Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I view them as domestic terrorists and therefore should have nothing good to say about them.
But, the loser that committed suicide by cop, at least had the decency to run away from the car
before intentionally drawing LEO fire. Could have been much worse if he got out of the car with guns blazing.
Just plain ridiculous, most of them. What does the poster think introduced these "noxious weeds"?
The US has a long history of what introduced noxious weeds.
Some was brought long ago by trailing cattle. Some have been spread by wildlife agencies moving animals around the country. Some is brought in via ATVs and ever hikers.
When a rancher leases ground, there are certain plants they have to report finding. Then they have to at least help get rid of them. Without ranchers, there will be a whole lot of country untended. And the plants tend to flourish and overtake native flora. To the detriment of native wildlife.
Have you spent much time out in some of the drier areas where ranchers run cattle? I have to say the effects they have had on the landscape and flora in many parts of Utah for instance are not all positive. Every water course in the grazed areas is 'cowed up' as we say, that is the stream banks are broken down leading to erosion, what water there is, is entirely polluted by cow excrement, and besides sage and rabbit brush there is almost no native vegetation remaining. The contrast between the condition of the land in Canyon lands national park where grazing is not allowed and the surrounding BLM land is striking.
There maybe be other ecosystems where this is not the case, but at least in the high desert, cattle do not 'improve' the land. I am not against grazing per se, but there are significant ecological impact associated with it.
I live and work in WY and MT. Formerly in NV.
I fortunately no longer lease from any government agency, being lucky enough to have some winter/calving ground and private leases.
I would challenge you to see both sides of reality regarding management of public lands.
And I am encouraging you to see both sides as well. As I said, I am not against grazing on public lands, but it is dishonest not to acknowledge that it does impact the land.
Quote:
Originally Posted by branDcalf
I live and work in WY and MT. Formerly in NV.
I fortunately no longer lease from any government agency, being lucky enough to have some winter/calving ground and private leases.
I would challenge you to see both sides of reality regarding management of public lands.
I would challenge you to see both sides of reality regarding management of public lands.
As if there are only two sides. I would argue that all the federal agencies involved are trying to reconcile multiple sides/realities/veiws/uses which makes it impossible for everyone to be happy with the results.
As if there are only two sides. I would argue that all the federal agencies involved are trying to reconcile multiple sides/realities/veiws/uses which makes it impossible for everyone to be happy with the results.
I agree and support multiple public land use. It is done well, most of the time.
I fortunately no longer lease from any government agency, being lucky enough to have some winter/calving ground and private leases.
I would challenge you to see both sides of reality regarding management of public lands.
I live in Utah and I have observed range management by the BLM for sometime. It isn't perfect and the BLM could do more than it has to work with both ranchers and state agencies to improve conditions. I have no particular problem with ranchers.
In fact, I think there may be some justifications for the low grazing fees charged ranchers. If I were to cite reasons for keeping these fees low, I would say the following:
1. These low fees help keep beef prices lower for the consumer than they might ordinarily be.
2. Although the rancher does not own the land, it is not easy for him to simply pack up and leave. Perhaps, the BLM and others should be more reluctant to make changes that may make it harder for him to earn his livelihood.
3. Having a permanent presence on public land may be of some value to everyone. The rancher can keep an eye on others and uses they want to make of the public domain. A few years ago, ranchers near Escalante, Utah were helpful in helping government rangers find lost hikers. These kinds of things happen and the rancher may know the land better than anyone else.
4. Responsible ranchers are good stewards of the land because they realize their long term profits depend upon the land.
Ranching is a different lifestyle and a very different way to earn a living. There's an excellent book about ranching that also deals with regulatory issues from the BLM. I would recommend Lazy B by former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
I would like to see all sides in these controversies sit down and try to reach compromise solutions. Those solutions do not include the federal government simply turning this land over to the states. Our citizens own that land and that would be the equivalent of stealing from them.
I agree and support multiple public land use. It is done well, most of the time.
There is a great documentary on Netflix entitled "Unbridled" about four Texas A&M grads who adopt mustangs from the BLM with the intention of riding them from Mexico to Canada. One of the underlying themes that ran through the movie was the inability of BLM to satisfy ranchers, and animal rights groups regarding the 58,000 mustangs on government lands that realistically can only support 26,000. Adoptions aren't nearly adequate to reduce the population, culling the herd angers animal rights groups, and the need to provide grazing lands reduces what is available to for private ranching. So where does that leave the government, can't give them away, can't kill enough of them, and can't feed the rest without pissing off the ranchers, and that's just about horses!
I'm familiar with the movie, had ridden some of the country, and know the family of one of the young men.
The whole feral horse problem is awful. Overbreeding, the damage done by horses hooves is different than that of cloven hooves (deer, elk, cattle, sheep).
If any of us have an easy answer to that problem, I bet the BLM and every interest group would listen!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
