RSS

Wild Horses and Our Environment Together — Knowledge and Understanding Works

imagesCA6A7YRE

“Any fool can know. The point is to understand.” ― Albert Einstein

As Wild Horse Advocates, can any of us claim to not share this concern? By choice and by what we place emphasis upon, are we not environmentalists as well? We are! Unfortunately, societal awareness is grossly influenced by emotionalism and the misrepresentations often made by various special interest groups, to include some animal welfare groups as well. This has resulted in environmental concerns and advocacies which are highly variable among individuals and groups.

The actions of extremists and the association of environmentalism with extremists’ viewpoints have caused some to not claim membership in the environmentalism movement. Although many of us do claim the situation of “Oneness – Wildlife, People, and our Environment as One Entity” as a Universal Truth toward cohabitation, the stigma remains. But some people reject the situation, as the introduction of such environmental hazards as PZP, or cattle enhancing steroids, and other chemicals of a hazardous nature into our natural environment – which wreaks havoc with many ecological systems and the wildlife contained within them. The Wild Horses now a good example of this. . .

The roots of modern environmentalism can be traced to George Perkins Marsh and his book Man and Nature, first published in 1864, which provided extensive documentation that man was in the process of making global and often permanent changes in the “balance of nature” (Ehrenfield 1970, Stegner 1990).

Marsh described the effects of mass deforestation on the land, streams, wildlife and fish and was responsible for establishing the broad features of the natural resources conservation ideology. He wrote of two ways of restoring natural “harmony”: protection alone and protection plus additional planned interference with biological and non-biological parts of the ecosystem to achieve a desired result. – (authors note) Currently, the desired result is to enhance nature and our environment, and all things inclusive – neglect none!

It was not until 1933, when Aldo Leopold published Game Management, that an approach became practical. This was the beginning of modern wildlife management as practiced today. Whether or not Aldo Leopold ideologies have indeed been followed through, within every aspect of its primary structured plans, currently remains debatable; but the basis is sound and workable if done so correctly.

Recent opinion surveys indicate that a majority of Americans believe that the poor quality of the environment is one of our most serious national problems, more than homelessness and unemployment. If the environment protected, American’s favor among other things, limiting economic development, change our consumptive habits, decreasing government regulations and leave natural Ecosystems natural. Taxpayers make it clear, and say they will support politicians who support such these types of measures (Gilbert 1990). “Quality of life” has become a major concern to many, and the quality of life of our natural environment and wild life as well, and to many Americans’.

One inherent problem is the majority of the American public realizes that government agency policy-makers and some research biologists – do assume many American’s ignorant about wildlife, and some even state within a condescending manner, that many people think that virtually every wildlife species is on the brink of extinction. These are the type of policy-makers and biologists that American’s does not need. American’s tend to be more educated, and stand firm on realistic observation and experience more so than academic-snobs can understand – We know and acknowledge there does exist, within a reality complex, that many animals are on the verge of extinction and government agencies do not want to do anything about the situation — unless forced to do so.

Though government agency reasoning untrue, it is still a resource management ideology none the less, as we see in many future plans for our Public Lands. In reality, there is a growing aversion to wildlife management activities that involve the killing of wildlife. It is becoming deeply rooted within American’s minds, especially taxpayers that pay for the continual environmental mess government agencies profoundly continue to accomplish in their attempts to fix the previous mess they made from that previous mess.

Conclusively — The future of wildlife management is in our hands, the American people. It is shown time and again that government agencies simply do not have the proper management potential to manage our public lands appropriately. What are we—you and I—going to do?

Environmental concerns and the resultant demands and restrictions on wildlife management and ideologies, and the many activities, will certainly increase. The animal welfare issue will grow larger, thankfully. Open Debate Platforms more assuredly resolve problems, compared to the behind-the-closed-door paradigms that exist today.

Wildlife management actions will increasingly be influenced by American taxpayers, Environmentalists, and Wild Life Advocates. Biological rational will prevail if only we, American’s, take charge and become involved – especially within land planning and wildlife decision making.

Whether it does or not will depend on how effective we are at reasoning and at the same time demand proper wildlife management. We must continue to be proactive in our concerns for the environment and animal welfare together. Government agencies must understand that management decisions are predicated on these concerns.
________________________

References and Material Perused

Ehrenfield, D. W. 1970. Biological conservation. Holt, Rhinehart and Winston, Inc., New York. 226pp.

Gilbert, B. 1990. Earth day plus 20, and counting. Smithsonian 21. 8pp.

Gilbert, F. F., and D. G. Dodds. 1987. The philosophy and practice of wildlife management. Krieger Publ., Malabar, Fla. 279pp.

Goldfarb, T. D. 1983. Taking sides: clashing views on controversial environmental issues. Dushkin Publ., Guilford, Conn. 311pp.

Mish, F. C, chief ed. 1986. Webster’s ninth collegiate dictionary. Merriam-Webster Inc., Springfield, Mass. 1563pp.

Odell, R. 1980. Environmental awakening. Ballinger, Cambridge, Mass. 330pp.

Reich, C. A. 1970. The greening of America. Random House, New York. 399pp.

Schmidt, R. H. 1989. Animal welfare and wildlife management. Trans. North Amer. Wildl. and Natur. Resour. Conf. 54:468-475.

_______. 1990. Why do we debate animal rights? Wildl. Soc. Bull. 18:459-461. Stegner, W. 1990. It all began with conservation. Smithsonian 21. 9pp

 
3 Comments

Posted by on November 18, 2014 in Uncategorized

 

WILD HORSES – PZP – BAD SCIENCE – AND LIES / AN EDITORIAL COMMENT – REFERENCED

1545031_649920625064634_1390514084_n

“The heaviest penalty for declining to rule is to be ruled by someone inferior to yourself.”
― Plato, The Republic

We have several situations ongoing between those who disfavor PZP, and those who favor PZP, within Horse Advocacy and sound Ecological Practices. So let’s start with an often quoted situation – From the East Coast and Assateague. This brought to light after perusing those scientists involved in the also often quoted NRC paper from the National Academy of Science, or as many legitimate research scientists phrase it — AKA Bogus Science and Profiteering Stampeding Their Way into Wild Horse Country!

What we are finding is the scientists involved, most of them, academic and from CPSU units within a college environment, directly attached to government grants on a consistent basis, and most at colleges that cater to ranching and Big AG agriculture support dynamics, did have conflict of interest motives – ALL!

“Because the “limits” put upon the NRC committee by the wild horse law are what they are, and because these are basically mainstream scientists drawn out of academia, it is entirely logical that they would recommend regulating wild horse and burro populations, in their words, “with science”.

But what kind of science, one might ask? Well, the fact is, it’s the same brand of science, and scientific
minds in today’s academia, that has failed the domesticated horse.”

“We’re talking about scientists who serve the special interests of government and its lobbyists, the agricultural and pharmaceutical industries, and so forth, that have given us drugs and feeds and management practices that cause laminitis and other metabolic breakdowns of the horse. Indeed, it is all profitable for the very community that has created this “science based” disaster for horses. I’m not just spewing words here without foundation, horses truly suffer for it, and it is this bad science and corresponding harmful equine management practices that have given birth to and fueled the internationally burgeoning NHC movement spearheaded by the AANHCP. That is a fact — and it is a fact also that these scientists, and the special interests that fund them, refuse to embrace NHC because what we do and advocate for gets directly to the bottom of their — ethics –- profiteering — and slavish academic close-minded-ness.”

Then we go to the so often quoted and ironic “positive situation of “. . . Assateague, in fact, was not good science, any more than what has happened to those horses long before the government’s study. It catered to the drug industry and the same eugenics science that the U.S. and British governments sanctioned and used against their own people during the greater part of the 20th century (up to the 1960s and 70s), and that was astutely “borrowed” from by Nazi Germany for its extermination campaigns to rid the world of “undesirables”. Just as tactfully, and just as predictably, the NRC authors stated that predation behavior was not viable, ignoring Dr. John Turner’s mountain lion predation studies referenced in many books, and one very prominent “The Natural Horse and Paddock Paradise”, and which proved the viability of natural predation on wild horse herds. Of course, the reason that natural mountain lion (and wolf) predation “won’t work”, and which the NRC report fails to explain, is because BLM management practices have provided for their extermination and/or removal under welfare ranching pressure that deflects the truth of what’s happening within their grandfathered land leases born of the Taylor Grazing Act and the BLM’s conception.”

“I also gleaned the biographies of each scientist to see if there were personal conflicts of interest, what kind of understanding they would bring to the table regarding horse care based on their education and training, and if they seemed like “clear minded” people who could think outside the box in the best interest of any horse, wild or domesticated. My opinion is that our wild horses are in trouble if their recommendations are followed.”

“The reader should know, it is the science community that has recently aided and abetted the government (the EPA) in reclassifying wild horses legally as “pests” so that the pesticide PZP can be used on them for birth control purposes. You see, the NRC report is no surprise, as its convoluted “commandments” have been systematically orchestrated and colluded with by just about everyone in sight, including — and I am sad to say — nearly every purported “wild horse protection” group and sanctuary in the United States. Many of these groups stand to “gain” from this collusion, including the HSUS that co-owns patent rights to PZP.”

“Tax payers can expect to pay more, not less, as they watch the wild horse herds deteriorate genetically
under the government’s eugenics program of selective sterilization and contraception,
which will be driven by profit and the corporate land/resource grab that wants no protected wild
horses in the way. In fact, the report cautions that “public confidence” and trust will be an important
part of any solution. Inundating tax payers with scientific “word salad” that few can understand,
is understood. Clearly, the public does not understand the underlying issues, except what
they hear in the news. From that vantage point, this does not bode well for our wild horses either.”

One thing is certain here, the fact that the BLM is attempting to cover up their mess, by once again making another mess – this time with support from a few Advocates and other supporters with good intention in mind, but have indeed been deceived! A white paper will follow this, and references quoted that have been used here – The fact is, the PZP should have been rejected long ago, and the natural process developed and managed properly, would by now be well on the way to positive attribute to Wild Horses and our Environment Systems – but BLM and DOI, and other profiteering individuals would have been reduced in personnel, and methodology of cloaking and covering up monetary scams ripping taxpayer money off would have disappeared altogether.

_________________________

Reference: “Using Science to Improve the BLM Wild Horse and Burro Program: A Way Forward (2013)
Report of the National Resource Council of the National Academy of Sciences” AKA Bogus Science and Profiteering Stampeding Their Way into Wild Horse Country by Jaime Jackson, AANHCP Executive Director, June 9, 2013.

 
7 Comments

Posted by on November 5, 2014 in Uncategorized

 

Wild Horses Should Remain on America’s Public Lands — Those Taken Placed Back Onto America’s Public Lands

10365906_595784773860704_3079160711500036573_n

To know what is right and not do it is the worst cowardice. — Confucius

** BLM & Welfare Ranchers, Horses & Taxpayers! **
~ “We demand Wild Horses be placed back onto Public Lands” ~

HERE IS WHAT I FAVOR — Whether it be right now, or wafting for the new stream of incoming and reelected legislators — Due to the rapid increase of the Bureau of Land Management appeasing not even 1% of the taxpaying Public, in truth ignoring 99% of the taxpaying American, and mismanaging America’s Public Lands so incompetently and badly, and within such a narrow scope, We as Americans, and I speak for many, Demand the Following:

1. We demand Wild Horses be placed back onto Public Lands;

2. We demand a discontinuance of what is termed, and classified as Welfare Ranching, or ranchers who hold Public Lands Grazing Permits, their subsidies to be cut-off immediately, and cattle grazing on Public Lands to stop (cease) immediately;

3. We demand a cut/layoff of BLM employees, administered as
Financial Cutbacks in the exact amount that was spent for Unnecessary Wild Horse Herds Roundups over the past 4 Decades, and paid for by American Taxpayers, and under false pretense, bad science, and incompetent decision making;

4. We also demand that the Department of the Interior is simply too large to administer America’s federal lands, as well as subordinate agencies administered and managed by DOI, under the guise of current Laws and Policy, and demand a large cutback of employees and subordinate government agencies alike, that in truth many redundant agencies should simply be discontinued;

5. We demand of the legal government agencies, within the Constitutional Framework of jurisprudence and Check-n-Balance system of the current democracy style governing bodies, that a investigation on actual laws broken, on fraudulent behavior while being a government employee or government contractor, who generated or gave the correspondence to the public of falsified information, all be administered and all employees found guilty be immediately withdrawn from government employment as well as face charges within a Federal court system in regard to their illegal behavior!

These are simple, and common sense solutions to the present conduct and criminal behavior of many employees within government agencies of today — whereas, these resolutions are only a beginning to resolve the worst of the worst government employees now being paid by tax payer money.

~ John Cox

 
10 Comments

Posted by on October 23, 2014 in Uncategorized

 

Bureau of Land Management Refuse to Accept Responsible Budget Restraint or Conduct; Taxpayers Pay for BLM’s Arrogant Attitude – An Editorial

murderer's creek horses

“In the laws of the land, we have no rights; in government we have no voice; and in spite of another principle recognized in this Republic, namely, that taxation without Representation is Tyranny, we are taxed without being represented.” — An American Patriot

“A federal judge ruled Monday that the U.S. Bureau of Land Management once again violated federal laws when it issued grazing permits instead of analyzing how grazing. . . U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill found that the BLM failed to consider stopping grazing in any of the proposed management plans in the agency’s Burley Field Office.” Federal court rules BLM wrong on EA By KIMBERLEE KRUESI, Associated Press Published: Sep 29, 2014

“The BLM failed to analyze existing . . . conditions in the four allotments, Judge Winmill wrote, which he described as “particularly troubling” because the species is a candidate for listing under the Endangered Species Act. . . He also wrote that the four allotments are degraded by livestock grazing. . . Judge Winmill agreed that the BLM is allowed to automatically renew grazing permits without conducting lengthy environmental reviews. However, it must still comply with federal laws requiring the agency to consider ongoing rangeland degradation and observe the Fundamental of Rangeland Health regulations during allotment renewal.” Ibid.

Once again the Bureau of Land Management employees, i.e. Rangeland Managers, decided to ignore Law, ignore appropriate decision making process based on good science, and pretty much went about their own decision making process of placing special interest first, despite the destruction their decision would cause on America’s Public Lands, and at taxpayer expense.

Going to Federal Court costs the American taxpayers anywhere from $1.5 million dollars to upward of $12 to $18 million dollars in the past. . . Multiply this by the approximate 70 to 85 times yearly this government agency is taken to court, just within the parameter simply making bad decisions – and these figures escalate into an extremely large amount of taxpayer money spent questionably.

But this is not unique at all to those of us who watch what the BLM does, and how they go about their irresponsible daily business.

Wild Horse Herd Rounds

As the example above shows us, and many more are indeed available from the last year or two (even though we can reference up to 20 years ago quite readily), the wild horse herd roundups are unnecessary, where decisions made from false, and even politically manipulated information.

When managed properly, through a horse herd’s natural ability to keep their breeding minimal, horse herds only grow 2% to a high of 4% (i.e. study groups as well as experience in observing horse herd interactions quite clear on this particular subject) – with predation decreasing herd size as well. This would cost taxpayers a few thousand yearly, not $billions as it is currently. Yes, this simple.

I mention this, and keep it within just this marginal situation, to quickly describe the BLM and their ambiguities, their incompetence, and their narrow scope of decision making — just within the mess they have created with the supposed wild horse herd numbers on Public Lands. Yes, their horse counts seriously flawed as well

Yes, they created a mess from their very beginning of wild horse herd management. They established a base-data platform that has been shown time and again to be erroneous at best. So they, in reality, created the mess . . . Then to attempt correction further down the decision making process tried to adjust it, which created more of a mess. Then they had to cover up their reasoning for making the adjustment which created an entire new mess; then to cover this mess up they created an entire system of lies – which today we call BLM Speak. But in truth, their mess simply piles-up profoundly over time, and now it is a huge garbage pile of a lot of messes, or corrective actions, and even corrective legislation transpired as well. This all, quite costly to taxpayers, in truth resolved nothing yet.

Yes, taxpayer’s pay for this all – every bit of it, and not so surprisingly, no one knows how to stop the mass situation of lies, innuendo, and false information given to the public by this agency. So they, meaning Senators, Congressmen, along with BLM administers and management people, simply stand back and watch the mess grow in proportion with the destruction of America’s Public Lands and the abuse and killing of America’s Wild Horse Herds. Then they simply throw more and more money at their whim to whomever, and no one really questions what has been ongoing for decades – that is — Until these past few years . . .

Another easily obtainable fact – The Bureau of Land Management, along with its oversight government agency, the Department of the Interior, remain two agencies that are constantly in litigation, or have lost 98% of their litigation over the years due to bad decisions for one reason or another. Your tax money at work!

These two agencies are literally spinning out of control, very obvious to many —

Conclusion

The fact is taxpayer’s are paying for unnecessary Wild Horse Herd Roundups amounting now to $billions of dollars; we are also paying subsidies to Welfare Ranchers, who demand these unnecessary roundups as well, in the $billions of dollars unnecessarily, and in the meantime there is nothing given back to the taxpayer or American’s in general.

As a matter of fact just the opposite occurs, and welfare ranchers feel entitled (i.e. yes, they Demand Taxpayer Money) for more taxpayer support and money — yes outright mooches all of them. This is what pays for their cattle, their cattle ranching efforts (most are non-competitive and operate their ranches at a loss – subsidies are their income – their yearly domestic sales receipts less than 1% overall) airplanes, new trucks, and that extra wing on their mansion out on what used to be a normal ranch house – and at taxpayer expense – and all the while disrespecting the taxpayer while demanding more $$$$.

Right now the American Public and the American taxpayers need Representation. When it comes right down to it, our tax money is being spent for things we do not want it spent for! Taxation without Representation is ongoing before us right now, and on our Public Lands!

We need someone to put their foot down, and make the statement, “WE DEMAND THIS TO BE STOPPED! WE DEMAND IT TO BE STOPPED RIGHT NOW! ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!”

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on October 21, 2014 in Uncategorized

 

Taxpayer’s / American’s versus Bureau of Land Management and Welfare Ranchers

1545031_649920625064634_1390514084_n

“I always believe that ultimately, if people are paying attention, then we get good government and good leadership. And when we get lazy, as a democracy and civically start taking shortcuts, then it results in bad government and politics.” — An American Who Cared

Many Americans today view our government agencies with distain, most often rightly so. The laws that govern this land in the United States are being ignored by current government agency employees. And yet, they receive their payroll checks and salaries as if owed to them, in reality, for not obeying or even considering our nations legal requirements and regulatory methods of management. As any horse trainer, or animal trainer will tell you, this is not a good situation to do, as it delivers the wrong message.

Taxpayer’s and the Bureau of Land Management

So we as taxpayer’s in America, repeatedly lied to by this government agency called the Bureau of Land Management – and always have been previously, remain a little bewildered and untrusting, and for legitimate reasons. For example, they tell us, taxpayers, everything is okay for them to go ahead and complete a Wild Horse Herd Roundup in accord with their Environmental Statements and Impact studies (a legal obligation in accord with legislative laws).

In truth taxpayers pay for the studies, several hundred thousand dollars’ worth, but they are not done in accord with data gathering or good science – more often than not they are simply taken from another EIS from another region, changed to make it appear it was accomplished recently, and signed off as “No Environmental Impact in area will occur due to Roundups” which is a lie, that simple.

The individual putting together the EIS never leaves his or her desk most often. We delivered more than a few Freedom of Information Act requests to BLM, in order to document the actual Field Studies of many Environmental Impact Statements they issued to the public – We received a standard response of “. . . no records of Field Study budgets or Expenses available. . .” Yet, there on a desk was an EIS that unequivocally stated different, or obviously the lie.

Taxpayers foot the bill, for the falsified Environmental Impact Statement, often within excessive amounts, to include more often than not — $110,000+, for example. This being done a couple of hundred times, throughout the BLM offices and areas, and soon we see a vast amount of tax payer money spent very questionably just within this misrepresented arena of catastrophe for the Wild Horses.

When we point this information out, so costly to all of us in America, we are called “extremists” or “malcontents.” No. in reality we are simply pointing out the facts, and oh what facts they are and on a constant basis. These government agencies, and Welfare Ranchers have been doing this for so long, they feel it is a normal crime to continue to commit. Yes, it is that easy. But take it from a previous BLM employee and Supervisor below . . . taken from a Federal Court Declaration. . . then multiply what he says by all other areas where Wild Horse Herd Roundups take place, and then we start getting the landscape of the astronomical scheme that is being perpetuated and promoted by this agency, the BLM, and Welfare Ranchers alike. . .

“. . . Another major concern with BLM’s agreement to remove all horses from the private lands of the Wyoming Checkerboard is that BLM is undermining the laws that apply to the Checkerboard, and wild horse management in general, which I implemented during my time as a BLM official. Traditionally, BLM officials (myself included) have understood that, pursuant to the Wild Horse Act, wild horses have a right to use BLM lands, so long as their population numbers do not cause unacceptable damage to vegetation or other resources. In stark contrast, however, livestock (sheep and cattle) have no similar right to use BLM lands; rather, livestock owners may be granted the privilege of using BLM lands for livestock grazing pursuant to a grazing permit that is granted by BLM under the Taylor Grazing Act, but that privilege can be revoked, modified, or amended by BLM for various reasons, including for damage to vegetation or other resources caused by livestock, or due to sparse forage available to sustain livestock after wild horses are accounted for. BLM’s tentative agreement here does the opposite and instead prioritizes livestock over wild horses, by proposing to remove hundreds of wild horses from the Wyoming Checkerboard without reducing livestock numbers – which, in my view, is contrary to the laws governing BLM’s actions as those mandates were explained to me and administered during the decades that I was a BLM official.” — Public File. . . LEGAL DECLARATION (5.) filed by former BLM Rock Springs and Rawlins area manager, Lloyd Eisenhauer: IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF WYOMING Rock Springs Grazing Association, Case No. 2:11-cv-00263-NDF Plaintiff, v. Ken Salazar, et al.,Defendants, DECLARATION OF LLOYD EISENHAUER

We continue further with Lloyd Eisenhaur’s Declaration and within another section of his statement, “. . . Considering that wild horses exhibit different foraging patterns and movement patterns than sheep and cattle, and also than big game such as antelope and elk, no sound biological basis exists for permanently removing wild horses from the Wyoming Checkerboard at this time. In particular, wild horses tend to hang out in the uplands at a greater distance from water sources until they come to briefly drink water every day or two, whereas livestock congregate near water sources and riparian habitat causing concentrated damage to vegetation and soil. For this reason, the impacts of wild horses are far less noticeable on the Checkerboard than impacts from livestock. “ Loyd Eisenhaur Legal Declaration . . . Ibid. . .

BLM, Welfare Ranchers, and Criminal Behavior

The ideology of Welfare Ranchers, at this point in time, is not a complex issue. It is an issue of money, greed, and how to split the money among a small group of ranchers that hold Public Lands Grazing Permits. Their ally in this scheme, or crimes against the tax paying public, the Bureau of Land Management, remains at the disposal of these Welfare Ranchers and vast amounts of tax payer money. Over the years this situation has gone unnoticed by the public, under the radar for many decades now, from Public Scrutiny or thorough investigation.

The Federal investigation (undercover work costing millions in taxpayer money) that took place in the early 1990’s was canceled right before Arrest Warrants issued (i.e. approximately 2,800 felony warrants). Many felony arrest warrants were about to be issued, then called off at the last moment – reasoning: To many employees in one government agency would have been taken to trial and would have overloaded the system, as well as place a burden on the Bureau of Land Management operations. . . No employees were fired, laid-off, or even so much as bothered by the investigation and arrest warrant situation.

Hypocrisy of Welfare Ranchers

Ironic as well, these same Welfare Ranchers will chastise those who receive welfare checks to eat and nourish their children, calling them mooches; and yet, consider their subsidies received for nothing but using public lands to graze upon, as different and more of an “Entitlement” to them, which they demand they receive to this day.

Yes, the tax free subsides are different, in a way and in their mind, but a style of socialism (which ironically the Welfare Ranchers also dislike the term socialism, very odd indeed since they are recipients of such a classification situation or social-mooches as they call it), and receive in the hundreds of thousands of dollars — each Welfare Rancher, and in total cost taxpayers $Billions of dollars yearly. And now the façade of ridding Americas Public Lands of Our true Heritage Icons, the Wild Horses, and under the guise of false information given to the Public and taxpayers of this land — and at a cost not only monetarily, but also with abuse and death of Wild Horses attached as well.

Yes, they feel they are exempt from laws and ethics, and they are exquisitely “Entitled.” But as stated in many other articles, their beef is not so good, and domestic sales remain at less than 1% of actual sales receipts yearly. They ship quite a bit of meat product to Japan and China, so once again taxpayers get ripped-off. So we as taxpayers substantially finance, without approval from us I might add and on the sly, we basically fund these Welfare Rancher’s expenses to produce, feed, and ship the beef and sheep to foreign ports. All this in a very low-key and sneaky methodology, without the taxpayers knowing what is indeed going on.

Wild Horses versus BLM and Welfare Ranchers

The problem that exists is they want to wipe out all Wild Horses on Public Lands, and replace them with cattle – which has already cost the American taxpayer $billions, under the cloak of agriculture as well as under the radar. But as mentioned above, and in oh so many science reports and data gathering events, it is not the Wild Horses doing reoccurring damage to Public Lands, it is the cattle and sheep – beyond a doubt.

Another truism, the Welfare Ranchers cannot get away with this constant chain of taxpayer money used falsely as subsidies, unless the Bureau of Land Management takes part in the overall scheme – and take part they do, just as in the early 1990’s. The excuses of competition for cattle and food source on Public Lands are also laid to rest here, further in his Declaration to the Federal Court:

“. . . In addition, because livestock tend to eat somewhat different forage than wild horses (horses tend to eat coarser vegetation such as Canadian wild rye and other bunch grasses, whereas cattle and sheep mostly eat softer grasses), there is no justification to remove wild horses on the basis that insufficient forage exists to support the current population of wild horses. . . Also, because cattle and sheep have no front teeth on the front part of their upper jaws, they tend to pull and tear grasses or other forage out by the root causing some long-term damage to vegetation, whereas wild horses, which have front teeth on both their front upper and lower jaws, act more like a lawnmower and just clip the grass or forage (leaving the root uninjured), allowing the vegetation to quickly grow back. These differences are extremely significant because if there were a need to reduce the use of these BLM lands by animals to preserve these public lands, it might be cattle and sheep – not wild horses – that should be reduced to gain the most benefit for the lands, and which is why BLM, during my time as an agency official, focused on reducing livestock grazing.” Loyd Eisenhaur Legal Declaration . . . Ibid. . .

The Laws Ignored

We can find even more violation of law within the Declaration of Lloyd Eisenhauer:

“. . . The zeroing out of wild horses in the Salt Wells and Divide Basin HMAs is also concerning because it would mean that, in those two longstanding HMAs, there would no longer be the “multiple use” of these public lands as required by both the Wild Horse Act and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. Currently, while there are other uses of this public land, such as by wildlife, hunters, and recreational users, the two primary uses in those HMAs are by wild horses and livestock. If BLM proceeds with its agreement with RSGA to zero out wild horses in those HMAs, the only major use remaining would be livestock use, meaning that there would be no multiple use of those BLM lands. Not only will that potentially undermine the laws that BLM officials must implement here, but it has practical adverse effects on the resources – multiple use is very beneficial for the environment, and particularly for sensitive vegetation, because different users (e.g., livestock, wild horses) use the lands and vegetation in different ways. When that is eliminated, the resources are subjected to an unnatural use of the lands which can cause severe long-term damage to the vegetation. As a result, zeroing out these herds would likely be devastating for the vegetation in these two HMAs, because livestock would be by far the predominant use in this area.” Loyd Eisenhaur Legal Declaration . . . Ibid. . .

Conclusion

To say there is a problem here is an understatement. To say there is a scheme, a dynamic of illegal process and procedure is a statement well founded in facts, overwhelming facts that exist just not within this particular article, but within much of the BLM’s own paperwork and inventories, and just from reading the laws and management policies, and the contrasts that exists from a quick review of what BLM actually does in the field.

The Welfare Ranching operations are nothing more than a financial nightmare, especially to taxpayers, and a scheme to receive money from the tax paying public – using antiquated and unuseful legislative Acts from the past – It is simply time to void and take them off the books, as no longer necessary or feasible in today’s time and place. Not only do most Welfare Ranchers receive large amounts of subsidies, to purchase more cattle and supplement their expenses, but derive almost a 92% to 99% income, tax free due to being a subsidy, going directly into their pockets.

Do other American’s qualify for this? Nope — And for sure no one will, other than the small groups of those Welfare Rancher’s on Public Lands right now! This is not the American way of doing things, and our American Heritage; America’s Wild Horses are paying the price for this obvious ongoing criminality. Worse yet, nothing are being done to bring the BLM and other agencies, as well as Welfare Ranchers to task for such a corrupt situation that exists on our Public Lands today.

Our American Heritage, the Wild Horse Herds, pay the price of criminal indulgence.
____________________________

The above quotes taken from Court documents, LEGAL DECLARATION filed by former BLM Rock Springs and Rawlins area manager, Lloyd Eisenhauer: IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF WYOMING Rock Springs Grazing Association, Case No. 2:11-cv-00263-NDF Plaintiff, v. Ken Salazar, et al.,Defendants, DECLARATION OF LLOYD EISENHAUER. — Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. — Lloyd Eisenhauer.
_______________________________

References:

Bellows, B. C. March 2003. Protecting riparian areas: Farmland management strategies. Soil Systems Guide, Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas. At http://www.attra.ncat.org.
Belsky, A. J., A. Matzke, and S. Uselman. 1999. Survey of livestock influences on stream and riparian ecosystems in the western United States. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 54(1): 419-431.
Bohn, C. C., and J. C. Buckhouse. 1986. Effects of grazing management on streambanks. Trans. N. Am. Wildl. Natl. Resour. Conf. 51:265-271.
Bryant, H. T., R. E. Blaser, and J. R. Peterson. 1972. Effect of trampling by cattle on bluegrass yield and soil compaction of a meadowville loam. Agron. J. 64:331-334.
Chichester, F. W., R. W. Van Keuran, and J. L. McGuinness. 1979. Hydrology and chemical quality of flow from small pastured watersheds: Chemical quality. J. Envir. Qual. 8(2): 167-171.
Cole, D. W., 1981. Nitrogen uptake and translocation by forest ecosystems. In: F. E. Clark and T. Rosswall (eds.) Terestrial Nitrogen Cycles. Ecological Bulletin. Vol. 33. p. 219-232.
Cooper, A. B., C. M. Smith, and M. J. Smith. 1995. Effects of riparian set-aside on soil characteristics in an agricultural landscape Implications for nutrient transport and retention. Agric. Ecosystems Environ. 55:61-67.
Duff, Donald A. 1979. Riparian habitat recovery on Big Creek, Rich County, Utah. In Proceedings: Grazing and Riparian/Stream Ecosystems. Trout Unlimited, Inc. p. 91
Gardner, J. L. 1950. Effects of thirty years of protection from grazing in desert grassland. Ecology. 31:44-50.
Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Animal Agriculture: A Summary of Literature Related to the Effects of Animal Agriculture on Water Resources (G), 1999. The Environmental Quality Board, College of Agriculture, Food, and Environmental Sciences (COAFES), Univ. of Minnesota.
Green, D. M., and J. B. Kauffman. 1989. Nutrient cycling at the land-water interface: The importance of the riparian zone. In: R. E. Gresswell, B. A. Barton, and J. L. Kershner (eds.) Practical Approaches to Riparian Resource Management : An Education Workshop. U.S. Bureau of Land Management. Billings, MT. p. 61-68.
Gregory, S. V., F. J. Swanson, W. A. McKee, and K. W. Cummins. 1991. An ecosystem perspective of riparian zones. Bioscience 41(8): 540-550.
Hack-ten Broeke, M. J. D., W. J. M. De Groot, and J. P. Dijkstra. 1996. Impact of excreted nitrogen by grazing cattle on nitrate leaching. Soil Use Manage. 12:190-198.
Jawson, M. D., L. F. Elliott, K. E. Saxton, and D. H. Fortier. 1982. The effect of cattle grazing on nutrient losses in a pacific northwest setting, USA. J. Environ. Qual. 11:628-631.
Kaufmann, J. B., and W. C. Kreuger. 1984. Livestock impacts on riparian ecosystems and streamside management implications: A review. J. Range Manage. 37:430-438.
Knapp, R. A., V. T. Vredenburg, and K. R. Matthews. 1998. Effects of stream channel morphology on golden trout spawning habitat and recruitment. Ecol. Appl. 8:1104-1117.
Lemly, D. A. 1982. Modification of benthic insect communities in polluted streams: Combined effects of sedimentation and nutrient enrichment. Hydrobiologia. 87:229-245.
Li, H. W., G. A. Lamberti, T. N. Pearsons, C. K. Tait, J. L. Li, and J. C. Buckhouse. 1994. Cumulative effects of riparian disturbances along high desert trout streams of the John Day Basin, Oregon. Trans. Am. Fisheries Soc. 123:627-640.
Magilligan, F. J., and P. F. McDowell. 1997. Stream channel adjustments following elimination of cattle grazing. J. Am. Water Resour. Assn. 33:867-878.
Marcuson, Patrick E. 1977. Overgrazed streambanks depress fishery production in Rock Creek, Montana. Fish and Game Federation Aid Program. F-20-R-21-11a.
McColl, R. H. S., and A. R. Gibson. 1979. Downslope movement of nutrients in hill pasture,Taita, New Zealand: 2. Effects of season, sheep grazing and fertilizer. New Zealand J. Agric. Res. 22:151-162.
Meyers, T. J., and S. Swanson. 1991. Aquatic habitat condition index, streamtypes and livestock bank damage in northern Nevada. Water Resour. Bull. 27:667-677.
Minshall, G. W. 1984. Aquatic insect substratum relationships. In V. H. Resh and D. M. Rosenberg (ed.) The ecology of aquatic insects. Praeger Publishers, New York. p. 356-400.
Mwendera, E. J., and M. A. M. Saleem. 1997a. Infiltration rates, surface runoff, and soil loss as influenced by grazing pressure in the Ethiopian highlands. Soil Use Manage. 13:29-35.
Mwendera, E. J., M. A. M. Saleem, and A. Dibabe. 1997. The effect of livestock grazing on surface runoff and soil erosion from sloping pasture lands in the Ethiopian highlands. Australian J. Experimental Agric. 37:421-430.
Naeth, M. A., and D. S. Chanasyk. 1996. Runoff and sediment yield under grazing in foothills fescue grasslands of Alberta. Water Res. Bull. 32:89-95.
Naiman, R. J., and H. Decamps. 1997. The ecology of interfaces: Riparian zones. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. V. 28. p. 621-658.
Olness, A., S. J. Smith, E. D. Rhoades, and R. G. Menzel. 1975. Nutrient and sediment discharge from agricultural watersheds in Oklahoma. J. Environ. Qual. 4:331-336.
Ohio’s Hydrologic Cycle. 1994. L. C. Brown. AEX 461. Ohio State University Extension.
Orodho, A. B., M. J. Trlica, and C. D. Bonham. 1990. Long term heavy grazing effects on soil and vegetation in the four corners region. Southwest Naturalist. 35:9-14.
Owens, L. B., W. M. Edwards, and R. W. Van Keuren. 1989. Sediment and nutrient losses from an unimproved all-year grazed watershed. J. Environ. Qual. 18:232-238.
Owens, L. B., W. M. Edwards, and R. W. Van Keuren. 1996. Sediment losses from a pastured watershed before and after stream fencing. J. Soil Water Conserv. 51:90-94.
Owens, L. B., W. M. Edwards, and R. W. Van Keuren. 1997. Runoff and sediment losses resulting from winter feeding on pastures. J. Soil Water Conserv. 52:194-197.
Owens, L. B., W. M. Edwards, and R. W. Van Keuren. 1983. Surface runoff quality comparisons between unimproved pasture and woodlands. J. Environ. Qual. 12:518-522.
Owens, L. B., W. M. Edwards, and R. W. Van Keuren. 1994. Groundwater nitrate levels under fertilized grass and grasslegumes pastures. J. Environ. Qual. 23:752-758.
Richards, R. P., F. G. Calhoun, and G. Matisoff. 2002. Lake Erie agricultural systems for environmental quality project. J. of Envir. Qual. 31:6-16.
Rabalais, N. N., R. E. Turner, and W. J. Wiseman, Jr. 2001. Hypoxia in Gulf of Mexico. J. of Envir. Qual. Mar-Apr 30(2):320-329.
Platts, W. S. 1991. Livestock grazing. In: Influence of forest and rangeland management on Salmonid fishes and their habitats. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 19:389-423.
Platts, W. S., and R. F. Nelson. 1985. Stream habitat and fisheries response to livestock grazing and instream improvement structures, Big Creek, Utah. J. Soil Water Conserv. 40:374-379.
Platts, W. S. and F. J. Wagstaff. 1984. Fencing to control livestock grazing on riparian habitats along streams: Is it a viable alternative. N. Am. J. Fisheries Manage. 4:266-272.
Peterjohn, W. T., and D. L. Correll. 1984. Nutrient dynamics in an agricultural watershed: Observations of a riparian forest. Ecology 65: 1466-1475.
Quinn, J. M., R. B. Williamson, R. K. Smith, and M. L. Vickers. 1992. Effects of riparian grazing and channelization on streams in southland New Zealand 2. Benthic invertebrates. New Zealand J. Marine Freshwater Res. 26:259-273. LS-2-05.
Rauzi, F., and C. L. Hanson. 1966. Water intake and runoff as affected by intensity of grazing. J. Range Manage. 19:351-356.
Schepers, J. S., and D. D. Francis. 1982. Chemical water quality of runoff from grazing land in Nebraska: I. Influence of grazing livestock. J. Environ. Qual. 11:351-354.
Schepers, J. S., B. L. Hackes, and D. D. Francis. 1982. Chemical water quality of runoff from grazing land in Nebraska: II. Contributing factors. J. Environ. Qual. 11:355-359.
Sidle, R. C., and A. Sharma. 1996. Stream channel changes associated with mining and grazing in the Great Basin. J. Environ. Qual. 25:1111-1121.
Smith, C. M. 1989. Riparian pasture retirement effects on sediment phosphorus and nitrogen in channellized surface run-off from pastures. New Zealand J. Mar. Freshwater Res. 23:139-146.
Stout, W. L., S. A. Fales, L. D. Muller, R. R. Schnabel, W. E. Priddy, and G. F. Elwinger. 1997. Nitrate leaching from cattle urine and feces in northeastern U.S. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. 61:1787.
Sweeny, B. W. 1993. Effects of streamside vegetation on macroinvertebrate communities of White Clay Creek in eastern North America. Proc. of the Natural Science Academy of Philadelphia. 144:291-340.
Tait, C. K., J. L. Li, G. A. Lamberti, T. N. Pearsons, and H. W. Li. 1994. Relationships between riparian cover and community structure of high desert streams. J. N. Am. Benthological Soc. 13:45-56.
USEPA. 2000. National Water Quality Inventory: 2000 Report to Congress Executive Summary, Office of Water, Washington, DC 20460. [Online] Available at http://www.epa.gov/305b.
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.

 
8 Comments

Posted by on October 18, 2014 in Uncategorized

 

Wild Horse Herd Roundup: Psychopathic Behavior and Abuse of Horses Out of Control

10475802_10202850844087768_5362347747727275258_n

Wild Horse Heard Advocates watched in horror as Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Contractors, and BLM employees, kill a pregnant Mustang. It was quite obvious she was with foal, and worse, ready to give birth.

“We will not forget Jewel, the wild pregnant mare the BLM killed. She was run down with their helicopters. Then without remorse or even the slightest whim of sanity, or empathy, they shot her. This is where your tax dollars go, killing our wild horses. This so cattle can graze on OUR PUBLIC LAND free or at low cost,” stated a Wild Horse Advocate.

The Facts: these unscrupulous individuals’ with no ethical means of approach to Wild Horse Herd Management, chase down with helicopter an innocent and pregnant Mustang Mare. Yes, they run her down. They threatened her at every step. The slanted blades of their helicopter tipped forward in the chase — nothing more or less than unrelentless psychopathy.

She finally collapsed. She uncontrollably gasped for enough air for both her and her foal. Suddenly, the BLM employees on the ground committed their assault. They approached, insanity at its most profound, then shot the Mustang Mare — They shot her in the head; a foal in her belly. A once would be new born, left to die within its mothers womb. Left in the mud — both left to rot. How sad. The BLM employees laughed while pointing at the dead horse, then turned and left.

This is our American Heritage, the Wild Horses, and the way this government agency treats them. Horses, right along our side in war and work, helped build America. They worked and helped expand and build the wild west. How can this situation, done by this government agency, even take place? How is this even allowed? Humanity at its worst yet. And worse, supported by your tax money.

The Reality — attention toward Wild Horse Herd Dynamics while in the wilds, a far better and less costly management paradigm and methodology, a few thousand yearly compared to the present reality of spending billions — ignored in total by this government agency.

American’s lose — The Wild Horse Herds, and the burden of far more tax money spent on unnecessary and incompetent Public Lands Management. Yes, tax money taken from school lunch programs, from feeding people in America, from Veteran’s who fought our wars and were wounded, and much more — taken and spent on situations like killing Jewel, the mare with foal — yes, killing the innocent for the greedy.

 
63 Comments

Posted by on October 14, 2014 in Uncategorized

 

Wild Horses, BLM, Welfare Ranchers, and America’s Forests

imagesCA6A7YRE

“I predict future happiness for Americans, if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.” ― Thomas Jefferson

It is just not America’s Wild Horses in jeopardy from the Bureau of Land Management, but everything this government agency does is mismanaged and ruined, from wildlife to entire environmental areas being destroyed. This is a government agency run by, and ordered by a few corporations in the timber industry and Big AG. Whereas, everyone in America suffers from these few, because most American’s simply want to make a living, pay their taxes, and live their life freely. Corporate and government criminals do not allow this.

Once again we ponder the Bureau of Land Management and its methodology, this time in collateral, at best unorthodox and certainly questionable, use of America’s Public Lands. What you will read is not so much surprising as it is shocking; that these situations are allowed to go on and on by our current legislator’s holding office, remains and has been irresponsible at best. The cost? Billions bilked by welfare ranchers, logging companies, legislators, and Big AG, an undeniable fact when researched properly.

From the Horse’s Mouth

James White – Timber Inspector and Purchase Executive: To be honest, I could not believe my eyes and what stood to my front. I went out to an area in southeastern Idaho to obtain pricing estimates in regard to an available timber stand. I stood in the exact spot their map highlighted, and BLM had recently legally recorded such, with current P-line marked survey for log road installation and landings. The Bureau of Land Management not only marked the sale of lumber as available, complete with current Environmental Impact Assessments, but also current reports that the timber on the land healthy and suited for commercial use.

Journalist: So BLM Management provided a comprehensive report, thorough, and what they termed as Standard Practice?

James White: They refer to them as “Sustained Yield Units” which is a misnomer. By law BLM is to practice sustainable forestry. The fact is, I was looking at what was once a BLM forest, turned into a cow pasture. There exist no records of the land being logged what so ever, and yet no trees! Heavy cattle use prevented any future forest regeneration, or much of anything else within that area. The Public Land is of no use to anyone any longer, yet far enough away for the general public and taxpayer’s not to see — and the fact is no one would know or really find out at all what had happened there.

“Based upon review of their timber inventories the Bureau of Land Management is misnamed. The BLM information base about the forests the agency supposedly manages is so bad as to border on pulp fiction.” Boise Cascade Executive, Portland, Oregon

Journalist: Are there any more timber stands, slated for commercial use that apparently welfare ranchers had gotten into the area and grazed their cattle – obviously unknown to many?

James White: Abundant. These are situations that most of us in the private sector use to ignore, as it was so criminal in nature, no officials were doing a thing about it. Our career’s had to come first, as I had a large family and responsible to them. I would be willing to bet no one still does anything about it. But the areas are there to see for themselves.

Journalist: Your saying the timber sales illegal or they simply did not exist?

James White: We can again go to southeastern Idaho. The BLM marked a Tree Stand as “Healthy” and reforested (a ten to 15 year previous clear-cut recorded) and ready for commercial use within their Inventoried Commercial Timber Stands for Sustainable Yield. I looked for further documents and found an EA from the 1970’s, nothing else. It wasn’t until a couple months later I was driving to another Timber Sale, and passed the road to the supposed reforested area. Curious, I stopped and took the road. What I found was terrible. The area was totally devastated by cattle grazing. It was basically turned into sagebrush and small amounts of grassland. I say this as in the late 1970’s the area was documented by a thorough environmental analysis, to be targeted for the re-establishment of a “Healthy” forest stand of timber.

Journalist: This land is still in their Inventory as future sustainable yield?

James White: Absolutely.

BLM and Their Planning Decisions

The fact is and upon more data recovered, we find the BLM does not update their inventory of Public Land what so ever. Time after time testimony is given that their records, by policy should be updated every ten years or less, but is not done – in Reality, the files contain information from the 1960’s and 1970’s, with no updates at all. America is losing the battle for Public Land, yet paying a premium price for supposedly quality Public Lands, but is not quality what so ever, but mostly land destroyed from over-grazing of cattle, or Fracking. Both destructive!

In some cases plans and decisions were developed from aerial photography taken in the 1950’s. It is your taxpayer money at work here, and costing in the millions. And to the taxpayers, more insult to injury – some BLM District Offices lack inventories all together. And yet other District Offices misclassify marginal timber producing areas, as productive. This is the Lie ongoing in Oregon currently, and you’d better believe that your taxes that you pay within an honest perspective are going to be used dishonestly.

Then we go to the necessity for the removal of Wild Horse Herds, ethically questionable and costing taxpayers now in the billions of taxpayer dollars – and BLM does NOT acknowledge the Reality, the Wild Horses destroys nothing on our Public Lands (BLM provides no tenable or quality data for reference, and never have as yet for their Wild Horse Herd removal from Public Lands), and certainly not even close to the destruction that this government agency, the BLM, has already imposed and forced upon America’s Public Lands — Simply out of Incompetence and directed misinformation to the public and taxpayers.

Journalist: Is there more areas we can discuss here?

James White: Oh yes, many more. . . A part of the Garnet Resource Area in Montana that was clear-cut back in the 1970’s, still has regeneration problems, and remains baron. Cattle, placed there after the clear-cut, destroyed much of it. But the BLM allows rancher’s to place cattle in very environmentally sensitive areas – why, I do not know – but many of these areas are away from the public-eye and any type of public scrutiny.

Journalist: Anymore?

James White: Well, we can also go and see in that same area, Public Lands listed as Sustainable Yield by the BLM, and is nothing more than open-grassland for grazing cattle . . . These areas, to include riparian and creek or stream ecosystems have already been destroyed and very neglectfully. The environmental systems in many of those areas throughout that region can be used for nothing else but cattle grazing, and probably for not much longer, as it is also ruined land for rotational purposes as well.

Journalist: I am a little awed by this, to say the least. . .

James White: It gets worse. I had a friend go over to Baker City, Oregon BLM Office. He asked about a particular area in Oregon, and was led to a file cabinet drawer where the entire resource data, dating back to 1964, was filed. . . Wait, it gets worse. He asked a few specific questions about the area of interest, and the BLM employees that knew were either retired, not in the office at the time, or on sick leave. We can discuss as many offices as you wish, but all, even the few I have never been to, still carry the stigma of others in my profession that had haunting experiences similar to mine – and quite often.

Conclusion

This Journalist found James a straight forward and honest individual. He had 44 years in the logging industry, as a Planer and Timber Purchase Executive, with a Master Degree from the University of Washington. I should add as well, that he had an Attorney sitting next to him, who limited what he could say, should say, or expand on what he had already stated. James White is not his real name, as the logging industry remains defensive, to say the least, and quite similar to Big AG and their Lobby Groups.

But never the less it becomes quite obvious the data, the reference material, the records keeping, the decision making process, the faulty and often manipulated science, and the erroneous and destructive end-results become quite obvious, and expensive when the BLM is involved. When one considers that the only purpose for such a government agency should be termed – organized criminality, because nothing else would make sense. Even the term organized makes no sense, as they are not close to having any organization at all. The BLM is one government agency that should be shut-down. America cannot afford such trivial pursuits and dishonest behavior from such an enormous and quite costly agency.

_________________________
References:

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 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.

Elmore, W., and B. Kauffman. 1994. Riparian and watershed systems: degradation and restoration. p. 212-231. In: M. Vavra, W.A. Laycock, and R.D. Pieper (eds.),

Ecological implications of livestock herbivory in the West. Soc. Range Management, Denver, CO. Erman, N.A. 1996. Status of aquatic invertebrates. p. 987-1008. In: Sierra Nevada ecosystem project: final report to Congress, Vol. II. Univ. of California, Davis, Centers for Water and Wildlife Resources, Davis, CA.

Flather, C.H., L.A. Joyce, and C.A. Bloomgarden. 1994. Species endangerment patterns in the United States. USDA Forest Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-241.

Fleischner, T.L. 1994. Ecological costs of livestock grazing in western North America. Cons. Biol. 8:629-644.
Gary, H.L., S.R. Johnson, and S.L. Ponce. 1983. Cattle grazing impact on surface water quality in a Colorado front Range stream. J. Soil Water Cons. 38:124-128.

George, M.R. 1996. Creating awareness of clean water issues among private landowners. p. 96-100. In: W.D. Edge, S.L. Olson-Edge (eds.), Sustaining rangeland ecosystems. Oregon State Univ. Extension Service, Special Rep. 953, Corvallis, OR.

Gifford, G.F., and R.H. Hawkins. 1978. Hydrologic impact of grazing on infiltration: a critical review. Water Resource Res. 14:305-313.

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. 39:254-258.

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. Page 23, Belsky, Matzke, Uselman

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.

 
8 Comments

Posted by on September 5, 2014 in Uncategorized

 
 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 543 other followers