Wild Horses and Wildlife — Diversity and Re-Established before it is too late!

Today we have more problems than just government bureaucracy.  Many people and organizations alike, support non-science endeavors, and ironically, in the name of science.  Whose science?  The obvious issue – when all is said and done — are many who favor their own agenda’s, intermixed with their own-brand of bar room bravado only — as well as politician’s who favor their special-interest groups, or political agendas.

We also have problems with over-site groups and nonprofits, that are supposedly directly involved with humane reasoning, or ethics, or . . . then find their involved with twisted humane (they corrupt the term) alternatives, but the profits vast, perhaps too vast and, well, human’s will be human, no matter how disgusting that may be.

Animal Species Management – Humane Responsibility

My interest is to protect and conserve life within its natural state.  In doing so it is imperative that we all understand I am not talking just about individual species.  Yes, we need to preserve the ways that populations interact with one another in all ecosystem process and habitat development, throughout all types of environments, including wildlife diversity, terrestrial diversity, competition, predation, and symbiosis.  We have to understand all of these interactions, biologically as well as habitat structure, wildlife and human interactions, and through truthful conservation-focus on three different types of diversity:

  1. genetic diversity;
  2. ecosystem diversity;
  3. species diversity.

We have to understand, genetic diversity of any species is vital because it allows individuals of the same species pass on different characteristics’, some of which may become essential for survival in a changing environment.  Indeed, habitats are being lost daily and at a very high percentage; which, leads to environmental change.  Many changes.

These genetic diverse traits can include resistance to disease or in the case of some plants and animals, a rising-tolerance to drought or insect attacks. . .  When environmental conditions change, a genetically-strong species with a more diverse genetic profile, has a better chance of survival.  This is why I often impose questions upon our government’s genetic profiles of the wild horses, as being insufficient within their information, static data that creates bad decisions based upon faulty paradigms’, as well as incomplete data given, and yet decisions developed on this incomplete framework of interpretation.

Ecosystem diversity is a variation in the complex relationship’s organisms have with each other and with the involving elements of their environments.  These webs of interaction sustain life by making energy available in the form of food, and then actually cycle the other vital ingredients for life, including water, oxygen, and nitrogen.  These types of diverse ecosystems contribute distinctively to the health of the planet.

Forrest ecosystems contribute Carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and release oxygen.  Wetland ecosystems purify water.  Estuary ecosystems supply vast nurseries for fish crustaceans.  Marine ecosystems are the habitat of phytoplankton, the photosynthesizing microbes that account for 95% of the primary production in the ocean of food supply, and about 50% of all primary production of food supply on earth.

Reserving species diversity is quite significant as well.  The number of different species in the habitat and the size or viability, of each population, are all important situations to enhance rather than destroy.  It is a well-established principle, the more robust and diverse the ecosystem is likely to be, the better off humans remain, as well.

For example, it is less likely that a single species will out-compete all others when a number of species are contending for space.  Research in ecosystems in the United States tells us, for instance, a grasslands with the highest diversity of species, develops far more plant coverage and during a serious drought, can and do most often, recover far more quickly from drought than plots with fewer species.

Climate Change

Between 1906 and 2005 the average surface temperature of the earth rose between 0.6°C and 0.9°C – 1.1°F and 1.6°F – worldwide.  Equally important, the rate at which the earth surface temperature increased, nearly doubled over the past 50 years.  Greenhouse gases, such as the carbon dioxide released by automobiles and coal powered electric plants, and methane which is also a fossil fuel extraction, as well as livestock operations, and landfills , are all to blame.


Ironically out here in the West we see climate change being unacceptable.  Many of us see the situation of the debate, in particular against climate change, as nothing more than a distraction – brought about by the industries that can profit off of climate change.  We see forest fires have increased tenfold within the past five years, and we have seen the cattle industry growth, more population of cattle on public and federal lands, become more and more over-populated.

Putting all of this information together, we find the American taxpayer duped.  Needless to say, as many of us acknowledge, it is not only the Public Lands, in particular where Forest Fires located, and near areas that are being over-populated by cattle, but corn and other plant products must be grown to feed the cattle, and our nation’s food supply apparently secondary in this rush to find more land-mass, in order to grow the corn and other products to feed cattle; which, human food supplement grassland-areas decreased, over the past 12 years and to only 16% remaining, due to cattle – essentially, our Grain and Oats and other nutritious supplements sacrificed for cattle (similar to the wild horses), and other items that currently supplement our Nation’s Food Supply – Suddenly, there is more questions than answers, as we see many of the Forest Fire areas being turned into either supply food supplement for cattle, or to place cattle upon – more and more questions develop daily, the more we see this as fact . . .

So is the destruction of forest land negligible, due to climate change. and due to human’s preposterous industrial and corporate mindset?  Burning carbon-rich trees destroys carbon-trapping plants and releases heat-trapping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere – like Greenhouse – yes, Climate Change is here.  The US Department of Defense predicts the climate change, and the over-population of Cattle (so the myth of cattle ranching becomes very obvious, and television attempting to make $$$ before it fades away) will contribute to food and water scarcity, will increase the spread of disease, and may prompt mass migration people to already overly-populated cities.

Of course, the migration is already happening to coastal zones on the East Coast and West Coast and throughout mid-America, more and more small towns being evacuated, and country living is almost a thing of the past unless one is retired.  The world’s governments cannot seem to agree on ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions worldwide.  The amount of bias and bigotry we see today has increased in proportion, exponentially, with those who refuse to accept climate change being, assume it to be unreal.

Organisms that cannot adapt quickly to rising temperatures may not survive.  On the other hand, some destructive organisms are benefiting.  In North America, the mountain pine-beetle is producing a new generation every year, rather than every two years.  That has dramatically increased its larva count in the Rocky Mountains and the production of a fungus that the beetle introduces when it attacks trees.  Both beetle and fungus are killing pine trees, mountainsides turning a disgusting brown from rot and decay, rather than green, at a rate of 10 times higher than previously recorded.  Yet another sign of how decisions, based on bigotry, bias, and ignorance, indeed as a direct effect on our planet, a negative effect.

Domestic and Wildlife Extinction

Frankly speaking, there will never be enough zoos or vaults or sanctuaries, seed banks, aquariums, animal preserves, botanical gardens, and any facilities or habitats to protect a large percentage of wildlife now slated for extinction.

Wild Horses show us all, as a good example, on the comings and goings of how our government is depleting not just wildlife, in the name of conservation, industry, or humane – but rather, their discussion is absurd, bigoted – bias paradigms of managing our lands and wildlife.

If you need validation of that, we can go to the Wild Horses being darted with a pesticide under the name of saving them (i.e. and costing taxpayers now $-billions of dollars yearly and under a false premise, or outright lies, of wild horse over-population, when we search for facts we find nothing more than lies to generate higher budgets), but for all intents, purpose, and statistical data, and as well as science data, this among other things they also show us, is a consistency far more factual, and Wild Horse extinction a firm reality – nothing else –

There is no other information, evidence, nor data that shows the horses being safe whatsoever in this government-paradox, in the world of domestic as well as wild horses.  Many more animals are also either at the brink of extinction, for example giraffes, rhinos, among others, that many assume we would never see this level of potentiality, predicated on nothing more than extinction paradigms brought to you by governments worldwide.

The number of threatened species is very large and it is growing, as the international Union for Conservation of nature estimates that 30% of the world’s Bird Species, 25% of mammalian species, and 41% of amphibian species are facing extinction.  Keep in mind these are estimates, and quite frankly I see them be much higher than the reference I obtain for this data.  Just a small fraction of species on this earth of ours that have been assessed, so no one knows the actual number of species in jeopardy – only that it is certain to be very high.

Here we know cougars, bear, and wolves, to be facing near levels of extinction, but well-hidden today, by State’s Fish and Wildlife Service employees, and Forestry and Bureau of Land Management employee’s – and yes, their bigotry their bias, and their outright ignorance shows when discussing these matters with them.

Leave a comment

Posted by on January 30, 2020 in Uncategorized


Wild horses, Ecological Health, and cleaning up the government’s mess on Public Lands

When I’m up in the mountains, collecting data in the field, first thing I look at when I realize I am within a healthy ecosystem, is its stability.  I look for the things that may also destabilize the system, that is, once I understand how each is functioning together.  How the vegetation in the terrestrial environment and landscape is functioning alongside wildlife and how the wildlife, the browsers, the small critters, the insects, the keystone predators, associate with the marine environment, and if there is a creek, or a stream, I want to find out and know how all of this is affecting the overall ecosystem, or process within that habitat.

I also know from wildfires, hurricane or natural disturbances, melted glacier pack, or even floods, that the recolonization by pioneer species becomes inevitable at times.  We can look at the terrestrial perspective, and discuss new growth timber that becomes old-growth, and how it significantly affected each habitat within its unique capacity to develop a positive and healthy habitat process and eventual system, that indeed created a stability within the environment.  Nature thrives very well on consistency as well as routine – the four seasons for example, human’s uncomfortable, but for growth and health; indeed, Nature thrives on the seasons being consistent, an integration takes place because of the constant power of each season.

Right now, we can gain a new perspective about Wild Horses being, some would say, rewilded; but, I refrain from that phrase.  just as a new tree turns into old-growth and within a thriving and healthy habitat and over the years of consistency, in this case, develops into a positive system. . . I am not discussing the re-establishment nor a re-acquaintance by the Wild Horses and actually placing them back into their home environments; neither am I establishing a pioneer species within these environments where the Wild Horses come from.

The overwhelming fact of this is beyond debate, the Wild Horses were taken illegally by government agencies that do not understand habitat-process, stability of land mass and wildlife, nor do they understand the tools that are needed for habitats to become of value, that can and do (e.g. when managed properly) enhance our Natural Resources (i.e. enhancing our food supplements within a healthy environment), nor does government agencies have the ability to understand good science as far as we can see through their current actions.  Bigotry and bias are not good decision-making backgrounds, as we see daily in government, and total ignorance even worse in the decision-making process. . . as we see on our Public and Forestry lands of today overwhelmed with bad decision making results —

The question soon centers around the term natural disturbance, how and what may dramatically change the landscape.  But should we simply pay attention to the landscape, when compared to understanding the entire scope of what lay underneath the landscape, soil quality throughout the landscape, and clean water in streams, or other natural occurrences, and what about the natural resources and the element of growth and quality of the Natural Resources for Our Nation’s food chain supplements of grains, oats, and other important grasses, the element of substance, the element of pollution or no pollution, the element of human intervention and interference compared to scientific-based human intervention and positive habitat management.

Now we step into the realm of Primary Succession, or the change in an environment when it is colonized, or re-colonized, or when a disturbance wipes out a healthy ecosystem that was previously present in the environment. . .  Government intervention from their special interests or political agendas remain basically extraordinary disturbance-occurrence and to include cattle, sheep, mining, oil, illegal or very questionable fencing, as well as many other incompetent management practices brought about by corrupt government intervention.

The truth is, government employees could care less because it’s not their money paying for it all, it’s the taxpayers’ that pay for all of it – all of this ongoing and current nonsense upon our public lands, and the corrupt management paradigms that exist, or what some refer to as mismanagement.

In the process of Primary Succession, the ecosystem process builds or rebuilds itself from the ground up.  But within either building process the establishment of “pioneer species” takes place.  For example, we reestablish wild horses into an area that was designated as a Wild Horse area, and in accordance with the Wild Horse and Burro act of 1971.  We can truthfully point out that the cattle, sheep, mining, oil industries destroy the land to such a point it is non-useful.  In this case we can now call the Wild Horses a “pioneer species” – which would establish themselves back into or onto their land and environmental complex.

I state “pioneer species”, as what we are trying to accomplish is a healthy environment complex, and the system to do so is, starting over again.  Now you see why I refrain from speaking about the term to re-wild a species, as we are not doing so within that term, but we are establishing a “pioneer species” and upon lands that have been Desertified, or in another words shown to be destroyed to such a point the land is Non-Useful any longer – which, under this paradigm the Wild Horses reestablished first, followed by other plants, bacteria and fungus growth, insects, and finally more animals.

This is where moderation of populations becomes grounded and within the first year or two, both wildlife and terrestrial, as some will thrive and some will not do so whatsoever.  The rebuilding phase of this type of environment, and the complex structure that is within it, of all living organisms, and the Yin and Yang of the universal quality, some will make it some will not, but indeed, eventually a stable ecological habitat and a positive and thorough process or basis of building the foundation, only then does the ecological process become enhanced positively, especially toward positive growth and moderations of population dynamics within all species of both vegetation and wildlife.

What I have found over the years within my research, reference materials, and being in the field, is that the time from primary succession to a stable and thorough ecological process can take decades.  But, and this is extraordinary, is the fact that population moderation happens within the first year or two of the reestablished ecological habitat, and within the process that develops within a natural and constant paradigm based on sound science, common sense, and a respect for not only nature and its natural process, but for the wildlife and its diversity and growth, as well as within the terrestrial environment that grows within the habitat.

Now I can discuss “Secondary Succession”, which occurs when an ecological habitat has been damaged and is being repopulated.  Here we can once again use the way the current government agencies go about managing our public lands, and refrain from such bad and irrelevant management principle’s, and also use a Stand of 180 trees in the forest.  There process, which lacks good science, is to log off and obtain profit from the 180 trees that are in a stand covering 110 acres.  We then find they will use bulldozers with very heavy chains, and after the trees have been logged off, to basically rip apart and tear apart the entire environmental complex.  Grass will be allowed to grow, if at all, and taxpayers will pay for the seeds very definitely, as well as all this other maniacal and perverted type of land management based on no science whatsoever, and after a year or two or five, cattle will be moved in and at a cut-rate cost to the welfare rancher, which the taxpayers will cover, and obtain nothing back except higher taxes.

Yes, there is a reason the grazing permit program and the welfare ranching community have received $531.6 billion in subsidies over the past few years, once you start understanding, observing, and seeing what the result of their management, corrupt within all means and ways, and done with no common sense what so ever.  

But rather a  bias form of ignorance, which says it is okay to choose cattle over thousands upon thousands of acres of wilderness area, which could have provided us much needed diversity of continued Natural Resources over many years (our Natural Grass Lands Resource domestically, is down to 16% availability to our Food Chain Supplement, for example, and going further downward, with no Resource upswing in sight, due to poor management of our public lands), rather than the destruction from the cattle, which obligates our Public Lands for a short time period of graze, then followed by destruction, and followed again by years of non-use due to the destructive nature, desertification continues, of cattle, sheep, mining, and the oil industries awkward and unregulated use of our Public Lands.

Are we using our Public Lands beneficially, and with a positive value toward Taxpayer money, value-based, and what will the taxpayer’s get out of it, the entire situation, and the costly incompetent management?   ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!  PERHAPS HIGHER TAXES, IS ABOUT ALL.

In a functioning ecosystem, the process of “Secondary Succession” never really ends.  Now we can refer to recolonization, which begins moderately, with the insect world, the keystone predators, the adversarial situations that are formed within predator-prey relationships all the way from bacteria and fungus, up to and including the bear, cougar, wolves, the marine environment of fisheries, et al.  Then we get to the specialty wildlife, specialty insects, predators large and small.

What I have seen in different environmental complex situations, a good example is around Mount Saint Helens, wherein an overly amount of spiders and their drifting spiderwebs developed to begin the “pioneer species” after the eruption, and possibly due to lack of prey, many of the diversity of spiders left, or disappeared.

What develops is a situation, regardless of which wildlife large or small, one species replaces another over months or seasons.  But what is also consistent is the fact that the number of species that remain constant, have not only found their predator-prey relationship that enhances their life-span and quality of life, whether it be grass or whether it be fungus or whether it be whatever, that eventually within the year their population will moderate, as good well research science as well as data collection and through observations, show us quite well.  The competition for food, water, and shelter becomes less, as growth remains predicated upon size of habitat, how fast the population moderates, among other substantial habitat community paradigms.

This is what good science shows us.  This is what the government agencies in charge of our lands does not seem to know, nor do they acknowledge the existence of such information.  And this is troubling.


Michael E. Soulè and John Terborgh, “The Policy and Science of Regional Conservation,” Chapter 1 in Continental Conservation.

Michael Soulè and Reed Noss, “Rewilding and Biodiversity as Complementary Goals for Continental Conservation,” Wild Earth, Fall 1998, 22.

William Lynn, “Deep Rewilding” Wildlands Network blog.

“Rewilding North America: A Vision for Conservation in the 21st Century” by Dave Foreman (Island Press 2004).   Order from The Rewilding Institute.

“Continental Conservation: Scientific Foundations of Regional Reserve Networks” edited by Michael E. Soulè and John Terborgh (Island Press 1999). Order from The Rewilding Institute.

Crutzen PJ (2002) Geology of mankind. Nature 415(6867):23.

Sandom C, Faurby S, Sandel B, Svenning J-C (2014) Global late Quaternary megafauna extinctions linked to humans, not climate change. Proc Biol Sci 281(1787):20133254.

Turvey ST, Fritz SA (2011) The ghosts of mammals past: Biological and geographical patterns of global mammalian extinction across the Holocene. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 366(1577):2564–2576.

Barnosky AD, Koch PL, Feranec RS, Wing SL, Shabel AB (2004) Assessing the causes of late Pleistocene extinctions on the continents. Science 306(5693):70–75.

Dirzo R, et al. (2014) Defaunation in the Anthropocene. Science 345(6195):401–406.

Estes JA, et al. (2011) Trophic downgrading of planet Earth. Science 333(6040):301–306.

Ripple WJ, et al. (2014) Status and ecological effects of the World’s largest carnivores. Science 343(6167):1241484.

Terborgh J, Estes JA, eds (2010) Trophic Cascades: Predators, Prey, and the Changing Dynamics of Nature (Island Press, Washington, DC).

Soule M, Noss R (1998) Rewilding and biodiversity: Complementary goals for continental conservation. Wild Earth 8(3):1–11.

Zimov SA, et al. (1995) Steppe-tundra transition: A herbivore-driven biome shift at the end of the Pleistocene. Am Nat 146(5):765–794.

Baerselman F, Vera F (1995) Nature Development. An Exploratory Study for the Construction of Ecological Networks (Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries, The Hague, The Netherlands).

Jørgensen D (2015) Rethinking rewilding. Geoforum doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2014.11.016.

Seddon PJ, Griffiths CJ, Soorae PS, Armstrong DP (2014) Reversing defaunation: Restoring species in a changing world. Science 345(6195):406–412.

Navarro LM, Pereira HM (2012) Rewilding abandoned landscapes in Europe. Ecosystems (N Y) 15(6):900–912.

Schnitzler A (2014) Towards a new European wilderness: Embracing unmanaged forest growth and the decolonisation of nature. Landscape Urban Plan 126:74–80.

Donlan CJ, et al. (2006) Pleistocene rewilding: An optimistic agenda for twenty-first century conservation. Am Nat 168(5):660–681.

Donlan J, et al. (2005) Re-wilding North America. Nature 436(7053):913–914.

Galetti M (2004) Parks of the Pleistocene: Recreating the Cerrado and the Pantanal with megafauna. Nat Conserv 2(1):93–100.

Smith FA, et al. (2010) The evolution of maximum body size of terrestrial mammals. Science 330(6008):1216–1219.

Nenzén HK, Montoya D, Varela S (2014) The impact of 850,000 years of climate changes on the structure and dynamics of mammal food webs. PLoS One 9(9):e106651.

Carrasco MA, Barnosky AD, Graham RW (2009) Quantifying the extent of North American mammal extinction relative to the pre-anthropogenic baseline. PLoS One 4(12):e8331.

Janzen DH, Martin PS (1982) Neotropical anachronisms: The fruits the gomphotheres ate. Science 215(4528):19–27.

Hayward MW (2009) Conservation management for the past, present and future. Biodivers Conserv 18(4):765–775.

Sandom C, Donlan CJ, Svenning J-C, Hansen D (2013) Rewilding. Key Topics in Conservation Biology 2, eds Macdonald DW, Willis KJ (Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, UK), pp 430–451.

Hansen DM, Donlan CJ, Griffiths CJ, Campbell KJ (2010) Ecological history and latent conservation potential: Large and giant tortoises as a model for taxon substitutions. Ecography 33(2):272–284.

Reardon S (2014) Rewilding: The next big thing? New Sci 221(2958):40–43.

Terborgh J, et al. (1999) The role of top carnivores in regulating terrestrial ecosystems. Continental Conservation—Scientic Foundations of Regional Reserve Networks, eds Soulé ME, Terborgh J (Island Press, Washington, DC), pp 39–64.

Haynes G (2012) Elephants (and extinct relatives) as earth-movers and ecosystem engineers. Geomorphology 157–158:99–107.

Morrison JC, Sechrest W, Dinerstein E, Wilcove DS, Lamoreux JF (2007) Persistence of large mammal faunas as indicators of global human impacts. J Mammal 88(6):1363–1380.

Schmölcke U, Zachos FE (2005) Holocene distribution and extinction of the moose (Alces alces, Cervidae) in Central Europe. Mamm Biol 70(6):329–344.

Laliberte AS, Ripple WJ (2004) Range contractions of North American carnivores and ungulates. Bioscience 54(2):123–138.

Crees JJ, Turvey ST (2014) Holocene extinction dynamics of Equus hydruntinus, a late-surviving European megafaunal mammal. Quat Sci Rev 91:16–29.

Smith FA, Elliott SM, Lyons SK (2010) Methane emissions from extinct megafauna. Nat Geosci 3(6):374–375.

Gill JL (2014) Ecological impacts of the late Quaternary megaherbivore extinctions. New Phytol 201(4):1163–1169.

Sandom CJ, Ejrnæs R, Hansen MDD, Svenning J-C (2014) High herbivore density associated with vegetation diversity in interglacial ecosystems. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111(11):4162–4167.

Doughty CE, Wolf A, Field CB (2010) Biophysical feedbacks between the Pleistocene megafauna extinction and climate: The first human-induced global warming? Geophys Res Lett 37(15):L15703.

Cenizo MM, Agnolin FL, Pomi LH (2015) A new Pleistocene bird assemblage from the southern Pampas (Buenos Aires, Argentina). Palaeogeogr Palaeoclimatol Palaeoecol 420:65–81.

Tyrberg T (2008) The Late Pleistocene continental avian extinction—An evaluation of the fossil evidence. Oryctos 7:249–269.

Sánchez MV, Genise JF, Bellosi ES, Román-Carrión JL, Cantil LF (2013) Dung beetle brood balls from Pleistocene highland palaeosols of Andean Ecuador: A reassessment of Sauer’s Coprinisphaera and their palaeoenvironments. Palaeogeogr Palaeoclimatol Palaeoecol 386:257–274.

Chamberlain CP, et al. (2005) Pleistocene to recent dietary shifts in California condors. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102(46):16707–16711.

Côté SD, Rooney TP, Tremblay J-P, Dussault C, Waller DM (2004) Ecological impacts of deer overabundance. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 35:113–147.

Campos-Arceiz A, Blake S (2011) Megagardeners of the forests—The role of elephants in seed dispersal. Acta Oecol 37(6):542–553.

Chapron G, et al. (2014) Recovery of large carnivores in Europe’s modern human-dominated landscapes. Science 346(6216):1517–1519.

Deinet S, et al. (2013) Wildlife Comeback in Europe: The Recovery of Selected Mammal and Bird Species. Final Report to Rewilding Europe by ZSL, Birdlife International and the European Bird Census Council (Zoological Society of London, London).

Ripple WJ, Beschta RL (2012) Large predators limit herbivore densities in northern forest ecosystems. Eur J Wildl Res 58(4):733–742.

Owen-Smith N (1987) Pleistocene extinctions: The pivotal role of megaherbivores. Palaeobiology 13(3):351–362.

Hopcraft JG, Olff H, Sinclair AR (2010) Herbivores, resources and risks: Alternating regulation along primary environmental gradients in savannas. Trends Ecol Evol 25(2):119–128.

Van Valkenburgh B, Hayward MW, Ripple WJ, Meloro C, Roth VL (2016) The impact of large terrestrial carnivores on Pleistocene ecosystems. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 113:862–867.

Bocherens H (2015) Isotopic tracking of large carnivore palaeoecology in the mammoth steppe. Quat Sci Rev 117:42–71.

Coltrain JB, et al. (2004) Rancho La Brea stable isotope biogeochemistry and its implications for the palaeoecology of late Pleistocene, coastal southern California. Palaeogeogr Palaeoclimatol Palaeoecol 205(3-4):199–219.

Skogland T (1991) What are the effects of predators on large ungulate populations? Oikos 61(3):401–411.

Doughty CE, Wolf A, Malhi Y (2013) The legacy of the Pleistocene megafauna extinctions on nutrient availability in Amazonia. Nat Geosci 6(9):761–764.

Hobbs NT (1996) Modification of ecosystems by ungulates. J Wildl Manage 60(4):695–713.

Ripple WJ, Van Valkenburgh B (2010) Linking top-down forces to the Pleistocene megafaunal extinctions. Bioscience 60(7):516–526.

Duffy JE, et al. (2007) The functional role of biodiversity in ecosystems: Incorporating trophic complexity. Ecol Lett 10(6):522–538.

Waldram MS, Bond WJ, Stock WD (2008) Ecological engineering by a mega-grazer: White rhino impacts on a South African savanna. Ecosystems (N Y) 11(1):101–112.

Gill JL, Williams JW, Jackson ST, Lininger KB, Robinson GS (2009) Pleistocene megafaunal collapse, novel plant communities, and enhanced fire regimes in North America. Science 326(5956):1100–1103.

Rule S, et al. (2012) The aftermath of megafaunal extinction: Ecosystem transformation in Pleistocene Australia. Science 335(6075):1483–1486.

Dobson AP (2014) Yellowstone wolves and the forces that structure natural systems. PLoS Biol 12(12):e1002025.

Beschta RL, Ripple WJ (2012) The role of large predators in maintaining riparian plant communities and river morphology. Geomorphology 157-158:88–98.

Hebblewhite M, Smith DW (2010) Wolf community ecology: Ecosystem effects of recovering wolves in Banff and Yellowstone national parks. The World of Wolves: New Perspectives on Ecology, Behavior and Management, eds Musiani M, Boitani L, Paquet P (Univ of Calgary Press, Calgary, AB, Canada), pp 69–120.

Callan R, Nibbelink NP, Rooney TP, Wiedenhoeft JE, Wydeven AP (2013) Recolonizing wolves trigger a trophic cascade in Wisconsin (USA). J Ecol 101(4):837–845.

Kuijper DPJ, et al. (2013) Landscape of fear in Europe: Wolves affect spatial patterns of ungulate browsing in Białowieża Primeval Forest, Poland. Ecography 36(12):1263–1275.

Vera FWM (2009) Large-scale nature development—The Oostvaardersplassen. British Wildlife 20(5):28–36.

Smit C, Ruifrok JL, van Klink R, Olff H (2015) Rewilding with large herbivores: The importance of grazing refuges for sapling establishment and wood-pasture formation. Biol Conserv 182:134–142

Cornelissen P, Bokdam J, Sykora K, Berendse F (2014) Effects of large herbivores on wood pasture dynamics in a European wetland system. Basic Appl Ecol 15(5):396–406.

Zimov SA (2005) Pleistocene park: Return of the mammoth’s ecosystem. Science 308(5723):796–798.

Zimov SA, Zimov NS, Tikhonov AN, Chapin FS III (2012) Mammoth steppe: a high-productivity phenomenon. Quat Sci Rev 57:26–45.

Hansen DM, Galetti M (2009) The forgotten megafauna. Science 324(5923):42–43.

Griffiths CJ, et al. (2012) The welfare implications of using exotic tortoises as ecological replacements. PLoS One 7(6):e39395.

Griffiths CJ, Hansen DM, Jones CG, Zuël N, Harris S (2011) Resurrecting extinct interactions with extant substitutes. Curr Biol 21(9):762–765.

Griffiths CJ, Zuë LN, Jones CG, Ahamud Z, Harris S (2013) Assessing the potential to restore historic grazing ecosystems with tortoise ecological replacements. Conserv Biol 27(4):690–700.

Hunter EA, Gibbs JP, Cayot LJ, Tapia W (2013) Equivalency of Galápagos giant tortoises used as ecological replacement species to restore ecosystem functions. Conserv Biol 27(4):701–709.

Gibbs JP, Hunter EA, Shoemaker KT, Tapia WH, Cayot LJ (2014) Demographic outcomes and ecosystem implications of giant tortoise reintroduction to Española Island, Galapagos. PLoS One 9(10):e110742.

Wilder BT, et al. (2014) Local extinction and unintentional rewilding of bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) on a desert island. PLoS One 9(3):e91358.

Long JL (2003) Introduced Mammals of the World: Their History, Distribution and Influence (CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK).

Litvinov YN (2014) Mammals of the Taymyr Peninsula (biodiversity and organization of communities). Contemp Probl Ecol 7(6):607–617.

Lee WG, Wood JR, Rogers GM (2010) Legacy of avian-dominated plant-herbivore systems in New Zealand. N Z J Ecol 34(1):28–47.

Beever E, Tausch R, Thogmartin W (2008) Multi-scale responses of vegetation to removal of horse grazing from Great Basin (USA) mountain ranges. Plant Ecol 196(2):163–184.

Levin PS, Ellis J, Petrik R, Hay ME (2002) Indirect effects of feral horses on estuarine communities. Conserv Biol 16(5):1364–1371.

Turner JW, Morrison ML (2001) Influence of predation by mountain lions on numbers and survivorship of a feral horse population. Southwest Nat 46(2):183–190.

Aslan CE, Zavaleta ES, Croll DON, Tershy B (2012) Effects of native and non-native vertebrate mutualists on plants. Conserv Biol 26(5):778–789.

Pires MM, et al. (2014) Reconstructing past ecological networks: The reconfiguration of seed-dispersal interactions after megafaunal extinction. Oecologia 175(4):1247–1256.

Donatti CI, Galetti M, Pizo MA, Guimaraes PR Jr, Jordano P (2007) Living in the land of ghosts: Fruit traits and the importance of large mammals as seed dispersers in the Pantanal, Brazil. Seed Dispersal: Theory and Its Application in a Changing World, eds Dennis AJ, Green RJ, Schupp EW, Westcott DA (CAB International, Wallingford, UK), pp 104–123.

Ordiz A, Bischof R, Swenson JE (2013) Saving large carnivores, but losing the apex predator? Biol Conserv 168:128–133.

Kuijper DPJ (2011) Lack of natural control mechanisms increases wildlife–forestry conflict in managed temperate European forest systems. Eur J For Res 130(6):895–909.

Hegland SJ, Lilleeng MS, Moe SR (2013) Old-growth forest floor richness increases with red deer herbivory intensity. For Ecol Manage 310:267–274

.CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

Newsome TM, et al. (2015) Resolving the value of the dingo in ecological restoration. Restor Ecol 23(3):201–208.

Hughes FMR, et al. (2011) Monitoring and evaluating large-scale, ‘open-ended’ habitat creation projects: A journey rather than a destination. J Nat Conserv 19(4):245–253.

Carbone C, Mace GM, Roberts SC, Macdonald DW (1999) Energetic constraints on the diet of terrestrial carnivores. Nature 402(6759):286–288.

Svenning J-C (2007) ‘Pleistocene re-wilding’ merits serious consideration also outside North America. IBS Newsletter 5(3):3–9..

Beale CM, et al. (2013) Ten lessons for the conservation of African savannah ecosystems. Biol Conserv 167:224–232.

Somers MJ, Hayward M, eds (2012) Fencing for Conservation: Restriction of Evolutionary Potential or a Riposte to Threatening Processes? (Springer Science & Business Media, New York).

Poschlod P, Bonn S (1998) Changing dispersal processes in the central European landscape since the last ice age: An explanation for the actual decrease of plant species richness in different habitats? Acta Botanica Neerlandica 47(1):27–44.

Rosenzweig ML (2003) Reconciliation ecology and the future of species diversity. Oryx 37(2):194–205.

Phalan B, Onial M, Balmford A, Green RE (2011) Reconciling food production and biodiversity conservation: Land sharing and land sparing compared. Science 333(6047):1289–1291.

Imhoff ML, et al. (2004) Global patterns in human consumption of net primary production. Nature 429(6994):870–873.

Cerqueira Y, et al. (2015) Ecosystem services: The opportunities of rewilding in Europe. Rewilding European Landscapes, eds Pereira HM, Navarro LM (Springer, Heidelberg), pp 47–64.

Hobbs RJ, Higgs E, Harris JA (2009) Novel ecosystems: Implications for conservation and restoration. Trends Ecol Evol 24(11):599–605

Bowman D (2012) Conservation: Bring elephants to Australia? Nature 482(7383):30.

Milner JM, Van Beest FM, Schmidt KT, Brook RK, Storaas T (2014) To feed or not to feed? Evidence of the intended and unintended effects of feeding wild ungulates. J Wildl Manage 78(8):1322–1334

Tanentzap AJ, Kirby KJ, Goldberg EE (2012) Slow responses of ecosystems to reductions in deer (Cervidae) populations and strategies for achieving recovery. For Ecol Manage 264:159–166.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2013) Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge, UK).

Post E, Pedersen C (2008) Opposing plant community responses to warming with and without herbivores. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105(34):12353–12358.

Tanentzap AJ, Coomes DA (2012) Carbon storage in terrestrial ecosystems: do browsing and grazing herbivores matter? Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 87(1):72–94.

IUCN/SSC (2013) Guidelines for Reintroductions and Other Conservation Translocations. Version 1.0 (IUCN Species Survival Commission, Gland, Switzerland).

Burney DA, Juvik JO, Burney LP, Diagne T (2012) Can unwanted suburban tortoises rescue native Hawaiian plants? Tortoise 1(1):104–115.

Seddon PJ, Moehrenschlager A, Ewen J (2014) Reintroducing resurrected species: Selecting DeExtinction candidates. Trends Ecol Evol 29(3):140–147.

Redford KH, Adams W, Mace GM (2013) Synthetic biology and conservation of nature: Wicked problems and wicked solutions. PLoS Biol 11(4):e1001530.

Donlan J (2014) De-extinction in a crisis discipline. Front Biogeogr 6(1):25–28.

Peterken GF (1977) Habitat conservation priorities in British and European woodlands. Biol Conserv 11(3):223–236.

Faurby S, Svenning J-C (2015) A species-level phylogeny of all extant and late Quaternary extinct mammals using a novel heuristic-hierarchical Bayesian approach. Mol Phylogenet Evol 84:14–26.

Faurby S, Svenning J-C (2015) Historic and prehistoric human-driven extinctions have reshaped global mammal diversity patterns. Divers Distrib doi:10.1111/ddi.12369.

Owen-Smith N (2013) Contrasts in the large herbivore faunas of the southern continents in the late Pleistocene and the ecological implications for human origins. J Biogeogr 40(7):1215–1224.

Leave a comment

Posted by on January 28, 2020 in Uncategorized


Wild Horses Wolves Cougar: Kill Only Paradigms Extinction Only Not Management

“Folks who ain’t got ideas of their own should be mighty careful whose they borrow … “

It’s time to question the increase in wildlife-eradication, or to explain it plainly, stop killing America’s Wildlife out of ignorance and fear.  Yes, it is a problem!  As in right here, right now and in America, over 40% of our Wildlife in America has been killed – or eradicated.  Worse yet, is the fact that within the past 15 years this has happened.

Is there anyone paying attention here?  We have two animal protection supposed non-profits who makes in excess of, on average, $340 million dollars a year (their 990 IRS Form to the Public).  They claim to be a watch-dog group, a legal oversight agency so to speak.  Their mission-statement gives people that perception as well.  It is also inclusive within their advertising, and gives potential donators the perception their organization is watching over America’s wildlife and animals.  One has got to ask, “Then where in the hell were you when wildlife was being unnecessarily killed, and still is?”

We also have a government agency, Wildlife Services, that kills anywhere from 2 million wildlife and animals yearly, up to 5.8 million a few years ago and within a one-year time frame as well.  Ironically, this was accomplished within someone’s mind-set of acceptability, both in principle and standard of management ideologies, and (as awkward as this sounds), a conservation tool.

Many government employees, for example, eradication or killing animals, actually to them a useful and quick way to dispose of problems within their jurisdiction toward a resolution, is used quite often.    Indeed, killing wolves and cougars in ranching areas remains a well-accepted practice.  But does good science and actual proof, in another words real evidence show clearly this to be true, that wolves and cougars in these situations indeed the problem?  Again, where are these non-profits, who take donations, in the millions of dollars’ worth, but apparently have done nothing to save America’s Wildlife, and worse, has not even acknowledged the same.

Truth Reality and Our Government – State and Federal

But once again the truth pops up, reality, and demonstrates through good science that eradication methodology is simply bad-science in disguise, if science at all.  Most government science today is predicated upon commercial or special interest needs.  This, in reality, means there is a lack of science, that is good science within our government today.  The Bureau of Land Management for example, leave cattle out of their rangeland and environmental ecological systems studies, data gathering and research – then blame wild horses for rangeland destruction, as an invasive and non-native species . . . So we can assume that cattle are an indigenous species in someone’s mind; which is based on no science anywhere.

Which leads to yet another problem.  If the wild horses are not indigenous, yet BLM admits they existed here 5,000 years ago, were considered (loosely by snobbery science) to be killed off, then a couple thousand years later returned – “Oh Darn, lookie there, more horses just turned up” – then what was the time frame for horses to be taken from indigenous-status, to non-indigenous or invasive-species status?  There is a lot wrong with idiotic science, and then explained within official government documents as real.  Bit it is, in reality not science at all.

So we have an acceptable invasive-species, cattle, and to have them the wild horses, basically an indigenous-species when good science involved, has got to be eradicated for the invasive-species to exist on Public lands – actually taking over and destroying Public Lands – but within the BLM — observation, experience, and actual circumstance has no value – when compared to BLM employees having a Howdy-Doody smile while telling a taxpayer a tremendous lie.

Now we can begin to understand the governments’ scientific methodology, both state and federal.  Soon we realize there is none.  Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, for another example of bad-science, leaves out Poaching statistics as well as attritional aspects of their eradication programs.  The agency they use, Wildlife Services, remains well known for disregarding environmental assessments as well – so who knows, as no data exists.  ODFW certainly doesn’t know.

But yes, ODFW uses Wildlife Services, a branch of the USDA.  This is basically a situation where trappers, and other government groups/employees, will eradicate by supposedly a scientific choice (but no science would agree with it in reality, and none is ever found, nor an EA) of wildlife from the mountains, woods, or wherever, at the request of, for this example, a cattle rancher – a decision that was emotionally-based out of ignorance and fear, and nothing more.

In this single situation case — Beavers, where poison-pots, cyanide gas, and traps were set to kill them.  One tally of attritional-only wildlife killed within a three-day time period, and kept track of by an observer keeping statistics of the Controlled-Eradication, assimilated: 26 Fox, 14 Beaver, 120 squirrels, two hunting dogs within the proximity of the cyanide, one small house dog/a pet died in a leg-trap, 2 house cats as well and in their own yard poisoned, all for 3 Beaver who damned a stream near a cow pasture near Murderer’s Creek, Oregon.

This particular rancher thinks anything but cattle on Public Lands, where he grazes his over-abundance of cattle per acre, is a waste and should be eradicated anyway.  The extremely creepy part to this, most cattle ranchers who graze on or near Federal Lands believe this as fact – and as well, most over-graze on state or federal lands, destroying the ecological system present.

It has also been shown his cattle do create a destructive environmental impact on this area – as shown in Federal Court, and due to his mismanagement of the cattle, as well as too many cattle on that particular grazing area.

Killing of Wildlife Unnecessarily

killing wildlife is not, in truth, useful at all when based upon bad-science, on fear, on hate for particular wildlife, on lies, on profit margins, and quite often in today’s Public Lands situation, in order to place more cattle upon federal or public lands to eventually sell to foreign markets.  One has got to ask about the actual sacrifice we make, here in America, in order for an overabundant amount of cattle to graze on Our Lands, America’s Lands!  Is it worth swapping out most of our Wildlife for cattle?  Insult to injury — we also subsidize ($ billions yearly) these ranchers for their overabundance of cattle, destruction of our environment, killing of our wildlife unnecessarily, and abuse of our supposed Federally Protected Lands – for what?  Well, we receive nothing actually “0” . . .

Here reality speaks much louder about controlled-eradication.  This mind-set that pointedly favors corporate and commercial entities — over the taxpayers, or the majority that actually owns Public Lands and the Wildlife – which a group our government and a few others have forgotten about – our group is called — Americans.

Currently government managers give significance to the term indigenous species; which is something very significant but conclusive of bad-science deduction (for example cattle are left out of all Range Management science conducted by the BLM for their Range Statistics – uh huh), then they replace indigenous species, actually calling them invaders and then the step-upward to invasive species.  When termed Invasive Species, then many things happen almost automatically; suddenly we see indigenous species being eradicated, oddly killed as a matter of written policy.  Two months ago this policy did not exist.  This is the current nature of not only Federally managed lands and wildlife, but State managed lands and wildlife.

So we have, according to governing agencies, many species including horses, bear, cougar, elk, et al., who are then considered aggressive invaders doing harm through competition.  Then along comes money-making opportunities as well, and the band-wagon is fraught with scammers and schemers crawling all over it – Yes, it is called or referred to as Breed-Control, and common today is the use of such not-noteworthy items at all, and created from bad science or incompetent science, such as PZP.

Why would an agency that is tasked with managing wildlife resources for the common good advocate for the controlled-eradication of several species of wild animals?

Perception government and incompetence

Alien invasive species means an alien species which becomes established in natural or semi-natural ecosystems or habitat, is an agent of change, and threatens native biological diversity.

Alien species (non-native, non-indigenous, foreign, exotic) means a species, subspecies, or lower taxon occurring outside of its natural range (past or present) and dispersal potential (i.e. outside the range it occupies naturally or could not occupy without direct or indirect introduction or care by humans) and includes any part, gametes, or propagule of such species that might survive and subsequently reproduce.”

A viewpoint switch is easy, just a matter of perception because when closely examined, “alien, native, aggressive, competition, invader and harm” are empirically hollow buzzwords that are constantly redefined at the whim of those who use inflammatory, arbitrary jargon to promote the war on weeds and wildlife.

“Science is the systematic enquiry into the nature of phenomena, and it cannot progress without serious dedication to the truth.”

Scientists who propose controlled-eradication should offer their proof, always, along with a well-documented and defined and thorough collection of good data – good science — .honesty – and truth that shows consistency over time the resolution enhances, rather than destroys, an ecological system.

Questions and More Questions

Unquestionably, biodiversity loss is a real problem but its root cause is anthropogenic – human impact – not ‘invasive aliens”. Yet, the constant alarm sounded by government employees for example, selling their “invasive species crisis” is that animals like wild horses, cougars, bears, wolves, burros and others “harm” biodiversity.

In truth, it is rancher’s, corporations and mining that destroy environments and ecological systems, then out of some type of psycho-pathetic moronic behavior, most often to cover up their mess of the environment, demand controlled-eradication’s of wildlife as well as many plants which pose some idiotic threat. The truth is, good science shows us most plant and animal “invasions” are nature trying to heal herself by restoring biodiversity to systems unbalanced by man. This healing of biodiversity is necessary for wildlife to recover.

If you are using subjective definitions for the terms “native,” “alien,” “harm,” “invader,” and “competition,” how will these concepts be adequate to formulate a scientific discipline of ecological principles, management decisions and public policy?

What are your criteria for ecological “harm?” The criteria needs to be measurable and objective, not just subjective speculation (e.g. ODFW on the delisting of Wolves). They should apply to all species, irrespective of whether they are theoretically “native” or “alien.” In the absence of these criteria, on what basis are you determining which species to control or exterminate?

What are your objectives, ecological criteria of “alien” species? Of “invaders?” These need to be precise so any biologist or landowner can identify “non-native” or “invader” in any ecosystem by evaluating the criteria without being told in advance what the designation is for a specific plant or animal.

It must be possible to confirm this through double-blind experiments, which do not give away in advance the definition of the plant or animal tested. For example, how does the BLM distinguish between “native” and “alien” plant monocultures, between expanding “native” and “alien” populations, and the effects of “natives” and “aliens” on the ranges?

If government science can’t give these definitions, or develop them, then its conclusions about the effects of these plants and animals are entirely subjective and its procedures are not scientific. Without such objective criteria how do government employees justify actions against species they may call “alien?”

How can one distinguish harmless or helpful characteristics of a new species from “invasion” particularly at the early stages? The example that comes to mind is when BLM wiped out 100 burros that ranged on 500,000 acres of state and national parks with 100 miles of river frontage because the burros supposedly threatened water sources for bighorn sheep.

What protocol does government employees have, to determine the conservation value of new populations that have moved outside of historical ranges?  Are all such population moves “invasions?”  And if so will they be exterminated without regard to possible conservation value?

Who will make these decisions? Under what authority are those decisions made? If there is disagreement as to whether a species is harmful how will these be adjudicated? What measures have government agencies put in place to ensure that harmless species or species that serve useful conservation purposes are not the object of harmful control or eradication measures?  We can look at both the wolf and the wild horses, and state without a doubt no measures exist currently.

If we abandon native/alien criteria in favor of invasive/non-invasive criteria or aggressive/non-aggressive criteria how will these terms be defined? Considering that population numbers of native animals swing widely, how do we justify any efforts to impose stability on these “exotic” populations?

How is the cause of “invasion” to be determined? If human impact is the only reason will the extermination of the species spreading as a result of this solve the “problem” or will this create a downward spiral of inappropriate interventions? Shouldn’t we be treating causes instead of symptoms?

How has government employees of all levels attempted to ensure against potential conflict of interest inherent in accepting money for research from sources that may have their own agendas?

Clearly Change is Required

Wild animal ‘management’ according to financial self-interest, authoritarian ignorance and superstitious pseudoscience is the worst thing ever to happen to wildlife, and what is being done to plants by the government invading biologists using little to no science, is even worse.

Big government and big business are two faces of one coin, which seeks subsidies, protection from competition, favorable regulations, support for (and from) politicians, agencies, universities and regulators. The larger the conglomerate grows the more ineffective its individual parts become. Eventually, as can be seen in industry-after-industry, agencies in these aggregations do things contrary to the purposes for which they were established

Take wildlife: conservation began in order to protect wild animals and plants from reckless destruction.  Ironically, the truth here was changed to something of an abstract and destructible form of ignorance, with Apex Predators especially, and mostly built on fear.

America’s Wildlife needs protection not only from our government, but bad-science, and from those who assume all science is bad, which it is not, and we can see for ourselves, what is and what is not – experience and observation tells us also, what is and what is not good science.  What is not good science is the mass genocide of America’s Wildlife – and there is no science, or common sense that backs up so much killing of wildlife that favors a type of positive resolution.

There is no resolution to be gained what so ever!  The Wildlife loses – Americans lose – America loses . . .


Reference Material:

Gerstell, Richard. 1985. The Steel Trap in North America. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, PA. 352 pp.

Decker, D. J. and K.G. Purdy. 1988. Toward a concept of wildlife acceptance capacity in wildlife management. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 16:53-57.

Deblinger, R. D., D. W. Rimmer, J. J. Vaske, G. M. Vecellio, and M. P. Donnelly. 1993. Ecological benefits and hunter acceptance of a controlled deer hunt in coastal Massachusetts. Northeast Wildlife 50:11-21.

Ellingwood, M. R. and J. V. Spignesi. 1986. Management of an urban deer herd and the concept of cultural carrying capacity. Trans. Northeast Deer Tech. Comm., Vt. Fish Wildl. Dep. 22:42-45.

Organ, J. F. and M. R. Ellingwood. 2000. Wildlife stakeholder acceptance capacity for black bears, beavers, and other beasts in the east. Human Dimensions of Wildlife. 5:63-75.

Strickland, M. D., H. J. Harju, K. R. McCaffery, H. W. Miller, L. M. Smith, and R. J. Stoll. 1994. Harvest Management.

Pages 445-473 in T. A. Bookhout, ed., Research and management techniques for wildlife and habitats.(5th ed.) The Wildlife Society. 740 pps.

Organ, J. F., R. F. Gotie, T. A. Decker, and G. R. Batcheller. 1998. A case study in the sustained use of wildlife: the management of beaver in the northeastern United States. Pages 125-139 in H.A. van der Linde and M.H. Danskin, eds., Enhancing sustainability – resources for our future. SUI Technical Series, Vol. I, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 178pp.

Kallman, Harmon., ed., Restoring America’s Wildlife 1937-1987. 1987. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 394 pp.

Hamilton, D.A., B. Roberts, G. Linscombe, N.R. Jotham, A. Noseworthy, and J.L. Stone. 1998. The European

Union’s wild fur regulation: a battle of politics, cultures, animal rights, international trade and North America’s wildlife policy. Trans. No. Am. Wildl. and Natur. Resour. Conf. 63:572-588.

Smith, H. R., R. J. Sloan, and G. S. Walton. 1981. Some management implications between harvest rate and

population resiliency of the muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus). Pages 425-442 in J.A. Chapman and D. Pursley, eds., Proc. Worldwide Furbearer Conf., Frostburg, Md. 2056 pp.

Brooks, R. P. 1980. A model of habitat selection and population estimation for muskrats (Ondatrazibethicus) in riverine environments in Massachusetts. Ph.D. Thesis. Univ. Massachusetts, Amherst. 113 pp.

Linscombe, G. R. 1995. U.S. fur harvest and fur value: statistics by state and region. International Assoc. of Fish & Wildlife Agencies.

Boggess, E. K., S. B. Linhart, G. R. Batcheller, D. W. Erickson, G. R. Linscombe, A. W. Todd, J. W. Greer, D. C. Juve, M. Novak, D. A. Wade. 1990. Traps, trapping, and furbearer management. Wildl. Soc. Tech. Rev. 90-1. 31 pp.

MacInnes, C. D. 1987. Rabies. Pages 910-928 in M. Novak, J. A. Baker, M. E. Obbard, and B. Malloch, eds., Wild Furbearer Management and Conservation in North America. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 1150 pp.

Todd, A.W., J.R. Gunson, and W.M. Samuel. 1981. Sarcoptic mange: An important disease of coyotes and wolves of Alberta, Canada. Pages 706-729 in J.A. Chapman and D. Pursley, eds. Proc. Worldwide Furbearer Conf., Frostburg, Md. 2056 pp.

Voight, P. R. and R. L. Tinline. 1982. Fox rabies and trapping: a study of disease and fur harvest interaction. Pages 139-156 in G. C. Sanderson, ed., Midwest Furbearer Management. Proc. 43rd midwest Fish & Wildlife Conf., Wichita, Kans. 195 pp.

Rosatte, R. C., M. J. Pybus, and J. R. Gunson. 1986. Population reduction as a factor in the control of skunk rabies in Alberta. J. Wildl. Dis. 22:459-467.

Payne, N. F. 1980. Furbearer management and trapping. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 8:345-348.

Mammal Trapping within the National Wildlife Refuge System 1992-1996. USFWS, Division of Refuges, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22203. June 1997 0

Todd, A. W. and E. K. Boggess. 1987. Characteristics, acitivities, lifestyles, and attitudes of trappers in North America. Pages 59-76 in M. Novak, J. A. Baker, M. E. Obbard, and B. Malloch, eds., Wild Furbearer Management and Conservation in North America, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 1150 pp.

Wolfe, R. J. 1991. Trapping in Alaska communities with mixed subsistence-cash economies. Tech. Paper No. 217. Juneau, AK: Alaska Dept. Fish & Game.

Baker, O. E. South Carolina Dept. Natural Resources. Personal communication.

Decker, T. A. 1991. Trapping and furbearer management in Massachusetts. Mass. Wildl. 41:18-27.

Muth, R. M., J.J. Daigle, R.R.Zwick and R.J. Glass. 1996. Trappers and Trapping in Advanced Industrial Society: Economic and Sociocultural Values of Furbearer Utilization in the Northeastern United States. Sociological Spectrum 16:421-436.

Brown, T.L., D.J. Decker and J.W. Enck. 1995. Preliminary Insights about the Sociocultural Importance of Hunting and Trapping. HDRU Series No. 95-2. Ithaca, NY: Human Dimensions Research Unit, Cornell University. 90 pp.

Organ, J.F., R.M. Muth, J.E. Dizard, S.J. Williamson, and T.A. Decker. 1998. Fair chase and humane treatment: Balancing the ethics of hunting and trapping. Trans. No. Am. Wildl. and Natur. Resour. Conf. 63:528-543.

Wolfe, R.J. 1991. Trapping in Alaska Communities with Mixed, Subsistence-Cash Economies. Division of

Subsistence, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Technical Paper Number 217.

Todd, A.W., and E.K. Boggess. 1987. Characteristics, activities, lifestyles, and attitudes of trappers in North America. Pages 59-76 in M. Novak, J. A. Baker, M. E. Obbard, and B. Malloch, eds., Wild Furbearer Management and Conservation in North America. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 1150 pp.

Mason, D. A. 1990. Vermont’s other economy: the economic and socio-cultural values of hunting, fishing, and trapping for rural households. M.S. Thesis. Burlington VT: Univ. of Vermont. 98 pp.

Kellert, S. R. 1981. Trappers and trapping in American society. Pages 1971-2003 in J.A. Chapman and D. Pursley, eds. Proc. Worldwide Furbearer Conf., Frostburg, Md. 2056 pp.

Batcheller, G. R., T.A. Decker, D.A. Hamilton and J. F. Organ. 2000. A vision for the future of furbearer management in the United States. Wild. Soc. Bull. 28 (4):833-840.

Bishop, P. G. 1991. Unpublished report. New York State Dept. of Environ. Cons.

Bishop, P. G. 1990. Traps, trapping and furbearer management in New York State. New York State Dept. of Environ. Cons. 12pp.

Slate, D., R. Owens, G. Connolly, G. Simmons. 1992. Decision making for wildlife damage management. Trans. N.A. Wildl. & Nat. Res. Conf. 57:51-62.

Green, J. S., and R. A. Woodruff. 1991. Livestock guarding dogs protect sheep from predators. U.S. Dept. Agric., Agric. Info. Bull. No. 588.

Green, J. S., ed., 1987. Protecting livestock from coyotes: a synopsis of the research of the Agricultural Research Service. Natl. Tech. Info. Serv. PB 88 133590/AS. 105 pp.

Meadows, L. E. and F. F. Knowlton. 2000. Efficacy of guard llamas to reduce canine predation on domestic sheep. Wild. Soc. Bull. 28 (3): 614-622.

D’Eon, R. G., R. LaPointe, N. Bosnick, J. C. Davies, B. MacLean, W. R. Watt and R. G. Wilson. 1995. The Beaver Handbook: A guide to understanding and coping with beaver activity. OMAR Northeast Science & Technology. FG-006. 76 pp.

Miller, J. E., 1983. Control of beaver damage. Proc. Eastern Wildlife Damage Control Conf. 1:177-183.

Langlois, S.A. and T.A. Decker. 2001. The use of water flow devices in addressing flooding problems caused by beaver in Massachusetts. Massachusetts Div. Fisheries & Wildlife. 16pp.

Green, J. S., F. R. Henderson, and M. D. Collinge. 1994. Coyotes. Pages C-51 to C-76 in S. E. Hygnstrom, R. M. Timm, and G. E. Larson, eds., Prevention and control of wildlife damage. Univ. Neb. Coop. Ext. Serv.

Muller, L.I., R.J. Warren, and D.L. Evans. 1997. Theory and practice of immunocontraception in wild animals. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 25(2):504-515.

Rosatte, R., D. Donovan, M. Allan, L. Howes, A. Silver, K. Bennett, C. MacInnes, C. Davies, A. Wandeler, and B.

Radford. 2001. Emergency response to raccoon rabies introduction in Ontario. J. Wildl. Dis. 37(2):265-279.

Jacobs, W. W. 1994. Pesticides federally registered for control of terrestrial vertebrate pests. Pages G-1 to G-22 in S. E. Hygnstrom, R. M. Timm, and G. E. Larson, eds., Prevention and control of wildlife damage. Univ. Neb. Coop. Ext. Serv.

Siemer, W. F. and D. J. Decker. 1991. Human tolerance of wildlife damage: synthesis of research an management implications. Human Dimensions Res. Unit Publ. 91-7, Dep. Nat. Resources, N.Y.S. Coll. Agric. and Life Sci., Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY. 24pp.

Melquist, W. E., and M. G. Hornocker. 1983. Ecology of river otters in west central Idaho. Wild. Monogr. 83. 60pp.

Decker, T. A. Vermont Department of Fisheries and Wildlife. Personal communication.

Hamilton, D. 1999. Controversy in times of plenty. Missouri Cons. 8pp.

Herscovici, A. 1985. Second nature: the animal-rights controversy. CBC Enterprises, Toronto. 254 pp.

Francione, Gary L. 1996. Rain without thunder:the ideology of the animal rights movement. Temple Univ. Press,Philadelphia. 269pp.

Kellert, S. R. 1984. Urban American perceptions of animals and the natural environment. Urban Ecology. 8:209-228.

Thompson, T. R. and G. D. Lapointe. 1995. Learning from animal activists: a workshop approach. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 23:588-593.

Leave a comment

Posted by on January 21, 2020 in Uncategorized


Horses Wilderness and Attunement to Nature

Over the years I have grown to observe Nature within wilderness areas.  It is not just the horses, but the ultimate understanding that the entire realm of the area, Nature itself, is a full-blown working process or system, and the diversity of wildlife makes it all happen, positively.

Many people do not understand our presence is not needed in Nature, at all.  Attunement within Nature allows us to resolve issues and problems that would normally be covered-up by bias or an unnecessary intervention of useless management paradigms meant only to satisfy the human-mind, and not really appropriate for the wilderness area or wildlife what so ever.

What I see is the healthiest animals in the wilds, often the wild horses (when left alone), but also the Keystone Predators as well, wolves, bears, cougar, bobcats, and the rest, as well as a robust realm of insects, of small critters that enhance an area, all part of the living organism we call “Wilderness”;  Ironically, the human species bothered by all of this accumulated wildlife, the need to intervene takes over, and soon wildlife disposed of, and the excuses bothersome, bias, and based on an erroneous flow of misinformation based upon nothing more than bias.  We assume all wildlife disposable (but human’s think everything is disposable), which in truth is a disregard for life in general, and just wrong on many different levels.

Ideology versus Reality

But I also started to understand that one must not get caught up, or stuck into what we place categorically into our reality – which is a human-species problem that name calling and category placement becomes stationary, a perceived reality that simply does not work for long, especially when conflicts arise and there is no apparent resolution; which, there is no reality within a bias debate, and we only fool ourselves within an odd category or perception (bigotry – bias) – so the resolution merely a pretense rather than reality, which equates to bad decision making and ultimate destruction of both lands and animals alike. . . But those making these absurd decisions will never be convinced they are wrong, even though the world falling apart all around them, and due to awkward and bias decision making based upon false information.

Our aggressive nature toward managing wildlife and wilderness areas, mostly erroneous, as it is truly founded on principle’s and ideologies that have nothing to do with Nature, in reality an Attunement within Nature simply lacking, and humans become unable to receive a truthful feedback on our own performance with Nature – once again, superior attitudes replace reality, wrong decisions developed and destructive actions follow in the name of good management.

Attunement within Nature

So, we start to learn from these healthiest of animals in Nature, in the Wilds, and begin to see they are also the wisest and most attuned.  Their knowledge of navigation extraordinary, their understanding of their terrain and their ability to find food far superior than ours, unequivocally so.  Allow me to point out the fact a domestic animal, nor many a human as well, would not survive in the wilds, because all have lost the ability of attunement – their survival component’s essentially unavailable.

Without this attunement, we lose the ability to adjust our mistakes correctly, then assume all others wrong and we are right – in Nature this mind-set provides nothing more than eminent death . . . and it remains very destructive, as well, within our society – yet another flow of Nature and how it cleanses itself through a Natural Attrition of Reality versus ignorance.

Without this Attunement within Nature, the very intimate and direct interaction with Nature, our minds wander and pursue useless material things, our minds become delusional and our bodies become sick.  Often, we lose track of what is important and the world around us becomes distorted and before we realize that we have made a great mistake, we have already become a prisoner of the un-natural human-made world.  Things around us, and in particular when we deal with nature, things become convoluted, simple problems to resolve become unimaginably difficult and far more complex than needed.

Now we learn.  I have become, over time and while observing wildlife, that it is the overall environmental complex that is important.  Our intervention remains unnecessary.  The fact is we can actually love our Natural environment, and this inclusive of respect, reception, and the ability to accept the fact there is no need or desire to accomplish or see a particular outcome in order to follow our biased belief.  Events in Nature must unfold naturally, and I see the conflict of Universal Truth conflict with human truths (and the irrationality of human truth precisely) which have no place in wilderness areas.


We assume our facts to be superior, and we are in charge of the Earth.  Nature exists for all beings, we decided to break away from this most obvious, and Earth Born natural circumstance.  The reality is, and always has been, our Natural Resources are limited and belong to all species and should not be wasted.

Degrading forms of economic growth, special interests, and destructive mind-sets should be discouraged, always.  Sustainable forms of growth in nature should be encouraged.  With this in mind, it becomes quite apparent that learning more about the ways that Nature sustains itself, and using these lessons within a beneficial context, enhances our livability on this planet, our consciousness, and our very life.  We then accomplish the natural life form we were always meant to have, and develop into co-existing with all life around us, favorable, rather than rudely and destructively.

I see first hand Nature knows how to sustain itself, which can be a lesson to us as human’s, and enhance the ways we think and work, and use common sense that interacts with nature – co-exist – rather than destroy it.  We will not survive long within concrete, oil, beef, and asphalt – and we will starve ourselves, both mentally and physically . . . — John Cox, Cascades

1 Comment

Posted by on January 18, 2020 in Uncategorized


Wild Horses: Their Clear and Present Danger

We have gotten to the point that we need a detailed “program outline” to see who the honest player’s indeed are, and who the corrupt player’s are within the management and non-profit realms of saving the Wild Horses on Our Public Lands, as corruption and the Wild Horses becoming synonymous — not the Wild Horse’s doing at all, but money involved and too many pigs at the same trough . . . essentially, a government allowed chain of abuses and corruption, and we need to ask our representatives why this even exists. — John Cox — January 8, 2020

Had an excellent conversation last night with an old College friend (that was many years ago, we are all retiring now) — Elizabeth is a Psychiatrist PhD Psychology Professor Emeritus — and we speak off and on about the issues in the matters of the Wild Horses, which intrigues’ her entirely, she also owns horses . . . She is yet another Cowgirl at heart and a quality person.

She, as well as many others (as I am using a part of our conversation last night for this discussion), are quite aware of what our government employees, as well as some advocates, are doing, and as many others inclusive of myself as well, remain appalled at what we all see ongoing right now and on our Public Lands.

To make the Statement of “Government Sponsored Abuse” remains an Understated Fact, as disgusting as this sounds, yet a very true circumstance, and continues as I write here.

Then we go to the deplorable situation of some non-profit advocacy’s — What some groups do to beg for donations, for frivolous things — or, to manipulate emotional responses, in many cases using photography or video productions to initiate donation drive, emotionally, for people to donate — giving people the impression they care about the horses — well, this all can be placed into question easily . . .

To many of us, it seems there is more things to accomplish rather than just go to roundups, and when one thinks about it, it is kind of creepy, those that go and watch this stuff. Like a Fire Engine chaser or something. Arson’s go to fires because they like to watch the fire — abuser’s like to be around abuse and other weird things — darting horses is similar to shooting them, as awkward as that sounds, but a true Psychological aspect none the less . . . A person is “Shooting” a horse, a large mammal, despite it being a dart or a bullet. . . Basic psychology tells us this, clearly, so one can “Abuse” a horse and attempt to separate this from the use of a bullet, because in their minds, “. . . after all, the horse does not die.”

i.e. But this is untrue as well, as we see many horses actually die from immune system deficiencies, going septic and actually die from the abscess directly initiated from the dart-wound (Pesticide PZP) and the bullet type capsule explodes outward, after the PZP injected into the system of the Wild Horse for birth control. . .  By the way, of an Underpopulated Species (bias and ignorance here is profoundly so obvious and unbelievable, then we go to the reasoning, or the faltered mindsets of those that dart horses, and discover mental-deficient mind sets of excuse within that realm as well.  Many of these attributes very alarming, indeed.

Profoundly, a lot of the money these people bilk from the Public, mostly due to the more immediate emotional response, from either photos or information or attributable misinformation, a large part of the donations do not go to the Wild Horses what so ever, but to life-styles of the photographers or the video people, or the organization that sent them.

One instance of a video presentation, to actually obtain donations its end goal, was very disturbing to many.  The production company had a helicopter and was chasing horses, to appear as a natural setting, as a moving herd of horses much more dramatic than just standing around a large landscape grazing.  The owner of the Non-Profit stood to the front of the galloping herd in the background, associated herself with Wild Horses, as if she really cared about them.

The first take unacceptable, so they setup everything, and aggressively chased the Wild Horses with the Helicopter, and rather than a galloping herd, they stampeded — they trampled over a Yearling that could not keep up.  Helicopter Roundups are always abusive, and Trapping Horses in Bait and Trap Roundups are also, as we see via the statistic, ironically just as abusive. . .  Both of these situations cost taxpayer in the $-Millions of taxpayer dollars paid to accomplish — Always abusive, always detrimental to all the Wild Horses — and those darted with Pesticide PZP as well as other Birth Controls and experimentation used, ALL are eventually Rounded UP —

THERE IS NO OVER-POPULATION OF WILD HORSES ON PUBLIC LANDS — THE Government Agencies — BLM AND FORESTRY — STATISTICS ARE BIOLOGICALLY IMPOSSIBILITIES, ALWAYS AND ONE CAN LOOK FOR THEMSELVES — and yet their lie after lie about wild horse over-population costs taxpayers in the now $-Billions over a five yer time period . . . All of this info can be found when appropriate research accomplished . . . 

The Yearling had broken legs, was eventually shot in the head, as it was having a problem breathing, as well.  But the disgusting fact is, this entire situation VIOLATED THE WH&B ACT OF 1971, as well as other laws that protect wildlife from direct abuse from visitors to Public Lands, Parks, or other Federal Properties.

This particular person heads up another non-profit, lacks knowledge of how to manage horses, yet Bilks the Public through emotional donation information packages, quite freely today . . .

So do we have a problem with government management of wild horses, as well as a problem with many groups that tell us they will defend the wild horses? 

Absolutely, it has come time that we need a  “program outline” to separate the players within this ongoing tragedy.  This has developed over the years, ironically, as very profitable to both government program budgets and quite profitable to non-profits who state they use donation money to defend the wild horses, but never do, really; nor, are they managed properly by our government, either.

So the Wild Horses lose out here — if they are not shot on the range, they are rounded up abusively, sent to government corrals, then disappear.  Some adopted, but most are stolen by government employee, then sent to slaughter to Mexico or Canada.  More troubling, and consistent information, we find not only government employee involvement within all of this, but we find non-profit groups also involved in it “All” . . .


Wild Horses Sacrificed: Rhetoric and Corruption and the Information Age of Confusion = Reality versus Immorality and Careful What You Ask For

Today in government, as well as Watchdog Groups and many Non-Profits, there exist problems of credibility.  How do we know this?  The money obtained within all of them, donation steams, or taxpayer dollars, all are based upon a tremendous amount of lies, misinformation, emotion-driven rhetoric, and perpetuation of situations that are so convoluted that in reality, no resolution would ever exist.  Only then the supposed guarantee of an outcome or a resolution develops (a made-up resolution to resolve a made-up crisis or what legally is termed Corruption or Organized Crimes), that in reality never happens; which, it was a situation based upon a lie, and how does one resolve a lie?

Well, by developing more misinformation, and as in today and the Wild Horses, for example, simply distort the misinformation so badly, that the slightest recommendation toward resolution, by both government misinformation and non-profits misinformation streams, obviously the collusion exists, create very profitable streams of emotion-driven monetary profits, for all involved.

One can become very rich by simply perpetuating a situation that will never, nor can ever, obtain resolution of any type.  This is one large factor of reality, why we have Over-Site of government agencies, and must keep them in check (obviously our Checks and Balance System of government is broken today).

Currently, we live in an information age that many people assume they know something about everything; that is, until we actually speak with them, and then find they really know nothing at all.  If one needs one of many other confirmable examples of this, simply peruse journalistic articles on the Wild Horses written by people on the East Coast, or in large cities, and about the ongoing developments on the range and in the mountains, on the west coast.

We find many of those journalists never get past the breakroom or office water cooler, and all of their info developed from their computer . . . so we convey here corruption creates more corruption, then ironically, and almost comically, those who write about the corruption and ignore the truth or simply ignorant of the truth, speak about how to resolve this same corruption . . .

This creates a collusion even more vast than those directly involved, whether knowingly or not, and profoundly all take part in the corrupt rhetoric of misinformation flows (e.g. using Bureau of Land Management statistics, when obvious their wild horse herd counts biologically impossibilities, and yet use those numbers) —  and the ol’ virtue of when repeated enough, it simply becomes acceptable?

The circumstance then becomes compounded by several reality situations, even more outstanding than others and within an academic observation (academic due to observable and quantified data gathering).  This fact is, and among the many other outstanding facts, that many people simply do not read well, or some hardly at all, and others perhaps not knowing how to read.  There also are people who know how to read, or listen to facts, but do not understand what it is they read, or facts are just not absorbed well within their mental process.  We then observe a twisted and distorted informational-mass of confusion.  Gibberish follows, and the truth, even though given the facts contrary to what they have seen or heard, turns into simply a vast quagmire of nonsense.

We then get to the emotional side of these situations, and discover how Canned-Presentations of Misinformation most often untrue or just enough truth combined with rhetoric, essentially hides the Communication meant to Manipulate rather than Inform.  Emotional-Driven donation streams have become a paramount fund-raising resource for many of the more questionable charitable non-profit organizations, as well as with government organizations that need streams of misinformation in order to enhance their budgets . . .

Ultimately, what myself and others are finding today through research, is the fact “Corruption” has changed faces, and is now actually manipulating their markets.  Using the “Information Age” for nothing more than upholding a mass amount of “Misinformation-Driven” rhetoric to the media streams, and

  1. Actually having the taxpayer’s or donators to non-profits, unknowingly taking part in the “Corrupt” flow of misinformation, with the assumption the Perpetuated Problems can be resolved – but only if “. . . we increase our budgets for better management paradigms. . .” (actually paradigms not meant to resolve, but rather enhance more and much larger budgets in the future, and corrupt in total); or,
  2. You donate to a non-profit, and they will take these corrupt people in government to task (again their attempts at resolving issues do not directly confront the issues, but simply confront subordinate issues which perpetuate further more emotional driven issues, all the while asking for more donations) and by golly save the wild horses – which in truth never happens because they never approach the reality issues, but the corrupt issues instead even though they are just as corrupt – and the money-trains become larger and larger still. . .

So, the corrupt just become more corrupt, and all those taking part in the corruption, are and remain just as corrupt.  The overlooked fact of truth here, is that to end corruption, first we must stop listening to their greed and lies, and then take-to-task the corruption directly – and not become a part of it, whether knowingly or unknowingly.

1 Comment

Posted by on November 1, 2019 in Uncategorized


Wildlife Moderation of Population is a Natural Process : Human’s Need Not Get Involved At All


Moderation within a Natural wilderness setting is not only doable, but backed by a tremendous amount of Science, Researchers, those experienced in the Ranges and Public Lands, as well as Biologists alike. Diversity and natural progression moderates the population of ALL WILDLIFE — this is why we have qualified, and experienced people stepping up and saying something, enough of the amateurs attempting to sound like they know something, and the situation for the wild horses getting worse, then worse again . . .

The things ongoing right now, in government and with non-profits alike, is pure bullshit, and I see only a few people that “may” have a plan of action that is any good at all — and that is my experience as well as many others experience on the ranges and in the mountains, we all state very clearly!

AMERICA’S WILD HORSES HAVE A “RIGHT” TO BE WHERE THEY ARE LOCATED ON PUBLIC LANDS — BY LAW — Whereas, industry and ranching is merely a Revocable Privilege, and taxpayer’s, that is the more that become aware of the reality and abuse, from corrupt government agencies, as well as corrupt ranchers and industry and how they use our Public Lands, is becoming Unacceptable to many American’s, and we are all tired of the lies and misinformation, and disrespect of these government agencies directed toward the American taxpayer’s — directly, and the kill-off of America’s Wildlife uselessly and out of bias and hatred. . .


1 Comment

Posted by on October 11, 2019 in Uncategorized