RSS

Category Archives: Uncategorized

Our Mountains and Wild Horses Speak; We need to listen (Part 1 of 4)

‘”One of the penalties of an ecological education is that one lives alone in a world of wounds. Much of the damage inflicted on land is quite invisible to laymen. An ecologist must either harden his shell and make believe that the consequences of science are none of his business, or he must be the doctor who sees the marks of death in a community that believes itself well and does not want to be told otherwise.’  — Aldo Leopold

Conservation biology protects biological diversity. In another word, whenever we have a dominant non-indigenous species (cattle in this case scenario and kill-off all other species for its safety and growth) within an Ecological system and throughout our natural environment, we are contributing to Mother Earth’s destruction overall; which, the poor health of an ecological system is not nature’s creation, but a human-kind complex of bad decisions based upon bad science, and simply bad knowledge or very narrow mind-sets. Why say this? Because nature shows us this and within many different ways.

“Diversity — not destruction of other species, for simply the growth of a single species — is required today. The first mandatory, the second is not conservation, but special interest driven and leads to wholesale extinction of several species, in order to save one.

The inevitable destruction of an Ecological System, we find, follows almost immediately when cattle chosen selectively, and all else destroyed for the cattle. We see the results of this today, on our Public Lands while we also observe, and understand why, the extinction ratios increase concerning America’s Wild Horses, as well as many other regional wildlife, due to bad decisions based upon non-conservation ideologies and bad science – and yet cloaked within a conservation-style only explanation given to the public by ignorance and special interests. . .” (i.e. John Cox, The Cascades)

The following are interactions, similar on a scale to biodiversity, nature and consequences; but keep in mind also, human-intervention does create further destruction when involved. The appeal toward conservation is to intercede wisely, from good science, in order to prevent total disaster; which, in this case Wild Horses and to prevent their extinction; thereby, another significant virtue of diversity (i.e. wildlife and vegetation, et al.) and the positive nature of a healthy ecological system to start with:

  1. Genetic Uncertainty, or random changes in genetic makeup due to inbreeding, etc., which alter the survival and reproduction capabilities of individuals;
  2. Demographic uncertainty resulting from random events in the survival and reproduction of individuals;
  3. Environmental uncertainty due to unpredictable changes in climate, weather, food supply, and the populations of competitors, predators, etc.;
  4. Catastrophic uncertainty from such phenomena as hurricanes, fires, droughts, etc., which occur in random intervals.

What we see, within a biodiversity situation and with the Wild Horses, is these four classifications do interact. A disease (an environmental uncertainty) could reduce the Wild Horse population on our Public Lands to numbers creating a short-term extinction (6 months to 1 year). The culmination of mares’ availability, for example, results within an unbalanced sex ratio (demographic uncertainty) could contribute to inbreeding (genetic uncertainty), and this could lead to few viable offspring and, eventually, extinction. But the forms of Pesticide PZP as well as other over-population (a falsehood due to the selection of a single-species = cattle) extremes, without concern or understanding toward biodiversity, or ignorant displacement combined with greed, can and is causing this exact situation currently.

Although these four stochastic processes are difficult to model, and thereby through incompetence of Bureau of Land Management employees to understand the difference. We find that the over-population modeling paradigms as significant (easily manipulated software programs), and the reality of extinction, based upon this same ideology to be quite extreme within the realms of reality – or to put it bluntly, what exists is a total ignorance toward any type of ecological system sustainability or diversity within it, what so ever.

The burden of saving our natural environment is upon us right now. Certainly, just as we protect our home, the planet upon which we live now needs our attention as well. The problem remains, we simply do not act toward resolving the issues, and as nature places them blatantly in front of us. We would rather make excuses, in order to not act upon them.

Aldo Leopold’s famous phrase that we are as “plain members and citizens” of Earth, we need to grasp these realities’; we need to understand that biology of life on this plant of ours is very real indeed; thereby, Leopold’s Think Like a Mountain – and take it a step further, and place those thoughts into action.

The situation becomes worse when the magnitude of “uncertainties” grow, or certainly have an effect on population dynamics as they increase, cause and effect, the effect being actual populations of the Wild Horses becomes smaller.

A viable population is one that maintains a vigor (health) and the potential for evolutionary adaptation. Populations face increasing risk as their numbers decline. This is why honesty is of a priority, in order to make good decisions. When numbers, or modeling criteria is manipulated, this entire situation compromised. We can also, in truth state clearly, when ignorance is at the helm, then everything is gone; Ecological Destruction is inevitable, and Extinction of Wild Horses a certainty.

True Conservation

Previously, ecologists used an “Island Principle” of approach toward conservation. For clarification, we can use the term Public Lands in eastern Oregon, for example, as a viable Island Principle, in order to understand the situation better, and within a conservation style or mind-set.

The fact is Public Lands in Oregon have been severed from its “continental source pool” of ancient forests, grasslands, by logging and ranching roads, cattle grazing, and human population growth. Since the early 1900’s, data shows us the lands in Eastern Oregon has indeed lost 42% of its resident mammals.

Is this evidence of a catastrophic “relaxation rate” that will further reduce the species, in this case scenario Wild Horses, over time? Absolutely, because the cattle-only mind-set is taking a priority over any type of conservation principle or ideology. Diversity, in wildlife and vegetation, is lost in total, thereby the Ecological System set for failure.

Those that call themselves Conservationists, such as hunters or trappers (but they are not really, because they prescribe to no Conservation style of modeling, principle’s, or ideology what so ever), also want such things as a good population of Elk, Deer, or other game-species as a priority-only circumstance.

Yes, to state ignorance is blind becomes an understatement here, and the Oregon Fish and Wildlife, and their business as usual concept of selling game license, is fundamental toward a true ecological systematic disaster, nothing more than a destruction process (defined by all four processes above) of our natural wilderness areas in Oregon.

The reality to all of this? The ability to foresee where ecological health reaches a point, where these so to speak islands or ecological zones, can become their own continental source pool, which equates to Conservation at its best.

Conservation and Wild Horses

With the wild horses, we all have asked what is the minimum viable population? Many of us have also debated the fact that, is not the use of pesticides within ecological zones, as well as other population controls used on wild horses, and being dispersed within our environment, really useful? In reality, there exists no reasonable answer given yet, which leads us to the fact that we have no idea, really, how many horses are running around our Public Lands, nor what effect does the chemicals from the population control drugs have on our ecology (it remains a variable that is ignored within all scientific research of, for example, pesticide PZP – this lack of variables represents bad science). . . Are we, in realty, shooting ourselves in the foot?

Once again ignorance, special interests, and political agendas enter the landscape of sustainability of our natural wilderness areas and habitats. Thereby, we have to move away from the Island Biogeography theory, to answer two very serious questions – How long can Wild Horses exist on our Public Lands, or how low can we go within any other wildlife situation, and still have healthy ecological zones? And — How big is big enough?

Yes, we are concerned with the diversity of species lost, in particular the 52% of all wildlife on an international basis, lost to extinction since 1972. That wildlife does not exist any longer. This is a tremendous statistic of fact to acknowledge, all by itself, and to understand its reality, and why it, indeed, it happened at all. This makes the questions we have, certainly, far more serious than simply the average management questions.

Those of us in the field ask, more often than not and noting the fragmentation taking place of our natural landscapes — What size, shape, and type of connections will maintain viable populations in a system of protected areas? HMA’s for example, and the Bureau of Land Management, disregard the Laws and Congressional Policies always – which, in truth bring about more questions of incompetency and corruption of those BLM employees?

None the less, viable populations and reserve size represent two paths toward the same goal, protecting biodiversity. The overall truth is, at some point a minimum viable population needs a certain amount of habitat to survive. So here we are, coming to the main question. What will it take to protect the diversity of wildlife, in this case the Wild Horses, on our Public Lands?

 
 

PUBLIC REQUEST FOR ACTION: PESTICIDE PZP ACCOUNTABILITY DEMANDED

john-babe-sfxWhoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.”  Friedrich Nietzsche

Many of us have discovered, over time, a lot of exploitation as well as false and misinformation given to the public, by non-profits – especially within the wildlife and wild horse worlds. Corruption is at its utmost peak right now, and wildlife, and in particular America’s Icon’s – the Wild Horses, sacrificed under this spellbound corrupt world of profits only AND TO HELL WITH ALL ANIMALS.

Misinformation and deception is way out of control right now. Debates and controversy exist, which no one can resolve, because there is nothing to resolve when misinformation and outright lies exist. How could there be resolution to such tales of corruptness, other than more corrupt meandering, all the while sacrificing everything but profits?

Below we are Publically asking, and many say that it is about time to do so, that those who support through advocacy or sales (actually advocacy of the Pesticide PZP and sales or profits are one and the same) the use of Pesticide PZP upon America’s Wild Horses, need to start publishing to the public well referenced and truthful information of it actually saving, or making a safe situation, or is safe what so ever to America’s Wild Horses.

Yes, we are asking, and I repeat, is the Pesticide PZP of benefit what so ever to Wild Horses?  Rhetoric is no longer acceptable — we need to review truthful and verifiable references, historical (long-term) outcomes that can be verified, and checked for accuracy, as well as definitive results, provable and checkable, of all Pesticide PZP use over the past 4 years.

Yes, we are asking for nothing more than accountability and responsibility from those who are getting rich off of the Wild Horses and darting them with a Pesticide known as PZP. Make no doubt we will also check the refences as well as the data for truthfulness and accuracy, as their truthfulness has come into question quite often over the past couple or three years.

IT IS TIME TO STOP DEBATING, TOO MUCH MISINFORMATION AND LIES GIVEN TO THE PUBLIC = CONFUSION — IT IS TIME FOR TRUTH FROM NON-PROFITS WHO CLAIM PESTICIDE PZP USEFUL AND POSITIVE FOR WILD HORSES!

BY LAW THEY MUST DO SO — TO ALL THOSE WHO REQUEST THE INFORMATION — WELL REFERENCED EASILY OBTAINED INFORMATION TO BE CHECKED IN TOTAL FOR ACCURACY AND TRUTHFULNESS!

There exists no positive-resolution for the use of Pesticide PZP — ROUNDUPS HAVE INCREASED — VIABILITY OF HERDS/BANDS, IF NOT LOST ALREADY — 60% of the 139 herds left on Public Lands are non-viable any longer due to stallions disappearing and combined with use of Pesticide PZP, ON THE VERGE OF BEING LOST FROM and due to sending stallions to slaughter and / or gelded — i.e. another 38% near losing their herd/band viability as we speak, leaving a mere 2% that have any viability what so ever — Pesticide PZP use damaging to Mares with no resolution from its use.

MANY OF US IN THE FIELD SEEING THE FACT PESTICIDE PZP NOTHING MORE THAN A ROUSE, A DECEPTION OF COSTLY PROPORTION, AND AT THE SAME TIME STERILIZATION OF MARES AS WELL AS LIQUDATING STALLIONS BEHIND THE SCENES, AND FROM THE ADDITIONAL ROUNDUPS SLATED FOR PESTICIDE PZP USE.dart-abcess2

GATE-CROSSING STATISTICS, AND GATEKEEPER’S ATTEST, MANY MORE WILD HORSES COMING ACROSS THE BORDERS THAN EVER BEFORE! Categories’ no longer useful in identifying wild horses, as many filed as livestock as well

We also find that there exist less than 20,000 wild horses on Public lands, and roundups if you check the statistics, have increased over the past two years and since Pesticide PZP being used full time — there are other statistics as well, but common sense also tells us that the Pesticide PZP usage should stop. FACTS = TRUTH

The fact is there are too many conflicts of interest with BLM and welfare ranchers, HSUS and DIRECT connections as well as family ties to welfare ranchers, and the forestry; whereas, we find these circumstances lead to those involved making a lot of money from several sources, all the while sacrificing the wild horses.

It is time some of these non-profits, the BLM, the FORESTRY, who state Pesticide PZP useful, start proving it, as it has been going on for approximately 3 years, and quite frankly we see negative results and wild horses going to extinction must faster:

(A LESS THAN <9,000 ESTIMATE IS MORE TRUE IN THE MATTERS OF WILD HORSES ON Public Lands, as no one committed to accomplishing actual horse counts on Public Lands had found any more than the approximate 9,000+ Ground Counts –

Proof would be a well referenced, well statistically based format of facts and figures (and shown how the facts and figures and data retrieved and assimilated), which can be checked for authenticity and accuracy and truth, given to the public by HSUS (Humane Society of the United States) WHE (Wild Horse Education) RTF (Return to Freedom) and AWHPC, who state Pesticide PZP saves wild horses, but we are not seeing that situation what so ever in the field.

THE TAXPAYING PUBLIC AND DONATORS NOW WANT PROOF TO SUCH EXTREME EXPENDITURES, BUILT ON LIES MOSTLY — TIME FOR THEM TO PROVE TRUTH, NOT MORE LIES!

This CAN BE DONE BY LAW AS WELL, AS THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE PRESCRIBES FOR ALL NON-PROFITS TO MAKE AVAILABLE ALL INFORMATION IN THE MATTERS OF THEIR NON-PROFITS, AND THAT INCLUDES STATISTICS AND APPROPRIATE NUMBERS SHOWING US, AS THOSE WHO DONATE TO THESE SUPPOSED ENDEAVORS, CAN BE PROVEN IT IS BEING ACCOMPLISHED.

TIME TO BACK UP WHAT YOU STATE — AS THERE SEEMS TO BE A LOT OF NAME CALLING FROM THESE NON-PROFITS, BUT THERE IS NOTHING MORE THAN NAME-CALLING — TIME FOR THE PROOF!

 
4 Comments

Posted by on February 21, 2017 in Uncategorized

 

Wild Horses: The Truth – Facts, The Percentages, The Corruption Unchecked

john along the williamson sunsetThe time will come when diligent research over long periods will bring to light things which now lie hidden. A single lifetime, even though entirely devoted to the sky, would not be enough for the investigation of so vast a subject… And so this knowledge will be unfolded only through long successive ages. There will come a time when our descendants will be amazed that we did not know things that are so plain to them… Many discoveries are reserved for ages still to come, when memory of us will have been effaced.”
― Seneca

In this period of American history we find many contradictory situations. Frankly, the Wild Horses of our Public Lands, merely used as pawns, in the game to riches and government budget building, increased payrolls, and outlandish equipment purchases, maintenance of the same equipment, as well as price of fuel. . . in both the Forestry (USFS), and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).

The American Taxpayer, or Donator to non-profits, continue to be taken for the ride on the tails of misinformation, lies, pursuit for the mighty dollar as their god, and simultaneously disenfranchise honesty, or truth, for this mediocre dishonest false-premise of saving our Wild Horses. Amazing that many people even go for the scam what so ever – but you can fool some of the people some of the time . . .

Currently the ruling classes (the 1% wealthy) simply protect themselves. Monetary profits have never been higher, 40%+ now within the standard corporate premise of business, above and beyond anything else throughout the historical Industrial-Age in the matters of Capital Gains or profit margins.

No doubt politics taken over by business, actually socialism is the term and defines the situation quite well. Representative-Democracy, in reality, no longer exists. But on a positive note, the youth of today is not accepting neither the Industrial-Styled Democracy of socialism, nor the sacrifices it presents in order to maintain such a system. Change is inevitable, but slow in coming, unfortunate for the Wild Horses today – as many led by large groups that have acquired a mentality to support deception, lies, misinformation, as well as just blatantly bad propaganda . . . but people will be human, will they not?

Even though we consider ourselves a Humane Nation, in truth the term merely a convenience, rather than a truth. We provide ourselves with an ethical mind-set, in name only. Conclusively, we seem to follow the unethical and those who lack scruples, most often due to empathy or an odd willingness to be led, rather than think individually, or with common sense as a premise. . .

wpid-img_20140419_084144

Somehow, beyond reason, this has become popular; which, along with hate or animosity directed at, well, whoever the group or mob manipulators point to. These manipulators are the 15% of criminals who function within our society, unhindered by law mostly, and have become corporate executives, politicians, government agency Administrators and budget personnel, wildlife administrators’, as well as sit upon boards or committees who perform oversight, mostly derived of legislators also, or the leaders-Administrators of many non-profits as well as others who subordinate much of the Humane-Nature perspective toward ethics that we use to have years ago. . .

A Little History for the Romantic

  • In the 1800’s when grass was knee high in all the western states, over 2 million wild horses roamed the West along with 60 million bison.
  • By 1900, the bison were nearly exterminated and the wild horse population drastically reduced.
  • From 1950 on, a campaign to save the last remaining wild horses and burros was begun by a Nevada rancher’s wife – Velma [Bonn] Johnston known as “Wild Horse Annie.”
  • As a result of a massive letter writing campaign in 1971, PL 92-195 “The Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act” was passed unanimously and protected wild horses and burros from slaughter, harassment, and capture on public lands.
  • The Act acknowledged, “Wild horses and burros were fast disappearing from the American scene.” In 1974, the first wild horse and burros census counted 60,000 animals.
  • Today, the numbers have been cut in half – 32,000 animals and declining rapidly – in spite of the law clearly stating that wild horses and burros ranges (HMAs) should be “. . . devoted principally but not necessarily exclusively to their welfare”

Wild Horses and a 1971 Law Ignored Today

So off we go down the road of misappropriation of taxpayer money, or one can say also, those who contribute to non-profits also, only to discover later their support ignored, and their money simply increased the non-profit’s administrator’s lifestyle – especially large non-profit, no different in the case of Wild Horses actually, then contributing and supporting the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). But wait a minute, these non-profits, as their rhetoric state clearly, is to protect America’s Icon’s the Wild Horses from the BLM, not support BLM falsehoods or negligence, or abuse . . . but they do – sadly.

Oddly, we do not find the amount of representation, from many large non-profits, that come close to not only their promises toward resolution beneficial (in this case scenario) to America’s Wild Horses on our Public Lands, but find a mere 1% to 3% of donation-money, spent toward these same assumed potential resolutions. We also found, and even more troubling, they never bothered to even show up at 68% of the situations they collected money to resolve, and yet lied about being there and taking part – or very distastefully, took the credit for another’s endeavors in saving our wildlife or horses, on occasions. Yes, very disgusting people, undoubtedly.

Isn’t it odd, we live in a country made up of Laws, but many people, those who their god is money, do not, apparently, have to abide by these Laws – Interesting to say the least . . . so they say . . dart-abcess2.

Isn’t it odd, no doubt as well, many of these people assume they are what their job classification is or is not, and within or part of the size of their large group – and the power-base for these ignorant people, these mind-sets of simplicity, the vulgar, the inept, and the good little Nazi’s, or the good little (fill-in whatever large group you wish here) and off we go down the road of manipulation, of a tenacity of crude behavior, and ignoring-Law in place of whatever the need that does develop – that they assume their group better than, and subjectively re-do the Law in accord with their corrupt behavior – I suppose they assume we do not notice this fact of all facts.

Photo is a Pesticide PZP Darted Horse, Abscessed — very common Darting- Result BLM, HSUS, or their supporters care to admit!  Also, they do not want the public to know the Pesticide PZP often does not work, nor does it control population — but the extravagant situation of removing stallions (shipped directly to slaughter from the roundups — or cutting them) and use the numbers of less birth within a false premise and nothing more than misinformation . . . one of many maneuvers of the BLM / HSUS monopoly of Pesticide PZP and their misinformation campaigns.

THE FACTS FOLLOW:

  • Since 1971 wild horses and burros have been removed from 102 ranges (Herd Areas) representing a loss of approximately 13 million acres of land. (There were 303 Herd Areas – now only 139 Herd Management Areas [HMAs] remain, but weekly may change, becoming much lower, indeed;
  • Wild horses and burros now reside on 34,549,570 acres of the 261,950,378 BLM acres..
  • Today, the wild horses have the greatest genetic diversity [little to no inbreeding] compared to any particular breed of domestic horse in our country (Dr. E. Gus Cothran – University of Kentucky);
  • Fiscal year 2005, BLM reduced populations by 9,300+ wild horses & burros, bringing numbers far below the levels suggested for maintaining healthy populations by the University of Kentucky – (E. Gus Cothran- Equine Geneticist );
  • Although nearly 70% of the HMAs have less than 100 animals, the absolute minimum number of wild horses and burros in each HMA should be 150 animals to prevent loss of the genetic diversity (Dr. E. Gus Cothran-University of Kentucky). This figure is based on optimal conditions and does not take into account Acts of God such as drought, deep snow, fire, etc.
  • With the above minimum number – the absolute minimum number of animals should be no less than 30,150 horses and burros under optimum conditions. BLM plans to reduce animals to 23,000, or when accomplished, to send to extinction via Pesticide PZP;
  • In the 2005 Federal Omnibus Appropriation Bill, Senator Conrad Burns (R-MT) attached a rider that gave BLM authority to sell – without limitation [slaughter]- wild horses over the age of ten [the prime of life of horses]. 8,300 wild horses fit this criterion. The rider also specified that any animal not adopted in three adoptions attempts would also be sold without limitations – 100 animals fit this criterion;
  • The 8,300 wild horses now earmarked under the Burn’s rider for slaughter were never given an opportunity to be adopted but were sent immediately to long-term holding pasture sanctuaries, not holding corrals;
  • The cost of holding the 8,300 wild horses in the long-term holding sanctuaries for 2004 was $6,800,236.00 in BLM’s overall budget of $839,848,000.00 – (Wild Horse and Burro program represents only 4.6% of their entire budget- $39,062,000.) Opposition states that the majority of BLM’s wild horse budget was used for the long-term holding, which is inaccurate;
  • Because of the lack of a quality-marketing program, BLM has been ineffective in promoting adoptions, especially of older animals. Although BLM has adopted out more than 200,000 animals since 1976. This success is due to more than 65% of adopters returning to adopt more animals. (The product sells itself.);42
  • The majority of Herd Areas contain more livestock than wild horses and burros.
  • Wild horses and burros receive 458,508 AUMs while livestock receive 7,101,592 AUMs (2002) [An AUM is the amount of forage required to feed a cow and calf per month or 1 horse or 5 sheep.]
  • Due to droughts in some parts of the West, BLM has conducted unnecessary emergency removals of wild horses instead of implementing CFR 4710.5 “closure to livestock.”
  • CFR 4710.5 was designed to protect wild horses and burros during anticipated droughts and other Acts of God by closing the HMAs to livestock grazing. This CFR is rarely implemented. In the few cases it was implemented, wild horses and burros were permanently removed while livestock returned a few months later.
  • Cattle on public lands represent only 2.6% of the beef eaten in the U.S. The rest of the beef comes from private ranchers who pay $20 to $50/AUM to lease private land.
  • The cost to graze cattle on public lands is $1.79/AUM. All of this goes into a Slush-Fund, within the forestry and BLM book keeping process of this money, which in turn is returned to the BLM/ Forest Service “Range Betterment Program.” These monies go back to the rancher for range improvements. The Public Lands Grazing program costs taxpayers one-half billion dollars yearly.
  • Based on the annual economic income growth from 1990-1997, the loss of all federal grazing in 1997 would have caused income growth in eleven western states (ten of which wild horses and burros are located) to pause for eight days. This means that direct income and job losses could be made up in a matter of a few days by the normal expansion of the economy. (University of Montana – Missoula). . .

CONCLUSION

Strangely, many horse advocacy groups, corrupt in nature and following the Pesticide PZP band-wagon of lies, misinformation, and bad childish propaganda, have become nothing more than large and extravagant hate groups. Donated money is nothing more than used for extravagant life-styles of the administrator of these groups, or new trucks, new homes, but the truth is very little goes toward saving wild horses. In the past 15 years, with these current groups at the helm, we see not much has changed what so ever.

We have also seen the situation of the Pesticide PZP come full circle for use, using misinformation and lies only. The 7-year process it took to register the Pesticide as a Pest-Control product for population control, was dead-in-the-water before HSUS become involved – then suddenly (i.e. payoffs?) the pesticide was registered – and registered as a pesticide (as Mr. Hebert explains, it is a pesticide and proper labeling required as such – and the register-administrator of the pesticide at the EPA) due to the destruction that takes place in the wild horse, or deer, or whatever, to control the pest population – see registration documentation for further study, if you dare.

Confusion is the BLM, their supporters, and HSUS’s game plans; although, it will be a short ride, when people actually realize how destructive and costly, both in sacrifice of America’s Wild Horses as well as money.

Until it is understood the wild horse’s world is corrupt, in total, BLM, Forestry, and non-profits alike, nothing will change, and the Wild Horses will go extinct!  NOW YOU KNOW — YOU NO LONGER HAVE AN EXCUSE TO ACCEPT MISINFORMATION OR LIES ANY LONGER! —

 
4 Comments

Posted by on February 19, 2017 in Uncategorized

 

Pesticide PZP – Reality or simply a government/non-profit tragedy? Wild Horses at The Brink of Extinction – Bad Science Bad Management

13221593_1099603086763050_2678499204347604816_n
“These corporations run our culture, and they riddle it with bullshit.”
― Ben Goldacre, Bad Science

Blog – article:  John Cox, The Cascades

Pesticide PZP, the Humane Society’s Inhumane Promotion (they own the pesticide) of a much-disputed Population Control event (although no over-population of wild horses exists on Public Lands – undisputed fact of facts) and pesticide used via Dart into Wild Horses!

Rather than spend this time reading about the debates, let’s take a look at the research, and also another reason to drop the façade of Pesticide PZP saving Wild Horses (it does not plain and simple). Yes, yet another government expense that in reality is nothing more than an excuse to place America’s Wild Horses in compromise in population-survival, and take them to extinction much faster that normal.

Sensationalized and Abstracted Perception

Headlines and articles (i.e. in particular the titles), when the Humane Society, or others, are publishing articles or facts about the Pesticide PZP, we discover blatant simplicity of misinformation. They over-simplify the research, as well as the findings. Obtaining the data is also over-simplified, explained within a context of trivial occurrence, and when thought about really means nothing at all, as well as when researched the actual data is simply unavailable, or what is available, a very small portion to be precise and not a good sampling amount. is then explained in abstract-form and non-definable in definition, thereby, no one can really understand it – and those who do not understand what they read, simply assume everything is okay with the Pesticide PZP. Yes, they thrive on people being uneducated, as well as lack knowledge within reading technical reports or science.

Misinterpreted Result

Sales type of explanation, especially when government contract concerned, apparently, the norm for many research people submitting their Snake-Oil type of product for presentation to government budget committees – and the Pesticide PZP was and remains no different. Distorted and misinterpreted research data prevalent, facts skewed to abnormalities — and truth, well, in truth it was thrown out decades ago and in total, within all of the information on Pesticide PZP – But sounding official, and a few scientific terms thrown in, and they have a sellable commodity – at taxpayers’ expense, so why not, the BLM nor the Dept. of the Interior care; the employees at the BLM could care less, because they are corrupt as well. Birds of a Feather so to speak – Boy, that statement just covered a lot of ground in the Pesticide PZP controversy.

Conflict of Interest

“. . . The pay offs and the rip offs, And the things nobody saw, No matter . . .“ Pesticide PZP, it’s the allure of easy money, the cover-ups, the corruption, and again the money, and somebody has to pay the price, Our Wild Horses – Defenseless from the greed, the corrupt . . .

Scientific research can, and this Pesticide PZP no different, is and remains misrepresented for personal and financial gain. Even though we know, these government employees should analyze the situation with the previous in mind, they do not. As the situation, or pay-off, to keep quiet, or mislead the public, all involved, is first and foremost the priority. To say anything, or deviate from the plan, is too lose money, to lose the contract, to lose the grant, to lose the temporary employment status – yes, everyone has a pay-off price, some more and some less.

Correlation & Causation

Be aware of the confusion between correlation and causation. Correlation between two variables does not automatically mean one causes the other. The fact deer, a minute percentage of a very small portion of them, or sample size, does not correlate to a larger percentage, or introduction, to the Pesticide PZP of entire herds of horses, in the hundred. When research done on the Pesticide PZP references, we found very few, a minute percentage, of samples taken from wildlife – deer for example. And conclusively, a very slight percentage sampled, darted, then correlated with a larger percentage of speculative circumstances. By the way, these circumstances never come to light, and the Pesticide PZP falters in many different ways. . .

Speculative Language

Speculative language from research is just that, speculative. Be on the lookout for such terms as may, which, could, might, perhaps, probable, definable, and others. This means the research has no hard evidence, and conclusion based not on fact, but speculative subjective judgement only. Reference materials also become obvious, and other references made toward obscure, or even asinine science, or good science but remains unrelated (other than suggestion that it is) as if it pertains to the main subject or situation – when perused it becomes obvious it has no link to any hard evidence what so ever to the subject material, in this case Pesticide PZP. A tremendous amount of references in Pesticide PZP reports refers to situations not affiliated, nor have anything to do with Pesticide PZP, within its manufacture process or use, or genetical change created.

Sample Size Too Small cartoon-accommodations

A book could be written here, on the Sample Size being tremendously too small for any proper research of Pesticide PZP. This should have been explored by the budget committees within the BLM or DOI, but was not. We found very few Sample-Lots, and even fewer Herds of deer, or horse herds on an island along the East Coast, that could even come close to any type of positive research standards of acceptable product, in this case the Pesticide PZP. Ultimately, we found the Sample Sizes mentioned too small for any type of conjecture of the short-term or long-term use of Pesticide PZP.

We found a lot of conjecture, although, with a tremendous amount of speculative reasoning, and with situations for intended use, or sub-standard reasoning to use at all on horses or any other wildlife. Environmental damage, or correlation and causation circumstance within the environment, was not accomplished, nor even mentioned or thought about (defies proper and quality research, and the very reasoning for the research) what so ever, and we see waived in the EPA paperwork – we also feel that such a long time to register and conclude such circumstances, whether safe or not in wilderness or any other environments, was not done, nor even approached within any research format.

We find that Pesticide PZP danger to surrounding wildlife or vegetation did exist, but was hoped to be ignored. We are also suspicious that it may have been researched, but proven negative within the small sample size obviously completed, and yet removed – due to unsafe standards as well as when larger percentages of the Pesticide PZP perhaps used, the dangers become more prominent than the wanted result of population control.

Unrepresentative Samples

In wildlife trials, researchers will attempt to use animals that may be representative of a larger population, of say ungulates. The fact is, when the breed or species of animal different, despite being ungulates, the outcome will be varied, and even much different most often. Suspiciously, the deer results and the wild horse results are different, but left unrecorded. This also means the results from the horses on the east coast, would indeed, scientifically, be much different due to separate types of environment. But we do not see any difference in their research, as it has been, and remains unrecorded in all of the Pesticide PZP research. This remains very suspicious as well as incompetent, in accord with several researchers . . . as some state clearly, the suspicions of incompetent research, when we simply read over much of the technical papers, remain suspicious, and compounded over the long run tremendously.

No Control Group Used

The truth is we found the supposed Control Groups very small, creating subjective reasoning rather than deductive science data and research. We also found the control groups not observed for an appropriate length of time. We also found the speculative approach to data in error most often, and the sterilization and other negative effects ignored in total. The fact is, when we look at the information about the control groups, we see, as usual, a lack of information, a lack of effect on the horses and lack of information pertinent to environmental consequences entirely. All control groups have been approached within speculative reasoning only, as there is no science, or data to back up their information – and never has been over the years, despite its use – as a matter of fact just the opposite continues to develop, and problems continue to arise with the use of Pesticide PZP, but remains ignored – or excuses given to the public, and most often followed by misinformation . . . proven as such but many ignore as well.

No Blind Testing Usedpublic lands and cattle

Grouping deer herds (whether deer or horses) together, rather than intermixing, and using the Pesticide PZP on a mixed herd, and even maintaining confidentiality on testing herds – develops a non-biased situation. A non-biased blood testing regime can also take place, when actual data gathering within a research paradigm takes place – resulting in non-biased and non-manipulated blood testing. We cannot depend on the BLM nor the Pesticide PZP advocates to be non-biased, or HSUS for that matter $$$$, as corruption is proven time and time again and misinformation continues to be dispersed to the public, and at taxpayer expense — interesting.

Cherry Picked Results

This results when a researcher selects only the data that supports their subjective conclusion, ignoring or tossing out data that does not support the subjective conclusion. Or, we can say, and see quite obvious at times, that objective perusal of the Pesticide PZP research data not accomplished what so ever. We can see this by the data left out, that should be within the research data, but gone entirely. The best example, is the data or circumstance of environmental effects on the different ecological systems where darting took place – and recorded, but ecological zones left out. Why?

The information not available what so ever, left out or tossed out in many circumstances (we simply do not know because it is not there and should be) within any research, has bothered more than a few Research Scientists who have perused the reference materials (incompetence or bias by the Pesticide PZP researchers?) – and find nothing more than subjective reasoning, with no reference supporting any of the data conclusions given. This is clearly seen with perusal of the technical reports, what does exist anyway. And the discussions center only around the bias, or cherry picked situations, and not the overall – because the overall data is unavailable, and black-holes of information, or unavailable information, quite obvious.

Unreplicable Results

This is a very understandable category. The fact is independent researchers should be able to use the Pesticide PZP, and have consistent results, or conclusive results of a positive nature. This is not happening with Pesticide PZP use on Public Lands . . .

We find, in most cases, consistency does not happen what so ever, and see very obvious within the herds: band disruption, or mare sterile, or other mares presenting more birth situations than normal, or younger mares giving more birth inconsistently and many times throughout the abnormal cycles of birth and presentation, among many other negative situations, most inconsistent at best. . .

The bottom line here is, Replication of Results, if objective rather than subjective data used, should remain consistent – if subjective data used, and erroneously accepted, then inconsistent behaviors exist, as we see quite obvious in today’s Public Lands and the Pesticide PZP used upon the Wild Horses — and reaction – interaction from the horse herds themselves. . .

Extraordinary Claims require Extraordinary Evidence – This does not exist with Pesticide PZP situations nor references what so ever.

Journals and Citations

There should be a diversity of qualified people who affirm the data and reasoning for deductions given within the research. This should not be simply the acceptance by those involved within the situation, and actually represents a bias nature only, in particular from those who have invested time, effort, or money within the Pesticide PZP situation – this equates only to bias reasoning.

We see bias-reasoning to be quite prevalent within the comments made about the research and the data gathering of Pesticide PZP; although, we also see the lack of information, which many of the bias people do not mention.

Conclusion

Overall, and due to all of the above comments and categorical faults, we can state very clearly that Pesticide PZP was developed by Bad Science. We also recommend that Pesticide PZP is not be used further within the boundaries of the United States, as there is no evidence showing whether it has been, or will be harmful within any of our complex environments or unique ecological systems.

For taxpayers to pay for this situation, remains ridiculous, and Bad Science should never be paid for by the tax paying American public – The budget people at BLM or other government agencies should be held responsible for the non-academic assessments, but approval should be based upon good science, with no questions toward consistency or usage — with good references and data be made available to do so, and examined by those qualified to do so — We can also state, clearly, there is no need for the Pesticide PZP to be used anyway, as there is no Over-Population of America’s Wild Horses or to use any type of Population Control stimulus what so ever.

 
1 Comment

Posted by on January 30, 2017 in Uncategorized

 

Wild Horses and the type of Ignorance Fought to save them

6230052936b8ed231aToday in America many of us want to save our Icons, The Wild Horses on Our Public Lands. There is no doubt that the Bureau of Land Management remains incompetent, as well as the Forestry and management of our Public Lands as well, and horses, beyond any doubt what so ever, continue to go to slaughter — Illegally. Yes, Ignorance and incompetence does lead to disaster — always!

The situations that have to do with Public Lands and Forestry Lands are so corrupt today, that many non-profits have developed, and many simply take advantage of the corruptness that now exists on our Federal and Public Lands $$$$$. . .

Currently, a situation developed in South Dakota and within the matters of a Horse Rescue (the oldest and most genuine rescue of iconic value) and Our Nations Wild Horses, rescued, living there. The lessens we are learning, a more proper explanation would be fitting of – In Your Face Lessons Learned, are becoming more and more obvious as the days move forward.

We can now see that the very false-premise of the situation overlooked. We can also see a continuous series of over-dramatized and overly-developed circumstances have choked any “truth” off entirely. But what of this reactionary situation can we learn here, and at the same time provide us with something of, or rather, anything of value?

Well, the first thing many of us who have stepped back, and kept somewhat uninvolved (and yet received insults and rhetoric when speaking truth), are seeing a Twilight – Zonish level of human emotion. The human elements described as ignorance, haltered, superiority, and worse an overbuilt and abundant contempt toward those undeserving people who were simply trying to make ends meet.

Ironically, just like everyone, or a group, who stands within condemnation toward one person, acting as though their superiority has overcome that particular time when something does fail in one’s life (lies to themselves quite abundant within a group setting) – and their life falls into disorder, chaos, and even heartbreaking ridicule upon oneself. . . Yes, being human is all . . . no one really escapes this, although some may want others to believe they have —

Sadly, this situation just like everyone else’s actually, but something went wrong temporarily and become very noticeable – and noticeable to many. And similar to a Twilight Zone situation, the truth was immediately twisted, corkscrewed into an odd reality; which, within a group, those same people who twisted that reality, did so to their own benefit – and that temporary group displacement of superiority over one person, did take place – and does take place, and currently ongoing within a disgraceful human-species display of total ignorance.

The saddest part of all, is the fact those that could have stood up and resolve the situation much better, without the sacrifice of the horses, did not do so. And this “truth”, simply overwhelms all other facts that have become twisted within this menagerie of chaotic contempt toward one individual.

Yes, so we are also seeing, as the days move forward, the sacrifice of the horses so the non-profits, under their own words when supposedly refusing to assist any longer (covering their own ass is what we call it out here), simply could care less about the horses because they are too large of a non-profit to actually worry about such trivial matters, and after all it is only one person – but oh yes, here is a slight amount to support the attempts to save some of the horses – but oh, such a small endeavor when considering a tad-bit more of cash for hay, could have done so much more, and actually saved all of the horses = Reality . . .john-babe-saddle-222266666

So, what we learn here is an individual, with no political significance, and no important stature, other than being Humane and Honest, just common folks like you and I mostly, can and as far as large non-profits are concerned, do not qualify for truth nor assistance – but must be condemned, and “. . . sacrifices must be made. . .” (i.e. Death of a Salesman – or the unrecognized death of the common folks, as the theme goes)

Oddly, the organization I speak of, the United States is within their non-profit name, but their current endeavors, actually and in truth that go back a few years now, pointedly not of United States values, nor within any Humane Principle’s nor responsibilities toward the term Humane what so ever. What has seriously been over looked here, is the fact of the lack of Humane within any definable form being placed into action to resolve the problems at hand, and Group-Hate has taken over entirely.

But wait, there will be more, and donations asked, so this problem will not develop again. But there is not only any guarantee, and assuredly, this problem will develop, and escalate tremendously, and with no help from the large organizations that obtain donations to assist. Yes, Lost is the integrity, as well as truth, within this donation realm of non-profits of this generation. The greedy and unscrupulous have taken over, for a while anyway. American’s have a way of separating the corrupt from the honest folks, and eventually the corrupt simply bury themselves – but unfortunately, they take many with them while doing so!

Yes, ethical bounds have been crossed, and the human-species, in yet another challenge to do what is right, has essentially failed within all Christian, or within any spiritual elements of life, and respect for others; their faith, obviously not of value to those who take part in these hate group-events of animosity and hatred toward others. Worse yet, is many will walk away, supposing they had done something of value, as twisted and contorted as that sounds, but very truthful indeed – otherwise, how would one live with themselves? Ignorance at its foremost worse . . . — John Cox, The Cascades Fall of 2016

 
3 Comments

Posted by on December 4, 2016 in Uncategorized

 

Wild Horses / America’s Wildlife in Danger: End All Corrupt Grazing Permit Programs on Public and Federal Lands

john-babe-sfxThe incredible situation that neither government nor the private sector has filed a report which has ever fully analyzed the tremendous environmental costs, or wildlife sacrificed, of a Grazing Permit Program on American’s Public Lands; that is, cattle grazing at such low-costs merely the superficial and false information rather than a truism, on federal and public lands, speaks volumes of a very corrupt industry and government agency involvement, indeed.” – John Cox, The Cascades

In the late 1930’s thru the early 1940’s there existed an undeniable truth in America. This truth speaks of many ranchers at that time, due to severe over-grazing of our public lands by their privately owned cattle, our public range lands and grasslands were being destroyed. Today the ongoing destruction remains quite obvious as well, as history shows us, and tells us of the corruption, greed, and ignorance within this industry – as history shows us the truth of the situations, and quite evident. So here we go, on the road of corruption, explained and noted well, and the managing government agencies? Well, let’s just say they are cooperative, and very corrupt, with this same Grazing Permit Program.

A Beginning – For a Short Time Anyway

“U. S. Secretary of Agriculture Henry Wallace told Wyoming ranchers in 1934 they were ruining the public range by overgrazing . . . Ranchers could not deny the evidence, but tried . . .

. . . But Wallace, undeterred, responded with candor and bluntness, and, in language no one could misinterpret, spoke directly to the question of why the public range was in such sorry shape. He rebuked the livestock raisers for overstocking their ranges for the past five years, in some pastures to the point of erosion, possibly ruining the land permanently.

“It is all right,” he said, “to go ahead if you want to under your rugged individualism and overstock your ranges and eat off your good pastures, it is all right for you to hurt yourselves if you want to, but it is a shame to hurt the land the way you have been doing.” – Henry Wallace

Although, the difference today is the Welfare Ranchers — those cattle ranchers who hold Grazing Permits for Public Lands grazing of their cattle at a very reduced cost, at taxpayer expense – ironically, obtain subsidies in large amounts by having this Grazing Permit, and are becoming very wealthy; although, from taxpayer’s dollars and very dishonestly. Yes, the Grazing Permit System and the BLM are corrupt entirely – and has been for years now . . .

To state the Government’s Grazing Permit Program corrupt, is and remains an understatement, and sadly, the American population, in reality the taxpayers, bear the burden of it all – and ironically laws continuously broken as well by sub-leasing of federal lands, by these same people holding these Grazing Permits. Our environment and wildlife being sacrificed for this very system, which is corrupt in total – which is unacceptable, and by many American’s who know of this ongoing tragedy!

Also, at that same time as today also, much of our grasslands and forests destroyed due to mismanaged and overpopulation of cattle in many areas. Yes, what was our Public Lands at that time, the early 1900’s, were in such bad shape, history states clearly due to ranchers ignorance, that cattle were starving, diseased, and western lands especially, become baron of vegetation, or any life in general. Many healthy pasture-lands, on public lands at that time – as well as today – become nothing more than un-useful wastelands and firestorm-hazards of Cheat Grass and striken with unrepairable-erosion and decay.

“Wallace’s remarks came just days before passage of the landmark Taylor Grazing Act. On June 28, 1934, President Franklin Roosevelt signed the measure into law. It was the first legislative action to organize grazing management on the public domain. By the time the legislation was enacted, according to Bureau of Land Management historian Marion Clawson, “a large part of the public lands had already suffered serious, accelerated erosion, largely (but not wholly) as a result of uncontrolled grazing.” The act resulted partly from mounting conflicts among livestock operators in the western United States, and partly from growing public recognition that, in many places, the rangelands had been severely overgrazed.”

Ignorance Fear and Welfare Ranching

So when we speak of our Public Lands being saved from ignorance, it is meant literally, our Public Lands were being saved from a very self-oriented and ignorant ranching community at that time; which, were those who did destroy much of our Public Lands at that time. Documents and other references submitted to Congress, show us many cattle dropping-dead on the open-ranges and due to ignorance, and simply mismanaged ranching operations. The ranchers life-styles, at that time, not much better.

The well-meaning and fundamental situation to approach the problem was the Taylor Grazing Act’s very premise, for example. It was created to save America’s Pubic Lands from the over-whelming ignorance from those involved directly in cattle ranching (as corruption very obvious and the result even then was destroying our Public Lands) – and to create regulatory situations to prevent further decay within America’s Public Lands.

“Interesting enough, what we have found throughout the history of the TGA, was that the Taylor Grazing Act was meant to keep the ranching mind-set, or ranchers, out of the administrative and management levels of decision-making in the matters of our Public Lands domestically – mostly in the Western United States . . .

The ideology of the TGA, was the ranching community at that time (history and well referenced) so corrupt and filled with greed, and lack of education in managing herds of cattle on their own ranch lands and pastures which over-shot onto Public Lands, indeed to costly with too many sacrifices.

So for grasslands and forests to remain healthy and productive, an independent mind-set with nature a priority, was established, to manage America’s Public Lands – the ranchers, as stated above and within a historical context as well, were to be regulated, and “not” the regulators or overseers of our Public Lands, what so ever. This point cannot be stated enough – as we see the dominating influence of their regulatory mind-sets today, after many ranchers had invaded, and taken over many government agencies directly involved with Federal or Public Lands Management, and have indeed become corrupt in total.

We are now seeing first-hand, just as those years way back when, the devastatingly same results on our Public Lands – this odd mind-set of managing livestock at the sacrifice of all else. But, also it includes the devastating destruction of our needed Grasslands, Forests, Rangelands, and Wildlife. The outright sacrifice of America’s Wildlife unacceptable – estimated at 48%+ Over-Kill yearly – and Welfare Ranching responsible / estimated at 89% of this Over-Kill problem domestically.

Taylor Grazing Act and Ranching on Public Lands

Yes, the ranchers, in the late 1930’s and 1940’s, went to Congress for help. In an effort to help, the government created The U.S. Grazing Service, and the Taylor Grazing Act (as aforementioned). . . This sectioned our Public Lands into allotments that could be allocated or “permitted” (i.e. the Grazing Permit Process started) to individual ranchers who would then have that allotment leased to them.

In reality, the TGA developed structure and synthesis within the industry, and the disconnect of ranchers from outright management of America’s Public Lands become beneficial, to ranchers and the future of grasslands development, forestry was enhanced, and the fundamentals of wildlife concerns and ecological systems managed appropriately were also being brought to the forefront.

“The fact at that time was, and remains, that restricting and enacting aggressive regulatory methods, especially with the combination of business / commerce being the subordinate issue on Public Lands, would separate and provide grantees for the elements of an ongoing healthy Ecology as a priority, worked very well. . . and still would work today quite well, had the Taylor Grazing Act not been so compromised by the cattlemen’s lobby groups. . .” – Leslie Van Rush, Historian

“The grazing system was set up so that each individual rancher would have his own grazing area on our America’s Public Lands. Fees for Public Lands grazing were set and remain set to this day, at way under market value. Today, the U.S. Grazing Service of yesteryear is called the Bureau of Land Management, and only about 18 – 20,000 ranchers hold grazing permits across all of our western lands.

Keep in mind here as you read further, that most permit holders today are not really ranchers at all,.. but – Big Corporations like Del Webb or Hilton, or other Investment Companies, miscellaneous corporations of several types, as well with some foreign involvement (UAE), or by already wealthy individuals like Ted Turner. These are “the new” somewhat undefined (or read this as well hidden within government agency bureaucracy) the majority of Welfare Ranchers / Grazing Permit Holders.

Grazing Rights on our public lands today is not really about cows any longer at all – its about holding title to a “vested interest” in the land, American-Taxpayer’s Lands – fought and paid for in many wars by American lives! A subject cattlemen will not and do not wish to discuss – a bothersome subject of they choose to ignore, nor admit to . . . or, many simply avoid in total.

Grazing Permits on Public Lands

A Grazing Permit, for Federal and Public Lands use, increases the value of the holders “base property” and are traded and sold like the latest “hot commodity” they are. Grazing permits are as good as gold at the banks if you are looking to get a loan, so as you can see, the bankers have also a vested interest in our public lands, and are holding liens on them! This truism is merely the facade of holding a Grazing Permit, and not within legal form nor covered by any law.

As a matter of fact, much of what is done with the Grazing Permits, as mentioned above, is above and beyond any legal standing what so ever. In reality, the Grazing Permit is only a tool for rancher’s to use in order to graze their cattle upon a regulated-pasture on a Lease-Only basis; which, there exists No Ownership rights (legally or otherwise) nor provision for Sub-Leasing of lands is provided nor legally an option – and truthfully, the lands discussed here, again and repeatable, happens to be owned by you and I — the taxpayers, veterans, and general population of this nation.

But, the BLM, as mentioned, taken over by ranchers, create a lot of misinformation and outright lies – and suddenly out Public Lands become, as today, devastated with an over-population of cattle (ironically as well, the same type of situation that required the TGA to be created in the 30’s and 40’s – apparently we learn nothing within history, mind-sets of greed the motivating factors here). The TGA has been so compromised, as there exists no longer any firm or aggressive regulatory situation to speak of to promote environmental nor wildlife health what so ever. Upon reading further, you will understand how much more this evolves into destruction of our Public Lands, our Forestry, and Parks.

The Facts of the Grazing Permit Program on Public Lands:

  1. Grazing Permit on Public Lands – Cattle Commercial Sales Domestically = only <1% Commercial Market Sales;
  2. Nationwide Percentage of cattle sent to markets from Grazing Permit Holders = 3%;
  3. Grazing Permit Holder cattle ranching, in its entirety, is only <4% of over-all Cattle Ranching in the United States;
  4. Throw-Away – Disposal of All Beef Products from domestic markets-only, due to age or rotting product = 34.6% yearly (Grazing Permit Holders do not reach the capacity of even the throw-away production of products – so a welfare arrangement at best, but totally corrupt and sacrificing taxpayer money to this, rather than where it is needed, as well as a tremendous amount of wildlife-Over-Kill, and other ranching program subsidies needed elsewhere);
  5. Subsidies and support (total cost to taxpayers) of Grazing Permitted Ranching now exceeds $2.9 billion taxpayer dollars yearly, and the overall-revenues collected from Public Lands Grazing Permit holders merely cover a small portion, at an estimated 12% toward Administrative Costs – so this BLM program is not collecting enough revenue to even cover the cost of management, which BLM does not do very well anyway, and often much of the regulatory measures ignored, and very troubling that many laws ignored as well;
  6. The Grazing Permit Program holder’s illegally sub-lease Federal Lands/Public Lands for unregulated cattle grazing, destruction of grasslands taking place in abundance, and overall environmental-destruction ongoing, and becoming even more negatively-aggressive;
  7. Collateral for loans given to Welfare Rancher’s holding Grazing Permits on Public Lands, used as collateral by two-banks (that we know of currently), with the expectation that taxpayer’s will cover the costs when these same rancher’s cease business, for whatever reasons – currently taxpayers on the hook for this situation in the amount of $1.2 billion – but the illegality of the situation is present as well, whether this can be accomplished or not;
  8. In Supreme Court documents, the State Bank of Southern Utah confirmed that financial institutions hold an estimated $10 billion in loans and related credit transactions to the public land ranching industry, with the grazing privileges alone worth approximately $1 billion;
  9. Approximately 300 Welfare Ranching Operations, for example, have taken more than $450 million in loans on Forest Service grazing permits, as collateral, that taxpayers become responsible for – legally? Unclear and Federal Courts have declined the legality of it all;
  10. Public lands grazers are a minority of livestock producers in the West and throughout the country;
  11. Number of livestock producers with federal grazing permits: Approximately 27,000;
  12. Percentage of livestock producers with federal grazing permits in eleven Western states: 12%;
  13. Number of livestock producers without federal grazing permits: approximately-1.4 million;
  14. Subsidized by taxpayers, Public Lands Grazing Permit Holder’s pay far less than market value for federal forage and grazing fees on comparable state and private lands… AUM Unit = i.e. 1 cow/1 calf) $1.43 – $2.19 . . . (comparable commercial rates $16.80 to $162.00+);
  15. Percentage of total feed for livestock (cattle and sheep) in the United States supplied from federal lands: Less than <2% – BLM supplement programs provide feed for the cattle owned by Grazing Permit Holders in the amounts of approximately $35 million taxpayers dollars per year, which this estimate is considered reasonably low;
  16. Contribution of money and community support of Grazing Permit Programs (i.e. all) to Western States? Less than <1% over all;
  17. General Public and Federal jobs dependent upon the Grazing Permit Program? Less than <1% on a national level, and less than < 1% throughout the Western States;
  18. Taxpayer benefits generated from the over all Grazing Permit Programs? NONE!

*** The fact that once many find out about all the money and facts involved in this BLM and Forestry Grazing Permit Program, and ponder its necessity, many find it unnecessary in total – and feel our Government is wasting large amounts of taxpayer money supporting such endeavors, as Welfare Ranching . . . and for many serious reasons, to follow:

Matters of Truth

The forage provided, and the beef produced from public lands is insignificant, and troubling on many levels. Frankly, it is simply not a good business proposition what so ever. In reality, the history and well recorded situation of needed subsidies shows this, beyond a doubt. Many financial advisers, as well as the investment community, see Welfare Ranching as an unnecessary element within the livestock industry, and simply a burden to taxpayer-dollars.

The financial structure of a Welfare Ranching operational-aspects, is clearly that taxpayers pay for all below-the-line costs of running this business, and the rancher assumes all profit. . . Clearly there is a Fascism Principle involved here, where government and business collusion obvious, and definitely UN-American – as military men and women, in WWII for example, fought against this exact principle happening in the United States! And yet, with government involvement and much corruption involved, here it is!

One can quite honestly also attest to the fact this antiquated program, generated from the Taylor Grazing Act to provide immediate assistance to ranchers, has failed. And truthfully, failed years ago and started to fail when ranchers found ways to compromise the TGA . . .

We can obtain credibility quite easily on this statement, as well, with different Congressional favored actions, newly created Acts that compromised the Taylor Grazing Act, and brought to us by cattle associated lobby groups, or associated Welfare Ranching groups. These groups used their obtained corruptly-subsidized money, in large amounts, given to them from taxpayer dollars.

The interesting aspects here apparent – that, indeed, more control of where taxpayer money goes, especially in the future, should be a priority within Federal Law, and aggressively approached. In reality? This particular system hopes, beyond all hopes, the that the overall taxpaying public does not find out about the tremendous corruption ongoing within this system.

Livestock and Public Lands

Livestock’s huge toll inflicted on our public lands is a hidden subsidy which industry is never asked to repay,” stated Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) Advocacy Director Kirsten Stade. “The more we learn about actual conditions, the longer is the ecological casualty list.”

Livestock’s huge toll inflicted on our public lands is a hidden subsidy which industry is never asked to repay,” stated Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) Advocacy Director Kirsten Stade. “The more we learn about actual conditions, the longer is the ecological casualty list.”

In the May 14 report, headlined Livestock’s Heavy Hooves Impair One-Third of BLM Rangelands, PEER asserted that BLM’s Rangeland Inventory, Monitoring, and Evaluation Report for FY 2011 showed not only that cattle were the leading cause of BLM land failing to meet land health standards, but that cattle were responsible for unacceptable environmental conditions on 33 million acres, a staggering 79 percent of all BLM lands analyzed, that failed to meet the standards. PEER blamed the situation on too-cozy relations between the livestock industry and BLM, noting that “BLM has historically been dominated by livestock interests,” according to the PEER press release.”

BLM disregarded the information, and claimed people just did not understand the way BLM (i.e. Bureau of Land Management), goes about doing their rangelands studies, and Ecological Systems Reports.

The fact is, when cattle taken out of the Rangelands’ Studies, as they did in 2007 and redone and continue today, since 2009, then yes, the public has a definite right to question their methodology and Public Lands Management.

American’s of all types, that pay taxes, should be questioning this government agency – and for several more totally corrupt reasons that have been proven beyond any doubt at all. But a travesty does exist. Our legal system is simply not going forward with investigation and prosecution – even though a substantial history of corruption does exist – actually, a large history of corruption and since its beginnings. . .

The Very Costly and Destructive Grazing Permit Programs

Alternative uses of federal public lands contribute much more income to local and regional economies than livestock grazing; which inclusive as well is the fact of a far less destructive input, to our environment as well as our Wildlife domestically.

Sacrificing either is a tremendous sacrifice, as we have severe problems in both our environment and wildlife management, and causation from the cattle industry a large part of it. As well as their contrary mind-sets as well to the taxpayers and American’s and actual owner’s of these lands – oh, but our money is very good, to them, as we receive nothing in return.

  1. The Bureau of Land Management collects more revenue, 92% more per their reporting in 2014, in recreational fees than annual grazing fees. This despite the fact that recreational fees are often collected through voluntary pay stations, all the while grazing fees are mandatory and supposedly enforced (in reality many taxpayer’s have a problem with BLM and their enforcement of Federal Laws and directly involved with Welfare Ranching and the Grazing Permit Programs), and BLM does not charge fees for many of the recreational offerings on BLM lands – but a larger question, many of the fees unneeded, as you will understand by reading further, below;
  2. Case in point – In Nevada (the state with more federal land than any other outside of Alaska), federal public lands grazing provides 780 jobs. By comparison, ONE casino in Las Vegas employs approximately 37,000 people . . .;
  3. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has reported the federal government spends at least $144 million each year managing private livestock grazing – a narrow categorical situation assuring regulatory management and inspections performed (the fact is no inspections, no on-sight management accomplished, and no regulatory situations done what so ever, but budgeted and paid for – payroll and special agenda budgets — to employees to do so) — on federal public lands, but collects only $21 million in grazing fees—for a net loss of at least $123 million per year;
  4. The majority of BLM and Forest Service grazing fees are not deposited to the U.S. Treasury, but instead are diverted to the “Range Betterment Fund” to pay for fencing, water developments, and related infrastructure to support continued livestock grazing, which is nothing more than a slush-fund of a lot of money, variable, that goes to payoffs, friends of BLM employees, Welfare Ranchers under false Voucher and fraudulent Billing Statements to the BLM and Forestry, and to much corrupt payment situations to list here . . .

Of the millions of dollars that taxpayers spend annually to subsidize public lands grazing, perhaps $5 – $20+ million is dedicated to killing “predators” to supposedly protect livestock grazing on federal lands. Native wildlife killed to protect livestock include coyotes, bobcats, wolves, mountain lions, and bears.

The problem is, there is an over-population of cattle on Federal Lands-Public Lands, as BLM does not inspect the locations, nor keep track of cattle coming and going on our Public Lands, so the problem increases ten-fold yearly – so the government agency in charge of this type of management, to oversee the activity, whether the wildlife requires killing, or any options available, simply does not do so and simply does not exist – Although, paid to do so, via budgets and payroll perusal by many of us, to those exact government employees paid to do so – well referenced . . .

  1. Number of predators Wildlife Services killed in sixteen western states (FY 2007): 71,196, and since the year 2,000 totals are anywhere from 1.3 million to 5.8 million yearly – the sixteen western states variable, and the figure of 71,196 very low indeed and questionable, but it is what they received;
  2. Wildlife Services, for this example, spent more than $61 million of federal funds to control wildlife (see below – and that did not need or require control what so ever / at all) in FY 2007; more than $18 million was spent to protect “agriculture” (including livestock) from animal damage; of that amount, $10,303,903 was spent in the eleven western states with the most federal public land and federal public lands grazing – very costly lies, indeed, when understanding the information in 3, 4, 5, and 6!)!
  3. Percent of Wildlife Services predator control budget spent to protect livestock on public lands: Greater Than >75%;
  4. Percent of predator control budget paid by ranchers: Less Than <1%;
  5. Percent of cattle and calf losses attributed to predation (including dogs) and consistent throughout the years: Less Than <4%;
  6. Percent of cattle and calf losses attributed to digestive problems, respiratory difficulties, calving complications, weather (drowning-lightening et al. and other causes: Greater Than >96%.

Conclusion

We as American’s find many reasons to DEMAND and end to the Grazing Permit Programs on our Federal Lands – Public Lands – and an end to those Government Agencies that indeed are and remain Corrupt!

_________________________

New and Old References to this ongoing problem of Corruption and Illegal Use of Taxpayer Dollars, sacrifice of our environment and wildlife, things no illegal are certainly a lot of it questionable as well . . .

America’s Wildlife: Cityward or Landward in 2016 – Have We Learned Nothing?  //prophoto7journal.wordpress.com/2015/12/28/americas-wildlife-cityward-or-landward-in-2016-have-we-learned-nothing/ – John Cox, 2016

Scarcity-Economics: Wild Horses, Wildlife, and Humans Death a Reality, //prophoto7journal.wordpress.com/2016/05/07/scarcity-economics-wild-horses-wildlife-and-humans-death-a-reality/ – John Cox, 2016

Chivian, E. and A. Bernstein (eds.) 2008. Sustaining life: How human health depends on biodiversity. Center for Health and the Global Environment. Oxford University Press, New York.

Ibid. and Thomas, C. D., A. Cameron, R. E. Green, M. Bakkenes, L. J. Beaumont, Y. C. Collingham, B. F. N. Erasmus, M. Ferreira de Siqueira, A. Grainger, Lee Hannah, L. Hughes, Brian Huntley, A. S. van Jaarsveld, G. F. Midgley, L. Miles, M. A. Ortega-Huerta, A. Townsend Peterson, O. L. Phillips, and S. E. Williams. 2004. Extinction risk from climate change. Nature 427: 145–148.

Endangered Species. 2009. In Encyclopædia Britannica. Available in Encyclopedia Britannica Online at http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/186738/endangered-species.

Chivian and Bernstein 2008, citing IUCN.

Wildlife crisis worse than economic crisis. 2009. Press release. http://www.iucn.org/?3460/Wildlife-crisis-worse-than-economic-crisis–IUCN.

Wake, D. B. and V. T. Vredenburg. 2008. Are we in the midst of the sixth mass extinction? A view from the world of amphibians. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 105: 11466–11473. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/08/08/0801921105.abstract.

McCallum, Malcolm L. 2007. Amphibian decline or extinction? Current declines dwarf background extinction rate. Journal of Herpetology 41(3): 483–491. Copyright Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles. — http://www.stateofthebirds.org

Jelks, H. J., S. J. Walsh, N. M. Burkhead, S. Contreras-Balderas, E. Díaz-Pardo, D. A. Hendrickson, J. Lyons, N. E. Mandrak, F. McCormick, J. S. Nelson, S. P. Platania, B. A. Porter, C. B. Renaud, J. J. Schmitter-Soto, E. B. Taylor, and M. L. Warren, Jr. 2008. Conservation status of imperiled North American freshwater and diaddromous fishes. Fisheries 33(8): 372–407.

Klappenbach, L. 2007. How many species inhabit our planet? About.com Guide to Animals. http://animals.about.com/b/2007/08/13/how-many-species-on-earth.htm

Tilman, D., R. May, C. L. Lehman, M. A. Nowak. 1994. Habitat destruction and the extinction debt. Nature 371:65–66.

Walters C, Gunderson L, Holling C. 1992. Experimental policies for water management in the Everglades. Ecological Applications 2:189–202.

Walters CJ. 1986. Adaptive management of renewable resources. New York: Macmillan.

Wilhere GF. 2002. Adaptive management in habitat conservation plans. Conservation Biology 16:20–29.

Wilhere GF. 2009. Three paradoxes of habitat conservation plans. Environmental Management 44:1089–1098.

Williams BK. 1996. Adaptive optimization of renewable natural resources: solution algorithms and a computer program. Ecological Modelling 93:101–111.

Williams BK, Szaro RC, Shapiro CD. 2007. Adaptive management: the U.S. Department of the Interior technical guide. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, Adaptive Management Working Group. Available: http://www.doi.gov/initiatives/AdaptiveManagement/TechGuide.pdf (November 2011).

Nichols JD, Williams BK. 2006. Monitoring for conservation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 21:668–673.

Possingham H, Lindenmayer D, Norton T. 1993. A framework for the improved management of threatened species based on population viability analysis (PVA). Pacific Conservation Biology 1:39–45. Prato T. 2005. Accounting for uncertainty in making species protection decisions. Conservation Biology 19: 806–814.

Ralls K, Beissinger SR, Cochrane JF. 2002. Guidelines for using population viability analysis in endangered species management. Pages 521–550 in Beissinger SR, McCullough DR, editors. Population viability analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Ralls K, Starfield AM. 1995. Choosing a management strategy: two structured decision making methods for evaluating the predictions of stochastic simulation models. Conservation Biology 9:175–181.

Regan HM, Ben-Haim Y, Langford B, Wilson WG, Lundberg P, Andelman SJ, Burgman MA. 2005. Robust decision making under severe uncertainty for conservation management. Ecological Applications 15:1471–1477.

Regan TJ, Taylor BL, Thompson G, Cochrane JF, Merrick R, Nammack M, Rumsey S, Ralls K, Runge MC. 2009. Developing a structure for quantitative listing criteria for the U.S. Endangered Species Act using performance testing: Phase I report. La Jolla, California: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Southwest Fisheries Science Center. NOAA Technical Memorandum, NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-437. Available: http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/turtles/TM_NMFS_SWFSC_437.pdf (November2011). Ruhl J. 1990. Regional habitat conservation planning under the Endangered Species Act: pushing the legal and practical limits of species protection. Southwestern Law Journal 44:1393–1425.

Ruhl J. 2004. Taking adaptive management seriously: a case study of the Endangered Species Act. University of Kansas Law Review 52:1249–1284.

Ruhl J. 2005. Regulation by adaptive management—is it possible? Minnesota Journal of Law, Science &Technology 7:21–57.

Ruhl J. 2008. Adaptivemanagement for natural resources—inevitable, impossible, or both? Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute Proceedings 54.

Runge MC, Bean E, Smith DR, Kokos S. 2011a. Non-native fish control below Glen Canyon Dam—report from a structured decision making project. U.S. Geologica Survey Open-File Report 2011-1012:1–74. Available: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2011/1012/pdf/ofr20111012. pdf (November 2011).

Runge MC, Converse SJ, Lyons JE. 2011b. Which uncertainty? Using expert elicitation and expected value of information to design an adaptive program. Biological Conservation 144:1214–1223. [SARA] Species at Risk Act. 2002. Statutes of Canada 2002, c. 29. (Assented to December 12, 2002).

Shaffer ML. 1981. Minimum population sizes for species conservation. Bioscience 31:131–134.

Smith CB. 2011. Adaptive management on the central Platte River—science, engineering, and decision analysis to assist in the recovery of four species. Journal of Environmental Management 92:1414–1419.

Smith CL, Gilden J, Steel BS, Mrakovcich K. 1998. Sailing the shoals of adaptive management: the case of salmon in the Pacific Northwest. Environmental Management 22:671–681.

Starfield AM. 1997. A pragmatic approach to modeling for wildlife management. Journal of Wildlife Management 61:261–270.

Tyre AJ, Peterson JT, Converse SJ, Bogich T, KendallWL,Miller D, Post van der Burg M, Thomas C, Thompson R, Wood J, Brewer DC, Runge MC. 2011. Adaptive management of bull trout populations in the Lemhi basin. Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management 2(2):262–281.

Volkman JM, McConnaha WE. 1993. Through a glass, darkly: Columbia River salmon, the Endangered Species Act, and adaptive management. Environmental Law 23:1249–1272.

The Forest Service “escrow waiver” program is further described in M. Salvo. 2002. “Mortgaging Public Assets: How Ranchers Use Grazing Permits as Collateral.” Pages 271-273 in G. Wuerthner and M. Matteson (eds.). WELFARE RANCHING: THE SUBSIDIZED DESTRUCTION OF THE AMERICAN WEST. Island Press. Covelo, CA.

Brief of Amici Curiae State Bank of Southern Utah in Support of Petitioner, Public Lands Council v. Babbitt, 529 U.S. 728 (2000)

T. Jones and M. Salvo. 2006. “Mortgaging Our Natural Heritage: An Analysis of the Use of Bureau of Land Management Grazing Permits as Collateral for Private Loans.” Distributed report. Forest Guardians, Santa Fe, NM; Sagebrush Sea Campaign, Chandler, AZ.

GAO. 2005. Livestock grazing: federal expenditures and receipts vary, depending on the agency and the purpose of the fee charged. GAO-05-869. Government Accountability Office. Washington, DC.

The Livestock Compensation Program was a huge boondoggle that paid farmers and ranchers $635 in 2002 and 2003. G. M. Gaul, D. Morgan, S. Cohen. No drought required for federal aid: livestock grazing program grew to cover any “disaster.” Washington Post (July 18, 2006).

Moscowitz, K. and C. Romaniello. 2002. Assessing the Full Cost of the Federal Grazing Program. Center for Biological Diversity. Tucson, AZ

The Economist magazine has also reported the annual cost of the federal grazing program to be $460 million. Subsidized cow chow. The Economist (Mar. 7, 2002): 39.

Wildlife Services claimed to spend $5.1 million to protect domestic livestock from predators on federal public lands in FY 2004 ($5 million). GAO. 2005.

Livestock grazing: federal expenditures and receipts vary, depending on the agency and the purpose of the fee charged. GAO-05-869. Government Accountability Office. Washington, DC: 6. However, this amount may be higher. The agency annually spends approximately $10.3 million on activities in the eleven western states, and it is estimated that 75 percent of this amount is used to control predators on public land ($8 million).

Data compiled by WildEarth Guardians from Wildlife Services data tables for FY 2007. Total count includes black bears, bobcats, coyotes, mountain lions, northern gray wolves and Mexican gray wolves.

Wildilfe Services. 2008. Wildlife Services’ 2007 Annual Tables: Table A. Wildlife Services Federal and Cooperative Funding by Resource Category – FY 2007. USDA, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Services.

O’Toole, R. 1994. Audit of the USDA Animal Damage Control Program. Cascade Holistic Economic Consultants. Oak Grove, OR: 1. 13 Rogers, P. 1999.

Rogers, P 1999. Cash cows. San Jose Mercury News (Nov. 7, 1999): 6S.

14 USDA-NASS. 2006. Cattle Death Loss. USDA-National Agricultural Statistics Service, Agricultural Statistics Board. (May 2006).

Domestic dogs kill as many livestock as mountain lions, bobcats, bears, and wolves, combined. 15 USDA-NASS. 2006. Cattle Death Loss. USDA-National Agricultural Statistics Service, Agricultural Statistics Board. (May 2006)

Follow the “Public Lands Ranching” link below to see the charts;
http://www.publiclandsranching.org/htmlres/fs_grazing_economics

The Costs; http://www.publiclandsranching.org/htmlres/fs_fiscal_costs.htm

A Shameful Legacy; http://www.bidstrup.com/publiclands.htm

More on Welfare Ranching Corruption – well referenced at: http://www.veteran-journalist.com

More on the Taylor Grazing Act and Secrretary (later Vice President) Wallace: Leasing the Public Range: The Taylor Grazing Act and the BLM . . . http://www.wyohistory.org/essays/leasing-public-range-taylor-grazing-act-and-blm

 
3 Comments

Posted by on November 7, 2016 in Uncategorized

 

Wild Horses/Wolves and Grasslands versus Government Ignorance; Grazing Permit Program and Welfare Ranching Unnecessary

john country bridge 11_1_2015
“I am the grass, I cover all; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . What place is this?  Where are we now?  I am the grass, Let me work.”  — Carl Sandberg – Grass

I spend a lot of time within the Klamath Knot, or the Cascade Mountain Range.  Rock and mountain passes, gullies, and trees that touch the clouds and the heavens, lakes, streams, and rivers, all of fantastic stuff of dreams, of perceptions, of stories . . .

But first and foremost is the pleasure of wandering, whether on horseback or packing inward on foot, into a large meadow, into the middle of the wonderlands I call the Cascades and a touch of heaven within a Cascades Meadow of tall grasses and livid colors that one can only imagine, until standing within them, speechless, momentarily mind-numbing and devastated by so many and such beauty.

I enter into these corridors, or vast flats of tall grass, of flowers, of surrounding wildlife.  In the middle of it all, and after a while of getting use to the soft trampoline-like ground where I had to actually steady myself on occasion before getting acclimated to it, oh, the questions run through my brain.

Like the text in a good book the compilation of story progressed, the grasses and the shallow breeze brushed so lightly the tops of each stem of grass, the Robins sang, even as the stars come out and literally filled the sky with a vast light-show of so many independent white sparkles, flashes, and streaks of falling stars.  A slight pause between the birds singing, I heard a clomp, then chewing.  I turned and seen in the distance, the heads of several deer grazing in the parsnips and corn lilies just beyond the grass meadow and near the treeline.

Life Given

So there I sat, as on a mountain top; but no, a meadow and one of many more of all types, of all sizes and shapes and growth and variety of grass – yes, the many grasses within the wilds – domesticated?  well. . .

Certainly, life does not evolve around bedrock, or rocks in general; neither wildlife nor humans alike could survive; which, is a fact of evolution, and more often than not certainly minimized within our perception of what gives us life and what does not.  The significance of grasses in the wilds, or what covers a large and vast amount of land throughout the world, becomes clear, becomes evolutionary for all, for wildlife and humans alike, and for our very life – Grasses.

kl trail williamson“Cattle Grazing on public lands requires intensive infrastructure and often results in habitat manipulation. Required allotment fences obstruct wildlife movement, changing wildlife behavior. Vegetative treatments to “improve forage” alter and sometimes decimate native plant and wildlife communities.”

Because we are unable to make food from dissolved rock, water, and sunlight has indeed escaped many an ignorant mind of hunter, of industrialist, of corporate heads, of welfare ranchers, and of government agencies, only to name a few, and this group alike within so many arrogant and ignorant perceptions right now.

Placing cattle in the forefront of grasses and life necessity, by promotion of over-population of cattle, taking cattle out of rangelands studies, creating false science favoring cattle and other special interest browsers, and ignoring the destruction to grasses cattle and the others cause, and continues to go unchecked and ignored, threatens our very existence on this planet.  Yes, a profound ignorance, fear, and greed flares its ugly head again and again – a never ending situation of human-species and their overriding illusory superiority on this planet — certainly a false and potential very devastating mind-set for all of us.

  1. Chew on This

“Selective munching from cattle and cattle overgrazing reduces the hardiness and reproductive ability of preferred plant species—and in many cases eliminates them altogether rendering them unable to produce seed and reproduce. The less favored forage (non-native grasses and invasive weeds — non-useful cheat-grass and wildfire fuel only) thrives, altering the make up and balance of plant communities. Grazing animals, game animals mostly, also transport seed from one plant community to another, often spreading non-native invasive species.”

  1. Soil Stomping

“All that tromping, from cattle (not horses at all — and is a ignorant lie of tremendous proportion, due to such a small percentage and horses being a roaming, non-stationary/nomadic animal as well) not only affects the plant life, but also the soil crust, density, and inherent ecosystem organisms that work together to create a healthy biomass that effectively holds water and prevents erosion. Overgrazed lands lose plants and expose bare soils, feeding the cycle of degradation.”

  1. Water & Habitat Wreckage

“Mismanaged Cattle Grazing transforms riparian zones into denuded mud-pools, devastating water quality, hastening erosion, and robbing wildlife of habitat and clean water.  Murderer’s Creek a good example of this, and the lack of responsibility the welfare Ranching nearby demonstrates — a kill-anything that is of a non-cattle existence by them, and we see and acknowledge the actual harm this ignorant mind-set achieves — we are currently in a 48% over-kill of our nations wildlife, and welfare ranching is a large part of this needless destruction and events, combined with bad hunting/broken game management paradigms domestically.”

Significance of Grasslands – Ignorance = Destruction

Odd how our human perceptions displace, or choose as insignificant, such life-giving biological situations of evolution, which a simplistic high school understanding of such so ignored and foolish to do so, for a truth that should be given great emphasis, the health and promotion of its health of various grasslands of our entire world.

“To assume that a government agency, such as the Bureau of Land Management, a lands management oversight agency that states, within its mission statement, the virtues of science and sound data gathering, would take such a significant situation as grasslands-destruction, shown to be cattle (beyond debate) and a long history of facts (and for several well-known reasons backed by facts and known science for, oh say, the past 6 million years of evolution and its history) and we have some very questionable, and obviously, a broken management system that becomes quite apparent, especially of its incompetent and ignorant charteristics, as well as extremely ignorant to facts of science and nature.”  — John Cox, The Cascades

These grasses, we ignore and often shrug and simply set-aside for other things, we suppose more significant in importance, in reality conflict directly with this life-giving form – Animals, including our human species, are unable to live within any environment, that is, until plants colonize them; unable to exploit new ecological niches until plants create them.

article photo smEven the mechanical evolution, or referred to as industrialized-society (i.e. industrialization), was indeed preceded by fossilized horsetails and algae that become coal and petroleum, which also remains a very open-question whether this mechanical evolution will continue once fossil fuels are exhausted. . .

Perhaps, also, why there is such strains and power-crazed social manipulations, and so much misinformation in the matters of corporate influence and its necessity within our society today – as they may see the future, and that future is without them.

The fact is, it is certainly unlikely that any great new advances in animal evolution (yes, human species included) will come about until plants evolve new ways of using sunlight, water and minerals.  Again, when we look at the evolution of civilization, it simply would not have evolved if not for the evolution of cereal grains from wild grasses – as history shows time and again.

Welfare Ranching destroys much of our Public Lands, due to the lies and misinformation given to the public at large, and supported by the Bureau of Land Management – but some truth’s are evident, that Welfare Ranching, and all of its destruction due to over-population of cattle, is un-needed and unnecessary in the United States, but is an extremely large and vast user, and destructive of Federal Lands and Taxpayer Money in the $$$$ billions of dollars yearly in subsidies and other projects directly related to Welfare Ranching, see below:

“Public lands grazers are a minority of livestock producers in the West and throughout the country…

  • Number of livestock producers with federal grazing permits: 27,000.
  • Percentage of livestock producers with federal grazing permits in the United States: 3%.
  • Percentage of livestock producers with federal grazing permits in eleven Western states: 22%.
  • Number of livestock producers without federal grazing permits: 880,000.

Subsidized by taxpayers, public lands grazers pay far less than market value for federal forage and grazing fees on comparable state and private lands…

  • Fee to graze one cow and calf for one month (AUM) on federal public lands (2003): $1.43.
  • Average fee per AUM on state lands in the West (excluding Texas) (1998): $12.30.
  • Average fee per AUM on private lands in eleven Western states (1999): $21.10 – $52.00 plus.

The forage provided, and the beef produced from federal public lands is insignificant…

  • Percentage of total feed for livestock (cattle and sheep) in the United States supplied from federal lands: 2%.
  • Percentage of American beef produced from federal rangelands: less than 3%, and less than 1% via yearly sales receipts, in sales of beef domestically.”

That agriculture was developed by culture, rather than natural selection, does not make the plants less important.  They may be sewn and harvested by us, but they still do the real work, and the essentials of turning soil, water, and sunlight into food.  How far, one must ask, will our illusory superiority, over mother nature, continue until we have, indeed, self-destructed due to ignorance?  Well, we certainly appear to be on this (and excuse my R&R background) Highway-to-Hell and the speed of which, is becoming aggressively faster and on a yearly, soon monthly, then weekly, basis. . .

Animals and Evolution

If we take a better look into our environment, into our grasslands and nature itself, we may find many answers.  But first and foremost, as a species, we must rid ourselves of this illusory superiority that exists currently.  Mother Nature continues with its job.  Because our species ignorant and way beyond any common sense, we often have no way of knowing, more or less even to acknowledge, what other animals or even vegetation on this planet, could and perhaps is now benefiting from.

Trees, as our minds, or perception would have it, are not the culmination of plant evolution.  In reality, nature’s truth not ours, it is the grasses, which has evolved out of adversity.  Currently, due to ignorance, an upheaval and human-special interests, remain wiping out the grasslands, and select grasses that give life to all animals on this planet.  Once again we see that all is connected, and all life-forms are necessary.

When the human-species actually admit, and bow to nature and the acceptance of truth, that grasslands and plant life essential, and a priority over such things as cattle, as financial growth within agriculture, and within our very perceptions of life on this planet, and just how everything is connected, we will then experience growth – until then, nature and wildlife is experiencing vast growth, i.e. limited at least those who remain disconnected from our industrialized ignorance — ad perhaps we will never see or understand those virtues; and the human-species, well, have become stagnant within our own ignorant behavior and greed.

__________________________________

Do we need Welfare Ranching and the Federal Grazing Permit Program?

  1. Bureau of Leisure and Motorhomes – October 2004: for the first time in the history of the agency, the Bureau of Land Management collected more revenue in recreational fees than annual grazing fees. This despite the fact that recreational fees are often collected through voluntary pay stations, while grazing fees are mandatory and enforced, and BLM does not charge fees for many recreational offerings on BLM lands.
  1. In Nevada (the state with more federal land than any other outside of Alaska), federal public lands grazing provides 1,228 jobs. 12 By comparison, one casino in Las Vegas employs 37,000 people.
  1. Alternative uses of federal public lands contribute much more income to local and regional economies than livestock grazing. In the Central Winter Ecosystem Management Area in the Kaibab Plateau, Arizona, dispersed recreation is worth $200,000 annually to the local and regional economies; fuelwood is worth $48,984; livestock grazing is worth $45,988; and deer and turkey hunting is worth $1,324,259.
  1. As part of his research on public lands grazing economics, Dr. Thomas Powers produced two tables of data (below) that are widely cited to refute the contention that public lands grazing is essential to western state economies.

Older Table – Ironically, has not changed that much, except Welfare Ranching has become quite a bit more expensive, in the Billions of $$$$ yearly, compared to millions previously – update Blog Author

  1. Employment and Income from Federal Grazing
Public Lands Ranching Jobs and Income in Eleven Western States†
State AZ CA   CO ID MT   NM   NV   OR   UT WA WY
Fed grazing jobs 2,132 603 1,456 1,636 1,085 2,129 1,228 1,630 1,805 291 1,503
Fed grazing jobs as % of total 0.11 0.00 0.07 0.30 0.25 0.28 0.16 0.10 0.19 0.01 0.56
Fed grazing income as % of total 0.11 0.00 0.04 0.23 0.14 0.18 0.09 0.04 0.08 0.01 0.25
Days of normal job growth to replace all fed grazing jobs 14 1 14 72 93 53 18 23 30 2
Days of normal economic growth to replace all fed grazing income 18 0 6 57 30 25 8 10 9 1

  Adapted from T. M. Power. 1996. LOST LANDSCAPES AND FAILED ECONOMIES: THE SEARCH FOR THE VALUE OF PLACE. Island Press. Washington, DC: 184-185 (citing T. M. Power. 1994. Measuring local economic well-being: per capita income and local economic health in C. W. Cobb and J. B. Cobb (eds.). THE GREEN NATIONAL PRODUCT: A PROPOSED INDEX OF SUSTAINABLE ECONOMIC WELFARE. Univ. Press of America. New York, NY.).

B.  Ranch “Dependence” on Federal Forage*

RANCH DEPENDENCE ON FEDERAL FORAGE IN ELEVEN WESTERN STATES **
State Percentage of Ranches “Dependent” on Federal Grazing Percentage of Feed from Federal Grazing Amount of Exaggeration of Dependency (percent)
Arizona 66 24 275
California 94 4 2,350
Colorado 53 6 883
Idaho 97 14 693
Montana 43 7 614
Nevada 100 43 233
New Mexico 51 20 255
Oregon 74 11 673
Utah 99 24 413
Washington 45 2 2,250
Wyoming 76 16 475
Aggregate Eleven States 69 12 575

* “Dependent” means more than 5% of forage from federal grazing.
** Power, T. M. 1996. LOST LANDSCAPES AND FAILED ECONOMIES: THE SEARCH FOR THE VALUE OF PLACE. Island Press. Washington, DC: 183 (citing E. B. Godfrey and C. A. Pope. 1990. The trouble with livestock grazing on public lands in Current Issues in Rangeland Resource Economics. Oregon State Univ. Corvallis, OR.).

________________________________

  1. The vast majority of “livestock producers” on public lands are beef growers.
  2. Grazing permits for BLM and Forest Service allotments; includes sheep growers; accounts for permittees who operate on both BLM and Forest Service allotments. USDI-BLM, USDA-Forest Service. 1995. Rangeland Reform ’94 Final Environmental Impact Statement. USDI-BLM. Washington, DC: 3; see also P. Rogers. Cash cows. San Jose Mercury News (Nov. 7, 1999): 2S (reporting 26,300 permittees on BLM and Forest Service allotments).
  3. USDI-BLM, USDA-Forest Service. 1995. Rangeland Reform ’94 Final Environmental Impact Statement. USDI-BLM. Washington, DC: 26.
  4. USDI-BLM, USDA-Forest Service. 1995. Rangeland Reform ’94 Final Environmental Impact Statement. USDI-BLM. Washington, DC: 26.
  5. See USDI-BLM, USDA-Forest Service. 1995. Rangeland Reform ’94 Final Environmental Impact Statement. USDI-BLM. Washington, DC: 26.
  6. USDI-BLM. 2004. 2004 Federal Grazing Fee Announced (press release). BLM. Washington, DC. (Feb. 20, 2004).
  7. USDA-National Agricultural Statistics Service. 1998. Agricultural graphics-17 state grazing fees adjusted AUM. USDA-NASS. Washington, DC. Available at http://www.usda.gov/nass/aggraphics/graphics.htm.
  8. Rogers, P. Cash cows. San Jose Mercury News (Nov. 7, 1999): 2S.
  9. USDI-BLM. 1992. Grazing fee review and evaluation: update of the 1986 final report. USDI-BLM. Washington, DC: 2.
  10. Rogers, P. Cash cows. San Jose Mercury News (Nov. 7, 1999): 1S; Jacobs, L. 1992. THE WASTE OF THE WEST: PUBLIC LANDS RANCHING. Lynn Jacobs, P.O. Box 5784, Tucson, AZ: 354.
  11. Power, T. 1996. LOST LANDSCAPES AND FAILED ECONOMIES: THE SEARCH FOR A VALUE OF PLACE. Island Press. Washington, DC: 184-185 (table 8-2).
  12. Power, T. 1996. LOST LANDSCAPES AND FAILED ECONOMIES: THE SEARCH FOR A VALUE OF PLACE. Island Press. Washington, DC: 184 (table 8-2).
  13. French, B. Rec fees surpass grazing for first time in BLM history. Billings Gazette (Oct. 7, 2004).
  14. Greenhouse, S. Behind Las Vegas’s glitter, heavy losses and layoffs. New York Times (Oct. 19, 2001).
  15. Souder, J. 1997. How does livestock grazing fit into the larger societal uses of wildlands?, in PROC. SYMP. ON ENVIRONMENTAL, ECONOMIC, AND LEGAL ISSUES RELATED TO RANGELAND WATER DEVELOPMENTS. Arizona St. Univ. Tempe, AZ: 305.

 

 
2 Comments

Posted by on October 5, 2016 in Uncategorized