Do you know?

[Ithaca 37]

"That an estimated 90% of grassland bird species are in decline.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That the vast majority of public land grazing allotments are in poor to fair condition.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That the artificially low grazing fees on public lands fail to cover the cost of the federal grazing program.
In 1990 alone, fees collected from permitees by the US Forest Service and the BLM fell over $52 million short of covering the costs of their grazing programs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That many public land lessees are subleasing their allotments for 5 to 10 times the grazing fees, with no benefit to the agencies that control them.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That approximately 90% of BLM land in the West is used for grazing.
That 95% of that land receives less than 15 inches of annual rainfall.
That only 1.1% of all US cattle and sheep are produced on this land

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That nearly 70% percent of National Forest lands are used for grazing.
That only 0.7% of US cattle and sheep are produced there.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That over 150 species that are identified as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act are found on public lands.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That the minimal production of public lands (federal and state) ranching requires a $150 million annual subsidy from you, the taxpayer.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.gamebird-alliance.org/didyouknow.html

"It just doesn't make sense. An industry which would fall apart in an instant without government subsidization, is allowed to destroy lands belonging to the public in the name of tradition."

Maybe some of you welfare rancher lovers can explain why it makes sense!

 

[Flytier]

I think I can explain that Ithaca. And it makes sense.


THE GOVERNMENT RUNS IT!!!!!!


Beyond that, I dont understand it either. It just seems to happen that way.

 

[cjcj]

that`s progress for ya!

 

[cjcj]

this is the mentality of arizona politic`s a guy run`s over a cactus with his 4x4 well that no good S>O>B> is destroying the desert! a developer destroy`s thousand`s of acres of cactus well he is a first class guy who creates job`s ,and is good for our economy!

 

[danr55]

Well, I don't agree or disagree with anything you've put up there Ithica, but I would ask some techinical questions....

1. Who did the estimate, and what were the data compared to? What "grassland bird species" are being discussed? What is the length and rate of the decline? What is the point of origin for the assessment?

2. Your second statement is ambiguous and actually contains no reference to any standard or point of calibration. It is extremely subject in it's statement and gives no comparitive analysis. What is the origin of the comparison that creates the grading for "Poor condition"? Poor as compared to what? Quantify the statement somehow...

3. What is the source of the data? How can a cost be artificial? It is the cost or it is not the cost. Which?

4. Again, what is the source of the data? How many is many? 3, 87, 439, 103,914?? How many? And is this illegal?

5. Again, I would ask the source of the data. "Approximately 90% of BLM land in the west..." What is "approximately"? 89% 70% 43%.. If you are going to present statistics intended to persuade folks about something, approximations stink. They are generalities used by salesmen to convince unthinking people that something is other than what it appears to be.

Now "95% of the land receives less than 15 inches of annual rainfall". That's about as ambiguous a statement as I can imagine. Do you know what would happen if Arizona got 15 inches of annual rainfall for three consecutive years? It would be like mana from heaven...

6. "That over 150 species that are identified as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act are found on public lands." THat's a great thing. All of these endangered species on public land. That should reduce the concern about private activity and endangered species...

7. "That the minimal production of public lands (federal and state) ranching requires a $150 million annual subsidy from you, the taxpayer." Again, what is the source of the data? Does that subsidy decrease if ranching production increases?? What is the exact relationship between these two functions?

The point of all of this being, you can prove anything in the world with statistics.. Especially if you take only a partial look or use selective data in the computations.. Besides, all 83% of all published statistics are either made up on the spot or are based in something other than fact.

 

[Ithaca 37]

Dan, Those aren't my statements. Look at the link.

 

[danr55]

I looked at the link Ithica, and I would pose the same questions to the originator.. Like I said, rather than blindly standing behind statements that would draw the reader to beleive they are factual, I would ask those questions. It's too easy to publish half truths and partial statistics. It leads people to believe the the Moon is really made of Swiss cheese rather than Blue Cheese.. or Roquefort if you prefer.

 

[cjcj]

hey dan i think your OVER EDUCATED!

 

[cjcj]

yes my spelling and grammer are poor!

 

[danr55]

How can you be over educated. That's like hunting with too much gun or a woman that's too beautiful... It just can't be....

GRAMMAR....

 

[cjcj]

well you could use a 7mm mag on a hummingbird, that`s too much gun ! as for the beautiful woman i agree! THEIR ha ha you have it.

 

[Ten Bears]

Well said DANR......