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.
Over the course of years here, I've noted that you are rather an advocate of public lands. But I have also noted that nearly every use of these public lands does not garner your favor. Just curious... what is it you feel is a "good use" for public lands? (I have a feeling it will be the activities you are interested in)
Growing up around my area with so many national forests and doing a lot of hiking and wandering in those forests, I can guarantee you that much public use on those lands is damaging to those lands. I've seen many trails and areas around those trails completely trashed by people. So, should these public lands all be declared off limits for everyone and everything besides the spotted owl, endangered tortoise, and wood nymph? And at that point, could we still call them "public lands"? Or would they be "forbidden lands"?
Now you are just looking for a fight - and all this when I just started thinking we are going to get along
Good use of public lands is non-intrusive activities that promote the balance of life in the system. Reintroduction of the wolf for example - reduced the number of deer and elk, restored the river banks and native vegetation, even reintroduced some birds and small mammals that were gone due to over grazing by the deer and its cousins.
To answer your question more directly - ranchers have no business on public lands. Want to destroy the soil? Do it on your own lot - no need to subsidize a losing proposition or business with tax payers' money. Ranchers are the most vocal killers of predators like mountain lions, wolves and coyote - apparently it is not enough we let them graze livestock where it doesn't belong but when we try to keep whatever predators are left - no Sir, we need to shoot them since one of them took a calf or two...
Finally, ranching should be done where it makes ecological sense - somewhere where there is abundant rainfall and greenery to properly support the livestock.
Yes, some trails get trashed but that's dumb people - they are everywhere, disrespectful and not neutered, unfortunately...
OD
What on earth does any of that have to do with the mistaken notion that the arid West can't support cattle??
Cattle are probably easier on the grasslands than buffalo, actually.
Read some first-hand accounts. When buffalo herds would move through an area they would graze it down to the dirt!
Now you are just looking for a fight - and all this when I just started thinking we are going to get along
Good use of public lands is non-intrusive activities that promote the balance of life in the system. Reintroduction of the wolf for example - reduced the number of deer and elk, restored the river banks and native vegetation, even reintroduced some birds and small mammals that were gone due to over grazing by the deer and its cousins.
To answer your question more directly - ranchers have no business on public lands. Want to destroy the soil? Do it on your own lot - no need to subsidize a losing proposition or business with tax payers' money. Ranchers are the most vocal killers of predators like mountain lions, wolves and coyote - apparently it is not enough we let them graze livestock where it doesn't belong but when we try to keep whatever predators are left - no Sir, we need to shoot them since one of them took a calf or two...
Finally, ranching should be done where it makes ecological sense - somewhere where there is abundant rainfall and greenery to properly support the livestock.
Yes, some trails get trashed but that's dumb people - they are everywhere, disrespectful and not neutered, unfortunately...
OD
No, no, no, monsieur... you misinterpret my intent. Certainly no fight scheme on this one. I was genuinely curious because I'd never noticed what you did favor on public lands... only what you did not favor. I just didn't want this to be a "glass half empty" sort of impression.
The government should sell all of its real estate holdings by auction. Private owners will find the highest use for that land. Grazing rights will sell at market rates. Private owners operating under fair laws will be able to eliminate vandals.
When everyone owns something no one owns it. It's analogous to people who say they love everyone; it means they love no one.
The government should sell all of its real estate holdings by auction. Private owners will find the highest use for that land. Grazing rights will sell at market rates. Private owners operating under fair laws will be able to eliminate vandals.
When everyone owns something no one owns it. It's analogous to people who say they love everyone; it means they love no one.
Sure if you are still living in the 1800s. Hopefully we have evolved.
There are plenty of examples where people will do anything to the land to extract profit off it and move on. Kind of like locusts. Look at all the "booming" oil towns all over the Bakken. Now they are booming, in a few years when they have extracted everything off it and left it lifeless, all them towns will be empty.
Look at all the "booming" oil towns all over the Bakken. Now they are booming, in a few years when they have extracted everything off it and left it lifeless, all them towns will be empty.
OD
Well, if I'm still alive when that happens, maybe I'll bother going to that property I was unlucky enough to buy up there prior to the whole oil thing turning the state into a joke (not a very funny joke).
I wanted it empty. That's why I bough there. At the time the population density was close to the lowest in the nation (fewer people in the whole state than in the small valley I live now). Big out-migration of the younger generation. Not a lot of high-tech or big industry. Primarily wheat and corn fields, and open prairie. Population centers all essentially small town and more-or-less insulated from the greater US. Essentially homogeneous and agricultural. Sounded pretty heaven-like to me at the time. Then the oil thing happened. So... it's on to Plan B.
Well, if I'm still alive when that happens, maybe I'll bother going to that property I was unlucky enough to buy up there prior to the whole oil thing turning the state into a joke (not a very funny joke).
I wanted it empty. That's why I bough there. At the time the population density was close to the lowest in the nation (fewer people in the whole state than in the small valley I live now). Big out-migration of the younger generation. Not a lot of high-tech or big industry. Primarily wheat and corn fields, and open prairie. Population centers all essentially small town and more-or-less insulated from the greater US. Essentially homogeneous and agricultural. Sounded pretty heaven-like to me at the time. Then the oil thing happened. So... it's on to Plan B.
Don't sweat it Chris, This kind of thing happens all the time. Once the oil wells have been drilled, all that will be out there are the pumps that you will see, all the personell will move on to the next strike. Been doing that in the west since the gold rushes and the land rushes.
Few put down roots, so once the storm is passed, (and it looks to be moving west now into Montana), you will again have small sleepy farming communities, people will be few and far between. If it wasn't for a reason to be there, (in this case oil), very few want to live in those places due to the weather and climate and limited job opportunities.
There has been a noticeable decrease in the traffic over that way. Once the drilling is done, one person can monitor a lot of pumps, and a couple of repair/maintenance guys to do the rounds, other than that, about all that will be left are some oil pumps on the horizon and things will go back to normal.
Give it another year or two, most of the oil workers and the jobs will be long gone again and everything will go back to normal there, just the way you wanted it.
Boomtowns and surrounding areas can become very pleasant places. Consider Gillette, Wyoming, booming for thirt-five years now. Gillette has become a very pleasant place to live with amenities seldom see in places so small. But the mentality is still that of the frontier boomtown. Campbell County held Obama to 12% of the vote; the sheriff has stated that he won't enforce any unconstitutional laws.
Boomtowns attract dynamic people, the kind who make a place great. The stump sitters do nothing. Moving into a place full of bust out rednecks is like moving into a sewer. You've read ognend's horror stories about his neighbors. This isn't fifty years ago. Those little agricultural towns don't exist anymore, at least, not as the idyllic places you assume they still are. But boomtowns don't often fade into ghosts as they frequently did in those days and before.
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.
So... it's on to Plan B.
