Category: Uncategorized

There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance. — Socrates

Subjective Reasoning remains bad for our wildlife and environment, in this case America’s Wild Horse Herds.  This situation is costly to taxpayers.  While perusing a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) yearly budget for the Wild Horse and Burro Program, many questions arise as to the reality, or the necessity for this program.

The estimated cost here is above and beyond $650 million, and more when considering the end of the year costs, as BLM always over-budget and unreasonable and not frugal in spending taxpayer money — yes, it goes unchecked and apparently no working checks-n-balance system in place.

When compared to Objective Reasoning, which would leave the Wild Horse Herds on America’s Public Lands, and for good and objective science and sound data specific reasons — costing taxpayers at most $1.2 million dollars for management purposes.

The very basis, or needs that are given to conduct costly horse herd roundups and horse storage, taking the Wild Horse Herds off of America’s Public Lands, remain quite subjective, to the point of being unsound and simply attesting to the BLM’s bad decision making process.  What becomes obvious as well is the fact that this program is not based on any factual science what so ever, and the premise for the actual removal of wild horses inadequate for such taxpayer expenditures.

The WH&B Act of 1971 Changed

What is noticeable to this journalist is the facts formed from objective reality, taken from the original WH&B Act of 1971, and had indeed changed over the years.  Subjective reasoning become the dominant influence, and resulting in a definite negative impact to the wild horse herds.

What started out to be a good program, had become nothing more than a money maker, or what one can concede as criminally oriented.  This was done over years, not over night.

It was accomplished through non-compliance and ignoring of the WH&B Act of 1971.  Once this achieved, since there was no agency overseeing the BLM at that time, criminally manipulated situations were accomplished by BLM employees (a sound history of BLM criminal investigations and political intervention exists and factual — as well as the most litigated agency in American history).  The WH&B program become nothing more than a profit funnel for government consultants, contractors, welfare ranchers, and corporations.

“The manner which the WH&B program is managed today makes no sense and has no basis in actual facts, and management decisions are based on nothing more than subjective reasoning.  In my opinion, what was done to accomplish a protective shroud for these horse herds has become nothing more than a government mafia; whereas, corruption and monetary profits go to a small and select group of consultants, criminal contractors, welfare ranchers, and corporations.  The non-debatable fact is — nothing exists in reality that has to do with proper scientific and proper wildlife management principles; rather, it is now based on money oriented and politically driven decisions.  How can any of this be attributable to benefit our wild horse herds?” Mark S. Hathaway, PhD Research Scientist. . .

Subjective Reasoning / Objective Reasoning

Subjective reasoning is a statement, or a sequence or pattern of a thought process, that has been colored by many of our government agencies today, the BLM being one. It often has a basis in reality, but reflects the perspective through the speaker’s or writer’s views of that reality.  The situation of interest to us is the fact subjective reasoning cannot be verified using concrete facts and figures.

How true has that become over the years, as we have profoundly learned there is such an anonymous situation as “BLM Speak” used quite frequently by BLM staff and within their reports, and certainly their information over the Internet.

Objective reasoning is directly contrary to subjective reasoning.  It is important to be objective when making any kind of a rational decision. In this case decisions that involve managing the WH&B program — which decides the basis of approach to manage wild horses within a reality basis (compared to political agendas, criminal intent, etc.) certainly becomes of paramount significance.

So we can then assume objective reasoning should be conducted while gathering and assimilating data, research, field studies, and other sources in order to conduct sound and correct decision making.  Bad decisions are based on bad science, alternate goals of a criminal nature, political agendas, and greed, which all are bound into subjective reasoning but portrayed as being accomplished as a necessity.  Think about this when perusing or reading BLM material, and see for yourself, especially when the term “necessity” is involved, which most often based on illegitimate facts and profound data of low quality.  Most often this term and others are simply used within a non-reality based sequence of rhetoric (a good example given in Notes below).

Easy Ways to Remember Objective and Subjective

Objective : sounds like the word object. You should be objective whenever you are discussing an object, something concrete that you can hold or touch. The facts that make up your objective statement should also be concrete, solid objects.

Subjective : is just the opposite. You can’t point to subjective subjects. They are all in your head and your past experiences. Subjective opinions are ephemeral and subject to any number of factors that can range from facts to emotions.  Manipulation of BLM budgets, information, and even their Public Relations have been noticeable based on subjective references and material.  Information given to Congress, when reading an abundant amount of testimony from BLM staff, is obviously subjective and has been for quite some time.

Examples of Objective and Subjective

Objective: scientific facts are objective as are mathematical proofs; essentially anything that can be backed up with solid data.

Subjective: opinions, interpretations, and any type of marketing presentation are all subjective.  If one follows BLM this is very noticeable.

Summary

1.Objective and subjective statements are used by speakers to get their points across.

2.Objective statements are facts that can be verified by third parties while subjective statements may or may not be entirely true as they are colored by the opinions of the speaker.

3.Objective statements are most commonly found in the hard sciences, whereas subjective statements are generally used to describe the arts.

In the end we find many questionable “things” to indeed question what it is the BLM is doing with our taxpayer money.  And who are the people making these undignified and outrageous decisions, certainly criminal in nature, obviously “not” of sound process derived from an Objective Reasoning decision making process what so ever!

“The shortest and surest way to live with honor in the world, is to be in reality what we would appear to be; and if we observe, we shall find, that all human virtues increase and strengthen themselves by the practice of them.”  — Socrates

____________________________________

BLM 2013 Budget Reasoning: http://www.doi.gov/ocl/hearings/112/HAFY13BudReqBLM_030612.cfm

Note: Items such as this situation, becomes something transitory, originated within subjective reasoning, yet taxpayers are to pay for this situation — Welfare Ranching costs taxpayers $450,000,000 dollars (GAO Report) to just administer this program — many fees simply go uncollected, or so low it makes no difference anyway — as they continue to pay for grazing on public lands far below the commercial costs, welfare ranchers pay only $1.35 per AUM Unit (i.e. 1 cow 1 calf), while commercial rates reach far over $85 per AUM Unit, and those ranchers paying commercial rates remain making high profits on their sales (per GAO).  As you will see in the BLM/DOI justification statement to Congress, the $1 charged to welfare ranchers simply expects the taxpayers to cover their increasing criminal behavior in ripping off taxpayer dollars, with the BLM as an accomplice — BTW the amount taxpayers would pay, roughly estimated for the year, would be an addition $5.2 billion dollars over the estimated budget the BLM requests — BLM does not make a profit (i.e. GAO Report) and never has done so, that is simply a lie generated by BLM over the Internet, beyond subjective reasoning.

:. . . Rangeland Management Program – A $15.8 million decrease in funding is proposed to be partially offset by a 3-year pilot program to recover some of the costs of issuing grazing permits/leases permit and lease renewals through a $1 per animal unit month administrative processing fee levied upon grazing permittees. . .”

Wild Horse and Burro Act of 1971, and the corruption within, is discussed here.  Indeed a noble Congressional situation and passed unanimously at the time.  The spirit was a good-faith gesture, by Law, toward America’s Wild Horse Herds — But something happened, something terrible happened, and it involved corruption from the top down, and terms of “Acceptable Abuse” which changed everything:

Congressional findings and declaration of policy, and states clearly:

“Congress finds and declares that wild free-roaming horses and burros are living symbols of the historic and pioneer spirit of the West; that they contribute to the diversity of life forms within the Nation and enrich the lives of the American people; and that these horses and burros are fast disappearing from the American scene. It is the policy of Congress that wild free-roaming horses and burros shall be protected from capture, branding, harassment, or death; and to accomplish this they are to be considered in the area where presently found, as an integral part of the natural system of the public lands.”

The Breaking Down of the Wild Horse and Burro Act of 1971

The initial “blast” of ingenuity and a caring spirit exists in the very opening of the W.H. & B. Act of 971.  From then onward reality, the harsh mistress, enters into the realm of managing America’s Wild Horse Herds.  This actual spirit of well written “Congressional Declaration” becomes nothing more than deception.  Oddly, not by Congress, who had an honest concern toward America’s Wild Horse Herds, and correcting the blatant mistreatment of them within a protective context.  No, this comes down to the Department of the Interior, the Bureau of Land Management, and corruption combined with government dishonesty.

We have seen an absolute-reality take place, the disappearance over the years of the care and appropriate managing of America’s Wild Horse Herds.  The Reality:  Proper Management has been replaced with what is termed “Acceptable Abuse” which demonstrates beyond a doubt that the W.H.&B.P. Board of Consultants and the Bureau of Land Management are and always have been unqualified and corrupt; this is an absolute and quantitative reality directly related to their mismanagement or corrupt administration of America’s Wild Horse Herds.  The Federal court cases alone demonstrate beyond a doubt this is reality, and at heavy cost to taxpayers, yet ignored and replaced by misinformation and outright lies to the public, cloaked in some type of odd reasoning with hopes the public will accept it!  The Public has not!

The consultants on the board have a narrow margin of backgrounds.  Their history of demonstrating no knowledgeable context of proper management of horses, other than a livestock mentality, becomes quite obvious within their decisions.  This becomes significant, extremely devastating and on the road toward extinction of our wild horses, in their unqualified behavior to manage America’s Wild Horse Herds.

The absolute destruction of our Wild Horse Herds becomes more applicable, and fit to their purpose — all the while at a much higher cost to taxpayers.  The actual No-Roundup / No Abuse management paradigm, basically leaving the wild horses on America’s Public Lands with a manage-to-enhance and safe-guard them, in reality saves taxpayers $Billions of dollars!  But ignored, because in their minds it is only taxpayer money, and to hell with taxpayers!

This leads to erroneous and contemptible management by BLM; whereas, the W.H.& B. Act of 1971 becomes ignored to the point of being null and void.  This leads to another harsh reality, contentiousness rather than preservation; management driven by animosity rather than a standard set for the protection of a vulnerable specifies; and a total waste of taxpayer money, with no proper or legitimate explanation toward expenditure.  The W.H.&B. Act of 1971 simply becomes a deceptive-cloak to hide and obtain money, because in reality there exists no type of proper management or care of America’s Wild Horse Herds what so ever and in accord with the Act.

Vulnerable Species Leads to Extinction

We have learned many things over the years when it comes to extinction of our wildlife.  Apparently, these same learned attributes remain ignored by those same people, who claim to be our nation’s Stewarts of our Public Lands and America’s Wildlife.  Well documented lessons from the past, although ignored currently, still remain the key toward avoiding extinction of a species.

For example yes, there is a difference between a Wild Horse and a domesticated bred horse;  Yes, there is a difference between the many species of wolves, and the domestic dogs of the world; It is this simple to understand.

1.  Slow moving animals are no competition to man-made devises such as helicopters used in the wild horse herd roundups — i.e. no legitimate reasons are ever given to conform to the W.H. & B. Act of 1971 for legitimate roundups — the W.H. & B. Act is ignored in total;

2.  Large animals are vulnerable to over-hunting as well as to government agencies convoluted lies and misinformation, which it has been shown in history, many times, leading to species extinction of many animals;

3.  Altruism, or specifies that have come close to civilization, bonds established in regard to images or friendships, etc., have become detrimental to many species throughout history — i.e. wild horses, wolves, buffalo, Steller’s Sea Cow, the Passenger Pigeon, etc;

4.  Vulnerability due to restricted habitat has been a major cause of wild life extinction throughout history, and is well documented — a lesson here to be not only learned but placed into management paradigms, especially when managing wild horses or wolves;

5.  A related, and certainly obvious situation within this context, is the “Over-Specialization of Habitat”  — and within this discussion cattle and the lies perpetrated by government agencies such as the BLM to enhance our Public Lands with cattle, oil, energy, mining, and other corporate circumstances, etc. . . and to hell with America’s natural ecological habitats and wildlife.

With this categorical explanation, which is well documented and referenced quite well, yet ignored, remains troublesome to the majority of Americans.  The real-truth is any species that suffers from several of these factors can be quickly eliminated.

Conclusively

The fact is that ecological systems are vulnerable to many environmental situations.  Our civilization intruding upon any of these systems becomes detrimental to the over all balance of many other ecological systems.  Our civilization has a history of taking-over lands that once belonged to wildlife and vegetation, and those same elements of nature are now extinct, sadly!

Public Lands and Range Mangers do have access to wildlife that is beneficial to America’s Ecological systems.  It can be attributable to a “language of protection” toward our environment (which includes Wild Horse Herds), if they are qualified to observe these situations.  Most of them are not qualified, so good management is currently non-existent!

Listening and observing what our natural environment has to tell us is of significance, always.  A point of discussion currently that is picking up momentum within the environmental community is the fact of how we identify the difference between a technical report generated by a political agenda — compared to a technical report that positively approaches resolution toward solving a serious environmental or wildlife issue of concern.

Yes, we can use the wild horse herds to let us know of ecological viability within many ecological systems, simply by their presence and health.  Ironically, to many environmentalists, to include terrestrial and wildlife research biologists, government agencies and their consultants ignore this situation.

This is due to government employees lack of qualifications to manage our Public Lands; due to lack of ingenuity and competence to tell the truth; and, due to our present government employees lack of ethics and responsibility in safe-guarding taxpayer money.

When we have proper information, and the public needs this information to rationally confront our government presently, we have the tools to enhance and better America’s over all environment.  If we ignore any of the historical facts, then combine them with arrogant management decisions, we will lose not only wildlife but significant and life giving habitat that keeps us all alive.  Ultimately, the fact is we need better representation and the reality of more and better qualified people to manage our wildlife and environmental situations of this world.

The Wild Horse and Burro Act of 1971 exemplifies this situation to the thousandth degree, and America’s Wild Horse Herds are paying the price — government agency’s bad behavior and bad decision making — when compared to actually following the very premise of what the Act outlines — and the ever present historical value of managing not only a diverse realm of ecological systems, but our wildlife as well.

____________________________

The Wild Horse and Burro Act of 1971 Explained. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_and_Free-Roaming_Horses_and_Burros_Act_of_1971

Burea of Land Management version of the W.H.&B. Act of 1971 http://www.wildhorseandburro.blm.gov/92-195.htm

The Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971 (without BLM reference and perspective) http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+Wild+FreeRoaming+Horses+and+Burros+Act+of+1971.-a0141802026

Dry saline land: an investigation using ground-based geophysics, soil survey and spatial methods near Jamestown, South Australia. By R.W. Fitzpatrick, M. Thomas, P.J. Davies and B.G. Williams

Literature Review of Factors Influencing Public Perceptions of Water Reuse. By Murni Po, Juliane D. Kaercher and Blair E. Nancarrow – NOTE: This report has been updated in 2004 – click here for the updated version.

Development of a strategy for monitoring Australia’s natural resources: a discussion paper. By Mac Kirby, Neil McKenzie and Myriam Bormans

Quantifying and managing sources of sediments and nutrients in low-lying canelands. By Christian H. Roth, Fleur Visser, Robert Wasson, John Reghenzani and Ian Prosser

Use of APSIM to simulate water balances of dryland farming systems in south eastern Australia. By K. Verburg and W.J. Bond

Salt Transport in the Bremer Hills, SA. Interpretation of Spatial Datasets for Salt Distribution. Fourth report for NAP South Australian Salt Mapping and Management. Chris Smitt, Jim Cox and Phil Davies

Modelling catchment-scale nutrient generation. By Lachlan T.H. Newham and John J. Drewry

The Floodplain Risk Methodology (FRM): A suite of tools to rapidly assess at the regional scale the impacts of groundwater inflows and benefits of improved inundation on the floodplains of the lower River Murray. By Kate Holland, Ian Jolly, Ian Overton, Matt Miles, Linda Vears and Glen Walker

Ecological Risk Assessment for the Wetlands of the Lower Burdekin. By Bart M. Kellett, Terry Walshe and Keith L. Bristow

Ivanhoe Plain Aquifer Pumping Trial July 2003 – April 2005: Stage 1 OrdRiver Irrigation Area, Kununurra, Western Australia. By Anthony J. Smith, Duncan Palmer, Daniel W. Pollock and Ramsis B. Salama

Modelling periphyton biomass, photosynthesis and respiration in streams. By J. J. Christopher Rutherford and Susan M. Cuddy

Effects of salinity on stream ecosystems: improving models for macroinvertebrates. By J. Christopher Rutherford and Ben J. Kefford

A conceptual model of particulate trapping in riparian buffers. By Lachlan Newham, Kit Rutherford, and Barry Croke

Preliminary Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points Plan (HACCP) – Salisbury Stormwater to Drinking Water Aquifer Storage Transfer and Recovery (ASTR) Project. By Swierc, J., Page, D., Van Leeuwen, J. and Dillon, P.

A Bilingual User’s Guide for the Decision Support Tool for Managing Re-Vegetation and its Impact on Hydrology (ReVegIH) in the Coarse Sandy Hilly Catchments of the Loess Plateau, China.  By Li, L.T., McVicar, T.R., Van Niel, T.G. Zhang, L., Li, R., Yang, Q.K., Zhang, X.P., Mu, X.M., Wen, Z.M., Liu, W.Z., Zhao, Y.A. and Liu, Z.H.

Mapping Perennial Vegetation Suitability and Identifying Priority Areas for Implementing the Re-Vegetation Program in the Coarse SandyHilly Catchments of the Loess Plateau, China. By Tim R. McVicar, ZhongMing Wen, Tom G. Van Niel, LingTao Li, QinKe Yang, Rui Li and Feng Jiao

Managing Change: Australian structural adjustment lessons for water. By J.C. McColl and M.D. Young

Estimates of average hydraulic drivers for sediment and nutrient fluxes in the GBR catchments from SedNet. By F.J. Cook and A. Henderson

Idealised analogue for predicting groundwater response times from sloping aquifers. By Glen R. Walker, Mat Gilfedder, and Warrick R. Dawes

Understanding spatial patterns of discharge in semi-arid regions using a recharge-discharge balance to determine vegetation health. By Rebecca Doble, Glen Walker and Craig Simmons

Modelling the fate of molinate in rice paddies of South Eastern Australia using RICEWQ. By Evan W.Christen, Wendy C. Quayle, Sang-Ok Chung and Ki Jung Park

Pesticide use in the 6th Creek sub-catchment, Mt. Lofty Ranges, S.A. and assessment of risk of off-site movement using Pesticide Impact Rating Index (PIRI). By Danni Oliver and Rai Kookana

Pesticide use in the Ord River Irrigation Area, Western Australia, and Risk Assessment of Off-site Impact using Pesticide Impact Rating Index (PIRI). By Danni Oliver and Rai Kookana

An Automated Remote Digital Image Collection System. By Aaron Hawdon and Rex Keen

Spatially Distributing 21 Years of Monthly Hydrometeorological Data in China: Spatio-Temporal Analysis of FAO-56 Crop Reference Evapotranspiration and Pan Evaporation in the Context of Climate Change. By Tim R. McVicar, LingTao Li, Tom G. Van Niel, Michael F. Hutchinson, XingMin Mu and ZhiHong Liu