2 special needs wild horses escape death at roundup

Day 2 of Devil's Garden Roundup courtesy Devils Garden Wild Horses FB Page

Day 2 of Devil’s Garden Roundup courtesy Devils Garden Wild Horses FB Page

Protect Mustangs will help find homes for 2 wild horses who would have been killed at Modoc Forest roundup

ALTURAS, Ca.(September 27, 2016)–Last week Anne Novak, founder and director of Protect Mustangs reached out to U.S. Forest Service staff with an offer to help find homes for any wild horses rounded up with pre-existing conditions–who would be killed–not offered a chance at adoption. Tonight Novak received the first call from Forest Service staff.

“It’s always bothered me that after wild horses heal from injuries and survive in the wild, they are chased by helicopters, rounded up and killed upon capture because they don’t seem like they would get adopted,” says Novak. “Some people don’t want a riding horse. Some people want to save a life.”

So far, two wild horses from the roundup have pre-existing conditions. One is believed to be pigeon toed due to a broken foot that healed in the wild. The other mustang’s condition is unknown at this time.

“They need to go to loving homes to become pets–not riding partners–or go to sanctuaries,” explains Novak. “They have survived in the wild and that’s a harsh life. They deserve our compassion after the roundup and they deserve to live.”

After the mustang protectors make an assessment of the wild horses with pre-existing conditions, a sanctuary might be a more suitable forever home. It’s too early to tell.

These two California wild horses from Modoc County will join their herd-mates at the Bureau of Land Management’s Litchfield holding Corrals near Susanville. There they will be prepared for adoption with the others.

Adoption applications are here: Protect-Mustangs-BLM-facility-adoption-app

    • Cost to adopt is $125.
    • Adoptions by appointment only, call (530) 254-6575.
    • Open Monday through Friday, 7 a.m. to 4 p.m. Summer hours are 6 a.m. to 3 p.m. The facilities are closed on federal holidays. Please call for current information.
    • Information is available 24 hours a day by calling 1-800-545-4256.
    • Completed adoption applications can be sent to Videll Retterath by e-mail vrettera@blm.gov or fax (530)252-6762.
    • The Corrals are located 21 miles east of Susanville , CA on US Highway 395.
    • Adopters receive title to wild horses after one year

Protect Mustangs will post photos as soon as we get them. Tax-deductible Gas donations are always needed to help us help the wild ones.


Photo by the US Forest Service

Members of the public with questions about the BLM’s requirements for adoption, questions about the wild horses with pre-existing conditions, who want to help network homes for wild horses who would be killed for pre-existing conditions, need trainer referrals, or want some tips on how to build an inexpensive shelter are invited to email the mustang protectors at Contact@ProtectMustangs.org

“I pray we can change the trend of killing special needs wild horses at roundups,” says Novak. ‘Someone’s going to fall in love with them. After all they’re still American mustangs.”

Protect Mustangs is a 501c3 nonprofit organization dedicated to the protection and preservation of native and wild horses. www.ProtectMustangs.org

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 http://bit.ly/2csth5p

Secret documents from 2008 reveal plan to kill and dispose of America’s wild horses and burros

© 2014 Anne Novak, all rights reserved.

© 2014 Anne Novak, all rights reserved.

 The Bureau of Land Management plots to wipe out wild horses and burros at taxpayer expense.  Is this how you want your tax dollars used?

“Jim says Burns takes them to a pit but they have always used it  . . .”

Notice that Pesticide PZP, made from slaughterhouse pig ovaries, is part of their wipe out plan. It sterilizes after multiple use. Their goal is zero population increase which would ruin natural selection and make it impossible for the species to survive climate change.

Members of the public and some organizations have been fooled into supporting Pesticide PZP as the “lesser of two evils”. Follow the money if you want to understand who profits from forcibly drugging wild mares with Pesticide PZP for population control.

The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is the registrant of Pesticide PZP https://www3.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_search/reg_actions/pending/fs_PC-176603_01-Jan-12.pdf. HSUS called native wild horses and burros “PESTS” on the EPA Pesticide Application. Have they changed the legal definition of wild horses and burros with the EPA application that should be revoked?

Scott Beckstead, who was born and raised on a working cattle ranch and now works for HSUS, reported at the BoLM’s Spring 2016 Wild Horse and Burro Advisory Board meeting that HSUS is experimenting on a stronger form of Pesticide PZP. Does “stronger” mean their new form of Pesticide PZP will forcibly sterilize native wild horses and burros with one injection?

Wild horses and burros are underpopulated on public land which is overpopulated by beef cattle and sheep. Ranchers, BoLM and others try to scapegoat wild horses and burros for range damage when the truth is commercial livestock is destroying, or already has destroyed, the ecosystem.

July 29, 2008











“GonaCon® is also a product that needs to be relooked at for sterilization of mares.” (Quoted from item 4 above)

Read about the GonaCon® experiment at Water Canyon that launched in 2015: http://protectmustangs.org/?p=8488 They have hopes to use GonaCon™ on the whole Antelope Complex.



August 12, 2008









PM Aerial Photo 6

Thanks to Jane Cheuvront for the Google Earth photo)

Read our August 11th blog post: What’s in the mounds, craters and pits at American wild horse holding facilities? http://protectmustangs.org/?p=9458

See all the notes from the secret conference calls in 2008 about killing off America’s wild horses and burros: pm-blm-secret-killing-conference-calls-2008



Special thanks to Dr. Patricia Haight, RIP, for acquiring the documents through FOIA.

See the draft of the BLM Wild Horse and Burro Program Alternative Management Options from October 2008 the result of the secret conference calls: pm-blm-killing-plans


(Fred T. Woehl, Jr. and Sue McDonnell, PhD. for Wild Horse & Burro Research are some of the Wild Horse and Burro Advisory Board members, who voted on September 9, 2016, to kill the alleged “unadoptable” wild horses and burros)


Protect Mustangs is a 501c3 nonprofit organization dedicated to the protection and preservation of native and wild horses. www.ProtectMustangs.org

Feds’ Oregon sterilization facility marks their mustangs for sale 5 times higher to discourage good homes from taking them

PM Hines Beauty #2809 Humbolt NV

Bureau of Land Management in Oregon thwarts placement of wild horses with sales rate hike

The same tax-payer funded facility who wants to partner with Oregon State University to conduct population control experiments on Americas pregnant wild mares is price gouging would be buyers of 3-Strikes wild horses to prevent them from going to good homes. The Bureau of Land Management (BoLM) in Oregon at the notorious Hines facility is asking 5 times as much money for each wild horse on the Internet Adoption. All the other facilities across the nation ask $25 or less.

Email your 2 senators and your congressional representative to let them know this is another example of BoLM’s lack of fair customer service. Include this blog post so it’s clear.


This is just one example of many that show BoLM’s poor customer service in the adoption and 3-Strikes program.

It’s clear the BoLM doesn’t want these wild horses to be adopted into good homes as the law requires but would rather sell them by the truckload to horse traders for slaughter, kill them or give them to henchmen in the states counties and cities as Rep. Chris Stewart’s Amendment on the 2017 Appropriations Bill would allow for “work horses” and most would end up going to slaughter. Obviously that’s their goal.


Protect Mustangs is a 501c3 nonprofit organization who protects and preserves native and wild horses.

Spirit Wins and Media Lies Lose at Standing Rock Protest

“We are tipis going up to see the stars. Enjoying the campfire with drums in the distance. Who can ask for more this very blessed night.” ~~An Elder at the Standing Rock Main Camp, Cannon Ball ND

Smells of sweet burning sage linger in the late evening and drift over the main camp on Highway 1806 at Cannon Ball North Dakota. Junior Cuero of the San Diego Campo Reservation chants the Bird Song, a mesmerizing, meditative and repetitive song of respect and honor to the Standing Rock people. A gourd rattle accompanies this ancient chant; a message given to the people by the Creator. Creator sent a bird to teach the People how to sing and dance and treat each other with empathy and not indifference. The sun is setting, bathing the campsite in warm light as the prairie winds begin to calm, and people gather around the campfire, feet tapping in rhythm.

There are two camps. One is located within the “official” reservation boundary and the second “main camp” with the majority of the protesters is located on U.S. Army Corps of Engineer’s land just north of the Cannon Ball River. The North Dakota Department of Emergency Services says it is not on tribal property, but the original treaty line was moved in 1889, so if you support broken treaties, you could call it illegal. In this case legality is in the eye of the beholder.

The Dawes Act and the Allotment Act opened the reservations throughout the United States to settlement by non-Indians. The tribe maintains jurisdiction on all reservation lands, “including rights-of-way, waterways, and streams running through the reservation.” On paper, that is.

See the history of the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation and learn more about the broken Fort Laramie Treaty that arbitrarily moved boundaries and tried to divide the Sioux Nation.

Standing Rock lies just south of the pipeline’s path under the Missouri River. How do you stop an oil spill at a boundary drawn on a map? Ask the people of Saskatchewan, who are facing 66,000 gallons of heavy crude from a broken pipeline owned by Husky Energy, Inc. It is making its way downstream and threatening the drinking water of several communities.

Despite local media accounts to the contrary, this gathering of Nations to protest the Dakota Access Pipeline are Spirit Camps of thoughtful prayer. There is no need to prolong the misinformation and outright lies perpetuated by the North Dakota Forum News Service. A governor steeped in the sticky flow of oil and money that has all but ruined portions of the North Dakota landscape feeds the news cycle with threats and lies about behavior at the encampments and issues emergency orders.

Truth about what fuels the reactions of authorities can be found in the discarded detritus of the failed oil boom. Abandoned RVs form small mountains in salvage yards, wells are shut down, man camps are ghost towns, and the promises of great wealth are only memory. The loss of oil revenue dollars provokes great fear in the offices of politicians. The Dakota Access Pipeline is really another name for the “abandoned” Keystone XL Pipeline and the goal is to wring every last drop of Bakken crude from North Dakota.

Authorities are reacting with anxiety that the pipeline will be compromised, and believe that concrete barricades along the main road to Standing Rock will stop the people from coming to protect their life source; water flowing from the mighty Missouri river.

But people continue to come, taking the long detour meant to complicate their journey to the Spirit Camp and reduce business at the Prairie Knights Casino and Hotel. But the authorities, despite the show of force at a “safety checkpoint” and rerouting of traffic on 1806 from Bismarck to Standing Rock, have failed. The hotel is almost full and the diversion along Highway 6 is spectacularly beautiful. Those who have purpose and appreciate the land and all it has to offer do not mind this “detour.”

Descendants of the Massacre at Wounded Knee by the Seventh Cavalry come. Young riders, many teenagers, come on their horses—they are some of the Big Foot Riders who travel 300 miles every year to Wounded Knee to pay respect to the ancestors who were massacred by the U.S. 7th Calvary Regiment. They, along with tribes from across the continent, do not want this pipeline that would involve 200 water crossings and pass through 300 sacred sites. They come. They come by car.

They come by horse.




They come on foot.

They are still coming.

Read Winona LaDuke’s excellent analysis of all that is at stake, “What Would Sitting Bull Do?”

I am not sure how badly North Dakota wants this pipeline. If there is to be a battle over the pipeline, it will be here. For a people with nothing else but a land and a river, I would not bet against them. The great Lakota leader Mathew King once said, “ the only thing sadder than an Indian who is not free, is an Indian who does not remember what it is to be free.”

Let’s for a moment reject the profane response of North Dakota authorities and focus instead on the sacred.

So many have traveled great distances to stand in solidarity. Many Nations now united as one.

An Elder from the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe talks of raising his granddaughter in the old ways. Seeing the tipis fills him with “cante waste”— “heart felt good.” M. Jay Cook is a member of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) School Board and says that sometimes raising his granddaughter “is my only motivation to live.” I receive a text from him one morning and a photo that is incredibly evocative of what is at stake here. He writes of the campfires and “hearing memories of growing up in iron lightning” as the stars speak to him of days gone by. He intends to “face the storm (oil) like the Tatanka (Buffalo) Nation.”




Photo by M. Jay Cook


Hazel Red Bird is 91 years old and a regal presence around the campfire. Many stop to greet her and share stories of growing up in Fort Yates. Red Bird is now back home at Standing Rock after living a good part of her life in Wisconsin. She is a true warrior woman, having enlisted in the Army Air Corps during World War II to train as a nurse at St. Mary’s School of Nursing in Pierre, South Dakota. The Great War ended just as her training did, and she began her working life as a registered nurse in the civilian white world.




Hazel Red Bird by Georgianne Nienaber


Red Bird surveys the gathering and says she is “amazed, thankful and humbled.” Then she glances down at the writer’s notepad to make certain those three words are written accurately.

“I am amazed because I didn’t think I would live long enough to witness this unity and resiliency among the Nations.”

Red Bird is quiet for a moment as her eyes narrow and she surveys the movement of the people who have gathered around the green tent that serves as a food and information center.

“I am thankful that I have lived 91 winters and humbled that prayers have been answered.”

At 91, this elegant Lakota woman still projects a warrior’s stance. There is more to learn about this fascinating woman who is also a repository of the Lakota language, and you can read more here.

There are other spiritual warriors who have gathered in joyful celebration and unity. Several young women from the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe wanted to make it very clear that they “are standing for our water.” Their ancestors fought and died along the northern and eastern shores of the Missouri River.




Renee Gonzales by Georgianne Nienaber


The Crow Creek Indian Reservation was established by executive order following what was known as the Minnesota Uprising, as a prison camp for the exiled Isanti Dakota and Winnebago people. These were the survivors, mostly women and children, of the largest known public execution in American History, “The Hanging of 38 Dakota Men at Mankato Minnesota.” From 1863 to 1866 approximately 300 died at Fort Thompson suffering from starvation, sickness, disease, exposure, hardship, and heartache.

A federal judge will rule on the legality of the Dakota Access Pipeline on September 9. It remains to be seen whether the traumatic past will be repeated and define the present. How much can be endured; how much more can be stolen? This is a spiritual battle for generations to come. Clean water and air is a right, not an option.

The bird song says this is true.

Mr. President, Wild horses are an indigenous species who prevent wildfires

Wild horses prevent wildfires as an essential part of the thriving natural ecological balance. When the BLM removes native wild horses we see a direct increase in catastrophic wildfires.

It would be much cheaper and better for the environment to leave wild horses alone on public land. Predators exist and fill their niche if Wildlife Services would only stop killing them.

The truth is wild horses are underpopulated. Even the National Academy of Sciences said there is “no evidence” of overpopulation. Perhaps that’s why there are more wildfires.

Bands of wild horses reduce hazardous fuels in areas with varied terrain without the use of poisonous herbicides and that’s good for the environment. Dedicated federally protected wild-horse habitats cover only 11% of public land so increasing their habitat would help prevent more wildfires.

It’s time to look at wildfire prevention holistically. Wild horses should be moved back into the Tahoe Basin area to bring back the balance lost to roundups and removals. Right now there are too few left and the wildfire risk is high.

Please stop treating America’s wild horses like invasive species Mr. President. Read about native wild horses here: http://protectmustangs.org/?page_id=562  Thank you.

How to contact President Obama:

Twitter: @BarackObama

Call the President

Comments: 202-456-1111
Switchboard: 202-456-1414

Comments: 202-456-6213
Visitor’s Office: 202-456-2121

Write a letter to the President

Here are a few simple things you can do to make sure your message gets to the White House as quickly as possible.

  1. If possible, email us! This is the fastest way to get your message to President Obama.
  2. If you write a letter, please consider typing it on an 8 1/2 by 11 inch sheet of paper. If you hand-write your letter, please consider using pen and writing as neatly as possible.
  3. Please include your return address on your letter as well as your envelope. If you have an email address, please consider including that as well.
  4. And finally, be sure to include the full address of the White House to make sure your message gets to us as quickly and directly as possible:

The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

PM Lennox meme


“The most important changes are the changes made by us.” ~ President Barack Obama, 20th Anniversary of the Lake Tahoe Summit. 

PM No Evidence Overpopulation

Protect Mustangs is a 501c3 nonprofit organization who protects and preserves native and wild horses.

Wild Horses, Evolution, Conjecture

grey-horse-lookingBut in view of the rapid pace evolution can take, and the extreme incompleteness of fossil deposits, we are fortunate to have as many transitions as we do. The creationist argument that if evolution were true we should have an abundance of intermediate fossils is built by denying the richness of paleontological collections, by denying the transitional series that exist, and by distorting, or misunderstanding, the genetic theory of evolution.”  — Lawrence A. Moran

Ignorance way too often promotes conjecture, and conjecture by misquotation and the false authority of “common knowledge” engendered by the repetition of abstract legendary histories from one generation, of bitter conversation mostly, or in text books (myth turned to reality) to the next.

So what is needed within Saving Wild Horses, Saving Domestic Horses from abuse and slaughter? Obviously, if the current larger non-profits who have designated themselves saviors of horses, as well as the supposed authority-ridden commercial enterprises, well, the fact is simple — Horses are not safe today – and this fact alone speaks volumes!

We can only hope, presently, that strong new trails and the eradication of the weaker ones, will indeed lead us to a balanced and integrated understanding that Wild Horses need their homeland and roam freely on Public Lands – and Domestic Horses need responsible ownership and strongly regulated breeding circumstances; which, also cannot be forgotten within this context, the Working Horse requires more concerned involvement within their safety and regulatory means to do so – with strong legal actions to punish the irresponsible oppressor.

Wild Horses

When one introduced to the realm of Wild Horses, it becomes quite apparent that today ignorance leads the pack of vultures toward making as much money off of Wild Horse Herds and so to speak, strike while the iron is hot.

Our human species seems to drift on a plain where the creatures of this planet, apparently within our human mind set, are perceived as “below us” within all aspects of life. A non-priority that certainly lacks Humane Reasoning what so ever, or facts stating otherwise, which are mostly ignored.

Then, no matter what the perception, human or animal, are caught in the ever present current of “time”; which, often abandons apparent paragons of development, such as the Wild Horses, for reasons that remain obscure at best – or excuses, which by the way remain unsupported by any facts what so ever, to actually liquidate them – i.e. cattle versus Wild Horses for example, and which species destroys Public Lands (Fact: overpopulation of cattle destroys Public Lands, but is ignored in order to destroy Wild Horses).

Wild Horses – An Indigenous Species

What about the Indigenous Species aspect of the Wild Horses? Well, conjecture and innuendo as defined by misquotation and the false authority of “common knowledge” engendered by the repetition of legendary histories (or myth generated for special interests) from one generation to the next – and suddenly we have aspects of misinformation such as the term “feral horses” of misinformed and ignorantly portrayed laws, such as those developed by the Wild Horse and Burro Board, which many of their recommendations remain not Ratified legally — so contempt in over-riding law by suggestion, and due to special interests and their suggestion, apparently prevails. This is yet another overlooked or ignored circumstance, or ignorance in total, we can truthfully bring to the debate of non-prescriptive circumstance, or invalid.

Yes, ignorance prevails within the Wild Horse establishment, and Wild Horses die, or sent to die in an extremely crude and hateful manner. Yes, ignorance leads to hate, we have found and very clear I might add, which also leads to bigotry, to profound excuse of death by false premise (or bad reasoning); which we can then combine with falsified information, greed, and falsified authority commentary, being extremely out of proportion with any type of reality what so ever. If this resembles at all previous events in history, and what war or revolutions had been based upon, then we can surmise perhaps one up and coming sooner than later – as a historically based fact in the matters of a historical premise one cannot deny.


The Horse – Domestic and Wild

Keep this mind for further discussion: An estimated 1 to 10 percent of all species that ever lived have left fossils, and, an estimated 1 to 10 percent of those will ever be found.

So when we discuss the legitimate concern of a government agency wiping out “in total” the Wild Horses, we also understand, those that know and have obtained that knowledge in a real-time and thorough process of investigation framework, know Wild horses are Indigenous, and protected by law; but as stated previously, the laws in the matters of Wild Horses apparently overridden by suggestion and innuendo, and not law at all.

How is this possible, then, that government agencies simply ignore the present information? Once again we go to the aspects of misquotation and the false authority of “common knowledge” engendered by the repetition of false legendary histories . . . and overwhelming ignorance, brought about by illegitimate excuse as well as information geared toward Special Interests – or plainly, people are paid off = profoundly ignorant people are paid off, and within many ways. For Example: Politician’s paid off in monetary amounts, government employees paid off in job security, non-profits paid off in grant money, etc…

The true landscape of the Wild Horse’s today? They do not have a chance . . .

Oddly, a species such as the Wild Horse, the origins of which can be traced through a clear progression of fossils, and one of the only species that can do so, is more the exception than the rule. Distraction through different levels of ignorance certainly equates to deception becoming a science also, and government agencies and many non-profits, as well as ignorant individuals within their own perceptions of definition in the matters of Wild Horses, and suddenly we have a heap of nothing more than confusion; which, more Wild Horses die.

But even evolutionary certainties have their doubtful aspects. The Wild Horses, yes, but not within the fossils found, or the carbon dating, or the DNA, all these are quite telling, and factual – no, the certainties that lead to confusion with Paleontologists are nothing more than debates upon their behavior, diet, proximity of grasslands, metabolism, and of course ecology.

Also keep in mind, as a natural fact of this planet, that our current living world is not much different than that of worlds long ago, and those we only surmise through deductive relevance of information, of text books, whether myth or reality – or of any difference at all . . . Yes, this is where our connection with all that is around us starts to become a reality as well.

And the insurmountable fact? Wild Horses, just as then, just as now, have and always will be symbols of heavenly permanence and power and connected with all those who understand them – guided directly to the Heart and Soul of this Universe, which when all is connected, to our human species and our very heart and souls, as well.

imagesWild Horses – Darwin – Christianity – Spiritual Existence

There exist many situations beyond the basic debates of Darwinian Evolution Principles versus Creation Standard Beliefs, or dimensions of Spiritual existence. Yes, there does exist other ways of life on this planet other than competitive, or of the belief our superiority remains priority above all else; which we see consistently out here in our Natural Environment and Ecological Systems alike – yes, Our Landscapes of truth and obtained from fact, rather than perception.

Let’s take the picture of a conventional Darwinian peaceful landscape, which underneath is a seething battle for survival, which in reality, or a truth – whichever you may accept, is nothing more than a picture, an element of the academic; which, in truth nothing more than an artifact superimposed over the physical reality.

So rather than an “if” or an “or” situation of choice, we have the reality, as we stand and look at it in real-time, as well as explore it. We then discover a Circle of Life beyond what, indeed, we have accepted as conventional reasoning, or perception. We find a peaceful landscape is just that, Peaceful – within the Circle of Life. In truth these landscapes have evolved from cooperation among organisms as well as from competition.

If we speak of the finite details of how cooperative organisms can indeed develop, and within a very systematized and sophisticated chain of events, then we can also deduct within a separate system, non-competitive by the way, that a few systems are competitive – but only within their separate chain of events. This is what makes the whole, the positive and negative of the Universe, which established beyond doubt we are all connected to everything on this planet – and it is indeed, in its entirety, the Circle of Life – the Diversity of it all.

To accept one, yet deny the other, is a human species fault, not of Nature, but of swayed perceptions. To accept false-premise, in order to wipe-out an entire species, and neglect the truth of all aspects of the matters of concern, or what that species may give back to its habitat and ecology, and develop contrary falsehoods to do so, is just wrong – on a Universal Level as well as wrong within any Human Species aspects also!

The Wild Horses, currently, serves as a good example of poor Human Species flaws that have developed over time – and it is time to change these flaws to something of a Humane Reasoning Standard of acceptance of all living creatures on this planet.

— White Paper – John Cox, The Cascades

Cross-posted from: http://bit.ly/2bpVNBk

Feds want to use 11 million tax dollars to experiment on American Wild Horses and Burros

Note from Protect Mustangs: If you don’t like this then: 1.) Go see your congressional representative this week and ask them to intervene to stop these horrible experiments on America’s wild horses who are being managed to extinction. 2.) Sign and share this petition and email it to everyone you know: https://www.change.org/p/defund-and-stop-the-wild-horse-burro-roundups Groups like The Cloud Foundation and the coalition led by The American Wild Horse Preservation Campaign seem to be misleading the public because they have chosen pushing PZP (controlled by The Humane Society of the United States) over championing wild horse freedom on public land. They slip appeals for PZP in the bottom of their online petitions hoping the public won’t notice what they are signing. That was the beginning of this slippery slope towards experimentation and extinction. Why? Follow the money, fear mongering and the seduction to campaign for drugging wild horses and burros with a risky pesticide made from slaughterhouse pig ovaries to block fertility. . . 3.) It’s time to join Protect Mustangs to protect our national treasures. Go to www.ProtectMustangs.org to sign up. 4.) You can donate to the Wild Horse Legal Fund also. The crowd funding link is here: https://www.gofundme.com/MustangLaw2016 or donate by www.PayPal.com to Contact@ProtectMustangs.org and please mark your donation is for the “Legal Fund”. Thank you for taking action today! Together we can turn this around.

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) wants to use American tax dollars in several cruel experiments to develop methods of wild horse and burro population control–despite the fact that there is no overpopulation of wild horses or burros. The BLM anticipates the total cost of the experiments to be $11 million over 5 years.The research is being conducted by university scientists as well as scientists from the U.S. Geological Survey.

Research with Universities results in experimenting on wild horses and burros

In its 2013 report to the BLM, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) found that no highly effective, easily delivered and affordable fertility-control methods were currently available for use on wild horses and burros. The most promising birth control, PZP, made from slaughterhouse pig ovaries, is limited in the duration of its effectiveness (1-2 years). At the same time, after multiple applications or if applied to young fillies it permanently sterilizes native wild horses.

The BLM released a solicitation for experimentation to develop new or improve existing population growth suppression methods for wild horses. (http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/newsroom/2015/july/nr_07_07_2015.html)  The following seven research projects were reviewed and recommended by an NAS panel of experts and are consistent with recommendations made to the BLM by its Wild Horse and Burro Advisory Board who is biased against wild horses and prefers livestock use public land for cheap grazing.

Wild Horse & Burro Advisory Board Meeting in 2013


© EquineClinic.comn shared for educational purposes

© EquineClinic.comn shared for educational purposes

1. Evaluation of minimally invasive methods of contraception in wild horse and burro mares: tubal ligation and hysteroscopically-guided oviduct papilla laser ablation. This was pushed by pro-slaughter advocates who want the horses free of fertility control drugs so they can go to slaughter eventually.

Recipient: Oregon State University
Summary: A one-year experiment that will aim to develop a minimally invasive surgical sterilization method for wild horse mares that requires no incisions.
Details: In an effort to develop minimally invasive, low-risk techniques for contraception and population control in female wild horses and burros, the experiment will evaluate two procedures, tubal ligation and hysteroscopically-guided laser ablation of the oviduct papilla in standing sedated females. For tubal ligation, the research team hypothesizes that a flexible endoscope inserted through a small incision in the vaginal vault will allow visualization of each oviduct in mares. Use of a diode laser or cautery instrument will allow effective fulguration followed by bloodless sectioning of the oviduct. This procedure should allow successful sterilization of up to 100% of female wild horses and burros gathered in any particular location as a single event. For the hysteroscopic procedure, the recipients expect to endoscopically visualize each oviduct papilla in standing, sedated, non-pregnant mares. A diode laser will be used to seal the opening between the oviduct and each uterine horn, thus preventing subsequent fertilization. The proposed procedures do not involve major surgery, are expected to have minimal complications while approaching 100% effectiveness, and when applied, are expected to result in a static to decreasing population level. Additionally, tubal ligation is a technique commonly performed in humans. The development of an acceptable sterilization technique will help control the population levels of wild horses and burros.

2. Tubo-ovarian ligation via colpotomy as a method for sterilization in mares

Recipient: University of Kentucky
Summary: A two-year experiment to develop different surgical approaches for tubal ligation in mares.
Details: The overall goal of this experiment is to develop methodology for the safe, economical and effective sterilizationof mares via colpotomy (vaginal incision) to achieve: 1) ovarian necrosis / atrophy via application of a ligature to the ovarian pedicle and 2) simultaneous sterilization via tubal ligation (i.e., tubo-ovarian ligation). The project will help determine the effectiveness of a custom-designed instrument for placement of a polyamide (nylon) cable tie around the ovarian pedicle and oviduct of mares via colpotomy for tubo-ovarian ligation. The procedure, conducted in the standing animal under sedation and local anesthesia, is expected to induce permanent sterilization of treated mares. The researchers will assess any post-operative complications of the procedure in mares and the effects on the health of mares to determine long-term effects on the reproductive tract, the overall health of mares and the fertility of mares undergoing the procedure, and the feasibility of these procedures in pregnant mares.

PM Sick Filly PVC March 25 2014
3. Functional assessment of ovariectomy (spaying) via colpotomy of wild mares as an acceptable method of contraception and wild horse population control

Recipient: Oregon State University
Summary: A six-month experiment that will determine whether an existing accepted surgical sterilization procedure commonly used for domestic mares can be safely conducted on wild horses.
Details: This experiment proposes to conduct a large-scope investigation of the safety and practicality of spaying mares as a tool for wild horse population control. Specifically, the researchers will help determine whether ovariectomy via vaginal colpotomy can be safely and effectively performed on wild mares that have been selected for non-breeding status. Non-breeding horses could then be returned to the range to live out their natural lives without individually contributing to population growth. The proposed research effort is based on recent pilot studies that have suggested the potential for surgery-related health complications from ovariectomy in adult female horses is low (near 1%). When evaluating options for field techniques, spaying (ovariectomizing) mares as a population control method is not recommended unless it can be performed in a safe, practical, and effective manner. The results of this study will provide standardized, baseline outcomes for this surgical procedure which can be directly compared to other less invasive procedures being conducted and evaluated by the same research team.

PM WC11 Lucky 11 Map

Map of Western United States showing 12 current field research/pilot projects.

4. Re-immunization of Free-Ranging Horses with GonaCon Immunological Vaccine: Effects on Reproduction, Safety, and Population Performance

Recipient: Colorado State University
Summary: A two-year experiment will focus on further study of Gonocon, an approved and labeled contraceptive vaccine for equids.

PM PZP Injection
Details: This experiment will focus on the effectiveness of GonaCon as an immunological vaccine, with five objectives: 1) to begin to determine the optimum and most effective re-vaccination schedule with GonaCon vaccine for suppressing reproductive rates in free-ranging horses, the duration of effectiveness, and the return to fertility following treatment; 2) to determine the safety and physiological side-effects (if any) in feral horses following re-vaccination with GonaCon including visual assessment of general health, body condition, injection site reactions, effects on current pregnancy, and neonatal health and survival; 3) to determine the effects of GonaCon vaccination on the behavioral side-effects (if any) in free-ranging horses including quantitative assessment of the effects on daily activity patterns and social interactions; 4) to develop and test a safe and effective dart configuration and injection system for remotely administering GonaCon vaccine to free-ranging horses by means of a syringe dart; and 5) to develop a Bayesian model to forecast the consequences of different GonaCon vaccine treatments on feral horse population dynamics at THRO. [Teddy Roosevelt National Park].

5. The Effect of Immunization against Oocyte Specific Growth Factors in Mares

Recipient: Colorado State University
Summary: A two-year experiment to develop a new, permanent contraceptive vaccine for wild horse mares.
Details: This experiment will focus on vaccination against two key proteins in wild horse and burro females, either alone or in combination, which may result in permanent sterility through premature oocyte depletion. The depletion of oocytes may occur by simply causing them all to become atretic prematurely and/or accelerating the process so that after a single season the mares and jennies have depleted their oocyte reserves. To test this hypothesis, the researchers will vaccinate mares against the proteins and track their sexual behavior, follicular growth, hormonal profile and ultimately total oocyte count over a two-year period. The long-term goal is to develop a vaccine that can cause permanent sterility after a single dose.

PM Burros Wild 2 © Carl Mrozek

Cruel way to drag foal by pulling bailing twine around their neck (Photo © Bo Rodriguez)

Cruel way to drag foal by pulling bailing twine around their neck (Photo © Bo Rodriguez)

6. Electrospun delivery to enhance the effectiveness of immunocontraception strategies in equids

Recipient: Ohio State University
Summary: A four-year experiment that will attempt to develop a new delivery vehicle for porcine zona pellucida (PZP) – a temporary contraceptive currently used in some wild horse herds – that would increase the duration of the vaccine’s effectiveness.
Details: To reduce population on public lands, horse immunocontraception has largely focused on the use of PZP in free-roaming wild populations. The vaccine appears to act by stimulating anti-PZP antibodies that bind to the surface of the ovulated egg, preventing sperm attachment. While performance has been satisfactory, recent results have been associated with contraceptive efficiencies that are considerably less than 100%. The basis for this is unknown but is believed to be in part caused by delivery methods that require substantial heating during polymer vehicle fabrication, expose PZP to enzymatic fluids prior to entry into the bloodstream and allow gradual – not burst – release. Gradual release can potentially desensitize the immune system to the presence of PZP, resulting in inferior production of anti-PZP antibodies. Thus, an ideal delivery method would allow release of PZP in “bursts” at pre-determined intervals to assure constant immune stimulation. This project will seek to develop an electrospun technology that can allow long-term, ‘burst’ delivery of porcine zona pellucida (PZP) vaccines to the intramuscular environment of horses and burros to result in prolonged suppression of reproduction. For large-scale application, free roaming horses could be gathered in the field and processed through stock chutes for aging, at which time the implants will be inserted by trocar. The experiment will also carry out parallel in vitro and in vivo experiments to examine the potential of electrospun vehicles as immunocontraceptive carriers. An electrospun “universal delivery vehicle” will be developed to provide sustained release of effective levels of porcine zona pellucida (PZP) for immunocontraception over periods of at least three years. By careful design, fabrication and testing of two different electrospun designs, the researchers will create a comprehensive evaluation of this novel method of delivery.

Pm PZP Darts
7. The use of membrane disrupting peptide / peptoid LHRH conjugates to control wild horse and burro populations

Recipient: Louisiana State University
Summary: A three-year experiment for the development of an injectable agent that would inactivate hormones and decrease female and male gonad viability.
Details: The experiment is a multidisciplinary effort aimed at developing novel drugs to control wild horse and burro populations. Several types of drugs consisting of conjugates of membrane disrupting peptides (such as Phor 21) with luteinizing hormone releasing hormone (LHRH) currently exist. These drugs (such as LHRH-Phor 21 conjugate) effectively target, bind to and destroy prostate, testicular, breast and ovarian cancer cells, as well as testicular and ovarian cells that control reproduction. LHRH targets the cell and delivers Phor 21 to the cancer cell or the reproductive cell in the testes or ovary and destroys it. Preliminary experiments suggest that administration of this drug by a slow-release delivery system will destroy the cells that control spermatogenesis in the male and follicle growth, oocyte development, ovulation and cyclicity in the female. Preliminaryresults also show that LHRH-Phor 21 targets and destroys gonadotropic cells in the pituitary gland. This indicates that cessation of reproductive activity is the result of both central control at the level of the pituitary gland and on receptor binding cells in both male and female gonads. The experiment will also assess the effect the drugs have on pregnant mares, both in early gestation and late gestation.

PM PZP Syringe Yearling Meme

Additional details about these experiments can be found in the following documents:

Detailed Summary of University-led Experiments for Fertility Control Tools for Wild Horses
Review of Proposals to the BLM on Wild Horse and Burro Sterilization or Contraception: A Letter Report
Research with the U.S. Geological Survey

Through its partnership with U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the BLM is undertaking important research aimed at delivering better methods and tools for managing wild horse and burro herds on public lands. These projects build upon on-going cooperation between the BLM and USGS that is implementing new methods to estimate wild horse and burro population size.

There are nine USGS experiments that have been approved or are on-going:
Collaring & radio marking (1 year): The aim is to develop safe GPS collars for tracking animals to determine habitat selection, movement ecology, population estimation, behavior, etc. GPS tracking might also help locating animals for contraceptive treatments.
Fecal DNA (genetics/population survey) (1.5 years): The experiment involves the collection and analysis of fecal DNA as a noninvasive method to determine genetic diversity and estimate population size.
Carrying capacity modeling (1 year): This experiment’s aim is to develop a coarse model to evaluate changes in animal carrying capacity in response to changes in vegetation production. The resulting model may help BLM to adapt plans in response to climatic change.

PM PZP Syringe FB
Mare Contraception -SpayVac Pen Trial II (5 years): This experiment will help determine the efficacy of alternative SpayVac contraceptive vaccine formulations that are potentially longer acting than conventional PZP vaccines.
Evaluating Behavior of Spayed Free-Roaming Mares (4 years): The experiment will determine the effects of spaying on behavior, interactions, and movement of spayed mares among a breeding herd. The study will also determine the population level effect on herd growth.
Evaluating Behavior of Geldings among a Breeding Herd (4 years): This experiment will determine any effects of gelding on behavior, movement, interactions and changes in habitat selection.
Two Sentinel Horse Herd Management Area (HMA) Demography Studies (2 studies, each of 5 years): These experiments will provide demographic data sets for use in new population models and serve as control HMAs for gelding and spayed mare field studies.
Burro Sentinel HMA Demography Study (5 years): The experiment will involve collecting data on the survival, fertility, fecundity, recruitment, movements, range use, habitat selection and social behavior of wild burros. These data will be used in population modeling.
The BLM has requested or is reviewing proposals for the following projects with USGS:
Evaluate the Use of a Silastic O-Ring Intrauterine Device (IUD) in Mares (4 years): This experiment will determine any effects on mare health resulting from the long-term presence of the silastic O-ring IUD. This IUD has effectively prevented pregnancy in domestic mares during one breeding season.
Burro Population Survey Method Development (2.5 years): This experiment will test two new population survey methods for wild burros. The existing simultaneous double-observer method, when applied to burros, tends to lead to underestimates of true burro population size.
WinEquus II – Population Model with Cost/Benefit Outputs (1.5 years): This experiment will develop a model that compares population modeling outcomes and projects the costs, benefits and expected population growth resulting from management actions that involve PZP, removals, spaying, gelding and other population growth suppression tools.
Testing Efficacy of Contraceptives for Female Burros (3-4 years): Contraceptive vaccines have yet to be used on wild burros due to limited research and unknown effects. This study will examine the efficacy of various existing vaccines.

PM Hazard Foter Public domain Marked Sterilize

© Protect Mustangs, 2016

Tracy Mohr speaks out against against experiments to wipe out wild horses

The War on Wild Horses

The War on Wild Horses

Advocate sees how disturbed the Sheldon wildlife preserve wild horses are after decades of experimentation 

Tracy Mohr writes:

Here is a link: http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/whbprogram/science_and_research/usgs_partnership.html to the BLM’s page of all the research they are proposing to do on the wild horses to “effectively manage them” on public lands. Keep in mind that the bottom line for BLM is that the proposed procedures, “when applied, are expected to result in a static to decreasing population level”.

In other words, the goal of all this research is to reduce the number of horses on public lands over time through permanent sterilization, with extinction being the eventual result.

If anyone is familiar with the concept of Trap-Neuter-Return (TNR) with feral cats, it is the method proven most effective to reduce and eventually eliminate feral cat colonies.

The most concerning part of all this is that according to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) 2013 report, there is no scientific basis used by BLM to determine the number of horses that should be on the range, nor does BLM know how many horses are actually on the range. Population estimates have been know to be 800% higher than actual numbers. The NAS report also stated that current management practices (ie. removals) are actually contributing to higher rates of population growth due to decreased competition for forage and water.

So how can BLM say they need to reduce wild horse reproduction when they don’t really know how many horses are on the range or how many horses the range can hold?

Yet the BLM continues to reduce the number of horses allowed while increasing the number of livestock permitted to graze on public lands.

Make no mistake, the goal is to eliminate wild horses from public lands.

We currently have 45 horses from the Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge, and some of these procedures had been done on the horses prior to their removal. It is obvious to us that higher male to female ratios, and spaying of mares and gelding and vasectomizing of males, does affect herd dynamics.

This was not the intention of the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act of 1971, which was to preserve wild horses and burros on the land where they were found, and keep them free from slaughter and harassment from man.

This research is not only unnecessary because there is no wild horse or burro overpopulation, but it is redundant, has already been shown to be detrimental to overall herd health, and will result in the eventual elimination of wild horses from our public lands.

~ Tracy Mohr, founder The Mustang Project

Conversation about fertility control with Brett Hass, retired biologist previously with NSA (part 1)

Don’t let pesticides like Gonacon™, PZP or SpayVac® manage native wild horses to extinction. The Spin Dr.’s and some ignorant horse advocates are pushing fertility control on underpopulated wild horses. Know the truth and expose those spewing the spin.

PM Gonacon Pesticide Fact Sheet

Read the entire Gonacon™ Pesticide Fact Sheet


John Cox: Brett, you’re a retired biologist, previously with the NSA for how many years?

Brett Hass: 46 long years John. We met in Vietnam, when we a lot younger my friend (smiles). We were doing wildlife and vegetation studies in your AO (area of operations). That was my first assignment with the NSA, as a matter of fact.

John Cox: Let’s cut through all of that. What do you think of Gonacon™ and some of the other fertility controls BLM is using?

Brett Hass: As usual, and as government agencies do and BLM and DOI are extremely guilty, they pretend that science guides its wild horse and burro management strategies. So the agencies involved go forth and resolve issues, supposedly, with experimental drugs–in this case GonaCon™. The question is, in reality, does it resolve anything at all, or is it simply to further experimentations with this drug and the wild horses the most expendable of situations currently?

The problem is very obvious, with the first-time use of an experimental drug, they act like children with a new toy–but this toy is extremely dangerous, to not only the horses and actually lead them to extinction, but the environmental consequences are apparently neglected entirely? (shakes his head negatively). . .

But let’s get real, the very absence of science contradicts any time of sound reasoning for its use whatsoever. So once again we have a government agency, using a Nazi-Type experimental fertility drug on horses and other wildlife–without knowing, or even acknowledging for that matter, what the long-term consequences are–or in perception–the problems that will arise in its actual use.

There is no resolution, as I reviewed the population situation and see first hand there is no over-population if wild horses just within the BLM numbers alone; but livestock, that is a completely different matter, in reality.

John Cox: In your appraisal of the information you’ve read, would you, as a tenured Wildlife Biologist for over 50 years, use this drug?

Brett Hass: Absolutely not! There is no pertinent reasoning to use it right now and especially on wild horses or much of anything else for that matter. Our wildlife and environment is simply too important to be so frivolous with such activity, especially an unknown situation, as fertility drugs used in our natural environment. But as you say, ignorance is quite something, and our government seems to portray ignorance quite well, and frankly the only situation they seem to be competent to accomplish.

Much more on this discussion with Brett Hass later . . .


Below is the original PZP Pesticide Fact Sheet before HSUS seems to have lobbied the EPA to make changes to the chemical class. It’s still only approved as a pesticide to manage pests. PZP is made from slaughterhouse pig ovaries mixed with modified freund’s complete adjuvant.

PM PZP Test mares

(American wild horses used in fertility control experiments)

© John Cox, printed with permission

John Cox is a Vietnam Vet, living in the mountains of the Pacific Northwest who writes about the environment. He’s passionate about saving America’s wild horse herds and wolves. 

Read John Cox’s blog at: https://prophoto7journal.wordpress.com

Have you read about the Gonacon™ Experiment on the Water Canyon herd and the UNLUCKY 11 orphans? It all started as a PZP proposal and went down the slippery slope. . .  Read about it here: http://protectmustangs.org/?p=8488