Monthly Archives: October 2015

 “I myself feel that our country, for whose Constitution I fought in a just war, might as well have been invaded by Martians and body snatchers. Sometimes I wish it had been. What has happened, though, is that it has been taken over by means of the sleaziest, low-comedy, Keystone Cops-style coup d’etat imaginable. And those now in charge of the federal government are upper-crust C-students who know no history or geography, plus not-so-closeted white supremacists, aka ‘Christians,’ and plus, most frighteningly, psychopathic personalities, or ‘PPs.’” — Kurt Vonnegut

We have already seen through the years what the problem with our environment and wildlife continues to be. Worse still is the continued ineptness within our government agencies, both state and federal, that continue the precise non-effective management principles.

When American’s / Taxpayers state the obvious about the neglectful management situation that has existed for so long, we are all either ignored, or spoke to condescendingly as if we know nothing. The more recent innuendo, or rhetoric, to cover-up incompetence within their mismanagement and toward those that disagree with the government employees, often told they are too emotional and simply complainers.

The problem is this – many who are discussing the noteworthy bad management paradigms and dynamics of incompetence in the decline of our nations environment and wildlife, do know and have the knowledge to put-forth proper complaints. But rather than dwell on this, let’s look at what we can do to resolve these issues. We can indeed outline circumstances that can develop into a proper procedure, and actually still resolve the issues of our environment and wildlife. It’s a start in the right direction.

Prevention: A Mitigation Strategy

There are two elements within this particular strategy:

• Short Term Strategy (Phase 1)
• A Mid-Term Program (Phase II)

Phase 1: Here is where we begin. We can start the alleviation procedure, which may lead to the development of a set of natural and cultural management needs. We need to stop looking at the narrow landscape of special interest, and start looking at what the priorities are, and methods of enhancing the priorities of sustainability and cohabitation of all.

This is of urgency, as we are at the worse-case scenarios of reality for both our environment and our wildlife, due to neglect and ignoring specific priorities of life and cohabitation within both our environment and wildlife habitats. Yes, it is time those that have the proper knowledge, and humane spirit step in and correct the mess made by those who are and remain ignorant and non-compatible to American’s needs. It is this easily seen and done.

We need to prioritize these into mechanisms toward incorporating these priorities into management, with appropriate budgets and highly qualified staff and researchers. Truth is what is required now, not random and arrogant rants of what someone’s perception of our environment may be or the “wants to kill” more wildlife – but true and good science, as well as Humane principles toward each.

Phase II: This we hope will and can lead to a comprehensive and aggressive Resources Management Plan for each specific area of resolving worst-case scenarios, toward resolution of an ongoing appropriate management paradigm and plans.

The priority within this particular stage is to develop and enhance our environment to a “living standard” of health and coexistence with both human and wildlife. The priority toward the wildlife is to enhance their living conditions, often to be left alone, with little to no management what so ever. The multi-use phase, of cohabitable public lands, is very much ignored today, yet in print and in many of the conversations in the matter of management, but within such a narrow-scope it is left ignored mostly.

It becomes apparent that Moderation is also a consideration toward developing and increasing our living standards, and toward Cohabitative relationships. This can involve both our Environment (cattle for example) as well as our Wildlife, and at the same time certainly enhance our individual life as well – given the Humane Structure of good ethical management of both.

Unfortunately, there are no actions directly involved in this ideology of Multi-Use that currently exists in America. So new priorities toward what exactly Multi-Use is and how it can be developed for the common good of all, not just a few, is the road to resolution in this matter of fixing the current problems.

Some of the more sever or pervasive problems will have to be funded and approached with not only priority, but aggressively mandated by law, regulatory oversight, and policy changes. Many situations have surpassed even the worse-case scenario toward oblivion, and wildlife species have been sent to extinction due to government ignorance combined with arrogance. Many of these government employees will simply have to leave their positions, due to their irresponsible actions and arrogant methodologies.

Enhancement by Humane Principle and Conduct

The significance of change is very important currently. As most American’s have lost their trust with both politicians and government employees – and for good reasons. Our notes here, for a substantial change in at least government, should be a pathway to humane and sound reasoning toward management of America’s lands and wildlife.

We need to be Proud of our Nation once again, instead of stricken with feelings of sadness, compounded with the situation of being told there is nothing we can do as Americans to decide our own fate, as United States of America’s citizens’; or angry toward our government and told there is nothing we can do so accept it and go away.

 Phase I / Phase II: Both of these circumstances must have a relevant “tracking-system” and noteworthy policy toward reports. This is accumulative part of the Checks-n-Balance system that is so much needed within government today.

Proper training within these systems is also a mandatory situation, and should be governed by merit and integrity, not advancement due to favoritism or friendship, but rather due to accomplishment, ethical practice standards, as well as abiding by law of both reason and necessity – currently neither of these situations are in-place, and there exists no situation of who is responsible to fulfill commands, and who is in command of the objectives.

Laws, policy, and regulatory measures often ignored today due to special considerations toward a narrow group of special interests – wildlife goes extinct, our environment almost non-livable, and government employees simply shrug off with complacency, then move on to continue their destructive behavior – and it’s allowed.

Conclusion – STAND UP

It is simply time we as American’s Stand Up and demand Change. No longer is it acceptable to be the ignored majority. We are surrounded by total ignorance at times, and these are the people that are making significant decisions for all of our future, to include our environment and our wildlife.

The next paper/article will be directly involved with more productive management paradigms and principles. We want to establish that there are roads to travel that do and can enhance our life, and extend our cohabitation boundaries to a more acceptable level of living, for both humans and our natural surroundings – together, not displaced for the benefit of just a few, or to make a buck here or there – but toward a good, positive quality of life for all.

__________________

References

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

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: Forum 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, stream-types 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 page 10

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 http://www.epa.gov/305b.

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.

   “The universe doesn’t give you what you want in your mind; it gives you what you demand with your actions.” Anonymous

The Wild Horse and Burro Act, in 1971, was indeed purposeful.  When combined with other Laws, and initiated as part of a conservation effort to provide America and our government with actions to start safeguarding America’s Public Lands, there existed strength in the law.  Government agencies and special interests chipped-away at those laws, to the shell of the law which exists today, with no reliable content.

By the 1980’s there grew enormous considerations to not only assess the apparent nature and resource problems, but many observed throughout the following years the magnitude and the environmental threats that began to exist under government agency responsibility. The assessments and accountability toward each foreseen the events of today – a thorough mismanagement of America’s Public Lands, as well as forestry, and combined with extreme faulty wildlife management.

We find the destruction of Public Lands quite obvious – the mismanagement of America’s wildlife to such a point there exists only 50% actually alive today; this fact is very important to us all, as many significant attributes to such elements as reforestation and other sustainability situations provide our healthy existence on this planet.

Let’s be clear about this — these are not options — these are mandatory, I repeat here, sustainability situations for our survival on this planet of ours; and to cease this type of mismanagement is a mandatory reality right now – today!

We have honest scientists stating clearly that both humans and wildlife do not appear to remain sustainable in the near future, if the current situations remain in place; our sustainability upon this planet appears questionable past 2021, which means we will have destroyed all the significant “things” we needed to sustain life past this date of 2021. . . America, we have a problem!

The point is that many times these elements assuredly given to legislators as well as upper management and supervisory staffs in government, but ignored by the more current and passive government agencies, to the point of sever irresponsibility, which often leads to criminal activity as well. The irresponsibility and incompetence simply grew worse out of a tragic  blatantly capacity to service special interest groups only.

Average Public Lands managed by Federal Agencies (Monopoly?)

The current mind-set of many, this author included, is if the government is going to be a business-support outlet only, then they should be treated like a business – No More Monopolized Public Lands — their responsibility to manage America’s Lands should be revoked!

As far as we can deduct the actual acres government agencies are responsible for remains confusing at best; and believe me much of the information is hidden, or stuck in a book somewhere in a small county office where cobwebs and black widows await trespassers. So the sum of all that acreage that is available for us to observe, or judicially owned by our Federal government is 2.27 billion acres of land, mostly in the western United States. In the East, for example, it is estimated at 467,759 acres of land on the here-and-there approach toward designation – in truth just an average, just as above and out west.

But this is not about land ownership, it is about mismanaged lands, both Federal and State, and what it is we as America can do about it as soon as possible. Our very life and the cohabitation of those wildlife and vegetation and waterways depend on our conducting a truthful and responsible methodology of conservation, with “humane principles” and “ethical management” a priority.

47% of the 11 coterminous western states are federally owned. This leads to many problems in the west, as many groups want the Public Lands for themselves; and just as many want short-term profits and could care less if the rest of America dies due to Public Lands destruction. ( i.e. bigthink.com/strange-maps/291-federal-lands-in-the-us )

But this is due to the undermining of laws, by special interests and coexistence with federal employees — sadly, the situation grew way beyond Conflict of Interest, and many say illegal attributes toward criminality exist within both of these special interest groups combined with federal employees and their Behind-Closed-Doors negotiating.

Truth Does Not Change – People’s Perception Often Misled

Think about that the next time a cattle rancher, an oil executive, a mining executive, or any corporation in search of profits by the use of Public Lands, and tells you, “ . . . Oh, its all okay, as those others,” pointedly looking at those who discover the conflicts-of-interests and say with a smirk and condescending voice, “. . . who say it is not, are simply too emotional, and really do not see the reality.

Then they give you a vast Howdy-Doody smile – in a salesman type jest, as if they are angelic and here to assist you in your life endeavors. No, they are not. It is a fact they are on Public Lands to take advantage of government agency mismanagement mixed with incompetence, in total. And right now they are destroying Public Lands at a rapid pace, and eliminating much of America’s wildlife – with a smile on their face and telling everyone everything is okay.

Strategies – Paradigms – and Good Management Principles

We are a group of people, of advocates, who agree that everything on this planet is connected, and referenced as such by good science. This group distinguishes itself with principles of sound ethics, of sound management theory toward application, of humane reasoning, integrity, as well as Humane Principle’s of management and administering corrective actions to America’s Federal Lands – Public Lands belong to all American’s, and that’s the bottom line here.

This is not within the landscape of emotion, rather, a sound theory and process of establishing paradigms to enhance or to increase our survival percentages right here on our Planet Earth; which currently is low, to extremely low in chances of survival for even another century.

We have found, within an undebatable context, no one is watching out for American’s interest. What we have found is our legislator’s have certainly represented, over the past couple of decades, special interests and conflicting attributes of benefit themselves only.

So we are suggesting Mitigation Programs for the significant problems that have not only been quantified within the past decade, quite readily; but we also understand there does exist also, off-shoot programs to better understand the problems and threats not yet documented.

We then combine this with research into a given biological habitat zone, or controversial area.  Today this numbers many, and through data gathering and experienced-reasoning, we can develop an honest assessment – and will continue to do so despite —

• Government agencies lack of responsible reporting;
• Skewed wildlife and wild horse counts infringed upon by special interests or monetary gains by both commercial and non-profit communities;
• Truth about destructive sequence of events rather than pretend or disguised under cover-ups and misinformation, then given to the public and legislators alike;
• And lastly, but not an end to the questionable practices of government agencies today – that being the criminal conduct happening daily but covered-up quite well, as one government employee states, “. . . the criminal behavior goes all the way to the top of each government agency, otherwise it simply could not happen.”

The Priorities – Cohabitative Circumstances Promoting Life

Government agencies today are not achieving proper management levels through their catastrophic, destructive, and irresponsive management paradigms. The fact is many government agencies are mismanaging America’s Environment, wildlife, and federal lands, because there is no checks and balance systems in place.  Catch-as catch-can permits issued for profit, combined with special interests and ignoring laws, is not management, and never has been.  It is neglectful and irresponsible.

Once again this is not emotional reasoning, but stemmed from what we see daily from government agencies. sound science, logic, many appropriate and well referenced studies, and an extraordinary amount of effort to explore the many regions in question – government lands in its entirety.  The reality is much of the destruction and complacency toward the overwhelming destruction, in truth, is not a problem that is difficult to see at all.

Once again the overwhelming truth does not change, but our government seems to want a different perception of the truth, or to convince us they are competent managers of our lands and wildlife; which it is obvious they are not, as there exists too many questions that remain ignored or unanswered, and too may ecological biosphere’s damaged beyond repair due to mismanagement.

So we as American’s demand the following:

• Sound resource-maintenance be put into place adequately and enforceable;
• We demand that a proper checks-n-balance system, with honesty and unbiased, be placed into effect to watch over those who would destroy our federal public lands, and if such developments show destruction, legislation put into effect that will stop it immediately;
• A proper interpretation, honest evaluations based on truth and not special interests or narrow percentage of American’s perception of our public lands and its use, of the management paradigms that enhance, not destroy our lands and wildlife;
• Sound monitoring of the paradigms put into place, and remain active, with proper legislation to enhance and promote good management, and legislation that can void and cease all negative activity when placing the priorities in jeopardy, or that is sustainability toward life, both human and wildlife cohabitation, the terrestrial environments, the marine environments, and the water and atmospheric environments;
• Lastly, within this discussion, American’s demand that we place no limitations on science or research, in order to obtain the truth of matters of significance of life on this planet, and the sustainability of it cohabitating within its proper balance and systematic growth – an All-Data and Thorough-Data management situation to be definitive and put into place, and protected by Law, as well as the Truth within things such as Environmental Assessments and other pertinent information given to the public and administrators of Biological Habitats and management of each.

Conclusion

We will be taking a more elaborate view of the fundamentals suggested within this preview of upcoming papers. We are outlining definitive resolutions to the problems we are facing with our environment.  These are resolutions not based on what many government managers state are emotion, because that is their condescending remarks toward taxpayers, American’s and the people that pay them — how they forget that is their reality, all else is — We Can and Will Demand Their Replacement if They Insist on Their Continuation of Disrespecting the American Public! —

Never the less, the problems we are confronted with, to include humane and all life survival on this planet, had been generated from mismanagement and lack of good science to fulfill the needs of our sustainable biological habitats, and with that we only have to look as far as both State and Federal government agencies, and stress the fact they have mismanaged out environment entirely –

It is now time for change and that includes changing the entire structure of these government agencies – I would state actually, American’s need to demand a Change for Resolution and for our Very Existence on this planet of ours – Planet Earth! Papers to follow.

_____________________________________

Editorial, Agriculture’s Misnamed Agency, New York Times (July 19, 2013); Bergstrom, J.B., Arias, L.C., Davidson, A.D., Ferguson, A.W., Randa, L.A. & Sheffield, S.R., 2013, License to kill: reforming federal wildlife control to restore biodiversity and ecosystem function, Conservation Letters, v. 6, p. 1-12.

Neighbors of Cuddy Mountain v. U.S. Forest Serv., 137 F.3d 1372, 1379 (9th Cir. 1998) (“Some quantified or detailed information is required. Without such information, neither the courts nor the public, in reviewing the [the agency’s] decisions, can be assured that the [agency] provided the hard look that it is required to provide.”).

Brainerd SA, Andrén H, Bangs EE, Bradley EH, Fontaine JA, et al. (2008) The effects of breeder loss on wolves. J Wildl Manage 72: 89–98. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2193/2006-305/abstract.

Bull, Joseph, et al. “Survival on the border: a population model to evaluate management options for Norway’s wolves Canis lupus.” Wildlife Biology 15.4 (2009): 412-424.http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.2981/08-010.

Creel, Scott, and Jay J. Rotella. “Meta-analysis of relationships between human offtake, total mortality and population dynamics of gray wolves (Canis lupus).” PLoS One 5.9 (2010): e12918. http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0012918

Gehring TM, Kohn BE, Gehring JL, Anderson EM (2003) Limits to plasticity in gray wolf, pack structure: conservation implications for recovering populations. Can Field-Nat 117: 419–423.

Haber GC (1996) Biological, Conservation, and Ethical Implications of Exploiting and Controlling Wolves. Conserv Biol 10: 1068–1081. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.1997.95366.x http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1523-1739.1997.95366.x/abstract;jsessionid=6772F96C7EE96572972D5516F1D0C1D1.f02t0

Knowlton FF, Gese EM, Jaeger MM (1999) Coyote depredation control: and interface between biology and management. J Range Manage 52: 398–412.

Rutledge, Linda Y., et al. (2010) Protection from harvesting restores the natural social structure of eastern wolf packs. Biological Conservation 143.2: 332-339.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320709004583

Rutledge, Linda Y., et al. “Intense harvesting of eastern wolves facilitated hybridization with coyotes.” Ecology and evolution 2.1 (2012): 19-33.http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ece3.61/full

Sparkman, Amanda M., Lisette P. Waits, and Dennis L. Murray. “Social and demographic effects of anthropogenic mortality: A test of the compensatory mortality hypothesis in the red wolf.” PloS one 6.6 (2011): e20868 http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0020868

Reference on Horses:

Wallach AD, Ritchie EG, Read J, O’Neill AJ (2009) More than Mere Numbers: The Impact of Lethal Control on the Social Stability of a Top-Order Predator. PLoS ONE 4(9): e6861. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0006861 http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0006861

Wild horses and burros are supposed to be treated as “components of the public lands”. 16 U.S.C. § 1333(a) The law is clear that “wild free-roaming horses and burros shall be protected from capture, branding, harassment, or death” and entitled to roam free on public lands where they were living at the time the Act was passed in 1971. 16 U.S.C. § 1331 These legally protected areas are known as “herd areas,” and are defined as “the geographic area identified as having been used by a herd as its habitat in 1971.” 43 C.F.R. § 4700.0-5(d).

The WFRHBA also authorizes designation of specific ranges for wild horses and burros. “Range’ means the amount of land necessary to sustain an existing herd or herds …and which is devoted principally but not necessarily exclusively to their welfare in keeping with the multiple-use management concept for the public lands”. 16 USCS §§ 1332(c), 1333(a).

Though “excess” wild horses and burros are to be removed, in general, “[m]anagement activities affecting wild horses and burros shall be undertaken with the goal of maintaining free-roaming behavior.” 16 U.S.C. §1333, 43 CFR 4700.0-6 “All management activities shall be at the minimal feasible level”. 16 U.S.C. §1333(a) It is illegal to maliciously or negligently injure or harass wild horses or burros protected by the Act, treat them inhumanely or use them for commercial gain. 43 CFR §4770.1

In 1971 the Wild Free Roaming Horses and Burros Act (WFRHBA) was passed to provide broad protections for wild horses and burros on public lands.

The law states that “wild free-roaming horses and burros are living symbols of the historic and pioneer spirit of the West…[T]hey contribute to the diversity of life forms within the Nation and enrich the lives of the American people”. 16 U.S.C. §1331 et seq.

The Bureau of Land Management is the agency within the Department of Interior that is responsible for enforcing the WFRHBA.  According to WFRHBA and its own regulations, BLM must protect wild horses and burros from unauthorized capture, branding, harassment or death and provide these animals with humane care and treatment. 43 C.F.R. § 4700. ”

Humane treatment means handling compatible with animal husbandry practices accepted in the veterinary community, without causing unnecessary stress or suffering to a wild horse or burro.” 43 CFR 4700.0-5(e)

The BLM is directed to protect the wild horses and burros “in a manner that is designed to achieve and maintain a thriving natural ecological balance on the public lands” and “protect the natural ecological balance of all wildlife species which inhabit such lands, particularly endangered wildlife species. Any adjustments in forage allocations on any such lands shall take into consideration the needs of other wildlife species which inhabit such lands.” 16 U.S.C. §1333(a).

The Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 amended the WFRHBA to require BLM to determine appropriate management levels (AML) and maintain an inventory of wild horses and burros to help achieve these goals.

The amendment also addressed “excess” horses defined to mean wild horses and burros to be removed from an area “to preserve and maintain a thriving natural ecological balance and multiple-use relationship in that area” or for some other legal reason. See 16 USC §1332(f).  The WFRHBA says that before removing wild horses and burros, a determination must be made that there is an overpopulation and removal is indicated “so as to restore a thriving natural ecological balance to the range, and protect the range from the deterioration associated with overpopulation”. 16 U.S.C. §1333(b)(2)

BLM has expanded the multiple use concept beyond the plain language of WFRHBA

The BLM has interpreted the WFRHBA to mean it can “manage” wild horses and burros with the goal of allowing multiple uses on all public lands including the herd areas. But, though the statute mentions “multiple-use relationship” in connection with specified ranges, it is very clear that the directive is to manage these animals otherwise only to “maintain a thriving natural ecological balance on the public lands” and “protect the natural ecological balance of all wildlife species which inhabit such lands, particularly endangered wildlife species”.

In effect, WFRHBA authorizes only limited interference with wild horses and burros in herd areas where they were living in 1971.

Nothing about removing wild horses and burros from herd areas where they lived in 1971 to allow multiple use such as cattle grazing, recreation for off road vehicles, mining or development. Also, protecting the ecological balance of all wildlife has never meant rounding up and removing whole species. Especially when there is a law that explicitly protects their right to exist in historic herd areas.

Even designated ranges managed under a multiple use concept are to be “devoted principally” to wild horses and burros. The wild horses and burros on these lands are not to be eliminated for cattle or mining or recreation or even secondary to these other uses.

Despite the limited authority to interfere with wild horses and burros under WFRHBA, the BLM has decided, however, the multiple public use concept applies to all herd areas as well as ranges.

BLM even issued a regulation that effectively rewrites WFRHBA to say the “objectives of these regulations are management of wild horses and burros as an integral part of the natural system of the public lands under the principle of multiple use”. 43 CFR § 4700.0-2

Yet, the WFRHBA says only that wild horses and burros “are to be considered in the area where presently found, as an integral part of the natural system of the public lands”. 16 U.S.C. §1331.

Essentially the BLM, for example, is in contempt, or in illegal realms when they manage the wild horse herds as they do today – due diligence for every American to know the laws is the only way to make government agencies to abide by the laws just as we have to do on a daily basis . . .