Blog

Truth never changes – people do, but truth does not. – John Cox

Let’s discuss a sub agency at the USDA called Wildlife Services. One must be leery at best here, as we then enter into psychotic realms, where no less of an explanation exists — the killing of 20.2 million animals — America’s Wildlife. The Landscape: America’s Wild Lands.

Our wildlife is being killed within negligent parameters. Method and irresponsible management is obvious, yet ironically ignored. Wildlife Services uses our taxpayer-based-money extraordinarily, to kill wildlife. Currently we are looking at a harsh reality — the actual lose of nearly 50% of our nation’s wildlife (i.e. data and statistics from the Living Planet Index).

You’ve never heard of this agency? Many have not, and why this agency gets away with what they do. Their personnel abuse and kill wildlife with no other apparent reasoning, other than misleading information or hidden agendas and covered up lies. This ironic situation is apparently the norm in wildlife management today, in both State and Federal government agencies; although, Wildlife Services leads the way in extreme behavior and one can say truthfully, oddly, a hatred toward wildlife.

Time for change! And yes, we could be discussing the Bureau of Land Management here as well, and their atrocities and psychopathic behavior patterns also, as their management paradigms quite destructive as well, with a similar and odd antagonistic behavior and psychotic hatred toward America’s wild horses.

Killing America’s Wildlife

With so much of an abundant kill-statistic of animals, one has got to wonder about our government and the mind-set that currently exists. Obviously, Wildlife Services uses no science their approach within management levels or in the matter of their actions, of killing wildlife. Yes, those that should not be responsible for animals, especially managing any part of our nation’s wildlife, are in positions of responsibility — yet their irresponsible actions and behavior quite obvious. But why am I making these statements?

In truth, we the people of America have got to wonder what happened to humanity within our government, and all it conveys within ideology, especially within a perspective of day to day management of our wildlife. We can attest that if our government is reflective of its population and voters, our country, America is in dire need of change, especially within wildlife management.

Occupation: Killing Wildlife

“As far as I know those government trappers are supposed to take care of marauding animals that are doing public damage. Some of those people just do killin’ to be killin’. . . those here like this fellow at Wildlife Services ya mentioned, I heard of him, sadly, and he’s another story all together. His reputation of how he would trap an animal, then club it to death out of pure sick-joy – like he enjoyed it. Not a fellow I really care to know, but know of him. I don’t agree with that.” — Bob Pritchett, 75 year resident of Southern Oregon – (this author also a 64 year resident of the Northwest).

Near the turn of this century, 1998-99, wildlife-kills hit a staggering 4 million. Two years later, in 2001, it fell to about 1.5 million and stayed relatively low. Unimaginable, this mind-set of several million animals dying yearly is a “norm” for this government agency – simply amazing and defies logic. Perhaps psychotic is an understatement here.

But in 2008, the number of kills rocketed to 5 million before trending downward to 3 million over the next four years. These figures staggering to say the least – to even suggest this amount within a yearly rate to be okay, is disgusting to many Americans. Even more disgusting, we paid them via our taxpayer money to kill.

Now it’s back up, well past 4 million in the most recent count, and critics, actually normal folks and taxpayers, those that have found out about this agency, are pressing for a better explanation for why. They are getting no answers. In reality, there are simply no answers or excuse to give. These numbers, as I repeat, are extraordinary and defy the reasonable conduct of people that should or would be expected.

“The more than 4 million animals in 2013 shot, poisoned, snared or trapped by the Department of Agriculture’s Wildlife Services in fiscal year 2013 included 75,326 coyotes, 866 bobcats, 528 river otters, 3,700 foxes, 12,186 prairie dogs, 973 red-tailed hawks, 419 black bears and at least three eagles, golden and bald.”

In 2014 there were minimal – their language and not mine — assessments of 3.2 million animals, mostly wildlife, killed by this same agency. In July of 2015 an estimated 2.7 million wildlife species killed by this same government agency, Wildlife Services, by July of this year.

An Ongoing Catastrophe for America’s Wildlife

But wait there is more, and the plight of our nation’s wildlife worsens to a catastrophic level of negligence – believe it or not, statistics and LPL Index Standards have been not only reasonably accurate over the past decade, but at the advent of the LPL Index, our methodology has increased to extremely accurate, both in data gathering and statistical truth. Estimates without the LPL Index rise to an 80% extinction level of wildlife worldwide; in America the LPL Index has it at 60% extinction. Yes, as your jaw dropped and under your breath you may have mumbled, “Unbelievable”, in an astonished manner. I did as well. My heart sunk.

The Nature Report, exclusive of the LPL Index, estimates somewhere between 500 and 36,000 species a year are going extinct. Oh, it gets worse – the Nature analysis predicts that 75% of life on Earth, at the rate we are going and/or combined with ignoring the causes (i.e. cattle, too much industry, et al. which directly attributes to land, water, and air destruction) will become extinct by the year 2200.

The paper assumed there exist 5 million species on Earth and extinction occurs at a rate of 0.72 percent per year. A small percent is attributable toward inconsistency, although, due to the widely varied estimates on the actual number of existing plants and animals on the Earth – but within reason, this is still a low-estimate. One research scientist described Wildlife Services’ work as “a staggering killing campaign, bankrolled by taxpayers” and happening “beyond the view of most Americans.”

Wildlife Services has been killing millions upon millions of animals for a long time. Dr. Bradley Bergstrom, a biologist at Valdosta State University, notes, “The whole approach of just getting rid of the perceived-problem by killing it is something that this agency has been doing for well over 100 years.” And, as they merrily torment, torture, and kill these animals. Wildlife Services continues to be scrutinized by those who want to put them out of business (please see “Exposed: Human-Animal Interactions and the War on Wildlife” and also “Murder Incorporated: Wildlife Services Under Public Scrutiny” and “The Federal Government Killed Nearly Three Million Animals Last Year“).

Wildlife Services of the USDA

One has to attest that how ironic, our Department of Agricultural is the leading cause for ruin and destruction of environments, ecological systems, and wildlife on our planet.

Wildlife Services kills native animals en masse, sometimes based solely, or mostly on farmer’s or rancher’s “perception” of a threat (i.e. a small part of the overall issue, but a good example within this discussion).

Worse yet, is the implied situation of environment and ecological habitat damages. The situation becomes insurmountable at the disappearance of wildlife, often deemed necessary for its ecological health, not only to other animals, but to vegetation and water quality. So much is truthfully destroyed by such negligence and mismanagement.

Example extended: Often these ranchers place an overabundance of cattle or sheep that merely over-graze and destroy the lands, onto Public Lands. When they want to add to the already over-abundant livestock, they send for Wildlife Services, and at times even the BLM, to eradicate all native life on the ranges – even though it is the wildlife’s home.

Why send for either of these government agencies? Because they do things underhandedly that is most often unethical, questionable and often against the law. The ranchers have become a special interest group; they break laws, and these two agencies, both, usurp the laws daily – they cover-up for ranchers constantly, a truth that exceeds all other misinformed facts these agencies give to the public.

Though there’s a list of animals killed, there’s little data showing the cause for each killing. Then we discover the methods used and the reasons behind mistakes, which lead to massive kills of other animals that aren’t targeted, and left-out of any report of truthful numbers killed. Science? What science? EPA Environmental Impact Statements? Most that do exist are dishonest in fact, no science, or significant data left out, and actual impact upon any environment or ecological habitat not given.

At least two members of Congress have called Wildlife Services secret and opaque for failing to provide more information, and there are mounting calls for an investigation into how it operates.

Rep. Peter A. DeFazio (D-Ore.) has railed against the secret methods of Wildlife Services, at one time calling it “. . . one of the most opaque and obstinate departments I’ve dealt with.” DeFazio has asked to know what goes into poisons used by the agency that are a danger to people and harmless animals but hasn’t gotten an answer. “We’re really not sure what they’re doing.”

Neither Science Nor Reality Based Kills

Wildlife Services, “a rogue agency” that is “out of control.” There simply exists no checks-n-balance system to generate a reasonable assumptive equation of “methodology” or “Necessity” for most of the wildlife they trap and kill.

A Wildlife Services spokeswoman said “. . . the agency is guided by a science-based decision-making model. For example, wolves are killed to “lessen the negative impacts of expanding wolf populations,” even though those populations are still recovering from earlier government programs that aimed to exterminate them.”

The problem here is when we asked for the “science” or the EPA’s requirements of Environmental Impact Statements neither were available. Inner-office memos at that time showed clearly it was their assumptive perception, or they could get-away with killing wolves and to hell with science and who cared if they disturbed or destroyed an environment or ecological system and its health. Apparently, this particular agency hates, in their terms “Enviros” which means environmentalists. . .

“. . . the majority of the agency program’s efforts in the Pacific Northwest and nationwide have only served to create public turmoil. Illegal attempts to kill federally-endangered wolves in Oregon in 2010 without fulfilling National Environmental Policy Act duties, questionable handling of livestock depredation investigations in eastern Oregon and Washington in the recent past, and Wildlife Services’ involvement as hired consultants in the killing of the Wedge Pack, makes clear to us that Wildlife Services cannot serve an unbiased role in wolf management. . . anywhere – and that its involvement thus far has greatly undermined gray wolf recovery throughout its historic range.”

In a 2012 report, Wildlife Services relied on a National Agricultural Statistics Service survey to show that wildlife caused $944 million in agricultural damage in 2001. A Research Scientist dismissed the “science-based model” and he mentioned that as a document that “basically says they can use whatever methods at their disposal whenever they want apparently was the reasoning to generate this cost in question.” But still the agency provided no explanation for why the kill total can be 1.5 million in one year, and 5 million the next.

The $944 million dollars in damage could not be verified either, as there exists no paperwork as evidence, nor reports filed as to occasions. Although voucher trails lead to mostly cattle ranchers, specifically in Oregon, Washington, and Idaho, with some in Nevada and Wyoming, there is simply no paperwork or reports to backup the vouchers.

In the Northeast, for example, the elimination of red wolves led to a proliferation of coyotes, which the wolves rarely tolerate in their range. Coyotes push away foxes, which prey on deer mice, which spread ticks. There exists a tick problem, that this author is aware of today, in many counties in southern Oregon, for example, and due to similar reasons here – no science, just hate toward wildlife, and within the ODFW as well.

Oregon Representative (D) Peter DeFazio claims, “Their lethal predator control program is particularly inhumane and totally unnecessary.” More details on the documentary “Exposed: USDA’s Secret War on Wildlife” can be seen here.

Killing Wildlife in the Millions

“I’m updating the egregious and unregulated activities of Wildlife Services because when I tell many people about what they do they’re incredulous and think I’m inflating the numbers. Clearly, I’m not. And, in addition to intentional kills, Wildlife Services’ war on wildlife is responsible for slaughtering numerous animals unintentionally, and this collateral damage includes pets and animals who pose no danger or do no damage,” one researcher stated.

A science research professor notes, “Accidental kills are a frequent byproduct of the agency’s methods. Of the 454 river otters killed, for example, 390 were unintentional, likely during attempts to kill beavers, which can flood property with their dams.” Many animals just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and are wantonly killed. And, what’s also disconcerting is the fact that Wildlife Services doesn’t have to tell why the animals were killed and their killing ways don’t work. Thus, “A 2014 study examining livestock data from 1897 through 2012 found that lethal force against wolves actually increased the odds of a wolf attack on sheep by 4 percent and cattle by 5 to 6 percent. That’s likely because killing wolves causes the pack structure to collapse, which leads to solitary wolves looking for food beyond their usual hunting grounds.”

Wildlife Services No Longer Trusted. 

On a broader level, Wildlife Services has lost the trust of the American public and Wildlife scientists, over its controversial animal damage control activities to benefit agribusiness interests. We want the conflict of interest situations taken out of the Oregon F&W service immediately, and understand there exists more than appropriate for honest management of our Northwest wildlife.

“The Wildlife Services program has been marked by secrecy, controversy, public opposition, stale and deficient environmental reviews and indiscriminate killings of large numbers of animals, with over 46.5 million animals reportedly killed since 1996, including more than 52,000 reported unintentional killings (dogs, cats, other pets, and wildlife that enhanced ecological habitats) in the last 10 years.”

“Unfortunate here, is the fact the circumstances that have led to wildlife extinction in the NW, within some species, is unknown; but attritional values of Wildlife Services neglect toward these same values certainly contributed in one way or the other.”

“The absence of any binding regulatory framework to govern its activities, a 2012 Sacramento Bee exposé, the scathing New York Times Editorial, a critical policy perspective last year, and the recently-announced investigation by the U.S. Department of Agriculture into Wildlife Services prove that the agency program has lost touch with American values and is entrenched in a culture of killing native carnivores at the expense of American wildlife.”

“Given the repeated criticisms, investigations, and Congressional inquiries into the function of this agency program, Wildlife Services should be suspending – not continuing – all predator control activities; Indeed, suspension of this program should also occur pending completion of a rulemaking for the program under the Administrative Procedure Act, as petitioned by the Center for Biological Diversity on Dec. 2, 2013.”

The many Wildlife Services scandals show beyond a doubt this rogue-agency program is out of control. It fails to use the best available science, data gathering techniques (if at all), and pertinent information. This agency does not serve the interests of the public-at-large, rather the interests of a narrow constituency of special interests.

These scandals are not to be ignored, that personnel within the Wildlife Services are involved in currently. Many of the personnel demonstrate a psychopathic behavior pattern toward animals, comparable to many patterns found in Serial Killers backgrounds, which merely underscore why we have no reason to believe Wildlife Service’s involvement in killing of wolves in Oregon will be anything but detrimental to the recovery of the endangered gray wolf and other carnivore species within our state. . .

______________________________________

See Center for Biological Diversity, Data Compilation of Annual Animal Killings by APHISWildlife Services (2013) (hereinafter “Data Compilation”) (Center for Biological Diversity compilation of agency program data reports documenting the number of native and invasive animals taken each Fiscal Year from 1996 through 2012); Center for Biological Diversity et al., PETITION FOR RULEMAKING PURSUANT TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT, 5 U.S.C. § 553(e), TO THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOR PROMULGATION OF A REGULATORY SCHEME TO GOVERN THE WILDLIFE SERVICES PROGRAM (Dec. 2, 2013).

Editorial, Agriculture’s Misnamed Agency, New York Times (July 19, 2013); Bergstrom, J.B., Arias, L.C., Davidson, A.D., Ferguson, A.W., Randa, L.A. & Sheffield, S.R., 2013, License to kill: reforming federal wildlife control to restore biodiversity and ecosystem function, Conservation Letters, v. 6, p. 1-12.

Neighbors of Cuddy Mountain v. U.S. Forest Serv., 137 F.3d 1372, 1379 (9th Cir. 1998)

(“Some quantified or detailed information is required. Without such information, neither the courts nor the public, in reviewing the [the agency’s] decisions, can be assured that the [agency] provided the hard look that it is required to provide.”).

Brainerd SA, Andrén H, Bangs EE, Bradley EH, Fontaine JA, et al. (2008) The effects of

breeder loss on wolves. J Wildl Manage 72: 89–98. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2193/2006-305/abstract

Bull, Joseph, et al. “Survival on the border: a population model to evaluate management options for Norway’s wolves Canis lupus.” Wildlife Biology 15.4 (2009): 412-424.

http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.2981/08-010

Creel, Scott, and Jay J. Rotella. “Meta-analysis of relationships between human offtake, total mortality and population dynamics of gray wolves (Canis lupus).” PLoS One 5.9 (2010): e12918. http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0012918

Gehring TM, Kohn BE, Gehring JL, Anderson EM (2003) Limits to plasticity in gray wolf, pack structure: conservation implications for recovering populations. Can Field-Nat 117: 419–423.

Haber GC (1996) Biological, Conservation, and Ethical Implications of Exploiting and

Controlling Wolves. Conserv Biol 10: 1068–1081. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.1997.95366.x http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1523-1739.1997.95366.x/abstract;jsessionid=6772F96C7EE96572972D5516F1D0C1D1.f02t0

Knowlton FF, Gese EM, Jaeger MM (1999) Coyote depredation control: and interface between biology and management. J Range Manage 52: 398–412.

Rutledge, Linda Y., et al. (2010) Protection from harvesting restores the natural social structure of eastern wolf packs. Biological Conservation 143.2: 332-339.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320709004583

Rutledge, Linda Y., et al. “Intense harvesting of eastern wolves facilitated hybridization with coyotes.” Ecology and evolution 2.1 (2012): 19-33.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ece3.61/full

Sparkman, Amanda M., Lisette P. Waits, and Dennis L. Murray. “Social and demographic effects of anthropogenic mortality: A test of the compensatory mortality hypothesis in the red wolf.” PloS one 6.6 (2011): e20868.http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0020868

Wallach AD, Ritchie EG, Read J, O’Neill AJ (2009) More than Mere Numbers: The Impact of Lethal Control on the Social Stability of a Top-Order Predator. PLoS ONE 4(9): e6861. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0006861 http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0006861

 

 

 “If the Bureau or Land Management or their Supporters say it, it is simply something of a misrepresented fact, or just a lie.  Profound that a government agency is and remains at that level — which includes lack of integrity, unethical behavior, and at times unchecked criminal conduct.”  Anonymous and Witness

Now it is obvious, more than every before, American’s can not trust our government agencies to complete tasks with responsible conduct, ethics, and honesty. Integrity is gone from such government agencies as the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and their oversight agency the Department of the Interior.

Exclusion of Cattle Grazing

But rather than editorialize, let’s take a look at a situation, very real, very questionable in ethics and conduct. One can state in a blunt way that BLM can not only no longer be trusted due to their questionable manipulation of science and data gathering, but they are dishonest as well as criminal. Taking the effects of cattle grazing out of technical reports is simply dishonest, and costly to the taxpayer.

What is criminal in nature about this circumstance? Extremely large budgets are completed, and are based on the honesty of Science Data and the Technical Reports to follow. Also, Environmental Assessments, assumed honest data is included; give outright permission for all of types of projects on Public Lands to be conducted. But without complete honesty of data, then we can simply surmise dishonesty in not only fact, but they are conducting fraudulent circumstances to generate projects and roundups of wild horses, under the guise of falsified information.

“GRAZING PUNTED FROM FEDERAL STUDY OF LAND CHANGES IN WEST Scientists Told to Not Consider Grazing Due to Fear of Lawsuits and Data Gaps Posted on Nov 30, 2011  — PEER http://www.peer.org

Washington, DC — The U.S. Bureau of Land Management is carrying out an ambitious plan to map ecological trends throughout the Western U.S. but has directed scientists to exclude livestock grazing as a possible factor in changing landscapes, according to a scientific integrity complaint filed today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).  The complaint describes how one of the biggest scientific studies ever undertaken by BLM was fatally skewed from its inception by political pressure. . .

Exclusion of grazing was met with protests from the scientists.  Livestock grazing is permitted on two-thirds of all BLM lands, with 21,000 grazing allotments covering 157 million acres across the West.  As one participating scientist said, as quoted in workshop minutes: “We will be laughed out of the room if we don’t use grazing. If you have the other range of disturbances, you have to include grazing.” In the face of this reaction, BLM initially deferred a decision but ultimately opted to –

• Remove livestock grazing from all Ecoregional assessments, citing insufficient data.  As a result, the assessments do not consider massive grazing impacts even though trivial disturbance factors such as rock hounding are included; and
• Limit consideration of grazing-related information only when combined in an undifferentiated lump with other native and introduced ungulates (such as deer, elk, wild horses and feral donkeys).”

One cannot discuss the effects on streams by grazing livestock without recognizing the interwoven and connected nature of watersheds, riparian zones, streams, and watershed activities. Activities affecting watersheds or riparian zones also affect stream ecosystems directly, indirectly, and cumulatively. So here I will simply peruse the situation from a common sense and well referenced perspective.

Impacts of vegetation removal can be placed into two categories: shifts in the plant community structure and removal of plant growth or biomass. Livestock can do both of these. Major changes in the plant community structure and usually a reduction in the number of species have been reported in the western United States.

When we discuss, for example, wild horses starving on our nations multi-use Public Lands, it is the result – most often – of over-grazing from cattle and sheep on Public Lands. Yes a comparative exists — the Canary in the mines of years past, currently the wild horses on Public Lands, are and remain speaking Loud And Clear:

Public lands are being and continue to be mismanagement by the BLM . . .

Summary of Effects of Vegetation Removal

• Vegetation removal exposes soil to the energy of raindrops, facilitates sheet flow erosion, runoff, and the ability to move sediment, increase in floods, sediment clearing costs very high, et al . . .
• In contrast, vegetation increases stream bank strength to resist erosion.
• Stream channels along heavily vegetated areas are deeper and narrower than along poorly vegetated areas.
• Sediment runoff is higher for heavily grazed watersheds compared to lightly grazed watersheds.

Summary of Temperature Effects

• Removal of streamside vegetation can increase mean temperature and temperature extremes.
• Streams along wooded riparian zones may be cooler in summer and warmer in winter.
• Relatively small changes in stream temperature can shift aquatic communities a 3.6 degree F increase is sufficient to shift from a coldwater to a warm water habitat.
• An increase in stream temperature from 3.6 to 9 degrees F is common when streamside vegetation is removed.

Sedimentation is recognized as the most prevalent and damaging pollution in streams in North America (Waters, 1995). Livestock grazing can increase sediment load from the watershed, increase in stream trampling, increase disturbance and erosion from overgrazed stream banks, reduced sediment trapping by riparian and in stream vegetation, decreased bank stability and increased peak flows from compaction. In streams assessed in 2000, the most common agricultural pollutant was silt, which was a contributing factor for 31% of streams considered impaired (USEPA, 2000).

Summary of Effects Due to Channel Morphology

• Unstable stream channels and the loss of fish and invertebrate habitat are often attributed to cattle grazing practices in riparian areas.
• Stream channels along heavily vegetated areas are deeper and narrower than along poorly vegetated areas.
• Livestock management often causes local changes in habitat, thereby impacting fish, large mammals (vertebrates), birds, insects, invertebrates, and simply much wildlife that makes an Ecosystem or entire environment healthy.
• Changes are much more pronounced in small streams than large ones; impacts on lakes are under-studied but appear to be mineralized or disturbed (Klamath Lake, Or. For example.
• The natural variance among stream channels, lakes, and wetlands makes generic conclusions very difficult. Most impacts and most Best Management Practices will be site-specific. Site-specific BMPs depend on stream morphology.

Summary of Nutrient Effects

• Excess nutrients in streams cause eutrophication to increase. Eutrophication is the process where aquatic vegetation grows quickly and decomposes, consuming oxygen from the stream.
• Nutrient concentrations (various forms of N and P) in runoff increase with increasing grazing duration.
• Retiring areas from grazing but maintaining grass vegetation reduces nutrient delivery, but dissolved N may be reduced differentially in relation to dissolved P.

Conclusion

Here I have merely touched upon things that are severe and directly related to Cattle Grazing on our Public Lands. It appears overwhelmingly foolish to take cattle and their effects on our Public Lands out of any investigation or technical report – or blocked from collecting data on cattle or sheep grazing on our Public Lands.

“The current environmental focus on controlling nonpoint pollution to protect our surface water has led to the discussion of management of our Public lands. The Environmental Protection Agency states that agriculture has a greater impact on stream and river contamination than any other nonpoint source. Grazing, particularly improper grazing or overabundant grazing of public lands areas can contribute to many nonpoint source pollution. Negative impacts downstream include the contamination, for example, of drinking water supplies and watersheds alike (55% of drinking water comes from surface water” (Brown, 1994) . . .

It is time American’s start asking, well no, demanding honesty, integrity, and responsible conduct from the Bureau of Land Management and the Department of the Interior. Then demand they stop lying to the American Public, manipulating science to their political agendas, and lie to the taxpaying public about constantly.

So the next time a BLM or DOLI, or BLM supporters discuss such things as Environmental Assessments, Wild Horse Herd Counts by BLM, or much of anything that deals with our Public Lands, it can be considered questionable at best – do your research, question them and then ask for proof, and not their proof, as that is questionable, but proof from independent science or people in knowledgeable of BLM and government misrepresentation and lies. . .

NOTE:  American’s, taxpayer’s, need to WAKE UP – this is ongoing and happening right before our eyes, and most people say nothing, and accuse the wrong people of spending taxpayer money irresponsibly!  Taxpayer’s have indeed paid BLM and their contractors nearly $410 million dollars, in the past 6 years, for the saving of dead-horses (ironic at its best), which they either killed on the range during roundups, or have killed or sent to slaughter — this is in accord with their own inventory and payment vouchers.  A good example of their misconduct and ripping taxpayers off — actually it is criminal as well, but no one of authority will investigate.

___________________________

References

Bellows, B. C. March 2003. Protecting riparian areas: Farmland management strategies. Soil Systems Guide, Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas. At http://www.attra.ncat.org.

Belsky, A. J., A. Matzke, and S. Uselman. 1999. Survey of livestock influences on stream and riparian ecosystems in the western United States. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 54(1): 419-431.

Bohn, C. C., and J. C. Buckhouse. 1986. Effects of grazing management on streambanks. Trans. N. Am. Wildl. Natl. Resour. Conf. 51:265-271.

Bryant, H. T., R. E. Blaser, and J. R. Peterson. 1972. Effect of trampling by cattle on bluegrass yield and soil compaction of a meadowville loam. Agron. J. 64:331-334.

Chichester, F. W., R. W. Van Keuran, and J. L. McGuinness. 1979. Hydrology and chemical quality of flow from small pastured watersheds: Chemical quality. J. Envir. Qual. 8(2): 167-171.

Cole, D. W., 1981. Nitrogen uptake and translocation by forest ecosystems. In: F. E. Clark and T. Rosswall (eds.) Terestrial Nitrogen Cycles. Ecological Bulletin. Vol. 33. p. 219-232.

Cooper, A. B., C. M. Smith, and M. J. Smith. 1995. Effects of riparian set-aside on soil characteristics in an agricultural landscape Implications for nutrient transport and retention. Agric. Ecosystems Environ. 55:61-67.

Duff, Donald A. 1979. Riparian habitat recovery on Big Creek, Rich County, Utah. In Proceedings: Forum Grazing and Riparian/Stream Ecosystems. Trout Unlimited, Inc. p. 91

Gardner, J. L. 1950. Effects of thirty years of protection from grazing in desert grassland. Ecology. 31:44-50.

Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Animal Agriculture: A Summary of Literature Related to the Effects of Animal Agriculture on Water Resources (G), 1999. The Environmental Quality Board, College of Agriculture, Food, and Environmental Sciences (COAFES), Univ. of Minnesota.

Green, D. M., and J. B. Kauffman. 1989. Nutrient cycling at the land-water interface: The importance of the riparian zone. In: R. E. Gresswell, B. A. Barton, and J. L. Kershner (eds.) Practical Approaches to Riparian Resource Management: An Education Workshop. U.S. Bureau of Land Management. Billings, MT. p. 61-68.

Gregory, S. V., F. J. Swanson, W. A. McKee, and K. W. Cummins. 1991. An ecosystem perspective of riparian zones. Bioscience 41(8): 540-550.

Hack-ten Broeke, M. J. D., W. J. M. De Groot, and J. P. Dijkstra. 1996. Impact of excreted nitrogen by grazing cattle on nitrate leaching. Soil Use Manage. 12:190-198.

Jawson, M. D., L. F. Elliott, K. E. Saxton, and D. H. Fortier. 1982. The effect of cattle grazing on nutrient losses in a pacific northwest setting, USA. J. Environ. Qual. 11:628-631.

Kaufmann, J. B., and W. C. Kreuger. 1984. Livestock impacts on riparian ecosystems and streamside management implications: A review. J. Range Manage. 37:430-438.

Knapp, R. A., V. T. Vredenburg, and K. R. Matthews. 1998. Effects of stream channel morphology on golden trout spawning habitat and recruitment. Ecol. Appl. 8:1104-1117.

Lemly, D. A. 1982. Modification of benthic insect communities in polluted streams: Combined effects of sedimentation and nutrient enrichment. Hydrobiologia. 87:229-245.

Li, H. W., G. A. Lamberti, T. N. Pearsons, C. K. Tait, J. L. Li, and J. C. Buckhouse. 1994. Cumulative effects of riparian disturbances along high desert trout streams of the John Day Basin, Oregon. Trans. Am. Fisheries Soc. 123:627-640.

Magilligan, F. J., and P. F. McDowell. 1997. Stream channel adjustments following elimination of cattle grazing. J. Am. Water Resour. Assn. 33:867-878.

Marcuson, Patrick E. 1977. Overgrazed streambanks depress fishery production in Rock Creek, Montana. Fish and Game Federation Aid Program. F-20-R-21-11a.

McColl, R. H. S., and A. R. Gibson. 1979. Downslope movement of nutrients in hill pasture,Taita, New Zealand: 2. Effects of season, sheep grazing and fertilizer. New Zealand J. Agric. Res. 22:151-162.

Meyers, T. J., and S. Swanson. 1991. Aquatic habitat condition index, stream-types and livestock bank damage in northern Nevada. Water Resour. Bull. 27:667-677.

Minshall, G. W. 1984. Aquatic insect substratum relationships. In V. H. Resh and D. M. Rosenberg (ed.) The ecology of aquatic insects. Praeger Publishers, New York. p. 356-400.

Mwendera, E. J., and M. A. M. Saleem. 1997a. Infiltration rates, surface runoff, and soil loss as influenced by grazing pressure in the Ethiopian highlands. Soil Use Manage. 13:29-35.

Mwendera, E. J., M. A. M. Saleem, and A. Dibabe. 1997. The effect of livestock grazing on surface runoff and soil erosion from sloping pasture lands in the Ethiopian highlands. Australian J. Experimental Agric. 37:421-430.

Naeth, M. A., and D. S. Chanasyk. 1996. Runoff and sediment yield under grazing in foothills fescue grasslands of Alberta. Water Res. Bull. 32:89-95.

Naiman, R. J., and H. Decamps. 1997. The ecology of interfaces: Riparian zones. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. V. 28. p. 621-658.

Olness, A., S. J. Smith, E. D. Rhoades, and R. G. Menzel. 1975. Nutrient and sediment discharge from agricultural watersheds in Oklahoma. J. Environ. Qual. 4:331-336.

Ohio’s Hydrologic Cycle. 1994. L. C. Brown. AEX 461. Ohio State University Extension.

Orodho, A. B., M. J. Trlica, and C. D. Bonham. 1990. Long term heavy grazing effects on soil and vegetation in the four corners region. Southwest Naturalist. 35:9-14.

Owens, L. B., W. M. Edwards, and R. W. Van Keuren. 1989. Sediment and nutrient losses from an unimproved all-year grazed watershed. J. Environ. Qual. 18:232-238.

Owens, L. B., W. M. Edwards, and R. W. Van Keuren. 1996. Sediment losses from a pastured watershed before and after stream fencing. J. Soil Water Conserv. 51:90-94.

Owens, L. B., W. M. Edwards, and R. W. Van Keuren. 1997. Runoff and sediment losses resulting from winter feeding on pastures. J. Soil Water Conserv. 52:194-197.

Owens, L. B., W. M. Edwards, and R. W. Van Keuren. 1983. Surface runoff quality comparisons between unimproved pasture and woodlands. J. Environ. Qual. 12:518-522.

Owens, L. B., W. M. Edwards, and R. W. Van Keuren. 1994. Groundwater nitrate levels under fertilized grass and grasslegumes pastures. J. Environ. Qual. 23:752-758.

Richards, R. P., F. G. Calhoun, and G. Matisoff. 2002. Lake Erie agricultural systems for environmental quality project. J. of Envir. Qual. 31:6-16.

Rabalais, N. N., R. E. Turner, and W. J. Wiseman, Jr. 2001. Hypoxia in Gulf of Mexico. J. of Envir. Qual. Mar-Apr 30(2):320-329.

Platts, W. S. 1991. Livestock grazing. In: Influence of forest and rangeland management on Salmonid fishes and their habitats. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 19:389-423.

Platts, W. S., and R. F. Nelson. 1985. Stream habitat and fisheries response to livestock grazing and instream improvement structures, Big Creek, Utah. J. Soil Water Conserv. 40:374-379.

Platts, W. S. and F. J. Wagstaff. 1984. Fencing to control livestock grazing on riparian habitats along streams: Is it a viable alternative. N. Am. J. Fisheries Manage. 4:266-272.

Peterjohn, W. T., and D. L. Correll. 1984. Nutrient dynamics in an agricultural watershed: Observations of a riparian forest. Ecology 65: 1466-1475.

Quinn, J. M., R. B. Williamson, R. K. Smith, and M. L. Vickers. 1992. Effects of riparian grazing and channelization on streams in southland New Zealand 2. Benthic invertebrates. New Zealand J. Marine Freshwater Res. 26:259-273. LS-2-05 page 10

Rauzi, F., and C. L. Hanson. 1966. Water intake and runoff as affected by intensity of grazing. J. Range Manage. 19:351-356.

Schepers, J. S., and D. D. Francis. 1982. Chemical water quality of runoff from grazing land in Nebraska: I. Influence of grazing livestock. J. Environ. Qual. 11:351-354.

Schepers, J. S., B. L. Hackes, and D. D. Francis. 1982. Chemical water quality of runoff from grazing land in Nebraska: II. Contributing factors. J. Environ. Qual. 11:355-359.

Sidle, R. C., and A. Sharma. 1996. Stream channel changes associated with mining and grazing in the Great Basin. J. Environ. Qual. 25:1111-1121.

Smith, C. M. 1989. Riparian pasture retirement effects on sediment phosphorus and nitrogen in channellized surface run-off from pastures. New Zealand J. Mar. Freshwater Res. 23:139-146.

Stout, W. L., S. A. Fales, L. D. Muller, R. R. Schnabel, W. E. Priddy, and G. F. Elwinger. 1997. Nitrate leaching from cattle urine and feces in northeastern U.S. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. 61:1787.

Sweeny, B. W. 1993. Effects of streamside vegetation on macroinvertebrate communities of White Clay Creek in eastern North America. Proc. of the Natural Science Academy of Philadelphia. 144:291-340.

Tait, C. K., J. L. Li, G. A. Lamberti, T. N. Pearsons, and H. W. Li. 1994. Relationships between riparian cover and community structure of high desert streams. J. N. Am. Benthological Soc. 13:45-56.

USEPA. 2000. National Water Quality Inventory: 2000 Report to Congress Executive Summary, Office of Water, Washington, DC 20460. [Online] Available at http://www.epa.gov/305b.

Waters, T. F. 1995. Sediment in streams, sources, biological effects and control. American Fisheries Society Monograph 7.

White, R. K., R. W. VanKeuren, L. B. Owens, W. M. Edwards, and R. H. Miller. 1983. Effects of livestock pasturing on non-point surface runoff. Project Summary, Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory, Ada, Oklahoma. EPA- 600/S2-83-011. 6p.

Williamson, R. B., C. M. Smith, and A. B. Cooper. 1996. Watershed riparian management and its benefits to a eutrophic lake. J. Water Res. Planning Manage.-ASCE. 122:24-32.

Williamson, R. B., R. K. Smith, and J. M. Quinn. 1992. Effects of riparian grazing and channelization on streams in Southland New Zealand I. Channel form and stability. New Zealand Journal of Marine & Freshwater Research. 26:241-258.

Wohl, N. E., and R. F. Carline. 1996. Relations among riparian grazing, sediment loads, macroinvertebrates, and fishes in three central Pennsylvania streams. Can. J. Fisheries Aquatic Sci. 53(suppl. 1):260-266.