RSS

Monthly Archives: July 2014

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

1904258_764781056873014_1889282251_n

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cattle and Research

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

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

Beef Footprint

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EPA and AG Oriented Lobby Groups

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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.

Advertisements
 
8 Comments

Posted by on July 25, 2014 in Uncategorized

 

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

murderers creek wild horses injured

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

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

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

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

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

Cover-up and more cover-up

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

See the Video and Interview here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqA2x0D5OXM

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

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

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

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

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

Taylor Grazing Act Legislation and the BLM

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

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

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

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

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

Land Conservation and Community

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 Page 14, Belsky,
Matzke, Uselman livestock and wildlife-fisheries relationships in the Great Basin. Univ. California, Agric. Station, Sci. Spec. Publ. 3301, Berkeley, CA.
Clary, W.P. 1995. Vegetation and soil responses to grazing simulation on riparian meadows. J. Range Manage. 48:18-25.
Clary, W.P., E.D. McArthur, D. Bedunah, and C.L. Wambolt (compilers). 1992. Proceedings-Symposium on ecology and management of riparian shrub communities. USDA Forest Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-289.
Clary, W.P., and D.E. Medin. 1990. Differences in vegetation biomass and structure due to cattle grazing in a northern Nevada riparian ecosystem. USDA Forest Serv. Re. Pap. INT-427.
Clary, W.P., and D.E. Medin. 1992. Vegetation, breeding bird, and small mammal biomass in two high-elevation sagebrush riparian habitats. p. 100-110. In: W.P. Clary, E.D.
McArthur, D. Bedunah, and C.L. Wambolt (compilers), Proceedings-Symposium on ecology and management of riparian shrub communities. USDA Forest Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-289.
Clary, W.P., N.L. Shaw, J.G. Dudley, V.A. Saab, J.W. Kinney, and L.C. Smithman. 1996.Response of a depleted sagebrush steppe riparian system to grazing control and woody plantings. USDA Forest Serv. Res.Pap. INT-RP-492.
Clary, W.P., and B.F. Webster. 1989. Managing grazing of riparian areas in the intermountain region. USDA Forest Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-263.
Davis, L., M. Brittingham, L. Garber, and D. Rourke. 1991. Stream bank fencing. Penn State College of Ag. Sci., Extension Circular 397. University Park, PA.
Duce, J.T. 1918. The effect of cattle on the erosion of canyon bottoms. Science 47:450-452.
Dudley, T., and M. Embury. 1995. Non-indigenous species in wilderness areas: the status and impacts of livestock and game species in designated wilderness in California Pacific Institute for SIDES, Oakland, CA.
Duff, D.A. 1977. Livestock grazing impacts on aquatic habitat in Big Creek, Utah. p. 129-142. In: Proc. of the workshop on wildlife-fisheries relationships in the Great Basin. Univ. California, Agric. Station, Sci. Spec. Publ. 3301, Berkeley, CA.
Elmore, W. 1996. Riparian areas: perceptions in management. USDA Forest Serv., Pacific Northwest Research Station, Natural Resource News 6(3):9.
Elmore, W., and R.L. Beschta. 1987. Riparian areas: perceptions in management. Rangelands 9:260-265.
Stephenson, G.R., and R.C. Rychert. 1982. Bottom sediment: a reservoir of Escherichia coli in rangeland streams. J. Range Manage. 35:119-123.
Stephenson, G.R., and L.V. Street. 1978. Bacterial variations in streams from a southwest Idaho rangeland watershed. J. Environ. Qual. 7:150-157.
Stevens, R., E.D. McArthur, and J.N. Davis. 1992. Reevaluation of vegetative cover changes, erosion, and sedimentation on two watersheds–1912-1983. p. 123-128. In: W.P. Clary, E.D. McArthur, D. Bedunah, and C.L. Wambolt (compilers), Proceedings-Symposium on ecology and management of riparian shrub communities. USDA Forest Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-289.
Stoddart, L.A., and A. Smith. 1955. Range management, 2nd edition. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Stuber, R.J. 1985. Trout habitat, abundance, and fishing opportunities in fenced vs. unfenced riparian habitat along sheep creek, Colorado. p. 310-314. In: R.R.
Johnson, C.D. Ziebell, D.R. Patton, and others (tech. coords.), Riparian ecosystems and their management: reconciling conflicting uses. USDA Forest Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-120.
Szaro, R.C. 1989. Riparian forest and scrubland community types of Arizona and New Mexico. Desert Plants 9(3-4):72-138.
Szaro, R.C., S.C. Belfit, J.K. Aitkin, and J.N. Rinne. 1985. Impacts of grazing on a riparian garter snake. p. 359-363. In: R.R. Johnson, C.D. Ziebell, D.R. Patton, and others (tech. coords.), Riparian ecosystems and their management: reconciling conflicting uses. USDA Forest Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-120.
Tait, C.K., J.L. Li, G.A. Lamberti, T.N. Pearsons, and H.W. Li. 1994. Relationships between riparian cover and community structure of high desert streams. J. N. A. Benthol. Soc. 13:45-56.
Taylor, D.M. 1986. Effects of cattle grazing on passerine birds nesting in riparian habitat. J. Range Manage.
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.
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.

 
18 Comments

Posted by on July 18, 2014 in Uncategorized

 

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

murderer's creek horses

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

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

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

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

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

More Cattle needed for more subsidies – claimed non-destructive

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Recent Interview on shooting Wild Horses

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

Here is a small portion of the interview:

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

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

John: “What was that?”

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

John: “Shooting Horses?”

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

John: “You actually seen this?”

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

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

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

John: “Any names come up?”

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

John: “What about BLM or Forestry employees?”

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

F.O.I.A. MATERIAL FROM SPREADSHEET:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 
4 Comments

Posted by on July 15, 2014 in Uncategorized