Preservation of America's Wildlife

Blog

  • A Little Public Lands Cattle History — and Fraud

    John Cox, M.A. C/M

    The first cattle were brought to the geographic area of the United States in 1521 by Spanish explorers.  In 1521 the Spanish explorer Juan Ponce de León is credited with bringing the first cattle to present-day Florida.

    Between 1539–1541, Spanish explorers moved larger herds from Mexico across the Rio Grande and into the modern American Southwest, including expeditions led by Coronado.  The impact noticeable — These Spanish cattle multiplied and formed the foundation for breeds like the Texas Longhorn.

    In 1623 English colonists brought the first Devon cattle to Plymouth, Massachusetts, aboard the ship Charity (i.e. ships logs).  By 1624 additional cattle (three heifers and a bull) arrived in the Plymouth Colony via Edward Winslow.  It’s noted, these English arrivals served as vital sources of milk, leather, labor, and beef for the early eastern colonies.

    It’s interesting to find the oldest working cattle ranch in America is Deep Hollow Ranch, established in 1658 and located in Montauk, New York. . .  And yet, The Santa Gertrudis, developed on the King Ranch in South Texas, was officially recognized by the USDA in 1940 as the first distinct beef cattle breed developed in the United States; which, development of the Santa Gertrudis, created when ranchers crossbred British Shorthorn and Hereford cattle with Indian Brahman (i.e. India origin) cattle.  The optimal ratio settled at 5/8 Shorthorn and 3/8 Brahman.  The Foundation sire, a famous red bull named “Monkey,” born in 1920, served as the primary foundation sire for the entire breed.

    Contradictions

    As usual, nothing is as it seems.  New DNA, and ancient cattle bones tested, and we discover the first records of African cattle in the Americas date back to the 1800s, when humped zebu from Senegal and n’dama cattle from Gambia were moved to areas with similar environments across the Atlantic.  

    Beginning at roughly the same time and continuing into the 1900s, cattle domesticated in southeast Asia for thousands of years were also imported from India. Hybridization among these cattle led to common breeds that are still around today, such as the Senepol from the Virgin Islands and the American Brahman, which were common in the tropics..

    When looked at over time, the bones also reveal a pattern of increasing genetic diversity. The oldest bones from Puerto Real and Xochimilco (a settlement south of Mexico City) all originated from European stock, whereas, those from later sites in Mexico seem to have descended from animals more common in the Iberian Peninsula and Africa.

    Taken together, the results suggest Spanish settlers began importing cattle directly from West Africa, as far back as the early 1600s.


    Unmasking False Information and Fraudulent Narratives

    This situation brings about many questions.  When myself, and others perused information about cattle, we discover the beginnings of cattle, in the America’s, seem to foreshadow the supposed history of the Wild Horses, and their origination, i.e. as they magically showed up in America – and ironically, with a similar history.   Dates were changed, of course, as well as the terminology, but oddly (Fraud is not coincidental when we find the foundation for the Fraud).

    We know this history they portray for the Wild Horses, is not correct – no DNA, and no Evidence backs the tales, from the BLM and other government agencies information, that is given to the general public to peruse.  Most often information about the Wild Horses, fraudulent, or driven by research papers that were not Peer Reviewed, and driven mostly by objective-opinion of circumstance, within unsubstantiated theories. 

    Theories are merely assumptions, until proven Scientifically. Science based on the Assumption of Absence, is not science, but rather, Conjecture. The absence of Wild Horses, merely because “not-found” (also — no search & recovery processes noted within this assumption, and printed matter nor logs existed 10,000 years ago, due to several reasons), is problematic, obviously.

    This is the foundation that further statements, over many years, from current research papers, simply state the disappearance 10,000 years ago of Wild Horses, and re-established 5,000 years ago – and yet, have nothing to establish, via evidence, those supposed facts exist, at all. . .  An Assumption, as in Law and Scientific Research, remain unacceptable, and cannot nor should nit, be considered as any type of identifiable fact, nor a basis for facts.

    Truthfully, this fits into the situation we see these same government organizations accomplish, within their Environmental Assessments (i.e. E.A.), as well as their Environmental Impact Statements (i.e. EIS).  Copied material from previous Assessments and Reports, already found acceptable for decades, and re-used, over and over again; whereas, only the dates and administrators’ names change – the remainder of the Reports remain the same – copied / plagiarized. 

    How do we know this?  We matched the weather reports on all of the reports – and found:  Weather cannot be the same, for example, described in a 1982 Report / Assessment in April of that year, and a 1995 Report / Assessment in April of that year.  The Weather Exactly the same, temperatures, wind gusts, cloud patterns, et al.  The same with 18 reports over the years, when chosen randomly to peruse.  Although different dates and times of year, but the same weather patterns, exact and to the letter, of previous reports.  We found in some years “droughts” were never officially declared, other than in some E.A.’s

    The big question now is the fact, should we accept anything the Bureau of Lands Management has reported as a truth.  Or, do we simply trash much of their work, for being outright Fraudulent? 

    Only then, can we move on to Truth, and a more “Credible-Base” of information, favoring lands management decisions, based upon “Credible Science”, Logical and Honest research. We must develop Superior Decisions based upon All Credible Facts, currently, that directly involve our Public Lands.  

    Better decisions based upon truth, develops into healthier Public Lands, and a future of sustainability for all on this planet.  Acceptance of anything less, and we will continue to see destructive management paradigms, erroneous population statistics of all Wildlife, not just the Wild Horses, as well as false reasons given for Roundups of Wild Horses, or Eradication of Wolves, biasly generated and not of science, as we see today. 

    All highly unnecessary, and to coverup the tragedy of the prevailing destruction of our Public Lands, for a mere -1% of Beef Products – that are subsidized in the $-Billions of Dollars yearly.  The sacrifices we observe are too great, as well as too expensive for America. . .”  — John Cox, M.A. C/M

  • BLM – Wild Horses & False-Narratives

    America has been Bamboozled by Government Narratives

    John Cox, M.A. C/M

    What I have done here, is cutting all the red tape of interpretation, and getting to the point. Comments by a well respected individual within our community, and directly from him — Mr. Rose MacPhee.

    The question is — Are Wild Horses Invasive, or are they Indigenous? Which brings about more questions, Does the BLM have a Right to Misinform the General American Public, about Wild Horses, in order to develop stronger ties with their Special Interest Groups, in this situation and directly involved, Ranchers that hold Public Lands Grazing Permits.

    What I have found, is the Bureau of Lands Management, is passing-off previous Research, that were indeed trying to establish the Hypothesis that Wild Horses disappeared 10,000 years ago, problem is, none of these Hypothesis generated research papers, directly connected / accepted by Peer Review confirmation. What this means, frankly, is there is no evidence to show, other than what they describe as an Absence of Wild Horses, from opinions of what could be . . .

    Now we discover, the Pleistocene Era not as destructive toward Wildlife as we assumed it was — in particular within the PNW (Pacific Northwest), and what Peer-Reviewed Research confirms as Island Tropical Zones of life, grasses, and healthy forests of Conifer, throughout the Pleistocene Era (more on this in future articles).

    I leave you with a short discussion, from Mr. MacPhee, during the forum (a short discussion, yes, but very affirmative, and truthful, as well as credible) — and the transcript, from their conversation.

    It is time for all to open our eyes to a reality, and to understand, one more brick in the wall, so to speak, that the Wild Horses are, and always have been Indigenous in America. The BLM et al., knowing lied, redirecting this conversation via False-Narratives, to favor Ranching on Our Nations Public Lands — knowingly, that cattle, a non-indigenous species in America, very destructive to our lands. Make no doubt, we have a lot more to say —

    “MANAGED TO EXTINCTION?

    A 40th Anniversary Legal Forum assessing the

    1971 Wild Free-Roaming Horses & Burros Act

    TRANSCRIPT: ROSS MACPHEE, Curator, Division of Vertebrate Zoology, American Museum of Natural History (AMNH)

    Introduction

    My comments refer not to the 1971 congressional act, which other panel participants will speak about, but instead to Executive Order 13112, released on February 3, 1999. In a number of ways this EO is very relevant to everything that we’re going to talk about tonight. This is, in effect, the federal government’s statement regarding what an invasive species is and how an invasive species can be recognized. It has been used as one basis for the BLM’s policy on wild horses because—in the BLM’s view—it offers grounds on which these horses can be considered invasive rather than native.

    The EO contains a number of definitions; I will review only a few:

    “The purpose of this order is to prevent the introduction of invasive species and provide for their control to minimize the economic and ecological and human health impacts that invasive species have caused.”

    According to the definitions in the order (as revised by the “2008-12 report” of the National Invasive Species Council and its precursor body, set up under sec. 5c of EO) an invasive species is: “a species that is non-native to the ecosystem under consideration and whose introduction into a particular ecosystem causes or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health.“

    By contrast, a native species means, with respect to a particular ecosystem, “a species, other than as a result of introduction, historically occurred or currently occurs in that ecosystem.”

    Now, why is any of this relevant to the issue of wild horses and burros?

    According to the publicly accessible BLM website, which is meant to be read by any citizen and presumably therefore unquestionably accurate, there are a number of “myths and facts” about WH&B.

    Among these is the following: (italicized content from BLM website)

    Myth #11: Wild horses are native to the United States

    Fact: This claim is false.

    American wild horses are descended from domestic horses, some of which were brought over by European explorers in the late 15th and 16th centuries, plus others along that were imported from Europe and were released or escaped captivity in modern times.

    Further, according to the BLM, “these horses have adapted successfully to the Western range, but biologically they did not evolve on the North American continent. The disappearance of the horse from the Western Hemisphere for 10,000 years supports the position that today’s wild horses cannot be considered ‘native’ in any meaningful historical sense.”

    Now I put it to you that every clause, every sentence about the foreigness of horses in the passages I just read is palpably wrong, demonstrably wrong, not only according to people like me but also to anybody who has any intimate understanding of the history of horses on this continent.  

    Now let me just put this in a nutshell. The family Equidae evolved on this continent; it is as American as anything you could possibly imagine. That was 55 million years ago. Progressive evolution occurred thereafter, eventually culminating 1.8 million years ago when a horse very like modern horses evolved. With a very high statistical probability, domestic horses, The Horse, evolved from that precursor and spread throughout North America and then across land bridges to Eurasia and South America.  

    Scientifically, the BLM’s comment that The Horse did not biologically evolve on the North American continent is wrong, and therefore the additional comments about The Horse being foreign to the Western ecosystem is completely irrelevant.  

    It is additionally irrelevant to say that today’s ecosystem in which today’s mustangs and feral horses survive is somehow completely different from what was here 10,000 years ago. That is simply not true.  The conditions that characterize this ecosystem that you think of as normal, the one you are in now, in this present warm period that’s getting warmer all the time, have come and gone repeatedly throughout the past 2.4 million years. This period encompasses the Ice Ages, during which warmer and colder periods oscillated with substantial frequency.

    To say that there is a “Western ecosystem” that is in place now that is completely different from the one in existence 10,000 or more years ago is a red herring. Of course it is different! And it was different from the one at 20,000, and all the way back as far as you want to go.

    Yet virtually all of the species that anyone would regard as “native” to North America today went through these very same alternating warm and cold periods with no trouble because they were in fact adapted to the roller-coaster climate system that has prevailed here throughout the Pleistocene.

    So horses are of course adapted to this place, because this place has been a roller coaster with respect to its ecosystem over this whole period.  So if nothing else happens out of this discussion, what I want you to take home is the idea that scientifically, the idea that horses are an invasive species is utterly wrong.  Thank you.

    Ross MacPhee (Panel discussion):

    A native species by definition cannot be invasive. So rather than start with competing interests as between humans, horses, and commerce, the first question I want to ask is what would that Western ecosystem have been without people, in particular white people, during the last 500 years?  There would have been enormous herds of bison, for one thing. These same family ranchers who have been competing with horses would now be competing with bison if they were still here in large numbers. Would they be managed in the same way we allow horses to be managed? I would say no, because most people regard bison as a native species even though it has only occupied North America for the past 125,000 years. But horses are seen in a different category: they are invasive species, like zebra mussels or Med fly; and therefore they have no rights.

    What we are in now is a novel ecosystem; we’ve been altering it at an incredible rate for a very long period of time. Thanks to our presence and the modifications we have introduced over centuries, in a sense it is not what it was before. OK, under BLM understanding does that mean that every species that is native here now should be disenfranchised . . . ?

    You can see how these wrongly-formulated, supposedly scientific interpretations keep biting their tails. And my point here is let’s start with something that can be fixed – because lots of things will flow from that. If it can be fixed that the horse is a native species, then it has to be treated like wolves, like bison, like whooping cranes, like all of the things that we consider to be a part of the American landscape, long before we came along.

    That will have an impact. There will be certain things that are no longer possible to do, because you can’t treat native species as we treat horses nowadays. There are competing rights as between horses and people, I accept that. But there are rights that should accrue to horses as native species that they don’t have at the moment. In allocating and weighing rights, all sides need to be at the table, sitting at the same height. At present, The Horse is down here (points down low) and everybody else with different kinds of rights are up here (points up).  Now that, to me, is the fundamental problem. . .”

    Ross MacPhee, PhD

    Curator

    Division of Vertebrate Zoology

    American Museum of Natural History

    New York NY 10024