Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Lots of ranchers lost their arse around here during the big storm in October. With the prices you are talking about losing 60,000 head had to hurt.
http://www.cattlenetwork.com/cattle...storm-aid-slow-to-materialize--226955821.html
http://www.tsln.com/news/8441003-113/livestock-bill-losses-farm
New reports Tuesday list cattle losses at 60,000 head and more bad news for the state’s producers stem from D.C.’s inability to pass a new farm bill. The Livestock Indemnity Program in place to limit the losses cattle producers incur from natural disasters expired with the 2008 farm bill on Oct.1, the first day of the government shutdown.
The paperwork detailing losses with the USDA’s Farm Service Agency won’t be filed until the USDA returns to work.
"Those (FSA) offices are furloughed and there are no employees there. They are unable to help us even though they desperately want to," Silvia Christen, executive director of the South Dakota Stockgrowers Association, told The Dickinson Press.
That decision to change the allowed AUMs was issued in 1993. Most all the science that supported that decision, whether we agree with the decision or not, came from the BLM and USFWS from 1990-1992. At that time, those agencies were lead by people who were appointed by George (H.W.) Bush, a guy I voted for.
When one looks at the facts and history, the idea of these decisions being agendas from within the agencies and those agencies being led by, and supposedly corrupted by, left wingers does not hold true. I know of no Republican Presidents who appointed a bunch of left wing environmental activists to leadership roles within the USFS, USFWS, BLM, or EPA during their administrations. To say that is the case, and that the information gathered during the Bush I adminstration and used for the decision that reduced these AUMs, is not supported by the facts or by history.
What does hold true is that left leaning environmental groups are able to use the existing laws and the courts interpretation to provide for change in a lot of these things.
People need to understand that it is not the agencies telling the courts what they are going to do. Rather, it is the courts telling the agencies what the agencies are required to do under the law.
It all gets back to the laws on the books. If those are the problem, then it is time, maybe well past the time, to make a case for getting them changed. Blaming agencies for these laws and the court decisions on these laws is the wrong place to focus.
I am no fan of the Center for Biological Diversity. They made me a big target when we aired our wolf episode. Yet, they are part of a movement that is very effective in getting the laws, such as the ESA, challenged in the courts. If this is a marathon, these groups have a 25 mile headstart on others when it comes to understanding how to use these laws as a piece of leverage.
If one wants to lessen the leverage these groups have, the change starts with the elected leaders, who can then change these laws, Changed laws requires the courts to interpret new laws differently. New court interpretations will then cause agencies to implement the new laws differently than the old laws.
If one cannot make a compelling case to elected leaders, or get elected those people who might be in favor of change, the possibility of change to national policies and Federal legislation is not very good. Blaming the wrong people for the outcome might feel good, but does nothing to improve the situation.
I agree. The radical environmental groups have alot of leverage and know how to use it. The people running these groups are making alot of money off all of this. A lot of people donate money to them and they also get EAJ money for their lawsuits against the federal government. I think its more about the money then what they claim to be fighting for.
That comment more accurately describes Mr. Bundy.I think its more about the money then what they claim to be fighting for
I am good friends with THE best environmental attorney in the West. He is not getting rich fighting to protect My Public Lands for my hunting pleasure. He is doing it because it is the right thing to do, protecting special places from ranchers like Bundy who seek to openly break the law and destroy My Public Lands.
That comment more accurately describes Mr. Bundy.
Cattle grazing does not destroy the land. What is the lawyers name?
Cattle grazing does not destroy the land. What is the lawyers name?
At $1.35 an AUM he isn't saving much. And eventually his whole herd will be confiscated.Uuuuum, he's getting free grazing?
At $1.35 an AUM he isn't saving much. And eventually his whole herd will be confiscated.
Well managed grazing is the best thing for the land.
He is getting fined $200 per animal per day.900cows x $1.35 x 7month x 20years I would take an extra 100k over the next 20 years if the militia doesn't mind?