Monthly Archives: March 2019

Wild Horses Back to Our Lands in America — ReEstablish / ReWild — No Human Encumbrance

Let’s discuss more about the science and intricacy, of placing wild horses back onto our Public and Federal Lands – and at the same time increase our wildlife habitats, increase the quality of ecological habitats and Ecology Islands, increase the quality of Our Nation’s water supply, increase Our Nations grasslands (only a mere 18% left of the very basic Grains and other vegetation that was the foundation of America’s food-chain for two-Plus-Centuries), rid Our public and federal lands of pollutants, radioactivity in the soil and beef/sheep meat supply, as well as other dangerous chemicals from the current industrial boom now ongoing on Our lands, and all around increase Our Nations Environmental Complex. . . for the better.

Population Density

Science begins with very basic principles, and in this case Population Density is nothing more than a Space-Available context and to obtain good results, or improvements to our Public and Federal Lands.  Quite frankly, none of the important situations within the context of placing wild horses back onto Our Public and Federal Lands (and leave the wild horses’ already there, on the range) does not include any drama what so ever. . .

Often drama is imposed by those who are supportive of such situations as BLM lies and misinformation (for example, we see advocates sharing office space with BLM, their mission too merely start problems within advocacy, if allowed), or monetary situations, and support BLM / Forestry, pesticides and other birth control situations, and experiments upon our wild horses – money involved in all of the drama opposing the placement of wild horses back onto Our Nation’s Lands – FACT and insurmountable evidence to show this in total, as a specific truth.

“The federal government owns about 640 million acres of land in the United States, about 28% of the total land area of 2.27 billion acres. The majority of federal lands (610.1 million acres in 2015) are administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), National Park Service (NPS), or U.S. Forest Service (FS). BLM, FWS, and NPS are part of the U.S. Department of the Interior, while the Forest Service is part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. An additional 11.4 million acres of land (about 2% of all federal land) is owned by the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD). The majority of federal lands are located in Alaska and the Western states.” – See references section

There exists more than enough room, upon the Multi-Purpose Lands we, as taxpayer’s own, ultimately.  We can essentially move on to environmental conditions.  Density Factors, independent from normal environmental factors, yet directly affect population density, which are situational, floods, droughts, volcanic habitats, and any other cataphoric-situation that has the potential of short-term or long-term effects upon populations such as wild horses, the wolves, cougars, or mid-range wildlife as well . . .

Population Cycles

Within any Ecological Habitat, it is the environmental factor that constrain the population, in combination with the density-independent factor; which, interesting enough, sets an upper limit on population size.  These components also all inclusive of why so many advocates are against the wreckless Human-Infringement and the use of breed controls upon wildlife, as nature takes care of the situation quite well enough, and infringement, truthfully, unneeded – i.e. birth controls and roundups.

The human-problem is simply of erroneous perception of nature, if admitted or not, as well as bias, ignorance, and an odd realm of bigotry, and of nothing more than, they are right and everyone else wrong.  No one ever admits they are a bigot; and thereby, the human problem increases exponentially over time . . . We endeavor to neutralize this type of human-problem, through quality management, and decision-making mandatory upon science, good data, and rendering of quality hypothesis.

Keep in mind, as science shows us consistently, it is the population-size that also effects the rate of growth of the population, and by the addition or removal of density-dependent factors.  We can use science here, and deduct a sincere and reasonable abstract of knowledge; whereas, one species can be defined within several segments of population density, and within area proximity.

As Wild Horse Advocates, we simply need to stop acting like a cluster of wild coyotes after the same piece of road-kill, and start organizing to get the Wild Horses; ether to,

1. “Remain” on Our Lands in America, and “Place-Back” Our Wild Horses, onto Our Lands, and manage them properly under scientific reasoning; and

2. Refrain from the twisted and disenfranchised term of Humane and the use of breed controls, roundups, or slaughter mind-sets, that are nothing more than ignorance and simply do not work at all, within any “Humane” perspective.

A wild horse band, for example, can survive quite well in the eastern areas of Washington State, or in Central or Eastern Oregon as well, and the population, as long as it is left alone separated from human-problems and egos, and as long as diversity of wildlife combined with a terrestrial diversity of shrubs, grasses, et al., and within a healthy Ecology, then moderation of population takes place within a natural occurrence – Population Density situations take hold as well.

Cross-species factors are involved also.  This is where the addition of removal or addition of population-density factors can transform an ecological system that can, and as science shows us quite well, does in many ecology islands, and establishes a new equilibrium factor.

Now, with this said, and clear in our minds, we then take this a step further.  Every species has critical density-dependent factors, wild horses are not exempt.  Again, as science shows us, if one of these factors removed – through environmental change, for example, or even experimental manipulations, or breed controls, etc., the population begins to grow until a new density-dependent factor kicks-in.

And yes, due to the reality of scientific research, we find that the BLM / Forestry interference with the wild horses (coyotes experience this same shift in population densities, when interruption exist in populations, the populations simply increase, naturally) seem to be more of a manipulation, or an ignorantly based situation for promotion of problems that simply do not exist, or job security for a large government agency, to keep doing things that prohibit “Moderation” of wild horse populations, and increase population.

We can truthfully state, scientifically and beyond all doubt, the things that the Bureau of Land Management does do, within their wild horse management paradigms, as well as the USDA Forestry, and due to their lack of knowledgeable science as well as lack of biological knowledge, moderation of the wild horses on Our Federal Lands simply “cannot exist” – then add the breed control paradigms, and it increases, again, exponentially – the wild horses simply have no chance, and extinction eminent.


The re-establishment of wild horses, as well as other wildlife, within Washington, Oregon, Idaho, California and other Western 11 States, becomes a point of wildlife and terrestrial Diversity.  Within this diversity we can use the data and survivorship curves, in research, to track trends and to understand the dynamics of a given population.

This is far superior to what we have now, the Single-Species Paradigm = Cattle, which is merely guess-work, and a proven very arrogant/ignorant methodology of Public and Federal Lands management – as we see in several very destructive situations now existing on Our Lands in America.  We also see a time when the Beef and Sheep meat products will be too polluted for Public Consumption, and it is not that far off.  Once again, it is science that shows us this quite clearly now.  The industrialized Multi-Purpose Lands Management theories, unproven by quality-science as well, simply is not working, and is very destructive to our lands.

Once again, we also get into the Strategic elements of re-establishing species upon Our Lands, in America, within a positive framework, and observation playing a major roll in data gathering and regulatory compliance – compared to the willy-nilly situation of No-Compliance on our lands in America, currently.

Big problem, as pointed out above . . . Corruption, irresponsible conduct by government employees, as well as bad nonscientific management paradigms, based on special interests only, and America, we have a problem – But yes America, we have an answer to the problems up and coming, make no doubt.

Research and Written by — John Cox, Cascades


Paul Rodgers, United States Constitutional Law: An Introduction (2011), p. 100-101.

Gibson v. Chouteau, 80 U.S. 92, 99 (1872), U.S. v. Grimaud, 220 U.S. 506 (1911), Light v. U.S. 220 U.S. 523 (1911), Utah Power & Light Co. v. U.S., 243 U.S. 389, 405 (1917), Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288, 336 (1936).

Lipton, Eric, and Clifford Krauss, Giving Reins to the States Over Drilling, New York Times, August 24, 2012.

Carol Hardy Vincent, Carla N. Argueta, & Laura A. Hanson, Federal Land Ownership: Overview and Data, Congress Research Service (March 3, 2017).

Kleppe v. New Mexico, 426 U.S. 529 (1976).

Tom Fredericks & Andrea Aseff, When Did Congress Deem Indian Lands Public Lands?: The Problem of BLM Exercising Oil and Gas Regulatory Jurisdiction, 33 Energy Law Journal 119 (2012).

“Trust Land” in Treaties with American Indians: An Encyclopedia of Rights, Conflicts, and Sovereignty (ed. Donald L. Fixico: ABC-CLIO, 2008), p. 956.

Allen, L. , Engeman, R. , and Krupa, H. (1996). Evaluation of three relative abundance indices for assessing dingo populations. Wildlife Research 23, 197–206.

Bayne, P. , Harden, B. , Pines, K. , and Taylor, U. (2000). Controlling feral goats by shooting from a helicopter with and without the assistance of ground-based spotters. Wildlife Research 27, 517–523.

Boonstra, R. , Krebs, C. J. , Boutin, S. , and Eade, J. M. (1994). Finding mammals using far-infrared thermal imaging. Journal of Mammalogy 75, 1063–1068.

Bull, E. L. , Holthausen, R. S. , and Bright, L. R. (1992). Comparison of 3 techniques to monitor marten. Wildlife Society Bulletin 20, 406–410.

Caley, P. A. , and Morley, C. G. (2002). Assessing growth rates of European rabbit populations using spotlight transect counts. Journal of Wildlife Management 66, 131–137.

Caughley G. (1977). ‘Analysis of Vertebrate Populations.’ (John Wiley and Sons: New York.)

Davis D. E. (1982). ‘CRC Handbook of Census Methods for Terrestrial Vertebrates.’ (CRC Press Inc.: Boca Raton, FL.)

Dodd, M. G. , and Murphy, T. M. (1995). Accuracy and precision of techniques for counting great blue heron nests. Journal of Wildlife Management 59, 667–673.

Edwards, G. P. , dePreu, N. D. , Shakeshaft, B. J. , and Crealy, I. V. (2000). An evaluation of two methods of assessing feral cat and dingo abundance in central Australia. Wildlife Research 27, 143–149.

Elbert, J. E. , Kost, C. D. , Rasmussen, R. L. , Johnson, D. L. , and Jenks, J. A. (1999). Lipophilic MRI contrast agents as potential markers for carnivore population studies. Proceedings of the South Dakota Academy of Sciences 78, 109–114.

Engeman, R. M. , and Allen, L. (2000). Overview of a passive tracking index for monitoring wild canids and associated species. Integrated Pest Management Reviews 5, 197–203.

Engeman R. M., and Witmer G. W. (2000). IPM strategies: indexing difficult to monitor populations of pest species. In ‘Proceedings of the 19th Vertebrate Pest Conference’. (Eds T. P. Salmon and A. C. Crabb.) pp. 183–189. (University of California: Davis, CA.)

Foran, D. R. , Minta, S. C. , and Heinemeyer, K. S. (1997). DNA-based analysis of hair to identify species and individuals for population research and monitoring. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25, 84–0847.

Glen, A. S. , and Dickman, C. R. (2003). Monitoring bait removal in vertebrate pest control: a comparison using track identification and remote photography. Wildlife Research 30, 29–33.

Lancia R. A., Nichols J. D., and Pollock K. H. (1994). Estimating the number of animals in wildlife populations. In ‘Research and Management Techniques for Wildlife and Habitats’. (Ed. T. A. Bookhout.) pp. 215–253. (The Wildlife Society: Bethesda, MD.)

Litvaitis, M. K. , and Litvaitis, J. A. (1996). Using mitochondrial DNA to inventory the distribution of remnant populations of New England cottontails. Wildlife Society Bulletin 24, 725–730

Poole, D. W. , Cowan, D. P. , and Smith, G. C. (2003). Developing a census method based on sight counts to estimate rabbit numbers. Wildlife Research 30, 487–493.

Quy, R. J. , Cowan, D. P. , and Swinney, T. (1993). Tracking as an activity index to measure gross changes in Norway rat populations. Wildlife Society Bulletin 21, 122–127.

Schneider B. A. (1982). ‘Pesticide Assessment Guidelines.’ (US Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC.)

Schwartz, C. J. , and Seber, G. A. F. (1999). Estimating animal abundance: review III. Statistical Science 14, 427–456.

Seber G. A. F. (1982). ‘The Estimation of Animal Abundance.’ 2nd edn. (MacMillan Publishing Company Inc.: New York.)

Seber, G. A. F. (1986). A review of estimating animal abundance. Biometrics 42, 267–292.

Seber, G. A. F. (1992). A review of estimating animal abundance. II. International Statistical Review – Revue Internationale de Statistique 60, 129–166.

Thompson, J. A. , and Fleming, P. J. (1994). Evaluation of the efficacy of 1080 poisoning of red foxes using visitation to non-toxic baits as an index of fox abundance. Wildlife Research 21, 27–39.

Thompson W. L., White G. C., and Gowan C. (1998). ‘Monitoring Vertebrate Populations.’ (Academic Press Inc.: New York.)

Tracey, J. P. , Fleming, P. J. , and Melville, G. J. (2005). Does variable probability of detection compromise the use of indices in aerial surveys of medium-sized mammals? Wildlife Research 32, 245–252.

1 Comment

Posted by on March 29, 2019 in Uncategorized


How Truth Gets in The Way of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Science Lies and Misinformation & $-Billions wasted at BLM

Article and Research — John Cox, Cascade Mountains
The Bureau of Land Management employees tell us, Taxpayer’s et al., about their Wild Horse Herd Counts, and they state an over-population of Wild Horses’ out there, rampaging over Our Public and Federal Lands, and just destroying everything in sight.  They also state they are starving, or worse, and they eat the range out of everything available, and directly compete with the food sources on the range, with cattle and sheep and many other wildlife.

Let’s take a look at this already proven lie, on many different levels, of wild horse over-population.  First we look at those who agree with the BLM, and understand a $-profit-base is at hand, and they are formidable liars as well, or just go along with what the BLM states as a Socioeconomic (Federal Court will neither accept as evidence nor fact. . . Reno, NV Cirsuit ) truism, rather than any factual truth, and never backed by any data, science, statistics’, nor data gathered, perused and summarized; thereby, No Evidence = No Facts.

Water – Cows versus Horse + – 3%

Cold Day Range 9-36 : 1 8 – 14 gals. Per day 144 — 216 gals. Per day
Warm Range 90+ 59-82 : 1 8 — 14 gals. per day 288 — 452 gals. Per day
Cold Range BLM Est. 30 : 1  False 8 – 14 gals. Per day 480 – 720 gals. Per day
Warm Range 90+ BLM Est. 30 : 1  False 8 – 14 gals. Per day 960 – 1,400 gals. Per day

(Notes) (1) No Cows allowed Winter Range, between October 15 yearly to April 15 on average, but BLM (i.e. nor Forestry) does not pay attention to regulating nor managing Welfare Ranchers and assuring their cows off of Winter Range – then in Spring, the Wild Horses blamed for the winter-range damage from cattle . . . (2) A bull weighs, on average, 2,400 pounds, whereas a cow weighs around 1,600 pounds. If you use the standard 30:1 cattle (BLM false ratio, as we see minimally increased by 50%) versus horse statistic provided by the BLM, that number ranges from cattle’s 480-720 gallons (cold – 16 to 23 gals per cow per day / warm 32 to 48 gals per cow per day = variable according to weight) of water on a cold day, or cattle’s 960-1,440 gallons of water on a warm day, per day versus the Wild Horse intake of 8-14 gallons – which we discover is consistent…

Forage – Cows versus Horses + – 2%

Forage Grazing Times Cow Horse
Per 12 Hour days app. 130 lbs per day 20 – 25 lbs per day
All Grasses/All Day Mostly Anything Very Selective
Fire Hazards Stationary = result = Cheat Grass Fire Hazard Eat then Roams =

No Fire Hazard at all

Accord. BLM Stats 30 : 1 Ratio 3,900 lbs. 25 lbs.

(Notes) the horses are being blamed for the damage that is done by private cattle herds. These private cattle ranchers are knowingly overgrazing their herds on federal lands. The BLM is allowing the cattle to overgraze and continue to allow the increase of the number of cattle while, at the same time, continue to lowering grazing fees.

Population Dynamics and Cycles

What we find is the BLM very inaccurate in the matter of their Wild Horse Herds/Bands, and an extreme variance within their counts and reality or the actual population, that truly exits.  Apparently, they have been allowed over the years, to get away with averages that simply deify any type of Biological reasoning what so ever.  Yes, their numbers most often make “NO” Biological sense what so ever, and even comical at times, and obvious they simply do not know what it is they do not know – and this situation alone is very troubling, as they are paid administrative and manger wages, but simply decisions nothing more than what a moron who is paid minimum wage, would make, in the matters of proper wildlife and lands management.

We also find their statistics are not backed by anything.  Their redundant reference to a study, to promote or referenced within their counts as under-counted, done in the 1993’s, merely an abstract of averages as well, and states within the study the researcher’s never concluded, accurately, what the wild Horse population was at that time, but merely another surmised-average based upon BLM numbers (estimates, as no one really counted much of anything even then, accurately) that BLM employees lie about today – or they may simply take the word of someone else, and not read the study that others referenced.  BLM employees will state this same White paper, stating statistics clear that they are undercounting the Wild Horse Over-population, is simply a travesty, and really not a referenced matter at all.

“Environmental factors constrain the growth of populations, and density-dependent factors set an upper limit on their size.  Population size also is affected fundamentally by the rate of growth of the population and by the addition or removal of density-dependent factors.” – E.O. Wilson, PhD Research Biologist – 48 years

The rate of growth of populations, can vary enormously across species, and Wild Horses no different.  E coli, for example if left unchecked, would double in population every 20 minutes.  Apparently, this filled many BLM offices, and left unchecked 😊 . . . In the real world, this type of exponential growth only occurs at a short time period.  The E. coli example, at the rate mentioned above, after 36 hours the descendants of a single bacterium would cover the surface of the Earth one-foot deep, and within the next hour would be over all of our heads.

In the matters of Wild Horses, as well as other wildlife, we can get into a natural “moderation of population” – but only if allowed to do so, with little to no human intervention.  What is referred to here is nothing more than “carrying capacity” and the equilibrium of how a population size remains in balance, and within a habitat that can support them.  Our Public and Federal Lands can support an entire population of Wild Horses, as good science shows us, and a lot of research that states the same.

1. The only irrational situation we run across, currently, is the fact we cannot depend on the non-credible numbers i.e. wild horse counts – statistics that the BLM offers as truth, in the matters of placing (or leaving them alone) Our Nation’s Wild Horse’s on Public and Federal Lands.

2. There exists nothing to confirm, or to generate credibility within their (BLM/Forestry) non-biological statistics, no scientific or credible references, and lack of range confirmation data-gathered that will confirm it.  In reality, no one can really state for sure, about “Not” placing Wild Horses on our Public and /Federal Lands, and their comments merely inuendo with nothing to back them up –

3. In direct opposition, we have a lot of science, a lot of research, and simply a lot of knowledge to back-up, within data, strategy, as well as sound statistical data and research narrative, that point directly to Re-Releasing the wild Horses’ back onto Public and Federal Lands, and simply leave them alone . . .

Reproductive Strategies

We have two reproductive strategies, biologically supported and well researched, that directly contradict the single-species priority (or BLM/Forestry non-scientific paradigm) of cattle and sheep only, on our Public and Federal Lands; or, as we refer to them as non-biological paradigms that simply destroy wildlife as well as our entire environment on our nations’ landscape.  And that is the danger, to not only the Wild Horses, but to our over-all environment, and human’s alike. and the reckless use of chemicals, radioactivity from mining and fracking, and other dangerous pesticides used more and more on Our lands.

We have the r-strategy and the K-strategy.  The r-strategy refers to the intrinsic rate of population increase.  The K-strategy refers to the Karrying Kapacity, a variant of the term carrying capacity.  Not all animals fall into these groups I mention, exclusively, but the labels useful for identification or categorizing the overall picture of population change.

Animals that live in a dangerous or unstable environment tend to be r-strategists’.  Wild horses are more prone to live within a K-strategists’ environment.  This is one of a few excellent reasons many of us are, and remain, anti-pesticide pzp, as we favor the natural circumstance of a healthy environment, and healthy Ecological Habitats, over the no-strategy what so ever of the single-species-glut of cows on our Public and Federal Lands.

But this is a knowledgeable and a more academic realm in favoring nature over and above the human-problems of perception; as well, over the ignorance portrayed up to this point on the use of pesticide pzp, and arguing over sales brochure information rather than outright-science.  Breed controls are simply a human-perception, part of the human-problem, that have no place within a healthy Ecological Process and Habitat, what so ever. . .

K-strategists, wild horses in this example, reproduce later in life, or around, safely, 5 to 6 years of age.  More time is invested in their off-spring, and why we do not like to see the breed-control’s imposed upon Wild Horses, and generating Band disruption within many of the Wild Horse Bands on Public Lands – this is disruptive to the K-strategy – in reality, an unworkable situation – something BLM the Forestry and HSUS does not seem to understand, and they are totally out of their realm in pushing pesticide pzp on the Wild Horses at all.

We have within this paradigm, a succession of interaction, diversity, as well as creating or sustaining a healthy Ecological Habitat – we also find those who do not understand why we want to re-establish the Wild Horses on Public Lands, and left alone, as this paradigm is simply too difficult for them to understand how it all works.  We refer to this mind-set as shallow, not responsive to nature, and what it can provide for wildlife and human’s alike.

Populations in these circumstances, both strategies, grow quickly, but their growth levels off.  The strategies involved, we find in good science and well collected data and research, and closure of the hypothesis, in regard to interpreting the data and research collected.  We find an equilibrium at their carrying capacity, or what is referred to as the number of individuals the habitat can support.

Up and coming within the next article will be the strategy, the overall outlook of Population-Density, where environmental restraints grow in significance as population density increases.  For example, territory, ecological islands, growth of habitat, diversity in wildlife and terrestrial landscape, disease, predation, are all population density factors. . . as well as emigration and immigration; such as, emigration caused by inadequate food supply within a territory, and particular species simply move on to a healthier habitat to support themselves . . .

Research and Written by: John Cox, Cascades


Margulis, L. Symbiosis in Cell Evolution: Life and Its Environment on the Early Earth (W. H. Freeman, 1981).

Ochman, H. & Moran, N. A. Genes lost and genes found: evolution of bacterial pathogenesis and symbiosis. Science 292, 1096–1099 (2001).

Mora, C., Tittensor, D. P., Adl, S., Simpson, A. G. B. & Worm, B. How many species are there on earth and in the ocean? PLOS Biol. 9, e1001127 (2011).

Eme, L., Spang, A., Lombard, J., Stairs, C. W. & Ettema, T. J. G. Archaea and the origin of eukaryotes. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 15, 711 (2017).

Boucher, D. H., James, S. & Keeler, K. H. The ecology of mutualism. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 13, 315–347 (1982).

Bright, M. & Bulgheresi, S. A complex journey: transmission of microbial symbionts. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 8, 218 (2010). This is an important description of the journey undertaken by horizontally and vertically transmitted symbionts, from their initial contact with their host to their final residence.

Bennett, G. M. & Moran, N. A. Heritable symbiosis: the advantages and perils of an evolutionary rabbit hole. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 10169–10176 (2015).

Bull, J. J., Molineux, I. J. & Rice, W. R. Selection of benevolence in a host-parasite system. Evolution 45, 875–882 (1991).

Doebeli, M. & Knowlton, N. The evolution of interspecific mutualisms. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA USA 95, 8676–8680 (1998).

Douglas, A. E. Host benefit and the evolution of specialization in symbiosis. Heredity 81, 599 (1998).

Ewald, P. W. Transmission modes and evolution of the parasitism-mutualism continuum. Ann. NY Acad. Sci. 503, 295–306 (1987).

Hartmann, A. C., Baird, A. H., Knowlton, N. & Huang, D. The paradox of environmental symbiont acquisition in obligate mutualisms. Curr. Biol. 27, 3711–3716 (2017).

Herre, E. A., Knowlton, N., Mueller, U. G. & Rehner, S. A. The evolution of mutualisms: exploring the paths between conflict and cooperation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 14, 49–53 (1999).

Wilkinson, D. M. & Sherratt, T. N. Horizontally acquired mutualisms, an unsolved problem in ecology? Oikos 92, 377–384 (2001).

Knowlton, N. & Rohwer, F. Multispecies microbial mutualisms on coral reefs: the host as a habitat. Am. Nat. 162, S51–S62 (2003).

Nussbaumer, A. D., Fisher, C. R. & Bright, M. Horizontal endosymbiont transmission in hydrothermal vent tubeworms. Nature 441, 345 (2006).

Nyholm, S. V. & McFall-Ngai, M. The winnowing: establishing the squid–vibrio symbiosis. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2, 632 (2004). This is a classic overview of the establishment of the squid– Vibrio spp. symbiosis.

Fontanez, K. M. & Cavanaugh, C. M. Evidence for horizontal transmission from multilocus phylogeny of deep-sea mussel (Mytilidae) symbionts. Environ. Microbiol. 16, 3608–3621 (2014).

Click to access WATERLF0503.pdf

Click to access BLM_USFS-grazing-analysis_2014_Daily-Pitchfork.pdf

1 Comment

Posted by on March 29, 2019 in Uncategorized