Livestock destroys the range and BLM tries to blame the wild horse

The PEER report sets the record straight–the livestock is ruining the range.

Geothermal and other extractive industries are also profiting off the Twin Peaks range but BLM avoids mentioning this.

Despite the BLM spin that all the Twin Peaks horses are adopted into good homes, we observed what was going on during our visit. Many wild horses from the Twin Peaks roundup were sold. They fetch a lot of money when a kill-buyer picks them up for cheap ($25) at BLM and flips them to slaughter. Pictured above are some of the American wild horses who were rounded up–lost their families, lost their home on the range and were “sold”.

We oppose the Battle Mountain proposed roundup

——– Original Message ——–
Subject: Opposing BMD Drought Roundup/Removal
From: <anne@protectmustangs.org>
Date: Wed, May 16, 2012 11:53 pm
To: bmfoweb@blm.gov

RE: Battle Mountain Proposed Roundup in this EA: http://on.doi.gov/JVrrCO

Dear Sirs,

We are all aware now the livestock is causing the damage to the range. The PEER report released May 14th entitled Livestock’s Heavy Hooves Impair One-Third of BLM Rangelands can be found on our website at http://protectmustangs.org/?p=1243

We respectfully ask that you take the livestock off the range due to the emergency conditions since they could go somewhere else and leave the wild horses and burros on the range.

Wild horses and burros will reduce the wildfire risk on the range as well as help heal the land.

We are concerned you consistently deny requests for independent accurate head counts. Your inflated estimates to justify roundups are gross and an insult to the public’s intelligence.

We want solid proof the wild horses–not the livestock–are ruining the thriving natural ecological balance (TNEB). Without that we can only see you in the pocket of the livestock grazing lobby and acting on their behalf which is wrong.

Contrary to what you state in the EA wild horses can self regulate and do not multiply like rabbits. Less than 1% of 15,000 wild horses studied live to the age of 20. Many youngsters die before the age of 2. This is a wildlife species not a zoo exhibit.

When was the last time these horses were treated with the immunocontraceptive PZP? Is it working?

Show us the good science behind your proposal because the BLM Environmental Assessment is just spin to justify another cruel and expensive roundup and removal.

Helicopter roundups are against the Free Roaming Wild Horse and Burro Act protecting these animals from harrassment and harm.

Using a helicopter causes global warming and we oppose it.

Documented helicopter roundups are cruel for the animals–causing injury, heat stress, spontaneous abortions (Calico 2010 for example), extreme stress and many deaths. Your numbers reporting deaths related to helicopter roundups are wrong–they are way too low to justify roundups and receive money from Congress for your broken program. Your reports of “pre-existing conditions” meriting euthanasia are a farce and we ask for transparency. BLM does not count the dead properly, as in the case of Old Gold at the 2011 Calico Roundup located here: http://protectmustangs.org/?p=348

We oppose roundups that would stress, traumatize and injure foals and lack humane care such as the roundup proposed.

We oppose roundups that waste taxpayer dollars and ask you to step up and manage the situation without removing the equids by bringing in food if needed.

We oppose bait and water trapping because removals are a waste of tax dollars and lack humane care this being cruel.

We oppose gate cut gathers/roundups because they are a waste of tax dollars, cruel and lack humane care.

The BLM’s AML numbers are no longer based in good science and need to be revised to reflect TNEB and the fact that the LIVESTOCK are ruining the range as reported in the PEER study above.

Sex ratio adjustments are wrong and not what nature intended. The Free Roaming Wild Horse and Burro Act does not allow this.

Fertility control and experimentation is wrong not what nature intended. The Free Roaming WIld Horse and Burro Act does not allow this.

We request you respond in 48 hours to inform us of the adjuvunct used in your proposed PZP treatment that we are opposing.

We are opposed to using PZP that causes side effects to wild equids. These side effects include but are not limited to open abscesses, lameness, sores than can become infected in the wild causing death, etc.

How effective is PZP if given without a booster?

We are opposed to using PZP because some animals could become sterilized.

We are opposed to branding wild horses and burros as we understand the Free Roaming Wild Horse and Burro Act forbids the branding and harassing of wild equids.

BLM has failed to prove using good science that wild horses and burros are ruining the Thriving Natural Ecological Balance and is wasting taxpayer dollars with proposals such as this.

We are against transporting and selling wild horses.

Since the BLM employees have been caught in the past adopting wild horses and selling them to slaughter we are against removals because the animals are at risk of going to slaughter. http://protectmustangs.org/?page_id=1141

We oppose this roundup and removal because it will cause litigation that is wasting more tax dollars. We request BLM to be fiscally responsible.

Keep the wild horses and burros on the range to prevent wasting tax dollars paying to round them up–or trap them–and then to “process” them and then warehousing them in short or long term holding.

If there is not enough water for wild horses and burros then we ask you to truck the water in for the equids which would save a great deal of taxpayer dollars instead of a costly and cruel roundup and removal.

We want to see you be champions and do things right for a change.

Sincerely,

Anne Novak

 

Anne Novak

Executive Director

Protect Mustangs

P.O. Box 5661

Berkeley, California 94705

Tel./Text: 415.531.8454

 

Twitter @ProtectMustangs

Protect Mustangs on YouTube

Protect Mustangs in the News

 

www.ProtectMustangs.org

 

Protect Mustangs is a Bay Area-based preservation group whose mission is to educate the public about the American wild horse, protect and research wild horses on the range and help those who have lost their freedom.


BREAKING NEWS: Outrage over EPA calling iconic wild horses “pests”

PM Pesticides Sign  Colin Grey : Foter.com : CC BY-SA

For immediate release

Protect Mustangs opposes pesticides for indigenous horses and calls for change

WASHINGTON (May 11, 2012)—Protect Mustangs, a San Francisco Bay Area-based wild horse preservation group, opposes the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) categorizing indigenous wild horses as “pests”. This classification would allow the EPA to approve the restricted-use pesticide, ZonaStat-H, for use on wild horses for birth control. Protect Mustangs maintains there is no scientific proof that wild horses and burros are overpopulated on the more than 26 million acres of public land and states that science proves wild equids heal the land—reversing damage and desertification. Today Protect Mustangs has asked the EPA to retract their wrongful categorization and halt the use of the drug. Besides the environmental hazards of using ZonaStat-H, the group is concerned the potentially dangerous pesticide could permanently sterilize and lead to the wild horse and burro’s eventual demise in the West.

After decades of research, ZonaStat-H, the EPA registered name for PZP-22 (porcine zona pellucida), has not been approved for human use. China has been testing PZP for years but research shows damage to the ovaries so the drug remains in the test phase. Protect Mustangs is concerned the pesticide will permanently sterilize America’s indigenous wild horses after multiple use or overdosing, and that the use of PZP-22, GonaCon, SpayVac and other immunocontraceptives are risky.

“Americans across the country love wild horses,” explains Anne Novak executive director of Protect Mustangs. “We are outraged that the EPA would call our national icons ‘pests’ to push through an experimental contraceptive under a pesticide program!”

Under provisions of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, the EPA can consider nonhuman animals to be pests if they harm human or environmental health.

“This is an example of the government ignoring good science that proves wild horses heal the environment and create biodiversity at virtually no cost to the taxpayer, when left out on the range,” says Novak. “Vermin don’t repair the environment and reduce global warming but wild horses can.”

Two Princeton studies prove wild herds repair the land as seen in Wildlife and cows can be partners, not enemies in search for food

The first study, “Facilitation Between Bovids and Equids on an African Savanna,” was published in Evolutionary Ecology Research in August 2011, and supported by grants from the National Science Foundation, the Keller Family Trust and Wageningen University, the Netherlands.

The second study, “African Wild Ungulates Compete With or Facilitate Cattle Depending on Season,” was published in Science on Sept. 23, 2011, and supported by grants from the National Geographic Society, the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the International Foundation for Science.

The Savory Institute, a proponent of holistic management, states wild herds heal overgrazed grassland and uses livestock to mimic wild herds to bring the land back to life.

Public land grazing allotment holders might call free roaming wild horses a nuisance but they have an obvious conflict of interest—they want all the grazing and water rights for their livestock that outnumbers wild horses 50 to 1. It appears they would like to eliminate the rights of the free roaming wild horses and burros.

Protect Mustangs hopes the EPA will not buy into their game.

There is no scientific proof wild horses are overpopulating on the range. Despite years of requests from members of the public and equine advocacy groups, the government refuses to make an accurate head count on public land. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has been accused of inflating estimates to justify costly wild horse roundups and removals—paid for by the American taxpayer.

Indigenous wild horses do not reproduce like rabbits—many die before the age of two. Life on the range can be hard and most wild horses never reach the age of 19. As a wildlife species, this is normal. Left alone, they will self-regulate as an integral piece of the ecosystem.

Recent scientific discoveries prove wild horses are native wildlife. The horse evolved here and must be respected as indigenous before they risk extinction at the hands of the American government.

Wild horses have natural predators such as mountain lions, bears and coyotes to name a few. BLM goes to great trouble to downplay the existence of predators to foster their overpopulation estimate-based myths.

Another frequent argument for the use of pesticides as birth control for wild horses and burros is that they would reduce the need for roundups. However, birth control would not end roundups because it would be difficult to dart wild horses in remote regions and lost darts become biohazards. Trapping in accessible herd management areas and roundups would continue in order to administer the drug.

In the early 1900s there were two million wild horses roaming freely in America. Today there are only about 40,000 captured mustangs living in feedlot settings—funded by tax dollars. Due to the government’s zealous roundups and removals, less than 19,000 wild horses remain free in all the western states combined. The BLM is caving into corporate pressure from the livestock, energy, water and mining industries who don’t want to share public land with America’s indigenous wild horses.

Novak says that, “we want the EPA to apologize for classifying American wild horses as ‘pests’, acknowledge the classification error and cancel approval of ZonaStat-H and any other pesticides for mustangs.”

“By classifying our wild horses as ‘pests’ the EPA is fostering the dangerous belief that wild horses are a nuisance, something destructive that needs to be wiped out,” says Vivian Grant, President of Int’l Fund for Horses. “We call on the EPA to correct this categorization of the American mustang now.”

# # #

Media Contacts:

Anne Novak, 415-531-8454 Anne@ProtectMustangs.org

Vivian Grant, 502-526-5940, Vivian@HorseFund.org

Kerry Becklund, 510-502-1913 Kerry@ProtectMustangs.org

Contact Protect Mustangs for interviews, photos or video

Protect Mustangs is a Bay Area-based preservation group whose mission is to educate the public about the American wild horse, protect and research wild horses on the range and help those who have lost their freedom.

Links of interest:

Protect Mustangs’ etter requesting EPA repair error classifying iconic American wild horses “pests”http://protectmustangs.org/?p=1191

EPA Pesticide Information for ZonaStat-H http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_search/reg_actions/pending/fs_PC-176603_01-Jan-12.pdf

AVMA Reports: Vaccine could reduce wild horse overpopulation http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/apr12/120415k.asp

Wildlife fertility vaccine approved by EPA http://www.sccpzp.org/blog/locally-produced-wildlife-contraceptive-vaccine-approved-by-epa/

Oxford Journal on PZP for Humans and more http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/content/20/12/3271.long

PZP research for humans http://randc.ovinfo.com/e200501/yuanmm.pdf

Horse Contraceptive Vaccine: Is Human Immunocontraception Next? http://vactruth.com/2012/02/24/horse-contraceptive-vaccine

Wild horse predators: http://sg.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080302002619AADTWzh

Audubon: Sacred Cows http://archive.audubonmagazine.org/incite/incite0603.html

Princeton reports: Wildlife and cows can be partners, not enemies, in search for food.http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S32/93/41K10/index.xml?section=featured

Letter requesting EPA repair error classifying iconic American wild horses as ‘pests’

Native Wild Horses (Photo © Cynthia Smalley)

Daniel T. Heggem

Acting Division Director

Environmental Protection Agency

heggem.daniel@epa.gov

 

 

Dear Mr. Heggem,

We respectfully request that the EPA apologize for classifying America’s legendary wild horses as ‘pests’, acknowledge the classification error and cancel approval of ZonaStat-H and any other pesticides for indigenous wild horses or American burros.

America’s wild horses and burros are an asset to the environment and humankind. Science proves they create biodiversity and heal the land—reversing damage and desertification.

The American public is uplifted knowing wild horses are roaming freely in the West. People come from around the world to catch a glimpse of wild horses because they are beloved icons of the American spirit and freedom.

Public land grazing allotment holders might call free roaming wild horses a nuisance but they have an obvious conflict of interest because they want all the grazing and water rights for their livestock, etc. They would like to eliminate the rights of the free roaming wild horses and burros. We hope the EPA will not buy into their game.

There is no scientific proof wild horses are overpopulating—only inflated estimates by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) who must invent high numbers so Congress will give them millions of taxpayer dollars to fund their broken Wild Horse and Burro Program.

Indigenous wild horses do not reproduce like rabbits—many die before the age of two. Life on the range can be hard and most wild horses do not reach the age of 17. As a wildlife species, this is normal. Left alone they will self-regulate as an integral piece of the ecosystem.

Wild horses have natural predators such as mountain lions, bears and coyotes to name a few. BLM goes to great lengths to downplay the existence of predators to foster their overpopulation estimate-based myths.

We expect the EPA to be based on science not myth.

Are you aware of the two Princeton studies proving equids heal the land for cattle to thrive?

The first study, “Facilitation Between Bovids and Equids on an African Savanna,” was published in Evolutionary Ecology Research in August 2011, and supported by grants from the National Science Foundation, the Keller Family Trust and Wageningen University, the Netherlands.

The second study, “African Wild Ungulates Compete With or Facilitate Cattle Depending on Season,” was published in Science on Sept. 23, 2011, and supported by grants from the National Geographic Society, the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the International Foundation for Science.

Besides the environmental hazards of using ZonaStat-H, we are concerned the iconic herds will risk ovary damage and permanent sterilization from multiple use or overdosing with PZP.

We ask that all ZonaStat-H use be put on hold immediately until your “pest” classification error has been corrected and for the EPA pesticide/drug approval be retracted.

Please reply to us via email or fax immediately with your response. Thank you.

 

Sincerely,

Anne Novak

Executive Director for Protect Mustangs

 

encl:

EPA Pesticide Fact Sheet for ZonaStat-Hhttp://www.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_search/reg_actions/pending/fs_PC-176603_01-Jan-12.pdf

Princeton reports: Wildlife and cows can be partners, not enemies, in search for food http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S32/93/41K10/index.xml?section=featured

NB: Faxed to numerous senators and representatives

CC: Lisa P. Jackson

 

 

Anne Novak

Executive Director

Protect Mustangs

P.O. Box 5661

Berkeley, California 94705

 

Twitter @ProtectMustangs

Facebook Protect Mustangs

Protect Mustangs on YouTube

Protect Mustangs in the News

 

www.ProtectMustangs.org

 

Protect Mustangs is a Bay Area-based preservation group whose mission is to educate the public about the American wild horse, protect and research wild horses on the range and help those who have lost their freedom.


Wild horses at risk ~ Get the word out!

Wild horses exist in thriving natural ecological balance on public land ~ removals are a sham. Taxpayers are funding their management to extinction while the Bureau of Land management fails to provide the American public with an accurate head count. Inflated estimates do not justify mistreatment of our living legends of the West.

Permission given to use this photo/flyer/poster to raise awareness. Contact us if you want a jpeg.

 

Take action to protect mustangs

Helicopter Chasing Wild Horses-Calico (Photo © Cat Kindsfather)

“Send a handwritten letter to your senators and representatives demanding they stop funding roundups and all kinds of mustang and burro removals”, suggests Anne Novak, Executive Director of Protect Mustangs. “Ask them for an independent scientific head count before giving wild horses any more sketchy contraceptives. We don’t know how many mustangs are out there but we know the Bureau of Land Management’s numbers are inflated to justify receiving funding from Congress for their broken program. $78 million American tax dollars are given to BLM annually so they can rip wild horses from their families and their freedom. That’s $780,000,000. in just ten years to remove wild horses from public land set aside for them with the 1971 Free Roaming Wild Horse and Burro Protection Act. Write your politicians who are in office to represent you and ask for the change you want.”

AP reports: Land managers try new method to capture mustangs

Cross-posted from The Seattle Times

Federal land managers say they will use a new method to remove “excess” wild horses from the range in Nevada and other western states.

By MARTIN GRIFFITH

Associated Press

RENO, Nev. — Federal land managers say they will use a new method to remove “excess” wild horses from the range in Nevada and other western states.The U.S. Bureau of Land Management for the first time is resorting to the widespread use of “bait trapping,” which involves setting up panels and using food, water and salt to lure mustangs into a trap.The move comes after animal rights advocates’ growing criticism of the traditional use of helicopters to drive the animals to corrals. Activists brand the practice as inhumane, saying horses are traumatized, injured or killed as they are driven for miles across rough terrain to corrals.

“The BLM is committed to continuously improving its management of wild horses and burros,” Joan Guilfoyle, BLM wild horse and burro division chief, said in a statement. “Deploying this new method of bait trapping enhances our ability to gather animals more effectively in certain areas of the West, while minimizing the impact to the animals.”

But the agency also still plans to conduct helicopter roundups, she added.

Anne Novak, executive director of San Francisco Bay area-based Protect Mustangs, said bait trapping would only be justified if there really were an excess number of wild horses on the range ruining the natural ecological balance.

“BLM never provides a scientific wild horse head count – only sloppy inflated estimates to justify removals,” Novak told The Associated Press. “When observers go out on the range, we see other factors devastating the land like big business extracting oil, gas and mining and ripping up the terrain, along with the old school methods of overgrazing cattle.”

The BLM already has used bait trapping in densely wooded areas where helicopters can’t easily move animals, and in areas where timeliness isn’t an issue. Bait trapping usually occurs over a period of several weeks or months.

But the use of bait trapping to remove horses over long periods of time in a variety of locations simultaneously is a new strategy for the agency, Guilfoyle said. The concept is to capture smaller numbers of animals over a long period of time, not to gather large numbers of horses in a short period of time, she added.

For the first time, the BLM is soliciting bids for several bait-trapping contracts to remove mustangs in six zones across the West over a one-year period starting July 1.

The government’s wild horse program is intended to protect wild horse herds and the rangelands that support them. About 33,000 wild horses live in 10 Western states, of which about half are in Nevada. Under the program, thousands of horses are forced into holding pens, where many are vaccinated or neutered before being placed for adoption or sent to long-term corrals in the Midwest.

While animal rights advocates complain that the roundups are inhumane, ranchers and other groups say they’re needed to protect fragile grazing lands that are used by cattle, bighorn sheep and other wildlife.

Wildlife and cows can be partners, not enemies, in search for food

Cross-posted from News at Princeton

Princeton University researchers are leading an effort to put to pasture the long-held convention of cattle ranching that wild animals compete with cows for food.

Two recently published papers — including one in the journal Science — offer the first experimental evidence that allowing cattle to graze on the same land as wild animals can result in healthier, meatier bovines by enhancing the cows’ diet. The findings suggest a new approach to raising cattle that could help spare wildlife from encroaching ranches, and produce more market-ready cows in less time.

The reports stem from large-scale studies conducted in Kenya wherein cows shared grazing land with donkeys in one study and, for the other, grazed with a variety of wild herbivorous animals, including zebras, buffalo and elephants. The lead author on both papers was Wilfred Odadi, a postdoctoral research associate in the lab of Dan Rubenstein, the Class of 1877 Professor of Zoology and chair of Princeton’s Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology.

In August, Rubenstein and Odadi reported in the journalEvolutionary Ecology Research that cattle paired with donkeys gained 60 percent more weight than those left to graze only with other cows. The researchers proposed that the donkeys — which were chosen as tamer stand-ins for zebras and other wild horses — ate the rough upper-portion of grass that cows have difficulty digesting, leaving behind the lush lower vegetation on which cattle thrive.

Donkey Cow in field

In August, the Princeton researchers reported in the journal Evolutionary Ecology Research that cattle paired with donkeys gained 60 percent more weight than those left to graze only with other cows. The researchers proposed that the donkeys — which were chosen as tamer stand-ins for zebras and other wild horses — ate the rough upper-portion of grass that cows have difficulty digesting, leaving behind the lush lower vegetation. (Photo by Dan Rubenstein)

In September, Odadi and his co-authors on the Science paper reported that other grazers, especially zebras, did remove the dead-stem grass layer and that cattle indeed seemed to benefit from sharing land with wild animals. Cows in mixed grazing pastures took in a more nutritious diet and experienced greater daily weight gain — but this effect was limited to the wet season, the length of which can vary by region. Cattle competed with wild species for food in the dry months.

Nonetheless, the Princeton studies help counter an enduring perception that wildlife is an inherent threat to the food supply of livestock, Rubenstein explained. These results could prove crucial to preserving animals that are increasingly threatened as the human demand for food drives the expansion of land used to raise cattle. Zebras and wild horses are especially vulnerable to the spread of pastures because of their abundance.

“Grazing competition from other animals has been an issue throughout history,” Rubenstein said.

“There’s a fear that if some other animal is eating grass meant for livestock, that hurts the rancher. Those perceived competitors were seen as vermin and exterminated,” he said. “These experiments suggest that in certain cases cattle can actually experience considerable advantages in terms of growth when allowed to graze with other species.”

Experimental proof of old observations

The studies are the first to experimentally test and prove hypotheses from the 1960s that equines make grazing land more suitable for bovines, a dynamic known as facilitation, Rubenstein said. Observations of zebras and wildebeests had suggested that the zebras’ ability to digest grass stems exposed the leafy grass wildebeests prefer.

Animals in the horse and cattle families both process food through fermentation as microbes in the digestive system break down vegetation. In horse-like animals, this process takes place in an organ located after the stomach that is similar to the human appendix (though humans are not fermenters). For bovines, on the other hand, fermentation happens in the rumen, an organ before the stomach that produces cud, which is regurgitated for the animal to further chew.

As a result of these digestive distinctions, Rubenstein said, equines can eat the rough low-quality grass that would linger and fester in a cow’s slower, more complex gut. The bovines in turn enjoy the lush, easily digestible grass underneath the stems.

Donkey Cow weighing

For the study published in August, the researchers documented the weight changes and eating habits of the donkeys and cows for 12 weeks. Wilfred Odadi (rear, in hat), a postdoctoral research associate in Rubenstein’s lab based at Kenya’s Mpala Research Center, was lead author on both recent Princeton papers. The project stemmed from the senior thesis of Meha Jain (front left), who earned her bachelor’s degree from Princeton in 2007. (Photo by Dan Rubenstein)

Both Princeton studies showed that the presence of equines resulted in less dry-grass cover and a more nourishing diet for the cows. Although the study in Science matched cattle with other wildlife — including bovines such as buffalo — Odadi and his co-authors largely attributed the removal of the low-quality grass to zebras.

What was not expected was just how much the cattle can benefit, Rubenstein said.

“Scientists had this intuitively pleasing, circumstantial evidence that equines make the landscape more habitable to bovines, but the idea was never tested,” Rubenstein said. “This was the first demonstration that the animals behave accordingly, but also that the performance of the cows as measured by growth is actually enhanced. Previous evidence of the effects we found on the health and development of cattle had been missing.”

Cows versus donkeys

Rubenstein conducted the experiment reported in Evolutionary Ecology Research on rangeland in northern Kenya with Odadi, who is based at Kenya’s Mpala Research Center — with which Princeton is a partner — and co-author Meha Jain, who earned her bachelor’s degree from Princeton in 2007 and whose senior thesis was the basis of the project.

The team chose donkeys as surrogates for zebras, which suffer from food and habitat loss due to cattle operations, particularly the endangered Grévy’s zebra. Because donkeys are tame, the researchers could more easily observe, weigh and record the diet quality and health of the individual animals, Rubenstein said.

The researchers constructed six separate grazing areas divided into three high-density and three low-density pastures. Both the high- and low-density areas hosted an all-bovid group of 15 cows; an all-equid group of 10 donkeys; and a mixed group of 15 cows and 10 donkeys, for a total 60 cows and 40 donkeys. The animals grazed seven hours each day.

For 12 weeks, the researchers documented the animals’ weight changes and eating habits. In addition, the excrement of tagged cows in each grazing area was analyzed for protein, parasite and digested-grass content. Study co-authors and ecologists Herbert Prins and Sipke Van Wieren of Wageningen University in the Netherlands validated the effectiveness of these measurements.

At the end of the experiment, cows that fed alongside donkeys had beefed up by an average of 64 pounds (29 kilograms) per animal in the low-density pasture, and slightly less than 37 pounds (17 kilograms) for the high-density group. In comparison, cattle dining only with their own put on an average of 55 pounds (25 kilograms) per cow with more room to roam and only nearly 28 pounds (12.6 kilograms) in tighter confines.

When compared to the weight of the cattle recorded at the experiment’s outset, cows grazing with donkeys gained an average of 60 percent more weight than cows that did not, the authors reported. Moreover, none of the cows in the mixed groups remained at the same weight or lost weight, unlike some of the cows in the bovid-only pastures. Analysis of the protein and grass-remnant content of the cows’ dung showed that the animals consumed a healthier diet when sharing land with donkeys.

A notable feature of the study Odadi conducted with Rubenstein is that it provides some understanding of how the other animals respond to grazing with cattle, Odadi said.

The donkeys did not exhibit the benefits of intermingling to the extent the researchers observed in cattle. Donkeys grazing with cattle gained only 51 percent more weight than donkeys that did not, and dung analysis showed the donkeys in the mixed groups actually took in a less digestible diet.

But the dung of donkeys in the mixed groups also contained lower levels of parasitic worm eggs, possibly due to the cattle taking in some of the parasites during grazing, Rubenstein said. As a result, parasite infection was less debilitating in these donkeys.

Where the wild things are

For the second study, Odadi and his co-authors on the Science report changed the project’s scope to include large, wild herbivores that share the African savanna with cattle: Grévy’s zebras, African buffalos, elands, hartebeests, gazelles, elephants and giraffes. Odadi worked with ecology professor Truman Young of the University of California-Davis; Moses Karachi of Egerton University in Kenya; and Shaukat Abdulrazak, chief executive officer of the National Council for Science and Technology in Kenya.

The researchers created nine grazing areas of equal size, each with four cows. The pastures fell into three categories: cows only; plots open to medium-sized herbivores and closed to elephants and giraffes; and plots open to all wild herbivores. Each variety was randomly assigned to three grazing areas.

The experiment consisted of two 16-week trials (conducted a year apart) with each trial beginning in the dry season and ending during the wet season. In each trial, the team weighed the cows and examined the animals’ excrement to determine diet quality.

In the wet season, cattle that ate with wild herbivores took in a more nutritious diet and experienced greater weight gain than cows that did not, according to the Science report. In the cow-only enclosures, each animal put on roughly a half-pound (0.25 kilograms) each day. In the other pastures, each cow bulked up by three-fourths of a pound (0.35 kilograms) daily. The experiment coincided with 18 weeks of Kenya’s wet season. For that period, daily weight gain translated to 69 pounds (31.5 kilograms) for each animal in the cow-only enclosures, versus 97 pounds (44 kilograms) per cow in the other areas.

The dry season and resulting scarcity of grass turned that dynamic on its head, however, as Odadi and his co-authors expected. Cows grazing without other animals gained more than a half-pound per day. Weight gain for cows in the mixed enclosures plummeted to roughly one-third of a pound each day. A future direction of the project may be to determine if adjusting cattle-to-wildlife density based on the season would reduce competition when food is scarce, Odadi said.

Taking it back to the ranch

The Princeton researchers make an important contribution to the study of how to reconcile the demand for grazing land with ecosystem conservation, said Michael Coughenour, a senior research scientist at the Colorado State University Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory.

The research not only shows that facilitation between livestock and wildlife is possible, but also suggests the mechanisms — for example, the removal of dry stems — that provide that benefit, he said. Naturally, Coughenour said, many questions remain, such as if the mere presence of many grazers results in more robust plant growth, as existing research has suggested might occur.

But the results should nonetheless prompt researchers to investigate the existence of facilitation in other regions and ecosystems, as well as the livestock-to-wildlife densities that make it possible, Coughenour said. For instance, the United States and other temperate-zone countries do not have a distinct wet and dry season. Also, it cannot be assumed that grass in the American West would respond to mixed grazing in the same way as savanna grass, nor that a similar concentration of zebras and American wild horses would benefit cattle in the same way in their respective environments.

“These findings add to the dialogue by providing evidence that interactions between wild equids and livestock are not necessarily negative, as would commonly be assumed among ranchers and commercial pastoralists,” Coughenour said.

“Clearly, blanket statements that wild equids invariably compete with livestock can no longer be accepted. Facilitation is a very real possibility that should be considered and investigated,” he explained. “However, it would be equally invalid to assume that the extent and mechanisms of facilitation are universal. Research is required to clarify the relationship so as to gain a more precise understanding of the conditions under which neutral or positive interactions occur.”

In the Evolutionary Ecology Research paper, Rubenstein, Odadi and Jain delved into how the weight gain they observed in cows grazing with donkeys could translate to economic gain for ranchers by producing cattle that are ready for market sooner.

As an example, they imagined a farmer beginning with a cattle herd with an average weight of 660 pounds, or 300 kilograms, that he intends to sell after the animals put on an extra 200 pounds, or 100 kilograms. In their scenario, they first substituted the 10 donkeys in the experiment with 10 more cows to make up a herd of 25 cattle. These cows would take nearly 18 months to reach the target weight of 400 kilograms if the animals packed it on at the rate of roughly 0.2 kilograms, or a half-pound, a day, as many of the cows in the researchers’ single-species pastures did.

Replacing 10 cows with donkeys, however, would bring the remaining 15 cows to the preferred weight in about 11 months. The researchers assumed those cows would gain weight at the average of nearly 0.3 kilograms, or 0.66 pounds, a day seen in the mixed-group cows in the experiment.

“Time has a cost. If cows grow faster per day, they can get to market sooner and the landowner can preempt the costs of cattle dying from predation or disease as the animal is exposed to the elements for longer periods ,” Rubenstein said.

“From the perspective of the rancher and the people awaiting the food from his cattle, the cows develop better if there are hind-gut fermenters like zebras present,” he said. “So, by our observations, competition becomes facilitation and expands to become mutualism as both species actually benefit each other.”

Cows with a few extra kilograms of weight could be a “huge” benefit to ranchers and pastoralists, particularly in Africa, as well as to the preservation of natural lands, said Joshua Ginsberg, senior vice president for the Wildlife Conservation Society’s Global Conservation Program. Ginsberg, who received his Ph.D. from Princeton in 1988, focuses his research on conservation and animal-human interaction.

“A few kilograms is a major increase,” Ginsberg said. “If the cattle are managed well, and the markets exist and are used, it would allow for greater income, greater protein and the ability, at least in theory, to reduce cattle-stocking rates because of increased productivity.

“Many pastoralists think that zebras compete for food and this study suggests that in many circumstances, that may well not be the case,” Ginsberg said. “The authors clearly suggest that the expansion and recovery of zebra populations in lands that are focused on traditional grazing practices is potentially a benefit, rather than a cost, to these societies.”

At the Mpala Research Center, Odadi has presented his findings to local farmers, but understands the difficulty of overturning long-held views about the livestock/wildlife competition.

“The farmers we have presented these findings to are generally surprised that zebras and other wildlife can facilitate cattle,” Odadi said. “However, we have not been able to determine whether and to what extent their perception that grazing wild animals are detrimental to livestock production has actually changed.”

The first study, “Facilitation Between Bovids and Equids on an African Savanna,” was published in Evolutionary Ecology Research in August 2011, and supported by grants from the National Science Foundation, the Keller Family Trust and Wageningen University, the Netherlands.

The second study, “African Wild Ungulates Compete With or Facilitate Cattle Depending on Season,” was published in Science on Sept. 23, 2011, and supported by grants from the National Geographic Society, the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the International Foundation for Science.

 

No proof to justify removing “excess” wild horses with bait traps or roundups

Captured wild horse weanlings calling for help (Photo © Anne Novak, all rights reserved.)

“We are concerned the BLM’s new proposal to bait trap, over long periods of time, will zero-out wild horses in the West. The agency will continue helicopter roundups as well. There is no proof to justify the alleged “excess” amounts of wild horses. Princeton science has proven wild herds heal cattle grazing lands for cattle, so let’s find the win-win and stop wasting tax dollars on irresponsible mustang removals.” ~Anne Novak, Executive Director for Protect Mustangs.

Read about the issue and our comment in the Associated Press article here.

If you don’t like what’s going on then take action to protect America’s wild horses and burros. Get creative  . . .