CNN (Headline News) is covering the BP/Mustang Story!

Originally posted by Misfit

Originally posted by PieKeeper
Nile Perch into Lake Victoria, rabbits in Australia, cats and rats on island habitats, the brown tree snake in Guam, etc. All responsible for devastating wildlife populations.

You forgot the most devastating of them all ......... man onto Earth.

I'll suffer being yelled at for a one-liner.

I don't disagree. I've already said that I'm discussing the introduction of non-native species, which at the root of the problem is man.

reply to post by PieKeeper


But again, I ask...aren't we creations of mother nature as well? And if so, when we introduce a species to an ecosystem, wouldn't that be nature's design, albeit indirectly? Just like when nature sets fire to areas, in order to clear the way for new life, our actions may be part of the plan. Who knows really? Are ecosystems meant to stay the same forever, or haven't all of them changed dramatically over time, for one reason or another?




[edit on 17-7-2010 by 27jd]

reply to post by 27jd


Mother nature has no design, and there is no plan.

It's entirely within the grasp of man to exterminate all terrestial plants, mammals, insects, birds, pretty much most multicellular animals. With your logic, it's alright to do that for the sake of ecosystems changing over time.

It's much more appropriate to let ecosystems change in their own time with natural processes than artificially introducing alien variables.

[edit on 17-7-2010 by PieKeeper]

Originally posted by PieKeeper
reply to post by 27jd

 

Mother nature has no design, and there is no plan.

The design is called the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology. This is the blueprint of nature, the design. These laws were created by God and the universe follows them.

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL

Originally posted by PieKeeper
reply to post by 27jd

 

Mother nature has no design, and there is no plan.

The design is called the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology. This is the blueprint of nature, the design. These laws were created by God and the universe follows them.

He's arguing that Mother Nature is a guiding force in evolution, and that man-caused mass extinction may be part of a "plan". Of course nature has laws that it works by, he's talking about nature as if it's a sentient force.

[edit on 17-7-2010 by PieKeeper]

reply to post by PieKeeper


Ok well there is a sentient force behind nature and that is God. Just because the maker doesnt show himself doesnt mean him to be true. You know your house was made, yet you dont see the construction workers out there...but this is a whole another topic.

Originally posted by PieKeeper
reply to post by 27jd
Mother nature has no design, and there is no plan.

Okay, so you believe everything is nothing but the result of chaos, in that event then, why is it necessary in your eyes for an ecosystem to follow a set of rules or set design? What's the difference between man introducing a species, or a floating pile of debris washing ashore, or a land bridge created by naturally changing water levels?

And you're incorrect to say that I'm arguing mother nature is a conscious guiding force of any kind. I'm just able to admit that I have no idea what may or may not be meant to happen. I also don't believe that us monkeys are in the position to end life on this planet for any length of time, if at all. Every tool we use, every chemical, originates here on Earth one way or the other. I'm just looking at it from a different angle.

so which species did the Mustangs wipe out?

none ...... know why ?because they are horses they come from here
this is the natural home of horses all horses because in the beginning they came from here


horse evolved with all the wildlife we currently have left. yes they disappeared
so did people but they are back and so are we

Originally posted by 27jd
Okay, so you believe everything is nothing but the result of chaos, in that event then, why is it necessary in your eyes for an ecosystem to follow a set of rules or set design? What's the difference between man introducing a species, or a floating pile of debris washing ashore, or a land bridge created by naturally changing water levels?

It doesn't have to follow a set of rules or design. It's well known that invasive species cause damage to ecosystems. It is in the best interest of biodiversity to prevent human introduction of invasive species. Just because ecosystems change over time does not make it alright for us to change them artificially.

Originally posted by MrsBlonde
so which species did the Mustangs wipe out?

none ...... know why ?because they are horses they come from here
this is the natural home of horses all horses because in the beginning they came from here

horse evolved with all the wildlife we currently have left. yes they disappeared
so did people but they are back and so are we

We'll never know the exact impacts that feral horses have had, no one has been studying the issue for the entire period of time that it has existed. However, we do know that feral horses are causing damage to ecosystems.

Originally posted by PieKeeper
It doesn't have to follow a set of rules or design. It's well known that invasive species cause damage to ecosystems. It is in the best interest of biodiversity to prevent human introduction of invasive species. Just because ecosystems change over time does not make it alright for us to change them artificially.

Why? Just because somebody says something isn't alright, doesn't mean that they know why they're saying that. You say it doesn't have to follow rules, yet you're making one in saying that when man introduces a species it's not alright, but when floating wood does it, it's okay. That seems like a rule of yours. How is it artificial when man, who is an animal on this planet too, has an impact on the environment he is naturally a part of?

We'll never know the exact impacts that feral horses have had, no one has been studying the issue for the entire period of time that it has existed. However, we do know that feral horses are causing damage to ecosystems.

That really doesn't make alot of sense. We don't know what, but we know it's doing something bad? How about providing food sources for the return of predators like wolves, or food for mountain lions, etc? Just about all of the larger grazing prey animals that are now roaming the wilds of North America, have been introduced by man.

reply to post by PieKeeper


unlike the 9 million cattle and sheep that currently inhabit our public range land, who tiptoe over the range barely eating anything an cleaning up after themselves as they go, seriously?

you really think that the 20.000 or so Mustangs that are left are hurting their range ? How about Deer and Elk are they hurting range too?

all I'm asking is post evidence ,where do you come up with this?

you can't make a claim that horses are ruining the range when the range is occupied by 9 million cattle and sheep

information read me

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Obviously none of you are reading my previous posts, because you keep asking the same questions that I've answered before.

Originally posted by 27jd
Why? Just because somebody says something isn't alright, doesn't mean that they know why they're saying that. You say it doesn't have to follow rules, yet you're making one in saying that when man introduces a species it's not alright, but when floating wood does it, it's okay. That seems like a rule of yours. How is it artificial when man, who is an animal on this planet too, has an impact on the environment he is naturally a part of?

In the cases I mentioned of man-introduced species, the species introduced would have had no way of getting into those habitats, unless by sheer luck, and even then it would be almost impossible. Therefore they are artificially introduced.

Just because man is a product of nature does not make his actions natural. Sending men into space is not natural, it's a process utilizing constructions and materials that do not occur naturally.

Originally posted by 27jd
That really doesn't make alot of sense. We don't know what, but we know it's doing something bad? How about providing food sources for the return of predators like wolves, or food for mountain lions, etc? Just about all of the larger grazing prey animals that are now roaming the wilds of North America, have been introduced by man.

It's been demonstrated that feral horses do have a negative impact on the environment, as evidenced in my previous posts. However, because no one was studying this precise topic at the time domestic horses were introduced to North America, we will never know the exact impact they have had. They could have possibly caused the extinctions of animals that were never fossilized.

Native animals still provide enough food for mountain lions and wolves. Removing the horses will just give more room for other native prey species.

Like I said before, I'm strictly speaking on the issue of feral horses. If by "animals that are now roaming the wilds of North America, have been introduced by man" you are referring to livestock, I oppose public range feeding, but that's a separate issue.

Originally posted by MrsBlonde
unlike the 9 million cattle and sheep that currently inhabit our public range land, who tiptoe over the range barely eating anything an cleaning up after themselves as they go, seriously?

Once again, I am strictly speaking about the damage that feral horses cause. Livestock grazing of public land is a separate issue. (Though it should be noted that the effects of grazing livestock are similar to horses, as mentioned below in the citation.)

Hopefully everyone from here on will understand that now.

Originally posted by MrsBlonde
you really think that the 20.000 or so Mustangs that are left are hurting their range ? How about Deer and Elk are they hurting range too?

all I'm asking is post evidence ,where do you come up with this?

I've also answered this question in a previous post.

"The burgeoning horse population level on Sheldon is causing negative impacts to native wildlife and their habitats. Along stream banks and at spring heads, impacts include trampling of vegetation, exclusion of native species by dominant stud horses, and contamination from feces and urine.

Monitoring information from 2002 concluded that 44% of all streams and 80% of the springs on the refuge are heavily or severely impacted by horses. The feral horse population has continued to increase since that report. Feral horses also cause habitat degradation by removal and trampling of vegetation in upland areas.

When cattle grazing was permanently removed from Sheldon NWR in the early 1990s because of these same conflicts with wildlife, the population of feral horses was about 200-300 animals. However, these horses have no natural predators and their populations increase at a very high rate when compared to populations of deer, antelope and other native species for which the refuge was established."


- Source

Originally posted by MrsBlonde
you can't make a claim that horses are ruining the range when the range is occupied by 9 million cattle and sheep

I haven't claimed that horses are ruining the range. You are putting words in my mouth.

Though I can make the claim that horses cause damage to the range. Whether or not livestock occupy the range doesn't change the damage feral horses can cause.

Originally posted by MrsBlonde
information read me

That article contains no scientific citations. For all anyone knows it's pure hearsay.

The point is that the reports by the BLM which they use to claim that wild horses "damage" their habitat are basically disproven by other reports by the "General Accounting Office" and the "National Academy of Sciences".

a study made by the General Accounting Office showed that the overgrazing problem was actually caused by poorly managed domestic cattle herds, while the wild horses caused no damage to the lands. The study pointed out that a reduction on the number of cattle, not horses, was necessary to protect the health of the lands.

Chemical sterilization and in-the-wild management programs not based on removal are humane and effective ways to control the wild horse population that would save millions of dollars, yet the BLM continues removing more and more wild horses from public ranges to allocate more private-owned cattle at the expense of taxpayers. Now, under the new Burns' law, these horses removed from the range are in danger of being slaughtered to be served as gourmet dinners in upscale restaurants abroad, the same horses the WHFBA protected for more than 30 years.

My problem with the entire concept of removing the horses has nothing to do with whether or not they're "feral" or otherwise an invasive, non-native species. It's the fact that they're such a huge part of American history and so many of them may be forced from public lands by the BLM for the specific purpose of removing them.

The reports by the BLM that they claim proves the horses are damaging or destroying their habitat is countered by other reports by other federal agencies claiming the horses do not destroy their habitat but that the horses may be beneficial to the habitat overall. Furthermore, some of these reports say that the "damage" to the land that BLM is talking about is almost all caused by loosely-monitered cattle herds. Who do we believe? That's a slippery slope!

The BLM is always going to point at any fact they can find to support the removal of the horses because in this instance the BLM simply wants them removed. And the documentation presented in the ATS interview proves that the BLM is working in concert with the financial interests of BP and probably a slew of other companies we don't know about. Especially now that it's been proven how cozy big oil has been with federal agencies over the last few decades.

You also have to wonder what the government would eventually have to gain in the bigger picture by removing these horses. The answer is money. Especially if the removal of the horses is simply being orchestrated to make way for industrial development by BP (building the pipeline and all the other infrastructure it would require). If the cost of taking care of the horses elsewhere is going to cost taxpayers as much as they think (10 million or more) then it proves that the government is almost writing a check to BP for that amount to simply get the horses out of the picture to lay the groundwork for this new pipeline.

-ChriS

Originally posted by PieKeeper
Obviously none of you are reading my previous posts, because you keep asking the same questions that I've answered before.

No, you really have not answered my questions. You just continue to go in circles, avoiding the most obvious questions in a rude and condescending manner, and telling us all that something is bad, or artificial, because YOU say so. That's not good enough for me. I want you to tell me WHY mankind in space is 'artificial'. I say it is not, since we are there, using tools provided NATURALLY by the earth.

Back to the horses, again, you are admitting that there are no real studies on their impact, but again continue to spew how bad it is. How do YOU know? You don't. Plain and simple. But, I'm not here to argue or go round and round with somebody who is obviously now entrenched in his/her argument so deeply.

By the way, pies are artificial too. They do alot of damage to the human stomach.

I read through about half of this thread, and started getting agitated.

Why, because of all the nay sayers, why the hell do you people even come here to post, if there is nothing constructive to say?!

Do any of us go to where you hang out online, and piss all over your digital carpet?

Well, that is fine.

Every one who was on topic and didn't piddle on the floor just because they felt like it, you all get a pass. The rest, I am watching you, and the next time I see the jackass attitudes I am issuing a nice friendly Temp Ban.

See how them apples taste.

Friendly decorum, not disruptive...

reply to post by PieKeeper

these situations [ibid]. In a land management sense, if one species is reduced artificially to provide a maximum amount of forage for another, this could be considered a form of competition, bureaucratically imposed [ibid]. A 40-year research history chronicles the view that livestock competition has played an important role in the decline of the southwestern subspecies in all of the five states in which they occur [ibid, page 37]. Findings on consumption rates add support to the practice noted in the Phase I Report of attributing an animal unit equivalent of 1.25 to mature horses [Important Management Decisions: What is Excess?, page 28]. Forage use by wild equids remains a small fraction of the total forage use by domestic animals on western public ranges, regardless of whether the actual number of equids is in accord with the censuses or somewhat higher [How Many Horses /Burros are there in the West, page 43]. If the 64,545 equids [herd estimates 1980-81] on BLM lands are assigned 12 AUMs each, the total for feral equids on both kinds of public lands [BLM and Forest Service] is 794,740 AUMs. Hence the ration of forage used by livestock to that of feral equids is about 23:1 [ibid].

from thiswww.mustangfoundation.org...

contains links to the PDF I quoted and others

Originally posted by 27jd
No, you really have not answered my questions. You just continue to go in circles, avoiding the most obvious questions in a rude and condescending manner, and telling us all that something is bad, or artificial, because YOU say so. That's not good enough for me. I want you to tell me WHY mankind in space is 'artificial'. I say it is not, since we are there, using tools provided NATURALLY by the earth.

1st definition of "Artificial" from Merriam-Webster: "1 : humanly contrived often on a natural model : man-made "

Man-introduced invasive species are thus... artificially introduced.

Also, I'm not telling you that feral horses are bad because I say so, The citation I've used in previous posts that discusses the matter is a document from the Fish and Wildlife Service.

Originally posted by 27jd
Back to the horses, again, you are admitting that there are no real studies on their impact, but again continue to spew how bad it is.

I haven't admitted that there haven't been real studies. We can study the impacts of feral horses right now. Just because no one was doing it 400 years ago does not make current studies invalid.

Originally posted by 27jd
How do YOU know? You don't. Plain and simple. But, I'm not here to argue or go round and round with somebody who is obviously now entrenched in his/her argument so deeply.

You've yet to refute the assertion that feral horses cause environmental damage. No one in this thread has.

Originally posted by ADVISOR
Every one who was on topic and didn't piddle on the floor just because they felt like it, you all get a pass. The rest, I am watching you, and the next time I see the jackass attitudes I am issuing a nice friendly Temp Ban.

I really hope you aren't talking about me.


reply to post by MrsBlonde


That report is about competition with livestock and population numbers.

The report I cited is much more recent, and studies the effects of feral horses on a National Wildlife Refuge that's free of grazing livestock (because it was found that livestock grazing was doing similar damage).

reply to post by PieKeeper


I can't find find any stats that separate animals on range land into livestock and Mustangs and others I checked for a link to anything in your posts found one ...page not found

so I can't find whatever it is you're referring to

reply to post by MrsBlonde


This is the article I've been citing. It's working for me here. If it doesn't work for you, send me a PM and I'll send you the link there.

www.fws.gov...

George Knapp first hour guest tonight July 18, 2010 on Coast to Coast AM is Laura Leigh

10:00 PM Pacitic ~ 1:00 AM Eastern

artandhorseslauraleigh.wordpress.com...

Animal activist Laura Leigh talks about the recent wild horse round-up in Nevada, and the lawsuit she filed to stop it.

I wish Laura Leigh on her lawsuit.