Monthly Archives: November 2020

Wild Horses – Cougars – Conflicts with Truthful Evolution

Evolution is such an under-estimated value, and within our systematic processes of today, blatantly ignored, more often than not, due to politics or just ignorance based upon bias or profits; which, our extinction inevitable, as the environment is distinctly too complex for our bias-opinionated wildlife management ideologies and actions — John Cox, Cascade Mountains

Article by – John Cox, Independent Wild Horse Advocate

All wildlife run across hazards within wilderness areas.  Predation in the wilderness is common, survivability, and those who awake ready to either obtain prey or are the prey, then best be ready for action either way.  But, this is all limited, as evolutionary process conclusive, and survival skills are developed in all wildlife, and terrestrial vegetation as well, to survive beyond all else.

Similar to human’s in heavily populated cities, and even in small towns, as we see or hear about traffic accidents, auto-train accidents, train wrecks, airplane and airline accidents, car accidents, multi-pileups on local freeways, accidental and purposeful shootings, crimes where people are killed, and on it goes, survivability for human’s, as well, remains precarious in total – same things although different environment.  Survival skills required.  Things happen.  We try to mitigate the accidents or causation consciously, similar to the way wildlife, both predator and prey, assimilate their day. 

We do not need to add to their hazards, as we do very ignorantly, to make things more difficult, for example — the PZP-GONACON darting situation accomplishes nothing, and takes away the Survival Mind-Set of Skills Wild Horses do have, and require, on our Public Lands to survive.  The current loss of Wild Horse band-families, over the past decade, and we see the very ignorant, all-inclusive of other situations as well, that indeed does affect them directly. . . Their survivability complex we used to see, through observation and tracking of spore definitively, no longer exists in many Wild Horses.  Within the family Wild Horse bands, as corrupt government agencies as well as corrupted non-profits make the situation far worse than ignorance and bias has shown – all inclusive, we see it and it is quite evident. 

When we speak of extremely ignorant and bias wildlife management today, it is primarily because We See the Effects of it Directly – on the flats, the range, the mountains, the deserts, essentially, all of the Public Lands in the Western 11 States.  Because humans might understand the superficial proximity of a belief toward wildlife management, does not make it a reality, but typically, it becomes adverse toward any healthy ecology, inclusive of wildlife as well.  Yet, people will quote the oddly adversity a paradigm exhibits toward wildlife or wilderness areas, as if it should be a decision made about using it – Here, I say no, more knowledge needed, obviously, and the management paradigms require cohesiveness and provide evolution, i.e. room for positive growth standards, rather than dissension within any Eco-system.

Weather, especially, can be lethal within wilderness areas; or, one of the most common situations toward injury or death of wildlife, other than humans. Droughts are lethal, but manageable by the wild horses and within their survival skills, as we see quite often when observing them (we observe 82 Bands across the 11 western states – and see no one out there of any value doing the same) that is, as long as they are left alone, and pesticides are not darted into them – among other incompetent ignorance and  behaviors toward management ideologies . . .

It is only human’s that do not understand these skill sets in Wild Horses, that assume Wild Horses may die from droughts and dehydration; although, what we have seen, while observing them, is the fact Wild Horses can, and do, locate water quite well, and within many different environments, e.g. range-lands, mountains, desert flats, valley basins, et al.  PZP and other experimental situations take-away this capacity of outright survival skills Wild Horses do have – and I think this bares repeating, as it is a very serious problem, and was created as well as further promoted, as something useful (only in the ignorant human mind does that develop what so ever – reality shows us it has no value at all) – IT IS NOT AT ALL!

These survival “skills” from Pleistocene-era days.  Many of us agree in total, the wild horses never lost – what so ever, and shows us there was entirely NO Interruption in Evolutionary growth, all inclusive of the America’s as well. . . and we see it on our Public Lands and within Our Wild Horses —

We see very well, humans did not complete a total kill-off of the wild horses, as we have been led to believe.  There is nothing of note in either Pre-Historical times, nor historical and recorded history times, to show a kill-off occurred, legitimately.  The opinions, of such, that exist are not, nor ever have been, of any science what so ever = conjecture only, which is proven, constantly, in error.  There is no evidence from these opinions that supports a kill-off; rather, it has always been surmised, mostly due to logistics or a sight-unseen belief that the wild horses killed-off among many other large predator’s and grazing animals alike – as the Pygmy Mammoth was assumed such, as well, and currently they are being found, within many archeological sites, to be plentiful within the Western portion of the United States. 

After all, no one has seen them, as the opinions go and without evidence at all.  The Pygmy Mammoth found quite by accident, on the Channel Islands in California (the beginning of many more extravagant finds within the 11 Western United States = Evidence of Grazers not only survived, but abundant in the America’s after the supposed and only opinionated Plasticine Kill Off.  This inclusive of horses as well –

Can Wildlife survive human bias and ignorance?

What we do find is the wilderness areas where the horses roam, to be almost non-habitable by human’s or industry for that matter; or, human’s simply so sparse, and communication skills within early human’s so limited, that communication from pre-historic times almost zero.  We see it is almost zero today, as well as we see confrontation between country people and city people today, as a good example of situations that lack understanding or communication.  This withdrawal from both circumstances, and we see incompetent and mismanaged wildlife, while in the field, consistently and constantly.

So, what is the point of this conversation?  The fact that Wild Horses know how to survive, whether predators around or not – or, whether humans around or not.  We can be definitive here, and state clearly, nether written history nor communication between humans existed, post Plasticine Era . . . Today, many people surprised when we start to discuss pre-European Invasion history, in the America’s . . . so there is no surprise at all that any written dialogue would tell us about wild horses or their existence at all – other than cave drawings, et al, or tribal oral historians.

Wild Horses and Mountain Lions?

North American wild horses, yes, in the America’s and throughout the Pleistocene Era, evolved in the presence of abundant, large, and fierce carnivores, including the extreme Sabre-tooth Tiger, cheetahs, and short-faced bears, which all, as the archeological files and data collected show us, helped to keep the many huge, hungry herbivores (mammoths, mastodons, giant ground sloths) in check.  Not so much the smaller herbivores, or grazers like the Pygmy Mammoth, or the Horses, as they were smaller, and much faster.  The Kill-Off from the Plasticine did not develop for the mid-range mammals at all, nor the mid-range predators, as many more archeological digs show us.  It was primarily the slower movers or larger targets that were killed-off, and the Ice-Age was not as significant as many thought, either, as data from many digs currently show us as well – and how the mid-range mammals’ spread throughout the all-inclusive, America’s.

North America’s surviving apex predators are large-bodied carnivores who occupy the highest trophic level. When abundant enough to be ecologically effective, these keystone species help to regulate prey populations and thus maintain native habitats and the diversity of other native species. Conversely, scientists have discovered that the loss of apex mammalian predators can precipitate ecological chain reactions that lead to profound habitat degradation and species loss.

Mountain lions or Cougars, pumas, and panthers, are very important Apex Predators and widely distributed throughout the American West—although their range, like that of the other native large carnivores, was greatly reduced by population growth and the realty – suburbs extending into wildlife habitats.  Cougars do not commonly prey on free-ranging horses and burros in North America, primarily because they are heavily hunted themselves. There is evidence Cougar population can potentially limit wild horses through the predation of foals.  What we find in the field (and no we do not see these people tat talk a lot about the Cougar, and on and on, in the field at all) is the facts or Reality, once again, and the predation of foals causation is the incompetent management of current wildlife paradigms, and birth controls used in wilderness areas, that are actually irrelevant and cause more harm than good.  Government agencies assigned to Predation Control in wilderness areas, in combination with the very bias and ignorant PZP use, for example, leaves little to no “critters” for the Apex Predators – inclusive of Cougar, Bear, Coyotes, Wolves, et al., that we seem to forget it is their Living Habitat.

In the Montgomery Pass Wild Horse Territory on the California/Nevada border, there has been essentially no lion hunting for the past 30 years. This region serves as a unique refuge for both wild horses and cougars. As such, it appears that the Territory’s un-hunted lion population hovers around what we might arguably call an ecologically effective level and significantly contributes to the control of the wild horse population.

Studies have shown that ecologically effective populations of apex predators limit population irruptions of both native and introduced species and can provide better outcomes than lethal management (here we see again within science, with the ignorance and bias movement of PZP or experimentation of wild horses on our Public Lands is okay – when it is unethical, disruptive within all of Nature’s natural Moderation of Population science, and violates the WH&B ACT of 1971 precisely); Therefore, the preservation or recovery of large predators—which, like wild horses, require extensive refugia, or protected-areas where experimentation or any human attributes, remain unacceptable as a management resolution or manipulation. . .  This presents a significant conservation need for maintaining the resiliency of wild-land ecosystems, especially in the face of a rapidly changing climate. According to a 2015 paper published by Adrian Wallach and colleagues in Oikos:

“. . . The recovery of apex predators offers an alternative response to introduced species that can simultaneously reduce the harm they cause, reduce the harm society feels compelled to cause them, and capitalize on their values. This approach is not without its challenges: society remains apprehensive towards both large predators and non-native organisms and both are subjected to eradication efforts. Never the less, considering rapid environmental change, some species will need to move to survive, and resident ecosystems will need large predators in order to adapt.  Overall, to achieve better outcomes for the biodiversity we will have to transition our efforts away from killing introduced species and towards promoting ecological mechanisms that enable coexistence.”

As we have seen, many of us, within the Montgomery Pass Wild Horse Territory, wild horses eventually learned to avoid the high, rugged terrain optimal for Cougar predation, preferring the open lowlands where cougars were less effective.  Once again, we see the evolutionary adaptation of the wild horses (their survival skills PZP-GONACON, and other experimentation will definitively take-away from them, which obviously equates to total-ignorance at its worst!), the horses figured out how to evade mountain lions.  As scientists noted, the clever horses will now “require more active management to assure habitat well-being.”

By active management, they mean continued horse round-ups and contraceptive measures. I would argue that there is another, albeit contentious, option necessary for the resolution of wild horse management.  Even though, an in-your-face evolutionary process is taking place, those who are inept, for profits mostly, want active-management control there – Yes, one cannot make this type of ignorance and bias up, and certainly misuse of our taxpayer money – and an abundant ignorance toward how wildlife and their ability to adapt, takes place.  So we are confronted with an evolutionary process, yet our government states clearly, the wild horses did not evolve at all in the America’s – and yet here we are looking at the very evolutionary process unfold, and out government denies it – yet another argument “FOR” BLM-DOI-Forestry interference toward wildlife be discontinued – they are not managing our lands for wildlife, but primarily for themselves and industry!

We then move on toward a more diverse paradigm, necessary to establish Re-Growth of our Public Lands that have already been decimated by ignorance and bias. . . Mountain lions in the Great Basin would not be able to limit wild horse populations to a sustainable level on their own.  Some researchers suggest that reestablishing a more complete suite of native carnivores through the reintroduction of gray wolves, in concert with supporting a naturally evolving mountain lion population, would provide the basis for an ecologically and economically sound, long-term solution.  This approach would not only help stabilize wild horse populations, but would also greatly contribute to restoring native grasslands, woodlands, and forests. 

But not just moderation of population develop, but also alongside; whereas, circumstances of Survival Skills increase . . . as we have seen develop in other areas (yet government ignores these evolution’s we are seeing on the range and in the mountains’ quite ignorantly) and within a notable diversity increase, at least for the past decade, where government agency interruptions are the least – yes – our Natural Resources, when left along, as well as wildlife, adapt quite nicely to Trophical Cascade paradigms’, as well as generating healthier ecology habitats – We see it, very well I might add, and when government interference the least.


Frankly I appeal toward a management-paradigm of a Hands-Off Wildlife as well as Our Nation’s Natural Resources’, while it develops and prosper, and through Diversity of wildlife and territorial vegetation.  Clearly, it is a situation of many have their opinions, often totally ignorant and bias formed, but none the less for the uninitiated and those that sit behind the desk and do their research there, is a similar problem.

We have too may examples of situations where ignorance and bias prevail, in our wildlife and terrestrial habitats still today, yet ignored.  And within a parallel situation, we also have may situations that were left alone, and a Natural Moderation of Populations not only evolved, but Species integration evolved (a complex of survivability evolved, that we cannot neglect, as we are involved In this chain of events also — our existence on this planet — Evolution Mandatory otherwise existence ceases to become active in the environment) into Moderation of Populations as well as much healthier habitats and formed growth, or expansion, within the same healthy evolutionary expansion – terrestrial – oceanic – wildlife evolution complex chain.  The Trophical Cascade Effect works – we see it, whether manipulated or not – it works, and works well. . .


Berger J. 1986. Wild horses of the Great Basin: social competition and population size. Chicago (IL): University of Chicago Press.

Beschta RL, Donahue DL, DellaSala DA, Rhodes JJ, Karr JR, O’Brien MH, Fleischner TL, Deacon Williams C. 2013. Adapting to climate change on western public lands: addressing the ecological effects of domestic, wild, and feral ungulates. Environ Manage. 51:474–491.

Dedecker M. 1991. Shrubs and flowering plants. In: Hall Jr. CA, editor. California natural history guides. Berkeley (CA): University of California Press.

Eberhardt LE, Hanson WC, Bengtson JL, Garrott RA, Hanson EE. 1982. Arctic fox home range characteristics in an oil development area. J Wildl Manage. 46:183–190.

Feist JD, McCullough DR. 1976. Behavior patterns and communication in feral horses. Z Tierpsychol. 41:337–371.

Fjelline DP, Mansfield TM. 1989. Method to standardize the procedure for measuring mountain lion tracks. In: Shaw H, editor. Third mountain lion workshop. Phoenix (AZ): The Wildlife Society and Arizona Game and Fish Department.

Garrott RA, Taylor L. 1990. Dynamics of a feral horse population in Montana. J Wildl Manage. 54:603–611.

Holechek J, Pieper RD, Herbel CH. 2004. Range mangement, principles and practice. 5th ed. Upper Saddle River (NJ): Prentice Hall.

Honda T. 2009. Environmental factors affecting the distribution of the wild boar, sika deer, Asiatic black bear and Japanese macaque in central Japan, with implications for human-wildlife conflict. Mamm Study. 34:107–116.

Jessup D, Clark W. 1986. Wildlife restraint handbook. Rancho Cordova (CA): Wildlife Investigation Laboratory.

Jones and Stokes Associates, Inc. 1999. Effects on Mule Deer Movement and Mortality along State Rte. 395 in Mono County. (JSA 92-013). Sacremento (CA): Jones and Stokes Associates, Inc.

Mennick P. 1979. A study of the Truman Meadows and White Mountain wild horse populations of California and Nevada [M.S. Thesis]. Santa Cruz (CA): University of California.

Morton ML, Morrison ML, Hall LS, Pereyra ME. 1995. Life history parameters in mice exposed to a prolonged drought. Southwestern Nat. 40:18–28.

Powell DR, Klieforth HE. 1991. Weather and climate of the White-Inyo range, eastern California. In: Hall Jr. CA, editor. California natural history guides. Berkeley (CA): University of California Press; p. 3–26.

Ransom JI, Roelle JE, Cade BS, Coates-Markle L, Kane AJ. 2011. Foaling rates in feral horses treated with the immunocontraceptive porcine zona pellucida. Wildl Soc Bull. 35:343–352.

Smallwood KS, Fitzhugh EL. 1993. A rigorous technique for identifying individual mountain lions Felis concolor by their tracks. Biol Cons. 65:51–59.

Spira TP. 1991. Natural history of the White-Inyo range, eastern California. In: Hall Jr. CA, editor. California natural history guides. Berkeley (CA): University of California Press; p. 77–86.

Taylor TJ. 1988. Migration and seasonal habitats of the Caso Diablo deer herd. Bishop (CA): California Department of Fish and Game.

Waring GH. 1983. Horse behavior: behavioral traits and adaptations of domestic and wild horses, including ponies. Park Ridge (NJ): Noyes Publication.

Wolfe ML, Ellis LC, MacMullen R. 1989. Reproductive rates of feral horses and burros. J Wildl Manage. 53:916–924.

Zar JH. 1984. Biostatistical analysis. Englewood Cliffs (NJ): Prentice-Hall.

Graeme R. Gillespie, Yusuke Fukuda, Peter McDonald, Using non-systematically collected data to evaluate the conservation status of elusive species: a case study on Australia’s Oenpelli python, Wildlife Research, 10.1071/WR19112, 47, 2, (146), (2020).

Ruchira Somaweera, James Nifong, Adam Rosenblatt, Mathew L. Brien, Xander Combrink, Ruth M. Elsey, Gordon Grigg, William E. Magnusson, Frank J. Mazzotti, Ashley Pearcy, Steven G. Platt, Matthew H. Shirley, Marisa Tellez, Jan Ploeg, Grahame Webb, Rom Whitaker, Bruce L. Webber, The ecological importance of crocodylians: towards evidence‐based justification for their conservation, Biological Reviews, 10.1111/brv.12594, 95, 4, (936-959), (2020).

Brett W. Molony, Damian P. Thomson, Managing the super-shark: Recommendations to improve communication and debate about chondrichthyans, Marine Policy, 10.1016/j.marpol.2020.103983, 118, (103983), (2020).

Pedro Monterroso, Francisco Díaz‐Ruiz, Paul M. Lukacs, Paulo C. Alves, Pablo Ferreras, Ecological traits and the spatial structure of competitive coexistence among carnivores, Ecology, 10.1002/ecy.3059, 101, 8, (2020).

Marcos Moleón, José A. Sánchez-Zapata, José A. Donázar, Eloy Revilla, Berta Martín-López, Cayetano Gutiérrez-Cánovas, Wayne M. Getz, Zebensui Morales-Reyes, Ahimsa Campos-Arceiz, Larry B. Crowder, Mauro Galetti, Manuela González-Suárez, Fengzhi He, Pedro Jordano, Rebecca Lewison, Robin Naidoo, Norman Owen-Smith, Nuria Selva, Jens-Christian Svenning, José L. Tella, Christiane Zarfl, Sonja C. Jähnig, Matt W. Hayward, Søren Faurby, Nuria García, Anthony D. Barnosky, Klement Tockner, Rethinking megafauna, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 10.1098/rspb.2019.2643, 287, 1922, (20192643), (2020).

Juliano André Bogoni, Carlos A. Peres, Katia M.P.M.B. Ferraz, Effects of mammal defaunation on natural ecosystem services and human well being throughout the entire Neotropical realm, Ecosystem Services, 10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101173, 45, (101173), (2020).

Shrutarshi Paul, Debanjan Sarkar, Abhilash Patil, Tista Ghosh, Gautam Talukdar, Mukesh Kumar, Bilal Habib, Parag Nigam, Dhananjai Mohan, Bivash Pandav, Samrat Mondol, Assessment of endemic northern swamp deer (Rucervus duvaucelii duvaucelii) distribution and identification of priority conservation areas through modeling and field surveys across north India, Global Ecology and Conservation, 10.1016/j.gecco.2020.e01263, (e01263), (2020).

Gabriella R. M. Leighton, Jacqueline M. Bishop, M. Justin O’Riain, Joleen Broadfield, Justin Meröndun, Graham Avery, D. Margaret Avery, Laurel E. K. Serieys, An integrated dietary assessment increases feeding event detection in an urban carnivore, Urban Ecosystems, 10.1007/s11252-020-00946-y, (2020).

Ana Paula Madeira Di Beneditto, Pedro Viana Gatts, Vanessa Trindade Bittar, Investigating food assimilation in a carnivorous teleost by stable isotopes analysis: the case of ribbonfish off south-east Brazil, Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 10.1017/S0025315420000338, (1-7), (2020).

Francisco Díaz-Ruiz, Alejandro Rodríguez, Diego Procopio, Sonia Zapata, Juan Ignacio Zanón-Martínez, Alejandro Travaini, Inferring Species Interactions from Long-Term Monitoring Programs: Carnivores in a Protected Area from Southern Patagonia, Diversity, 10.3390/d12090319, 12, 9, (319), (2020).

A. Szolnoki, B. F. de Oliveira, D. Bazeia, Pattern formations driven by cyclic interactions: A brief review of recent developments, EPL (Europhysics Letters), 10.1209/0295-5075/131/68001, 131, 6, (68001), (2020).

M. Drouilly, N. Nattrass, M. J. O’Riain, Global positioning system location clusters vs. scats: comparing dietary estimates to determine mesopredator diet in a conflict framework, Journal of Zoology, 10.1111/jzo.12737, 310, 2, (83-94), (2019).

Nicholas Carter, Raylene Cooke, John G. White, Desley Whisson, Bronwyn Isaac, Nick Bradsworth, Joining the dots: How does an apex predator move through an urbanizing landscape?, Global Ecology and Conservation, 10.1016/j.gecco.2019.e00532, (e00532), (2019).

Tamlyn M. Engelbrecht, Alison A. Kock, M. Justin O’Riain, Running scared: when predators become prey, Ecosphere, 10.1002/ecs2.2531, 10, 1, (2019).

Kenneth A. Logan, Puma population limitation and regulation: What matters in puma management?, The Journal of Wildlife Management, 10.1002/jwmg.21753, 83, 8, (1652-1666), (2019).

Eric Lucas, Julie-Éléonore Maisonhaute, Intraguild Predation, Encyclopedia of Animal Behavior, 10.1016/B978-0-12-809633-8.90118-3, (389-399), (2019).

Juliano André Bogoni, Pedro Giovâni da Silva, Carlos A. Peres, Co‐declining mammal–dung beetle faunas throughout the Atlantic Forest biome of South America, Ecography, 10.1111/ecog.04670, 42, 11, (1803-1818), (2019).

Gail Morris, L. Mike Conner, Mesocarnivores affect hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus) body mass, Scientific Reports, 10.1038/s41598-019-51168-y, 9, 1, (2019).

Mohammad S. Farhadinia, Brett T. McClintock, Paul J. Johnson, Pouyan Behnoud, Kaveh Hobeali, Peyman Moghadas, Luke T. B. Hunter, David W. Macdonald, A paradox of local abundance amidst regional rarity: the value of montane refugia for Persian leopard conservation, Scientific Reports, 10.1038/s41598-019-50605-2, 9, 1, (2019).

Shanta C. Barley, Timothy D. Clark, Jessica J. Meeuwig, Ecological redundancy between coral reef sharks and predatory teleosts, Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 10.1007/s11160-019-09588-6, (2019).

E Hance Ellington, Stanley D Gehrt, Behavioral responses by an apex predator to urbanization, Behavioral Ecology, 10.1093/beheco/arz019, (2019).

Joshua H. Schmidt, Judy Putera, Tammy L. Wilson, Direct and indirect effects of temperature and prey abundance on bald eagle reproductive dynamics, Oecologia, 10.1007/s00442-019-04578-8, (2019).

Ruchira Somaweera, Mathew L. Brien, Steven G. Platt, Charlie Manolis, Bruce L. Webber, Direct and indirect interactions with vegetation shape crocodylian ecology at multiple scales, Freshwater Biology, 10.1111/fwb.13221, 64, 2, (257-268), (2018).

Hila Shamoon, Shlomo Cain, Uri Shanas, Avi Bar-Massada, Yariv Malihi, Idan Shapira, Spatio-temporal activity patterns of mammals in an agro-ecological mosaic with seasonal recreation activities, European Journal of Wildlife Research, 10.1007/s10344-018-1196-8, 64, 3, (2018).

Robynne Kotze, Mark Keith, Christiaan W Winterbach, Hanlie E K Winterbach, Jason P Marshal, The influence of social and environmental factors on organization of African lion (Panthera leo) prides in the Okavango Delta, Journal of Mammalogy, 10.1093/jmammal/gyy076, 99, 4, (845-858), (2018).

Juliana Masseloux, Clinton W. Epps, Adam Duarte, Donelle Schwalm, Mary Wykstra, Using Detection/Non-Detection Surveys and Interviews to Assess Carnivore Site Use in Kenya, African Journal of Wildlife Research, 10.3957/056.048.013006, 48, 1, (013006), (2018).

L. Mark Elbroch, Lucile Marescot, Howard Quigley, Derek Craighead, Heiko U. Wittmer, Multiple anthropogenic interventions drive puma survival following wolf recovery in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, Ecology and Evolution, 10.1002/ece3.4264, 8, 14, (7236-7245), (2018).

Juliana Strieder Philippsen, Carolina V. Minte-Vera, Marta Coll, Ronaldo Angelini, Assessing fishing impacts in a tropical reservoir through an ecosystem modeling approach, Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 10.1007/s11160-018-9539-9, (2018).

L. Mark Elbroch, Anna Kusler, Are pumas subordinate carnivores, and does it matter?, PeerJ, 10.7717/peerj.4293, 6, (e4293), (2018).

Mario Quevedo, Jorge Echegaray, Alberto Fernández-Gil, Jennifer A. Leonard, Javier Naves, Andrés Ordiz, Eloy Revilla, Carles Vilà, Lethal management may hinder population recovery in Iberian wolves, Biodiversity and Conservation, 10.1007/s10531-018-1668-x, (2018).

Tomohiro Harano, Nobuyuki Kutsukake, The evolution of male infanticide in relation to sexual selection in mammalian carnivores, Evolutionary Ecology, 10.1007/s10682-017-9925-0, 32, 1, (1-8), (2017).

Amanda J. Meadows, David W. Crowder, William E. Snyder, Are wolves just wasps with teeth? What invertebrates can teach us about mammal top predators, Food Webs, 10.1016/j.fooweb.2016.09.004, 12, (40-48), (2017).

L. Mark Elbroch, Connor O’Malley, Michelle Peziol, Howard B. Quigley, Vertebrate diversity benefiting from carrion provided by pumas and other subordinate, apex felids, Biological Conservation, 10.1016/j.biocon.2017.08.026, 215, (123-131), (2017).

C. A. Souza-Filho, D. Bazeia, J. G. G. S. Ramos, Apex predator and the cyclic competition in a rock-paper-scissors game of three species, Physical Review E, 10.1103/PhysRevE.95.062411, 95, 6, (2017).

Arian D. Wallach, Daniel Ramp, Adam J. O’Neill, Cattle mortality on a predator-friendly station in central Australia, Journal of Mammalogy, 10.1093/jmammal/gyw156, 98, 1, (45-52), (2017).

Literature Cited, Ecological Restoration and Management of Longleaf Pine Forests, 10.1201/9781315152141, (349-420), (2017).

Nick Bradsworth, John G. White, Bronwyn Isaac, Raylene Cooke, Species distribution models derived from citizen science data predict the fine scale movements of owls in an urbanizing landscape, Biological Conservation, 10.1016/j.biocon.2017.06.039, 213, (27-35), (2017).

Bradley P. Smith, Teghan A. Lucas, Rachel M. Norris, Maciej Henneberg, Brain size/body weight in the dingo (Canis dingo): comparisons with domestic and wild canids, Australian Journal of Zoology, 10.1071/ZO17040, 65, 5, (292), (2017).

Arian D. Wallach, Anthony H. Dekker, Miguel Lurgi, Jose M. Montoya, Damien A. Fordham, Euan G. Ritchie, Trophic cascades in 3D: network analysis reveals how apex predators structure ecosystems, Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 10.1111/2041-210X.12663, 8, 1, (135-142), (2016).

Arielle Waldstein Parsons, Christina Bland, Tavis Forrester, Megan C. Baker-Whatton, Stephanie G. Schuttler, William J. McShea, Robert Costello, Roland Kays, The ecological impact of humans and dogs on wildlife in protected areas in eastern North America, Biological Conservation, 10.1016/j.biocon.2016.09.001, 203, (75-88), (2016).

William J. Ripple, Guillaume Chapron, José Vicente López-Bao, Sarah M. Durant, David W. Macdonald, Peter A. Lindsey, Elizabeth L. Bennett, Robert L. Beschta, Jeremy T. Bruskotter, Ahimsa Campos-Arceiz, Richard T. Corlett, Chris T. Darimont, Amy J. Dickman, Rodolfo Dirzo, Holly T. Dublin, James A. Estes, Kristoffer T. Everatt, Mauro Galetti, Varun R. Goswami, Matt W. Hayward, Simon Hedges, Michael Hoffmann, Luke T. B. Hunter, Graham I. H. Kerley, Mike Letnic, Taal Levi, Fiona Maisels, John C. Morrison, Michael Paul Nelson, Thomas M. Newsome, Luke Painter, Robert M. Pringle, Christopher J. Sandom, John Terborgh, Adrian Treves, Blaire Van Valkenburgh, John A. Vucetich, Aaron J. Wirsing, Arian D. Wallach, Christopher Wolf, Rosie Woodroffe, Hillary Young, Li Zhang, Saving the World’s Terrestrial Megafauna, BioScience, 10.1093/biosci/biw092, 66, 10, (807-812), (2016).

TCR White, Self-regulation, a persisting misinterpretation of the workings of biology, New Zealand Journal of Zoology, 10.1080/03014223.2016.1205635, 43, 4, (384-387), (2016).

Chris N. Johnson, Arian D. Wallach, The virtuous circle: predator‐friendly farming and ecological restoration in Australia, Restoration Ecology, 10.1111/rec.12396, 24, 6, (821-826), (2016).

Miriam L. L. Perilli, Fernando Lima, Flávio H. G. Rodrigues, Sandra M. C. Cavalcanti, Can Scat Analysis Describe the Feeding Habits of Big Cats? A Case Study with Jaguars (Panthera onca) in Southern Pantanal, Brazil, PLOS ONE, 10.1371/journal.pone.0151814, 11, 3, (e0151814), (2016).

Arian D. Wallach, William J. Ripple, Scott P. Carroll, Novel trophic cascades: apex predators enable coexistence, Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 10.1016/j.tree.2015.01.003, 30, 3, (146-153), (2015).

Leave a comment

Posted by on November 30, 2020 in Uncategorized


Public Lands Water Rights, Cattle, Wild Horses

Over the past decade a significant amount of questions have developed, in the matters of Water Rights, and the actual “Rights of Private Ownership” on America’s Public Lands, by participants in the government’s Grazing Permit Programs on Public Lands, or what is refereed to as Welfare Ranchers’. Welfare Rancher’s “assume” they have, above and beyond normal “Legal” parameters, “ownership rights” to Water Wells on their Leased Public Lands. 

The situation is, they use the water available to them, from the Water Wells upon Our Public Lands. But, they use it for their own cattle, for example, then send an invoice for its use to the BLM (i.e. Bureau of Land Management), or the DOI (Department of the Interior), or the USDA Forestry. This situation amounts to several thousands of dollars per month, going directly to Welfare Ranchers, who are simply leasing grazing lands from the government, yet another obvious Lobby Group circumstance, but as we see it, forcing more corruption onto our Public Lands.

We find this activity to be illegal, and no court, State or Federal, has given the actual Water Rights to Grazing Permit Holders (as Private Ownership), yet we find the situation blossom, and within $18.6 Billion Dollars paid to Grazing Permit Holders on Public Lands, over the past 16 years.

The primary question here is ethics, the legality of using Federal or State Water Wells, then charging taxpayer’s for its use and upkeep or maintenance, when it should be their own “cost of doing business” and in reality — the other way around — paying the taxpayer’s for use of Federal or State owned Water on Public Lands.

Simply more corruption from Big Ag and forced upon Or Public Lands, then referring to it as legal, within any way, is certainly beyond doubt, a questionable circumstance, at best.

Reserved Water Rights and the Supreme Court

The doctrine of federal reserved water rights generally traces its origins to the seminal decision of Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564 (1908).  There, the United States Supreme Court ruled, when the United States sets aside an Indian reservation, it impliedly reserves sufficient water to fulfill the purposes of the reservation, with the priority date established as of the date of the reservation.

Over half a century later, following the passage of the McCarran Amendment, the Supreme Court had occasion to revisit – and build upon – this turn of the century decision in Arizona v. California, 373 U.S. 546 (1963).  In that case, the Court held that the reserved rights doctrine is not limited to Indian reservations, but also applies to all federally reserved public lands, such as national forests, national recreation areas, and national wildlife refuges.  This ruling affirmed the potentially significant scope and extent of federal reserved water rights.

Over the coming years, the Supreme Court had several occasions to explore the contours of the reserved water rights doctrine.  For instance, in Cappaert v. United States, 426 U.S. 128 (1976), the Court upheld an injunction against groundwater pumping that would have jeopardized one of the purposes for which the national monument at issue had been established – preservation of the desert pupfish – thereby extending the reach of the reserved rights doctrine to protect federal reserved rights both from injurious surface and groundwater diversions.

Several years later, in United States v. New Mexico, 438 U.S. 696 (1978), the Court denied the Forest Service’s instream flow claim for fish, wildlife and recreation uses.  Specifically, the Court denied the claim on the grounds that reserved water rights for National Forest lands established under the Forest Service’s Organic Act of 1897 are limited to the minimum amount of water necessary to satisfy the primary purposes of the Organic Act – conservation of favorable water flows and the production of timber – and were not available to satisfy the claimed instream flow uses.  This decision established that questions concerning the existence and quantity of reserved water rights are largely dependent upon the reservation’s authorizing legislation and the specific purposes for which the land was reserved.

“The Department of the Interior recognizes the interest in re-enforcing the state’s authority over water allocation.  The Department also recognizes that the federal government retains the right and obligation to manage federal lands under the Constitution.  This right and obligation includes’ the authority to both reserve water rights and mitigate against the impacts of the exercise of privately held water rights on public lands.  Congress, on the other hand, is charged with directing the Executive Branch’s implementation of those rights and obligations. . . [See:  United States v. Rio Grande Dam & Irrig. Co., 174 U.S. 702 (1899), United States v. Winans, 198 U.S. 371 (1905), and Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564 (1908).]”

In the United States there are complex legal systems for allocating water rights that vary by region. These varying systems exist for both historical and geographic reasons. Water law encompasses a broad array of subjects or categories designed to provide a framework to resolve disputes and policy issues relating to water:

  1. Public waters, including tidal waters and navigable waterways.
  2. Other surface waters—generally water that flows across non-public land from rain, floodwaters, and snow-melt before those waters reach public watercourses.
  3. Groundwater, sometimes called subterranean, percolating, or underground water
  4. Public regulation of waters, including flood control, environmental regulation—state and federal, public health regulation and regulation of fisheries
  5. Related to all of the above is interplay of public and private rights in water, which draws on aspects of eminent domain law and the federal commerce clause powers
  6. Water project law: the highly developed law regarding the formation, operation, and finance of public and quasi-public entities which operate local public works of flood control, navigation control, irrigation, and avoidance of environmental degradation.
  7. Treaty Rights of Native Americans

The Klamath River Basin Adjudication in Oregon

A major adjudication is the Klamath River Basin Adjudication (among others states) in southern Oregon, which was commenced in the mid-1990s. In early 2013, the Oregon Water Resources Department filed its findings of fact and order of determination, concluding the administrative phase of the adjudication and commencing the judicial phase in the Klamath County Circuit Court.

The Oregon Water Resources Department’s order sets forth partial orders of determination on the 734 claims filed in the adjudication. The order was largely favorable to the United States approving numerous and substantial federal reserved and state appropriative water rights for several wild and scenic rivers, Crater Lake National Park, wilderness areas, in-stream flow fire protection for national forest system lands, four national wildlife refuges, Indian reservations, and the Klamath Reclamation Project encompassing 200,000 acres in southern Oregon and northern California. The order also approved most of the United States’ claimed “Walton” (Indian successor) water rights for a national wildlife refuge, and resolved a large portion of the United States’ contests against Walton claims asserted by competing claimants by denying or significantly limiting the claimed rights.

Exceptions to the Oregon Water Resources Department’s order of determination, including the partial orders of determination on each of the 734 claims addressed by the Department’s order, were filed in March 2014. Those exceptions will be litigated individually or in groups in de novo proceedings before the circuit court. Completion of this judicial phase of the adjudication will likely take ten to twelve years.


What I have found are numerous suggestions toward lands or water well ownership, connected directly to the “Safe Use of Water” and the supply to Our Nation’s population of people, as a priority.  Situations, or industry on Public Lands, many times under the guise of confusing Federal and State Laws actually usurp, or attempt to take away, legislative priorities that influence political venues, then Special Interests become the priority.  Suddenly, and troublesome, we discover the priority turns political, rather than the priority of Public Safety and confirmation of Safe Drinking water, which turns into a negotiable, rather than firm, lower priority circumstance, when it comes to the American general population and Safe Drinking Water. Yes, corruption and pollution on Our Public Lands, as well as fraudulent activity, is never a good situation, nor does it benefit the general public; but rather, it benefits a few to profit very well, on the backs of taxpayer’s (i.e. both State and Federal) and local communities.

So the question remains:  Are Grazing Permit Holders on our Public Lands, mainly Cattle Ranching, can obtain Ownership (when ranches bought or sold), or is it legal for the State or Federal Well Water portion to become part of the property in the Sales obligation (which violates both State and Federal Law on Water Well ownership on Public Lands) – or can they buy, outright, Water Wells on Federal or State Lands, then invoice for payment the price paid for it as well as all water used in the cultivation and process of Cattle for the meat industry?

American taxpayers pay a lot for Welfare Ranching on Our Public Lands, in direct subsidies (a socialist form of government which taxpayer’s acquire no benefit at all, actually) with no returns nor discounts, nor anything in return for that tax paid money, what so ever (i.e. $586.4 Billion Dollars in the past 19 years) . . .

Should the government be paying for a Rancher to use their own water, et al.?  Or, is it legitimate, or even legal, to charge the Taxpayer’s for any segment of their process to produce the small amount of beef the Grazing Permit Programs’ responsible for (less than 1% of domestic sales per year on America’s Beef Markets, and need we not forget, the throw-away margins of 24% to 32% of domestic beef in America, due to regulatory situations — so we see right off there is no need for these Grazing Permit Programs anyway) payments of water units to private ranchers, their only qualification – ownership of a Grazing Permit for their cattle, which in truth is merely a Lease of Grazing Lands on America’s Public Lands . . . 

The fact is, and bears repetition, American Taxpayer’s already pay, in subsidies, $586.4 Billion in the past 19 years – then we see additional and corrupted situations like this . . .  Yes, we have a very corrupted Government Grazing Permit Program, that apparently makes its own laws, within each Government Agency involved – It is time to place these government Agencies back into their respective situation of managing our Public Lands responsibly, honestly, as well as rid themselves of the corruption so obvious to many.


    AWWA (1999) Waterborne pathogens: AWWA manual M48. Denver, CO, American Water Works Association.

    Bitton G (2005) Wastewater microbiology, 3rd ed.New York, NY, John Wiley & Sons.

    Chevrefils G et al. (2006) UV dose required to achieve incremental log inactivation of bacteria, protozoa and viruses. IUVA News, 8(1):38–45.

    Clasen T et al. (2006) Interventions to improve water quality for preventing diarrhoea (Cochrane Review). In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 3. Oxford, Update Software (CD004794). [PubMed]

    Cotruvo JA, Sobsey M (2006) Point-of-use water treatment for home and travel. In: Grabow W, ed. UNESCO encyclopedia of life support systems. Paris, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (http://www​

    Dullemont YJ et al. (2006) Removal of microorganisms by slow sand filtration. In: Gimbel R, Graham NJD, Collins MR, eds. Recent progress in slow sand and alternative biofiltration processes. London, IWA Publishing, pp. 12–20.

    Feachem RG et al. (1983) Sanitation and disease: Health aspects of excreta and wastewater management. Chichester, John Wiley.

    Fewtrell L, Colford J (2004) Water, sanitation and hygiene: Interventions and diarrhoea—A systematic review and meta-analysis. Health, Nutrition, and Population Family of the World Bank Human Development Network (http:​//siteresources​​/Resources/281627-1095698140167​/Fewtrell​%26ColfordJuly2004.pdf).

    Gerba CP et al. (1996) Waterborne rotavirus: A risk assessment. Water Research, 30 (12):2929–2940.

    Haas CN, Rose JB, Gerba CP (1999) Quantitative microbial risk assessment. New York, NY, Wiley.

    Hijnen WAM, Beerendonk EF, Medema GJ (2006) Inactivation credit of UV radiation for viruses, bacteria and protozoan (oo)cysts in water: A review. Water Research, 40:3–22. [PubMed]

    Jones K, Betaieb M, Telford DR (1990) Seasonal variation of thermophilic campylobacters in sewage sludge. Journal of Applied Bacteriology, 69:185–189. [PubMed]

    Koenraad PMFJ et al. (1994) Survey of Campylobacter in sewage plants in the Netherlands. Food Microbiology, 11:65–73.

    Lodder WJ, de Roda Husman AM (2005) Presence of noroviruses and other enteric viruses in sewage and surface waters in the Netherlands. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 71(3):1453–1461. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

    Lodder WJ et al. (2010) Presence of enteric viruses in source waters for drinking water production in the Netherlands. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 76(17):5965–5971. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

    Maier RM, Pepper IL, Gerba CP (2000) Environmental microbiology. New York, NY, Academic Press.

    Masini L et al. (2007) Research and characterization of pathogenic vibrios from bathing water along the Conero Riviera (central Italy). Water Research, 41(18):4031–4040. [PubMed]

    Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. (2003) Wastewater engineering: Treatment and reuse. New York, NY, McGraw Hill.

    Nath KJ, Bloomfield S, Jones M (2006) Household water storage, handling and point-of-use treatment. A review commissioned by the International Scientific Forum on Home Hygiene (http://www​.ifh-homehygiene​.org/2003/2library​/low_res_water_paper.pdf).

    Rutjes SA et al. (2009) Detection of infectious rotavirus in naturally contaminated source waters for drinking water production. Journal of Applied Microbiology, 107(1):97–105. [PubMed]

    Schijven JF, de Roda Husman AM (2006) A survey of diving behaviour and accidental water ingestion among Dutch occupational and sport divers to assess the risk of infection with waterborne pathogenic microorganisms. Environmental Health Perspectives, 114:712–717. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

    Stampi S et al. (1992) Occurrence, removal, and seasonal variation of “thermophilic” campylobacters in a sewage treatment plant in Italy. Zentralblatt für Hygiene und Umweltmedizin, 193:199–210. [PubMed]

    Stelzer W (1988) [Detection of Campylobacter jejuni and C. coli in waste water.] Zentralblatt für Mikrobiologie, 143(1):47–54 (in German). [PubMed]

    WHO (2003) Emerging issues in water and infectious disease. Geneva, World Health Organization (http://www​​_sanitation_health​/publications/emergingissues/en/).

    WHO (2005) Preventing travellers’ diarrhoea: How to make drinking water safe. Geneva, World Health Organization (http://www​​_sanitation_health​/publications/traveldiarrh/en/).

    World Health Assembly (1991) Elimination of dracunculiasis: Resolution of the 44th World Health Assembly. Geneva, World Health Organization (Resolution No. WHA 44.5).

    Wright J, Gundry S, Conroy R (2003) Household drinking water in developing countries: A systematic review of microbiological contamination between source and point-of-use. Tropical Medicine & International Health, 9(1):106–117. [PubMed]

    APHA, AWWA, WEF (2005) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 21st ed. Washington, DC, American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association and Water Environment Federation, pp. 7–15.

    Auvinen A et al. (2005) Radon and other natural radionuclides in drinking water and risks of stomach cancer: A case-cohort study in Finland. International Journal of Cancer, 10:109–113. [PubMed]

    Brenner D et al. (2003) Cancer risks attributable to low doses of ionizing radiation: Assessing what we really know. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 100(24): 13761–13766. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

    Brown J, Hammond B, Wilkins DT (2008) Handbook for assessing the impact of a radiological incident on levels of radioactivity in drinking water and risks to operatives at water treatment works: Supporting scientific report. Chilton, Oxfordshire, Health Protection Agency (HPA-RPD-041; http://www​​/research/completed-research​/reports/DWI70-2-192​_supporting.pdf).

    European Commission (2001) Commission recommendation of 20 December 2001 on the protection of the public against exposure to radon in drinking water supplies. Official Journal of the European Communities, L344:85–87 (http://eur-lex​.europa​.eu/legal-content/EN​/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ​.L_.2001.344.01.0085​.01.ENG&toc=OJ:L:2001:344:TOC).

    Health Canada (2009) Guidelines for Canadian drinking water quality: Guideline technical document—Radiological parameters. Ottawa, Ontario, Health Canada, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Radiation Protection Bureau (Catalogue No. H128-1/10-614E-PDF; http://www​​/ewh-semt/alt_formats​/hecs-sesc/pdf/pubs​/water-eau/radiological​_para-radiologiques​/radiological_para-radiologiques-eng.pdf).

    IAEA (2002) Safety requirements on preparedness and response for a nuclear or radiological emergency. Vienna, International Atomic Energy Agency (Safety Standards Series No. GS-R-2).

    IAEA, WHO (2005) Development of an extended framework for emergency response criteria. Vienna, International Atomic Energy Agency (TECDOC-1432).

    IAEA, WHO (2010) Criteria for use in planning response to nuclear and radiological emergencies. Vienna, International Atomic Energy Agency (Safety Guide DS44).

    ICRP (1996) Age-dependent doses to the members of the public from intake of radionuclides. Part 5. Compilation of ingestion and inhalation coefficients. ICRP Publication 72. Annals of the ICRP, 26(1). [PubMed]

    ICRP (2000) Protection of the public in situations of prolonged radiation exposure. Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 82. Annals of the ICRP, 29(1–2).

    ICRP (2008) The 2007 recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 103. Annals of the ICRP, 37(2–4). [PubMed]

    ICRP (2009a) Application of the Commission’s recommendations for the protection of people in emergency exposure situations. ICRP Publication 109. Annals of the ICRP, 39(1). [PubMed]

    ICRP (2009b) International Commission on Radiological Protection statement on radon (ICRP Ref 00/902/09; http://www​​/ICRP_Statement_on_Radon​%28November_2009%29.pdf).

    ISO (2003) Standard ISO 5667 3: Water quality—Sampling—Part 3: Guidance on the preservation and handling of water samples. Geneva, International Organization for Standardization.

    ISO (2006a) Standard ISO 5667 1: Water quality—Sampling—Part 1: Guidance on the design of sampling programmes and sampling techniques. Geneva, International Organization for Standardization.

    ISO (2006b) Standard ISO 5667-5: Water quality—Sampling—Part 5: Guidance on sampling of drinking water from treatment works and piped distribution systems. Geneva, International Organization for Standardization.

    ISO (2007) Standard ISO 9696: Water quality—Measurement of gross alpha activity in non-saline water—Thick source method. Geneva, International Organization for Standardization.

    ISO (2008) Standard ISO 9697: Water quality—Measurement of gross beta activity in non-saline water—Thick source method. Geneva, International Organization for Standardization.

    ISO (2009a) Standard ISO 5667-11: Water quality—Sampling—Part 11: Guidance on sampling of groundwaters. Geneva, International Organization for Standardization.

    ISO (2009b) Standard ISO 10704: Water quality—Measurement of gross alpha and gross beta activity in non-saline water—Thin source deposit method. Geneva, International Organization for Standardization.

    Nair RR et al. (2009) Background radiation and cancer incidence in Kerala, India—Karanagappally cohort study. Health Physics, 96(1):55–66. [PubMed]

    NAS (1999) Report on risk assessment of radon in drinking water. Washington, DC, National Research Council, National Academy Press.

    Picano E (2008) Informed consent and communication of risk from radiological and nuclear medicine examinations: How to escape from a communication inferno. British Medical Journal, 329:849–851. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

    Standards Australia, Standards New Zealand (1998) Water quality—Sampling—Guidance on the design of sampling programs, sampling techniques and the preservation and handling of samples. Homebush, Australia, and Wellington, New Zealand, Joint Australian/New Zealand Standards (AS/NZS 5667.1.1998).

    Tao Z (2000) Cancer mortality in the high background radiation areas of Yangjiang, China during the period between 1979 and 1995. Journal of Radiation Research (Tokyo), 41(Suppl.):31–41. [PubMed]

    UNSCEAR (2000) Report: Sources, effects and risks of ionizing radiation. New York, NY, United Nations, United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (http://www​​/unscear/en/publications/2000_1.html).

    UNSCEAR (2008) Report: Sources and effects of ionizing radiation. Vol. I. Sources. New York, NY, United Nations, United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (http://www​​/unscear/en/publications/2008_1.html).

    USEPA (2007) Communicating radiation risks. Washington, DC, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA Publication 402-F-07-008).

    WHO (2002) Establishing a dialogue on risks from electromagnetic fields. Geneva, World Health Organization.

    WHO (2009) WHO handbook on indoor radon: A public health perspective. Geneva, World Health Organization.

    Ye W et al. (1998) Mortality and cancer incidence in Misasa, Japan, a spa area with elevated radon levels. Japanese Journal of Cancer Research, 89(8):789–796. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

Leave a comment

Posted by on November 3, 2020 in Uncategorized