spook12
New member
......:W:
BLM, Forest Service and Nevada Ranchers
- Thread starter Grizzley
- Start date
- Status
smarandr
Well-known member
I'm just not gentle enough. I'm hoping Fin gives a little lesson here.
He did, 7 pages ago, and on another thread. Problem is you can't fix stupid (or trolls).
Lol.
You actually think I think hunters should be charged?
You have reading comprehension problems.
T
tjones
Guest
Welcome to the twilight zone.
Are you going to go back on our bet?
T
tjones
Guest
What did I lose? I asked who was a welfare rancher.
You have major reading comprehension problems.
Ranchers paying for BLM land to use is not welfare.
I will ask you again. Please link to where I said we should charge hunters to use public land.
I'm the one that said we shouldn't since we already pay taxes.
shoots-straight
Well-known member
So now we're talking about private range and farming practices vs. public lands? I think I'm confused now.
Hunting on private lands should make us tolerate a rancher that destroys the feed on our public piece?
I do know this, many ranchers private lands are in way better shape than the lands they lease from us, the public. The amount of wildlife that go there to live is testimony to that.
BTW, do you think Bundy's getting a raw deal? Do you think 600,000 acres for 600 cattle is good range lands?
Go back and read all of my posts and tell me in which one I am defending Bundy.
My first post in this thread was to Jose and had nothing to do with the Bundy situation.
The land leased to farmers in South Dakota is just fine.
Musket Man
New member
That area has supported cattle since the 1800's so obviously you can run cattle on it. Public land is for multiple uses which includes grazing. As I see it if they can stop grazing on it they can stop any other use too including hunting. I can see the allotments fluctuating some year to year due to drought or other changes but 1000 AUM to 150 AUM seems unreasonable to me and I dont see how it can take 100 acres for a pair 1 year and the next year it takes 1000 acres.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Try the MUSYA, FLPMA for starters...let your education begin.
Just as a note to Musket Man and BigRack...you're dealing with people on this board that know their stuff, inside out and backwards on land management, wildlife, public lands, etc. They dont just flap their gums, they're active participants in the process. You may be well served to use your mouth to ear ratio in correct proportion...and it wouldnt be a bad idea to take out the note pad and pen.
Either educate yourselves or you WILL be schooled and sized for an asshat (size is up to you)...and you can take that to the bank.
Just as a note to Musket Man and BigRack...you're dealing with people on this board that know their stuff, inside out and backwards on land management, wildlife, public lands, etc. They dont just flap their gums, they're active participants in the process. You may be well served to use your mouth to ear ratio in correct proportion...and it wouldnt be a bad idea to take out the note pad and pen.
Either educate yourselves or you WILL be schooled and sized for an asshat (size is up to you)...and you can take that to the bank.
Last edited:
Buzz,
What do you know about the Bundy land?
The best land managers are farmers and ranchers and you can take that to the bank.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Bullshit...and you're going to have to provide facts that farmers and ranchers are the best land managers.
Oh, and for a first clue about the "Bundy land"...its not Bundy's land that is at issue. I could care less what he does with his 160 acres of private dirt (that BTW, Cliven doesnt actually own).
The land is question in this discussion involves BLM land...that is owned by the taxpayers.
Now would be a good time to fire up that note pad and pen.
Oh, and for a first clue about the "Bundy land"...its not Bundy's land that is at issue. I could care less what he does with his 160 acres of private dirt (that BTW, Cliven doesnt actually own).
The land is question in this discussion involves BLM land...that is owned by the taxpayers.
Now would be a good time to fire up that note pad and pen.
Howzabout we spare ourselves the agony of making all inclusive statements that are simply ridiculous. Yes, SOME farmers and ranchers are excellent land managers. Others are quite simply atrocious. To lump them all together and say they are da best is simply asinine.
For every rancher that incorporates a holistic grazing program with a rest/rotation period, there is another that completely denudes a riparian area because he's too damned lazy and cheap to fence a watering corridor to a stream.
I have no vitriol whatsoever towards farmers and ranchers. My best friend is a cattle rancher, and an admirable steward of the land. All of which has not a damned thing to do with Bundy and his battle to be a martyr.
Ranchers using public lands to graze may not be welfare, but it's certainly a "heavy subsidy", and one that I don't mind a bit as long as they graze responsibly and mindfully of the fact that they are not the owners of the land nor the exclusive users of the land.
It's a drop in the bucket compared to the rest of the subsidies in the Federal Government.
I never said there were not bad farmers. I did say they usually don't stay in business for very long.
Go look at my first post in this thread. It was directed at Jose and had nothing to do with Bundy.
shoots-straight
Well-known member
Musket, multiple use doesn't just mean grazing,mining, or farming. It means what it says. The land managers have to weigh all the uses that go along with those aforementioned uses. When one conflicts with another then there's going to be some regulations attached. Off road vehicle use is usually not compatible with hikers. So the least amount of disturbance usually wins the day. Running 1000 head of cattle on 600,000 acres of fragile habitat might have been to detrimental to all the other uses of that area. Maybe mule deer, Big Horn sheep, and other wildlife were taking it in the shorts because the cattle eat to much vegetation. Therer range enclosures that managers look at to see how much degradation the cattle are doing. When they eat more than the required amount to be left then there's reductions that take place by law. The "FEDS" are the ones entrusted to make sure the lands aren't over grazed.
Endangered species are also given special treatments and regulations are set in place to protect them.
I think ranchers and farmers are pretty good stewards of their private lands, I just think the feel the same way about the publics. Most of our state lands in Montana are grazed to death, in some instances not even domestic sheep will use them. The Federal lands of the Forest Service are usually Ok, I'm not so keen on the grazing that takes place on BLM. It might be better than what I'v seen but I won't hold my breath.
Bundy utilized public lands only, and that was his family's mistake. If he were just leasing private lands, and the owner decided to stop leasing the grazing to them, you would be alright with that because your in favor of private property rights? What about the publics rights to the lands that Bundy leased? Do you think there's any that go along with them?
Why is there overgrazing of State lands?
That can be easily fixed by the people of Montana.
- Status
Similar threads
