Monthly Archives: August 2013

2nd Article in this 3 part Series — As stated in the first article, of this 3 part series, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) no longer has credibility in regard to any management criteria, that is within an honest context, when speaking or making decisions about America’s Wild Horse Herds on Public Lands. There exists no legitimate scientific study or research in regard to the BLMs decisions to roundup and essentially abuse or kill during the roundups or storage of America’s Wild Horses, and eventually send to slaughter America’s Icons, the Wild Horses.

When tracking the reasons why the BLM make the decisions about roundups, we find three things — all of which considered illegitimate reasoning:

1. The Environmental Impact Statements (all) do not contain thorough terrestrial, marine, ecosystem, grazing, or soil research — nor do they contain appropriate and meaningful recommendation toward the ultimate decision making process and in regard to a true impact of the Public Lands involved — rather, some EIS’s are eventually copied from other areas, then the titles changed to appear the EIS completed for the particular area noted, and submitted as such, but most often, that is when new EIS’s do exist, they are irresponsibly inaccurate or untruthful in total;

2. There exists no consistent or honest wild horse head counts, whereas, inconsistency exists and easily observable from tables and supposed previous counts — as their current models and paradigm formulas inaccurate and thereby irresponsible, and are prejudice against wild horses and directly affirmative toward cattle, despite the obvious and plentiful and well referenced science and data available (BLM employees ignore this) stating the invasiveness and harm done by cattle (also see recent court transcripts for Murderer’s Creek, stating cattle the cause of harmful environmental damage, not the wild horses, even though the attempt was made to accuse the Wild Horse Herds roaming that area, the Federal Court Judge perused legitimate science data and research (as mentioned in the Judge’s final statement) to form the final decision — LOREN STOUT and PIPER STOUT, Civil No. 09-152-HA Plaintiffs, OPINION AND ORDER v. U.S. FOREST SERVICE, and U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, et al.);

3. Then the very sad and narrow in scope reasoning for BLM employees keeping welfare ranchers, foreign oil companies, and mining corporations happy, America’s Public Lands and America’s Icons, the Wild Horses are sacrificed, entire environment and ecosystems ruined, America’s Wildlife and vegetation sent to extinction, and all for small but quick profits; and in reality, for example the beef market (i.e. welfare ranchers on public lands contribute only 2.6% of beef to the commercial markets today) has declined 12.8% less Americans actually eat beef or beef products today, and now we sacrifice our Public Lands for welfare ranchers, etc., to sell to foreign countries — this is unacceptable!

Note: Taxpayers pay a lot for the roundups and storage, $Millions, but receive nothing in return! The price is too costly to Americans, and the general American public agree and want horse roundups stopped!

Federal Law and Policy

Federal laws guide the use and management of public-land resources. Some laws are specific to a given agency (e.g. the BLM’s Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 and the FS’s National Forest Management Act [NFMA] of 1976), whereas others cross agency boundaries (e.g., Endangered Species Act [ESA] of 1973; Clean Water Act [CWA] of
1972).

A common mission of federal land management agencies is ‘‘to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of public lands’’ (GAO 2007, p. 12). Further, each of these agencies has ample authority and responsibility to adjust management to respond to public land or federal lands grazing (GAO 2007) and other stressors.

The FS and BLM are directed to maintain and improve the condition of the public rangelands so that they become as productive as feasible for all rangeland values. As defined, ‘‘range condition’’ encompasses factors such as soil quality, forage values, wildlife habitat, watershed and plant communities, and the present state of vegetation of a range site in relation to the potential plant community for that site (Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978).

Quite obvious to many of the general public and concerned taxpayers, this type of aforementioned management or Stewardship and responsibility toward our Public Lands is commonly ignored by these government agencies. Why?

BLM lands and national forests must be managed for sustained yield of a wide array of multiple uses, values, and ecosystem services, including wildlife and fish, watershed, recreation, timber, and range. Relevant statutes call for management that meets societal needs, without impairing the productivity of the land or the quality of the environment, and which considers the ‘‘relative values’’ of the various resources, not necessarily the combination of uses that will give the greatest economic return or the greatest unit output (Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960; Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 [FLPMA] as outlined and discussed in previous article 1 of this series).

Restoration a Simple Matter of getting Rid of the Culprit-Cattle

Because livestock use is so widespread on public lands in the American West, with zero benefits to taxpayers, management actions directed at ecological restoration, to include unlimited cattle removal, needs to be accomplished much sooner than later.

This approach, despite conflict with government agencies that could care less about American’s who are concerned about our Public Lands restoration, should and will be made more aware that they work for us, American’s and taxpayers, and not for corporations or legislators! If government agency land managers and administrators alike, wish to debate the issue of who they work for, then they should be removed from their positions as being irresponsible and unresponsive to their job description and mission statements. The removal of cattle from America’s Public Lands then becomes the most ecologically effective and economically efficient method for recovering altered ecosystems, because it directly involves and addresses the root causes of degradation and allow natural recovery processes to operate, and is based on good science and research as well, see (Kauffman and others 1997; Rieman and Isaak 2010).

This strategy is especially relevant to western ecosystems because removing or significantly reducing the cause of degradation (e.g., excessive cattle use) is likely to be considerably more effective over the long term, in both costs and approach.

For many areas of the American West, particularly riparian areas and other areas of high biodiversity, significantly reducing or eliminating the cattle in total on Public Lands should, over time, result in the recovery of self-sustaining andn ecologically robust ecosystems (Kauffman and others 1997; Floyd and others 2003; Allington and Valone 2010.

Indeed, various studies and reviews have concluded that the most effective way to restore riparian areas and aquatic systems is to exclude cattle on a long-term basis (e.g., Platts 1991;BLM and FS 1994; Dobkin and others 1998; NRC 2002; Seavy and others 2009: Fleischner 2010). Recovering channel form and riparian soils and vegetation by reducing cattle impacts is also a viable management tool for increasing summer baseflows (Ponce and Lindquist 1990; Rhodes and others 1994).

Conclusion

Once again what is shown, by well referenced science, research, data gathering, and just plain American common sense, is a direct conflict with the BLM’s tactics in management.

Even though we have the truth on our side, science and wholesome data on our side, common sense on our side, well referenced biology and research that shows harmful effects of cattle on our Public Lands, an over amount of laws and policies that have been either ignored or consciously broken, many cases of fraudulent behavior by BLM employees and provable, and irresponsible behavior by those who manage America’s Public Lands — and these same government agencies offer nothing to debate these issues other than childish name-calling, as they have been essentially “caught in their bullshit”!

And as American’s what is it we are to do, simply put our hands in our pockets, shrug our shoulders, and then walk away, only to ignore this ever so obvious irresponsible situation? That is not going to happen because being an American is far more important, than allowing bad conduct and the ongoing criminal behavior within our government agencies! It is time to stop the travesty of the BLM, Horse abuse, and sending American Icons, The Wild Horses, to Slaughter!

___________________________________

References:

Abella SR (2008) A systematic review of wild burro grazing effects on Mojave Desert vegetation, USA. Environ Manage 41:809–819
Allen DL (1974) Our wildlife legacy. Funk and Wagnalls, New York
Allington GRH, Valone TJ (2010) Reversal of desertification: the roleof physical and chemical soil properties. J Arid Environ
74:973–977
Angermeier PL, Karr JR (1994) Biological integrity versus biological diversity as policy directives. Bioscience 44:690–697
Asner GP, Elmore AJ, Olander LP, Martin RE, Harris AT (2004)
Grazing systems, ecosystem responses, and global change. Ann Rev Environ Resour 29:261–299
Backlund P, Janetos A, Schimel D, Hatfield J, Ryan M, Archer S, Lettenmaier D (2008) The effects of climate change on
agriculture, land resources, water resources, and biodiversity.
A report by the US Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. US Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC, http://www.climate science.gov/Library/sap/sap4-3/final-report/default.htm
Balling RC, Klopatek JM, Hildebrandt ML, Moritz CK, Watts J (1998) Impacts of land degradation on historical temperature
records from the Sonoran Desert. Clim Change 40:669–681
Barnosky AD, Hadly EA, Bascompte J et al (2012) Approaching a state shift in Earth’s biosphere. Nature 486:52–58
Bates BC, Kundzewicz ZW, Wu S, Palutikof JP (eds) (2008) Climate change and water. In: Technical paper of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. IPCC Secretariat, Geneva
Baxter CV, Fausch KD, Saunders WC (2005) Tangled webs: reciprocal flows of invertebrate prey link streams and riparian
zones. Freshw Biol 50:201–220
Coggins GC, Wilkinson CF, Leshy JD, Fischman RL (2007) Federal public land and resources law. Foundation Press, New York
Connelly JW, Knick ST, Schroeder MA, Stiver SJ (2004) Conservation assessment of greater sage-grouse and sagebrush habitats.
Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Cheyenne
Cowley ER (2002) Monitoring current year streambank alteration. US
Bureau of Land Management, Boise CWWR (Centers for Water and Wildland Resources) (1996) Sierra
Nevada ecosystem project report. Wildland Resources Center Report No. 39. University of California, Davis
D’Antonio CM, Vitousek PM (1992) Biological invasions by exotic grasses, the grass/fire cycle, and global change. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 23:63–87
Dobkin DS, Rich AC, Pyle WH (1998) Habitat and avifaunal recovery from livestock grazing in a riparian meadow system of
the northwestern Great Basin. Conserv Biol 12:209–221
DOI-OIG (Department of the Interior-Office of the Inspector General) (2010) Bureau of land management wild horse and burro program. Report C-IS-BLM-0018-2010, Washington, DC
Donahue DL (2007) Federal rangeland policy: perverting law and jeopardizing ecosystem services. J Land Use Environ Law
22:299–354
Dwire KA, Ryan SE, Shirley LJ, Lytjen D, Otting N, Dixon MK (2007) Influence of herbivory on regrowth of riparian shrubs
following a wildland fire. J Am Water Resour Assoc 42:201–212
EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) (1999) A review and synthesis of effects of alterations to the water temperature regime on freshwater life stages of salmonids, with special reference to chinook salmon, USEPA Technical Report EPA 910-R-99-010.
USEPA, Seattle, http://www.maweb.org/documents/document.355.aspx.pdf
EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) (2009) National water quality inventory: report to congress, 2004 reporting cycle. US
Environmental Protection Agency EPA-841-R-08-001, Washington, DC
Estes JA, Terborgh J, Brashares JS, and 21 others (2011) Trophic downgrading of planet earth. Science 333:301–306
Field CB, Mortsch LD, Brklacich M, Forbes DL, Kovacs P, Patz JA, Running SW, Scott MJ (2007) North America. Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. In: Parry ML, Canziani OF, Palutikof JP, van der Linden PJ, Hanson CE (eds)
Contribution of working group II to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, pp 617–652
Fleischner TL (1994) Ecological costs of livestock grazing in western North America. Conserv Biol 8:629–644
Thornton PK, Herrero M (2010) The inter-linkages between rapid growth in livestock production, climate change, and the impacts on water resources, land use, and deforestation. World Bank, Policy Research Paper 5178, Nairobi, Kenya
Torrell LA, Rimbey NR, Bartlett ET, Van Tassell LW, Tanaka JA (2001) An evaluation of the PRIA grazing fee formula. Current issues in rangeland resource economics: symposium proceedings. Western Regional Coordinating Committee on Rangeland Economics WCC-55. New Mexico State University Research Report Series 737, Las Cruces, New Mexico
Trimble SW, Mendel AC (1995) The cow as a geomorphic agent, a critical review. Geomorphology 13:233–253
Valone TJ, Meyer M, Brown JH, Chew RM (2002) Timescale of perennial grass recovery in desertified arid grasslands following livestock removal. Conserv Biol 16:995–1002
Vincent CH (2012) Grazing fees: overview and issues. Congressional Research Service RS21232, Washington DC
Weisberg PJ, Coughenour MB (2003) Model-based assessment of aspen responses to elk herbivory in Rocky Mountain National Park, USA. Environ Manage 32:152–169
Welch BL (2005) Big sagebrush: a sea fragmented into lakes, ponds, and puddles. US Forest Service GTR-RMRS-GTR-144, Fort Collins, Colorado
Westerling AL, Hidalgo HG, Cayan DR, Swetnam TW (2006)
Warming and earlier spring increase western U.S. forest wildfire activity. Science 313:940–943
Wilcove DS, Rothstein D, Dubow J, Phillips A, Losos E (1998)
Quantifying threats to imperiled species in the United States. Bioscience 48:607–615
Worster D (1992) Under western skies: nature and history in the American west. Oxford University Press, New York
WSWC (Western States Water Council) (1989) Preliminary summary of findings, In: Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Workshop, Midvale, Utah, pp 25–28
Wu L, He N, Wang Y, Han X (2008) Storage and dynamics of carbon and nitrogen in soil after grazing exclusion in Leymus chinensis grasslands of northern China. J Environ Qual 37:663–668

The Bureau of Land Management lacks credibility. The fact is the information the Bureau of Land Management (i.e. BLM) distributes to the public, especially about wild horse herd roundups, is predicated upon political agendas as well as the quite apparent public land management’s ideologies induced by political lobby groups. It becomes obvious that the wild horse herds cannot be managed by lobby groups or special interest groups, as the American taxpayer still pays for proper HMA (Horse Management Areas) as well as proper Stewardship of our Public Lands.

This situation simply favors those same small groups, such as corporations, welfare ranchers (i.e. cattle), and foreign owned companies that want to accomplish their business on America’s Public Lands! Ironically, the BLM hardly, if ever, collects even the small amount of fees charged to these corporations or for cattle grazing on public lands (GAO Report 2012 states billions of dollars went uncollected). And yet, these two elements do the most damage to our domestic and public lands environment. America’s taxpayers lose all around, with no return what so ever!

Due to the ongoing abuse of wild horses at BLM roundups, and previous roundups, combined with the amount of millions of dollars of taxpayer money spent on these same horse roundups, this becomes quite a significant problem.

These decisions to complete a wild horse herd roundup are not based from preferred quality data and sound science; neither are the decisions based on wild horse herd safety or health, as the horses as one can easily see, remain extremely healthy year around. No! The fact is the wild horse herd roundups are approved only by misleading and falsified information. Over time we see this as extremely costly to taxpayers and our public lands being ruined. Read onward for further reference.

Cattle and Public Lands Issues

Research study after well documented research study proves beyond a doubt that cattle on public lands has indeed produced negative consequences. Our public lands soil quality, air quality, along with wildlife endangerment, and even species extinction, remains paramount and of concern. This fact is all due to cattle grazing on public lands.

The point is that the general public should be questioning, undeniably, the BLM’s wild horse herd roundups, attrition would take care of the other unethical or criminal behavior. The wild horse herds, in truth and proven through numerous non-political and non-agenda scientific research papers and testimony, remain a non-invasive animal and simply good for the public lands environment.

The BLM’s information and reasoning for wild horse herd roundups, on the other hand, remains unreferenced, opinionated, and no science or research to attest to their opinions. BLM management simply favors more cattle on public lands and will lie, as history demonstrates quite readily, to essentially get their way!

Not so ironic is the fact the only information proven by sound research and data gathering is the fact cattle remain a negative invasive species on America’s public lands, and are essentially ruining the environment of our public lands, both locally and domestically. There exists too many cattle in the United States, and currently a large percent simply being sold on foreign markets — so once again American’s are lied to for corporate profits. There is no need for cattle to graze on pubic lands any longer (see references) and American’s simply are eating much less beef, 12.8% reduction within the last year (i.e. USDA Report and Economic Forecast).

Commercial cattle grazing on public lands indeed “. . . alters vegetation, soils, hydrology, and wildlife species composition and abundance that exacerbate climate change . . .” (see references).

In contrast, it is scientifically shown that wild horses, and even wolves (also falsely presented by both federal and state government agencies alike) can reestablish our public lands to a viable and healthy environment for the public, wildlife, vegetation and the landscape combined.

So upon the examination of references we reiterate the fact that the BLM, and Forestry for that matter, has no well referenced or definable scientific proof for any wild horse herd roundups to take place at all.

This also places into extreme doubt both government agencies Environmental Impact Statements. These statements are a regulatory measure to safeguard our environment from callous management. These government agencies mission as Stewarts of our public lands and environment to safeguard our federal forests and public lands apparently neglected as well. It is unfortunate they do not complete these safeguards as regulated by law.

Consequently, this makes these government agencies guilty of submitting environmental statements that are fraudulent not only in nature, but because it becomes quite costly to taxpayers, a criminal act as well. These same environmental statements are dependent upon true scientific related and well referenced material and information. This information must be reliable and consistent with each region or area of potential wild horse herd roundups versus cattle grazing management.

The problem can become quite costly to taxpayers to finance these, shall we say, inappropriate decisions; as these decisions are based on false information and for welfare ranchers and political lobby groups gathering profit and satisfaction for the corporations or associations hiring them.

Regulations BLM does not achieve

Ignored regulatory measures to prevent environmental damage and wildlife damage to our public lands follows — you decide:

“FLPMA directs the BLM to ‘‘take any action necessary to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation’’ of the public lands. Under NFMA, FS management must provide for
diversity of plant and animal communities based on the suitability and capability of the specific land area. FLMPA also authorizes both agencies to ‘‘cancel, suspend, or modify’’ grazing permits and to determine that ‘‘grazing uses should be discontinued (either temporarily or permanently) on certain lands.’’

FLPMA explicitly recognizes the BLM’s authority (with congressional oversight) to ‘‘totally eliminate’’ grazing from large areas ([405 km2) of public lands.

These authorities are reinforced by law providing that grazing permits are not property rights (Public Lands Council v. Babbitt 2000). While federal agencies have primary authority to manage federal public lands and thus wildlife habitats on these lands, states retain primary management authority over resident wildlife, unless preempted, as by the WFRHBA or ESA (Kleppe v. New Mexico 1976). Under WFRHBA, wild, free-roaming horses and burros (i.e., feral) by law have been declared ‘‘wildlife’’ and an integral part of the natural system of the public lands where they are to be managed in a manner that is designed to achieve and maintain a thriving natural ecological balance.”

So now we understand why the BLM (and the forestry for that matter) do not generate regulatory, and by law, the Environmental Impact Statements within a proper perspective or with any “Truth” within their documents. We now can understand why the lies persist, and the BLM lies to cover the previous lies up!

But there is much more, and the BLM and Forestry, ignore this and create misinformation and even lies to cover these situations up!

“The FS and BLM are directed to maintain and improve the condition of the public rangelands so that they become as productive as feasible for all rangeland values. As defined, ‘‘range condition’’ encompasses factors such as soil quality, forage values, wildlife habitat, watershed and plant communities, and the present state of vegetation of a
range site in relation to the potential plant community for that site (Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978). BLM lands and national forests must be managed for
sustained yield of a wide array of multiple uses, values, and ecosystem services, including wildlife and fish, watershed, recreation, timber, and range. Relevant statutes call for management that meets societal needs, without impairing the productivity of the land or the quality of the environment, and which considers the ‘‘relative values’’ of the
various resources, not the combination of uses that will give the greatest economic return or the greatest unit output (Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960; Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 [FLPMA]).”

Conclusion

Historical and on-going cattle usage affects soils, vegetation, wildlife, and water resources on vast expanses of public forests, shrubbery lands, and grasslands across the American West. Horses are blamed for the carnage but that is and remains an unfortunate lie that will become harder and harder for the BLM, and Forestry to show within a truthful or responsible methodology.

Once the public acknowledges these agencies, the BLM or Forestry, are not developing their management plans, or decisions, by the substantial regulatory and legal requirements given them, only then will change take place and under pressure from the public and politicians alike.

It is quite clear that our Stewarts of our Public Lands, these supposed government agencies under regulatory restraint (yet ignore the regulations and laws quite freely) will have to, perhaps within the immediate future, get rid of many employees who are not receptive to regulations and laws; especially those employees in upper management and administrators at the BLM, Forestry, or the Department of the Interior, that choose to accomplish public lands management via political lobby group demands or by political pressure.
_______________________________________

References:

Abella SR (2008) A systematic review of wild burro grazing effects on Mojave Desert vegetation, USA. Environ Manage 41:809–819
Allen DL (1974) Our wildlife legacy. Funk and Wagnalls, New York
Allington GRH, Valone TJ (2010) Reversal of desertification: the roleof physical and chemical soil properties. J Arid Environ
74:973–977
Angermeier PL, Karr JR (1994) Biological integrity versus biological diversity as policy directives. Bioscience 44:690–697
Asner GP, Elmore AJ, Olander LP, Martin RE, Harris AT (2004)
Grazing systems, ecosystem responses, and global change. Ann Rev Environ Resour 29:261–299
Backlund P, Janetos A, Schimel D, Hatfield J, Ryan M, Archer S, Lettenmaier D (2008) The effects of climate change on
agriculture, land resources, water resources, and biodiversity.
A report by the US Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. US Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC, http://www.climate science.gov/Library/sap/sap4-3/final-report/default.htm
Balling RC, Klopatek JM, Hildebrandt ML, Moritz CK, Watts J (1998) Impacts of land degradation on historical temperature
records from the Sonoran Desert. Clim Change 40:669–681
Barnosky AD, Hadly EA, Bascompte J et al (2012) Approaching a state shift in Earth’s biosphere. Nature 486:52–58
Bates BC, Kundzewicz ZW, Wu S, Palutikof JP (eds) (2008) Climate change and water. In: Technical paper of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. IPCC Secretariat, Geneva
Baxter CV, Fausch KD, Saunders WC (2005) Tangled webs: reciprocal flows of invertebrate prey link streams and riparian
zones. Freshw Biol 50:201–220
Coggins GC, Wilkinson CF, Leshy JD, Fischman RL (2007) Federal public land and resources law. Foundation Press, New York
Connelly JW, Knick ST, Schroeder MA, Stiver SJ (2004) Conservation assessment of greater sage-grouse and sagebrush habitats.
Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Cheyenne
Cowley ER (2002) Monitoring current year streambank alteration. US
Bureau of Land Management, Boise CWWR (Centers for Water and Wildland Resources) (1996) Sierra
Nevada ecosystem project report. Wildland Resources Center Report No. 39. University of California, Davis
D’Antonio CM, Vitousek PM (1992) Biological invasions by exotic grasses, the grass/fire cycle, and global change. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 23:63–87
Dobkin DS, Rich AC, Pyle WH (1998) Habitat and avifaunal recovery from livestock grazing in a riparian meadow system of
the northwestern Great Basin. Conserv Biol 12:209–221
DOI-OIG (Department of the Interior-Office of the Inspector General) (2010) Bureau of land management wild horse and burro program. Report C-IS-BLM-0018-2010, Washington, DC
Donahue DL (2007) Federal rangeland policy: perverting law and jeopardizing ecosystem services. J Land Use Environ Law
22:299–354
Dwire KA, Ryan SE, Shirley LJ, Lytjen D, Otting N, Dixon MK (2007) Influence of herbivory on regrowth of riparian shrubs
following a wildland fire. J Am Water Resour Assoc 42:201–212
EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) (1999) A review and synthesis of effects of alterations to the water temperature regime on freshwater life stages of salmonids, with special reference to chinook salmon, USEPA Technical Report EPA 910-R-99-010.
USEPA, Seattle, http://www.maweb.org/documents/document.355.aspx.pdf
EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) (2009) National water quality inventory: report to congress, 2004 reporting cycle. US
Environmental Protection Agency EPA-841-R-08-001, Washington, DC
Estes JA, Terborgh J, Brashares JS, and 21 others (2011) Trophic downgrading of planet earth. Science 333:301–306
Field CB, Mortsch LD, Brklacich M, Forbes DL, Kovacs P, Patz JA, Running SW, Scott MJ (2007) North America. Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. In: Parry ML, Canziani OF, Palutikof JP, van der Linden PJ, Hanson CE (eds)
Contribution of working group II to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, pp 617–652
Fleischner TL (1994) Ecological costs of livestock grazing in western North America. Conserv Biol 8:629–644
Thornton PK, Herrero M (2010) The inter-linkages between rapid growth in livestock production, climate change, and the impacts on water resources, land use, and deforestation. World Bank, Policy Research Paper 5178, Nairobi, Kenya
Torrell LA, Rimbey NR, Bartlett ET, Van Tassell LW, Tanaka JA (2001) An evaluation of the PRIA grazing fee formula. Current issues in rangeland resource economics: symposium proceedings. Western Regional Coordinating Committee on Rangeland Economics WCC-55. New Mexico State University Research Report Series 737, Las Cruces, New Mexico
Trimble SW, Mendel AC (1995) The cow as a geomorphic agent, a critical review. Geomorphology 13:233–253
Valone TJ, Meyer M, Brown JH, Chew RM (2002) Timescale of perennial grass recovery in desertified arid grasslands following livestock removal. Conserv Biol 16:995–1002
Vincent CH (2012) Grazing fees: overview and issues. Congressional Research Service RS21232, Washington DC
Weisberg PJ, Coughenour MB (2003) Model-based assessment of aspen responses to elk herbivory in Rocky Mountain National Park, USA. Environ Manage 32:152–169
Welch BL (2005) Big sagebrush: a sea fragmented into lakes, ponds, and puddles. US Forest Service GTR-RMRS-GTR-144, Fort Collins, Colorado
Westerling AL, Hidalgo HG, Cayan DR, Swetnam TW (2006)
Warming and earlier spring increase western U.S. forest wildfire activity. Science 313:940–943
Wilcove DS, Rothstein D, Dubow J, Phillips A, Losos E (1998)
Quantifying threats to imperiled species in the United States. Bioscience 48:607–615
Worster D (1992) Under western skies: nature and history in the American west. Oxford University Press, New York
WSWC (Western States Water Council) (1989) Preliminary summary of findings, In: Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Workshop, Midvale, Utah, pp 25–28
Wu L, He N, Wang Y, Han X (2008) Storage and dynamics of carbon and nitrogen in soil after grazing exclusion in Leymus chinensis grasslands of northern China. J Environ Qual 37:663–668