RSS

Monthly Archives: November 2014

Wild Horses and Our Environment Together — Knowledge and Understanding Works

imagesCA6A7YRE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References and Material Perused

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 
3 Comments

Posted by on November 18, 2014 in Uncategorized

 

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

1545031_649920625064634_1390514084_n

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

_________________________

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

 
6 Comments

Posted by on November 5, 2014 in Uncategorized