Marvel and Wolves

[JoseCuervo]

Nemont,

What options are there for "comment" and "collaboration" when Dubya is in office?

Remember this thread?
http://www.hunttalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18218

SEATTLE, Oct. 27 -- The Bush administration has proposed giving dam owners the exclusive right to appeal Interior Department rulings about how dams should be licensed and operated on American rivers, through a little-noticed regulatory tweak that could be worth hundreds of millions of dollars to the hydropower industry.

The proposal would prevent states, Indian tribes, anglers, and environmental groups from making their own appeals, while granting dam owners the opportunity to take their complaints -- and suggested solutions -- directly to senior political appointees in the Interior Department.

The proposal, which is subject to public comment but can be approved by the administration without congressional involvement, would use the president's rule-making power to circumvent opposition to the idea among Senate Democrats. They killed an administration-backed energy bill that included similar language, for which the hydropower industry had lobbied.

That does not sound like an Adminstration that wants to allow "collaboration". |oo

 

[Nemont]

EG,
The same could be said for the radical environmental groups. They do not want to discuss, collaborate or even be seen talking to the "other" side. Read what Mr. Marvel says. Go read about the rock quarry that was supposed getting dust on his Greenfire ranch. He didn't even attempt to talk to the BLM but went straight to court. I laugh everytime I hear environmentalist insist they want science to govern management of the land but will give all authority to a judge who at most had 200 level college course in biology class during his or hers pre-law school course work.

I support the nature conservancy and groups that are willing to work with people who live in the communtities around the public lands. I will never, ever have any respect for a guy like Jon Marvel because he only wants his way, He and WWP will be after private deeded lands in the future, just watch. If he had any motivation other then hatred and anger I may listen to what he had to say. I have no doubt he is smart and is motivated, still doesn't make him right. He has never been on the ground anywhere around here yet he knows what is best for the land, that is total bullshit.

Nemont

 

[1_pointer]

Marvel has won every battle (that I know of) he's been in with welfare ranchers, BLM and the state of Idaho.

You don't know about them all then. They are not batting 1.000.

But all too often the will of a small minority has hampered implementation of well-crafted collaborative projects that have broad-scale support. Under the sheer weight of current laws, regulations, and policies, those who favor gridlock are at a distinct advantage and have been allowed to thumb their noses at a majority of citizens.

Amen to that! I'm currently living that experience. Even more frustrating is inviting the appealants to be a part of the process (at every step) only to have them refuse and then file the appeal... |oo IMO, the methods of the Idaho Conservation League (I think I got that right; those involved in the Boulder-White Clouds Wilderness) much more effective.

 

[Wally Dog]

Thank goodness Ith37 is only willing to hunt chukars,huns & sage grouse (God forbid) and a few quail (with those involved in WWP) on public land. Cus if he keeps it up in conjunction with the Idaho Bird Hunters (IBH) he'll have no place to hunt on private land.
That aren't a threat, it's a promise. Idaho Bird Hunters (as an organiztion) consists of 2 or 3 mouthpieces and they are threatening to alienate all "Bird hunters from Idaho" from hunting on private land.
I as an "Idaho Bird Hunter" take great offence to the organization mucking with the landowner sportsman relationship............
WD

 

[JoseCuervo]

EG,
The same could be said for the radical environmental groups. They do not want to discuss, collaborate or even be seen talking to the "other" side. Read what Mr. Marvel says.

I have no doubt he is smart and is motivated, still doesn't make him right. He has never been on the ground anywhere around here yet he knows what is best for the land, that is total bullshit.

Nemont

What if I changed your quote (somewhat edited for brevity) to this:

The same could be said for the radical Bush Administration. They do not want to discuss, collaborate or even be seen talking to the "other" side. Read what Mr. Bush says.

I have no doubt he is an idiot and is motivated, still doesn't make him right. He has never been on the ground anywhere around here yet he knows what is best for the land, that is total bullshit.

Still reads accurately....

 

[Ithaca 37]

WD, "Cus if he keeps it up in conjunction with the Idaho Bird Hunters (IBH) he'll have no place to hunt on private land.
That aren't a threat, it's a promise. Idaho Bird Hunters (as an organiztion) consists of 2 or 3 mouthpieces and they are threatening to alienate all "Bird hunters from Idaho" from hunting on private land.
I as an "Idaho Bird Hunter" take great offence to the organization mucking with the landowner sportsman relationship............"

What are you talking about? I'm not in the IBH and haven't heard anything about them lately. If you have some info please start another topic.

 

[Nemont]

EG,

Marvel is kind of a unique person, and his approach is somewhat novel. I don't know if he planned to take this direction, or if somebody slammed a door on him once too many times. I am not sure if we will ever know "who started it".

What if I edited your orginal quote to this:

Bush is kind of a unique person, and his approach is somewhat different. I don't know if he planned to take this direction, or if somebody just slammed on him one too many times. I am not sure if we will ever know "who started it".

Still reads accurately.

I really don't know what it proves if we can edit.

You can enjoy Mr. Marvel and his company. I am pretty certain that he would never spend 1 minute listening to a guy like me. So I am going to end my posts on this thread because you won't change my mind and I won't change yours. Happy New Year.

Nemont

 

[Ithaca 37]

The people I know who are involved in bringing lawsuits against the BLM, FS started out trying real, real hard to bring about change in abusive land use by appealing to the resource extraction industry and welfare ranchers to clean up their act. They got nowhere at all. They turned to the courts as a last resort, and that's the only way they've ever made any progress. The threat of legal action is the only thing that gets the resource extraction industry to pay any attention. I consider welfare ranchers part of the resource extraction industry (for clarification) because that's what they're doing. They have the same mentality as the timber and mining industry.

Happy New Year to everyone! I hope 2005 is a great year for you all!

 

[Nemont]

The people I know who are involved in bringing lawsuits against the BLM, FS started out trying real, real hard to bring about change in abusive land use by appealing to the resource extraction industry and welfare ranchers to clean up their act

IT,
You may want to go and read some history to get the entire story. The BLM and FS responded to many of the issues raised but it is never enough to make any of the environmentalist happy. They went to court long before they ever tried working with anyone in a meaningful way. The extractive industries are certainly not innocent, including ranchers, but then again neither is the other side. I have attempted to have a common sense discussion with people opposed to public lands grazing and few of them are able to see past the end of their own noses. Few listen to any common sense solutions and few want anything other then NO cattle period. Doesn't matter if it makes sense or not. Most of the anti grazing crowd wouldn't know the difference between cow shit and sagebrush.

Nemont

 

[Michaelr]

WHO IS THIS?

 

[Ithaca 37]

Nemont, I'm very open to the benefits of grazing. I'm really happy to see a guy like 1 pointer involved in studying it.

The problem, as I see it, is that it's so difficult, labor intensive and expensive to monitor and do right. I've never seen cows that can't eventually figure out how to get to the grass on the other side of the fence unless they have so much grass on their side they're not interested.

 

[1_pointer]

The problem, as I see it, is that it's so difficult, labor intensive and expensive to monitor and do right. I've never seen cows that can't eventually figure out how to get to the grass on the other side of the fence unless they have so much grass on their side they're not interested.

The monitoring issue is being addressed by the BLM. A new technical reference on revised methods is being published as I type. It's good, sound science. The money part is tough as that is dependent on the funding provided by Congress, especially after the 1.5% budget cut all BLM offices have had to take to fund the war in Iraq. That's out of the agencies hands. Some steps to alleviate this are being entertained, as in forming partnerships for others to help with some of the data collection.

Cow can be controlled to allow for good ecological condition of the range, but it does take time, money, effort, and infastructure. IME, many more permittees are willing to change their practices so that it is in better conditions. I see this as a win-win situation. Grazing can still occur and the vegetation can be improving at the same time. IMO, much of the problems with many current grazing schemes aren't too many animals, but where too many animals are for too long. It's a distribution problem, not an overstocking one. A paradigm shift has occured in the BLM which has led to the recognition of this issue. On the allotments that I administer this is an issue that we are working on rectifying. We are starting a new planning effort that will address that.

Change is in the air, and that is not a bad thing...