Monthly Archives: April 2016

Sterilization of Wild Horses on Public Lands? We see an ongoing travesty here, within government agencies of the Bureau of Land Management, the Humane Society, the Wild Horse and Burro Board, and other affiliated non-profits and corporations alike – the Travesty?

The travesty, in reality an ethical and moral horror show, is the fact the sterilization of wild horse’s entire premise, yes, the very basis of reasoning remains and is false. Yes, a lie of tremendous proportions, and its ongoing misrepresentation of facts . . .

You see, the facts can be exemplified, 5,000 cattle that roam over a thousand acres on our Public Lands, often destroys these same lands – truthful and non-manipulated science makes this very clear. In truth, and on our Public Lands, we have a problem with cheat grass, wildfires, and we have a problem with extreme weight-bearing cattle hooves, the way cattle eat and disturb the roots of vegetation destructively, and the emission of gases over abundantly into the atmosphere; we have a problem with cattle and cheat grass attracting Crows, which then attack an endangered species of Sage Grouse as good non-manipulated science shows clearly as well. But the Department of the Interior and Bureau of Land Management, to get along with welfare ranchers, well, Lie. “We Blame the Wild Horses,” they say.

Suddenly it is not the 5,000 cattle on a few thousand acres, that is an over abundant amount as well per square-footage of range-grazing use – rather, it is the wild horses, 200 of them, on the same thousands of acres, that are, as BLM-DOI-Humane Society-and other non-profits want us to believe, is the burden. But why?

This is what those who want to continue experimentation and sterilization of America’s Icon (similar in all aspects of Icon as the Bald Eagle, it is safe to state as fact) want the public to believe – it is the 200 horses that cause the damage, and place an endangered species, the Sage Grouse, in jeopardy as well.

Money and power, and despite what they state as necessity, the corruption is and remains tremendous within all of the wild horse management people and organizations involved right now.  One could, in real-time, state clearly and without hesitation the Organized Crime element exists within this situation — America needs, no allow me to say, America “Demands” its Checks-n-Balance System back, and take care of situations like this, and in an appropriate manner, and legally.

A History

“COMPULSORY STERILIZATION, 1933-1939 When Adolf Hitler took power in Germany, one of his top priorities was to purify the race and to build the genetically pure Aryan man. It was an objective he had discussed in his early manifesto, Mein Kampf. One of the first major laws passed by the Nazi regime in 1934 was the forced sterilization program of those with hereditary illnesses. This program was intended to develop eventually into a full-scale program of euthanasia for those judged “unworthy of life,” especially the mentally and physically disabled. To prepare public opinion in greater Germany, a systematic and widespread propaganda campaign was put into effect to provide the scientific and political rationale for these proposals and to build support among the public at large.

The Nazi propaganda program took advantage of a well-developed German film industry that was already being retooled as an instrument of the state in order to maintain and expand backing for the regime. The general pattern of slick, well-produced films utilized repetition of misleading and erroneous scientific information and statistics, coupled with powerful emotional images that confirmed pre-existing prejudices and stereotypes. These techniques were particularly effective when applied to the forced sterilization program and to the euthanasia program that would follow when public opinion was sufficiently prepared. These techniques were also used to inform and indoctrinate those personally involved in carrying out the initiatives and to help maintain their level of commitment.

The scientific and medical communities that would implement these programs were already well-disposed to accept their theoretical underpinnings. . .”

“. . . As early as 1920 Karl Binding, a legal specialist, and Alfred Hoche, a psychiatry professor, had published an influential book entitled Permission for the Destruction of Unworthy Life. Hoche in particular advocated the idea of an organic state that must amputate any useless or diseased limb in order to assure the survival of the body politic. A series of training films were produced to indoctrinate medical personnel. They were widely shown at medical conferences, and we have evidence of one that was viewed at a 1935 national meeting of the Nazi partyi

One early 16mm film Erbkrank (“The Hereditarily Ill” or “The Genetically Diseased”), variously dated as 1934 (U.S. National Archives) or 1936 (Bundesarchiv, Koblenz) was presented as an educational documentary by the NSDAP, the agency for racial affairs of the National Socialist Party. It begins by citing the influence of the “Jewish Liberal thinking” that led to a situation in which mentally ill and handicapped patients were being cared for in “palatial” sanatoriums by “the cream” of the medical profession, the best-educated, best-trained, and healthiest nurses and doctors. These idyllic scenes are intercut with contrasting scenes of average, hard-working German families living in abject poverty within over-crowded hovels, and the implication is that their situation is the result of the same misguided policies: “Healthy families are housed in sheds that are falling apart and in dark alleys, but for the insane… palaces have been built.” This was a particularly telling argument for the average German worker, impoverished during the terrible economic times of the Weimar Republic.

. . . The problem is presented in Darwinian terms: only the healthy will succeed in the new state and become “good Nazis” capable of building the Thousand Year Reich. . .”

Concern Rather Than Emotion or Contempt

“Another example of concern, I recall, was the 16mm films like Das Erbe (“The Inheritance”) hammer home the theme that the weak perish and the strong survive according to the natural law and God’s order. Through footage of stag beetles battling and plants fighting for survival, the point is made that “we all live in a battle in which the weak are eliminated.” Once again this wisdom is imparted by a doctor, a scientist who studies the natural world where war and survival are the rule.

Techniques of horse breeding are explained, with the implication that they can be applied to racial breeding. The example of an American family called the Kallikaks, a staple of the Nazi propaganda films supporting sterilization, is trotted out to demonstrate how bad genes and illnesses can be widely distributed through otherwise healthy families, bringing misery in their wake. Another often repeated image appearing in the background is a dictum attributed to Adolf Hitler: “He who is not healthy and able, both physically and mentally, may not immortalize his body in that of his child.””

So many of these people involved in the sterilization of wild horses from Public Lands, will state Horse Advocates, for example, deal in emotion-only reflexive action in the matters of the wild horses. Well no, that is yet another untruth they pander to the public. The concern is the Gorilla in the Room Complex – the fact the entire Wild Horse and Burro Program, as it is today, is built on false premise, and in direct violation in the matters of many of the laws that are inclusive within the Wild Horse and Burro Act, and of course when situations like this do exist, corruption abounds . . .

There is simply no truth given to the public by the Bureau of Land management, the Department of the Interior, the Humane Society, or any others attached to these Wild Horse Programs, and as they exist today.

Then we move to Welfare Ranching on Public Lands, which is an entirely different, yet associated with false premise combined with the lie or myth of ranching of yester-years entirely. This government subsidy program is nothing more than corruption within other subsidy programs in the billions. Once again the taxpayer’s ripped off entirely, with nothing to show for their tax-dollars given in subsidies!

Yet, taxpayers, who indeed pay for this entire mess of corruption, pay the bills and remain either ignored, or become part of the supposedly terrible Horse Advocates – who are indeed only concerned about saving the Wild Horses. Then the Gorilla in the Room rears its ugly head once again, we find very questionable people, in the wild horse management realms, that apparently have sold their souls within the pools of immorality, no ethics, and move along with an astounding and corrupt procedure, or ethical boundaries of the Nazi’s within the early part of this century – Sterilization for . . .

Well, who knows, because what it is today and under the paradigm of False Premise, can be changed tomorrow, in order to coverup the lie from yesterday, in order to ignore Environmental Health, and prescribe roundups next week of America’s Icons, the Wild Horses under the guise of damage the horses pose on America’s Rangelands – and the lie and flow of misinformation continues –

CONCLUSION

The Nazi propaganda effort in support of forced sterilization and euthanasia was in many ways a classic campaign to win public acceptance and understanding of a controversial policy. It was built on accepted scientific theories current at the time and took them to their logical conclusion. The triumph of eugenics and social Darwinism provided the scientific footing to justify many actions that would otherwise have been reprehensible. The propaganda also provided a moral sanction for these activities by claiming to restore God’s order to Christian Germany, an order that was upset by the advent of liberal Jewish doctrine. This was a theme that the Nazis used to great effect.

TIME FOR CHANGE is and remains an understatement. America is better than what these government agencies involved, as well as the Humane Society and other non-profits demonstrate today. None of them, currently, represent the American Intelligence and Ethics so many have fought for in all wars and in all circumstances.

We defeated the Nazi’s – not from hatred, but from motivated paradigms from such honesty as the difference between Right and Wrong – and a truth from all of our hearts that life is to be respected and cherished – not slaughtered or sterilized out of existence!

What is needed to provide change? Honesty is needed here, not corrupt ideologies nor a broken-wildlife management procedure, and based from a war of mental attrition by the Nazi Party – who by the way were defeated entirely by American knowledge, motivated by patriotism and ethics – something those involved with the Sterilization of America’s Wild Horses should learn, as obviously they have not a clue about our history nor Ethics, nor Morality in America!

But the more American’s know and acknowledge what is ongoing on our Public Lands, the filth and corruption evident, then soon, these entities will be introduced to America, the Good America that has ethics and standards of, yes, even management and respect for our Nation’s Wildlife – All Wildlife! — John Cox, Note Filed in The Cascades

_____________________

Michael Burleigh, Death and Deliverance: Euthanasia in Germany, 1900-1945 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1994) p. 97. I am deeply indebted to Burleigh’s book throughout this paper. See also Robert Jay Lifton, The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Pathology of Genocide (New York: Basic Books, 1986).

The tragedy in America is the Humane Principles many people suppose our society based upon, in reality nothing more than myth. Ironically, it is our bias that leads to ignorance, that overwhelms this thing we call Humane Principle’s we assumed exists in America. Yes, the battle between good and evil is alive and well, and off the human species goes, leaving destruction of our world and wildlife behind, as we arrogantly push ourselves forward to more destruction; even more ironic, we refer to it as modernization, or worse, necessary.” — John cox, The Cascades

We see it in the mountains, in the forests, in the basins and in the deserts. We see firsthand our wildlife management process broken, completely. We see and understand what we do not see as well – wildlife that used to be abundant, no longer exists . . . We see the destruction, inclusive of the ever-present conflict between propaganda and misinformation versus — reality.

We see good science ignored, in total; that is, good science that is based on good data and thorough research. What has replaced it? Nothing more than the image of resolution, far off in the future – but that future never comes. We are constantly told it will happen, this thing referred to as resolution, but really never does. In reality, there is no resolution what so ever. How can it exist, when we are convinced within the confinement of the ongoing tragedy, that everything is okay?

One good example of this discussion, among others, is the Pesticide PZP. It is used in experimental birth control on America’s wild horses on Public Lands. The very premise or reasoning for such endeavors is the over-population of wild horses on Public Lands, which in truth is false and based on misinformation, bad-data retrieval, manipulated data, and bad science. Yet, the over-population of cattle is a truth, which is based on statistical data, and numbers that show this to be a fact. The destructive elements of the over-population of cattle on Public lands, not wild horses, shown time and again within good science, ignored.

Does the Pesticide PZP stop roundups? No it doesn’t, and never has done so. Is it based on good science? Well, in truth there is no long term science available, so how would we know. Is it based upon lies, myth, shrewd conjecture, innuendo, and misinformation? Yes, and the bias (or ignorance in this case) overwhelms the fact it is a Pesticide. Good science states clearly it is a Pesticide, and registered as such with the EPA – yet this is ignored in total by many – and for specific (narcissism mostly) and certainly bias purpose. And wild horses die! Also ignored entirely by promoters of Pesticide PZP – out of sight out of mind.

Experimenting with Pesticides darted into wild horses is simply, and never will be anything else, but a Non-Humane Practice – and done by extremely bias people of the human species, within their conflicts, whether a subconscious or conscious mind-set, with the wild horse species.

Profoundly, many people promote that good science is erroneous, similar to the misinformed and bias mentality toward wolves, cougars, bears, buffalo, and many more. The bias of fear also dominates within these same character-traits, and not so ironic within the minds of these same people. We have set-aside the truth, and bias combined with a shrewd arrogance based on ignorance, has indeed consumed the human species on this planet – we are destroying not only our wildlife, but our environment as well – read further. . .

Rather than conduct and base decisions on good science, we accept politically motivated science based on special interest type situations with the name science attached to it, or even more ironic, we ignore good science and remain motivated by this need, arrogantly, to be subjectively comfortable and within an illusory superior mind-set. Profoundly, the results of a good and wholesome wildlife management paradigm or ideology simply do not happen – our environment and wildlife continue to be managed destructively – very deadly this thing called bias . . .

Wildlife Management Broken

Ironically, the people involved in Wildlife Management of today classify hunters and ranchers, who just as ironic call themselves “Conservationists” (a true oxymoron), as their “Customer Base” (yes, read this as special interest groups and only 7% of the budget reflect their involvement, but 100% attention is given to this group within wildlife management) and out rightly disregard good science in total, (i.e. hunters who pay for their hunting license, and ranchers for reasoning-unknown – customer base?). How odd, and certainly of special interest, and something to take-notice, and of concern, by all American Taxpayers who pay 93% of their budget – as to why this is?

___________________________

“There’s no convincing scientific reason that says the haphazard, indiscriminate mowing down of individual coyotes or wolves imparts any lasting benefits for big game prey species or for (publicly supported) protection of private livestock on public lands. Nor is there a biological basis or compelling rationale found in the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation for holding coyote derbies or shooting wolves on site or for sport.” — Mike Prescott, Apex-Predator Biologist/Researcher

____________________________

When questioned by the American Public and Taxpayers, promoters of such an agenda and within Wildlife Management, demand the American Taxpayer to stop being emotional — Yes, these situations we cannot make up, but we cannot as taxpayers, and those interested in preserving our nation’s wildlife, ignore these situations any longer, despite the arrogant name calling or terms used to coerce or condescend toward those taxpayers who in reality pay their wages – Ironic? To say the least!

The statistics show, in an awkward contrast, less than 3% of the ODFW Budget, for example, is hunters; just as awkward is the “Other Permits” category at 4%; and, the remainder of 93% plus of the ODFW budget is from the general taxpayer population, both state and federal. So the general population and extravagant cost to Taxpayer’s and our demands — Ignored?

Yes, ignored in total within any decision making processes currently at the (for example) Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (and other state game and wildlife management agencies throughout the United States). The Fact is this: No General Public Taxpayers exists on any Commissions or Boards connected to ODFW, or any other states game management / wildlife management situations – yes, just hunters and ranchers – Special Interests? Absolutely – Conflict of Interest? Absolutely! Bad decision making from special interest types of science and money exchanged? Absolutely!

Conservation is the action of conserving something, in particular;

Preservation, protection, or restoration of the natural environment, natural ecosystems, vegetation, and wildlife based on good science, good research, good data, and humane principles;

Preservation, protection, safeguarding, safekeeping;

More care, guardianship, husbandry, supervision; upkeep, maintenance, repair, restoration; ecology, environmentalism “the conservation of tropical forests”; and,

Preservation, repair, and prevention of deterioration of archaeological, historical, and cultural sites and artifacts. . .

Ignored by many state and federal wildlife management situations — Our planet is now in the midst of its sixth mass extinction of plants and animals — the sixth wave of extinctions in the past half-billion years. We’re currently are experiencing the worst of species die-offs since the loss of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. But we ignore the reality, shrugging this situation off as something historical, and we will survive. No, the fact is this is far from being historical what so ever, and again the statistics and truthful science, from good data and sound collection of the data, and post research shows we have reasons to be concerned – very concerned . . .

Although extinction is a natural phenomenon, yes it is, and it occurs at a natural “background” rate of about one to five species per year. Now the reality — Scientists estimate we’re now losing species at 1,000 to 10,000 times the background rate, with literally dozens going extinct every day.

These scientific facts are being ignored today, in place of special interests and kill anything and everything. Ironically, there is a twisted version of saving the life of game animals, and trophy animals, only to later kill-off awkwardly during seasonal hunts.

Combine that with the current wildlife management realities of supporting in total cattle and other livestock = money producers and to hell with our environmental system or Ecological Zones that support our nation’s wildlife. The major population of wildlife then are sacrificed, for nothing more than to place more livestock onto lands that are already over-populated with the same = Destruction of America’s Lands. Wildlife management? No, it is not!

Wildlife Services – A USDA Agency Out of Control

What also cannot be left out of this wildlife tragedy, is a USDA sub-agency called Wildlife Services — Yet another government agency out of control, and yet works hand-in-hand with many States supposed Wildlife Management agencies – yet another Oxymoron, although of tragic proportion, for humans and animals alike. . . The tragedy is this – they do not manage wildlife; they kill wildlife – and that is all this agency does. It is not conservation what so ever! To say they manage wildlife within a Conservation context, is a tragic lie of tremendous proportion! Wildlife Services’ intensive focus on killing supposed wildlife predators, sometimes using banned or dangerous poisons, gunning wildlife down from airplanes, trapping and snaring carnivores based on dubious evidence, killing imperiled non-target species, and even accidentally slaying people’s pets (or if they even cared at all, which is also evident they did not).

America, we have another government agency out of control! This agency kills 1.2 million wildlife to 5.8 million wildlife yearly and since the year 2000 – the situation not of any management paradigm or ideology, nor comply with any Environmental or Wildlife Enhancement Assessments – America, we have a BIG problem here.

Fahy’s award-winning documentary “Exposed: USDA’s Secret War on Wildlife” is now free on YouTube, but beware: While the half-hour film sails along, it’s tough to stomach the conduct of Wildlife Services illuminated by former employees turned whistleblowers, some of whom lay out the agency’s damning conduct in Wyoming.

Congressman Peter DeFazio, of Oregon, has pushed for a major overhaul of Wildlife Services, saying the outfit is utterly incapable of reforming itself. He is demanding to get the ultralethal biocide 1080 and the poison ejector devices known as M-44s, filled with sodium-cyanide, banned because of dangers they pose to people, pets, non-target animals and the environment.

Hundreds of millions of tax dollars have been spent killing public wildlife, sometimes far in excess of the value of private livestock receiving subsidized protection on public lands.

“Wildlife Services is guilty of overkill based on exaggerated, unverified claims.” – Anonymous, as so many have defined Wildlife Services within this explanation of its work

For the March – 2015 issue of Harper’s Magazine, Christopher Ketcham wrote a hard-hitting examination of Wildlife Services that echoes Fahy’s documentary. It also mirrors revelations brought to light in an explosive series by reporter Tom Knudson that appeared in The Sacramento Bee.

No recent GOP Congress, contemptuous of the federal government, has subjected Wildlife Services to intense scrutiny. Why is that?

Wildlife Extinction

“If there are: – 100,000,000 different species on Earth – and the Extinction rate just is 0.01% / year – then 10,000 species go extinct ever year” — WWF

Just to illustrate the degree of biodiversity loss we’re facing, let’s take you through one scientific analysis… The rapid loss of species we are seeing today is estimated by experts to be between 1,000 and 10,000 times higher than the natural extinction rate.

Experts call this natural extinction rate the background extinction rate. This simply means the rate of species extinctions that would occur if we humans were not around. So we compound this with Wildlife Services as well as the fur industry, which also kill fur bearing animals in excess of another 4 million wildlife trapped per year and for the past 80 years-plus yearly average, and the numbers begin to become insurmountably vast – to vast for sustainability!

If the low estimate of the number of species out there is true – i.e. that there are around 2 million different species on our planet (Between 1.4 and 1.8 million species have already been scientifically identified) – that means between 200 and 2,000 extinctions occur every year.

This is due in part to industrial and commercial/private pollution, over-population in some areas, destroyed Ecological Systems by cattle and other industry development, unchecked-mismanaged and unresolved poaching/hunting, and more unresolved environmental situations due to bad science or ignoring science altogether.

But if the upper estimate of species numbers is true – that there are 100 million different species co-existing with us on our planet – then between 10,000 and 100,000 species are becoming extinct each year.

Why are we losing so many species and swathes of land every single second?

Biodiversity has declined by more than a 25% in the last 35 years. The Living Planet Index (LPI) shows a decline of 52% of our World’s wildlife lost between 1970 and 2010. 48%+ had been lost in America since 2,000, or the beginning of this century —

This not good news. Bias, once again obvious, and a very dangerous element within out Environmental and Wildlife Management situation of today! This Bias must stop!

Specifically, habitat destruction, inappropriate game management, hunting/poaching and wildlife trade, and irresponsible or ignoring of good science certainly factors within the major causes of wildlife population decline in species.

CONCLUSION

Today we are looking at the ODFW, exemplified here as what many game management situations are across the United States – which shows American taxpayers, beyond a doubt the ignored majority and paying for this mismanagement of our wildlife, wildlife management agencies ironic disregard of the obvious wildlife decline, which ignores good-science in total, while favoring special interests.

We discover in Klamath County, Oregon, a Predator Control Program – soon to be voted upon in November. The problem? It ignores any type of good wildlife management, and good livestock and cattle management models; which simply replaced by the mind-set of Kill-Off all wildlife (or the sacrifice of wildlife a better term) for more cattle on Public Lands and forestry lands . . .

Environmental issues, Ecological System management, and Regional Biodiversity totally ignored here and within this situation of today’s wildlife management agencies. Over-abundance of cattle for example, destructive – and ironically this over-abundance exists today and supported, and yet this industry wants to kill-off wildlife to add many more cattle to the already over-burdened lands of over-abundance of livestock.

— Note: Keep in mind the throw-away of beef, for example and from America’s supermarkets and beef sales outlets, is 48% yearly (i.e. USDA Statistic 2010 – 2015), which amounted to 3.2 tons of beef thrown away yearly, or what we term Over-Produced — and yet ranchers demand more cattle be placed onto an already over-abundant and already partically destroyed from cattle, America’s Lands and Public Lands . . .

Is Wildlife Services involved in Oregon? Yes – with many Conflicts of Interests established, which we will file a complaint with the Oregon State Ethics Committees soon. But combined with the Conflict of Interest Complaints will also be the demand, by American Taxpayers, that good science and sound common sense decisions be made, without Special Interests as the influential aspect of those decision of the Wildlife Management within our State.  Wildlife is for Everyone — and American’s gladly pay their tax dollars to support good wildlife management — Currently, American’s are not receiving what they demanded and are paying for — If this was a competitive industry, the people at the ODFW and the Commissions and Boards Oversight people would be replaced immediately!

Oregon was once a Proud and Dominate State in the matters of our Environment and Wildlife. We were Proud of this – the current government agencies, both State and Federal have taken this Heritage away, replaced with a broken Game Management and Wildlife Management process. This is unacceptable and must be changed.

________________________

References

Chivian, E. and A. Bernstein (eds.) 2008. Sustaining life: How human health depends on biodiversity. Center for Health and the Global Environment. Oxford University Press, New York.

Ibid. and Thomas, C. D., A. Cameron, R. E. Green, M. Bakkenes, L. J. Beaumont, Y. C. Collingham, B. F. N. Erasmus, M. Ferreira de Siqueira, A. Grainger, Lee Hannah, L. Hughes, Brian Huntley, A. S. van Jaarsveld, G. F. Midgley, L. Miles, M. A. Ortega-Huerta, A. Townsend Peterson, O. L. Phillips, and S. E. Williams. 2004. Extinction risk from climate change. Nature 427: 145–148.

Endangered Species. 2009. In Encyclopædia Britannica. Available in Encyclopedia Britannica Online at http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/186738/endangered-species.

Chivian and Bernstein 2008, citing IUCN.

Wildlife crisis worse than economic crisis. 2009. Press release. http://www.iucn.org/?3460/Wildlife-crisis-worse-than-economic-crisis–IUCN.

Wake, D. B. and V. T. Vredenburg. 2008. Are we in the midst of the sixth mass extinction? A view from the world of amphibians. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 105: 11466–11473. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/08/08/0801921105.abstract.

McCallum, Malcolm L. 2007. Amphibian decline or extinction? Current declines dwarf background extinction rate. Journal of Herpetology 41(3): 483–491. Copyright Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles.

— http://www.stateofthebirds.org

Jelks, H. J., S. J. Walsh, N. M. Burkhead, S. Contreras-Balderas, E. Díaz-Pardo, D. A. Hendrickson, J. Lyons, N. E. Mandrak, F. McCormick, J. S. Nelson, S. P. Platania, B. A. Porter, C. B. Renaud, J. J. Schmitter-Soto, E. B. Taylor, and M. L. Warren, Jr. 2008. Conservation status of imperiled North American freshwater and diaddromous fishes. Fisheries 33(8): 372–407.

Klappenbach, L. 2007. How many species inhabit our planet? About.com Guide to Animals. http://animals.about.com/b/2007/08/13/how-many-species-on-earth.htm

Tilman, D., R. May, C. L. Lehman, M. A. Nowak. 1994. Habitat destruction and the extinction debt. Nature 371:65–66.

Walters C, Gunderson L, Holling C. 1992. Experimental policies for water management in the Everglades. Ecological Applications 2:189–202.

Walters CJ. 1986. Adaptive management of renewable resources. New York: Macmillan.

Wilhere GF. 2002. Adaptive management in habitat conservation plans. Conservation Biology 16:20–29.

Wilhere GF. 2009. Three paradoxes of habitat conservation plans. Environmental Management 44:1089–1098.

Williams BK. 1996. Adaptive optimization of renewable natural resources: solution algorithms and a computer program. Ecological Modelling 93:101–111.

Williams BK, Szaro RC, Shapiro CD. 2007. Adaptive management: the U.S. Department of the Interior technical guide. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, Adaptive Management Working Group. Available: http://www.doi.gov/initiatives/AdaptiveManagement/TechGuide.pdf (November 2011).

Nichols JD, Williams BK. 2006. Monitoring for conservation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 21:668–673.

Possingham H, Lindenmayer D, Norton T. 1993. A framework for the improved management of threatened species based on population viability analysis (PVA). Pacific Conservation Biology 1:39–45. Prato T. 2005. Accounting for uncertainty in making species protection decisions. Conservation Biology 19: 806–814.

Ralls K, Beissinger SR, Cochrane JF. 2002. Guidelines for using population viability analysis in endangered species management. Pages 521–550 in Beissinger SR, McCullough DR, editors. Population viability analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Ralls K, Starfield AM. 1995. Choosing a management strategy: two structured decision making methods for evaluating the predictions of stochastic simulation models. Conservation Biology 9:175–181.

Regan HM, Ben-Haim Y, Langford B, Wilson WG, Lundberg P, Andelman SJ, Burgman MA. 2005. Robust decision making under severe uncertainty for conservation management. Ecological Applications 15:1471–1477.

Regan TJ, Taylor BL, Thompson G, Cochrane JF, Merrick R, Nammack M, Rumsey S, Ralls K, Runge MC. 2009. Developing a structure for quantitative listing criteria for the U.S. Endangered Species Act using performance testing: Phase I report. La Jolla, California: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Southwest Fisheries Science Center. NOAA Technical Memorandum, NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-437. Available: http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/turtles/TM_NMFS_SWFSC_437.pdf (November 2011).

Ruhl J. 1990. Regional habitat conservation planning under the Endangered Species Act: pushing the legal and practical limits of species protection. Southwestern Law Journal 44:1393–1425.

Ruhl J. 2004. Taking adaptive management seriously: a case study of the Endangered Species Act. University of Kansas Law Review 52:1249–1284.

Ruhl J. 2005. Regulation by adaptive management—is it possible? Minnesota Journal of Law, Science &Technology 7:21–57.

Ruhl J. 2008. Adaptivemanagement for natural resources—inevitable, impossible, or both? Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute Proceedings 54.

Runge MC, Bean E, Smith DR, Kokos S. 2011a. Non-native fish control below Glen Canyon Dam—report from a structured decision making project. U.S. Geologica Survey Open-File Report 2011-1012:1–74. Available: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2011/1012/pdf/ofr20111012. pdf (November 2011).

Runge MC, Converse SJ, Lyons JE. 2011b. Which uncertainty? Using expert elicitation and expected value of information to design an adaptive program. Biological Conservation 144:1214–1223. [SARA] Species at Risk Act. 2002. Statutes of Canada 2002, c. 29. (Assented to December 12, 2002).

Shaffer ML. 1981. Minimum population sizes for species conservation. Bioscience 31:131–134.

Smith CB. 2011. Adaptive management on the central Platte River—science, engineering, and decision analysis to assist in the recovery of four species. Journal of Environmental Management 92:1414–1419.

Smith CL, Gilden J, Steel BS, Mrakovcich K. 1998. Sailing the shoals of adaptive management: the case of salmon in the Pacific Northwest. Environmental Management 22:671–681.

Starfield AM. 1997. A pragmatic approach to modeling for wildlife management. Journal of Wildlife Management 61:261–270.

Tyre AJ, Peterson JT, Converse SJ, Bogich T, KendallWL,Miller D, Post van der Burg M, Thomas C, Thompson R, Wood J, Brewer DC, Runge MC. 2011. Adaptive management of bull trout populations in the Lemhi basin. Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management 2(2):262–281.

Volkman JM, McConnaha WE. 1993. Through a glass, darkly: Columbia River salmon, the Endangered Species Act, and adaptive management. Environmental Law 23:1249–1272.