Blog

“The historical sense involves a perception, not only of the pastness of the past, but of its presence”
― T.S. Eliot, Four Quartets

To resolve the situation of the Wild Horses of today, to form an informational basis to establish the American Wild Horse (i.e. currently the Mustang) in the Western United States as an Indigenous Species, remains the objective of this series of articles. Ultimately, upon resolving the issues of Indigenous Species we can then, and only then, establish an Endangered Species status for the Wild Horses on America’s Public Lands. This will defend America’s Heritage, from greed and destruction — The Wild Horse.

This series of articles will aspire toward intellectual history as well as develop a literary analysis or cultural history of the Mustang. The basis for this two-fold:

1. Much of the literal history of the Wild Horse in the Western United States has been, and continues to be overlooked, or simply passed off as innuendo;

2. Modern industrial agendas and economics remain definitive within the scope of “Uncceptability” or to not place the Wild Horse within the category of Indigenous, due to unsound and irresponsible monetary reasoning that prohibits their inclusion.

The arguable situation, most often quoted in reports, legends, and research: Ancient species of horses had existed in North America many thousands of years ago, but they became extinct long before the ancestors of American Indians arrived on the continent. Thousands of years later, modern horses were brought to North America by Europeans.

This type of innuendo lacks credibility and definition in the matter of Wild Horse history in the United States. It also contradicts many references, whether bones, hieroglyphics, etc., found in areas within the Western United States,

Counter to Present Day Perspective: Today, as usual with myth and misinformation, the perusal of documents, research, and articles of the history show beyond a doubt Wild Horses existed within the United States (the Americas) much earlier than thought. The European’s were not the ambassadors of the Wild Horse’s as claimed, rather their breeds (i.e. Arab, et al.) simply intermixed with the Wild Horses already in Western America, well referenced but ironically the material ignored.

In reality Wild Horses’ already populated the Western Americas in the 6th century thru the 16th Centuries. The 16th century is when humankind began to write about horses, but indirectly; yes written records only, rather than the American Indian’s form of history (oral history passed from one tribe historian to another, and drawings, etc.), was recognized back then. Unfortunate for the history of the horse, most of the historical attributes of that era were either in error, totally fiction, or totally true – no gray areas. As usual in cases such as this, the untruth is often more glamorous, dramatic, or useful to those who profit from information manipulation. History never changes within this aspect of record keeping over the ages.

Within an irresponsible manner, severe prejudice and ignorance stepped forward, and the history of the Wild Horse recorded by (or socially acceptable and classified) civilized human’s only (historical description, not mine); this simply developed into written records and history from only a select few writer’s, whether credible or not, as long as they were of a civilized human writing the information — (note: makes one wonder about much more of our history in America, judging what’s acceptable compared to unacceptable, or what was considered humane compared to savage). After reading much of the historical records, and background of record origination, this situation alone, it can be said, decimated the history of Wild Horses, that is, until today.

Petroglyphs and Cave Paintings

Cave paintings’ as well as rock carvings and hieroglyphs’ remain common-finds within the Western United States. Many people who hike trails, explore caves, and spend time on rivers or hiking the banks of rivers and streams, often locate American Indian signs – communications – their history.

This subject is not contained within this article, but will be the subject of a later article, as references plentiful but require interpretation and a little positive limelight for a change. The significance of the American Indian history, accomplished in art-form, drawings, and carvings remain a substantial reference to the items within all articles on Wild Horses. These references mirror one another quite responsibly and ironically mostly ignored. Why? Hopefully, this question will be answered soon.

But one item, of many, is assured, that the American Indian form of communication is a wholesome and true exhibit of history. There exist no manipulative agendas or ideologies, nothing but the truth. Horses are a significant part of Indian history, just as in the land-growth aspects within American history – a Heritage that should not be passed-off or forgotten, but placed within an iconic prestigious element of our humane growth as a people on this planet.

“. . . he surveys the human relationship to nature, from 10,000 B.C. until 100 A.D., and concludes that, in contrast to totemic hunter society, the Judeo-Christian world view was “a virtually perfect rationalization of agriculture” as a system of production and ground of existence.” (Max Oelschlaeger. The Idea of Wilderness: From Prehistory to the Age of Ecology. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1991, 353 pp. + notes.)

So if we assume that something used so robustly, as the horse was used within farming, industry, and day to day use as we would an automobile or any other tool, then we only begin to understand the problem of establishing the Wild Horse as indigenous and within a literal as well as an Iconic circumstance.

“. . . to the Renaissance and the Industrial Revolution, which he characterizes together as “modernism.” As used here, this term roughly means instrumental thought after Galileo and Descartes, as developed by classical physics and laissez-faire economics . . .” (Ibid. . .)

Standards of Our Industrial Nation

A Contemporary Wilderness Philosophy” attacks the “resources” rampant in western society, which treats nature as raw material, and offers a range of alternative philosophies: preservationism, biocentrism, ecocentrism, and deep ecology. We can bring together these strains into “a postmodern wilderness philosophy” that can, indeed, help develop a more humane venture for a true civilized society. This type of situation can build upon compassion, respect, and kindness toward fellow human’s, domestic animals, and wildlife alike. The Wild Horse then becomes a significant Icon within this perspective.

In this account national differences are of little significance; the American experience was, in the 16th century especially, seen as an extension of European developments until the twentieth century, and when the voices of Thoreau and Muir were first really heard – thought essentially become more free, becoming that of ideology turning into reality. Not so coincidental with the Wild Horses, English carry-over mostly neglected the history of the horse as bland and even perhaps redundant and insignificant.

Then the growth spurt of the American west, gold and oil; which before then only moderate growth experienced; it was the horse, not inclusive of the Wild Horse Herds yet, that were considered iconic within a necessity-perspective for transportation and farming, similar to the car or tractor of the later period of industrialized America.

Conclusion to Part 1 Nature

The Wild Horse remained symbolic of nature, an uncontrolled freedom, not to be tamed or harnessed, but allowed to roam. This eventually turned into another ideology, modernism rears up again to capture nature, to suspend freedom and at the same time grasp and destroy if not able to control — toward utility or profit.

The wars started over land-grabs, railroads, timber, highways, industrial use over farms, cities to be made to develop enough people gathered into one place to work at these industries, and on and on — simply overwhelmed nature, and especially the Wild Horse – and the fact is, quite obvious, no one cared about the Wild Horse enough to establish a detailed history.

This was the stuff of poetry, the ideology of what Nature was back then — and then industrial society reared its tarnished ideologies of profit, of industrialized corporate structure, of modernism, of elitist society, of criminal politicians. The Wild Horse becomes a non-virtue and unneeded any longer, a throw-away to be sacrificed — and many people, at that time, simply assumed they were in the way of modernism or progressive behavior. The Wild Horse shunned in an odd contempt within the virtues of the Pioneering Past versus America’s Evolutionary Future.

This article as well as the articles to follow, strongly suggests a new epoch in human thought is upon us. It is solely based upon a vision rooted in earth consciousness, a rediscovery of the wisdom of the ages, known to primal peoples across the face of the earth during the Paleolithic era … a world in which computer technicians might walk in autumn with migrating elk.”

We, as a people within this society, within this social spectrum of ongoing event, must contend that the wilderness ideology is not a romantic anachronism; rather, it is the idea of wilderness necessary to help us all, as a society, to transcend the ideology of “modernism” and reestablish an organic connection to nature. Wild Horses, among much other wildlife, do this quite well.

To preserve the Wild Horse as an icon, allowing them to run free over America’s Public Lands, is merely an image currently. We can make this a reality with a little work, and a little perseverance, but above all, with a lot of intelligence and a lot of American’s to speak up and preserve our National Heritage – The Wild Horse. . .
_______________________________
References Cited

Aplet, G.H. “On the Nature of Wildness: Exploring What Wilderness Really Protects”, Denver
University Law Review. 76 (1999):347-367.

Ayres, R.U. “Limits to Growth Paradigm”, Ecological Economics, 19 (1996):117-134.
Bergstrom, J.C. and J.B. Loomis. “Economic Dimensions of Ecosystem Management”,
Chapter 11 in Cordell H.K. and J.C. Bergtrom (Editors), Integrating Social
Sciences with Ecosystem Management. Champaign, IL: Sagamore Press (1999).

Cleveland, C.J. “Reallocating Work Between Human and Natural Capital in Agriculture:
Examples from India and the United States”, in Jansson, A.M. et al. (Editors),
Investing in Natural Capital. Washington: Island Press (1994).

Costanza, R. and H.E. Daly. “Natural Capital and Sustainable Development”,
Conservation Biology, 6 (1992):37-46.

Constanza, R. et al., “The Value of World’s Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital”,
Nature, 387 (1997):253-260.

Daly, H.E. and J. Cobb, Jr. For the Common Good. Boston: Beacon Press (1996).
England, R.W. “Natural Capital and the Theory of Economic Growth”, Ecological Economics,
34 (2000):425-431.

Godfrey-Smith, W. “The Value of Wilderness”, Environmental Ethics. Winter (1979):309-319.
Hammond, J.L. “Wilderness and Heritage Values”, Environmental Ethics, Summer (1985):
165-170.

Loomis, J.B. and R. Richardson. Economic Values of Wilderness in the United States.
Morton, P. “The Economic Benefits of Wilderness: Theory and Practice”, Denver
University Law Review. 76 (1999):465-518.

Noss, R. F. “Soul of the Wilderness”, International Journal of Wilderness, August (1996):3-8.
Oelschlaeger, M. The Idea of Wilderness: From Prehistory to the Age of Ecology. New Haven:
Yale University Press (1991).

Rolston, H. “Valuing Wildlands”, Environmental Ethics, Spring (1985):23-48.

Russell, K., J.C. Hendee and S. Cooke. “Social and Economic Benefits of a U.S. Wilderness
Experience Program for Youth-at-Risk in the Federal Job Corps”, International
Journal of Wilderness, December (1998):2-8.

“What we are doing to the forests of the world is but a mirror reflection of what we are doing to ourselves and to one another.” -― Mahatma Gandhi

There simply comes a time when questions need to be answered (REVIEW: 29 Dead Wild Horses in Murderer’s Creek Capture Report, BLM Cover Up, Again – review at: http://www.veteran-journalist.com) by the Bureau of Land Management and their incompetent management of America’s Heritage, the Wild Horse Herds on Our Public Lands.

Keep the interview in mind below, when reading the remainder of the article, also keep in mind the only reason many of the BLM employees still around today, and within management, is due to this investigation below being called off, in the early 1990’s, and over 2,000 Felony Warrants, and over 1,000 Misdemeanor Warrants for arrest were canceled as well — the reasoning, the BLM just too large to serve that many warrants!:

“Agent: Is this a pretty good organization? This sounds like something that’s pretty well planned out, it’s a big organization.

Informant: Well, its very well set up, you know. There’s nobody that participates in it that isn’t well known and don’t know what’s going on.

Agent: Do you feel like there’s people inside the BLM that know about this practice, that are a part of this practice?
Informant: Sure. We can’t operate unless they’re standing there.”

(For the entire informative packet and interview see Horses Led To Slaughter, Anatomy of a Cover Up in the Wild Horse and Burro Program, PEER White Paper, Number 14, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, Washington D.C. 20009-1125)

Environmental Assessments

But we delve further into this chaos and discover the Environmental Assessments, at Murderer’s Creek, Oregon and that assume roundups of Wild Horses necessary. But as usual, we find the information fraudulent and misinformed at best. The BLM’s assessment, their Wild Horse Count numbers for example, certainly in error.

“Based on the current estimated population (2012 population inventory) of 213 adult wild horses for the Murderer’s Creek HMA, it has been determined there are 113 animals in excess of the objective herd size of 100 horses set in the RMP/ROD and 2007 HMAMP. The amount of excess wild horses is determined by subtracting the current estimated population by the objective herd size of 100 horses.” (from the BLM EA and Project Plan)

“The BLM needs to remove at least 113 excess wild horses currently within the HMA to achieve AML. This assessment is based on the following factors including, but not limited to:

2012 population estimates for the HMA indicate there are 113 wild horses in excess of the herd size objective of 100 horses as described in the John Day Resource Management Plan/Final EIS. Page 2 of 93 [Author’s NOTE: Very Questionable.]

Use by wild horses is exceeding the forage allocated to their use by approximately 110 percent based on the objective herd size of 100 animals.” (i.e. see BLM EA) [NOTE: this has been proven to be untrue.]

Then we run across yet another conundrum, Forestry versus BLM information! It’s definitely unclear how many horses are roaming the Malheur (i.e. Murderer’s Creek HMA, et al). Forestry officials have estimated the population at about 400, but the count done in January 2008 found only 115 horses. So according to this published data, by the forestry, how can a “good” decision be made? Especially based on the over-population circumstance given to the public by the BLM or Forestry, within either one of their Environmental Assessments and need for roundups at Murderer’s Creek?

The Forest Service believes that count is low, and says in documents that there are between 200 and 250 animals on the forest. The Stouts (Welfare Rancher’s who want to place more of their cattle on Public Lands via Permit) challenge that number and call for the population to be reduced to 100 horses, the number set by the area’s 1975 Wild Horse Plan — not the WH&B ACT for HMA’s, but the BLM’s Plant. You can start to see the confusion just within their few statement here and within their documents — A Conquer By Confusion psychology, if you will, and make lots of money from taxpayer’s!

Keep in mind these conflicting reports, and numbers specifically, cost the taxpayer’s money, in the $ millions of dollars — if not $ billions. This is due to falsification of numbers, numbers and counts established on political agendas rather than correct data bases; or just outright favoring the friends and neighbors of BLM within a given area in order to make money (sometimes things are very obvious and simple):

. . . in this case the private contractors who were hired by BLM to complete a Bait and Trap roundup of wild horses – ultimately killing 29 wild horses, at a cost of $29,000 dollars to do so and from taxpayer money! Disgusting, isn’t it! [NOTE: this roundup pays $1,000 per horse – dead or alive. No one checks for circumstance, or is in the area checking for honesty, from the BLM.]

BLM currently, the Supervisor in charge of the Private Contractors, did not know about the 29 Dead Horses until the estimates and counts (received by us via FOIA) were delivered, and mentioned by us to him! Yet one supervisor claims all horses had to be delivered to Prineville, Oregon BLM Corrals for count to be paid? Yet he claims only 3 dead horses in 2 years have died there? Many questions exist here, yet go unanswered — 29 dead horses and $29,000 paid out to contractors! Your Money!

Is this falsification of Voucher’s (for $29,000 and certainly a Felony)? Or, is the Supervisor covering up something else, more expensive and more costly to the taxpayer’s?

Controversy and Reality of a True Assessment

The Murderers Creek herd became the focus of controversy in 2006. The area supports cattle, wild horses, elk and other wildlife, as well timber extraction, recreation and streams that are spawning grounds for threatened steelhead and bull trout. A series of lawsuits challenged grazing permits on the forest, and claimed cattle grazing was degrading salmon-bearing streams (basically riparian areas being destroyed by cattle).

An injunction was granted in the spring of 2008, cattle were taken off of grazing allotments on the Malheur (i.e. Murderer’s Creek areas). The Welfare Rancher’s, cattle ranchers from Dayville, Oregon, were told they could no longer graze cattle on their 62,000-acre allotment along Murderers Creek and nearby Deer Creek, due to destruction of Public Lands and riparian area (biosphere) damage.

The Welfare Rancher’s then, with no consideration toward taxpayer money, and the subsidies that they receive for grazing Public Lands (taxpayer based subsidies), only qualification was their BLM Grazing Permits, blamed the Wild Horses.

The Federal Court hearing cost the taxpayers in the millions, over several years of time. The final demand by the Court, the Federal Court Judge stated clearly that innuendo and lies involved in the proceedings against the Wild Horses were untrue, they did not devastate the surrounding riparian areas – rather it was the cattle that created the ongoing damages. It was then stated that a settlement had to occur, or else!

Outstanding and Daunting facts of scientific research (plentiful) contradicted, and still contradicts BLM’s Environmental Assessment’s directly, as well as the truthful necessity toward any of their roundups. Many grassland and terrestrial biological studies have found that horses spend less time in riparian areas than cattle, and that an abundance of literature shows that cattle grazing has a greater impact on riparian areas by far.

The degradation is apparent throughout the Malheur (i.e. Murderer’s Creek HMA) where cattle are grazed, and especially where horses are not present. Then we discover one of the testimonies’ to be deranged at best – the individual testified that he seen numerous horse-hoof prints along the stream beds at Murderer’s Creek, but photos in Court clearly showed the prints to be made from grazing cattle (the Judge at the hearing simply nodded and shook head, rolled eyes, in disbelief, once again).

Often where the issue is about horse impacts on grazing areas, several research studies seldom separate cattle from the horses, and generate their report by “hooved livestock” which also ironically include deer and Elk. Yes, wild horse herds have paid dearly in this situation, even though innocent.

But the studies that do separate wild horses (for example) from cattle, do find that low elevation plots where horses do roam and graze, did exhibit notably greater plant species richness, higher percentage of cover, and abundance of grasses and shrubs. The study’s also established that at higher elevations, meadows protected from once grazing cattle (on Public Lands) grew 4.5 times higher than normal, and much faster as well.

BLM’s Fabrication of FACT’S

After perusing the many scientific studies and research, that is good science and not just because it is agreeable to advocate’s, but because the data is based on thorough research and facts, and the researcher’s well respected within their fields of study. Just a tid-pit note here — Today, many of the respected and well experienced researcher’s are contradicting much of the information BLM and Forestry are currently giving to the public and taxpayer’s.

But the contradictions, and there exist many with both the BLM and the Forestry, for the need for Wild Horse Herd Roundups, become nothing more than money makers for both, and to include local neighbors and friends., and corporations and either coercion or intimidation tactics from Welfare Rancher’s toward government employees! Yes, this burdensome situation adds to even more cost from taxpayer money — the mom and pop ranchers no longer exist, the cut-throat and the hell with everyone — and the rancher’s perception that they deserve entitlements “just because” (so they suppose) is the Public Lands rancher of today! Make no doubt of this!

So now we go to the Policy Statement and Abstract of the BLM’s EA

Purpose and Need — The purpose of the proposed action is to gather and remove wild horses in excess of AML on the Murderer’s Creek HMA. This action is necessary to achieve and maintain a population size within the established AML, protect rangeland resources from further deterioration associated with the current overpopulation, and restore a thriving natural ecological balance and multiple use relationship on public lands in the area consistent with the provisions of Section 1333(b)(2) of the WFRHBA of 1971. (reference — U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-OR-P040-2011-0048-EA Murderer’s Creek HMA Wild Horse Gather Plan . . . )

[IN REALITY: the roundups do none of what is mentioned here and hereafter within the EA and toward any type of environmental resolution – indeed, taxpayer’s and wild horses lose again]!

What is especially found troubling here is: “. . . protect rangeland resources from further deterioration associated with the current overpopulation, . . “ (meaning horses) and BLM and Forestry’s recommendations to remove horses, with no legitimate science that will backup their claim — although keep in mind, an Environmental Assessment supposedly is predicated on the fact of making decisions based upon good science – BLM’s policy and the biggest of all THEIR LIES – And because of the inadequate and confusing context of their EA’s, the least approachable, but the most costly in taxpayer money and death of wild horses!

CONCLUSION

There is no use in reading Environmental Assessments from either of these agencies. Not only are they erroneous, based of falsified or troubling research, but remain misleading within the context of the subject matter. It can appear they know what they are doing, but proof-positive shows differently when action taken upon their misinformation and lies to the Public. Reasoning and common sense is totally out the window, all the while making decisions on such trivial pursuits of misinformation.

Once again the American Public, taxpayer’s, are being ripped off by fabrication of facts, lies, criminality, and innuendo. The truth of the matter is these government agencies strongly feel they can not only get away with it, but have gotten away with it up to this point in time.

On 1/22/2015, remember this date. Wild Horse Advocates stood and made the attempt to let the public know, American’s and Taxpayers alike all of us, and was censored by the BLM, with welfare ranchers in attendance booing and hissing at the Advocates — Welfare ranchers essentially taking part in violating the Constitution and the very elements of Free Speech. . . Yet, these welfare ranchers will bilk billions of dollars in taxpayer money via loopholes in antiquated laws and government policies — and at the same time demand their Constitutional Rights be upheld, in order to scam the public and American taxpayers for even more tax money.

It is time to put an end to welfare ranching, and place Wild Horses back onto Public Lands — AMERICA’S PUBLIC LANDS!
________________________

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, streamtypes 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.