Home on the Range

[CAVA1990]

Not sure what's worse though, seeing land that was in your family for several generations turn into a housing development or disappear under several thousand acres of water named after a politician:

http://www.insideoutsidemag.com/issu...nt_Nighthorse/

[Idunn]

Beavers build dams, and in so doing change the environment. In that context humans are no different, if the scale of their enterprise larger. But large enough that we are the only species on Earth capable of destroying the habitat and life of all others. A certain responsibility should come with that.

I know nothing of Ridges Basin, other than described in this article. But if it was a wild area vital to wildlife, and intended and deeded as such in perpetuity, then anyone thinking of building a reservoir there had better have a very good reason why. Simply another area to run power boats would hardly answer. If Colorado a semi-arid state with need of water, it should nevertheless be obvious that with implementation of every possible scheme imaginable, every possible dam built, every diversion from elsewhere built, that there is still only so much water available. That in practice the amount far less if any measure other than only gallons is taken into account, such as wildlife, the health of land and people.

As far as dams are concerned, they can be quite useful, but always come at a cost to the rivers impounded. There is a trade-off there. We have already exceeded such limits in cases where now certain dams have been removed, one for instance within Olympic NP, because in consideration the greater good would be without them. That in such compromises, sometimes the best compromise is to do without so that other aspects of life might flourish. One of the primary considerations in Olympic NP was salmon.

This discussion began with the loss of ranch land and small ranches, but is the same story. Those thinking the projected doubling of this state's population from 5,000,000 today to 10,000,000 before 2050 perhaps have not considered the many implications. That for one all 10 million will be dividing up the same amount of water between them, or half of what everyone assumes now. Or that in actuality with our changing environment there will be even less than now to divvy up. Or perhaps that every hillside that before was open, now with vacation homes, may then have twice as many as company, and others in places now presently open and wild.

But if 10 million, which we will probably thankfully never see, those wishing that are of a mindset that then would welcome a doubling again, and so on. When at last does it end?

Perhaps not at Ridges Basin. But chances are that if this state, nation and world had learned a sense of balance and harmony decades ago that something like Ridges Basin would not have been deemed necessary or built. That in consideration one aspect of Colorado most citizens value, and those wishing to emigrate here do as well, of wild open spaces, are defined by what is not present, or is. At some point that is lost, or retained.

Viewed from space this Earth is a finite sphere. It might become all the more crowded, although in many regions we have already witnessed the downside for many in such growth. There is at last an absolute limit. But well before then realities which no one is bound to like.

[CAVA1990]

One major purpose of the project was supposedly to settle some Indian water rights issues but for what they spent on it they probably could have flown in bottles of Perrier for the next 100 years to satisfy the demand. There were also a lot of ancient Pueblo archaeological artifacts buried around there that are now lost. Here's an interesting thing they found that involved Anasazi cannabilism:

http://archaeologynewsnetwork.blogsp...-suggests.html

Last I read the state had run out of money to put in any recreational facilities so the reservoir sits unused and I believe fenced off. Perhaps one of the locals can give us an update.

[gmm_24]

Originally Posted by CAVA1990

Is it possible that some of these 60,000 acres were large, underused parcels subdivided and sold off in pieces to hobby farmers like you? Would places like Melby Ranch be considered "lost to development" perhaps?

You skipped over everything I said to ask me if I live in the above. No that was lost to yet another cookie cutter HOA development.
Yea we need more and more of those since our food magically appears all wrapped and pretty in the grocery stores.
Let's say we keep taking away the ability to produce our own food, what happens then? We buy all of our food from overseas, that has been treated with who knows what and we pay a higher fee or are unable to get it at all?

Tell me Mike what is wrong with having your spouse or kids help on the farm? Kids these days are too plugged into any elecronic device they can get their hands on, they do not play outside all day like we did and they have "playdates" set up for them. I see nothing wrong with a kid being outside and learning to care for animals, or crops. I do not force my kids to do anything, they like to help and play with the animals. My younger one also gets a "profit" if she tames an unruly baby so we can sell it.

You also lumped us all together again with that air conditioned tractor and getting government subsidies. I do not have a tractor, I do not get subsidies, not many do. It is the ones with lots of money who know how to make the system work for them. Do I think a struggling farmer should get one, yes over the farmers who do not need it. Why should they get it versus the guy who gets your burger order wrong, or the employee who tells you it is not his dept and walks away, because they are a dime a dozen and anyone can do their job. They receive a steady paycheck and maybe even beneifts, paid vacations and etc. Not everyone can contribute to our food supply or do the back breaking work, with some years little to no profit.
More people are growing gardens and trying to have backyard chickens due to the economy, in Seattle they are allowed to have mini goats in the suburban yards for milk, hope this trend continues.

[Mike from back east]

Originally Posted by gmm_24

... snip ...
Tell me Mike what is wrong with having your spouse or kids help on the farm? Kids these days are too plugged into any elecronic device they can get their hands on, they do not play outside all day like we did and they have "playdates" set up for them. I see nothing wrong with a kid being outside and learning to care for animals, or crops. I do not force my kids to do anything, they like to help and play with the animals. My younger one also gets a "profit" if she tames an unruly baby so we can sell it.

You also lumped us all together again with that air conditioned tractor and getting government subsidies. I do not have a tractor, I do not get subsidies, not many do. It is the ones with lots of money who know how to make the system work for them. Do I think a struggling farmer should get one, yes over the farmers who do not need it. Why should they get it versus the guy who gets your burger order wrong, or the employee who tells you it is not his dept and walks away, because they are a dime a dozen and anyone can do their job. They receive a steady paycheck and maybe even beneifts, paid vacations and etc. Not everyone can contribute to our food supply or do the back breaking work, with some years little to no profit. More people are growing gardens and trying to have backyard chickens due to the economy, in Seattle they are allowed to have mini goats in the suburban yards for milk, hope this trend continues.

I never said there was anything wrong with kids helping out or learning about the animals. Where did I say that?

If others know how to "work the system" and you don't, why is it that you don't qualify or not know how to work the system? Can't a farmer's group of some sort, or your congressman, help you get in the game? There are economic realities in life that cannot be stopped; I've discussed the case of my father's old line of work of steam railroading. Should the government subsidize any current railroad that wants to go back into horribly inefficient steam railroading? Should we reward less efficient production methods?

People can grow gardens if they wish. I've done it in the past and liked it.

[gmm_24]

Originally Posted by Mike from back east

But all the glory fades and changes. Farmers today do not walk behind an old swayback mule, they ride around in massive, air conditioned combines, many driven by wives or teen aged children.

It did not sound like a positive when you wrote the above. Sounds like the lazy farmer can't be bothered to sit in his air conditioned tractor and has the wife or kids do it. But with typing it is hard to get the feeling behind the words, so maybe you meant it in a more positive way then you wrote it?

One I do not own enough land to get a subsidy, I would love to own enough land I own 6 tiny acres.
Two I would not want the government money. If I could afford to buy 200 or so acres why would I need their money? Also I do not want them telling me what I can or cannot do on my own land. I am not sure if they even do that, but it would surely put me off if they did.

Personally if the farms are going to go under I think they deserve the subsidy more then the rich farmer, or I would like to see it go to people who want to develop a farm. The money is already there for farms so it should be put it to better use.
Other people apply for government money like section 8, food stamps and etc, some of those people do not really need it either and play the game. Some who really need it do not "qualify". Those people are playing the game much like the rich farmer. All of it is annoying and not the intended purpose of those monies.

[Mike from back east]

Of course I meant it in a positive manner, to highlight the progress from those days when farmers had to have a ton of kids to work the fields for free, to point out that in the past 150 years, mechanization and automation have largely eliminated any need for having large families to run one family farm, to reiterate that for those 150 years there's been a steady migration of people from rural farms to urban work sites, and that trend is still around, though slowed a lot.

If a farmer qualifies for food stamps, that's okay, sad, but equally as okay as anyone else who qualifies.

If a farmer qualifies for section 8 housing, why not spot a FEMA trailer on-site, since there are no apartment blocks on the plains.

It'd be almost impossible to craft a program that could decide with some degree of judiciousness which struggling farmer deserves a subsidy versus one who doesn't. Trying to determine need vs greed on a case by case basis would take a larger bureaucracy.

I for one wish we could cut a lot of the subsidies, like the ethanol subsidy which I feel is just another political handout done to buy votes, but any sort of government subsidy could be attacked with similar arguments.

We need to keep in mind that the source of this thread was a reportorial hack job based on the story of one lone rancher, and may have been produced at the prodding of who knows what vested interest or point of view (developers? enviro's?)

Farm and ranch land near cities has been disappearing for hundreds of years and reappearing as residential parcels. Nothing really new in that situation, though there are excesses and greed in that business as in all others.

[CAVA1990]

Tough times for farmers and ranchers in Southern Colorado is nothing new as many were wiped out during the panics of the late 19th century and again following the first world war when prices for beef, lamb, and other agricultural products raised there crashed. Many farms were abandoned or sold off for next to nothing. At least now many of these folks can get a reasonable return when selling off their land and prices tend to be less volatile.