Now if we could just find a fungus for welfare cattle

[Oak]

Funny, the issue is loss of forage for livestock instead of wildlife.

Idaho weed researchers say fungus could fight knapweed
The Associated Press
Wednesday, December 27, 2006

MOSCOW, Idaho -- A University of Idaho researcher is hoping to harness the power of tiny fungi to combat an invasive weed that ranchers blame for crowding out nutritious forage for their livestock.

George Newcombe is busy inside a greenhouse on the school's Moscow campus working with so-called endophytes that live in spotted knapweed, considered one of the West's most-destructive noxious weeds.

Endophytes are found in many plant species and have recently won additional scientific scrutiny. Newcombe says endophytes survive off the host and are believed to boost the plant's survival in exchange for nutrients they provide.

Now, Newcombe says he appears to have been able to isolate an endophyte that renders knapweed sterile. The fungus typically exists in low concentrations, but when it's cultured in a lab and sprayed in higher concentrations, it has a deadly effect.

"They may be the key," Newcombe told the Spokesman-Review newspaper during an interview in the greenhouse of the university's Center for Research on Invasive Species and Small Populations. He's planning field trials soon.

Historical records show the spotted knapweed came from Eastern Europe and Asia into North America about a century ago when it arrived in contaminated crop seed, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. With few natural enemies, the perennial with pink to light purple flowers spread across the continent.

It releases a toxin into the soil that can stunt plants that cattle eat. As a result, heavily infested areas often must be reseeded once the spotted knapweed has been eradicated.

As more and more of the West's isolated areas are filled up by the region's burgeoning population, knapweed continues to spread, often along highways, train tracks, power lines and other areas newly being touched by human disturbance.

 

[TheTone]

I hope the fungus works to reduce knapweed, but unfortunately there is no silver bullet in the weed war. At this point anything that can be used to control and limit infestation of unaffected areas is a great thing, not just with knapweed but all the others having equally as damaging effects on on wildlife habitat.

 

[BigHornRam]

"Now if we could just find a fungus for welfare cattle"

PETA would be proud of that comment Oak. Sad that you would make such a comment however. Didn't you shoot a nice antelope on a ranchers land this past year? You think that rancher would find your comment amusing or disturbing?

 

[ELKCHSR]

I don't believe many "welfare" cattle reach old age and most don't see their 3rd or 4th year

I think they wouldn't need a fungus for as fast as they get bumped off by man

I do hope it works for the knapweed though (hopefully it doesn't get into any thing else) as has happened with a number of other pathegens

 

[mtmiller]

Didn't you shoot a nice antelope on a ranchers land this past year? You think that rancher would find your comment amusing or disturbing?

Depends. Is he competing with other ranchers paying $1.59/AUM or is he in the same boat? If he is paying non-blm rates at 10-15x that price, he probably agrees 100% with what Oak posted (although I think it was for a little humor and stirring myself ).

I think the main point was the slant of the article emphasising weed impacts to livestock instead of native wildlife. I am not in the livestock raising business and my emphasis is the wildlife and what is left for them after the cows get hauled back to private and fed through the winter.

 

[Oak]

Sad that you would make such a comment however. Didn't you shoot a nice antelope on a ranchers land this past year? You think that rancher would find your comment amusing or disturbing?

BHR, you know what's sad? The fact that this knapweed study would likely never have gotten funded if the weed problem wasn't affecting welfare ranchers. Wildlife isn't a priority on my public lands, grazing and energy development are. That's sad.

You know why you are surprised (maybe?) to hear me make a comment like that? Because most people are not as altruistic as I am. Yes, I shot my antelope in CO on private property. I shot it with a tag that was only good on private property. Another subsidy to farmers and ranchers: a pool of tags available in the draw that are only available to those that can afford to hunt on private property or who know somebody. I'm vehemently against any sort of landowner tag system, and have commented to our Wildlife Commission numerous times to that effect. You know why? Because I don't think it's fair that I can draw 5 antelope tags in the time it would take you to draw one, just because I grew up in a small town and know a few people. If I am successful in getting the system changed, I might only get to hunt antelope in CO every 10 years just like you. But it's the right thing to do.

How many times have I made negative posts here in regards to the natural gas exploration (exploitation) going on all over the west? More than a few. Guess what? I made an absurd amount of money this year working for those gas companies. I worked to minimize the impacts it has on wildlife, because I believe something has to be done. I still fight for more oversight of the industry, and more strict regulations, even though it would likely hurt my bottom line. You know why? It's the right thing to do. I can go get work doing something else if gas exploration slows down. I don't feel like I'm owed a living, unlike welfare ranchers who think it's their birthright to graze my public land down to shit for $1.80 an AUM.

You like to argue that, until I take myself off the grid, I can't complain about how we get produce our energy. I think that the fact that I am on the grid gives me every right to complain. Shouldn't I have a say in where my energy comes from? I'm unselfish: I don't care if it costs me more, I want it to come from a source with minimal effects on land and wildlife.

How about you, BHR? Are you unselfish enough to take a hit in the pocketbook if it means increased protection for public lands and wildlife?

 

[Oak]

Miller posted while I was typing my long-winded response. He probably said it better in three sentences.

 

[JB]

I made an absurd amount of money this year working for those gas companies.

donate the portion that makes it absurd, it's the right thing to do.
you wouldnt want to give the impression that you are egoistic.

 

[BigHornRam]

Oak,

I'm more interested in finding solutions to the problems we face, not just being a whiner about it. I find the "welfare rancher" term equally offensive and ugly as the "N" word. Throw it around in your comments and you have just made any rational thought you had meaningless.

The PETA types like to wish diseases like CWD and West Nile on wildlife just to spite you, the hunter. Wishing disease on cows out of spite is no different. Both parties will be considered a KOOK and their opinions will be dismissed as those from a KOOK. So if you want your views to be heard and considered, try a different approach. Your results will be better, I guarentee it.

 

[Nemont]

Deleted Post

 

[Oak]

I think everyone knows that the "fungus" comment was tongue-in-cheek. I wasn't literally hoping for infection to wipe out cattle.

Nemont, I agree with you. Why don't we organize to "stop this destruction," as you put it? I'll start with you, an avid hunter that has surely seen negative effects of grazing on public lands. Are you ready to organize to put an end to subsidized grazing on public lands? Or are you seeing too much benefit from your family's slice of the pie? I actually do agree with most of your opinions. Why don't you tell me what the solution is?

BHR, I'm using the right approach to get my views and concerns heard by those that matter. You think posting on Hunttalk is the only way I'm voicing my opinion? I have to use terms like "welfare rancher" to get people here to even engage in conversation on the issues. Probably 100 people read this section daily, but only about 10 post here regularly. If I post a story without using words to fire you guys up, the topic gets 0 replies and falls off the page in a week. I think you know why terms like "welfare" and "fat-assed" are used here.

BTW BHR, are you willing to make sacrifices for my wildlife and public lands? Maybe pay a little more for your electricity if it means saving a salmon run or two?

 

[JB]

I think you know why terms like "welfare" and "fat-assed" are used here.

definetly gets some hits when those terms are used.
problem is when you use those types of tactics, you appear to be extreme.
you may have better results just speaking rationally.
if something does come from this possible organization you will need someone to represent its intrest, a sermoncrator who can imbue without prestidigitation the importunate solicitations of this elite group.
who would also be piad an absurd amount of money.

 

[Nemont]

Deleted Post

 

[Oak]

NeMont, I pretty much agree with everything you said. Apathy among hunters is their greatest threat. Most will not react until they have something taken directly from their hands. By then it's too late.

Your family sounds like they are doing things better than the majority of ranchers with public allotments, and that is commendable. I apologize if my general use of the welfare term has offended you.

JB, are you applying for a job? That's commendable, too. But as I'm sure you know, most worthy causes don't pay very well.

 

[noharleyyet]

Oak, Nemont...one of the better exchanges I've read.....fresh air if you will.

JB...are you lobbying for David Blaine as spokesman?

 

[JB]

JB...are you lobbying for David Blaine as spokesman?

i took one from your book, hope you didnt mind.

i was trying out my new signature.

 

[BigHornRam]

Oak,

I'm not willing to make sacrifices for "your" public land. I'm am willing and do make sacrifices for "our" public land. Sacrifices both in time and money. If you want your views to be heard concerning "our" public land, you need to be honest with the facts, give each person at the table equal consideration of their views, and acknowledge the realities that we face now and in the future.

Well said Nemont. Your views on this issue mirror mine. I appreciate your experience, honesty, and rational thinking when you discuse it. You can count on my support to work toward solutions when it comes to hunter/rancher issues and conflicts.

 

[BuzzH]

One of the biggest problems with hunters VS welfare ranchers is that most "hunters" feel like they owe public lands welfare ranchers something. Somewhere along the line hunters are being flat lied to about how much public lands welfare ranchers do for wildlife. They compete with wildlife, thats about it. Unlike Oak, I dont mind making generalizations when science has proven...over and over again...that 70% of my public lands are in poor or degrading condition due to grazing. GENERALLY, public lands welfare ranchers have nuked their grazing allotments. I agree that its not solely the fault of the ranchers, but they, along with the BLM administrators can take 100% of the blame...and deserve it.

BHR,

You want honest facts...try these on for size.

...70% of public lands are in poor or degrading health according to the leading and best science available (you know GOOD science, the very science you claim to believe in)...90% of riparian areas on public lands grazing allotments are in poor or degrading condition.

Lets not do the RIGHT thing for the land...lets all meet for the next 25 years (giving everyone an equal say, appoint worthless politically motivated committees, have lunch on the tax payers dime, etc.) and talk about it. Theres a good solution...that will get things done on the ground.

What a joke.

 

[BigHornRam]

Buzz,

GOOD HONEST science uses current data. You've been using the SAME worn out "facts" for over 5 years now. There has been no improvement in range quality anywhere in that time period? No reduction in weeds? Look at this thread.....good science trying to find ways to reduce knapweed infestations. Good for cattle and good for wildlife. And yet I still hear complaints from some for the reasons that are promoting this science.

I never figured we would get all the "fools" here to stop using the "welfare rancher" slur. At least I'm glad to know that a few of the brighter ones like Oak, will not be using it anymore.

 

[BuzzH]

BHR,

Time to wake up from the coma you're in. When grazing pratices on MY PUBLIC land havent changed for the last 100 years and likely wont change anytime soon...how do you expect the range conditions to change?

You cant improve over-grazed land with grazing. I think most 3rd graders understand that.

Also, if the scientifically backed data is wrong...please provide a link/article that proves that generally BLM land is not over-grazed or degraded.

Good luck.