Monthly Archives: July 2016

A Short Note on Wild Horses and Saving Them

murderer's creek horses

“A leader should always be open to criticism, to never silencing dissent, but rather applaud it. Any leader who does not tolerate criticism from the public fears their dirty hands to be revealed under intense scrutiny. Such a leader is dangerous, because they only feel secure in the darkness. Only a leader who is free from corruption welcomes scrutiny; for scrutiny allows a good leader to be an even greater leader.”  – John Cox, Cascade Mountains 

The very premise of the Wild Horse and Burro Board is and remains corrupt. They break the Law on a continuous basis. There is no way, and others should be of the same mind set, that Horse Advocates who truly have the Wild Horse’s safety and life of freedom on our Public Lands in mind, would indeed neither attend nor even pay attention to such corrupt situations as the BLM, the DOI, the Humane Society, commercialized non-profits inclusive of AWHC, WHE RTF, Cloud, and many others who exploit the Wild Horses for profits – are, indeed, run by grifters, or the WH&B Board.

The significance here is the aspects of also the Pesticide and GONACON. Both supposedly a birth control. This birth control is used upon an under-populated species, the Wild Horse. When we consider the situation within its entirety, we see a couple of major points, negative toward the Wild Horse’s longevity and freedom on America’s Public Lands:

  1. It provides a birth control situation so more Wild Horses can be rounded up and sent to holding corrals, without concerns of increased foaling populations developing, and they simply disappear (to slaughter);
  2. It provides access to Kill Buyer’s, while wild horses whether captive or being rounded up, at taxpayer’s expense, to go either directly or indirectly to slaughter;
  3. In reality, real-time realty, the Pesticide PZP, CONACON, or other birth controls, combined with the WH&B Board, the Humane Society, commercialized non-profits — combined with BLM and DOI and Forestry Corruption (mind-sets and perspective corrupt as well) simply make rounding up the wild horses easier; indeed;
  4. they disappear easier from the BLM inventories, and much easier to convince the public of false information (i.e. over-population, immunocontraceptive false narratives, based on their erroneous interpretation of Humane) when compared especially to cattle, when indeed on their legal and prescribed HMA, and in accord with law, the Wild Horses are and remain Under-populated.

The corruption increases exponentially with what is allowed; which, equates to corruption in total. Joining the corruption does not, nor ever has been favorable toward any type of positive resolution for the Wild Horses – Look it up, it is history, and well defined.

Getting Corruption out of government, is the only resolution that will assist the Wild Horses. Anything else simply caters toward the Wild Horse’s demise – As we are seeing today if we look at the situation within a truthful, non-prejudice nor narrow perspective, we see it is simply developed from bias. We must not donate to commercialized non-profits, as their option is not the only option available, and their option does not save Wild Horses, at all — so why donate to them, as they lie, and their information based on no evidence, nor any science, at all.

To actually cater to corruption and misinformation, developed on False Pretense, not only does not help the Wild Horses – But will lead to the very extinction of Wild Horses! And this will happen much faster than ever before in the history of Wild Horse Roundups – it is much worse and much more efficient today, as well as much more misinformation to the public, false narratives entirely, is given by government and the Humane Society and oh so many other commercialized non-profits, as well.

We give our options on Saving Wild Horses and how to do so, yet these good science and management paradigms ignored — and then, the only option commercialized non-profits develop are merely, and obviously, favorable to them and the corrupted BLM only, and not the Wild Horses — in another word, Killing Horses for Exploitation, then to slaughter — all the while darting them with Toxic Pesticides that have nothing to do with “saving them” what so ever. . .

STOP THE CORRUPTION and We SAVE AMERICA’S WILD HORSES!  — Written by John Cox, The Cascades

woods umpqua forest


Posted by on July 14, 2016 in Uncategorized


Wild Horses, Cougars, Bears, Wolves, and Over-kill: America’s Wildlife Management System Broken


“It has come to the point we are outsmarting ourselves. Is education possibly the process of trading awareness for things of lesser worth? The goose who trades his, is soon a pile of feathers.” — Aldo Leopold

I read a brochure the other day, in the matters (for Welfare Ranching) of a Predator Control initiative being placed as a ballot measure in an upcoming election. There were many questions come to mind when reading the brochure. The fact that no credible science involved at all, obvious. Frankly, it was misinformation at its lowest quality, similar  in the form of an 8th grader’s blatant (rants) of ignorance within any wildlife or predatory wildlife issue.

I called the person who wrote the brochure (his number on the pamphlet), as both a concerned taxpayer and as a concerned Wildlife Advocate. I had seen ballot measures like this pass in previous years, and also seen the ecological-destruction it caused afterward. I asked about references and science. Right away I was accused of being a left-wing radical with an agenda. From past issues I have found, one does not debate fools and stupidity, as there is no winner, no loser, just blatant remarks having no substance; which, eventually turn into coercion and threats to ironically force the opposition into agreement. . .

Change in Conservation

Eventually, many hunters, trappers, and ranchers will lose their influence in the matters of their type of conservation, and from nothing more than people waking up to reality, and finally seeing these hunters, trappers, and ranchers are not, nor never have been, conservationists what so ever. To the majority of American taxpayers, their type of conservationism is not conservation; but rather when attention is paid to the occasion, their conservation is nothing more than a kill anything that moves paradigm, with tremendous excuses as to why, which none seem to develop into nothing more than ignorance established from myth – or some type of heh-haw supposed tradition that really did not exist either. And the worst of the worst, the outright destruction and death of America’s Federal and Public Lands as well as such American Icons as the Wild Horse, the Cougar, the Bear, the Coyote, or the Wolf – all killed and not due to science nor population control — but rather killed due to a fear-based hatred, and spawned by ignorance and bigotry.

We are all part of an intricate circle of life, the human species is also within this circle. This circle of life requires “all” to remain healthy in order for all others to remain healthy – to include our environment and ecological systems. . . Yes, the truth is one supports the other, continuous, as good science shows us time and again — consistently.

But in truth it is the facts that will place an end to their prejudice myth of what conservation is, and is not. The facts are that other groups and interests (i.e. other than special-interest hunting, trapping, or ranching venues) are on the increase in America’s wildlife and wilderness controversy.

This is largely due to the majority of American’s overwhelming taxpayer support. This exists now in all States, anywhere from 70% to 95% of Wildlife and Fish and Game Management agencies budgets supported by the general taxpayer population. Many people are becoming aware of this fact. Many people are now demanding their voice be heard, and special interest priorities be taken out of the decision making process. The majority of American’s, taxpayer’s, want healthy ecological systems be developed as a priority, rather than killing-playgrounds, or financial stability profit base, for special interests only.

The twisted-at-best conservationist-terminology used by the Special Interest Groups, have indeed run-down the wildlife population and environment to such proportion, over the past few decades, that urgent efforts now need to be developed and placed into action within proper management paradigms.

Fact: The supposed North American Model of Wildlife Management is inadequate (as history also shows us and within undeniable science) yet ignored for Scarcity-Economics which leads to misinformation, or ideologies based on a False-Premise, to maintain any wildlife or ecological system types of management on Federal or State lands.

The cattle ranching paradigms are destructive in total – as well as hunting or trapping management paradigms – which all are based upon nothing more than myth, or fear-based conjecture. This arrangement is then adapted toward profit margin within the sales of Specialized Permits or License by State or by Federal government agencies – all profit oriented rather than based on any type of science what so ever.

In Oregon State, for example, 3 Legislators, as well as several non-profits, lied to pass State Laws in order to remove Wolves from the Endangered Species List, in order to kill them later by hunters or trappers, but oh boy, the license and permit sales will escalate among other, well, questionable situations – Science was not used, but stated it was, most definitely, to the Oregon Public and taxpayers — the Law Passed in accord with good science, supposedly, but sadly and in reality, it was not at all..

The other ugly fact is corruption develops from such false science, misinformation, and government agencies bending to Special Interests. The fact is our overall wildlife and ecological environments destroyed, by nothing more than ignorance and corrupt government agencies who deny the public honest appraisals of, for example, truth in the matters of land management situations, or Environmental Assessments. . .

Special Interests / Population Increase = Corruption and Destruction

“This increase in human population, combined with the technology of the early industrial era, and the demands of a market economy, caused wildlife populations to plummet from a combination of unchecked exploitation and environmental alteration. Some examples:

  • The vast migratory herds of bison on the Great Plains were systematically slaughtered or died of cattle-borne diseases until only a few hundred individuals were left;
  • The passenger pigeon, whose numbers were once reckoned to be in the billions, became extinct in the wild. Both adults and young were harvested commercially. The last bird died in captivity in 1914;
  • Heron and egret populations were decimated by hunters shooting them in their breeding colonies for plumes for ladies’ hats;
  • The ranges of large predators such as grizzly bears, mountain lions, and wolves became greatly reduced. Mountain lions and wolves were virtually eliminated from eastern North America, as were grizzly bears from California.
  • White-tailed deer became extremely scarce in the eastern United States through a combination of habitat loss and over-hunting;
  • Runs of salmon and shad disappeared from many eastern rivers, their runs blocked by mill dams or killed by factory wastes in combination with unlimited fishing . . .

The massive-killing of wildlife is not really surprising, considering the attitudes of most people living in that era, which were largely characteristic of the combined agricultural situations and early industrial society of the times. Nature was regarded as something that got in the way of civilization and “progress”, and a source of goods to sell on the market.” — Aldo Leopold, America’s Wildlife: Cityward or Landward in 2016 – Have We Learned Nothing?

In another words, these special interest have, and continue, to deplete all wildlife and our living environment, to non-life standards of depredation and intrusive destruction – all the while calling themselves good-conservationists. Well, no they are not! No, they never have been.

Bad Science and Misinformation

Many of these mythic and often very aggressive fake conservationists– the hunters, ranchers, and trappers – give the public the impression that they are indeed the only ones who know the reality of what they speak – and of course have the only true-facts; which, if that is unacceptable, well, then they will threaten, coax, and even coerce many people into an uncomfortable truth – that they are right and everyone else is wrong. They portray the general public as ignorant, and honest advocates and those honest and good scientific researchers, as against hunting or against aggressive predator control.

This has essentially shut-out the majority of people that have legitimate demands, especially toward how and where to enjoy America’s Wildlife and Ecological Systems. As well, there exist currently concerns over the developments of our Wildlife being sacrificed for things most American’s do not want it sacrificed for – and if at all – when finding out the truth — which, by the way, our government agencies are paid to tell the taxpayer’s, the owners of this Public Lands and federal lands. . . So why are they not doing so?

Killing is based upon False Premise. . .

For example, Wild Horses on America’s Public Lands are sacrificed for an over-abundance of cattle on our Public Lands;john tree header

First, government management never provides honest or scientifically accurate Environmental Assessments or other regulatory situations to demonstrate cattle should even roam over much of America’s Public Lands, and simply due to this, our Public Lands destroyed;

Secondly, the False Premise of an underpopulated species, the Wild Horses on Public Lands, is stated, falsely I might add, by government management to be over-populated – yet cattle out-number the Wild Horses within a 5,000 to 1 ratio – costing the taxpayers millions of dollars yearly for this False Premise – and billions for supported an unneeded industry, Welfare Ranching and in support of Grazing Permits on Public Lands. (There is much more to this situation, but merely an example here and limited within this conversation)

But, there is much more, and the 48% Overkill situation, that legitimate science has discovered since the year 2000. This Overkill is over and above the normal death rate of wildlife yearly, and certainly, from good science also, threatens the human-species very life on this planet. As we now see, within the next few decades — and if this Overkill situation continues, an end to the human-species – as all is connected on this planet, and links to life that should not, EVER, become severed, are being severed through extinction. Yes, these matters of significant wildlife having to do with enhancing our environment, our forestry, and our waters, is ignorantly being sent to extinction and primarily due to humans hunting, trapping, or for more over-abundant cattle to be placed upon America’s Public Lands.


We can define ignorance in many, many ways. But one definitive method is the fact of acknowledgement, or learning from the past, of wrongs and how to go about things the right way.

Early settlers killed wolves and other predators with abandon, blaming them for declines in game populations. And not so surprisingly Wilderness areas suffered tremendously, and Conservation situations and regulatory relief was implemented, out of necessity, to save many Ecological systems and environments from destruction, actually protecting these areas from hunter-trappers-ranchers and their extremes of Overkill of America’s Wildlife and their false representation of Conservation.

At that time, just as today, to control these destructive mind-sets becomes mandatory.

It is now time for the American taxpayers to take part in the regulatory and wildlife conservation situation – through knowledge and voting for their interests, to essentially save America’s Wildlife. The ownership of America’s Wildlife is for everyone, not just a select few to kill as they please. It is time for politically based science, and special interest groups to take a back seat, to the priority – Saving Our World – and that is a pretty significant situation to many . . .

All of American’s need to take part in our Natural Resources, and Wildlife Management has got to change to a more Conservation-Management Premise toward Wildlife situations and ideologies — as 48% of our wildlife wiped-out, Over-killed since the year 2,000, certainly shows us the fact that ignorance can no longer dictate sound Wildlife Conservation what so ever — and Special Interests need to be removed — SOONER THAN LATER! —


America’s Wildlife: Cityward or Landward in 2016 – Have We Learned Nothing?  // – John Cox, 2016

Scarcity-Economics: Wild Horses, Wildlife, and Humans Death a Reality, // – John Cox, 2016

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

Chivian and Bernstein 2008, citing IUCN.

Wildlife crisis worse than economic crisis. 2009. Press release.–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.

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.

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? Guide to Animals.

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: (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: (November2011). 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: 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.




Posted by on July 13, 2016 in Uncategorized