Bad Science: Wolves, Wild Horse Herds, Extinct Species

25 Jul

Article John Cox, Cascade Mountains

Hunting and trapping has caused the absolute extinction of 22% of mammals. Trophy hunters, or those from the Safari Club and other clubs and organizations where ignorance is the rule rather than the exception, and more ironic those who actually log their ignorance, is responsible for 12% absolute mammal extinction within the past 20 years.

Now we add government ignorance, bad science combined with bad-decision making, we add with this corporate placement into our Public Lands, and we are speaking non-accumulative (i.e. without sports / wildlife management paradigms) another 18% absolute extinction of mammals within the United States boundaries. This estimate as of today!

In total, our government and these hunters, government employees, etc., and their Management by Kill paradigms, want the public to believe this 52% absolute animal extinction rate quantifiable by attrition. It is not!

Good Science

Good Science is based on ethical and well defined approach and process, observation, and gathering honest and cohesive statistical data. Also in the realm of good research, the biologist or research scientist must understand such items as “concept of chance” and the “significance of probability” in the statistical sense.

Why I mention this? Today there is an ongoing debate? Well, we cannot not really be calling it a debate as much as pointing out the crude non-scientific data, or questionable politically driven data, that is being accepted as good science by our current government agencies. The big problem is this — the supposed good science is not science what so ever, and decisions based on this political agenda item of science is worthless.

Yes, bad science destroys our environment, our natural biosphere, and our wildlife. To reference this simply look around the countryside — look at our climate change, our polar ice caps, our devastation of forests, our wildlife becoming extinct or endangered at much faster rates than even a couple of decades ago. Then look at ourselves, and who it is we place into political office to make such critical decisions!

If you dislike what you see, what you hear happening to our wildlife and our environment, then include that with the dishonest political arena of today, then do something about it!

So it can come down to this — good research equates to good statistical data, that cannot be manipulated. This data, or “accumulative statistics” if you will and upon evaluation, potentially determines a refined decision making process. A correct evaluation process generates better environment for wildlife and people alike. This is change! And it is very possible if done.

C. S. Hume, in “Man and Beast” talks about unplanned or poorly planned experiments, “So long as the worst that can happen is that large quantities of expensive chemicals are poured down the drain, nobody need worry except the man who pays for the chemicals. . . in experiments on animals ethical requirements demand even more strongly than does scientific virtuosity, that an experimenter should not be content with pedestrian empiricism but should plan his experiments in the light of a great deal of preliminary hard thinking.”

The Truth

When we take a look at the Wolf, or the Wild Horse Herds, we find decades of prejudice, of unsubstantiated information, not of scientific origin, in the decision to roundup or kill these magnificent animals. Yes, political agendas apparently and obviously brought about by ignorance, still serve as the preponderance decision making agenda of today as well, and for both. Sadly!

Advancement of society equating to attrition? No, that is impossible because attritional values are not predicated on opinion or prejudicial ignorance! The fact is, even attrition is presented as a value percentage of uncontrollable circumstance predicated on truthful and logical decisions, based on good science or good data / information. Good Perceptions equate to good Science and a new attritional value directly involving our environment and wildlife! A positive value for all, society and wildlife alike. This is simply not accomplished by our government or politicians today!


The Wolves, for example, provide benefits to heavily forested or mountain environments, and for several logical and good scientific reasons. This becomes neglected, and a preponderance of ignorance (check the references for current decisions on wolf hunts and see for yourself) becomes acceptable, currently in our society. Yes, obviously we need leaders, not proponents of ignorance and scattered slip-shod bigotry.


The Wild Horses the same as Wolves. They provide benefits to wild range lands and Public Lands within a natural perspective and attrition value. Current range management paradigms for Wild Horse Herd Management is simply based on paradigms of estimation, guess work, skewed percentages, and erroneous horse count collection.

The ignorance and bigotry, favoring corporations and cattle — both detrimental to America’s Public Lands, generate the supposed science the Wild Horse Herd Roundups predicated upon. The government skewed and erroneous numbers present an unacceptable attrition value for the existence of Wild Horse Herds on our Public Lands. The bad science, or bad statistical data, is then attributable to attrition, and it is the attrition value (the false premise and excuse for the horse roundups, which by the way costing taxpayers millions upon millions of dollars spent) that generates the fictitious numbers for Wild Horse Herd Roundups.

This ignorant behavior, or what some call “BLM Speak” and what most of us call “Decisions Based on Bad Science” popular in our government today, due to bad leadership not only in our government, but in the political arena as well. Incumbent’s Out is the words that echo through America now, because American’s are sick and tired of such blatantly ignorant decisions being made on our environment and our wildlife — and being so costly, with government employees being so arrogant and careless with American’s taxpayer dollars!


As long as we have unacceptable leadership, ignorant research accepted from Bad Science, that presents management decisions about our environment and wildlife, we have a major problem here in America.

Right now we in America have a choice, before these narrow decisions made from political agendas and outright ignorance destroys Our America, the People that Actually Own America — Not of corporations or government agencies — To Vote For People That Care About Our Environment And Our Wildlife, and our tax dollars! Remove All others who are hateful, ignorant, and not of Leadership Quality!

“Change can and will happen, when things so bad that change is the only road left to travel.” — John Cox, Animal Advocate

Hume, C.W. Man and Beast. Second Edition, 1982. Universities Federation for Animal Welfare, 8 Hamilton Close, South Mimms, Potters Bar, Hertfordshire.

Lodka, A.D., 1956. Elements of Mathematical Biology, Dover Publications, N.Y.

Abramovitz, A.M. 1970. Probability Theory, C.V. Mosby, Co., St. Louis.

H.R.H. Prince Philip, and James Fisher. 1970. Wildlife Crisis, Cowels Book Co., Inc. N.Y.

IUCN, 1980. World Conservation Strategy, Living resources conservation for sustainable development, Gland, Switzerland.

Davis, George M. 1977. Rare and Endangered Species: a dilemma, Frontiers, Vol (4): 12-14.

Et al…


Posted by on July 25, 2013 in Uncategorized


4 responses to “Bad Science: Wolves, Wild Horse Herds, Extinct Species

  1. Barbara Warner

    July 25, 2013 at 8:57 pm

    The honest politicians seem to be few and far between.. Most get their campaign finance funds (legal bribery) from corporations or big business. They’ll promise you the moon but when they get in office it’s a different story. Hate to be so pessimistic but the corruption is widespread.. JMHO

    • Photographer and Journalist

      July 25, 2013 at 9:34 pm

      Politicians would like us to suppose there is nothing we can do, but think about what you just said, then think about what and how a VOTE is and done. Is your vote corrupt? probably not. Is your neighbors vote corrupt? Probably not. Did you do research and understand the person you are voting for has a history, and if they did not vote the way you wanted while they were in office, are you still voting for them — perhaps because you were “TOLD” on a television commercial that the opponent was corrupt, kicked dogs, and was not a nice guy — so all the sudden you voted for a known crook and proven thief while he was holding office — that is what you are basically telling me right now, that is how you voted because you were controlled to do so — or is what your saying simply a little too much drama and all people have to do is be aware of who they vote for???? 🙂

  2. Louie C

    July 27, 2013 at 5:51 am



    Contract for Quick Limited Peer Review Designed to Give Illusion of Impartiality
    Posted on Jul 09, 2013

    Washington, DC — The plan to remove federal protections from the gray wolf will be peer reviewed on an accelerated schedule by a private consulting firm selected this week, according to a document posted today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). The exercise is designed to help the plan to delist the gray wolf under the federal Endangered Species Act withstand expected legal challenges.

    The contract Order Statement of Work (SOW), issued June 25, 2013, calls for “a formal, external, independent scientific peer review before a final determination is made” to end safeguards for remaining gray wolf populations. Yet the specifics of the SOW raise questions as to its independence:

    The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) controls selection of reviewers by picking from a list compiled by the contractor. The ultimate number of reviewers will be left to FWS “discretion”;

    Expert reviewers are disqualified if they have “an affiliation with an advocacy position regarding the protection of this species.” This standard bars every scientist who has ever opined about wolf recovery, leaving only those who may not be knowledgeable enough to venture an opinion; and

    Reviewers are directed “not to provide advice on policy” questions and limit themselves to the quality of the information cited by FWS.

    “This quickie, consultant-led peer review gives the illusion of impartiality from the bankrolling agency which can easily manipulate its results,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. “If the Fish & Wildlife Service wanted a truly independent peer review on a topic of this magnitude it would have invited one of the scientific societies to conduct it, free from agency restrictions.”

    The peer reviews must be completed by September 11th, the date on which the public comment period for the proposed delisting ends. Since the peer reviewers will not be provided with the public comments, many of which may arrive on the scheduled peer review completion date, the peer review will not examine, let alone respond to, criticisms levels by scientific experts. Nor has FWS responded to a May 21st letter from 16 of the nation’s top wolf experts expressing “deep concerns” about its delisting proposal.

    Significantly, the Service is seeking peer review only after its delisting plan was formally unveiled in the Federal Register on an apparent fast-track to finalization. Further, in the unlikely event that the peer reviewers pan the delisting plan, FWS is not obligated to withdraw or alter its plan to answer criticisms.

    “Contrary to the fiction that its plan is science-driven, the Service’s proposed final rule matches the political promises made to state game agencies and mirrors the negotiated preferred outcome,” added Ruch, pointing to records from “Structured Decision Making” meetings between the Service and state game agencies, which PEER obtained from a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. “The Service hopes to deodorize this day-old fish by wrapping it in new consultant reviews.”

  3. Louie C

    July 31, 2013 at 9:16 pm

    How the GAO deceived Congress about horse slaughter

    The same three congressmen who requested the GAO study
    Were responsible for removing language from an agriculture appropriations spending bill on November 18, reversing a five-year ban on horsemeat inspections


    Sen. HERB KOHL (D-WI)
    Sen. ROY BLUNT (R-MO)


Leave a Reply

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

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

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

%d bloggers like this: