RSS

Wild Horses Back to Our Lands in America — ReEstablish / ReWild — No Human Encumbrance

29 Mar

Let’s discuss more about the science and intricacy, of placing wild horses back onto our Public and Federal Lands – and at the same time increase our wildlife habitats, increase the quality of ecological habitats and Ecology Islands, increase the quality of Our Nation’s water supply, increase Our Nations grasslands (only a mere 18% left of the very basic Grains and other vegetation that was the foundation of America’s food-chain for two-Plus-Centuries), rid Our public and federal lands of pollutants, radioactivity in the soil and beef/sheep meat supply, as well as other dangerous chemicals from the current industrial boom now ongoing on Our lands, and all around increase Our Nations Environmental Complex. . . for the better.

Population Density

Science begins with very basic principles, and in this case Population Density is nothing more than a Space-Available context and to obtain good results, or improvements to our Public and Federal Lands.  Quite frankly, none of the important situations within the context of placing wild horses back onto Our Public and Federal Lands (and leave the wild horses’ already there, on the range) does not include any drama what so ever. . .

Often drama is imposed by those who are supportive of such situations as BLM lies and misinformation (for example, we see advocates sharing office space with BLM, their mission too merely start problems within advocacy, if allowed), or monetary situations, and support BLM / Forestry, pesticides and other birth control situations, and experiments upon our wild horses – money involved in all of the drama opposing the placement of wild horses back onto Our Nation’s Lands – FACT and insurmountable evidence to show this in total, as a specific truth.

“The federal government owns about 640 million acres of land in the United States, about 28% of the total land area of 2.27 billion acres. The majority of federal lands (610.1 million acres in 2015) are administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), National Park Service (NPS), or U.S. Forest Service (FS). BLM, FWS, and NPS are part of the U.S. Department of the Interior, while the Forest Service is part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. An additional 11.4 million acres of land (about 2% of all federal land) is owned by the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD). The majority of federal lands are located in Alaska and the Western states.” – See references section

There exists more than enough room, upon the Multi-Purpose Lands we, as taxpayer’s own, ultimately.  We can essentially move on to environmental conditions.  Density Factors, independent from normal environmental factors, yet directly affect population density, which are situational, floods, droughts, volcanic habitats, and any other cataphoric-situation that has the potential of short-term or long-term effects upon populations such as wild horses, the wolves, cougars, or mid-range wildlife as well . . .

Population Cycles

Within any Ecological Habitat, it is the environmental factor that constrain the population, in combination with the density-independent factor; which, interesting enough, sets an upper limit on population size.  These components also all inclusive of why so many advocates are against the wreckless Human-Infringement and the use of breed controls upon wildlife, as nature takes care of the situation quite well enough, and infringement, truthfully, unneeded – i.e. birth controls and roundups.

The human-problem is simply of erroneous perception of nature, if admitted or not, as well as bias, ignorance, and an odd realm of bigotry, and of nothing more than, they are right and everyone else wrong.  No one ever admits they are a bigot; and thereby, the human problem increases exponentially over time . . . We endeavor to neutralize this type of human-problem, through quality management, and decision-making mandatory upon science, good data, and rendering of quality hypothesis.

Keep in mind, as science shows us consistently, it is the population-size that also effects the rate of growth of the population, and by the addition or removal of density-dependent factors.  We can use science here, and deduct a sincere and reasonable abstract of knowledge; whereas, one species can be defined within several segments of population density, and within area proximity.

As Wild Horse Advocates, we simply need to stop acting like a cluster of wild coyotes after the same piece of road-kill, and start organizing to get the Wild Horses; ether to,

1. “Remain” on Our Lands in America, and “Place-Back” Our Wild Horses, onto Our Lands, and manage them properly under scientific reasoning; and

2. Refrain from the twisted and disenfranchised term of Humane and the use of breed controls, roundups, or slaughter mind-sets, that are nothing more than ignorance and simply do not work at all, within any “Humane” perspective.

A wild horse band, for example, can survive quite well in the eastern areas of Washington State, or in Central or Eastern Oregon as well, and the population, as long as it is left alone separated from human-problems and egos, and as long as diversity of wildlife combined with a terrestrial diversity of shrubs, grasses, et al., and within a healthy Ecology, then moderation of population takes place within a natural occurrence – Population Density situations take hold as well.

Cross-species factors are involved also.  This is where the addition of removal or addition of population-density factors can transform an ecological system that can, and as science shows us quite well, does in many ecology islands, and establishes a new equilibrium factor.

Now, with this said, and clear in our minds, we then take this a step further.  Every species has critical density-dependent factors, wild horses are not exempt.  Again, as science shows us, if one of these factors removed – through environmental change, for example, or even experimental manipulations, or breed controls, etc., the population begins to grow until a new density-dependent factor kicks-in.

And yes, due to the reality of scientific research, we find that the BLM / Forestry interference with the wild horses (coyotes experience this same shift in population densities, when interruption exist in populations, the populations simply increase, naturally) seem to be more of a manipulation, or an ignorantly based situation for promotion of problems that simply do not exist, or job security for a large government agency, to keep doing things that prohibit “Moderation” of wild horse populations, and increase population.

We can truthfully state, scientifically and beyond all doubt, the things that the Bureau of Land Management does do, within their wild horse management paradigms, as well as the USDA Forestry, and due to their lack of knowledgeable science as well as lack of biological knowledge, moderation of the wild horses on Our Federal Lands simply “cannot exist” – then add the breed control paradigms, and it increases, again, exponentially – the wild horses simply have no chance, and extinction eminent.

Conclusion

The re-establishment of wild horses, as well as other wildlife, within Washington, Oregon, Idaho, California and other Western 11 States, becomes a point of wildlife and terrestrial Diversity.  Within this diversity we can use the data and survivorship curves, in research, to track trends and to understand the dynamics of a given population.

This is far superior to what we have now, the Single-Species Paradigm = Cattle, which is merely guess-work, and a proven very arrogant/ignorant methodology of Public and Federal Lands management – as we see in several very destructive situations now existing on Our Lands in America.  We also see a time when the Beef and Sheep meat products will be too polluted for Public Consumption, and it is not that far off.  Once again, it is science that shows us this quite clearly now.  The industrialized Multi-Purpose Lands Management theories, unproven by quality-science as well, simply is not working, and is very destructive to our lands.

Once again, we also get into the Strategic elements of re-establishing species upon Our Lands, in America, within a positive framework, and observation playing a major roll in data gathering and regulatory compliance – compared to the willy-nilly situation of No-Compliance on our lands in America, currently.

Big problem, as pointed out above . . . Corruption, irresponsible conduct by government employees, as well as bad nonscientific management paradigms, based on special interests only, and America, we have a problem – But yes America, we have an answer to the problems up and coming, make no doubt.

Research and Written by — John Cox, Cascades

REFERENCES

Paul Rodgers, United States Constitutional Law: An Introduction (2011), p. 100-101.

Gibson v. Chouteau, 80 U.S. 92, 99 (1872), U.S. v. Grimaud, 220 U.S. 506 (1911), Light v. U.S. 220 U.S. 523 (1911), Utah Power & Light Co. v. U.S., 243 U.S. 389, 405 (1917), Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288, 336 (1936).

Lipton, Eric, and Clifford Krauss, Giving Reins to the States Over Drilling, New York Times, August 24, 2012.

Carol Hardy Vincent, Carla N. Argueta, & Laura A. Hanson, Federal Land Ownership: Overview and Data, Congress Research Service (March 3, 2017).

Kleppe v. New Mexico, 426 U.S. 529 (1976).

Tom Fredericks & Andrea Aseff, When Did Congress Deem Indian Lands Public Lands?: The Problem of BLM Exercising Oil and Gas Regulatory Jurisdiction, 33 Energy Law Journal 119 (2012).

“Trust Land” in Treaties with American Indians: An Encyclopedia of Rights, Conflicts, and Sovereignty (ed. Donald L. Fixico: ABC-CLIO, 2008), p. 956.

Allen, L. , Engeman, R. , and Krupa, H. (1996). Evaluation of three relative abundance indices for assessing dingo populations. Wildlife Research 23, 197–206.

Bayne, P. , Harden, B. , Pines, K. , and Taylor, U. (2000). Controlling feral goats by shooting from a helicopter with and without the assistance of ground-based spotters. Wildlife Research 27, 517–523.

Boonstra, R. , Krebs, C. J. , Boutin, S. , and Eade, J. M. (1994). Finding mammals using far-infrared thermal imaging. Journal of Mammalogy 75, 1063–1068.

Bull, E. L. , Holthausen, R. S. , and Bright, L. R. (1992). Comparison of 3 techniques to monitor marten. Wildlife Society Bulletin 20, 406–410.

Caley, P. A. , and Morley, C. G. (2002). Assessing growth rates of European rabbit populations using spotlight transect counts. Journal of Wildlife Management 66, 131–137.

Caughley G. (1977). ‘Analysis of Vertebrate Populations.’ (John Wiley and Sons: New York.)

Davis D. E. (1982). ‘CRC Handbook of Census Methods for Terrestrial Vertebrates.’ (CRC Press Inc.: Boca Raton, FL.)

Dodd, M. G. , and Murphy, T. M. (1995). Accuracy and precision of techniques for counting great blue heron nests. Journal of Wildlife Management 59, 667–673.

Edwards, G. P. , dePreu, N. D. , Shakeshaft, B. J. , and Crealy, I. V. (2000). An evaluation of two methods of assessing feral cat and dingo abundance in central Australia. Wildlife Research 27, 143–149.

Elbert, J. E. , Kost, C. D. , Rasmussen, R. L. , Johnson, D. L. , and Jenks, J. A. (1999). Lipophilic MRI contrast agents as potential markers for carnivore population studies. Proceedings of the South Dakota Academy of Sciences 78, 109–114.

Engeman, R. M. , and Allen, L. (2000). Overview of a passive tracking index for monitoring wild canids and associated species. Integrated Pest Management Reviews 5, 197–203.

Engeman R. M., and Witmer G. W. (2000). IPM strategies: indexing difficult to monitor populations of pest species. In ‘Proceedings of the 19th Vertebrate Pest Conference’. (Eds T. P. Salmon and A. C. Crabb.) pp. 183–189. (University of California: Davis, CA.)

Foran, D. R. , Minta, S. C. , and Heinemeyer, K. S. (1997). DNA-based analysis of hair to identify species and individuals for population research and monitoring. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25, 84–0847.

Glen, A. S. , and Dickman, C. R. (2003). Monitoring bait removal in vertebrate pest control: a comparison using track identification and remote photography. Wildlife Research 30, 29–33.

Lancia R. A., Nichols J. D., and Pollock K. H. (1994). Estimating the number of animals in wildlife populations. In ‘Research and Management Techniques for Wildlife and Habitats’. (Ed. T. A. Bookhout.) pp. 215–253. (The Wildlife Society: Bethesda, MD.)

Litvaitis, M. K. , and Litvaitis, J. A. (1996). Using mitochondrial DNA to inventory the distribution of remnant populations of New England cottontails. Wildlife Society Bulletin 24, 725–730

Poole, D. W. , Cowan, D. P. , and Smith, G. C. (2003). Developing a census method based on sight counts to estimate rabbit numbers. Wildlife Research 30, 487–493.

Quy, R. J. , Cowan, D. P. , and Swinney, T. (1993). Tracking as an activity index to measure gross changes in Norway rat populations. Wildlife Society Bulletin 21, 122–127.

Schneider B. A. (1982). ‘Pesticide Assessment Guidelines.’ (US Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC.)

Schwartz, C. J. , and Seber, G. A. F. (1999). Estimating animal abundance: review III. Statistical Science 14, 427–456.

Seber G. A. F. (1982). ‘The Estimation of Animal Abundance.’ 2nd edn. (MacMillan Publishing Company Inc.: New York.)

Seber, G. A. F. (1986). A review of estimating animal abundance. Biometrics 42, 267–292.

Seber, G. A. F. (1992). A review of estimating animal abundance. II. International Statistical Review – Revue Internationale de Statistique 60, 129–166.

Thompson, J. A. , and Fleming, P. J. (1994). Evaluation of the efficacy of 1080 poisoning of red foxes using visitation to non-toxic baits as an index of fox abundance. Wildlife Research 21, 27–39.

Thompson W. L., White G. C., and Gowan C. (1998). ‘Monitoring Vertebrate Populations.’ (Academic Press Inc.: New York.)

Tracey, J. P. , Fleming, P. J. , and Melville, G. J. (2005). Does variable probability of detection compromise the use of indices in aerial surveys of medium-sized mammals? Wildlife Research 32, 245–252.

 
 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

 
%d bloggers like this: