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%.


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?  // – John Cox, 2016

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

Chivian and Bernstein 2008, citing IUCN.

Wildlife crisis worse than economic crisis. 2009. Press release.–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.

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. —

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? Guide to Animals.

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: (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: (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: 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;

The Costs;

A Shameful Legacy;

More on Welfare Ranching Corruption – well referenced at:

More on the Taylor Grazing Act and Secrretary (later Vice President) Wallace: Leasing the Public Range: The Taylor Grazing Act and the BLM . . .


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*

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
  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.



Posted by on October 5, 2016 in Uncategorized


Wild Horse Controversy Built Around Welfare Rancher’s Lies, BoLM and DOI Ignorance, and $$$$$$


“An estimated 1 to 10 percent of all species that have ever lived, have left fossils – and only an estimated 1 to 10 percent of those will ever be found.  The origins of major organisms such as flowering plants, protozoans, and frogs still remain obscured by a lack of transitional fossils.  A species such as the horse, the origins which can be traced through clear progression of fossils, is more the exception than the rule.”  — Anonymous

Last Spring, I sat near a meadow, alongside Marble Mountain.  Early morning and the mist carried with it a slight chill.  But the mist also part of a significant ecological system, and the greens and browns and trees and moss and grasses and mushrooms and rotting tree stumps and flowers and nature at its fullest and most robust, simply blossomed before my very eyes.

Not far from where I sat rose two glowing red fly amanita mushrooms, and yes, complete with the white spots.  To state they stood out boldly within the damp and nature’s florescent greenery of the morning landscape, an understatement.  As nature continued to evolve before me, a gorgeous doe appeared, went straight to the mushrooms and ate them.  Fly amanitas are very toxic to humans; but animals vary widely in their biochemistry, and the deer unharmed.

Evolutionary Norms

While this would be a bizarre adaptation for a mammal, it would be a mistake to project our own genetic changeability as an evolutionary norm.  For those lesser plants, that form the matrix of forest life, change hardly exists.  For the mushroom, on the floor of a forest that has changed little within its sixty million years of life (the Klamath region the youngest geological and ecological growth area in the United States) change hardly exists at all.

Here we can also use the example of reality versus myth, legends of the mountains, and those that roam here and never really seen that much, but seen just the same.  Rather than go into the complexities of debate, I will simply take a few seconds and ponder the overall aspect of such a presence within our forests and mountains.

“Though men now possess the power to dominate and exploit every corner of the natural world, nothing in that fact implies that they have the right or the need to do so.”  – Edward Abbey “A voice in the Wilderness”

Time is an aspect that we, as human species, take for granted; which, it is also similar in mind-set that we must define within our perceptions evolution of life forms, in time, in order to understand the concepts within a comfortable and agreeable matter.  So we force time into a definable matrix, mostly out of confusion and by what we do not understand, when compared to what little we do understand, especially about nature.

But time within nature is of significance, and much different than what our mind-set can assimilate within a proper manner of understanding.  We can, although, consider the sixty-million-year time frame here, and attempt to understand that within particular circumstances of stability, whether known by our species or left-unknown, nature could care less, actually, whether we do or not; profoundly, we may not understand that a mature individual hardly needs to die, but nature understands it completely.images

Up to this point, this is simply an obscure statement, I know.  Let’s take it a step further.  Perhaps what is running around up here, and in these mountains, have indeed approached the maturity of the redwoods, within a scarcity of our own narrow perceptions toward life; which, we cannot understand what so ever, and perhaps never will – as despite our lucrative science and brains, so we think and we assume we are superior to much of life on this planet, we may simply not be asking the right questions – or perhaps do not have the ability to ask the right questions to resolve such matters.

We have the thumb, above and beyond all other species on this planet and indeed creates an advanced species within some matters but perhaps not all.  But is there a mental capacity we over-look? Could it be similar to the diversity that a thumb gives to us?  Something that we simply do not have, and yet another species may indeed have obtained through evolution or even stability within nature, and we remain unaware of its existence.  How would we know?

But the individuals that exist up here, and without a firm credible confirmation of existence by us as if we are the prime dictators of such an agenda (human species versus nature – which we seem to be losing this battle as well, and to nature), these creatures may be so healthy and hardy, that they enjoy life spans, and avoidance of us, beyond our comprehension.

Within this perspective, their life-spans would presumably generate the wisdom to avoid being run over, or convoluted, by our civilization – Avoidance is the key phrase here.  It must appear very unattractive to them, and why would it not?  Our industrialized civilization is very destructive and unwholesome toward life in general and very ignorant as well, to say the least. . .


We have a mixed situation within nature, of evolution, but another situation of stability.  We see this within the mushroom, among other vegetation and wildlife alike, and the very simplicity of its growth – here one morning, then gone, but there again and more down the same hillside, where yesterday there were none.  As far as we can surmise, many mushrooms similar, if not exact, as sixty million years ago, and even more . . .

Is it natural selection entirely?  Or, is the finite powdery-brown-dust on the mushroom so compelling, and contains millions of spores’ light enough to float around the world on a spring wind?  The very beauty of nature is that we, as a species, do not know all about nature and never will.  Ever!

What is even more interesting?  That there exist many species on this planet, and within nature, similar indeed to the mushroom, or unique upon themselves, but a separate species.  We do not know about many species on this planet, but many of us hope, who are out here and discovering many things in nature previously unknown, we at least find out, or discover, these species before human-kind makes them extinct . . . Certainly, the contents of a different conversation.

Profound Ignorance in Government

First and foremost, we must battle ignorance!  Ignorance is a thing that is most comfortable to many, who have never wandered into the articulate realm of learning.  Yes, many surmise rather than find out through independent investigation; many except a premise as being truthful, rather than find out whether it is a false premise or not – (we can look at the DOI and BoLM Wild Horse Herd Counts and   even a light perusal of their information, we discover quickly, that they assume Wild Horses never die, as their information has neither fatality, nor normal death assumptions of age within it what so ever – according to their statistics they just hang-out, give birth, all live through birth, and multiply, and never die – ignorance of the worst type, because horses die due to this profound ignorance).

Bait trapped horseWe as taxpayers pay these people to generate accurate and scientific management paradigms for America’s lands and wildlife – and what do we get?  Ignorance and bigotry and stupidity and lack of knowledge toward what they were hired to accomplish — at its very worst!  What can become worse?  The fact people repeat the misinformation, erroneous information, the stupidity of it all, and the ignorance.

And what can be worse than that?  That people except it as a truth, and become compelled to debate the issue as if truth!  So we are essentially debating information that is erroneous in total, and derived from ignorance and stupidity!  Is there any doubt that when politicians note this situation, that they will certainly take advantage of it, quickly?  Now we can move on further into the point of all of this situation – as I hope I have compelled you to read further still . . .

Keep in mind, these government agencies decide whether Paleontological Evidence is Credible – But how is that if, as pointed out here, they have IQ’s of a noodle, and make decisions based on false premise or false information — for example (well referenced info), taking cattle out of field research and monitoring data bases, then making profound management decisions on the remainder of misinformed info.

Wild Horses and Fossil Records

We now go to the information that surrounds the fossil records of wild horses.  Basing the entire population of wild horses, or horses being in America at all on Spanish horses, that apparently just appeared one day in Spain, then were brought over by ship, and become over abundant here in the America’s over time?  Ignorance?  Comfortable to believe, but facts about the Pleistocene apparently contradict the facts of sales-based history of Spanish and French Horses?  Well, we do not know, as there is missing historical-facts, but not fossils records, as they are complete.

Horses have a finite lineage of facts, that clearly state horses were indeed here in the America’s within pre-historic times and eras – and I repeat, one of the only fossil records that can assimilate that as a truth, within our wildlife habitat.

As I had mentioned above and about the deer eating the certainly toxic-to-people mushroom, but not to deer, similar to those who demand that people drink pigs-ovaries after being genetically altered, to prove it is not harmful to wild horses?  Ignorance, once again, at its worst levels – as pigs-ovaries certainly toxic to wild horses and their birth systems – as we are finding almost weekly now, harmful to many other animals to include horses as well.

wpid-img_20140419_084144Back to the fossil records, which show not only existence, but wild horses surviving the Pleistocene Ice Age, due to the over-whelming information now of predator kill-off during that era, and Pleistocene horse bones being dug up in Pre-Columbian Era sites; which, Paleontologists state, confirmation of lineage and wild horses existing in the America’s, and crossing the Bering Land Bridge, if not already existing within the Americas’, which there is now credible evidence showing that currently as well.

There is also the fact that the Pygmy Mammoth associated with the horses at that time, and through time, as mid-sized grazing animals.  The Pygmy Mammoth sites, which, there exists many sites through America currently, and especially the Northwest.  Horse bones had been found at nearly all sites, or within nearby sites – they grazed the same types of grasses.  One of the key-theories that is present, the Pygmy Mammoth survived, as did other grazing animals throughout the Pleistocene Era onward.

The conclusion obvious – Until we can re-do our government agencies responsible for proper, competent, and good science based facts in the matters or our Environment and Wildlife complex, as well as the Wild Horse controversy – Then ALL situations paramount to management should be placed ON-HOLD. . .

Thereby, until we can obtain competent and knowledgeable people to manage our Public Lands, Federal Lands, and Wildlife within an appropriate manner, the ignorance and stupidity should be placed ON HOLD!  — Simply, common sense dictates this to be accomplished.  Ignorance and stupidity is unacceptable in total, and that seems to be those who are currently responsible for managing our lands and wildlife right now.  Taxpayers demand change!

Principle and Theory

Fungi does not fit easily into evolutionary theory, but none the less does not make them insignificant what so ever.  A fungus can disappear momentarily, when it exhausts the nutrients in the soil, and reappear three-feet away.  Yet, some trees, whose roots lost the capacity to absorb water, symbiotically obtain water, as well as nutrients, from fungi.  Actually, there is no way of knowing how or when such symbiosis evolved, but it could help explain the sudden appearance of modern trees.  And just as odd, and quite frankly interesting information for many to ponder, the trees appeared so suddenly and have changed so little since their appearance, it is as though they are a new type of symbiotic organism.

There is much, much more nature gives to us, and we simply do not know or acknowledge all of it what so ever – but oh boy, the items we can acknowledge and reap within a cohabitation-type context is fantastically amazing.

But there is one thing I hope you have taken from this particular blog, and that is Ignorance is nothing more than stupidity defined within a friendlier-manipulated context – and that we need honesty, not only within ethics, but within science, research data, and within our very own humane-spirit and how we go about observing and accumulating data within nature – as we are nature, and thus doing nothing more than taking an inward look, an inward perspective upon ourselves – and the way we treat ourselves, is also the way we treat nature and our surrounding habitats . . . – John Cox, The Cascades


Posted by on October 1, 2016 in Uncategorized


Wild Horses – Bureau of Land Management Rangeland Studies and Research Compromised, The Entire Past Decade


“The fall of Empire, gentlemen, is a massive thing, however, and not easily fought. It is dictated by a rising bureaucracy, a receding initiative, a freezing of caste, a damming of curiosity—a hundred other factors. It has been going on, as I have said, for centuries, and it is too majestic and massive a movement to stop.”   ― Isaac Asimov, Foundation
Within many capacities, as the facts show us on a regular basis, and actions by the Bureau of Land Management (i.e. BLM onward) over the years, it becomes quite obvious that corruption is paramount within the BLM and other government agencies – but is not approached by our current and non-existent legal Checks-n-Balance systems within the United States. Why?
The fact is, also, many of us who write about the flaws and corruption, are not haters, not stirring up animosity, but giving factual information (non-special interest non-corporate) that the taxpayer-public should have and learn, especially in the matters of expenditures, vast budgets that can support entire countries given to our legislators for approval and then given to government agencies – but are they honest agencies, and are the budgets honest?
Well, let’s look at a couple of examples below, historical circumstances that still exists today – as we have no Checks-n-Balance system to make government agencies honest any longer – hopefully the elections up and coming in November can, indeed, take care of such a compromised situation and waste of taxpayer’s money.


Washington, DC — The U.S. Bureau of Land Management is carrying out an ambitious plan to map ecological trends throughout the Western U.S. but has directed scientists to exclude livestock grazing as a possible factor in changing landscapes, according to a scientific integrity complaint filed today . . .

In the face of this reaction, BLM initially deferred a decision but ultimately opted to –

  1. Remove livestock grazing from all Eco-regional assessments, citing insufficient data.  As a result, the assessments do not consider massive grazing impacts even though trivial disturbance factors such as rock hounding are included; and
  2. Limit consideration of grazing-related information only when combined in an undifferentiated lump with other native and introduced ungulates (such as deer, elk, wild horses and feral donkeys). — Posted on Nov 30, 2011 GRAZING PUNTED FROM FEDERAL STUDY OF LAND CHANGES IN WEST

So in 2013 they denied further cattle being mentioned (i.e. ongoing at this time as well), or examined within any Rangelands Studies, Research, Science Data Gathering, and all around worthless science – paid for by American Taxpayer dollars!  AS they explain here:

In reaching this conclusion, BLM ignored meeting minutes produced by PEER in which BLM managers are quoted saying that study of grazing impacts would concern “stakeholders” and the Washington Office due to “fear of litigation.” The claim that the real reason was lack of data does not hold water because:

Attempts to exclude grazing began at the earliest stages of the study, before data availability was even examined. Further, BLM assertions of data gaps were never examined, let alone verified;

Other factors being studied, such as invasive species, also have data gaps but these issues did not prevent invasive species from being selected as a study focus; and

BLM managers hid the existence of a major livestock database which was never given to researchers.

“Caught with its pants down, BLM would have us believe it is wearing ankle warmers,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch, noting that the $40 million study was the biggest in BLM history but will end up being largely useless. “As by far the biggest disturbance factor on Western range lands, commercial livestock grazing simply cannot be left out of a scientific landscape assessment.” Posted on Jan 24, 2013 BLM SAYS IT CANNOT TRACK CATTLE ON ITS LANDS


One of the major problems we have with the Bureau of Land Management, as well as many of the non-profits now associated with them — i.e. BLM supporters Pesticide PZP Advocates – pushing dishonest science information and outright misinformation to the taxpayer public favorable to BLM and Wild Horse Extinction only, but there exists other options, several . . .  and this is unacceptable!

Of note:  these non-profit supporters to include the Humane Society, WHE, Cloud Foundation, AWHPC, Freedom for Horses, lack credibility, as well as no credibility with their pesticide known as PZP and due to nothing more than no present factual information, and truth — factual scientific information is indeed contrary to their misinformation — as shown above — the consistency of so many facts left out, and misinformed over-population of wild horses (they are not what so ever over-populated on Public Lands and BLM and their information, and specifically information left out of their statistics and assumptions, are in truth very crucial toward truth, but left out — with truthful facts showing no over-population of wild horses at all); thereby, BLM and their supporters lack any factual information to support their assumption they give to the public and taxpayers.  They have no credibility what so ever, other than $$$$$.

When all remarks, statements and research data was taken out of the Rangelands Studies and Research, and Scientific Research on Public Lands – demanded in 2011 by Bureau of Land Management to Not Include any information in regard to cattle (only under specific circumstances favorable to cattle only) on Public Lands, nor Grazing Permit issues –

Then yes, absolutely, we as American Taxpayers have problems from them and their exclusion of information damaging to the approval of future budgets, et al.  Then to generate, or develop within any capacity for credible and very costly monitoring programs, any Rangelands Studies, any Science when BLM involved, as well as the aptitude and education of those doing the monitoring program (the BLM supporter base $$$$ and conflicts of interest = special interest monitoring only) and gathering information about Public Lands, is nothing more than a dishonest endeavor.

There is no credibility here with any of those organizations, and Conflict of Interest very much alive and abundant within the BLM and the BLM Supporters $$$$$$$ . . . and within welfare ranching and Grazing Permit Programs. . .

* * *


Posted by on September 25, 2016 in Uncategorized


Wild Horses and Saving Them or Truth Versus Deceptions and Government Corruption

john-babe-saddle-222266666 “Always listen to experts. They’ll tell you what can’t be done, and why. Then do it.” ― Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love

Sometimes within the dynamics of writing, we start with a subject or attempt at informative resolution.  Suddenly the writing takes on a personality, a form, and conducts itself to obvious resolutions.  This is where we not only learn more from, and about, the specific problem, but the nature of ourselves, as well.

Interesting how this interaction can envelop into our interactions with our personal horses, as well as with the wild horses – I cannot but agree in total, horses give us something special indeed – they also give of themselves for us, to learn this . . . and give to many Ecological Systems their natural abilities to enhance them – much different than what the convoluted and corrupt government agencies and welfare ranchers want us to believe – but they are corrupt . . . and we, well, many of us are not corrupt at all . . . Honesty wins, believe it or not, and no matter during the down and out times, honesty will win . . . make no doubt about it.

Things are confusing for everyone in today’s deception and convoluted world of outright lies, especially in the realm of information gathering.  It is no different with the Wild Horses on our Public Lands.  Sadly, there exist those that will exploit and even capitalize on this situation.  Today, this is what we are seeing, becoming more consistent than ever before in history, and as the situation for the Wild Horses becomes worse and tomorrow will be even worse yet, and as the days move onward.

Profoundly, what is lost to us all is the very premise, the basis of what it is we are attempting to achieve.  Non-profits, for example, and the very premise of their operational aspects, is to receive donations from those separate and apart from the situation they advocate for; which, in this case it is in order to remain neutral, and the decisions based on truth, non-manipulated of a special-interest concern, or paid-for and bought actions and decisions; which, in this case is advocating for the Wild Horses as a priority, and not as a secondary situation while making money the priority.

“To stand in front of a watering hole, with a small herd of wild horses (if indeed they were, as there seems to be a debate on this as well), and stating there is an over-population of wild horses, is nothing more than a gimmick, a ploy, basically to spread misinformation.  The scene was not truth, but rather deceptive.  The fact is, along the same route of deception, one can also stand in the middle of any land mass, and since there is nothing seen other than vegetation and sky, we certainly do not develop the mind-set that we are the only being in existence on the face of our planet!  Ignorance is quite obvious at times, is it not?  It has come to the point that people are going to have to start thinking for themselves; yes, some things are reasonable, and other things are obvious and very dubious at best – key word here is the term “Obvious”!”

True non-profits make this distinction quite well, and remain within their appropriate ethical boundaries.  But, we have many non-profits today that have lost this ideology of Humane Principle’s and ethical boundaries alike.  In the case of America’s Wild Horses, this did and remains, creating tremendous problems for the Wild Horses, as they get closer and closer to the reality – Extinction!

To do this, one must always be aware of the ethical boundaries, the situations to avoid, as well as knowledge in the matters of what issues to resolve.  What becomes a truthful priority, is the distance so to speak, from the corruption . . . and becomes very important to not become part of the corruption.

One must remain neutral and not obtain money within grants or payroll, from the very government agencies or people who are corrupt.  In this case scenario, those who abuse or mismanage our Wild Horses on Public Lands – and are obviously corrupt themselves.

Working within the corruption is not an option, especially in order to save the Wild Horses.  If done, this is when the non-profits step into the realm of Conflict of Interest, and within questionable realms of ethics, ideology, misinformation and lies to cover-up their questionable conduct and actions, and illegal activity.  But there is a history of these exact situations, as we see when perusing the actual history and problems of returning America’s Wild Horses to their legal homelands, and rid our nation of the very corrupt government agencies that are paid to manage our Wild Horses appropriately, but do not do so what so ever.

The Wild Horses become neutralized, and obviously if receiving any type of funds from the corrupted source, or those who mis-manage our Wild Horses, then obviously the situation for the Wild Horses becomes, indeed, much worse.  Today this is an ongoing situation with a few non-profits, and the Wild Horses lose – onward to their road to extinction = Reality!

Wild Horse and Burro Act of 1971

Often it is a good thing to step back into the realms of basics, of the very premise of our own mind-set.  So let’s meander into the Law that was established to protect America’s Wild Horses.  Here we will find, and discuss openly, why many of us got involved in saving the Wild Horses.

The truth is, Laws are being broken daily by those that taxpayer’s pay to manage our Wild Horses = Corruption.  Yet, there seems to be so much misinformation, cover-ups, and excuses, that we have lost sight of the very Laws that are meant to “Protect America’s Wild Horses” – and let us not forget these are America’s Wild Horses, as explained in the very premise of the Wild Horse and Burro Act of 1971:

“. . . Congress finds and declares that wild free-roaming horses and burros are living symbols of the historic and pioneer spirit of the West; that they contribute to the diversitydungtodust of life forms within the Nation and enrich the lives of the American people; and that these horses and burros are fast disappearing from the American scene. It is the policy of Congress that wild free-roaming horses and burros shall be protected from capture, branding, harassment, or death; and to accomplish this they are to be considered in the area where presently found, as an integral part of the natural system of the public lands.”

This is a truth.  The government agency meant to abide by this, convolutes the law entirely, for nothing more than special interests!  And this is Wrong for them to do!  And at the same time these disgusting people wave the American Flag, talk of patriotism, and yet destroy such a significant Icons as the Wild Horses!  This simply makes no sense to many American’s!

So we do not run wayward, let’s first define what a Wild Horse is, as defined by this Law (not someone’s perception or convoluted idea of the Law), as there seems to be a lot of “other” situations develop that confuses this issue – the purpose here is not to go over the entire WH&B Act of 1971, but reacquaint ourselves with the pertinent information within the Law itself:

WH&B Act 1971 — 1332 Definitions:  . . .

(b) “wild free-roaming horses and burros” means all unbranded and unclaimed horses and burros on public lands of the United States;

(c) “range” means the amount of land necessary to sustain an existing herd or herds of wild free-roaming horses and burros, which does not exceed their known territorial limits, and which is devoted principally but not necessarily exclusively to their welfare in keeping with the multiple-use management concept for the public lands;

(d) “herd” means one or more stallions and his mares; and

(e) “public lands” means any lands administered by the Secretary of the Interior through the Bureau of Land Management or by the Secretary of Agriculture through the Forest Service.

1333 Powers and Duties of the Secretary:  “. . . The Secretary shall manage wild free-roaming horses and burros in a manner that is designed to achieve and maintain a thriving natural ecological balance on the public lands. He shall consider the recommendations of qualified scientists in the field of biology and ecology, some of whom shall be independent of both Federal and State agencies . . .”

16 U.S. Code § 1338 – Criminal provisions: . . .

(a) Violations; penalties; trial Any person who—

(1) willfully removes or attempts to remove a wild free-roaming horse or burro from the public lands, without authority from the Secretary, or

(2) converts a wild free-roaming horse or burro to private use, without authority from the Secretary, or

(3) maliciously causes the death or harassment of any wild free-roaming horse or burro, or

(4) except as provided in section 1333(e) of this title, processes or permits to be processed into commercial products the remains of a wild free-roaming horse or burro, or

(5) sells, directly or indirectly, a wild free-roaming horse or burro maintained on private or leased land pursuant to section 1334 of this title, or the remains thereof, or . . .

(Pub. L. 92–195, § 8, Dec. 15, 1971, 85 Stat. 650; Pub. L. 101–650, title III, § 321, Dec. 1, 1990, 104 Stat. 5117; Pub. L. 108–447, div. E, title I, § 142(b), Dec. 8, 2004, 118 Stat. 3071.) 16 U.S. Code Chapter 30 – WILD HORSES AND BURROS: PROTECTION, MANAGEMENT, AND CONTROL

Corruption Exemplified – Taxpayer Dollars!

So what is this corruption that we speak of most often?  Now we can step into the situations primarily ignored by the Bureau of Land Management (noted here as BLM).  Here, exemplified within the following example, is where the corruption takes place, as America’s Wild Horses disappear from BLM inventories (to slaughter, to KB’s in the field or disappear from BLM or other holding corrals illegally, et al.) — as we have found within their inventory system and documents over the years – a simple and very brief synopsis here to show one example, of many more examples available, of their corruption.

Previously, we found within their inventory sheets (and their common $$$ rates of roundup expenditures paid to their government contractors), $345 million dollars paid out to government contractors for Dead Horses, left on the range or non-existent.  This was over a few-year time period, and within regional areas, to include much of the Northwest and Murderer’s Creek being one of a few others, et al., out of the Burns, Oregon Administrative Unit.  These Dead Horses were not loaded onto the transport vehicles to the Burns Corrals, but all supposedly Dead before loading – as we were told they do not load Dead Horses.

Bait trapped horseThe problem here?  Well, quite obvious corrupt activity, illegal and Fraudulent, to say the least.  So American taxpayer’s pay for Dead Horses (i.e. millions of dollars’ worth of dead horses, and without explanation), and to government contractors, specifically within that area (friends and family of BLM employees).  This makes the process obviously corrupt, since inventories of Wild Horses captured, and loaded supposedly done at the holding corral – trap-site trailer loading site, and counted while loading the trailer appropriately.

It is not within the capacity here to surmise or guess where these Dead Horses were, or how they died, but that indeed, they exist on the Inventory Sheets.  What is not shown is transport from origination to any holding corrals located at BLM or other sites.  So we can, via deductive reasoning, state as a matter of fact the horses either died in the field near the roundup sites, or did not exist at all, and simply outright fraud committed by the on-site personnel, or office personnel back at the Burns, Oregon Administrative offices; whereas, in both situations, by adding the Dead Horses to Inventory, which in reality and quite obviously falsified payment to the government contractors.  The government contracts clear as well, and Dead Horses from the sites not to be an inclusion to inventory – nor to be shown on transport sheets, nor to be shown in Inventory and/or movements, from one corral facility to another (which is yet another vain of corruption that will be discussed later).

Again, the Supervisor and staff were clear in explaining no Dead-Horses were loaded onto trailers, yet could not, nor did not, explain the Dead Horses on the Inventory Sheets (i.e. BLM Inventory Sheets of Wild Horses in captivity – which brings about many more questions here in regard to captivity counts within BLM corrals, as well as other corrupt situations within their inventory or Wild Horses in captivity as well as Wild Horse counts in general).  Then why are the Dead-Horses on the Inventory Sheets – well, as usual no one at BLM can answer the questions put to them – and honesty?  Well, who knows . . .

Keep in mind the BLM does not want to Public to know these Inventory Sheets even eixist, and since publication of some of this information a couple of years ago, we have also been blocked from obtaining further inventory sheets – as a lot of history can be derived from them, as well as horse counts, et al., Information BLM does not want the Public and taxpayer’s to know!  Why is this, as it is our right to know!  Corruption at its worst!

Still, the overwhelming fact is this:  That payment vouchers (i.e. $1,200 per horse captured) to the government contractors from these particular sites, for example, were created from Inventory Sheets produced by the Supervisor (BLM employee) and the staff (forestry employees), in one case scenario, at that location and while loading, for transport to the Burns, Oregon corrals.  This fact undeniable — over-all (from many different sites) $3.45 million dollars’ worth, taxpayer’s money, of undeniable reasons = Fact!

Corrupt History of Ignoring Law & Regulatory Situations (a quick perusal of significant information only)

In 1978 Congress passed the Public Rangelands Improvement Act (PRIA). The PRIA limited adoptions to only four horses a year per individual and allowed BLM to relinquish title to the horse after one year (during which inspections regarding the animal’s treatment were to occur).

The law also required BLM to inventory all feral horse herds, scientifically determine what constituted “appropriate” herd levels, and determine through a public process whether “excess” animals should be removed.  Congress further amended PRIA in 1978 to require updated herd counts – not estimates, but actual Wild Horse Counts . . .

In 2004, Republican Senator from Montana Conrad Burns inserted a rider into the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2005 (a 3,000-page omnibus appropriations bill) which amended the WFRHBA to require the BLM to sell excess animals more than 10 years old or which have been offered for adoption three times.

The amendment also required that excess, unadoptable horses “shall be made available for sale without limitation.”  Burns was reportedly acting on behalf of ranching wild-mustangs-gardner-ranch-californiainterests, who wished more of the horses removed from federal land.  The legislation, signed into law by President George W. Bush, was described by one media outlet as “undercutting more than three decades of lobbying and legislative action aimed at protecting America’s wild horses from slaughter”. . .  Adverse to the WH&B Act of 1971

In May, 2005 the “Rahall Amendment” was passed to limit implementation of the Burns amendment by preventing appropriated funds to be used to facilitate the sale and slaughter of protected wild horses and burros.  In the 2007 Interior Appropriations Act the language of Rahall Amendment was re-added. As of August 2012, it remained in effect.

In early 2005, the BLM discovered that some of the excess wild horses it had sold had been slaughtered.   BLM suspended the sales program in April 2005 and resumed it in May 2005 after implementing new requirements to deter buyers from slaughtering the animals. In the fall of 2007, the last three horse slaughterhouses in the United States closed.

In January 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that a 1949 Texas law banned the possession, transfer, or sale of horse meat. This ruling forced the two slaughterhouses in Texas to close.

In September 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit upheld a similar ban in Illinois, causing the plant located in that state to close. [a] However, BLM procedures do not ban the export of wild horses for sale and slaughter outside the United States.

In 2008, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) concluded BLM was not in compliance with the 2004 amendment, as the department had imposed limitations on the sale of excess horses to help ensure that they were not slaughtered. The GAO also stated that the BLM had a serious “dilemma” in the need to balance their charge to protect and preserve the feral horses with their charge to destroy or sell without limitation excess animals. It recommended that the BLM “develop cost-effective alternatives to the process of caring for wild horses removed from the range in long-term holding facilities and seek the legislative changes that may be necessary to implement those alternatives”


What is the point to all of this?  Well, information?  First and foremost, we need to be clear about the corruption, how it takes place, what exactly is the ongoing circumstances, and how is it, through deceptions, we are being misled?

The very basic situation, and point to all of this, is the fact that when we see or hear something of a convoluted nature, or something obvious in error or wrong, then look around and hunt for why this deception is even taking place.  There exist many convoluted situations right now, that are simply distractions.

We as well as the Wild Horses, have laws that protect us all.  There exist those that will ignore or even break these laws, for money, for employment, for job security or other circumstances of a human nature to do.  What we do is separate the right from the wrongs, and hopefully can save America’s Wild Horses, as a priority!

Humane Principles, and preserving our truthful heritage and American dynamic, remains very significant to many of us.  To others, well, not so much.  But the responsibility is ours to bring back the heritage, the Iconic symbols of our very life, and Lord knows many have sacrificed for these exact things I speak of, and with their life as well.  America can be strong again, but only through honest and truthful endeavors.

Many of us speak from our hearts, and many Stand and Speak Up for the Wild Horses.  It is just time to do so – as no other greater situation exists right now, but to save those who need defended, from those who want to see them extinct.

1 Comment

Posted by on September 24, 2016 in Uncategorized


Wild Horses Biodiversity and Ecological Zones — Wild Horses Benefit Our Lands

china-sinkhole-ecosystem-lead“What needs to stop, is the bad decisions based on what Bureau of Land Management personnel knows to be misinformation, and even out right lies!  These items so plentiful, and now coming from non-profits with conflicts of interest as well, and cannot be used to make further decisions upon and about the Wild Horses on our Public Lands. We need to demand truth!  And with the truth,, good science, good data, and those with the knowledge to understand the data and research statistics, only then can we make good reasonable decisions about the Wild Horses, and placing them back onto our Public Lands.  Time for the Special Interests and welfare ranchers to go, as they are all unnecessary as well as not needed there what so ever.”  — John Cox, The Cascades

When we discuss the Loss of biodiversity within Ecological Zones, we are discussing, with evidence we see first-hand combined with a thorough knowledge of history, a Reality. . . The 48% Overkill, or mass extinction of species, has become devastating – the reality becoming even worse within our wilderness environment. But less recognized is loss of biodiversity at the Ecological Zone or entire ecosystem level, which occurs when distinct habitats, species assemblages, and natural processes are diminished or degraded in quality.

America’s broken Wildlife Management System, based upon ignorance, fear, and obvious agenda-driven bad science, apparently assumes everything is okay in our wilds and with our wildlife – but it is not, and has not been for quite some time now . . . America is being invaded, not by another country, but that of mind-set = of blatant Ignorance and Illusory Perceptions of knowledge based on nothing more than ignorance or false premise.

Our Public Lands and other Federal Lands, currently, are experiencing the highest rates of species extinction in America’s history. However, biodiversity is being lost more widely than just on these lands. Habitats, such as freshwater-zones, desert and forested Public Lands, and old-growth forests in the Pacific Northwest, to name but four, are being destroyed very aggressively, with much ignorance and from government agencies, with total destruction eminent much sooner than perceived previously.

With this in mind, we stand to lose a far greater proportion of species (lands incapable of supporting these species due to interference from human’s), inclusive of America’s Wild Horses as well, within areas designated as cattle grazing permit zones, or areas settled and exploited within other activities by humans – both (i.e. due to ignorance and lack of positive driven actions) the causation and not the cure. The loss of biodiversity at the ecosystem levels, i.e. Ecological Zones Levels, have been greatest there so far, extreme in devastation.

Inward Perspective of Ecological Zones

Ecosystems can be lost, or tragically compromised, in basically two ways. The most obvious kind of loss is quantitative–the conversion of a native prairie to a cattle grazing allotment situation on Public Lands or on Forestry Lands, or just as extreme, construction of buildings or to a parking lot or oil exploration, et al. Quantitative losses, in principle, can be measured easily by a decline in areal extent of a discrete ecosystem type (i.e., one that can be mapped).

The second kind of loss is qualitative and involves a change or degradation in the structure, function, or composition of an ecosystem. At some level of degradation, an ecosystem ceases to be natural. For example, a ponderosa pine (e.g. Pinus ponderosa within the Klamath Basin) forest may be compromised by removing the largest, healthiest, and frequently, the genetically superior trees; a sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) steppe may be grazed so heavily that native perennial grasses are replaced by exotic annuals (becoming firestorm hazards); or a stream may become dominated by trophic generalist and exotic fishes (e.g. as cattle grazing those lands wreaked havoc with the indigenous species, which disappeared, and exotics simply invaded and took over, i.e. Murderer’s Creek for a good factual and data driven example).

Qualitative changes may be expressed quantitatively, for instance, by reporting that 99% of the sagebrush steppe is affected by livestock grazing, but such estimates are usually less precise than estimates of habitat conversion. In some cases, as in the conversion of an old-growth forest to a BLM grazing permit allotment, the qualitative changes in structure and function are sufficiently severe to qualify as outright habitat loss. Then the awkward question becomes, “How many of these habitat losses can we handle before the collapse of an entire Ecological System devastates the entire environmental complex?heavenly-pit

Frankly, within this modern age of information outlets, we have achieved several negative situations of a nature not so attractive, nor to take pride within, what so ever. Yes, ignorance and stupidity often questions good science, and moronic confusion follows. Often, ironically within this information age, political decisions, for example, sometimes based on outright lies, and the only credible situation that exists, well, no credibility what so ever for the decision at all.

In Oregon a Law was passed three years ago, that gives Rights to legislators to “Lie” about the facts and science in matters of passing Bills / Laws for the state. This year the wolves in the State of Oregon were Delisted from the Endangered Species List, due to falsification and lies about science, about the ESL itself, and lies in the matter of “facts-given” within the ratios of wolf-caused cattle attacks (less-kills by wolves a reality when compared to the facts given to other legislators on this subject material) – the cattle industry very questionable within integrity these days also, with no apparent credibility what so ever.

Ecological Zones and Destructive Invasive Situations

Conifer forests that are inner-dependent on circumstances from good management paradigms, e.g. fire suppression, notably ponderosa pine in the Cascade Mountain Range, have declined not only from logging, but also from invasion of non-indigenous animals, for example, by cattle and their obvious over-population. These kinds of change can cause the loss of a distinct Ecological Zone and entire ecosystem as surely as if the forest were clear-cut, which is also done for cattle – a very controversial situation indeed, but with BLM and Forestry, who remain overwhelmed with misinformation and lies and bad science, which is given to the public to cover-up the reality and destruction.

Ecological processes are also affected; widespread insect infestation and tree mortality east of the Cascade Mountains in the Pacific Northwest is blamed largely on past fire suppression, mostly by government sources. Then we look at other realities, specifically, cattle and their over-population once again.

One of the best examples is the Sage Grouse (and the supposed inter-cooperative agreements between welfare ranchers on Public Lands and Forestry Lands and the Department of the Interior (with BLM as the management portion, or mismanagement as many speak of the program itself, quite obvious to most, and costing taxpayers millions but based upon a false premise) –

The Reality: cattle hooves stomp the grasses that the Sage Grouse live within for shelter and to hide form their natural enemies, as they are a food source for many wildlife species, and the reason why they are endangered. Soon the Sage Grouse unprotected – and cattle-presence also attracts crows, and crows favorite food source? Yup, Sage Grouse. BLM’s response? “Let’s kill all the Crows. Government incompetence? Or, government imposes special interest favors, special agendas due to lobby groups, upon taxpayer’s dollars, and toward welfare ranchers – all guided by misinformation and false premise to conduct the travesty, or, the destruction of more Ecological Zones? The facts do not lie – although, in this case especially (one of many more) government personnel and welfare ranchers do lie.

Invasion and Destruction of Ecological Zones / Saving them

So what is it, logically and knowledgably, we discuss in the matters of Ecological Zones or overall ecosystem decline. Through research we find that the most endangered ecosystems are typically at low elevations and have fertile soils, amiable climates, easy terrains, abundant natural resources, and other factors that encourage human settlement, but worse yet, exploitation.

The Great Plains, for example, and here in Oregon, is a vast sagebrush steppe of the Intermountain West that is in many areas overgrazed by cattle, with a very noticeable over-population of cattle present almost year around. Regional studies of ecosystem status should address the many potential causes of biotic impoverishment to devise effective conservation and restoration strategies – but when cattle involved, reality-conservation paradigms are not discussed at all within our current government management agencies. Why? History (sound research and data gathering as well) shows us that Buffalo did not migrate over large parts of the Great Basin way back when, due to the shelf-crust to thin, which also exists today. Mother Nature at work with the Buffalo, much wiser than our human species, obviously. So cattle roam, and are very destructive on the thin crust of lands within the basin areas.

The functional ideology, or paradigms, favoring the growth of Ecological Systems, is to save species by protecting samples of the entire ecosystems themselves. This can be tested very easily, although not done so by current management agencies — and by determining whether declines of ecosystem types have been accompanied by declines and extinctions of species that depend on or are associated with those ecosystems. What many of us are finding, who are in the field all the time, is overwhelming indeed, and quite obvious.

The fact is – many species are being eliminated by the Bureau of Land Management and due to incompetence as well as blatant ignorance of Ecological-Factors, Wildlife Services, and welfare ranching combined – and one of the primary developing factors of the current 48% Over-Kill of America’s Wildlife, which destroys Ecological Systems, as well.


With a thorough investigation of facts, not of misinformation nor bias toward or favoring any group of facts over another due to special interests, we then conclude that the conservation of entire Ecological Zones/ecosystems, rather than recovery/sustaining of individual species of non-indigenous animals, becomes of paramount priority. Preservation of entire communities requires truthful and sound habitat management based on good science, nothing left out, or added, to favor special interests, and the ability to ascertain or understand the research material and good data recovery, to generate sound management paradigms and decisions. This we find is superior over isolation of certain recovery favored recovery areas.

Due to good data collection, as well as a good understanding and breaking down the data to an informative type of statistics, myself and others find that placing Wild Horses back onto their legitimate, and Legal by Law homelands, is good for all of the Ecological Systems that would make up the ecosystem landscape within its entirety.

john cams and vids maps tableThis also provides for the removal of the actual destructive elements, the non-indigenous cattle – for example, and allow the lands where previous grazing permits did exist, to replenish itself back to its natural habitat of a healthy Ecological system for its inhabitants – and that includes the human species as well. Obtaining a natural wilderness area is far superior, when compared to irresponsible management paradigms that specify a one-person or corporation more important than the taxpayer or American paradigm (nor certainly not of Constitutional grounds) and neglecting all others who are involved, and who pay for it; which, in truth remains environmental-complex areas, entire ecosystems, for use by Special Interests only.

We can no longer afford the Bureau of Land Management statistics that are untrue, for example: the misinformed and lacking information of a 20% growth rate of wild horses, when there are no other situations considered, such as death of wild horses at 18% to 24%, and the birth death rates that show beyond a doubt that in the wilds it exists in reality at 51% to a high of +/- 64% undebatable statistics.

We cannot any longer, as well, consider the welfare ranching paradigm as a doable, nor positive situation on America’s Public Lands and within America’s Forests, as it is too destructive to all Ecological Zones and wildlife. And when we consider the actual facts: the less than 1% of sales domestically (DOI/USDAS/GAO Reports) from commercial markets of beef sales receipts; the 34% throw away of commercial beef from non-sales in markets yearly (USDA/GAO reports), and the tremendous amount of activity toward the 48% Over-Kill of America’s wildlife directly related to welfare ranching on Public Lands and Forestry areas — then our conclusion is easily developed by sound reasoning and common sense, also through good science, data gathering, statistics, and facts – welfare ranching is entirely unacceptable as well as unneeded on America’s Federal Lands — entirely.

What one will also discover, is those of us who have no Conflict of Interests, demand that Wild Horses be placed back onto their homelands, and to be allowed to let nature takes its course, and humans, with their bad management and incompetent behaviors, who have wreaked havoc enough within our natural areas and wilderness areas alike. We allow the facts to speak for us, not special interests nor greed, nor conflict of interest!

Literature Read/Information and Sound Data

Abernethy, Y., and R. E. Turner. 1987. U.S. forested wetlands: 1940-1980. BioScience 37:721-727.

Allan, J. D., and A. S. Flecker. 1993. Biodiversity conservation in running waters. BioScience 43:32-43.

Allen, E. B., and L. L. Jackson. 1992. The arid West. Restoration plans and Management Notes 10(1):56-59.

Almand, J. and W. Krohn. 1979. The position of the Bureau of Land Management on the protection and management of riparian ecosystems. Pages 259-361 in R. Johnson and F. McCormick, technical coordinators. Strategies for Protection and Management of Floodplain Wetlands and Other Riparian Ecosystems. Proceedings of the Symposium, 11-13 December 1978, Callaway Gardens, Ga. GTR-WO-12. U.S. Forest Service, Washington, D.C.

Anderson, B. 1991. The swamp bear’s last stand. Nature Conservancy 9/10 1992:16-21. *Arizona Nature Conservancy. 1987. Streams of Life A Conservation Campaign. Arizona Nature Conservancy, Tucson. *Arizona State Parks. 1988. Arizona Wetlands Priority Plan. Arizona State Parks, Phoenix. *Atwood, J. L. 1990. Status review of the California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica). Unpublished technical report. Manomet Bird Observatory, Manomet, Mass.

Atwood, J. L., and R. F. Noss. 1994. Gnatcatchers and development: a “train wreck” avoided? Illahee: Journal of the Northwest Environment 10:123-130.

Austin, M. P., and C. R. Margules. 1986. Assessing representativeness. Pages 45-67 in M. B. Usher, editor. Wildlife Conservation Evaluation. Chapman and Hall, London, United Kingdom.

Barbour, M. B. Pavlik, F. Drysdale, and S. Lindstrom. 1991. California vegetation: diversity and change. Fremontia 19(1):3-12.

[3Asterisk denotes unpublished material or published technical reports.]

Bartram, W. 1791. The Travels of William Bartram. Naturalists’ Edition, 1958, F. Harper, editor. Yale University Press, New Haven, Conn.

Bass, G. 1989. Down the river and to the sea. The Nature Conservancy Magazine 9/10 1989:5-11.

Benke, A. C. 1990. A perspective on America’s vanishing streams. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 91:77-88.

*Betz, R. F. 1978. The prairies of Indiana. Pages 25-31 in D. C. Glenn-Levin and R. Q. Landers, editors. Proceedings of the Fifth Midwest Prairie Conference. Iowa State University, Ames. *Bentzien, M. M. 1987. Agency draft recovery plan for five rockland plant species. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, Ga. *Birch, T. W., and E. H. Wharton. 1982. Land use change in Ohio, 1952-79. Research Bulletin NE-70. U.S. Northeast Forest Experiment Station, Broomal, Pa. *Blaustein, A. R. 1993. Declining amphibian populations: A global perspective. Abstract and presentation, 3 March 1993, Newport, Oreg. Annual Meeting, Oregon Chapter, The Wildlife Society.

Bohning-Gaese, K., M. L. Taper, and J. H. Brown. 1993. Are declines in North American insectivorous songbirds due to causes on the breeding range? Conservation Biology 7:7686. *Bolsinger, C. 1988. The hardwoods of California’s timberlands, woodlands, and savannas. PNW-RB-148. U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oreg. *Bond, W. E., and A. R. Spillers. 1935. Use of land for forests in the lower Piedmont region of Georgia. Occasional Paper 53, Southern Forest Experiment Station, Asheville, N.C.

Bourgeron, P. S. 1988. Advantages and limitations of ecological classification for the protection of ecosystems. Conservation Biology 2:218-220. *Bourgeron, P. S., and L. Engelking, editors. 1992. Preliminary compilation of a series level classification of the vegetation of the western United States using a physiognomic framework. Report to the Idaho Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit. Western Heritage Task Force, The Nature Conservancy, Boulder, Colo.

Boyce, S. G., and W. H. Martin. 1993. The future of the terrestrial communities of the Southeastern Coastal Plain. Pages 339-366 in W. H. Martin, S. G. Boyce, and A. C. Echternacht, editors. Biodiversity of the Southeastern United States: Upland Terrestrial Communities. Wiley, N.Y. *Brabander, J. J., R. E. Master, and R. M. Short. 1985. Bottomland hardwoods of eastern Oklahoma: A special study of their status, trends, and values. Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Norman, Okla.

Brash, A. R. 1987. The history of avian extinction and forest conversion on Puerto Rico. Biological Conservation 39:97-111.

Breden, T. F. 1989. A preliminary natural community classification for New Jersey. Pages 157-191 in E. F. Karlin, editor. New Jersey’s Rare and Endangered Plants and Animals. Institute for Environmental Studies, Ramapo College, Mahwah, N.J.

Breining, G. 1992. Rising from the bogs. Nature Conservancy July/August 1992:24-29.

Bridges, E. L., and S. L. Orzell. 1989. Longleaf pine communities of the west Gulf coastal plain. Natural Areas Journal 9:246-263. *Brinson, M. M., B. L. Swift, R. C. Plantico, and J. S. Barclay. 1981. Riparian ecosystems: Their ecology and status. FWS/OBS-83/17. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Services Program, Washington, D.C.

Burkhardt, J. W., and E. W. Tisdale. 1969. Nature and successional status of western juniper vegetation in Idaho. Journal of Range Management 22:264-270.

Burkhardt, J. W., and E. W. Tisdale. 1976. Causes of juniper invasion in southwestern Idaho. Ecology 57:472-484. *Bury, R. B. 1993. Patterns of amphibian declines in western North America. Abstract and presentation, 3 March 1993, Newport, Oreg. Annual Meeting, Oregon Chapter, The Wildlife Society.

Cabbage, F. W., J. O. Laughlin, and C. S. Bullock. 1993. Forest resource policy. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.

California Environmental Trust. 1992. Project news. Natural Community Conservation Planning Process Coastal Sage Scrub Newsletter 1(1):1-5.

California Resources Agency. 1992. President recognizes NCCP. Natural Community Conservation Planning Process Coastal Sage Scrub Newsletter 1(5):4. *Canning, D. J., and M. Steven. 1989. Wetlands of Washington: A resource characterization. Environment 2010 Project, Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia.

Carey, A. B. 1989. Wildlife associated with old-growth forests in the Pacific Northwest. Natural Areas Journal 9:151-162. *Chadde, S. 1992. Decline of natural ecosystems in Montana. Unpublished report. U.S. Forest Service, Missoula, Mont. *Chapman, K. A. 1984. An ecological investigation of native grassland in southern lower Michigan. M.A. thesis, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo.

*Christman, S. 1988. Endemism and Florida’s interior sand pine scrub. Final project report, Project GFC-84-101. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee. *Cook, R. E., and P. Dixon. 1989. A review of recovery plans for threatened and endangered plant species. Unpublished report. World Wildlife Fund, Washington, D.C.

Council on Environmental Quality. 1989. Environmental Trends. Council on Environmental Quality, Washington, D.C.

Crumpacker, D. W., S. W. Hodge, D. Friedley, and W. P. Gregg. 1988. A preliminary assessment of the status of major terrestrial and wetland ecosystems on federal and Indian land in the United States. Conservation Biology 2:103-115.

Cryan, J. F. 1980. An introduction to the Long Island Pine Barrens. The Heath Hen 1(1):3-13.

Cryan, J. F. 1985. Retreat in the Barrens. Defenders Jan/Feb:18-29.

Cusick, A. W., and K. R. Troutman. 1978. The prairie survey project: A summary of data to date. Ohio Biological Survey Informative Circular 10, Ohio State University, Columbus. *Dahl, T. E. 1990. Wetland losses in the United States 1780’s to 1980’s. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. *Dahl, T. E., and C. E. Johnson. 1991. Wetlands: status and trends in the conterminous United States mid-1970’s to mid-1980’s. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.

Dasmann, R. F. 1972. Towards a system for classifying natural regions of the world and their representation by national parks and reserves. Biological Conservation 4:247-255.

Daubenmire, R. 1968. Plant communities: A textbook of plant synecology. Harper and Row, New York. *Davis, G. D. 1988. Preservation of natural diversity: The role of ecosystem representation within wilderness. Paper presented at National Wilderness Colloquium, Tampa, Fla., January 1988.

Davis, M. B. 1981. Quaternary history and the stability of forest communities. Pages 132153 in D. C. West, H. H. Shugart, and D. B. Botkin, editors. Forest Succession. SpringerVerlag, New York.

DeSelm, H. R., and N. Murdock. 1993. Grass-dominated communities. Pages 87-141 in W. H. Martin, S. G. Boyce, and A. C. Echternacht, editors. Biodiversity of the Southeastern United States: Upland Terrestrial Communities. Wiley, N.Y.

Diamond, J. M. 1976. Island biogeography and conservation: Strategy and limitations. Science 193:1027-1029.

Diamond, J. M. 1984. Historic extinctions: A Rosetta stone for understanding prehistoric extinctions. Pages 824-862 in P. S. Martin and R. G. Klein, editors. Quaternary Extinctions: A Prehistoric Revolution. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Dregne, H. E. 1983. Desertification of arid lands. Harwood Press, Chur, Switzerland.

Driscoll, R. S., D. L. Merkel, D. L. Radloff, D. E. Snyder, and J. S. Hagihara. 1984. An Ecological Land Classification Framework for the United States. U.S. Forest Service, Miscellaneous Publication 1439, Washington, D.C.

Duffy, D. C., and A. J. Meier. 1992. Do Appalachian herbaceous understories ever recover from clearcutting? Conservation Biology 6:196-201. *Eastside Forests Scientific Society Panel. 1993. Executive summary. Interim protection for late-successional forests, fisheries, and watersheds: National forests east of the Cascade Crest, Oregon and Washington. A Report to the United States Congress and the President. Corvallis, Oreg.

Ehrlich, A. H., and P. R. Ehrlich. 1986. Needed: An endangered humanity act? Amicus Journal. Reprinted on pages 298-302 in K. A. Kohm, editor. 1991. Balancing on the Brink of Extinction: The Endangered Species Act and Lessons for the Future. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Ehrlich, P. R., and A. H. Ehrlich. 1981. Extinction: The causes and consequences of the disappearance of species. Random House, New York.

Ehrlich, P. R., and E. O. Wilson. 1991. Biodiversity studies: Science and policy. Science 253:758-762. *Ewel, K. C. 1988. Florida’s freshwater swamps: Ecological relationships and management issues. ENFO 1988:1-9.

Farrar, J., and R. Gersib. 1991. Nebraska salt marshes: Last of the least. Nebraskaland Magazine 69(6):18-43.

Fay, J. J., and W. L. Thomas. 1983. Endangered and threatened species listing and recovery priority guidelines. Federal Register, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 48 (184):43098-43105.

Fiedler, P. L., and J. J. Ahouse. 1992. Hierarchies of cause: Toward an understanding of rarity in vascular plant species. Pages 23-47 in P. L. Fiedler and S. K. Jain, editors. Conservation Biology: The Theory and Practice of Nature Conservation, Preservation, and Management. Chapman and Hall, New York.

Findley, R. 1990. Will we save our own? National Geographic 178(3):106-136.

Folkerts, G. W. 1982. The Gulf Coast pitcher plant bogs. American Scientist 70:260-267.

Franklin, J. F., K. Cromack, W. Denison, A. McKee, C. Maser, J. Sedell, F. Swanson, and G. Juday. 1981. Ecological characteristics of old-growth Douglas-fir forests. General Technical Report PNW-118. U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, Oreg. *Frayer, W. E., D. D. Peters, and H. R. Pywell. 1989. Wetlands of the California Central Valley: status and trends 1939 to mid-1980s. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oreg.

Freas, K. E., and D. D. Murphy. 1988. Taxonomy and the conservation of the critically endangered Bakersfield saltbush, Atriplex tularensis. Biological Conservation 46:317324. *Frehlich, L. E., E. J. Cushing, P. H. Glaser, P. Jordan, and K. R. Miller. 1992. Impact of Timber Harvesting and Forest Management on Biodiversity. Report to Minnesota GEIS. Jaako Poyry Consulting, Raleigh, N.C. *Frey, R. F., editor. 1990. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 1990 water quality assessment. 305(b) Report. Department of Environmental Regulation, Division of Water Quality, Bureau of Water Quality Management, Harrisburg, Pa.

Frost, C. C. 1987. Historical overview of Atlantic whitecedar (Chamaecyearis thyoides) in the Carolinas. Pages 257-264 in A. D. Laderman, editor. Atlantic whitecedar Wetlands. Westview Press, Boulder, Colo.

Frost, C. C. 1995. Four centuries of changing landscape patterns in the longleaf pine ecosystem. Proceedings of the Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference 18. In press. *Gast, W. R., D. W. Scott, C. Schmitt, D. Clemens, S. Howes, C. G. Johnson, R. Mason, F. Mohr, and R. A. Clapp. 1991. Blue Mountains Forest health report: New Perspectives in Forest Health. U.S. Forest Service, Portland, Oreg.

Gilmore, R. G., and S. C. Snedaker. 1993. Mangrove forests. Pages 165-198 in W. H. Martin, S. G. Boyce, and A. C. Echternacht, editors. Biodiversity of the Southeastern United States: Lowland Terrestrial Communities. Wiley, N.Y.

Godfrey, P. J., and P. Alpert. 1985. Racing to save the coastal heaths. The Nature Conservancy News 7/8 1985:11-13.

Good, E. E. 1979. Ohio forests. Pages 80-109 in M. B. Lafferty, editor. Ohio’s Natural Heritage. Ohio Academy of Science, Columbus.

Gosselink, J. G., G. P. Shaffer, L. C. Lee, D. M. Burdick, D. L. Childers, N. C. Liebowitz, S. C. Hamilton, R. Boumans, D. Cushman, S. Fields, M. Koch, and J. M. Visser. 1990. Landscape conservation in a forested wetland watershed. BioScience 40:588-600.

*Grossman, D. H., K. L. Goodin, and C. L. Reuss. 1994. Rare plant communities of the conterminous United States: An initial survey. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Va.

Habeck, J. R. 1990. Old-growth ponderosa pine-western larch forests in western Montana: Ecology and management. Northwest Environmental Journal 6:271-292.

Haila, Y., I. K. Hanski, and S. Raivio. 1993. Turnover of breeding birds in small forest fragments: the “sampling” colonization hypothesis corroborated. Ecology 74:714-725.

Hansen, A. J., T. A. Spies, F. J. Swanson, and J. L. Ohmann. 1991. Conserving biodiversity in managed forests. BioScience 41:382-392.

Hardin, E. D., and D. L. White. 1989. Rare vascular plant taxa associated with wiregrass (Aristida stricta) in the Southeastern United States. Natural Areas Journal 9:234-245.

Hardy, J. W. 1978. Carolina parakeet. Page 120 in H. W. Kale, editor. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida. Vol. 2, Birds. University Presses of Florida, Gainesville. *Harper, R. M. 1914. Geography and Vegetation of Northern Florida. Florida Geological Survey 6th Annual Report. Tallahassee. *Harris, L. D. 1984. Bottomland Hardwoods: Valuable, Vanishing, Vulnerable. Florida Cooperative Extension Service, University of Florida, Gainesville.

Hart, R. 1987. The dark side of protecting wetlands. Palmetto 7(3):10-11. *Hassinger, J. 1991. Pennsylvania water, wetland, and riparian area fact synopsis. Unpublished report. Pennsylvania Game Commission, Harrisburg. *Hawaii Heritage Program. 1991. Summary of classification hierarchy: Hawaiian natural community classification. Unpublished report. The Nature Conservancy of Hawaii. Hawaii Heritage Program, Honolulu.

*Hawaii Heritage Program. 1992. Native ecosystem losses in the Hawaiian archipelago. Unpublished tables. The Nature Conservancy of Hawaii, Hawaii Heritage Program, Honolulu. *Hawaii State Department of Land and Natural Resources, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and The Nature Conservancy of Hawaii. 1992. Hawaii’s Extinction Crisis: A Call to Action. Hawaii State Department of Land and Natural Resources, Honolulu.

Hironaka, M., M. A. Fosberg, and A. H. Winward. 1983. Sagebrush-grass habitat types in southern Idaho. Bulletin No. 35. Forest, Wildlife, and Range Experiment Station, University of Idaho, Moscow.

Holing, D. 1987. Hawaii: The Eden of endemism. The Nature Conservancy News 2/3 1987:7-13. *Holland, R. 1978. The geographic and edaphic distribution of vernal pools in the Great Central Valley, California. California Native Plant Society, Special Publication 4.

Holsinger, K. E., and L. D. Gottlieb. 1991. Conservation of rare and endangered plants: Principles and prospects. Pages 195-208 in D. A. Falk and K. E. Holsinger, editors. Genetics and Conservation of Rare Plants. Oxford University Press, New York.

Holtz, S. 1986a. Tropical seagrass restoration plans. Restoration plans and Management Notes 4(1):5-11.

Holtz, S. 1986b. Bringing back a beautiful landscape. Restoration plans and Management Notes 4(2):56-61.

Huenneke, L. F. 1991. Ecological implications of genetic variation in plant populations. Pages 31-44 in D. A. Falk and K. E. Holsinger, editors. Genetics and Conservation of Rare Plants. Oxford University Press, New York.

Hughes, R. M., and R. F. Noss. 1992. Biological diversity and biological integrity: Current concerns for lakes and streams. Fisheries 17(3):11-19. *Hunsaker, C. T., and D. E. Carpenter. 1990. Environmental monitoring and assessment program ecological indicators. EPS/600/3-90/060. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C.

Hunt, C. E. 1989. Creating an endangered ecosystems Act. Endangered Species Update 6(3-4):1-5.

Hunter, M. L. 1991. Coping with ignorance: The coarse-filter strategy for maintaining biodiversity. Pages 266-281 in K. A. Kohm, editor. Balancing on the Brink of Extinction: The Endangered Species Act and Lessons for the Future. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Hunter, M. L., G. L. Jacobson, and T. Webb. 1988. Paleoecology and the coarse-filter approach to maintaining biological diversity. Conservation Biology 2:375-385.

Huntly, N., and R. Inouye. 1988. Pocket gophers in ecosystems: Patterns and mechanisms. BioScience 38:786-793.

Hutto, R. L., S. Reel, and P. B. Landres. 1987. A critical evaluation of the species approach to biological conservation. Endangered Species Update 4(12):1-4.

Ingersoll, C. A., and M. V. Wilson. 1991. Restoration plans of a western Oregon remnant prairie. Restoration plans and Management Notes 9(2):110-11. *IUCN/UNEP. 1986a. Review of the Protected Areas System in the Afrotropical Realm. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. *IUCN/UNEP. 1986b. Review of the Protected Areas System in the Indo-Malayan Realm. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. *Jackson, D. R., and E. G. Milstrey. 1989. The fauna of gopher tortoise burrows. Pages 86-98 in J. E. Diemer, D. R. Jackson, J. L. Landers, J. N. Layne, and D. A. Wood, editors. Gopher Tortoise Relocation Symposium Proceedings. Nongame Wildlife Program Technical Report No. 5. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee.

Jenkins, R. E. 1985. Information methods: Why the heritage programs work. Nature Conservancy News 35(6):21-23.

Jenkins, R. E. 1988. Information management for the conservation of biodiversity. Pages 231-239 in E. O. Wilson, editor. Biodiversity. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. *Jennings, M. D. 1993. Natural terrestrial cover classification: Assumptions and definitions. Gap Analysis Technical Bulletin 2. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Idaho Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Moscow. *Jensen, D. B., M. Torn, and J. Harte. 1990. In our own hands: A strategy for conserving biological diversity in California. California Policy Seminar Research Report. University of California, Berkeley. *Jones and Stokes Associates, Inc. 1987. Sliding toward extinction; The state of California’s natural history. The California Nature Conservancy, San Francisco. *Jones, H. L. 1991. A rangewide assessment of the California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica). Unpublished report by Michael Brandman Associates for Building Industry Association of Southern California, Santa Ana.

*Jontz, J. 1993. The Sustainable Ecosystems Act. Draft report. Silver Lake, Ind.

Jordan, W. R. 1987. Making a user-friendly national park for Costa Rica–a visit with Dan Janzen. Restoration plans and Management Notes 5(2):72-75. *Judy, R. D., P. N. Seeley, T. M. Murray, S. C. Svirsky, M. R. Whitworth, and L. S. Ischinger. 1982. National fisheries survey. Vol. I. Technical Report: Initial Findings. FWS/OBS-84/06. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. *Kantrud, H. A., G. L. Krapu, and G. A. Swanson. 1989. Prairie basin wetlands of the Dakotas: A community profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.

Kautz, R. S. 1993. Trends in Florida wildlife habitat 1936-87. Florida Scientist 1993(1):7-24. *Kellogg, E., editor. 1992. Coastal Temperate Rain Forests: Ecological Characteristics, Status, and Distribution Worldwide. Ecotrust and Conservation International, Portland, Oreg. and Washington, D.C.

Kendeigh, S. C., H. I. Baldwin, V. H. Cahalane, C. H. D. Clarke, C. Cottam, I. M. Cowan, P. Dansereau, J. H. Davis, F. W. Emerson, I. T. Haig, A. Hayden, C. L. Hayward, J. M. Linsdale, J. A. MacNab, and J. E. Potzger. 1950-51. Nature sanctuaries in the United States and Canada: A preliminary inventory. The Living Wilderness 15(35):145. *Kentucky Environmental Quality Commission. 1992. State of Kentucky’s environment: A report of progress and problems. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Frankfort. *King, C. C., editor. 1990. A legacy of stewardship: The Ohio Department of Natural Resources 1949-89. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Columbus.

Klopatek, J. M., R. J. Olson, C. J. Emerson, and J. L. Joness. 1979. Land-use conflicts with natural vegetation in the United States. Environmental Conservation 6:191-199. *Knight, H. A., and J. P. McClure. 1982. Florida’s Forests. Research Bulletin SE-62. U.S. Forest Service, Asheville, N.C.

Kohm, K. A., editor. 1991. Balancing on the brink of extinction: The Endangered Species Act and lessons for the future. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Korte, P. A., and L. H. Frederickson. 1977. Loss of Missouri’s lowland hardwood forest. In K. Sabol, editor. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 42:31-41.

Kreissman, B. 1991. California, an environmental atlas and guide. Bear Klaw Press, Davis, Calif. *Kuchler, A. W. 1966 (revised 1985). Potential natural vegetation (map). U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Va.

LaRoe, E. T. 1993. Implementation of an ecosystem approach to endangered species conservation. Endangered Species Update 10 (3&4):3-12.

Lewis, R. R. 1992. Coastal ecosystems. Restoration plans and Management Notes 10(1):18-20.

Lins, H. F. 1980. Patterns and trends of land use and land cover on Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Barrier islands. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1156. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Livermore, B. 1992. Amphibian alarm: Just where have all the frogs gone? Smithsonian 23(7)113-120.

MacArthur, R. H., and E. O. Wilson. 1967. The Theory of Island Biogeography. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.

MacDonald, K. 1977. Coastal salt marsh. Pages 263-294 in M. Barbour and J. Major, editors. Terrestrial Vegetation of California. Wiley-Interscience, New York. *MacDonald, P. O., W. E. Frayer, and J. K. Clauser. 1979. Documentation, chronology, and future projections of bottomland hardwood habitat loss in the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Plain. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Vicksburg, Miss.

Madson, C. 1989. Of wings and prairie grass. The Nature Conservancy Magazine 3/4 1989:9-13.

Madson, J. 1990. On the Osage. Nature Conservancy 5/6 1990:7-15. *Mantell, M. A. 1992. The key is habitat, not lone species. Los Angeles Times, 26 April 1992:B2.

Margules, C. R., A. O. Nicholls, and R. L. Pressey. 1988. Selecting networks of reserves to maximize biological diversity. Biological Conservation 43:63-76.

Margules, C., and M. B. Usher. 1981. Criteria used in assessing wildlife conservation potential: A review. Biological Conservation 24:115-128.

Martin, G. 1986. Behind the scenes. The Nature Conservancy News 10/11 1986:18-23.

*Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs. 1990. An environment at risk. Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, Boston, Mass.

Master, L. L. 1990. The imperiled status of North American aquatic animals. Biodiversity Network News 3(3):1-2,7-8.

Master, L. L. 1991a. Assessing threats and setting priorities for conservation. Conservation Biology 5:559-563.

Master, L. L. 1991b. Aquatic animals: endangerment alert. Nature Conservancy 41(2):2627. *Mayer, K. E., and W. E. Laudenslyer, editors. 1988. A guide to wildlife habitats of California. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Sacramento. *Mazzotti, F. J., L. A. Brandt, L. G. Pearlstine, W. M. Kitchens, T. A. Obreza, F. C. Depkin, N. E. Morris, and C. E. Arnold. 1992. An evaluation of the regional effects of new citrus development on the ecological integrity of wildlife resources in southwest Florida. South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach.

McIntosh, R. P. 1985. The background of ecology: Concept and theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

McLarney, W. O. 1989. Guanacaste: The dawn of a park. The Nature Conservancy News 1/2 1989:11-15.

McNeely, J. A., and K. R. Miller. 1984. National parks, conservation, and development: The role of protected areas in sustaining society. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

McNeely, J. A., K. R. Miller, W. V. Reid, R. A. Mittermeier, and T. B. Werner. 1990. Conserving the world’s biological diversity. IUCN, WRI, CI, WWF-US, World Bank. Gland, Switzerland and Washington, D.C.

Means, D. B., and G. Grow. 1985. The endangered longleaf pine community. ENFO Report 85(4):1-12.

Mengel, R. M. 1965. The birds of Kentucky. Ornithological Monographs No. 3. American Ornithologists Union. Allen Press, Lawrence, Kans. *Meyer-Arendt, K. J. 1991. Human impacts on coastal and estuarine environments in Mississippi. GCSSEPM Foundation Twelfth Annual Research Conference: 141-148.

Miller, R. R., J. D. Williams, and J. E. Williams. 1989. Extinctions of North American fishes during the past century. Fisheries 14:22-38.

Moyle, P. B., and J. E. Williams. 1990. Biodiversity loss in the temperate zone: Decline of the native fish fauna of California. Conservation Biology 4:475-484.

Murphy, D., D. Wilcove, R. Noss, J. Harte, C. Safina, J. Lubchenco, T. Root, V. Sher, L. Kaufman, M. Bean, and S. Pimm. 1994. On reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act. Conservation Biology 8:1-3.

Myers, N. 1984. The primary source: Tropical forests and our future. W. W. Norton, New York.

Myers, N. 1988. Tropical forests and their species. Going, going..? Pages 28-35 in E. O. Wilson, editor. Biodiversity. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

Naiman, R. J., C. A. Johnston, and J. C. Kelley. 1988. Alteration of North American streams by beaver. BioScience 38:753-762.

National Research Council. 1993. A biological survey for the nation. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

Nature Conservancy, The. 1986. A tour of country programs. The Nature Conservancy News 1/3 1986:13-19.

Nature Conservancy, The. 1988. Illinois. The Nature Conservancy Magazine 5/6 1988:26.

Nature Conservancy, The. 1989a. Crystal Springs. The Nature Conservancy Magazine 7/8 1989:29.

Nature Conservancy, The. 1989b. Guatemala. The Nature Conservancy Magazine 5/6 1989:36.

Nature Conservancy, The. 1989c. Caribbean crisis. The Nature Conservancy News 3/4 1989:32.

Nature Conservancy, The. 1990. Protecting and restoring 100-mile reach of Sacramento River. Nature Conservancy 5/6 1990:24.

Nature Conservancy, The. 1992a. Ecological charms among nuclear arms. Nature Conservancy 7/8 1992:34. *Nature Conservancy, The. 1992b. Extinct vertebrate species in North America. Unpublished draft list, 4 March 1992. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Va. *Nebraska Game and Parks Commission. 1972. Survey of habitat work plan K-71. W- 15-R-28. Lincoln.

*Nebraska Game and Parks Commission. 1984. Survey of habitat work plan K-83. W- 15-R-40. Lincoln.

Nehlsen, W., J. E. Williams, and J. A. Lichatowich. 1991. Pacific salmon at the crossroads: stocks at risk from California, Oregon, Idaho, and Washington. Fisheries 16:4-21.

Nelson, J. 1989. Agriculture, wetlands, and endangered species: the Food Security Act of 1985. Endangered Species Technical Bulletin 14(5):1,6-8. *Nelson, P. W. 1985. The terrestrial natural communities of Missouri. Missouri Natural Areas Committee, Jefferson City.

Niering, W. A. 1992. The New England forests. Restoration plans and Management Notes 10(1):24-28.

Nilsson, C. 1986. Methods of selecting lake shorelines as nature reserves. Biological Conservation 35:269-291.

Norse, E. A. 1990. Ancient forests of the Pacific Northwest. The Wilderness Society and Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Noss, R. F. 1983. A regional landscape approach to maintain diversity. BioScience 33:700-706.

Noss, R. F. 1987. From plant communities to landscapes in conservation inventories: A look at The Nature Conservancy (USA). Biological Conservation 41:11-37.

Noss, R. F. 1988. The longleaf pine landscape of the Southeast: Almost gone and almost forgotten. Endangered Species Update 5(5):1-8.

Noss, R. F. 1989. Longleaf pine and wiregrass: Keystone components of an endangered ecosystem. Natural Areas Journal 9:211-213.

Noss, R. F. 1990a. Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: A hierarchical approach. Conservation Biology 4:355-364. *Noss, R. F. 1990b. What can wilderness do for biodiversity? Pages 49-61 in P. Reed, compiler. Preparing to Manage Wilderness in the 21st Century. U.S. Forest Service, Asheville, N.C.

Noss, R. F. 1991a. From endangered species to biodiversity. Pages 227-246 in K. A. Kohm, editor. Balancing on the Brink of Extinction: The Endangered Species Act and Lessons for the Future. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Noss, R. F. 1991b. Sustainability and wilderness. Conservation Biology 5:120-121.

Noss, R. F. 1991c. A Native Ecosystems Act. Wild Earth 1(1):24.

Noss, R. F. 1992. The Wildlands Project: Land conservation strategy. Wild Earth (Special Issue):10-25.

Noss, R. F., and A. Cooperrider. 1994. Saving nature’s legacy: Protecting and restoring biodiversity. Defenders of Wildlife and Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Noss, R. F., and B. Csuti. 1994. Habitat fragmentation. Pages 237-264 in G. K. Meffe and R. C. Carroll, editors. Principles of Conservation Biology. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Mass.

Noss, R. F., and L. D. Harris. 1986. Nodes, networks, and MUMs: Preserving diversity at all scales. Environmental Management 10:299-309.

Noss, R. F., and S. H. Wolfe. 1990. Summary. Pages 211-219 in S. H. Wolfe, editor. An Ecological Characterization of the Florida Springs Coast: Pithlachascotee to Waccasassa Rivers. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 90(21). Slidell, La. *Nuzzo, V. A. 1985. The extent and status of midwest oak savanna at the time of settlement and in the mid 1980s, and the effect of soil scarification on seedling establishment in an oak savanna restoration plans. M.S. thesis, University of Wisconsin, Madison.

Nuzzo, V. A. 1986. Extent and status of midwest oak savanna: Presettlement and 1985. Natural Areas Journal 6(2):6-36. *Oberbauer, T. A. 1990. Areas of vegetation communities in San Diego County. Unpublished report. County of San Diego, Department of Planning and Land Use, San Diego, Calif.

Odum, E. P. 1970. Optimum population and environment: A Georgia microcosm. Current History 58:355-359.

Odum, E. P. 1971. Fundamentals of Ecology. Third edition. Saunders, Philadelphia, Pa.

Odum, E. P. 1989. Input management of production systems. Science 243:177-182.

Odum, E. P., and H. T. Odum. 1972. Natural areas as necessary components of Man’s total environment. Proceedings North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 37:178-189.

O’Leary, J. F. 1990. Californian coastal sage scrub: General characteristics and considerations for biological conservation. Pages 24-41 in A. A. Schoenherr, editor. Endangered Plant Communities of Southern California. Southern California Botanists Special Publication 3, San Diego.

Olson, S. L., and H. F. James. 1984. The role of Polynesians in the extinction of the avifauna of the Hawaiian Islands. Pages 768-780 in P. S. Martin and R. G. Klein, editors. Quaternary Extinctions: A Prehistoric Revolution. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Olson, W. K. 1984. Journeys into Connecticut. The Nature Conservancy News 5/6 1984:17-21.

Olson, W. K. 1988. Connecticut’s finest edge. The Nature Conservancy Magazine 9/10 1988:12-17.

O’Malley, P. G. 1991. Large-scale restoration plans on Santa Catalina Island, California. Restoration plans and Management Notes 9(1):7-15.

Orians, G. H. 1993. Endangered at what level? Ecological Applications 3:206-208. *Orth, R. J., J. F. Nowack, A. A. Frisch, K. Kiley, and J. Whiting. 1991. Distribution of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation in the Chesapeake Bay and Tributaries and Chincoteague Bay–1990. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program, Annapolis, Md.

Palmer, S. 1985. Some extinct mollusks of the U.S.A. Atala 13:1-7.

Parker, G. R. 1989. Old-growth forests of the central hardwood region. Natural Areas Journal 9:5-11.

Parvin, R. W. 1989. Reclaiming a big thicket gem. The Nature Conservancy Magazine 5/6 1989:22-26.

Pearson, J. A., and M. J. Leoschke. 1992. Floristic composition and conservation status of fens in Iowa. Journal of the Iowa Academy of Science 99:41-52.

Pellant, M. 1990. The cheatgrass-wildfire cycle: Are there any solutions? Pages 11-18 in E. D. McArthur, E. M. Romney, S. D. Smith, and P. T. Tueller, compilers. Proceedings of the Symposium on Cheatgrass Invasion, Shrub Die-off, and Other Aspects of Shrub Biology and Management. General Technical Report INT-276. U.S. Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah.

Peroni, P. A., and W. G. Abrahamson. 1985. A rapid method for determining losses of native vegetation. Natural Areas Journal 5(1):20-24.

Platt, S. G., and C. G. Brantley. 1992. The management and restoration plans of switchcane (Louisiana). Restoration plans and Management Notes 10(1):84-85.

Plumb, G. E., and J. L. Dodd. 1993. Foraging ecology of bison and cattle on a mixed prairie: Implications for natural area management. Ecological Applications 3:631-643.

Poore, M. E. D. 1955. The use of phytosociological methods in ecological investigations. I. The Braun-Blanquet system. Journal of Ecology 43:226-244.

Postel, S., and J. C. Ryan. Reforming forestry. Pages 74-92 in L. Starke, editor. State of the World 1991: A Worldwatch Institute Report on Progess Toward a Sustainable Society. W. W. Norton, New York. *Pyne, M., and D. Durham. 1993. Estimation of losses of ecosystems in Tennessee. Unpublished table. Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Ecological Services Division, Nashville.

Rabinowitz, D., S. Cairns, and T. Dillon. 1986. Seven forms of rarity and their frequency in the flora of the British Isles. Pages 182-204 in M. E. Soulé, editor. Conservation Biology: The Science of Scarcity and Diversity. Sinauer, Sunderland, Mass.

Raven, P. H. 1986. The urgency of tropical conservation. The Nature Conservancy News 1/3 1986:7-11.

Ray, G. 1992. Point of contact: The West Indies. Restoration plans and Management Notes 10(1):4-8.

Reffalt, W. 1985. Wetland in extremis: A nationwide survey. Wilderness, Winter 1985:28-41.

Reichman, O. J. 1987. Konza prairie: A tallgrass natural history. University Press of Kansas, Lawrence.

Reiner, R., and T. Griggs. 1989. Restoring riparian forests. The Nature Conservancy Magazine 5/6 1989:10-16. *Reschke, C. 1993. Estimated numbers of EOs, acreage, trends, and threats for selected New York natural communities. Unpublished report. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Natural Heritage Program, Latham.

Reuter, D. D. 1986. Sedge meadows of the upper midwest: A stewardship summary. Natural Areas Journal 6(4):2-34.

Reynolds, R. V., and A. H. Pierson. 1923. Lumber cut of the United States, 1870-1920. USDA Bulletin 1119, Washington, D.C.

Richardson, C. J. 1983. Pocosins: Vanishing wastelands or valuable wetlands. BioScience 33:626-633.

Ride, W. L. D. 1975. Toward an integrated system: a study of the selection of acquisition of natural parks and nature reserves in West Australia. Pages 64-85 in F. Fenner, editor.

A natural system of ecological reserves in Australia. Reports of the Australian Center of Science 19.

Riskind, D. H., R. George, G. Waggerman, and T. Hayes. 1987. Restoration plans in the subtropical United States. Restoration plans and Management Notes 5(2):80-82.

Robbins, C. S., D. K. Dawson, and B. A. Dowell. 1989a. Habitat area requirements of breeding forest birds of the Middle Atlantic states. Wildlife Monographs 103:1-34.

Robbins, C. S., J. R. Sauer, R. S. Greenberg, and S. Droege. 1989b. Population declines in North American birds that migrate to the neotropics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 86:7658-7662.

Ross, J. 1992. Dangers in paradise. Sierra 7-8/1992:44-51,83-88.

Russell, C., and L. Morse. 1992. Extinct and possibly extinct plant species of the United States and Canada. Unpublished report. Review draft, 13 March 1992. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Va.

Ryan, J. C. 1992. Life support: Conserving biological diversity. Worldwatch Paper 108. Worldwatch Institute, Washington, D.C.

Schemske, D. W., B. C. Husband, M. H. Ruckelshaus, C. Goodwillie, I. M. Parker, and J. G. Bishop. 1994. Evaluating approaches to the conservation of rare and endangered plants. Ecology 75:584-606. *Schroeder, W. A. 1982. Presettlement prairie of Missouri. Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City.

Schwartz, M. W. 1994. Natural distribution and abundance of forest species and communities in northern Florida. Ecology 75:687-705. *Scientific Review Panel, Southern California Coastal Sage Scrub. 1992. Coastal sage scrub survey guidelines. Center for Conservation Biology, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif.

Scott, J. M., B. Csuti, J. D. Jacobi, and J. E. Estes. 1987. Species richness: A geographic approach to protecting future biological diversity. BioScience 37:782-788.

Scott, J. M., B. Csuti, K. Smith, J. E. Estes, and S. Caicco. 1991a. Gap analysis of species richness and vegetation cover: An integrated biodiversity conservation strategy. Pages 282-297 in K. A. Kohm, editor. Balancing on the Brink of Extinction: The Endangered Species Act and Lessons for the Future. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Scott, J. M., B. Csuti, and S. Caicco. 1991b. Gap analysis: assessing protection needs. Pages 15-26 in W. E. Hudson, editor. Landscape Linkages and Biodiversity. Defenders of Wildlife and Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Scott, J. M., F. Davis, B. Csuti, R. Noss, B. Butterfield, C. Groves, J. Anderson, S. Caicco, F. D’Erchia, T. C. Edwards, J. Ulliman, and R. G. Wright. 1993. Gap analysis: A geographical approach to protection of biological diversity. Wildlife Monographs 123:141.

Shaffer, M. L. 1981. Minimum population sizes for species conservation. BioScience 31: 131-134.

Sharitz, R. R., L. R. Boring, D. H. Van Lear, and J. E. Pinder. 1992. Integrating ecological concepts with natural resource management of southern forests. Ecological Applications 2:226-237.

Shelford, V. E., editor. 1926. Naturalist’s guide to the Americas. Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore, Md.

Shelford, V. E. 1933. Ecological Society of America: A nature sanctuary plan unanimously adopted by the Society, 28 December 1932. Ecology 14:240-245.

Shen, S. 1987. Biological diversity and public policy. BioScience 37:709-712.

Sherman, K. 1991. The large marine ecosystem concept: research and management strategy for living marine resources. Ecological Applications 1:349-360.

Silver, D. 1992. Protection of gnatcatcher falls prey to politics. Los Angeles Times, 26 April 1992:B2. *Simberloff, D. 1991. Review of theory relevant to acquiring land. Report to Florida Department of Natural Resources. Florida State University, Tallahassee.

Smith, D. D. 1981. Iowa prairie–an endangered ecosystem. Proceedings of the Iowa Academy of Science 88:7-10. *Smith, L. M. 1993. Estimated presettlement and current acres of natural plant communities in Louisiana currently recognized by the Louisiana Natural Heritage Program, January 1993. Unpublished table. Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Natural Heritage Program, Baton Rouge.

Soulé, M. E., editor. 1987. Viable populations for conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Soulé, M. E. 1991. Conservation: tactics for a constant crisis. Science 253:744-750.

Spies, T. A., and J. F. Franklin. 1988. Old growth and forest dynamics in the Douglas-fir region of western Oregon and Washington. Natural Areas Journal 8:190-201.

Stebbins, G. L. 1980. Rarity of plant species: A synthetic viewpoint. Rhodora 82:77-86. *Stevenson, J. C., and N. M. Confer. 1978. Summary of available information on Chesapeake Bay submerged vegetation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services. FWS/OBS-78/66.

Stolzenburg, W. 1992. Silent sirens. Nature Conservancy May/June 1992:8-13.

Stuckey, R. L., and G. L. Denny. 1981. Prairie fens and bogs in Ohio: floristic similarities, differences, and geographic affinities. Pages 1-33 in R. C. Romans, editor. Geobotany II. Plenum Press, N.Y.

Stuebner, S. 1992. Leave it to beaver. High Country News 24(15):1,10-12.

Summers, C. A., and R. L. Linder. 1978. Food habits of the black-tailed prairie dog in western South Dakota. Journal of Range Management 31:134-136.

Tear, T., J. M. Scott, P. Hayward and B. Griffith. 1993. Status and prospects for success of the endangered species act: A look at recovery plans. Science 262:976-977.

Temple, S. A., and J. R. Cary. 1988. Modeling dynamics of habitat-interior bird populations in fragmented landscapes. Conservation Biology 2:340-347.

Terborgh, J. 1989. Where have all the birds gone? Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.

Thomson, G. W. 1987. Iowa’s forest area in 1832: A reevaluation. Proceedings of the Iowa Academy of Science 94:116-120.

Thomson, G. W., and H. G. Hertel. 1981. The forest resources of Iowa in 1980. Proceedings of the Iowa Academy of Science 88:2-6. *Tiner, R. W. 1984. Wetlands of the United States: current status and recent trends. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.

Tiner, R. W. 1989. Current status and recent trends in Pennsylvania’s wetlands. Pages 368-378 in S. K. Majumdar, R. P. Brooks, F. J. Brenner, and R. W. Tiner, editors. Wetlands Ecology and Conservation: Emphasis in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Academy of Science, Easton.

Tisdale, E. W. 1961. Ecologic changes in the Palouse. Northwest Science 35:134-138.

*Toney, T. 1991. Public prairies of Missouri. Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City.

Turner, M. G., and C. L. Ruscher. 1988. Changes in landscape patterns in Georgia, USA. Landscape Ecology 1:241-251. *United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization. 1974. Task Force on Criteria and Guidelines for the Choice and Establishment of Biosphere Reserves. Man and the Biosphere Report No. 22. Paris, France. *United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service. 1984. California’s county resources inventory. Summary tabulations. Davis, Calif. *U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985. Key tree-cactus (Cereus robinii) recovery plan technical draft. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, Ga. *U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Proposed listing rule for California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica). Portland, Oreg.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; Threatened coastal California gnatcatcher, Final Rule and Proposed Special Rule. Federal Register 58:16742-16753.

Usher, M. B. 1986. Wildlife conservation evaluation. Chapman and Hall, London, UK.

Ware, S., C. C. Frost, and P. Doerr. 1993. Southern mixed hardwood forest: The former longleaf pine forest. Pages 447-493 in W. H. Martin, S. G. Boyce, and A. C. Echternacht, editors. Biodiversity of the Southeastern United States: Lowland Terrestrial Communities. Wiley, N.Y.

Water Environment Federation, The. 1993. The Clean Water Act of 1987. The Water Environment Federation 318 pp.

Watson, A. 1992. Regenerating the Caledonian forest: An ecological restoration plans project in Scotland. Wild Earth, Special Issue: 75-77.

Weaver, P. L. 1989. Rare trees in the Colorado Forest of Puerto Rico’s Luquillo Mountains. Natural Areas Journal 9:169-173.

West, N. E. 1995. Strategies for maintenance and repair of biotic community diversity on rangelands. In R. Szaro, editor. Biodiversity in Managed Landscapes. Oxford University Press, New York. In press.

Westman, W. E. 1981. Diversity relations and succession in Californian coastal sage scrub. Ecology 62:170-184.

Whicker, A. D., and J. K. Detling. 1988. Ecological consequences of prairie dog disturbances. BioScience 38:778-785.

Whisenant, S. G. 1990. Changing fire frequencies on Idaho’s Snake River Plains: Ecological and management implications. Pages 4-10 in E. D. McArthur, E. M. Romney, S. D. Smith, and P. T. Tueller, compilers. Proceedings of the Symposium on Cheatgrass Invasion, Shrub Die-Off, and Other Aspects of Shrub Biology and Management. General Technical Report INT-276. U.S. Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah.

Whitcomb, R. F., C. S. Robbins, J. F. Lynch, B. L. Whitcomb, M. K. Klimkiewicz, and D. Bystrak. 1981. Effects of forest fragmentation on avifauna of the eastern deciduous forest. Pages 125-206 in R. L. Burgess and D. M. Sharpe, editors. Forest Island Dynamics in Man-dominated Landscapes. Springer-Verlag, N.Y.

White, P. S., E. R. Buckner, J. D. Pittillo, and C. V. Cogbill. 1993. High-elevation forests: Spruces-fir forests, northern hardwoods forests, and associated communities. Pages 305-337 in W. H. Martin, S. G. Boyce, and A. C. Echternacht, editors. Biodiversity of the Southeastern United States: Upland Terrestrial Communities. Wiley, N.Y.

Wilburn, J. 1985. Redwood forest. Outdoor California, January-February 1985:13-16.

Wilcove, D. S. 1987. From fragmentation to extinction. Natural Areas Journal 7(1):2329.

Wilcove, D. S., C. H. McLellan, and A. P. Dobson. 1986. Habitat fragmentation in the temperate zone. Pages 237-256 in M. E. Soulé, editor. Conservation Biology: The Science of Scarcity and Diversity. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Mass.

Wilcox, B. A., and D. D. Murphy. 1985. Conservation strategy: The effects of fragmentation on extinction. American Naturalist 125:879-887.

Williams, J. E., J. E. Johnson, D. A. Hendrickson, S. Contreras-Balderas, J. D. Williams, M. Navarro-Mendoza, D. E. McAllister, and J. E. Deacon. Fishes of North America endangered, threatened, or of special concern. Fisheries 14(6):2-20.

Wilson, E. O. 1985. The biological diversity crisis. Bio-Science 35:700-706.

Wilson, E. O. 1988. Biodiversity. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

World Resources Institute. 1992. The 1992 Information Please Environmental Almanac. World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C. *World Resources Institute, The World Conservation Union, United Nations Environment Programme. 1992. Global biodiversity strategy: guidelines for action to save, study, and use earth’s biotic wealth sustainably and equitably. World Resources

Institute, International Union for the Conservation of Nature, United Nations Environmental Program, Washington, D.C. *World Wildlife Fund Canada. 1993. Protected areas gap analysis methodology. Draft report. World Wildlife Fund Canada, Endangered Spaces Campaign, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Zeveloff, S. I. 1988. Mammals of the intermountain west. University of Utah Press, S

1 Comment

Posted by on September 22, 2016 in Uncategorized


Wild Horses and Controversy — Notes from the Cascade Mountain Range

“Soon we will not have available our historic link to Wild Horses.  Ignorance is dominating the Wild Horse issue, as if trading slaughter for Birth Control to Extinction is an answer to save them!  No!  It is simply an overwhelming amount of ignorance, from those who have no clue in the matter of Wild Horse management nor anything of Wild Horse virtue and necessity — Our American Icon has so many positive attritbutes, and unless one knows of nature, our environment, and our Natural Ecological Systems, they will never know, nor acknowledge the benefits of Wild Horses on our Public Lands.  Below are notes and from limited distribution, so perhaps new information to many. . .”  — John Cox, The Cascades

The process of whether we want America’s Icon to go to slaughter, or use pesticide and other birth controls on them (because of being nuisance wildlife to welfare ranchers — the supposed misinformation link of knowledge) is not and never will be the choice – WE CAN PLACE WILD HORSES BACK ONTO PUBLIC LANDS MUCH EASIER, AS THERE IS NO OVER-POPULATION OF WILD HORSES — AND ALREADY DESIGNATED THEIR LANDS BY LAW!

Now let’s discuss why – and for several reasons.

First: There exist too many cattle on America’s Public Lands, and due to this over population our environments and ecological systems are being destroyed;

Second: Public Health Hazards are developing, aggressively I might add, even while I am writing this, and beef, from Public Lands Grazing, is diseased – to what % – percentage we are unsure at this moment due to BoLM’s inadequate checks-n-balance system and disregard to Public Health and America’s Food Chain safety, favoring welfare ranchers out of their fear of the welfare ranchers, but still remains a fact and very dangerous within our FOOD-CHAIN;

Third: We have gone from bad-scenario to worst-scenario (BLM not doing their job of safeguarding America’s Food Chain and allowing welfare ranching to do as they please, while the current beef situation becoming a hazard to America’s Food Chain;

Fourth: Within the Humane Society, who misinform the public constantly about their Pesticide known as PZP, we find has connection to cattle ranching/welfare ranchers directly (i.e. family) as well as BLM previous and questionable employees (charged with abuse previously some of them) – both are and remain within the ranks, and employed at HSUS — we find this to be an overwhelming Conflict of Interest, both situations;

Fifth: We also discover, through factual research and credible sources, several non-profits today are currently, or have done, or receiving money from BoLM grants or payroll money as well, applications for grants and even employment from the BoLM – we find this directly a conflict of interest, and a violation of their non-profit status and their own By-Laws (by law they must operate under these By-Laws in order to maintain their non-profit status).



Please share this far and wide — as American’s – Taxpayers need to know what is going on within our Public Lands, and the travesty that continues to happen and growing worse, due to misinformation, propaganda, and outright lies complete with conflicts of interest situations, and plenty of them . . .


We call modernization or technology necessary, even though it is destructive to all our environments and wildlife;grey-horse-looking

We call the killing of wildlife sport, or worse, proper management, it is not at all;

We call American Icons, the Wild Horses, a nuisance, shoot them with birth controls, kill them by horrendous slaughter, and say it is necessary, while we look-away or ignore the real nuisance and destroyer of our Public Lands = cattle;

We kill hundreds of coyotes over a weekend, and call it a competition, unknowing we just disturbed and sent the process of Natural Selection into chaos;

We kill our Apex Predators, and call it management of nuisance wildlife, and do not consider why our Natural Environments and Ecological Systems require their very existence for healthy Ecological Systems, for a healthy life on this planet for All;

We remain being led by people of irrational-ignorance, profound stupidity, all the while we watch our ecology, our wildlife, and our Earth being destroyed.

Natural Selection, or the growth of our Universe and our Earth of All Things of Life, remains not being allowed to do so, and by Fear, by Perception, by Ignorance of one species – the human species, which destroys itself within this cloak of Ignorance.

Perhaps it is time to Stand-Up and Speak Loudly – Perhaps it is time to Speak for Our Wildlife, Our Life, Our Earth, and against Fear and against Ignorance!

Blessings to Our Earth — Mountain Lake, The Cascades


Something important to read — and Understand, to contradict misinformation as it bleeds out to the public, in the matters of the Pesticide called/referenced as PZP.

We see the Humane Society (BoLM supporters for Grant Money, and falsely promote saving wild horses to obtain donations), currently, feels taking the Wild Horses to Extinction (per section of their letter – given below – to promote such), when compared to sending 44,000 wild horses to slaughter, poses a much better situation to the public, to fool the Public and American Taxpayers by delivering and discussing Misinformation, and favorable to receiving grant and donation money to themselves and from BoLM Grants, et al. . . Frankly, many of us, American Taxpayers, perceive the HSUS simply attempting to make bank on the extremism of the WH&B Board and their unethical circumstance – toward another NON-HUMANE recommendation of WILD HORSES TO EXTINCTION – (read further)

Then there exists the obvious facts: HSUS: Is the registrant of PZP / ZonaStat-H with the Environmental Protection Agency. Thus, HSUS’ information is not impartial because the organization has its reputation to protect. Further, HSUS has submitted a proposal for a multi-year project in which BoLM would pay for HSUS staff to experiment on Arizona’s burros via “opportunistic” darting with PZP.

6230052936b8ed231aPesticide: PZP is not just a sterilant but also a registered pesticide that was approved by the EPA for use on wild horses and burros “where they have become a nuisance.” However, PZP was registered without the standard testing requirements. There is currently a lawsuit challenging the legitimacy of the registration, especially in light of new studies that have disclosed PZP’s many adverse side-effects. So now we can read further a part of their propaganda letter to the Public, loaded with misinformation and outright lies —

“. . . In an attempt to solve this financial crisis, caused solely by the agency digging itself into a hole by mismanaging the wild horse and burro program over the last decade, the Advisory Board made the recommendation that the BLM consider euthanatizing all unadopted horses in holding facilities. While the Advisory Board has no legal authority to mandate action on the agency’s part, the agency will consider this recommendation.

The Humane Society of the United States firmly believes that to get this program on the right track, animals should not be put on the chopping block. Instead, the agency should aggressively implement fertility control programs throughout the West. These fertility programs can work- if only the government committed to taking the humane pathway forward. . .” — Propaganda letters out to the public by HSUS — Gillian Lyons, Wild Horse and Burro Program Manager, Wildlife Protection Department

THE REALITY: Sterilizing mustangs: PZP is a potent weapon in BoLM’s arsenal — for its biological warfare against the wild horses. But population control for wild horses is unnecessary because there is no overpopulation. Why would we contracept herds whose population is inadequate for genetic viability? Why would we contracept herds based on falsified figures? Logically we wouldn’t and ethically we shouldn’t. Further, if PZP were going to stop the roundups, it would have done so long ago for the famous Pryor Mountain herd, home to Cloud, the stallion who was the subject of a number of documentaries that aired on PBS. The Pryor Mountain mares have been darted with PZP for nearly two decades. Yet roundups have been scheduled there like clockwork every 3 years and, in spite of intensifying the PZP treatments recently, BoLM tried to implement yearly roundups until stopped by a Friends of Animals lawsuit.

PZP — the anti-vaccine: PZP causes disease — auto-immune disease. PZP “works” by tricking the immune system into producing antibodies that target and attack the ovaries. The antibodies cause ovarian dystrophy, oophoritis (inflammation of the ovaries), ovarian cysts, destruction of oocytes in growing follicles, and depletion of resting follicles. The mare’s estrogen-levels drop markedly as PZP destroys her ovaries. Ultimately, PZP sterilizes her. Because PZP stimulates the immune system, it ironically works “best” — sterilizes faster — in mares that have strong immune-function. Such mares respond to the anti-vaccine and produce quantities of PZP antibodies that destroy their ovaries. But, conversely, PZP may not work at all in mares whose immune-function is weak or depressed. Those mares fail to respond to PZP. They keep getting pregnant and producing foals who, like their dams, suffer from weak immune-function. So, the PZP pesticide works against the very horses that Nature has best equipped for survival-against-disease while favoring and selecting for the immuno-compromised. Worse yet, radioimmunoassay tests indicated that PZP antibodies are transferred from mother to female offspring via the placenta and milk.

God Bless — From the Cascade Mountain Range


Posted by on September 22, 2016 in Uncategorized