Our western lands

I'm curious as to why they didn't include the acreage in Utah and Nevada that is destroyed by mustangs?

It's almost as if there was some other motive for this groups "work"

It isn't reflected on the map, but from the article,

"Other stressors such as invasive species, wild horses and extreme stream degradation account for the poor health of an additional 15 million acres."
 
It was interesting that they contacted me, a tiny ranch owner. Talked to a guy that runs cattle in CO & NM, small family operation. Turns out they own less than me.
 
I've always wondered.

How do the bush hippies square allowing mustangs(most are feral), yet oppose cattle, based on some historic metric?

Did bison not exist?

It's always amazing a group in Oakland, writing a letter to politicians in DC, about land practice🙄
 
I've always wondered.

How do the bush hippies square allowing mustangs(most are feral), yet oppose cattle, based on some historic metric?

Did bison not exist?

It's always amazing a group in Oakland, writing a letter to politicians in DC, about land practice🙄
Depends where you're talking, Bison did not exist in many areas.

Where you live doesn't determine what you know, or don't know about land management. Plenty of locals don't know chit from clay about land management. Some folks living in places that have little public land are pretty well informed about it.
 
Depends where you're talking, Bison did not exist in many areas.

Where you live doesn't determine what you know, or don't know about land management. Plenty of locals don't know chit from clay about land management. Some folks living in places that have little public land are pretty well informed about it.


I know FS guys who live in the field on and off.

They have never ending stories about dudes with them shitting themselves during elk ruts, being scared in the forest, lack of all common knowledge.

And yes, if your headquarters are in Oakland, your going to get a lot more Berkeley grads, than WY grads.

And we both know the closer to K street, the worse.

Bison existed pretty much east to west, with remains found in Florida and California.

If ranchers we're smart they'd call their cattle bison.

About as truthful as the vast number of feral horses and donkeys being called mustangs.
 
I've always wondered.

How do the bush hippies square allowing mustangs(most are feral), yet oppose cattle, based on some historic metric?

They like to make a BS if-then justification. Generally something like: If non-native cattle are allowed then we should allow the horses.
 
I have seen BLM land that is managed wonderfully, and some that is horribly overgrazed. It likely depends largely on the leaseholder.

My biggest beef with cattle grazing is the grazing fees are a total joke.A feral horse is only stiffing the public $1.35/month to munch on grass. So Uncle Sam is only losing less than $20/year/feral horse, based on what they charge ranchers for cattle.
 
Invasive plants and feral horses and greedy grazing practices >that will get you started in a dust bowl direction. We gotta do a better job at managing all the factors instead of focusing on just our favorite pet peeve perp on the range.
 
The point is that the BLM is failing at managing these lands, based on their own land health standards. The agency is chronically underfunded, and the easy place to make cuts is to grazing NEPA. There is nothing to keep the BLM (or FS) from renewing grazing permits without NEPA until your grandkids have grandkids. And why would you subject yourself to it when you know you're not meeting standards, and you know you have a multitude of conflicts such as Greater Sage-Grouse, Gunnison Sage-Grouse, bighorn sheep, cutthroat trout, etc.? NEPA analysis will lead inevitably to lawsuits.

The grazing system is broken. There is no flexibility. Most permittees are not in the position to just rest an allotment for a year or two if there is a drought or fire. The FS lets permittees use their permits as collateral for bank loans. The agency people making grazing decisions have kids that go to school with the kids of the permittees. They see each other in church and at the grocery store. How are they going to make a (correct) decision to reduce or eliminate grazing if it's necessary for the health of the land?

There will be a report out tomorrow that highlights just how few of the grazing permits on these BLM lands failing land health standards have been fully processed under NEPA. The vast majority have been renewed via the FLPMA 402(c)2 exception.

How do you think the health of these lands affects wildlife, like all of those missing pronghorn in WY? I asked the BLM for the allotment management plan for a single allotment near me earlier this year. They told me I had to submit a FOIA request and they would sent it right over. Once I did that, they assigned my request to the "complex track," which means 21 to 60 days to send me that single document. I told them that in that case I would exhaust my administrative remedies on the NEPA that was currently in process. They replied that there was a mistake and they sent me the document the next day. The allotment management plan in question was written in 1976! One part from the Objectives section really stood out to me:

A. Objectives
1. Provide 2227 AUM's of livestock forage on a sustained yield basis by
increasing the density and composition of desirable species, as shown below.
2. Provide 492 AUM's of wildlife forage to sustain existing populations by
increasing the density and composition of desirable species, as shown below.

I'm on vacation or I would write more.
 
GOHUNT Insider

Forum statistics

Threads
114,025
Messages
2,041,641
Members
36,433
Latest member
x_ring2000
Back
Top