The Bureau of Land Management employees tell us, Taxpayer’s et al., about their Wild Horse Herd Counts, and they state an over-population of Wild Horses’ out there, rampaging over Our Public and Federal Lands, and just destroying everything in sight. They also state they are starving, or worse, and they eat the range out of everything available, and directly compete with the food sources on the range, with cattle and sheep and many other wildlife.
Let’s take a look at this already proven lie, on many different levels, of wild horse over-population. First we look at those who agree with the BLM, and understand a $-profit-base is at hand, and they are formidable liars as well, or just go along with what the BLM states as a Socioeconomic (Federal Court will neither accept as evidence nor fact. . . Reno, NV Cirsuit ) truism, rather than any factual truth, and never backed by any data, science, statistics’, nor data gathered, perused and summarized; thereby, No Evidence = No Facts.
Water – Cows versus Horse + – 3%
|SEASON||COW : HORSE||HORSE||COW|
|Cold Day Range||9-36 : 1||8 – 14 gals. Per day||144 — 216 gals. Per day|
|Warm Range 90+||59-82 : 1||8 — 14 gals. per day||288 — 452 gals. Per day|
|Cold Range||BLM Est. 30 : 1 False||8 – 14 gals. Per day||480 – 720 gals. Per day|
|Warm Range 90+||BLM Est. 30 : 1 False||8 – 14 gals. Per day||960 – 1,400 gals. Per day|
(Notes) (1) No Cows allowed Winter Range, between October 15 yearly to April 15 on average, but BLM (i.e. nor Forestry) does not pay attention to regulating nor managing Welfare Ranchers and assuring their cows off of Winter Range – then in Spring, the Wild Horses blamed for the winter-range damage from cattle . . . (2) A bull weighs, on average, 2,400 pounds, whereas a cow weighs around 1,600 pounds. If you use the standard 30:1 cattle (BLM false ratio, as we see minimally increased by 50%) versus horse statistic provided by the BLM, that number ranges from cattle’s 480-720 gallons (cold – 16 to 23 gals per cow per day / warm 32 to 48 gals per cow per day = variable according to weight) of water on a cold day, or cattle’s 960-1,440 gallons of water on a warm day, per day versus the Wild Horse intake of 8-14 gallons – which we discover is consistent…
Forage – Cows versus Horses + – 2%
|Per 12 Hour days app.||130 lbs per day||20 – 25 lbs per day|
|All Grasses/All Day||Mostly Anything||Very Selective|
|Fire Hazards||Stationary = result = Cheat Grass Fire Hazard||Eat then Roams =
No Fire Hazard at all
|Accord. BLM Stats||30 : 1 Ratio||3,900 lbs.||25 lbs.|
(Notes) the horses are being blamed for the damage that is done by private cattle herds. These private cattle ranchers are knowingly overgrazing their herds on federal lands. The BLM is allowing the cattle to overgraze and continue to allow the increase of the number of cattle while, at the same time, continue to lowering grazing fees.
Population Dynamics and Cycles
What we find is the BLM very inaccurate in the matter of their Wild Horse Herds/Bands, and an extreme variance within their counts and reality or the actual population, that truly exits. Apparently, they have been allowed over the years, to get away with averages that simply deify any type of Biological reasoning what so ever. Yes, their numbers most often make “NO” Biological sense what so ever, and even comical at times, and obvious they simply do not know what it is they do not know – and this situation alone is very troubling, as they are paid administrative and manger wages, but simply decisions nothing more than what a moron who is paid minimum wage, would make, in the matters of proper wildlife and lands management.
We also find their statistics are not backed by anything. Their redundant reference to a study, to promote or referenced within their counts as under-counted, done in the 1993’s, merely an abstract of averages as well, and states within the study the researcher’s never concluded, accurately, what the wild Horse population was at that time, but merely another surmised-average based upon BLM numbers (estimates, as no one really counted much of anything even then, accurately) that BLM employees lie about today – or they may simply take the word of someone else, and not read the study that others referenced. BLM employees will state this same White paper, stating statistics clear that they are undercounting the Wild Horse Over-population, is simply a travesty, and really not a referenced matter at all.
“Environmental factors constrain the growth of populations, and density-dependent factors set an upper limit on their size. Population size also is affected fundamentally by the rate of growth of the population and by the addition or removal of density-dependent factors.” – E.O. Wilson, PhD Research Biologist – 48 years
The rate of growth of populations, can vary enormously across species, and Wild Horses no different. E coli, for example if left unchecked, would double in population every 20 minutes. Apparently, this filled many BLM offices, and left unchecked 😊 . . . In the real world, this type of exponential growth only occurs at a short time period. The E. coli example, at the rate mentioned above, after 36 hours the descendants of a single bacterium would cover the surface of the Earth one-foot deep, and within the next hour would be over all of our heads.
In the matters of Wild Horses, as well as other wildlife, we can get into a natural “moderation of population” – but only if allowed to do so, with little to no human intervention. What is referred to here is nothing more than “carrying capacity” and the equilibrium of how a population size remains in balance, and within a habitat that can support them. Our Public and Federal Lands can support an entire population of Wild Horses, as good science shows us, and a lot of research that states the same.
|1. The only irrational situation we run across, currently, is the fact we cannot depend on the non-credible numbers i.e. wild horse counts – statistics that the BLM offers as truth, in the matters of placing (or leaving them alone) Our Nation’s Wild Horse’s on Public and Federal Lands.
2. There exists nothing to confirm, or to generate credibility within their (BLM/Forestry) non-biological statistics, no scientific or credible references, and lack of range confirmation data-gathered that will confirm it. In reality, no one can really state for sure, about “Not” placing Wild Horses on our Public and /Federal Lands, and their comments merely inuendo with nothing to back them up –
3. In direct opposition, we have a lot of science, a lot of research, and simply a lot of knowledge to back-up, within data, strategy, as well as sound statistical data and research narrative, that point directly to Re-Releasing the wild Horses’ back onto Public and Federal Lands, and simply leave them alone . . .
We have two reproductive strategies, biologically supported and well researched, that directly contradict the single-species priority (or BLM/Forestry non-scientific paradigm) of cattle and sheep only, on our Public and Federal Lands; or, as we refer to them as non-biological paradigms that simply destroy wildlife as well as our entire environment on our nations’ landscape. And that is the danger, to not only the Wild Horses, but to our over-all environment, and human’s alike. and the reckless use of chemicals, radioactivity from mining and fracking, and other dangerous pesticides used more and more on Our lands.
We have the r-strategy and the K-strategy. The r-strategy refers to the intrinsic rate of population increase. The K-strategy refers to the Karrying Kapacity, a variant of the term carrying capacity. Not all animals fall into these groups I mention, exclusively, but the labels useful for identification or categorizing the overall picture of population change.
Animals that live in a dangerous or unstable environment tend to be r-strategists’. Wild horses are more prone to live within a K-strategists’ environment. This is one of a few excellent reasons many of us are, and remain, anti-pesticide pzp, as we favor the natural circumstance of a healthy environment, and healthy Ecological Habitats, over the no-strategy what so ever of the single-species-glut of cows on our Public and Federal Lands.
But this is a knowledgeable and a more academic realm in favoring nature over and above the human-problems of perception; as well, over the ignorance portrayed up to this point on the use of pesticide pzp, and arguing over sales brochure information rather than outright-science. Breed controls are simply a human-perception, part of the human-problem, that have no place within a healthy Ecological Process and Habitat, what so ever. . .
K-strategists, wild horses in this example, reproduce later in life, or around, safely, 5 to 6 years of age. More time is invested in their off-spring, and why we do not like to see the breed-control’s imposed upon Wild Horses, and generating Band disruption within many of the Wild Horse Bands on Public Lands – this is disruptive to the K-strategy – in reality, an unworkable situation – something BLM the Forestry and HSUS does not seem to understand, and they are totally out of their realm in pushing pesticide pzp on the Wild Horses at all.
We have within this paradigm, a succession of interaction, diversity, as well as creating or sustaining a healthy Ecological Habitat – we also find those who do not understand why we want to re-establish the Wild Horses on Public Lands, and left alone, as this paradigm is simply too difficult for them to understand how it all works. We refer to this mind-set as shallow, not responsive to nature, and what it can provide for wildlife and human’s alike.
Populations in these circumstances, both strategies, grow quickly, but their growth levels off. The strategies involved, we find in good science and well collected data and research, and closure of the hypothesis, in regard to interpreting the data and research collected. We find an equilibrium at their carrying capacity, or what is referred to as the number of individuals the habitat can support.
Up and coming within the next article will be the strategy, the overall outlook of Population-Density, where environmental restraints grow in significance as population density increases. For example, territory, ecological islands, growth of habitat, diversity in wildlife and terrestrial landscape, disease, predation, are all population density factors. . . as well as emigration and immigration; such as, emigration caused by inadequate food supply within a territory, and particular species simply move on to a healthier habitat to support themselves . . .
Research and Written by: John Cox, Cascades
Margulis, L. Symbiosis in Cell Evolution: Life and Its Environment on the Early Earth (W. H. Freeman, 1981).
Ochman, H. & Moran, N. A. Genes lost and genes found: evolution of bacterial pathogenesis and symbiosis. Science 292, 1096–1099 (2001).
Mora, C., Tittensor, D. P., Adl, S., Simpson, A. G. B. & Worm, B. How many species are there on earth and in the ocean? PLOS Biol. 9, e1001127 (2011).
Eme, L., Spang, A., Lombard, J., Stairs, C. W. & Ettema, T. J. G. Archaea and the origin of eukaryotes. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 15, 711 (2017).
Boucher, D. H., James, S. & Keeler, K. H. The ecology of mutualism. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 13, 315–347 (1982).
Bright, M. & Bulgheresi, S. A complex journey: transmission of microbial symbionts. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 8, 218 (2010). This is an important description of the journey undertaken by horizontally and vertically transmitted symbionts, from their initial contact with their host to their final residence.
Bennett, G. M. & Moran, N. A. Heritable symbiosis: the advantages and perils of an evolutionary rabbit hole. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 10169–10176 (2015).
Bull, J. J., Molineux, I. J. & Rice, W. R. Selection of benevolence in a host-parasite system. Evolution 45, 875–882 (1991).
Doebeli, M. & Knowlton, N. The evolution of interspecific mutualisms. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA USA 95, 8676–8680 (1998).
Douglas, A. E. Host benefit and the evolution of specialization in symbiosis. Heredity 81, 599 (1998).
Ewald, P. W. Transmission modes and evolution of the parasitism-mutualism continuum. Ann. NY Acad. Sci. 503, 295–306 (1987).
Hartmann, A. C., Baird, A. H., Knowlton, N. & Huang, D. The paradox of environmental symbiont acquisition in obligate mutualisms. Curr. Biol. 27, 3711–3716 (2017).
Herre, E. A., Knowlton, N., Mueller, U. G. & Rehner, S. A. The evolution of mutualisms: exploring the paths between conflict and cooperation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 14, 49–53 (1999).
Wilkinson, D. M. & Sherratt, T. N. Horizontally acquired mutualisms, an unsolved problem in ecology? Oikos 92, 377–384 (2001).
Knowlton, N. & Rohwer, F. Multispecies microbial mutualisms on coral reefs: the host as a habitat. Am. Nat. 162, S51–S62 (2003).
Nussbaumer, A. D., Fisher, C. R. & Bright, M. Horizontal endosymbiont transmission in hydrothermal vent tubeworms. Nature 441, 345 (2006).
Nyholm, S. V. & McFall-Ngai, M. The winnowing: establishing the squid–vibrio symbiosis. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2, 632 (2004). This is a classic overview of the establishment of the squid– Vibrio spp. symbiosis.
Fontanez, K. M. & Cavanaugh, C. M. Evidence for horizontal transmission from multilocus phylogeny of deep-sea mussel (Mytilidae) symbionts. Environ. Microbiol. 16, 3608–3621 (2014).