Livestock Grazing's Contribution to Fire Hazard

Ithaca 37

New member
Joined
Mar 4, 2001
Messages
5,427
Location
Home of the free, Land of the brave
"No grazing means more grass; regular, low intensity fires; large, evenly spaced trees; no sapling thickets; and no weeds. A healthy forest......"

In recent years, historic blazes have scorched much of the West. Congress has reacted by creating a National Fire Plan, which attempts to address some of the factors contributing to the increasing costs of fire fighting as well as loss of life and property. The plan includes funds for increased fire-fighting capacity, home-owner education, and prescribed burning to reduce flammable fuels. However, as is always the case, the contribution of livestock grazing to fire hazard is overlooked, and the practice continues unabated on public and private lands throughout the West. While climatic conditions like extreme drought and high winds are key factors in any large blaze, management practices-including logging, fire suppression, and livestock grazing-have exacerbated the situation by creating densely stocked timber stands and weedy grasslands and deserts that render them more vulnerable to high intensity fires.


No grazing means more grass; regular, low intensity fires; large, evenly spaced trees; no sapling thickets; and no weeds. A healthy forest.
Historically, low elevation western forests were renewed by frequent, low intensity fires-although high intensity fires may have always existed, even prior to the intervention of European Americans. Young seedlings and saplings of common tree species like juniper and ponderosa pine are extremely vulnerable to even moderate levels of heat. As a consequence, low intensity blazes tended to thin forest stands to create open timber stands dominated by a few widely spaced, large trees.

Livestock grazing is usually ignored by land managers as an important factor in changing forest stand conditions and fire regimes. There is a substantial body of scientific literature that identifies livestock grazing as a major factor in the alteration of historic fire regimes and fire hazard.

First, livestock grazing removes grasses that compete with tree seedlings for water and nutrients. This favors the establishment of deep rooted trees and allows them to dominate a site. Study sites in several ponderosa pine dominated ecosystems have found that, in the absence of both fire and livestock grazing, ponderosa pine forests are lush and open with few thickets of young trees. The reason is that existing grass cover cloaks the forest floor and prevents pine seedlings from establishing by outcompeting them for soil moisture.

Second, most tree species require bare soil for successful germination. By removing the grassy understory of many forest sites and creating the bare, disturbed soil sites that favor tree establishment, heavy grazing has led to greater tree density.

Third, grazing removes fine fuels, such as grasses, that historically helped carry light intensity fires that once burned at regular intervals throughout lower elevation forest ecosystems in the West. This has allowed young saplings to become established, often in "dog-hair" thickets within forest stands.

Fourth, by permitting a large number of small saplings to become established, competition for water among existing living trees is increased-making trees more vulnerable to insects and other pathogens. Under extreme drought conditions, such trees are actually more flammable than dead trees. Internal water content is often less than kiln-dried lumber, and due to the flammable resins found in living trees, such drought-stressed trees often explode into flames upon contact with fire.

Fifth, by contributing to the spread and persistence of fire-loving, weedy species like cheatgrass, livestock production has created highly flammable plant communities in forests and especially sagebrush landscapes in the West. Fires have become more frequent, more intense, and larger than nature intended for these habitats since the introduction of livestock and weeds 150 years ago.

Despite its contribution to the on-going and growing fire hazard in the West, livestock grazing on public lands continues unabated and is seldom altered to reduce the incidence or intensity of western fires.

http://www.publiclandsranching.org/

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 06-11-2003 23:02: Message edited by: Ithaca 37 ]</font>
 
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Despite its contribution to the on-going and growing fire hazard in the West, livestock grazing on public lands continues unabated and is seldom altered to reduce the incidence or intensity of western fires.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Check the numbers for cattle and sheep run now compared to 50 years ago. The numbers have been altered. Many systems will only get worse without grazing. However, what they say is true for some areas that have yet to cross a threshold into a downward spirally circumstance that results in continued loss of productivity of the land.
 
I'm with 1_pointer on this. What a load of crap. I grew up in the area that was burned last summer by the worst wildfire in Arizona history. I have watched the grazing permits be cut down so far that the ranches that used to keep the forests cleared out have all but moved away. I was just up there last summer after the fire and visited one of the old ranches that I worked on as a kid. The range that once was clean and clear of undergrowth is so thick now that you can't even see 20 yards into it. This is all due to the fact that there is no grazing on this land anymore. I agree that we should conserve our natural resources, but let's not be rediculous about it. Cutting all grazing permits will only lead to more degregated forests and range land. Let's not take this too far!
 
1-Pointer,

I am dissappointed in you, I thought you were paying attention in class.
frown.gif


The quote says:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>livestock grazing on public lands continues unabated and is seldom altered to reduce the incidence or intensity of western fires <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are there actually alterations to livestock grazing due to fire prevention????

And if I read what you replied, did you mean that we now HAVE to graze it, as we have destroyed it ALREADY by overgrazing the last xx years? Kind of like we already destroyed nature's ability to heal the land, and we now need bovines and range maggots from the local Welfare Rancher to keep the land in the fine shape that it is?
 
EG- I typed in a hurry. No, in many areas, a reduction in grazing would be beneficial. But in others, grazing is needed to try to keep the fine fuel load down. Often this is neccessary because many of the native perennial herbaceous species have been replaced by annuals, both native and exotic. My problem with that quote is that it is a blanket management policy, which I feel are a mistake. They, blanket policies, would do wonders in some areas and deteriorate the land faster in others. And yes, I do know of some areas here in UT where grazing has been reduced because of fire and others where additional livestock, usually goats, have been brought in to create fire breaks. Grazing is a tool...

Hope I haven't been too big of a disappointment?
wink.gif
 
1-Pointer has always been the dose of sanity on rangeland topics. And to have a healthy political ecosystem you need Extremists, Scientists/Professionals, and Whores.

This one works well, you have the Extremists wanting to ban all Welfare Ranching, and the Scientists/Managers saying that if people would shut-up and listen, there may be a solution, and finally the Whores (Welfare Ranchers) who just do it for money.

I don't think anybody should ever listen to a whore
eek.gif
, so then the choice is to listen to the Extremists or the Scientists. 10 years ago, the choices were to listen to the whores or the Scientists, and in that case, the Scientists were ignored.

Many of these arguments would go away, if the Professional Scientists/Land Managers had a voice, but they are lost due to the need to protect the political dinosaurs of Welfare Ranching.

(Actually, this is a weak post, but I was tired of seeing all the Varmit posts inthe Daily Topics....)
 
Ask the guys that went to Canada and you guy's will be taking that sanity compliment back!
wink.gif


EG- You should've known me 2 years ago! I was one of the three labels you mentioned, but I'm not saying which...
 
It is funny, but I don't know that I have ever heard a Welfare Rancher acknowledge that a BLM or Forest Circus guy knew anything about the range. And by ignoring the Scientist/Land Manager, you soon find yourself having to listen to Judges. Hopefully the Welfare Rancher will start listening to the Land Management agencies, and perhaps even raise their expectations.
soapbox.gif
 
"Ranchers, Environmental Groups, Land Agencies All Support New Range Program
from MSU News Service"


"BOZEMAN -- For the first time in any state, most organizations vitally involved in land management have agreed on a range monitoring system.

This "first" came in Montana, where organizations as diverse as the Montana Stockgrowers and the Montana Wildlife Federation, the Montana Association of State Grazing Districts and Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation have agreed on common terminology and methods for monitoring livestock grazing on rangelands, pastures and forests. Altogether, the Montana Rangeland Monitoring Program unites 17 private, state and federal organizations.

Many ranchers work with representatives of several resource agencies, such as the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management and Natural Resources Conservation Service. In the past, these agencies used different monitoring methods, each with their own technical jargon. Sometimes the various agencies used the same terms, but gave them different meanings.

"One of our goals is to simplify range monitoring so that more people might start doing it," says Jeff Mosley, the Montana State University Extension Service rangeland specialist who coordinates the program. "Our program uses less-technical language, and we teach methods that are quick and easy to do," says Mosley. "And we only use methods that provide objective information."

The program began last year, and this year workshops will again be offered around Montana. Local Conservation Districts host the workshops and the MSU Extension Service provides the instruction.

"I certainly recommend the program," says Ray Marxer of Dillon who participated in one of last year's workshops. Marxer, recipient of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association Environmental Stewardship Award, said, "It was a very good experience for both livestock producers and agency folks to be out there together sharing ideas and different techniques and then going and doing it on the ground together."

Fred Wambolt of the Miles City office of the Bureau of Land Management said the interaction was important, with agency personnel and ranchers working through the range monitoring techniques together. "The main thing that I really enjoyed was the interaction, putting grazing permittees, lessees and agency people together," said Wambolt. He added that he thought the program developed by Mosley struck a good balance of precision while avoiding scientific jargon.

Larry Pilster of Alzada said that even though he has been doing rangeland monitoring for many years, it was worth his time to participate last year.

"This is one way of being proactive and ahead of the game a bit. We're going to have to justify what we're doing if we're going to save our permits. The more of this we have to back up our actions and management, the better position we'll be in for the future," said Pilster.

The next workshops will be May 18 in Forsyth, May 20 in Browning, May 26 in Glasgow, May 27 in Jordan, June 2 in White Sulphur Springs, and June 9 in Polson. Others will follow in the fall.

The workshops are all conducted in the field. First Mosley describes a method. Then participants practice, and then everyone compares notes and discusses how it went.

"Monitoring is a good way to build cooperation," says Mosley. "And the information gained from range monitoring provides the feedback that ranchers and other land managers need to make adjustments in their grazing management."

Other individuals or agencies supporting the Montana Rangeland Monitoring Program include Governor Marc Racicot, the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, the Montana Woolgrowers Association, the Montana Nature Conservancy, Montana Farm Bureau, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, the Montana Association of Conservation Districts, Montana Public Lands Council, Montana Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative, and the Governor's Rangeland Resource Executive Committee. "
 
"True" Land Stewards Meld Two Worlds
"Ranchers Healing the Land"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opinion
The Albuquerque Journal, 4/4/98


" The ranchers are on one side. The environmentalists are on the other.

And in the middle are Jim Winder of Nutt, N.M., Sam Montoya of Sandia Pueblo -- and no doubt a few others we don't often hear about -- who may turn out to be the truest stewards of Western land and wildlife.

Winder is a fourth-generation rancher still making a living as his forefathers did, but trying to eliminate the overgrazing that has plagued Western ranch lands since the turn of the century. By controlling the movement of cattle -- making sure they stay off patches that need fallow time and letting them act as natural tillers in others -- he is working to heal the land he uses, helping ensure the land will be viable in the future.

Winder is working two ranches that total 73,000 acres. On a smaller scale, Bureau of Indian Affairs retiree Sam Montoya has separated 92 acres at Sandia Pueblo into 27 paddocks; each paddock is open to 100 cattle once a month. Again, controlling grazing is key.

Montoya learned his method from Bernalillo resident Kirk Gadzia, whose Resource Management Services advises farmers and ranchers on how to improve the environment while increasing production. The methods of both Gadzia and Winder are loosely based on the principals of Holistic Resource Management developed more than two decades ago by New pecifically designed to bring together ranchers and environmentalists. Similar groups are springing up across the West.

The marriage of ranching and environmentalism is not all that unlikely. As supporters of Winder's Quivera Coalition point out, the continuation of ranching is crucial to preservation of Western culture and open space. Ranchers are often correct when they say they are stewards of the land, fixing things and providing water tanks and forage that benefit wildlife as well as domestic herds.

Still, there are ranchers resistant to holistic methods, who insist they won't work. Controlled grazing takes a different mindset. Results are measured over time, sometimes after bank notes come due. Gadzia says the approach is "counter to the way (ranchers, farmers and land managers) have always done things."

The resistance is no doubt exacerbated by the unfortunate mutual bias that has developed between ranchers and environmentalists. Conflicts over endangered species, predator control, reintroduction of the Mexican wolf, state and federal leasing fees and overgrazing have polarized ranchers and pro-earth types past lack of trust to the point of guerrilla warfare.

It is time for moderate ranchers and environmentalists to look past these disputes to what lies beyond the horizon (to paraphrase the meaning of the Spanish word, "quivera.") Environmentalists need to acknowledge the benefits of ranching, and ranchers, the benefits of new ranching methods.

"It is in everybody's interest that ranching continue, but it has to continue in a new way," says Quivera co-founder Courtney White.

It would be nice to see more ranchers and environmentalists -- like Winder and Montoya -- come together on the . They just might hold the key to the future of ranching and public lands stewardship in the West."


Making blanket statments about all ranchers make as much sense as the blanket statement that ALL Lawyer are pond scumb.
Im sure we can find a lawyer someplace that doesnt fit that blanket statment.
Can't we?????


biggrin.gif
biggrin.gif
 
Elkgunner,you must be confused, "whores" LOL we werent intrested in hearing about your stay at the (Mustang Ranch).
I think you need a lession on ranching & riding LOL
I did however found a number of site's where public land rancher and other's are working together.


["NIMAS, N.M. — Ever since the great cattle drives of the Old West, ranching has been suspected of chewing up Western ecosystems. For decades, environmentalists have tried to limit grazing from public lands, where ranchers lease pastures from the government. But some scientists and conservationists are now saying that cattle ranches may be the last best hope for preserving habitat for many native species.


The ranches could also be the best way to preserve grasslands and the periodic fires that keep brush and cactuses from taking over.

In recent studies published in peer-reviewed journals like BioScience, Conservation Biology, and Environmental Science and Policy, scientists have concluded that large, intact working cattle ranches are crucial puzzle pieces holding together an increasingly fragmented landscape.

When ranches are subdivided into "ranchettes" of 40 acres or less — a runaway trend — invasive species move in along with people and their pets, and fewer native species can live on the land. And it becomes much harder, if not impossible, to let fires burn across the land periodically, a process that is now thought to be essential in many ecosystems.

The studies emerge from a network of ecologists and ranchers, once at odds, but now increasingly working together in the West.

"There is this lore throughout the conservation community that ranching is bad, period," said Dr. James H. Brown, a professor of biology at the University of New Mexico and an expert on the ecology of the Southwest. "I think that is demonstrably wrong. And a number of people are gathering data to demonstrate that."

Dr. Brown noted, however, "It's clear some grazing practices have been enormously detrimental." Studies have found damage from grazing in and around streams in the desert West, for instance. But few studies have compared the alternatives to ranching on the lands that are home not only to ranchers but to many animal and plant species.

Dr. Richard L. Knight, a professor of wildlife biology at Colorado State University, recently did just that, comparing 93 sites on ranches, in wildlife refuges and in subdivisions with about one house per 40 acres.

He found that the ranches had at least as many species of birds, carnivores and plants as similar areas that are protected as wildlife refuges. Ranches also had fewer invasive weeds.

More important, the ranches provided a better habitat for wildlife than the ranchettes, which had fewer native species and more invasive species than ranches and refuges.

Like many ecologists, Dr. Knight had assumed that grazing hurt wildlife. "It finally dawned on me," he said. "We made a mistake."

Demographic trends in the West add a sense of urgency to the findings, Dr. Knight said. The population of the West is growing rapidly and much growth is in rural areas.

As ranches are carved up into subdivisions, the land consumption is growing at an even faster rate than population, said Dr. David M. Theobald, a geographer at Colorado State University. In the West, developed lands rose from almost 20 million acres in 1970 to 42 million in 2000.

Private ranch lands are often the most productive lands in the West, too. Ranches are usually located at lower elevations and have richer soils and more water than surrounding public lands.

Dr. Andrew J. Hansen, an associate professor of ecology at Montana State University, who studied ranch lands and ranchettes around Yellowstone National Park, found that some songbirds from higher elevation public lands used the private ranch lands as breeding grounds. But in the ranchettes, songbird death rates started to exceed birth rates, because houses draw magpies and other birds that prey on the songbirds.

Dr. Hansen speculated that the songbirds were getting squeezed between increasing development at lower elevations and protected but unproductive breeding grounds at higher elevations.

Grasslands, too, are getting pinched in the midelevations, said Dr. Charles G. Curtin, a zoologist and the director of the Arid Lands Project, a nonprofit research group. in Animas. And it is not just by subdivisions. Climate and weather trends along with firefighters have created good conditions for woody shrubs like dry thorny mesquite and have conspired against grasslands.

Rather than being too disturbed by cattle grazing, Dr. Curtin said, the grasslands in the boot heel of New Mexico, where he does his research, have not been disturbed enough, mainly because of the absence of periodic fires over the past century.

Dr. Curtin works with the Malpai Borderlands Group in southern New Mexico and Arizona. The group is made up of ranchers, scientists, conservationists and government land managers concerned about preserving species and returning periodic fires to a million acres of mountainous desert land, an area larger than Rhode Island and almost half the size of Yellowstone National Park.

Malpai is derived from the Spanish word for badlands; its craggy mountains, grassy plains and scrub-covered desert hills are home to more than 20 threatened species. Like most of the West, the area is a checkerboard of private, state and federal ownership. And it has subdivisions nibbling at its flanks. It is also dotted with 200 monitoring sites, where scientists are studying species of all kinds, including grasses and brush as well as rattlesnakes and jaguars.

On the Gray Ranch, a 321,700-acre spread run by the nonprofit Animas Foundation, Dr. Curtin has set up large test plots to study the effects of grazing and burning on the grassland and the species that live here. Dr. Curtin said that scientists, ranchers and conservationists here were trying to test "a vast untested hypothesis: that grazing is a viable landscape process and ranching is the most viable long-term method of protection."

Dr. Curtin said scientists had generally concluded that only some ecosystems could support long-term grazing. It seems to depend on rainfall and whether herbivores were present for thousands of years and thus were part of the system, as bison were here, he said.

In collaborations with other groups, Dr. Curtin hopes to conduct the same experiments on 20 ranches around the West, and in Africa as well. So far, Dr. Curtin said, his research indicates that grazing here does not have much of an effect on grasslands and shrubs.

Fire is more important in knocking down shrubs and encouraging grasses. But climate and weather are the major forces.

Dr. Brown, who has monitored the changing vegetation on experimental plots in nearby Portal, Ariz., for 24 years, agreed. An increase in winter precipitation driven by El Niño events has favored woody shrubs over grasses, he said. But with climate and weather being out of human control, "the only things you can really manage are fire and grazing," added Dr. Brown, a science adviser to the Malpai group.

The group is also experimenting with fire on a grand scale. Ranchers and federal land managers are working with scientists on a species habitat conservation plan that will set the stage for coordinated planning over the entire region, rather than for one endangered species at a time. One result is a "fire map" that shows where wildfires will be allowed to burn on private property with the landowner's consent.

In the Malpai area, wildfires can burn freely now on most of the land, up to the northern border, where real estate signs on newly divided land signal the end of any chance to keep natural forces at work.

"What you see is the result of 90 years of fire suppression," said Larry Allen, a retired Forest Service official who has worked with the Malpai group to plan prescribed burns. He pointed out an area that had not burned in many years and was thick with mesquite.

"If you do nothing, the mesquite will take over," Mr. Allen said. He then pointed to an area where a prescribed fire burned 12,000 acres in 1997 and grasses now grow thickly between widely spaced mesquite. "But you put a little fire in it," he said, "and it'll do miracles."

Bill McDonald, a rancher who is executive director of the Malpai group, said the two prescribed burns the group had managed to set since 1995 had helped restore grasslands.

"We just need another one," he said. "But the fire program has been set back by what happened in Los Alamos," he said, referring to the planned fire that got out control and burned homes two years ago. "They're so skittish."

Mr. McDonald said that scientists working in the area confirmed much of what local ranchers had long suspected about grazing and fire, except for one thing. "I'm surprised cattle grazing isn't a bigger impact for better or worse," Mr. McDonald said. "I guess it's not the biggest thing you see out there that is having the biggest impact." "]
 
MD4ME,

Thanks for the posts, they are great examples of the Environmental movement changing the ways Public Lands are being used. It just further re-inforces that change is needed, and is being accepted. Unfortunately, some have to be dragged to change, but that is their problem. And perhaps the pressure on these Welfare Ranchers needs to be turned up even more.

Here we have one guy trying to reverse 103 years of destruction....
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Winder is a fourth-generation rancher still making a living as his forefathers did, but trying to eliminate the overgrazing that has plagued Western ranch lands since the turn of the century. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> he is working to heal the land he uses <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And letting the cattle use the land for one day per month....
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Sam Montoya has separated 92 acres at Sandia Pueblo into 27 paddocks; each paddock is open to 100 cattle once a month. Again, controlling grazing is key. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And it looks like MD4ME has been hanging out at the Compassionate Spirit Website as she is now advocating Holistic Range Management and Aroma Therapy
biggrin.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The methods of both Gadzia and Winder are loosely based on the principals of Holistic Resource Management and Aroma Therapy <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And finally, if enlightened ranchers want to come to the table and talk, somebody will be there, but if the Welfare Rancher won't listen to the Land Managers and Scientists, then they will be forced to listen to the Judges.
cool.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It is time for moderate ranchers and environmentalists to look past these disputes to what lies beyond the horizon (to paraphrase the meaning of the Spanish word, "quivera.") <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

biggrin.gif
 
"It is funny, but I don't know that I have ever heard a Welfare Rancher acknowledge that a BLM or Forest Circus guy knew anything about the range. And by ignoring the Scientist/Land Manager, you soon find yourself having to listen to Judges. Hopefully the Welfare Rancher will start listening to the Land Management agencies, and perhaps even raise their expectations. "
Just doing my part to show other's that your statement and the thing's you post arent always the whole truth.

Elkgunner,have you been at this site such a short time that you havent seen other post's where many of us have said we understand that grazing can be hard on the land .
That yes some rancher's need to be dealt with in a harsh manner?

I think you must of missed the part's where we talked about giving the rancher's the room to change,(not keeping them in the court system to break them) now that we are seeing the need for change.
But I stand by my thought that there are a few out there that have no intention's of letting any change happen ( as far as better range practice's) because that doesnt fit there Jon Marvel agenda to flat out get the cow's off of public land's.

Holistic Range Management and Aroma Therapy!!!!
So what you are telling us is that you (along with marvel & Ithaca) aren't willing to let the rancher give it a shot and try other way's because it isnt following your thought Marvel driven agenda right down the line?
We know it pain's some people to see that these rancher have been working with other's & trying to make the changes that are being asked of them.

We all understand the need to bend and make change's and that change is a part of life.
We don't agree as to what those change's should be how fast it should be done and to how low we should allow people to treat other's in there push for change.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 06-20-2003 08:21: Message edited by: Muledeer4me ]</font>
 
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> We know it pain's some people to see that these rancher have been working with other's & trying to make the changes that are being asked of them.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>One thing hard for me to understand is why it's taken soo long?
confused.gif
Much of this was known in the '40's and '50's and there are even comments from the LDS General Conference in the 1880's concerning overgrazing! I understand that societal change takes awhile, but this long? Once that time lag is figured in with the time it takes the land to show improvements with new management practices a lot of time has passed. These organizations are successful and thus getting more people into the mindset that the way dad and grandpa did it might not be the best way. Things are getting better, albeit not as quickly as I'd like to see, but in many cases it has taken lawsuits and for the 'old guard' to die off before big changes are made.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Just doing my part to show other's that your statement and the thing's you post arent always the whole truth <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
MD, if the above was intended to me, then I don't understand your point. I rarely post the "whole" truth, I typically post MY opinion. But I assure you, they are typically MY opinion....

And I am sorry that I missed the great summit meeting, where all parties decided to just turn a blind eye toward Welfare Ranchers and let those great stewards of the range implement change on their own. I can not believe that anybody things Welfare Ranchers would have done anything progressive, without being dragged into courts.

But, I for one, am not content to sit by, and give Welfare Ranchers time to decide to change. The smart Welfare Ranchers are already changing, as they can read the writing on the wall. The stubborn Welfare Ranchers are being dragged into court, and they are losing. Nobody targets the progressive Welfare Ranchers to take to court. There are way too many "low hanging fruit" with the bad ones that make for easy cases to win.

My agenda is not to allow any cows on public lands. I would rather have Elk on public lands. I would rather have Salmon swimming in rivers on public lands. I would rather have Bull Trout in the creeks of Idaho. I would rather pay less money each year in federal taxes by omitting subsidies to Welfare Ranchers. I would rather my kid's school buildings and education were improved by more money coming from State Lands by omitting the money losing ranching programs.

The Welfare Ranchers could have been changing for 100 years, but they decided not to, so now they will change much faster, by court order. I have no desire to wait 100 years for the change. I would like to see it in my lifetime.
 
My only question to this debate and others like it, when the drums have been silenced, what next?
wink.gif
 

Forum statistics

Threads
113,576
Messages
2,025,580
Members
36,237
Latest member
SCOOTER848
Back
Top