Land Study on Grazing Denounced

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by IJ Reilly, Jun 18, 2005.

  1. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #1
    More science for sale...

    (Found in the LA Times, so the usual caveat applies.)

    http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-grazing18jun18,0,445282.story
     
  2. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #2
    I hate articles like this. No background specifics about the grazing. Nothing about the historical viewpoint of the retiree.

    I've seen BLM lands where I'd deny any grazing permits of whatever sort. (Many areas around Winnemucca, Nevada, for instance.) I've seen some where the density seemed about right for the habitat. I'd imagine there are few that are actually undergrazed...

    As far as grazing harming wildlife, the article gives no specifics. As a generality that any grazing of whatever sort harms wildlife, that's total BS.

    "According to the agency officials, the new grazing regulations were meant to give land managers and ranchers more flexibility in making decisions about whether to allow grazing on a particular parcel."

    To me, this means the intent is to let the local BLM land manager avoid any "one size fits all" control over grazing permits.

    I note that the Sierra Club has long been against any grazing on public lands. In an article in "Sierra" a few years back, a hiker decried seeing cloven hoofprints during his trek on a Navajo reservation. ("Cloven hoofs evil!", I guess.) Duh? Deer, elk, moose and buffalo don't have cloven hoofs?

    A good article about the interrelationship of animals and vegetation is at http://www.rangemagazine.com/features/summer-05/naked.htm

    'Rat
     
  3. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #3
    You're missing the point 'Rat. This is the second time in a week, and the umteenth time since Bush has taken office, that a scientific report counter to their philosophy has been rewritten after the fact by a 'new team'. And the rewrites ALWAYS favor industry over the public interest.

    So while you may decry articles like this, I would suggest you decry the Bush administration for the way they approach science.

    Just as a side note, I'm guessing that if I went and looked that the Cattleman's associations have given a hefty amount of money to the Bush administration....

    But hey, there's been one dumbass hiker quoted in Sierra Magazine, so why worry about it.
     
  4. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #4
    To me this means that the local BLM guys will be pressured even more to allow grazing on land that shouldn't be grazed. I grew up in north central Montana where grazing has been a way of life for a long time. Due to the extended droughts of the last decade, there is more and more pressure to open additional public land for grazing. This land has also been affected by drought and sustained grazing will only worsen the environment.

    I've always found it highly hypocritical that most farmers won't overgraze their own land but have little or no compunction when it comes to overgrazing publicly owned land.

    Coming from the dry part of Texas 'Rat, I'm sure you must realize the damage that a few thousand head of cattle do to the isolated water sources there. Oh well, who needs waterfowl and fish anyway, much less clean water for humans.
     
  5. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #5
    "Due to the extended droughts of the last decade, there is more and more pressure to open additional public land for grazing. This land has also been affected by drought and sustained grazing will only worsen the environment."

    The key is "...sustained grazing will only worsen the environment." I fully agree.

    The old family place outside of Austin would carry about one AU per eight acres. I generally ran one AU to at least 10; if I got no rain in April, I was culling in May. I'd restock after enough rains to bring back my "comfort level".

    The southwestern "Drouth of the '50s" started in CenTex in 1948. By early 1949 on 300 acres, we were down to ten head of cows--and were feeding them. My step-father couldn't handle what he saw as his failure; it ruined his marriage to my mother. Going broke can do that. The result is that few are more rigid, rank and ornery than I about taking care of land--and that includes wildlife habitat as well as any other.

    I guess I always have trouble remembering about people and "pressure". There have been a few who tried pressure on me or my boss in my jobs, but they never got anywhere with it. I learned from my father, who rose to be head of the Materials & Tests Division of the Texas Highway Department. Pressure is when a contractor objects to tearing out some hundreds of thousands of dollars of sub-spec work and calls the governor as well as the Highway Engineer and maybe some Commission members. Didn't do the contractor any good...

    "One dumbass hiker"? No. That's just an ironic example. (Consider that the hiker was a guest on Navajo land; think of the poverty and what a few animals mean to the owner--and yeah, from that standpoint, dumbass.) The Sierra Club reps have spoken against grazing on any public lands, per numerous testimonials at public hearings before BLM, USFS and Congress. Well, the last 30 or so years that I've seen.

    The problem with a lot of "outdoors science" in today's world is that there have been just enough examples of personal agendas in the science to create at least a modicum of suspicion. A recent event was the phonied evidence by USF&WS scientists of the presence of lynx in Washington or Oregon, which would have brought the ESA into a previously unaffected area.

    So until I know the specifics of some issue, I don't take these gripes as necessarily appropriate--past history or not.

    'Rat
     
  6. IJ Reilly thread starter macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #6
    Sigh. Looks like the subject has been changed.
     
  7. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #7
    Well I can tell you as a hiker myself I don't share that attitude. You are needlessly generalizing.

    But then I'm sure you'd agree that all hunters views are represented by Ted Nugent's statements. Right?

    What was the topic again? Oh yeah, the Bush administration doctored, or fixed if you will, the facts to fit their policy once again. And the righties just don't care.
     
  8. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #8
    "What was the topic again? Oh yeah, the Bush administration doctored, or fixed if you will, the facts to fit their policy once again."

    That's your view. And, you might indeed be correct. There's not enough information in the article to force that judgement. The complainant's conclusions from his data could be incorrect, although that's not necessarily the case.

    "And the righties just don't care."

    No. Not so. This particular righty would like to know more about the conclusions of the complainant.

    'Rat
     
  9. IJ Reilly thread starter macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #9
    Which of course you will never know because the original scientific conclusions have been spiked.
     
  10. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #10
    Speaking of generalizing, I'm pretty sure I can reliably extrapolate that since one war supporter said this that it's the opinion of all of them:
    IOW I want people OTHER than my kids to die for a war I support. Disgusting.

    Time for the able-bodied war supporters to sign up and encourage their family and friends to do so as well. Support the troops.
     

Share This Page