Wild Horses and Cattle: There is No Debate When Good Science Used

25 Jul


“There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him.” ― Robert A. Heinlein, The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress

Cattle pollute our environment! This is not a wives-tale, told by youngsters to pass on to their friends! It is a Truth. As American taxpayer’s, we have paid quite a bit for cattle to graze our Public Lands, and apparently the rancher’s that do hold Grazing Permits are going to make sure they bilk American taxpayer’s even more.

But to rid our Public Lands of Wild Horses – NO WAY! That is simply more apparent lies brought to you by a few Welfare Ranchers in this country, and corporations that lease Public Lands! Yes, they want America’s Wild Horses out of their way, and will say anything — lie, cheat, and steal to get their way – and have been doing so for quite a while now.

IN REALITY: American’s want Wild Horses on our Public Lands!

So let’s take a look at some good science. This is science that is quantifiable, no hidden agenda, does not exclude cattle from grasslands studies (BLM and DOI have arrogantly done so in the past costing taxpayer’s in the millions of dollars again), good science does not swear up and down, and lie stating horses wreck our environment and not cattle (as fact just the opposite is true) – and yes some lobby groups shout, yell, and kick and stomp up and down, like small spoiled children, all the while insisting that science is wrong and it is all the Wild Horses fault – yet nothing can be further from the truth as good scientific research shows 100%.

So the fact they jump up and down, reckless with their accusations about Wild Horses, only promotes the fact they do acknowledge destruction of our Public Lands quite evident; then peruse their attempt to place the blame on wildlife, who indeed cannot defend themselves from these outlandish attacks – America’s Wild Horses! Yes, on top of everything else, these Welfare Ranchers are simply bullies —

Good science, the truthful alternative to Welfare Ranchers and their cattle, also abides by procedure and optimal data gathering (compared to Welfare Rancher’s rants, raves and hate), plus objective review of this data, and then moves forward to quantifiable results that good environmental and wildlife decisions can be based upon.

Cattle and Research

“Studies show that the production of beef is around 10 times more damaging to the environment than any other form of livestock.”

“Scientists measured the environment inputs required to produce the main US sources of protein. It is a fact that beef cattle need 28 times more land and 11 times more irrigation water than pork, poultry, eggs or dairy.”

Beef Footprint

Researchers have developed a uniform methodology that they were able to apply to all five livestock categories (i.e. mentioned above) and to four measures of environmental performance.

“They had sharp view of the comparative impact that beef, pork, poultry, dairy and eggs have in terms of land and water use, reactive nitrogen discharge, and greenhouse gas emissions.”

The scientists used data from 2000-2010 from the US Department of Agriculture to calculate the amount of resources required for all the feed consumed by edible livestock.

They then worked out the amount of hay, silage and concentrate such as soybeans required by the different species to put on a kilo of weight.

They also include greenhouse gas emissions, not just from the production of feed for animals, but from their digestion and manure.

“As ruminants, cattle can survive on a wide variety of plants, but they have very low energy conversion efficiency from what they eat.”

“As a result, beef comes out clearly as the food animal with the biggest environmental impact. The scientists have developed a methodology to compare the relative impacts of different protein sources.”

“As well as the effects on land and water, cattle release five times more greenhouse gas and consume six times more nitrogen than eggs or poultry.”

“Cutting down on beef can have a big environmental impact,” many research scientists say; but the same is not true for all livestock.

“One can reasonably be an environmentally mindful eater, designing one’s diet with its environmental impact in mind, while not resorting to exclusive reliance on plant food sources,” said several scientists.

“In fact, eliminating beef, and replacing it with relatively efficiency animal-based alternatives such as eggs, can achieve an environmental improvement comparable to switching to plant food resources.”

“The overall environmental footprint of beef is particularly large because it combines low production efficiency with very high volume.”

“The result is that many researchers estimate that over 60% of the environmental burden of livestock in the US results from beef. The overall message here is quite clear, despite what Lobby Groups want American’s and Legislator’s to believe:

“Beyond a Doubt, Cattle dominate the livestock footprint in the U.S.”

EPA and AG Oriented Lobby Groups

The current environmental focus on controlling nonpoint pollution to protect our surface water has led to the discussion of management of riparian areas, as well as our Public Lands and small biospheres. The Environmental Protection Agency states that agriculture has a greater impact on stream and river contamination than any other nonpoint source (Horses are not included within this statement, and for several non-polluting reasons).

Grazing, particularly improper grazing of riparian areas, high desert flats, valleys, and Public Lands can contribute to nonpoint source pollution. Negative impacts downstream include the contamination of drinking water supplies (Brown, 1994)), eutrophication or biospheres (Richards et al., 2002), and hypoxia (Rabalais et al., 2001). All generated by Cattle – No other Source Contributes to any of the above mentioned pollutants.


It is simply time to stop catering to industries that destroy our environment. The cattle industry destroys America’s Public Lands! That simple! The corporate dollar is not worth much if American’s have nowhere to go any longer, nor any wildlife to watch interact within the wild.

In a conversation with an Economist and Sociologist, Dr. Kevin Blake, “In the long run corporations could care less, due to their insistent short-term thinking. In another words they can destroy our environment; in their minds, when the land-environment no longer producible monetarily, they can sell what’s left of the water and its environment. Perhaps why billionaires and their corporations placing so much emphasis on purchasing water-rights right now.”

There exist more paradigms, but in general billionaires and corporations are not America’s friends, rather very destructive enemies, and quite costly to taxpayers.

Ironically, we can compare all of this to Wild Horses, very simply I might add. It is shown through good science that Wild Horses are not only NON-Destructive to our Environment, but help, just as wolves do along with other wildlife, better our environment, creating wholesome and often self-sustaining biosphere’s. These biospheres assimilated into the overall environmental complex, and enhance our living as well.


Bellows, B. C. March 2003. Protecting riparian areas: Farmland management strategies. Soil Systems Guide, Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas. At

Belsky, A. J., A. Matzke, and S. Uselman. 1999. Survey of livestock influences on stream and riparian ecosystems in the western United States. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 54(1): 419-431.

Bohn, C. C., and J. C. Buckhouse. 1986. Effects of grazing management on streambanks. Trans. N. Am. Wildl. Natl. Resour. Conf. 51:265-271.

Bryant, H. T., R. E. Blaser, and J. R. Peterson. 1972. Effect of trampling by cattle on bluegrass yield and soil compaction of a meadowville loam. Agron. J. 64:331-334.

Chichester, F. W., R. W. Van Keuran, and J. L. McGuinness. 1979. Hydrology and chemical quality of flow from small pastured watersheds: Chemical quality. J. Envir. Qual. 8(2): 167-171.

Cole, D. W., 1981. Nitrogen uptake and translocation by forest ecosystems. In: F. E. Clark and T. Rosswall (eds.) Terestrial Nitrogen Cycles. Ecological Bulletin. Vol. 33. p. 219-232.

Cooper, A. B., C. M. Smith, and M. J. Smith. 1995. Effects of riparian set-aside on soil characteristics in an agricultural landscape Implications for nutrient transport and retention. Agric. Ecosystems Environ. 55:61-67.

Duff, Donald A. 1979. Riparian habitat recovery on Big Creek, Rich County, Utah. In Proceedings: Grazing and Riparian/Stream Ecosystems. Trout Unlimited, Inc. p. 91

Gardner, J. L. 1950. Effects of thirty years of protection from grazing in desert grassland. Ecology. 31:44-50.

Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Animal Agriculture: A Summary of Literature Related to the Effects of Animal Agriculture on Water Resources (G), 1999. The Environmental Quality Board, College of Agriculture, Food, and Environmental Sciences (COAFES), Univ. of Minnesota.

Green, D. M., and J. B. Kauffman. 1989. Nutrient cycling at the land-water interface: The importance of the riparian zone. In: R. E. Gresswell, B. A. Barton, and J. L. Kershner (eds.) Practical Approaches to Riparian Resource Management : An Education Workshop. U.S. Bureau of Land Management. Billings, MT. p. 61-68.

Gregory, S. V., F. J. Swanson, W. A. McKee, and K. W. Cummins. 1991. An ecosystem perspective of riparian zones. Bioscience 41(8): 540-550.

Hack-ten Broeke, M. J. D., W. J. M. De Groot, and J. P. Dijkstra. 1996. Impact of excreted nitrogen by grazing cattle on nitrate leaching. Soil Use Manage. 12:190-198.

Jawson, M. D., L. F. Elliott, K. E. Saxton, and D. H. Fortier. 1982. The effect of cattle grazing on nutrient losses in a pacific northwest setting, USA. J. Environ. Qual. 11:628-631.

Kaufmann, J. B., and W. C. Kreuger. 1984. Livestock impacts on riparian ecosystems and streamside management implications: A review. J. Range Manage. 37:430-438.

Knapp, R. A., V. T. Vredenburg, and K. R. Matthews. 1998. Effects of stream channel morphology on golden trout spawning habitat and recruitment. Ecol. Appl. 8:1104-1117.

Lemly, D. A. 1982. Modification of benthic insect communities in polluted streams: Combined effects of sedimentation and nutrient enrichment. Hydrobiologia. 87:229-245.

Li, H. W., G. A. Lamberti, T. N. Pearsons, C. K. Tait, J. L. Li, and J. C. Buckhouse. 1994. Cumulative effects of riparian disturbances along high desert trout streams of the John Day Basin, Oregon. Trans. Am. Fisheries Soc. 123:627-640.

Magilligan, F. J., and P. F. McDowell. 1997. Stream channel adjustments following elimination of cattle grazing. J. Am. Water Resour. Assn. 33:867-878.

Marcuson, Patrick E. 1977. Overgrazed streambanks depress fishery production in Rock Creek, Montana. Fish and Game Federation Aid Program. F-20-R-21-11a.

McColl, R. H. S., and A. R. Gibson. 1979. Downslope movement of nutrients in hill pasture,Taita, New Zealand: 2. Effects of season, sheep grazing and fertilizer. New Zealand J. Agric. Res. 22:151-162.
Meyers, T. J., and S. Swanson. 1991. Aquatic habitat condition index, streamtypes and livestock bank damage in northern Nevada. Water Resour. Bull. 27:667-677.

Minshall, G. W. 1984. Aquatic insect substratum relationships. In V. H. Resh and D. M. Rosenberg (ed.) The ecology of aquatic insects. Praeger Publishers, New York. p. 356-400.

Mwendera, E. J., and M. A. M. Saleem. 1997a. Infiltration rates, surface runoff, and soil loss as influenced by grazing pressure in the Ethiopian highlands. Soil Use Manage. 13:29-35.

Mwendera, E. J., M. A. M. Saleem, and A. Dibabe. 1997. The effect of livestock grazing on surface runoff and soil erosion from sloping pasture lands in the Ethiopian highlands. Australian J. Experimental Agric. 37:421-430.

Naeth, M. A., and D. S. Chanasyk. 1996. Runoff and sediment yield under grazing in foothills fescue grasslands of Alberta. Water Res. Bull. 32:89-95.

Naiman, R. J., and H. Decamps. 1997. The ecology of interfaces: Riparian zones. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. V. 28. p. 621-658.

Olness, A., S. J. Smith, E. D. Rhoades, and R. G. Menzel. 1975. Nutrient and sediment discharge from agricultural watersheds in Oklahoma. J. Environ. Qual. 4:331-336.

Ohio’s Hydrologic Cycle. 1994. L. C. Brown. AEX 461. Ohio State University Extension.
Orodho, A. B., M. J. Trlica, and C. D. Bonham. 1990. Long term heavy grazing effects on soil and vegetation in the four corners region. Southwest Naturalist. 35:9-14.

Owens, L. B., W. M. Edwards, and R. W. Van Keuren. 1989. Sediment and nutrient losses from an unimproved all-year grazed watershed. J. Environ. Qual. 18:232-238.

Owens, L. B., W. M. Edwards, and R. W. Van Keuren. 1996. Sediment losses from a pastured watershed before and after stream fencing. J. Soil Water Conserv. 51:90-94.

Owens, L. B., W. M. Edwards, and R. W. Van Keuren. 1997. Runoff and sediment losses resulting from winter feeding on pastures. J. Soil Water Conserv. 52:194-197.

Owens, L. B., W. M. Edwards, and R. W. Van Keuren. 1983. Surface runoff quality comparisons between unimproved pasture and woodlands. J. Environ. Qual. 12:518-522.

Owens, L. B., W. M. Edwards, and R. W. Van Keuren. 1994. Groundwater nitrate levels under fertilized grass and grasslegumes pastures. J. Environ. Qual. 23:752-758.

Richards, R. P., F. G. Calhoun, and G. Matisoff. 2002. Lake Erie agricultural systems for environmental quality project. J. of Envir. Qual. 31:6-16.

Rabalais, N. N., R. E. Turner, and W. J. Wiseman, Jr. 2001. Hypoxia in Gulf of Mexico. J. of Envir. Qual. Mar-Apr 30(2):320-329.

Platts, W. S. 1991. Livestock grazing. In: Influence of forest and rangeland management on Salmonid fishes and their habitats. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 19:389-423.

Platts, W. S., and R. F. Nelson. 1985. Stream habitat and fisheries response to livestock grazing and instream improvement structures, Big Creek, Utah. J. Soil Water Conserv. 40:374-379.

Platts, W. S. and F. J. Wagstaff. 1984. Fencing to control livestock grazing on riparian habitats along streams: Is it a viable alternative. N. Am. J. Fisheries Manage. 4:266-272.

Peterjohn, W. T., and D. L. Correll. 1984. Nutrient dynamics in an agricultural watershed: Observations of a riparian forest. Ecology 65: 1466-1475.

Quinn, J. M., R. B. Williamson, R. K. Smith, and M. L. Vickers. 1992. Effects of riparian grazing and channelization on streams in southland New Zealand 2. Benthic invertebrates. New Zealand J. Marine Freshwater Res. 26:259-273. LS-2-05.

Rauzi, F., and C. L. Hanson. 1966. Water intake and runoff as affected by intensity of grazing. J. Range Manage. 19:351-356.

Schepers, J. S., and D. D. Francis. 1982. Chemical water quality of runoff from grazing land in Nebraska: I. Influence of grazing livestock. J. Environ. Qual. 11:351-354.

Schepers, J. S., B. L. Hackes, and D. D. Francis. 1982. Chemical water quality of runoff from grazing land in Nebraska: II. Contributing factors. J. Environ. Qual. 11:355-359.

Sidle, R. C., and A. Sharma. 1996. Stream channel changes associated with mining and grazing in the Great Basin. J. Environ. Qual. 25:1111-1121.

Smith, C. M. 1989. Riparian pasture retirement effects on sediment phosphorus and nitrogen in channellized surface run-off from pastures. New Zealand J. Mar. Freshwater Res. 23:139-146.

Stout, W. L., S. A. Fales, L. D. Muller, R. R. Schnabel, W. E. Priddy, and G. F. Elwinger. 1997. Nitrate leaching from cattle urine and feces in northeastern U.S. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. 61:1787.

Sweeny, B. W. 1993. Effects of streamside vegetation on macroinvertebrate communities of White Clay Creek in eastern North America. Proc. of the Natural Science Academy of Philadelphia. 144:291-340.

Tait, C. K., J. L. Li, G. A. Lamberti, T. N. Pearsons, and H. W. Li. 1994. Relationships between riparian cover and community structure of high desert streams. J. N. Am. Benthological Soc. 13:45-56.

USEPA. 2000. National Water Quality Inventory: 2000 Report to Congress Executive Summary, Office of Water, Washington, DC 20460. [Online] Available at

Waters, T. F. 1995. Sediment in streams, sources, biological effects and control. American Fisheries Society Monograph 7.

White, R. K., R. W. VanKeuren, L. B. Owens, W. M. Edwards, and R. H. Miller. 1983. Effects of livestock pasturing on non-point surface runoff. Project Summary, Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory, Ada, Oklahoma. EPA- 600/S2-83-011. 6p.

Williamson, R. B., C. M. Smith, and A. B. Cooper. 1996. Watershed riparian management and its benefits to a eutrophic lake. J. Water Res. Planning Manage.-ASCE. 122:24-32.

Williamson, R. B., R. K. Smith, and J. M. Quinn. 1992. Effects of riparian grazing and channelization on streams in Southland New Zealand I. Channel form and stability. New Zealand Journal of Marine & Freshwater Research. 26:241-258.

Wohl, N. E., and R. F. Carline. 1996. Relations among riparian grazing, sediment loads, macroinvertebrates, and fishes in three central Pennsylvania streams. Can. J. Fisheries Aquatic Sci. 53(suppl. 1):260-266.


Posted by on July 25, 2014 in Uncategorized


8 responses to “Wild Horses and Cattle: There is No Debate When Good Science Used

  1. grandmagregg

    July 25, 2014 at 9:28 pm

    A few years ago, BLM authorized funding for volunteer studies of some public lands, including the NE California Twin Peaks Wild Horse and Burro Herd Management Area – land that is legally authorized by Congress for the principal use of wild horses and burros. A biologist with extensive knowledge of that area anonymously called the BLM person in charge of the program and asked what the study was going to involve. The BLM responded that the volunteers would be monitoring all resource usage (water and forage) of the area. After a lengthy conversation and polite requests by the biologist for explanation, the BLM person became irate when asked to explain how the usage would be allocated to wild horses and burros versus private livestock. BLM finally admitted that ALL (yes ALL) usage documented would be assigned to the wild horses and burros and NONE to the livestock regardless of the fact that there are more than five times more privately owned domestic livestock using the resources! This is a true story and this is how the BLM operates.

  2. Barbara Warner

    July 26, 2014 at 10:46 am

    The 1990-91 GAO study proved the millions of cattle destroy the range and riparian areas and not the few thousand wild horses.

  3. Louie C

    July 27, 2014 at 5:28 pm

    Since WHEN is the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers in the business of killing Wildlife?

    Stop the Killing of Thousands of Cormorants
    US Army Corps of Engineers Seeks to Kill 16,000 Cormorants in Oregon;jsessionid=172FBA1BDD04E6DD0ED707F98BD4579A.app260b?pagename=homepage&page=UserAction&id=2633&autologin=true

    (For the last several years on the Columbia River, the US Army Corps of Engineers and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) have been trapping, brutally branding, and killing sea lions for eating salmon. Sea lions have been scapegoated for the decline of salmon on the river, when in fact the reason for salmon decline is loss of habitat, dams, pollution, and over-fishing.

    Well, here we go again.

    Now the Army Corps has double-crested cormorants in its crosshairs. The Army Corps now blames cormorants for salmon decline and is proposing a plan to kill the birds in their nesting grounds on East Sand Island, at the mouth of the Columbia River. If this lethal removal plan is approved, up to 16,000 cormorants could be shot.

    The 62-acre East Sand Island is a vital nesting ground for double-crested cormorants and several other bird species, including Brandt’s cormorants, brown pelicans, and Caspian terns, among others. Using lethal means of “management” in such a vital bird nesting area is brutal and reckless.
    Fortunately, the Army Corps is also considering non-lethal management, but they need to hear from you before August 19, 2014. Please personalize and send the letter below to tell the Army Corps to leave cormorants alone and that no lethal means of “managing” cormorants should be considered.

  4. Louie C

    July 28, 2014 at 3:26 pm

    Release Date: 07/01/14
    Contacts: 775-289-1842
    News Release No. ELY 2014-027

    BLM Ely District Seeks Public Comment on Public Safety and Nuisance Gather Environmental Assessment for Wild Horse Management

    Ely, Nev. – The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Ely District is soliciting public comment on the Ely District Public Safety and Nuisance Gather Preliminary Environmental Assessment (EA). The comment period concludes Wednesday, July 30.
    The EA analyzes the district’s need to address potential environmental consequences associated with wild horse management in order to reduce and mitigate public safety concerns along major roadways in and outside HMA/HA boundaries, decrease nuisance animal complaints on private lands, and address management issues of wild horses that reside outside HMA/HA boundaries, in accordance with the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971.
    The Ely District Public Safety and Nuisance Gather Preliminary Environmental Assessment is available for public review at
    Interested individuals should address all written comments to the BLM Ely District Office, HC 33 Box 33500, Ely, NV 89301, Attn: Rosemary Thomas, Ely District Manager, or fax them to Thomas at (775) 289-1910. Comments may also be submitted electronically at Email comments sent to any other email address will not be considered.
    Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment – including your personal identifying information – may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
    For more information, contact Ben Noyes, BLM Ely District wild horse and burro specialist, at (775) 289-1800.

  5. Louie C

    August 1, 2014 at 7:19 am

    Two wild horses die at Utah roundup

    By kristen moulton
    | The Salt Lake Tribune
    First Published Jul 31 2014

    An agitated young wild horse alone in a corral apparently charged into a side panel and broke her neck after being rounded up on Utah’s west desert, Bureau of Land Management spokeswoman Lisa Reid said.

    The yearling filly died instantly and the BLM also had to euthanize a 7-year-old mare with a severely deformed leg from a previous fracture, Reid said.
    Both deaths — unusual during Utah’s wild horse roundups — occurred Wednesday, the third day of the BLM’s Blawn Wash gather in the Wah Wah Mountains of Beaver County, about 35 miles southwest of Milford

    The 141 horses were trucked to the Central Utah Correctional Facility at Gunnison, where they’ll be examined, vaccinated and prepared for adoption. The prison inmates may keep some for training.
    Even with 143 horses removed, Gus Warr, the agency’s manager for wild horses and burros in Utah, figured more than 100 would remain in the Blawn Wash area. Utah has nearly 4,000 wild horses, more than double the number the BLM has set as the upper limit.

    Ranchers in the region sued the BLM, and county commissioners in Iron and Beaver counties threatened their own roundups if the agency did not reduce the numbers of wild horses.
    Besides the Blawn Wash roundup, the BLM has trapped 25 horses and intends to trap 25 more when they go for water on private land in Iron County. The agency also plans to remove 30 from along State Road 21 in Beaver County, near Nevada, on Friday.

    The plan was to remove only 10, but the Utah BLM recently got approval from Washington to remove 20 more from the Sulphur herd. Warr saw 140 horses near the highway on Sunday, Reid said.

  6. Louie C

    August 1, 2014 at 8:11 am

    2014 Bible Springs Complex Wild Horse Roundup

  7. Louie C

    August 1, 2014 at 8:14 am

    Correction on the above posted video….THESE were Utah Federally Protected Wild Horses BEFORE being captured, removed from Public Land and sent to Gunnison Prison by BLM.

  8. Louie C

    August 1, 2014 at 8:16 am

    2014 Bible Springs Complex Wild Horse Roundup


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: