This response confronts the inaccurate statements about the validity of the Salt River Vegetation Assessment. As a researcher, scientist, and biostatistician, I know the report is completely valid. However, not everyone has my background, so I provided scholarly proof that this type of ASSESSMENT (note the lack of the words “research study‘) is completely valid and scientifically grounded. The University of Arizona is a prestigious institution that would not produce anything inferior or lacking in the proper scientific rigour, methodological standards, or ecological relevance expected of land-grant university research and Extension work. Below is the Rebuttal, as well as an academic review of the assessment below the rebuttal.
Certain advocacy groups are criticizing the University of Arizona’s April 2025 Vegetation Assessment of the Salt River Horse Management Area, with The Salt River Wild Horse Management Group topping the list. These groups dispute its legitimacy because it was not published in a peer-reviewed journal. The argument shows a fundamental failure to understand how ecological monitoring and land management operate within practical settings. Please read the first few paragraphs. Also of note, this is written by a non-scientist, with no formal research training most likely named Simone Van der Salm (Netherlands is not her real name). Ms Van der Salm is the president of the Salt River Wild Horse Management Group and ironically, Ms Van der Salm is NOT a United States citizen, perhaps why she is at ease disparaging the University of Arizona.
Professional range scientists and ecologists at the University of Arizona Cooperative Extension developed the technical field report, which serves as the vegetation assessment. The assessment provides documentation of actual conditions while guiding resource management choices and delivering scientifically sound data to stakeholders, including land agencies, tribal partners, and the general public.
The scientific validity of management-grade research does not depend on peer review processes. The assessment’s quality is independent of peer-reviewed publication status because this format is unnecessary for credibility. Technical reports, field surveys, and unpublished data serve as the foundation for timely decision-making in all land and wildlife agencies and the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service. These include:
- Grazing permit evaluations
- Drought response actions
- Wildlife habitat management
- Emergency ecological assessments
This “gray literature” constitutes the primary source of information for both National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) decision-making and agency decisions according to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
The validity of work depends on different factors other than peer-review status.
The success of applied ecological work depends more on methodological rigor than on peer-review status. Standard sampling protocols (dry-weight rank, comparative yield), transparent site selection methods, and data collection procedures should be used.
- Methodological rigor
- Appropriate interpretation grounded in ecological science.
- Clear documentation of findings.
The April 2025 assessment meets all of these criteria. The evaluation applied recognized vegetation assessment protocols, which combined dry-weight rank and comparative yield to document the distinct characteristics between grazing and non-grazing areas.
What motivations stem from these attacks against the assessment?
This report faces invalidation because of its non-journal publication status, but this argument lacks scientific-basis and demonstrates political dishonesty. This attack aims to deceive the public and decision-makers by equating essential research publications with field-based environmental assessments, although these represent entirely different approaches with separate objectives.
The application of this standard would render all the following assessments invalid:
- Most agency-led rangeland evaluation
- Federal wildlife habitat reports
- Environmental impact assessments
- Tribal ecological inventories
- Emergency drought response protocols.
No serious scientist or land manager would accept that logic.
Continue reading →
