Marybeth Devlin responds to slanted science

Marybeth Devlin is a fact filled advocate for wild horses. She often comments against biased articles and research paid to fool elected officials. Now Devlin is exposing Laura Snell, a livestock and natural resource advisor with UC Agriculture and Natural Resources who is out to blame wild horses for damage from cattle or other large grazers.  If the publication doesn’t post Devlin’s comment on this article we want to make sure you can read the advocates comment here:

1. My experience observing Laura Snell disparage the wild horses, blaming them for any and all problems in the Forest, has led me to conclude that, for whatever reason, she has antipathy toward them. Her animus makes for a strong bias that infects her research. Snell’s studies appear wired to yield predetermined outcomes, which are consistently anti-horse and pro-cattle.

2. For instance, Snell’s trail-cameras are positioned, as your article says, “near remote water sources.” Cattle generally don’t “do” remote. So, is it any wonder that most of her photos are of wild horses but not cattle? Thus, her documentation is skewed. It builds a false case.

3. Snell mischaracterized the number of wild horses permitted in their own dedicated territory. The government has not determined the “ideal” number of horses. The number was set as low as possible to maximize livestock grazing slots (AUMs). Please note that ranchers sought Snell out. They are well-aware that she conducts her studies to advantage livestock-interests.

4. A constituent of Congressman LaMalfa, William Simpson, submitted an excellent proposal to deploy wild horses to graze down the dry old forage that would otherwise become fuel for wildfires. Horses are perfect for the job because they roam, because they access remote areas, and because they love dry forage. Plus, they work for free. Simpson calls it the “Wild Horse Fire Brigade.” High-level administrators in the Department of the Interior are interested. You won’t be surprised to hear that Snell opposes the plan and has been busy spreading falsehoods about it. However, Mr. Simpson took one of Snell’s propaganda-pieces and debunked it, point-by-point.

5. The Devil’s Garden Wild Horse Territory was the subject of a recent lawsuit in behalf of the wild horses. The suit charged that USFS had illegally split the territory in two, removed the middle 25,000 acres, and then reduced the number of horses allowed. The appelate court agreed, and ruled against USFS.

6. There is serious doubt regarding the overpopulation-claim for the Devil’s Garden wild horses. Too often, counts reflect herd-growth rates vastly exceeding that which is reproductively possible.

Protect Mustangs is a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization dedicated to the protection and preservation of native and wild horses.

Wild Horses Biodiversity and Ecological Zones — Wild Horses Benefit Our Lands

“What needs to stop, is the bad decisions based on what Bureau of Land Management personnel knows to be misinformation, and even out right lies!  These items so plentiful, and now coming from non-profits with conflicts of interest as well, and cannot be used to make further decisions upon and about the Wild Horses on our Public Lands. We need to demand truth!  And with the truth,, good science, good data, and those with the knowledge to understand the data and research statistics, only then can we make good reasonable decisions about the Wild Horses, and placing them back onto our Public Lands.  Time for the Special Interests and welfare ranchers to go, as they are all unnecessary as well as not needed there what so ever.”  — John Cox, The Cascades

When we discuss the Loss of biodiversity within Ecological Zones, we are discussing, with evidence we see first-hand combined with a thorough knowledge of history, a Reality. . . The 48% Overkill, or mass extinction of species, has become devastating – the reality becoming even worse within our wilderness environment. But less recognized is loss of biodiversity at the Ecological Zone or entire ecosystem level, which occurs when distinct habitats, species assemblages, and natural processes are diminished or degraded in quality.Federal Lands

America’s broken Wildlife Management System, based upon ignorance, fear, and obvious agenda-driven bad science, apparently assumes everything is okay in our wilds and with our wildlife – but it is not, and has not been for quite some time now . . . America is being invaded, not by another country, but that of mind-set = of blatant Ignorance and Illusory Perceptions of knowledge based on nothing more than ignorance or false premise.

Our Public Lands and other Federal Lands, currently, are experiencing the highest rates of species extinction in America’s history. However, biodiversity is being lost more widely than just on these lands. Habitats, such as freshwater-zones, desert and forested Public Lands, and old-growth forests in the Pacific Northwest, to name but four, are being destroyed very aggressively, with much ignorance and from government agencies, with total destruction eminent much sooner than perceived previously.

With this in mind, we stand to lose a far greater proportion of species (lands incapable of supporting these species due to interference from human’s), inclusive of America’s Wild Horses as well, within areas designated as cattle grazing permit zones, or areas settled and exploited within other activities by humans – both (i.e. due to ignorance and lack of positive driven actions) the causation and not the cure. The loss of biodiversity at the ecosystem levels, i.e. Ecological Zones Levels, have been greatest there so far, extreme in devastation.

Inward Perspective of Ecological Zones

Ecosystems can be lost, or tragically compromised, in basically two ways. The most obvious kind of loss is quantitative–the conversion of a native prairie to a cattle grazing allotment situation on Public Lands or on Forestry Lands, or just as extreme, construction of buildings or to a parking lot or oil exploration, et al. Quantitative losses, in principle, can be measured easily by a decline in areal extent of a discrete ecosystem type (i.e., one that can be mapped).

The second kind of loss is qualitative and involves a change or degradation in the structure, function, or composition of an ecosystem. At some level of degradation, an ecosystem ceases to be natural. For example, a ponderosa pine (e.g. Pinus ponderosa within the Klamath Basin) forest may be compromised by removing the largest, healthiest, and frequently, the genetically superior trees; a sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) steppe may be grazed so heavily that native perennial grasses are replaced by exotic annuals (becoming firestorm hazards); or a stream may become dominated by trophic generalist and exotic fishes (e.g. as cattle grazing those lands wreaked havoc with the indigenous species, which disappeared, and exotics simply invaded and took over, i.e. Murderer’s Creek for a good factual and data driven example).

Qualitative changes may be expressed quantitatively, for instance, by reporting that 99% of the sagebrush steppe is affected by livestock grazing, but such estimates are usually less precise than estimates of habitat conversion. In some cases, as in the conversion of an old-growth forest to a BLM grazing permit allotment, the qualitative changes in structure and function are sufficiently severe to qualify as outright habitat loss. Then the awkward question becomes, “How many of these habitat losses can we handle before the collapse of an entire Ecological System devastates the entire environmental complex?heavenly-pit

Frankly, within this modern age of information outlets, we have achieved several negative situations of a nature not so attractive, nor to take pride within, what so ever. Yes, ignorance and stupidity often questions good science, and moronic confusion follows. Often, ironically within this information age, political decisions, for example, sometimes based on outright lies, and the only credible situation that exists, well, no credibility what so ever for the decision at all.

In Oregon a Law was passed three years ago, that gives Rights to legislators to “Lie” about the facts and science in matters of passing Bills / Laws for the state. This year the wolves in the State of Oregon were Delisted from the Endangered Species List, due to falsification and lies about science, about the ESL itself, and lies in the matter of “facts-given” within the ratios of wolf-caused cattle attacks (less-kills by wolves a reality when compared to the facts given to other legislators on this subject material) – the cattle industry very questionable within integrity these days also, with no apparent credibility what so ever.

Ecological Zones and Destructive Invasive Situations

Conifer forests that are inner-dependent on circumstances from good management paradigms, e.g. fire suppression, notably ponderosa pine in the Cascade Mountain Range, have declined not only from logging, but also from invasion of non-indigenous animals, for example, by cattle and their obvious over-population. These kinds of change can cause the loss of a distinct Ecological Zone and entire ecosystem as surely as if the forest were clear-cut, which is also done for cattle – a very controversial situation indeed, but with BLM and Forestry, who remain overwhelmed with misinformation and lies and bad science, which is given to the public to cover-up the reality and destruction.

Ecological processes are also affected; widespread insect infestation and tree mortality east of the Cascade Mountains in the Pacific Northwest is blamed largely on past fire suppression, mostly by government sources. Then we look at other realities, specifically, cattle and their over-population once again.

One of the best examples is the Sage Grouse (and the supposed inter-cooperative agreements between welfare ranchers on Public Lands and Forestry Lands and the Department of the Interior (with BLM as the management portion, or mismanagement as many speak of the program itself, quite obvious to most, and costing taxpayers millions but based upon a false premise) –

The Reality: cattle hooves stomp the grasses that the Sage Grouse live within for shelter and to hide form their natural enemies, as they are a food source for many wildlife species, and the reason why they are endangered. Soon the Sage Grouse unprotected – and cattle-presence also attracts crows, and crows favorite food source? Yup, Sage Grouse. BLM’s response? “Let’s kill all the Crows. Government incompetence? Or, government imposes special interest favors, special agendas due to lobby groups, upon taxpayer’s dollars, and toward welfare ranchers – all guided by misinformation and false premise to conduct the travesty, or, the destruction of more Ecological Zones? The facts do not lie – although, in this case especially (one of many more) government personnel and welfare ranchers do lie.

Invasion and Destruction of Ecological Zones / Saving them

So what is it, logically and knowledgably, we discuss in the matters of Ecological Zones or overall ecosystem decline. Through research we find that the most endangered ecosystems are typically at low elevations and have fertile soils, amiable climates, easy terrains, abundant natural resources, and other factors that encourage human settlement, but worse yet, exploitation.

The Great Plains, for example, and here in Oregon, is a vast sagebrush steppe of the Intermountain West that is in many areas overgrazed by cattle, with a very noticeable over-population of cattle present almost year around. Regional studies of ecosystem status should address the many potential causes of biotic impoverishment to devise effective conservation and restoration strategies – but when cattle involved, reality-conservation paradigms are not discussed at all within our current government management agencies. Why? History (sound research and data gathering as well) shows us that Buffalo did not migrate over large parts of the Great Basin way back when, due to the shelf-crust to thin, which also exists today. Mother Nature at work with the Buffalo, much wiser than our human species, obviously. So cattle roam, and are very destructive on the thin crust of lands within the basin areas.

The functional ideology, or paradigms, favoring the growth of Ecological Systems, is to save species by protecting samples of the entire ecosystems themselves. This can be tested very easily, although not done so by current management agencies — and by determining whether declines of ecosystem types have been accompanied by declines and extinctions of species that depend on or are associated with those ecosystems. What many of us are finding, who are in the field all the time, is overwhelming indeed, and quite obvious.

The fact is – many species are being eliminated by the Bureau of Land Management and due to incompetence as well as blatant ignorance of Ecological-Factors, Wildlife Services, and welfare ranching combined – and one of the primary developing factors of the current 48% Over-Kill of America’s Wildlife, which destroys Ecological Systems, as well.


With a thorough investigation of facts, not of misinformation nor bias toward or favoring any group of facts over another due to special interests, we then conclude that the conservation of entire Ecological Zones/ecosystems, rather than recovery/sustaining of individual species of non-indigenous animals, becomes of paramount priority. Preservation of entire communities requires truthful and sound habitat management based on good science, nothing left out, or added, to favor special interests, and the ability to ascertain or understand the research material and good data recovery, to generate sound management paradigms and decisions. This we find is superior over isolation of certain recovery favored recovery areas.

Due to good data collection, as well as a good understanding and breaking down the data to an informative type of statistics, myself and others find that placing Wild Horses back onto their legitimate, and Legal by Law homelands, is good for all of the Ecological Systems that would make up the ecosystem landscape within its entirety.

john cams and vids maps tableThis also provides for the removal of the actual destructive elements, the non-indigenous cattle – for example, and allow the lands where previous grazing permits did exist, to replenish itself back to its natural habitat of a healthy Ecological system for its inhabitants – and that includes the human species as well. Obtaining a natural wilderness area is far superior, when compared to irresponsible management paradigms that specify a one-person or corporation more important than the taxpayer or American paradigm (nor certainly not of Constitutional grounds) and neglecting all others who are involved, and who pay for it; which, in truth remains environmental-complex areas, entire ecosystems, for use by Special Interests only.

We can no longer afford the Bureau of Land Management statistics that are untrue, for example: the misinformed and lacking information of a 20% growth rate of wild horses, when there are no other situations considered, such as death of wild horses at 18% to 24%, and the birth rates that show beyond a doubt that in the wilds it exists in reality at 51% to a high of +/- 64% undebatable statistics.

We cannot any longer, as well, consider the welfare ranching paradigm as a doable, nor positive situation on America’s Public Lands and within America’s Forests, as it is too destructive to all Ecological Zones and wildlife. And when we consider the actual facts: the less than 1% of sales domestically (DOI/USDAS/GAO Reports) from commercial markets of beef sales receipts; the 34% throw away of commercial beef from non-sales in markets yearly (USDA/GAO reports), and the tremendous amount of activity toward the 48% Over-Kill of America’s wildlife directly related to welfare ranching on Public Lands and Forestry areas — then our conclusion is easily developed by sound reasoning and common sense, also through good science, data gathering, statistics, and facts – welfare ranching is entirely unacceptable as well as unneeded on America’s Federal Lands — entirely.

What one will also discover, is those of us who have no Conflict of Interests, demand that Wild Horses be placed back onto their homelands, and to be allowed to let nature takes its course, and humans, with their bad management and incompetent behaviors, who have wreaked havoc enough within our natural areas and wilderness areas alike. We allow the facts to speak for us, not special interests nor greed, nor conflict of interest!

Literature Read/Information and Sound Data

Abernethy, Y., and R. E. Turner. 1987. U.S. forested wetlands: 1940-1980. BioScience 37:721-727.

Allan, J. D., and A. S. Flecker. 1993. Biodiversity conservation in running waters. BioScience 43:32-43.

Allen, E. B., and L. L. Jackson. 1992. The arid West. Restoration plans and Management Notes 10(1):56-59.

Almand, J. and W. Krohn. 1979. The position of the Bureau of Land Management on the protection and management of riparian ecosystems. Pages 259-361 in R. Johnson and F. McCormick, technical coordinators. Strategies for Protection and Management of Floodplain Wetlands and Other Riparian Ecosystems. Proceedings of the Symposium, 11-13 December 1978, Callaway Gardens, Ga. GTR-WO-12. U.S. Forest Service, Washington, D.C.

Anderson, B. 1991. The swamp bear’s last stand. Nature Conservancy 9/10 1992:16-21. *Arizona Nature Conservancy. 1987. Streams of Life A Conservation Campaign. Arizona Nature Conservancy, Tucson. *Arizona State Parks. 1988. Arizona Wetlands Priority Plan. Arizona State Parks, Phoenix. *Atwood, J. L. 1990. Status review of the California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica). Unpublished technical report. Manomet Bird Observatory, Manomet, Mass.

Atwood, J. L., and R. F. Noss. 1994. Gnatcatchers and development: a “train wreck” avoided? Illahee: Journal of the Northwest Environment 10:123-130.

Austin, M. P., and C. R. Margules. 1986. Assessing representativeness. Pages 45-67 in M. B. Usher, editor. Wildlife Conservation Evaluation. Chapman and Hall, London, United Kingdom.

Barbour, M. B. Pavlik, F. Drysdale, and S. Lindstrom. 1991. California vegetation: diversity and change. Fremontia 19(1):3-12.

[3Asterisk denotes unpublished material or published technical reports.]

Bartram, W. 1791. The Travels of William Bartram. Naturalists’ Edition, 1958, F. Harper, editor. Yale University Press, New Haven, Conn.

Bass, G. 1989. Down the river and to the sea. The Nature Conservancy Magazine 9/10 1989:5-11.

Benke, A. C. 1990. A perspective on America’s vanishing streams. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 91:77-88.

*Betz, R. F. 1978. The prairies of Indiana. Pages 25-31 in D. C. Glenn-Levin and R. Q. Landers, editors. Proceedings of the Fifth Midwest Prairie Conference. Iowa State University, Ames. *Bentzien, M. M. 1987. Agency draft recovery plan for five rockland plant species. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, Ga. *Birch, T. W., and E. H. Wharton. 1982. Land use change in Ohio, 1952-79. Research Bulletin NE-70. U.S. Northeast Forest Experiment Station, Broomal, Pa. *Blaustein, A. R. 1993. Declining amphibian populations: A global perspective. Abstract and presentation, 3 March 1993, Newport, Oreg. Annual Meeting, Oregon Chapter, The Wildlife Society.

Bohning-Gaese, K., M. L. Taper, and J. H. Brown. 1993. Are declines in North American insectivorous songbirds due to causes on the breeding range? Conservation Biology 7:7686. *Bolsinger, C. 1988. The hardwoods of California’s timberlands, woodlands, and savannas. PNW-RB-148. U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oreg. *Bond, W. E., and A. R. Spillers. 1935. Use of land for forests in the lower Piedmont region of Georgia. Occasional Paper 53, Southern Forest Experiment Station, Asheville, N.C.

Bourgeron, P. S. 1988. Advantages and limitations of ecological classification for the protection of ecosystems. Conservation Biology 2:218-220. *Bourgeron, P. S., and L. Engelking, editors. 1992. Preliminary compilation of a series level classification of the vegetation of the western United States using a physiognomic framework. Report to the Idaho Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit. Western Heritage Task Force, The Nature Conservancy, Boulder, Colo.

Boyce, S. G., and W. H. Martin. 1993. The future of the terrestrial communities of the Southeastern Coastal Plain. Pages 339-366 in W. H. Martin, S. G. Boyce, and A. C. Echternacht, editors. Biodiversity of the Southeastern United States: Upland Terrestrial Communities. Wiley, N.Y. *Brabander, J. J., R. E. Master, and R. M. Short. 1985. Bottomland hardwoods of eastern Oklahoma: A special study of their status, trends, and values. Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Norman, Okla.

Brash, A. R. 1987. The history of avian extinction and forest conversion on Puerto Rico. Biological Conservation 39:97-111.

Breden, T. F. 1989. A preliminary natural community classification for New Jersey. Pages 157-191 in E. F. Karlin, editor. New Jersey’s Rare and Endangered Plants and Animals. Institute for Environmental Studies, Ramapo College, Mahwah, N.J.

Breining, G. 1992. Rising from the bogs. Nature Conservancy July/August 1992:24-29.

Bridges, E. L., and S. L. Orzell. 1989. Longleaf pine communities of the west Gulf coastal plain. Natural Areas Journal 9:246-263. *Brinson, M. M., B. L. Swift, R. C. Plantico, and J. S. Barclay. 1981. Riparian ecosystems: Their ecology and status. FWS/OBS-83/17. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Services Program, Washington, D.C.

Burkhardt, J. W., and E. W. Tisdale. 1969. Nature and successional status of western juniper vegetation in Idaho. Journal of Range Management 22:264-270.

Burkhardt, J. W., and E. W. Tisdale. 1976. Causes of juniper invasion in southwestern Idaho. Ecology 57:472-484. *Bury, R. B. 1993. Patterns of amphibian declines in western North America. Abstract and presentation, 3 March 1993, Newport, Oreg. Annual Meeting, Oregon Chapter, The Wildlife Society.

Cabbage, F. W., J. O. Laughlin, and C. S. Bullock. 1993. Forest resource policy. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.

California Environmental Trust. 1992. Project news. Natural Community Conservation Planning Process Coastal Sage Scrub Newsletter 1(1):1-5.

California Resources Agency. 1992. President recognizes NCCP. Natural Community Conservation Planning Process Coastal Sage Scrub Newsletter 1(5):4. *Canning, D. J., and M. Steven. 1989. Wetlands of Washington: A resource characterization. Environment 2010 Project, Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia.

Carey, A. B. 1989. Wildlife associated with old-growth forests in the Pacific Northwest. Natural Areas Journal 9:151-162. *Chadde, S. 1992. Decline of natural ecosystems in Montana. Unpublished report. U.S. Forest Service, Missoula, Mont. *Chapman, K. A. 1984. An ecological investigation of native grassland in southern lower Michigan. M.A. thesis, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo.

*Christman, S. 1988. Endemism and Florida’s interior sand pine scrub. Final project report, Project GFC-84-101. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee. *Cook, R. E., and P. Dixon. 1989. A review of recovery plans for threatened and endangered plant species. Unpublished report. World Wildlife Fund, Washington, D.C.

Council on Environmental Quality. 1989. Environmental Trends. Council on Environmental Quality, Washington, D.C.

Crumpacker, D. W., S. W. Hodge, D. Friedley, and W. P. Gregg. 1988. A preliminary assessment of the status of major terrestrial and wetland ecosystems on federal and Indian land in the United States. Conservation Biology 2:103-115.

Cryan, J. F. 1980. An introduction to the Long Island Pine Barrens. The Heath Hen 1(1):3-13.

Cryan, J. F. 1985. Retreat in the Barrens. Defenders Jan/Feb:18-29.

Cusick, A. W., and K. R. Troutman. 1978. The prairie survey project: A summary of data to date. Ohio Biological Survey Informative Circular 10, Ohio State University, Columbus. *Dahl, T. E. 1990. Wetland losses in the United States 1780’s to 1980’s. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. *Dahl, T. E., and C. E. Johnson. 1991. Wetlands: status and trends in the conterminous United States mid-1970’s to mid-1980’s. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.

Dasmann, R. F. 1972. Towards a system for classifying natural regions of the world and their representation by national parks and reserves. Biological Conservation 4:247-255.

Daubenmire, R. 1968. Plant communities: A textbook of plant synecology. Harper and Row, New York. *Davis, G. D. 1988. Preservation of natural diversity: The role of ecosystem representation within wilderness. Paper presented at National Wilderness Colloquium, Tampa, Fla., January 1988.

Davis, M. B. 1981. Quaternary history and the stability of forest communities. Pages 132153 in D. C. West, H. H. Shugart, and D. B. Botkin, editors. Forest Succession. SpringerVerlag, New York.

DeSelm, H. R., and N. Murdock. 1993. Grass-dominated communities. Pages 87-141 in W. H. Martin, S. G. Boyce, and A. C. Echternacht, editors. Biodiversity of the Southeastern United States: Upland Terrestrial Communities. Wiley, N.Y.

Diamond, J. M. 1976. Island biogeography and conservation: Strategy and limitations. Science 193:1027-1029.

Diamond, J. M. 1984. Historic extinctions: A Rosetta stone for understanding prehistoric extinctions. Pages 824-862 in P. S. Martin and R. G. Klein, editors. Quaternary Extinctions: A Prehistoric Revolution. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Dregne, H. E. 1983. Desertification of arid lands. Harwood Press, Chur, Switzerland.

Driscoll, R. S., D. L. Merkel, D. L. Radloff, D. E. Snyder, and J. S. Hagihara. 1984. An Ecological Land Classification Framework for the United States. U.S. Forest Service, Miscellaneous Publication 1439, Washington, D.C.

Duffy, D. C., and A. J. Meier. 1992. Do Appalachian herbaceous understories ever recover from clearcutting? Conservation Biology 6:196-201. *Eastside Forests Scientific Society Panel. 1993. Executive summary. Interim protection for late-successional forests, fisheries, and watersheds: National forests east of the Cascade Crest, Oregon and Washington. A Report to the United States Congress and the President. Corvallis, Oreg.

Ehrlich, A. H., and P. R. Ehrlich. 1986. Needed: An endangered humanity act? Amicus Journal. Reprinted on pages 298-302 in K. A. Kohm, editor. 1991. Balancing on the Brink of Extinction: The Endangered Species Act and Lessons for the Future. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Ehrlich, P. R., and A. H. Ehrlich. 1981. Extinction: The causes and consequences of the disappearance of species. Random House, New York.

Ehrlich, P. R., and E. O. Wilson. 1991. Biodiversity studies: Science and policy. Science 253:758-762. *Ewel, K. C. 1988. Florida’s freshwater swamps: Ecological relationships and management issues. ENFO 1988:1-9.

Farrar, J., and R. Gersib. 1991. Nebraska salt marshes: Last of the least. Nebraskaland Magazine 69(6):18-43.

Fay, J. J., and W. L. Thomas. 1983. Endangered and threatened species listing and recovery priority guidelines. Federal Register, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 48 (184):43098-43105.

Fiedler, P. L., and J. J. Ahouse. 1992. Hierarchies of cause: Toward an understanding of rarity in vascular plant species. Pages 23-47 in P. L. Fiedler and S. K. Jain, editors. Conservation Biology: The Theory and Practice of Nature Conservation, Preservation, and Management. Chapman and Hall, New York.

Findley, R. 1990. Will we save our own? National Geographic 178(3):106-136.

Folkerts, G. W. 1982. The Gulf Coast pitcher plant bogs. American Scientist 70:260-267.

Franklin, J. F., K. Cromack, W. Denison, A. McKee, C. Maser, J. Sedell, F. Swanson, and G. Juday. 1981. Ecological characteristics of old-growth Douglas-fir forests. General Technical Report PNW-118. U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, Oreg. *Frayer, W. E., D. D. Peters, and H. R. Pywell. 1989. Wetlands of the California Central Valley: status and trends 1939 to mid-1980s. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oreg.

Freas, K. E., and D. D. Murphy. 1988. Taxonomy and the conservation of the critically endangered Bakersfield saltbush, Atriplex tularensis. Biological Conservation 46:317324. *Frehlich, L. E., E. J. Cushing, P. H. Glaser, P. Jordan, and K. R. Miller. 1992. Impact of Timber Harvesting and Forest Management on Biodiversity. Report to Minnesota GEIS. Jaako Poyry Consulting, Raleigh, N.C. *Frey, R. F., editor. 1990. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 1990 water quality assessment. 305(b) Report. Department of Environmental Regulation, Division of Water Quality, Bureau of Water Quality Management, Harrisburg, Pa.

Frost, C. C. 1987. Historical overview of Atlantic whitecedar (Chamaecyearis thyoides) in the Carolinas. Pages 257-264 in A. D. Laderman, editor. Atlantic whitecedar Wetlands. Westview Press, Boulder, Colo.

Frost, C. C. 1995. Four centuries of changing landscape patterns in the longleaf pine ecosystem. Proceedings of the Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference 18. In press. *Gast, W. R., D. W. Scott, C. Schmitt, D. Clemens, S. Howes, C. G. Johnson, R. Mason, F. Mohr, and R. A. Clapp. 1991. Blue Mountains Forest health report: New Perspectives in Forest Health. U.S. Forest Service, Portland, Oreg.

Gilmore, R. G., and S. C. Snedaker. 1993. Mangrove forests. Pages 165-198 in W. H. Martin, S. G. Boyce, and A. C. Echternacht, editors. Biodiversity of the Southeastern United States: Lowland Terrestrial Communities. Wiley, N.Y.

Godfrey, P. J., and P. Alpert. 1985. Racing to save the coastal heaths. The Nature Conservancy News 7/8 1985:11-13.

Good, E. E. 1979. Ohio forests. Pages 80-109 in M. B. Lafferty, editor. Ohio’s Natural Heritage. Ohio Academy of Science, Columbus.

Gosselink, J. G., G. P. Shaffer, L. C. Lee, D. M. Burdick, D. L. Childers, N. C. Liebowitz, S. C. Hamilton, R. Boumans, D. Cushman, S. Fields, M. Koch, and J. M. Visser. 1990. Landscape conservation in a forested wetland watershed. BioScience 40:588-600.

*Grossman, D. H., K. L. Goodin, and C. L. Reuss. 1994. Rare plant communities of the conterminous United States: An initial survey. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Va.

Habeck, J. R. 1990. Old-growth ponderosa pine-western larch forests in western Montana: Ecology and management. Northwest Environmental Journal 6:271-292.

Haila, Y., I. K. Hanski, and S. Raivio. 1993. Turnover of breeding birds in small forest fragments: the “sampling” colonization hypothesis corroborated. Ecology 74:714-725.

Hansen, A. J., T. A. Spies, F. J. Swanson, and J. L. Ohmann. 1991. Conserving biodiversity in managed forests. BioScience 41:382-392.

Hardin, E. D., and D. L. White. 1989. Rare vascular plant taxa associated with wiregrass (Aristida stricta) in the Southeastern United States. Natural Areas Journal 9:234-245.

Hardy, J. W. 1978. Carolina parakeet. Page 120 in H. W. Kale, editor. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida. Vol. 2, Birds. University Presses of Florida, Gainesville. *Harper, R. M. 1914. Geography and Vegetation of Northern Florida. Florida Geological Survey 6th Annual Report. Tallahassee. *Harris, L. D. 1984. Bottomland Hardwoods: Valuable, Vanishing, Vulnerable. Florida Cooperative Extension Service, University of Florida, Gainesville.

Hart, R. 1987. The dark side of protecting wetlands. Palmetto 7(3):10-11. *Hassinger, J. 1991. Pennsylvania water, wetland, and riparian area fact synopsis. Unpublished report. Pennsylvania Game Commission, Harrisburg. *Hawaii Heritage Program. 1991. Summary of classification hierarchy: Hawaiian natural community classification. Unpublished report. The Nature Conservancy of Hawaii. Hawaii Heritage Program, Honolulu.

*Hawaii Heritage Program. 1992. Native ecosystem losses in the Hawaiian archipelago. Unpublished tables. The Nature Conservancy of Hawaii, Hawaii Heritage Program, Honolulu. *Hawaii State Department of Land and Natural Resources, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and The Nature Conservancy of Hawaii. 1992. Hawaii’s Extinction Crisis: A Call to Action. Hawaii State Department of Land and Natural Resources, Honolulu.

Hironaka, M., M. A. Fosberg, and A. H. Winward. 1983. Sagebrush-grass habitat types in southern Idaho. Bulletin No. 35. Forest, Wildlife, and Range Experiment Station, University of Idaho, Moscow.

Holing, D. 1987. Hawaii: The Eden of endemism. The Nature Conservancy News 2/3 1987:7-13. *Holland, R. 1978. The geographic and edaphic distribution of vernal pools in the Great Central Valley, California. California Native Plant Society, Special Publication 4.

Holsinger, K. E., and L. D. Gottlieb. 1991. Conservation of rare and endangered plants: Principles and prospects. Pages 195-208 in D. A. Falk and K. E. Holsinger, editors. Genetics and Conservation of Rare Plants. Oxford University Press, New York.

Holtz, S. 1986a. Tropical seagrass restoration plans. Restoration plans and Management Notes 4(1):5-11.

Holtz, S. 1986b. Bringing back a beautiful landscape. Restoration plans and Management Notes 4(2):56-61.

Huenneke, L. F. 1991. Ecological implications of genetic variation in plant populations. Pages 31-44 in D. A. Falk and K. E. Holsinger, editors. Genetics and Conservation of Rare Plants. Oxford University Press, New York.

Hughes, R. M., and R. F. Noss. 1992. Biological diversity and biological integrity: Current concerns for lakes and streams. Fisheries 17(3):11-19. *Hunsaker, C. T., and D. E. Carpenter. 1990. Environmental monitoring and assessment program ecological indicators. EPS/600/3-90/060. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C.

Hunt, C. E. 1989. Creating an endangered ecosystems Act. Endangered Species Update 6(3-4):1-5.

Hunter, M. L. 1991. Coping with ignorance: The coarse-filter strategy for maintaining biodiversity. Pages 266-281 in K. A. Kohm, editor. Balancing on the Brink of Extinction: The Endangered Species Act and Lessons for the Future. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Hunter, M. L., G. L. Jacobson, and T. Webb. 1988. Paleoecology and the coarse-filter approach to maintaining biological diversity. Conservation Biology 2:375-385.

Huntly, N., and R. Inouye. 1988. Pocket gophers in ecosystems: Patterns and mechanisms. BioScience 38:786-793.

Hutto, R. L., S. Reel, and P. B. Landres. 1987. A critical evaluation of the species approach to biological conservation. Endangered Species Update 4(12):1-4.

Ingersoll, C. A., and M. V. Wilson. 1991. Restoration plans of a western Oregon remnant prairie. Restoration plans and Management Notes 9(2):110-11. *IUCN/UNEP. 1986a. Review of the Protected Areas System in the Afrotropical Realm. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. *IUCN/UNEP. 1986b. Review of the Protected Areas System in the Indo-Malayan Realm. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. *Jackson, D. R., and E. G. Milstrey. 1989. The fauna of gopher tortoise burrows. Pages 86-98 in J. E. Diemer, D. R. Jackson, J. L. Landers, J. N. Layne, and D. A. Wood, editors. Gopher Tortoise Relocation Symposium Proceedings. Nongame Wildlife Program Technical Report No. 5. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee.

Jenkins, R. E. 1985. Information methods: Why the heritage programs work. Nature Conservancy News 35(6):21-23.

Jenkins, R. E. 1988. Information management for the conservation of biodiversity. Pages 231-239 in E. O. Wilson, editor. Biodiversity. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. *Jennings, M. D. 1993. Natural terrestrial cover classification: Assumptions and definitions. Gap Analysis Technical Bulletin 2. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Idaho Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Moscow. *Jensen, D. B., M. Torn, and J. Harte. 1990. In our own hands: A strategy for conserving biological diversity in California. California Policy Seminar Research Report. University of California, Berkeley. *Jones and Stokes Associates, Inc. 1987. Sliding toward extinction; The state of California’s natural history. The California Nature Conservancy, San Francisco. *Jones, H. L. 1991. A rangewide assessment of the California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica). Unpublished report by Michael Brandman Associates for Building Industry Association of Southern California, Santa Ana.

*Jontz, J. 1993. The Sustainable Ecosystems Act. Draft report. Silver Lake, Ind.

Jordan, W. R. 1987. Making a user-friendly national park for Costa Rica–a visit with Dan Janzen. Restoration plans and Management Notes 5(2):72-75. *Judy, R. D., P. N. Seeley, T. M. Murray, S. C. Svirsky, M. R. Whitworth, and L. S. Ischinger. 1982. National fisheries survey. Vol. I. Technical Report: Initial Findings. FWS/OBS-84/06. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. *Kantrud, H. A., G. L. Krapu, and G. A. Swanson. 1989. Prairie basin wetlands of the Dakotas: A community profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.

Kautz, R. S. 1993. Trends in Florida wildlife habitat 1936-87. Florida Scientist 1993(1):7-24. *Kellogg, E., editor. 1992. Coastal Temperate Rain Forests: Ecological Characteristics, Status, and Distribution Worldwide. Ecotrust and Conservation International, Portland, Oreg. and Washington, D.C.

Kendeigh, S. C., H. I. Baldwin, V. H. Cahalane, C. H. D. Clarke, C. Cottam, I. M. Cowan, P. Dansereau, J. H. Davis, F. W. Emerson, I. T. Haig, A. Hayden, C. L. Hayward, J. M. Linsdale, J. A. MacNab, and J. E. Potzger. 1950-51. Nature sanctuaries in the United States and Canada: A preliminary inventory. The Living Wilderness 15(35):145. *Kentucky Environmental Quality Commission. 1992. State of Kentucky’s environment: A report of progress and problems. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Frankfort. *King, C. C., editor. 1990. A legacy of stewardship: The Ohio Department of Natural Resources 1949-89. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Columbus.

Klopatek, J. M., R. J. Olson, C. J. Emerson, and J. L. Joness. 1979. Land-use conflicts with natural vegetation in the United States. Environmental Conservation 6:191-199. *Knight, H. A., and J. P. McClure. 1982. Florida’s Forests. Research Bulletin SE-62. U.S. Forest Service, Asheville, N.C.

Kohm, K. A., editor. 1991. Balancing on the brink of extinction: The Endangered Species Act and lessons for the future. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Korte, P. A., and L. H. Frederickson. 1977. Loss of Missouri’s lowland hardwood forest. In K. Sabol, editor. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 42:31-41.

Kreissman, B. 1991. California, an environmental atlas and guide. Bear Klaw Press, Davis, Calif. *Kuchler, A. W. 1966 (revised 1985). Potential natural vegetation (map). U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Va.

LaRoe, E. T. 1993. Implementation of an ecosystem approach to endangered species conservation. Endangered Species Update 10 (3&4):3-12.

Lewis, R. R. 1992. Coastal ecosystems. Restoration plans and Management Notes 10(1):18-20.

Lins, H. F. 1980. Patterns and trends of land use and land cover on Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Barrier islands. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1156. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Livermore, B. 1992. Amphibian alarm: Just where have all the frogs gone? Smithsonian 23(7)113-120.

MacArthur, R. H., and E. O. Wilson. 1967. The Theory of Island Biogeography. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.

MacDonald, K. 1977. Coastal salt marsh. Pages 263-294 in M. Barbour and J. Major, editors. Terrestrial Vegetation of California. Wiley-Interscience, New York. *MacDonald, P. O., W. E. Frayer, and J. K. Clauser. 1979. Documentation, chronology, and future projections of bottomland hardwood habitat loss in the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Plain. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Vicksburg, Miss.

Madson, C. 1989. Of wings and prairie grass. The Nature Conservancy Magazine 3/4 1989:9-13.

Madson, J. 1990. On the Osage. Nature Conservancy 5/6 1990:7-15. *Mantell, M. A. 1992. The key is habitat, not lone species. Los Angeles Times, 26 April 1992:B2.

Margules, C. R., A. O. Nicholls, and R. L. Pressey. 1988. Selecting networks of reserves to maximize biological diversity. Biological Conservation 43:63-76.

Margules, C., and M. B. Usher. 1981. Criteria used in assessing wildlife conservation potential: A review. Biological Conservation 24:115-128.

Martin, G. 1986. Behind the scenes. The Nature Conservancy News 10/11 1986:18-23.

*Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs. 1990. An environment at risk. Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, Boston, Mass.

Master, L. L. 1990. The imperiled status of North American aquatic animals. Biodiversity Network News 3(3):1-2,7-8.

Master, L. L. 1991a. Assessing threats and setting priorities for conservation. Conservation Biology 5:559-563.

Master, L. L. 1991b. Aquatic animals: endangerment alert. Nature Conservancy 41(2):2627. *Mayer, K. E., and W. E. Laudenslyer, editors. 1988. A guide to wildlife habitats of California. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Sacramento. *Mazzotti, F. J., L. A. Brandt, L. G. Pearlstine, W. M. Kitchens, T. A. Obreza, F. C. Depkin, N. E. Morris, and C. E. Arnold. 1992. An evaluation of the regional effects of new citrus development on the ecological integrity of wildlife resources in southwest Florida. South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach.

McIntosh, R. P. 1985. The background of ecology: Concept and theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

McLarney, W. O. 1989. Guanacaste: The dawn of a park. The Nature Conservancy News 1/2 1989:11-15.

McNeely, J. A., and K. R. Miller. 1984. National parks, conservation, and development: The role of protected areas in sustaining society. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

McNeely, J. A., K. R. Miller, W. V. Reid, R. A. Mittermeier, and T. B. Werner. 1990. Conserving the world’s biological diversity. IUCN, WRI, CI, WWF-US, World Bank. Gland, Switzerland and Washington, D.C.

Means, D. B., and G. Grow. 1985. The endangered longleaf pine community. ENFO Report 85(4):1-12.

Mengel, R. M. 1965. The birds of Kentucky. Ornithological Monographs No. 3. American Ornithologists Union. Allen Press, Lawrence, Kans. *Meyer-Arendt, K. J. 1991. Human impacts on coastal and estuarine environments in Mississippi. GCSSEPM Foundation Twelfth Annual Research Conference: 141-148.

Miller, R. R., J. D. Williams, and J. E. Williams. 1989. Extinctions of North American fishes during the past century. Fisheries 14:22-38.

Moyle, P. B., and J. E. Williams. 1990. Biodiversity loss in the temperate zone: Decline of the native fish fauna of California. Conservation Biology 4:475-484.

Murphy, D., D. Wilcove, R. Noss, J. Harte, C. Safina, J. Lubchenco, T. Root, V. Sher, L. Kaufman, M. Bean, and S. Pimm. 1994. On reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act. Conservation Biology 8:1-3.

Myers, N. 1984. The primary source: Tropical forests and our future. W. W. Norton, New York.

Myers, N. 1988. Tropical forests and their species. Going, going..? Pages 28-35 in E. O. Wilson, editor. Biodiversity. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

Naiman, R. J., C. A. Johnston, and J. C. Kelley. 1988. Alteration of North American streams by beaver. BioScience 38:753-762.

National Research Council. 1993. A biological survey for the nation. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

Nature Conservancy, The. 1986. A tour of country programs. The Nature Conservancy News 1/3 1986:13-19.

Nature Conservancy, The. 1988. Illinois. The Nature Conservancy Magazine 5/6 1988:26.

Nature Conservancy, The. 1989a. Crystal Springs. The Nature Conservancy Magazine 7/8 1989:29.

Nature Conservancy, The. 1989b. Guatemala. The Nature Conservancy Magazine 5/6 1989:36.

Nature Conservancy, The. 1989c. Caribbean crisis. The Nature Conservancy News 3/4 1989:32.

Nature Conservancy, The. 1990. Protecting and restoring 100-mile reach of Sacramento River. Nature Conservancy 5/6 1990:24.

Nature Conservancy, The. 1992a. Ecological charms among nuclear arms. Nature Conservancy 7/8 1992:34. *Nature Conservancy, The. 1992b. Extinct vertebrate species in North America. Unpublished draft list, 4 March 1992. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Va. *Nebraska Game and Parks Commission. 1972. Survey of habitat work plan K-71. W- 15-R-28. Lincoln.

*Nebraska Game and Parks Commission. 1984. Survey of habitat work plan K-83. W- 15-R-40. Lincoln.

Nehlsen, W., J. E. Williams, and J. A. Lichatowich. 1991. Pacific salmon at the crossroads: stocks at risk from California, Oregon, Idaho, and Washington. Fisheries 16:4-21.

Nelson, J. 1989. Agriculture, wetlands, and endangered species: the Food Security Act of 1985. Endangered Species Technical Bulletin 14(5):1,6-8. *Nelson, P. W. 1985. The terrestrial natural communities of Missouri. Missouri Natural Areas Committee, Jefferson City.

Niering, W. A. 1992. The New England forests. Restoration plans and Management Notes 10(1):24-28.

Nilsson, C. 1986. Methods of selecting lake shorelines as nature reserves. Biological Conservation 35:269-291.

Norse, E. A. 1990. Ancient forests of the Pacific Northwest. The Wilderness Society and Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Noss, R. F. 1983. A regional landscape approach to maintain diversity. BioScience 33:700-706.

Noss, R. F. 1987. From plant communities to landscapes in conservation inventories: A look at The Nature Conservancy (USA). Biological Conservation 41:11-37.

Noss, R. F. 1988. The longleaf pine landscape of the Southeast: Almost gone and almost forgotten. Endangered Species Update 5(5):1-8.

Noss, R. F. 1989. Longleaf pine and wiregrass: Keystone components of an endangered ecosystem. Natural Areas Journal 9:211-213.

Noss, R. F. 1990a. Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: A hierarchical approach. Conservation Biology 4:355-364. *Noss, R. F. 1990b. What can wilderness do for biodiversity? Pages 49-61 in P. Reed, compiler. Preparing to Manage Wilderness in the 21st Century. U.S. Forest Service, Asheville, N.C.

Noss, R. F. 1991a. From endangered species to biodiversity. Pages 227-246 in K. A. Kohm, editor. Balancing on the Brink of Extinction: The Endangered Species Act and Lessons for the Future. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Noss, R. F. 1991b. Sustainability and wilderness. Conservation Biology 5:120-121.

Noss, R. F. 1991c. A Native Ecosystems Act. Wild Earth 1(1):24.

Noss, R. F. 1992. The Wildlands Project: Land conservation strategy. Wild Earth (Special Issue):10-25.

Noss, R. F., and A. Cooperrider. 1994. Saving nature’s legacy: Protecting and restoring biodiversity. Defenders of Wildlife and Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Noss, R. F., and B. Csuti. 1994. Habitat fragmentation. Pages 237-264 in G. K. Meffe and R. C. Carroll, editors. Principles of Conservation Biology. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Mass.

Noss, R. F., and L. D. Harris. 1986. Nodes, networks, and MUMs: Preserving diversity at all scales. Environmental Management 10:299-309.

Noss, R. F., and S. H. Wolfe. 1990. Summary. Pages 211-219 in S. H. Wolfe, editor. An Ecological Characterization of the Florida Springs Coast: Pithlachascotee to Waccasassa Rivers. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 90(21). Slidell, La. *Nuzzo, V. A. 1985. The extent and status of midwest oak savanna at the time of settlement and in the mid 1980s, and the effect of soil scarification on seedling establishment in an oak savanna restoration plans. M.S. thesis, University of Wisconsin, Madison.

Nuzzo, V. A. 1986. Extent and status of midwest oak savanna: Presettlement and 1985. Natural Areas Journal 6(2):6-36. *Oberbauer, T. A. 1990. Areas of vegetation communities in San Diego County. Unpublished report. County of San Diego, Department of Planning and Land Use, San Diego, Calif.

Odum, E. P. 1970. Optimum population and environment: A Georgia microcosm. Current History 58:355-359.

Odum, E. P. 1971. Fundamentals of Ecology. Third edition. Saunders, Philadelphia, Pa.

Odum, E. P. 1989. Input management of production systems. Science 243:177-182.

Odum, E. P., and H. T. Odum. 1972. Natural areas as necessary components of Man’s total environment. Proceedings North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 37:178-189.

O’Leary, J. F. 1990. Californian coastal sage scrub: General characteristics and considerations for biological conservation. Pages 24-41 in A. A. Schoenherr, editor. Endangered Plant Communities of Southern California. Southern California Botanists Special Publication 3, San Diego.

Olson, S. L., and H. F. James. 1984. The role of Polynesians in the extinction of the avifauna of the Hawaiian Islands. Pages 768-780 in P. S. Martin and R. G. Klein, editors. Quaternary Extinctions: A Prehistoric Revolution. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Olson, W. K. 1984. Journeys into Connecticut. The Nature Conservancy News 5/6 1984:17-21.

Olson, W. K. 1988. Connecticut’s finest edge. The Nature Conservancy Magazine 9/10 1988:12-17.

O’Malley, P. G. 1991. Large-scale restoration plans on Santa Catalina Island, California. Restoration plans and Management Notes 9(1):7-15.

Orians, G. H. 1993. Endangered at what level? Ecological Applications 3:206-208. *Orth, R. J., J. F. Nowack, A. A. Frisch, K. Kiley, and J. Whiting. 1991. Distribution of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation in the Chesapeake Bay and Tributaries and Chincoteague Bay–1990. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program, Annapolis, Md.

Palmer, S. 1985. Some extinct mollusks of the U.S.A. Atala 13:1-7.

Parker, G. R. 1989. Old-growth forests of the central hardwood region. Natural Areas Journal 9:5-11.

Parvin, R. W. 1989. Reclaiming a big thicket gem. The Nature Conservancy Magazine 5/6 1989:22-26.

Pearson, J. A., and M. J. Leoschke. 1992. Floristic composition and conservation status of fens in Iowa. Journal of the Iowa Academy of Science 99:41-52.

Pellant, M. 1990. The cheatgrass-wildfire cycle: Are there any solutions? Pages 11-18 in E. D. McArthur, E. M. Romney, S. D. Smith, and P. T. Tueller, compilers. Proceedings of the Symposium on Cheatgrass Invasion, Shrub Die-off, and Other Aspects of Shrub Biology and Management. General Technical Report INT-276. U.S. Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah.

Peroni, P. A., and W. G. Abrahamson. 1985. A rapid method for determining losses of native vegetation. Natural Areas Journal 5(1):20-24.

Platt, S. G., and C. G. Brantley. 1992. The management and restoration plans of switchcane (Louisiana). Restoration plans and Management Notes 10(1):84-85.

Plumb, G. E., and J. L. Dodd. 1993. Foraging ecology of bison and cattle on a mixed prairie: Implications for natural area management. Ecological Applications 3:631-643.

Poore, M. E. D. 1955. The use of phytosociological methods in ecological investigations. I. The Braun-Blanquet system. Journal of Ecology 43:226-244.

Postel, S., and J. C. Ryan. Reforming forestry. Pages 74-92 in L. Starke, editor. State of the World 1991: A Worldwatch Institute Report on Progess Toward a Sustainable Society. W. W. Norton, New York. *Pyne, M., and D. Durham. 1993. Estimation of losses of ecosystems in Tennessee. Unpublished table. Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Ecological Services Division, Nashville.

Rabinowitz, D., S. Cairns, and T. Dillon. 1986. Seven forms of rarity and their frequency in the flora of the British Isles. Pages 182-204 in M. E. Soulé, editor. Conservation Biology: The Science of Scarcity and Diversity. Sinauer, Sunderland, Mass.

Raven, P. H. 1986. The urgency of tropical conservation. The Nature Conservancy News 1/3 1986:7-11.

Ray, G. 1992. Point of contact: The West Indies. Restoration plans and Management Notes 10(1):4-8.

Reffalt, W. 1985. Wetland in extremis: A nationwide survey. Wilderness, Winter 1985:28-41.

Reichman, O. J. 1987. Konza prairie: A tallgrass natural history. University Press of Kansas, Lawrence.

Reiner, R., and T. Griggs. 1989. Restoring riparian forests. The Nature Conservancy Magazine 5/6 1989:10-16. *Reschke, C. 1993. Estimated numbers of EOs, acreage, trends, and threats for selected New York natural communities. Unpublished report. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Natural Heritage Program, Latham.

Reuter, D. D. 1986. Sedge meadows of the upper midwest: A stewardship summary. Natural Areas Journal 6(4):2-34.

Reynolds, R. V., and A. H. Pierson. 1923. Lumber cut of the United States, 1870-1920. USDA Bulletin 1119, Washington, D.C.

Richardson, C. J. 1983. Pocosins: Vanishing wastelands or valuable wetlands. BioScience 33:626-633.

Ride, W. L. D. 1975. Toward an integrated system: a study of the selection of acquisition of natural parks and nature reserves in West Australia. Pages 64-85 in F. Fenner, editor.

A natural system of ecological reserves in Australia. Reports of the Australian Center of Science 19.

Riskind, D. H., R. George, G. Waggerman, and T. Hayes. 1987. Restoration plans in the subtropical United States. Restoration plans and Management Notes 5(2):80-82.

Robbins, C. S., D. K. Dawson, and B. A. Dowell. 1989a. Habitat area requirements of breeding forest birds of the Middle Atlantic states. Wildlife Monographs 103:1-34.

Robbins, C. S., J. R. Sauer, R. S. Greenberg, and S. Droege. 1989b. Population declines in North American birds that migrate to the neotropics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 86:7658-7662.

Ross, J. 1992. Dangers in paradise. Sierra 7-8/1992:44-51,83-88.

Russell, C., and L. Morse. 1992. Extinct and possibly extinct plant species of the United States and Canada. Unpublished report. Review draft, 13 March 1992. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Va.

Ryan, J. C. 1992. Life support: Conserving biological diversity. Worldwatch Paper 108. Worldwatch Institute, Washington, D.C.

Schemske, D. W., B. C. Husband, M. H. Ruckelshaus, C. Goodwillie, I. M. Parker, and J. G. Bishop. 1994. Evaluating approaches to the conservation of rare and endangered plants. Ecology 75:584-606. *Schroeder, W. A. 1982. Presettlement prairie of Missouri. Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City.

Schwartz, M. W. 1994. Natural distribution and abundance of forest species and communities in northern Florida. Ecology 75:687-705. *Scientific Review Panel, Southern California Coastal Sage Scrub. 1992. Coastal sage scrub survey guidelines. Center for Conservation Biology, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif.

Scott, J. M., B. Csuti, J. D. Jacobi, and J. E. Estes. 1987. Species richness: A geographic approach to protecting future biological diversity. BioScience 37:782-788.

Scott, J. M., B. Csuti, K. Smith, J. E. Estes, and S. Caicco. 1991a. Gap analysis of species richness and vegetation cover: An integrated biodiversity conservation strategy. Pages 282-297 in K. A. Kohm, editor. Balancing on the Brink of Extinction: The Endangered Species Act and Lessons for the Future. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Scott, J. M., B. Csuti, and S. Caicco. 1991b. Gap analysis: assessing protection needs. Pages 15-26 in W. E. Hudson, editor. Landscape Linkages and Biodiversity. Defenders of Wildlife and Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Scott, J. M., F. Davis, B. Csuti, R. Noss, B. Butterfield, C. Groves, J. Anderson, S. Caicco, F. D’Erchia, T. C. Edwards, J. Ulliman, and R. G. Wright. 1993. Gap analysis: A geographical approach to protection of biological diversity. Wildlife Monographs 123:141.

Shaffer, M. L. 1981. Minimum population sizes for species conservation. BioScience 31: 131-134.

Sharitz, R. R., L. R. Boring, D. H. Van Lear, and J. E. Pinder. 1992. Integrating ecological concepts with natural resource management of southern forests. Ecological Applications 2:226-237.

Shelford, V. E., editor. 1926. Naturalist’s guide to the Americas. Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore, Md.

Shelford, V. E. 1933. Ecological Society of America: A nature sanctuary plan unanimously adopted by the Society, 28 December 1932. Ecology 14:240-245.

Shen, S. 1987. Biological diversity and public policy. BioScience 37:709-712.

Sherman, K. 1991. The large marine ecosystem concept: research and management strategy for living marine resources. Ecological Applications 1:349-360.

Silver, D. 1992. Protection of gnatcatcher falls prey to politics. Los Angeles Times, 26 April 1992:B2. *Simberloff, D. 1991. Review of theory relevant to acquiring land. Report to Florida Department of Natural Resources. Florida State University, Tallahassee.

Smith, D. D. 1981. Iowa prairie–an endangered ecosystem. Proceedings of the Iowa Academy of Science 88:7-10. *Smith, L. M. 1993. Estimated presettlement and current acres of natural plant communities in Louisiana currently recognized by the Louisiana Natural Heritage Program, January 1993. Unpublished table. Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Natural Heritage Program, Baton Rouge.

Soulé, M. E., editor. 1987. Viable populations for conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Soulé, M. E. 1991. Conservation: tactics for a constant crisis. Science 253:744-750.

Spies, T. A., and J. F. Franklin. 1988. Old growth and forest dynamics in the Douglas-fir region of western Oregon and Washington. Natural Areas Journal 8:190-201.

Stebbins, G. L. 1980. Rarity of plant species: A synthetic viewpoint. Rhodora 82:77-86. *Stevenson, J. C., and N. M. Confer. 1978. Summary of available information on Chesapeake Bay submerged vegetation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services. FWS/OBS-78/66.

Stolzenburg, W. 1992. Silent sirens. Nature Conservancy May/June 1992:8-13.

Stuckey, R. L., and G. L. Denny. 1981. Prairie fens and bogs in Ohio: floristic similarities, differences, and geographic affinities. Pages 1-33 in R. C. Romans, editor. Geobotany II. Plenum Press, N.Y.

Stuebner, S. 1992. Leave it to beaver. High Country News 24(15):1,10-12.

Summers, C. A., and R. L. Linder. 1978. Food habits of the black-tailed prairie dog in western South Dakota. Journal of Range Management 31:134-136.

Tear, T., J. M. Scott, P. Hayward and B. Griffith. 1993. Status and prospects for success of the endangered species act: A look at recovery plans. Science 262:976-977.

Temple, S. A., and J. R. Cary. 1988. Modeling dynamics of habitat-interior bird populations in fragmented landscapes. Conservation Biology 2:340-347.

Terborgh, J. 1989. Where have all the birds gone? Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.

Thomson, G. W. 1987. Iowa’s forest area in 1832: A reevaluation. Proceedings of the Iowa Academy of Science 94:116-120.

Thomson, G. W., and H. G. Hertel. 1981. The forest resources of Iowa in 1980. Proceedings of the Iowa Academy of Science 88:2-6. *Tiner, R. W. 1984. Wetlands of the United States: current status and recent trends. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.

Tiner, R. W. 1989. Current status and recent trends in Pennsylvania’s wetlands. Pages 368-378 in S. K. Majumdar, R. P. Brooks, F. J. Brenner, and R. W. Tiner, editors. Wetlands Ecology and Conservation: Emphasis in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Academy of Science, Easton.

Tisdale, E. W. 1961. Ecologic changes in the Palouse. Northwest Science 35:134-138.

*Toney, T. 1991. Public prairies of Missouri. Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City.

Turner, M. G., and C. L. Ruscher. 1988. Changes in landscape patterns in Georgia, USA. Landscape Ecology 1:241-251. *United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization. 1974. Task Force on Criteria and Guidelines for the Choice and Establishment of Biosphere Reserves. Man and the Biosphere Report No. 22. Paris, France. *United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service. 1984. California’s county resources inventory. Summary tabulations. Davis, Calif. *U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985. Key tree-cactus (Cereus robinii) recovery plan technical draft. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, Ga. *U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Proposed listing rule for California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica). Portland, Oreg.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; Threatened coastal California gnatcatcher, Final Rule and Proposed Special Rule. Federal Register 58:16742-16753.

Usher, M. B. 1986. Wildlife conservation evaluation. Chapman and Hall, London, UK.

Ware, S., C. C. Frost, and P. Doerr. 1993. Southern mixed hardwood forest: The former longleaf pine forest. Pages 447-493 in W. H. Martin, S. G. Boyce, and A. C. Echternacht, editors. Biodiversity of the Southeastern United States: Lowland Terrestrial Communities. Wiley, N.Y.

Water Environment Federation, The. 1993. The Clean Water Act of 1987. The Water Environment Federation 318 pp.

Watson, A. 1992. Regenerating the Caledonian forest: An ecological restoration plans project in Scotland. Wild Earth, Special Issue: 75-77.

Weaver, P. L. 1989. Rare trees in the Colorado Forest of Puerto Rico’s Luquillo Mountains. Natural Areas Journal 9:169-173.

West, N. E. 1995. Strategies for maintenance and repair of biotic community diversity on rangelands. In R. Szaro, editor. Biodiversity in Managed Landscapes. Oxford University Press, New York. In press.

Westman, W. E. 1981. Diversity relations and succession in Californian coastal sage scrub. Ecology 62:170-184.

Whicker, A. D., and J. K. Detling. 1988. Ecological consequences of prairie dog disturbances. BioScience 38:778-785.

Whisenant, S. G. 1990. Changing fire frequencies on Idaho’s Snake River Plains: Ecological and management implications. Pages 4-10 in E. D. McArthur, E. M. Romney, S. D. Smith, and P. T. Tueller, compilers. Proceedings of the Symposium on Cheatgrass Invasion, Shrub Die-Off, and Other Aspects of Shrub Biology and Management. General Technical Report INT-276. U.S. Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah.

Whitcomb, R. F., C. S. Robbins, J. F. Lynch, B. L. Whitcomb, M. K. Klimkiewicz, and D. Bystrak. 1981. Effects of forest fragmentation on avifauna of the eastern deciduous forest. Pages 125-206 in R. L. Burgess and D. M. Sharpe, editors. Forest Island Dynamics in Man-dominated Landscapes. Springer-Verlag, N.Y.

White, P. S., E. R. Buckner, J. D. Pittillo, and C. V. Cogbill. 1993. High-elevation forests: Spruces-fir forests, northern hardwoods forests, and associated communities. Pages 305-337 in W. H. Martin, S. G. Boyce, and A. C. Echternacht, editors. Biodiversity of the Southeastern United States: Upland Terrestrial Communities. Wiley, N.Y.

Wilburn, J. 1985. Redwood forest. Outdoor California, January-February 1985:13-16.

Wilcove, D. S. 1987. From fragmentation to extinction. Natural Areas Journal 7(1):2329.

Wilcove, D. S., C. H. McLellan, and A. P. Dobson. 1986. Habitat fragmentation in the temperate zone. Pages 237-256 in M. E. Soulé, editor. Conservation Biology: The Science of Scarcity and Diversity. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Mass.

Wilcox, B. A., and D. D. Murphy. 1985. Conservation strategy: The effects of fragmentation on extinction. American Naturalist 125:879-887.

Williams, J. E., J. E. Johnson, D. A. Hendrickson, S. Contreras-Balderas, J. D. Williams, M. Navarro-Mendoza, D. E. McAllister, and J. E. Deacon. Fishes of North America endangered, threatened, or of special concern. Fisheries 14(6):2-20.

Wilson, E. O. 1985. The biological diversity crisis. Bio-Science 35:700-706.

Wilson, E. O. 1988. Biodiversity. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

World Resources Institute. 1992. The 1992 Information Please Environmental Almanac. World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C. *World Resources Institute, The World Conservation Union, United Nations Environment Programme. 1992. Global biodiversity strategy: guidelines for action to save, study, and use earth’s biotic wealth sustainably and equitably. World Resources

Institute, International Union for the Conservation of Nature, United Nations Environmental Program, Washington, D.C. *World Wildlife Fund Canada. 1993. Protected areas gap analysis methodology. Draft report. World Wildlife Fund Canada, Endangered Spaces Campaign, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Zeveloff, S. I. 1988. Mammals of the intermountain west. University of Utah Press, S

Cross-posted from John Cox

The Role of Livestock in Sage Grouse Decline



By, George Wuerthner Grazing, Livestoc

Cross-posted from: for educational purposes

The Greater Sage Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) is the largest grouse in North America. The grouse is found in sagebrush steppe from Alberta to New Mexico and throughout the Great Basin region of Oregon, Idaho, Nevada, Utah, Colorado and Wyoming.  The sage grouse is extirpated from much of its former range and is no longer found in British Columbia, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Arizona and New Mexico.

Habitat loss, combined with habitat degradation has led to its decline from a previous estimated population of 16 million to the present 250,000-500,000 across its remaining vast geographical range.  Because many of the remaining populations are small and fragmented, the bird’s population continues to decline due to random stochastic events like local winter storms that might cause an isolated group to wink out and perhaps as a consequence of genetic issues related to inbreeding depression.  The bird is currently under petition for listing under the Endangered Species Act.

The decline of the sage grouse is symptomatic of the overall decline of the ecological health of the sage brush steppe with which it is intricately entwined. In parts of the bird’s range, much of the sagebrush habitat in eastern Washington, northern Montana, and parts of Northwest Oregon has been converted to wheat and other agricultural croplands.

In parts of Wyoming, Montana, Colorado and Utah oil and gas development has led to significant habitat fragmentation of the sage brush steppe and thus declines in sage grouse.

In small areas, habitat has also been lost to urban and rural development, wind farms, power line corridors, and other factors.


But the common denominator in the bird’s decline across its entire geographical range is livestock production.

With the exception of the habitat acreage lost to agricultural production, these other factors have only recently become an issue for sage grouse survival. Sage grouse numbers have been falling for decades, long before some of these other factors like oil and gas development, power lines, wind farms, subdivisions, and so forth were an issue across much of its habitat, however, livestock have been degrading sage grouse habitat for a century or more.

Livestock affect sage grouse at every step of their life history.


Sage grouse lack a muscular gizzard so can’t eat seeds. They must consume soft foods. Although sage grouse depend on sage brush, they also do consume forbs (flowers) insects and perhaps even grasses at certain seasons. In summer months forbs can make up to 40% of the adult diet. Since cattle also eat these same plants, in many areas, cattle are consuming the food that might otherwise sustain sage grouse. In drought years (when competition between cattle and grouse is more intense) sometimes grouse will simply forgo breeding in low nutrition years. By contrast, hens in good nutritional shape will produce more eggs, and healthier chicks. So the mere presence of cattle and sheep grazing sage grouse habitat is literally taking food out of the mouth of sage grouse.

Sage grouse require good grass/forb cover under or near sage brush as hiding cover for nesting habitat to avoid predators. Grazing removes a lot of that cover, making hens vulnerable to predation from coyotes, ravens, and even ground squirrels. In Idaho they are poisoning ravens to “boost” sage grouse numbers–instead of leaving more grass behind to give sage grouse sufficient cover. If the grass cover is good, the hens are less vulnerable to predators.


Another impact of grazing on nesting success has to do with micro-climate. Males do not help raise the young or guard the eggs, thus the female must leave periodically to feed. During this time, it’s critical for the nest and eggs to have enough cover to moderate the nest environment. Temperatures either too hot or too cold can be disastrous to the eggs. Again livestock grazing often reduces this critical cover component.

Unlike some other “chicken like” birds say pheasant, sage grouse tend to have fewer eggs. They are a long-lived bird, but they can’t sustain high nest losses year after year.


After the chicks hatch, they feed mostly on insects and forbs in wet meadows and riparian areas. Forbs constitute up to 50% of their diet for the first 11 weeks. Insects are also important and may be as much as 75% of their diet in the first couple of weeks.

Unfortunately the activity that has destroyed more riparian habitat and wet meadows than any other is livestock grazing. Cattle trample the soils reducing the infiltration of water reducing the physical extent of wet meadows. They break down stream banks creating down cutting of stream channels which then causes the water table to fall, again reducing the extent of wet meadows or riparian vegetation.  Livestock trample springs, and/or ranchers often “develop” springs to water stock, in either case limiting their output which is the source for summer flows in many streams, again reducing the riparian influence.

Livestock are naturally attracted to wet meadows and riparian areas and preferentially graze these areas because high soil moisture increases overall plant production and palatablity. Yet the vegetation in these wet meadows and riparian area  is critical as hiding cover for chicks so they are not eaten by predators.

This effect of plant cover loss is amplified in drought years to the detriment of grouse. Since lower precipitation means less grass production and cover, chicks are already more vulnerable to predators. But in drought years, wet meadows are especially attractive to cattle which often graze them down to billiard table lawns with no cover for chicks or adult hens.

Yet another way that livestock production has impacted sage grouse is the loss of the best habitat to livestock production. Sage grouse do best on flat to slightly sloping terrain with some streams or wetlands close by. Of course, throughout the West, this is exactly the habitat that has been converted into private ranchlands. Native wet meadows and riparian areas have been destroyed and particularly the low elevation terrain has been converted to alfalfa fields and other exotic grasses. Overall across its vast geographical range this loss of this critical habitat element has reduced sage grouse numbers just as the conversion to wheat fields has negatively impacted the bird.


Sage grouse are vulnerable to habitat disturbance. Sage grouse are weak fliers. They prefer to walk. When there is anything like seeding projects or hay fields, or even a road, it can fragment habitat and make sage grouse either abandon habitat or avoid those areas, even if good habitat may exist beyond the barrier.

One of the linear barriers to sage grouse movement as well as habitat loss throughout sage grouse habit range is fences. A surprising number of sage grouse just fly into fences.  A number of studies have documented significant mortality from fences, particularly among young grouse.

Fences also provide perches for avian predators (i.e. golden eagles, hawks, ravens, etc.) that survey the surrounding terrain for sage grouse. Because sage grouse recognize that perches are a predator trap, some studies have shown that grouse avoid fences for up to a half mile on either side of the fence. That means for every mile of fence out there, you are losing a mile wide patch of habitat. Multiply this by all the livestock fences in the West, and you start to understand what a big impact fencing has upon grouse.

Why are there fences all over the open spaces of the West? One reason–livestock.

Of course sage grouse get their name because they eat sage brush most of the year. Without sage brush they starve. Plus sage brush provides cover from predators and thermal cover in winter when there is cold weather. This is particularly important in winter when “wind chill” can greatly increase metabolic demands. Grouse will even burrow into the snow under the branches of sage brush in cold weather. Thus they are sage brush obligates.


One of the biggest negative impacts on sage brush has been livestock management practices on sage brush itself. In many parts of the West federal agencies like the BLM, FS, etc. have and/or are either spraying herbicides and/or burning it to eliminate sage brush to produce more grasses for livestock to eat. Millions of acres have been impacted. This is less common today than in the past because of the potential listing of sage grouse, but one cannot underestimate how much damage has been done to the grouse over the years by sage brush elimination programs. Unfortunately it still occurs. Sage brush burning proposals designed to increase livestock forage in occupied sage grouse habitat are being implemented across western states.

There are also seeding programs that have had the same effect. The notorious Vale Project in eastern Oregon eliminated millions of acres of sage brush to plant crested wheatgrass, an exotic grass from Russia, that has little value for wildlife, but is grazed by cows. Again why was this done? To increase forage for livestock on the public lands.


One of the threats to sage grouse are range fires burning through sage brush. Wildfires are a natural occurrence and natural process in sage brush habitat, however, over the past few decades, the fire frequency has been greatly accelerated due to the widespread establishment of cheatgrass in the sage brush steppe. Cheatgrass is highly flammable.

Cheatgrass doesn’t magically appear and it has a difficult time invading healthy sage brush habitat.

However when sage brush steppe is degraded by livestock grazing, it reduces the competitive ability of the native grasses to complete with cheatgrass. Cattle prefer to graze on the native grasses (hence the name cheatgrass because in the old days ranchers felt “cheated” when cheatgrass replaced the natives). So while the native grasses are grazed and must recover from grazing, the cows largely ignore the cheatgrass.

The second factor in the spread of cheatgrass related to cows has to do with biocrusts. Biocrusts grow on the soil surface in-between the native grasses and sage brush. These soil crusts do several things including reduce soil erosion. But they also prevent the seeds of cheatgrass from getting into the soil. Cheatgrass as an annual plant has small seeds, and if the seed doesn’t get roots into the soil quickly they die. Native grasses have large seeds, and have enough energy to get roots through the crusts. Also since native grasses are long lived–up to 150 years–they only have to get a few seeds into the soil once a century to replace themselves.

By far the worst thing that cattle do is trample the biocrust. And it’s important to note that the entire Great Basin  did not have large herds of grazing animals like bison in historic times. The plant communities are therefore not adapted to trampling and heavy hooves tearing up the soil.

Worse for range recovery most native grasses require a decade without any grazing at all to begin to recover from a fire, but due to the pressure from ranchers, most rangelands seldom get more than 1-2 years rest before cattle are moved back on to them. This greatly reduces the recovery and favors cheatgrass again.


Another way that livestock has impacted sage grouse has to do with water troughs. In many of the drier parts of the West, ranchers have put out stock tanks to provide water. Stock tanks are good breeding habitat for mosquitoes. Mosquitoes carry West Nile Virus which kills sage grouse. In some populations, as much as 29% of the birds have died from the infection.


As sage grouse populations decrease, the negative effects of inbreeding regression sets in further eroding the viability of the species. So it may not seem like a big deal if a few breeding leks disappear or there remain some “strongholds” with grouse, keep in mind that grouse are a tournament species, meaning that a relatively few males do the bulk of all breeding. This significantly reduces the genetic diversity in small populations, making them further likely to wink out.

States and Wildlife Agencies are engaged in these so-called “Sage Grouse Working Groups” to avoid listing under the ESA.   But, those groups ignore livestock impacts and management that would leave sufficient cover of grasses and forbs in riparian areas and meadows during the summer brood rearing season.  Further, these groups are channels for Federal tax dollars to provide more vegetation treatments, more seedings, more range water developments, fences and infrastructure while not addressing the basic problem, overstocking and poor to no direct control over livestock.

Rounding up wild horses to put cattle on the land

Eye witness reports:

“This video was taken at the BLM Antelope Complex “Gather” south of Wells, NV on 24-Feb-2011. We had just come from observing the BLM Contract capture 6 Wild Horse about 4 miles away. They said that there are too many Wild Horses on this range land. The range can’t support the estimated 2000+ Wild Horses. Yet as we left the capture there are 100s maybe a 1000 pregnant cattle just arriving onto the range. Hmmmm, does that make sense?”

Nevada ranchers suffer from self-deluded drought denial


Data Backs BLM Manager’s Allotment Cuts in Face of “Cowboy Express” Protest

Washington, DC — A U.S. Bureau of Land Management District Manager from Nevada targeted by angry Nevada ranchers was more than justified in removing cattle from drought-stricken public rangeland, according to data released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). Tomorrow, protesting ranchers start a “Cowboy Express” ride to Washington demanding removal of BLM Battle Mountain District Manager Douglas Furtado as an “abusive federal employee” even as conservation groups urge that Furtado be commended not condemned for his actions.

Like much of the West, Nevada has been in the grips of persistent drought, with nearly 90% of the state under “severe to exceptional” drought for three consecutive years. This, in turn, causes greater conflict over dwindling water and forage. Not surprisingly, Nevada has also become Ground Zero for rising tensions on range management as illustrated by this spring’s armed standoff with renegade rancher Cliven Bundy who has been illegally grazing his cattle in southern Nevada for more than a decade.

“We all know about climate deniers, but this is the first we’ve heard of drought deniers,” stated PEER Advocacy Director Kirsten Stade, pointing out that much of Furtado’s Battle Mountain District has been among the hardest hit by drought in Nevada. “If we are to believe the ranchers, an extreme, multiyear, regionwide drought has magically spared only their allotments.”

In July, Battle Mountain District Manager Furtado ordered livestock removed from parched range on the sprawling 332,000-acre Argenta allotment in northern Nevada after conditions fell below thresholds that ranchers and BLM had previously agreed would trigger removal. The ranchers contend that Furtado’s actions were arbitrary but an analysis of Geographic Information Systems and BLM data reveal range in terrible ecological shape:

Nearly every Battle Mountain allotment evaluated failed range health standards for wildlife and water quality, largely due to livestock grazing;

Half of the Argenta Allotment, and roughly 30% of the Battle Mountain District is habitat for sage grouse, a species being reviewed for listing under the Endangered Species Act. BLM has been directed to protect the species’ habitat but 90% of assessed sage grouse habitat was in Battle Mountain allotments failing standards due to livestock; and
Fence line contrasts visible in satellite imagery show that public lands in the checkerboarded allotment are far more heavily grazed than private lands, suggesting that ranchers are more protective of their own lands than they are of publicly-owned range.

“Doug Furtado should be praised, not pilloried, for doing his job,” Stade added, noting a letter of support sent today from PEER and Western Watersheds Project urging that BLM as an agency to do more to stand up for its employees when they attempt to protect public resources. “The Cowboy Express is actually a cynical attempt to use iconic imagery to mask selfish abuse of public lands. If ranchers will not be responsible stewards then conscientious land managers have to make hard decisions, as Doug Furtado has done.”

Western Watersheds Project intervened in the Argenta case when ranchers initially refused to remove their cattle despite their previous agreement. Even after an order from an Interior Department administrative law judge affirmed the BLM’s authority to remove the livestock, as many as 100 cattle remain on the Argenta allotment to this day.

“The rancher resistance to drought protections in Battle Mountain is aimed at preventing effective protection of public lands and sage-grouse habitats across the West,” said Katie Fite, Western Watersheds Project’s Biodiversity Director. “It is meant to intimidate other federal agency managers so that they turn a blind eye to habitat degradation.”

The records for all roughly 20,000 BLM allotments across the West, many of which show similar overgrazed conditions, will be displayed next month in a new PEER website documenting longstanding and serious ecological impacts caused by ongoing livestock overgrazing.


See the data on Range Conditions in the Battle Mountain District

Read letter in support of Doug Furtado

View the denial of the permittees’ appeal of BLM’s decision

Look at heavy hoof-print of commercial grazing in the West

All content © 2014 Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility
2000 P Street NW, Suite 240 Washington, DC 20036

BLM weighs wild horse impact much more heavily than cattle

Agency Sage Grouse Review Puts Thumb on Scale to Magnify Wild Horse and Burro Effects

Washington, DC — The method used by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management to assess range conditions is seriously skewed toward minimizing impacts from domestic livestock and magnifying those from wild horses and burros, according to an appraisal by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). As a result, the BLM’s approach to range management targets scattered wild horses and burros while ignoring far more numerous cattle.

The agency’s assessment is part of a 2013 report on factors influencing conservation of the Greater Sage-Grouse, a ground-dwelling bird whose numbers have declined as much as 90% across the West and which is under consideration for protection under the Endangered Species Act. That report concludes that twice the area of sage grouse habitat is negatively impacted by wild horses and burros than the area negatively impacted by livestock. A PEER appraisal of the methodology found –

BLM calculates the “area of influence” of wild horses and burros on sage grouse habitat based merely on their presence within Herd Management Areas in sage grouse habitat, while it considers livestock impact to have occurred only when livestock grazing allotments fail the agency’s Land Health Status (LHS) standard for wildlife;
If the agency used the same approach for calculating the area of influence of livestock within BLM grazing allotments on sage grouse habitat as it did for wild horses and burros, the area of influence for livestock would be roughly 14 times that given in the report and more than six times that of wild horses and burros; and
Within BLM’s own grazing allotment LHS database records, livestock grazing is cited as a cause of failure to achieve a land health standard 30 times more often than are wild horses and burros.
“At BLM apparently not all hooves are created equal,” said PEER’s Advocacy Director Kirsten Stade, noting that the LHS evaluations cover more than 20,000 grazing allotments and examine whether a grazing allotment meets the agency’s standards for rangeland health with respect to several vegetation and habitat conditions. “This helps explain why wild horses are regularly removed from the range but livestock numbers are rarely reduced.”

The BLM assessment influences not only the agency’s range management decisions but also will figure into the Fish and Wildlife Service’s decision on whether to list the sage grouse under the Endangered Species Act.

Last year in response to a complaint by PEER filed under agency Scientific Integrity policy, BLM claimed that it does not have enough “reliable data” about commercial livestock impacts to include them in current assessments of environmental conditions on Western range lands. Yet, BLM has more data on the grazing that it authorizes through permits than virtually every other topic.

“When it comes to cattle, BLM plays with a marked deck,” Stade added, pointing out the PEER analysis that will become part of PEER’s new grazing reform web center set to launch in several weeks. “We are posting BLM’s own data in a way that allows apples-to-apples comparisons while displaying satellite imagery that depicts the true livestock landscape impacts.”


See the PEER Analysis

Compare BLM claims to what their data reveal

livestock vs. wild horse and burro areas of influence on sage grouse

The relative negative influence area of feral ungulates with respect to domestic livestock based on BLM’s spatial analysis approach (USGS OFR 2013-1098) are completely at odds with BLM’s own land health standards (LHS) evaluation causal data, used to inform BLM’s analysis. BLM concludes in OFR 2013-1098 that the negative area of influence of feral ungulates is twice that of domestic livestock, when the records show that only 3% of grazing-related failures of standards are attributed to wild horses and burros.

See the 2013 BLM/USGS report

Revisit BLM claim of unreliable livestock grazing data

Huge disinformation campaign against native wild horses in rural Utah and elsewhere to pitch slaughter

Cows (Photo © Anne Novak)

Cows (Photo © Anne Novak)




Today wild horses are underpopulated on public land. The BLM’s roundups and removals have caused the herds to have an increased birthrate because they fear extinction and the social structure is unstable.

The ISPMB Study shows wild horse herds with functional social structures contribute to low herd growth compared to BLM managed herds. Click here to read the study:

We request a 10 year moratorium on roundups for recovery and scientific studies before wild horses are managed to extinction.

9/23 National Call-In Day to Stop BLM from Wiping Out Checkerboard Wild Horses in Wyoming


Share and TAKE ACTION today for Wyoming’s wild horses!

It’s MUSTANG MONDAY™! Contact Congress here:

National CALL-IN day is Monday, September 23rd! CALL and Ask your Congressional Representative and 2 Senators to STOP the WIPE OUT!

Wyoming’s wild horses must not end up in the SLAUGHTER Pipeline!!!

They deserve their land and their freedom! Send your comments in to BLM! Info here: Canned comments don’t count! Please write your own and remember there is “No Evidence” of overpopulation according to the National Academy of Sciences. Request a Moratorium on Roundups for Population Studies!

The Wyoming travesty was mentioned in GASLAND 2. See the movie ( and share it with your friends.

SAVE Wyoming’s wild horses! They belong to all Americans because they are under federal control.

And WILD HORSE WEDNESDAY™ Let’s live chat the Secretary of the Interior and ASK for a MORATORIUM on Roundups for population studies because we need SCIENCE before any action!

Sign the petition to STOP the Roundups!


Watch and Share GASLAND 2



BLM says it cannot track cattle on its lands


Cows in Nevada (Photo © Anne Novak)

Cows in Nevada (Photo © Anne Novak)

Blames Lack of “Seamless Data” for Excluding Livestock from Range Assessments 

By: Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER)

Washington, DC January 24, 2013 – The U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) says it was an absence of “reliable data”—and not politics—that caused it to exclude consideration of commercial livestock impacts from multi-million dollar assessments of environmental conditions on Western range lands. BLM thus rejected the first scientific misconduct complaint filed against it by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), which today released a detailed rebuttal of BLM’s self-exoneration.

In a letter dated January 2, 2013, Louis Brueggeman, the BLM Scientific Integrity Officer, rejected the PEER scientific misconduct complaint filed more than a year earlier, on November 30, 2011. He concluded that the complaint had “no merit” since the decision to exclude grazing was reached independently by study team leaders (all BLM managers) solely for “technical reasons” relating to the “lack of sufficient existing data” about livestock impacts.

In reaching this conclusion, BLM ignored meeting minutes produced by PEER in which BLM managers are quoted saying that study of grazing impacts would concern “stakeholders” and the Washington Office due to “fear of litigation.” The claim that the real reason was lack of data does not hold water because:

– Attempts to exclude grazing began at the earliest stages of the study, before data availability was even examined. Further, BLM assertions of data gaps were never examined, let alone verified;
– Other factors being studied, such as invasive species, also have data gaps but these issues did not prevent invasive species from being selected as a study focus; and
– BLM managers hid the existence of a major livestock database which was never given to researchers.

“Caught with its pants down, BLM would have us believe it is wearing ankle warmers,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch, noting that the $40 million study was the biggest in BLM history but will end up being largely useless. “As by far the biggest disturbance factor on Western range lands, commercial livestock grazing simply cannot be left out of a scientific landscape assessment.”

PEER today asked Dr. Suzette Kimball, the Scientific Integrity Officer for the entire Interior Department, to reject BLM’s findings and institute an independent review. This is the first scientific misconduct complaint filed against BLM under rules purporting to prevent political manipulation of science.

“Unless some standards of credibility are applied, agencies will be able to simply deny instances of scientific misconduct, no matter how well documented or compelling,” Ruch added. “This scientific integrity process will become a complete joke if BLM can get away with claiming ‘the cows ate my homework.'”

See the original scientific integrity complaint

View the BLM response

Read the PEER letter to Dr. Kimball

Examine line-by-line rebuttal

Look at the damage wreaked by commercial livestock