Wild horses, Ecological Health, and cleaning up the government’s mess on Public Lands

When I’m up in the mountains, collecting data in the field, first thing I look at when I realize I am within a healthy ecosystem, is its stability.  I look for the things that may also destabilize the system, that is, once I understand how each is functioning together.  How the vegetation in the terrestrial environment and landscape is functioning alongside wildlife and how the wildlife, the browsers, the small critters, the insects, the keystone predators, associate with the marine environment, and if there is a creek, or a stream, I want to find out and know how all of this is affecting the overall ecosystem, or process within that habitat.

I also know from wildfires, hurricane or natural disturbances, melted glacier pack, or even floods, that the recolonization by pioneer species becomes inevitable at times.  We can look at the terrestrial perspective, and discuss new growth timber that becomes old-growth, and how it significantly affected each habitat within its unique capacity to develop a positive and healthy habitat process and eventual system, that indeed created a stability within the environment.  Nature thrives very well on consistency as well as routine – the four seasons for example, human’s uncomfortable, but for growth and health; indeed, Nature thrives on the seasons being consistent, an integration takes place because of the constant power of each season.

Right now, we can gain a new perspective about Wild Horses being, some would say, rewilded; but, I refrain from that phrase.  just as a new tree turns into old-growth and within a thriving and healthy habitat and over the years of consistency, in this case, develops into a positive system. . . I am not discussing the re-establishment nor a re-acquaintance by the Wild Horses and actually placing them back into their home environments; neither am I establishing a pioneer species within these environments where the Wild Horses come from.

The overwhelming fact of this is beyond debate, the Wild Horses were taken illegally by government agencies that do not understand habitat-process, stability of land mass and wildlife, nor do they understand the tools that are needed for habitats to become of value, that can and do (e.g. when managed properly) enhance our Natural Resources (i.e. enhancing our food supplements within a healthy environment), nor does government agencies have the ability to understand good science as far as we can see through their current actions.  Bigotry and bias are not good decision-making backgrounds, as we see daily in government, and total ignorance even worse in the decision-making process. . . as we see on our Public and Forestry lands of today overwhelmed with bad decision making results —

The question soon centers around the term natural disturbance, how and what may dramatically change the landscape.  But should we simply pay attention to the landscape, when compared to understanding the entire scope of what lay underneath the landscape, soil quality throughout the landscape, and clean water in streams, or other natural occurrences, and what about the natural resources and the element of growth and quality of the Natural Resources for Our Nation’s food chain supplements of grains, oats, and other important grasses, the element of substance, the element of pollution or no pollution, the element of human intervention and interference compared to scientific-based human intervention and positive habitat management.

Now we step into the realm of Primary Succession, or the change in an environment when it is colonized, or re-colonized, or when a disturbance wipes out a healthy ecosystem that was previously present in the environment. . .  Government intervention from their special interests or political agendas remain basically extraordinary disturbance-occurrence and to include cattle, sheep, mining, oil, illegal or very questionable fencing, as well as many other incompetent management practices brought about by corrupt government intervention.

The truth is, government employees could care less because it’s not their money paying for it all, it’s the taxpayers’ that pay for all of it – all of this ongoing and current nonsense upon our public lands, and the corrupt management paradigms that exist, or what some refer to as mismanagement.

In the process of Primary Succession, the ecosystem process builds or rebuilds itself from the ground up.  But within either building process the establishment of “pioneer species” takes place.  For example, we reestablish wild horses into an area that was designated as a Wild Horse area, and in accordance with the Wild Horse and Burro act of 1971.  We can truthfully point out that the cattle, sheep, mining, oil industries destroy the land to such a point it is non-useful.  In this case we can now call the Wild Horses a “pioneer species” – which would establish themselves back into or onto their land and environmental complex.

I state “pioneer species”, as what we are trying to accomplish is a healthy environment complex, and the system to do so is, starting over again.  Now you see why I refrain from speaking about the term to re-wild a species, as we are not doing so within that term, but we are establishing a “pioneer species” and upon lands that have been Desertified, or in another words shown to be destroyed to such a point the land is Non-Useful any longer – which, under this paradigm the Wild Horses reestablished first, followed by other plants, bacteria and fungus growth, insects, and finally more animals.

This is where moderation of populations becomes grounded and within the first year or two, both wildlife and terrestrial, as some will thrive and some will not do so whatsoever.  The rebuilding phase of this type of environment, and the complex structure that is within it, of all living organisms, and the Yin and Yang of the universal quality, some will make it some will not, but indeed, eventually a stable ecological habitat and a positive and thorough process or basis of building the foundation, only then does the ecological process become enhanced positively, especially toward positive growth and moderations of population dynamics within all species of both vegetation and wildlife.

What I have found over the years within my research, reference materials, and being in the field, is that the time from primary succession to a stable and thorough ecological process can take decades.  But, and this is extraordinary, is the fact that population moderation happens within the first year or two of the reestablished ecological habitat, and within the process that develops within a natural and constant paradigm based on sound science, common sense, and a respect for not only nature and its natural process, but for the wildlife and its diversity and growth, as well as within the terrestrial environment that grows within the habitat.

Now I can discuss “Secondary Succession”, which occurs when an ecological habitat has been damaged and is being repopulated.  Here we can once again use the way the current government agencies go about managing our public lands, and refrain from such bad and irrelevant management principle’s, and also use a Stand of 180 trees in the forest.  There process, which lacks good science, is to log off and obtain profit from the 180 trees that are in a stand covering 110 acres.  We then find they will use bulldozers with very heavy chains, and after the trees have been logged off, to basically rip apart and tear apart the entire environmental complex.  Grass will be allowed to grow, if at all, and taxpayers will pay for the seeds very definitely, as well as all this other maniacal and perverted type of land management based on no science whatsoever, and after a year or two or five, cattle will be moved in and at a cut-rate cost to the welfare rancher, which the taxpayers will cover, and obtain nothing back except higher taxes.

Yes, there is a reason the grazing permit program and the welfare ranching community have received $531.6 billion in subsidies over the past few years, once you start understanding, observing, and seeing what the result of their management, corrupt within all means and ways, and done with no common sense what so ever.  

But rather a  bias form of ignorance, which says it is okay to choose cattle over thousands upon thousands of acres of wilderness area, which could have provided us much needed diversity of continued Natural Resources over many years (our Natural Grass Lands Resource domestically, is down to 16% availability to our Food Chain Supplement, for example, and going further downward, with no Resource upswing in sight, due to poor management of our public lands), rather than the destruction from the cattle, which obligates our Public Lands for a short time period of graze, then followed by destruction, and followed again by years of non-use due to the destructive nature, desertification continues, of cattle, sheep, mining, and the oil industries awkward and unregulated use of our Public Lands.

Are we using our Public Lands beneficially, and with a positive value toward Taxpayer money, value-based, and what will the taxpayer’s get out of it, the entire situation, and the costly incompetent management?   ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!  PERHAPS HIGHER TAXES, IS ABOUT ALL.

In a functioning ecosystem, the process of “Secondary Succession” never really ends.  Now we can refer to recolonization, which begins moderately, with the insect world, the keystone predators, the adversarial situations that are formed within predator-prey relationships all the way from bacteria and fungus, up to and including the bear, cougar, wolves, the marine environment of fisheries, et al.  Then we get to the specialty wildlife, specialty insects, predators large and small.

What I have seen in different environmental complex situations, a good example is around Mount Saint Helens, wherein an overly amount of spiders and their drifting spiderwebs developed to begin the “pioneer species” after the eruption, and possibly due to lack of prey, many of the diversity of spiders left, or disappeared.

What develops is a situation, regardless of which wildlife large or small, one species replaces another over months or seasons.  But what is also consistent is the fact that the number of species that remain constant, have not only found their predator-prey relationship that enhances their life-span and quality of life, whether it be grass or whether it be fungus or whether it be whatever, that eventually within the year their population will moderate, as good well research science as well as data collection and through observations, show us quite well.  The competition for food, water, and shelter becomes less, as growth remains predicated upon size of habitat, how fast the population moderates, among other substantial habitat community paradigms.

This is what good science shows us.  This is what the government agencies in charge of our lands does not seem to know, nor do they acknowledge the existence of such information.  And this is troubling.


Michael E. Soulè and John Terborgh, “The Policy and Science of Regional Conservation,” Chapter 1 in Continental Conservation.

Michael Soulè and Reed Noss, “Rewilding and Biodiversity as Complementary Goals for Continental Conservation,” Wild Earth, Fall 1998, 22.

William Lynn, “Deep Rewilding” Wildlands Network blog.

“Rewilding North America: A Vision for Conservation in the 21st Century” by Dave Foreman (Island Press 2004).   Order from The Rewilding Institute.

“Continental Conservation: Scientific Foundations of Regional Reserve Networks” edited by Michael E. Soulè and John Terborgh (Island Press 1999). Order from The Rewilding Institute.

Crutzen PJ (2002) Geology of mankind. Nature 415(6867):23.

Sandom C, Faurby S, Sandel B, Svenning J-C (2014) Global late Quaternary megafauna extinctions linked to humans, not climate change. Proc Biol Sci 281(1787):20133254.

Turvey ST, Fritz SA (2011) The ghosts of mammals past: Biological and geographical patterns of global mammalian extinction across the Holocene. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 366(1577):2564–2576.

Barnosky AD, Koch PL, Feranec RS, Wing SL, Shabel AB (2004) Assessing the causes of late Pleistocene extinctions on the continents. Science 306(5693):70–75.

Dirzo R, et al. (2014) Defaunation in the Anthropocene. Science 345(6195):401–406.

Estes JA, et al. (2011) Trophic downgrading of planet Earth. Science 333(6040):301–306.

Ripple WJ, et al. (2014) Status and ecological effects of the World’s largest carnivores. Science 343(6167):1241484.

Terborgh J, Estes JA, eds (2010) Trophic Cascades: Predators, Prey, and the Changing Dynamics of Nature (Island Press, Washington, DC).

Soule M, Noss R (1998) Rewilding and biodiversity: Complementary goals for continental conservation. Wild Earth 8(3):1–11.

Zimov SA, et al. (1995) Steppe-tundra transition: A herbivore-driven biome shift at the end of the Pleistocene. Am Nat 146(5):765–794.

Baerselman F, Vera F (1995) Nature Development. An Exploratory Study for the Construction of Ecological Networks (Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries, The Hague, The Netherlands).

Jørgensen D (2015) Rethinking rewilding. Geoforum doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2014.11.016.

Seddon PJ, Griffiths CJ, Soorae PS, Armstrong DP (2014) Reversing defaunation: Restoring species in a changing world. Science 345(6195):406–412.

Navarro LM, Pereira HM (2012) Rewilding abandoned landscapes in Europe. Ecosystems (N Y) 15(6):900–912.

Schnitzler A (2014) Towards a new European wilderness: Embracing unmanaged forest growth and the decolonisation of nature. Landscape Urban Plan 126:74–80.

Donlan CJ, et al. (2006) Pleistocene rewilding: An optimistic agenda for twenty-first century conservation. Am Nat 168(5):660–681.

Donlan J, et al. (2005) Re-wilding North America. Nature 436(7053):913–914.

Galetti M (2004) Parks of the Pleistocene: Recreating the Cerrado and the Pantanal with megafauna. Nat Conserv 2(1):93–100.

Smith FA, et al. (2010) The evolution of maximum body size of terrestrial mammals. Science 330(6008):1216–1219.

Nenzén HK, Montoya D, Varela S (2014) The impact of 850,000 years of climate changes on the structure and dynamics of mammal food webs. PLoS One 9(9):e106651.

Carrasco MA, Barnosky AD, Graham RW (2009) Quantifying the extent of North American mammal extinction relative to the pre-anthropogenic baseline. PLoS One 4(12):e8331.

Janzen DH, Martin PS (1982) Neotropical anachronisms: The fruits the gomphotheres ate. Science 215(4528):19–27.

Hayward MW (2009) Conservation management for the past, present and future. Biodivers Conserv 18(4):765–775.

Sandom C, Donlan CJ, Svenning J-C, Hansen D (2013) Rewilding. Key Topics in Conservation Biology 2, eds Macdonald DW, Willis KJ (Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, UK), pp 430–451.

Hansen DM, Donlan CJ, Griffiths CJ, Campbell KJ (2010) Ecological history and latent conservation potential: Large and giant tortoises as a model for taxon substitutions. Ecography 33(2):272–284.

Reardon S (2014) Rewilding: The next big thing? New Sci 221(2958):40–43.

Terborgh J, et al. (1999) The role of top carnivores in regulating terrestrial ecosystems. Continental Conservation—Scientic Foundations of Regional Reserve Networks, eds Soulé ME, Terborgh J (Island Press, Washington, DC), pp 39–64.

Haynes G (2012) Elephants (and extinct relatives) as earth-movers and ecosystem engineers. Geomorphology 157–158:99–107.

Morrison JC, Sechrest W, Dinerstein E, Wilcove DS, Lamoreux JF (2007) Persistence of large mammal faunas as indicators of global human impacts. J Mammal 88(6):1363–1380.

Schmölcke U, Zachos FE (2005) Holocene distribution and extinction of the moose (Alces alces, Cervidae) in Central Europe. Mamm Biol 70(6):329–344.

Laliberte AS, Ripple WJ (2004) Range contractions of North American carnivores and ungulates. Bioscience 54(2):123–138.

Crees JJ, Turvey ST (2014) Holocene extinction dynamics of Equus hydruntinus, a late-surviving European megafaunal mammal. Quat Sci Rev 91:16–29.

Smith FA, Elliott SM, Lyons SK (2010) Methane emissions from extinct megafauna. Nat Geosci 3(6):374–375.

Gill JL (2014) Ecological impacts of the late Quaternary megaherbivore extinctions. New Phytol 201(4):1163–1169.

Sandom CJ, Ejrnæs R, Hansen MDD, Svenning J-C (2014) High herbivore density associated with vegetation diversity in interglacial ecosystems. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111(11):4162–4167.

Doughty CE, Wolf A, Field CB (2010) Biophysical feedbacks between the Pleistocene megafauna extinction and climate: The first human-induced global warming? Geophys Res Lett 37(15):L15703.

Cenizo MM, Agnolin FL, Pomi LH (2015) A new Pleistocene bird assemblage from the southern Pampas (Buenos Aires, Argentina). Palaeogeogr Palaeoclimatol Palaeoecol 420:65–81.

Tyrberg T (2008) The Late Pleistocene continental avian extinction—An evaluation of the fossil evidence. Oryctos 7:249–269.

Sánchez MV, Genise JF, Bellosi ES, Román-Carrión JL, Cantil LF (2013) Dung beetle brood balls from Pleistocene highland palaeosols of Andean Ecuador: A reassessment of Sauer’s Coprinisphaera and their palaeoenvironments. Palaeogeogr Palaeoclimatol Palaeoecol 386:257–274.

Chamberlain CP, et al. (2005) Pleistocene to recent dietary shifts in California condors. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102(46):16707–16711.

Côté SD, Rooney TP, Tremblay J-P, Dussault C, Waller DM (2004) Ecological impacts of deer overabundance. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 35:113–147.

Campos-Arceiz A, Blake S (2011) Megagardeners of the forests—The role of elephants in seed dispersal. Acta Oecol 37(6):542–553.

Chapron G, et al. (2014) Recovery of large carnivores in Europe’s modern human-dominated landscapes. Science 346(6216):1517–1519.

Deinet S, et al. (2013) Wildlife Comeback in Europe: The Recovery of Selected Mammal and Bird Species. Final Report to Rewilding Europe by ZSL, Birdlife International and the European Bird Census Council (Zoological Society of London, London).

Ripple WJ, Beschta RL (2012) Large predators limit herbivore densities in northern forest ecosystems. Eur J Wildl Res 58(4):733–742.

Owen-Smith N (1987) Pleistocene extinctions: The pivotal role of megaherbivores. Palaeobiology 13(3):351–362.

Hopcraft JG, Olff H, Sinclair AR (2010) Herbivores, resources and risks: Alternating regulation along primary environmental gradients in savannas. Trends Ecol Evol 25(2):119–128.

Van Valkenburgh B, Hayward MW, Ripple WJ, Meloro C, Roth VL (2016) The impact of large terrestrial carnivores on Pleistocene ecosystems. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 113:862–867.

Bocherens H (2015) Isotopic tracking of large carnivore palaeoecology in the mammoth steppe. Quat Sci Rev 117:42–71.

Coltrain JB, et al. (2004) Rancho La Brea stable isotope biogeochemistry and its implications for the palaeoecology of late Pleistocene, coastal southern California. Palaeogeogr Palaeoclimatol Palaeoecol 205(3-4):199–219.

Skogland T (1991) What are the effects of predators on large ungulate populations? Oikos 61(3):401–411.

Doughty CE, Wolf A, Malhi Y (2013) The legacy of the Pleistocene megafauna extinctions on nutrient availability in Amazonia. Nat Geosci 6(9):761–764.

Hobbs NT (1996) Modification of ecosystems by ungulates. J Wildl Manage 60(4):695–713.

Ripple WJ, Van Valkenburgh B (2010) Linking top-down forces to the Pleistocene megafaunal extinctions. Bioscience 60(7):516–526.

Duffy JE, et al. (2007) The functional role of biodiversity in ecosystems: Incorporating trophic complexity. Ecol Lett 10(6):522–538.

Waldram MS, Bond WJ, Stock WD (2008) Ecological engineering by a mega-grazer: White rhino impacts on a South African savanna. Ecosystems (N Y) 11(1):101–112.

Gill JL, Williams JW, Jackson ST, Lininger KB, Robinson GS (2009) Pleistocene megafaunal collapse, novel plant communities, and enhanced fire regimes in North America. Science 326(5956):1100–1103.

Rule S, et al. (2012) The aftermath of megafaunal extinction: Ecosystem transformation in Pleistocene Australia. Science 335(6075):1483–1486.

Dobson AP (2014) Yellowstone wolves and the forces that structure natural systems. PLoS Biol 12(12):e1002025.

Beschta RL, Ripple WJ (2012) The role of large predators in maintaining riparian plant communities and river morphology. Geomorphology 157-158:88–98.

Hebblewhite M, Smith DW (2010) Wolf community ecology: Ecosystem effects of recovering wolves in Banff and Yellowstone national parks. The World of Wolves: New Perspectives on Ecology, Behavior and Management, eds Musiani M, Boitani L, Paquet P (Univ of Calgary Press, Calgary, AB, Canada), pp 69–120.

Callan R, Nibbelink NP, Rooney TP, Wiedenhoeft JE, Wydeven AP (2013) Recolonizing wolves trigger a trophic cascade in Wisconsin (USA). J Ecol 101(4):837–845.

Kuijper DPJ, et al. (2013) Landscape of fear in Europe: Wolves affect spatial patterns of ungulate browsing in Białowieża Primeval Forest, Poland. Ecography 36(12):1263–1275.

Vera FWM (2009) Large-scale nature development—The Oostvaardersplassen. British Wildlife 20(5):28–36.

Smit C, Ruifrok JL, van Klink R, Olff H (2015) Rewilding with large herbivores: The importance of grazing refuges for sapling establishment and wood-pasture formation. Biol Conserv 182:134–142

Cornelissen P, Bokdam J, Sykora K, Berendse F (2014) Effects of large herbivores on wood pasture dynamics in a European wetland system. Basic Appl Ecol 15(5):396–406.

Zimov SA (2005) Pleistocene park: Return of the mammoth’s ecosystem. Science 308(5723):796–798.

Zimov SA, Zimov NS, Tikhonov AN, Chapin FS III (2012) Mammoth steppe: a high-productivity phenomenon. Quat Sci Rev 57:26–45.

Hansen DM, Galetti M (2009) The forgotten megafauna. Science 324(5923):42–43.

Griffiths CJ, et al. (2012) The welfare implications of using exotic tortoises as ecological replacements. PLoS One 7(6):e39395.

Griffiths CJ, Hansen DM, Jones CG, Zuël N, Harris S (2011) Resurrecting extinct interactions with extant substitutes. Curr Biol 21(9):762–765.

Griffiths CJ, Zuë LN, Jones CG, Ahamud Z, Harris S (2013) Assessing the potential to restore historic grazing ecosystems with tortoise ecological replacements. Conserv Biol 27(4):690–700.

Hunter EA, Gibbs JP, Cayot LJ, Tapia W (2013) Equivalency of Galápagos giant tortoises used as ecological replacement species to restore ecosystem functions. Conserv Biol 27(4):701–709.

Gibbs JP, Hunter EA, Shoemaker KT, Tapia WH, Cayot LJ (2014) Demographic outcomes and ecosystem implications of giant tortoise reintroduction to Española Island, Galapagos. PLoS One 9(10):e110742.

Wilder BT, et al. (2014) Local extinction and unintentional rewilding of bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) on a desert island. PLoS One 9(3):e91358.

Long JL (2003) Introduced Mammals of the World: Their History, Distribution and Influence (CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK).

Litvinov YN (2014) Mammals of the Taymyr Peninsula (biodiversity and organization of communities). Contemp Probl Ecol 7(6):607–617.

Lee WG, Wood JR, Rogers GM (2010) Legacy of avian-dominated plant-herbivore systems in New Zealand. N Z J Ecol 34(1):28–47.

Beever E, Tausch R, Thogmartin W (2008) Multi-scale responses of vegetation to removal of horse grazing from Great Basin (USA) mountain ranges. Plant Ecol 196(2):163–184.

Levin PS, Ellis J, Petrik R, Hay ME (2002) Indirect effects of feral horses on estuarine communities. Conserv Biol 16(5):1364–1371.

Turner JW, Morrison ML (2001) Influence of predation by mountain lions on numbers and survivorship of a feral horse population. Southwest Nat 46(2):183–190.

Aslan CE, Zavaleta ES, Croll DON, Tershy B (2012) Effects of native and non-native vertebrate mutualists on plants. Conserv Biol 26(5):778–789.

Pires MM, et al. (2014) Reconstructing past ecological networks: The reconfiguration of seed-dispersal interactions after megafaunal extinction. Oecologia 175(4):1247–1256.

Donatti CI, Galetti M, Pizo MA, Guimaraes PR Jr, Jordano P (2007) Living in the land of ghosts: Fruit traits and the importance of large mammals as seed dispersers in the Pantanal, Brazil. Seed Dispersal: Theory and Its Application in a Changing World, eds Dennis AJ, Green RJ, Schupp EW, Westcott DA (CAB International, Wallingford, UK), pp 104–123.

Ordiz A, Bischof R, Swenson JE (2013) Saving large carnivores, but losing the apex predator? Biol Conserv 168:128–133.

Kuijper DPJ (2011) Lack of natural control mechanisms increases wildlife–forestry conflict in managed temperate European forest systems. Eur J For Res 130(6):895–909.

Hegland SJ, Lilleeng MS, Moe SR (2013) Old-growth forest floor richness increases with red deer herbivory intensity. For Ecol Manage 310:267–274

.CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

Newsome TM, et al. (2015) Resolving the value of the dingo in ecological restoration. Restor Ecol 23(3):201–208.

Hughes FMR, et al. (2011) Monitoring and evaluating large-scale, ‘open-ended’ habitat creation projects: A journey rather than a destination. J Nat Conserv 19(4):245–253.

Carbone C, Mace GM, Roberts SC, Macdonald DW (1999) Energetic constraints on the diet of terrestrial carnivores. Nature 402(6759):286–288.

Svenning J-C (2007) ‘Pleistocene re-wilding’ merits serious consideration also outside North America. IBS Newsletter 5(3):3–9..

Beale CM, et al. (2013) Ten lessons for the conservation of African savannah ecosystems. Biol Conserv 167:224–232.

Somers MJ, Hayward M, eds (2012) Fencing for Conservation: Restriction of Evolutionary Potential or a Riposte to Threatening Processes? (Springer Science & Business Media, New York).

Poschlod P, Bonn S (1998) Changing dispersal processes in the central European landscape since the last ice age: An explanation for the actual decrease of plant species richness in different habitats? Acta Botanica Neerlandica 47(1):27–44.

Rosenzweig ML (2003) Reconciliation ecology and the future of species diversity. Oryx 37(2):194–205.

Phalan B, Onial M, Balmford A, Green RE (2011) Reconciling food production and biodiversity conservation: Land sharing and land sparing compared. Science 333(6047):1289–1291.

Imhoff ML, et al. (2004) Global patterns in human consumption of net primary production. Nature 429(6994):870–873.

Cerqueira Y, et al. (2015) Ecosystem services: The opportunities of rewilding in Europe. Rewilding European Landscapes, eds Pereira HM, Navarro LM (Springer, Heidelberg), pp 47–64.

Hobbs RJ, Higgs E, Harris JA (2009) Novel ecosystems: Implications for conservation and restoration. Trends Ecol Evol 24(11):599–605

Bowman D (2012) Conservation: Bring elephants to Australia? Nature 482(7383):30.

Milner JM, Van Beest FM, Schmidt KT, Brook RK, Storaas T (2014) To feed or not to feed? Evidence of the intended and unintended effects of feeding wild ungulates. J Wildl Manage 78(8):1322–1334

Tanentzap AJ, Kirby KJ, Goldberg EE (2012) Slow responses of ecosystems to reductions in deer (Cervidae) populations and strategies for achieving recovery. For Ecol Manage 264:159–166.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2013) Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge, UK).

Post E, Pedersen C (2008) Opposing plant community responses to warming with and without herbivores. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105(34):12353–12358.

Tanentzap AJ, Coomes DA (2012) Carbon storage in terrestrial ecosystems: do browsing and grazing herbivores matter? Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 87(1):72–94.

IUCN/SSC (2013) Guidelines for Reintroductions and Other Conservation Translocations. Version 1.0 (IUCN Species Survival Commission, Gland, Switzerland).

Burney DA, Juvik JO, Burney LP, Diagne T (2012) Can unwanted suburban tortoises rescue native Hawaiian plants? Tortoise 1(1):104–115.

Seddon PJ, Moehrenschlager A, Ewen J (2014) Reintroducing resurrected species: Selecting DeExtinction candidates. Trends Ecol Evol 29(3):140–147.

Redford KH, Adams W, Mace GM (2013) Synthetic biology and conservation of nature: Wicked problems and wicked solutions. PLoS Biol 11(4):e1001530.

Donlan J (2014) De-extinction in a crisis discipline. Front Biogeogr 6(1):25–28.

Peterken GF (1977) Habitat conservation priorities in British and European woodlands. Biol Conserv 11(3):223–236.

Faurby S, Svenning J-C (2015) A species-level phylogeny of all extant and late Quaternary extinct mammals using a novel heuristic-hierarchical Bayesian approach. Mol Phylogenet Evol 84:14–26.

Faurby S, Svenning J-C (2015) Historic and prehistoric human-driven extinctions have reshaped global mammal diversity patterns. Divers Distrib doi:10.1111/ddi.12369.

Owen-Smith N (2013) Contrasts in the large herbivore faunas of the southern continents in the late Pleistocene and the ecological implications for human origins. J Biogeogr 40(7):1215–1224.

Leave a comment

Posted by on January 28, 2020 in Uncategorized


Wild Horses Wolves Cougar: Kill Only Paradigms Extinction Only Not Management

“Folks who ain’t got ideas of their own should be mighty careful whose they borrow … “

It’s time to question the increase in wildlife-eradication, or to explain it plainly, stop killing America’s Wildlife out of ignorance and fear.  Yes, it is a problem!  As in right here, right now and in America, over 40% of our Wildlife in America has been killed – or eradicated.  Worse yet, is the fact that within the past 15 years this has happened.

Is there anyone paying attention here?  We have two animal protection supposed non-profits who makes in excess of, on average, $340 million dollars a year (their 990 IRS Form to the Public).  They claim to be a watch-dog group, a legal oversight agency so to speak.  Their mission-statement gives people that perception as well.  It is also inclusive within their advertising, and gives potential donators the perception their organization is watching over America’s wildlife and animals.  One has got to ask, “Then where in the hell were you when wildlife was being unnecessarily killed, and still is?”

We also have a government agency, Wildlife Services, that kills anywhere from 2 million wildlife and animals yearly, up to 5.8 million a few years ago and within a one-year time frame as well.  Ironically, this was accomplished within someone’s mind-set of acceptability, both in principle and standard of management ideologies, and (as awkward as this sounds), a conservation tool.

Many government employees, for example, eradication or killing animals, actually to them a useful and quick way to dispose of problems within their jurisdiction toward a resolution, is used quite often.    Indeed, killing wolves and cougars in ranching areas remains a well-accepted practice.  But does good science and actual proof, in another words real evidence show clearly this to be true, that wolves and cougars in these situations indeed the problem?  Again, where are these non-profits, who take donations, in the millions of dollars’ worth, but apparently have done nothing to save America’s Wildlife, and worse, has not even acknowledged the same.

Truth Reality and Our Government – State and Federal

But once again the truth pops up, reality, and demonstrates through good science that eradication methodology is simply bad-science in disguise, if science at all.  Most government science today is predicated upon commercial or special interest needs.  This, in reality, means there is a lack of science, that is good science within our government today.  The Bureau of Land Management for example, leave cattle out of their rangeland and environmental ecological systems studies, data gathering and research – then blame wild horses for rangeland destruction, as an invasive and non-native species . . . So we can assume that cattle are an indigenous species in someone’s mind; which is based on no science anywhere.

Which leads to yet another problem.  If the wild horses are not indigenous, yet BLM admits they existed here 5,000 years ago, were considered (loosely by snobbery science) to be killed off, then a couple thousand years later returned – “Oh Darn, lookie there, more horses just turned up” – then what was the time frame for horses to be taken from indigenous-status, to non-indigenous or invasive-species status?  There is a lot wrong with idiotic science, and then explained within official government documents as real.  Bit it is, in reality not science at all.

So we have an acceptable invasive-species, cattle, and to have them the wild horses, basically an indigenous-species when good science involved, has got to be eradicated for the invasive-species to exist on Public lands – actually taking over and destroying Public Lands – but within the BLM — observation, experience, and actual circumstance has no value – when compared to BLM employees having a Howdy-Doody smile while telling a taxpayer a tremendous lie.

Now we can begin to understand the governments’ scientific methodology, both state and federal.  Soon we realize there is none.  Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, for another example of bad-science, leaves out Poaching statistics as well as attritional aspects of their eradication programs.  The agency they use, Wildlife Services, remains well known for disregarding environmental assessments as well – so who knows, as no data exists.  ODFW certainly doesn’t know.

But yes, ODFW uses Wildlife Services, a branch of the USDA.  This is basically a situation where trappers, and other government groups/employees, will eradicate by supposedly a scientific choice (but no science would agree with it in reality, and none is ever found, nor an EA) of wildlife from the mountains, woods, or wherever, at the request of, for this example, a cattle rancher – a decision that was emotionally-based out of ignorance and fear, and nothing more.

In this single situation case — Beavers, where poison-pots, cyanide gas, and traps were set to kill them.  One tally of attritional-only wildlife killed within a three-day time period, and kept track of by an observer keeping statistics of the Controlled-Eradication, assimilated: 26 Fox, 14 Beaver, 120 squirrels, two hunting dogs within the proximity of the cyanide, one small house dog/a pet died in a leg-trap, 2 house cats as well and in their own yard poisoned, all for 3 Beaver who damned a stream near a cow pasture near Murderer’s Creek, Oregon.

This particular rancher thinks anything but cattle on Public Lands, where he grazes his over-abundance of cattle per acre, is a waste and should be eradicated anyway.  The extremely creepy part to this, most cattle ranchers who graze on or near Federal Lands believe this as fact – and as well, most over-graze on state or federal lands, destroying the ecological system present.

It has also been shown his cattle do create a destructive environmental impact on this area – as shown in Federal Court, and due to his mismanagement of the cattle, as well as too many cattle on that particular grazing area.

Killing of Wildlife Unnecessarily

killing wildlife is not, in truth, useful at all when based upon bad-science, on fear, on hate for particular wildlife, on lies, on profit margins, and quite often in today’s Public Lands situation, in order to place more cattle upon federal or public lands to eventually sell to foreign markets.  One has got to ask about the actual sacrifice we make, here in America, in order for an overabundant amount of cattle to graze on Our Lands, America’s Lands!  Is it worth swapping out most of our Wildlife for cattle?  Insult to injury — we also subsidize ($ billions yearly) these ranchers for their overabundance of cattle, destruction of our environment, killing of our wildlife unnecessarily, and abuse of our supposed Federally Protected Lands – for what?  Well, we receive nothing actually “0” . . .

Here reality speaks much louder about controlled-eradication.  This mind-set that pointedly favors corporate and commercial entities — over the taxpayers, or the majority that actually owns Public Lands and the Wildlife – which a group our government and a few others have forgotten about – our group is called — Americans.

Currently government managers give significance to the term indigenous species; which is something very significant but conclusive of bad-science deduction (for example cattle are left out of all Range Management science conducted by the BLM for their Range Statistics – uh huh), then they replace indigenous species, actually calling them invaders and then the step-upward to invasive species.  When termed Invasive Species, then many things happen almost automatically; suddenly we see indigenous species being eradicated, oddly killed as a matter of written policy.  Two months ago this policy did not exist.  This is the current nature of not only Federally managed lands and wildlife, but State managed lands and wildlife.

So we have, according to governing agencies, many species including horses, bear, cougar, elk, et al., who are then considered aggressive invaders doing harm through competition.  Then along comes money-making opportunities as well, and the band-wagon is fraught with scammers and schemers crawling all over it – Yes, it is called or referred to as Breed-Control, and common today is the use of such not-noteworthy items at all, and created from bad science or incompetent science, such as PZP.

Why would an agency that is tasked with managing wildlife resources for the common good advocate for the controlled-eradication of several species of wild animals?

Perception government and incompetence

Alien invasive species means an alien species which becomes established in natural or semi-natural ecosystems or habitat, is an agent of change, and threatens native biological diversity.

Alien species (non-native, non-indigenous, foreign, exotic) means a species, subspecies, or lower taxon occurring outside of its natural range (past or present) and dispersal potential (i.e. outside the range it occupies naturally or could not occupy without direct or indirect introduction or care by humans) and includes any part, gametes, or propagule of such species that might survive and subsequently reproduce.”

A viewpoint switch is easy, just a matter of perception because when closely examined, “alien, native, aggressive, competition, invader and harm” are empirically hollow buzzwords that are constantly redefined at the whim of those who use inflammatory, arbitrary jargon to promote the war on weeds and wildlife.

“Science is the systematic enquiry into the nature of phenomena, and it cannot progress without serious dedication to the truth.”

Scientists who propose controlled-eradication should offer their proof, always, along with a well-documented and defined and thorough collection of good data – good science — .honesty – and truth that shows consistency over time the resolution enhances, rather than destroys, an ecological system.

Questions and More Questions

Unquestionably, biodiversity loss is a real problem but its root cause is anthropogenic – human impact – not ‘invasive aliens”. Yet, the constant alarm sounded by government employees for example, selling their “invasive species crisis” is that animals like wild horses, cougars, bears, wolves, burros and others “harm” biodiversity.

In truth, it is rancher’s, corporations and mining that destroy environments and ecological systems, then out of some type of psycho-pathetic moronic behavior, most often to cover up their mess of the environment, demand controlled-eradication’s of wildlife as well as many plants which pose some idiotic threat. The truth is, good science shows us most plant and animal “invasions” are nature trying to heal herself by restoring biodiversity to systems unbalanced by man. This healing of biodiversity is necessary for wildlife to recover.

If you are using subjective definitions for the terms “native,” “alien,” “harm,” “invader,” and “competition,” how will these concepts be adequate to formulate a scientific discipline of ecological principles, management decisions and public policy?

What are your criteria for ecological “harm?” The criteria needs to be measurable and objective, not just subjective speculation (e.g. ODFW on the delisting of Wolves). They should apply to all species, irrespective of whether they are theoretically “native” or “alien.” In the absence of these criteria, on what basis are you determining which species to control or exterminate?

What are your objectives, ecological criteria of “alien” species? Of “invaders?” These need to be precise so any biologist or landowner can identify “non-native” or “invader” in any ecosystem by evaluating the criteria without being told in advance what the designation is for a specific plant or animal.

It must be possible to confirm this through double-blind experiments, which do not give away in advance the definition of the plant or animal tested. For example, how does the BLM distinguish between “native” and “alien” plant monocultures, between expanding “native” and “alien” populations, and the effects of “natives” and “aliens” on the ranges?

If government science can’t give these definitions, or develop them, then its conclusions about the effects of these plants and animals are entirely subjective and its procedures are not scientific. Without such objective criteria how do government employees justify actions against species they may call “alien?”

How can one distinguish harmless or helpful characteristics of a new species from “invasion” particularly at the early stages? The example that comes to mind is when BLM wiped out 100 burros that ranged on 500,000 acres of state and national parks with 100 miles of river frontage because the burros supposedly threatened water sources for bighorn sheep.

What protocol does government employees have, to determine the conservation value of new populations that have moved outside of historical ranges?  Are all such population moves “invasions?”  And if so will they be exterminated without regard to possible conservation value?

Who will make these decisions? Under what authority are those decisions made? If there is disagreement as to whether a species is harmful how will these be adjudicated? What measures have government agencies put in place to ensure that harmless species or species that serve useful conservation purposes are not the object of harmful control or eradication measures?  We can look at both the wolf and the wild horses, and state without a doubt no measures exist currently.

If we abandon native/alien criteria in favor of invasive/non-invasive criteria or aggressive/non-aggressive criteria how will these terms be defined? Considering that population numbers of native animals swing widely, how do we justify any efforts to impose stability on these “exotic” populations?

How is the cause of “invasion” to be determined? If human impact is the only reason will the extermination of the species spreading as a result of this solve the “problem” or will this create a downward spiral of inappropriate interventions? Shouldn’t we be treating causes instead of symptoms?

How has government employees of all levels attempted to ensure against potential conflict of interest inherent in accepting money for research from sources that may have their own agendas?

Clearly Change is Required

Wild animal ‘management’ according to financial self-interest, authoritarian ignorance and superstitious pseudoscience is the worst thing ever to happen to wildlife, and what is being done to plants by the government invading biologists using little to no science, is even worse.

Big government and big business are two faces of one coin, which seeks subsidies, protection from competition, favorable regulations, support for (and from) politicians, agencies, universities and regulators. The larger the conglomerate grows the more ineffective its individual parts become. Eventually, as can be seen in industry-after-industry, agencies in these aggregations do things contrary to the purposes for which they were established

Take wildlife: conservation began in order to protect wild animals and plants from reckless destruction.  Ironically, the truth here was changed to something of an abstract and destructible form of ignorance, with Apex Predators especially, and mostly built on fear.

America’s Wildlife needs protection not only from our government, but bad-science, and from those who assume all science is bad, which it is not, and we can see for ourselves, what is and what is not – experience and observation tells us also, what is and what is not good science.  What is not good science is the mass genocide of America’s Wildlife – and there is no science, or common sense that backs up so much killing of wildlife that favors a type of positive resolution.

There is no resolution to be gained what so ever!  The Wildlife loses – Americans lose – America loses . . .


Reference Material:

Gerstell, Richard. 1985. The Steel Trap in North America. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, PA. 352 pp.

Decker, D. J. and K.G. Purdy. 1988. Toward a concept of wildlife acceptance capacity in wildlife management. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 16:53-57.

Deblinger, R. D., D. W. Rimmer, J. J. Vaske, G. M. Vecellio, and M. P. Donnelly. 1993. Ecological benefits and hunter acceptance of a controlled deer hunt in coastal Massachusetts. Northeast Wildlife 50:11-21.

Ellingwood, M. R. and J. V. Spignesi. 1986. Management of an urban deer herd and the concept of cultural carrying capacity. Trans. Northeast Deer Tech. Comm., Vt. Fish Wildl. Dep. 22:42-45.

Organ, J. F. and M. R. Ellingwood. 2000. Wildlife stakeholder acceptance capacity for black bears, beavers, and other beasts in the east. Human Dimensions of Wildlife. 5:63-75.

Strickland, M. D., H. J. Harju, K. R. McCaffery, H. W. Miller, L. M. Smith, and R. J. Stoll. 1994. Harvest Management.

Pages 445-473 in T. A. Bookhout, ed., Research and management techniques for wildlife and habitats.(5th ed.) The Wildlife Society. 740 pps.

Organ, J. F., R. F. Gotie, T. A. Decker, and G. R. Batcheller. 1998. A case study in the sustained use of wildlife: the management of beaver in the northeastern United States. Pages 125-139 in H.A. van der Linde and M.H. Danskin, eds., Enhancing sustainability – resources for our future. SUI Technical Series, Vol. I, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 178pp.

Kallman, Harmon., ed., Restoring America’s Wildlife 1937-1987. 1987. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 394 pp.

Hamilton, D.A., B. Roberts, G. Linscombe, N.R. Jotham, A. Noseworthy, and J.L. Stone. 1998. The European

Union’s wild fur regulation: a battle of politics, cultures, animal rights, international trade and North America’s wildlife policy. Trans. No. Am. Wildl. and Natur. Resour. Conf. 63:572-588.

Smith, H. R., R. J. Sloan, and G. S. Walton. 1981. Some management implications between harvest rate and

population resiliency of the muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus). Pages 425-442 in J.A. Chapman and D. Pursley, eds., Proc. Worldwide Furbearer Conf., Frostburg, Md. 2056 pp.

Brooks, R. P. 1980. A model of habitat selection and population estimation for muskrats (Ondatrazibethicus) in riverine environments in Massachusetts. Ph.D. Thesis. Univ. Massachusetts, Amherst. 113 pp.

Linscombe, G. R. 1995. U.S. fur harvest and fur value: statistics by state and region. International Assoc. of Fish & Wildlife Agencies.

Boggess, E. K., S. B. Linhart, G. R. Batcheller, D. W. Erickson, G. R. Linscombe, A. W. Todd, J. W. Greer, D. C. Juve, M. Novak, D. A. Wade. 1990. Traps, trapping, and furbearer management. Wildl. Soc. Tech. Rev. 90-1. 31 pp.

MacInnes, C. D. 1987. Rabies. Pages 910-928 in M. Novak, J. A. Baker, M. E. Obbard, and B. Malloch, eds., Wild Furbearer Management and Conservation in North America. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 1150 pp.

Todd, A.W., J.R. Gunson, and W.M. Samuel. 1981. Sarcoptic mange: An important disease of coyotes and wolves of Alberta, Canada. Pages 706-729 in J.A. Chapman and D. Pursley, eds. Proc. Worldwide Furbearer Conf., Frostburg, Md. 2056 pp.

Voight, P. R. and R. L. Tinline. 1982. Fox rabies and trapping: a study of disease and fur harvest interaction. Pages 139-156 in G. C. Sanderson, ed., Midwest Furbearer Management. Proc. 43rd midwest Fish & Wildlife Conf., Wichita, Kans. 195 pp.

Rosatte, R. C., M. J. Pybus, and J. R. Gunson. 1986. Population reduction as a factor in the control of skunk rabies in Alberta. J. Wildl. Dis. 22:459-467.

Payne, N. F. 1980. Furbearer management and trapping. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 8:345-348.

Mammal Trapping within the National Wildlife Refuge System 1992-1996. USFWS, Division of Refuges, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22203. June 1997 0

Todd, A. W. and E. K. Boggess. 1987. Characteristics, acitivities, lifestyles, and attitudes of trappers in North America. Pages 59-76 in M. Novak, J. A. Baker, M. E. Obbard, and B. Malloch, eds., Wild Furbearer Management and Conservation in North America, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 1150 pp.

Wolfe, R. J. 1991. Trapping in Alaska communities with mixed subsistence-cash economies. Tech. Paper No. 217. Juneau, AK: Alaska Dept. Fish & Game.

Baker, O. E. South Carolina Dept. Natural Resources. Personal communication.

Decker, T. A. 1991. Trapping and furbearer management in Massachusetts. Mass. Wildl. 41:18-27.

Muth, R. M., J.J. Daigle, R.R.Zwick and R.J. Glass. 1996. Trappers and Trapping in Advanced Industrial Society: Economic and Sociocultural Values of Furbearer Utilization in the Northeastern United States. Sociological Spectrum 16:421-436.

Brown, T.L., D.J. Decker and J.W. Enck. 1995. Preliminary Insights about the Sociocultural Importance of Hunting and Trapping. HDRU Series No. 95-2. Ithaca, NY: Human Dimensions Research Unit, Cornell University. 90 pp.

Organ, J.F., R.M. Muth, J.E. Dizard, S.J. Williamson, and T.A. Decker. 1998. Fair chase and humane treatment: Balancing the ethics of hunting and trapping. Trans. No. Am. Wildl. and Natur. Resour. Conf. 63:528-543.

Wolfe, R.J. 1991. Trapping in Alaska Communities with Mixed, Subsistence-Cash Economies. Division of

Subsistence, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Technical Paper Number 217.

Todd, A.W., and E.K. Boggess. 1987. Characteristics, activities, lifestyles, and attitudes of trappers in North America. Pages 59-76 in M. Novak, J. A. Baker, M. E. Obbard, and B. Malloch, eds., Wild Furbearer Management and Conservation in North America. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 1150 pp.

Mason, D. A. 1990. Vermont’s other economy: the economic and socio-cultural values of hunting, fishing, and trapping for rural households. M.S. Thesis. Burlington VT: Univ. of Vermont. 98 pp.

Kellert, S. R. 1981. Trappers and trapping in American society. Pages 1971-2003 in J.A. Chapman and D. Pursley, eds. Proc. Worldwide Furbearer Conf., Frostburg, Md. 2056 pp.

Batcheller, G. R., T.A. Decker, D.A. Hamilton and J. F. Organ. 2000. A vision for the future of furbearer management in the United States. Wild. Soc. Bull. 28 (4):833-840.

Bishop, P. G. 1991. Unpublished report. New York State Dept. of Environ. Cons.

Bishop, P. G. 1990. Traps, trapping and furbearer management in New York State. New York State Dept. of Environ. Cons. 12pp.

Slate, D., R. Owens, G. Connolly, G. Simmons. 1992. Decision making for wildlife damage management. Trans. N.A. Wildl. & Nat. Res. Conf. 57:51-62.

Green, J. S., and R. A. Woodruff. 1991. Livestock guarding dogs protect sheep from predators. U.S. Dept. Agric., Agric. Info. Bull. No. 588.

Green, J. S., ed., 1987. Protecting livestock from coyotes: a synopsis of the research of the Agricultural Research Service. Natl. Tech. Info. Serv. PB 88 133590/AS. 105 pp.

Meadows, L. E. and F. F. Knowlton. 2000. Efficacy of guard llamas to reduce canine predation on domestic sheep. Wild. Soc. Bull. 28 (3): 614-622.

D’Eon, R. G., R. LaPointe, N. Bosnick, J. C. Davies, B. MacLean, W. R. Watt and R. G. Wilson. 1995. The Beaver Handbook: A guide to understanding and coping with beaver activity. OMAR Northeast Science & Technology. FG-006. 76 pp.

Miller, J. E., 1983. Control of beaver damage. Proc. Eastern Wildlife Damage Control Conf. 1:177-183.

Langlois, S.A. and T.A. Decker. 2001. The use of water flow devices in addressing flooding problems caused by beaver in Massachusetts. Massachusetts Div. Fisheries & Wildlife. 16pp.

Green, J. S., F. R. Henderson, and M. D. Collinge. 1994. Coyotes. Pages C-51 to C-76 in S. E. Hygnstrom, R. M. Timm, and G. E. Larson, eds., Prevention and control of wildlife damage. Univ. Neb. Coop. Ext. Serv.

Muller, L.I., R.J. Warren, and D.L. Evans. 1997. Theory and practice of immunocontraception in wild animals. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 25(2):504-515.

Rosatte, R., D. Donovan, M. Allan, L. Howes, A. Silver, K. Bennett, C. MacInnes, C. Davies, A. Wandeler, and B.

Radford. 2001. Emergency response to raccoon rabies introduction in Ontario. J. Wildl. Dis. 37(2):265-279.

Jacobs, W. W. 1994. Pesticides federally registered for control of terrestrial vertebrate pests. Pages G-1 to G-22 in S. E. Hygnstrom, R. M. Timm, and G. E. Larson, eds., Prevention and control of wildlife damage. Univ. Neb. Coop. Ext. Serv.

Siemer, W. F. and D. J. Decker. 1991. Human tolerance of wildlife damage: synthesis of research an management implications. Human Dimensions Res. Unit Publ. 91-7, Dep. Nat. Resources, N.Y.S. Coll. Agric. and Life Sci., Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY. 24pp.

Melquist, W. E., and M. G. Hornocker. 1983. Ecology of river otters in west central Idaho. Wild. Monogr. 83. 60pp.

Decker, T. A. Vermont Department of Fisheries and Wildlife. Personal communication.

Hamilton, D. 1999. Controversy in times of plenty. Missouri Cons. 8pp.

Herscovici, A. 1985. Second nature: the animal-rights controversy. CBC Enterprises, Toronto. 254 pp.

Francione, Gary L. 1996. Rain without thunder:the ideology of the animal rights movement. Temple Univ. Press,Philadelphia. 269pp.

Kellert, S. R. 1984. Urban American perceptions of animals and the natural environment. Urban Ecology. 8:209-228.

Thompson, T. R. and G. D. Lapointe. 1995. Learning from animal activists: a workshop approach. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 23:588-593.

Leave a comment

Posted by on January 21, 2020 in Uncategorized