Expose BLM’s backdoor to slaughter!

How many are left?

When I first heard about wild horses in the Pryor Mountains being brutally rounded up in 2009, Nevada was home to 80% of America’s federally protected wild horses. Wyoming was the next state who had the most wild horses and California only had a few herds left.

Today Nevada has only about 50% of America’s wild horses and I believe California now has the second largest population. In Wyoming, the feds are proposing to remove another 1,029 wild horses. One of their former congresswomen even wanted to kill them!

The Department of Interior is giving away grants for university students in Wyoming to cruelly collar mares from the Adobe Town herd. They want to find out where they hide in the desert. Then the agency in charge of protecting them can find them and wipe out the ancient Adobe Town mustangs too.

Invasive cruelty against America’s wild horses must stop. The law states they are to be left alone and not be abused. How dare they collar wild horses! This harassment will cause deaths and these deaths will be hidden. . . Hidden like the others.

The deception continues. People who once spoke out against mustang cruelty back in 2009 are now mute because they are playing a political game to get what they want. I’m disgusted and will never sell out. Never.

In 8 years of roundups, experiments, removals, pesticides for “birth control”, 3-Strikes to sell truckloads for slaughter and taxpayer-funded propaganda campaigns, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has decimated America’s wild herds on public land. Now wild horses are in danger of dying out because they lack genetic diversity, population and strength. Natural selection is being ruined by the “one foal” on the range breeding programs run by Pesticide PZP darters in partnership with BLM. Remember Pesticide PZP sterilizes wild horses after multiple use. Yes sterilizes. The public is fooled by those trusted to manage the last American wild horses and their nonprofit partners peddling for donations to “help” them.

Overpopulation is a lie. Population control is based on a false premise that wild horses are “pests”. Follow the money behind population control experiments and the donation cash cow for the nonprofit who claims they solved the wild horse “problem”.

Know the truth: Wild horses are native wildlife, period. Cattle and sheep are not.

Right now we are witnessing a wild horse and burro underpopulation crisis in the West. This is our last chance to help America’s wild horses and burros survive the ugly greed wiping out our herds. It’s time to expose the overpopulation lies. It’s time to expose all the trucks sneaking wild stallions to slaughter over the borders. . . expose the lies that there are “too many” wild horses on public land. Count them.

The truth must be exposed by your elected officials now before it’s too late.

I urge you to sign and share the petition to investigate the wild horse and burro count in captivity and freedom: https://www.change.org/p/u-s-senate-investigate-the-wild-horse-burro-count-in-captivity-and-freedom Join us to double the numbers on the petition in the next 7 days!

America won’t be the same without our iconic wild symbols of liberty running freely on public land . . . The wild herds are to be protected by the law–but because of the greed for resources (oil, gas, livestock grazing, etc.) the law is being twisted, lies are spread in the media and spoon-fed to your elected officials acting on your behalf.

It’s time to know how many wild horses and burros are really left so we can all stand up to protect them.

Prayers and miracles are needed right now. Please contact me if you can help with a lawsuit to save America’s last wild horses and burros.

For the Wild Ones,
Anne Novak
Volunteer Executive Director
Protect Mustangs

Contact@ProtectMustangs.org

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



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

Repost:

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?

Read more here and see the documents: http://protectmustangs.org/?p=9850

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



BREAKING: Is BLM or Pesticide PZP at the root of stalking, coercion and threats?

(Unedited version: check back here as we are editing this post now)

I have my right to free speech and to educate the public so they can make their own informed decisions. I should not be bullied, stalked, harassed, coerced, threatened, fear for my life and safety, the safety of the wild horses in our care and the safety of our volunteers nor should a HATE GROUP with a mob mentality be allowed to incite HATE on Facebook and elsewhere with the goal of violating my right to free speech including but not limited to writing petitions to save America’s wild horses and burros. I believe the stalking, that is well documented, is direct retaliation because of speaking out against roundups, slaughter, Pesticide PZP, experimentation, killing wild horses, gag orders, etc. I ask that the proper authorities investigate this immediately.

Who sent the stalkers?

Is their goal to coerce me and stop me from speaking out, stop me from writing petitions against slaughtering and killing wild horses, advocating for wild horses freedom and advocating against the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) using Pesticide PZP, working to debunk BLM’s overpopulation myth, advocating for free speech, against elder abuse, gag orders and more?

Maureen Daane, who advocates )for PZP population control on wild horses and former competitive shooter (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXI_IH6xoBE), who seems to work with the Bureau or Land Management pushing the Humane Society of the United States’ (HSUS) population control drug—known as Pesticide PZP—seems to have admitted on Facebook that she is regularly STALKING the small herd of wild horses rescued back from the slaughterhouse yard by Mark Boone Junior (Sons of Anarchy) and myself the volunteer executive director of Protect Mustangs and the American Wild Horse Institute. Yes the WY14™ Wild Horses, as they are known to their supporters, seem to be STALKED by Daanes and “another” who I will not name yet.

Who sent Maureen Daane over to stalk the WY14™ Wild Horses?

Is Maureen Daane still with the 501(c)3 nonprofit organization Wild Horse Education (WHE) founded by Laura Leigh who strongly pushes for the use of The EPA’s Restricted Use Pesticide PZP on America’s wild horses and burros? Doesn’t Laura Leigh have a long history of working with BLM including but not limited to Shawna Richardson—a wild horse specialist who is a big Pesticide PZP Pusher too? It’s well known Leigh works with the BLM and advocates for population control on the few herds left in America today—so did they send Daanes to stalk the WY14™ Wild Horses? Or is she with another nonprofit organization now?

Was Daanes sent over to get photos and make false testimony for a smear?

Was Danes sent in to stalk the WY14™ for Elaine Nash, alleged PR professional, who runs Fleet of Angels (FOA) the nonprofit in control of the ISPMB Mustangs from South Dakota now? Is this an act of retaliation because over the weekend I have been asking for free speech and for Karen Sussman’s gag order to be lifted so she can speak? Here is a meme I posted on Facebook:

Last week I asked if Fleet of Angels might kill some wild horses as they had previously requested donations for what they called “compassion adoptions” to get something like $400 per horse to euthanize some ISPMB Mustangs they felt they might not place in adoptive homes. Here is the post on Facebook about that:

Finally I was eventually told by Barbara Rasmussen on the post that they were not euthanizing mustangs “there”.

Back in November 2016 we spoke with the S.D State Attorney about helping the at-risk ISPMB wild horses. We answered Feet of Angels’ cries for help 4 days before the deadline I believe. I rallied Protect Mustangs’ team leaders and those on our email list to help find adoptive homes and donations going directly to ISPMB and the County fund for the mustangs. One donor offered to help save the horses with a $50,000. donation so I passed her on to the right person.

We found homes for 200-600+ ISPMB Mustangs showing that none were “unwanted” and they deserved to live. When I asked Elaine Nash on an ISPMB adoption page how many wild horses found homes by the November 30th deadline she never responded. Our team leaders had worked around the clock for 4 days and they wanted to know. The question was never answered. Our team leaders and I were fielding lots of phone calls from adopters and referring them to FOA and ISPMB. One of our team leaders found homes for 100 ISPMB Mustangs. Most adopters were never contacted from what I am told.

Is Nash/Fleet of Angels receiving funding from the Humane Society of the United States who is the registrant of the Pesticide PZP? Is the Humane Society somehow involved in this stalking incident and others? Daane seems to have boasted in a Hate Group’s public Facebook discussion that she is working with “a lawyer” to monitor and regulate wild horse rescues. Is that lawyer Scott Beckstead from HSUS or is it someone else? Why has Daane been stalking our WY14™ wild horse herd? Is it because Craig Downer, wildlife ecologist and longtime resident of the Carson Valley in Nevada also is strongly against Pesticide PZP. Craig joined me in a lawsuit to stop the Pine Nut wild horse roundup in 2015. Friends of Animals provided legal representation. This was the first time that Pesticide PZP was brought up in a lawsuit I believe. Our case was strong and we stopped the Pine Nut Roundup.

Last month at the BLM’s TRI RAC (Regional Advisory Counsel) meeting Craig Downer was denied public comment even though he showed up at the designated time. I believe it was Lisa Ross that told him there was no more speaking slots and could not look him in the face. Downer has published _____________ , many scholarly papers, books, etc and has conducted a study of the Pine Nut Range which began with Protect Mustangs and later he was contracted by Friends of Animals for an in-depth study.

During the meeting Downer felt his rights to participate in a public meeting were violated. He watched the circus PZP Advocates parade in touting how great PZP was and how great they were at shooting darts in wild horses to control population. You can hear Downer explain having his rights violated in the interview I conducted live on Facebook here:

Were the stalkers sent out by the BLM, WHE, the local PZP Group called the Pine Nut Advocates, HSUS or members of the Wild Horse Sanctuary Alliance or someone else?

Recently John Cox, a vocal advocate against Pesticide PZP and Vietnam Veteran has been calling for wild horses to be returned to public land. He has been raising a lot of questions about the players pushing Pesticide PZP. Cox brought up that Return to Freedom was paid $440,000. by a wild horse eradication program I believe. He wanted to have some information and to this date I believe he has not received it from Return to Freedom who was originally the parent organization of the American Wild Horse Preservation Campaign (AWHPC) who has recently changed their name to the American Wild Horse Campaign who is a coalition of several groups advocating to use Pesticide PZP as the cornerstone for wild horse and burro management of the last of the herds.

I have been a vocal advocate against roundups, slaughter and against Pesticide PZP in the national press for many years. Here are some examples:

NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC
Anne Novak, director of the nonprofit Protect Mustangs in Berkeley, California, says her group is “against any kind of experimenting on wild horses, including birth control experiments.”
“Wild horses are protected by law, and birth control experiments don’t jibe with the law.”
Novak worries that stallions may chase non-reproducing females out of their herd. . . http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/10/wild-horses-united-states-west-conservation/

I have written many petitions to advocate for America’s wild horses and burros. They are delivered to elected officials. Here are some of them: http://protectmustangs.org/?page_id=220

The Hate Group launched a heavy defamation campaign targeting me, after I created the Facebook Forum on PZP (https://www.facebook.com/groups/ForumPZPWildHorsesBurros/)  for wild horses and burros on federal land in 2014.

Pesticide PZP pushers want the public to stay in the dark. They don’t want people knowing the real science and truth. The study on PZP by Knight & Rubenstein (2014) found that ” … three or more consecutive years of treatment or administration of the first dose before sexual maturity may have triggered infertility in some mares.” These findings are particularly troubling. They suggest that, actually, only two consecutive PZP-treatments may be reversible. Except, that is, in the case of fillies who have not yet reached puberty — they could be sterilized by just one injection.

The Hate Group works to hurt my reputation and to hurt the flow of donations. They gloated in their Hate Group that they would continue to make donations drop hoping to ruin our ability to care for the rescued WY14™ Herd of Wild Horses who are part of a preservation project. It’s no coincidence that the WY14™ Wild Horses were rescued back from the slaughterhouse. Many members of the Hate Group are PRO-SLAUGHTER. Well thanks to loyal supporters on the crowdfunding site we use called GoFundMe, we preserver. We are here for the wild horses period. Please donate to the WY14™’s current fundraiser to finally catch up with January, February and March board that must be raised. Every dollar counts. We have no salaries. We are volunteers. Your donations are tax-deductible. Click here to say no to the bullies and stalkers targeting us: https://www.gofundme.com/mustangs-sanctuary-board-jan-2017

I have debunked the “It’s either PZP or slaughter myth” and “PZP stops roundups myth” in our Facebook Forum on PZP. The Dangers of PZP http://protectmustangs.org/?page_id=6922 and the Pine Nut lawsuit are just some milestones that came out of the educational PZP forum. Today there are over 4,000 members in the forum.

Remember the National Academy of Sciences said there is “no evidence” of overpopulation. BLM shows out estimates of overpopulation and the Pesticide PZP pushers go along with the overpopulation myth in order to justify Pesticide PZP. Of course you can follow the money too.

Why was Daanes sent over with her “buddy” to get photos for another smear? It’s funny how you hear about their plot and LIES. More on that later . . .

The last smear against me lasted for months and caused a lot of damage even after Facebook finally took down the Hate Groups public page that stalked the WY14™ Wild Horses, my family and I while spreading vicious LIES to incite a lot of HATE against me.

According to screenshots, the smear was launched by a PRO-SLAUGHTER Activist and a Wyoming wife of an EX-BLM employee or maybe he’s back with BLM now. When I spoke out against the BLM experimenting on a small wild herd in Eastern Nevada called the Water Canyon herd and was publicizing wild youngsters for adoption that I had sat with at BLM’s Palomino Valley, I mentioned that wild horse photographer, Jeannie Nations, was the BLM’s Project Coordinator for the experiment which I believe is part of BLM’s new wave of experimentation on wild pregnant mares paid for through $11.5 million grants. You can read more about this on our website www.ProtectMustangs.org . Just use the search bar.

The South Dakota Humane Society claimed they were funding the ISPMB rescue run by FOA according to a press release I believe. Is the Humane Society of the United States, the ASPCA, Wild Horse Sanctuary Alliance, Return to Freedom, etc. helping to fund the adoption of more than 500 ISPMB Mustangs all nonprofit organizations who I believe push for the federal government to use Pesticide PZP on our last will horses? It’s well known that the ISPMB tried Pesticide PZP for several years but when their President seems to have noticed it was hurting the herds and was concerned the mares would be sterilized after multiple use she stopped using PZP.

Is the former BLM employee’s wife in Caspar, Wyoming organizing the STALKING again? She’s said to be a BLM Volunteer, PRO-SLAUGHTER, is a documented Activist for Tubal Ligation EXPERIMENTATION on wild mares, very active on documented Hate Groups that have stalked the WY14™ Wild Horses rescued from the slaughterhouse and she spreads lies to incite HATE towards me. Is she trying to get attention on Facebook, vindicate a BLM Volunteer whose mustang was in the mud who felt liberty to bash me all the time in a Hate Group or is the Wyoming wife trying to make points with the Bureau of Land management by targeting me because I advocate for the voiceless wild horses Wyoming and elsewhere?

Is that why this stalking incident happened yesterday when a Bureau of Land Management employee from the other side of the state was in the area? Is the stalking related to the fact that this BLM employee is an infamous Pesticide PZP Pusher—who participates in Hate Groups targeting me and others who are also against Pesticide PZP and challenging the wild horse overpopulation myth on public lands?

This BLM employee is in the wild horse program and gives misinformation to the public regarding population on public land. As you all know I am a strong advocate stating there is no overpopulation of wild horses on public land and I’m against Pesticide PZP.

Is Elaine Nash (Fleet of Angels) looking for dirt on us because Nash is mad that I recently spoke out for FREEDOM OF SPEECH and wonder why Karen Sussman, President of the International Society for the Protection of Mustangs and Burros has a GAG ORDER? Did Nash send Danes and her “buddy” to STALK the WY14™ Sunday? Was she involved in Daane’s previous episodes of STALKING the wild horses who should be left in peace after the Bureau of Land Management rounded them up then they were sold to the Canadian slaughterhouse

Keep in mind that Maureen Danes who has been documented in a Hate Group targeting me seems to have admitted in writing on Facebook to regularly STALKING the WY14™ wild horses who are in private care and very well taken care of with lots of witnesses.

Since I speak out against the Dangers of PESTICIDE PZP and after I spoke out against the GAG ORDER that Karen A. Sussman at ISPMB seems to be under Maureen Daane STALKS the WY14™ AGAIN.

Daanes seems very confused and is making FALSE statements. She must have X-ray vision to claim she can determine who are pregnant mares and she makes false statements about genetic relationships. Why is Daanes so boldly empowered to LIE on a published statement about inbreeding that she knows NOTHING about and neither does her “buddy” whose name I will not reveal yet. Why is Maureen Danes is LYING about shelter and water? There are many springs where the WY14™ live documented by a SCIENTIST of which Maureen Danes is NOT and of course the owner of the ranch knows how many springs are on the 260+ Acres we rent.

Why is Daane lying about the amount of acres they live in? Ridiculous like her other LIES. No horses are thin according to caretakers, ranch owners and others. . . More lies but maybe Daanes will take skewed photos or just photoshop them? She is skilled with the camera just like with the PZP dart gun. Just about everything Daanes states as fact in her statement is error & LIES except that she went out there as we already knew.

Why with Danes obvious lack of basic knowledge about horses as seen in her statement about the WY14™ then WHY is she pushing Pesticide PZP? How would these darters even know the basics so they don’t dart the same mare 2-4 times in the same year and make the wild mare not only sick but sterile forever? This would mean the herds would die out.

Our last American wild horses and burros would die out quickly if HSUS completes their experiments for the ONE SHOT version of Pesticide PZP to STERILIZE wild mares. Scott Beckstead reported to the Wild Horse and Burro Advisory Board in Redmond, Oregon about the ongoing experiments.

Why is Daanes is LYING to create another smear? Does this the Hate Group feel empowered with BLM employees, national nonprofit organizations, PZP Pushers and a sick mob mentality aiming to RETALIATE, COERCE (think RICO Act) and threaten because they want me to give up my FREE SPEECH in America and violate my First Amendment?

#FollowTheMoney because it’s always at the root of behavior like this.

Is it because they are trying so hard to get the federal government, the BLM, the new administration to buy into a Restricted Use Pesticide called PZP that made from slaughterhouse pig ovaries to use as what they call a VACCINE against fertility? Since when is fertility a disease?

Yes their actions are obviously retaliatory to STALK, LIE, COERCE and FAKE A SMEAR. She even closed her bogus statement in the Hate Group with her threatening statement “People really need to start being responsible for their own horses and quit pointing fingers at others…”

Could it be that Elaine Nash with Fleet of Angels did partner up with BLM, and all the PZP Pushers to stalk the WY14™ Wild Herd send this threat?

Maureen Daane seems to represent the PZP Pushers in Nevada who will lie and stop at nothing to get PZP forcibly drudged into all the last wild mares out West. Daane seems to be manipulating others, LYING and INCITING HATE to hurt people that might have a different opinion. It is our right in America to have a different opinion.

Why did Daanes supporter CALL ME at 5:44 AM yesterday—on Sunday—to talk about PZP? What did she tell him? Why was he sending me private messages on Facebook and texts when I told him that my boyfriend doesn’t want him calling. Later last night I saw him posting unfounded concern on Mary Cioffe’s Facebook page that one of the mares is going to “drop a foal any moment” when that’s impossible because it takes 11 months to make a foal. Why is “Mo” Daane and others spreading a lot of LIES about me and the WY14™ Wild Horses to INCITE HATE towards me?

This can escalate to acts of harm or even death threats.

The authorities are aware I have received death threats as a result of the last smear birthed out of the Hate Group back when I mentioned Jeannie Nations was the Project Coordinator of the BLM’s GONACON™ EXPERIMENT on the Water Canyon herd. The irony is that information was in the newspaper and in the BLM’s press release so what’s the big deal?

Why did Jeannie Nations of Ely Nevada, who’s husband I was told contracts with BLM, make threats and slander me on public Facebook pages for months? Of course I received all the screenshots. Why was Nations plotting with PRO-SLAUGHTER Activists, PRO-EXPERIMENT activists, PZP Pushers, BLM Employees, BLM partners, Board Members, heads of 501(c)3 Non profit organizations, California State employees and others in the Hate Group to destroy the wild herd known as the WY14™? Was she retaliating too?

Go to our website and put “GonaCon” into the search bar or “Jeannie Nations” to read the history or just click here: http://protectmustangs.org/?p=8488

Maureen Daane seems to be making a public threat in a Hate Group along with everything else. it seems like she is clearly acting in RETALIATION because I am against PESTICIDE PZP. The WY14™’s  onsite caregiver notified us she was stalking the WY14™ along with her “buddy”. Later I posted on Facebook about this because as everyone knows I’m a stickler for evidence and facts, period.

What do you think? Who sent the stalkers?

 

Anne Novak

Volunteer Executive Director

Protect Mustangs and American Wild Horse Institute

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



Utah elected officials want to kill and slaughter wild horses

With no head counts and only biased estimate from the Bureau of Land Management, a deadly bill is proposed in the state of Utah

Read the bill itself here: http://le.utah.gov/~2017/bills/static/HCR022.html

Rather than fighting for American wild horses and burros to have their rights upheld on public land, the Pesticide PZP pushing groups are lobbying hard to have their “vaccine” used for pest control. Pest control you ask? Yes, a pesticide is used for pest control. In the EPA Pesticide Fact sheet, it states that the registrant of Pesticide PZP, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), called them “pests”.

This is the first time America’s native wild horses and burros have been labeled “pests”. Do you agree that indigenous wild horses are pests? How can an animal with origins in America be a “pest”?

Pests are invasive species. Wild horses are native.

Curiously many required forms required on the pesticide application received waivers and that only bring many questions to light. How did the registrant get environmental waivers and such? Was an expensive consulting firm brought in to push the Pesticide PZP application through or did HSUS pull strings inside the EPA?


The Pesticide PZP pushing groups, under the hand of HSUS, keep shouting they want “fertility control” for a fake problem. A fake problem you ask? Yes, fake. The National Academy of Sciences stated there is “no evidence of overpopulation” in their 2013 report. Despite this fact, those looking to rape the public land of her resources push the overpopulation myth.

Rather than fight to protect the last American wild horses and burros in the West–PZP Advocates lobby with bad-science booklets in hand–to have the wild equids darted with a “vaccine” made out of slaughterhouse pig ovaries for population control.

The truth is simple–When the public is informed about the dangers of Pesticide PZP they are horrified.

Fact: Drugging up wild horses with a dangerous pesticide sterilizes after multiple uses. The pesticide also ruins natural selection and wrecks havoc with native wild horses’ immune systems putting them at risk of massive die-offs. You can read the science showing some of the many dangers here: http://protectmustangs.org/?page_id=6922

Exploiters–vying to make billions on public land occupied by wild horses and burros–have jumped on the twisted notion of “fertility control” without a head count erupting out of the Pesticide PZP pusher’s expensive PR campaign. They push for quick population control. They hail pesticide-vaccines for sterilization, grotesque sterilization experiments on pregnant wild horses and lobby to send America’s icons of freedom off to slaughter to be eaten as a delicacy abroad.

Fear mongering the public that it’s either PZP or Slaughter will no longer be tolerated. Pesticide PZP Advocates need to stop trying to manipulate people’s emotions to support their pesticide for birth control and leave our wild ones alone. We demand protection for America’s last wild horses and burros now!

It’s time to stand up and demand a head count of the last will horses left in America. Are truckloads of stallions being taken off the range and shipped over the border to slaughter? We need a freeze on cruel roundups, forced drugging with Pesticide PZP, transport to slaughter, etc. so they can be counted now!

It’s time to expose the overpopulation myth as the wicked lie.


Tell Utah politicians they need to stop trying to kill and slaughter wild horses and burros that belong to the American people from coast to coast. Hands off! Let them live free.

Take Action: Sign and share the petition demanding a head count and Congressional investigation: https://www.change.org/p/u-s-senate-investigate-the-wild-horse-burro-count-in-captivity-and-freedom Take it with you to meetings with your elected officials to ask for help. Bring the petition to defund the roundup and slaughter of America’s wild horses and burros (https://www.change.org/p/defund-and-stop-the-wild-horse-burro-roundups) with you too and the #NoKILLmustangs petition http://www.thepetitionsite.com/907/592/301/demand-nokill-45000-wild-horses-burros-in-holding/ These tools will help you stay on topic when you ask your elected officials to protect them.

Stand up for the last American wild horses and burros! Become a Mustang Protector. Together we can turn this around.

For the Wild Ones,

Anne Novak

 

Volunteer Executive Director

Protect Mustangs

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



Brutal experiments continue on pregnant wild horses!

Did you know that right now the Bureau of Land Management, under the Department of Interior is still funding cruel experiments on wild pregnant mares for population control?

Keep in mind that the National Academy of Sciences Report from 2013 stated there is “no evidence” of overpopulation. It’s the end of 2016 and there is still no evidence of alleged overpopulation and the thugs in control won’t do a headcount. They just want to keep abusing innocent wild horses and burros who should be living in freedom. Sickos!

The brutal tubal ligation research on pregnant wild mares in Oregon was stopped due to public outrage but that’s it. All the other tax-payer funded experiments on pregnant wild mares continue. They are cruelly experimenting on them now! Did you realize that?

The Department of Interior is giving away grants totaling up to 11 million dollars for population control experiments–on pregnant wild mares. Are these experiments causing pain and suffering and do they violate the rights of wild horses and burros to live free? Yes. This a wicked violation against their freedom.

So while everyone was distracted by real threats of killing and slaughtering wild horses, the brutal Nazi-like experiments–mostly with injections–continue . . .

America’s last wild horses should never be used as “lab animals”. Never. How is this even legal to experiment on federally protected wild horses?

Wild horses have been cruelly subjected to experimentation for decades. This cruelty has been going on for so long that the Bureau of Land Management and their supporters think this is “normal”. Experimentation on federally protected wild horses must be against the law but there is so much corruption within wild horse and animal advocacy that no one is stopping this! Those organizations who support using Pesticide PZP as birth control will not fight against experimenting on wild horses because they are still involved with PZP experiments or receive funding from those that are.

2017 is the time to fight back the evil cruelty inflicted upon America’s innocent and voiceless wild horses and burros! They should be protected from experimentation, protected from being sold to slaughter, protected from being killed and protected to live freely in the wild.

We’d like to protect wild horses from this abuse. Will you join us?

 

For the Wild Ones,

Anne Novak

Volunteer Executive Director

www.ProtectMustangs.org

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




Done with the diversion

PM IA GAIA #8402 Carson July 2016

Pesticide PZP, promoted for birth control, has caused the divide, subterfuge, diversion, attacks and hate while at the same time revealing its connection to money, greed and politics. People are fooled. . . zealotry develops. . .hate mobs flourish. . . Wild horses suffer.

Focusing on a pesticide for birth control of a native species–that’s already being managed to extinction–is nuts.

What happened to “Stop the Roundups”? PZP doesn’t stop roundups. There are more wild horses being rounded up every year. PZP doesn’t stop slaughter either. The number of horses crossing the boarders to slaughter has increased.  PZP, made from slaughterhouse pig ovaries messes with native wild horses’ immune systems–that’s why it’s called an “immunocontraceptive’. Those pushing the pesticide call it as a “vaccine” for population control.

The fact that there are hardly any more wild horses left in the United States is ignored.

The fact that overkill is ruining the thriving natural ecological balance is ignored.

The fact that cattle and sheep are being poorly managed on public land and causing range damage is ignored.

Big mouths are scapegoating wild horses for range damage by sheep that’s wrecked havoc on the land years ago. Meanwhile America’s last wild horses endure living on public land that’s been ruined by livestock years ago.

We’ve done our part to educate people about PZP in the PZP Forum I created about 2 years ago. If people and organizations want to stick their head in the sand and ignore scientific facts about the many dangers of PZP (see the button above on www.ProtectMustangs.org) then they need to be held accountable when the wild herds are destroyed.

We aren’t working on PZP education anymore. That’s done.

Our focus in this movement is on helping to protect and save all the WILD horses we can save at this dire time in history. Please contact me by email Contact@ProtectMustangs.org if you want to adopt mustangs, purchase 3-Strikes wild horses, start a local network for saving wild horses or start a sanctuary of any size.

America’s wild horses need a huge herd of miracle workers to prevent their extinction at this point in history. You can make a difference now.

Many blessings,
Anne Novak

Founder and Director

Protect Mustangs and the American Wild Horse Institute

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




The Modoc National Forest starts wild horse roundup from private and tribal lands today

pm-devils-garden-meme

The Modoc National Forest started a wild horse roundup from private and tribal lands Sept. 26

According to the Forest Service, public viewing opportunities at the trap site will be available on a first come, first served basis for up to 14 people each day. Members of the public wishing to view the helicopters  chasing wild horses into traps must arrive an hour and a half prior to gather activities at Forest Headquarters, 225 W. 8th St., in Alturas, follow forest personnel to the trap site and remain at the viewing location until operations are completed for the day.

Viewers should bring plenty of water, lunch, stout footwear, hat and their own chair. There will be an approximate one-mile hike over rocky terrain from the parking area to each of the trap sites. The weather is expected to be hot and dry, and there is little shade available.

Members of the public will be asked to remain in a blind in order to avoid disrupting gather activities. Safety of visitors, gather personnel and the horses is top priority. The use of drones in the area will not be allowed due to safety concerns.

Public viewing will also be available at the temporary holding facility at Willow Creek Ranch, during the hours of 3–5 p.m. on days roundup activities occur. Operations may not occur every day, but as contractors determine.

Anyone interested in viewing roundup operations at taxpayer expense should contact Public Affairs Officer Ken Sandusky at (530) 233-5811.

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




Will There Be a Healthy Future for America’s Wild Horses and Burros IN THE WILD?

PM Helicopter Mustang Roundup

(Roundup to administer Pesticide PZP for experiments)

PZP or Reserve Design? You Decide

By Craig C. Downer, Wildlife Ecologist, Wild Horse and Burro Fund

September 24th, 2016

On September 7th, 2016, I participated in the National Wild Horse and Burro Advisory Board rangeland tour of the Antelope Valley Wild Horse Herd Management Area (HMA); and on September 8th, I again participated in this board’s official meeting at the historical Stockman’s Hotel in Elko, Nevada. Though both tour and meeting provided for some public input, these were “one slick operation” by BLM officials and certain members of the board. This event aimed to convince all board members as well as the public of a “wild horse overpopulation crisis” with a pre-meditated selection of sites to visit and points to make. And I can well understand why a person with little knowledge and background on wild horse and public lands issues or with a pre-existing selfish agenda could be easily stampeded into accepting the over-population myth.

Indeed, on Friday, September 9th, the board voted 8 to 1 to recommend disposal of ca. 44,000 wild horses and burros currently in holding throughout the United States. If accepted by the BLM, such a recommendation would result in the cruel killing of most of these national heritage animals.

Being all too aware of how wild horses and burros have been set up to fail, all too aware of how they have been used as scapegoats for ecological problems that overpopulated humans have basically caused, I was relieved that BLM officials did not – at least for now – accept their appointed board’s advice. I was also pleased to learn that BLM recently cancelled certain surgical sterilization experiments on over 200 captured wild mares in Oregon and others in Wyoming for which over $11 million dollars had been allocated.
The board’s recommendation would have been tantamount to murdering nearly all of the 44 thousand horses and burros in holding. This proposed bloodbath created an enormous national and international outcry, becoming a global bone of contention. And I find it heartening to see evidence that so many people care about the wild ones and their right to live freely and naturally.

Horses and their burro cousins are highly-evolved beings, fellow sojourners on planet Earth, companions who have lived and labored alongside us humans for many generations –even several millennia! What horses and humans have experienced together concerning Life’s unfolding story is truly awesome! Could this be why the cavalier disposal of the lives of so many horse souls rankles so deeply and with so many?

Today a great moral challenge stridently calls for us humans to more fairly and justly treat our fellow inhabitants of planet Earth. We must give these fellow conscious beings the life they deserve for a change! In the case at hand, horses present highly evolved beings present here on Earth for millions of years of free and natural living, often in wide-open spaces. In diverse ecosystems, they have developed intricate relationships with an astounding diversity of plants and animals and in a way that is truly splendid. As an ecologist, I realize that they are mutually complemental to the other species of fauna and flora. And that they are extraordinarily beautiful should give us some clue as to why they are pleasing to Heaven.

Such realizations occurred to those who established the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971 (WFHBA). This was one of the first times Americans decided to do something major that was genuinely good for a fellow species. And it defied centuries, even millennia, of human self-absorption, thoughtlessness, cruelty and greed. For rather than merely continuing to take from, we humans actually chose to give back to horse kind something of true worth and excellence: their natural freedom to live on their rightful natural land, or home. In other words, to be themselves!

Along with the Wilderness and similar acts, the WFHBA was a “great forward leap for mankind.” Yet, an “all-points bulletin” today concerns our government’s emerging plans for America’s last remaining wild horses and burros. As a wildlife ecologist and even more as a human being who appreciates horses in the wild, I perceive their enemies not only among those traditionally opposed to them, but in our very government and even among people who claim to be wild horse advocates yet who are quick to overly compromise the future of these wild horses and burros as naturally living Earthlings! Why are the latter buckling under to the wild horses’ and burros’ traditional detractors and enemies? It seems that they are being duped into conceding to plans that will only ensure the decline of the wild herds? Many of us believe that this pusillanimous position must not pass! (No pasara! as we speakers of Spanish say.)

Core to what’s wrong are the so-called “Appropriate Management Levels” (AMLs) that have been assigned to the legal wild horse and wild burro herds on their legal lands throughout the West, both on BLM and US Forest Service lands. And along with these, the failure to fairly allocate natural resources for truly viable populations. These AMLs are simply much too low! They are genetically non-viable and would result in under-populated herds.

Any group of creatures that senses itself to be underpopulated usually “struggles to survive,” as Charles Darwin so aptly stated. Herd numbers as well as the locations and sizes of Herd Management Areas (HMAs) have been too arbitrarily set to fit the demands of cattle and sheep ranchers, big mining corporations, expansion-hooked land developers, ORV rippers up of the land, and the kill-focused hunting establishment. As is so typical, the root of the problem lies with that thoughtlessness and greed that infects too many humans today. The consequence has been many millions of acres of zeroed-out, though still legal, herd areas, and herd sizes and the sizes and habitat composition of HMAs (BLM) and Territories (US Forest Service) that are simply not adequate to the long-term survival needs of those wild horses and burros who still remain. To my very bones I feel that we humans must rise to the great moral challenge concerning the horses and burros and their right to live free. And this also has to do with our own success as a species, for it concerns obeying the laws of Higher Justice that govern the universe.

Truly realizing and living the noble intent of the WFHBA will make America great again, allow it to stand uprightly on solid moral ground. We shall learn to share the land and freedom with the wild ones, and this lesson shall be our salvation. We shall no longer restrict and exploit such “paragons of Nature” as the horses and their rightful lands in such a way that denies them their true place in the world we share with them as home. Today we have arrived at a crucial crossroad, a critical turning point:

Faulty PZP-type Choice for America’s Wild Horses and Burros

Shall we only continue to restrict and distort the true natures of the horses and burros and to ever greater degrees, as well as their proper habitats here on Earth? Shall we only continue to deny them genuine freedom here on Earth by condoning marginally productive, water-deprived, and un-whole habitats that have been carelessly and deviously assigned for them? Shall we be cornered into accepting the application of harmful, FDA-classified pesticides such as Porcine Zona Pelucida, or PZP, GonaCon, SpayVac, etc.?

These drugs, vaccines, inhibitors of healthy horses – call them what you like – only distort and suppress the true health and well-being of vigorous wild horses and burros! And then do we expect the wild horses and burros so violated to fit into unfairly small and inadequate habitats that do not provide their long-term survival needs? No! Such marginal habitats, substandard population numbers, and biologically compromised individuals are simply unacceptable! They would not be genetically viable and would only set the horses and burros up for inbreeding suppression while at the same time preventing their filling their ecological niches in a harmoniously adapted way. And these animals already face enough survival challenges without having to deal with the violation of their most intimate parts!

Is PZP really a solution that works for the horses/burros?

I have participated in many wild horse and burro meetings and heard talks given by experts describing PZP and its actions on wild horses, including by PZP’s inventor Dr. Jay Kirkpatrick and by Dr. Daniel Rubenstein, a behavioral zoologist who has studied PZPed wild horses in nature. I have also perused many scientific and popular articles about the effects of PZP upon wild horses, both short- and long-term, and both upon individuals and their social groups.

Here are some of the major proven damages to wild horses caused by PZP:

(1) PZP weakens immune systems of individuals and their herds since it inhibits reproduction in horses with stronger immune systems. Horses with weaker immune systems are precisely those who reproduce in greater numbers in PZP-treated herds. Eventually, PZP weakens wild horse herds’ overall immune systems. (Reference: Gray, M.E. & Cameron, E.Z. 2010. Does contraceptive treatment in wildlife result in side effects? Reproduction 139: 45-55.)

(2) Increased stress is experienced by mares who have been successfully darted by PZP and by other members of their social bands. This is because of PZPed mares’ frustration in completing their natural reproductive cycle, which affects the other members of their bands. Ironically, it is precisely the mature and stable, more content and non-PZPed bands that do, in fact, cause a slowing of reproductive rates, as years of research by the International Society for the Protection of Mustangs and Burros (ISPMB) and others abundantly proves. (Reference: Sussman, Karen. 6/6/2015. Suspicious deaths with use of anti-fertility drugs. ISPMB Journal. www.ispmb.org/BirthControlDeaths.html.)

(3) PZP adversely affects mares’ hormonal systems and consequently the social groups to which they belong. PZPed mares become irritable, aggressive, and more masculine, causing disharmony in their bands. PZP lowers estrogen and increases testosterone in mares and also produces ovarian cysts. Cysts increase testosterone levels. (Reference: U.S. National Library of Medicine. National Institutes of Health. Ovarian overproduction of androgens. (Reference: https://www.nim.nih.gov/medicineplus/ency/article/001165.htm.)

(4) Auto-immune oophoritis, aka ovaritis or inflammation of ovaries, and also stillbirths result from PZP. Autoimmune oophoritis can lead to the development of other autoimmune diseases. (Reference: Kaur, K. & Prabha, V. 2014. Immunocontraceptives: New Approaches to Fertility Control. BioMed Research International, Vol. 2014, Article ID: 868196.)

(5) PZP-darted herds in Little Book Cliffs, McCullough Peaks, and Pryor Mountains wild horse legal herd management areas gave birth nearly year-round, i.e. 341 days, rather than in the normal spring season. This exposed PZPed wild mares and their offspring to extremes of temperature, and, consequently, to suffering and death. (Reference: Ransom, J.I. et al. 2013. Contraception Can Lead to Trophic Asynchrony between Birth Pulse and Resources. PLoS ONE 8(1): e54972. Doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0054972.

(6) It is quite disturbing that PZP antibodies transfer to foals from the mare through the placenta while they are in the womb as well as through mare’s milk. These antibodies react with and bind to the zona pellucida of female newborns. Yet, BLM regularly administers PZP to pregnant and lactating mares in spite of these published scientific findings. (Reference: Sacco, A.G. et al. 1981. Passage of zona antibodies via placenta and milk following active immunization of female mice with porcine zonae pellucidae. Journal of Reproductive Immunology. 1981, December; Vol 3, Issue 6: pages 313-322.)

(7) Weakening of immune system subjects wild horses to mal-adaptiveness to unforeseen major changes such as are occurring due to Global Warming, or catastrophes such as epidemics or wildfires. (Reference: Gray & Cameron, 2010, op cit.)

(8) PZP causes the immune system to attack and destroy the ovaries and produces a large variety of adverse effects. (References: Gray & Cameron, 2010, op cit.; Kaur & Prabha, 2014, op. cit.)

(9) By extending the lifespans of PZPed mares, PZP creates abnormal numbers of aged, sterile mares. This disadvantages younger horses, who continue to be taken away by BLM roundups to reach arbitrary AMLs. This appeases livestock or other wild-horse-adverse interests on the public lands, rather than respecting the General Public, whose majority values wild horses and burros and wants them to be fairly treated. (Reference: Knight, C.M. & Rubenstein, D.I. 2014. The Effects of Porcine Zona Pellucida Immunocontraception on Health and Behavior of Feral Horses (Equus caballus). Princeton University thesis, Dept. Ecology & Evolutionary Biology.)

(10) PZPed mares are no longer reproductively active in the wild horse population, thus diminishing the genetic viability of the herd. The resources they consume would otherwise contribute to reproducing adults and their offspring and maintain the vigor of the herd into ongoing future generations that adapt to ongoing environmental changes, thus assuring their long-term survival. (Reference: Ransom, J.I. et al. 2013, op. cit.)

(11) PZP is a safety hazard to humans, especially to females who administer it. (Reference: Devlin, M. and Protect Mustangs 2015. Fact Sheet: The Truth about PZP. http://protectmustangs.org/?p=8749.)

For these and related reasons, I believe that PZP will seriously harm and undermine the vigor of wild horse and burro populations that our nation’s laws mandate us to protect and preserve, as well as to manage. The restoration and maintenance of herd vigor is essential to the ongoing ecological adaptation and long-term survival of each herd. Healthy reproduction is key to healthy wild horse and burro individuals, bands and herds. Tampering with reproduction produces a variety of aberrations that lead to dysfunctional and disordered wild horses. This results in a decline of the herds.

I have heard from many people who closely observe and/or live near wild horses treated with PZP. They describe many still-born or defective foals produced by mares in whom the effects of PZP have worn off, permitting them to again try to reproduce. Also please consider that after a few to several years of yearly application, PZP generally produces total sterility in mares, depending upon the strength of their individual immune systems. This calls into serious question the proclaimed “reversibility of PZP” to enable mares to reproduce again! To reiterate: of great concern is the fact that PZP is less effective in those mares with weakened immune systems. Hence, the wide-spread use of PZP among America’s last wild horse/burro herds – nearly all below minimum viable population (MVP) level – will seriously undermine their long term survival.

But thankfully there exists an honorable alternative to PZP, and similar horse-disrespectful “quick fixes”. As a wildlife ecologist, I have formulated a sound alternative to PZP and similar invasive proposals. This Reserve Design strategy would restore long-term viable, ecologically well-adapted, and naturally self-stabilizing populations of wild horses and burros throughout the West. (References concerning Reserve Design: Peck, S. 1998. Reserve Design. In: Planning for Biodiversity: Issues and Examples. Island Press, Washington, D.C. Pages 89-114; Soule, M.E. & Terborgh, J. 1999. Continental Conservation: Scientific Foundations of Regional Reserve Networks. Island Press, Washington, D.C.; Downer, C.C. 2010. Proposal for wild horse/burro reserve design as a solution to present crisis. Natural Horse Volume 12, Issue 5, pages 26 to 27; Downer, C.C. 2014. The Wild Horse Conspiracy, www.amazon.com/dp/1461068983, look up “Reserve Design” in Index.)

Reserve Design: the Intelligent and Caring Choice for America’s Wild Horses and Burros

If followed correctly, the unanimously passed WFHBA would have set aside somewhere between 54 million and 90 million acres for the preservation of wild horses and burros in the wild. Lamentably, the rights of these animals—and their human supporters—have been undermined by wild horse and burro enemies, including officials charged with their protection. Current policies toward these “national heritage species” are thinly disguised plans for reducing the herds to cripplingly low, non-viable population numbers. These levels would be unable to sufficiently and adequately reproduce so as to survive into the long-term future. Too often the plan has been to simply eliminate them from their legal areas, i.e. “zero-out”. Indeed, anywhere from 22 million to 40 or more million legal acres have been declared officially empty and “not for” the wild horses and burros or simply ignored at the onset of the WFHBA in the early years of this act (see Downer, C.C. 2014. The Wild Horse Conspiracy).

Some wild horse advocates and observers say there are only 33,000 wild horses and burros remaining on America’s public lands as independently estimated for mid-2016 (Louise, Katia, wild horse documentary filmmaker, pers. comm.). Even if the official BLM figure of 67,027 wild horse and burros remain on the public lands (55,311 horses & 11,716 burros [BLM report of March 1, 2016]), either level would be out of step with the amount of ecologically appropriate habitat where these animals have a legal right to live. The small number of horses and burros our government intends to leave on each of the ca. 179 remaining BLM-designated areas is a sure prescription for the over-fragmentation and isolation of wild horse/burro populations. This would only jeopardize their long-term survival, compromising their true vigor in the wild.

The nationwide population of wild horses and burros that our government plans to allow as the high end Appropriate Management Level is only 26,715. This would be composed of only 1,676 individual wild horses and/or burros in Arizona; 2,200 in California, 812 in Colorado, 617 in Idaho, 120 in Montana, 12,811 in Nevada, 83 in New Mexico, 2,715 in Oregon, 1,956 in Utah, and 3,725 in Wyoming. (Source: Herd Area and Herd Management Area Statistics as of March 1, 2016. BLM, Washington, D.C.) These assigned population levels are very unfair and cater to wild horse and burro detractors while largely disregarding the General Public that are strongly support this Quality of Life issue.

Our government’s current goal of and plans for drastically reducing small and genetically vulnerable wild herds include the partial—and very possibly total—sterilization of mares through PZP injection. These plans also include the unnatural skewing of sex ratios to establish excess males, even in the naturally harem social structure of naturally living horses in which females are usually more numerous. And even more invasive measures have been planned in the past and are likely to crop up again, including painful—often lethal castration of stallions and the ovariectomies (removal of ovaries) of mares (thankfully recently cancelled in Oregon and Wyoming), as well as the individually deranging and socially disruptive injection of sterilization drugs or vaccines, such as PZP.

Clearly, our wild horses and burros are in a very critical situation today. I judge them to be more imperiled than they were in 1971 just before the passage of the WFHBA when they were “fast disappearing from the American scene”—and I used to work with Wild Horse Annie. We must quickly respond with a well-conceived plan for reforms that will restore the true rights of wild horses and burros upon our public lands. These lands belong to all Americans, not just to resource exploiters, whether officials of corporations or private individuals. As a wildlife ecologist and deeply rooted native Nevadan personally familiar with many of the West’s wild horse and burro herds, I strongly urge the restoration of these deeply rooted North American native species. Their return to North America should be as genetically viable and naturally self-stabilizing herds that are allowed too adapt ecologically to each specific region where they have legal right. This can be accomplished by following the sound principles of Reserve Design. Such a plan would end cruel, disruptive roundups and reproductive manipulations – practices that mock the true intent of the 1971 WFHBA by causing untold suffering and death to these beautiful and highly evolved, sensitive, wise, and freedom-loving creatures.

Reserve Design combines ecological, biological, social, and political considerations in order to achieve desired results. Basically, it involves setting aside areas of complete year-round habitat where human intervention is buffered against and where natural processes are allowed to reestablish natural checks and balances. Reserve Design will achieve internal harmony for the diverse, yet interrelated, species living within each wild horse/burro-containing ecosystem.

Critical steps for realizing Reserve Design in wild horse and wild burro habitats are as follows:

[1] Properly identify the long-term survival requirements for viable equid population levels to be accommodated in each reserve. Our chief focus would be to promote wild horse/burro-containing ecosystems of adequate size and condition to sustain viable equid populations and where plant and animal species are allowed to adapt naturally over the generations and in inter-balanced fashion. The level of 2,500 individual has been recommended for the viability of an equid population by the IUCN SSC Equid Survival Group (Equid Action Plan, IUCN SSC ESG, 1992).

[2] Conscientiously identify appropriate ecological areas suitable for the implementation of wild horse/burro-containing reserves. This would involve travel to, on-ground inspection of, flights over, and GIS analysis of a wide variety of places throughout the West. This would also entail setting up Cooperative Agreements under Sections 4 and 6 of the WFHBA in order to achieve complete habitats around the federally designated wild equid lands and involving both private and other government lands such as state and local.

[3] Wherever possible, wisely incorporate natural equid predators (such as puma, bear, and wolf) that would both limit and tone/strengthen, wild horse and burro populations.

[4] Wherever possible, wisely incorporate natural barriers that would limit the ingress and/or the egress of certain species, including the wild horses and burros. This would avoid conflicts and set up conditions for the natural self-regulation of populations.

[5] Identify where buffer zones, artificial barriers, or other means of impeding movements in and out of a reserve should be established in order to keep the species in question from coming into conflict with humans. Buffer zones possibly involving non-injurious means of “adverse conditioning” could be employed as well as “positive reinforcement” as a means of encouraging the wild equids to stay within the reserve, as for example, by providing all of their habitat needs. Also, “semi-permeable barriers” that do not restrict most species but do prevent equids from passing out of the reserve may be used. These means would be described in practical detail and as tailored to fit each specific reserve area.

[6] Identify the presence and abundance of necessary food, water, shelter, mineral procurement sites, elevation gradients for seasonal migrations, etc., that will accommodate the long-term habitat needs of long-term viable wild equid populations. Such will also allow the natural rest-rotation of foraging between the natural subdivisions of the reserve. Fences within the reserve that impede the free-roaming lifestyle of the wild equids will be located and their removal accomplished. The intrinsic Carrying Capacity of the land in question will also be estimated as closely as possible. Such will be based upon the Productivity of forage adequate to at least a minimally viable population of wild horses/burros. Besides food, this determination will take into account other survival factors such as water, minerals, shelter, breeding and nurturing habitat, seasonal migrations, and needed protection from existing threats to the wild equids.

[7] Identify geographical regions whose human inhabitants are benignly disposed toward the creation and long-term implementation of extensive, ecologically balanced wild horse/burro-containing reserves. This would involve traveling to different areas and setting up meetings with pertinent individuals, town and government officials, etc. This also relates to the setting up of Cooperative Agreements under Sections 4 and 6 of the WFHBA, as mentioned above.

[8] Identify ways of and benefits from implementing Reserve Design that result in win-win relationships centered on the presence of wild horses and burros. Ecotourism is one major possibility here, and wild horse/burro viewing tours have already proven to be successful in several states, including Craig London’s tours to the Montgomery Pass wild horses of eastern California. Restoring native ecosystems, including soils and native species, would be a major ecological benefit. The reduction of flammable vegetation through equid grazing and the restoration of hydrographic basins through the enrichment of soils, would be other major, positive contributions by wild horses and burros. Another major benefit concerns the prevention of catastrophic wildfires that over-burn vegetation, sterilize soils and denature their stored seed banks. Such fires can set the life community back to very primitive evolutionary stages. Indeed, it can be strongly argued that the restoration of wild equids in North America is crucial to combating life-disrupting Global Warming itself.

[9] Of key importance is informing the public concerning the many ways that horses and burros, as ecological “climax” species, self-limit their own populations once their respective ecological niches are filled in any given bounded area. This knowledge is key to realizing a humane relationship with these animals, a relationship that does justice to and demonstrates respect for them. And it is this respect and appreciation on the part of us humans that is key to allowing the horses and burros to fulfill their important natural roles within the life community.

Whom to Contact to Help Wild Horses and Burros:

Please contact your Senators and Representatives, the President, the Secretary of Interior and its Bureau of Land Management; and the Secretary of Agriculture and its US Forest Service. Both of these agencies are mandated by the WFHBA to preserve and protect as well as to manage the wild horses and burros and their legal lands and resources for the benefit of the former.

Also contact your state governor and state, county, and municipal officials concerned with wildlife and natural resources. Get in touch with the media: newspapers, magazines, TV and radio stations. Make all of the above aware of what is needed to stop the over-reduction or zeroing-out of the herds and the cruel abuse of wild horses and burros, whether through drugging, vaccines, surgeries, or other unnatural and invasive methods. Rather, persist in the restoration of the wild horse and burro herds and their habitats to viable levels, healthy conditions and sizes. This will be to restore the pure intent of the law.

A key committee to contact right away is the U.S. House of Representatives’ Appropriations Committee, particularly its Interior, Environment & Related Agencies Subcommittee. The telephone number of the latter is (202) 225-3081. Emails of staff to contact are betsy.bina@mail.house.gov and Kristin.richmond@mail.house.gov. This subcommittee is now deciding which direction to take in regards to the wild horses and burros. It has been hearing too exclusively from traditional wild horse and burro enemies.

Those of us who value and appreciate the wild horses and burros and their rightful place in the world of nature must set the record straight for these wonderful and ancient presences on Earth. We must not allow their enemies or those ignorant of their worthiness prevail!

The spirited and intelligent horses and burros are depending on you and I!

In addition to contacting the above, be sure to contact the President of the United States and the White House staff at (202) 456-1111 (TTY/TTD: (202) 456-6213). Switchboard (202) 456-1414. You can also do this by email at http://www.whitehourse.gov/contact or president@whitehouse.gov.

You may contact your Senators and Congressmen/State Representatives (federal and state) by linking on internet with “Elected Officials / USA Gov”. This will provide you with the contacts you require for federal, state, and local offices. The link is: https://www.usa.gov/elected-officials.

And in closing I urge you to contact the natural resource and public lands committee and subcommittee in the U.S. Senate.

On behalf of our wonderful wild horses and burros, I sincerely thank all of you for your caring and for your effective action.

Craig Downer

 

Wildlife Ecologist. A.B. UCB; M.S. UNR; Ph.D. Cand. U. Durham UK. Link to his article The Horse and Burro as Positively Contributed Returned Natives in North America is http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/journal/paperinfo.aspx?journalid=118&doi=10.11648/j.ajls.20140201.12 Website to check out is www.thewildhorseconspiracy.org in which the links to the article and how to order his book are present.

Also please consider signing this important petition to stop this massacre of the wild horses and burros from happening: The link to this petition is: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/907/592/301/demand-nokill-45000-wild-horses-burros-in-holding/

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.

Conclusion

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”. Those who believe in the true spirit of the Wild and Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971 are attacked for speaking out against Pesticide PZP.

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

pm-blm-killing-conference-call-page-1-2008

 

pm-blm-killing-conference-call-page-2-2008

 

pm-blm-killing-conference-call-page-3-2008

 

pm-blm-killing-conference-call-page-4-2008

 

pm-blm-killing-conference-call-page-5-2008

 

“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.

 

pm-blm-killing-conference-call-page-6-2008

August 12, 2008

pm-blm-killing-conference-call-page-1-aug-12-2008

 

pm-blm-killing-conference-call-page-2-august-12-2008

 

pm-blm-killing-conference-call-page-3-aug-12-2008

 

pm-blm-killing-conference-call-page-4-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

 

pm-blm-secret-killing-alternative-draft-plan

Special thanks to Dr. Patricia Haight, RIP, with the Conquistador Equine Rescue 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

pm-whb-advisory-board-a-september-9-2016

(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