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.

1 Comment

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


WILD HORSES AS AN INDIGINOUS SPECIES: One Introspective – Part 1 Nature


“The historical sense involves a perception, not only of the pastness of the past, but of its presence”
― T.S. Eliot, Four Quartets

To resolve the situation of the Wild Horses of today, to form an informational basis to establish the American Wild Horse (i.e. currently the Mustang) in the Western United States as an Indigenous Species, remains the objective of this series of articles. Ultimately, upon resolving the issues of Indigenous Species we can then, and only then, establish an Endangered Species status for the Wild Horses on America’s Public Lands. This will defend America’s Heritage, from greed and destruction — The Wild Horse.

This series of articles will aspire toward intellectual history as well as develop a literary analysis or cultural history of the Mustang. The basis for this two-fold:

1. Much of the literal history of the Wild Horse in the Western United States has been, and continues to be overlooked, or simply passed off as innuendo;

2. Modern industrial agendas and economics remain definitive within the scope of “Uncceptability” or to not place the Wild Horse within the category of Indigenous, due to unsound and irresponsible monetary reasoning that prohibits their inclusion.

The arguable situation, most often quoted in reports, legends, and research: Ancient species of horses had existed in North America many thousands of years ago, but they became extinct long before the ancestors of American Indians arrived on the continent. Thousands of years later, modern horses were brought to North America by Europeans.

This type of innuendo lacks credibility and definition in the matter of Wild Horse history in the United States. It also contradicts many references, whether bones, hieroglyphics, etc., found in areas within the Western United States,

Counter to Present Day Perspective: Today, as usual with myth and misinformation, the perusal of documents, research, and articles of the history show beyond a doubt Wild Horses existed within the United States (the Americas) much earlier than thought. The European’s were not the ambassadors of the Wild Horse’s as claimed, rather their breeds (i.e. Arab, et al.) simply intermixed with the Wild Horses already in Western America, well referenced but ironically the material ignored.

In reality Wild Horses’ already populated the Western Americas in the 6th century thru the 16th Centuries. The 16th century is when humankind began to write about horses, but indirectly; yes written records only, rather than the American Indian’s form of history (oral history passed from one tribe historian to another, and drawings, etc.), was recognized back then. Unfortunate for the history of the horse, most of the historical attributes of that era were either in error, totally fiction, or totally true – no gray areas. As usual in cases such as this, the untruth is often more glamorous, dramatic, or useful to those who profit from information manipulation. History never changes within this aspect of record keeping over the ages.

Within an irresponsible manner, severe prejudice and ignorance stepped forward, and the history of the Wild Horse recorded by (or socially acceptable and classified) civilized human’s only (historical description, not mine); this simply developed into written records and history from only a select few writer’s, whether credible or not, as long as they were of a civilized human writing the information — (note: makes one wonder about much more of our history in America, judging what’s acceptable compared to unacceptable, or what was considered humane compared to savage). After reading much of the historical records, and background of record origination, this situation alone, it can be said, decimated the history of Wild Horses, that is, until today.

Petroglyphs and Cave Paintings

Cave paintings’ as well as rock carvings and hieroglyphs’ remain common-finds within the Western United States. Many people who hike trails, explore caves, and spend time on rivers or hiking the banks of rivers and streams, often locate American Indian signs – communications – their history.

This subject is not contained within this article, but will be the subject of a later article, as references plentiful but require interpretation and a little positive limelight for a change. The significance of the American Indian history, accomplished in art-form, drawings, and carvings remain a substantial reference to the items within all articles on Wild Horses. These references mirror one another quite responsibly and ironically mostly ignored. Why? Hopefully, this question will be answered soon.

But one item, of many, is assured, that the American Indian form of communication is a wholesome and true exhibit of history. There exist no manipulative agendas or ideologies, nothing but the truth. Horses are a significant part of Indian history, just as in the land-growth aspects within American history – a Heritage that should not be passed-off or forgotten, but placed within an iconic prestigious element of our humane growth as a people on this planet.

“. . . he surveys the human relationship to nature, from 10,000 B.C. until 100 A.D., and concludes that, in contrast to totemic hunter society, the Judeo-Christian world view was “a virtually perfect rationalization of agriculture” as a system of production and ground of existence.” (Max Oelschlaeger. The Idea of Wilderness: From Prehistory to the Age of Ecology. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1991, 353 pp. + notes.)

So if we assume that something used so robustly, as the horse was used within farming, industry, and day to day use as we would an automobile or any other tool, then we only begin to understand the problem of establishing the Wild Horse as indigenous and within a literal as well as an Iconic circumstance.

“. . . to the Renaissance and the Industrial Revolution, which he characterizes together as “modernism.” As used here, this term roughly means instrumental thought after Galileo and Descartes, as developed by classical physics and laissez-faire economics . . .” (Ibid. . .)

Standards of Our Industrial Nation

A Contemporary Wilderness Philosophy” attacks the “resources” rampant in western society, which treats nature as raw material, and offers a range of alternative philosophies: preservationism, biocentrism, ecocentrism, and deep ecology. We can bring together these strains into “a postmodern wilderness philosophy” that can, indeed, help develop a more humane venture for a true civilized society. This type of situation can build upon compassion, respect, and kindness toward fellow human’s, domestic animals, and wildlife alike. The Wild Horse then becomes a significant Icon within this perspective.

In this account national differences are of little significance; the American experience was, in the 16th century especially, seen as an extension of European developments until the twentieth century, and when the voices of Thoreau and Muir were first really heard – thought essentially become more free, becoming that of ideology turning into reality. Not so coincidental with the Wild Horses, English carry-over mostly neglected the history of the horse as bland and even perhaps redundant and insignificant.

Then the growth spurt of the American west, gold and oil; which before then only moderate growth experienced; it was the horse, not inclusive of the Wild Horse Herds yet, that were considered iconic within a necessity-perspective for transportation and farming, similar to the car or tractor of the later period of industrialized America.

Conclusion to Part 1 Nature

The Wild Horse remained symbolic of nature, an uncontrolled freedom, not to be tamed or harnessed, but allowed to roam. This eventually turned into another ideology, modernism rears up again to capture nature, to suspend freedom and at the same time grasp and destroy if not able to control — toward utility or profit.

The wars started over land-grabs, railroads, timber, highways, industrial use over farms, cities to be made to develop enough people gathered into one place to work at these industries, and on and on — simply overwhelmed nature, and especially the Wild Horse – and the fact is, quite obvious, no one cared about the Wild Horse enough to establish a detailed history.

This was the stuff of poetry, the ideology of what Nature was back then — and then industrial society reared its tarnished ideologies of profit, of industrialized corporate structure, of modernism, of elitist society, of criminal politicians. The Wild Horse becomes a non-virtue and unneeded any longer, a throw-away to be sacrificed — and many people, at that time, simply assumed they were in the way of modernism or progressive behavior. The Wild Horse shunned in an odd contempt within the virtues of the Pioneering Past versus America’s Evolutionary Future.

This article as well as the articles to follow, strongly suggests a new epoch in human thought is upon us. It is solely based upon a vision rooted in earth consciousness, a rediscovery of the wisdom of the ages, known to primal peoples across the face of the earth during the Paleolithic era … a world in which computer technicians might walk in autumn with migrating elk.”

We, as a people within this society, within this social spectrum of ongoing event, must contend that the wilderness ideology is not a romantic anachronism; rather, it is the idea of wilderness necessary to help us all, as a society, to transcend the ideology of “modernism” and reestablish an organic connection to nature. Wild Horses, among much other wildlife, do this quite well.

To preserve the Wild Horse as an icon, allowing them to run free over America’s Public Lands, is merely an image currently. We can make this a reality with a little work, and a little perseverance, but above all, with a lot of intelligence and a lot of American’s to speak up and preserve our National Heritage – The Wild Horse. . .
References Cited

Aplet, G.H. “On the Nature of Wildness: Exploring What Wilderness Really Protects”, Denver
University Law Review. 76 (1999):347-367.

Ayres, R.U. “Limits to Growth Paradigm”, Ecological Economics, 19 (1996):117-134.
Bergstrom, J.C. and J.B. Loomis. “Economic Dimensions of Ecosystem Management”,
Chapter 11 in Cordell H.K. and J.C. Bergtrom (Editors), Integrating Social
Sciences with Ecosystem Management. Champaign, IL: Sagamore Press (1999).

Cleveland, C.J. “Reallocating Work Between Human and Natural Capital in Agriculture:
Examples from India and the United States”, in Jansson, A.M. et al. (Editors),
Investing in Natural Capital. Washington: Island Press (1994).

Costanza, R. and H.E. Daly. “Natural Capital and Sustainable Development”,
Conservation Biology, 6 (1992):37-46.

Constanza, R. et al., “The Value of World’s Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital”,
Nature, 387 (1997):253-260.

Daly, H.E. and J. Cobb, Jr. For the Common Good. Boston: Beacon Press (1996).
England, R.W. “Natural Capital and the Theory of Economic Growth”, Ecological Economics,
34 (2000):425-431.

Godfrey-Smith, W. “The Value of Wilderness”, Environmental Ethics. Winter (1979):309-319.
Hammond, J.L. “Wilderness and Heritage Values”, Environmental Ethics, Summer (1985):

Loomis, J.B. and R. Richardson. Economic Values of Wilderness in the United States.
Morton, P. “The Economic Benefits of Wilderness: Theory and Practice”, Denver
University Law Review. 76 (1999):465-518.

Noss, R. F. “Soul of the Wilderness”, International Journal of Wilderness, August (1996):3-8.
Oelschlaeger, M. The Idea of Wilderness: From Prehistory to the Age of Ecology. New Haven:
Yale University Press (1991).

Rolston, H. “Valuing Wildlands”, Environmental Ethics, Spring (1985):23-48.

Russell, K., J.C. Hendee and S. Cooke. “Social and Economic Benefits of a U.S. Wilderness
Experience Program for Youth-at-Risk in the Federal Job Corps”, International
Journal of Wilderness, December (1998):2-8.


Posted by on June 14, 2014 in Uncategorized


BLM Conspiracy, Contradictions, Collusion — 29 Wild Horses Dead — Who Killed the Wild Horses


“What we are doing to the forests of the world is but a mirror reflection of what we are doing to ourselves and to one another.” -― Mahatma Gandhi

There simply comes a time when questions need to be answered (REVIEW: 29 Dead Wild Horses in Murderer’s Creek Capture Report, BLM Cover Up, Again – review at: by the Bureau of Land Management and their incompetent management of America’s Heritage, the Wild Horse Herds on Our Public Lands.

Keep the interview in mind below, when reading the remainder of the article, also keep in mind the only reason many of the BLM employees still around today, and within management, is due to this investigation below being called off, in the early 1990′s, and over 2,000 Felony Warrants, and over 1,000 Misdemeanor Warrants for arrest were canceled as well — the reasoning, the BLM just too large to serve that many warrants!:

“Agent: Is this a pretty good organization? This sounds like something that’s pretty well planned out, it’s a big organization.

Informant: Well, its very well set up, you know. There’s nobody that participates in it that isn’t well known and don’t know what’s going on.

Agent: Do you feel like there’s people inside the BLM that know about this practice, that are a part of this practice?
Informant: Sure. We can’t operate unless they’re standing there.”

(For the entire informative packet and interview see Horses Led To Slaughter, Anatomy of a Cover Up in the Wild Horse and Burro Program, PEER White Paper, Number 14, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, Washington D.C. 20009-1125)

Environmental Assessments

But we delve further into this chaos and discover the Environmental Assessments, at Murderer’s Creek, Oregon and that assume roundups of Wild Horses necessary. But as usual, we find the information fraudulent and misinformed at best. The BLM’s assessment, their Wild Horse Count numbers for example, certainly in error.

“Based on the current estimated population (2012 population inventory) of 213 adult wild horses for the Murderer’s Creek HMA, it has been determined there are 113 animals in excess of the objective herd size of 100 horses set in the RMP/ROD and 2007 HMAMP. The amount of excess wild horses is determined by subtracting the current estimated population by the objective herd size of 100 horses.” (from the BLM EA and Project Plan)

“The BLM needs to remove at least 113 excess wild horses currently within the HMA to achieve AML. This assessment is based on the following factors including, but not limited to:

2012 population estimates for the HMA indicate there are 113 wild horses in excess of the herd size objective of 100 horses as described in the John Day Resource Management Plan/Final EIS. Page 2 of 93 [Author's NOTE: Very Questionable.]

Use by wild horses is exceeding the forage allocated to their use by approximately 110 percent based on the objective herd size of 100 animals.” (i.e. see BLM EA) [NOTE: this has been proven to be untrue.]

Then we run across yet another conundrum, Forestry versus BLM information! It’s definitely unclear how many horses are roaming the Malheur (i.e. Murderer’s Creek HMA, et al). Forestry officials have estimated the population at about 400, but the count done in January 2008 found only 115 horses. So according to this published data, by the forestry, how can a “good” decision be made? Especially based on the over-population circumstance given to the public by the BLM or Forestry, within either one of their Environmental Assessments and need for roundups at Murderer’s Creek?

The Forest Service believes that count is low, and says in documents that there are between 200 and 250 animals on the forest. The Stouts (Welfare Rancher’s who want to place more of their cattle on Public Lands via Permit) challenge that number and call for the population to be reduced to 100 horses, the number set by the area’s 1975 Wild Horse Plan — not the WH&B ACT for HMA’s, but the BLM’s Plant. You can start to see the confusion just within their few statement here and within their documents — A Conquer By Confusion psychology, if you will, and make lots of money from taxpayer’s!

Keep in mind these conflicting reports, and numbers specifically, cost the taxpayer’s money, in the $ millions of dollars — if not $ billions. This is due to falsification of numbers, numbers and counts established on political agendas rather than correct data bases; or just outright favoring the friends and neighbors of BLM within a given area in order to make money (sometimes things are very obvious and simple):

. . . in this case the private contractors who were hired by BLM to complete a Bait and Trap roundup of wild horses – ultimately killing 29 wild horses, at a cost of $29,000 dollars to do so and from taxpayer money! Disgusting, isn’t it! [NOTE: this roundup pays $1,000 per horse - dead or alive. No one checks for circumstance, or is in the area checking for honesty, from the BLM.]

BLM currently, the Supervisor in charge of the Private Contractors, did not know about the 29 Dead Horses until the estimates and counts (received by us via FOIA) were delivered, and mentioned by us to him! Yet one supervisor claims all horses had to be delivered to Prineville, Oregon BLM Corrals for count to be paid? Yet he claims only 3 dead horses in 2 years have died there? Many questions exist here, yet go unanswered — 29 dead horses and $29,000 paid out to contractors! Your Money!

Is this falsification of Voucher’s (for $29,000 and certainly a Felony)? Or, is the Supervisor covering up something else, more expensive and more costly to the taxpayer’s?

Controversy and Reality of a True Assessment

The Murderers Creek herd became the focus of controversy in 2006. The area supports cattle, wild horses, elk and other wildlife, as well timber extraction, recreation and streams that are spawning grounds for threatened steelhead and bull trout. A series of lawsuits challenged grazing permits on the forest, and claimed cattle grazing was degrading salmon-bearing streams (basically riparian areas being destroyed by cattle).

An injunction was granted in the spring of 2008, cattle were taken off of grazing allotments on the Malheur (i.e. Murderer’s Creek areas). The Welfare Rancher’s, cattle ranchers from Dayville, Oregon, were told they could no longer graze cattle on their 62,000-acre allotment along Murderers Creek and nearby Deer Creek, due to destruction of Public Lands and riparian area (biosphere) damage.

The Welfare Rancher’s then, with no consideration toward taxpayer money, and the subsidies that they receive for grazing Public Lands (taxpayer based subsidies), only qualification was their BLM Grazing Permits, blamed the Wild Horses.

The Federal Court hearing cost the taxpayers in the millions, over several years of time. The final demand by the Court, the Federal Court Judge stated clearly that innuendo and lies involved in the proceedings against the Wild Horses were untrue, they did not devastate the surrounding riparian areas – rather it was the cattle that created the ongoing damages. It was then stated that a settlement had to occur, or else!

Outstanding and Daunting facts of scientific research (plentiful) contradicted, and still contradicts BLM’s Environmental Assessment’s directly, as well as the truthful necessity toward any of their roundups. Many grassland and terrestrial biological studies have found 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 by far.

The degradation is apparent throughout the Malheur (i.e. Murderer’s Creek HMA) where cattle are grazed, and especially where horses are not present. Then we discover one of the testimonies’ to be deranged at best – the individual testified that he seen numerous horse-hoof prints along the stream beds at Murderer’s Creek, but photos in Court clearly showed the prints to be made from grazing cattle (the Judge at the hearing simply nodded and shook head, rolled eyes, in disbelief, once again).

Often where the issue is about horse impacts on grazing areas, several research studies seldom separate cattle from the horses, and generate their report by “hooved livestock” which also ironically include deer and Elk. Yes, wild horse herds have paid dearly in this situation, even though innocent.

But the studies that do separate wild horses (for example) from cattle, do find that low elevation plots where horses do roam and graze, did exhibit notably greater plant species richness, higher percentage of cover, and abundance of grasses and shrubs. The study’s also established that at higher elevations, meadows protected from once grazing cattle (on Public Lands) grew 4.5 times higher than normal, and much faster as well.

BLM’s Fabrication of FACT’S

After perusing the many scientific studies and research, that is good science and not just because it is agreeable to advocate’s, but because the data is based on thorough research and facts, and the researcher’s well respected within their fields of study. Just a tid-pit note here — Today, many of the respected and well experienced researcher’s are contradicting much of the information BLM and Forestry are currently giving to the public and taxpayer’s.

But the contradictions, and there exist many with both the BLM and the Forestry, for the need for Wild Horse Herd Roundups, become nothing more than money makers for both, and to include local neighbors and friends., and corporations and either coercion or intimidation tactics from Welfare Rancher’s toward government employees! Yes, this burdensome situation adds to even more cost from taxpayer money — the mom and pop ranchers no longer exist, the cut-throat and the hell with everyone — and the rancher’s perception that they deserve entitlements “just because” (so they suppose) is the Public Lands rancher of today! Make no doubt of this!

So now we go to the Policy Statement and Abstract of the BLM’s EA

Purpose and Need — The purpose of the proposed action is to gather and remove wild horses in excess of AML on the Murderer’s Creek HMA. This action is necessary to achieve and maintain a population size within the established AML, protect rangeland resources from further deterioration associated with the current overpopulation, and restore a thriving natural ecological balance and multiple use relationship on public lands in the area consistent with the provisions of Section 1333(b)(2) of the WFRHBA of 1971. (reference — U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-OR-P040-2011-0048-EA Murderer’s Creek HMA Wild Horse Gather Plan . . . )

[IN REALITY: the roundups do none of what is mentioned here and hereafter within the EA and toward any type of environmental resolution – indeed, taxpayer’s and wild horses lose again]!

What is especially found troubling here is: “. . . protect rangeland resources from further deterioration associated with the current overpopulation, . . “ (meaning horses) and BLM and Forestry’s recommendations to remove horses, with no legitimate science that will backup their claim — although keep in mind, an Environmental Assessment supposedly is predicated on the fact of making decisions based upon good science – BLM’s policy and the biggest of all THEIR LIES – And because of the inadequate and confusing context of their EA’s, the least approachable, but the most costly in taxpayer money and death of wild horses!


There is no use in reading Environmental Assessments from either of these agencies. Not only are they erroneous, based of falsified or troubling research, but remain misleading within the context of the subject matter. It can appear they know what they are doing, but proof-positive shows differently when action taken upon their misinformation and lies to the Public. Reasoning and common sense is totally out the window, all the while making decisions on such trivial pursuits of misinformation.

Once again the American Public, taxpayer’s, are being ripped off by fabrication of facts, lies, criminality, and innuendo. The truth of the matter is these government agencies strongly feel they can not only get away with it, but have gotten away with it up to this point in time.

To suggest Senators and Congressmen to take action is, and remains, an understatement! An election is up and coming in November, and it is time that these politician’s take action – not promises, but ACTION NOW – AS TAXPAYER’S AND THE AMERICAN PUBLIC ARE SIMPLY TIRED OF BEING RIPPED OFF OF THEIR MONEY AND PUBLIC LANDS!


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: Forum 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 page 10

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.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 480 other followers