Com'on ranchers, stop giving me reason to no support you.
- Thread starter Irrelevant
- Start date
Schaaf
Well-known member
This can’t be. I’ve been told numerous times they are the true conservationists.
bobbydean
Well-known member
Gr8bawna,
I like your hunting posts. Not your political posts. But they are 90% funny. Had to stop myself from liking one of your posts,
Fight your fight. And you do a good job.
I like your hunting posts. Not your political posts. But they are 90% funny. Had to stop myself from liking one of your posts,
Fight your fight. And you do a good job.
HONEYBADGER
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2013
- Messages
- 773
They behave this way because Wyoming coddles them through WYOGA... They almost always get their way so they expect to be treated like princesses.
Doublecluck
Well-known member
Probably not wise, 230,000,000 million Americans might decide it more economical to eat our Deer, elk , and antelope.
Around 20% of the nation’s cattle spend time grazing on public land, so complete elimination wouldn’t necessarily be apocalyptic in consequence.
To read this rancher’s take on it, we should be thankful for them because of all the maintenance work they do for us for free.
Faulty logic
Irrelevant
Well-known member
I really want to fully support public land ranchers, I want to like them, what they're doing, and what they stand for, but damn if they don't continue to give me a plethora of reasons to not.
That much of America caring about what happens to em would be the best thing that ever happened to deer, elk, and antelope.
Same.
My childhood was spent around ranchers and I thought that is what ranchers were.
Now I see that is not what many ranchers are.
That’s not to say they haven’t done good things. There’s a lot more water for wildlife in some arid states thanks to ranchers’ work. On the other hand, there’s a lot less bighorn sheep and bison and a lot less forage for wildlife.
Your a pinko commie bastard if you subscribe to anything but the iconic image of the marbrlo man rancher out on the range on his horse.
However the reality is that big ranching often finds itself on the wrong side of conservation issues.
However the reality is that big ranching often finds itself on the wrong side of conservation issues.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
I am a strong supporter of thoughtful stewardship like this example.
www.mtexpress.com
Rancher promotes ‘new paradigm’ on the rangeland
Relying on a mix of plant ecology, carefully calculated ranch economics and an understanding of animal behavior, a Pahsimeroi Valley rancher has created a way to regenerate degraded rangeland while
BuzzH
Well-known member
Couple things to consider.
1. The Cattlemens Association is not being truthful about their "being left out" of the discussion on migration corridors. I attended several of the early round tables, meetings, etc. across the State and there were Wyoming Reps present for all kinds of livestock groups. They were involved in the migration corridor discussions through the whole process. To say otherwise is just a flat lie...I was there, I heard their concerns. Jim Magagna in particular, gets his money's worth on all kinds of livestock concerns. Some warranted, others rather obstructionist, IMO...but livestock producers have a voice, no question of that.
2. I think that programs like BHR posted are great. But, when you read the article, you find out pretty quickly that the livestock producer in question is not the average stockman...not by a long shot. Rather, a stockman with a formal education in ecology and a lot of work experience in same. That makes a difference, a huge difference when there is a basic understanding of what is healthy, and not healthy, when it comes to range conditions. With that knowledge a given, it makes the process of correct grazing really easy as you aren't trying to change 100+ years of "traditional" knowledge. In fairness, many times I don't believe that livestock producers are intentionally trying to do harm, many just don't know any better. Of course you always have the outliers that, even if they know better, wouldn't change to make things better just out of spite (Bundy types).
But circling back to the OP, the various livestock associations are making the thinnest of arguments that they were left out of the process. What they're really worried about is that the emerging science on wildlife migration corridors is proving how critical they are to the long-term health of wildlife populations. I believe there is plenty of room to maneuver to make sure the corridors are maintained via cooperative efforts. I don't see how maintaining corridors for wildlife migration is going to have a negative impact on livestock producers, at all.
1. The Cattlemens Association is not being truthful about their "being left out" of the discussion on migration corridors. I attended several of the early round tables, meetings, etc. across the State and there were Wyoming Reps present for all kinds of livestock groups. They were involved in the migration corridor discussions through the whole process. To say otherwise is just a flat lie...I was there, I heard their concerns. Jim Magagna in particular, gets his money's worth on all kinds of livestock concerns. Some warranted, others rather obstructionist, IMO...but livestock producers have a voice, no question of that.
2. I think that programs like BHR posted are great. But, when you read the article, you find out pretty quickly that the livestock producer in question is not the average stockman...not by a long shot. Rather, a stockman with a formal education in ecology and a lot of work experience in same. That makes a difference, a huge difference when there is a basic understanding of what is healthy, and not healthy, when it comes to range conditions. With that knowledge a given, it makes the process of correct grazing really easy as you aren't trying to change 100+ years of "traditional" knowledge. In fairness, many times I don't believe that livestock producers are intentionally trying to do harm, many just don't know any better. Of course you always have the outliers that, even if they know better, wouldn't change to make things better just out of spite (Bundy types).
But circling back to the OP, the various livestock associations are making the thinnest of arguments that they were left out of the process. What they're really worried about is that the emerging science on wildlife migration corridors is proving how critical they are to the long-term health of wildlife populations. I believe there is plenty of room to maneuver to make sure the corridors are maintained via cooperative efforts. I don't see how maintaining corridors for wildlife migration is going to have a negative impact on livestock producers, at all.
theat
Well-known member
This chart really brought it home to me how much of an impact we have had on wildlife on this planet. If we were a smart species we would realize that our rate of growth is not sustainable and those few remaining green squares on this picture will keep winking out. I'm just glad that there were a few very forward thinking individuals that realized the importance of landscape conservation back when the population of this country was rapidly filling in the west.
Hilljackoutlaw
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2019
- Messages
- 6,477
It would help if the ranchers were specific with how this could put them out of business. Like what's the real issue? where is the brass tacks? Sounds to me that they are just crying to cry like always.
Last edited:
wyoelkfan15
Well-known member
Has any non-profit ever considered trying to buy a grazing lease from the forest service or blm to keep cattle/sheep off public lands? Would the agencies even allow something like this to happen? I'm fully supportive of ranching, some of my closest friends are cattle ranchers, but there are certain places I hate seeing them on public (Bighorns, WY).
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Lotta people on the planet. Lotta mouths to feed. And just like all animals they are wanting to migrate to the greener pastures.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Non-profits have bought out grazing lease's (WSF buying out domestic sheep grazing leases as an example). I don't think most people have a problem with some level of grazing, I think the problem lies with damage to sensitive areas (riparian areas), fencing that isn't wildlife friendly, and obvious cases of neglect and over-grazing.
Just not liking to "see" livestock on public lands is a pretty tough sell as a reason to stop public land grazing. There is a lot of science out there, proving that some level of grazing can be beneficial to the habitat (think earlier plant succession, species diversity, younger aged plants). But, grazing done right takes time, effort, cooperation, understanding, education, and money...many of those things are in short supply for all kinds of reasons.
I've always remained hopeful that through education and increased priorities of other uses of federal land, that we can largely satisfy most concerns while still allowing reasonable use of public lands from all user groups. Its never going to be without controversy, belly-aching, lawsuits from all kinds of users that put their use priority ahead of everyone else's. I also believe because there are lots of other uses/user groups NOW being considered, that weren't in the past, the extractive user groups are feeling threatened. Natural reaction to what happens when use priorities shift over time. I mean, recreation on NF/BLM/State lands when I first started hunting didn't get much consideration in comparison to now. Nobody argued about mountain bike trails, that user group wasn't even around to argue. Its not an easy thing, this public land management experiment...and only getting more complicated as we are forced to accommodate more user groups.
wyoelkfan15
Well-known member
Interesting, I wasn't aware of any non-profits that had done this. Out of curiosity, where has the wild sheep foundation bought sheep leases?
Similar threads
