Perverted Darting with Pesticide PZP

10 things you need to know about Pesticide PZP

1. PZP — The Pesticide: PZP is an EPA-registered pesticide manufactured from the ovaries of slaughtered pigs. Some persons argue that, because PZP does not kill the mare, it is not really a “pesticide.” Actually, PZP does kill. Stillbirths are associated with the pesticide’s use, meaning that some of its supposed contraceptive effects are actually feticidal.. In addition, over the long term, PZP weakens a herd immunologically, putting it at risk for eventual or even sudden extinction.

2. PZP — The Disproved Hypothesis: PZP’s manufacturer promoted the product as generating antibodies that “block sperm attachment.” But that marketing-hype was merely an untested hypothesis postulated three decades ago. Independent researchers found that PZP has a different effect, and many adverse effects.

3. PZP — The Actual Mode-of-Action: Behaving like a perverted vaccine, PZP tricks the mare’s immune system into making antibodies that cause ovarian dystrophy, autoimmune oophoritis, ovarian cysts, and premature ovarian failure. PZP quickly sterilizes mares that have a strong immune system but has no effect on those suffering from weak immunity. Thus, PZP both works and doesn’t work but, in the long run, selects for poor immune function. Weak immunity = weak resistance to infection, which could quickly wipe out a herd. PZP also affects the foals. If a mare is pregnant or nursing when darted, PZP antibodies are transferred to her offspring via the placenta and her milk. So, inadvertently, unborn and newborn foals receive a dose or two of the pesticide when their dams are injected.

4. PZP — The Danger to Humans: PZP is a powerful endocrine-disruptor. It causes a sharp drop in estrogen levels. Unfortunately, because the manufacturer misrepresented PZP as “so safe it is boring,” volunteer-darters have become lax in following safety-precautions. Accidental self-injection could result in severe adverse effects because the dose-in-question is sized for a horse.

5. PZP — The Year-Round Birthing-Season: A longitudinal study (Ransom et al. 2013) of three herds currently under treatment with PZP found that the the birthing-season lasts virtually year-round (341 days). Out-of-season births put the life of mares and their foals in jeopardy. Nature designed foals to be born in Spring, not year-round, and certainly not in Winter.

6. PZP — Prolonged Delay in Recovery of Fertility: Ransom et al. also found that, after suspension of PZP, it takes more than a year per each year-of-treatment before mares recover their fertility. PZP’s manufacturer conceded that it could take up to 8 years to recover fertility after just 3 consecutive years of PZP treatment.

7. PZP — Scientists Say Proceed with Caution: Ransom et al. warned: “The transient nature of … PZP can manifest into extraordinary persistence of infertility with repeated vaccinations, and ultimately can alter birth phenology in horses. This persistence … suggests caution for use in small refugia ….”

8. PZP — Contraindicated for Tiny, Isolated Herds: Several years ago, BLM convened a meeting of scientists on the topic of minimum herd-size for genetic fitness. Conclusion: “Smaller, isolated populations (<200 total census size) are particularly vulnerable ….” And that’s without PZP in the mix.

9. Slow Herd-Growth: Per independent research, wild-horse herds increase at a rate of only 5% a year; and wild-burro herds, just 2%. Such slow growth does not warrant pesticide treatments administered en masse every year. Eventual sterilization is inevitable, with extinction of the herd over the long term.

10. Predators: The right way to right-size the wild-horse population is Nature’s way — predators. But those predators — mountain lions, bears, wolves, and coyotes — are persecuted mercilessly. Wildlife Services exterminates what trophy-hunters don’t shoot. Predators help the herds by favoring survival-of-the-fittest and the best genetic adaptations. Predators are the “no-cost” solution.

by Marybeth Devlin
Wild Horse Advocate

This mare waits in the alley before being led into the chute where her age and body condition will be checked. After being treated with the PZP fertility control agent, this mare will be released back to the Owyhee HMA.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inward Perspective of Ecological Zones

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

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

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

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

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

Ecological Zones and Destructive Invasive Situations

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

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

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

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

Invasion and Destruction of Ecological Zones / Saving them

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Literature Read/Information and Sound Data

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cross-posted from John Cox

Meet the new Bureau of Land Management propaganda mouthpiece who just voted to kill 45,000 American wild horses and burros in holding


Ben Masters claims, in his PRO-KILL statement on 9/10/16, that there are 3,160 wild horses in the area he visited on the BLM tour last week. He visited Dolly Varden Spring in Antelope Valley, Nevada. One of our members was there too.

A well established local journalist, Larry Hyslop wrote about the wild horses at Dolly Varden Spring on 8/20/16. According to Hyslop there are 1,100 wild horses. Ben Masters, a new Wild Horse & Burro Advisory Board member, claimed there were three times as many in his PRO-KILL statement on 9/10/16.

So who is telling the truth? 


How many wild horses are out there? Where is the evidence?



Ben Masters only holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences from Texas A&M University. He produced and played himself in the film, UNBRANDED, a Bureau of Land Management propaganda film with all those talking heads forced into the story of an epic journey.

Sign and Share the Petition to Demand #NoKill 45,000 Wild Horses & Burros in Holding:

Sign and Share the Petition to Defund to Stop the Wild Horse and Burro Roundups and Slaughter

Sign and Share the Petition to Investigate the Wild Horse & Burro Count in Captivity and in Freedom

Ben Master on far left

Help fight the killing!

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

Despite underpopulation, does OSU have the right to experiment on federally protected wild horses and burros or are they breaking the law?

 Is Oregon State University about to embark it their biggest PR nightmare?

Vet Spaying Wild Mare at Sheldon Wildlife Refuge


© EquineClinic.comn shared for educational purposes

© EquineClinic.comn shared for educational purposes

Oregon State University published the Q & A below based on the false premise, when the truth is wild horses are underpopulated in America today:


Frequently asked questions: OSU fertility research involving wild mares and burros

I understand that Oregon State University is involved in research on wild horses and burros.  Is this true?

Yes. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) awarded Oregon State University money to help study fertility-control methods for wild horses and burros.

In 2014, the BLM asked for research proposals from a variety of scientific groups across the nation to help address the high population growth rates of wild horses and burros, including veterinarians, scientists, universities, pharmaceutical companies, and other research entities.  Additional details can be found here.  Since then, the BLM has provided awards to support over 20 projects.

Five universities with college of veterinary medicine programs received awards. Proposals from OSU were selected based on the quality of science, the expertise of the research investigator and the potential impact of the research. Oregon State University faculty were among those that submitted proposals to the BLM to help slow and stabilize the population growth rate of wild horses and burros. The BLM announced its decision on June 27 to proceed with the research to be conducted by Oregon State faculty. Details of that announcement can be found here.

How is Oregon State University involved?

As a research university, Oregon State conducts studies on important topics, and informs public policy-makers and the general public of those research findings.

This research will evaluate minimally invasive, humane, effective, and permanent procedures that would then be reviewed by the BLM as options to maintain sustainable herd levels.

Our role is in conducting research to inform BLM policy. Oregon State University’s role is not to develop policy.

Why did BLM decide that this type of research was necessary?

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) developed the program after receiving a report with recommendations from a National Academy of Sciences committee, which had been tasked with performing a complete review of the BLM’s Wild Horse and Burro Management Program.

The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) published a video summary of that report, “Using Science to Improve the Wild Horse and Burro Program: A Way Forward”.

The NAS reports that the population of wild horses and burros is growing beyond the capacity of federal lands to support the health and welfare of these animals. Animals that are not healthy are susceptible to further suffering from disease, malnutrition, dehydration, and death. The BLM is reviewing a range of options to manage the population of these horses and burros at sustainable levels.

What did the National Academy of Sciences committee find?

The NAS committee emphasized that, on average, the population of wild horses and burros across the west is increasing by 15 – 20% per year, despite ongoing fertility control vaccination programs. The NAS urged the BLM to make wider use of fertility control options that are based on rigorous research.

Why would wild horse and burro populations be a concern? 

The population of wild horses and burros on federal lands is growing beyond the capacity of local, state, and federal resources to support the health and welfare of these animals, and maintain healthy range ecosystems.

An illustrated summary of BLM concerns and challenges related to our nation’s wild horses and burros can be found here. 

What does Oregon State University have to offer?

OSU faculty who responded to the BLM’s request for additional research felt very strongly that their contributions would benefit and improve the health and welfare of our wild horses and burros.

As a land-grant institution, Oregon State University faculty members often have the expertise needed to address issues that affect Oregon and the nation.

Results from this work will be analyzed and published in peer-reviewed forums, in addition to informing the BLM.  In this way, the work performed by OSU faculty will be available to the public.

For more information about how research is conducted at Oregon State University and academic freedom, please click here. 

How is animal safety and humane care ensured during research?

University-wide commitment to animal care, safety, and welfare is a top priority. Oregon State University recognizes both the importance of animals in research and teaching, and the scientific and ethical responsibilities inherent in the care of those animals.  Research activities undertaken by OSU faculty, staff, and students are reviewed and conducted in accordance with strict ethical principles, federal and state laws and regulations, and in compliance with Oregon State institutional policies.

Oversight of animal activities associated with OSU is provided by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC). The IACUC’s main functions are to review, approve, and monitor research protocols, and ensure that animals are cared for according to all applicable federal and state laws, regulations, and Oregon State institutional policies.

Oregon State University additionally volunteers to have their animal program reviewed every three years by AAALAC, International, an independent accreditation agency for animal research programs. The accreditation process is very stringent and institutions with AAALAC accreditation are known for their commitment to excellence and humane animal care.

What methods are being studied in this research?

One study will evaluate the removal of both ovaries without the need for any external skin incisions (ovariectomy via colpotomy). Ovariectomies are commonly used by veterinarians to stop egg production and related reproductive (“heat”) cycles in animals.

Another study will evaluate two surgical methods that will interrupt fertilization.  Animals undergoing these procedures will still have heat cycles but they will not conceive.  Tubal ligation is one method, and the other is oviduct ablation.  The use of these methods also avoids the need for external skin incisions.

I have concerns about the management of our nation’s wild horses and burros, and I don’t think Oregon State University should be involved.

As a research institution, work at Oregon State sometimes involves controversial issues.  In this case, research team members have offered their areas of expertise in designing a study whose results will be used to inform policy decisions by the BLM in the management of wild horse and burro populations.

Research data provided by Oregon State researchers will be part of the larger group of studies that BLM will consider as it reviews policies and procedures to respond to the 2013 NAS report.

More information on BLM management of wild horses and burros can be found here.

Who will perform this research?

The studies will be conducted by teams of licensed, highly qualified and experienced veterinary surgeons.

Are Oregon State students involved in this research?

No.  Students are not involved in these projects.

When was this proposal submitted?

Proposals were submitted to the BLM in 2014. 

How long will this research take to be completed?

The research will take place over the next two – five years.

How much will be spent on this research? Who will fund this proposed research?

The BLM has approved two grants to OSU totaling $348,000.

Where will this research be conducted?

The research will be conducted at the BLM’s wild horse and burro facility in Hines, OR. 

How and with whom will these research findings be shared with?

Oregon State researchers will report their results to the BLM; will publish findings in other peer-reviewed forums and share the results with the public.

Who decides to accept or reject these findings? Or implement them as a standard of future practice?

The BLM will make any decisions on future policies and practices. For more information click here.

Cross-posted for discussion from:

Stay tuned for the backlash

PM Lennox meme

Protect Mustangs is an organization who protects and preserves native and wild horses.

Comments submitted to BLM to Protect the Pine Nut Wild Horses (Carson City, Nevada)

PM MArilyn © Eve Arnold Magnum Photos


John Axtell  (

Wild Horse and Burro Specialist

Carson City District Office

5665 Morgan Mill Road

Carson City, NV 89701

The Environmental Assessment for the Pine Nut Mountain wild horse management plan near Carson City, Nevada must take into account this herd management area (HMA) is extremely accessible to the public and international tourists with easy access from the San Francisco Bay Area as well as from the Reno International Airport and therefore the Pine Nut HMA must be preserved with the maximum level of wild horses as an educational public sanctuary on public land. The maximum level of wild horses should be determined through rigorous scientific study during a 10 year moratorium on roundups, fertility control and human intervention. Good science must prevail to ensure America’s Pine Nut wild horses–made famous in John Huston’s film THE MISFITS starring Clark Gable and Marilyn Monroe–will not be wiped out due to human intervention resulting in a lack of adaptability to survive climate change, etc.

Many photographers, poets, artists and filmmakers such as myself and our supporters rely on the Pine Nut HMA for accessibility to real wild horses on public land. We seek out wild horses to observe their natural behavior, beauty and inspiration. We don’t want to see sterile groups of wild horses nor those given pesticides ruining their bodies, natural behaviors who are part of an on the range breeding program with a “one foal” policy. We want the real deal, period

We represent thousands of supporters and ask that you do the following:

  • Halt helicopter and other removals to manage the population on the range utilizing reserve design, holistic land management with predation. Predators must not be killed but must fill their niche in the ecological balance of the Pine Nut HMA.
  • Move back into the HMA any alleged “nuisance” and other wild horses that are residing outside the HMA in areas that are not managed for wild horse habitat or that contribute to public safety concerns such as property damage and vehicle collisions. Conduct a study with a wild horse group to find and implement solutions to keep them inside the HMA.
  • Ensure that wild horses are not fenced off from water at the river.
  • Wild horses are not pests and therefore no pesticides should ever be used on native wild horses. PZP is dangerous:

“The old hypothesis — that PZP merely blocks sperm attachment — has been disproved.

Kaur & Prabha (2014) found that the infertility brought on by PZP is ” … a consequence of ovarian dystrophy rather than inhibition of sperm-oocyte interaction.” They reported thatPZP’s antibodies induce ovarian dystrophy, oophoritis (inflammation of the ovaries), destruction of oocytes in all growing follicles, and depletion of resting follicles.

Despite all the hype about PZP being non-hormonal, the manufacturer himself knew that it had an adverse hormonal effect — significantly-lowered estrogen. In 1992, he reported that ” … three consecutive years of PZP treatment may interfere with normal ovarian function as shown by markedly depressed oestrogen secretion.” Thus, PZP is an endocrine disruptor.

Worse yet, Sacco et al. (1981) found that PZP antibodies are transferred from mother to young via the placenta and milk. The transferred antibodies cross-react with and bind to the zonae pellucidae of female offspring. This is bad news because BLM regularly administers PZP to pregnant and lactating mares, who transfer the destructive antibodies to their filly-foals. Thus, the fillies get their first treatment with PZP in utero, while nursing, or both.

Nettles (1997) found an association between PZP and stillbirths. In 2015, the International Society for the Protection of Mustangs and Burros reported that 7 mares previously treated with PZP, when taken off it, were able to get pregnant. However, 6 of those 7 mares — that is, 86 percent — produced foals that were stillborn. All other ISPMB mares that had not been previously injected with PZP successfully birthed healthy foals. Environmental and other conditions were identical. The only variable was PZP. Meanwhile, over on the East Coast, the Corolla herd, long-managed with PZP, has recently experienced birth defects among its newborns.

Gray & Cameron (2010) questioned the supposed benefit of PZP-sterilized mares living much longer than their normal life expectancy, and and Knight & Rubenstein (2014) warned of unintended consequences of PZP’s ironic effect of extended longevity. Ultra-elderly mares take up scarce slots within AML-restricted herds. They consume resources but no longer contribute to the gene-pool. It is detrimental to a population’s genetic viability to carry significant numbers of sterile herd-members way-beyond their normal life-span. Meanwhile, those few foals that are born have to be removed to achieve AML because they’re more adoptable.

Ransom et al. (2013) conducted a longitudinal study of three herds currently being managed by PZP — Little Book Cliffs, McCullough Peaks, and Pryor Mountain. They found that the the birthing season lasted 341 days — nearly year-round — which puts the life of mares and foals in jeopardy. Nature designed the equine birthing-season to occur in Spring, not year-round, and certainly not in the dead of Winter.

Ransom et al. also found that, after suspension of PZP, there was a delay lasting 411.3 days (1.13 years) per each year-of-treatment before mares recovered their fertility. They warned: “Humans are increasingly attempting to manage the planet’s wildlife and habitats with new tools that are often not fully understood. The transient nature of the immunocontraceptive PZP can manifest into extraordinary persistence of infertility with repeated vaccinations, and ultimately can alter birth phenology in horses. This persistence may be of benefit for managing overabundant wildlife, but also suggests caution for use in small refugia or breeding facilities maintained for repatriation of rare species.”

PZP’s manufacturer conceded that it could take up to eight years to recover fertility after just three consecutive PZP treatments.

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.

PZP’s manufacturer was quoted describing PZP as “so safe it is boring.” Independent research shows otherwise — that PZP is a powerful hormone disruptor that could sterilize a female with just one injection. If staff and volunteers believe that PZP is boringly safe, they will be less likely to protect themselves adequately from this dangerous pesticide. Indeed, many of the volunteers are women and, therefore, at risk. Accidental self-injection with PZP could cause them to suffer diseased ovaries and depressed estrogen-levels — in addition to infertility and, potentially, sterility.Consider the magnitude of the risk — the PZP-in-question is a horse-size dose.” ~ Marybeth Devlin, Wild Horse Advocate

  • PZP, GonaCon, and Sterilization would ruin natural behavior that we specifically go to the Pine Nut HMA to study and enjoy. Therefore this junk must not be forced upon wild horses. No experiments. No collars. Respect their right to true freedom.
  • We request you re-evaluate AMLs to accommodate the present wild horse population without removals, making forage adjustments, if necessary, pursuant to CFR 43 C.F.R. 4710.5(a).
  • Conduct a complete headcount and public database with individual photos of every wild horse on the Pine Nut HMA with their basic information. Follow the wild horses and note all the deaths. Do you know even how many have died since birth in the past 2 years? How many have died of natural causes including predation and how many have been shot or poisoned by humans?
  • Increase penalties for killing wild horses.
  • Include a complete identification and analysis of the various causes of land degradation — AND their corresponding degree of impact — including but not limited to motorized uses (OHV, etc.), extractive uses (mining, etc.), various recreational uses, and other uses for each area, inside and outside of HMAs, analyzed in the EA.
  • The Environmental Assessment must include a complete disclosure and analysis showing the degree of disturbance that each of the following negative impacts has on the bi-state sage grouse: renewable energy projects, extractive uses, motorized vehicle uses, recreational activities, power lines, fencing and other man-made structures have on the bi-state sage grouse behaviors and habitat–mapped and analyze for the degree and range (circumference) of impact each has on bi-state sage grouse behaviors and habitat within the HMA.
  • Analyze the HMA exclusively to be used for wild horses and other wildlife to prevent the degradation of public lands within and outside the herd management area. Expand the HMA if needed to the original acreage designated to wild horses. What would the impacts be and how would the thriving natural ecological balance and Sage Grouse flourish?

We will not allow wild horses to be scapegoated for damage caused by other species or land users.

Thank you for allowing us to participate in the public process.


Anne Novak

Executive Director

Protect Mustangs

Tel./Text: 415.531.8454

Read about native wild horses: 



Protect Mustangs is an organization who protects and preserves native and wild horses.

PM Pine Nut Wild Horses ©Craig Downer

Protect Mustangs is an organization who protects and preserves native and wild horses.

Lies, Spin and Subterfuge

The Cattlemen and livestock industry are making a huge push in Washington to give millions of tax-dollars to BLM for HUGE roundups to sterilize America’s last wild horses and burros. That means they will die out. Watch the Video testimonies here:

The House Committee on Natural Resources is stacked against wild horses and burros.

The vet called to testify seems to be from a wealthy Nevada ranching family. The Farm Bureau witness seems to be Pro-Slaughter for wild horses, etc.

The only representative for wild horses testifying is pushing for cooperative agreements with BLM as well as fertility control–Pesticide PZP–and that opens a pandora’s box for all forms of fertility control based on the BLM myth that wild horses are overpopulated : (

The Oil and Gas industry is about to launch a huge #Fracking boom in the areas where wild horses live so follow the money behind this rigged hearing. . .

PUBLIC comment allowed for 10 Business days after this meeting, which is July 7, 2016.
EMAIL: the Clerk:

This is YOUR call to action to JOIN the Alliance for Wild Horses and Burros to stop the slaughter, sterilizations, and stop the killing of America’s wild horses and burros. Go to

Sign and share the petition for a 10 year Moratorium on Roundups:

Sign and share the petition to defund and stop the roundups as well as the slaughter:

Thank you!


the Team at Protect Mustangs

Member of the Alliance for Wild Horses and Burros (AWHB)


Where are wild horses?™


Protect Mustangs is an organization who protects and preserves native and wild horses.

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

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

PM Gonacon Pesticide Fact Sheet

Read the entire Gonacon™ Pesticide Fact Sheet


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

PM PZP Test mares

(American wild horses used in fertility control experiments)

© John Cox, printed with permission

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

Read John Cox’s blog at:

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

BLM Fakes Population Growth to Wipe Out America’s Wild Horses

The feds’ mustang population “data” is a fraud 

By Marybeth Devlin

While pretending to rely on the assumption that herds grow 20% a year, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) posts numbers up to 8 times higher than that to justify roundups, which are pre-scheduled on a rotation-basis, seeming to target particular herds. For instance, the Agency recently claimed that the famous Kiger herd in Oregon grew from 21 horses to 156 horses in just four years — an increase of 643%, which equates to a yearly average increase of 160%, which is 8 times higher than the 20% BLM supposedly uses. [1] Such growth is biologically impossible. Kiger is not an isolated example, although it is the worst found so far. Here are some other phony figures on population-growth recently claimed by BLM to make it appear that gathers were necessary:

Blawn Wash (UT)
297.4 % increase in 3 years, averaging 99.1 % per year

Fish Creek (NV)
80% increase in one year

Green Mountain (WY)
281% increase in four years, averaging 70.3% per year

Stewart Creek (WY)
311% increase in four years, averaging 77.8% per year
But herd-growth is unlikely to reach even 20 percent a year. It is important to understand that the birth-rate is not the same as–and should not be equated to–the population growth-rate. Here’s why: Horses die. An independent study reviewed BLM roundup-records for a representative sample of four herd management areas composed of 5,859 wild horses (Gregg, LeBlanc, and Johnston, 2014). While the researchers found an overall birth-rate of just under 20 percent, they also found that half of foals perish in their first year of life. Thus, the effective foal-to-yearling survival-rate is just 10 percent. Further, adult wild horses also perish. They succumb to illness, injury, and predation. Their death-rate must be taken into consideration as well. But BLM ignores mortality–foal and adult–in its population-estimates. Given the 50% foal mortality-rate, and the 5% or higher average annual death-rate of adult wild horses, herd-growth could not increase 20% a year, and a herd-population could not double in 4 years–refuting yet another BLM myth.

Stealthily inserting bogus birth-rates into the data, wrongly conflating birth-rates with population growth-rates, and failing to factor in mortality-rates–that is how BLM creates the false impression of a population-explosion. But “cooking the books” is not the only way BLM falsifies the population-picture. Another ruse BLM employs is restricting maximum herd-size below minimum-viable population (MVP) size. Then, whenever a herd is made to appear–via fictitious figures–to exceed the arbitrary management level, BLM screams “excess!” and declares an immediate need for mass-removals and sterilizations. It should be noted that more than 70 percent of the herds are “managed” below MVP.

BLM also fails to consider another factor limiting herd-growth–stochastic events–which are random catastrophes such as wildfires or contagious diseases that suddenly wipe out mass-numbers of herd-members. Stochastic events can result in no-growth or even negative growth.

Now BLM is distributing grant-money to universities and researchers to study more ways of dealing with the phantom overpopulation. All manner of sicko experiments are being carried out on the wild horses, such as treating them with endocrine disruptors and sterilizing them surgically. Why? Because BLM is a corrupt agency. It invented this counterfeit crisis to create a sense of urgency, which will pressure Congress to give the Agency extra money to “solve” a non-existent problem.

TAKE ACTION: Sign and share by email the Petition to Stop the Wild Horse and Burro Roundups and Slaughter here:

Contact your elected officials to make them aware of BLM’s fraudulent population claims to get funding for wild horse roundups and warehousing at great taxpayer expense:

Click “Like” for updates and alerts

Visit for more information and click on the donate button help fight the injustice! You can make a difference.

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

(Photo by BLM. Roundup paid for with your tax dollars.)

[1] Using simple division to calculate the average increase is how most people would “do the math”–dividing the percentage increase (643%) by the number of years (4). Expressing the average that way is readily understandable. However, another way of calculating it is what is called the “compound annual growth rate” (CAGR). Per that method, herd-growth can be likened to compound interest that you earn on a savings account; except of course that horses do die, which complicates the computations. But for now, let’s assume that horses never die, because that’s the assumption that BLM makes.

Using the free, online CAGR tool linked below, you would enter Kiger’s beginning population–21–and its alleged ending population–156–and the number of years that had passed–4. Then press the “Calculate CAGR” button, and the tool will compute the compound annual growth rate. For the Kiger herd, the CAGR is 65%, which is “only” 3.25 times higher–instead of 8 times higher–than 20%.

Here is the tool to compute CAGR:

Here are the other herds cited and their CAGRs. Fish Creek stays the same because its growth is just for one year.

Blawn Wash (UT)
38 = Population-estimate 2012
151 = Population-estimate 2014, including new foals

297.4 % = Percentage increase in three years
99.1 % = Simple average annual growth-rate
58.4 % = Compound annual growth-rate (CAGR)

Fish Creek (NV)
256 = Population-estimate 2013
461 = Population-estimate 2014, before foaling season (January)
80.1% = Percentage increase in one year

Green Mountain (WY)
258 = Population-estimate post-gather at the end of 2011
982 = Population-estimate in 2015 — including that year’s foals*

281.0 % = Percentage increase in four years
70.3 % = Simple average annual growth-rate
39.7 % = Compound annual growth-rate (CAGR)

Stewart Creek
124 = Population-estimate post-gather at the end of 2011
509 = Population-estimate in 2015 — including that year’s foals*

311.0 % = Percentage increase in four years
77.8 % = Simple average annual growth-rate
42.3 % = Compound annual growth-rate (CAGR)
* BLM’s population-modeling criteria said foals were not included in the AML. Evidently, they were.

Further Insight into Calculating Population-Growth

At the link below, you will find a discussion posted by the University of Oregon, providing a comparison between the simple average and the compound annual growth-rate methodologies for calculating annual percentage population-growth.

As will be readily apparent, the simple average approach is “straight-line” and … simple. Forgive yet another pun, but the average person can easily understand it and “do the math.”

The compound annual method, on the other hand, is extraordinarily complicated to compute, which is why the online tool is almost a necessity.

What is important is that both are legitimate ways of describing the data.

It should be kept in mind that population-growth estimates must consider births and deaths, not just births. That’s one reason why the Gregg et al. study was so important — it established, per BLM’s own documentation, a slightly-less than 20-percent birth-rate and a 50-percent foal mortality-rate. So, a wild-horse herd growth-rate of, for example, 65%, would have to mean a birth-rate that was much higher than 65% to offset foal deaths (50%) and adult deaths (5%).


Complaint to the Office of the Inspector General regarding BLM killing 28 wild horses near Las Vegas


To the Office of the Inspector General at the United States Department of Interior

Dear Sirs,

We officially request a full investigation into the management of wild horses and land use planning 6 years before the roundup, the roundup itself, feeding, veterinary care and killing of the 28 Cold Creek wild horses who had become skinny.

  • Why didn’t the BLM help these federally protected wild horses get the forage they needed earlier?
  • Why didn’t the BLM move the native wild horses up to areas with more forage?
  • What happened to their forage?
  • What about the livestock grazing permits? (see attached)
  • What organizations were pushing for BLM to use PZP, a controversial EPA restricted use pesticide for “birth control”–made from slaughterhouse pig ovaries–that sterilizes after multiple use?
  • Are the wild horses getting pushed out and killed as part of the New Energy Frontier–to put massive solar farms on fragile desert land and therefore impacting wildlife?
  • Why aren’t the Cold Creek wild horses getting their fair share of the land that is for their principal but not exclusive use according to the 1971 Free Roaming Wild Horse & Burro Protection Act?
  • Why is the agency appointed “appropriate management level” (AML) for wild horses so low when a genetically viable herd needs more members?
  • Why is the BLM limiting access to the public to bare witness to this cruel roundup?
  • Was euthanasia chosen for convenience and the bottom line, pure and simple?
  • Did they look at the feed and labor involved vs adoptability and take the cheap and easy way out?

Rescues and members of the public would have helped bring the Cold Creek wild horses back to health if manpower was an issue. Adoption would have been simple once they healed because people know about them and cherish them.

Tourists from around the world, visiting Las Vegas, love the wild horses of the American West.

The BLM continues to roundup more beloved Cold Creek wild horses and we pray they will not kill any more but nurse them back to health.

The public is outraged.

We thank you for investigating into the wrongdoings surrounding the management, roundup and killing of 28 Cold Creek wild horses, provide transparency and shine the light of truth.

Anne Novak


Anne Novak
Executive Director
Protect Mustangs
Tel./Text: 415.531.8454

Read about native wild horses:

In the news:
Protect Mustangs is a nonprofit organization who protects and preserves native and wild horses.

BAD NEWS! The President’s proposed budget calls for aggressive population control methods. Email your Senators and Rep to defund sterilizations and request a ten-year moratorium on roundups


from Wikimedia

from Wikimedia


“The President’s fiscal year 2015 budget request is outrageous. It favors Big Oil and Gas fracking on public land while funding the American wild horse wipe-out. Currently there is no evidence of overpopulation while the BLM’s  runaway train for sterilization packaged as ‘birth control’ bashes down the tracks. We request a ten-year moratorium on roundups for scientific studies on population, migration and holistic land management. Science must come before aggressive measures to sterilize native wild horses. Birthrates are abnormally high from excessive roundups. Studies show the herds will self-regulate if the BLM stops managing them to extinction.” ~Anne Novak, Executive Director of Protect Mustangs

Contact your senators and representatives today!  Send them the study showing wild horse herds will self-regulate

Please sign and share the Petition to De-Fund & Stop the Roundups.

Sign and share the petition for a 10-year moratorium on roundups for scientific studies:

Read the fine print, ask questions and beware of pleges you are asking your representative to sign. Read: Are wild horses going to be sterilized due to an advocacy campaign?

PZP is a restricted use pesticide approved by the EPA calling wild horses PESTS! The Humane Society of the United States is the registrant of the drug. Why did they name indigenous wild horses pests? Was it to fast-track the drug because the FDA would not approve it?

Press Release: No proof of overpopulation, no need for native wild horse fertility control

Protect Mustangs speaks out against the Cloud Foundation’s PARTNERSHIP with BLM using risky PZP that could terminate natural selection:

Wildlife Ecologist, Craig Downer, speaks out against using PZP in the Pryors:

Proof the herds will self regulate: Study shows wild horse herds with functional social structures contribute to low herd growth compared to BLM managed herds

Use social media, email and call elected officials to help save America’s wild horses. Wild Horse Wednesday™ is a call to action day. #WildHorseWednesday

Go to the 2015 Budget and comment below on the problems you see.

PM BLM Hip Branding

Cross-posted from a BLM press release:

President Proposes $1.1 Billion for BLM in Fiscal Year 2015
Investment in Public Lands Yields $150 billion in Economic Output and 750,000 Jobs

WASHINGTON – President Obama today requested $1.1 billion for the Bureau of Land Management in Fiscal Year 2015, which will enable the BLM to continue to responsibly manage the development of conventional and renewable energy on public lands, conserve valuable wildlife habitat and cultural and historic resources, and implement innovative landscape scale management approaches.

“This balanced and responsible proposal will advance the BLM’s mission of multiple use and sustained yield of the public lands at a time of tight budgets,” said BLM Principal Deputy Director Neil Kornze. “The BLM continues to be a major economic engine for many communities across the West and this budget makes smart investments that provide for a secure energy future, expanded outdoor recreational opportunities and thoughtful resource management.”

Kornze noted that the BLM generates an estimated $150 billion annually in economic output for the Nation and supports more than 750,000 jobs through resource development and conservation and recreational activities on BLM-managed public lands.

The 2015 President’s request seeks $954.1 million for the Management of Lands and Resources appropriation and $104.0 million for the Oregon and California Grant Lands appropriation, the BLM’s two major operating accounts.  The total BLM budget request, partially offset by new fee collections, is a decrease of $5.6 million below the 2014 enacted level.

Under the President’s budget for 2015, the BLM – with a workforce of about 10,000 employees – would focus on the following priorities:

Powering Our Future – The President’s 2015 budget proposes an increase of $20.3 million above the 2014 enacted level ($113.4 million) for the BLM’s Oil and Gas Management program. The request includes both direct appropriations and funding fees for services provided to oil and gas producers on Federal lands.  The request includes an increase of $5.2 million to provide staffing, training, and other resources needed to strengthen operational guidance to BLM units.  The request also includes $4.6 million to strengthen the BLM’s core oversight, leasing and permitting capabilities, allowing the BLM to keep up with industry demand and workload.  Among other things, the increase will enable BLM to fill vacancies and expand staff in key locations, as well as continue implementing leasing reforms instituted in May 2010 by supporting enhanced environmental analysis and planning for future lease sales.  The budget request also proposes to expand and strengthen BLM’s inspection and oversight capability through fees comparable to those assessed for offshore inspections.  This funding will help BLM fully implement a risk-based inspection strategy to improve production accountability, safety, and environmental protection of oil and gas operations.  The budget proposes an inspection fee schedule estimated to generate $48.0 million in offsetting collections, which allows for a proposed reduction of $38.0 million in appropriated funds, while providing an increase of $10.0 million to enhance BLM’s inspection capability.

The President’s Budget request maintains funding for renewable energy at essentially the 2014 enacted level, $29.2 million, providing the BLM with the resources it needs to continue to aggressively facilitate and support solar, wind and geothermal energy development as Interior works toward the President’s goal of approving 20,000 megawatts of renewable energy on public lands by 2020.

Since 2009, the BLM has approved 50 utility-scale renewable energy proposals and associated transmission on public lands, including 27 solar, 11 wind, and 12 geothermal projects. Together, the projects could support more than 20,000 construction and operations jobs and, if fully built, generate nearly 14,000 megawatts of electricity, or enough to power 4.8 million homes.

Complementing the Secretary’s Powering Our Future initiative are efforts to facilitate efficient delivery of energy to the markets where it is needed to meet growing demands.  The West’s aging electrical infrastructure is an impediment to efficient energy transmission and maximizing renewable energy development.  The BLM has a critical role in expanding electric transmission infrastructure through the issuance of rights-of-way.  To support the necessary upgrades needed to improve reliability and increase capacity, the budget includes a $5.0 million increase in the Cadastral, Lands and Realty Management program to enhance the BLM’s ability to identify and designate energy corridors in low conflict areas and to site high-voltage transmission lines, substations, and related infrastructure in an environmentally sensitive manner.

Bureau of Land Management Foundation – The budget proposes to establish a charitable, non-profit organization to benefit the public by protecting and restoring BLM’s natural, cultural, historical, and recreation resources for future generations.  The National BLM Foundation will be similar to existing foundations, including the National Park Foundation, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and the National Forest Foundation.

Sage-Grouse Conservation – The President’s request continues to provide $15 million to implement broad-scale Sage-Grouse planning and conservation activities to lessen the threats to the sage grouse and its habitat to help prevent the future listing of the species for protection under the Endangered Species Act.  The efforts include amending or revising 98 land-use plans to designate priority habitat; performing habitat restoration and improvement; and conducting habitat mapping, assessment and monitoring activities.

America’s Great Outdoors – The BLM plays a key role in advancing the President’s conservation initiative to reconnect Americans to the outdoors.  More than 61 million visits are made to BLM public lands every year.  Accordingly, the 2015 budget request includes an increase of $1.9 million to strengthen management of national monuments and national conservation areas, key units of BLM’s National Landscape Conservation System that contain some of the West’s most spectacular landscapes.  Other increases in support of America’s Great Outdoors include $900,000 in Recreation Resources Management for planning, visitor safety, and interpretive services and $742,000 in Cultural Resources Management for inventory and site protection activities.

The 2015 budget also includes increases for programs funded through the Land and Water Conservation Fund, a vital component of the America’s Great Outdoors initiative.  The 2015 budget proposal includes a total of $89.4 million for BLM land acquisition, including $25.0 million in requested discretionary appropriations and $64.4 million in permanent funding.

Wild Horse and Burro Management – The President’s budget proposes a $2.8 million increase in the Wild Horse and Burro Management program to allow BLM to more aggressively implement recommendations in the June 2013 National Academy of Sciences report on improving the WH&B program, including expanding ongoing research on population control methods, a key component of controlling program costs.

Engaging the Next Generation – The 2015 budget request seeks a total of $4.8 million for BLM youth programs and partnerships, a $1.3 million increase over the 2014 enacted level.  This funding will enable the BLM to engage youth in work and training opportunities that promote conservation stewardship and pathways to careers.

Enterprise Geospatial System – The BLM is requesting $3.8 million to expand the implementation of the BLM’s enterprise geospatial system in 2015.  This will include improved data management across administrative units that will provide enhanced information for landscape-scale planning initiatives, include the Greater Sage-Grouse Plan Implementation and Monitoring, Renewable energy Development, Rapid Eco-regional Assessments, Climate Change Adaptation and Regional Mitigation.

Abandoned Mine Lands – A $2.8 million program increase in the Abandoned Mine Lands program will support implementation of the remediation plan goals for 2015 at the Red Devil Mine site in Alaska.

Challenge Cost Share – A proposed program increase of $1.2 million in the Challenge Cost Share program will be leveraged with support from local partner organizations to address priorities for on-the-ground habitat conservation, recreation, and cultural resources protection work.

Livestock Grazing – As in previous years, the Administration’s budget proposal seeks to initiate a grazing administration fee pilot project that would enhance BLM’s capacity for processing grazing permits.  A fee of $1 per animal unit month is estimated to generate $6.5 million in fee collections in 2015, more than offsetting a $4.8 million decrease in appropriated funds in the Rangeland Management program.  The increase of $1.7 million in funding resources will allow BLM to make more progress in addressing the grazing permit backlog.

Alaska Conveyance – The 2015 budget proposal seeks $19 million for the Alaska Conveyance Program allowing the Agency to continue to pursue the implementation of more efficient cadastral survey methods with a goal of completing all Alaska survey and land transfers in the next 10 years.

Oregon and California Grant Lands – The budget proposes reductions totaling $11 million in the Oregon and California Grant Lands account, including a $4.2 million decrease in Western Oregon Resource Management Planning, which is consistent with the expectation that the BLM will complete six resource management plans during fiscal year 2015.

Implementing Federal Oil and Gas Reforms – The 2015 budget includes a package of legislative reforms to bolster and backstop administrative actions being taken to reform management of Interior’s onshore and offshore oil and gas programs, with a key focus on improving the return to taxpayers from the sale of these Federal resources and on improving transparency and oversight.  Proposed statutory and administrative changes fall into three general categories: (1) encouraging diligent development of oil and gas leases, (2) improving revenue collection processes, and (3) advancing royalty reform.  Collectively, these reforms will generate roughly $2.5 billion in revenue to the Treasury over ten years, of which approximately $1.7 billion will result from statutory changes.  Many States also will benefit from higher Federal revenue sharing payments as a result of these reforms.

Modernizing Management of Hardrock Mining and Abandoned Mine Clean-up – The budget includes mandatory proposals to address the legacy of the Nation’s antiquated laws on hardrock mining.  Reforms will ensure the cleanup of environmental and safety hazards from past mining practices by creating a Hardrock Abandoned Mine Lands (AML) program with dedicated funding for AML cleanup, and provide taxpayers a fair return from the mining of gold, silver and other hardrock resources on Federal lands.

Additional details on the President’s FY 2015 budget request are available online at

Link to this alert is here: :