Blog

  • FACT OR FICTION: BLM versus AMERICA

    babe_winter_2012

    The soul is dyed the color of its thoughts. Think only on those things that are in line with your principles and can bear the full light of day. The content of your character is your choice. Day by day, what you choose, what you think, and what you do is who you become. Your integrity is your destiny…it is the light that guides your way.
    — Heraclitus

    This article is about two government agencies who lie to the general public to obtain their yearly budgets. It is about information often misrepresented by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Department of the Interior (DOI). Truthfully, it is about integrity, personal choices, and ethics in accord with government agencies and how they destroy values and ethics daily.

    The example shown is nothing more or less than what is ongoing, continuously, with these agencies. One instance like many others through the years, due to complacency within our government investigative and legal communities, essentially the checks-n-balance system within our government, no longer hold our government accountable what so ever, not doing their jobs. This must change, and change it will. . .

    Also, within the example contained herein the Safari Club is mentioned, as it is used within the context of the Federal Court Ruling and the statements given by these groups afterward, yes a special interest group. It shows how information can be taken out of context, and how special interest groups use our government agencies and waste our tax dollars, for their purpose.

    Safari Club International

    The Safari Club throughout history and well documented, assumes their interests in hunting can exceed laws or ethics of any type here in America. They believe to have the “Right” to destroy America’s wildlife, exclusively. This includes the selective ability for the extinction of wildlife, with no qualification other than to belong to this club; whereas, the BLM and the DOI supports them and all the while using our tax money to do so, in this case liquidating wild horses from Public Lands, costing taxpayers $$$$ Billions!

    The Safari Club wants Wild Horses off Public Lands to make more room for Game Animals and for hunting purposes. They write a lot about horse grazing, but their misinformation in regard to horse-grazing shown to be false. Then there is abundant science, which also shows the Safari Club information erroneous.

    Also within this particular Federal Court Proceeding, the cost to the taxpayer to represent the BLM / DOI, and the court expense itself, was in excess of $1.9 million dollars.

    Example of Misrepresentation: A Federal Court Case

    The Example: Decision of U.S. District Court Judge Paul L. Friedman, In Defense of Animals, et al., v. Ken Salazar, et al., May 24, 2010

    The Safari Club stated, “Plaintiffs, including an animal rights group, had launched baseless attacks on BLM’s management practices in a federal lawsuit. On May 24, 2010 the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, based on arguments provided by SCI, dismissed the lawsuit, finding that none of the plaintiffs had “standing” to sue.” (http://www.theoutdoorwire.com/story/1274942614j1f7k1g8j78 )

    LEGAL MEANING: Standing to sue — in law, the requirement that a person who brings a suit be a proper party to request adjudication of the particular issue involved. The test traditionally applied was whether the party had a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy presented and whether the dispute touched upon the legal relations of the parties having adverse legal interests.

    One has got to wonder about the standards fitting for “Standing” to sue, as the Safari Club was there, certainly a special interest having nothing to do with America other than take something from us all, but with a counter-suite right beside the Department of Justice who represented the BLM. . .

    The BLM and their reaction, ” Yesterday (Monday, May 24, 2010), U.S. District Court Judge Paul L. Friedman ruled in favor of the Bureau of Land Management in a lawsuit that challenged the BLM’s recent gather of wild horses from the Calico Mountains Complex in Nevada. “We are satisfied with Judge Friedman’s ruling and believe that the decision stands on its own,” said BLM Director Bob Abbey. “The BLM will continue to implement land-use planning decisions based on the best science available. We will continue to follow the law and seek public input as we chart a new course for the Wild Horse and Burro Program, one that benefits the animals, the land, and the American taxpayer.“ (http://themustangproject.wordpress.com/2010/05/25/judge-friedman-rules-in-favor-of-blm-in-calico-lawsuit-may-24-2010/ )

    And yet the truth, “The Calico lawsuit, filed pro bono by the law firm Buchanan, Ingersoll & Rooney (BIR), sought to stop the roundup of a proposed 2,500 wild horses from the half-million (500,000) acre herd management area complex, which is comprised primarily of publicly-owned lands. In a preliminary ruling, the Court agreed that the government’s practice of sending wild horses to the Midwest and warehousing them in long-term holding facilities as likely illegal.

    “Today’s decision did not address the merits of that argument, only the lack of standing by plaintiffs to bring it. The Judge also ruled that the arguments challenging the roundup methods were moot because the roundup had already occurred.”

    “We remain confident in the merits of our case and look forward to pursuing this legal issue in the near future,” said William J. Spriggs, lead counsel for BIR in this case. “The BLM’s practice of removing horses from the western range and warehousing them in Midwestern holding facilities is flat out illegal, and the judge’s preliminary ruling in this regard was correct.” (http://www.idanews.org/ida-breaking-news/calico-wild-horse-lawsuit-05-24-2010/ )

    Facts and Figures

    No one can be happy who has been thrust outside the pale of truth. And there are two ways that one can be removed from this realm: by lying, or by being lied to.
    — Seneca

    So we either understand or do not understand the complexity of law, or court room semantics compared to our English language. In this scenario it makes no difference. Then we have the facts. The facts in this case are, just as in so many of the court cases having to deal with BLM’s bad management of America’s Wild Horse Herds, quite real and strikingly in opposition to BLM or DOI management principles or laws.

    When we remove the window dressing of BLM jargon, as well as special interest group statements based mostly on greed and their narrow concerns, we can find truth. We then discover, in an obvious manner, these government agencies are concerned about the American Public’s acceptability of the term “Acceptable Abuse” but nothing to counter the problem of the actual abuse, one of many other problems with these agencies.

    Our tax money pays for the abuse and slaughter of Wild Horses. This is a well documented fact; whereas, death and abusive practices at roundups, and much more uncalled for and callous abusive methods prevails, not uncommon. Then from simple observation, it is apparent our government agencies management people directly responsible and indeed influence situations of abuse, inadequate techniques, incompetence, and just as often criminal activity (i.e. see PEER Report 1993 Undercover Investigation of BLM and the Wild Horse and Burro Program).

    Facts always cumbersome to BLM / DOI

    From the start we can acknowledge the fact of removing the Wild Horses from Public Lands cannot be verified by proper scientific, or even numeric equations or formulas for a proper count of wild horses on Public Lands. The BLM simply does not have the capacity to perform or generate a proper Wild Horse Herd count what so ever. This controversy remains questionable due to the averaging technique and guess work (i.e. estimates) given to the public by BLM staff.

    The fact is, through BLM staff admitting such, is they roughly estimate the wild horse herds size by a projected percentage of stallions to mares and birth of foals; In another words a non-conclusive piece of “guesswork!”

    The numbers simply do not, and previously over the years have not, held up to scrutiny or observance of actual numbers on the range. Never! As well, BLM staff and upper management have never allowed a head-count by Advocates, or by an independent group, of either Wild Horse Herds on the range or within any of the BLM holding facilities.

    Yet, taxpayers money is used to house wild horses that should never have been rounded up (per-roundup costing taxpayers $1 million to $30 million dollars) what so ever, storing them at a cost of $52+ million dollars per year, and that is just the holding facilities we know about for sure. Criminal behavior, skimming finances, and graft remains abundant.

    Another ugly and unforgettable fact about the BLM, this particular government agency, along with the Department of the Interior, remain the most litigated and costly agencies in American history. Not only do each of these government agencies have budgets comparable to many countries worldwide, but the criminality and tendency to support corporations and special interest groups with our tax money abounds and remains uncontrolled and unsupervised.

    Fee collection in many instances from these same corporations, or extremely low fees, far below commercial rates of land usage, remains abundant as well. Yes, criminal in nature.

    The Calico Complex Roundup Evaluation

    Then we have more FACTS, which BLM or DOI has never been held accountable, and in the matter of the Calico Complex Roundup. Keep in mind while reading that this roundup similar to ALL the rest, and currently being done in similar and abusive ways. Nothing changes over the years. . . Yes, these people at these particular government agencies lie, and not so profound, they lie continuously to the American public. The following was taken from a evaluation report of the same area and roundup, as mentioned within the Federal Court documentation above:

    “Of the 1,922 Calico horses reported as captured by the BLM between December 28, 2009 and February 4, 2010, 86 horses have died to date. Dozens more sustained injuries as a direct result of the helicopter stampede, transport to short-term holding, or confinement in “feedlot”-type holding pens. An additional 40 heavily pregnant mares spontaneously aborted.

    Based on BLM reports and expert opinion, the American Wild Horse Preservation Campaign (AWHPC) concludes that a majority of the deaths of the captured Calico horses are related to the trauma and stress of the roundup and capture, the trauma associated with social loss sustained in the destruction of horse family bands, and the ongoing stress of captivity in an unnatural environment.”

    “43 percent of deaths were attributed to diet and metabolic failure, a condition related to
    the physiological changes induced by the trauma of the roundup and the ongoing
    stressors related to captivity in BLM holding pens;

    22 percent of the deaths were attributed solely to “poor condition,” with a majority of
    those deaths involving older horses, raising serious humanitarian concerns about
    subjecting elderly and ailing horses to the trauma of a helicopter stampede and capture;

    19 percent of the deaths were attributed to traumatic injury either at the capture site or in
    the holding pens, including broken necks, spinal and pelvis injuries, fatal hoof and leg
    damage sustained in the helicopter stampede;

    The high number of spontaneous abortions (at least 40), which are directly related to the
    winter roundup when heavily pregnant mares are subjected to stress and trauma.
    In addition to the high cost to the horses, the AWHPC notes the expense of the Calico roundup, which will cost taxpayers at least $1.5 million through May, and $800,000 a year to warehouse the non-adoptable horses over their 20+ year life spans. This costly policy, which relies on expensive roundups every four years, is pursued while cost-effective on-the-range management strategies are ignored.” (http://thecloudfoundation.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/death-report-final.pdf )

    CONCLUSIVELY

    As Americans we can come to good conclusions, not rhetoric or a stream of misinformation. We listen and observe BLM and DOI, and even some of their special interest groups rant and rave about Horse Advocates. We hear a lot of name calling, a lot of rhetoric toward their explanation of questionable situations, and a lot of references to data that either does not exist, or had been changed, or the data manipulated to such an extent as to become non-useful. All at taxpayer expense.

    We have all witnessed, at one time or another, the continuous abuse of America’s Wild Horse Herds and many have spoke up quite often — Yet ignored not only by the Inspector Generals Office at the BLM, but at the DOI as well.

    This is not appropriate and contrary to what our tax money should be spent upon, as there is no such thing as Acceptable Abuse, and especially unacceptable when a government agency allows such behavior on a continuing basis!

    So we can conclude that the Bureau of Land Management, an agency of the Department of the Interior, demonstrates throughout its history (both in management and criminality) to be in total conflict with the majority of American’s, in conflict with many of the laws existing favorable toward Public Lands management, and certainly in conflict with the management of America’s taxpaying dollars.

    Yes, BLM Management has a loop-hole, previously placed into their management paradigm, that they can develop and make decisions on a separate basis, the ability to disregard present laws and regulations, which can and has left the laws and good management paradigms useless — which many agree, the loophole should be withdrawn as null and void immediately.

    The Bureau of Land Management, for all intents and purposes, should be disbanded and many of the BLM employees, as well as private contractors, should be investigated for criminal conduct, especially due to the overwhelming abuse of our nation’s wildlife, in the misuse of taxpayer money, and the criminal conduct of many of the employees.

    American’s are fed up with the way government agencies treat our tax dollars, and fed up with the way government agency personnel treat the American Public! Enough is enough! It is time to rid our nation of such government agencies that consider themselves separate and apart from America and the American Public!

  • BLM Wild Horses and Our Environment: Yet More BLM USDA Controversey

    valley below onion mtn 4_24_13

    The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool.”
    ― William Shakespeare

    This article is Part Three of a 3-Part series on cattle grazing, sheep grazing, wild horses and the truth. . .

    This was brought about by the many decisions both the Bureau of Land Management and the Department of the Interior had placed into their budget, then into action. The government agencies info-based data premised upon false and erroneous data realistically created problems in both the environment as well as in the wildlife ecosystems. All Public Lands now suffer, needlessly, due to decisions based not on true facts and scientific data, but upon politically manipulated science, driven by corporate agendas, and ruined lands beyond further use by cattle and sheep grazing.

    The BLM and the U.S. Forestry Dept. (quite ironically) withdrew, taken out of technical reports and informational media driven reports in total, any data gathering or data in reports that included the accurate count of cattle and effects of cattle grazing on Public Lands (reports sanctioned by government contracts and/or research paid for by taxpayers), as well as the ability to gather causation of cattle on Public Lands.

    BLM administrators argue that including cattle grazing into their reports, and collecting data on cattle currently populating Public Lands, can and would sway the technical data unfavorably.

    Without this data, truthfully, our Public Lands are being destroyed, with the government agencies responsible for such wrong-doing being complacent about the destroyed land, in total! Cost to taxpayers = $Billions!

    Total livestock use on our Public Lands (i.e. precisely Cattle Grazing and Sheep Grazing) currently exceed 10,000,000 Animal Unit Mouths to feed, and measured in AUM Units — or Annual Unit Mouths. An AUM represents forage use by a cow and a calf pair, or five sheep for one month. Left out of the this equation is Horses, as there is not only no available method to count the Horses within a Data Gathering and true representation of such, but there simply exists no prevalent or scientific method of doing a proper Horse Count for scientific purposes within BLM or our Public Lands.

    When we break the mysterious Government-Speak, we discover the fact that these government agencies are expecting our Public Lands to feed, in truth, approximately in excess of 25,000,000 cattle and 20,000,000 sheep a month, and add to that more and more on a constant basis. The problem remains consistent, due to falsified information and data gather, heavily manipulated and corrupt data, and exclusion of primary source material within the data (i.e. specifically cattle and sheep data), that America’s Public Land’s are being ruined due to bad decisions based on false information, over grazing, and mismanagement.

    We also must keep in mind these are low-numbers of population in regard to cattle and sheep (the most prevalent contributing factor to Public Land destruction), considered by many terrestrial biologists and other research scientist’s. These elements of data are spread over eleven contiguous western states, with five of these states bearing the largest number of cattle and sheep grazing on Public Lands. These five states are also the most controversial in regard to wild horse herd roundups and waste of taxpayer money within the context of roundups and wild horse herd storage.

    Consumerism and Meat Consumption

    When we consider, for example the decline in meat consumption in America, more problems develop within adequate reasoning for cattle and sheep remaining on Public Lands. There has been a consistent drop of beef consumption in America, and at last count, upon research of this particular market as of August 2013 —

    Beef Consumption Down 12.8% and decreasing currently as this article written (Per USDA Report Sept. 2013).

    Sheep similar in count, and decreased nearly 28% at the end of August 2013 (Per USDA Report of 2013).

    This is significant as Public Land Grazing of cattle fulfills only 2.1% of the commercial market for beef, and only .9% of sheep.

    So one has to consider, as taxpayers and as American’s why the BLM, the Forestry, and the USDA, among others, insist on us all paying (tax money for administrative and bogus other criminal activity from welfare ranchers, et al.) for the welfare ranchers to raise beef and sheep on Public Lands, when indeed there is no market for the same in the United States.

    Are we to then believe that we are sacrificing America’s Wild Horse Herds for foreign shipment and their purchase of our beef and sheep products? Well, yes, we are now currently doing that!

    As well, taxpayers pay-out such an astronomical amount of money, with no discount or return on this same beef and sheep grazing on Public Lands, that it becomes simply criminal in nature, stirred by corporations and politicians to enhance their profit base.

    But this article is not about money, welfare ranching, or current reductions in the beef and sheep commercial markets. This article is about the sacrifice we make, here in America, in regard to our wildlife and environment that exists on our Public Lands, and especially the truth behind the Wild Horse Herd roundups and storage of them! This situation is a paramount sacrifice that is especially toxic, controversial, and needless, to say the least. It is simply based on no quality or truthful data!

    Environmental and Wildlife Damage

    It is important to realize that cattle and sheep use on Public Lands as well as Forestry Service lands becomes far more destructive, within a context of consistent and prolonged destruction to every ecosystem used to graze upon. Ecosystems demolished most often by irresponsible herding practice by welfare ranchers and too many cattle or sheep on a particular stretch of Public Lands. The fact is the situation is a far greater destruction in proportion with that of roads, timber harvests, and wildfires combined. . .

    Least we also not forget that the effects of cattle and sheep while grazing on Public Lands prompted federal regulatory controls due to initial harmful effects to include trampling of vegetation, soils, woody plants, and ruination of streambanks as early as the 1890’s. So in reality this is not a new perception, rather, a situation stretched as far as it can possibly go, and truthfully must stop immediately.

    Continued Use of Public Lands for Grazing

    If livestock use on public lands continues at current levels, its interaction with anticipated changes in climate will likely worsen soil erosion, dust generation, and stream pollution. Soils whose moisture retention capacity has been reduced will undergo further drying by warming temperatures and/or drought and become even more susceptible to wind erosion. Increased Aeolian deposition on snow pack will hasten runoff, accentuating climate-induced hydrological changes on many Public Lands.

    Warmer temperatures will likely trigger increased fire occurrence, causing further reductions in cover and composition of biological soil crusts, as well as vascular plants. In some forest types, cattle and sheep grazing has contributed to altered fire regimes and forest structure.

    Getting Rid of Grazing on Public Lands

    The economic impacts of managing public lands to emphasize environmental enhancements would be modestly positive. Other economic effects could include savings to the US Treasury because federal grazing fees on BLM and FS lands cover only about one-sixth of the agencies’ administration costs.

    Most significantly, improved ecosystem function would lead to enhanced ecosystem services, with broad economic benefits. Various studies have documented that the economic values of other public-land resources (e.g., water, timber, recreation, and wilderness) are many times larger than that of grazing. Welfare ranching and cattle/sheep grazing has, indeed, has virtually become more of a criminal endeavor than anything else.

    CONCLUSIVELY

    Historical and on-going grazing from cattle and sheep use has affected soils, vegetation, wildlife, and water resources on vast expanses of public forests, shrublands, and grasslands across the American West in ways that are likely to accentuate further destruction and ruination of Public Lands.

    If effective adaptations to the adverse effects of climate change are to be accomplished on western public lands, large-scale reductions or cessation of ecosystem stressors associated with cattle/sheep use are crucial. Federal and state land management agencies should seek and make wide use of opportunities to reduce significant cattle/sheep impacts, by ridding Public Lands of both, in order to facilitate ecosystem recovery and improve resiliency.

    Such actions represent the most effective and extensive means for helping maintain or improve the ecological integrity of western landscapes and for the continued provision of valuable ecosystem services due to no longer having cattle or sheep grazing on Public Lands.

    ____________________________________

    References:
    Abella SR (2008) A systematic review of wild burro grazing effects on Mojave Desert vegetation, USA. Environ Manage 41:809–819
    Allen DL (1974) Our wildlife legacy. Funk and Wagnalls, New York
    Allington GRH, Valone TJ (2010) Reversal of desertification: the role of physical and chemical soil properties. J Arid Environ 74:973–977
    Angermeier PL, Karr JR (1994) Biological integrity versus biological diversity as policy directives. Bioscience 44:690–697
    Asner GP, Elmore AJ, Olander LP, Martin RE, Harris AT (2004)
    Grazing systems, ecosystem responses, and global change. Ann Rev Environ Resour 29:261–299
    Backlund P, Janetos A, Schimel D, Hatfield J, Ryan M, Archer S, Lettenmaier D (2008) The effects of climate change on agriculture, land resources, water resources, and biodiversity. A report by the US Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, http://www.climate science.gov/Library/sap/sap4-3/final-report/default.htm
    Balling RC, Klopatek JM, Hildebrandt ML, Moritz CK, Watts J (1998) Impacts of land degradation on historical temperature records from the Sonoran Desert. Clim Change 40:669–681
    Barnosky AD, Hadly EA, Bascompte J et al (2012) Approaching a state shift in Earth’s biosphere. Nature 486:52–58
    Bates BC, Kundzewicz ZW, Wu S, Palutikof JP (eds) (2008) Climate change and water. In: Technical paper of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. IPCC Secretariat, Geneva
    Baxter CV, Fausch KD, Saunders WC (2005) Tangled webs: reciprocal flows of invertebrate prey link streams and riparian zones. Freshw Biol 50:201–220
    Coggins GC, Wilkinson CF, Leshy JD, Fischman RL (2007) Federal public land and resources law. Foundation Press, New York
    Connelly JW, Knick ST, Schroeder MA, Stiver SJ (2004) Conservation assessment of greater sage-grouse and sagebrush habitats. Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Cheyenne.
    Cowley ER (2002) Monitoring current year streambank alteration. US
    Bureau of Land Management, Boise CWWR (Centers for Water and Wildland Resources) (1996) Sierra Nevada ecosystem project report. Wildland Resources Center Report No. 39. University of California, Davis
    D’Antonio CM, Vitousek PM (1992) Biological invasions by exotic grasses, the grass/fire cycle, and global change. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 23:63–87
    Dobkin DS, Rich AC, Pyle WH (1998) Habitat and avifaunal recovery from livestock grazing in a riparian meadow system of the northwestern Great Basin. Conserv Biol 12:209–221
    DOI-OIG (Department of the Interior-Office of the Inspector General) (2010) Bureau of land management wild horse and burro program. Report C-IS-BLM-0018-2010, Washington, DC
    Donahue DL (2007) Federal rangeland policy: perverting law and jeopardizing ecosystem services. J Land Use Environ Law 22:299–354
    Dwire KA, Ryan SE, Shirley LJ, Lytjen D, Otting N, Dixon MK (2007) Influence of herbivory on regrowth of riparian shrubs following a wildland fire. J Am Water Resour Assoc 42:201–212
    EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) (1999) A review and synthesis of effects of alterations to the water temperature regime on freshwater life stages of salmonids, with special reference to chinook salmon, USEPA Technical Report EPA 910-R-99-010.
    USEPA, Seattle, http://www.maweb.org/documents/document.355.aspx.pdf
    EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) (2009) National water quality inventory: report to congress, 2004 reporting cycle. US Environmental Protection Agency EPA-841-R-08-001, Washington, DC
    Estes JA, Terborgh J, Brashares JS, and 21 others (2011) Trophic downgrading of planet earth. Science 333:301–306
    Field CB, Mortsch LD, Brklacich M, Forbes DL, Kovacs P, Patz JA, Running SW, Scott MJ (2007) North America. Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. In: Parry ML, Canziani OF, Palutikof JP, van der Linden PJ, Hanson CE (eds)
    Contribution of working group II to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 617–652
    Fleischner TL (1994) Ecological costs of livestock grazing in western North America. Conserv Biol 8:629–644
    Thornton PK, Herrero M (2010) The inter-linkages between rapid growth in livestock production, climate change, and the impacts on water resources, land use, and deforestation. World Bank, Policy Research Paper 5178, Nairobi, Kenya
    Torrell LA, Rimbey NR, Bartlett ET, Van Tassell LW, Tanaka JA (2001) An evaluation of the PRIA grazing fee formula. Current issues in rangeland resource economics: symposium proceedings. Western Regional Coordinating Committee on Rangeland Economics WCC-55. New Mexico State University Research Report Series 737, Las Cruces, New Mexico
    Trimble SW, Mendel AC (1995) The cow as a geomorphic agent, a critical review. Geomorphology 13:233–253
    Valone TJ, Meyer M, Brown JH, Chew RM (2002) Timescale of perennial grass recovery in desertified arid grasslands following livestock removal. Conserv Biol 16:995–1002
    Vincent CH (2012) Grazing fees: overview and issues. Congressional Research Service RS21232, Washington DC
    Weisberg PJ, Coughenour MB (2003) Model-based assessment of aspen responses to elk herbivory in Rocky Mountain National Park, USA. Environ Manage 32:152–169
    Welch BL (2005) Big sagebrush: a sea fragmented into lakes, ponds, and puddles. US Forest Service GTR-RMRS-GTR-144, Fort Collins, Colorado
    Westerling AL, Hidalgo HG, Cayan DR, Swetnam TW (2006) Warming and earlier spring increase western U.S. forest wildfire activity. Science 313:940–943
    Wilcove DS, Rothstein D, Dubow J, Phillips A, Losos E (1998)
    Quantifying threats to imperiled species in the United States. Bioscience 48:607–615
    Worster D (1992) Under western skies: nature and history in the American west. Oxford University Press, New York
    WSWC (Western States Water Council) (1989) Preliminary summary of findings, In: Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Workshop, Midvale, Utah, pp 25–28
    Wu L, He N, Wang Y, Han X (2008) Storage and dynamics of carbon and nitrogen in soil after grazing exclusion in Leymus chinensis grasslands of northern China. J Environ Qual 37:663–668