects. Praeger Publishers, New York. p. 356-400.

Mwendera, E. J., and M. A. M. Saleem. 1997a. Infiltration rates, surface runoff, and soil loss as influenced by grazing pressure in the Ethiopian highlands. Soil Use Manage. 13:29-35.

Mwendera, E. J., M. A. M. Saleem, and A. Dibabe. 1997. The effect of livestock grazing on surface runoff and soil erosion from sloping pasture lands in the Ethiopian highlands. Australian J. Experimental Agric. 37:421-430.

Naeth, M. A., and D. S. Chanasyk. 1996. Runoff and sediment yield under grazing in foothills fescue grasslands of Alberta. Water Res. Bull. 32:89-95.

Naiman, R. J., and H. Decamps. 1997. The ecology of interfaces: Riparian zones. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. V. 28. p. 621-658.

Olness, A., S. J. Smith, E. D. Rhoades, and R. G. Menzel. 1975. Nutrient and sediment discharge from agricultural watersheds in Oklahoma. J. Environ. Qual. 4:331-336.

Ohio’s Hydrologic Cycle. 1994. L. C. Brown. AEX 461. Ohio State University Extension.
Orodho, A. B., M. J. Trlica, and C. D. Bonham. 1990. Long term heavy grazing effects on soil and vegetation in the four corners region. Southwest Naturalist. 35:9-14.

Owens, L. B., W. M. Edwards, and R. W. Van Keuren. 1989. Sediment and nutrient losses from an unimproved all-year grazed watershed. J. Environ. Qual. 18:232-238.

Owens, L. B., W. M. Edwards, and R. W. Van Keuren. 1996. Sediment losses from a pastured watershed before and after stream fencing. J. Soil Water Conserv. 51:90-94.

Owens, L. B., W. M. Edwards, and R. W. Van Keuren. 1997. Runoff and sediment losses resulting from winter feeding on pastures. J. Soil Water Conserv. 52:194-197.

Owens, L. B., W. M. Edwards, and R. W. Van Keuren. 1983. Surface runoff quality comparisons between unimproved pasture and woodlands. J. Environ. Qual. 12:518-522.

Owens, L. B., W. M. Edwards, and R. W. Van Keuren. 1994. Groundwater nitrate levels under fertilized grass and grasslegumes pastures. J. Environ. Qual. 23:752-758.

Richards, R. P., F. G. Calhoun, and G. Matisoff. 2002. Lake Erie agricultural systems for environmental quality project. J. of Envir. Qual. 31:6-16.

Rabalais, N. N., R. E. Turner, and W. J. Wiseman, Jr. 2001. Hypoxia in Gulf of Mexico. J. of Envir. Qual. Mar-Apr 30(2):320-329.

Platts, W. S. 1991. Livestock grazing. In: Influence of forest and rangeland management on Salmonid fishes and their habitats. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 19:389-423.

Platts, W. S., and R. F. Nelson. 1985. Stream habitat and fisheries response to livestock grazing and instream improvement structures, Big Creek, Utah. J. Soil Water Conserv. 40:374-379.

Platts, W. S. and F. J. Wagstaff. 1984. Fencing to control livestock grazing on riparian habitats along streams: Is it a viable alternative. N. Am. J. Fisheries Manage. 4:266-272.

Peterjohn, W. T., and D. L. Correll. 1984. Nutrient dynamics in an agricultural watershed: Observations of a riparian forest. Ecology 65: 1466-1475.

Quinn, J. M., R. B. Williamson, R. K. Smith, and M. L. Vickers. 1992. Effects of riparian grazing and channelization on streams in southland New Zealand 2. Benthic invertebrates. New Zealand J. Marine Freshwater Res. 26:259-273. LS-2-05.

Rauzi, F., and C. L. Hanson. 1966. Water intake and runoff as affected by intensity of grazing. J. Range Manage. 19:351-356.

Schepers, J. S., and D. D. Francis. 1982. Chemical water quality of runoff from grazing land in Nebraska: I. Influence of grazing livestock. J. Environ. Qual. 11:351-354.

Schepers, J. S., B. L. Hackes, and D. D. Francis. 1982. Chemical water quality of runoff from grazing land in Nebraska: II. Contributing factors. J. Environ. Qual. 11:355-359.

Sidle, R. C., and A. Sharma. 1996. Stream channel changes associated with mining and grazing in the Great Basin. J. Environ. Qual. 25:1111-1121.

Smith, C. M. 1989. Riparian pasture retirement effects on sediment phosphorus and nitrogen in channellized surface run-off from pastures. New Zealand J. Mar. Freshwater Res. 23:139-146.

Stout, W. L., S. A. Fales, L. D. Muller, R. R. Schnabel, W. E. Priddy, and G. F. Elwinger. 1997. Nitrate leaching from cattle urine and feces in northeastern U.S. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. 61:1787.

Sweeny, B. W. 1993. Effects of streamside vegetation on macroinvertebrate communities of White Clay Creek in eastern North America. Proc. of the Natural Science Academy of Philadelphia. 144:291-340.

Tait, C. K., J. L. Li, G. A. Lamberti, T. N. Pearsons, and H. W. Li. 1994. Relationships between riparian cover and community structure of high desert streams. J. N. Am. Benthological Soc. 13:45-56.

USEPA. 2000. National Water Quality Inventory: 2000 Report to Congress Executive Summary, Office of Water, Washington, DC 20460. [Online] Available at

Waters, T. F. 1995. Sediment in streams, sources, biological effects and control. American Fisheries Society Monograph 7.

White, R. K., R. W. VanKeuren, L. B. Owens, W. M. Edwards, and R. H. Miller. 1983. Effects of livestock pasturing on non-point surface runoff. Project Summary, Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory, Ada, Oklahoma. EPA- 600/S2-83-011. 6p.

Williamson, R. B., C. M. Smith, and A. B. Cooper. 1996. Watershed riparian management and its benefits to a eutrophic lake. J. Water Res. Planning Manage.-ASCE. 122:24-32.

Williamson, R. B., R. K. Smith, and J. M. Quinn. 1992. Effects of riparian grazing and channelization on streams in Southland New Zealand I. Channel form and stability. New Zealand Journal of Marine & Freshwater Research. 26:241-258.

Wohl, N. E., and R. F. Carline. 1996. Relations among riparian grazing, sediment loads, macroinvertebrates, and fishes in three central Pennsylvania streams. Can. J. Fisheries Aquatic Sci. 53(suppl. 1):260-266.


Posted by on July 25, 2014 in Uncategorized


199 Dead Wild Horses – 29 Mysteriously Disappear — BLM and Welfare Ranchers Criminal Activity Requires Scrutiny by Government Legal Agencies

murderers creek wild horses injured

The government, which was designed for the people, has got into the hands of the bosses and their employers, the special interests. An invisible empire has been set up above the forms of democracy. ~Woodrow Wilson

The Facts: 199 Wild Horses Die at the Burns Corral between 2010 and 2013 – 29 More Wild Horses Mysteriously Disappear in 2013 – BLM and Welfare Ranchers Criminal Activity Requires Scrutiny, no doubt.

And on it goes, where it ends no one knows. But the reality is the BLM (Bureau of Land Management) continues to, well, simply outright lie. Especially when it comes to the necessity for Wild Horse Herd Roundups, appropriate counts of Wild Horses on America’s Public Lands, Wild Horses going to slaughter, the issuing of Grazing Permits for cattle, appropriate cattle counts on Public Lands, Enforcement of Environmental Assessments, and much more. . .

One of the more disgusting elements of this situation is the fact that legislators, both Senators and Congressmen, directly relies on BLM information, especially in regard to proper management, and as well the Wild Horses on America’s Public Lands. But is it correct – information from BLM employees? We say no and for many documented and well referenced reasons (see References section)!

After all, many financial and costly budget decisions are based on receiving and ultimately deciding a proper management paradigm, or problem resolution from truthful and accurate information. The problem here is the BLM misinforms and lies continuously, thereby creating more and more problems that require resolution. The only truth connected to the BLM is this government agency is out of control, in total. . .

Cover-up and more cover-up

Outrageous that the Oregon-BLM would cover-up 199 Wild Horses killed between 2010 and 2013, and associated with the Bait and Trap methodology of rounding up Wild Horses! And make the statement in a short video, produced by Oregon Public Broadcasting, that essentially “accidents always happen around horses” – as if this resolves the problem for 199 horse’s killed in their corrals — especially when it is something that there is no need for, and handled obviously by inexperienced contract wranglers, or incompetent BLM employees and wranglers!

See the Video and Interview here:

But the most outrageous is when Rob Sharp was asked, by me approximately one month ago, “. . . exactly how many Wild Horses have died in your corrals over there?”

He answered quit assuredly, quite confidently, “There have only been three that have died within the past 3 years.”

Myself: “So the F.O.I.A. material and information on it is wrong?”

Sharp: “I don’t know. I have not seen the spreadsheet you’re talking about.”

The OPB Video, above, was discussed and placed into public review and on television 4 months “before” I spoke with Mr. Sharp about the Dead Horses. . . Mr. Sharp attempted to excuse the 199 Wild Horses killed (in the OPB Video) by random accidents . . . Oh, well he told me only three died within the past three years in the Burns corrals, and that he had no idea about any other Wild Horses dead . . . BLM Credibility?

Taylor Grazing Act Legislation and the BLM

Yet another problem with BLM is Welfare Ranching, and the need for it illusive if not totally false – We come across the lack of BLM credibility once again.

The Taylor Grazing Act, among the many other legislative actions way back when (the 1920’s and earlier), were developed as conservation measures. True enough also designed to enhance food product, but “not” while destroying our Public Lands. The legislation back then was meant to preserve our Public Lands, specifically to protect America’s Public Lands from over-grazing of cattle and sheep. It was acknowledged at that time that cattle and sheep can and will destroy ranch land.

Because of subsidies given to Welfare Rancher’s today, due to the legislative actions of decades ago, no longer useful in today’s markets for beef or sheep, Public Lands are being destroyed! The fact is America’s Public Lands are currently being OVERLY GRAZED BY CATTLE!

I say “because of subsidies. . .” as that is the significant item Welfare Ranchers concerned about today, as well as the BLM, and to hell with using taxpayer dollars appropriately and the taxpayers in general. In reality, the BLM manages our Public Lands down a path of destruction. Environmental Assessments mean nothing to them – just as hard-earned taxpayer dollars mean nothing to them. There exist no benefits to taxpayers or toward our Public Lands (i.e. see explanation example below).

Least we not forget — a Welfare Rancher who obtains a government Grazing Permit, also qualifies for loans in the millions of dollars – As absurd as that sounds, it is a very real problem of a different sort, explored within the context of a different article.

Land Conservation and Community

In truth, lost is the ideology of Land Conservation, which is the essential portion of the Taylor Grazing Act, among other legislative conservation measures protecting our Public Lands. Living with and conserving our Public Lands has a reality-based potential to enhance them and produce ten times the Food Product we require to feed this population, but we waste it on Welfare Rancher’s and their cattle – which literally destroys our Public Lands (i.e. well referenced and documented by good science).

Now the opposite is true, where legislators simply create Amendments to previous protective legislation, that enhance the pocket books of Special Interest Lobby Groups only i.e. Welfare Ranchers (AG Lobby, Mining, lumber, et al), and directly violates the entire ideology of why the Legislative Actions were created, and currently do nothing more than enhance a Welfare Rancher’s bank account!

Here is a good example of Average Taxpayer vs Welfare Rancher (just examples on average):

Average Taxpayer Income: $125,000+
Average Ranch Profit: (if average Business People): $425,000+

Average Taxpayer Taxes: app. Paid $6,000
Average Ranch Taxes: Actual Paid Out $0 (due to AG benefits / Programs)

Average Taxpayer Benefits and Government Subsidies Non-Taxed: $0.00
Average Ranch Benefits / Subsidies Non-Taxed: Average $325,000

Benefits to Taxpayers from Subsidized Ranching: $0.00
Benefits in cost reduction of meat products: $0.00
Benefits to Ranchers from Subsidized Ranching: New Homes, New Trucks, New Boats, New Trailers, MORE CATTLE, College for the Kids, More tax breaks, etc. . .

Of note also is the fact of Welfare Ranching and its necessity to America? Once again we have Bureau of Land Management as well as the Department of the Interior lying to American taxpayers, and continuous. There does not exist a need for subsidies going to ranchers who graze their cattle or sheep on Public Lands! This program is outdated and of no use in the markets of today — it simply takes the Competitive situation out of the actual ranching business, or those who acquires Grazing Permits on Public Lands, is all. 2012 / 2013 Sales Receipts, from Welfare Ranchers — or those who hold Grazing Permits on Public Lands, were only $.41% of 1% sales on America’s domestic commercial markets, or less than 1% in total sales. . . (simply worded and for the bankers out there who give loans to Welfare Ranchers because they hold a Grazing Permit — as if a guarantee that Taxpayers will pay if they default! the $.41% – a monetary amount – is .41% of the only 1% – a whole number – of Sales per Receipts assimilated for the years 2012 and 2013 and entire sales domestically of Beef and Sheep from Welfare Rancher’s . . .)

Ironically, Water Rights are given to Welfare Ranchers as well, and as ownership! Consider, if you will, the likelihood or common-sense of ownership of water rights by a private individual on government/Public Lands! Why? Because they are “leasing” Public Land is the only reason – an interesting concept of a Lease-Only arrangement, yet becoming the owner of the water rights and selling the water back to the government!

This situation alone remains extremely questionable, to say the least! But the BLM does not know how to stop this and many other expensive situations the taxpayers pay for, with no returns or benefit to taxpayers what so ever.

“A common citizen in the United States would be thrown in jail if they attempted to commit the type of monetary-fraud this group of Welfare Ranchers and the BLM employees commit daily. Why they are not in jail, who knows? But their accounting, at least the information released to the Public, certainly points out criminal activity, to say the least. But no government agency seems to investigate the obviousness of this activity. I am astounded and yet disgusted at the same time, as it is my taxpayer money they apparently are using for their criminality.” Steven Corr, C.P.A.

In Oregon — Constituents of Legislators: less than 1% is Welfare Ranchers! Yet these Welfare Rancher’s receive more representation than you and I as the general taxpayers in this country! We pay them, as taxpayers, to ranch and graze on Public Lands – the Welfare Rancher’s do not pay the government much at all, only $.0003% of their yearly Subsidy, if that, to actually graze their cattle on Public Lands.
Here we should keep in mind that Commercial ranchers who do not use Public Lands, and they pay anywhere from $12.00 to $75+ per AUM Unit (i.e. 1 cow and 1 calf), actual Lease of Private Land and/or below the line costs to graze their cattle.

Welfare Ranchers, on the other hand, who use Public Lands and are subsidized by taxpayers as well, pay $1.42 per AUM Unit – which is 1 cow and 1 calf. And ironically still require subsidy from the Public Lands Grazing Program in amounts often exceeding $350,000 per year to $1 million dollars per year – and yes, corporate ranching in Oregon is involved as well.
Is BLM or Welfare Ranching Good for America? Many, who acknowledge the reality of it all, say no!


Armour, C., D. Duff, and W. Elmore. 1994. The effects of livestock grazing on western riparian and stream ecosystem. Fisheries 19(9):9-12.
Atwill, E.R. 1996. Assessing the link between rangeland cattle and water-borne Cryptosporidium parvum infection in humans. Rangelands 18:48-51.
Belsky, A.J., and D.M. Blumenthal. 1997. Effects of livestock grazing on stand dynamics and soils in upland forests of the interior West. Cons. Biol. 11:315-327.
Blackburn, W.H. 1984. Impact of grazing intensity and specialized grazing systems on watershed characteristics and responses. p. 927-983. In: Developing strategies for range management.Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
Bock, C.E., V.A. Saab, T.D. Rich, and D.S. Dobkin. 1993. Effects of livestock grazing on neotropical migratory landbirds in western North America. p. 296-309. In: D.M.
Finch,P.W. Stangel (eds.), Status and management of neotropical migratory birds. USDA Forest Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-229.
Boggs, K., and T. Weaver. 1992. Response of riparian shrubs to declining water availability. p. 48-51. In: W.P. Clary, E.D. McArthur, D. Bedunah, and C.L. Wambolt (compilers), Proceedings-Symposium on ecology and management of riparian shrub communities. USDA Forest Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-289.
Bohn, C.C., and J.C. Buckhouse. 1985a. Some responses of riparian soils to grazing management in northeastern Oregon. J. Range Manage. 38:378-381.
Bohn, C.C., and J.C. Buckhouse. 1985b. Coliforms as an indicator of water quality in wildland streams. J. Soil and Water Cons. 40:95-97.
Bryan, K. 1925. Date of channel trenching in the arid Southwest. Science 62:338-344.
Buckhouse, J.C., and G.F. Gifford. 1976. Water quality implications of cattle grazing on a semiarid watershed in southeastern Utah. J. Range Manage. 29:109-113.
Burton, T.A., and S.J. Kozel. 1996. Livestock grazing relationships with fisheries. p. 140-145. In: W.D. Edge, S.L. Olson-Edge (eds.), Sustaining rangeland ecosystems. Oregon State Univ. Extension Service, Special Rep. 953, Corvallis, OR.
Case, R.L. and J.B. Kauffman. 1997. Wild ungulate influences on the recovery of willows, black cottonwood and thin-leaf alder following cessation of cattle grazing in northeaster Oregon. Northwest Sci. 71:115-126.
Chaney, E., W. Elmore, and W.S. Platts. 1990. Livestock grazing on western riparian areas. Northwest Resource Information Center, Inc. Eagle, Idaho.
Chaney, E., W. Elmore, and W.S. Platts. 1993. Managing Change: livestock grazing on western riparian areas. Northwest Resource Information Center, Inc. Eagle, Idaho.
Chapman, D.W., and E. Knudsen. 1980. Channelization and livestock impacts in salmonid habitat and biomass in western Washington. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 109.
Claire, E.W., and R.L. Storch. 1977. Streamside management and livestock grazing in the Blue Mountains of Oregon: a case study. p. 111-128, In: Proc.of the workshop on Page 14, Belsky,
Matzke, Uselman livestock and wildlife-fisheries relationships in the Great Basin. Univ. California, Agric. Station, Sci. Spec. Publ. 3301, Berkeley, CA.
Clary, W.P. 1995. Vegetation and soil responses to grazing simulation on riparian meadows. J. Range Manage. 48:18-25.
Clary, W.P., E.D. McArthur, D. Bedunah, and C.L. Wambolt (compilers). 1992. Proceedings-Symposium on ecology and management of riparian shrub communities. USDA Forest Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-289.
Clary, W.P., and D.E. Medin. 1990. Differences in vegetation biomass and structure due to cattle grazing in a northern Nevada riparian ecosystem. USDA Forest Serv. Re. Pap. INT-427.
Clary, W.P., and D.E. Medin. 1992. Vegetation, breeding bird, and small mammal biomass in two high-elevation sagebrush riparian habitats. p. 100-110. In: W.P. Clary, E.D.
McArthur, D. Bedunah, and C.L. Wambolt (compilers), Proceedings-Symposium on ecology and management of riparian shrub communities. USDA Forest Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-289.
Clary, W.P., N.L. Shaw, J.G. Dudley, V.A. Saab, J.W. Kinney, and L.C. Smithman. 1996.Response of a depleted sagebrush steppe riparian system to grazing control and woody plantings. USDA Forest Serv. Res.Pap. INT-RP-492.
Clary, W.P., and B.F. Webster. 1989. Managing grazing of riparian areas in the intermountain region. USDA Forest Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-263.
Davis, L., M. Brittingham, L. Garber, and D. Rourke. 1991. Stream bank fencing. Penn State College of Ag. Sci., Extension Circular 397. University Park, PA.
Duce, J.T. 1918. The effect of cattle on the erosion of canyon bottoms. Science 47:450-452.
Dudley, T., and M. Embury. 1995. Non-indigenous species in wilderness areas: the status and impacts of livestock and game species in designated wilderness in California Pacific Institute for SIDES, Oakland, CA.
Duff, D.A. 1977. Livestock grazing impacts on aquatic habitat in Big Creek, Utah. p. 129-142. In: Proc. of the workshop on wildlife-fisheries relationships in the Great Basin. Univ. California, Agric. Station, Sci. Spec. Publ. 3301, Berkeley, CA.
Elmore, W. 1996. Riparian areas: perceptions in management. USDA Forest Serv., Pacific Northwest Research Station, Natural Resource News 6(3):9.
Elmore, W., and R.L. Beschta. 1987. Riparian areas: perceptions in management. Rangelands 9:260-265.
Stephenson, G.R., and R.C. Rychert. 1982. Bottom sediment: a reservoir of Escherichia coli in rangeland streams. J. Range Manage. 35:119-123.
Stephenson, G.R., and L.V. Street. 1978. Bacterial variations in streams from a southwest Idaho rangeland watershed. J. Environ. Qual. 7:150-157.
Stevens, R., E.D. McArthur, and J.N. Davis. 1992. Reevaluation of vegetative cover changes, erosion, and sedimentation on two watersheds–1912-1983. p. 123-128. In: W.P. Clary, E.D. McArthur, D. Bedunah, and C.L. Wambolt (compilers), Proceedings-Symposium on ecology and management of riparian shrub communities. USDA Forest Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-289.
Stoddart, L.A., and A. Smith. 1955. Range management, 2nd edition. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Stuber, R.J. 1985. Trout habitat, abundance, and fishing opportunities in fenced vs. unfenced riparian habitat along sheep creek, Colorado. p. 310-314. In: R.R.
Johnson, C.D. Ziebell, D.R. Patton, and others (tech. coords.), Riparian ecosystems and their management: reconciling conflicting uses. USDA Forest Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-120.
Szaro, R.C. 1989. Riparian forest and scrubland community types of Arizona and New Mexico. Desert Plants 9(3-4):72-138.
Szaro, R.C., S.C. Belfit, J.K. Aitkin, and J.N. Rinne. 1985. Impacts of grazing on a riparian garter snake. p. 359-363. In: R.R. Johnson, C.D. Ziebell, D.R. Patton, and others (tech. coords.), Riparian ecosystems and their management: reconciling conflicting uses. USDA Forest Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-120.
Tait, C.K., J.L. Li, G.A. Lamberti, T.N. Pearsons, and H.W. Li. 1994. Relationships between riparian cover and community structure of high desert streams. J. N. A. Benthol. Soc. 13:45-56.
Taylor, D.M. 1986. Effects of cattle grazing on passerine birds nesting in riparian habitat. J. Range Manage.
Taylor, F.R., L.A. Gillman, and J.W. Pedretti. 1989. Impact of cattle on two isolated fish populations in Pahranagat Valley, Nevada. Great Basin Nat. 49:491-495.
Thurow, T.L. 1991. Hydrology and erosion. p.141-159. In: R.K. Heitschmidt, and J.W. Stuth (eds.), Grazing management: an ecological perspective. Timber Press, Portland, OR.
Thomas, J.W., C. Maser, and J.E. Rodiek. 1979. Wildlife habitats in managed rangelands– The Great Basin of southeastern Oregon: riparian zones. USDA Forest Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-80.
Tiedemann, A.R., and D.A. Higgins. 1989. Effects of management strategies on water resources. p.56-91. In.: T.M. Quigley, H.R. Sanderson, and A.R. Tiedemann, Managing interior Northwest rangelands: The Oregon Range Evaluation Project. USDA Forest Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-238.
Tiedemann, A.R., D.A. Higgins, T.M. Quigley, H.R. Sanderson, and D.B. Marx. 1987.
Responses of fecal coliform in streamwater to four grazing strategies. J. Range Manage. 40:322-329.
Trimble, S.W. 1994. Erosional effects of cattle on streambanks in Tennessee, U.S.A. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 19:451-464.
Trimble, S.W., and A.C. Mendel. 1995. The cow as a geomorphic agent — a critical review. Geomorphology 13:233-253.
U.S. Department of Interior. 1993. Riparian area management, process for assessing proper functioning condition. TR 1737-9 1993, Bureau of Land Management, Box 25047, Denver, CO.
U.S. Department of Interior. 1994a. Rangeland reform ’94, Draft environmental impact statement. Bureau of Land Management, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Department of Interior. 1994b. Western riparian wetlands (Chapter 12). p. 213-238. In: The impact of federal programs on wetlands, Vol. II, A report to Congress by the Secretary of the Interior, Washington D.C., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arlington,VA.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1995. National Water Quality Inventory, 1994 Report to Congress Executive Summary. Office of Water, Washington DC 20460.
U.S. General Accounting Office. 1988. Public rangelands: some riparian areas restored by widespread improvement will be slow. GAO/RCED-88-105.
Warner, R.E., and K.M. Hendrix (eds). 1984. California riparian systems, ecology, conservation, and productive management. Univ. of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
Weller, M.W. 1996. Birds of rangeland wetlands. p. 71-82. In: P.R. Krausman (ed.), Rangeland wildlife. The Society of Range Management, Denver CO.
White, R.J., and O.M. Brynildson. 1967. Guidelines for management of trout stream habitat in Wisconsin. Dep. Nat. Resour. Tech. Bull. 39:, Madison, WI.
Winegar, H.H. 1977. Camp Creek channel fencing — plant, wildlife, soil, and water response. Rangeman’s J. 4:10-12.


Posted by on July 18, 2014 in Uncategorized


Inner-View: A Look At 29 Wild Horses Listed As Dead Via F.O.I.A. BLM Documents

murderer's creek horses

Many people have sighed for the ‘good old days’ and regretted the ‘passing of the horse,’ but today, when only those who like horses own them, it is a far better time for horses. — Anon.

As mentioned in previous articles, we received information via Freedom of Information Act that there was 29 Wild Horses, inventoried and area Bait and Trap Roundup defined, listed as “DEAD” – from Murderer’s Creek Horse Management Area, in the State of Oregon (the spreadsheet detail given after article below).

This area was under heavy scrutiny, as it was in Federal Court — Stout vs U.S. Forestry, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Ironically, Judge Ancer Haggerty within this same court and after a few years of gathering information and hearing testimony, suddenly decided a prompt scientific consultation and ultimately a settlement was in order.

The fact of blaming Wild Horses for the ruination of the Riparian Area at Murderer’s Creek was unacceptable to Judge Ancer Haggerty of the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. . . finding that the Forest Service must engage in Endangered Species Act consultation with NMFS to determine whether wild horse management impacts steelhead – the key to the legal action.

It is acknowledged by many others, to include myself, that the Stout’s legal actions were based upon the idea to get rid of the Wild Horses off lands that the Stouts used to graze their cattle, which were Public Lands – the Stouts are Welfare Ranchers and receives subsidies from the Government in accord with the amount of cattle they have in their possession and that graze on Public Lands –

More Cattle needed for more subsidies – claimed non-destructive

In April 2007, after a federal court ruled that portions of the biological opinions given to the court by the Stout Family Attorney, were in violation of the Endangered Species Act (i.e. cattle roaming and destroying the riparian areas of Murderer’s Creek, et al) is when things changed for the Stout family.

Also, it was made clear that the Forestry, and other government agencies such as the Bureau of Land Management and the Department of the Interior, did not give to the court legitimate science and information in the matter of Wild Horses being at fault in Murderer’s Creek destruction, rather it was the cattle and not the wild horses at all – Judge Haggerty favored in the matter immediately, and would not permit any further misinformation given to the court by these agencies, with the exception of the NMFS consultation and findings.

After an injunction was granted in the spring of 2008, cattle were taken off of grazing allotments on the Malheur. Loren and Piper Stout were told they could no longer graze cattle on their 62,000-acre Public Lands allotment along Murderers Creek and nearby Deer Creek. The Stouts once again filed a lawsuit against the Forest Service, alleging that the agency was not complying with its own policies towards the mustangs and was letting them exceed the management level of fifty to 140 horses for the area. According to the suit, elk and horses, which occupy the range full time, were damaging riparian areas.

Good Science shows beyond a doubt, confirmed by many studies, that horses spend less time in riparian areas than cattle, and that an abundance of literature shows that cattle grazing has a greater impact on riparian areas. Yet another fact is that degradation is apparent throughout the Malheur where cattle are grazed, even where horses are not present. This information developed into the facts given to the Federal Court in 2013, leading to the NMFS statements.

The interagency consultation concluded in January 2013, upon NMFS’ issuance of a biological opinion. NMFS concluded, based on the best available scientific evidence that:

“. . . wild horses are unlikely to cause measurable impacts to [the steelhead’s] tributary habitat within the action area” and impacts due to wild horses “are likely to be small and have minimal impacts on steelhead, [or] their habitat.”

“Because wild horses — unlike cattle and sheep — have only minimal effects on steelhead and steelhead habitat, NMFS authorized the Forest Service to continue managing wild horses at their previously established appropriate management level of 50-140 horses in Murderers Creek without proposing any reduction to that level.”

A Recent Interview on shooting Wild Horses

This interview was with Clinton Garsh, a 65 year old cowboy, who worked his entire life on one ranch or another riding fence-line, rounding up cattle for branding, and wrangler on “. . .many a God-fer-Sakin cattle and horse drives,” as Clinton says. He had moved to Oregon 3 years earlier, from a ranch in Montana, Divorced the wife, and looking for work as a cowhand in Oregon. He says he gave up on the eastern Oregon bunch, as they shot horses and too much dirt and dust to swallow!

Here is a small portion of the interview:

John: “Did you find any jobs in Oregon you liked yet?”

Clinton: “Thought everything fine for awhile, anyway, over in Eastern Oregon, corporate ranching and all. I found out things there I probably shouldn’t have.”

John: “What was that?”

Clinton: “They use cattle-prods over there, on the cows and the horses. We didn’t meet eye-to-eye on those issues. A lot of those cow-hands illegals on the corporate ranches . . . they brought their ways of doin’ things up here. But shooting of horses was the last straw. . .”

John: “Shooting Horses?”

Clinton: “Ya. Out of Baker; Out of Burns; as far over as John Day, then up to Lakeview from what I heard.”

John: “You actually seen this?”

Clinton: “Nope. I would throw-down on a man, if I saw him shoot a horse. The hands would come back to the bunk house at night, and brag about how the horse fell when they shot it; or where they shot it. They would say it didn’t make any difference, since the horses wild and were too small for ranch work; and the Kiger Mustangs, over off the Steens, too slow.”

John: “How many do you suppose were shot?”

Clinton: “Don’t know for sure, quite a few though. A few of the ranchers that run cattle on free-land (author note: Public Lands) pay pretty good per horse – but a lot of us against all of that. My life is with horses, and I make my living with them – sure as hell won’t hurt them in any way or matter!”

John: “Any names come up?”

Clinton: “None that I can speak of or will speak of! Don’t know’em, don’t want to know’em! I stay out of all of that! That’s how we all make our money – keepin’ to ourselves, and workin’ with the people that won’t get you hurt!”

John: “What about BLM or Forestry employees?”

Clinton: “Heresay is all! They’re involved. I always heard since I was small, Just cause trouble comes visiting doesn’t mean you have to offer it a place to sit down. I tend to my own business, keep to myself, just like I said awhile ago — but there are some things that I just don’t take to at all! Killing horses is one of those things!”


10/10/2012 (OR0019) Murderers Creek Food Trap HG1AAAAAC 1. Dead

10/10/2012 (OR0019) Murderers Creek Food Trap HM1ACAEBD 2. Dead

10/10/2012 (OR0019) Murderers Creek Food Trap HM1ADADBC 3. Dead

10/15/2012 (OR0019) Murderers Creek Food Trap HF1AAAAHD 4. Dead

10/16/2012 (OR0019) Murderers Creek Food Trap HG1AAAABC 5. Dead

10/22/2012 (OR0019) Murderers Creek Food Trap HG1AAAAAD 6. Dead

10/22/2012 (OR0019) Murderers Creek Food Trap HM1AAAAAC 7. Dead

10/31/2012 (OR0019) Murderers Creek Food Trap HG1AAAEBD 8. Dead

11/05/2012 (OR0019) Murderers Creek Food Trap HF1ABAAHC 9. Dead

11/05/2012 (OR0019) Murderers Creek Food Trap HF1ADAAEP 10. Dead

11/05/2012 (OR0019) Murderers Creek Food Trap HF1AAAABB 11. Dead

11/08/2012 (OR0019) Murderers Creek Food Trap HM1ADADBD 12. Dead

11/13/2012 (OR0019) Murderers Creek Food Trap HF1DEAAFC 13. Dead

12/04/2012 (OR0019) Murderers Creek Food Trap HF1AAAABC 14. Dead

12/21/2012 (OR0019) Murderers Creek Food Trap HF1AAAABF 15. Dead

01/02/2013 (OR0019) Murderers Creek Food Trap HG1AAAAAC 16. Dead

01/02/2013 (OR0019) Murderers Creek Food Trap HM_______ 17. Dead

08/01/2013 (OR0019) Murderers Creek Food Trap HF1AAAABF 18. Dead

08/04/2013 (OR0019) Murderers Creek Food Trap HF1AAAAFB 19. Dead

08/04/2013 (OR0019) Murderers Creek Food Trap HM1AAAABD 20. Dead

08/12/2013 (OR0019) Murderers Creek Food Trap H________ 21. Dead

08/28/2013 (OR0019) Murderers Creek Food Trap HF1ADACHC 22. Dead

09/23/2013 (OR0019) Murderers Creek Food Trap HG1AAAAAD 23. Dead

09/23/2013 (OR0019) Murderers Creek Food Trap HG1ADCEBB 24. Dead

09/24/2013 (OR0019) Murderers Creek Food Trap HF2AAAABB 25. Dead

10/01/2013 (OR0019) Murderers Creek Food Trap H________ 26. Dead

09/24/2013 (OR0019) Murderers Creek Food Trap HF1AFDBFB 27. Dead

09/24/2013 (OR0019) Murderers Creek Food Trap HF2AAAABD 28. Dead

10/24/2012 (OR0019) Murderers Creek Food Trap HF1AAAABD 29. Dead


Posted by on July 15, 2014 in Uncategorized


Wild Horses and the Fossil Challenge: The Wild Horse an Indigenous Species in America

horse chart fossil

“But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.”
― Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

Within this written material I would like to call attention to something very significant. There is no doubt to many knowledgeable American’s that the elements of good science are on the decline today and ironically from those government agencies responsible for good science. But why is this significant today and for the tomorrows to come?

Opportunities develop the basis for science, then onward to answer significant questions, and at the same time preserve things that are of utmost importance on this planet. As humans we do not really pick and choose these elements – rather hope above all hopes that we observe those oh so correct elements, then take proper action based on sound and proper data, that develops into good decision making – then onward to secure that proper balance that exists within a particular element, and will coexist with a positive development within our universe.

Wild Horses on our Public Lands are just this situation, opportunities to expand our understanding of our planet, and our universe – cohabitation – a Universal Truth. We have missed the opportunity up to this point, as we have accepted very poor, but large amounts of source-references in the matter of Wild Horses up to this point in time.

The management of our Wild Horses and by government agencies demonstrates this negative-occurrence quite readily; whereas, proper decision making cannot be accomplished by bad or manipulated data – and as we observe daily, and bad data (i.e. government agencies at this time politically and monetarily directed) becomes quite costly as well. But we need not digress here, as much as offer enlightenment, a light at the end of the tunnel so to speak (or write).

There’s a lot to learn about Fossil Records

Because of science we have experienced extreme growth on our planet. As we observe the destruction of our environment today, developed from bad/manipulated-science, it consistently overwhelms the truth — We have a lot to learn yet in the matter of science, and especially our Fossil Records that remain abundant on this planet.
The recent history of a fossil-find, a Brown Bear in Alberta, Canada, explains my point quite well. As a Paleontologist remarks, “. . . this fossil-find illustrates significant implications of the serendipity of paleontology.”

Oddly, this also represents the problems associated with Wild Horse’s as being found indigenous in the Americas. Often research is overlooked, that would re-define the present history of the horse. Embarrassing to many people associated with science and research, the fact is many government personnel either find the true fossil records insignificant (motivated by unethical means most often); yet others find it difficult to combat, with true facts in hand, with such entities as the Department of the Interior and their false science paradigms toward management.

This government agency, in reality, defines its scientific goals within a political and even monetary representation of corporations in America. Within their paradigm, the truth means nothing, and corporate ideology means everything to them. The destruction of America remains on this unethical road to hell, as fossil records often become set-asides, ignored, and have even been known to wind up in dumpsters — then to the local garbage dump; disgusting behavior by government agencies indeed.

So we go further within our example here, which defines the not so attractive attitude above, but with a bit more empathy toward the problem. Fossils of Brown Bears were not known, for example, from below the extent of the ice sheets prior to 13,000 years ago and all bears south of the glaciers were genetically distinct from those north in Beringia. Where did they come from? The newly discovered fossil turned out to be over 26,000 years old – twice as old as previous discovered fossil bears – yet genetically similar to them.

“No fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way… To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.” ― Henry Gee, In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life

What in truth is used in recording and establishing history, thereof, if the consistency of fossils located, and the attributes found within each dig – thus assimilated into a whole, or a graphic entity that becomes self-explanatory. There exists no explanation, or argument – if you will – from a government agency that references the continuity of fossil finds, rather just the opposite, and dictates the horse being non-indigenous due to one or two records of fossil finds. This remains inconclusive as a referenced situation, by our government employees, and knowledgeable people frown on such reference being given such importance or priority.

Within a previous article I highlighted the fact that bears and horses were often found in the areas where wooly mammoths were discovered (due to eating habits, et al.), even up to and including the year 1650. Now we discover Bears have similar problems within the fossil records, as do the Wild Horses – neglect?

“It’s always been a mystery why Brown Bears (i.e. the fossil discovery mentioned above) did not migrate farther south if they were in Beringia as early as 100,000 years ago, and the passage wasn’t blocked until about 23,000 years ago,” stated Paul Matheus, paleontologist at the Alaska Quaternary Center.

Although there was an implicit explanation that a population of bears with this distinct genetic identity had extended their range southward much earlier than could be demonstrated within the fossil record presently, there was a complete lack of any fossil records for a period spanning possibly 80,000 years.

Indeed, the fossil records for most animals are unavoidably spotty. With the Wild Horses in the Americas in mind, we can then go to what Bob Martin has to say — a paleoprimateologist, “. . . estimated at the time there were over 235 known species of living primates, and that 474 extinct species of primate had been described in scientific literature.”

Assuming average species duration of approximately 2.5 million years, based upon the number of fossil species known in each stratigraphic interval contrasted with the number known today, Martin estimated that as many as 8,000 to 9,000 extinct primary species have yet to be discovered in the fossil record. Yes, Wild Horses in the Americas remains one of these “to be discovered” finds.

“Our calculations,” concluded Martin, “indicate we have fossil evidence for only about 5% of all extinct primates, so it is as if paleontologists have been trying to reconstruct a 1,000 piece jig-saw puzzle using just 50 pieces.”

Wild Horses and Fossil Records

Interesting, how facts when combined with honesty, that truth does become unavoidable. Conclusively, science does not function without the entire data base of reality being present and acknowledged as such — just as a television or a washing machine does not work unless plugged-in.

When we explore the fossil records within a matter “not” of perspective, as that can be manipulated, but rather within the context of “learning” and of “knowledge” by the actual facts presented. Only then can we conclude an entirely different history of Horse’s in America; and the contradictions to what is available currently, does exist. This establishes, very well I might add, the Wild Horses and coincidently horses being indigenous in America.

Unfortunately, and the major problem, is the fact this knowledge, the fossil records, contradicts the government agencies who represent corporations only and on America’s Public Lands.

The Wild Horses for some contrary reasoning, then combined with ignorant reasoning, contradicts current government management paradigms as well. Yes, a criminal government takes a lot of things way from us in America (to include the non-essential and frivolous spending of taxpayer money), and it is time to fight back.

When perusing further the fossil records of the horse in the Americas, for example, and attritional history of horse bones (similar to Bear’s bones, et al.) being found on many archeological digs, we then discover more of the Indigenous nature of the horse being well established in the Americas; thereby, the Wild Horse can and should, by all technical as well as ethical reasoning, become listed as an Endangered Species in America.


Posted by on June 29, 2014 in Uncategorized


America’s Indigenous Wild Horse’s: Good Science Will Save Them

chumash horse pre-dating mexico and spainish horses by 2 centuries

History is a cyclic poem written by Time upon the memories of man. ~ Percy Bysshe Shelley

In this article we develop a consensus toward establishing Wild Horses’ as indigenous in America. The truth is that science and good investigative research gives us this factual, and often overlooked information already. Oddly, it is developed from attritional information at archeological dig-sites. It is found within research papers and technical reports, in this case, from woolly mammoth dig-sites up and down the Pacific Coast and somewhat inland.
“However, not all mammoths were woolly tundra-dwellers; in North America, mammoth remains have been found at elevations ranging from sea level to the mountains of the Colorado Plateau, and from Canada to central Mexico. The largest of these, the Columbian mammoth, dwelled in savannas and grasslands like African elephants today, and the smallest—Pygmy Mammoths—lived on the isolated Channel Islands off the California coast.” Gill, Jacquelyn, Scientific America

Found commonly at these archeological dig-sites are wild horse bones, and found in abundance and in accord with many technical reports on this subject matter (inclusive). This is due in part to their similar eating and grazing habits during those times. The problem is the woolly mammoth story is much more interesting and publishable, especially within the pecking-order world of research and archeological discoveries; therefore, the highlights are directly on the woolly mammoth, wild horse bones overlooked in total.

The positive attribute here is the fact we can easily place time-factors on horse bones found at many dig-sites of other mammals as well – and within the documentation of the attritional artifacts. So we can develop an even more accurate time line, by going from one extinct animal to another, then find more information when carbon-dating bones of currently existent animals, with the overlooked horse bones beside them.

Not just animal dig-sites but archeological digs of ancient buildings or townships become of interest to us for the same goal. And as above, these factors when combined, establish a definite wild horse presence in America throughout history, and the more interesting aspect, continuously.

A Walk into the Past

There exist variables, through reasonable explanation, essential evidence to the indigenous nature of wild horses in America. Unfortunately, many articles involved in explaining wild horse history, especially time-line factors, simply repeat the narrow scope of rhetoric presumed as the only historical facts available.

Often these articles attest to research, but indeed are not researched what so ever, simply plagiarized material, and as a safety-net for many writers would have it – repeated information only. Most writer’s simply repeat the somewhat snobbish appeal of the European influence on Archeological finds, specifically about horses, existing nowhere else on our planet but within their European landscape – which, according to them, provided the availability of the wild horse in the America’s (i.e. other rhetorical reasons exist as well, but not mentioned here).

But what we find when perusing scientific research, the facts become overwhelming — evidence that directly opposes the European-only origination of the wild horse. These facts, by this writer’s perspective, creates many questions left unanswered to this day, regarding the matter of the real history of the wild horse and its indigenous nature on the American Continent (this article does not delve into American Indian petroglyphs, carvings, etc…).

Something not to be overlooked, ever — When there become more questions than available answers, that tells us, definably, there exists many things that have been overlooked or neglected within the specific subject and reference materials.

So we can explore such animals as the woolly mammoths, which lived in opened grassland biomes similar to the horse. Bones of wild horses also found within many archeological sites and right beside the woolly mammoth.

Not so ironic the above facts remain a controversy to this day. And yet the controversy not of the horse bones, rather it surrounds the fact of extinction of the woolly mammoth – ironically, no one mentions how the horse survived on this continent for centuries, even though horse bones appear at so many archeological dig-sites, abundantly so – remains one of many more questionable aspect of archeology and subjects to be debated within the science community in the future.

The Question Is?

Yes, controversy in regard to archeological digs, theories, and subject matter are not headline news. So when we see an article, in this case on wild horses and their indigenous nature questioned or stated firmly non-existent, but does not mention the controversy within the science community on the subject (e.g. many archeologist’ believe the indigenous nature of wild horses does exist quite readily in America), then we can assume a grave error committed in fact-collection and research – simply by “things overlooked in their research on the subject” – and then we, as the general public, become victims once again, of incompetence and misleading information.

As outlined within this article, “Wooly mammoth mass accumulation next to the Paleolithic Yana RHS site, Arctic Siberia: its geology, age, and relation to past human activity — Abstract — In 2001, the Yana RHS archaeological site was discovered in the lower Yana river valley, Arctic Siberia. Its radiocarbon age is about 28 000 BP. While enormous amount of Pleistocene mammal bones was excavated from the site, the mammoth bones occurred at an unexpectedly low frequency . . . That was interpreted as an indication of the limited role of mammoths in the subsistence economy of the Pleistocene Yana people. In 2008, next to the excavation local ivory miners opened a mass accumulation of mammoth accompanied by the artifacts. About one thousand mammoth bones from at least 26 individuals, and few wooly rhinoceros, bison, horse, reindeer, and bear bones have been unearthed there. Stratigraphy and radiocarbon dating provide evidence for cultural layer of Yana RHS and the mass accumulation of mammoth to be coeval.”

The truism often overlooked, that at these sites where they discover woolly mammoth bones, they also find horse bones, as stated by many archeologist’s, almost always . . . note how it was simply glossed-over as an insignificant yet attritional development that substantiates the woolly mammoth presence, and the other animals simply incremental details.

This occasion is consistent among many scientific and technical reports and journals. Many times the horse bones, as well as other animal bones and as mentioned previously, are in truth set aside information, although mentioned in the report on the mammoth; and just as often only mentioned in reference of proximity only – this, ironically, often overlooked by those who research the history of the horse, and disregard the timeline that the situation can and does establish, and very well I might add.

But this also establishes the fact of horses coming over the Land Bridge into the America’s, way back when. Then we go to the West Coast of the America’s, the Channel Islands off of the California Coast, and we find further information associated with woolly mammoth digs.

In the West we find bones of the pygmy woolly mammoth – “Summarizing the available radiocarbon chronology of the Channel Island Mammoths, it appears they have been on the islands, in pygmy form, essentially unchanged, for more than 47,000 years (beyond the limits of radiocarbon chronology). It also appears that they may have survived until the early Holocene colonization of the islands by the ancestors of the ancient Chumash people, first recorded between 10,800 and 11,300 years ago,” (i.e. Channel Islands (USA) pygmy mammoths (Mammuthus exilis) compared and contrasted with M. columbi, their continental ancestral stock).

The Woolly Mammoth and the Wild Horse

Whether the general mammoth population died out for climatic reasons or due to overhunting by humans is controversial (controversy discussed in “DNA Shifts Timeline For Mammoths’ Exit” and other science reports).

The fact is the wild horse and the mammoth had similar appetites’, grasses, et al. . . A small population survived on St. Paul Island, Alaska, up until 3750 BC, and the small mammoths of Wrangle Island survived until 1650 BC. Recent research of sediments in Alaska indicates wooly mammoths (i.e. wild horse bones found there as well) survived on the American mainland, but the dates remain controversial – the fact wild horse bones found at these sites simply ignored, as once again the abrupt arrogance of subject matter, more plausible and certain to be published in science journals when highlighting the wooly mammoth rather than the wild horse bones . . .

“Causes of late Quaternary extinctions of large mammals (“megafauna”) continue to be debated, especially for continental losses, because spatial and temporal patterns of extinction are poorly known. Accurate latest appearance dates (LADs) for such taxa are critical for interpreting the process of extinction. The extinction of woolly mammoth and horse in northwestern North America is currently placed at 15,000–13,000 calendar years before present (yr BP), based on LADs from dating surveys of macrofossils (bones and teeth). . . “ (i.e. “Ancient DNA reveals late survival of mammoth and horse in interior Alaska” ).”

Conclusion or The Beginning

So once again the definitive-history is not that at all, but remains controversial. Perhaps the point of this article, when perusing these facts as well, and on your own, you will find several “theories” in regard to the history of the wild horse.

“Theory” remains the key word here, because within the science community, new discoveries and better methodology in establishing time-frames and establishing historical elements of our past develop new perspectives of our past quite often. Only then are new theories developed, then perhaps accepted or not. . . what an odd way to develop history . . .

The history of America’s wild horses’ fall quite nicely within this categorical demise of the old rhetoric, in order to replace the misinformation with the not so much new information at all — but with perseverance to actually study the overall consistent information that already exists within technical and archeological reports, but oh so often overlooked – after all, nobody wants to make waves within our society of today – OR DO WE? It’s past time to do so!


Agenbroad, L.D. 1994. Taxonomy of North American Mammuthus columbi and biometrics of the Hot Springs mammoths. In Agenbroad, L. D. and J. I. Mead (eds.), The Hot Springs Mammoth Site: a decade of field and laboratory research in paleontology, geology, and paleontology: 158-207. The Mammoth Site of Hot Springs, South Dakota, Inc. Hot Springs.

Agenbroad, L.D. 1998. New pygmy mammoth (Mammuthus exilis) localities and radiocarbon dates from San Miguel, Santa Rosa, and Santa Cruz Islands, California. In Weigand, P. (ed.), Contributions to the geology of the Northern Channel Islands, Southern California: 169-175. Bakersfield: Pacific Section of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists.

Agenbroad, L.D., Morris, D. & Roth., V.L. 1999. Pygmy mammoths (M. exilis) from Santa Rosa Island, Channel Islands National Park, California, USA. In Haynes, G., J. Klimowicz and W.F. Reumer (eds.), Mammoths and the Mammoth Fauna: studies of an extinct ecosystem. Proceedings of the First International Mammoth Conference. Deinsea 6: 89-102. St. Petersburg, Russia.

Arslanov, K., Cook, G.T. , Gulliksen, S., Harkness, D.D., Kankainen, T., Scott, E.M., Vartanyan, S., and Zaitseva, G.I. (1998). “Consensus Dating of Remains from Wrangel Island”. Radiocarbon 40 (1): 289–294. Retrieved 2012-03-07.

Vartanyan, S.L.; Kh. A. Arslanov; T. V. Tertychnaya; S. B. Chernov (1995). “Radiocarbon Dating Evidence for Mammoths on Wrangel Island, Arctic Ocean, until 2000 BC”. Radiocarbon (Department of Geosciences, The University of Arizona) 37 (1): pp 1–6. Retrieved 2008-01-10.

Cushing, J.E., Wenner, A.M., Noble, E. & Daly, M. 1986. A groundwater hypothesis for the origin of ‘fire areas’ on the Northern Channel Islands, California. Quaternary Research 26: 207-217.

Haile J, Froese DG, Macphee RD, et al. (December 2009). “Ancient DNA reveals late survival of mammoth and horse in interior Alaska”. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 106 (52): 22352–7. Bibcode:2009PNAS..10622352H. doi:10.1073/pnas.0912510106. PMC 2795395. PMID 20018740. Retrieved 2012-03-07.

Foster, J.B. 1964. Evolution of mammals on islands. Nature 202: 234-235. Mol, D. 1995. Over dwergolifanten endwergmammoeten. Cranium 12: 38-40. Orr, P. 1956. Dwarf mammoths and man on Santa Rosa Island. University of Utah Anthropological Papers 26: 75-81.

Fountain, Henry (22 December 2009). “DNA Shifts Timeline For Mammoths’ Exit”. The New York Times. p. 3. Retrieved 8 August 2010.

Orr, P. 1968. Prehistory of Santa Rosa Island. Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History.
Roth, V.L. 1982. Dwarf mammoth from the Santa Barbara, California Channel Islands: size, shape, development, and evolution. Ph.D. dissertation. New Haven:Yale University.

Roth, V.L. 1996. Pleistocene dwarf elephants from the California Islands. In Shoshani, J. H. and P. Tassy (eds.), The Proboscidea: 249-253. Oxford: University of Oxford Press.

Sondaar, P.Y. 1977. Insularity and its effect on mammal evolution. In Hecht, M.K., P.C. Goody and B.M. Hecht (eds.), Major patterns in vertebrate evolution. NATO Advanced Studies Institute Series 14: 671-707. Stearns, R.E.C. 1973. (brief note) Proceedings of the California Academy of Sciences 5: 152.

Stock, C. & Furlong, E.L. 1928. The Pleistocene elephants of Santa Rosa Island, California. Science LXVIII: 140-141.

Tikhonov, A. 1997. (brief note) Zoological Institute Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg, Russia. Department of History of Fauna. Euromam Newsletter 4: 14-15. Wenner, A.M., Cushing, J., Noble, E. & Daly, M. 1991.
Mammoth radiocarbon dates from the northern Channel Islands, California. Proceedings of the Society for California Archaeology 4: 1-6.

1 Comment

Posted by on June 27, 2014 in Uncategorized


America’s Wild Horse Herd’s and the Endangered Species Act


“The Endangered Species Act is the strongest and most effective tool we have to repair the environmental harm that is causing a species to decline.” Unknown

There is a lot going on in the Wild Horse world of today. Keep in mind one person or one organization cannot, and should not have the ability to develop regulatory systems of management. Many debates exist today on how to legitimately control horse populations on Public Lands – and these many ideas overlook the most significant – Natural Progression.

Often many people and organizations, in order to present their awkward at best agenda, promote a “Styled” population control methodology, that in reality and over the years gave cause to the current mess that exists. A natural habitat, as science finds over and over again, creates population control within a natural circumstance.
But the question remains, how can we protect the Wild Horses in America and on our Public Lands? It is a process, since we as human’s require a process for just about everything we do, which most often stifle’s nature’s natural ability to manage things on its own. We humans have the ability to simply scoff at nature, and not so ironic pretend that we know how to manage nature better than nature does.

We see the results of this particular mind-set daily. Engineers and Accountants slap each other on the back with congratulations at their dynamic designs – which often do nothing more than destroy many natural environments (for profit – e.g. Fracking or oil platforms both terrestrial and marine good examples, but the list is vast).

So onward we go, and when the mention of allowing Wild Horses within a natural habitat to prosper within a natural progression and biosphere, it is shunned ignorantly at best. And yet, within America’s Public Lands it is Grazing Permits of cattle that have shoved Wild Horses into smaller biosphere’s, combined with a government’s lack of knowledge of Wild Horse Herd Management, that have indeed destroyed the natural progression of our Wild Horse populations; which in turn have created Wild Horse Herd overpopulation – but the reality – there exists very few left on our Public Lands.

But the numbers of Wild Horses taken from Public Lands overwhelmingly show beyond doubt, that if continued – in a short time period there will not be any Wild Horse’s left on America’s Public Lands. America’s Heritage Wiped-Out due to Stupidity and an overwhelming Know-It-All-Attitude; that has only created a worse situation, ten times more costly to taxpayer’s as well, that would NOT have happened if the Wild Horse Herds were simply left alone, or to nature’s own means of methodology.

The fact is this – Everything on this planet of our does not have to be managed. Humans have screwed up just about everything we have attempted to manage! The reality is human greed and self-importance has corrupted our natural environment, and is currently destroying it as well.

Endangered Species Act

“If education really educates, there will, in time, be more and more citizens who understand that relics of the old West add meaning and value to the new. Youth yet unborn will pole up the Missouri with Lewis and Clark, or climb the Sierras with James Capen Adams, and each generation in turn will ask: Where is the big white bear? It will be a sorry answer to say he went under while conservationists weren’t looking.” Aldo Leopold, Sand County Almanac

America has the Endangered Species Act. This is a situation that essentially defines whether or not we have managed a species correctly, or handled the situation within an incompetent manner – yes, disregarding the jurisprudence of legal fact, what is left to us is the reality – We as human’s have mismanaged wildlife due to our overwhelming ignorance and often even hatred or apathy toward many select species – the Wild Horse Herds on America’s Public Lands no different — thereby the ESA put into place to clean up our mess of our own creation!

Right now it is Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act that needs our attention. It outlines the requirements for a species to become listed, and according to Law – Protected.

SEC. 4. (a) GENERAL.—

The Secretary shall by regulation promulgated in accordance with subsection (b) determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened species because of any of the following factors:

(A) the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
(C) disease or predation;
(D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.

With respect to any species over which program responsibilities have been vested in the Secretary of Commerce pursuant to Reorganization Plan Numbered 4 of 1970—

(A) in any case in which the Secretary of Commerce determines that such species should—
(i) be listed as an endangered species or a threatened species, or
(ii) be changed in status from a threatened species to an endangered species,
he shall so inform the Secretary of the Interior, who shall list such species in accordance with this section –

ESA Process In Review (Summation of Government Documentation)

Section 4 is the most extensive part of the Endangered Species Act. It spans a spectrum of activities beginning with how we identify species in need of the ESA’s protection, to their removal from the lists of endangered and threatened species, once recovery goals are achieved.

Whether initiated by the Service, or by concerned citizens, listing a species is not an arbitrary process. In order to evaluate whether a plant or animal should be listed as endangered or threatened, five factors are considered using the best scientific and commercial information available.

The process of listing a species is initiated in two ways. In the first process by which species may receive protection under the Endangered Species Act, the Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service identify species for listing through internal assessment of their status.

These assessments routinely incorporate information from scientific literature, Federal and State natural resource agencies, universities, and commercial sources.

If the assessment concludes that there is sufficient information on a species’ biological vulnerability and level of exposure to threats to justify listing, a proposed rule to list the species will be developed.

However, if the development of a proposed rule is precluded by other higher priority listing activities, the species becomes a candidate for listing until such time as a proposed rule can be prepared.

Candidate species are identified in a document called the Candidate Notice of Review, published annually in the Federal Register.

Identification of candidate species and the threats affecting them assists environmental planning efforts in the following ways:

• by providing advance notice of potential listings;
• prompting landowners and resource managers to alleviate threats; and
• possibly conserving these species so that listing is unnecessary.

Candidate species do not receive any protection under the ESA, but are nevertheless a high conservation priority for the Service.

If a candidate species is subsequently listed, the information provided in the Candidate Notice of Review will have identified threats and can help guide specific actions for the species’ recovery.

The other way that plants and animals may receive the protections of the Endangered Species Act is by a request from a private citizen or organization that petitions the Fish and Wildlife Service, or the National Marine Fisheries Service to list a species.

The petition must provide appropriate documentation of the reasons a plant or animal needs the ESA’s protection.

To the maximum extent practical, within 90 days of receiving the petition, the Services make an initial response or finding and publish it in the Federal Register.

This 90-day finding has two possible outcomes:

If the Service determines that the petition does not present substantial information indicating that the petitioned actions may be warranted, the listing process stops;

The 90-day finding may conclude that the petition presents substantial information indicating that a listing action may be warranted.

In this second scenario, the Service proceeds with the listing process by collecting and evaluating additional information about the species for a 12-month petition finding.

In developing the 12-month finding, the Service conducts a status review that includes seeking additional information about the species from other Federal agencies, States, Tribes, natural resource organizations, universities, commercial sources, and the public.

The objective is to compile as much information about the species and its status as possible, and make a determination whether the species meets the definition of threatened or endangered.

The 12-month finding has three possible outcomes:

If the Service determines listing is not warranted, the process stops;
If the Service determines that listing is warranted, the next step is the preparation of a proposed rule to list the species;
When the proposed rule is published in the Federal Register, the general public is invited to provide comments, and peer review is conducted.

If it is determined that a species needs protection under the ESA, a final rule is published in the Federal Register within the next year.

It is the publication of a final rule that places a species on the lists of endangered and threatened animals and plants.

Sometimes there are not enough budgetary or staff resources to proceed further in the listing process than the 12-month finding, in light of other species that have greater conservation needs and take higher priority for listing.

In these instances, the 12-month finding may conclude that a listing is warranted but precluded by higher listing priorities.

In these situations, a species is considered a candidate for listing.

Thus, whether originating by internal agency status reviews or the petition process, species of plants or animals that warrant listing but are precluded from completing that process due to higher priority listing actions are referred to by the Services as candidate species.

And again, while these candidate species receive no protection under the ESA, a key goal of the Services’ candidate conservation efforts is to encourage actions that will preclude the need to list these species.

To assist this effort, both the Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service have developed programs to begin conserving these species while they are waiting to be listed.

Removing or reducing threats to candidate plants and animals is accomplished through specific conservation actions.
Often, these actions are identified in conservation agreements.

Our partners for these agreements are usually other Federal agencies, States, or individual landowners who have an appreciation of our nation’s biological heritage and a desire to be part of the solution to a species’ problems.

Restoring candidate species to ecological health also has the advantage of not being regulatory in approach and generally is less expensive than recovering species and their habitats, once listed.

Though we have discussed the petition process as it applies to listing a species, under the ESA the Services may also be petitioned to delist or reclassify threatened and endangered species, and to revise critical habitat.


As exemplified above, once again we run across the not so complimentary “Process” that simply conducts on odd strain of chaos toward “Humankind versus Nature” syndrome. Whether or not the Wild Horse Herds fit within this context of meandering special interest situations (or those in opposition) as outlined within this process, it will remain a due-diligence matter of concern.

In this journalists’ mind it is an odd situation for several reasons, but first and foremost remains the “reality” — the numbers of Wild Horses are diminishing rapidly. Due to present numbers, it is quite obvious something has to be done; whether within our “human” process of articulating the matter into being significant — or following a process of priority within a cold and arbitrary reasoning methodology toward listing them as Endangered.

But no matter the ideology, America’s Heritage, the Wild Horses on our Public Lands are endangered – and this writer needs no prescribed process to acknowledge this critical situation.

Frankly, many American’s have had enough of those who manage our Public Land and America’s wildlife by those who either have no idea on how to manage either situation, or profoundly conduct their decision making arbitrarily toward lobby groups or political agenda.

The time is NOW, for American’s to Stand and make those responsible for managing America’s Lands’ just that, making them America’s Lands’ rather than corporate land!


Posted by on June 22, 2014 in Uncategorized


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 500 other followers